Interracial Marriage

[Guest MormonGator]

That is not what I'm choking at or asking WHAT over. I'm questioning your ridiculous claim that the church has "refuted" parts of the Book of Mormon -- you know..."the most correct of any book on earth"...

Like I said, they refuted the parts that could be used to justify racism. Not the entire book. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Like I said, they refuted the parts that could be used to justify racism. Not the entire book. 

 

You are woefully misinformed. This is, quite simply, absolutely and unequivocally false.

Edited April 20, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps what MormonGator meant was that there were sections of the BoM that have been used, in eras past, to justify racism.  The racist interpretations of those passages have been refuted, though, as The Folk Prophet wants to underline, no part of the BoM itself has been questioned. 

 

Better? 

[The Folk Prophet]

Perhaps what MormonGator meant was that there were sections of the BoM that have been used, in eras past, to justify racism.  The racist interpretations of those passages have been refuted, though, as The Folk Prophet wants to underline, no part of the BoM itself has been questioned. 

 

Better? 

 

Perhaps this is what he means. But I wonder, as the Book of Mormon, as far as I am aware, has never been used to justify any sort of racism but what theoretical "racism" (and note the quoted word in my original question as well) that it would still justify.

 

In other words, the Book of Mormon has never been used as a source of justification for the priesthood ban, nor does it have any teachings in it that imply or could be used to support the idea that if you're of a certain race it is because you were less valiant in the pre-earth existence. The plain "racism" in the Book of Mormon is that the Lamanites' skin were made dark as a sign of the curse placed upon them, and this was to separate them from the Nephites, to keep them from intermarrying, etc. And none of these things have been refuted -- the principle NEVER being that they could not marry someone with a different skin color, but ALWAYS (and still) being that they were not to take Godless, wicked, sinful cultural ideas and beliefs into their lives by way of marriage and/or anything else. As the Book of Mormon very clearly teaches, when the Lamanites repented, the Nephites embraced them with open arms, forgave them, and treated them no differently than themselves. It is also, probably, moderately important to note that, technically speaking, the literal Nephites and Lamanites were the exact same race...being Israelites through Joseph.

 

And this is my point, and the point of my question to Pa Pa concerning his comment that racism is "unchristian in every way". The key thing I am questioning is the "in every way" part. Whereas God himself, very distinctly, and very clearly, gave commands and counsel to not intermarry with other races at diverse times in the scriptures, how can one possibly claim that doing so (by way of counsel only) in modern times must automatically be unchristian. Was God un-Christian? (You may be aware, PC, that in LDS belief, Jehovah, the God of the O.T. is Christ Himself, and this is the same God who also cursed the Lamanites and placed upon them the mark of it as well -- which really leads to the obvious nature of my query -- is it possible for Christ to have been un-Christian? Obviously not.)

 

The LDS church declared in it's essay on race and the priesthood ban that the leaders, "unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I understand this as a press-release sort of diplomatic and political for-public-consumption statement relative to most people's too-narrow while also too-broad view of what racism actually is. But the fact of the matter is that God decreeing to one race that they not intermarry with another, at some level of understanding, is "racism". Moreover, God allowing the priesthood only to the Levites, and specifically the rights of ordinances to the sons of Aaron, was also, at some level, "racism". And, contrary to many who don't seem to read so well, the church has never claimed the priesthood ban itself was uninspired, and there is good evidence that God supported it (if one is a believer of prophets and their right to revelation) in the form of some leaders after Brigham's institution of the ban asking for it to be rescinded and claiming distinct revelatory "no" answers. Whatever the reason for these denials, they are, if one accepts them as legitimate revelation, at some level, "racism" from on High.

 

It would be, in my opinions, intellectually dishonest to deny the reality of this based on non-thinking political correctness. One can, very reasonably, understand that there are levels of "racism" that were imposed by the Almighty Himself without giving into the ideas of superiority, hate, or intolerance that accompanies most forms of racism (which, is also, in my opinion, very obviously what is meant by the essay when it says that racism is condemned. What it does not mean, very obviously, is that parts of the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion, the most correct of any book on earth, the book that if taken away leaves us with no religion, that contains the fulness of the gospel, and was given by inspiration and confirmed by the ministering of angels, have been "refuted" in any way shape or form).

Edited April 20, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

People who use the Book of Mormon to try to justify racism have clearly never read it all the way through... they simply cherry picked verses out of context.

 

The Book of Mormon clearly shows that God favors the righteous and those that are striving to be so, over race, linage, or any other worldly status symbol.  And the disfavor of God toward the wicked and rebellious no matter their race, linage or any other worldly status symbol.

 

It does this by following different groups as they move from righteous to wicked and back again 

[Guest]

You are correct, it is insulting and bad doctrine. I grew up in the segregated South...I never understood the hatred. When I went into the Army in 1976, I realized how silly racism of any kind is, and how unchristian in every way. But, also living in Atlanta, and growing up during the civil rights movement, helped me to see the truth...that and Godly parents.

 

 

when it comes to race. Like I said, if you are using the book of Mormon to promote a racist ideology the mainstream church has and should condemn it.

Okay, listen very carefully. The reason why BOTH OF YOU think this quote presented in the OP is insulting, bad doctrine, and hateful is because THE BOTH OF YOU are interpreting it as promoting a racist ideology.

The problem in the quote is not the quote. The problem is in YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what it promotes.

And I can tell that your problem with the understanding of the quote is because, like many Americans, when you hear/read the word Race you get this tunnel vision where there are only 2 races - black and white in the United States of America - in the entire planet and you automatically assign the white and black water fountains emotion to it.

Edited April 20, 2015 by anatess

[mrmarklin]

That is not what I'm choking at or asking WHAT over. I'm questioning your ridiculous claim that the church has "refuted" parts of the Book of Mormon -- you know..."the most correct of any book on earth"...

The B o M text has actually been changed for "clarification". I don't have the verse at hand, but one change was to describe the Nephites as pure and delight some instead of white and delightsome. Other changes have been made along those lines.

No refutation, only change. :-)

[mrmarklin]

It would be interesting to know where those live who think this quote is OK and those who don't think so

I think the quote is Wrongheaded. I'm from California.

[The Folk Prophet]

The B o M text has actually been changed for "clarification". I don't have the verse at hand, but one change was to describe the Nephites as pure and delight some instead of white and delightsome. Other changes have been made along those lines.

No refutation, only change. :-)

 

Correct. But it should also be noted that these "changes" were also to bring the text in line with the actual translation (edited by Joseph Smith himself) as compared to the mistake that came from...who knows where...printer error, scribe error, or even Joseph mispeaking or something. The edit was made by Joseph in 1837 but was missed in later editions of the Book of Mormon until 1981.

[Just_A_Guy]

Correct. But it should also be noted that these "changes" were also to bring the text in line with the actual translation (edited by Joseph Smith himself) as compared to the mistake that came from...who knows where...printer error, scribe error, or even Joseph mispeaking or something. The edit was made by Joseph in 1837 but was missed in later editions of the Book of Mormon until 1981.

 

IIRC, Joseph made the change to the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, published in Nauvoo.  However, subsequent LDS editions of the Book of Mormon were based on the 1841 Liverpool edition, which (because its preparers didn't have the 1840 edition available to them) was based in turn on the Kirtland 1837 edition.  It wasn't until 1981 that the LDS Church made it a priority to take all of Joseph's 1840 edits and incorporate them, along with some other corrections/clarifications, into its official version of the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[mrmarklin]

For the Doubleday edition, the chapter summaries were heavily edited changing some of the more "racially" oriented passages.

[Just_A_Guy]

The chapter summaries aren't technically part of the Book of Mormon--they didn't appear on the plates, but were added by later editors (Orson Pratt in early editions; Bruce McConkie had a lot of say in the 1981 headings).

Oh, by the way--I live in Utah but am California born. It is frankly astounding to me that we can see so much angst on these very forums about the problems that crop up in marriages of people of different sects that still share a belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible--but that some of us then bury our heads in the sand and try to fiat some sort of orthodoxy in which marriages between people of even more disparate ethnic/cultural backgrounds are automatically guaranteed to go absolutely swimmingly, and anyone who warns otherwise must be a sheltered ninny or an unreconstructed bigot.

Those who congratulate themselves on living beyond the geographical and intellectual purview of the "Zion curtain" might want to consider the possibility that we provincials might think the way we do because we have seen too much of the world, rather than too little of it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

JAG is astounded that we allow some of the self-editing (i.e. political correctness) that abounds in society to creep into our own communications.  I hate political correctness, but I'm still guilty of engaging in it.  Certain topics arise, and, at minimum, I think much harder before I speak.  My phrasing is more cautious.  And, yes, some counsel gets left unsaid.  Does that make me part of the problem?  It depends.  The line between being sensitive and understanding vs. being timid and ashamed may be finer than we realize. 

[mrmarklin]

My kids are lucky. Coming from a racially mixed marriage doubles their cultural choices. They can safely marry either Caucasians or Latins!

[Vort]

Like I said, they refuted the parts that could be used to justify racism. Not the entire book. 

 

Which part or parts of the Book of Mormon do you believe the Church or its leaders have "refuted"?

[The Big One]

I don't care, if the person I marry, is black, white or green. The main thing is, that he is a good person and a member of the church in good stand (no less active), and that we LOVE EACH OTHER!

[The Big One]

Perhaps what MormonGator meant was that there were sections of the BoM that have been used, in eras past, to justify racism.  The racist interpretations of those passages have been refuted, though, as The Folk Prophet wants to underline, no part of the BoM itself has been questioned. 

 

Better? 

 

Even the Bible was misused/abused to justify racism. Verses in Bible or BoM who talk about race, was not to JUDGE someone, it was, to SHOW everybody, that if people are obey, they are blessed, and people who are disobey, has to pay the price for it. Neither the Bible nor the BoM justify racism. it was the INTERPRETATION of people, which did it.

[pricklipear]

I'm kind of floored by the responses to this. I don't think race should ever be the reason for picking a partner! I feel like what someone wants in a partner should be determined by them and them alone. Sure, culture, educational background have been shown to help with longevity of marriage, but I feel like the sample size of couples from different backgrounds was too small to be statistically significant. Race is just a color! Culture is real, but that should still only be the factor if that is what people decide they want! It kind of offends me a little bit.

[mordorbund]

 I feel like what someone wants in a partner should be determined by them and them alone.

 

Thank you for your approval. I want beautiful blue and and gorgeous black skin. Her head should come to my shoulder for optimum cuddling. A beauty mark is desirable but not required.

 

I'm kind of floored by the responses to this. I don't think race should ever be the reason for picking a partner!  Race is just a color! 

 

 

I stand corrected. Is it only the color-related traits that are off the table? Or does it also include all the uncontrolled biological ones (like height)?

[Vort]

 

I'm kind of floored by the responses to this. I don't think race should ever be the reason for picking a partner! I feel like what someone wants in a partner should be determined by them and them alone.

 

What if they want to choose by race?
 

Sure, culture, educational background have been shown to help with longevity of marriage, but I feel like the sample size of couples from different backgrounds was too small to be statistically significant.

 

Actually, this one is not a matter of feeling. It's a matter of straightforward statistics. Can you demonstrate that the given situation does not meet the 95% (or some other) confidence interval?

 

Race is just a color!

 

If only that were so.

 

Culture is real, but that should still only be the factor if that is what people decide they want! It kind of offends me a little bit.

 

Perhaps you should not allow yourself to be offended by others' opinions, especially in an area where you actually agree that it might qualify as at least *a* factor in the decision. Remember what you said about people should choose their mates based on their own determination? That doesn't mean we don't get to talk with them and try to influence their opinion. That's pretty much one of the definitions of parenting -- and of friendship.