Interracial marriage still discouraged in the church?

[_Hally McIlrath]

Soul mates are an illusion? It sounds as though Packer has never had one meaningful human interaction in his entire life.

Funny how he denigrates something his has obviously never experienced, but would turn around and denigrate me for not believing in the church for exactly the same reason.

[_Tom]

The quotation from SWK regarding interracial marriage is also found in the current Eternal Marriage institute manual (copyright 2003) (see p. 169).

From 1995:

"The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background. Thus, in choosing your eternal companion, please be wise. It's better not to fly in the face of constant head winds. Occasional squalls provide challenge enough."

Russell M. Nelson, "'A More Excellent Hope,'" BYU Devotional, January 8, 1995; Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign, May 1995, 36n.38.

[_antishock8]

So now we can race-based bigotry manifest itself thanks to The Nehor. Nice.

[_The Nehor]

So now we can race-based bigotry manifest itself thanks to The Nehor. Nice.

I'd counter you but what you wrote makes no sense. Have you been missing shock therapy appointments again?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't see this advice as being in harmony with Acts 17:

Nor the Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 26:33:

What the does "racial background" have to do with this?

Ray, President Kimball wasn't saying that interracial marriage is a sin. He was simply giving pragmatic counsel. (Interracial couples have long been, and continue to be, sealed in the temples. Black/white couples began to be sealed immediately after the 1978 revelation on priesthood.)

And I don't see much wrong with it, on the whole. Strife can arise in marriages over such weighty issues as whether one spouse squeezes the toothpaste tube from the top and the other from the bottom. It's not unwise, when contemplating marriage, to attempt a fairly realistic assessment of the factors that might lead to friction in the relationship. Racial/cultural differences can surely be among those.

I was once seriously involved with a young woman from Bavaria; it almost came to marriage. I was surprised, though, when Christmas approached, how irritating to me her very different Christmas customs (and, most particularly, her disdain for my American Christmas customs) were. A trivial issue, and not the reason that the relationship ended, but it surprised me, and taught me something. In my own marriage, my wife hangs shirts facing to the left, which is wrong, while I was properly taught in my family to hang them facing right. Stupid stuff. Obviously. But every married couple knows that marriage is a merger of quite different people. And the more different they are, the more likely they are to have tensions. That's simply a fact.

People should go into marriage with their eyes wide open.

[_antishock8]

So now we can race-based bigotry manifest itself thanks to The Nehor. Nice.

I'd counter you but what you wrote makes no sense. Have you been missing shock therapy appointments again?

Well, you've been explicitly bigoted toward homosexuals and now interracial marriage. Your continued use of "shock therapy" as a slur shows your deep-seated hate of homosexuals (probably because you're closeted yourself*), and a callousness toward the suffering of people that endured that procedure is saddening.

*by the way, I don't mean this as an insult or to demean you. But you're clearly in denial of your own homosexuality. You should probably explore that a bit more openly than you have in the past. The anger and resentment at having to self-censure is clearly bothering you.

[_The Nehor]

I'd counter you but what you wrote makes no sense. Have you been missing shock therapy appointments again?

Well, you've been explicitly bigoted toward homosexuals and now interracial marriage. Your continued use of "shock therapy" as a slur shows your deep-seated hate of homosexuals (probably because you're closeted yourself*), and a callousness toward the suffering of people that endured that procedure is saddening.

*by the way, I don't mean this as an insult or to demean you. But you're clearly in denial of your own homosexuality. You should probably explore that a bit more openly than you have in the past. The anger and resentment at having to self-censure is clearly bothering you.

Wow, you're right, it's all clear now. I'm currently on craigslist putting up ads for gay sex to remedy the problem. Also, you interested in coming for a visit? ;)

Oh, but I'm still against gay marriage.

[_MsJack]

Strife can arise in marriages over such weighty issues as whether one spouse squeezes the toothpaste tube from the top and the other from the bottom.

My favorite is when my husband puts the ice cube tray back into the freezer empty. He acknowledges that the ice will not magically come back on its own and one must fill an empty ice cube tray with water before putting it back in or else there will be no more ice, but he just keeps doing it. I think it might be a guy thing.

Anyways, this topic is one of those things where the church used to discourage it (say, 1970s and before that) and has been moving away from that over time. You'll still find people who will quote former leaders speaking against it, and you'll find folks from older generations clinging to old prejudices on the subject, but the church isn't formally discouraging it on an official level anymore. Also I don't think you'll find more social stigma for interracial couples in the LDS church than you would in any other predominantly white church. Black-white couples do make heads turn, but that happens all over society, not just in the LDS church.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Strife can arise in marriages over such weighty issues as whether one spouse squeezes the toothpaste tube from the top and the other from the bottom.

My favorite is when my husband puts the ice cube tray back into the freezer empty. He acknowledges that the ice will not magically come back on its own and one must fill an empty ice cube tray with water before putting it back in or else there will be no more ice, but he just keeps doing it. I think it might be a guy thing.

Anyways, this topic is one of those things where the church used to discourage it (say, 1970s and before that) and has been moving away from that over time. You'll still find people who will quote former leaders speaking against it, and you'll find folks from older generations clinging to old prejudices on the subject, but the church isn't formally discouraging it on an official level anymore. Also I don't think you'll find more social stigma for interracial couples in the LDS church than you would in any other predominantly white church. Black-white couples do make heads turn, but that happens all over society, not just in the LDS church.

I agree. Interracial couples are no longer a big deal in society or even in the church. You see mixed race people everywhere. Nobody cares anymore. As you said, the church used to discourage it but doesn't anymore. My question is why is this teaching in the current Aaronic Priesthood manual? How can a teacher teach that today to a classroom of boys that may include mixed race kids or kids interested in a girl of a different race? Any teacher today would most likely skip over that quote (assuming they prepare ahead of time and don't just wing it at the last minute.) It should be removed from the manual and I'm surprised it hasn't been.

[_MsJack]

I agree. Interracial couples are no longer a big deal in society or even in the church. You see mixed race people everywhere. Nobody cares anymore. As you said, the church used to discourage it but doesn't anymore. My question is why is this teaching in the current Aaronic Priesthood manual? How can a teacher teach that today to a classroom of boys that may include mixed race kids or kids interested in a girl of a different race? Any teacher today would most likely skip over that quote (assuming they prepare ahead of time and don't just wing it at the last minute.) It should be removed from the manual and I'm surprised it hasn't been.

I think oversight is the best explanation. The church puts out a lot of manuals, and their views on some issues have shifted considerably over the years. I'd bet whoever edited that particular Aaronic priesthood manual just neglected to remove it.