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 Mormons were primarily anti-slavery. That Christian and political leaders at the time were equally bigotted to race relations. What is sad is that no one on the panel knew enough about Mormonism to correct him. This article needs to fill that gap. Context is crucial to this article. Bytebear (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "priesthood restriction policy" is rather misleading to non-LDS readers (who would guess that it means that blacks could get baptized, but couldnt get married?). The phrase "racial restriction policy" seems informative and accurate to me ... it's a rather generic phrase that includes all the various aspects of the policy: preisthood/marriage/endowment. My impression is that the LDS church did not have the The Official List of What Blacks Could and Could Not Do. Under the policy, blacks could to some things that LDS priests could do; and were prohibited from doing other things that priests could do, true? How about "racial/priesthood restriction policy"? That includes the word priesthood and seem to capture the essence of the policy. Noleander (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But blacks could be baptized and participate in all church activities. They could not attend the temple, which includes baptism for the dead, the endowment and marriage (altough they could marry civilly). They could not hold priesthood leadership positions (but other positions (like Ward Clerk), Sunday school teacher, etc., could be done by blacks. The restriction was strictly based on priesthood, and nothing else. Perhaps you need a clarification of what activities and positions require priesthood. Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need more education about priesthood: Women cannot be priests, correct? So prior to 1978, when a black woman member of the church couldnt participate in certain temple ceremonies, was that based on priesthood restrictions? I guess Im still not clear what the objection to "racial restriction policy" is? The phrase seems concise, accurate, and informative. Is there a concern that the word "racial" is too inflammatory because it is similar to "racist"? "Preisthood restriction policy" is misleading for the typical wikipedia reader for several reasons: (1) Most readers identify "priest" with a small fraction of the church men, whereas in the LDS church it is virtually _all_ males; (2) Most readers wont think that a "priesthood restriction" would prohibit members from getting married in the temple; (3) "Priesthood" implies that the restrictions apply only to men, but black women were equally affected. As I said before, it is likely that we editors are all white males, so it is hard for us to put ourselves in the shoes of blacks, and especially black females, but when selecting words for an encyclopedia, we have to do so. I understand that many other American institutions had discriminatory policies, and I would hope that Wikipedia articles on those institutions use candid, accurate words to document those past practices. How about "race-based restrictive policy" Noleander (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh - herein lies the problem. Not holding the priesthood in LDS practice means basically three things: 1 - you can't officiate in ordinances that pastors in normal churches would and 2 - you can't particpate in the higher priesthood ordinances found only in the temples. 3-you couldn't be a bishop or president of a priesthood quorum (they could have even been be general church authorities, but just couldn't hold priesthood keys).

For example, many of the "latter rain" churches in america (a new non-denomoinational evangelical movement - mega church pastor Rick Joyner's group for example), don't let you participate in church leadership until you've been through training courses, and then only if you've "proven your self worthy" of leadership and are personally invited to particpate. Look at the leadership of his home church, and tell me if you think he is discriminatory. What about those church conferences who require pastors to partipcate in paid training before becoming clergy, knowing that many blacks cannot afford such training. Is this disctriminatory?

Priesthood, although essential to LDS church organization, in practice means one thing - congregational leadership, the same as other church groups. So your statement above that "all men" can hold the priesthood is also misleading. LDS doctrine on the matter is summed up in the article of faith: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." Just being a white man prior to 1978 didn't automatically mean that you would automatically hold the preisthood. you had to be called the ministry. Since 1978, there is a progression of sorts for MOST men that they will be able to hold the pristhood. I'm aware of dozens of cases where priesthood is not given to a man (actually, in every case i can think of it is a white man) because the revelatory approval is not there.

Blacks could still pray in church, participate in every activity, get married in a mormon wedding ceremony (just not in the temple), could have their temple work done for them posthumously.

Women (of any race) is a completely different issue. I'd say there is not a gender restriction policy on the priesthood, but on holding pristhood keys and priesthood offices. But again, it is a different issue. Women (black and white) do have and officiate in priesthood ordinacnes, and are authorized to do so only in certain places and specific situations, such as in the temple. historically, women may have stood in the circle when a child is blessed or even annointed with oil when a pristhood brother couldn't administer to the sick. However, women are not ordained to priesthood office, but are anointed to hold the pristhood with their husbands (for those who are married) in temples (unmarried women hold it in the hope to share with husbands when they are married). The women-priesthood issue is much more complex and it would be an arduous task to treat on wikipedia. This is a complex issue that scholars write hundereds of pages of essays on - see for example D. Michael Quinn's work on Women and the priesthood (groundbreaking research, but funky conclusions and narrative, imho).

I will say that you just don't quite have a full grasp on the concept of priesthood as taught and practiced by the LDS Church, which limits your research and editing pretty heavily - as you grasp onto smaller emphasized statements that are exceptions to the rule rather than the mainstream in Mormonism. (not meant to offend, just an observation from this conversation) I'd suggest reading Priesthood and Church Government by John A. Widstoe (published in the 1920s i believe) for starters. I'm not sure how many mormons really have a solid understanding of it either, so you are in good company. Amazing how many church members don't read their own church's scriptures as we should....Bottom line the paragraph above is comparing apples to oranges. -Visorstuff (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess my point is that, although 90% of the restrictions on blacks may have been priest-related, the fact that there are some restrictions that are not (e.g. white LDS parents that adopted black children could not be sealed to the children) means that the restrictions were not entirely about the priesthood.

As an analogy, pretend a bigoted state passed a law saying "Mormons cannot eat in public restaurants" and described it as a "restaurant health law". As newspapers wrote stories about it, and persons talked about the restrictions, they would call them the "mormon restrictions". No one (except the state, trying to justify the law) would focus on the restaurant aspect of the restrictions.

That is what appears to be the case here: The LDS church had some practices that treated blacks as inferiors, there were some religious justifications (pre-existence spirits, Curse of Cain, etc); most restrictions - but not all - focused on priethood privileges. The church and its members prefer to call them "priesthood restrictions"; blacks prefer to call them "racial restrictions".

And the question facing us is: for an encyclopedia, aimed a general audience, what term do we use here? What do you think of "Priesthood racial restrictions" or "Pre-1978 priesthood racial restrictions"? Noleander (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Noleander, this is exactly what i'm talking about - your comparison is not a comparison - you don't quite understand what is being discussed. we are talking past each other. Incidentally, I'm fine with the term "racial restrictions," but it is more than just about blacks. It is about most mormons being of the tribe of ephriam or manasseh, who's right it was to hold the priesthood in the last dispensation (like only levites could under the reforms of King Josiah). Incidentally, LDS parents who would have adopted black children could have them sealed to them, just not in a living ceremony - it would be done posthumuouly. No blessing in the eternities would be held those who don't hold the priesthood, only the current "blessing" of church leadership in mortality. And church leadership means 20-60 hours of church work on top of your normal career.

The issue is that the priesthood was limited to white caucasians of certain european descent (and some American indians) from 1852 until the early 1900s (doing geneaology, you'll find that many early mormons are distantly related in family groups of royals- Young, Kimball, Smith, Pratt and Cowdery were related within six generations of each other, as were most church members of the Nauvoo period). then it was gradually expanded to other races, including orientals, pacific islanders, and american indians from 1900s to 1950s. Then in the 1950s (it was actually GA Smith's first presidency statement in the 1940s) it became an issue just about blacks.

Using your example above of the resturaunt law, it would be like saying only those whith the last name of Smith, Jones, Johnson, Thomas, Walker and Brown can eat at the resturaunt. As time goes on, it is expanded to be those who are traditional american names, as long as they aren't catholic, mormon, jw, or assembly of god. Then slowly they allow catholic, then jw, then AoG then eventually Mormons. This is a more accurate depiction of what actually happened. Was it discriminatory in today's eyes? Yes. But it was a gradual unfolding and expansion of priesthood authority from a small interconnected group. The issue was only directly about blacks for 30 years of the approximate 125-year "ban."

From an official standpoint, blacks were not treated by the church as inferiors. Some statments by MEP, BRMC and BY may have alluded to them not having equal standing in mortality (and i'm positive some church members were racist, as in any church during the time), but they were promised every blessing of any other member in the eternities if they were faithful, just as any other church member. Again, the difference in officiation in priesthood ordinances. The church did not teach they were second class citizens, but that they would one day have all the blessings in mortality.

I appreciate that you are trying to grasp this concept, but you are not quite there yet, and are still way oversimplifying. A comparison would be like saying the only issue in the civil was was cotton (that's right, not slavery, not states rights, not right of succession, not fiscal policy, not voting issues, not manufacturing and not interstate tarriffs, but cotton). One of my favorite quotes is "The first rule of historical criticism in dealing...is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader.... Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the [history] contains."

If we oversimplify this, we will do future generations an injustice, leaving them to have misperceptions as you have had. i do appreciate your effort to better understand this. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take you up on your offer when you say "Incidentally, I'm fine with the term "racial restrictions,". So for the immediate question of what phrase/term to use in the article to identify the policy that was started in late 1800's and ended in 1978, lets use that phrase. Noleander (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, i suggested the term "Racial priesthood restriction policy" above. But do clarify in the text that it did apply to other groups of people. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:18, 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)

Item (8) is done, and (7) is partially done, so Im removing the POV tag that I added. If anyone thinks the pendulum swung too far the other way, feel free to re-add the POV tag. Noleander (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reference

I found this reference and thought it had some interesting things. I will summarize them for use in the article:

• According to sociologist Amand L. Mauss, a president of the Mormon History Association, the church's racist beliefs originated within protestant denominations from which many Mormons converted. He said in 1998: "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham." - Bill Broadway, "Black Mormons Resist Apology Talk," Washington Post, 1998-MAY-30, Page B09. See: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lds_race.shtml
  • Cain is described in the book of Genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) as a son of Adam. Cain was jealous of his brother Abel, because God had rejected Cain's offering, while accepting Abel's. In Genesis 4:8, he is described as having "attacked his brother Abel, and killed him."
  • Ham is described in Genesis 9 as a son of Noah who had seen his father naked. Ham himself was not punished. But Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed. Genesis 9:25-27:

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'."

• • This became known as the Curse of Ham.
  • Most Christians found it convenient prior to the 19th century to assume that the Curse of Ham was to continue to all of Ham's African descendents. This justified human slavery.
  • The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice.
• The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress becaus of the fact that the Bible taught something that was apparently against the will of God. Beliefs of the inferiority of blacks died a slow death among the leading denominations.
• Non-racist statements in the Book of Mormon
  • 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." 10
  • 2 Nephi 26:33: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 10
  • 3 Nephi 27:14 & 15: "And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works."

Note, I am leaving out some things in the article that are incorrect. The Book of Mormon does not say anything about African Americans (or blacks in general) at all. It goes on to quote some 1800s statements about the black intermarrying and being worthy in the pre-existance, but interestingly enough it does not quote McConkie who basically said that after the 1978 revelation, all of those ideas needed to be abandoned. (can someone find this quote?) I think we can add that information, but it needs to be balanced with the context of the time, and a strong emphasis that the concepts were never "canon" and were almost universally rejected after the ban was lifted.

• Civil Rights statements in the 1960s

"During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man." - 1963-OCT-06, General Conference

"The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."

"Next, we must not participate in any so-called "blacklash" activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.

"We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them." - Mormon racism in perspective: An example for possible future changes in policy relating to women and gays," at lds-mormon.com a non-official LDS website.

I don't know how we can incorporate this, but it might be interesting. The article definitely has a push toward gay rights, which is fine by me, but I don't want that to influence this article. I would rather use the primary references than this article directly as a reference. Much of the information comes from lds-mormon.com which is not a primary source, so I hope we can use the information but get primary references directly. Bytebear (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of that 1960 - 1963 text (3 paragraphs up) is already in the article in Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Civil Rights Movement Noleander (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies on interracial marriages

Im looking for cites on church policies on interracial marriages: pre-1978 and post-1978. Can anyone point me at some church doctrine? Noleander (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't find church "doctrine" on the matter as there isn't any "doctrine" on the matter (you may want to read a short discussion on what is LDS Church doctrine found here. Nor has their ever been. However, you may find some isolated statemements of church leaders. I'd start at the Genesis group's site. -Visorstuff (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word priest

Various editors have used the word priest when speaking of ordination to the priesthood. It should be noted that a priest in the LDS Church is generally 16-17 years old or a newly baptized member. It is one of the offices in the priesthood. Better terminology would be ordained to or holding the priesthood. See Priest (Latter Day Saints). Alanraywiki (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake: I've fixed it per your suggestion. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent sentences on temple admission for blacks

There are two sentences in the article (not written by me .. they've been there awhile) that say that black church members could not enter temples prior to 1978. On the other hand, there is one sentence saying they could go into temples, but just couldn't participate in certain rituals. Does anyone have a citation to a written church policy on that issue? Or was temple admisssion policy enforced in an ad hoc manner, so some temples in some years didnt permit black church members to enter, but other temples in other times did? In any case, we need to tweak the text in the article to be more precise and consistent. Noleander (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

it really depends on the decade. It was inconsistent. -Visorstuff (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question would be about baptisms for the dead. Currently (I don't know if that was always the case) a male must hold the priesthood in order to be the proxy in these baptisms, so it could be that black males were not able to be the proxy in these baptisms. What about black females who had no such restrictions? Could they participate? Alanraywiki (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that both groups could do baptisms for the dead, but would have to double check. Incidentally, you do not need the aaronic priesthood to do baptisms, in fact, the minimum age for years was 8 years, and currently new male converts can without holding the Aaronic priesthood. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I did not know that. I thought they had to have the Aaronic priesthood. Interesting... In that case, I would agree that blacks (both male and female) could do baptisms in the temple. Was that always in practice though? Also, could black women take their endowments prior to 1978? I suspect it was common practice for women to not do so unless they were getting married, so, in essense, the interracial marriage issue would creep in. But I don't really know of the details, and I believe they are hard to come by. Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked. Currently, a male must hold the priesthood in order to do baptisms for the dead. It would still be good to know if black women could participate because I think that may change this article somewhat to being more of a priesthood issue. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanraywiki - I just double checked the new gray CHI - you are correct, that a male 12 years old and older currently needs to hold the AP to recieve a limited use recommend. Wow. However, males can enter the temple between the ages of 8 and 12 without holding it (but at this time can't do B4tD). This has not always been the case, but it makes sense, as the same worthiness standards to enter the temple are similar to holding the AP. Historically, this has not always been the case. As i mentioned earlier, it used to be church policy that anyone 8 and up could do baptisms at the temple. I'm actually glad they changed the policy. Thanks for out and correcting me. -Visorstuff (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Direction of article

Well it now looks like we have every complaint ever written about the LDS church and Blacks from an anti-Mormon point of view. We now need to add reality to the article by addressing the growthof the church among black people throughout the word. We should also add a multitude of statements by these black saints for why they feel the church is true to balance the large number of quotes by those who hvae attacked the church. The article will turn into a giant article, but at least it will find a modicum of balance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Format, title, and article content

The article title is at odds with the article. The article seems to only focus on the priesthood and how others have viewed it as discriminatory. It is not about the relationship of the LDS church with black people. The title may need to be changed or the article needs to be balanced in reporting on Blacks and the LDS church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to represent the relationship of LDS church to blacks very accurately. This is manifested in several ways:

• The article proceeds chronologically, from about 1847 to present time (that organizational scheme was established by an LDS editor over a year ago), and the racial restrictions were in place from arount 1860 to 1978. So we have 13 years of roughly equal treatment; 118 years of discrimination; then 29 years of equal policy (not to say equal treatment). The text in the article mirrors those proportions.
• Published resources (books, web sites, etc) that discuss the relationship between the LDS church and blacks contain, roughly, 90% discussions of the racial restrictions and about 10% on the how the church currently has an equal-treatment policy.
• The article contains information in proportion to what wikipedia readers are coming to Wiki to learn about. Anecdotally, it seems that the vast majority of people are curious about the LDS church's past discriminatory treatment of blacks, so it makes sense for the article to mirror that interest.
• The article has sections on the following "LDS friendly" topics and individuals: [Reformatted to bulletized format after intial edit]

• Elijah Abel
• Walker
• Jane Manning James
• Green Flake
• Samuel D. Chambers
• Wynetta Willis Martin
• Church support of Civil Rights movement
• Mary Lucille Bankhead.
• Helvécio Martins
• Growth in Africa
• Humantarian aid to Africa
• Genesis group
• Gladys Knight

Although the content of this article may be embarrassing to LDS church members, it is a violation of POV policy to swamp the article with "uncle tom" (not my words: the words of about a dozen African-American LDS critics I could cite) anecdotes in an attempt to hide the church's past racial practices. Noleander (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to only have a negative article about the LDS church; it seems to be a personal preference, but it is one that violates NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not a personal blog and is not used to promote an agenda. More importantly, I don't give a flying fig what critics of the LDS church think or feel or about they might think "Uncle Tom" stories might or might not exist. What is clear is that this article has been slanted to highlight/focus/scream negative anecdotes and stories. It does not explain the relationship of the LDS church today with people of African heritage. Items missing are:

• growth of the church in Africa
• temples in Africa
• Perceptions of black members of the church today
• why does the church continue to grow among blacks given its "racial" practices as perceived by critics?

I know it is frustrating to critics of the LDS church to be faced with reality, but I think that is a personal problem and is not a concern of wikipedia and its policies on balance and NPOV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You point out four things missing in the article. I agree that all four of those topics could be enhanced. The article already has a start on them:

1) Growth in Africa: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Expansion in West Africa: 1940 to present

2) Temples in Africa: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Expansion in West Africa: 1940 to present

3) Perceptions of black members today: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Wynetta Willis Martin and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Gladys Knight and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Reaction of black church member Mary Lucille Bankhead and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Notable black Mormons and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Genesis Group

4) Why does church grow among blacks: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Critics claim church hides racist past

But you are correct that all four of those areas could be enhanced.

Noleander (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is off. Genisis group was founded in 1971, but it is in the post 1978 section, implying it was started after the ban was lifted. Clearly the church was reaching out to black members prior to 1978. Bytebear (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on number of black members

The article indicates that the number of black members has been estimated to be 500,000. Actually, it appears that the source cited in note 1 indicates that approximately that number have African roots, not that they are necessarily black. It does not indicate if they are white individuals from, for example, South Africa. Individual church records do not include the race of a member (but they do include place of birth), so how would the number of black members be determined? Alanraywiki (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid I cant help there. That 500,000 figure and 5% figure have been in the article for awhile ... I didnt put them in. I have done some research and the official LDS statistics are headcounts only: the church doesnt identify members by race, so the church doesnt produce racial stats. Im sure some people familiar with LDS growth/demographics/global distribution could come up with a rough estimate ... perhaps that is where the 5% came from? Noleander (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There are several secondary sources being cited as if they were primary sources. This needs some clean up. For example, the article says (paraphrasing) "In 1969, the Apostles voted to remove the ban, but Harold B. Lee reversed the decision." The reference is Quinn, but what is his reference? The sentence should say something like "According to author Quinn, the apostles supposedly voted to remove the ban..." Unless there is a primary source, you cannot state this as fact. I would be interested to know where Quinn got his facts though. Bytebear (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy should be used as a secondary source. When FARMS schoolar Duane Boyce reviewed the book, he said "In too many ways it both misleads and distorts; sad to say, it appears to be a book that cannot be read innocently or with confidence." [1] Let's try to only use WP:Reliable Sources.Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite needed

Bytebear:can you please provide a cite for:

After the ban was lifted, he rescinded all of his past statements relating to the matter.

Most assertions in this article are cited, and we should try to keep to that high standard. Also, that assertion should probably go down farther in the article, which proceeds chronologically: the early parts of the article explain how the restrictions got established and justified; then later in the article are the reversals, etc. Noleander (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking, but this reference should be utilized extensively. Bytebear (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

“There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.”

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.”

- Bruce R. McConkie, 1978 (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator’s Symposium, August 17-19, 1978)[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Redundant quotes?

JoshuaJohnson: I see you added some quotes to "Interracial marriage policies after 1978". The two quotes seem almost identical in substance (tho the latter seems more comprehensive). Is there some way you could pick one or the other: this article is rather large already. Any given point could be supported by 10, 20 or more quotes. It is best to pick the most informative quote and use it. An exception might be applicable if two quotes were significantly different, but that doesnt appear to be the case here. Noleander (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the quote as redundant. If I am reading this correctly, one quote is fron 1978, and another based on current church policy, but I could be reading things wrong. Bytebear (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One is to show that in 1978 there was no problems with interracial marriage and the other to show there had not been anything since 1978. By the way, I do not like the way it is spilt up into before 1978 and after 1978. That implies that the revelation on the priesthood included something about interracial marriages. Even in 1965 Kimball said there was no condemnation in it. I also don't like the terminology calling policy. Was it ever policy? Brigham Young obviously taught against it, and Peterson obviously had his views, but that doesn't make it policy, especially in light of Kimball's remarks. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The timeline format isn't ideal. There are many issues that do not coincide with the 1978 revelation, and they need to be addressed separately. Bytebear (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper article

JoshuaJohnson: the newspaper article you deleted was printed in the SAME EDITION of the newspaper as the article announcing the reversal. Clearly church authorities wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, they didnt want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage. Noleander (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, the Church News is not the official newspaper of the church. You cannot make any assumptions on what the church authorities did or did not want to let the people know because they do not print the paper. It is printed by the Deseret Morning News, which happens to be owned by the church, so it obviously favors the church, but you cannot interpret anything it does as being done by the church. It can only report on what has been previously said, and that is what it did. It reported on a statement given in 1965, and hence should go in the pre-1978 statements. It may be that the editor of the newspaper wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, he didn't want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage, but that was the editor of the newspaper's call and cannot be taken as church doctrine. It did not report any statement by church leaders after 1978 and should therefore go in the pre-1978 section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. Ive updated the text to reflect that the paper is not the official paper of the church. Noleander (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

BY started it?

JoshuaJohnson: you changed a key word in the BY section, and your comment says there is some debate over which church leader started the racial ban. All the reference works Ive seen on the subject say it was B. Young. Do have some citations that show otherwise? If so, could you please provide them. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young was the first leader we have record of that denied the priesthood based on race, but several people, like John Taylor concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young. (see Neither White nor Black, 77–78) If you want to read up on different theories on how the ban got started, see the FAIR wiki entry on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajohanson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Young may have started it, but there is no smoking gun declaration or revelation. Remember, in LDS pracice only the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles can declare doctrine. This was not done with the ban, but it was done to reverse it. So, maybe it was Young, or he and a few other leaders, but we will never know because there is no written declaration. Bytebear (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this sentence here?

What does this have to do with this article's topic? "Today, even non-Mormons can be leaders of an LDS Boy Scout troop." Noleander (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is significant because it shows that the position is a secular one and not a religious one. It is the only church calling that I know of that can be held by a non-Mormon (although I could be wrong). Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather irrelevant to the article to me. But if it is important to you, we need to add some text to clarify the point (as it stands now, it is a bit of non sequitur), something along the lines of: "Church policy prohibited non-church members from holding troop leadership postions until year XXXX". What year did that change? If you let me know, I can add that sentence. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Hinckley quote from Instances of discrimination after 1978 revelation

Hinckley's quote was removed from the section on instances of discrimination. The quote belongs in that section not only because it talks about discrimination in the church after 1978, but it also shows that the leadership of the church is aware of it. Otherwise, the section makes it sound like there is a problem which the leadership isn't addressing, and that's a misrepresentation of the problem. There is a problem, and the leadership is addressing it. Whether or not more needs to be done is another issue, but they are addressing it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the organization of the article. It is roughly a timeline, but I think certain aspects should be better linked, for example, the information on McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine should be balanced with his comments and the removal of the book's "curse" commentary in the same section. Otherwise, the reader cannot understand that those ideas were refuted without a study of the whole article. Balance of the article is slowly being met, but sections are not well balanced, just by the way things are organized. Bytebear (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to putting the Hinckley quote into the "Instances" section, although I may put it into a subection since it is not an instance. My concern is that the article may start getting "white-washed" again. We must strive to put ourselves in the shoes of blacks (Im assuming that we are all white, though I could be wrong), and ensure that their concerns and views are adequately addressed in the article. Noleander (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If by "white-washed" you mean presenting the teachings based on the scriptures and the mouth of what Mormons consider living prophets, as opposed to taking quotes from the Journal of Discourses out of context, then I think this needs more white-washing. If you know anything about Mormonism you would know that the Book of Mormon and living prophets takes precedence over the Journal of Discourses. And yes, you can probably tell by my last name that I am not black. If I were black I would want an honest, truthful representation of the issue, and that is not what is being presented. It was never really taught that blacks represented Satan's representatives on Earth, even if you could somehow twist John Taylor's quote into saying that. It was always taught that blacks could enter the celestial kingdom. I might not be black, but being an openly celibate gay man in the church, I feel like I do understand what it feels like to be a minority. There are some members who treat me as an equal, and others that are quite rude to me. So many members have false impressions of what the leaders teach, and I am trying to educate them in what the leaders actually teach. Same thing with blacks. So many white Mormons have false impressions on what was taught, partially because quotes that were never considered doctrine were taken out of context and presented to them by anti-Mormons as doctrine. They end up believing the anti-Mormons, which perpetuate the misconceptions. I am not trying to hide actual teachings of the church. We need to say the priesthood was denied and some of the theories that were presented. I am not arguing that. What I am trying to represent is what was originally represented in the context that they were represented. I want to teach racist Mormons that racism and bigotry is not accepted nor was it ever acceptable in the church. You put yourself in the shoes of blacks and tell me if you would rather have some racist Mormon use some quote taken out of context that he/she found on Wikipedia to justify his/her racism to you or would you rather have them read Wikipedia, be humbled and repent of their bigotry. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Utah slavery section title

The section on slavery in Utah was changed to remove mention of LDS leaderhip in Utah. Ive changed it back to "Utah sanctions slavery while under mormon leadership". This is not an article on Utah. It is an article on the relationship of the LDS church to blacks. Many historians claim that, during the 1850s, many Utah was virtually a theocracy, run by Mormons. The point of the "Utah" section in this article is not merely that Utah chose to permit slavery (when it could have prohibited it) but more to the point: Polical leaders in Utah were Mormons at the time. Noleander (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your revised title presumes a POV — that Utah permitted slavery because it "was virtually a theocracy, run by Mormons". This is not the way to structure a NPOV header in order to let the reader decide. Snocrates 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the key message is of that section? I would say it is (long version): "Utah territory, while under Mormon leadership, chose to sanction slavery rather than abolish it". What do you think would be a good title? Noleander (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, your summary presumes that because it was Mormons who were the government officials the acts of the government officials should be seen as a reflection of Mormonism or the LDS Church. That is a POV. Snocrates 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the major contention of church critics, and captures the essence of the criticism. What do you recommend for a section title? Noleander (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are missing the point here: this is not an article on Utah history. This is an article on the relationship of LDS church to blacks. The president/prophet of the LDS church, while governor of the Utah territory, presided over the state when it "sanctioned slavery" (although that term may need to be clarified, see below). Many mainstream historians claim the Utah territory was virtually a theocracy at the time. The essence of this section is that the president/prophet, while leading the territory, led the state into a pro-slavery position. The title of the section doesnt need to draw any conclusions: it just needs to state the facts. This information is very, very relevant to this article, and removing these facts from the section title is very non-neutral. Noleander (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the word "sanction"; the position in Utah was much more nuanced. Slavery, if accepted by the slave, was acceptable. However, if the slave chose to walk off there was no law preventing it. I am not sure what the word should be, but it must align with facts. There was not another state in the union that had a similar policy or concept. What is voluntary slavery? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll need a reference for this "voluntary slavery". But the closest that I can think of for "voluntary slavery" is an indentured servant, though this has a limited time period and (theoretically) better treatment, in general. — Val42 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the section already explains the position of the state of Utah; slaves could exist, they simply were not bound except by their choice. Indentured servitude was something else; this concept in Utah was unique in the union. I do not suggest the title to be voluntary slavery, I am just pointing out how difficult it is to name the section differently from what I had changed it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If the section is inaccurate, we need to correct it. I just looked at a neutral book about Utah history and it just says "slavery". I dont see any qualifying terms about "voluntary" or "slave can leave". Can we get a reference on that? Noleander (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from LDS historian A. Mauss:

Some policies were guided less by diplomatic or pragmatic considerations than by the Mormon understanding of their divinely bestowed responsibilities for the spiritual welfare of the Indians as Lamanites. One of the great ironies resulting from this understanding was the territorial legislature's 1852 act permitting slavery in the Utah Territory. This act was partly designed to permit Mormon converts from the Old South to bring with them their black slaves, few though these were. An even stronger motivation for the act, however, was to permit Mormon families to buy Indian children who had already been enslaved by a long-standing slave trade between various Indian tribes and with Mexican slavers. (All Abraham's Children, p. 60)

I dont see any mention in here about the slave's role being "voluntary". I also just looked at Utah's 1852 statute on-line, and it doesnt mention any way for the slave to leave. Noleander (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) The article provides a quote by Hyde that reads: "We feel it to be our duty to define our position in relation to the subject of slavery. There are several in the Valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them. There is no law in Utah to authorize slavery, neither any to prohibit it. If the slave is disposed to leave his master, no power exists there, either legal or moral, that will prevent him." If this statement is a correct statement about Utah's position on slavery, there is nothing that compares with it in the Union. I did not add this information, but I am just using the article that is already written. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That quote seems at odds with several reputable books on Utah and LDS. Here is the 1852 statute:

An Act in Relation to Service

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah. That any person or persons coming to this Territory and bringing with them servants justly bound to them, arising from special contract or otherwise, said person or persons shall be entitled to such service or labor by the laws of this Territory Provided, That he shall file in the office of the Probate Court, written and satisfactory evidence that such service or labor is due.

Sec. 2. That the Probate Court shall receive as evidence any contract properly attested in writing or any well proved agreement wherein the party or parties serving have received or are to receive a reasonable compensation for his, her, or their services: Provided, That no contract shall bind the heirs of the servant or servants to service for a longer period than will satisfy the debt due his, her, or their master or masters.

Sec. 3. That any person bringing a servant or servants, and his, her, or their children from any part of the United States, or any other country, and shall place in the office of the Probate Court the certificate of any Court of record under seal, properly attested that he, she, or they are entitled lawfully to the service of such servant or servants, and his, her, or their children, the Probate Justice shall record the same, and the master or mistress, or his, her, or their heirs shall be entitled to the services of the said servant or servants unless forfeited as herein provided, if it shall appear that such servant or servants came into the Territory of their own free will and choice.

Sec. 4. That if any master or mistress shall have sexual or carnal intercourse with his or her servant or servants of the African race, he or she shall forfeit all claim to said servant or servants to the commonwealth; and if any white person shall be guilty of sexual intercourse with any of the African race, they shall be subject, on conviction thereof to a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars nor less than five hundred, to the use of the Territory, and imprisonment, not exceeding three years.

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of masters or mistresses, to provide for his, her, or their servants comfortable habitations, clothing, bedding, sufficient food, and recreation. And it shall be the duty of the servant in return therefore to labor faithfully all reasonable hours, and do such service with fidelity as may be required by his, or her master or mistress.

Sec. 6. It shall be the duty of the master to correct and punish his servant in a reasonable manner when it may be necessary, being guided by prudence and humanity; and if he shall be guilty of cruelty or abuse, or neglect to feed, clothe, or shelter his servants in a proper manner, the Probate Court may declare the contract between master and servant or servants void, according to the provisions of the fourth section of this act.

Sec. 7. That servants may be transferred from one master or mistress to another by the consent and approbation of the Probate Court, who shall keep a record of the same in his office; but no transfer shall be made without the consent of the servant given to the Probate Judge in the absence of his master or mistress.

Sec. 8. Any person transferring a servant or servants contrary to the provisions of this act, or taking one out of the Territory contrary to his, or her will, except by decree of Court in case of a fugitive from labor, shall be on conviction thereof, subject to a fine, not exceeding five thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, at the discretion of the Court, and shall forfeit all claims to the services of such servant or servants, as provided in the fourth section of this act.

Sec. 9. It shall further be the duty of all masters or mistresses, to send their servant or servants to school, not less than eighteen months between the ages of six years and twenty years.

Approved Feb. 4th, 1852

Noleander (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the actual text of the statute (which I will assume unless and until given reason to believe otherwise), then here are the things that I summarize from it: "Servant" is used instead of "slave". The servant(s) must be legally obligated (with papers) and must come to Utah by their free will. If the master/mistress has sex with servant(s), otherwise mistreat or fail to take care of the servant(s), the servant is released (to the state). The servant(s) must be schooled. The servant(s) are obligated to service except for the above cases.

This is just a summary, so I've missed details. Nevertheless, my summary (or that of anyone else) can't be used on Wikipedia without proper interpretation from some lawyer who has studied this statute. I'm sure that someone can find such a summary. BTW, this sounds like the topic for an article of its own, perhaps "Slavery in Utah". — Val42 (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall looking at the wikipedia article "History of Utah" and it had no mention of slavery. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the summary of the statue: An African-American reading that statute might summarize it as:

• Slavery is legal in Utah
• Owners must stop raping their female slaves
• Sales of slaves must be properly recorded in the correct government office
• We will try to hide the practice of slavery by calling it by a euphemism
• Owners should feel free to continue whipping their slaves: but not to the point of disabling them

Noleander (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apostates turn black?

I was thinking of adding a new section to this article summarizing the belief of some early LDS church leaders that those who turn away from the church would be marked by darker skin. Does anyone have any references to support that? Noleander (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse dark as in absence of light with dark as in black. That has been a symbol of good and bad in many cultures, even African cultures. (Heck, you can even find modern references that sound just as bad when taken out of context.) Dark does not need to reference skin color. Some of those quotes are obviously talking about skin color, but I'm taking out the ones the are ambiguous whether they refer to black skin or simply absence of spiritual light. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I propose we then re-define the section to include metaphorical darkness as well. African-Americans would be (and are) highly offended by the equation of darkness with evil. So pronouncements, even metaphorical, to that effect belong in this article. I suggest we re-add the quotes and adjust the section title accordingly. Noleander (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormons hardly originated the dark versus light metaphor. That is part of our language (consider the word enlightenment vs obscurity) That is just not fair to blame that on the Mormons. Anyway it is a metaphor, not doctrine.Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I agree that including metaphorical allusions to darkness and light is going a bit overboard. You can find that kind of thing in most Christian groups and it's in the Bible too. Snocrates 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand your point. Are you saying that the equation of evil with dark-looking persons by LDS church leaders (supported by citations from reputable sources) should be excluded by this encyclopedia because other religions did similar things? Noleander (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it specifically talking about skin color, it should be included. If it is talking about someone being metaphorically dark, it shouldn't. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seciton on Pearl of Great Price should be deleted?

The section Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Pearl of Great Price used to justify racial restrictions is written in essay style, and has virtually no citations. Also, it doesnt seem to be corroborated by any reference works I've seen. Can anyone volunteer to clean-up that section, or at least provide citations? Or does anyone object to just deleting it? Noleander (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should probably remain in at least some form; the extended quote can probably be reduced or moved to a footnote. It certainly needs work, but it was one of the justifications used by some leaders for the ban at various times. I think it might be useful to consolidate some of the "justifications" into a more concise section, this one included. I'm not sure if each one needs its own section. I'll try to work on it. Snocrates 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Noleander (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Elijah Abel section duplicates main article?

Is there any way we can tighten the Elijah Abel section down to just a handful of sentences that convey critical information about this article? It seems to contain lots of minor biographical information. There is a "main article" link to Elijah Abel that readers can follow to get details. Noleander (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to follow your lead here and delete information that is duplicated at his bio article. However, there's quite a bit here that isn't there—stuff about the patriarchal blessing, etc. The information should probably be transferred there to make the section even shorter. Snocrates 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. This article is getting a bit on the long side, and one simple thing we can do to keep its size reasonable is to - for those sections that have "main" articles - let the main articles carry most of the burden, and in _this_ article just capture the highlights from the main article. I agree that in those cases where this article has more info than the main article, we should move/copy the info into the main article. Noleander (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

until Kingdom of God arrives

The doctrine of the LDS church is that it is the kingdom of God here on Earth. The phrase "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God" means until they receive the gospel. The Kingdom of God arrived in 1830. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Im willing to accept your definition of "Kingdom of God". But the issue we need to address in order to determine a good section title is: What time was B.Y. talking about when he made his 1854 and 1859 statements? All sources Ive seen, and the plain english of his statements, indicates that he is talking about some point in the future (after 1859) when all non-Africans are priests. That interpretation would suggest that the section title should be "Young says policy will end after all non-African men have become priests" or similar. Certainly he was not talking about 1830. Noleander (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I think he was talking about 1978. My point was he wasn't talking about when the kingdom of God arrived at all, but when all other children of Adam had the privilege "of coming into the kingdom of God." It was already established, they just had to come into it. My interpretation is the blacks wouldn't have the priesthood until the Jews, Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs and so forth had the privilege, which they all had by 1978, but that's my interpretation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for your interpretation? Noleander (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Joshua's interpretation as well, and it's not "mine", so I'm sure there's a citation somewhere that can be tracked down. I'll look for one too. Snocrates 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Black women affected by policy

The sentence:

Black women were affected by this policy, since LDS faith requires a wife to be called into heaven by her husband. However, for a husband to call his wife into heaven, they must have been sealed in a Temple ceremony.

was removed. My understanding is that the "calling up in to heaven" is a very significant part of LDS marriage, and denial of this to a black women would have been immensely hurtful. Is that sentence inaccurate? Noleander (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a doctrine in the LDS Church. The lack of a temple sealing would have affected husbands and wives equally and there would have been no "extra" damage to the wife that I know of in Mormon doctrines. I see nothing about it in Degrees of glory, Celestial marriage, Sealing (Latter Day Saints) or any of the other Latter Day Saint articles on WP, either. Snocrates 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for accurate information :-) Seriously, several reference works say the marriage ceremony includes a significant event where the women is given a special name, and it is critical that she remember it because she must respond to that name when the husband calls her up to heaven. Is that not accurate? Noleander (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are given a new name in the Endowment ceremony, but so are men. Women can tell their husbands their new name, but there's no doctrine on the "calling up" stuff. The Endowment ceremony itself doesn't include any info on this "calling up" business that I know of. There is nothing at all in the sealing ceremony about the new names. It sounds like Mormon folklore or just speculation or something. Snocrates 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm that? Ive got at least 4 reputable books that explicitly describe the process. Im not LDS, so Ive never been thru the ceremony. Rather than go round and round, I guess the question is: Does anyone have any objection to including that sentence in the article? Noleander (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I object to it because it's not correct. The text of the Endowment ceremony and the sealing ceremonies is readily available from multiple on-line sources. I don't know how you want me to "confirm" that a doctrine does not exist in the church; it's always tough to prove a negative and I can't prove that some Mormon somewhere at some point in time didn't come up with this "calling up" theory, but that doesn't make it correct LDS Church doctrine or theology. What are these "reputable books" that mention it, and what sources do they cite? You could put in a request at WP:LDS for comments from members of the church if you don't trust what I say about it. Snocrates 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mormon America" by the Ostlings. And also the Tanners. Here is the doctrine:

In the divine economy, as in nature, the man "is the head of the woman," and it is written that "he is the savior of the body." But "the man is not without the woman" any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve. In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof. In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)

But the fact that is doctrine or not is not critical: Just being a common belief by the majority of LDS would be sufficient to be hurtful. Imagine being a black woman in the church in 1960, and overhearing conversations between white LDS women mentioning getting called up into heaven by their husbands, knowing you could never receive that fulfillment. What about this proposal: We include the sentence, but put it in the context of "critics of the church contend that the calling-up belief was especially hurtful ...." and support it with citiations to Ostlings, Tanners. Would that be acceptable? Noleander (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was doctrine or common belief in the church, then or now, much less a belief by the majority. I encourage you to put in a request for comment at WP:LDS. Members can tell you what they believe and I'm reasonably confident they don't believe this.

Also, a word to the wise--Tanners are not always the best sources on things like this, as they tend to try their hardest to make Mormonism seem as "weird" and "non-Christian" as they possibly can. Most of their stuff is also self-published so it doesn't meet WP reliability standards. Mormon America relied heavily upon the Tanners. Do you have anything a bit more scholastic? The Penrose book isn't exactly a well-known classic on Mormon beliefs and has had little to no influence on what most LDS believe, in my opinion. Snocrates 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like original research to me. If you are going to say anything about the way black women were treated, you better back it up. and not "imagine" anything. Bytebear (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bytebear's point is certainly a good bottom line point to this issue. Unless we have sources talking about how this particular "doctrine" troubled black women in the church, then the discussion is really moot because it's venturing into WP:OR. There are plenty of sources out there that were written by black LDS describing how they felt in the church pre-1978; if this was really an issue I'm sure someone would have written about it. Snocrates 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with a view of members who lived under the ban, but it should be balanced. The problem with nailing down the details of the ban, is because the policy was never explicitely defined. What are the rules in case XYZ? We don't know. The early church is even moreso, as the few active black LDS were priesthood holders, but were barred from temple rites. Bytebear (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and I agree with you about balance—what I was saying was that if this so-called "doctrine" really exists, then surely some member who believed in it and was troubled by the racial ban's implication for the doctrine has written something about it. But since I'm fairly confident that doesn't exist, it would be WP:OR to take the writings of say, Penrose, and then suggest that black LDS women were troubled by the "doctrine". I think we agree on this. Snocrates 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quorums of Seventy

I know there are several blacks in the quorums of the seventy, especially in the area authorities in Africa. Does anyone have any numbers on that? Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Questionable deletions?

Noleander: Why were these quotes deleted? Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Children are now born who will live until every son of Adam will have the privilege of receiving the principles of eternal life."
• "The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."
• "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

I added two quotes that were very germane (by J. Fielding Smith and Lund), which brought the number of quotes on that one topic up to nine. That seemed to be a lot of quotes, and several were just duplicating each other. Five of the quotes were by Brigham Young, and three of the quotess (above) didn't seem to provide any additional information to the reader. That section needs to establish that some policy reversal was expected, but then the only quotes we need are ones that shed light on the key question: When was it expected end? The quotes remaining in the section shed light on that. Although the quote by Wilford Woodruff could also be removed without affecting the section at all. The quotes by Fielding Smith and Lund illustrate the critical point that, prior to political pressure building during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the position of church leaders was that the policy would stay in place until the resurrection, and lends evidence to the critic's claim that the 1978 policy reversal was a political, not divine, change in response to the Civil Rights movement. If anyone can find a quote from a church leader, pre-1960 saying "we expect the policy to be reversed in the next few decades" that quote should be included, and would support the apologists position. I did add a sentence at the end in support of the apologists position, even though we haven't yet found a citation to support it. Noleander (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you put the quotes back in. Do you think that an encyclopedia reader needs 8 quotes on this one topic? See policy WP:COAT What special value do the three deleted quotes provide after the reader has read the other five quotes? Noleander (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Children are now born" gives a deadline much sooner than Lund's "a great while after the second coming of Jesus Christ," and the fact that Young was the President of the Church gives it more precedence. To "have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more" goes beyond just the priesthood, but also temple marriage and eternal life. Woodrow's quote is just to show that opinion was held by more than just Young, but I might be able to see your point that his quote might be redundant. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll leave it up to you to decide which quotes are essential. But the article is getting on the large size, so any redundancies should be addressed. Noleander (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Need consensus on policy reversal section title

Any suggestions for a consensus title on that section? The difference of opinion seems to center on _when_ the reversal was predicted. From an african-american viewpoint, prior to the civil rights movement, the reversal was predicted by church leaders as way, way in the future, at the end of mortal existence. From a church apologists perspective, the reversal could have been any time, even as soon as the 1970s. The current section title "Policy to be reversed" is not acceptable because it implies that church leaders were planning on reversing it at some specific time, but from an African-American point of view, the predicted time was the resurrection or "the end of time". So the current section title white-washes the statements of the church leaders. Neutral section titles could be:

• When would policy end?
• Policy duration until resurrection
• Policy end predicted at some indefinite time
• Duration of policy
• Statements on duration of policy

The last one seems most un-objectionable. Any other suggestions? Noleander (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of the last two. Lund's commentary is the only one I've seen about it being until the resurrection. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, IAW your concurrence, I changed the title to "Statements on duration of policy".

Regarding the "resurrection": the very first quote from BY in that section says "When all the other children of Adam have ... received their resurrection from the dead ...". Noleander (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Added POV tag

Whoa .. who put the "Standard Works" section in, at the beginning? This is clearly a POV violation, in terms of placement, and also the balance and tone in the section. Also, it doesnt follow the chronological flow of the article (established by an LDS editor a couple of years ago). Also it violates WP:OR since it is just an essay that selectively presents church doctrine. I've added a POV tag. To get the POV tag removed, the article must:

• Be neutral in tone, location, and balance
• Not be OR by selective doctrine selections
• Move text on 1978 revelation into the 1978 revelation section
• Move slavery scripture into slavery section
• Eliminate detailed text that discusses precedence/priorities of church documents and replace with reference to some other article on the subject.

Some of the scripture quoted in that section is relevant to this article, but those selections must be placed at the appropriate sections of the article. It is OR and POV to "cherry pick" a handful of pro-LDS (or anti-LDS) scripture verses and assemble them into a single section.

For example, if there is a scripture on how slavery/bondage is wrong, then that scripture should be in the existing section on Slavery. If there is an OD-2 scripture on blacks, that should be in the 1978 revelation section. Etc. Noleander (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I put in the Standard Works section. The Standard Works are more important to the LDS religion than any other teaching. Any scripture in the Standard Works by definition is "pro-LDS". They are placed at a higher value and should not be mixed in with opinions of 19th century leaders. Mixing it in with other opinions would be POV, because it would place it on equal footing with the other leaders. I don't care about "established" flow. Second it is not just selective doctrine. The principles of unity and equality are found throughout the standard works. I could have used a dozen of scriptures. Nowhere in the standard works does it say anything remotely degrading about the blacks, except maybe SOME interpretations of the Pearl of Great Price. I guess I could add that in there. Though not directly related, there are analogies with other racial groups we could also add.

I actually agree with the POV tag. These principles are the foundations of Mormon theology and unless they are presented as such the article is POV. I'm fine with talking about it first, but unless you can convince me otherwise, I will put it back in there.Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the information that is in that section is accurate and verifiable, and should be in this article. My concern is with the organization of the article: Our goal here is to provide a well-structured summary of the relationship between blacks and the LDS church. Having a dedicated section on "Blacks in the Standard Works" will cause some pretty big problems with the structure of the article. For example:

1. Say the BoM has an important verse on Curse of Cain; should that verse be in this article in the Curse of Cain section, or in the Standard Works section? Ditto for other verses in the Standard Works: each verse could go in either of two sections: should the verse be duplicated? Yes or no, it makes the article hard to understand.
2. If we have a Standard Works section, should we also have a section on lesser works (E.g. Journal of Disources) and another section on Verbal statements?
3. If we have a section on Standard Works, how are the statements/verses grouped within that section? Is there a subsection on "statements that show church is neutral or supportive of blacks" and another subsection on "statements that show the church was discriminatory"?
4. If there is a section on Standard Works (that contains mostly positive statements) should we also have a corresponding section that shows the "negative statements in Standard Works"? If the answer is "no", then the two sections get integrated, and then within that (large) section it would inevitably get subdivided into topics (Slavery, Celestial Kingdom, etc) and we would end up with a topical organization.
5. I think most editors would agree that it is more important that verses/quotes be organized by topic, not by the source (BoM, D&C, JD, verbal, etc) of the verse/quote. If a topical section has a BoM verse, and a verbal quote by a non-leader, that section could and should include a sentence explaining the relative weight of those two statements.

Again, the lines in that section are valid and should be in this article, the quesion is how do we structure the article to make it useful to readers, and to avoid duplication.

The current structure is chronological and/or topical (Slavery, Curse of Cain, etc). In theory we could shift over to a document-based organization (with sections on the BoM, D&C, JD, etc) but that doesnt seem very useful to readers (e.g. statements on Slavery/bondage would be spread widely across several sections).

The chronological layout is also useful for showing the evolution of the relationship between blacks and LDS. Policies in effect in 1840 perhaps changed by 1870 and maybe again in 1980. The current organization presents that evolution to the reader. A section on "Standard Works" would, I suppose, represent the current 2008 policies (almost typed 2007 there :-), but then shouldn't it be integrated with the "Modern Church 1980 onward" section?

Im sure we can figure out an organization that lets you present your points, and also maximizes readability for the users. Noleander (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I do want to emphasize to the reader that the standard works take precedence over any other teaching, and always have. It's not just a "modern" thing. With the exception of the 1978 revelation, most of those were canonized roughly the same time period. I can take the Official Declaration out if it is made clear that it is scripture and takes precedence not only over proceeding statements, but also any subsequent statements. I could put the slavery quotes in the slavery section and then it should be roughly chronological. The quote on BoM blacks in the Celestial Kingdom is in the correct section, though I still don't think that is given proper weight. It's almost an afterthought. I still want the explanation that the standard works are the only source of binding doctrine and statements by other leaders may not be doctrinal because the leaders are men with prejudices. I guess I can trim that. That had been my main hesitation in putting it on the more general Latter-day Movement page.00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajohanson (talk • contribs)

Okay. What if we add a new section called "Church doctrine priorities" or "Chuch policy precedence" or something similar, and in it we describe the various levels of church documents, and what kind of precedence they have. Perhaps include some mention of church president/prophet vs. mere church members. But we refrain from any rhetoric in that section, so it doesnt include specific verses/quotes (slavery, race, curse of cain, etc) in that section and instead put the actual verses in the appropriate, existing topical sections. Then, in the existing topical sections, if there are two quotes/verses that are somewhat contradictory, we could have a sentence like "the BoM verse takes precedence over McConkies book, see Blk and COJCOLDS#Church policy precedence". In fact, if this works out, the "Church policy precedence" section could become its own article, which could be useful because (1) it is an imporant topic; and (2) Im sure several other LDS-related articles could refer to it. What do you think? Noleander (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the correct topical section for those quotes would be "Blacks and the church before 1847," except for the 1978 revelation. Since most of them are in the same place chronologically, it makes sense to have the discussion there, but I'm fine having a separate section. This would change if the structure were changed. (See other comment) That would give you a topical section for you to put that under. I also think standard works should be mentioned first, reflecting both order of precedence given to it and chronological order.Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial tag added to Talk page

I added a "controversial" tag to the talk page. In order to ensure that this article is high quality and suitable for an encyclopedia, significant changes or additions must be discussed on this talk page first. For instance, there was a suggestion made in this Talk page regarding a new "skin color change" section, and that section was only added afterwards. In addition, this article has a certain organizational layout that was established a couple of years ago: the organization is chronological, with topical sections inserted at roughly the chronological era that is most relevant (e.g. the Slavery section is located near 1852; the BYU boycott section is located near 1965, etc). If an editor wants to propose a new organization, that should be discussed on this Talk page first. Although we may have different viewpoints, we all share a common goal of producing a high-quality encyclopedia article, so let's work together. Noleander (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestions for discussion are welcome, but I also think we should not discourage boldness in editing. As for chronology, I think it mostly works, but I am ok with the introduction paragraph stating the current state of affairs in the church. I also think "racist" statements need to be presented in context. Some may call BY a racist for example, but if so, then you need to concede that Abraham Lincoln is also a racists, because quotes from him are just as volatile. Better we present all sides without judgment, and let the reader decide for himself. Bytebear (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur; it seems odd to now request that all changes be discussed when this article has been heavily edited since December 15 and that Noleander was the editor that has done the vast majority of the changes/deletions/additions. When the editor that has done virtually all the recent changes then requests that all edits be thoroughly discussed before implementing, it begins to smack of ownership, which I know Noleander is not interested in doing. The article is not stable nor has it been recognized as having achieved any degree of value. I would agree that the topic is controversial, but no more so than many other LDS related topics. Now is not the time to position the article any differently than it has always been. Once it has achieved a degree of stability and Noleander's recent edits have been vetted by other editor, then the tag might make sense. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blacks in the Celestial Kingdom

There is a line that says "Church leaders issued conflicting statements about the question of whether blacks could enter the highest level of LDS heaven, the celestial kingdom." To sustain that assertion, there is a quote from an unknown speaker which says "But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom." Okay, so blacks didn't have the priesthood at that time, which is necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom. So what? According to Mormon theology, my ancestors didn't have the priesthood in the Middle Ages, which was necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom. I think I can see your interpretation, but given the teachings that blacks would eventually at some future time receive the priesthood and others saying they can enter the celestial kingdom, we should either remove it or find a reference for the interpretation that blacks couldn't enter the celestial kingdom.Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please dont remove a cited quote unless you can demonstrate that it is erroneous. I daresay there are 1,000s of quotes in LDS articles that reference documents and procedings without naming the speaker. Absence of the speaker's name is not sufficient reason to delete a citation, although it certainly diminishes the weight attached to the quote. That said, I'll try to see if I can find out who the speaker is. Noleander (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My issue isn't that it is from an unknown speaker. My issue is that quote itself doesn't preclude blacks from entering the Celestial Kingdom, especially given the teaching that the blacks will eventually receive the priesthood. It's the interpretation I disagree with. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. What if there were a source that read that quote, and interpreted it to mean "cannot enter CK" and discussed that interpretation ... would that be relevant to this article? Noleander (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have to come from an LDS source. The Tanners (for example) are not reliable sources on interpretation of LDS theology. Bytebear (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with that, even the Tanners, as long as the Tanners get credited with that interpretation and not the LDS church. However, to make the claim there was disagreement within the church you would need someone besides the Tanners. Also, if you can't find a church leader, the critical interpretation should come last, after the more reliable interpretations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was the one that put that sentence in, so let me research it some more and re-cast it with appropriate balance (e.g. move to end of section, etc). Noleander (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed new section on Celestial Kingdom .. I re-titled it to be more general and address other levels. Feel free to edit it here ... I'll move it up to the main article in a day or two, if there are no objections. Noleander (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Admission to kingdoms of glory

[Feel free to edit in place here]

In the Mormon theology, there are three kingdoms (or degrees) of glory, the highest of which is the celestial kingdom. There are a variety of statements that give conflicting opinions on which kingdom of glory blacks could enter prior to 1978.

The Book of Mormon does not make any distinction on who enters the kingdoms of glory based on race: "And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation.

Brigham Young said "when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'"

Church Apostle Peterson said that blacks could get into the celestial kingdom, but only as servants: "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection."

In reference to blacks, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught: "Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency."

Church leader Bruce McConkie wrote "Baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom; celestial marriage is the gate to an exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial world." implying that blacks could enter the celestial kingdom, but not at a lower level than married non-blacks.

One speaker at a general conference said: "[t]he Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom."

The kingdom of God generally refers to the church. The kingdoms of glory are the different levels in the plan of salvation. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback ... I'll make that change, but if you see any other errors, go ahead and fix them directly in the text above. Noleander (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I put the Book of Mormon quote at the beginning since that is the church's standard. Second, you still got tons of OR in there. Saying "implying" is OR. I still see no clear teaching from a church leader that the blacks would never enter the Kingdom of God. There might be some confusion on when the blacks could receive the priesthood, but there was no confusion that eventually they would, and hence be able to qualify as heirs of the Celestial Kingdom, including Celestial Marriage. Unless you can provide that evidence, I don't think you can make the claim that there is any confusion on whether blacks would enter the Celestial Kingdom. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are good quotes, and they can generally stand on their own, although the last one by "one speaker at a general conference" is a bit vague, both on who was speaking, and in what context. I tend to agree with McConkie's assessment. Baptims is the gate to the CK, but marriage is the key to the highest degree. It should be noted that some believe that all unmarried persons in the CK will be "servants", or rather, ministering angels, which is a far cry from slavery (see D&C 132:16]. Also, note that this becomes moot when we understand that the marriages and appointment of priesthood was given to black members postumously after the ban was lifted, thereby making their reward equal even prior to the ban. Bytebear (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Change in structure

I think many of the sections are misplaced. The original organization was done when this article spoke mostly on the racial restriction policy, and most of the sections are titled accordingly. However, things like "Sports boycotts of BYU", "Wynetta Willis Martin" really aren't about "Racial restriction policy modifications 1951-1977." You can also see the Celestial Kingdom section is trying to take quotes from different time periods. I also want to add some D&C quotes to the slavery section, but that is in the wrong place chronologically. I think it needs to be better organized. I have tried to think of better subtopics, and it seems logically broken up into: (1)spiritual blessings (priesthood, temple, celestial kingdom), (2)black rights (slavery, civil rights movement, boy scouts, boycotts), (3)black membership (notable members, Genesis, Africa), and one on (4)racial views (skin color represents virtue, Young's personal views, denouncing racism, equality etc.) Of course, there will be some overlap, but there already is (like Genesis Group is misplaced). The new layout would be something like this:

X) Statements from church relating to race

X.1) Statements from Standard Works relating to race

X.1.a) Positive stmnts in Std works

X.1.b) Negative stmnts in Std works

X.2) Statements from lesser works relating to race

X.3) Verbal statements relating to race

1) Racial Restriction Policy

1.b) Racial policies before the policy was instituted

1.c) Racial restriction policy under Brigham Young

1.c.1) William McCary incident

1.c.2) Young's adoption of the ban

1.d) Aspects of racial restriction policy

1.d.1) Priesthood denied

1.d.2) Temple marriages denied

1.d.3) Admission to the kingdoms of Glory

1.d.y) Church prohibits black children from being Boy Scout leaders

1.d.4) Policy applied to Africans and mullatos but not Polynesians

1.d.5) Statements on duration of policy

1.x) Justification of racial restriction policy

1.x.1) Discrimination justified by "Curse of Cain"

1.x.2) Discrimination justified by character of spirits during pre-existence

1.x.3) Discrimination justified because blacks represented Satan

1.e) Evolution of racial restriction policy 1901-1918

1.e.1) Origin of racial policy shifted from Young to Smith

1.e.2) Pearl of Great Price used to justify racial restrictions

1.f) Exceptions to racial restriction policy

1.g) Racial restriction policy rationalized 1930-1950

1.h) The "Negro Question" Declaration of 1949

1.i) Racial restriction policy modifications 1951-1977

1.i.1) Apostle Harold B. Lee blocks policy change in 1969

1.i.2) Church president statement in 1972

1.j) Racial restriction policy reversed in 1978

1.j.1) Critics question motivation of policy reversal

1.j.2) Critics claim that 1978 revelation undermines prophets

Z) Racial issues in modern times

Z.1) Instances of discrimination after 1978 revelation

Z.1.a) Church leadership acknowledgment

Z.2) Blacks not represented in church leadership

Z.3) Critics claim church hides racist past

Z.4) Church asked to repudiate past racist declarations

Z.5) Attitudes of non-LDS black community towards LDS church

2) Civil Right's Movement

2.a) Church expressed support for the Civil Rights movement

2.b) Sports boycotts of BYU

A) Interracial marriages

A.a) Interracial marriage statements before 1978

A.b) Interracial marriage statements after 1978

B) Slavery and the church

3) Miscellaneous race-related statements and verses

3.a) Standard Works

3.a.1) Positive stmnts in Std works

3.a.2) Negative stmnts in Std works

3.b) Statements by Joseph Smith

3.c) Statements by Brigham Young

3.e) Statements by Spencer W. Kimball

3.d) Light skin color indicates virtue

3.d.1) Skin color becomes darker with sinful behavior

3.d.2) Skin color becomes lighter with virtuous behavior

4) Black church membership

4.a) Elijah Abel

4.b) Walker Lewis

4.c) Other notable early black church members

4.d) Wynetta Willis Martin

4.e) Helvécio Martins: only black general authority

4.f) Africa

4.f.1) Expansion in West Africa: 1940 to present

4.f.2) Humanitarian aid in Africa

4.g) Genesis Group

4.h) Modern notable black Mormons

4.h.1) Gladys Knight

Of course, this is a major change and I won't change it right away. Feel free to modify the outline if need be.Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a couple of changes: Changed name of top section to "R.R. Policy"; and moved "justficiaton of policy" up one level. Qustion for J.Johnson: Is there any "old" section that this outline omits? Noleander (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Im still not clear on the "Standard Works" sections ... that is discussed above, but - for example - in "Civil Rights" what would "Standard Works" talk about? Or how does "Standard Works" under "Racial Views" relate to "Standard Works" under "Policy"? Maybe you can give some examples. Noleander (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The outline had Slavery under "Civil Rights" which doesnt seem quite right ... so I moved non-civil right topics out from under "Civil Rights"; I also removed "Standard Works" from under "Civil Rights Movement" but maybe there are some verses for that? Not sure. Noleander (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive got it to a point that I would concur with the new outline (... not to say I concur with future changes to the outline :-) The only question remaining (on _this_ version at this instant) is: The "Standard Works" section in the 1st section seems a bit odd. Throughout that huge section, Im sure that verses from the Std Works will be quoted (more acurately: are already quoted in the existing sections in the article) ... wouldnt lots of verses get duplicated? For instance, say there is some quote from a Std Work on Curse of Cain ... clearly that needs to be in the "Justified by CofC" section; are you suggesting that the quote also be repeated in the "Std Works" section? A related question is the title of the topmost section: The title in the Orig outline was "Spiritual Blessings", but 99% of the subsections were directly about the "Racial R. POlicy", so I changed the title to reflect that. But how does that affect the proposed "Std WOrks" subsection? Noleander (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And another question on the "Standard Works" section: if we collect a bunch of verses/quotes there, doesnt that mean that we (or a future editor) will put identical sections for other "levels" of documentation? I can see this happening:

1. Standard Works
2. Lesser Works
3. Verbal quotes
4. Policy under Smith
5. Policy under Young
6. Policy execptions

... etc...

and this leads back to the original questions (from section above): Are we aiming for a topical outline, or a source-based outline? Maybe it would be clearer if you posted, here, what that "Standard Works" section would contain. It's hard to reach consensus on that section when we cant see what it invovles. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this for the entire article? I see nothing on the church under Smith, where there was no racial policy. Prior to Smith's death, the church was extremely progressive in regard to blacks. In fact, statements made by the church to "not interfere with slaves and masters" was due to persecution of the saints because of their sympathy of blacks at the time. This early church history needs to be explored prior to an explaination of the ban, as well as the evolution of the ban (including those few blacks who were priesthood holders). Bytebear (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the current article sections are still there. The "early" years sections moved mostly into the "Black Membership" new section. Plus some up near B. Young and the R.R. policy. Noleander (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your comment "the early chuch polciy must be explored prior to [mentioning] the ban.." you will have to talk to J. Johnson about that: the current chronological structure supports your request. Noleander (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I think it appears a bit more rambling now. I think much of these sections should go under "History" which should be strictly chronological. "Statements by JS" and "Statements by BY" should all fall under History. We are not defining a policy, because the policy was never defined, so that route just won't work. Bytebear (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the arguments in favor of the current chronological outline is that the sections on individual members lend support and clarification to the historical era. Thus, the section on Elijah Abel illustrates the J. Smith era's policies. And the section on the first black BYU professor illustrates the Civil Rights era. Noleander (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)