What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_Sam Harris]

No, I didn't say that unity was racial. DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE? There are differences in culture and other items. Due to past racism, these divides are still often along racial lines. Caution should be exercised when making a lifelong commitment to someone whose life and views to this point have been radically different then yours. This is what Prophets and Apostles taught about interracial marriage with the EXCEPTION of those under the Priesthood Ban.

Of course sometimes things work when the odds are long. Sometimes they fail when everything seems perfect. I was endorsing the Prophet's views to THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH before making a decision. You can be in love with someone and know that you can never be together due to differences. I'm echoing the Prophets when I say that these things should be taken into account. I know if I'd married that girl it would have been a catastrophe.

I'm guessing there are lots of people in the Church who you have a lot in common with in terms of background, culture, etc. and I would have applauded you dating them no matter what race they are.

Nehor, I read what you wrote. Don't get excited, because I see your need to defend your church's racist tendencies. It can't be true if one thing is false, I understand.

Do you think that no one outside the church thinks before engaging in an interracial relationship? Why does the church feel it's so special and enlightened on this issue when it is not? The church is not saying to just think it over, they're saying to avoid interracial dating outright.

My old stalker from Ghana told me about the relationship he had before he met me. It was a cute white girl from Idaho. Her parent's threatened to disown her if she didn't stop talking to him. Members of the one true enlightened church. How many conversations have I had with my LDS sisters of color over the fact that it is so difficult to date in the church because of the ignorance of the family members of the people they're interested in?

Oh yeah, be cautious of this...that's what the church teaches, instead of just coming out and saying, "look, we're all equal".

So a person speaks a different language. Learn that language. I did. So a person wears different clothing. Learn why. So a person eats different food. Try it! So a person listens to different music. Listen with them. So a person exercises different rituals...learn about them and their significance.

All I see in this "caution" of the church is a refusal to learn about others and to fully engage with the, because the church sees itself and it's white majority as superior. Kind of like Brittish Imperialism. The church is just missionary to the natives. Why respect all that makes them beautiful and unique, when you can make them like you?

[_Sam Harris]

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.

The teaching may have faded away in the sense that it's not being openly taught anymore, but the attitude is still there.

[_Jason Bourne]

From a doctrinal standpoint, all of this seems rather irrelevant, don't you think? If the Brethren never formally lifted the ban--

Wait. The priesthood ban was lifted. June 1978. Are you referring to some other ban? Are you saying there was some official ban on interracial marriage?

and let's bear in mind that the justification for the ban is scriptural in nature

What ban are you referring too and please cite what you think was uses for a scriptural justification.

--then how are these marriages legitimate?

Because of the 1978 revelation codified in LDS canon.

[_Sam Harris]

An old post from when I was LDS...what a fool I used to be, believing that things could change in that place...

Thank you SO much for sharing. It just gets to me, when things like this are brought up, and the usual "silence and follow the prophet" lines are thrown out. Sadly, I do feel different. Before I joined the church, I did not. Honestly, I did not. I grew up in an all-white neighborhood, dealt with racism, but I saw myself as a person, not a color. That all changed in August of 2001. Now, to many, I'm a color before I am a person.

I see how much faithful LDS look to our leadership for guidance, and I feel that the lack of dialogue coming from them on this issue only hammers in stone what is unconsciously breeding in many a mind. And I grew up in a "black vs. white" world, too. My family raised me to think there were such things as black speaking, black music, black acting. I went to Europe, and all that changed. I saw diversity for the first time, and who I was as a "fair-skinned" black person was considered beautiful, not an abomination. I am a person who has been followed by strangers on many an occasion, trying to figure out amongst themselves "what" I am. It hurts.

When I joined this church, I was told the lie that I would never again face any sort of discriminiation. And in my spiritual neediness, I swallowed it hook line and sinker. I wish I hadn't. My journey here would have been much more fruitful, instead of a year of inactivity after just 18 months into it.


(To the general populace on this thread)

I cannot handle the essence of who I am being denied me in my own church. And yet it keeps happening. And what does Salt Lake do? Black Americans have no base in this church. There are so few of us, and our needs aren't being met. There are some who can swallow the priesthood ban issue, good for them. But I know many a black person who is struggling, and it's hard. We have strong leaders in our cultural history, why not in our church? Would it be that bad to see a black man in the twelve? Those who would leave over such an issue (because that's probably the fear that keeps them from doing what should be done) don't really understand why they are here anyways.

Again, I cannot reiterate how much the faithful in this church look to headquarters for examples of how they should live. An all-white world is not the reality anymore. If this church is global, our leadership should reflect that. And I think that God would love to see it this way. But we have agency, and so long as we have antiquitated individuals in the high tiers who lived in the days when it was being taught that people like me were fence sitters in the pre-existence, nothing is going to change.

I have struggled for almost four years with who I am in this church. My family has watched me, wondering if I've lost it. I almost did. Many a day I sit amongst my sisters and wish that I were white, hispanic, asisan, anything ANYTHING but black. Why? Because I know I'm not fully accepted as I am. Outside of church, I'm fine. But inside, in the midst of things that mean so much to me, I know that I have to wait for (and possibly never see) a man who will come along and see me, not my color. I have to wallow through all the people who don't see me, looking for true friends. Even my patriarchal blessing speaks of making sure my friends are true ones.

One day I woke up in church (spiritually), and realized that my testimony was based on the culture of the people I had indoctrinated myself into. I had let the fire of GIMR die. And that hurt so much. The journey to regain myself took me out of this church just weeks after I went to the temple. And I fought to get there, too! I have had people on my right and my left throughout this journey telling me who I am and what I believe, the intents of my heart, where I'm going....and some telling me with their eyes, what they think I deserve. All because of what I look like.

It hurts so bad. And I know this would not be so, if the faces that guide us were not all white. So yes, I'm calling out to God for a person of color to be in the twelve...or even the first presidency. It is time. People of color matter too, we're not just here to boost your numbers, so you can say "see, we love everybody".

I have a different story to tell, and the only reason I am here, constantly having to fine-tune my BS meter, is because I have a testimony of this Gospel. Till the day I die (or someone drives me out of this church...and I'm digging my heels in, but it's not easy), I will fight for the right to express who I am FULLY. Not just within the bounds of someone's comfort zone.

Sorry this turned into a rant, but I feel very strongly about this. I've experienced much pain dealing with this, I have friends (one who begged to be a stake missionary upon learining the Gospel who has left and won't come back...she says "I just want to go back and not care what they say") who have told me stories (one who is moving from SLC had a bishop tell her if she ever married a white man, her seed would be cursed, another has had friends come and ask her for adulterous acts, because they were too ashamed to marry her, married what looked right, and ended up unhappy...WTF?). It's not fair!


YES!!!! EMPHATICALLY YES, I want leadership of color VISIBLE in this church.


It many not mean much to many of you, but it means something to me. Because even though we say we live in a world of equality and love, actions speak louder than words.

[_floatingboy]

Latter-day Saints have never claimed their prophets to be infallible, and Latter-day Saint prophets have never claimed to be infallible.

Is there, nonetheless, value in what they say? I find enormous value in what they say.

Couldn't you have just skipped straight to this instead of making a big stink about a technicality that no one cared about? Wouldn't it be so much better (and more honest with yourself) to say something like, "You know Shades, I have no idea what that's about. We can see today that he wasn't right. I really can't defend that statement. I can say, however, that I have learned a great deal of good things from BY and from other prophets, and that's what keeps me going."

It's perfectly okay to say you don't know sometimes, and to simply call a spade a spade. Had that happened, this thread would've been one page long, I'd bet.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Shades made a false allegation.

I corrected him.

It was simple and clear and unambiguous.

I don't believe that falsehoods should typically go uncorrected, especially when they're slanderous.

The thread went on unduly long because several people here apparently can't -- or don't care to -- follow a logical argument or keep a topic in their minds without equivocation.

It's amusing to be blamed for that.

[_floatingboy]

Dan, maybe my post came across as accusatory. If it did, I apologize. After all, I can see why you might think that because so many here do that, and especially against you. However, it wasn't meant that way. I'm not trying to blame you for anything. You're an intelligent guy, no doubt about it. I think that when you come out and state your points openly and honestly, you do it quite well. I guess what I, as a newcomer, hope for from everyone (yes, everyone) in this forum is to be so much less concerned with being "right" and more concerned with being truthful.

Did you ever see the old Looney Toons with the wolf that was trying to eat the sheep, and the sleepy old shepherd dog that kept foiling his attempts at every turn? They were on total opposite sides, but at the end of the day, they both punched their time cards, patted each other on the back and said, "See you tomorrow." This might be a cheesy and even naïve outlook, but I wish that everyone here, regardless of what "side" they might be on, could just be honest with themselves and others (and kinder in their posts). This combination of honesty and kindness, in my opinion, really lends a lot more credibility to the claims that one makes. If one can concede points and not argue technicalities, it creates an atmosphere where others will want to do the same thing. It's becoming a tad trite to say this, but "be the change you want to see in the world."

[_floatingboy]

Shades made a false allegation.

I corrected him.

It was simple and clear and unambiguous.

I don't believe that falsehoods should typically go uncorrected, especially when they're slanderous.

Do you really think that Shades or anyone else was really trying to allege that BY condemned ALL interracial relations? I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to sneak one under the radar. As others have pointed out, while you're correct about the term "interracial" referring to all races, it was clearly understood that we were really talking about black/white, since that's what the BY quote said. True, the original poster asked about interracial marriage, and for all we know he/she meant all races. To me it seemed that Shades merely made a statement about black and white interracial marriage. The fact that you went to such great lengths to point out the distinction that EVERYONE ELSE already understood is a little unfortunate. I don't like misrepresentations any more than the next guy, but this wasn't one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I guess what I, as a newcomer, hope for from everyone (yes, everyone) in this forum is to be so much less concerned with being "right" and more concerned with being truthful.

Shades's claim was not truthful.

Did you ever see the old Looney Toons with the wolf that was trying to eat the sheep, and the sleepy old shepherd dog that kept foiling his attempts at every turn? They were on total opposite sides, but at the end of the day, they both punched their time cards, patted each other on the back and said, "See you tomorrow." This might be a cheesy and even naïve outlook, but I wish that everyone here, regardless of what "side" they might be on, could just be honest with themselves and others (and kinder in their posts).

I remember it, I think. And, yes, I would like to see kinder, more honest, exchanges.

Truth be told, I encounter them elsewhere fairly commonly. But not here.

I have little if any hope for this place, frankly.

This combination of honesty and kindness, in my opinion, really lends a lot more credibility to the claims that one makes.

I agree.

If one can concede points and not argue technicalities"

Shades's claim wasn't merely "technically" false.

It was false in a major and significant way. And, despite all of the huffing and puffing, rather obviously so.

Do you really think that Shades or anyone else was really trying to allege that BY condemned ALL interracial relations?

That's what he said.

I can only go by what he said.

To me it seemed that Shades merely made a statement about black and white interracial marriage.

He said nothing to that effect.

The fact that you went to such great lengths to point out the distinction that EVERYONE ELSE already understood is a little unfortunate.

If everyone else understood it and was working from that understanding, at least one of the multitude should have said so.

I can only go by what people say.

I don't like misrepresentations any more than the next guy, but this wasn't one.

I lack the requisite mind-reading skills, it seems.

[_floatingboy]

The fact that you went to such great lengths to point out the distinction that EVERYONE ELSE already understood is a little unfortunate.

If everyone else understood it and was working from that understanding, at least one of the multitude should have said so.

I can only go by what people say.

i don't have the energy to go back through the thread right now and pick out different quotes, but several people were trying to point that out to you. i think that, if they were like me, it took them a while to figure out that really the issue you were taking was with the over-application of the word "interracial". i personally assumed that you must've been trying to argue something else more meaningful until you put it into blatantly clear terms that that's what you were out to show.

This combination of honesty and kindness, in my opinion, really lends a lot more credibility to the claims that one makes.

I agree.

then why the tone still? i have to be honest that i get as much or more attitude from your posts as anyone else here. although, i could be reading you wrong. admittedly, the great downfall of this type of venue is that the most sophisticated means we have of conveying our intonation is through emoticons. ugh.