What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_Daniel Peterson]

As I said then, I don't believe there was ever an official "ban" (except, in a sense, on marrying in such a way as to produce priesthood-ineligible posterity), so, in my view, no "rescinding" of this non-existent "ban" (beyond the 1978 revelation that altogether eliminated the concept of priesthood-ineligible lineages) is necessary nor even, really, possible.

I have no answer to your demand because I regard your demand as pointless and misconceived. It leaves me nothing to say about it.

I made explained that innumerable times, and I'm tired of repeating it.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Here are some more examples to aid us in our quest to understand LDS race relations:

When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed "if they were far away from the Gentiles." (Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Heirarchy: Extensions of Power. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997. p. 247.)

This is pretty problematic for your position, Dan.

[_harmony]

(It wasn't an official "proclamation," so I don't know that there's anything to "rescind," really.)

Decades of racist statements, perhaps?

Scratch, you know as well as anyone how doctrine is created. Common consent is the method, not talks, however fiery, are not official doctrine (although they may contain official doctrine).

No matter how full of s*** Brigham was, his talks were not then and are not now doctrinal. They were not voted upon by the members of the church and have no canonical weight.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here are some more examples to aid us in our quest to understand LDS race relations:

One is free to content oneself with a few cherry-picked quotations of the kind Shades has extracted from his source, and one can, on that basis, think that one has it all figured out.

If, however, one wants to understand the subject, I recommend works by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss.

[_Mister Scratch]

As I said then, I don't believe there was ever an official "ban" (except, in a sense, on marrying in such a way as to produce priesthood-ineligible posterity), so, in my view, no "rescinding" of this non-existent "ban" (beyond the 1978 revelation that altogether eliminated the concept of priesthood-ineligible lineages) is necessary nor even, really, possible.

Actually, Dan, your Mopologetic predecessors relied upon the Book of Ezra, Ch. 9 in particular (among other things, including statements from the Brethren) and Deut. 7:3 to support their racist positions. Do you believe that these biblical passages are somehow irrelevant, when taken within the context of LDS exegesis and doctrine?

Also, you said earlier that BY's beliefs were limited to those of African descent, and that's it. So, what do you make of this comment from BY:

Be careful, O ye mothers in Israel, and do not teach your daughters in the future, as many of them have been taught, to marry out of Israel. Wo to you who do it; you will lose your crowns as sure as God lives.

Do you interpret "Israel," in this context, to refer to Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos? Do you think that's what BY had in mind?

[_Dr. Shades]

Scratch, you know as well as anyone how doctrine is created. Common consent is the method, not talks, however fiery, are not official doctrine (although they may contain official doctrine).

No matter how full of s*** Brigham was, his talks were not then and are not now doctrinal. They were not voted upon by the members of the church and have no canonical weight.

Since when does the voice of the Lord, through his mouthpieces, pre-emptively become false until benighted humanity chooses to vote it into truth?

One is free to content oneself with a few cherry-picked quotations of the kind Shades has extracted from his source, and one can, on that basis, think that one has it all figured out.

Regarding the first quote, those were the words of the Lord's mouthpiece, cherry-picked or not.

Regarding the second quote, it demonstrates how seriously the word of the Lord, through his mouthpiece, was taken.

If, however, one wants to understand the subject, I recommend works by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss.

Do they discuss contemporary LDS practice, or do they transcribe the words of the Lord's mouthpieces?

[_harmony]

Since when does the voice of the Lord, through his mouthpieces, pre-emptively become false until benighted humanity chooses to vote it into truth?

Since the beginning of the church. Nothing is binding (and is therefore subject to plausible deniability of the kind so easily served by Daniel and company) unless voted on by the members.

[_Dr. Shades]

Nothing is binding (and is therefore subject to plausible deniability of the kind so easily served by Daniel and company) unless voted on by the members.

When did the members vote on polygamy?

[Guest]

Nothing is binding (and is therefore subject to plausible deniability of the kind so easily served by Daniel and company) unless voted on by the members.

When did the members vote on polygamy?

Right after the First Vision, just before Joseph Smith started telling everyone what he "saw".

[_Runtu]

When I was growing up, even after 1978, interracial marriages were strongly discouraged (SWK being widely quoted in those days). The teaching seems to have quietly faded away, which of course is a good thing. As Dan said, non-canonical teachings and cultural attitudes are highly unlikely to be revisited, let alone formally rescinded.