Racism in the LDS Church--Does it continue today?

[_Themis]

But Themis my point is that the selfish gene theory has shown that whether people even know each other personally, it's natural for them to favor someone who they share more DNA with.

Possibly. I wonder if nurture is more of a factor. I remember a study that showed even black children favored lighter skin in the dolls they were playing with. Certainly I can see biology to favor those we are more closely related to having better survivability for an individual or group. I would say that it is probably more minor then nurture.

In school they taught that racism was something that people were taught and were conditioned for by society so as to make it a part of their behavior. I think nature is just as big a factor as nurture in this case.

Since we have to compete for resources favoring our own group gives one group better survivability, but I think nurture may still be the bigger factor, or how would we ever learn to get along.

It's a tendency toward developing an attitude that has been selected for by evolution. In other words, I think people would grow up that way on their own without outside influence.

It would be an interesting experiment.

[_ajax18]

It would be an interesting experiment

It's already been done. Researchers offered test subjects to give a relative an amount of money proportional to how long they held their breath. Who did people hold their breath longest for most? Surprisingly it was siblings. Siblings share more DNA than even parents and children. You can probably guess how the test between different racial subjects turned out.

[_Themis]

It's already been done. Researchers offered test subjects to give a relative an amount of money proportional to how long they held their breath. Who did people hold their breath longest for most? Surprisingly it was siblings. Siblings share more DNA than even parents and children. You can probably guess how the test between different racial subjects turned out.

I would have some reservations about the experiment. Obviously people favor those who they are related to, but is it really DNA or established relationships. The same problem would be people who have already been taught certain things about race and such. Did they try doing an experiment where the subject did not know who they were related to.

[_ajax18]

That's a fair point. The subjects I saw knew the people they were related to or at least knew who they were. For instance it might have been their Aunt Edna who they only saw every other Christmas or knew through mail. I can see your point with nurture as well. Imprinting is certainly a bigger factor in dogs. For my dog, you're either in her pack or not. It doesn't matter if you're another dog, human, monkey, or whatever.

[_Themis]

That's a fair point. The subjects I saw knew the people they were related to or at least knew who they were. For instance it might have been their Aunt Edna who they only saw every other Christmas or knew through mail. I can see your point with nurture as well. Imprinting is certainly a bigger factor in dogs. For my dog, you're either in her pack or not. It doesn't matter if you're another dog, human, monkey, or whatever.

I would agree. I have seen groups that are related to each other closer then any other but hate each other more then any other. I remember the Blackfeet and Cree hated each other more then they did the white man.

[_ajax18]

Siblings can hate each other as well. But all other things being equal between two people, will siblings ultimately favor each other over other people? They do. Racism to me is simply a weaker form of nepotism. How many black people are out shaming the world over other forms of racism than white on black racism? It's not really racism that people hate. They hate the result that racism might produce for them personally. Racism is perfectly fine in the minds of most people if it produces the result they desire. Such racism is minimized in importance if it is even aknowledged at all.

A good example of what I'm talking about is my stepgrandmother. She didn't marry when she was younger. We were her only family who lived close or had a relationship with her above mail. But who did she leave her inheritance to when she died? It wasn't the people who shoveled her sidewalk for her or picked her up at the hospital over the years. It was her blood relatives. Now could her blood relatives have pissed her off at some point to the point that she would have chosen us? Possibly. But that's what the black man is talking about when he makes charges of racism. It's the fact that he has to be that much better than the white man to be chosen. When he leaves his inheritance, it's foolish to think he will even consider living up to his standard of not being racist that he has set for others.

[Guest]

President Kimball took a huge stride in eradictating the charge of racism against the LDS Church when he received the revelation in 1978 that all worthy males (blacks included) could receive the priesthood.

I remember being in church in the 1970's and frequently hearing counsel from church leaders that LDS should not marry interracially.

This instruction seemed to have petered out and I cannot recall having heard it in the last two decades.

I thought it was a thing of the past.

Then I saw lesson 31 in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, which quotes from President Kimball in 1976 the following:

“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).

http://LDS.org/manual/aaronic-priesthoo ... ge+kimball

(Kudos to jon for pointing this quote out to me!)

I was surprised to find this teaching I thought had been relegated to the dustbin of Mormon history is still alive and well and being taught to our young men today.

More surprising is the fact this quote has been edited to remove language indicating this advice was given to ensure LDS would marry in the temple--in other words, "same racial background" actually appears to have meant to not wed blacks who were not allowed in the temples in 1976 when this speech was given. Here is the quote in its entirety:

We are grateful that this one survey reveals that about 90 percent of the temple marriages hold fast. Because of this, 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. In spite of the most favorable matings, the evil one still takes a monumental toll and is the cause for many broken homes and frustrated lives.

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6136

I have a number of concerns regarding this, among which are:

1. Why is the LDS Church still actively teaching its young men to avoid interracial marriages?

2. Why did the manual writers select this quote for inclusion in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3?

3. Why was the original quote edited in such a way as to indicate it has ongoing application? (Not only is the first sentence entirely absent, the first clause of the second sentence has been removed with no indication of the deletion.)

4. Why haven't we completely left all this in the past where it belongs?


Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

First, for Mormons it was not SWK who did it. But god. It was a revelation.

Second, the quotations that you provided where right on target during their time frame. As someone who lived through the sixties, it was not recommended to marry someone who was not of the same faith or skin color. This was common knowledge for most americans. The problems that society gave such marriages meant that such marriages had a short chance of survival. Not to mention the problems with interracial children in american society. So the church gave good advice.

Unfortunately, americans have forgotten just how racist the society was. And so, the advice was right on target. And very much mainstream.

[_why me]

Thanks, Moksha!

What I thought interesting was when a self-described black new member of the Church showed up under the moniker, "ElijahWasAble."

Pahoran (and others) started sticking it to him for saying the manual quote was racist, and others were quite confident it was a sock puppet of yours truly.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Again, people forget just how racist and ethnic american society was in the 60's and 70's. It was also not encouraged to marry outside the faith, and I am referring to protestants and catholics. The irish, poles and italians all intermarried because of the faith. When I was a boy, very few catholics would marry protestants and it certainly wasn't encouraged.

Interracial marriage was more serious. I remember my mom giving me permission to marry a chinese girl but never would she accept a puerto rican or black. And she wasn't Mormon. Interracial marriage was very frowned upon in american society both within the white and black community. It was a two way street.

[_jon]

Why me,

your post is toned such that it indicates that you believe:
a. That you agreed with the racist teaching of not marrying people from a different race.
b. That you believe this teaching to be in the past.

The point of this thread is that the quote is from a CURRENT teaching manual, not a teaching from the past. It is taught today. Right now. So:

Do you still agree with it being taught?

[_Buffalo]

First, for Mormons it was not SWK who did it. But god. It was a revelation.

LOL