I want some opinions about this book

[_Justin]

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 94610aRCRD

Racist or not racist?

I was taught this when I was a member of the church. Looking back I can't believe they actually told me this or that it's part of an official church document. I know it's not doctrine per say but to me it's very telling how the church views this kind of thing.

[_cinepro]

I assume you're referring to the quote from President Kimball:

Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

“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).



• Why is it so important for a couple to be worthy members of the Church? Ensure that the following points are discussed:


1. Exaltation cannot be attained without celestial marriage.


2. Religious values are powerful, and conflicting values can cause continual stress.


3. President Kimball quoted a survey showing that “only about one out of seven non-member spouses would be converted and baptized into the Church” (“Marriage and Divorce,” p. 152).


4. When one spouse is not converted to the gospel, the children are caught between the differing values of the parents.


• Why is it important for a couple to have a similar economic, educational, and cultural background?

I suppose we would need to determine whether there are any legitimate reasons to presume greater difficulty in interracial marriages, and if so, it it is "racist" to acknowledge those difficulties.

It is also notable that "race" isn't brought up in the follow-up questions alongside economic, educational and cultural concerns.

[_The Nehor]

Any and all differences should be considered. Racial distinctions usually (though not always) involve cultural distinctions.

Until the day comes (please God let is be soon) where racial differences are not cultural differences those differences need to be considered.

[_moksha]

It is also notable that "race" isn't brought up in the follow-up questions alongside economic, educational and cultural concerns.

The Correlation Committee understood the implications of reiterating any racial concerns.

[_bcspace]

Racist or not racist?

Not racist. Doesn't fit the definition.

[_Paul Osborne]

Racist or not racist?

Not racist. Doesn't fit the definition.

What about the black god of Facsimile No. 3? Is the mighty Anubis, god of Egypt, a mere slave in you mind, BC?

Paul O

[_bcspace]

Not racist. Doesn't fit the definition.

What about the black god of Facsimile No. 3? Is the mighty Anubis, god of Egypt, a mere slave in you mind, BC?

The Egyptians had slaves of all colors. Not racist by definition.

[_moksha]

Racist or not racist?

Not racist. Doesn't fit the definition.

If they were to leave out race and use economic and social and educational background as the discriminating factors, then it would sound completely non-racist. Besides, the same ends could be served with simple code word elitism.

[_bcspace]

If they were to leave out race and use economic and social and educational background as the discriminating factors, then it would sound completely non-racist.

Being conquered in war seemed to be a major factor. In Joseph's case, his brothers sold him into slavery. Anyone want to argue that Joseph was black?