White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
I must of read that wrong. I thought you were suggesting that the mixing of races in marriage should be discouraged.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8025
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
The Nehor wrote:Doctor Scratch wrote:The manual is also disturbing (in my opinion) insofar as it urges young men to select women who are submissive, compliant, unlikely to talk back, etc. In short: it encourages LDS boys to look for women who will gladly "bow down" to priesthood authority.
You either went to the wrong link or your reading comprehension is even weaker then usual.
I don't think so:
The Manual wrote: • What characteristics of young women are socially and spiritually appealing to you?
Write the young men’s answers on the chalkboard, such as—
1. Is unselfish.
2. Shows respect for me.
3. Has initiative.
4. Is considerate of others.
5. Shows patience in stressful situations.
6. Is an active Church member.
7. Has a testimony of the gospel and obeys the commandments.
8. Maintains a healthy outlook toward life.
9. Possesses values and goals similar to mine.
Ask each young man to select what he thinks are the three most important attributes on the chalkboard. Take a vote to determine which areas the young men consider most important. Discuss why they voted the way they did.
Items 2, 5, 7, and 9 fit what I described earlier. Then again, Nehor, maybe you think it's cool to teach young LDS men that they should desire women who "obey" and who are "respectful" to male authority?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
Called2Swerve wrote:I must of read that wrong. I thought you were suggesting that the mixing of races in marriage should be discouraged.
I'm getting confused as well by The Nehor's argument. I believe the Nehor is claiming this statement is not racist, it is just generally a good idea for marriage, even in 2011:
We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally
While I would agree that this was a fairly common belief in 1976 (and even 1981) and probably prevented some difficulties back then, interracial marriage is no longer a social taboo, and is fairly common, even within the church. These old fashioned beliefs are considered racist and outdated today. So, while many would agree that that was a common belief in 1976, it seems only The Nehor believes it is still relevant today.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5872
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
Now to sound like the foolish TBM that I am...
What if the mixing of races is a necessity in causing us all to become one? Finally, we'd be able to see people for who they are and not for what they look like.
That's probably a little bit weird though so I won't stick to that thinking. We can definitely find unity even if there is racial diversity.
What if the mixing of races is a necessity in causing us all to become one? Finally, we'd be able to see people for who they are and not for what they look like.
That's probably a little bit weird though so I won't stick to that thinking. We can definitely find unity even if there is racial diversity.
Love ya tons,
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:55 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
DarkHelmet wrote:I'm getting confused as well by The Nehor's argument. I believe the Nehor is claiming this statement is not racist, it is just generally a good idea for marriage, even in 2011:
Nehor wrote:I hope the day comes where skin color and physical features do not suggest a culture at all. Where nothing will be referred to as belonging to a racial group like "Black Comedy" or "Latin Music. Instead we will mix the best together and instead of music and entertainment and all grab what we like and the color of one's skin will mean nothing more then how much sunscreen you need.
I think what Nehor is trying to say here is that he would like to see a day where there is no judgment in racial diversity, but maintaining a clearly defined racial diversity is important and that races should not intermingle. Does that sound about right to you Nehor?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
DarkHelmet wrote:I'm getting confused as well by The Nehor's argument. I believe the Nehor is claiming this statement is not racist, it is just generally a good idea for marriage, even in 2011:We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally
While I would agree that this was a fairly common belief in 1976 (and even 1981) and probably prevented some difficulties back then, interracial marriage is no longer a social taboo, and is fairly common, even within the church. These old fashioned beliefs are considered racist and outdated today. So, while many would agree that that was a common belief in 1976, it seems only The Nehor believes it is still relevant today.
Yup. It would have made good sense if the guidance had been something like:
"If you are thinking of getting married to someone of markedly different background and experience from your own, ask yourself whether you have enough else in common to be sure that any consequent difficulties, misunderstandings or mismatch of expectations will not put your relationship under strain. Take your time about coming to a decision like this. Be aware too that marrying someone from precisely the same background does not guarantee happiness either."
To say flat out:
We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally
is however just crass.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1464
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
Not crass, just racist.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9070
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1558
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
Chap wrote:Yup. It would have made good sense if the guidance had been something like:
"If you are thinking of getting married to someone of markedly different background and experience from your own, ask yourself whether you have enough else in common to be sure that any consequent difficulties, misunderstandings or mismatch of expectations will not put your relationship under strain. Take your time about coming to a decision like this. Be aware too that marrying someone from precisely the same background does not guarantee happiness either."
Well said. This thread reminds me of a conversation I once had with a chatty cab driver. He shared with me his distress that his wife was cheating on him. When he revealed that he'd only known her two weeks before he married her, I observed that perhaps he should have gotten to know her a little better first. He said, no, that was not necessary because she was Hungarian, as was he.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
Re: White for white, rich for rich, poor for poor...
Wisdom Seeker wrote:I think what Nehor is trying to say here is that he would like to see a day where there is no judgment in racial diversity, but maintaining a clearly defined racial diversity is important and that races should not intermingle. Does that sound about right to you Nehor?
Wrong. I think that maintaining racial diversity is pointless. However as long as different racial groups bring different expectations and cultural backgrounds to marriage you should be careful to make sure your views are compatible before marrying.
I will be ecstatic the day race is no longer an issue to anyone anywhere in regards to marriage or anything else. Maybe the Millenium....
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo