DiscussMormonism.com

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

It's depressing, but the simple answer is that the Curriculum Department reprinted the Aaronic Priesthood lessons from the 1970s verbatim, so that crap about interracial marriage was left in. Since it was a reprint, I doubt Correlation took a good look at it.

The fact is, Consig, that plenty of Mormons (esp. middle-aged Mormons who would be in a position to change the materials in the manual) still agree with/believe in the teaching. To cite just two examples: (1) The Nehor was basically arguing in that other thread that the teaching is perfectly legitimate, reasonable, and non-racist. (2) Back during my old days of posting on the old, ironically named FAIRboard, I was put on the queue precisely for arguing over this issue. If I recall correctly, both Pahoran and Dr. Peterson were arguing that the teaching was perfectly fine and inoffensive. I think that DCP actually said that he had doled out this exact same advice to you interracial couples who were considering marriage. So, I guess you can imagine how the FAIR moderating team would have reacted to someone raising issues about all of this.

But I think the bottom line is that most LDS still think it's "best" to marry within one's own race.

Naturally it is still there and it reflects the reality of the top leadership and most Utah and US membership.
The manuals are reviewed often and what is there is what is 'approved' by these jokers as official moron teachings.

Kimballs change was not a revelation but a business decision forced by financial considerations and boycotting of BYU sports.

(1) The Nehor was basically arguing in that other thread that the teaching is perfectly legitimate, reasonable, and non-racist.

He's right. Such counsel does not meet the definition of racism. And yes, I would counsel my children to look carefully at the social/cultural differences that might be present in an interracial relationship. I would teach them, for example, to steer well clear of those with NAACP/ghetto/Obama/Wright attitudes. But moving in various social circles as I do, I know there are also many blacks, rich and poor alike, who are not afflicted with that disease.

Runtu wrote:It's depressing, but the simple answer is that the Curriculum Department reprinted the Aaronic Priesthood lessons from the 1970s verbatim, so that crap about interracial marriage was left in. Since it was a reprint, I doubt Correlation took a good look at it.

I think you may be right. Racism in the church is still around and probably on par with the rest of society that members live around. Rural areas tend to be more racist then urban areas. Older generations are more racist then younger generations, so we should see a slow decline in racism to continue into the future.

bcspace wrote:

(1) The Nehor was basically arguing in that other thread that the teaching is perfectly legitimate, reasonable, and non-racist.

He's right. Such counsel does not meet the definition of racism. And yes, I would counsel my children to look carefully at the social/cultural differences that might be present in an interracial relationship. I would teach them, for example, to steer well clear of those with NAACP/ghetto/Obama/Wright attitudes. But moving in various social circles as I do, I know there are also many blacks, rich and poor alike, who are not afflicted with that disease.

The Church of Lucretia publishes counsel to its young people to not marry Mormons. Of course, we really just want them to avoid those with tea party/pro-polygamy/LGT attitudes. We know not all Mormons are afflicted with those diseases. So you wouldn't call us bigots, would you?

bcspace wrote:

(1) The Nehor was basically arguing in that other thread that the teaching is perfectly legitimate, reasonable, and non-racist.

He's right. Such counsel does not meet the definition of racism. And yes, I would counsel my children to look carefully at the social/cultural differences that might be present in an interracial relationship. I would teach them, for example, to steer well clear of those with NAACP/ghetto/Obama/Wright attitudes. But moving in various social circles as I do, I know there are also many blacks, rich and poor alike, who are not afflicted with that disease.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cLxQ4B23_g

Doctor Scratch wrote: To cite just two examples: (1) The Nehor was basically arguing in that other thread that the teaching is perfectly legitimate, reasonable, and non-racist.

The other thread for reference: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18206

bcspace wrote:He's right. Such counsel does not meet the definition of racism. And yes, I would counsel my children to look carefully at the social/cultural differences that might be present in an interracial relationship. I would teach them, for example, to steer well clear of those with NAACP/ghetto/Obama/Wright attitudes. But moving in various social circles as I do, I know there are also many blacks, rich and poor alike, who are not afflicted with that disease.

Just out of curiosity, would you be OK with your children marrying white liberals?