What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is there any data to back up the idea that mixed-race marriages fail at a greater rate than same-race marriages?

Apparently there is, though the difference is not enormous, the results are somewhat ambiguous, and much more research needs to be done:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -2,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=bEvb2i ... &ct=result

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/12/inte ... stics.html

And so forth.

Scarcely surprising. Simple common sense.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Sure, but you did contest the idea that a ban was ever in effect.

That's correct. Shades provided no evidence that the death penalty was actually in effect in Utah for marriage between a priesthood-holding man and a priesthood-lineage-ineligible woman.

Oh, come now. Do you sincerely believe that the ban, ordained of God, could have existed in Massachusetts but not Utah? Your assertion that there has been "no evidence presented" is especially ludicrous when when you note the "if they were far away from the Gentiles" clause of Young's statement. How else do you get "far away from the Gentiles", but by going to the middle of Mormondom?

Come on. You're better than this.

But Shades provided no evidence that the death penalty was actually in effect in Utah for marriage between a priesthood-holding man and a priesthood-lineage-ineligible woman.

No evidence that you want to believe, sure, but that's an entirely different animal altogether.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, come now. Do you sincerely believe that the ban, ordained of God, could have existed in Massachusetts but not Utah?

What makes you think that I imagine it to have existed anywhere?

Your assertion that there has been "no evidence presented" is especially ludicrous when when you note the "if they were far away from the Gentiles" clause of Young's statement. How else do you get "far away from the Gentiles", but by going to the middle of Mormondom?

As I said, I'm doubtful about Shades's back-up bit of evidence, and will examine it more carefully when I get a chance.

In the meantime, there is still no actual evidence that has been presented here for the existence of such a ban in Utah.

Come on. You're better than this.

No, I'm precisely this good.

But Shades provided no evidence that the death penalty was actually in effect in Utah for marriage between a priesthood-holding man and a priesthood-lineage-ineligible woman.

No evidence that you want to believe, sure, but that's an entirely different animal altogether.

Plainly, he's presented sufficient evidence to convince you of what you evidently want to believe.

[_JohnStuartMill]

What makes you think that I imagine it to have existed anywhere?

I'm sorry -- I thought that you put stock in evidence.

As I said, I'm doubtful about Shades's back-up bit of evidence, and will examine it more carefully when I get a chance.

You do that.

In the meantime, there is still no actual evidence that has been presented here for the existence of such a ban in Utah.

Shades' allegations, if true, would prove such a ban.

Plainly, he's presented sufficient evidence to convince you of what you evidently want to believe.

It makes perfect sense, given Brigham Young's words. I guess I just take the Prophet's words more seriously than you do.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm sorry -- I thought that you put stock in evidence.

No need to be sorry.

I do.

That's why I challenged Shades. That's why I won't sit back silently while others here try to make purportedly historical statements about entirely non-miraculous, mundane reality that go far beyond the evidence presented to support them.

You do that.

It won't be easy.

So far, we're apparently relying on Mike Quinn's account of a document he claims to have examined in the Church History archives.

It makes perfect sense, given Brigham Young's words.

Deductions from hypotheticals aren't the same thing as actual evidence on non-hypothetical reality.

I guess I just take the Prophet's words more seriously than you do.

Nice rhetorical gambit. A bit stale, but it'll probably work on this board.

[_moksha]

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.)

In December 1866 Brigham Young, Jr., wrote that "a nigger" was found dead in Salt Lake City, with a note pinned to the corpse: "Let this be a warning to all niggers that they meddle not with white women." The non-Mormon newspaper identified the victim as Thomas Coleman, "a member of the Mormon Church." Brigham Jr., then an ordained apostle and special counselor in the First Presidency, recorded no value judgment about this killing. (Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Heirarchy: Extensions of Power. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997. p. 256.)

I think President Gordon B. Hinkley had the definitive answer when he said that no man can be a racist and be a disciple of Christ.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's why I challenged Shades. That's why I won't sit back silently while others here try to make purportedly historical statements about entirely non-miraculous, mundane reality that go far beyond the evidence presented to support them.
[...]
So far, we're apparently relying on Mike Quinn's account of a document he claims to have examined in the Church History archives.

I sincerely express doubt that you'd apply this same standard if it were a quote supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Deductions from hypotheticals aren't the same thing as actual evidence on non-hypothetical reality.

Brigham Young's statements about "the African race" and intermarriage with "the chosen seed" are not hypothetical. They are, as near as any of us can tell, fact. Supposing, as I do, that Young meant what he said is not out of line.

Nice rhetorical gambit. A bit stale, but it'll probably work on this board.

It was a rhetorical gambit, yeah, but it was more than just that. Why is it that you take the pronouncements of Brigham Young so seriously when they are faith-promoting, and retreat into a shell of skepticism when they are not? How do you feel about employing such a stark double-standard?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I sincerely express doubt that you'd apply this same standard if it were a quote supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I don't trust Mike Quinn. That's all.

Why is it that you take the pronouncements of Brigham Young so seriously when they are faith-promoting, and retreat into a shell of skepticism when they are not? How do you feel about employing such a stark double-standard?

The standard here -- a single one, on which I've been entirely consistent -- involves the provenance of Shades's second quotation, which is something of an outlier anyway, and the precise meaning of the first.

[_antishock8]

I would still like to know what makes the Fat Man uniquely qualified to counsel mixed-race couples, or ANY couple for that matter on marriage and life? Other than a friendly Dr. Philsian facade, do these couples know he harbors racist sentiments and feels comfortable asking adolescent girls about their sexual habits? Both of those behaviors are outrageously inappropriate, and would, with a dollop of common sense, disqualify him from counseling others anywhere other than inside an LDS institution.

[_harmony]

I would still like to know what makes the Fat Man uniquely qualified to counsel mixed-race couples, or ANY couple for that matter on marriage and life? Other than a friendly Dr. Philsian facade, do these couples know he harbors racist sentiments and feels comfortable asking adolescent girls about their sexual habits? Both of those behaviors are outrageously inappropriate, and would, with a dollop of common sense, disqualify him from counseling others anywhere other than inside an LDS institution.

1. He's a bishop. They get some training.

2. He is a bishop in a college ward, so your comment about adolescent girls is misplaced. There are no adolescent girls in his ward.

3. He draws on his life experiences, the same as any counselor does.

4. Neither of those behaviors is outrageous or inappropriate, given his calling.

If you want to take on the calling of bishop, then have at it. But to take one bishop to task for doing what is outlined as his job... that's bogus.