Interested in LDS, but I'm in an interracial marriage.

[Connie561]

We have four mixed face couples in our ward. In a lot of states it was against the law to marry out of your face in the 1950 or 1960's. The church encourages obeying the law of the land.

But the Church discouraged interracial marriages in the past not because they were forced to do so in order to honor the law, but because they Church taught institutional racism for much of its history. Until fairly recently and you still find a large segment of members of the Church today, the Church taught that white people were superior to dark people and that those of African descent, specifically, were here on Earth to be servants to the white people. The Church taught, as a matter of doctrine, that interracial marriages were wrong.

Today the Church has denounced these racist practices and philosophies and while most Church members embrace this change as a good thing, you will find many who still justify the racism, deny the racism, or who feel that the institutional racism of the Church was God's plan for us and that we have apostatized today due to reversing our racist beliefs.

D2L

Not true at all.^ it's like you did a copy and paste job from an anti website.

McConkie and Fielding Smith taught that "negroes" were less valiant in the pre-earth life(Mormon Doctrine 1966, removed 13 years later). They taught that the negroes were an inferior race(The Way to Perfection, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society of Utah, 1935, pp. 101-102).. Both of these teachings are disavowed by the church today. Explicitly disavowed.

Do members still believe this? Some do, I've personally seen it multiple times in my own wards and on this very forum.

Negroes should stay in Africa where they belong, and Muslims should stay in Muslim countries. The United Nations are facilitating the spread of disease and violence around the world.

To make it seem like this is widespread though is dishonest, and that's the ONLY thing you can criticize that post for.

Here is the church president teaching that black skin is a sign if disfavour.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

Here is the church president teaching that a white person who marries a black person should be put to death, citing " The law of God"

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Here is the church disavowing "theories advanced in the past", or in other words, what was taught above ^

'"The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," the statement read. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.""

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... g=eng&_r=1

So are you going to apologize for falsely claiming what he posted wasn't true, even though I've just proved every point of his?

Who am I kidding, you aren't going to apologize. You're gonna go run to fairmormon and copy their weak apologist defense and cite government laws(which is adorable because they were cool with breaking the law by taking dozens of wives for themselves in spite of it being illegal) You're going to try to defend your defense of racism and somehow claim that this is copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website when in reality I literally read through the entire journal of discourses in my (unfinished)attempt to read every talk by every President of the Church.

It's so much easier to just accept what actually happened and move on rather than doing gymnastics to bend and move and twist the truth to appear all pretty and sweet. You can just assume I already know what you're gonna say and just not respond, cool? Cool.

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

[LDS Watchman]

Really the only form of interracial marriage that was completely taboo in the church in the past was between blacks and whites.

That died out in the early 1980s.

I've been in several wards with couples that are black and white, and they were always treated the same as everyone else.

Interracial marriage between white European and Japanese certainly isn't taboo in the church today.

You have nothing to be concerned about.

[Zathura]

But the Church discouraged interracial marriages in the past not because they were forced to do so in order to honor the law, but because they Church taught institutional racism for much of its history. Until fairly recently and you still find a large segment of members of the Church today, the Church taught that white people were superior to dark people and that those of African descent, specifically, were here on Earth to be servants to the white people. The Church taught, as a matter of doctrine, that interracial marriages were wrong.

Today the Church has denounced these racist practices and philosophies and while most Church members embrace this change as a good thing, you will find many who still justify the racism, deny the racism, or who feel that the institutional racism of the Church was God's plan for us and that we have apostatized today due to reversing our racist beliefs.

D2L

Not true at all.^ it's like you did a copy and paste job from an anti website.

McConkie and Fielding Smith taught that "negroes" were less valiant in the pre-earth life(Mormon Doctrine 1966, removed 13 years later). They taught that the negroes were an inferior race(The Way to Perfection, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society of Utah, 1935, pp. 101-102).. Both of these teachings are disavowed by the church today. Explicitly disavowed.

Do members still believe this? Some do, I've personally seen it multiple times in my own wards and on this very forum.

Negroes should stay in Africa where they belong, and Muslims should stay in Muslim countries. The United Nations are facilitating the spread of disease and violence around the world.

To make it seem like this is widespread though is dishonest, and that's the ONLY thing you can criticize that post for.

Here is the church president teaching that black skin is a sign if disfavour.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

Here is the church president teaching that a white person who marries a black person should be put to death, citing " The law of God"

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Here is the church disavowing "theories advanced in the past", or in other words, what was taught above ^

'"The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," the statement read. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.""

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... g=eng&_r=1

So are you going to apologize for falsely claiming what he posted wasn't true, even though I've just proved every point of his?

Who am I kidding, you aren't going to apologize. You're gonna go run to fairmormon and copy their weak apologist defense and cite government laws(which is adorable because they were cool with breaking the law by taking dozens of wives for themselves in spite of it being illegal) You're going to try to defend your defense of racism and somehow claim that this is copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website when in reality I literally read through the entire journal of discourses in my (unfinished)attempt to read every talk by every President of the Church.

It's so much easier to just accept what actually happened and move on rather than doing gymnastics to bend and move and twist the truth to appear all pretty and sweet. You can just assume I already know what you're gonna say and just not respond, cool? Cool.

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

[gkearney]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.😃💕

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

[Connie561]

Not true at all.^ it's like you did a copy and paste job from an anti website.

McConkie and Fielding Smith taught that "negroes" were less valiant in the pre-earth life(Mormon Doctrine 1966, removed 13 years later). They taught that the negroes were an inferior race(The Way to Perfection, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society of Utah, 1935, pp. 101-102).. Both of these teachings are disavowed by the church today. Explicitly disavowed.

Do members still believe this? Some do, I've personally seen it multiple times in my own wards and on this very forum.

Negroes should stay in Africa where they belong, and Muslims should stay in Muslim countries. The United Nations are facilitating the spread of disease and violence around the world.

To make it seem like this is widespread though is dishonest, and that's the ONLY thing you can criticize that post for.

Here is the church president teaching that black skin is a sign if disfavour.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

Here is the church president teaching that a white person who marries a black person should be put to death, citing " The law of God"

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Here is the church disavowing "theories advanced in the past", or in other words, what was taught above ^

'"The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," the statement read. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.""

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... g=eng&_r=1

So are you going to apologize for falsely claiming what he posted wasn't true, even though I've just proved every point of his?

Who am I kidding, you aren't going to apologize. You're gonna go run to fairmormon and copy their weak apologist defense and cite government laws(which is adorable because they were cool with breaking the law by taking dozens of wives for themselves in spite of it being illegal) You're going to try to defend your defense of racism and somehow claim that this is copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website when in reality I literally read through the entire journal of discourses in my (unfinished)attempt to read every talk by every President of the Church.

It's so much easier to just accept what actually happened and move on rather than doing gymnastics to bend and move and twist the truth to appear all pretty and sweet. You can just assume I already know what you're gonna say and just not respond, cool? Cool.

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

[Zathura]

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

I didn't change the subject to polygamy, I stayed on the subject that you brought up, the subject being U.S. Law .You know that though. You just don't have a proper response, so you claim I changed the subject when I really didn't.

Church apologists cite U.S. LAW to show the church just wanted obey the law to justify their teachings on race.
I'm citing U.S. LAW too, showing that the church didn't actually care about U.S. LAW because it broke the law for decades.

In other words, your apologist argument here holds no weight. It's easier(and honest) to just admit they had racist beliefs due to the culture of the time.

I expect latter day Saints to be honest. To cite laws and technicalities and wrongly claim that others are lying about claims about church teachings on race, they are being intellectually dishonest, and in the long run they hurt they people they try to bring into the church. Hiding history hurt the church and it's image, this is why the Church has begun to be more open about it's past with essays. For some unknown reasons, members insist on doing what the church USED to do and skirt around and hide history instead of what it's begun doing recently, and openly talking about what happened.

[Connie561]

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

I didn't change the subject to polygamy, I stayed on the subject that you brought up, the subject being U.S. Law .You know that though. You just don't have a proper response, so you claim I changed the subject when I really didn't.

Church apologists cite U.S. LAW to show the church just wanted obey the law to justify their teachings on race.
I'm citing U.S. LAW too, showing that the church didn't actually care about U.S. LAW because it broke the law for decades.

In other words, your apologist argument here holds no weight. It's easier(and honest) to just admit they had racist beliefs due to the culture of the time.

I expect latter day Saints to be honest. To cite laws and technicalities and wrongly claim that others are lying about claims about church teachings on race, they are being intellectually dishonest, and in the long run they hurt they people they try to bring into the church. Hiding history hurt the church and it's image, this is why the Church has begun to be more open about it's past with essays. For some unknown reasons, members insist on doing what the church USED to do and skirt around and hide history instead of what it's begun doing recently, and openly talking about what happened.

I think people can read that you wanted me to read up on polygamy laws. So, I am not making anything up. You are changing the subject. If you are expecting people to be honest, it would be nice if you stopped the, " do as I say and not as I do" with me. I am not hiding history. Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's. I don't think think anyone on this thread is skirting around history of trying to hide it.

[Connie561]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

True.

[Zathura]

I think people can read that you wanted me to read up on polygamy laws. So, I am not making anything up. You are changing the subject. If you are expecting people to be honest, it would be nice if you stopped the, " do as I say and not as I do" with me. I am not hiding history. Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

Are you trolling? You literally just admitted that I told you to look up U.S. LAW proving yourself wrong.

I don't think think anyone on this thread is skirting around history of trying to hide it.

Except Rick , who said the post before him was "Not true at all" and "copied and pasted from an anti-mormon site". I showed beyond any doubt that the post he claims was "Not True" was indeed true, every part of it, part of which you yourself have backed up without realizing.

When church racism is brought up, step one is to claim what's being said is "Not true", just like Rick just said. If the conversation extends beyond that, the second step is to claim everything you're saying is anti-mormon, which is exactly what Rick said. The next step is to go to fairmormon and then cite US law and claim the Church was just following the law. You just took that step.

I then continued along that path , proving that the Church clearly didn't care what the law had to to say from 1862-1890. The logical conclusion being that, if the Church broke the law in other aspects for decades, then it would be a weak position to claim they were only following US law on this topic. . Instead of making a concession here, like you should, you're claiming I changed the topic, which I did not.

Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

The post that Rick attacked saying none of it was true included a statement that is logically equivalent to the one you made right here. In other words, you are at odds with Rick, and not me.

Clearly you don't actually read whole posts and consider them, you see people you usually disagree with and just take the opposite side. You could just save us the time, really.

[Zathura]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

Why are these laws relevant to the conversation?

The church didn't merely teach that they were "Illegal" or "wrong". The church taught that it was "GOD'S LAW" that a white man who married a black woman should be PUT TO DEATH. Various church leaders taught that blacks were born black because of pre-mortal decisions. It was taught that black skin and a flat nose was a curse. I was taught that it was an inferior race. In what way does citing laws concerning interracial marriage justify those beliefs that are now explicitly disavowed by the LDS Church? In what way does it mean Church leaders did not preach racist doctrine?

[Connie561]

I think people can read that you wanted me to read up on polygamy laws. So, I am not making anything up. You are changing the subject. If you are expecting people to be honest, it would be nice if you stopped the, " do as I say and not as I do" with me. I am not hiding history. Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

Are you trolling? You literally just admitted that I told you to look up U.S. LAW proving yourself wrong.

I don't think think anyone on this thread is skirting around history of trying to hide it.

Except Rick , who said the post before him was "Not true at all" and "copied and pasted from an anti-mormon site". I showed beyond any doubt that the post he claims was "Not True" was indeed true, every part of it, part of which you yourself have backed up without realizing.

When church racism is brought up, step one is to claim what's being said is "Not true", just like Rick just said. If the conversation extends beyond that, the second step is to claim everything you're saying is anti-mormon, which is exactly what Rick said. The next step is to go to fairmormon and then cite US law and claim the Church was just following the law. You just took that step.

I then continued along that path , proving that the Church clearly didn't care what the law had to to say from 1862-1890. The logical conclusion being that, if the Church broke the law in other aspects for decades, then it would be a weak position to claim they were only following US law on this topic. . Instead of making a concession here, like you should, you're claiming I changed the topic, which I did not.

Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

The post that Rick attacked saying none of it was true included a statement that is logically equivalent to the one you made right here. In other words, you are at odds with Rick, and not me.

Clearly you don't actually read whole posts and consider them, you see people you usually disagree with and just take the opposite side. You could just save us the time, really.

Well then, I will leave the conversation and you and Rick Grimes to work things out.

[Zathura]

I think people can read that you wanted me to read up on polygamy laws. So, I am not making anything up. You are changing the subject. If you are expecting people to be honest, it would be nice if you stopped the, " do as I say and not as I do" with me. I am not hiding history. Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

Are you trolling? You literally just admitted that I told you to look up U.S. LAW proving yourself wrong.

I don't think think anyone on this thread is skirting around history of trying to hide it.

Except Rick , who said the post before him was "Not true at all" and "copied and pasted from an anti-mormon site". I showed beyond any doubt that the post he claims was "Not True" was indeed true, every part of it, part of which you yourself have backed up without realizing.

When church racism is brought up, step one is to claim what's being said is "Not true", just like Rick just said. If the conversation extends beyond that, the second step is to claim everything you're saying is anti-mormon, which is exactly what Rick said. The next step is to go to fairmormon and then cite US law and claim the Church was just following the law. You just took that step.

I then continued along that path , proving that the Church clearly didn't care what the law had to to say from 1862-1890. The logical conclusion being that, if the Church broke the law in other aspects for decades, then it would be a weak position to claim they were only following US law on this topic. . Instead of making a concession here, like you should, you're claiming I changed the topic, which I did not.

Almost everyone was taught to be racist up until the late 60's.

The post that Rick attacked saying none of it was true included a statement that is logically equivalent to the one you made right here. In other words, you are at odds with Rick, and not me.

Clearly you don't actually read whole posts and consider them, you see people you usually disagree with and just take the opposite side. You could just save us the time, really.

Well then, I will leave the conversation and you and Rick Grimes to work things out.

lol

[gkearney]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.😃💕

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

Why are these laws relevant to the conversation?

The church didn't merely teach that they were "Illegal" or "wrong". The church taught that it was "GOD'S LAW" that a white man who married a black woman should be PUT TO DEATH. Various church leaders taught that blacks were born black because of pre-mortal decisions. It was taught that black skin and a flat nose was a curse. I was taught that it was an inferior race. In what way does citing laws concerning interracial marriage justify those beliefs that are now explicitly disavowed by the LDS Church? In what way does it mean Church leaders did not preach racist doctrine?

I was trained only correcting a historical fact not commenting on the past practices or policies.

[Zathura]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

Why are these laws relevant to the conversation?

The church didn't merely teach that they were "Illegal" or "wrong". The church taught that it was "GOD'S LAW" that a white man who married a black woman should be PUT TO DEATH. Various church leaders taught that blacks were born black because of pre-mortal decisions. It was taught that black skin and a flat nose was a curse. I was taught that it was an inferior race. In what way does citing laws concerning interracial marriage justify those beliefs that are now explicitly disavowed by the LDS Church? In what way does it mean Church leaders did not preach racist doctrine?

I was trained only correcting a historical fact not commenting on the past practices or policies.

I know it, don’t know why I directed the question at you tbh.

[Rick Grimes]

McConkie and Fielding Smith taught that "negroes" were less valiant in the pre-earth life(Mormon Doctrine 1966, removed 13 years later). They taught that the negroes were an inferior race(The Way to Perfection, by Joseph Fielding Smith, Genealogical Society of Utah, 1935, pp. 101-102).. Both of these teachings are disavowed by the church today. Explicitly disavowed.

Do members still believe this? Some do, I've personally seen it multiple times in my own wards and on this very forum.



To make it seem like this is widespread though is dishonest, and that's the ONLY thing you can criticize that post for.

Here is the church president teaching that black skin is a sign if disfavour.



Here is the church president teaching that a white person who marries a black person should be put to death, citing " The law of God"



Here is the church disavowing "theories advanced in the past", or in other words, what was taught above ^



So are you going to apologize for falsely claiming what he posted wasn't true, even though I've just proved every point of his?

Who am I kidding, you aren't going to apologize. You're gonna go run to fairmormon and copy their weak apologist defense and cite government laws(which is adorable because they were cool with breaking the law by taking dozens of wives for themselves in spite of it being illegal) You're going to try to defend your defense of racism and somehow claim that this is copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website when in reality I literally read through the entire journal of discourses in my (unfinished)attempt to read every talk by every President of the Church.

It's so much easier to just accept what actually happened and move on rather than doing gymnastics to bend and move and twist the truth to appear all pretty and sweet. You can just assume I already know what you're gonna say and just not respond, cool? Cool.

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

That's the funny part about this all, Connie. In her mind, Stahura is right, but only because she picks and chooses what she wants to be true. Her use of the J of D is right out of the playbook of the lowest common denominator anti out there. The J of D is a collection of 3rd hand accounts of people who heard these talks and transcribed them. There were no recording devices or subtitles to follow along with. Of the literally thousands of words, inflections, and expressions, it is very possible some of the meanings were either lost in translation, misspoke, or just recalled incorrectly by the person who recorded the talk. This is why, the J of D, just like other apocryphal scriptures, are not included in the standard works. There is a lot of truth in both of these resources, but there are mistakes and things that should not be in them, so they must be discerned with the spirit. One simply cannot take the J of D at full face value because it requires true discernment to shift through the true doctrine and the mistakes that have made themselves into the actual print.

As to your point of the church being racist, I couldn't disagree with you anymore. The Lord established His gospel and set His directions for its restoration. An evil like institutional racism has no place in the Lords house and indeed it never has had a place there. As evidence of this, the church has long led the world in its progressive stance of loving all of Heavenly Fathers children. In the 1800's, our church was staunchly abolitionist. Also, while others were persecuting Native Americans, our church embraced them and sent missionaries to them to bring them back to a knowledge of their fathers and the redeemer promised to them. Our church has made tremendous efforts to bring the gospel to the world in a peaceful/not conquering manner.(something most other religions cant say the same about)
However, this is Stahura again, and she will not see any of these as evidence that the church was not racist. Its members may have had some knuckle heads in there, but the organization itself was not rigged to be racist. As to the post from the church about previous teachings, It is apparent that they are just trying to move the dialogue away from this patently false narrative, but the truth is deeper than this, but a sizable majority have not the patience, humility, or historical/scriptural foundation to properly understand this concept.⁵

[Zathura]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

That's the funny part about this all, Connie. In her mind, Stahura is right, but only because she picks and chooses what she wants to be true. Her use of the J of D is right out of the playbook of the lowest common denominator anti out there. The J of D is a collection of 3rd hand accounts of people who heard these talks and transcribed them. There were no recording devices or subtitles to follow along with. Of the literally thousands of words, inflections, and expressions, it is very possible some of the meanings were either lost in translation, misspoke, or just recalled incorrectly by the person who recorded the talk. This is why, the J of D, just like other apocryphal scriptures, are not included in the standard works. There is a lot of truth in both of these resources, but there are mistakes and things that should not be in them, so they must be discerned with the spirit. One simply cannot take the J of D at full face value because it requires true discernment to shift through the true doctrine and the mistakes that have made themselves into the actual print.

As to your point of the church being racist, I couldn't disagree with you anymore. The Lord established His gospel and set His directions for its restoration. An evil like institutional racism has no place in the Lords house and indeed it never has had a place there. As evidence of this, the church has long led the world in its progressive stance of loving all of Heavenly Fathers children. In the 1800's, our church was staunchly abolitionist. Also, while others were persecuting Native Americans, our church embraced them and sent missionaries to them to bring them back to a knowledge of their fathers and the redeemer promised to them. Our church has made tremendous efforts to bring the gospel to the world in a peaceful/not conquering manner.(something most other religions cant say the same about)
However, this is Stahura again, and she will not see any of these as evidence that the church was not racist. Its members may have had some knuckle heads in there, but the organization itself was not rigged to be racist. As to the post from the church about previous teachings, It is apparent that they are just trying to move the dialogue away from this patently false narrative, but the truth is deeper than this, but a sizable majority have not the patience, humility, or historical/scriptural foundation to properly understand this concept.⁵

It’s adorable because Rick is yet another macho man on this forum that talks down to me because he thinks I’m a female because I happen to stand against mistreatment of women. It’s a pretty sad pattern to see. Time and time again, these men that won’t stand for any criticism of Brigham Young and polygamy and are sad about man losing their absolute power in the home end up thinking I’m a woman and talk down to me. How dare a woman challenge a man right? That should tell these guys something about themselves, but it wont.

It’s also funny because there are contemporary journal sources for many of the teachings from journal of discourses to match up with to verify the accuracy or fill in the gaps of what was taught, and because church leaders and members alike cite journal of discourses to their hearts content when they like they are quoting ,otherwise they pretend like it’s not reliable.

Rick thinks journal of discourses is unreliable because of unreliable sources, except everything that he said about those sources can be said about the sources he supports that “ prove” that Joseph practiced and preached polygamy. Weird how Rick accepts those unreliable sources but rejects them in this case.

It’s easy to mold scriptures and history to match your world view and beliefs.

Instead,
Challenge yourself. Let the truth stand for itself and let your beliefs adjust accordingly.

[Connie561]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

That's the funny part about this all, Connie. In her mind, Stahura is right, but only because she picks and chooses what she wants to be true. Her use of the J of D is right out of the playbook of the lowest common denominator anti out there. The J of D is a collection of 3rd hand accounts of people who heard these talks and transcribed them. There were no recording devices or subtitles to follow along with. Of the literally thousands of words, inflections, and expressions, it is very possible some of the meanings were either lost in translation, misspoke, or just recalled incorrectly by the person who recorded the talk. This is why, the J of D, just like other apocryphal scriptures, are not included in the standard works. There is a lot of truth in both of these resources, but there are mistakes and things that should not be in them, so they must be discerned with the spirit. One simply cannot take the J of D at full face value because it requires true discernment to shift through the true doctrine and the mistakes that have made themselves into the actual print.

As to your point of the church being racist, I couldn't disagree with you anymore. The Lord established His gospel and set His directions for its restoration. An evil like institutional racism has no place in the Lords house and indeed it never has had a place there. As evidence of this, the church has long led the world in its progressive stance of loving all of Heavenly Fathers children. In the 1800's, our church was staunchly abolitionist. Also, while others were persecuting Native Americans, our church embraced them and sent missionaries to them to bring them back to a knowledge of their fathers and the redeemer promised to them. Our church has made tremendous efforts to bring the gospel to the world in a peaceful/not conquering manner.(something most other religions cant say the same about)
However, this is Stahura again, and she will not see any of these as evidence that the church was not racist. Its members may have had some knuckle heads in there, but the organization itself was not rigged to be racist. As to the post from the church about previous teachings, It is apparent that they are just trying to move the dialogue away from this patently false narrative, but the truth is deeper than this, but a sizable majority have not the patience, humility, or historical/scriptural foundation to properly understand this concept.⁵

I agree with you completely Rick Grimes. God is no respecter of persons which means he loves us all.

[Zathura]

Cool, now go look at polygamy laws and do the math on how long the church broke that law and preached against it and get back to me with the number .

Like many on this forum, they apparently chose what they wanted to obey and cite. Having racist beliefs, it made it easy to cite the law. Super convenient

You are changing the subject to polygamy in order to win a debate on interracial marriage. So now you want to play the race card against other members on this forum. All I can say is, " Don't be a hater". There you go .

That's the funny part about this all, Connie. In her mind, Stahura is right, but only because she picks and chooses what she wants to be true. Her use of the J of D is right out of the playbook of the lowest common denominator anti out there. The J of D is a collection of 3rd hand accounts of people who heard these talks and transcribed them. There were no recording devices or subtitles to follow along with. Of the literally thousands of words, inflections, and expressions, it is very possible some of the meanings were either lost in translation, misspoke, or just recalled incorrectly by the person who recorded the talk. This is why, the J of D, just like other apocryphal scriptures, are not included in the standard works. There is a lot of truth in both of these resources, but there are mistakes and things that should not be in them, so they must be discerned with the spirit. One simply cannot take the J of D at full face value because it requires true discernment to shift through the true doctrine and the mistakes that have made themselves into the actual print.

As to your point of the church being racist, I couldn't disagree with you anymore. The Lord established His gospel and set His directions for its restoration. An evil like institutional racism has no place in the Lords house and indeed it never has had a place there. As evidence of this, the church has long led the world in its progressive stance of loving all of Heavenly Fathers children. In the 1800's, our church was staunchly abolitionist. Also, while others were persecuting Native Americans, our church embraced them and sent missionaries to them to bring them back to a knowledge of their fathers and the redeemer promised to them. Our church has made tremendous efforts to bring the gospel to the world in a peaceful/not conquering manner.(something most other religions cant say the same about)
However, this is Stahura again, and she will not see any of these as evidence that the church was not racist. Its members may have had some knuckle heads in there, but the organization itself was not rigged to be racist. As to the post from the church about previous teachings, It is apparent that they are just trying to move the dialogue away from this patently false narrative, but the truth is deeper than this, but a sizable majority have not the patience, humility, or historical/scriptural foundation to properly understand this concept.⁵

I agree with you completely Rick Grimes. God is no respecter of persons which means he loves us all.

It’s cute that whenever Rick is confronted with facts, he doesn’t address them, he just finds a friend that soothes him and applauds him and approves of him and that talks about me with that person for a page or two.

It’s cute that Connie finds the need to do the same thing. No need to address facts when you can just talk about the messenger instead of the message.

Cute.

[Zathura]

To prop up unreliable sources to prove your stance in one instance, and then reject sources for being unreliable in order to disprove the stance of another in a different instance is called.

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
MOVING THE GOAL POSTS

[cyclOps]

Why do you treat others so rudely, Stahura? It gets old quick. Believe what you want, that’s fine. I really don’t care. You may even be right, but the way I see you treat others time and time again is not right.

[Zathura]

Why do you treat others so rudely, Stahura? It gets old quick. Believe what you want, that’s fine. I really don’t care. You may even be right, but the way I see you treat others time and time again is not right.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

Connie and Rick are rude to me, I'm defending myself. You choose to complain about me when you could easily find the posts of people who are rude to me, you just choose not to time and time agaib because you , along with others, turn a blind eye to the bad behavior of people who share your stances. I'll defend you and Rick and Connie if the need arises, but you all would never return the favor. You love your team. There are plenty of people that think I'm nice, how can they see something entirely opposite from you?

. Rick talks down to me because he thinks I'm a female, Connie mocks me. Alaris is nice to me, I'm nice back. Matthias is nice to me in spite of our disagreements, so I'm nice back. Kind of how the world works. Don't expect a soothing applauding response if you're rude to someone.

[cyclOps]

Why do you treat others so rudely, Stahura? It gets old quick. Believe what you want, that’s fine. I really don’t care. You may even be right, but the way I see you treat others time and time again is not right.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

Connie and Rick are rude to me, I'm defending myself. You choose to complain about me when you could easily find the posts of people who are rude to me, you just choose not to time and time agaib because you , along with others, turn a blind eye to the bad behavior of people who share your stances. I'll defend you and Rick and Connie if the need arises, but you all would never return the favor. You love your team. There are plenty of people that think I'm nice, how can they see something entirely opposite from you?

. Rick talks down to me because he thinks I'm a female, Connie mocks me. Alaris is nice to me, I'm nice back. Matthias is nice to me in spite of our disagreements, so I'm nice back. Kind of how the world works. Don't expect a soothing applauding response if you're rude to someone.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

[Zathura]

Why do you treat others so rudely, Stahura? It gets old quick. Believe what you want, that’s fine. I really don’t care. You may even be right, but the way I see you treat others time and time again is not right.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

Connie and Rick are rude to me, I'm defending myself. You choose to complain about me when you could easily find the posts of people who are rude to me, you just choose not to time and time agaib because you , along with others, turn a blind eye to the bad behavior of people who share your stances. I'll defend you and Rick and Connie if the need arises, but you all would never return the favor. You love your team. There are plenty of people that think I'm nice, how can they see something entirely opposite from you?

. Rick talks down to me because he thinks I'm a female, Connie mocks me. Alaris is nice to me, I'm nice back. Matthias is nice to me in spite of our disagreements, so I'm nice back. Kind of how the world works. Don't expect a soothing applauding response if you're rude to someone.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

You're predictable. Please, go find a post where you've talked to me where you aren't criticizing me. Take a look at the mirror and then go ahead and click that "foe" button so that I can avoid this quarterly chastisement in the future .

[cyclOps]

Why do you treat others so rudely, Stahura? It gets old quick. Believe what you want, that’s fine. I really don’t care. You may even be right, but the way I see you treat others time and time again is not right.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

Connie and Rick are rude to me, I'm defending myself. You choose to complain about me when you could easily find the posts of people who are rude to me, you just choose not to time and time agaib because you , along with others, turn a blind eye to the bad behavior of people who share your stances. I'll defend you and Rick and Connie if the need arises, but you all would never return the favor. You love your team. There are plenty of people that think I'm nice, how can they see something entirely opposite from you?

. Rick talks down to me because he thinks I'm a female, Connie mocks me. Alaris is nice to me, I'm nice back. Matthias is nice to me in spite of our disagreements, so I'm nice back. Kind of how the world works. Don't expect a soothing applauding response if you're rude to someone.

First off, that's entirely subjective.
2nd, all communication is via text, and you need to take a step back and realize the most important aspects of communication are missing .

You're predictable. Please, go find a post where you've talked to me where you aren't criticizing me. Take a look at the mirror and then go ahead and click that "foe" button so that I can avoid this quarterly chastisement in the future .

You’re not my foe. I’m trying to be reasonable here.

[LDS Watchman]

I looked up the date the Supreme Court made it legal to interracially marry. It was 1967 when it passed. All your quotes are pre-existing 1967. It was against the law to have a mixed face marriage before then. I don't know if you are addressing me or Rick Grimes. My information is correct it you look it up.

Mixed marriages were not universally illegal in the United States prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Some northern states never had such laws. Others repealed them well before 1967. By that date most of the states that still had such laws were in the southern states.

Why are these laws relevant to the conversation?

The church didn't merely teach that they were "Illegal" or "wrong". The church taught that it was "GOD'S LAW" that a white man who married a black woman should be PUT TO DEATH. Various church leaders taught that blacks were born black because of pre-mortal decisions. It was taught that black skin and a flat nose was a curse. I was taught that it was an inferior race. In what way does citing laws concerning interracial marriage justify those beliefs that are now explicitly disavowed by the LDS Church? In what way does it mean Church leaders did not preach racist doctrine?

I think one thing that is missing in this discussion is what the Lord has to say about blacks.

Obviously by today's standards saying that being black is a curse is not PC, and therefore wrong... I guess.

But then when we look in the scriptures we see blacks being referred to as cursed by the Lord's prophets and even by the Lord himself.

The church is in a real bad spot.

Their best tactic to pacify the PC people today is to first pretend that all of these "racist" quotes by previous church leaders never happened.

Once the internet made it really easy to see through this deception, then the tactic switched to reluctantly throwing the "dead prophets" under the bus for being racists.

For the time being scriptures such as Abraham 1 and Moses 7 are just ignored.

It would be hard to label Enoch, Noah, and Abraham as racists. That would really call into question the truthfulness of the scriptures. Then throw in racists statements by Nephi, Mormon, and even Christ, and we've got a real problem on our hands.

So it's best for the church to just deny and deflect, and if cornered throw BY and his successors up to 1978 under the bus as nicely as possible

It's sad that the church has resorted to this.