I find this to be a pernicious doctrine, and I don’t care where it is to be found.

The level of scientific and historical ignorance, exegetical immaturity, blind acceptance of dead, simplistic dogma, and latent racism this thread has brought out is depressing. I hope curious non-Mormons never read it. If they do, we deserve their suspicion.

“Look at the current materials the Church has provided, current educational materials….” (Margaret Young #43)

The following paragraph is currently provided by the Church in “Doctrines of the Gospel” (Student Manual, Religion 430 and 431, 2004, p.56). It comes from a general conference talk given by Harold B. Lee while he was Church President:

“All these rewards were seemingly promised, or foreordained, before the world was. Surely these matters must have been determined by the kind of lives we had lived in that premortal spirit world. Some may question these assumptions, but at the same time they will accept without any question the belief that each one of us will be judged when we leave this earth according to his or her deeds during our lives here in mortality. Isn’t it just as reasonable to believe that what we have received here in this earth life was given to each of us according to the merits of our conduct before we came here?” (Ensign, Jan. 1974, p.5.)

The LDS are in big trouble if they can’t definitively, authoritatively, and finally renounce racism….period. Deal with the historical problems later.

How can you deal with the historical problems later? Are they not what define our culture now?

Besides, this is certainly not the first time that the Lord’s Church has had to deal with discrimination of other peoples based on something that distinguished them from the “Gentiles.” Remember that Peter was quite shocked at the revelation given him that he was to eat the “dirty” food. In Acts 10 we read:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Imagine if we called blacks today “common” and “unclean.” If I were black, I’d be quite rankled at the arrogance, the haughtiness of those who called me common and unclean. I’d say, “dude you ever looked in the mirror?”

It is hard to say that this church (or any Christian religion) should somehow quickly and easily dismiss racism from its culture when it is ingrained in its theology. Now, I am not a well researched scholar of the Old Testament. I know the Old Testament, but not much beyond that of the history and culture of the old Israelites. In my knowledge, I am assuming the Lord separated out His people ethnically and racially from the rest of the world. Is that a correct assumption (from those who are more scholarly knowledgeable) to make? Or did the Israelites misunderstand what the Lord was doing when he told them to wipe out all other life in Canaan so as to not be “tainted” by other cultures?

I think that that is as far back as the ethnic and racial separation goes.

~

Listen to Steve Evans.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This is Exodus 20: 3-5. I am particularly interested in verse five. What does the Lord mean when he says he is a “jealous God” who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children for four generations?

I ask this because I really think there is so much we just don’t know about the origins of this or that group that we don’t know WHY they are where they are in the world, beyond suppositions and assumptions.

Also it is very hard to get past the point that seems ingrained (thanks to Abraham) that some individuals were pre-ordained to their “posts” on this earth. The book of Abraham states:

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Those “pre-ordained” appear to come to this earth in fairly white areas. Are they the “more intelligent?” Are they the “better?” Now, I say “appear” to come to this earth in fairly white areas. We don’t know the full extent of those pre-mortal callings and their worth to God. We do know Joseph Smith’s importance, and several other “Founding Fathers” sort to speak, of our church. But beyond that, who is to say WE, regular members today, are of those Great and Noble Ones? Many assume that because we’re members of the church in the last days, that we’re white like Joseph, and Americans like most of the “Select”, we must be in good shape, and those dirty, dark-skinned Aborigines must somehow not be closer to the top of the “intelligences” and certainly not Noble and Great Ones.

These are of course not safe assumptions to make, as we know little of how the Lord values His children by placing them where they are, or by letting them go off in the directions they choose to go of their own free will. There are far too many factors to say conclusively that the color of their skin has much, if anything at all, to do with their place in God’s eyes.

Technically, Aborigines, because they don’t have the “law” are not bound to the law. We just might see more of them proportionally than Americans, or even many Mormons at the last day…

Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity. *** Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs….

In other words, race is an artificial creation for the purpose of segregating unwanted people from culturally- and politically-designated superior people.

The cousel to avoid intermarriage is valid in the sense that cultural differences often put strain on a marriage that results in divorce. This is not as much of a problem among people of different ancestry who are 3rd or 4th generation Americans and who share a similar culture.

I had no idea it was still this bad, though. There’s still official teaching against interracial marriage?? Can anyone document that?

I am a little bit taken aback, however, that a rational person would be surprised that this young man had learned racism in Church. Sanctified racism is not merely a nineteenth century relic. Until 1978, racism was official practice.

In light of preaching against interracial marriage, the sanctification of racism really continues to play a role in Mormon culture long after Kimball’s proclamation, to some extent to this day.

There are still thousands of Mormons who are uncomfortable about interracial marriage. Many parents of interracial children report unkind treatment in church on a regular basis. Apparently, there are still many Mormons that consider it appropriate to socially sanction other people over the racial composition of their family.

Not only do the aggressors feel righteous about their actions but contradictory messages continue to get excluded from chapel Mormons’ discourse. Even committed anti-racists remain uncomfortable to confront racist aggression because it would require to contradict dead prophets.

Beyond self-censorship and unawareness, as manifest in your statement, there is also explicit suppression of racial equality messages.

In my ward, where graduate students dominate, we had a relief society teacher released because she shared her testimony of racial equality and took issue with racism masquerading as doctrine. That happened only two years ago. The Salt Lake Weekly reported a similar incident in an Orem ward recently.

And apostles continue to teach that you are not supposed to marry outside your own group. As a result, it remains difficult for faithful temple worthy Mormons to have a proper social life at BYU and many other units of the LDS Church.

You read the young man’s statement, Sam. He didn’t say a word that wasn’t a hundred percent Mormon.

What evidence do you have that would justify your surprise? I am flabbergasted.

A responsible response requires an acknowledgment of how bad things really are. Otherwise, our children will have to continue to deal with faithful racism during their life time.

It is unfortunate that you are undermining that effort and I wish you would change your mind.

It’s a bad indicator when Mormons on the ‘nacle have trouble owning up to the extent of the problem. Unless, we step up, faithful racism is going to be with our community for a long time.