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

[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 Others repealed them well before 1967.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 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.

I really don't think the scriptures refer to blacks the way early church leaders did. The most you can get from the scriptures is that you can make an argument that they were marked with black skin, but not that a white man should be put to death for marrying a black woman and similar teachings. I think it's clear that when interracial marriages were forbidden, it was because of the culture and the false gods that the people would introduce to the Israelites, and not the color of their skin.

[simpleton]

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.

I really don't think the scriptures refer to blacks the way early church leaders did. The most you can get from the scriptures is that you can make an argument that they were marked with black skin, but not that a white man should be put to death for marrying a black woman and similar teachings. I think it's clear that when interracial marriages were forbidden, it was because of the culture and the false gods that the people would introduce to the Israelites, and not the color of their skin.

While I may come to a different conclusion as to some of what Stahura believes in regards to some of these "controversial" doctrines, I will have to say that anybody that has gone through and read the complete "Journals of Discourses", has my respect.
And, in regards to the arguments of "racism" above, Stahura is completely correct as to what the church has promulgated in the past and in the changes made by the church today and in the recent past to comply with the law and "political correctness" today.
The JofD is written in such plainness that a child can understand it. To "misunderstand" the JofD is simply an unknowing admission of being blind. It is so very plain as to what was taught in regards to the three or four main controversial subjects that are "politically incorrect" today.
Most of us prefer to live in a dream world of fairy tales where "it's all good".

No, I have not read through the complete JofD, but have read various conference reports throughout, but I do think it is one of the most complete sources of the actual teachings of the church during the mid though the end of the 1800's.
Stahura is 100% spot on as to what the church taught about interracial marriage.

[luseskruw]

Hello everyone,

I am an Irish-Italian man who is married to a Japanese woman. I am interested in checking out an LDS church, but I have read online that LDS used to discourage interracial marriages in the past, but I'm not sure of the situation anymore. Can anyone shed some light on the topic? I'm thinking of moving to Utah.

Anyway, my question is, if I go to an LDS church with my wife, will we get a few odd looks/feel uncomfortable? Will the LDS community be accepting of us?

Thank you very much for reading.

Our asian member of the 12 is married to a white woman....you'll be fine.

What got you interested in the church?

Wowow lotta replies sorry guys!

Sorry, but what is "the 12?"

I am interested in the church for 2 reasons.

1. I have been witnessing the degradation of Western Civilization, and this can be directly connected to people straying away from Christian teachings. I stopped believing in Christianity as a teen (I was raised Catholic), but now that I'm 30, I feel drawn to it again somehow.
2. I am looking for a place where I can put work hard and build a family, and Utah seems like a great place. Naturally I started reading about LDS.

[LukeAir2008]

Hello everyone,

I am an Irish-Italian man who is married to a Japanese woman. I am interested in checking out an LDS church, but I have read online that LDS used to discourage interracial marriages in the past, but I'm not sure of the situation anymore. Can anyone shed some light on the topic? I'm thinking of moving to Utah.

Anyway, my question is, if I go to an LDS church with my wife, will we get a few odd looks/feel uncomfortable? Will the LDS community be accepting of us?

Thank you very much for reading.

Hi there,

You are probably correct in saying that LDS leaders did at one time publicly discourage interracial marriage. Today some may do so privately but wouldn’t dare take that position publicly.

There is no point in me or anyone else denying it because if you do a Google search you will find lots of quotes from LDS leaders saying exactly that.

It comes from the LDS doctrine of preexistence and the belief that we are born into specific families and nations according to who and what we were prior to coming to this earth.

There was also, until 1978, a restriction on black males holding the Priesthood which also prevented them from receiving Temple ordinances. This again was based on their supposed lineage and beliefs about their preexistent state.

The members of the Church really take there own positions on what they believe or want to practice. Most of what has been taught by leaders in the past has been outright rejected or certainly amended by the members of the Church. And recent and current leaders will disavow previous leaders statements for fear of being accused of discrimination and falling fowl of the law.

You only need to read the posts on this forum to understand that many Church members often make up their own doctrine and cherry pick from other faiths and religions

I live in the UK and have spent a lot of time living in multicultural, multiethnic London. White couples are often in the minority. There is zero chance of being frowned upon for having a mixed race marriage there. More chance of you being frozen out because you drink Coca Cola.

I can’t speak for congregations in Utah or other parts of the world.

Unless you believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church, which in a nutshell is that God appeared to a young man and then proceeded to use that young man (Joseph Smith) to establish and restore his own authorised Church of Jesus Christ, you may have difficulty with LDS doctrines - even those that are now denied or disavowed.

I would recommend having the missionaries teach you the restored gospel and hope that you get sincere and worthy missionaries who have the companionship of the Spirit so you may then know the truth of this work for yourself.

God bless you and your wife.

[LDS Watchman]

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.

I really don't think the scriptures refer to blacks the way early church leaders did. The most you can get from the scriptures is that you can make an argument that they were marked with black skin, but not that a white man should be put to death for marrying a black woman and similar teachings. I think it's clear that when interracial marriages were forbidden, it was because of the culture and the false gods that the people would introduce to the Israelites, and not the color of their skin.

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

When the black false prophet William McCary began challenging the authority of the apostles and seducing white women in the church, Brigham Young had him exommunicated, not put to death.

Certainly a case can be made that God forbid Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants from intermarrying with the Canaanites because of the wicked practices of the Canaanites.

However, when we consider that Abraham 1 clearly shows that the black Canaanites were legitimately denied the priesthood because of their race, and not because of unrighteousness, then it makes sense that the seed of Abraham, who have a right to the priesthood by lineage or race, should not intermarry with the seed of Cain who by lineage or race have no right to the priesthood.

Abraham told his servant, who was very likely a righteous black Canaanite convert, to go back to Chaldea to get a wife for Isaac from among Abraham's own people.

Abraham had left Chaldea because of the wickedness of those people. We also see that the families of Rebekah and later Leah and Rachel, who were all kinsman of Abraham from Chaldea, really weren't righteous and worshipped idols themselves. In Genesis 31 there is an account of Rachel stealing her father's images, for example.

If race really didn't matter, then why didn't Abraham have Isaac marry a righteous Canaanite convert, from among his own household servants, instead of having him marry Rebekah from the house of idol worshippers in Chaldea?

The scriptures absolutely support the priesthood ban, when Abraham 1 and Moses 7 are combined.

The scriptures also support the prohibition of white Israelites intermarrying with black Canaanites.

Seems to me the original teachings of the church on blacks and the curse that was put upon them is backed by scripture, while the PC disavowal of those teachings today is not.

[Rick Grimes]

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.

I really don't think the scriptures refer to blacks the way early church leaders did. The most you can get from the scriptures is that you can make an argument that they were marked with black skin, but not that a white man should be put to death for marrying a black woman and similar teachings. I think it's clear that when interracial marriages were forbidden, it was because of the culture and the false gods that the people would introduce to the Israelites, and not the color of their skin.

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

When the black false prophet William McCary began challenging the authority of the apostles and seducing white women in the church, Brigham Young had him exommunicated, not put to death.

Certainly a case can be made that God forbid Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants from intermarrying with the Canaanites because of the wicked practices of the Canaanites.

However, when we consider that Abraham 1 clearly shows that the black Canaanites were legitimately denied the priesthood because of their race, and not because of unrighteousness, then it makes sense that the seed of Abraham, who have a right to the priesthood by lineage or race, should not intermarry with the seed of Cain who by lineage or race have no right to the priesthood.

Abraham told his servant, who was very likely a righteous black Canaanite convert, to go back to Chaldea to get a wife for Isaac from among Abraham's own people.

Abraham had left Chaldea because of the wickedness of those people. We also see that the families of Rebekah and later Leah and Rachel, who were all kinsman of Abraham from Chaldea, really weren't righteous and worshipped idols themselves. In Genesis 31 there is an account of Rachel stealing her father's images, for example.

If race really didn't matter, then why didn't Abraham have Isaac marry a righteous Canaanite convert, from among his own household servants, instead of having him marry Rebekah from the house of idol worshippers in Chaldea?

The scriptures absolutely support the priesthood ban, when Abraham 1 and Moses 7 are combined.

The scriptures also support the prohibition of white Israelites intermarrying with black Canaanites.

Seems to me the original teachings of the church on blacks and the curse that was put upon them is backed by scripture, while the PC disavowal of those teachings today is not.

This^ Matthias is exactly correct and he sees the truth of why the church has said what it has said about past teachings. They werent racist, but we cant say that because it isnt PC. The anti's out there are having a field day now because it discredits former church doctrines and leaders. What else are we currently wrong about? Gay marriage? Baptism for the dead? Exaltation? The first vision??

I stand by my assertion that the church was NEVER racist. Following the commandments of God is not racist. Even Christ didnt want to share the gospel with the Canaanite woman and even compared her race to dogs, not because he was racist but because of their unrighteousness and timing not being right for them to recieve the gospel. That was the Lord's judgement and who are we to question it? The same way the Lord directed His latter day prophets to withhold the priesthood from blacks, not because of racism, but because it wasnt their time yet. Try to explain this in 5 minutes to a society that has Google and ubiquitous anti websites at their disposal and you can figure out how many will even bother to delve into the historical precedent of the Lord extending priesthood and access to the gospel in His own time.

Stahura and the other Anti's out there do a fine job tearing us down from within, accusing the brethren of being racist, simply because it doesnt line up with their woke, progressive agenda.

If you honestly believe half of the evil things that Stahura and other anti's accuse the brethren of being guilty of, then we really are apostate and I'm wondering why they are even here on this website other than trying to deceive and lead astray those who would believe their words.

[Zathura]

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

When the black false prophet William McCary began challenging the authority of the apostles and seducing white women in the church, Brigham Young had him exommunicated, not put to death.

Certainly a case can be made that God forbid Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants from intermarrying with the Canaanites because of the wicked practices of the Canaanites.

However, when we consider that Abraham 1 clearly shows that the black Canaanites were legitimately denied the priesthood because of their race, and not because of unrighteousness, then it makes sense that the seed of Abraham, who have a right to the priesthood by lineage or race, should not intermarry with the seed of Cain who by lineage or race have no right to the priesthood.

Abraham told his servant, who was very likely a righteous black Canaanite convert, to go back to Chaldea to get a wife for Isaac from among Abraham's own people.

Abraham had left Chaldea because of the wickedness of those people. We also see that the families of Rebekah and later Leah and Rachel, who were all kinsman of Abraham from Chaldea, really weren't righteous and worshipped idols themselves. In Genesis 31 there is an account of Rachel stealing her father's images, for example.

If race really didn't matter, then why didn't Abraham have Isaac marry a righteous Canaanite convert, from among his own household servants, instead of having him marry Rebekah from the house of idol worshippers in Chaldea?

The scriptures absolutely support the priesthood ban, when Abraham 1 and Moses 7 are combined.

The scriptures also support the prohibition of white Israelites intermarrying with black Canaanites.

Seems to me the original teachings of the church on blacks and the curse that was put upon them is backed by scripture, while the PC disavowal of those teachings today is not.

First, I ask you to ask Rick to stop turning to you to talk trash about me and calling me anti-mormon. It's simply not true, and it's not okay.

Okay, now:

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

No, there is no indication that leaders of the church would ever have put a man to death for this. (Also, the teaching was that the WHITE MAN who married a black woman would be put to death) I linked a quote earlier proving that this was taught. The fact that they would never actually put a man to death doesn't change the fact that they did indeed teach that such a thing was "The Law of God".

Also, the fact that you say you're not aware of any quotes calling for this makes me think you really aren't reading what anybody is saying when you discuss the topic with them, because again, I did include a quote above. Please read what I've quoted, because I do the same for you.

..............................

With all due respect, I think it's clear to me that you are making your argument seem stronger than it really is. I can guarantee you that the brethren would never have reversed the priesthood ban if there was substantial support for the ban in the scriptures. I would not be opposed to reading everything you have to cite if you created a new thread to support what you're saying here, Matthias.

Are you aware that it's an established truth that Moses married a black woman? Are you aware that his sister criticized him for marrying a black woman? Are you aware that it was at that point that God cursed Miriam with leprosy? These are facts.

What is not established is if the woman Moses originally married was the same woman referred to as the Cushite. If she is, then that points towards Jethro being a black man, and his presence in Midian would have been as a missionary, and not a descendant of those people. In LDS scripture, Jethro gave the priesthood to Moses. In other words, there is a possibility that the priesthood was given to Moses by a black man.
If instead Moses married two different women, then the mainstream belief is correct(that Jethro was not a black missionary that was sent to Midian) but the fact remains that Moses did marry a black woman.

Are you also aware that it's pretty established that Hagar was black? Obviously I think Abraham's relationship with Hagar was inappropriate, but you clearly think it was sanctioned of God. How can this be, if she was a black woman?

The idea that Ham is the father of the black race is really not that strongly supported by scripture in spite of some Mormon's insistence that it is, but assuming that this idea is correct, then the fact that Judah married a Canaanite means that Judah, the son of Jacob too married a black woman.

How about Judah's brother, Joseph? He married an Egyptian woman, who very well could have been black. If you look into history, there are arguments that his wife could have also been Semitic, or a mixed race.

It seems to me that "PC" and "SJW" is just a convenient scapegoat to blame everything on. No need to have a proper discussion when you can just call your opponent an SJW or an anti-mormon right? You didn't think it was right that you were called an anti-mormon and asked me to stop. I'm being called an anti-mormon here, and you're basically calling me and the church SJW by criticizing this "PC disavowal". How is that any different than what you asked others to stop doing?

[Zathura]

This^ Matthias is exactly correct and he sees the truth of why the church has said what it has said about past teachings. They werent racist, but we cant say that because it isnt PC. The anti's out there are having a field day now because it discredits former church doctrines and leaders. What else are we currently wrong about? Gay marriage? Baptism for the dead? Exaltation? The first vision??

I stand by my assertion that the church was NEVER racist. Following the commandments of God is not racist. Even Christ didnt want to share the gospel with the Canaanite woman and even compared her race to dogs, not because he was racist but because of their unrighteousness and timing not being right for them to recieve the gospel. That was the Lord's judgement and who are we to question it? The same way the Lord directed His latter day prophets to withhold the priesthood from blacks, not because of racism, but because it wasnt their time yet. Try to explain this in 5 minutes to a society that has Google and ubiquitous anti websites at their disposal and you can figure out how many will even bother to delve into the historical precedent of the Lord extending priesthood and access to the gospel in His own time.

Stahura and the other Anti's out there do a fine job tearing us down from within, accusing the brethren of being racist, simply because it doesnt line up with their woke, progressive agenda.

If you honestly believe half of the evil things that Stahura and other anti's accuse the brethren of being guilty of, then we really are apostate and I'm wondering why they are even here on this website other than trying to deceive and lead astray those who would believe their words.

You've now used two fallacies in this post.

Straw Man fallacy -setting me up with beliefs and ideology that I don't in actuality hold

Appeal to the extreme -suggesting that because I reject MAYBE 3 doctrines taught by early brethren that I therefore will soon be trying to spread extreme teachings like: justify gay marriage, take away baptism for the dead, exaltation, and prove the first vision wrong. And that if Brigham Young did anything wrong then all would be lost and we'd truly be apostate.

When you have to make an appeal using logical fallacies, you're on the losing end of a debate. FYI

The same way the Lord directed His latter day prophets to withhold the priesthood from blacks, not because of racism, but because it wasnt their time yet.

This literally never happened, and you are straight up lying if you claim this ever happened.

Again, you're making an appeal to Matthias, who literally believes the Church is currently apostate, trying to tell him that I simply HAVE to be wrong because my claims would mean the Church is apostate. Your appeal to Matthias is very strange and illogical.

[Durzan]

Just an FYI, keep the debates centered on the arguments, not the individual.

Also, there's a fallacy called the fallacy fallacy, which basically says: Argument X is a fallacy, therefore X must be false.

[Zathura]

Hello everyone,

I am an Irish-Italian man who is married to a Japanese woman. I am interested in checking out an LDS church, but I have read online that LDS used to discourage interracial marriages in the past, but I'm not sure of the situation anymore. Can anyone shed some light on the topic? I'm thinking of moving to Utah.

Anyway, my question is, if I go to an LDS church with my wife, will we get a few odd looks/feel uncomfortable? Will the LDS community be accepting of us?

Thank you very much for reading.

Our asian member of the 12 is married to a white woman....you'll be fine.

What got you interested in the church?

Wowow lotta replies sorry guys!

Sorry, but what is "the 12?"

I am interested in the church for 2 reasons.

1. I have been witnessing the degradation of Western Civilization, and this can be directly connected to people straying away from Christian teachings. I stopped believing in Christianity as a teen (I was raised Catholic), but now that I'm 30, I feel drawn to it again somehow.
2. I am looking for a place where I can put work hard and build a family, and Utah seems like a great place. Naturally I started reading about LDS.

"The 12" refers to the quorum of 12 apostles.

We believe that the original church that the Lord Jesus established eventually fell into apostasy, and was restored later through Joseph Smith. We believe that the Lord also restored his priesthood that he had given to Peter and the other apostles, and called 12 apostles, continuing to do so until this very day.

So what that poster said is that one of the Members of the Quorum of 12 apostles is an Asian man who is married to a white woman.

I can vouch for Utah, I know everyone feels different, but I personally wouldn't want to raise my family anywhere else.

1. I have been witnessing the degradation of Western Civilization, and this can be directly connected to people straying away from Christian teachings. I stopped believing in Christianity as a teen (I was raised Catholic), but now that I'm 30, I feel drawn to it again somehow.

It's fantastic that you feel drawn to it.The most important thing for you is to develop a relationship with God. I can promise you that if you sincerely approach God in prayer , earnestly seeking him, you will find him.

I moved away from Christianity as a teen as well, and there came a day that I broke down and prayed to God with all of my heart, and I prayed for a while. Eventually this power filled my body, it felt like fire, it felt like pure love unlike anything I had ever felt before, and immediately all guilt, pain, and anger was swept away. Ever since that day I've known that Jesus is my Savior, and it changed my life forever. It changed my heart, it changed my desires. You too can experience this, and I pray that you do.

[Zathura]

Just an FYI, keep the debates centered on the arguments, not the individual.

Also, there's a fallacy called the fallacy fallacy, which basically says: Argument X is a fallacy, therefore X must be false.

Ah that's a nice one.

I don't think that happened here though. The fallacy fallacy means that the person is arguing that Argument X is false only because X is a fallacy. I am not pointing to X being a fallacy as being the reason for X to be false.

I only pointed out that he used 2 fallacies, and that it normally means you're on the losing end of a debate if your resort to fallacies.

The reasoning for his statements to be false in this case is not that they are fallacies, it's that they are simply not true. An ideology was attributed to me that I do not hold, there for X is false. Also hypothetical/nonexistent arguments were also attributed to me, which obviously cannot be held as true because they are hypothetical and never actually happened, therefore X is false.

[LDS Watchman]

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

When the black false prophet William McCary began challenging the authority of the apostles and seducing white women in the church, Brigham Young had him exommunicated, not put to death.

Certainly a case can be made that God forbid Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants from intermarrying with the Canaanites because of the wicked practices of the Canaanites.

However, when we consider that Abraham 1 clearly shows that the black Canaanites were legitimately denied the priesthood because of their race, and not because of unrighteousness, then it makes sense that the seed of Abraham, who have a right to the priesthood by lineage or race, should not intermarry with the seed of Cain who by lineage or race have no right to the priesthood.

Abraham told his servant, who was very likely a righteous black Canaanite convert, to go back to Chaldea to get a wife for Isaac from among Abraham's own people.

Abraham had left Chaldea because of the wickedness of those people. We also see that the families of Rebekah and later Leah and Rachel, who were all kinsman of Abraham from Chaldea, really weren't righteous and worshipped idols themselves. In Genesis 31 there is an account of Rachel stealing her father's images, for example.

If race really didn't matter, then why didn't Abraham have Isaac marry a righteous Canaanite convert, from among his own household servants, instead of having him marry Rebekah from the house of idol worshippers in Chaldea?

The scriptures absolutely support the priesthood ban, when Abraham 1 and Moses 7 are combined.

The scriptures also support the prohibition of white Israelites intermarrying with black Canaanites.

Seems to me the original teachings of the church on blacks and the curse that was put upon them is backed by scripture, while the PC disavowal of those teachings today is not.

First, I ask you to ask Rick to stop turning to you to talk trash about me and calling me anti-mormon. It's simply not true, and it's not okay.

Okay, now:

Is there any indication that leaders of the Church had black men put to death for marrying a white woman, or that they even attempted to do this?

I'm not aware of any quotes even calling for this.

No, there is no indication that leaders of the church would ever have put a man to death for this. (Also, the teaching was that the WHITE MAN who married a black woman would be put to death) I linked a quote earlier proving that this was taught. The fact that they would never actually put a man to death doesn't change the fact that they did indeed teach that such a thing was "The Law of God".

Also, the fact that you say you're not aware of any quotes calling for this makes me think you really aren't reading what anybody is saying when you discuss the topic with them, because again, I did include a quote above. Please read what I've quoted, because I do the same for you.

..............................

With all due respect, I think it's clear to me that you are making your argument seem stronger than it really is. I can guarantee you that the brethren would never have reversed the priesthood ban if there was substantial support for the ban in the scriptures. I would not be opposed to reading everything you have to cite if you created a new thread to support what you're saying here, Matthias.

Are you aware that it's an established truth that Moses married a black woman? Are you aware that his sister criticized him for marrying a black woman? Are you aware that it was at that point that God cursed Miriam with leprosy? These are facts.

What is not established is if the woman Moses originally married was the same woman referred to as the Cushite. If she is, then that points towards Jethro being a black man, and his presence in Midian would have been as a missionary, and not a descendant of those people. In LDS scripture, Jethro gave the priesthood to Moses. In other words, there is a possibility that the priesthood was given to Moses by a black man.
If instead Moses married two different women, then the mainstream belief is correct(that Jethro was not a black missionary that was sent to Midian) but the fact remains that Moses did marry a black woman.

Are you also aware that it's pretty established that Hagar was black? Obviously I think Abraham's relationship with Hagar was inappropriate, but you clearly think it was sanctioned of God. How can this be, if she was a black woman?

The idea that Ham is the father of the black race is really not that strongly supported by scripture in spite of some Mormon's insistence that it is, but assuming that this idea is correct, then the fact that Judah married a Canaanite means that Judah, the son of Jacob too married a black woman.

How about Judah's brother, Joseph? He married an Egyptian woman, who very well could have been black. If you look into history, there are arguments that his wife could have also been Semitic, or a mixed race.

It seems to me that "PC" and "SJW" is just a convenient scapegoat to blame everything on. No need to have a proper discussion when you can just call your opponent an SJW or an anti-mormon right? You didn't think it was right that you were called an anti-mormon and asked me to stop. I'm being called an anti-mormon here, and you're basically calling me and the church SJW by criticizing this "PC disavowal". How is that any different than what you asked others to stop doing?

I don't consider you be an anti-Mormon. I think you're generally pretty opposed to the narrative of the Church, and pretty anti-Brigham Young, though.

I think your views are a lot more similar to the early RLDS teachings than LDS teachings, but again I don't consider you an anti-Mormon.

I've never used the term SJW in my life. I use the term PC when I think it's appropriate.

The terms racism and racist are PC terms. When I call the PC arguments of you, the Church, or anyone else PC, I'm not trying to dismiss them. What I'm doing is pointing out that they are the only arguments that are accepted by our very PC mainstream society today. And based on the PC definition of racism the prophets in the scriptures and the Lord himself were "racists." I think that's a point that needs to be made.

Now to address some of your other points.

I did not catch the quote by BY you had shared. I didn't wade through every post carefully before commenting.

Here it is.

“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

I don't think Brigham is saying that white men should be put to death for marrying black women.

There are different types of death, are there not?

If we put this quote in context with other statements by Brigham Young, I believe that the death he is talking about is the death of the priesthood in the lineage of the mixed race children.

The rest of the quote above talks about the nations of the earth having transgressed all of God's laws including the prohibition on whites mixing their seed with blacks. Brigham says they are basically walking in darkness and lost. In that sense they are worthy of death. Afterall, as the scriptures say, "the punishment for sin is death." But it is not for us to kill the wicked. The Lord will do that himself in his own due time, if they do not repent.

Some other points.

Hagar may have been black or of a mixed race. I doubt it, but it's possible. If she was black or of a mixed race, then that would certainly explain why her son Ishmael was not allowed to be the one through whom God would establish his covenant as promised to Abraham.

I'm very sure that Joseph's wife Aseneth was not black. She was a of the royal Hykso family who were Chaldean, not Canaanite.

Cushites were descendants of Ham's son Cush not his son Canaan, so they would not have been black originally. Obviously they eventually mixed with the black Canaanites and became black themselves. At what point this mixing happened is anyone's guess. My money is on Moses Cushite wife not being black.

If it turns out that she was black or much more likely partially black, then Miriam had a point in rebuking Moses for this marriage, but the Lord still punished her for speaking evil against his anointed prophet, seer, and revelator.

Judah was not a righteous man, so his taking of a Canaanite wife can't be used to justify the practice.

[gkearney]

I know what I am about to write will come across to some of you as apostate. Did it ever occurs to anyone that the whole priesthood ban might just be a mistake? That it was nothing more than the mistaken views of race held by most people of the time and nothing more? Surely just like the general membership the Church as a whole is capable of error, even serious error.

[abijah`]

I'm Mexican and my wife is Welsh. Welcome to the club! If you came to my home ward, you'd be very welcome!

wow super interesting

is she proper welsh, like from wales?

[Rick Grimes]

I know what I am about to write will come across to some of you as apostate. Did it ever occurs to anyone that the whole priesthood ban might just be a mistake? That it was nothing more than the mistaken views of race held by most people of the time and nothing more? Surely just like the general membership the Church as a whole is capable of error, even serious error.

If this is true, then our church is not led by revelation or the Lord for that matter. We would be the church of man. Driven by every fad and blown about by every wind of doctrine. I understand there are mistakes that are caused by men, but major "eternal consequences" doctrines would and should have been intervened by the Lord in His true church. Thankfully, there is plenty of justification in both scripture and modern day revelation that explains the priesthood ban along with its eventual removal. There is also precedent of priesthood being restricted to certain lineages, so that also seems to fit in with the logic of there being a ban or restriction on access to the priesthood, from a scriptural point of view.

[marc]

I'm Mexican and my wife is Welsh. Welcome to the club! If you came to my home ward, you'd be very welcome!

wow super interesting

is she proper welsh, like from wales?

No. She descends from the Welsh and I descend from Mexicans. She's from Utah and I'm from Texas.

[abijah`]

No. She descends from the Welsh and I descend from Mexicans. She's from Utah and I'm from Texas.

ah ok

yeah i was chuckling to myself at the mix of those two cultures in one household lol

[gkearney]

I know what I am about to write will come across to some of you as apostate. Did it ever occurs to anyone that the whole priesthood ban might just be a mistake? That it was nothing more than the mistaken views of race held by most people of the time and nothing more? Surely just like the general membership the Church as a whole is capable of error, even serious error.

If this is true, then our church is not led by revelation or the Lord for that matter. We would be the church of man. Driven by every fad and blown about by every wind of doctrine. I understand there are mistakes that are caused by men, but major "eternal consequences" doctrines would and should have been intervened by the Lord in His true church. Thankfully, there is plenty of justification in both scripture and modern day revelation that explains the priesthood ban along with its eventual removal. There is also precedent of priesthood being restricted to certain lineages, so that also seems to fit in with the logic of there being a ban or restriction on access to the priesthood, from a scriptural point of view.

So by this standard the Church, as an institution, is incapable of error? Sorry I don't buy that line of thinking.

[Rick Grimes]

I know what I am about to write will come across to some of you as apostate. Did it ever occurs to anyone that the whole priesthood ban might just be a mistake? That it was nothing more than the mistaken views of race held by most people of the time and nothing more? Surely just like the general membership the Church as a whole is capable of error, even serious error.

If this is true, then our church is not led by revelation or the Lord for that matter. We would be the church of man. Driven by every fad and blown about by every wind of doctrine. I understand there are mistakes that are caused by men, but major "eternal consequences" doctrines would and should have been intervened by the Lord in His true church. Thankfully, there is plenty of justification in both scripture and modern day revelation that explains the priesthood ban along with its eventual removal. There is also precedent of priesthood being restricted to certain lineages, so that also seems to fit in with the logic of there being a ban or restriction on access to the priesthood, from a scriptural point of view.

So by this standard the Church, as an institution, is incapable of error? Sorry I don't buy that line of thinking.

I never said "incapable of error". Shoot, there's PLENTY of things that I believe church leadership is wrong on. The obsession with the church's image, the "disavowal of skin color indicating disfavor with God", the vague definition of what a proper tithe consists of, and the acquiescence to both the LGBT and feminist agenda to name a few things...

However, when one looks at these issues, they are all temporal and really have no real impact on one's salvation. They might hurt pride and finances, but you can still attain salvation either way you fall in these issues. However, when we are talking about major revelations like gender identity, marriage between Male and female, females having the priesthood, exaltation, the status of children who die without baptism, temple work for the dead, etc... these are matters with eternal consequences. They most assuredly have not been left to our devices and have had our Lord giving direct revelation and commandment to our prophets and apostles so that the work may be done correctly and according to the Lord's will. If we are open to be wrong about any of these established doctrines, then we can be wrong about all of them. Hence, we become the church of man. We are not led by God but a group of elite old men who have propagated a lie that they commune with deity. So although I do indeed believe that the Lord will and does leave us to our own judgement (or in this case, theirs), there are certain eternal matters that there would and should be an immediate course correction set by the Lord if we are not in line with His established truths. There is plenty of precedent that shows this to be true. (Moses striking the rock, Joseph giving the 116 pages to Martin, Jonah running from Ninevah, Peter and the gospel going to the gentiles, Brigham Young reversing his stance after a session of general conference after having recieved revelation contrary to his beliefs, etc....

I do not believe in any sort of doctrine of infallibility like so many others do. However, if we are the true church, we would have a prophet that does commune with God and has His approval on at least our major core doctrines. Men having thr priesthood to enter into the Kingdom of God would be a major doctrine, and having racism taint this doctrine would be indicative that we aren't led by God, but our own prejudices. I mean, think about it. We really think God was ok for about 150 years to allow this injustice to happen because the members were racist? You dont think there would have been a revelation that answered these worthy saints prayers that would have corrected this slight of man? If that is the case, what else are we currently wrong about? Gay marriage? Does one even need baptism to be saved? Does being baptized by any church still count as a baptism? Is the BOM really sacred scripture, or is it just good reading?

I personally have a testimony that our leaders are inspired by God and do commune with Him, as well as have authority to act in His name. Although they are imperfect men, I dont believe that they would be allowed to stray that far from established major doctrines. If they did, it would be a sign that we are truly apostate as a church.

[Zathura]

It might be time to revisit your beliefs if the glue that holds everything together is racism.

[Rick Grimes]

It might be time to revisit your beliefs if the glue that holds everything together is racism.

Maybe you should do the same, since you have so much doubt about the righteousness of our early church leaders and their practice of plural marriage, which you seem to bring up at every opportunity. (This thread had nothing to do with that subject, but you interjected it in here anyways)

[LDS Watchman]

It might be time to revisit your beliefs if the glue that holds everything together is racism.

Who is that comment directed at?

[Rick Grimes]

I'm sure that was aimed at me

[abijah`]

re-reading my post it looks like i meant i disapprove of welsh and mexican intermarrying and i dont. i meant they have such different cultures, it would be funny to see worlds collide in the family setting.

[Rick Grimes]

I too am in a mixed marriage. My wife is Welsh and German. I'm Mexican, which is a mix of indigenous native Americans and Europeans. I have never once felt any disapproval from anybody in the church about our union.