What do LDS generally believe about interracial marriage?

[_wondering]

Dr. Peterson,

Now that the skirmish between you and Dr. Shades has concluded, I would be interested in your views of the more important point:

What are we to conclude when a prophet of God makes the pronouncement that President Young made that the penalty is death for having seed with the African race. Whether or not his call for death was ever carried out, Pres Young was instructing the church that he was teaching the Law of God.

As other posters have pointed out, irrespective of the claimed racism of President Lincoln, or Charles Darwin or others, they were not claiming to speak for God. Pres Young was.

I think Pres Young's pronouncement raises serious questions about (1) the ways of God or alternatively, (2) the actuality of Pres Young being a prophet speaking the will of God.

What is going on here?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Even more problematic for Daniel is that Brigham Young claimed that "this would always be so". Well, here we are in 2009, and nobody's being put to death for black/white intermarriage. The "prophet" was wrong.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Even more problematic for Daniel is that Brigham Young claimed that "this would always be so". Well, here we are in 2009, and nobody's being put to death for black/white intermarriage. The "prophet" was wrong.

The reason nobody has been put to death for black/white marriage is the same reason people aren't reading the Book of Mormon or doing their hometeaching. We aren't obeying our prophets.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nobody cares about the difference between "Brigham Young endorsed a death penalty for interracial marriage" and "Brigham Young endorsed a death penalty for black/white interracial marriage" but you, Dan.

Sadly, I think you're right -- although Shades, to his credit, has just acknowledged my point.

Equivocation, inflammatory inaccuracy, and misstatement are acceptable conversation techniques here, it seems.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Many churches in Brigham Young's time were anti-slavery. Sadly, the Brighamites in Utah were not among them.

The small beleaguered Mormon settlement in the Great Basin from 1847 to 1860, preoccupied with its own survival, trying to settle and feed new arrivals, under siege for part of that time by federal troops, almost universally disdained, could have had no discernible impact on the national debate.

Oh yeah, I forgot. A church needs to be rich and influencial before taking a stand on the biggest social and moral issue of their time;)

[_JohnStuartMill]

Nobody cares about the difference between "Brigham Young endorsed a death penalty for interracial marriage" and "Brigham Young endorsed a death penalty for black/white interracial marriage" but you, Dan.

Sadly, I think you're right -- although Shades, to his credit, has just acknowledged my point.

Equivocation, inflammatory inaccuracy, and misstatement are acceptable conversation techniques here, it seems.

The point is that they're both about equally despicable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Even more problematic for Daniel is that Brigham Young claimed that "this would always be so". Well, here we are in 2009, and nobody's being put to death for black/white intermarriage. The "prophet" was wrong.

Yes, I think he was.

When I affirm either scriptural inerrancy or prophetic infallibility, you'll have abundant rope with which to hang me.

[_JohnStuartMill]

If a prophet isn't infallible, how can you determine which of his pronouncements come from God, and which don't? And if you can't make this determination, what reason would anyone have to follow the prophet's pronouncements over their own reasoning?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now that the skirmish between you and Dr. Shades has concluded, I would be interested in your views of the more important point:

I've already addressed it, to a certain extent, in various comments on this thread.

What are we to conclude when a prophet of God makes the pronouncement that President Young made that the penalty is death for having seed with the African race. Whether or not his call for death was ever carried out, Pres Young was instructing the church that he was teaching the Law of God.

As other posters have pointed out, irrespective of the claimed racism of President Lincoln, or Charles Darwin or others, they were not claiming to speak for God. Pres Young was.

I think Pres Young's pronouncement raises serious questions about (1) the ways of God or alternatively, (2) the actuality of Pres Young being a prophet speaking the will of God.

What is going on here?

First of all, it's pretty clear that he was wrong about it "always being so," and that, in fact, his extrapolation of Old Testament ideas was off the mark. (I think, in fact, that he was deducing "the law of God" from certain fairly obvious Old Testament passages, rather than claiming direct revelation on the matter himself. At least, I see no reference in what he said to any specific revelation that he had received on the matter.)

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.)

[_harmony]

Even more problematic for Daniel is that Brigham Young claimed that "this would always be so". Well, here we are in 2009, and nobody's being put to death for black/white intermarriage. The "prophet" was wrong.

Yes, I think he was.

When I affirm either scriptural inerrancy or prophetic infallibility, you'll have abundant rope with which to hang me.

I suspect Brigham thought he was speaking as a prophet. Too bad he didn't have you around to set him straight.