Special Alert 07

The Multiracial Activist Newsletter
Special Alert 07 – October 1998


The Multiracial Activist Newsletter is an informational digest of news, events, new websites and other information of interest to the Interracial/Multiracial community. Published monthly, with special editions as news items warrant. Past newsletters and alerts are archived at http://www.multiracial.com/newsletter.html.

 

Special Alert – 07
October 1998

Good morning, afternoon, evening, etc:

Religious Organizations Ban or Discourage Interracial Marriage/Dating

Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC

Bob Jones University issues letter to James Landrith, Editor & Publisher of The Multiracial Activist regarding their controversial ban on interracial dating between students at Bob Jones University.
http://www.multiracial.com/letters/bobjonesuniversity.html

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT

Official Church dotrine does not ban interracial marriage, but does discourage it. Church leaders use the old “what about the children” argument as well as describing interracial couples planning to marry as thinking “selfishly of themselves”.
http://www.mormons.org/basic/family/marriage/interracial.htm

Yours in Struggle,
James A. Landrith, Jr.
Editor & Publisher
The Multiracial Activist
http://www.multiracial.com

{jos_sb_discuss:6}

2 comments

  1. In regard to the views of Bob Jones University and the Mormon Church regarding “interracial” marriages, you should ask them exactly how they define the various “races.” Do they condemn interracial marriages between “whites” and “American Indians,” for example? I’m betting that they don’t define intermarriage between “whites” and “Indians” as “miscegenation.” I’m also betting that the Morman Church is easy on white/Asian marriages – especially if the groom is “white” and the bride is a pretty, petite and not too dark Asian. I’m betting that, in both churches, “interracial” is defined mainly in terms of “white” with “black.” By the way, the Mormon Church’s (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) theology once condemned (until the 1980s) blacks as accursed “children of Ham” who were not entitled to full membership in the Church or marriage with other “races.” What changed that was the Church’s expansion into Latin America. They were confronted by thousands of Latin American converts who happily assumed the duties of the Mormon priesthood (mandatory for all males – at the time, all non-“black” males) even though they were obviously of Negroid ancestry. They knew they were part “black” but they were not “blacks,” so obviously the Church’s prohibition didn’t apply to them. The Church couldn’t very well tell all these Latin Americans that they were “black,” so their Prophet or supreme leader annnounced that he had had a revelation from God taking away the curse from blacks. That solved the problem – anything to avoid dealing with the reality of racial intermixture.

    A.D. Powell

  2. How did the LDS church define “black” or “African American”? The “revelation” that “blacks” were entitled to the priesthood happened to coincide with the church’s expansion into Latin America – where Negro blood is common among people who DON’T identify as “black.”

    Also, the LCS practice of encouraging people to research their genealogy in order to baptize dead ancestors would put many white LDS members in danger of finding black ancestry.

    8/26/2004 11:29:29 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.