What, if anything, does Church do to improve marriage?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I joined the Church, along with my mother and four brothers and sisters, when I was 16 y/o in a small town on the Texas/Mexican border and am of Mexican descent. I recall over the years reading about the counsel to not a marry outside your race. But, I don't ever recall hearing a leader preach that over the pulpit or having read about it recently. Why it is given today when the Church is so diverse as a whole, I have no explanation. Other than the cultural issues that may surface, I don't see how the color of the skin of two individuals prevent a marriage from flourishing.

I married a young lady who is white and despite our races, the disagreements or differences we have had during our 23 year marriage have never been race related and have always been personality driven. We have a great marriage that includes 10 wonderful children. The color of her skin was never a consideration when I began courting her. I met her, got to know her, fell in love with her, and eventually married her. I never gave consideration to the counsel during the courtship nor did I knowingly make a determination that I would show the Church their counsel was wrong. We just fell in love and got married. That is my side of the story.

On the other hand, my wife who grew up in a predominantly hispanic community in New Mexico, did consider the race issue when it seemed like marriage was the next step in our relationship. She did so, not because of the counsel, but because of the experiences two of her older sisters had when married to hispanics. Those men and their families were not very kind to her sisters and and my wife blamed it on the "machismo" attitude some men have. A "machismo" attitude can be found amongst all races so my wife's sisters could have ended up marrying white guys who could have treated them the same way. But, I will concede that amongst my hispanic population, the "machismo" attitude is still prevalant and unfortunately, many of our sisters inside or outside the church are having to put up with it.

Again, I have no explanation why the counsel is given today. I can see how the counsel would encourage someone they are dating to learn the other's culture and if they believe they can embrace it and are in love, Get Married.

BTW, three of my siblings have also married white members of the Church. AT least in our family, it has worked out just fine.

I have written an email to the church curriculum dept. to complain that this is taught in Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, being taught this year to all YM in the church.

I got a form email in return saying that it had been passed on.

So right now it is me against President Kimball. Because it was Kimball who was quoted. You can guess who is going to win.

There is a lot of bullshit in this church, and you have to sort through it. When you are on the losing side of the bullshit, it takes a strong person, often with a strong testimony to push through.

I wouldn't give President Kimball's words a second thought. They were the product of racism, the same racism that drove him to say that Native Americans skins turn whiter when they are righteous. But thank God for President Kimball, who despite what he had been taught during his life, was able to convince the other sentient apostles (it's not clear for example how with Delbert Stapely was at the time) to end the discrimination against black men and women in the church.

It ain't easy being a leader in this church, trying to sort through what is true, what is your opinion, what are your lies that comfort you.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I wouldn't give President Kimball's words a second thought. They were the product of racism, the same racism that drove him to say that Native Americans skins turn whiter when they are righteous. But thank God for President Kimball, who despite what he had been taught during his life, was able to convince the other sentient apostles (it's not clear for example how with Delbert Stapely was at the time) to end the discrimination against black men and women in the church.

It ain't easy being a leader in this church, trying to sort through what is true, what is your opinion, what are your lies that comfort you.

Thanks Mike for the reference. I checked out the manual, here is what Pres. Kimball said:

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

Interestingly, only the points below were discussed in the lesson.

Why is it so important for a couple to be worthy members of the Church?
Why is it important for a couple to have a similar economic, educational, and cultural background?

I wonder if the first draft of the manual had a question to generate a discussion about marrying within your own racial background?

While at BYU I was a sunday school teacher and I am glad I never had to discuss Pres. Kimball's quote. None of the cute white girls would have dated me.

I have to agree with you Mike, such a quote does not belong in the YM manual. And the fact that the authors did not include a discussion question implies that there is no justification for such a statement.

Next time I see the SP, I will mention lesson 31 to him and ask him to explain Pres. Kimball's quote.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Thanks Mike for the reference. I checked out the manual, here is what Pres. Kimball said:

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

Interestingly, only the points below were discussed in the lesson.

Why is it so important for a couple to be worthy members of the Church?
Why is it important for a couple to have a similar economic, educational, and cultural background?

I wonder if the first draft of the manual had a question to generate a discussion about marrying within your own racial background?

While at BYU I was a sunday school teacher and I am glad I never had to discuss Pres. Kimball's quote. None of the cute white girls would have dated me.

I have to agree with you Mike, such a quote does not belong in the YM manual. And the fact that the authors did not include a discussion question implies that there is no justification for such a statement.

Next time I see the SP, I will mention lesson 31 to him and ask him to explain Pres. Kimball's quote.

I agree that i was a poorly chosen quote to include in this decade. But I think taken in context and the language of the times (1976) vs. now, "culture" is the term that would be used today. And I suspect that if Pres. Kimball were around to ask for some clarity as to "why" he said that, cultural differences are what would come up.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I agree that i was a poorly chosen quote to include in this decade. But I think taken in context and the language of the times (1976) vs. now, "culture" is the term that would be used today. And I suspect that if Pres. Kimball were around to ask for some clarity as to "why" he said that, cultural differences are what would come up.

Forgive me, but it sounds like you are suggesting it might be merely PC-ism that is causing my objection. This goes beyond PC-ism. It goes to institutional racism.

I'm glad President Hinckley preached against racism among the members not too long ago. Unfortunately he didn't address on of its sources--the church. But most of these men were his friends. It will take someone who never knew that generation for the church to finally move on and own up to what it is responsible for.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Forgive me, but it sounds like you are suggesting it might be merely PC-ism that is causing my objection. This goes beyond PC-ism. It goes to institutional racism.

No, what I'm suggesting is that if pressed as to WHY he said that, cultural difference between races / ethnic groups would be what would come up. In 2008 terminology, he meant cultures.

Racisim implies that he said it solely because of skin color, etc. I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think he'd give the same counsel to a Utah boy considering marrying an Eastern European convert he met on his mission. That "generally" coming from such different backgrounds can tend to cause more stress on a marriage, which already is hard enough.

Race in and of itself has nothing to do with it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

No, what I'm suggesting is that if pressed as to WHY he said that, cultural difference between races / ethnic groups would be what would come up. In 2008 terminology, he meant cultures.

Racisim implies that he said it solely because of skin color, etc. I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think he'd give the same counsel to a Utah boy considering marrying an Eastern European convert he met on his mission. That "generally" coming from such different backgrounds can tend to cause more stress on a marriage, which already is hard enough.

Race in and of itself has nothing to do with it.

anyone who counsels this is a racist in my opinion.

On CB I once said that if you could decided you could never date or marry someone of a particular race, you were a racist.

This was met by many howls, and I don't remember more than a couple people agreeing with me.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

anyone who counsels this is a racist in my opinion.

You think that somebody counseling a Caucasian not to marry a Caucasian of a different cultural / ethnic background is "racist"?

This is exactly the problem with the term.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

You think that somebody counseling a Caucasian not to marry a Caucasian of a different cultural / ethnic background is "racist"?

This is exactly the problem with the term.

Man, I am really having to spell it out for you tonight. Here is what you said.

cultural difference between races / ethnic groups

You said cultural difference(s) between races and ethnic groups.

So let's throw out race and ethnic groups, and let's say that saying "don't marry out of your culture, or at least think twice about it" is good advice.

What the hell does that mean? Almost everyone comes from a different culture. If you don't want a different culture, marry your sister. Or your cousin.

OK, if you say, don't marry someone with different values than you. What does that mean? Everyone has different values, as evidenced by this board. Even Tex and Lingo's values are different. Partnerships are not composed of equals. They are composed of different people, with different values, raised in a different culture, each bringing their own strengths, which hopefully combine to make something greater than the sum of their parts.

Ok, so what if we say, decide what's really important in your values, the deal-breakers, and make sure that plays a role. As in having children or not, for example. As in an open marriage or not, etc. Now we are starting to get somewhere that I can agree with. And when we are here, we are so, so far from race, that I can't even see the outline of it with my spotting scope, much less shake hands with it.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I agree that i was a poorly chosen quote to include in this decade. But I think taken in context and the language of the times (1976) vs. now, "culture" is the term that would be used today. And I suspect that if Pres. Kimball were around to ask for some clarity as to "why" he said that, cultural differences are what would come up.

While I agree with you that what Pres. Kimball meant to address were the cultural differences, I believe the general membership may interpret it as choosing between races and not culture. And the misunderstanding comes about because the quote is not discussed. At least, I have never been present when it has. During my 30 years of Church membership, I can't recall a specific incident when someone showed any type of discrimination towards me. The only thing that I still have to deal with is having to put up with spanish speaking RMs talking to me in spanish when we first meet. They just assume I speak spanish because I look the part. I do speak spanish and I chat with them.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

While I agree with you that what Pres. Kimball meant to address were the cultural differences, I believe the general membership may interpret it as choosing between races and not culture. And the misunderstanding comes about because the quote is not discussed. At least, I have never been present when it has. During my 30 years of Church membership, I can't recall a specific incident when someone showed any type of discrimination towards me. The only thing that I still have to deal with is having to put up with spanish speaking RMs talking to me in spanish when we first meet. They just assume I speak spanish because I look the part. I do speak spanish and I chat with them.

And for that reason, as I said, I think it was a poor choice of quotes to include.