Talk:Black people and Mormonism

Leaders' positions are quoted here. What about the flock?

I may be biased (I'm attempting Good Faith here, so my intentions are good... I hope), but outside of the very generous Mormons that I've met here in Puerto Rico (either native Puerto Ricans or missionaries from abroad) and at Temple Square in Salt Lake City when I visited (extremely nice, I should add), at one time I had to interface with various members of the Church, whose ideas on multiculturalism were, uh, negative, to say the least. Two particular women that I met were brutally (and stupidly) racist. Somehow I sense that in Mormon culture, racism is a taboo topic. Of course, reporting on this on a Wiki topic is a NPOV minefield, but I sense that, somehow, the topic has to be addressed beyond what is official LDS church policy. Any comment? Demf 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I imagine there might be as many opinions among "the flock" as there are members of said flock. Racism is a very touchy topic everywhere in the United States. The LDS community is no exception. My own personal experience mirrors yours a bit.

• When I lived among Latter-day Saints abroad (Venezuela) I encountered almost no racism. The members were very proud of their "Lamanite" heritage, and very little if anything was said about blacks or the former policy of exclusion.
• On the other hand, I grew up in a Sundown town in Southwestern Lower Michigan. The Latter-day Saints there found the topic of racial exclusion very interesting and noteworthy and discussed it at length, presumably because it reinforced their own opinions that blacks should be kept separate from whites.
• I have also heard reports from North Carolina that no such nonsense exists among the members. All the hardcore racists left the Church in 1978, so the congregations there are the most integrated anywhere.
• While "Western" Saints are the most likely to keep their children home from camping trips if there is any chance they might share a tent with a black child.
• I also heard a story about a white high school student dating a black student. A fellow ward member asked another how she felt about that: she replied: "Fine, he's a member of the Church after all."

In short, I believe the answer to your question is an interesting one, well worth the time and energy of research, but I'm not aware of any research that has been done. I have only anecdotal hearsay, but if you find any comparative study of LDS racial opinions, I totally think that we should include it somehow.--ErinHowarth 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

I'll tell you where this all stems from. Joseph Smith was given a revelation to not let the "Blacks" have the priesthood. He then told the Church this and gave no supporting explanation other than "thus saith the Lord." The general membership and many of the leadership have tried over the years to back it up with some scriptural reference giving rise to the lame Cain & Ham theories. The truth is the people were weak and could not handle the higher law and God gave them a lesser law. When the people as a whole could handle the higher law the lesser law was repealed. --Evan Davis 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite disagree. The evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught anything concerning restricting blacks from the priesthood is highly suspect. Many people claimed to have learned the doctrine from Joseph, but none of their recolections are contemporary. In contrast, we know that Joseph personally laid his hands on the head of Elijah Abel (a black man and former slave) and ordained him to the office of Elder. I firmly believe this all came from Brigham, from his own understanding of the scriptures, without any revelation at all.-ErinHowarth 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I would like to see more citation. I am reading Rough Stone Rolling, and there is a ton of great information there. I would like to see Joseph Smith's history with blacks cited and fleshed out more, particularly with their issues with local government, and how the church was basically neutral, and then had to present themselves as not supporting freedom for slaves, more for their own survival and peace with their neighbors. Remember, they were being forced out of their homes and their very survival depended on good ties with their non-mormon neighbors. Bytebear 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wherever you would like to see a citation, place a '''{{fact}}''' tag. The section on Joseph Smith is at Blacks and Mormonism. I think you've found it already. It's a mess. I think it has had many contributors and it needs a lot of clean up. It's completely disjointed. I started on such a project once, but I became overwhelmed. I, for one, would appreciate you're input. On the other hand, I reject the theory that the Saints adopted a racist policy in order to get along with their neighbors, in part, because it didn't work. They were not racists enough to get along with Missourians. I believe they remained true to their own feelings against slavery while simultaneously remaining true to their feelings of racial superiority. In other words, they didn't think that blacks should be slaves, but they were obviously inferior, very complicated, but there is good evidence to suggest that Joseph began maturing away from this position while he lived in Nauvoo. Also remember that a person could oppose both slavery and abolition at the same time. Abolition called for the immediate release of all slaves. This terrified many people who called for granting freedom to the slaves in a more orderly and gradual manner. -ErinHowarth 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the tag for "this whole article has few to no sources whatsoever, and needs some since none of the information in it is the official view of the Church nor of any BYU history professors...?"  ;) Naw, really, I'd like to see a million sources for precisely that reason--there are a lot of statements made here that really cannot be believed outside of their being heavily sourced. I mean, as far as I've always been taught all the arguments for why black people didn't get the priesthood were intellectual arguments made by secondary commentators, and need to be presented as such. And for that matter, wasn't it all people of African descent, not black people. I.e. didn't it include the 30% of Africans that are not black? --Mrcolj 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I Removed the First Sentence

"African Americans have long suffered from racist laws and policies in the United States."

I'm removing this sentence because it makes an unfounded and inappropriate connection between the United States and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No evidence is given that the church's policy was determined by popular policies in the United States or polices or laws of the United States government. Furthermore, the church's policy had a wider application than just the United States.

The connection is simply that fact the policy was established by citizens of the United States. Policy makers were victims of their own cultural upbringing. Although the policy was applied to persons outside the United States, they were a tiny minority. It was the growth of this minority which directly lead to the appeal of this policy. -ErinHowarth 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sentence that has been removed is valuable and does make an appropriate connection between the US socio-political climate and the LDS, a point repeated made by Mormons commenting on their former anti-black position. It makes very clear the 1978 decision as being part of the evolution of the church in keeping up with the times and society at large and actually places the LDS in the mainstream of American culture and religious thought. Doghouse Reilly 15 January 2007

No Mention of Genesis Group?

I wonder if it would be appropriate to mention the formation of the Genesis Group, as it was a response by the First Presidency to assess and address the needs of black members of the church? Nhansen 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wonder. I know that it would be appropriate to mention the group. It seems this article is mostly about blacks and the priesthood, rather than blacks and the church. There is very little information about blacks in the church after the 1978 revelation, such as the growth in Africa, conversion of Gladys Knight, or how many blacks are in the church now.Joshuajohanson 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalists is the wrong term

Fundamentalist is a term used for a particular kind of biblical exegesis, and is rooted heavily in the debate with modernism, it is absolutely the wrong word to use for the "Southern fundamentalists", as it is for any group that existed before the 1920s. I suggest finding another, more accurate word. Demagogues? Conservatives? Anyway, "Fundamentalism" didn't exist yet. Also, if you're tempted to use evangelical, I would also guess that is again absolutely the wrong word (and they are not nearly synonymous).

Question of objectivity?

The way much of the piece reads, it seems to be from the POV of believers in the Mormon faith. I wonder why it is segregated from the main article Blacks and Mormonism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doghouse Reilly, Esq. (talk • contribs) 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

P.S Didn't know you could sign your comments. And on a little reflection, I toned down my rhetoric as the article, written from a friendly, compassionate tone, did get me to thinking ahout the issues in a clearer way.

-- Doghouse

You can sign and date stamp your signatures by typing four tildes like this ~~~~.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only one denomination of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. Other sects have had a very differing view of Blacks over time. Thus this article should provide a much broader view into the LDS church's views on blacks over their 180 year history. I think the article is supposed to read that there was a ban from about 1848-1978, but church leaders knew it was temporary. Most leaders taught that the ban would one day be lifted - whereas other denomoniations (baptist, penecostal, etc) that belived in the "curse of ham" or "curse of cain" believed that the curse was permannet. This is an imporant distinction as most would natually assume the permanency, not the temporary nature told by church leaders. The article no doubt needs work. -Visorstuff 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph is very POV. Someone should edit it to reflect that this is the Mormon philosophy on the previous stance regarding black priests so that it doesn't seem like Wikipedia is interpreting why God allowed these things etc. etc. 69.136.61.68 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I entered the second paragraph. It is the actual belief of the Church and fits with all established doctrine. I would like to leave it there, but I agree with your last statement and I am unsure at this point in how to best objectify it. I made a quick fix and would appreciate help. --Evan Davis 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another revelation account

It's interesting to me that the 1978 revelation accounts and McKay dealings keep get edited out of this article. rahter than introducing yet another version of the revelation that will undoubtedly get removed, i'll place it here.

On June 1, 1978, at a regular temple meeting of the general authorities, Kimball asked the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve to stay for a private conference. In a spirit of fasting and prayer, they formed a prayer circle. Kimball opened by saying he felt impressed to pray to the Lord and asked their permission to be “mouth.” He went to the altar. Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve - at least two have said so publicly - were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former president of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowledged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, “through the still, small voice.” The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding.

At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the quorum members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God-an ineffable experience.

Two of the apostles present described the experience as a “day of Pentecost” similar to the one in Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God. (Adventures of a Church Historian. Leonard J Arrington Pages 176-177 -Visorstuff 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great stuff. I've never read that before. I wonder if it would be appropriate to add it to WikiQuote. -ErinHowarth 07:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

In addition to only presenting one view as to why the blacks received the priesthood, this article makes other NPOV comments, like "Church policy was not arbitrarily racist but African Americans actually deserved this restricted status as a result of their lack of faithfulness before birth." It also makes many sweeping generalizations about "why" leaders made the choices they did. For example, it says "Church leaders needed something else to justify priesthood restriction", "Brigham Young saw no need to go beyond the cursed genealogies", and Joseph statements about blacks were made "in an attempt to correct the misunderstanding." How do we know why they did and said what they did? If some historians view those are the reasons, then it should be expressed as the historians viewpoint, especially when the church makes claims to the contrary. For example, it says "Joseph Smith was easily and repeatedly referred to as the author of many statements, which had actually been made by Brigham Young." If the church refers to Joseph Smith as the author, but another says it was made by Brigham Young, why do we assume the other source is right. Also, an inordinate amount of time is spent on the priesthood, and not enough on civil rights and current viewpoints.Joshuajohanson 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel you should be bold in deleting anything that resembles original research. We should not put words in the mouths of any church's leaders; rather we use quotes from qualified references. If there is a dispute providing quotes from various perspectives is desired. I would also say that I never favor looking at history through the perspective of today. IMHO, I have always found that to be hypocritical. In doing so we attempt to judge individuals by standards unheard of and/or unexpected in their day. Civil rights was not a topic of the 1830's and did not become a real issue in US society until the mid 1900's. Current standards mean nothing to history; it is a cloudy lense in which to review the actions of historical figures. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, in as far as I infer from the above that you are arguing for humility in the evaluation of the actions of others from a different place and time, I would agree with such a sentiment. However, your statement seems to imply that there is some neural lens from which to view history. But history's are themselves historical, and subject to revision so no clear vision is possible. If human history is the interaction between ideology, practice and consequences (whether divine or mundane) then we can and should as moral, rational beings, concern ourselves with the said history from the only perspective we have, which is the one we each occupy. This does not negate the need to also attempt to understand the perspective of others from another place and time, but we should not assume that we can ever do so accurately, and in fact we imagine their perspective from our own. It best we can edit this article in a way that minimizes the bias we each bring to it, in as far are we are able to be conscientious in our inevitable disagreements.--Betamod 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Length

The current article is very long

Neutral Point of View?

In my humble opinion, this article (in today's version, at least) is probably as neutral in content as it would be possible to make it. I am a member of the LDS Church, so I see the issue from the inside, but I also have some experience outside Church circles on this topic, and the article seems to be reaching to both areas. Therefore (again IMHO) I have deleted the POV question (for now). I hope that is not too offensive for y'all Raymondwinn 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet . . .

I disagree with the above statement. The question of POV neutrality is always an open one, and there is no good reason to be saticfied about POV neutrality as this can only ever lead to POV bias.

In my humble opinion I do not think this article reflects a neutral POV at all. Rather, it seems to reflect its authors’ lack of understanding of the issue of racism, and its historical and sociological consequences. It reads like a very long apology for the racist ideology and systematically racist practices present in the LDS Church from its infancy, and uses somewhat weaselly wording to obscure this.

In discussing the evolution of LDS theology, practices and relation to black people it does not make the article more POV neutral or balanced to show that some black LDS members accepted their inferior position to white members to one degree or another. The present article muddies a clear understanding of the theological and ideological foundations of church practices by constantly, and it would seem, defensively inserting anecdotes about how happy some black members were in the church despite the racism they experienced within it. The problem with anecdotal evidence, especially of such slim proportions, is that it can not but paint a biased picture since it gives no clear picture of the wider sociological dimension of the relationship between “Blacks and The Church” in general.

I would point out this article is not "Some blacks who liked being in the LDS church despite its history of racism", but "Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". That implies a relationship between black people in general and the LDS church in general the inserted anecdotes about happy black church members, at best, merely obfuscates.

For instance, this article does not address the impact that the LDS's racist policies had on conduct of church members towards black people within regions and institutions controlled or influenced by church members. It does not deal with how LDS ideology about race has impacted US domestic or foreign policy or the LDS's participation therein, which would be far more relevant to the topic of this article than anecdotes about a handful of black LDS members who did not mind being discriminated against by their own church brethren.

The anecdotes may have relevance but should perhaps be in a section about prominent or notable black LDS members of the church. However, as for dealing with LDS’ relationship to black people, in as far is its ideology and practices intertwined historically (i.e. where the rubber meats the road), this article is woefully inadequate, if not downright misleading in its present state. --Betamod 07:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article would, in theory, benefit by adding some information on many of the areas you identify, and it would be helpful if someone with some high-level knowledge of this topic could work on it. (Someone from the leadership of the Genesis Group, for example.) The problem is that adding some of the topics or areas of focus you suggest (and thereby going beyond mere anecdotes) will almost surely run afoul WP:OR, simply because there is a woeful lack of information about this topic that goes beyond the anecdotes that you revile. If anyone could prove otherwise, I'd be glad to see it, but I wouldn't hold your breath. WP can only reflect the material that is already available, and right now the material is heavy on anecdotes and short on analysis.

Part of the problem is surely the strong POV of almost all available sources. Materials are almost always strongly apologetic or strongly anti-LDS Church. Neither view captures what WP looks for, leading to a real lack of quality sources we can use on this topic. –SESmith 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SESmith, I think the personal faith of black LDS members is worthy of respect, empathy and understanding, like any complex human being. I do not so much revile the anecdotes as I think they are patronizing to African Americans, LDS members or otherwise and reveal an irresponsible naivety regarding the issue of racism in the less than neutral POV of the article. I mean, I wince when I read this article, like as in "ooh yuck".

But anyway, If as you say, "the problem is surely the strong POV of almost all available sources" then at the very least this could be made explicit in the article. It is certainly implicitly clear to someone who is reading the article critically. However, though I do not pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about this subject, I am not sure that it is correct that there is no source material to support covering the topics I have pointed out as being relevant to the topic. One might for instance start by paying a bit more attention to legislative history within the state and municipalities of Utah, where LDS members were in the majority, as said law pertained to the treatment of African Americans. One might examine the record of LDS members who have held legislative seats. One might look at socioeconomic data. If you only look at church literature, then you only get church POV. I am sure that sociologists and pollsters have created a mountain of data and analysis that would be relevant here. Though I am not sure how much time I have to hunt for said material, I will keep this page on my watchlist and maybe get back to you on it.--Betamod 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My part about you "reviling" the anecdotes probably didn't come out right. I understood what you were saying and I didn't mean to suggest that your views were wrong, as I basically agreed with your points. I too wish I could substantively improve the article but I just feel like I don't have the knowledge of where to look appropriate material. –SESmith 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be very surprised to learn that LDS ideology about race has impacted US domestic or foreign policy in the least. The LDS have elected a few senators, but they simply do not represent a influencial political force. However, I completely agree with the criticism that the article emphsizes black members of the Church who made peace with te racist policy of priesthood restriction. Blacks who did not make peace with the policy did not become members, but their story is also significant to the scope of this article. Even more so, I think are the stories of all the white missionaries who went out into the world and focused all of their efforts on finding and teaching white families rather than black families. Sadly, many have noticed that this trend continues today. I suspect that it has more to do with negative media stereotypes than old church policies, but in the right setting, you can still hear young people attmempt to explain the old policy with the same old racists rhetoric, and that's not okay. -ErinHowarth 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whuh?

This paragraph requires editing:

In his 'Journal of Discourses' [Young] even claims that "If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain (those with dark skin), the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." But this statement should be viewed in the appropriate context. It was given during a sermon in which Young was coming down on the political machine in Washington.

How in the world does the "proper context" that it was given during a sermon where Young was attacking the political machine in Washington mitigate the explicitly racist condemnation of miscegenation as being worthy of death? Obviously, the statements given later in which Young attacks slavery are relevant context, but I fail to see what attacking Washington has to do with this statement. john k 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what the paragraph is getting at. Whenever this quote is referred to as being used "out of context", the type of arguments made is more usually something along the lines outlined HERE. –SESmith 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot more sense (although it is, of course, the Mormon POV on the matter, and should be taken as such, and not as the "correct" explanation of Young's statement). john k 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John, it sounds like you are proposing that a scholar with a LDS background is not the ideal candidate to interpret what a Mormon believes. Am I understanding your position accurately? If not a Mormon, who is best qualified to state or clairify the beliefs of Mormons? This position is progressively getting on weaker ground. It almost sounds as if you are saying the "correct" version is what others, presumably non-LDS people, would say LDS believe. I can not speak too strongly in this situation, but I reject completely any notion that a non-Mormon will always provide the "correct" interpretation of beliefs, context, or thought. I wonder if it is best that a Southern Baptist should always be the one to interpret beliefs of the Roman Catholic church. Or that a Christian define Islam or a Mulsim to define Buddhism. If we are going to take snippets of statements out of the words of individuals throughout history, I suspect that we can make Hitler to sound like a saint, and St. Augustine to sound like a beast. Understanding context is the only method known to understanding both meaning and intent. Ignoring context is puposely seeking to not be bothered with facts because one's POV is of primary importance; we call this situation a closed mind. That is a scary position indeed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think John was merely suggesting that what was written in the link I provided him was clearly an apologist position, which does carry a certain level of POV to it and would not be ideal information to include in WP as the necessarily "correct" interpretation of Young's statement. (It's from an apologist website, after all.) There is more than one way of interpreting the context of Young's speech, and Mormons—while they can believe what they choose and take any position they wish—they have no exclusivity to their history or to the interpretation of it. The very nature of NPOV is that there's two sides to every story, and only presenting one side would clearly by POV. I apologize to John for speaking for him if this is not what he meant. –SESmith 07:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less what I meant, yes. john k 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reminded of the analogy that we do not learn to make bread by asking the butcher how it is done. Rather, we go to the baker, the woman who knows, and ask for an explanation. Apologists and critics all have a POV and I agree that this fact needs to be acknowledged. History was often written by the victors. NPOV, I believe, is often stretched to include all kinds of things. In religious articles it is the necessity of including the ideas of nonmembers of teh respective religion. I have always found that to be a farce. In religion, it is a matter of faith; to say that others don't believe it is a given and is therefore redundant. I am not advocating that comparative religion topics are redundant, to the contrary I think they are vital, but other topics enter to religious conversation that simply parade as NPOV. There is a difference between an historical fact and interpretations of those same historical facts. I believe where the conflict arises in this situation is what was the LDS church's motivation for at one time ordaining blacks to priesthood and then ceasing to ordain blacks. Some leaders and individuals have proffered ideas, but that does not mean that their ideas were church doctrine. In this topic I see no problem including a reputable source that attempts to interpret the position of the LDS church and by calling it racist. I suspect that some LDS leaders were racist by today's standards. The difficulty seems to be able to distinguish between the church and its members. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes--is the article Blacks and the LDS Church or Blacks and Brigham Young? The articles might be very different. I'll shut up now and let JK speak for himself. –SESmith 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not, of course, whether non-Mormons believe Mormon doctrines. Obviously it is silly to waste time saying that they do not (although, of course, it is worthwhile to note ways in which Mormon beliefs differ from and are similar to beliefs of other religious groups). But Mormons' interpretation of their own history is a different matter entirely. When it comes to matters of history, however, while apologetical viewpoints should of course be explored if they are significant, the major basis should be from the work of nonsectarian, mainstream academic scholarship, insofar as this exists on the subjects. This is, in fact, one of wikipedia's great weaknesses, in that articles on religion tend to be written by the faithful, who often see little need for such sources. Anyway, my main concern here, for the moment, is still this very strange paragraph, which I'm going to try to edit. john k 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a miserable failure. I have no idea how to rewrite the paragraph in a sensible way. It seems to me that the key issues are as such: a) Young condemned miscegenation in a speech in which he also condemned slavery; b) condemnation of miscegenation was, in fact, at that time very commonly done in tandem with condemnations of slavery, because the slave system, where slave women were often raped by white men, was seen to condone and lead to miscegenation. That Young condemned miscegenation is hardly surprising - condemnation of miscegenation among whites was almost universal (except when they were actually practicing it). That he did so at the same time that he was attacking slavery is also not surprising - miscegenation was condemned by both opponents and supporters of slavery. The policy expressed by Young's statement would pretty clearly be seen as racist by today's standards, but it was not racist in any exceptional way - it was racist in the way pretty much every white person in the 19th century was racist. I'd like to basically say this in the article, but I'm not sure the best way. john k 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When I am going to make a controversial edit such as this one, I would do something like the following.

1. Quote the statement of interest (if it is too long, reference it, but summarize the event/statement)
2. Quote a reputable scholar/source that interprets the importance or meaning of the event/statement.
3. Add supporting statements from other scholars if necessary.
4. Add opposing positions or interpretations from other reputable sources.

John, you might also draft the proposal language you are looking for and add it to a discussio page. That is done quite often for new proposals in articles that have been around a while. Often times just working with other editors yields better word-smithing. Try it here first and then I am sure several editors will be more than happy to assist you. As you gain more confidence you will find yourself being more comfortable editing the article and then just explaining your edit on the talk page. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove text with old citation needed tags

I counted approximately nine citation needed tags dating back eight months. Unless someone is in the middle of obtaining a source, I will go ahead and delete that text. Alanraywiki 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will give this a couple of more days, but then any unsourced comments need to be removed. Enough time has elapsed to find citations. Thanks, Alanraywiki 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted two sections that had citation tags outstanding for 9 months. If this information is readded, please include the source. Thanks, Alanraywiki 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to a different title please

Here in the UK, the use of the term "blacks" is dated and considered derogatory. I appreciate that this article will have been written by Americans but please think about your UK audience, especially black people who will feel bad when they see this title. We would say "black people" or "people of African descent". Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.50.201 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of this negative connotation and should be changed if it is so; however, your first proposal seems rather obvious while the second would make the title long indeed. The objective is to have a title that readers could easily find, which typically demands concise language. I think it would be helpful to gain the assistance of others.

Instead of "Blacks" we could use Africans, but that does not seem right either. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Black people and ..." seems like an OK solution. Snocrates 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Why not? How is "Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" worse? I propose we move it to that, since it's been agreed on. FitzCommunist (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the term is dated and derogatory, but so is the subject of this article. It has always been about the "blacks." Joseph Smith said that God revealed to him that the blacks should not receive the priesthood. He never elaborated on this. Any references to cain, premortal unrighteousness or lineage has been added by people since then to make sense of the policy. So the title only makes sense. Evan Davis (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested move for a number of reasons: First, it does not meet naming conventions for either racial terms or Mormonism. Second, the two of the three editors who are suggesting the move have been around for less than 45 days, and the third has less than ten edits in his six month history. Unfortunately, due to the controversial nature of race and religion, this sudden interest in a move smells fishy. Third, according to Black People and Black British, the term "black" is used by the British government as a classification - therefore is a standard term, and should not be widely offensive to anyone in the UK - especially with how politically correct the British government is. Fourth, the topic of Blacks and the LDS Church is a historical one - and the term black was the term that was used during this controversy from a historical perspective. Just as "Negro" and "Mormon" are both considered derrogetory, both are used from a historical perspective - and thus the naming of this article, as it is historical - should reflect the historical terminology: "black." Don't move the page until some experienced editors weigh in - as this smells of some sort of POV pushing that is not widely accepted. Wikipedia stays with the standard norms and scholarly usage for the most part. Get someone with experience to weigh in on this, and it will be considered, but until someone who has a trusted history weighs in, don't suggest the move. -Visorstuff (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, cowboy, looks like you have some assuming of good faith to do! Second, an editor's opinion is no more valuable just because he has been around for longer than another. Lastly, please expand on how adding the word "people" to the title would make it "not meet naming conventions for either racial terms or Mormonism". If the article is at Black people, I doubt that using the term violates any naming convention. But you, of course, with your vast quantity of experience and trusted history and balanced views of norms and scholarly usage can set us straight. Snocrates 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, using a government source to determine what is acceptable language to use with respect to races is not always the most reliable method of finding out what the situation may be in the "real world". Case in point: Canada still has a government department with a cabinet-level minister called the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, but most of the Aboriginal organizations in Canada have said that calling their groups "Indians" or even "Canadian Indians" is offensive and inappropriate. Snocrates 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not about good faith or bad faith - this is a controversial topic, and according to the policy at Wikipedia:Requested_moves this should likely be reviewed by many others in the community. I am not discounting anyone's opinion, I am simply stating that we need much more people to weigh in on the topic before a true consensus is reached - and we should include others who are trusted in the wikipedia community for this consensus. And as an admin, that it is part of my duties to help with requested page moves. Length of time does matter in a number of items on wikipedia - i'd recommend that you become familiar with which policies this refers to. Sorry that I come across as snobby on this topic, but I've seen this particular page change namespaces at least a dozen times in the past few years in its existence, many which were unneccessary, and it has ended up at the original location largely due consensus from the entire wikipedia community - mormon or not. We need to take time and get input from those who have been around and involved in this issue in the past.

As far as your government example, you'll find the same in the United States with "indian reservations" and "indian affairs," however, in all three of these cases, there is a historical reason for keeping the name. For the purposes of this article, if I started a wikiquote page for "Statements of Brigham Young about Negros" would be as equally accurate as "Statements of Brigham Young about Black People" - one is a historical and the other is modernized. As the issue of Black people and the LDS church is largely historical, a historical term should be used - and the term used in 1978 was largely "Blacks." I'm more than willing to move the page if a true consensus is reached, and i can easily be persuaded to use a different term, however, it needs to be a true consensus, not a consensus of three editors with less than 500 edits who aren't familiar with the history of this page and its various names, forks, etc. Put forth a good argument, and get others to wiegh in and lets move it. But no consensus has been reached at this point. Storm Rider, Trodel, would you agree or disagree wtih my assessment - you are both familiar with the history of this page? -Visorstuff (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Evan, your statement, "Joseph Smith said that God revealed to him that the blacks should not receive the priesthood. He never elaborated on this" is not correct from a historical perspective. Historical documents suggest that Young was the source of the policy, however, even if Smith did tell Young and others (which is likely), there is no record of Smith "saying" that it was revealed by God, or simply a policy, or simply another reason. We all need to be careful on conclusions we make. -Visorstuff (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, Visorstuff, and I understand your concerns, and I'm sorry for my return snobbiness. I for one thought that going through a WP:RM was what was going to result, not a sudden move, but of course that presumption could be wrong. Snocrates 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries - i've just seen too much hastiness with this particular page, so wanted to remind all to be patient. Thanks for understanding. I look forward to working with you. I've been on wikiholiday way too long. -Visorstuff (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

Is there a way to add the following books to the reading list. They are currently not referenced in the article:

• Black and Mormon by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith
• Blacks & the Mormon Priesthood: Setting the Record Straight by Marcus H. Martins, Ph.D.

Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear: I can add these books to the reference list in this article; or did you just want instructions on how to do it yourself? If the latter: just view the article, scroll down to the "secondary sources" book list, then press the "Edit" button to the right, and enter the book info (copy-and-paste a pre-existing entry is easiest). Then press "Save Page". Apologies if you know that already :-) Noleander (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag Added

In the interests of improving Wikipedia, and especially this article, Im adding a POV tag to help stimulate some improvement to this article. The criteria that we need to meet to make this article neutral are:

(Edited after initial post to add numbering) Noleander (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Overall tone and balance are skewed: discussion of the racism that lasted over a century is not proportionally discussed
• 2) Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non-priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978
• 3) Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
• 4) 1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there
• 5) Some opinions/thoughts/quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978 (has some positive, but no negative)
• 6) Priesthood discussion: Need more specificity about the discriminatory practices: what exactly were blacks prohibted from doing?
• 7) Some discussion of LDS views on miscegnation, esp after 1978.
• 8) Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
• 9) Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
• 10) Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative
• 11) Uncited OR/opinion-type language must be removed, such as "However, with the calling of Martins as a seventy, the church had, it may be argued, gone full circle on this issue. The African American policy evolved in a peculiar way, from exclusion, which was the status quo of the time, to equality, which is the ideal for the future"

Noleander (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions above reads like an anti-Mormon article; why not just refer to your prefered web site? They are all POV, none is neutral which is the objective of Wikipedia. You might want to consider a personal blog to achieve your objectives and not attempt to rewrite articles to meet your specific objectives rather than the neutral manner that is desired for Wikipedia. I suggest you make all of your changes first be brought here for discussion or I will revert them if they follow the highly POV proposals you have above. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real, Storm Rider? Surely points 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 can't be objectionable. Beyond that, you seem to think it's "anti-Mormon" simply to mention that LDS had racist policies for a long time. The basic problem is that you've convinced yourself that a pro-LDS POV is NPOV, and thus that any attempt to insert the other side into this is "anti-Mormon." The idea that you are lecturing someone else on how to be neutral is ridiculous. john k (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you are admitting 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11 are objectionable? As for your statistics, they are also misleading. What about Asians. They also make up a small minority in the church, but there was never a ban affecting them. Native Americans were considered the "chosen people" in the early church (and still are to a degree), and yet, they also are not a majority in leadership roles. Seems your data is skewed. Bytebear (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As for statistics, you have [adherents.com] which has stats from 2000. It's not quite up to date, but it's a start. Bytebear (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my attempts to restore neutrality the article offended anyone. I assure you that my only goal is to make wikipedia as high-quality as possible. The article, as written now, although technically accurate, is biased by omission. Clearly it was written by well-intentioned advocates of the LDS faith. Many facts are not cited. The person-based section titles are odd and misleading. The over-riding fact of the LDS church and blacks is: "Racist policy for over a century". Other facts (Gladys Knight, for example) deserve treatment, but not on the same scale :-) This article is not neutral. Lets work together to make it more neutral. Noleander (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly it was written by well-intentioned advocates of the LDS faith." There are some editors that are going to be surprised to be declared "advocates of the LDS faith." I will let them make their own case that they are not. — Val42 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How was the membership of the Black people in the LDS church different from all other Christian churches? Was there a marked difference? Were all other churches "racist" (I love that term, it is so neutral in scope; not even a hint of attack or prejudgement!). I have been a long term editor of Wikipedia and I can assure you that my committment is based upon maintaining a neutral, professional encyclopedia. My expertise is in religion and it if for that reason that I edit those articles. I detest editing that poses as neutral when in fact is highly POV.

First of all, the history of the LDS church is what it is. To call it racist from the beginning to to have already arrived at a conclusion...the very definition of POV editing. It is more akin to yellow journalism. If you cannot see the obvious POV of the proposition, I suggest you begin to study some of the better articles on Wikipedia and attempt to understand the meaning of neutral.

The nature of participation in the priesthood by blacks is one that evolved with several different prophets. They are distinctly different. Breaking the periods up by the period of leadership is both logical and helpful to the readers. It is also neutral; it reports facts and not a position or POV. The titles suggested are highly POV and attempt to follow a personal agenda rather than report facts.

I have no problem working with other editors and have a long history of positive relationships with neutral editors; however, I will not allow another article to be rewritten to meet a personal agenda or a skewed perception of religious history. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be using a different dictionary than you ... for "racism" mine says:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I think the LDS church's policy from 1860 to 1978 was clearly racist. There are tons of quotes from LDS presidents that are very, very racist ... and I dont see too many of them quoted in this article. But I suppose we could use the term "discriminatory" if that is more palatable. Noleander (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither word is acceptable because both are POV and fail policies of wikipedia. The topic is really focused on the priesthood in the LDS church. It is appropriate to review the priesthood in the Judeo-Christian tradition. From the very beginning the priesthood was limited to a select few. Under Moses only the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood; in all the world it was the only group. Within orthodox Christianity only men could hold the priesthood from 325 until today with some exceptions in smaller Christian denominations. Within Mormonism all men could hold the priesthood initially. It then appears to have evolved into a phase when the priesthood could only be ordained to men no of African descent. In 1978 the policy of the church was formally changed to recognize that all worthy males could hold the priesthood. Those are the facts without putting wikipedia in the position of making a judgement.

What you are seeking is a judgement. The way that we observe wikipedia policies in this situation is quoting specific, reputable experts that state the policy was racist. That is acceptable because the expert is saying it is racist, not wikipedia. Do you see the distinction? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can provide citations from several notable critics saying that the church's policies were racist. Also, regarding citations: this article has many, many uncited sentences/facts that border on OR and need to be removed or cited. Maybe I'll tag some of those to get a clock ticking. Noleander (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure I fully understand your "priesthood" comments. For over a century, the LDS church denied black members the opportunity to get married in the temples. This ended only in 1978, 13 years after passage of the Civil Rights act, and over a century after the 14th amendment. If a substantial number of blacks feel that that was a racist policy, then we need to capture that sentiment in this Wikipedia article. Noleander (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the priesthood I don't think are difficult to understand; since of the time of ancient Israel the priesthood has been restricted to a specific subset of inidividuals. However, have you ever heard anyone accuse ancient Israel of being racist or sexist? Why? What was different from what ancient Israel did and what LDS did under Brigham Young.

My only point is to ensure that Wikipedia does not take a position in any article; we report facts, we do not editorialize. In this topic we simply quote from reputable sources what they think about Blacks and the LDS church. I am still not sure you understand the distinction being drawn by Wikipedia, but let's move on and implement some edits.

Given your penchant for dates and how the policy changed "only" in 1978, it appears we might want to compare the LDS church's stance vis-a-vis other denominations, the Southern Baptists is particularly relevant. I think you will find most Evangelicals to fall into the same time period; given that context is would seem that the only real difference is that LDS allowed Blacks to be members of their church and all the others flatly rejected membership; there was no opportunity to hold hte priesthood because the priesthood does not exist in these groups. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the priesthood ban did not only restrict blacks but also others who were not of the tribes of Ephriam. For example, Pacific islanders couldn't hold the melchizedek preisthood for many years. I agree with Storm Rider, that in comparison to the Southern Baptists, Mormon history on the matter is prettier. A comparison to similar time period should be included in the narrative of this artilce - as we forget the criticism of the SBC and collegiate sports issues for southern colleges, including Southwest Baptist University, during the same time period.

Also, I disagree that there are "tons" of "racist" statements by LDS Church presidents. I think you'll find limited ones from Young, Taylor perhpas kimball (and perhaps isolated statements from Benson and JF Smith JR), but you'll find tears and grief on the topic and statemnts encouraging equality from Woodruff, Snow, JS Smith, McKay, GA Smith, JF Smith (sr), Lee, Snow, Grant, Kimball, Taylor and Hinckley. You'll even find kind statements toward Blacks from Young. It was a very complex and difficult topic for church leaders as well as church members - who were encouraged to participate in the Civil Rights movement. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Storm Rider and Visorstuff that there should be a comparison of racial policies of organizations (religious and otherwise) in the United States, this isn't the article for it. (Is there already such an article?) Said article should be linked to from this article. — Val42 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To not include a summary of the beliefs in the 1800's in this article is to then too easy to take comments out of context. What is fact is that some of the LDS leaders held similar, if not identical, beliefs as the majority of Christian churches in the US during the period. In fact, these beliefs continued up to the 1970's when churches, including the LDS church, made statements that clarified or changed previous positions. Omission results in a misunderstanding of history and context.

Including a brief comparison would also take the sword out of the hand of many critics that are ignorant history. They make a mountain out of a mole hill without understanding that this position was common in US Christianity. In addition, context provides a format to explore the diverse beliefs that existed in the LDS church; it was not unified nor was it identical from Joseph Smith to the present. It is apparent that the position evolved over time until such time that specific revelation was sought for and received to clarify the final position the church.

Your recommendation of a separate article to go into more detail sounds intriguing. Do you know if there is not already such an article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the historical context as long as this article can be kept on topic. I don't see how it can be done, but go ahead and try; I'd like to be surprised.

As for the other article, I don't know if there is such an article. I did a preliminary search but didn't find any such article. This (not finding an existing article) has happened to me before when I haven't figured out the terms that are used to title the article. Make a few searches and if you don't find it, go ahead and create the article; you obviously know more about this subject than I do. If we or someone else finds the article we should have used, the two articles can always be merged. — Val42 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section titles are white-washes

The section titles in this article do not accurately reflect the history of blacks in the LDS church. The section titles are odd: naming individuals, mostly presidents. This is highly POV, and also OR (the comments after the name, e.g. "John Smith: beginning of a new era" or whatever). This article reads like a junior high school essay. This is wikipedia. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

.. and ... There are tons if POV issues listed above (that no one took any issue with) that Im starting to work on. It will take awhile. Be patient. Noleander (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your objectives are at odds with Wikipedia policy; I strongly suggest that your make your proposed changes here on the disccusion page first before making them. Section titles are intended to treat topics in a neutral manner without already assuming a conclusion or taking a position. Your proposals are highly POV and are disputed in total.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure .. be happy to suggest new section titles here. The big "missing" sections are

• Racist policies 1870 to 1978
• Utah sanctions slavery in 1852
• Curse of Cain
• Attitudes of blacks that are not members of LDS Church
• David Jackson: LDS member rebuffed by Church leaders
• BYU sports boycotts

And the existing sections:

• [Titles with odd OR phrasing] change to years e.g. change "John Smith: start of a new era" to "1943-1952" or whatever.

Noleander (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the existing section titles: Im willing to agree that a chronological approach to sections (moving forward from 1850 to present time) is fine. But one example of the problem with the current titles is the virtual absence of dates. The sections have "Joseph Fielding Smith" and "Kimball" and so on ... but the typical wiki reader will have no idea what decades are involved. Shifting to a date approach seems to give more information to the reader. For instance: "1960 to 1978 - Civil Rights era" would be okay. And then "1978 to 1982: Policy reversal" and so on. Noleander (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Noleander, I'd be careful about including "Utah" anything in this article - the article is not about Utahans and Blacks, but about the LDS church and blacks. Just because Utah "sanctioned" or "permitted" or whatever slavery is a completely different issue than the church. Utahans have a long-time record of having libertarian attitudes toward governemntal laws. A good example of this is that utah was the swing vote that repealed the US prohibition ammendment, making it legal to produce and sell alcohol in the US again - even though as a populous church members believed in abstaining from alcohol. There are a number of polical, social and religious factors that typically make scholars distinguish between Utah and Latter-day Saints - I think we should follow their lead and not bring in Utah policies on an article about the church.

I'd also like to see more on the contemporary beliefs of churches as a comparison. The section could discuss factors that influenced Mormon thought - including the controversies that led to the southern baptist convention's founding, catholic church policies in the southern U.S., the dates that other congregations desegregated officially (most in the 1960s and 1970s), etc. For example, it IS significant that the Southern Baptist convention has officially made statements criticising the LDS church for it's racism, yet, slavery was the core issue as to why SBC was founded, and they changed their policy toward segregated congrecations in 1972 just six years prior to the Mormons. Yet, Methodists never officially had a policy toward blacks that i'm aware of, and typically naturally desegregated in the 1960s. The fact that Methodists and Mormons shared a close heritage of church government, practices, structure, and mormons drew many converts from methodism, this is significant as both groups promoted the civil rights movement over their pulpits, etc.

I'm not sure i have an opinion on section headers yet. I understand why the major figure in the era was included in the section titles, but i also agree that time periods would be wise. we need others to weigh in on this. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Utah sanctioned slavery" ... that paragraph was already in the article (under "Brigham Young" section) ... I was just suggesting that it deserved a named subsection. Im not a Utah history buff, but I do recall reading somewhere that Brigham Young was governor of the Utah territory when Utah passed some law in 1852 sanctioning slavery. If that is correct (and Im not saying it is) and if B.Y. was president of the LDS church at the time (and was more or less contemporaneously denying the priesthood to blacks) then, yes, I think that subject should be in this article. Noleander (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Brothels were also legal in Utah during the same time, but there is a clear split in Mormon thought between political and religious - particularly, as Deseret was trying to become a U.S. territory in 1852, and was tyring to make compromises with specific senators to get accepted as such. And I could give a dozen more examples of where Utah laws during the 1850s-1877 were in direct conflict with church teachings, policies, etc. (Utah history during that time was my research and publication focus for about five years). There are too many factors and too many theories to tie Utah politics and Mormonism's treatment of political issues together during the time frame. Again, most historians will make sure to distinguish between the two. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More on the contemporary position of others, national context and the term "racist." Here is a statement that should probably be included from 1858:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This statement, like young's, disusses intermarriage, etc. However this statement is not by a Mormon, but another national figure, which shows the national context and view on interracial marriage during the time period (ironically enough, this statmement was made six years after Young's). The only difference is that this discriminatory statement was made by another "racist" - Abraham Lincoln found here. The national view was, like most Northern abolitionists's view - they didn't even think blacks and whites were equals, but that slavery was wrong.

I think that if we said that Lincoln was a racist on this page, many would be upset by the statement. I certainly don't consider him a racist. It was a different time period, with different views. This is merely one reason why Storm Rider and I have issues with the term Racist and discrimation for this article. If you want to use the term, let's get them to use it at Abraham Lincoln. There is a double standard toward the LDS church on the matter of race, and I'm fine with including any term, as long as it is unilaterally used to describe other churches during the time and other prominent figures.

And let me also say that i find the views of Young and Lincoln very racist in my world view, and do not agree with them in any way. They are ugly and repugnant to me. However, I have a 21st century view, and theirs was a mid-19th century view, when most white people held ugly views. And yes, Lincoln and Young both held those ugly views, as did most white Americans. Here's a decent blog post that discussed 19th century religious views toward blacks -Visorstuff (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

here's more on the southern context of slavery and religious justification: http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html a couple chapters starting on page 259. -Visorstuff (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

New Section on A. David Jackson

Im preparing a new section on A. David Jackson, the black LDS member who, in 1990s, tried to get the church leadership to issue a formal statement repudiating the past racist statements of church prophets. Does anyone have any info on what happend to him after 1999? Thanks in advance. Noleander (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Term needed for the policy

We need to come up with a term for "the policy of the LDS church from 1870 to 1978 of denying priesthood/sealing/endowment to persons with African ancestry".

That term is needed in several places in the article. We need a uniform term/phrase. After it is mentioned once in a section, just saying "the policy" is sufficient. But when it is mentioned the first time in any section, the policy needs to be identified. Some possible terms are:

• Anti-black policy
• Discrimination policy
• Curse of Cain policy
• Anti-African policy
• Priesthood/Ceremony denial policy
• Racist policy
• LDS black policy
• Negro policy
• Persons of African desent policy
• ??? any other suggestion??

We should pick one of these and use it uniformly thru the article. Any suggestions?

Noleander (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "Priesthood limitation policy" or "Priesthood restriction policy" alternatively "persons of Black African descent" is technically the most correct. Bytebear (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Terms "Priesthood limitation policy" or "Priesthood restriction policy" seem to exclude the Sealing/endowment policies. In other words, a reader might think "this section is only talking about the priesthood exclusion, and not addressing sealing/endowments.". The term Im looking for would include priesthood _and_ sealing/endowment exclusions. Noleander (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But temple attendance was tied to priesthood. No man can enter a temple without being first ordained, even for baptisms for the dead. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay ... maybe I need some more education :-) Several editors have posted information saying that blacks (during the anti-black policy era) _could_ enter the temple and be baptized. It was only the marriage-sealing and Endowment (and a few other ceremonies) that blacks could not participate in. If that is correct, then you can see how the term we select cannot just be limited to "priesthood". Noleander (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Pre-1978 anti-black policy". This makes it clear to the casual reader that the LDS church no longer embraces the policy, and also captures the essence of the policy from African-American vantage point. I know "black" is not the most precise term (since mulattos were subject to the policy, but black polynesians were not), but at least in America it is a well-understood term that conveys the essence of the policy. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"anti-Black" is too pov. Many Mormons were involved in the Civil Rights movement, so the term implies something that wasn't there. Blacks were always welcome to join the church, attend services in non-segregated congregations (somthing that other Christians didn't allow). Also, as has been pointed out, the "racist" views were in line with the times, and even Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying similar things. So, you need to take out the contect of "anti" and "racist" because they do not accurately depict the policy. And you MUST avoid "African American." It had nothing to do with America. It was global, and pressure to change didn't come from America (at least not in 1978 when the ban was lifted), but rather expansion into Brazil and Africa led to the change. Bytebear (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that most members of the LDS church dont think the term "anti-black" or "discriminatory" or "racist" fits the policy, but I believe most others would concur that those are accurate terms that belong in an encyclopedia in this context. I daresay that we dont have any African-Americans editing this page right now, but if we did, they would have some insights that you and I cant bring. Granted, other institutions in america had anti-black policies during this timeframe, but I believe it is common to use the words "discriminatory" or "jim crow" or "anti-black" or "racist" to describe those policies. If this is a sticking point, we may want to bring in a mediator that can bring a fresh, outsider viewpoint. What about the term "Discrimination Policy" ... is that more acceptable? Noleander (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Black African lineage". Bytebear (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is okay to describe the people involved, but the term Im searching for (for use in this article) is a noun that identifies the 1870-1978 policy, not the people. Noleander (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the above suggestions completely capture what it was. It wasn't Anti-black/african/etc., because blacks were welcome to join. It can't be called "African" or "black" properly becuase it affected other races at various times (pacific islanders, oriental, indians, etc.). I agree that black people were undoubtedly the most widely affected by this, but it does an injustice to others that were denied the priesthood or advancemetn in the priesthood. As stated above, it can't be called racist, unless you say Abraham Lincoln and other during the 19th century were racist. I've seen the term Negro policy in academia to refer to the policy from GAlbert Smith's 1st presidency statement to Kimball's 1978 revelation. I think "Priesthood limitation policy" is too watered down. becuase the temple is an extension of priesthood rites, we don't need to say "ordinance restriction." I do like "Racial priesthood restriction policy" or "racially restricted"- it is most descriptive. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive input! I think having only the word "priesthood" is not optimal for two reasons: (1) Typical readers of wiki would not know that "priesthood" includes the ability to get married in the church; (2) The word "priest" to many readers is a small fraction of men, whereas in LDS it is a nearly all men. I like your suggestion of "racially restricted" ... but we need to turn it into a noun phrase ... how about "Racially restricted policy" or "Policy of racial restrictions" or "racial restriction policy"? An example of its use in this article would be something like: "When the church lifted the racial restriction policy in 1978 ....". Not sure about capitialization of this ... I guess lower case since it is not an official phrase outside this article. Noleander (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are best off defining the "policy" in the intro and calling it "the policy" througout the article. Saying "Racial restriction policy" makes it sound like a formal name. There was no official name for the policy, so "the policy" is probably the best compromise. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, but there are few downsides to using just "the policy": (1) many readers may just skim the Intro section, and get confused when they encounter the term "the policy"; (2) many wikipedia users jump around in the articles (skip the intro altogether) and we should try to help those readers as best we can by striving the make each section as "stand alone" as possible; (3) There are several policies discussed in this article, and "the policy" would be ambiguous. I think "the policy" would be useful in an article _about_ the policy, that is, for a Wikipedia article entitled "LDS african-descent person policy 1870 to 1978" .. in such an article "the policy" would be unambiguous. As you say, the LDS church did not have an official term for the policy, so we cannot capitalize any term we use. I thnk lowercase will indicate to readers that the phrase is simply a convention used within the article, as in "Elder XYZ spoke out against the racial restriction policy in a speech ..." or "Younger church members began to question the racial restriction policy ...". Noleander (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with that, as long as it isn't overused, and only for clarity, otherwise the article will be too wordy. Similar to using "the church" instead of the full name on every instance, we should use "the policy" unless clarity is required. Bytebear (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A good rule of thumb might be: Use the detailed phrase once at the first occurrence in a major section, thereafter use "the policy" (unless there are two policies being discussed at that point). Noleander (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree on the non-use of the term "priesthood." Rather than not use the term, we need to do a better job of explaining up front what the priesthood means in Mormonism. If not, we'll lead readers to believe that the racial restrictions was more than it was, and end up with more of this type of ignorance. Most of the readers of Wikipedia read the article from top to bottom, not skip around from paragraph to paragraph. If there are ambiguous statements and they are not reading sequentially, the any indirect statements in later pagagraphs will encourage them to read more, thereby gaining a fuller understanding. We don't need more bigots like lawrence odonnell who don't get it and apply this policy just to blacks and to church membership instead of what it was. other than that, we are heading in a very good direction with the rest of the discussion, and i'll support the rest of the above... -Visorstuff (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting video. Did Lawrence know that George Romney (Mitt's father) marched with Martin Luther King? This should be in the article, as well as corrections that blacks were always members of the church from the onset, and crossed the plains with the poineers (as free men and women). That there was never segregation of congregants. That Christian and political leaders at the time were equally bigotted to race relations. Context is crucial to this article. Bytebear (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag removal progress

Here is the status of the POV tag issues, in my opinion:

• DONE 1) Overall tone and balance are skewed: discussion of the racism that lasted over a century is not proportionally discussed
• DONE 2) Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non-priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978
• DONE 3) Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
• DONE 4) 1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there
• DONE 5) Some opinions/thoughts/quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978 (has some positive, but no negative)
• DONE 6) Priesthood discussion: Need more specificity about the discriminatory practices: what exactly were blacks prohibted from doing?
• 7) Some discussion of LDS views on miscegnation, esp after 1978.
• 8) Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
• DONE 9) Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
• DONE 10) Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative
• DONE 11) Uncited OR/opinion-type language must be removed, such as "However, with the calling of Martins as a seventy, the church had, it may be argued, gone full circle on this issue. The African American policy evolved in a peculiar way, from exclusion, which was the status quo of the time, to equality, which is the ideal for the future"

So it appears that there are just a couple of items left (7) and (8), and then I would be comfortable with removal of the POV tag. Of course, if anyone feels the pendulum has swung the other way, they can simply re-add the tag. Noleander (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)