What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Not to mention the somewhat-ridiculous fact that if you get the "wrong" answer via the Holy Ghost, then you need to keep praying until you get the "right" one. Keeping this in mind, the claims that 'we don't think prophets aren't infallible' start to look pretty empty.

[_Chap]

How seriously DCP takes BY is (as they say), beside the point.

For the record, incidentally, I take Brigham Young extremely seriously.

I admire him very much.

This is my fault.

Better were it for me to have a millstone hung about my neck, and to be cast into the midst of the sea.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the claims that 'we don't think prophets aren't [sic] infallible' start to look pretty empty.

However they may look to you, they're not empty.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think that this thread pretty much underscores everything that is wrong about LDS apologetics. Rather than simply apologizing (gee, who would've ever thunk such a thing?) Mopologists such as DCP and The Nehor are doing everything they can to excuse BY's very obvious and very troubling racism. Rather than saying, "Yes, Brigham's racism was inflammatory, ugly, and deeply problematic," they try to pooh-pooh it away via such strange arguments such as, "Well, his racism was only limited to Blacks! So, you see--it's not as if he was a *total* racist! Just towards Blacks!"

In terms of the OP--that is to say, how does the Church feel about miscegenation--I'll merely ask a very simple question: Where has the Church ever officially rescinded BY's proclamation? Where has the Church ever formally lifted the ban on interracial marriage?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Then why, if someone sincerely prays and claims to receive no answer -- or a flatly contrary answer -- to some revelation, does the Church dictate the veracity of that revelation to its members?

[_beastie]

It sure is fun to put stupid, indefensible comments in your opponents' mouths when they're not there to speak for themselves.

Take it up with WW Phelps.

[_antishock8]

How seriously DCP takes BY is (as they say), beside the point.

For the record, incidentally, I take Brigham Young extremely seriously.

I admire him very much.

Oh my god. Mr. Peterson takes an avowed racist "very seriously" on race relations. This is a stunning admission.

[_christopher]

I have to admit that I honestly can't understand the need that some people -- even, ironically, some atheist and agnostic critics of Mormonism -- seem to have for infallible leaders. I've never felt this need, and don't get it at all.

I think it has to do with the extraordinary claim to exclusivity of the full truth. If the church didn't claim to be only only true church on the face of the earth and the only one with prophets with all the keys to the fullness, then perhaps less would be expected from it's leaders.

You make a bold claim, then don't be surprised when people expect more from you than some average Joe.

Chris <><

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that this thread pretty much underscores everything that is wrong about LDS apologetics.

From the Scratchite point of view, every thread does.

Rather than simply apologizing (gee, who would've ever thunk such a thing?)

I don't see any point in trying to buff my ethical credentials or to affect moral superiority by offering cheap, effortless, self-aggrandizing apologies for the mistakes or shortcomings of others.

I haven't apologized for Charles Darwin's or Abraham Lincoln's racism, for Ludwig van Beethoven's occasional rudeness, for your implacable malevolence, nor even for my father's sometimes terrible jokes. Nor do I intend to.

Mopologists such as DCP and The Nehor are doing everything they can to excuse BY's very obvious and very troubling racism. Rather than saying, "Yes, Brigham's racism was inflammatory, ugly, and deeply problematic,"

I haven't tried to excuse it. Brigham Young's racism, like Abraham Lincoln's, was ugly and deeply problematic.

they try to pooh-pooh it away via such strange arguments such as, "Well, his racism was only limited to Blacks! So, you see--it's not as if he was a *total* racist! Just towards Blacks!"

I've made absolutely no such argument.

In terms of the OP--that is to say, how does the Church feel about miscegenation--I'll merely ask a very simple question: Where has the Church ever officially rescinded BY's proclamation? Where has the Church ever formally lifted the ban on interracial marriage?

Ah. It's like déjà vu all over again. It was his behavior during a discussion of precisely this topic, raised by him -- which went on and on and on and on and on and on and on, as I recall -- that led the moderators on the board formerly known as "FAIR" to banish Mister Scratch. Which, in turn, apparently led to his cold, implacable hatred for me, and to his campaign of character assassination and personal defamation.

Yuck. Been there, done that.

I'm unaware of any official statement from the Church rescinding Brigham Young's comment. (It wasn't an official "proclamation," so I don't know that there's anything to "rescind," really.)

But interracial marriages are performed very commonly in the Church. Temple marriages between blacks and whites have been taking place since 1978 -- I've been involved as a church leader with at least one such -- and temple marriages between Caucasians and Polynesians and Asians and Amerindians have been taking place since long before 1978.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Note the difference:

I take Brigham Young extremely seriously.

Oh my god. Mr. Peterson takes an avowed racist "very seriously" on race relations. This is a stunning admission.

This sort of thing really separates the men from the boys.

A master spinner like Mister Scratch wouldn't touch this sort of ham-handed obviousness with a ten-foot pole. He understands the importance, to a successful campaign of malignant defamation, of appearing at least minimally honest and fair.