Interracial Marriage and Celestial Glory

[Wingnut]

Okay the poll is closed, now I want to know why anyone would vote that racial-purity is self-evident for celestial glory?

I think it was an accident. See this post:

oops! I hope my name doesn't show up! I totally voted to the WRONG answer. I just didn't get it at first. I R dumb!

I agree that this isn't much of a problem based on our time era. I think it would be ridiculous for us to tell our children to not get married to the filistines and ammonites. Hahahaha. In our time, the Gospel is being preached ot all peoples nations and tongues... what would be the point if certain races couldn't "make it"?

[Vort]

Sadly, some former Church leaders have spoken out against inter-racial marriages. These include B.H. Roberts and Pres Kimball.

Why is this sad? They stated their best opinion on the subject. And the fact is that before 1978, marrying a black person of African descent was the surest way for a white person (the vast majority of Church membership of the times) to deprive his/her children of the blessings of the temple.

It is also self-evident that a marriage stands the greatest chance of success when the marriage partners are of a similar social background. Race is very often a reasonable proxy for social situation, so the counsel made (and to some extent, still makes) perfectly good sense, for social if not spiritual reasons.

I believe a lot of it was not based upon revelation, but upon personal prejudices of the day. When Brigham Young brought traditional Christian feelings about blacks into the Church in 1847 (banning the blacks from having priesthood), it also brought a lot of efforts to attempt to justify that position ever since.

This is a standard anti-Mormon and fringe Mormon line used to dismiss the Priesthood ban: Bad old Brigham Young instituted it because of his racial bigotry. I'm disappointed to see you using that old canard.

Mormon Doctrine also carries along with it old vestiges of this incorrect belief, regarding race. I would really wish Sherry Dew would fix that section of MD, so that it isn't such a pariah for any member (and especially the black members of the Church).

What do you mean? How could Sherry Dew modify another man's work?

Elder McConkie himself modified his book's teachings, in the second edition and then again after 1978.

It is time that we admit that mistakes were made on this subject, and to apologize for it.

Who would you suggest ought to apologize? Me? Nope, I won't apologize for any "mistakes" you might think early Church leaders made. The Church itself? What sense does it make for an organization to say, "Oh, we're so sorry that our leaders a hundred and fifty years ago held some common social opinions of their time that we no longer subscribe to today"?

I assume that you are going to apologize for all the mistaken beliefs your grandparents held, right?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Vort

[the Ogre]

Who would you suggest ought to apologize? Me? Nope, I won't apologize for any "mistakes" you might think early Church leaders made. The Church itself? What sense does it make for an organization to say, "Oh, we're so sorry that our leaders a hundred and fifty years ago held some common social opinions of their time that we no longer subscribe to today"?

I assume that you are going to apologize for all the mistaken beliefs your grandparents held, right?

I think the church will apologize about it eventually. Enough people think they should and eventually their prayers will be answered.

I, however do not think an apology is all that important right now. I think a bit more clarification by the church on this subject and other subjects where arcane quotes by long dead GAs are being used out of context would be useful and helpful. I also think the church needs to pull in the reins on some of the apologist bilge being published by DB. Maybe it is time for Mormon Doctrine to finally disappear from the shelves. Maybe DB could have a sequel published that will modernize Mormon Doctrine and maybe shape it so it is a bit more flexible.

The church needs something to clarify some of the fuzzies in the church. The bigots who use old quotes from dead GAs need to be brought up to speed in a hurry.

Edited June 5, 2009 by the Ogre

[Vort]

I think the church will apologize about it eventually. Enough people think they should and eventually their prayers will be answered.

Then without doubt the Church will eventually extend Priesthood ordination to women, allow and encourage homosexuals to be sealed in the temple, proclaim their doctrinal unity with larger Christianity, and otherwise change all sorts of things that "enough people think they should [change]" and whose "prayers will be answered."

I notice you didn't bother answering why the Church should "apologize" for things its leaders (and most of the rest of society) might have believed over a hundred years ago and which we now no longer hold to.

[rameumptom]

Why is this sad? They stated their best opinion on the subject. And the fact is that before 1978, marrying a black person of African descent was the surest way for a white person (the vast majority of Church membership of the times) to deprive his/her children of the blessings of the temple.

Rameumptom: It is sad, because they pushed opinion as doctrine that affected policy and salvation in the Church. If there really were no priesthood ban instituted by God, then for over a century, we kept blacks from receiving the greatest of blessings.

It is also self-evident that a marriage stands the greatest chance of success when the marriage partners are of a similar social background. Race is very often a reasonable proxy for social situation, so the counsel made (and to some extent, still makes) perfectly good sense, for social if not spiritual reasons.

Ram: So you are suggesting that white people from the North, should not marry white people from the South? That Utahn Mormons should only marry Utahn Mormons that are not immigrants? I know several whites that are into other "racial" cultures. Know any whites that love rap music? I currently have two missionaries in my ward that miss their rap! How would they work with LDS women who only listen to MoTab? Should they marry white women? Or since they are into the rap scene, should they marry black women? You see how ridiculous the cultural/race thing can go, if we carry it around like a reasonable response?

This is a standard anti-Mormon and fringe Mormon line used to dismiss the Priesthood ban: Bad old Brigham Young instituted it because of his racial bigotry. I'm disappointed to see you using that old canard.

Ram: Wrong! It is true. Or are you ready to say, "Bad old Pres Kimball, for rejecting Brigham Young's Adam-God theory"? Brigham Young was a great prophet. But he also spoke his opinion as authoritative on many occasions. Well, in such instances, he was just plain wrong. Had you studied this issue, you would have found that previous prophets, such as David O. McKay determined there was no revelational basis for the ban. For this reason, Pres McKay lifted the ban off of Indonesian blacks, and limited it to African blacks alone. Why? Because he did not feel it was time to completely lift the ban, given the racial tensions in America at the time (see Prince's book on McKay for more info). And it isn't a canard. Darius Black has been given permission by the Church to state that while the ban was not given by revelation, it was lifted by revelation. This is a good step forward for the Church, but it is just one step.

And I'm one of the Church's staunchest defenders. I'm just not so ignorant as to think that our prophets are infallible.

What do you mean? How could Sherry Dew modify another man's work?

Ram: She has editorial control over the book. Books go through editing all the time, sent back to the author until it is actually ready. She could easily decide, with approval of the BRM family to rework a few sections. Or, at least put in some addendum or correction to clarify that those sections are no longer "Mormon Doctrine."

Elder McConkie himself modified his book's teachings, in the second edition and then again after 1978.

Ram: I suggest you read the concerns that the Quorum of Twelve had concerning his book in the first edition (see Prince's book on Pres McKay). Over a thousand errors were found by Elder Peterson. Yes, the second edition was an improvement, but it still required work. Yes, he updated it a little in 1978, but it still requires improvement.

Do we pretend the scriptures are perfect or complete? Or do we believe in continuing revelation? Personally, I think that sections 137, 138 and OD2 are very important additions to our scriptures. I'd like to see the Proclamation on the Family added.

Not long ago, the Church corrected the Book of Mormon with hundreds of changes. Again, they corrected some points on it just recently, such as the claim (from BRM) that the Lamanites were the "primary" ancestor of the Native Americans. Now the introduction states they are among the ancestors - more correct, in light of modern scholarship and revelation.

If we don't have problems with updating and improving our scriptures, why should we not consider updating and correcting a book that hasn't been changed in over 25 years? If the only reason is that Elder McConkie is dead, then perhaps we should stop updating the D&C and Book of Mormon, as well!

Who would you suggest ought to apologize? Me? Nope, I won't apologize for any "mistakes" you might think early Church leaders made. The Church itself? What sense does it make for an organization to say, "Oh, we're so sorry that our leaders a hundred and fifty years ago held some common social opinions of their time that we no longer subscribe to today"?

Ram: You obviously do not understand the sufferings of the black people as I do. You obviously have not worked for decades among them, seeing the current racism that still exists. I was instrumental in having the gospel preached to the blacks in the Montgomery Alabama stake, beginning in 1986, 8 years after the revelation. For 16 years, I struggled with members who were outraged that blacks were given callings of authority, attending the temple, etc. I had PEC members who refused to home teach the blacks. Today, the Montgomery stake is fairly integrated, but not until after losing dozens of wonderful black families, because of racism. As Melchizedek Priesthood Group Leader in my ward there, in 1998, I had a high priest move into the ward, who had been a bishop in SLC, who almost left the Church when I asked him to home teach some black families! It took me a year of hard work to get him to change his views and become a solid part of the quorum and a strength to the blacks.

So, while you think it all ended in 1978, it hasn't. If you were to experience racism in the Church, you would also feel this way.

I suggest you read Ardis Parshall's recent Keepapitchinin post regarding this. Keepapitchinin, the Mormon History blog The Ugliest Post Keepa Has Ever Published . I think you'll find that the Church was very racist in some of its beliefs over the years, even up to today, as some people continue to insist on ignoring the history, rather than dealing with it.

I assume that you are going to apologize for all the mistaken beliefs your grandparents held, right?

Ram: Not necessarily. I do not hold to those beliefs. Nor am I connected to them by any choice. I am connected through voluntary Church membership, however, to Brigham Young, Mark Peterson, Bruce R. McConkie, and all those current members who continue their racist attitudes.

I love African Americans. I grew up in western Montana, where we had no black people. I did not understand the race issues of the 1960s. It wasn't until I lived among them and sweated with them, that I finally began to understand their plight. Even then, I understand that I could never fully understand the struggles we've placed upon them, except by comparison.

Pres Hinckley would not allow us to forget the struggles of the Pioneers and the dastardly things done to them in Missouri and Nauvoo. Yet, many would quickly hide from tough historical issues, such as MMM or our treatment of blacks. That is hypocrisy. Let's deal with it head-on, so we can ensure healing. And so we don't leave this stumbling block in place that keeps many from joining the Church.

Edited June 5, 2009 by rameumptom

[Gab84]

Love thy neighbor like thyself, it counts also people from different places

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a couple of observations:

For this reason, Pres McKay lifted the ban off of Indonesian blacks, and limited it to African blacks alone. Why? Because he did not feel it was time to completely lift the ban, given the racial tensions in America at the time (see Prince's book on McKay for more info).

Huh. Per Mary Jane Woodger's book (quoting McKay's son, IIRC), it was because he prayed about it--in his capacity as President of the Church--and was told "no".

And it isn't a canard. Darius Black has been given permission by the Church to state that while the ban was not given by revelation, it was lifted by revelation. This is a good step forward for the Church, but it is just one step.

Darius Gray, you mean? I don't particularly care what others say--or what he might claim--he has been "given permission" to teach (and I suspect that in this case it's more of the former than the latter). I could impute the same type of official Church sanction to various members of BYU's Religious Education Department who still teach elements of the old view.

While the Church has renounced many/most/all of the previous explanations for the policy and the application of the policy, no one with any authority to do so has renounced the origin of the policy. It may well be that God felt the Church needed such a policy at a particular point in its history to prevent alienating incorrigibly racist members--but I must confess I find the idea of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve instituting a Church-wide practice that was in direct contravention of God's plan for the Church to be extremely unsettling.

I'm open to the idea that prophets and apostles individually may err--and even collectively, may occasionally adopt unproductive courses of action. But I'm not open to the idea that God could still sanction a church whose leadership had unitedly denied the ordinances of the Gospel to a segment of the human race in contravention of God's expressed wishes. God has in the past--and, in the D&C, repeatedly threatened to--cast off churches for sins that were far more trivial than what Brigham Young and his contemporaries allegedly did.