What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_Jason Bourne]

Second, although I expect prophets to reveal the will of God from time to time, I don't expect or require them to absolutely transcend their time and culture. There's no evidence, in any event, that anybody has ever managed to pull that off. On racial matters, Brigham Young reflected his time and culture more than I, comfortably ensconced in the more racially sensitive twenty-first century, would have liked. (I have no doubt that twenty-second century people, if they ever think of us, will be appalled by some of the things that we take for granted as right and good.)

But here is the problem with this. If Brigham the prophet was just a product of his times and the ideas about race he espoused were erroneous why did not God correct him? Why let him be a product of his culture. It seems that God had no problem revealing the practice of polygamy and that was certainly outside the cultural norm of the 19th century. Much more so than bucking racist ideas of the time.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Also, you said earlier that BY's beliefs were limited to those of African descent, and that's it.

The remarks cited by Shades were, undeniably, limited to those of African descent. There's no ambiguity about them.

So, what do you make of this comment from BY:

Be careful, O ye mothers in Israel, and do not teach your daughters in the future, as many of them have been taught, to marry out of Israel. Wo to you who do it; you will lose your crowns as sure as God lives.

Do you interpret "Israel," in this context, to refer to Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos? Do you think that's what BY had in mind?

I think Israel, in this context, means the Church. That's what he had in mind. He did not think that Latter-day Saints should marry outside of the Church. Neither do I.

Regarding the first quote, those were the words of the Lord's mouthpiece, cherry-picked or not.

If they're authentic.

Do they discuss contemporary LDS practice, or do they transcribe the words of the Lord's mouthpieces?

Both, of course.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If Brigham the prophet was just a product of his times and the ideas about race he espoused were erroneous why did not God correct him? Why let him be a product of his culture.

As I've said, I don't think Brigham's ideas about marrying outside of priesthood-eligible lines were wrong.

But I also don't think that God transforms his prophets into marionettes. I've never seen a case where he's done so. Isaiah was a great prophet, but was also recognizably a man of his era and culture. As was Peter. As was Joseph Smith.

[_Daniel Peterson]

When I was growing up, even after 1978, interracial marriages were strongly discouraged (SWK being widely quoted in those days). The teaching seems to have quietly faded away, which of course is a good thing. As Dan said, non-canonical teachings and cultural attitudes are highly unlikely to be revisited, let alone formally rescinded.

I think this is true.

I'll also say that the situation for interracial couples was significantly different in 1978 than it is more than thirty years later. Advice that was sound then (as I think the general counsel regarding interracial marriage was) is less relevant and necessary now. Simply letting the teaching fade seems to me an appropriate way to deal with changing social mores -- and even, perhaps, the very best way.

[_Gadianton]

Advice that was sound then (as I think the general counsel regarding interracial marriage was) is less relevant

(Hint: That's because the world didn't heed the counsel of the "prophets" and did it anyway, as the rest of the world advanced, it became no big deal. Since it's no big deal now, thanks to the world ignoring the prophets, the prophets can have a revelation and declare it's not as big of a deal now)

[_Daniel Peterson]

(Hint: That's because the world didn't heed the counsel of the "prophets" and did it anyway, as the rest of the world advanced, it became no big deal. Since it's no big deal now, thanks to the world ignoring the prophets, the prophets can have a revelation and declare it's not as big of a deal now)

I can see how you would read it that way, but I don't think you're right.

I think race as a category has become less important than it has been even within my own lifetime. Barack Obama is now president. This isn't because the electorate married him. In fact, he married a woman who is more "black" than he is. It isn't because millions of American whites married millions of American blacks. It's because fewer people care about race than used to, and because those who do care tend, on the whole, to care less.

[_harmony]

Nothing is binding (and is therefore subject to plausible deniability of the kind so easily served by Daniel and company) unless voted on by the members.

When did the members vote on polygamy?

Oct 1852

[_antishock8]

If Brigham the prophet was just a product of his times and the ideas about race he espoused were erroneous why did not God correct him? Why let him be a product of his culture.

As I've said, I don't think Brigham's ideas about marrying outside of priesthood-eligible (Black People) lines were wrong.

Holy Hell. Ham-handed or not, I can't help but wonder what a Professor from Brigham Young University is doing by publicly espousing racists views. All I can say is from what I see in this thread that "cultural Mormon values" are still firmly in place.

This is definitely a sad day.

That being said, I remember a friend of mine telling me a story when she went through the Las Vegas temple. One of the matrons made it a point to tell her how nice it was to see "a negro" come through the temple. She understood where she was coming from, AND she understood where she was coming from... The story was related through a lot of tears. That was a sad day, too.



*********

[_antishock8]

When did the members vote on polygamy?

Oct 1852

Jesus Christ.

[_truth dancer]

I don't know anyone who thinks every single solitary word out of the mouth of a prophet must be of divine origin.

What is official doctrine in canonized scripture, taught, believed, and proclaimed by the LDS church is:

"Whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same."

The LDS church makes the claim that a prophet of God, (the one with keys to administer the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the one called as a special witness of Jesus), speaking in an official capacity as a representative of God is speaking for Jesus Christ.

When a prophet of God (in an official capacity as a representative of Christ), tells the world of God's Law, it seems reasonable for members who believe the prophet is a true one and who believe the LDS scriptures to you know, actually believe him?

I find it funny when apologists don't understand why some members believe prophets.