I’m going to Chengdu China this weekend to put a two carat piece of carbon on my girl’s finger. She is Chinese but her skin is whiter than my skin of Danish and Norgweian heritage. She’s 32 years old and attended the best university is Sichuan Province, lives in a brand new high rise condo with $80,000.00 USD equity, drives a year old BMW SUV and manages 12 people in an advertising company. She is gorgeous and looks just like the actress Shi Qi from the Transporter. She has a live in maid and lives a very comfortable life and prefers I move to China. Yet my devout LDS brother’s response is to suggest she only want’s the U.S. Immigration visa then spouts off about LDS doctrine regarding race and cross-cultural marriages and the perceived difficulties. Some of the comments on this blog represent his beliefs.

Her English professor told her about Mormons having multiple wives so she calls me and asks me about it. She actually asked if I would consider having multiple wives even though I’m pretty sure she was just messing with me. But,I had to have the polygamy conversation with her. Now I realize that we will need to have another discussion with her regarding the LDS doctrine on race and cross-cultural marriages. Do I address the fact that some of my family member’s attitudes are from the 19th century? I was planning to tell her the doctrine is simply old and outdated and the majority of church members do not adhere its precepts. After reading the blog I’m not sure that my response would be an accurate statement. Any suggestions on how to handle this conversation.

And to answer Chris J’s question in blog # 6 when he asks, “Can you really blame the members for believing something that their leaders have taught?” The answer of course is YES! If the blame only lies with their leaders it would allow, for example, a racist to explain her racism by saying, “You can’t blame me for being a racist because this is what my leader taught me.”

All doctrine, regardless of religion, is an attempt to understand the mind, will and teachings of God. Therefore, all doctrine comes through the filter of man’s understanding. Perhaps all doctrine is to some extent mistaken or flawed as a result. That’s why maybe only doctrine that challenges our standard way of thinking is useful. If doctrine confirms our sense of being right, it has no practical value and can actually do us harm if it confirms our own erroneous beliefs.

I apologize if I misread your comment, but the sentiment was sincere.

It’s both ends and here’s why. It was taught as a false doctrine by the prophets back then. It was made into a changed doctrine by the prophets now. So, the writing on the wall seems pretty obvious to me. What about you?

Thank you, Ray, and the same to you, but how does that have anything to do with my comment that you quoted?

I hope you find peace and resolution this new year.

“Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. a Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. but think of the mercy of god to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?”

Why is god so marvelous just because he will allow Chinamen to be exalted? Isn’t the gospel supposed to be for everyone anyway? Obviously in Mormonism, if god saves someone of color, what a merciful god he is!!!

“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood… This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (Race Problems–As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

Black people, if they are really good, can go to the celestial kingdom as servants!!! Wow! What a merciful god!

It’s not a false doctrine… It’s a changed doctrine. And that means apostacy!

Wof wof….

sorry, couldn’t stop myself.

Nope; it means they want us to forget what was said not necessarily declare it wrong. Nor is it a ‘repudiation’. The basic ideology still stands although it is now expanded to include all races and cultures within the ‘blessed few’ who are born LDS. Now the ‘doctrine’ is that a chosen spirit may be born lds in Zimbabwe, Bangladesh or anywhere.

“I guess we can differ on our interpretations” Don’t we always? Dah? I think we always do! Although we do agree that racists policies are wrong, I guess from your overall comments here.

““We were wrong in our explanations”” this is what they should actually say about the entire Blacks/Priesthood issue to repudiate those racists beliefs, but as yet they haven’t, they only say it in the context of a change in practice. GBH said that the leaders of the time decided to do that and we don’t know why….that’s not “we were wrong”

“only that it repudiated “everything” said to **justify** it.”

I think he didn’t actually do that. The man said ‘forget everything he and others said to justify it’ which is very different to an actual ‘repudiation’ don’t ya think? ‘Forget’ being the operative word here.

It is only recently, with statements by our current apostles and Pres. Hinckley, that the ban itself has come into (still veiled but more open) questioning.

He said “forget everything that I said and others have said” etc in the context of a changed policy or changed practice which no longer had any room for explanations such as these by elder Peterson. But they changed the practice not denounced it or declared it mistaken or wrong. And that’s the point here. There is still wide spread tacit belief that those born in africa or china back the 1800’s were somehow disadvantaged, not those born in the 60’s in Hawaii or Soweto. The later have access to all priesthood blessings put the chance of becoming presidents of once racists nations like south africa or the US of A

The justifications have been repudiated, loudly and clearly, as false (as having been spoken from “limited light and understanding” with the council to “forget everything that I and others have said in the past”) – but it’s not worth spending time and energy repeatedly pointing it out here. Continue this all you want; I’m done.

(Bill should be happy now.)

But now the problem is in the apparent clash between this doctrine of ‘handicap’ due to our behaviour in the pre-existence and the belief that all US presidents are foreordained or chosen to hold that high office -but then again Obama is a democrat, maybe that explains it all

“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.”

Given this statement, can we be so quick as to dismiss the said teaching as a “false doctrine.” I don’t think this statement has ever been officially repudiated.

So, in some cases, He is more involved than in others. But, I think He never intervenes to take away our agency or that of another person, which can affect us, positively or negatively.

When meeting this and other such questions, I always have to ask myself first whether or not I believe God is really in control of His work, and second what that work is (immortality and eternal life of man.) I believe that most of the things we see as damaging in mortality really cause little to no eternal damage, and actually end up engendering eternal benefit. I think we understand so little of eternity.

And believe me, I’m fully and painfully aware of how excruciating this doctrine can be to an individual in the midst of something that feels spiritually damaging, whether it is rejection of the gospel by family members because of a departed doctrine, or desperation at knowing that one’s good, eternal aspirations are crumbling around them.