In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "mogambo" notes:

“As a Middle Eastern guy and former investigator (I was never baptized) in an all-white LDS ward, the attitude of the Church towards interracial relationships always interested me. From what I could tell the Church seemed to feed its young members covert racial purity doctrine.

“I experienced an example of what I felt was hidden racist teachings during the Eternal Marriage class. The teacher was telling the story of a female missionary from the U.S. who after returning from her mission, married a guy from another culture (without specifying what he meant by 'another culture'). He said the guy ended up lying to her and cheating on her. The teacher was speaking directly to the girls in the class and warning them to be careful about cultural differences.

“Notice the subtle message he was sending the girls. He was implying that if they marry a guy from another culture,they will be lied to and cheated on; as if things like that do not happen all the time in relationships between people of the same ethnic and cultural background. Consider why he was not warning the guys to be careful about cultural differences when choosing a girlfriend or wife. Because it is my impression Mormons do not mind when white men marry non-white women, since it seems they secretly consider light-skinned people superior to dark-skinned people. It is only the combination of a white woman and a "colored" man they do not like.

"When questioning Mormons why they and their Church seem opposed to interracial relationships and marriage,they strongly denied any such opposition and were happy to give me examples:

-"'Our stake president is married to an Asian woman!'

-"'Our bishop's wife is Hispanic!'

-”'"My cousin is dating a black girl!'

“They just forget all those examples involve white men dating or married to non-white women. It seems as far as the other way around goes, white women dating or marrying non-white men, is where the LDS Church draws the line.

“At the local LDS ward I was an investigator at for six years, I saw several examples of white guys dating non-white girls among the Young Single Adults, but never once saw any example of the opposite, white girls dating non-white guys, and it made me wonder why interracial relationships are so rare among Mormons, and even when you find them, they always involve white men dating or marrying interracially.

“Maybe the secret racial purity indoctrination the church feeds the young women from an early age got to their head, and the young white women believe it is their duty to keep their race "white and delightsome" by exclusively dating and marrying all, blonde-haired, blue-eyed white males, whereas the Church being a male-dominated Church, gives its men the freedom to marry interracially if they choose.

“After all, the LDS Church is essentially a white Church. It is all about being white and right.

(“Interracial Relationships and Marriage in the LDS Church,” by 'mogambo,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” discussion board, 6 October 2013, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1043703)
_____


--The Mormon Church's Official Discouragement of Interracial Marriage is Rooted in Its First-Presidency-Endorsed Anti-Black Priesthood Ban

While the poster quoted above makes many keen observations, the official position of the Mormon Church remains as follows: Regardless of whether it is a white man initiating marriage to a non-white woman, the Mormon Church institutionally discourage--to this day—the practice of interracial marriage within its ranks. This official Mormon Church discouragement of interracial marriage is rooted in the official, historic, anti-black tradition and doctrine of the Mormon Church. To be sure, the Mormon Church's anti-black doctrine was officially acknowledged by the First Presidency itself as having originated with Mormonism's inventor, Joseph Smith. First Presidency's officially-stated position anti-Black priesthood doctrine, which it traced directly back to Smith . In an officially signed statement pronouncement, the First Presidency declared that “from the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." Here is the background to the release of that official-position statement:

On 17 July 1947, the LDS First Presidency wrote the following to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the eyes of the Mormon God:

"Dear Brother Nelson:

". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.
"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

"Faithfully yours,

[Mormon Church president] George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay"

Lowry responded on 8 October:

"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist."

The First Presidency answered:

"We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

"You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God."
_____


--The Mormon Church Continues to Lie through Its Teeth About Its Official;y-Sanctioned Anti-Intermarriage Position

Despite historic documentation to the contrary, the Mormon Church has persisted in making false claims its still-in-place official opposition to race-mixing marriage. The Latter-day lily-white lies, they just keep on a-comin.' With a straight white-and-delightsome face, LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle made the palpably dishonest claim to the "Salt Lake Tribune" that "the [Mormon] Church has no policy against interracial marriage . . . ."

(Peggy Fletcher Stack, "Mormon and Black," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 6 June 2008, at: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon520.html)
_____


--Eventual President of the Mormon Church, Spencer W. Kimball, Underscored that the LDS Church]s Highest Leaders are of the View that Crossing Racial Lines in marriage is Bad for the Breed

From the mouth of Kimball, , Mormonism's Bigot of the Lord:

“Now, the Brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages”

(Spencer W. Kimball, Brigham Young University devotional, 5 January 1965)


“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 302)


“The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

“When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

“If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 303)

("Interracial Marriage," at: http://www.lightplanet.com/family/marriage/interracial_marriage.html)
_____


--Fast Forward to the Present: The Mormon Church's Official 1978 Reaffirmation of Its Anti-Interracial Marriage Position, Made (Strangely Enough) in Conjunction with Its Official Anti-Black Priesthood Ban Retraction the Same Year

Significantly, the anti-interracial marriage sentiments of eventual LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball were reprinted in the Mormon Church-owned "Deseret News" on 17 June 1978, as part of the LDS Church's official announcement of its 180-degree reversal on Mormonism's long-standing anti-Black priesthood ban. To this day, Kimball's anti-interracial marriage statement stands officially unrevoked. It reads as follows (as reported and requoted in June 1978 in the "Church News" section of the "Deseret News," where the LDS Church first published its announcement on the lifting of its priesthood ban against Blacks):

“In an address to seminary and institute teachers at [BYU] . . . President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the 12, said: '. . . [T]here is one thing that I must mention & that is interracial marriages. When I said you must teach your young people to overcome their prejudices & accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage.’"

Allow historians Jerald and Sandra Tanner to reiterate the point:

“In 1958 [Kimball] gave an address which touched on [the]subject [of interracial dating]. President Kimball’s statement was reprinted in the 'Church Section' of the 'Deseret News' on June 17, 1978 [on the heels of the Mormon Church allowing Black males to receive the priesthood] . . .

“The 'Church Section' . . . [on that date] gave this information:

“'In an address to seminary and institute teachers at Brigham Young University on June 27, 1958, President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, said:

“‘ . . . [T]here is one thing that I must mention, and that is interracial marriages. When I said you must teach your young people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage.’”

(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Changing the Anti-Black Doctrine, Chapter 10, Part 2," from "The Changing World of Mormonism," web edition, at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10b.htm and http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm)
_____


--The History Mormon Utah’s Anti-Interracial Marriage Law, as Even Admitted by the Mormon Church-Owned “Deseret News”

In the heart of God's Kingdom, Utah at one time made it a crime to racially intermarry:

“Like most other states, Utah once had a law against interracial marriages. It was passed by the territorial Legislature in 1888 and wasn’t repealed until 1963, said Philip Notarianni, director of the Division of State History.

“‘Utah, both in enacting and repealing it, probably just was going along with the national sentiment,’ he said.

“Race isn’t an issue today for Utah’s predominant LDS faith, Church spokesman Scott Trotter said.

“The late President Spencer W. Kimball of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had cautioned members about interracial marriages, but it was also a revelation issued by President Kimball that opened up the LDS priesthood to worthy black males in 1978.”

(Deborah Bulkeley, "Mixed Marriages on Rise: Acceptance is Growing for Interracial Couples," in "Deseret News," 13 April 2007, at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660211384,00.html)


Notice how Trotter conveniently leaves out the fact that in abandoning its historic, anti-Black priesthood ban, the Mormon Church explicitly noted it was retaining its historic, official stand discouraging interracial marriage.
_____


--How the Mormon Church Today Writes Its Bigoted Brand of Anti-Interracial Marriage Racism into Its Contemporary Teaching Manuals

For those out there who may think that the Mormon Church has moved past Kimball’s negative view of interracial marriage, think again. To this day, it’s still quoting him. From the officially-authorized Church Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 31, entitled “Choosing an Eternal Companion” (p. 127ff), it quotes, in black and white, the anti-race-mixing views of Kimball:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144)

In order to remove all doubt that the Mormon Church still opposes in concept interracial marriage, that same Aaronic priesthood manual cited above (under the heading "Quotation and discussion"), contains the following explicit and correlated instructions given by the LDS lesson-plan writers to Aaronic priesthood lesson teachers about how to drum into the minds of Mormon young men Kimball's anti-interracial marriage teachings.

What follows is the actual teaching recommendation from the LDS Church's official website on how to prepare, outline and present the Aaronic Priesthood lesson plan objective on marrying members of the same race--all in its own, exact words, as bullet-pointed under the capital-lettered heading, "SUGGESTED LESSON DEVELOPMENT" (emphasis added}. As you read it, take note of how the Mormon Church young men's priesthood manual sneakily sets up the race bait for the taking by the class's susceptible teenage boys by first listing some generic, reasonable, agreeable-sounding points necessary in the "extremely important" search for in an "eternal companion," then slips in Kimball's prejudiced quote and finally follows with a summation that craftily redefines "racial" as "cultural." (The bigoted Mormon cult is as manipulative and deceptive as they come):

"Chalkboard discussion

"Explain that choosing a companion for eternity is an extremely important decision but is sometimes based on a very narrow understanding of love. A person who responds only to infatuation or romantic love might overlook many important qualities when choosing someone with whom to spend eternity.

"What characteristics of young women are socially and spiritually appealing to you?

"Write the young men’s answers on the chalkboard, such as—

"1. Is unselfish.

"2. Shows respect for me.

"3. Has initiative.

"4. Is considerate of others.

"5. Shows patience in stressful situations.

"6. Is an active Church member.

"7. Has a testimony of the gospel and obeys the commandments.

"8. Maintains a healthy outlook toward life.

"9. Possesses values and goals similar to mine.

"Ask each young man to select what he thinks are the three most important attributes on the chalkboard. Take a vote to determine which areas the young men consider most important. Discuss why they voted the way they did."

(Note: Here comes Kimball's racist attack on “mixed” marriages, drilled into the minds of the class by having fellow classmate read it aloud to his peers):

"Quotation and discussion

"Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” ('Marriage and Divorce,' in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

(Note: Then, the wrap-up with the word “racial” now inoculously and subtley re-defined as “cultural”--all in the midst of a stark warning about marriage break-ups being caused by partners who are of the same background):

"Why is it so important for a couple to be worthy members of the Church? Ensure that the following points are discussed:

"1. Exaltation cannot be attained without celestial marriage.

"2. Religious values are powerful, and conflicting values can cause continual stress.

"3. President Kimball quoted a survey showing that 'only about one out of seven non-member spouses would be converted and baptized into the Church' ('Marriage and Divorce,' p. 152).

"4. When one spouse is not converted to the gospel, the children are caught between the differing values of the parents.

"Why is it important for a couple to have a similar economic, educational, and cultural background?"

(“Choosing an Eternal Companion,” Lesson #31, in "Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3," "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1995, All rights reserved, Printed in the United States of America, English approval: 1/92," pp. 127ff, at: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1f4fa41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD and "Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3," Table of Contents and Publication Notes, at: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=402da41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=c3dcf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD; access denied without permission)

**********


So, there you have it: The deliberate, covert, soft-sell war of race hate being waged today against eternal marriage-destroying "conflicting values" supposedly fatally harbored by individuals of different skin colors.

Brought to you by the White Supremacist Mormon Church.

Grab your children and run.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 01:05AM by steve benson.

Once again Steve you've revealed an aspect of Mo doctorin I mean doctrine that hits kinda close to home.

My gggrandfather's third wife was a full blooded Lamanite . . . . which accounts for my less than delightsomeness, perhaps.

Anyway, I gotta wonder what the doctrine would say about marriage between the half blooded offsring of such one-sided inter-racial unions.

My own father frequently castigated blacks but strangely I only heard him speak high praise of the Lamanites.

A beautiful, blue-eyed, blonde woman was temple-married to a Korean guy. Their first child was adopted from Korea, as an infant. Her parents didn't want her, because she was deaf.

As both members of this couple were educated in how to teach deaf kids, raising this girl was no problem. They went on to have several kids of their own, and everyone in the family signed fluently.

The oldest girl, the Korean-born one, was so popular at school that she was a homecoming princess, though she was profoundly deaf and had a "signer" with her for classes. She went on to graduate from Gallaudet (sp?) university. When she gave talks in the ward, one of her parents would translate as she signed, and this girl wrote talks that were enthralling.

This couple was VERY popular within the ward; both husband and wife held many callings. I never heard ANYONE in the ward say a critical word about anyone in this family. I often wondered about the interracial thing, but I never brought it up. To give that ward credit, absolutely NOBODY seemed to have anything critical to say about this family. (You couldn't, really - they were VERY likable people.)

I gather that this is the exception, rather than the norm.

. . . as active Mormons--as long as they and their fellow naive word members are effectively lied to by LDS PR professionals who, in LDS Inc.-owned newspapers and other publications, spin their carefully-crafted deceits about the Mormon Church's preserved and present racist doctrines.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 02:55AM by steve benson.

I haven't set foot in the church in well over a decade, so I'll have to ask DH's HT, who is a notorious gossip.

This couple's kids - including the deaf girl - were all very bright, and I've wondered about them.

During my years of activity in the church 1980's-90's it always seemed as if my local membership was as racially tolerant as society in general,of course I can remember a few exceptions,mostly older members.Sadly, as Steve points out the brethren at the top are the ones who poisoned so many minds.

It was my understanding that Aaronic Priesthood manual 3, whilst still accessible online, has been replaced by "Come Follow Me".

Given the amount of Mormon interracial weddings being solemnised both civilly in Chapels and also in the Temple, I'd have to say that the title and premise of this thread is simply wrong.

The Mormon Church does not kick you out of its ranks for interracially marrying, but it strongly discourages the practice--and it has long done so within the larger historical heritage of its anti-Black racism.

Further, Mormon PR man Mark Tuttle is being disingenuous when he says (as quoted in the OP) that "the [Mormon] Church has no policy against interracial marriage . . . ."

Scott is simply being too cute by half. In reality, the Mormon Church has a policy of strongly discouraging interracial marriage.

As usual, the Mormon Church plays sleight-of-hand games with words. If one doesn't have enough background information going into a situation where the Mormon Church makes deceptive claims, one cannot respond with informed follow-up questions exposing the slick tricks it employs at the expense of the language--and, ultimately, at the expense of fact-finding and truth. The Mormon Church picks its words carefully in order to mislead deliberately. It perpetuates misunderstanding, misdirection and fuzziness by purposefully committing the sin of omission by not telling the general public that it institutionally opposes interracial marriages,while not excommunicating you if you enter into one.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 04:37AM by steve benson.

Sorry, but from my observations you are living in the past on this one.

I'm not saying it didn't use to happen, nor that it didn't get taught. It obviously and shamefully did. But it doesn't happen today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 08:18AM by pettigrew.

Please direct me to any--and I mean ANY--official statement from the Mormon Church's First Presidency that has repudiated its long-held stance discouraging the practice of race-mixing marriage. You will find none; so, therefore, it still officially stands.

Moreover, since you assert the following, "[It is] my understanding that [the] Aaronic Priesthood manual 3, whilst still accessible online, has been replaced by 'Come Follow Me,'" kindly point to where in that "Come Follow Me" manual the Mormon Church's admonition against interracial marriage has officially, clearly and undeniably been rescinded.

This little song-and-dance by the Mormon Church is similar to the so-called "revisions" in the secret Mormon temple ceremony. Participants are now being instructed that although the penalties (and by extension, the signs of their execution) are no longer overtly mentioned in the ritual, they nonetheless still apply.

Show me where the Mormon Church has openly declared that its official discouragement of race-mixed marriages no longer applies. Chapter, verse, publication and date.

To repeat: You will not find it.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 03:17PM by steve benson.

Stating that "the church" opposes interracial marriage based on one AP-lesson is tenuous at best.

I did find the June 17, 1978 DesNews reference interesting, is that full article accessible somewhere? I tried the DesNews archive page but it doesn't seem to work on my computer (blank page).

Finally, what makes the case best, I think, is the current racial composition of the LDS membership, which is predominantly white to begin with (Pew has some interesting data on that).

. . . take formal action against those members who reject its position that it is unadvisable to race-mix via marriage.

It's kinda of like Pope Francis not declassifying homosexuality as a canon-law Catholic sin but, nonetheless, choosing to accept the presence and participation of gays in the Catholic Church without punishing them for engaging in same-gender sexual relations.

Translation: What you are doing is against the will of God but we're not going to kick you of the pews for it.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 06:18AM by steve benson.

When I went to BYU-Hawaii right after my mission, the first thing that was drummed into our heads in the opening devotional (attended by all students) was the anti-interacial message spun in the genteel phrasing, "opposites attract, but similarities endure".

There was no question but that they did not want the white haole marrying anyone from the islands and visa-versa.

I think the guy misinterpreted what is being said. I was engaged to a Turkish guy and it caused a lot of problems. You do have to be careful with culture. Race has nothing to do with it. It is all about culture.

With tongue in cheek, I have to begin by saying that males and females are different species to begin with. We perceive things differently and behave differently in so many ways. (To quote Professor Henry Higgins, 'Oh, why can't a woman be more like a MAN?')

But these inherent differences are compounded tremendously when cultural and/or language difference are stirred into the mixture. One of my cousins married a German guy, and though they remained married until she died (in her 60's) of a kidney ailment, he cheated on her for years, and though he had been notoriously stingy and tight-fisted with money during their marriage, he suddenly began a new life with his girlfriend, traveling the world like Daddy More-Bucks.

During my cousin's marriage, her husband never acknowledged birthdays, anniversaries, or even Christmas. He did not give her gifts or cards. He spent a lot more time with his German soccer-playing buddies. Even his sons can't stand him.

I've know of some cross-cultural marriages that have been very happy, even inspiring - but even the spouses admit that they have had to do a lot of adapting and compromising. I think it takes pretty remarkable people to make a cross-cultural marriage work.

I don't believe it was the culture—it was that the guy was a jerk.

Cultural differences might add a layer of complexity in a relationship, but the proximate cause for the kinds of problems you and others are attributing to culture have more to do with the character and commitment of the individuals involved than anything else.

The proof in the example you provided is that the guy behaved in two different ways with two different women. His behavior changed, not his culture.

Had culture been the primary behavioral factor, he would have been a serial jerk...a creep to every woman he had a relationship with.

It's why it's nice to have some more modern day exmormons to draw from for info, as your stories no longer apply. Interracial married couples just called as mission presidents and GA's. I know the past is terrible, but the present is what matters and if all the things to bash them on, this comes across as out dated.

I don't think the point here is to say that inter-racial marriages are not allowed in the LDS Church. Instead, the OP is pointing out the fact that the implied preference is for people to marry within their race, which may cause some people to have pause when considering an inter-racial relationship. There's no justifiable reason to do this.

Nor can we flippantly disregard the past. What was said by past Mormon prophets is relevant to the present. It demonstrates that they had little moral and ethical foresight. If President Kimball were going to push the boundaries of love, tolerance and compassion forward wouldn't he have said something along these lines:

"Falling in love is a wonderful and mysterious thing, do not let the superficial and prejudiced concerns of your elders about race, or class stand in the way of that love."

The assertion that: "I know the past is terrible, but the present is what matters..." is a throw away line that Mormons use all the time to excuse the errant teachings of those who were not supposed to lead them astray in the first place.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 04:05AM by steve benson.

. . . through marriage but won't discipline you for not abiding by its "God-revealed" opposition to it.

I think most married people will agree that marriage is hard even for persons of the same race, ethnicity, or culture. Throwing in such differences even makes a successful marriage even harder yet. In my immediate family we have experienced relationships and marriages of differing races and cultural backgrounds that did not survive. We have also had marriages between members of the same race and cultural background that have not survived as well. So there is more involved in what makes a marriage work than just similarities between the couple. What makes for a success? If I knew I be rich. All I know is that I been married for forty-six years at it has been a constant labor of love.

I agree, wise words of advice, mixing races should be avoided when possible. People from similar situations seem the most compatible most of the time. But I guess if a white gall is going to be an old maid (or vice versa) then exceptions can be made?

. . . throughout the United States.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 06:17AM by steve benson.

I hope you didn't say that comment for my post. As it is I was not advocating marriages based solely on similarity of race and culture for there is more involved in a successful marriage than just these characteristics. Two people living together requires much more than just this simple idea of similarities making it easier. There is no easy way for success in a marriage. As for the statement of poopstone, I hope he doesn't think I'm advising against mixed race or cross cultural marriages because I mostly certainly am not. I was merely trying to get across the idea that similar backgrounds may help in success but it is not a guarantee. Like I stated above, in my immediate family we have examples of both types of marriages and relationships that have failed. There is more involved here.

As for your statements of the church's institutionalized racism, I believe it is still there. The words are still on paper for us to read in the the writings of men "speaking for God." I was still active in 1978 and I was very glad and happy for those who had been marginalized by the church because they were lesser humans based upon their skin color that now they could fully partake of all of God's blessings. I was naive to think that things would change, but since this was God's will then all of our TBM brothers and sisters would gladly accept this great change and be loving and welcoming to all of God's children. Boy was I dumb. Oh, of course, the church is perfect; it's the people who are not.

. . . at its highest levels is a relic of the Mormon Church's racist past, and is reflective of the racist American society in which this discouragement was introduced, fostered and peddled to believers by the Mormon Church hierarchy as being God's mind and will. Re-read the OP and you will see how a national ban against anti-interracial marriage laws was not put in place until 1967, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's "Loving v. Virginia" decision.

("Loving v. Virginia," 388 U.S. 1, Loving v. Virginia [No. 395], argued: April 10, 1967, decided: June 12, 1967, 206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78, reversed, at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1)


Mormon-tainted Utah's willing and long participation in that ugly, bigoted, American experience is no accident. Utah's anti-interracial marriage ban was implemented by its Territorial Legislature in 1888 and wasn’t repealed until 1963. Discouraging interracial marriage (as the Mormon Church continues to do by way of official, still-standing pronouncement) encourages the development and justification of a racist mindset. If the history of the Mormon Church doesn't demonstrate that, I don't know what does.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 03:23PM by steve benson.

Huh. Surprised? Not me.

Poopstone and Michael1945 both believe interracial relationships are to be avoided.

Using the tired euphemism that same-race relationships are already hard enough, why make it harder by mixing the races.



Pshaw!



(And incidentally, mixed race humans are the most beautiful, by far, if you ask me......just saying.)

IMO, it's just one more example of the way Mormonism paints itself into corners. They proclaim that their leaders talk to God. The leaders are therefore free to interpret their own thoughts and opinions as messages from God. Leaders who come afterwards are put in a bind- continue to promote those earlier declarations and look like fools, or denounce them and call into question the whole idea of inspiration. The only way out is the James T. Kirk method.

Seems the membership isnt buying it.

I know several black-white LDS couples, personally.

In Utah, no less.

. . . aren't being bought by the membership.

That doesn't mean, however, that the Mormon Church has therefore necessarily abandoned those traditional doctrines, policies and/or practices.

Case in point: The deeply-embedded racist scriptures found lodged, to this day, in the Book of Mormon:

"Are Racist LDS Scriptures Still Deemed 'Utterly Reliable' and 'Pure Truth'?," Part 1, by Lynn K. Wilder, 6 January 2014, at: http://blog.mrm.org/2014/01/are-racist-lds-scriptures-still-deemed-utterly-reliable-and-pure-truth-part-1/



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 03:16PM by steve benson.

One big reason for the discrepancy in interracial marriages is where men and women shop for spouses.

Almost all Mormon men serve missions, and many of them go to exotic places like Japan. There they meet pretty girls who find them exotic. I have heard East Asian women described as "white man's kryptonite". It is not surprising that a man who serves his mission in Japan, Peru or S. Africa would find a wife there, or be attracted to such women when he comes home.

On the other hand, most Mormon women do not serve missions. Those who do tend not to find their husbands on their missions, and if they do, they tend to marry fellow missionaries, who are mostly white. Since the dating pool for Mormon girls at BYU or in their home wards consist mainly of white men, they will most likely marry a white man.

You also have to keep in mind that the official racism is fairly recent. The change happened in 1979, just 35 years ago. That is only a generation and a half. While today's missionaries were born in 1997, their parents were alive when the change happened. That means that their parents' attitudes may be more conservative and still have some influence on their children's decisions on whom to wed. That will continue to weaken over time.

In 35 years, we will probably be discussing Mormon attitudes towards same-sex marriages, which is their new social hurdle.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 09:49AM by axeldc.

I'm married to a Filipina. For 22 years now. I was already out when we got married, but even so I got numerous comments -- often said out loud where my wife could hear them -- from TBM relatives, wondering why I couldn't have married "one of my own kind."

One of my nieces, after returning from a mission in Japan, married a TBM Filipino man (born and raised in the US).
I went to the reception, where most of the same racist TBM family members who had chastised me were also in attendance.

I didn't hear any of them make the same kind of comments they made to me. I *did* have one of them approach me, and whisper in my ear, "See what you did? Now all of our kids are going to think it's OK to marry other races!"

Steve's point is that the church hasn't made any statement renouncing the "doctrine" against it, and they haven't. They should. From my limited experience, the rank and file (who haven't heard anything official from the church) is now much more tolerant of it than 20 or so years ago, though clearly member racism hasn't disappeared.

They used to be "less valiant spirits." Now they're "more-valiant-but-still-less-desired spirits."

I'm here to tell ya