A great amount of social progress has been made in the United States during the past twenty years in civil rights. Attitudes toward intercultural, interracial, international, or interethnic marriages (I will use the word "intermarriage" as a generic term hereinafter) have become more liberal and the number of intermarriages has increased. Intermarriage has gradually become more acceptable, particularly among overseas service personnel and on college and university campuses. (Intermarriage in Hawaii is fairly common.) Even though there are growing numbers of intermarriages, the matter is not one of civil rights alone. Traditionally intermarriage has not been well accepted in America and is frequently more harshly viewed in many other countries. Today, intermarriage remains an emotional issue for many people, both inside and outside the Church.

        Intermarriage is not new among Latter-day Saints. One of the first two LDS missionaries to the South Pacific married a Polynesian woman and, upon her death, yet another. His reasons for intermarrying were no doubt similar to those of thousands of other returned missionaries since that time. Familiarity with people of other cultures generally brings understanding for them; understanding brings appreciation; and appreciation often leads to love. One of the greatest by-products of the LDS missionary system is the enhanced level of international concern and understanding felt by vast numbers of the Mormon people.

        It is not surprising that many returned missionaries meet people from the lands where they served, appreciate them for their fine qualities, and fall in love with them. Through the mission experience, most cultural barriers are torn down, and people are seen simply as people—children of God—rather than as representatives of some other race or culture.

        But there are both positive and negative results of this situation. For various reasons, even in marriages in which there is considerable cultural appreciation and the shared foundation of the restored gospel, some intermarriages run afoul.

        Counseling about intermarriage is a very sensitive process. The lay counselor who seeks to help people who are considering such marriages, or those who are already married, must be aware of the pitfalls that lay before him. It is difficult to be neutral in the eyes of both parties. The cultural, ethnic, or racial background of the counselor can be used by a counselee as justification for not considering or acting on the counsel given. This issue, the supposed prejudice of the counselor, should be brought into the open and clarified at the beginning. The lay counselor might suggest that if either party feels that he is giving biased counsel, they should all pause to examine the prejudice or bias. (The word prejudice means to prejudge someone or something. Its implication is that a person judges someone or a situation without enough facts to do so fairly.) The result of this examination should be even clearer communication of your ideas, or, if you are prejudiced, your admission of this fact may suggest that the counselees seek help from someone who can be more fair.

As a lay counselor, you can check your own prejudice level by asking yourself if you would be as willing to take counsel from a counselor of another race, ethnic group, or culture as from your own. If not, you are prejudiced and need to carefully consider your ability to counsel others.

        You, as a lay counselor, must be honest with yourself. It is very important not to try to "play it" Black, Polynesian, or Asian if you are not. You must be yourself. And, fortunately, there is a second way to check your potential as a counselor to those in intermarriage. Are your suggestions going to be based on defensible principles, or just on personal preferences?

Some counselors try to give advice based on their beliefs about what the world and society should be. That is, they are committed to the idea of racial and cultural equality and therefore give advice based on their hopes for some future time rather than on society as it is today. This is not realistic. Such counselors are prone to argue that all the difficulties of intermarriage are the result of problems, doubts, and complications that have resulted from attitudes of the past—attitudes that are surely temporary. Such an argument is moot. No one knows when there will be a total change to toleration and equality. Meanwhile, a not-too-sturdy relationship might crumble if sound counsel is not given.

        Generally, but not always, it is wise to make a clear distinction between culture and race. Marriages have the greatest chance for success when the couple comes from the same culture. Here I am talking about national culture, subculture (such as a distinctive set of societal patterns within a country or ethnic group), and microculture (such as a distinct community or family tradition).

        John Taneguchi was a brilliant engineer who had been reared in eastern Wyoming. He filled a mission in Japan and learned to speak Japanese. Later, while at Brigham Young University, he met and married Kiyoko Moriyama, a lovely Japanese girl reared in Japan. But although they looked alike, they did not think alike. Each had certain expectations that the other did not fill. Kiyoko had more problems adjusting to John than he had adjusting to her. He looked Japanese, but he did not act Japanese. He was as American as he could be. She expected him to behave like her father. He did not.

        On the other hand, John had some disappointments too. Through his American upbringing he had picked up the idea that Japanese women are more submissive, subordinate, and serene than American women. He expected her to behave like an "Oriental doll." Both partners had some significant adjustments to make.

        Several important points are evident in this marriage. Race is clearly not the most important factor. Culture, the established patterns of belief and behavior, is more important. As you talk with prospective intermarriage couples, you should make this clear. They need to find cultural similarities if they hope to have success.

        This marriage illustrates two other points about expectations and stereotyping. Kiyoko had watched her father for years. He regularly stayed out late in the evening with his office associates. Kiyoko's mother did not complain because this was the Japanese way. When he did come home immediately after work, he usually put on his comfortable clothes and settled in front of the television until dinnertime. He seldom lifted a finger around the house. Everyone waited on him. He was king of the home. But John saw things differently. Although he hoped Kiyoko would wait on him hand and foot, and thus fulfill his stereotype of how "Oriental" women behave, he also wanted her to be just like his mother, and he expected to behave as his father had. He expected to help around the house. He liked to cook. He thought he had just as much responsibility to make domestic decisions as Kiyoko did. Actually, it did not take long for John to find out that his Oriental bride had strong opinions of her own. Part of her desire to marry an American came from her belief that American husbands are more kind, understanding, and egalitarian than Japanese men. Clearly, both partners had mixed perceptions, expectations, and stereotypes. They both wanted the best of both worlds, but they were also bound to the traditions and expectations of their own past. "Each partner," writes Richard Markoff, "may view the other not as an individual but as the representative of his or her culture or ethnic group." fn This places the partner in a role or function that he or she is not willing to discharge. Stereotypes and unexpressed expectations constitute hidden terms in the marriage contract that the other partner may not be willing to keep.

        Some people actually marry out of their own culture in order to remain in America (or some other desirable country). Others have different but equally base or unrighteous reasons for marrying a person from a preferred nation or culture area.

        Love is probably the most frequently cited motivation for intermarriage. That true love exists must not be denied. But it is well to remember that most couples who are in love seek privacy and isolation. In their somewhat isolated state, they sometimes forget that life must be lived within society, not alone. Marriage is not an isolated state. The feelings of family and friends seep into the lives of married people much more than into the lives of those who are falling in love. A dating couple will either ignore the cultural differences or remain blind to them, but the rest of society generally refuses to allow such blindness. Such couples should be encouraged to get to know as much as possible about each other's cultures. They can do this through reading; by associating with the other's family, friends, and relatives; and, when possible, by visiting and living in the other culture for a time. The idea is to get both parties into the open where they can view their future life more realistically. Women especially should evaluate themselves to see if they are willing to adapt to family life in the countries from which their prospective husbands come. Often—perhaps usually—life as we know it in the United States cannot be duplicated abroad. A prospective bride should evaluate just how tough and adaptable she really is.

        The process of evaluating oneself in relation to another culture is extremely important. For example, young American women who are contemplating marriage with a Polynesian or Fijian need to realize that the role of women in the islands is much different than in the United States. In the U.S. women are steadily gaining fuller equality with men and are becoming more assertive, but such is generally not the case in the islands. In Tonga, for instance, men usually control the money and usually feel a greater responsibility to their parents and brothers and sisters than to their wife and children. Tongan men spend most evenings with other men, away from their wives and families. Most American women have trouble adjusting to these "island ways." Such cultural traits must be understood and considered before marriage. Prospective marriage partners should evaluate whether they can live with the limitations intermarriage will impose.

        Counselors should assign both partners to talk to at least five couples who are intermarried. They should do this separately. In their discussions they should ask about social acceptance, customs that are strange or obnoxious, use of money, children and their adjustment to being neither of one race nor another, and so on.

        A lay counselor might also suggest that the couple separate for at least four or five months maybe with no strings attached—to see their relationship more clearly. If they are mature, such a suggestion should seem reasonable. After all, life is usually long, and marriage should not be entered into quickly, particularly a marriage with an extra adjustment problem.

        If the woman is planning to leave America and live in the land and culture of her husband, she should be willing to learn the language of her husband's people before going there to live. In an effort to find out if she can live comfortably within that culture, she should also be encouraged to go alone (that is, without her prospective marriage partner) to the new culture to experiment with it. This may sound expensive, and it may also have an appearance of prejudice, but it is better than creating a miserable marriage that will cause grief to the couple and possibly their children too.

        Cultural similarity is an important factor in predicting intermarriage success. American marriages to Western Europeans do not hold the same degree of culture conflict that American-Asian or American-Polynesian marriages do. The degree of difference between any two cultures is significant.

        Another important predictor is the emotional and rational maturity of the people involved. This is true of all marriages, but it is especially true of intermarriages. Do both partners have a clear, rational idea of what marriage is and is not? In different countries and cultures marriage serves different purposes. Do both parties understand the expectations regarding marriage in the other culture? In Japan marriages are generally motivated and arranged on political, social, and economic grounds rather than on the basis of romance and personal fulfillment, as is true in America. Each marriage partner should seek to understand the traditional basis for marriage in his partner's society. A counselor may wish to assign each partner to research the role of marriage in the other's society.

        "All the personal qualities and attitudes that militate toward success in marriage," writes Richard Markoff, "such as tolerance for diversity, a positive orientation toward change, and flexibility, may be tested to their utmost in the intercultural marriage." It is important for the lay counselor to assess as far as possible the individual strength of each partner. Does he or she have a solid record in school, at work, in interpersonal relationships? Does he or she cope well with life's problems? Does the couple handle differences well? Or does one member always give in, but with resentment? Do they argue a great deal? Does their arguing lead to compromises and growth or to dead ends that are no longer discussed? Do they respect each other as human beings?

        These and other similar questions apply as well to non-intermarriage couples, but they are doubly important when dealing with cross-cultural situations. Appropriate communication is at the heart of successful marriages. If partners have difficulty communicating and respecting the ideas and opinions of the other during courtship, matters will usually not improve after marriage.

        In their book Building a Successful Marriage, Judson and Mary Landis note that several danger signals often appear when couples are incompatible: repeated quarreling with a discernible pattern, repeated break-ups, a strong desire to change the other, feelings of depression and moodiness during the courtship, and a feeling of regression rather than of growth. These danger signals also apply to couples who are planning intermarriage.

        Some couples might suggest that over time they will be able to work out their differences. In some cases they might, but not in most instances. "It seems," according to Landis and Landis, "that the differences in mixed marriages do not necessarily decrease with the passing of time after marriage. They tend to become magnified in the minds of the couple and their families. To achieve happiness in such marriages, individuals must be mentally and emotionally mature and must possess more than average understanding and tolerance."

        Speaking at Brigham Young University—Hawaii Campus in January 1977, Elder Boyd K. Packer emphasized the importance of not being an exception, when following the rule is clearly the better course. He said, "We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, and our Japanese members to merry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. That counsel has been wise." Elder Packer acknowledged that some intermarriages do work well, but he suggested that young people recognize that these marriages are exceptions and that no one should try to be the exception.

        Speaking to the same student body a year later, Elder John H. Groberg told the BYU-Hawaii students that he would advise them not to intermarry. But he further counseled that if those who are contemplating intermarriage will gather "the facts," they might enter intermarriage with a higher chance for success. Study the implications and consequences of such a marriage, he said. "Please, as you make decisions in this most vital area, be prayerful, be certain that you have faced all of the facts and when a decision is made, don't have it a wishy washy decision. Have it a firm decision. Have the confirmation of the Spirit. And I am sure that confirmation can come in some instances within our own race, in some instances, without our own race. I don't think that one factor in and of itself makes it right or wrong, as long as we face the facts; as long as we're sure that we are willing to accept whatever limitations that marriage will impose upon us, and as long as we are willing to pay the price, to see ourselves, our children, our families, our husband and wife through to that greatest of all goals, eternal life."

        There is yet another dimension that the Brethren have mentioned. This is the need for the various peoples of the world to remain in their homelands to build up Zion. A problem arises when priesthood bearers from Asia, the islands, or elsewhere marry women from America and then fail to return home to build up the Church. Sometimes American women go to the husband's land for a while but then conclude that they do not want to raise their children in a non-American or non-Australian or some other environment. The unhappy wife then places pressure on her husband to go to the land of her birth. Many men have found it necessary to leave their homelands to keep their intermarriages intact when they could have contributed much more to the Church if they had been able to remain home.

        Within marriage, the lack of shared values is often the root of discord. Values are those ideas or material goods that a person considers true or good. We speak of the American value system. Americans value material wealth, competitive success, upward social mobility, individualism, private ownership, and so on. By contrast, in Polynesia, particularly in Samoa, people value cooperation, mutual interdependence, group ownership within the extended family, and patriarchal control. It is easy to see that American/Polynesian marriages can have value conflicts. Values are subtle. Intellectually a person can accept another culture, but emotionally one remains convinced that his native ways are best. In Markoff's words: "What makes the area of values so important a source of problems is not merely that cultures differ in their value systems, but that all of us tend to feel that our particular culturally ordained values are incontestably 'right' or 'true' or 'best."'

        The gospel provides the soundest basis for shared marital values. In a very real way, everyone who commits himself to the restored gospel agrees to shed the value system of his past. If all Latter-day Saints could do that and if all people throughout the world shared the same values and principles, most problems would be solved. Speaking of the special intercultural environment that exists at the Brigham Young University-Hawaii Campus and the goal of improving that environment, Eric B. Shumway said, "The gospel is the point of supreme reference which bridges ethnic chasms in ways the principles of other international organizations cannot." What he says is true of intermarried couples. The gospel provides the supreme reference for bridging marital chasms. Shumway further suggests that harmony at BYU-Hawaii can best be achieved by emphasizing similarities of people rather than differences, "again with the gospel of Jesus Christ as the common ground for understanding all men." Once an intermarriage has been contracted, this is certainly the best attitude to assume toward it from outside or within.

        But it is also necessary for both partners to realize and to believe that God created all men and women and that he did not create them identically. God must savor variety, for he made a great deal of it. People, too, should savor variety by allowing their spouses to be different and to have, within the bounds the Lord has set, different values, desires, temperaments, and ideas. "Partners of divergent backgrounds," writes Emily H. Mudd, "bring conflicting values, expectations, and behavior into marriage and hence have less common ground on which to build. More consistent effort is therefore necessary to establish a mutual basis of understanding and functioning. When troubles arise, the sense of difference magnifies the difficulty." fn

        Building "common ground" in a marriage comes from working at communication and having shared experiences. The Latin root of the word communication means "share." Lay counselors should do all possible to help couples develop communication skills. Language impediments are sometimes a problem. For example, in most East Asian countries it is considered inappropriate to directly disagree with someone. Most Asians will not give a direct no. It is easy to see that such a custom could cause misunderstandings in a marriage. Encourage the learning of at least one language that both partners understand well. Deep and sensitive issues, the kinds of matters married couples must ponder and discuss together, must be clearly understood. Both partners should be aware that nonverbal communication is also important and often causes more problems than verbal communication.

        Once a couple is married, lay counselors should do everything in their power to diminish the cultural chasms between them. Their marriage is as sacred in the eyes of the Lord as is any other marriage.

Intercultural Marriage

1. Richard Markoff, "Intercultural Marriage: Problem Areas," in Tseng et al, Adjustment M Intercultural Marriage (Honolulu: Department of Psychiatry, University of Hawaii; 1977), p. 58.

2. Edward L. Kimball, ea., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), p. 302.

3. Emily H. Mudd with Hilda M. Goodwin, "Marital Problems and Marital Adjustments," in The Encyclopedia of Mental Health (New York: Watts, 1963), p. 669.

Suggested Readings

Landis, Judson T., and Mary G. Landis. Building a Successful Marriage. Seventh Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Tseng, Wen-Shing; John F. McDermott, Jr.; Thomas W. Maretzki, and Gardiner B.

Jones, editors. Adjustment in Intercultural Marriage. Honolulu: Department of Psychiatry, University of Hawaii, 1977.

About the Author

Dr. R. Lanier (Lenny) Britsch, professor of history and graduate coordinator of the history department at Brigham Young University, received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Brigham Young University and his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School.

He has served in the Church as a high councilor in the BYU Thirteenth Stake. His previous callings include first counselor in the Orem, Sharon Stake presidency, high councilor, president of the BYU Asian Students Branch, and elders quorum president.

He and his wife, JoAnn, are the parents of six children.