LDS church officially opposes mixed race marriages.

Steve, I think I see you ego-surfing and hitting my site from time to time. If you have a problem with anything of yours that I include, just let me know.

Everyone else: I saw a post on the RfM board that I have to share here. Official LDS policy discourages interracial marriage, and Steve Benson does a good job of bringing all the church statements together to show just how backwards the church still is.  Here is the post:

The LDS Church Officially Opposes the Race-Mixing Marriage of Pres. Obama’s Parents

Steve Benson, RfM.

The lily-white High Command of the Mormon Church wants you to listen up, President Barack Obama: 

Your parents did not do the advisable thing in racially mixing when they married each other and produced you as their offspring.

Indeed, let the record white-and-delightsomely demonstrate that according to Spencer W. Kimball in statements he made which were reaffirmed while he was serving as Mormon Church president in 1978 when its anti-Black policy was amended (statements which to this day stand unrevoked by the Mormon Church), interracial marriage is officially not considered a good thing by the LDS Church. To be sure, the Mormon Church officially and explicitly recommends that people do not race-mix through marriage.

Crossing Racial Lines is Bad for the Breed

“Now, the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages” (Spencer W. Kimball, Brigham Young University devotional, 5 January 1965)

“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. ” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 302)

“The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

“When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

“If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 303)

“In 1958 [Kimball] gave an address which touched on [the]subject [of interracial dating]. President Kimball’s statement was reprinted in the Church Section of the Deseret News on June 17, 1978 [on the heels of the Mormon Church allowing Black males to receive the priesthood] . . .

“The Church Section . . . [on that date] gave this information:

“In an address to seminary and institute teachers at Brigham Young University on June 27, 1958, President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, said:

“‘ . . . [T]here is one thing that I must mention, and that is interracial marriages. When I said you must teach your young people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage.'”

Utah’s Anti-Interracial Marriage Law

“Like most other states, Utah once had a law against interracial marriages. It was passed by the territorial Legislature in 1888 and wasn’t repealed until 1963, said Philip Notarianni, director of the Division of State History.

“‘Utah, both in enacting and repealing it, probably just was going along with the national sentiment,’ he said.

“Race isn’t an issue today for Utah’s predominant LDS faith, church spokesman Scott Trotter said.

“The late President Spencer W. Kimball of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had cautioned members about interracial marriages, but it was also a revelation issued by President Kimball that opened up the LDS priesthood to worthy black males in 1978.”,5143,660211384,00.html

What a guy ol’ saintly Spence was.

Even when he gave the priesthood to Blacks, he couldn’t help himself and had to add that didn’t mean White folks should, you know, like, marry them.

And, by the way, for those out there who may think that the Mormon Church has moved past Kimball’s negative view of interracial marriage, think again. To this day, it’s still quoting him. In the current, Church-authorized Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 31, entitled “Choosing an Eternal Companion” (p. 127ff), it declares in black and white:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144)

Just thought President Obama should know what the Mormon God still thinks of the race-mixing thing.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

54 Responses to “LDS church officially opposes mixed race marriages.”

  1. MJ Says:

    Please be careful when using an inflammatory headline like this. There is NO current policy regarding this issue. You are quoting advice to youth in the 1970’s as if it was in force today. There have been NO statements
    from current authorities to support your statements.

  2. measure76 Says:

    Re-read the last two paragraphs. This crap is in lesson manuals currently being used by the church. Thank you for your comment. I’m happy to end your ignorance on this subject matter.

    I’d also like to point out that no current leaders have repudiated the old statements. According to Mormon Doctrine, the last thing a prophet says on an issue is the current doctrine. So racism is still current mormon doctrine.

  3. ditchu Says:

    In the 1960’s it was the general concenses of the general Public of the US that inter-racal relationships were considered taboo. Heck, in many States there were problems with people of different races using the same bathrooms, or drinking from the same water foutian. I for one think this is in poor taste to dig up statments spoken to an audiance at a time without regard to the social constraints of those people at that time.

    I for one am glad for the great strides taken in Egaltarian thinking and equal rights, since the eirly 1970’s to present. If we could only grow to the true egalitarian principal, where Race, Gender, and a mixture of other differances we notice between ourselves, will mean nothing more than a varity of persons. It’s like the T-Shirts that say : “iseenocolor” In accuality I disliked the ideal proposed that we turn a blind eye to the various differances that make up the beautiful array of our society, I in fact do see Color, in its splended aray of majestic beauty gracing oru population. I rejoyce and celebrate the differances from me and the next guy/gal/brother/sister, Without such a diverse mixture of race, color, culture, gender, Opinions, and Personalities, we all would be the drab, borning, same grey self. Life itself would be utterly without meaning as if one dies the 4 billion others would take up their place instantly with no change in the over all effect on society.

    This is one of the reasons I think the 60’s were not so grand in our society – we had to so drastically change from it to accept the variety of God’s children, in the plethura of varation.


  4. ditchu Says:

    Also I’d like to add that we are not close to our goal of diversity set in the cival rights movement back in ’68. there is still far too much general intollarance and ignorance in general society that many of us face race issues today in 2009.

    1977 is not a good measure of our distance form these issues. Again keep in mind the social context of the general thinking of the people (general populas of the US) of the time.


  5. measure76 Says:

    If the leaders of the church were truly God’s prophets, you would think that they would be more enlightened, not less enlightened, than the rest of society.

    Ditchu’s comments continue to show how deluded mormons desparately search for ANY justification to legitimize their prophets’ bigoted teachings.

  6. BrinkleyBoy Says:

    Now measure, you know I normally agree with you, but I think that “opposes mixed race marriages” might be a bit of a strong headline. While I agree that the real impetus behind this teaching was latent bigotry, as opposed to “concern” for the success of such marriages, it is specifically stated that there is no “condemnation” or “sin” in entering into such a marriage, so “opposes” might be to strong a word. I think “discourages” is more accurate. The church “opposes” same-sex marriage, it “discourages” mixed-race marriages. (Though it used to oppose those too of course. Just ask BY about that.)

    Don’t get me wrong, I think it is improper of the church and racist to encourage young people to marry only within their own race. (Especially since “following the prophets ‘counsel'” is a commandment.) Why they haven’t scrubbed this from church manuals is beyond me. Plus, regardless of what they teach now, the beloved modern day “prophets” have had some pretty nasty things to say in the past vis-a-vis mixing one’s seed with “the seed of Cain.”

    I do remember this being in the lesson manual when I was in the AP because we were all quite shocked by it. Our teacher was able to repeat the same delicate explanation that SWK gave. I was satisfied at the time because I believed a) The church was true and b) There might be some validity to the idea that you should marry someone with whom you shared a common background. I no longer believe either of those things.

  7. measure76 Says:

    Opposes, discourages, I guess it all depends on your definitions.

    If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, though, you’ll see I have a bit of a weakness for headlines that are a tad overstated.

  8. rofl Says:

    ¨a tad overstated¨ is more like blatantly lying. all you could really get from these quotes is that the church cautions against interracial marriage because statistics show that interracial marriages have higher divorce rates

  9. measure76 Says:

    You amuse me, rofl. How can I help you today?

  10. dfc5 Says:

    I’m finishing my bachelor’s degree and almost finished with my senior paper of the Church’s view on intermarriages. I would have to disagree with the title. There has been nothing currently said in the formal setting of the Church that would oppose intermarriage. There are written documents still used in the Church today but those go back to precede the revelation in 1978. However, even these deny that intermarriage is a sin. In the informal setting, of course there are many instances of Church leaders discouraging people to intermarry but most warnings come from past speeches or letters that were never formally expressed. I would have to agree with those who discouraged intermarriage but who also said it is not a sin. So if a Mormon wants to intermarry go for it, but carefully study things out before making the decision.

  11. measure76 Says:

    If you weren’t a racist mormon, you would understand just how racist your last two sentences are.

  12. ditchu Says:

    I am by no means racest but I would agree with some things said about how these views were shared at a time when there was a major social issue over inter-race mariages. I think that although it never was ment to be viewed as a sin to mary anyone of a differing background, there was a clear warning about such actions and some reactions by society in general. I have yet to hear some LDS Leader support these warnings in light of more modern acceptance of inter-race unions. When was the last time you heard any speak of this from a leadership position, the 70’s?


  13. measure76 Says:

    Ah the whole “Yes our leaders were racist in the past, but so was everyone else, so it doesn’t matter” excuse.

    I’m sorry, that only proves that mormon prophets are no more enlightened than anyone else, and don’t recieve revelation from God.

    …Or that the God you believe in is himself racist (or was until the 70’s!)

  14. rachel Says:

    i’m mormon and my bishop is white
    guess what?
    His wife is asian.

  15. rachel Says:

    go figure

  16. measure76 Says:

    The fact is, the church is still on record opposing mixed-race marriage. Can you find a quote from a church leader that says the previous teachings were incorrect?

  17. ditchu Says:

    You don’t get it, do you?
    It was not the Church being against inter-race unions, but they warrned people to avoid the strife that society would place on such unions during the time that there was an overwhelming concern in mass society about race. It is no differeent than me saying to you that you might want to avoid the biker bar on the corner as the patrons seem to dislike know-it-alls like you and I.
    I am not against bikers, I’d just be warning you that if you go there, there are some very real consequences to deal with and you should consider that carefully.

    I think that the way you are handling this – examining it so closely and making it a race issue – that you are exibiting more “Racism” than the Church leaders that you are speaking of.


  18. measure76 Says:

    And thus we see that mormons are so racist that they can’t tell the difference between racism and… biker bars?

    In other words, completely, unabashadly, racist. They can’t even separate their racism from their other bigotries.

  19. ditchu Says:

    Are you really as self absorbed as you display on this BLOG, or is this an act?

  20. measure76 Says:

    You are just upset because you can’t figure out how to make a conclusive argument. I promise you, your logic will get better if you drop the ridiculous premise that Mormonism is true.

  21. ditchu Says:

    As I am becoming busier in my life, and must spend time elsewhere, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to humor you as I have in the past. Please, do not misunderstand, my absence is not due to any offence or comment you have made, nor due to any contradiction of reasonable logic. I am going away for a while for no other reason than my time is in demand and I can no longer excuse me wasting it here.
    Farewell, I hope you can get past your stumbling blocks.
    God bless,

  22. Measure76 Says:

    Oh come on! your own scriptures refute the idea of calling me out on my stumbling block!

    Didn’t your precious Jeezus say:

    “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7:3-4.

  23. ditchu Says:

    No offence intended.
    Please do not mistake me. I did not call you out on your stumbling blocks but offered a sincere salutation. I do hope you will overcome the things that hold you back. As I also hope that I can get beyond my own.

    Farewell, and God bless,

  24. measure76 Says:

    Of course, here ditchu does what he does best. Breaking his promise to not post again, he does.

    Weasaling out of ANY thought or principle I try to stick to him, he does.

    I really doubt he believes anything (other than, he believes he is a messenger from GOD HIMSELF!)

    I can’t say I’ll miss ditchu, but as I said in my private email to him, He did inspire me to do better.

  25. Karen Lugo Says:

    Very interesting…I noticed however that all the references used in the article were woefully outdated….by close to 40 years. Any current info/quotes/data available on the churches position…say in 7-10 years?

  26. measure76 Says:

    Not a one. The church seems happy to let it’s racist record stand as it is.

    The church for instance, has NEVER apologized for the discrimination of blacks, seemingly still taking the stance that it was correct to discriminate at the time.

  27. y Says:

    Just curious – do Bible-believing Christians in general apologize for the discrimination so evident throughout old and new testament times? Like, when “Gentiles” were not proselyted?

    • measure76 Says:

      You are comparing apples and oranges. The question is not whether mormons apologize for their racist past. Some of them do. But the mormon church, the organization, never has.

      My understanding is that the catholics specifically, and many other churches of smaller sizes, have apologized for past segregation and racial policies.

  28. Tripzero Says:

    From my understanding reading the blog and reading the subsequent quotes, Kimball was really just counselling young people to marry people with similar likes, intellect, morals, and beliefs. Otherwise, marriage can be more difficult. This paragraph sums it up:

    “The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.”

    Now, that doesn’t sound racist to me. Taken this into context where many times education and other opportunities were not as obtainable for all races. Kimball probably felt that because of the diffences society created between two individuals of different race, marriage between these two races would be as difficult if a white doctor married a white high school drop out.

    I personally am married to someone of a different race than me. Not only that, but my wife is from a completely different country resulting in vast cultural differences. Neither during our engagement and leading up to our marriage in an LDS temple has any church leader (or anyone else for that matter) counseled us not to marry. Instead, we were counselled to combine the great things from both our cultures and implement them in our home.

    That doesn’t sound or feel like opposition to me.

    • measure76 Says:

      Hey, if he was talking based on economic background, I’m with you. Unfortunately for Kimball and Mormons, he was insinuating that race only has negative impact on a mixed marriage, unless I’m missing the part where he speaks highly of some of the benefits of interracial marriage?

  29. ditchu Says:

    Oh “wise and wonderful knowing one” Please elighten us on you prespectives of what bennifits existed in a inter-racal marrige in 1965?

    As my civil rights history tells me in some parts of the country the couple in an inter-racal relationship risk being killed or worse by people who thought they were doing this country a service when they help to their (albeit flawed) race motivated Ideals. In most other parts of the country the inter-racal married couple would be shunned by society. In many situations neither race drivin community would accept the couple.

    However, there are always exceptions, and I am sure you are armed to the teeth with those… In case you miss the oppertunity I will hand you one as an example: TV I love Lucy has a inter-racal couple with Ricky Ricardo and Lucy his wife… It was a great risk of the era to protray this coupling on TV but it spun off as comidic, and so it worked.

    For a more accurate protrayal of society in the mis 60’s look at All in the Family… Archie Bunker is a good protrayal of the seriosness of the social norms of race preception in the mis 60’s. A racaly motivated prejudist as the protaginist shares a little slice of the underlining of social perspectives no race, when taken into account that Archie though extreemily prejudist and racist is accepted and is the connection of the story to the normal viewer. the viewer’s acceptance of his views, shows us that society itself held to tendancies of racal prejudist.

    Pres. Kimball’s warrning was not to prevent inter-racal relationships but stated as a warrning that there is danger in such choices. It is better that we make choices with our eyes open to the potential outcomes, then turn a blind eye to social stigmas. Acknoledging the existance of some idealogy is not accepting that they are correct. I think Kimball was just warrning of the potential dangers not condoning the (incorrect) ideals of society en-mass.

    It is good to be able to share some realism with you again,

    • measure76 Says:

      To assume there were no benefits of interracial marriage in 1965, and only negatives, is a racist position. Thank you for showing your true racist colors, Ditchu. No wonder you get along in mormonism so well, bigot.

  30. ditchu Says:

    As you so aptly presented it: Assuming there were or “…were no benefits of interracial marriage in 1965, and only negatives, is a racist position. Thank you for showing your true racist colors”

    As you fail yet again to back up your views, here you have the oppertunity to share with the rest of us what you think is a bennifit of an inter-racail marriage in 1965, and you turn arround and say that I am assuming there are none.

    I have not assumed that there are or are not any benifits, I just have not found any benifits due to race.

    If the world saw people as I do we would not consider race at all. I don’t care if you are “Black,” “Red,” “Yellow,” White,” Pink,” “Green,” Or “Glow in the Dark, neon.” It does not have any distinction as to the value of a person.

    You are the racist here as you make the point that you cannot backup that race has a factor in a marriage, be it bennificial or harmful. I am pointing out that the harm is not from the race but from society’s preception and their “norms”.

    Good day and God bless you, (boggot)

    • measure76 Says:

      My view is that race should not be an issue when it comes to marriage. You and Kimball are bigots… while Kimball is now dead, you are still a bigot.

  31. ditchu Says:

    how blind you must be to not have caught that I do not see race as an issue either inside or outside of marriage. But by the very nature that you are mulling over this word of warrning about societie’s view on inter-racal relationships in the time peroid. A Time when it was a common concern and racal bias was everywhere in this country.
    It is your hard headed ignorance, mixed with your reliance in the obovious importance you place on race as a factor that you are showing your racal bias.

    I am just trying to offer you truth, but you refuse to look at it.

    You are funny though, stating that you think “race should not be an issue when it comes to marriage,” but you are making it the issue.

    Here is my strait line on the issue of race:
    I think Race is not an issue at all.
    The issue I have is your preception that race is a major factor, one way or another, and it is this that propigates racal bias in out society.

    Ghandi said that we should be the change we want to see in the world.
    I think the reason you cannot accept that a church leader was giving a warrning about the reactions of society in general, that he was not biggotus himself, is that you see the same flaws in yourself.
    We do often see thoes things in others that we dislike about ourselves.

    Now stop projecting your own misgivings on others and start changing what you don’t like about yourself.

    Good day, God bless,

  32. ditchu Says:

    Let me put it to you this way: I don’t “speak in support of a clearly racist church and prophet.”

    I don’t even speak in support of a discreetly racist church and prophet?

    To clairify I don’t speek in support, nor do I support in any way a Church, group, Prophet, or leader that is racist. At least not as racist as yourself, being misguided into beleiving that supporting racial issues is helping to overcome the racal attitude of general society.

    After all what does it matter if I’m Black, she’s Latino, and you’re White?

    what you fail to see is that the Prophet and church you speak of here are not as you assume: Racist, but are looking after the safty and wellbeing of there membership, and of the rest of society.

    If everyone would adhear to what the Prophets say the message would not be a warrning to avoid dangerous situations but would be more of a command to accept the differances of others and share love not hate. The underlining message is and has been always one of love and consideration for your fellow man. Out of that love we tend to point out potential dangers.

    Your unwilling ness to listen to reality is develpoing into ignorant stupidity.
    Keep pointing your finger at others and you will see how many see through your guise. It has been my experiance that the loudist one to shout Biggot is accually the biggest one themselves.

    Good day… God bless… (and get a grip on reality),

    • measure76 Says:

      I am bigoted. Against Bigotry. I admit that.

      But Kimball’s Words, Brigham’s words, and the Book of Mormon itself, condemn mormonism as a racist, bigoted church.

  33. ditchu Says:

    No! They don not!

  34. Dave Says:

    I was sealed to my wife in an LDS Temple in 2000 by Elder Jacob de Jager, an emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, the highest ranking body in the church after the First Presidency and Qourum of Twelve Apostles.

    Elder de Jager married Bea Lim, an ethnic indonesian, in the 1950s. They had a long and successful marriage with 2 children. Elder De Jager’s life was highly regarded by President Monson at his funeral in 2004.

    If the LDS church has a doctrine against inter-racial marriage, how is it that Elder de Jager held one of the most prominent positions in Church leadership, a position that even authorized him to speak and teach church doctrine? A quick google search will show that Elder De Jager was known as the international face for the Church during his time as a Seventy; he traveled the world as a representative of the church. If the church were against inter-racial marriage, Elder De Jager seems an unlikely candidate for the position he held.

    Second, those familiar with the mormon faith understand the importance of the Temple in eternal progression. If the church truly believed that inter-racial marriage is wrong, it would never allow inter racial marriages to be perfomed in its Temples.

    That different cultures present unique challenges is beyond question. For the church to not address these inherent issues when counseling young people on how to choose a spouse would be irresponsible. The whole goal of the church is to create and support strong families, and to help members identify the most likely conditions under which such a family will be able to exist. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. The above quotes make ample room for that.

  35. measure76 Says:

    While the church has quietly reversed it’s stance, and openly accepts interracial marriages today, they have not apologized for the past stance against interracial marriage, nor have they once uttered an official statement in support of it.

    The church instead of being open and honest, tries to sweep its hatred under the rug.

  36. ditchu Says:

    How is what you describe different than your own actions here?
    “instead of being open and honest, {try} to sweep {your} hatred under the rug.”

  37. measure76 Says:

    Please provide a clear example, from anywhere on my website, where I have shown clear hatred for mormons.

    As a hint, I will remind you that many of my posts were not written by me, but it is always clear who the author is a the beginning of a post.

    So do some homework, and find hateful statements that I have made.

  38. ditchu Says:

    Looking through many of your Comments on this page alone, measure, I see the overwhelming evidance that you hate mormonism. there is not enough space to elisit the entire collective comentary that lends creedance to your hate of mormonism and those who choose to follow its practice.

    I discover your hate when I see the tone you write in here. It is evidance when you look at your comments as a collective, but the hate hides when you splice each comment apart and do not see the over-all tone.

    That I think is how you are “sweeping your hatred under the rug.”

    It is hard to be clear when dealing with someone so shifty and shady. It is like trying to pick out one grain of sand on a beach from 20 feet away.

    Good day,

  39. measure76 Says:

    LOL you can’t find any direct evidence so you just make up shit. Niiice.

  40. steve benson Says:

    To “measure76”:

    I don’t save all of my RfM posts. Since you have publicly declared on RfM the existence of your site in an effort to generate traffic here (and since you have also, in that notification process, publicly alerted RfM readers that you have cut-and-pasted some of my posts from RfM to your site), I have occasionally come here to copy back my own posts.

    Gosh, hope you don’t mind that I retrieve some of my own material from you.

    Thanks. :)

  41. measure76 Says:

    Any time Steve, I am the theif!

    But I’m no longer looking for traffic to this blog. I haven’t added anything in a long time.

  42. steve benson Says:

    Glad to have assisted you in your traffic generation.

    Anytime. :)

  43. Pami Says:

    I was rejected regularly growing up in the Mormon Church using these same talks. You see, I was the “retards daughter”. My father has cerebral palsy. This was looked upon by church members as being worse than coming from an “inferior” race! The church was mean and hateful to me in my youth years. I want to say that I am a practicing Mormon, my husband is the scout master and we attend the temple regularly. I am now regularly rejected and dismissed because I am married to a black man. Using the same talks as when I was a youth. I have been looked down on and treated as though I have no education (I have a BS-Chemistry, BBA-Finance and a MBA-Finance) without any personal knowledge of me. I am so unworthy of this church I do not even have a calling! It brings me great pain that these teachings are still regularly taught at BYU. For some reason people believe if it is taught at BYU it is the true gospel. I am holding on to my true beliefs with the knowledge once and for all the true teachings will come forth in the end. It is trying at times.

    • inge441 Says:

      My second husband is African American. 8 years ago my daughter married a very nice man who had left the Mormon Church many years before meeting my daughter, she grew up in Europe and never was very involved in religious beliefs. We always had a warm loving relationship until for reasons unknown to me they joined the Mormon Church again a couple of years ago. My daughter told me that she does not want a relationship with me anymore and the phone calls are rare which is painful. She insisted that joining the Mormon Church has nothing do do with her decision. I always taught my children that they have the right to believe whatever they are comfortable with. I do have to say that her change is confusing to me.

  44. Keith Simonsen Says:

    I am LDS and perfectly fine with what President Kimball said then as I would be now. The person posting this may feel as if he is “exposing” the Church, but I freely profess my belief and knowledge that what President Kimball said remains true and does not make us bad people. To the contrary, we are inspired to rise above the secular ways of this world that preach self-hatred, which often leads to that which President Kimball discouraged.

  45. Len Palmer Says:

    ….I have read Pres. kimballs statements….some of you are either blind or lack any degree of understanding…advising to not mix races has nothing to do with hatered or racism…time and time again mormons express there love for ALL PEOPLE and that God loves us all equally…you continue to miss the point as to why it’s unwise to mix races in marraige…ANY marraige regardless of how much they have in common,will be difficult and challenging…why then coplicate it and make stressfull situations by mixing CULTURAL differences? You may not be racist but much of the world is and many people of color hate it works both ways…why then subject children of mixed race to the ignorance and hatefulness of the world…why confuse them as to what culture they should embrace?…and why in your idealistic wishfull thinking world do you think race mixing is going to somehow IMPROVE a racist world? As far as I can tell…Pres. Kimballs advice is just as wise today as it was back when he gave it…whites should marry whites,indians should marry indians,blacks should marry blacks…etc.,etc. Call me a racist if you insist on not understanding but,I believe and support 2 Nephi 26:33 It’s not a race thing,it’s a WISDOM thing!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: