Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Elijah Abel

The alleged depiction of Elijah Abel is actually a drawing done of a random African American in 1939 for a WPA art project in New Orleans by Caroline Durieux, called "He Believes Everything". She still owns the copyright to this image and therefore without her permission, you are illegally using it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.248.111 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Length

The current article is very long

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 subsection 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 (I'm 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 or she found on Wikipedia to justify his or 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)

I think the article is fairly balanced. History is history, and the facts are what they are. Every denomination has a historical race issue to tangle with. The Latter-Day Saints are no different. 'Whitewashing" should not attempt to remove the clear statement of the record and the clear prejudice against blacks by the Church. And the record is clear that racism was acceptable and implemented at the highest levels. Again, the Mormons are not the only church to have this, and like others, they have changed, as America itself has changed. Also the other side should be shown- such as the early condemnation of slavery and the early ordaining of blacks. This should be in there as well, and I am glad to see that it is. The article is not perfect but it has a fair balance. Carltownes (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Utah slavery section title

The section on slavery in Utah was changed to remove mention of LDS leadership in Utah. I've 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, 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: Political 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 and 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 and prophet, while leading the territory, led the state into a pro-slavery position. The title of the section doesn't 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 don't 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 don't 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 doesn't mention any way for the slave to leave. Noleander (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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 or 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. By the way, 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)

I thought the point was to establish that there was a law on the Utah books and that the slave couldn't just walk off if they wanted to do so. This law would also apply to indentured servants. They seem to have covered both with one statute. — Val42 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 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 doesn't 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)

I think that this section needs to be expanded or clarified. I think it is relevant that Joseph Smith produced a document stating that some ancient inhabitants of Africa could not hold the priesthood as descendants of Cain and Ham, particularly given that Smith referred to African-Americans in his society as descendants of Cain and Ham. --WestBerkeleyFlats (talk) 22:02, 9 February 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 or 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)

I'm 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 Brigham Young talking about when he made his 1854 and 1859 statements? All sources I've 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)

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 quotes (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 whitewashes 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 Brigham Young 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 doesn't 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 contain original research 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 or 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 original research and point of view 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 or 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 Discourses) and another section on Verbal statements?
3. If we have a section on Standard Works, how are the statements and 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 and quotes be organized by topic, not by the source (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Journal of Discourses, verbal, etc) of the verse or quote. If a topical section has a Book of Mormon 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 question 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 Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Journal of Discourses, etc) but that doesn't seem very useful to readers (e.g. statements on Slavery or 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?

I'm 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 Book of Mormon 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 "Church 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 and prophet vs. mere church members. But we refrain from any rhetoric in that section, so it doesn't include specific verses or 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 or verses that are somewhat contradictory, we could have a sentence like "the Book of Mormon 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 important topic; and (2) I'm 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 proposal 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 Brigham Young 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 and 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 don't 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 proceedings 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 Celestial Kingdom" 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]

See Talk:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Temp for the inline references.

Entrance to the highest heaven

A celestial marriage was not required to get into the celestial kingdom, the Mormon heaven, but was required to obtain a fullness of glory within the celestial kingdom.[3] The Doctrine and Covenants reads "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it."(D&C 131:1-3) The righteous who do not have a celestial marriage would still make it into heaven, and live eternally with God, but they would be "appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants."(D&C 132:16)

Some interpreted this to mean blacks would be treated as unmarried whites, being confined to only ever live in God's presence as a ministering servant. In 1954, Apostle Peterson told BYU student: "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."[4] An unknown speaker at General Conference similarly taught: "[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."[5]

However, several leaders, including Joseph Smith,[6] Brigham Young,[7] Wilford Woodruff,[8] George Albert Smith,[9] David O. McKay,[10] Joseph Fielding Smith,[11] and Spencer W. Kimball[12] all specifically taught blacks would be able to obtain the fullness of the celestial kingdom.

Likewise, Mormon scripture teaches salvation is available to all. The Articles of Faith state Mormons believe "all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."(Articles of Faith 1:3) The Book of Mormon does not make any distinction on who enters heaven 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.(3 Nephi 26:4-5) The Pearl of Great Price taught that through Abraham's seed "shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal."(Abraham 2:11)

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 original research in there. Saying "implying" is original research. 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. Baptism is the gate to the Celestial Kingdom, but marriage is the key to the highest degree. It should be noted that some believe that all unmarried persons in the Celestial Kingdom 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 posthumously after the ban was lifted, thereby making their reward equal even prior to the ban. Bytebear (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I still need some verification that there was a disagreement among church leaders whether blacks could enter the celestial kingdom. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my interpretation of the quotes is thus: The church teaches baptism is required for the Celestial Kingdom, but celestial marriage is required for the "upper-third" or the "fullness of glory". Everyone agreed blacks could enter the Celestial Kingdom. However, since blacks could not have a celestial marriage, there was a confusion about whether they would ever have the fullness of glory found only in the upper-third of the Celestial Kingdom, or if they could only ever be a servant, or in other words, a ministering angel. Both Peterson and "one speaker" argued that blacks would only ever enter as a servant, or in other words, not receive fullness and be a ministering angel. However, due to the teaching that the policy would eventually be reversed (there was disagreement when, but not if) and the belief in temple work for the dead, others argued eventually blacks would "receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to." I see more evidence for my interpretation than the current interpretation. What do you think? Just for the record, the temple work for the early black saints has been done, so Jane Manning did receive her endowments and sailings, which is just what she had asked for. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any reference for the fact that blacks could not enter the celestial kingdom. I have replaced the text explaining what it means to be a servant, explaining the different degrees within the celestial kingdom, and have severely shortened the statements by church leaders regarding such facts. If no one has any objections, I'm going to replace the current text with this text. By the way, I changed the title. All kingdoms are kingdoms of glory. Even murders get a kingdom of glory. It is the highest degree of the celestial kingdom we are talking about here.Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:44, 19 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 Doctrine & Covenants 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 Statements in Standard works

X.1.b) Negative Statements in Standard 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) Joseph Smith's views

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

2.c) 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 "justification of policy" up one level. Question for J.Johnson: Is there any "old" section that this outline omits? Noleander (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm 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 doesn't 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)

I've 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, I'm sure that verses from the Std Works will be quoted (more accurately: are already quoted in the existing sections in the article) ... wouldn't 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, doesn't 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 exceptions
7. 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 involves. 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 explanation 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 church policy 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 Joseph Smith" and "Statements by Brigham Young" 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)

Yes, and I agree, Abel should be discussed in the History section. Gladys Knight probably not. Bytebear (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Noleander:Slavery is the lack of a civil right to be free, or in other words, freedom is a civil right. Also, the freedom to marry whomever you chose is considered a civil right (for example same-sex marriage is a civil right that the church opposes), which is why I put interracial marriages in there. The Standard Works section can talk about slavery and also about unity and equality, but we can wait to develop these new sections until after reorganizing it. Having standard works as its own section makes sense with other subsections based on author (Young's views), chronology and weight. Other sources do not have such clear-cut definitions. As with anything without a clear-cut placement, we would place scriptures in the most appropriate category. For example, the original section on standard works did not contain any information about people from all races being saved that went in the section on blacks entering the Celestial Kingdom. Spiritual Blessings title was used to include talk of Blacks entering the Celestial Kingdom, since that wasn't a part of the restriction policy, and I wasn't really sure if temple ordination was either. All the sections should be there, and if not, it will be when we're done :). I also do not like separating standard works into two sections. That presents the "cherry-pick" dilemma you were talking about earlier.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear: We aren't trying to discuss adding or deleting any new sections right now. Just rearranging existing sections. By all means, if you feel something is missing, go ahead and add it. The new section on the history of the policy will be chronological, but it will just be about the policy, not about slavery in Utah, boycotts at BYU or anything else. The policy under Joseph Smith would chronologically come before the ban. Actually, the layout won't be all that different, just some of the sidetracking will be removed. Although it gives context to the priesthood ban, I thought a clear flow from Smith's ideas of equality for blacks, to a lapse in slavery in Utah, to support of civil rights movement, to boycotts and Boy Scouts and finally Modern church position would also help clarify the church's history in civil rights. Jumping from the priesthood ban to slavery to notable blacks, back to the priesthood ban, can be confusing.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both: One of the reasons I wanted to take people out from the other sections is that I didn't like classifying people. Abel isn't simply an illustration of JS policies. He is a person, who had a wife and kids and so much more. He lived under JS's policies, BY's policies and even John Taylor's policies. Same thing with Wynetta Willis Martin. She isn't just an illustration of Racial restriction policy modifications 1951-1977, but a person who lived under multiple presidents of the church. However, I do see your point in talking about putting them in historical context.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on that description of the "Std Works" section, I'd have to withhold my concurrence. I've never seen an encyclopedia article that was organized by source document (except articles _about_ the documents). Putting slavery information in two different sections in this article seem rather odd, are you really suggesting that, or did I misunderstand? An encyclopedia cannot limit source material to just one set of "standard" documents. In other words, once we create a "Std Works" section, it is inevitable that we also create "Lesser works" section and "Verbal quotes" sections. And then _every_ quote or verse will appear twice in the article: once in the "document" section, and again in the topical or chronological section. Although the current organization may have some shortcomings, having every single quote and verse replicated twice in this article would be horrendous. I think a good way to resolve this is to ask ourselves: What is best for wikipedia readers? When they come to this article, do they really want to see church policies and quotes segregated by which document they came from (Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Doctrine & Covenants, Old Testament, New Testament, McConkie, etc) or do they want to see information organized by topic (Genesis group, slavery, boycotts, interracial marriage, 1978 revelation, etc). I think the latter is more sensible. Noleander (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not organizing it based on source document. My suggestion is to organize it based on topic, and the information within each topic ordered chronologically. Standard works typically come first in that chronology. The outline was changed since I originally wrote it. I did not subdivide it based on works, but chronology. Apparently I am having a hard time explaining what I am thinking. I created a temp page that has the information rearranged by topics. It's a rough draft, and the flow isn't good, but I actually like that because it more clearly shows what we need to be working on. The temp page is here: Talk:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Temp Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That temp page (as of this instant :-) is not bad, and with a few modifications ( 1 - I'm still not sure Slavery should be under Civil Rights; 2 - The "racial views" section is just hodge-podge of subsections that don't belong anywhere else ... some of those subsections need to be raised a level) I could concur with it. However, I don't see a section named "Std Works" ... is that proposed section gone? I do agree that it is okay to mention verses from Std Works prominently in each section ... I've always thought that was a good idea, provided that lesser works could be mentioned afterwards. Noleander (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the beginning of each subsection. In some places I just have a placeholder. It doesn't need to have its own section. I think we were actually saying the same thing, just in a roundabout way. All I wanted to do is display them prominently in each section. I don't understand your objection with slavery as a civil right issue. Freedom is a civil right. Actually the main reason is to keep Joseph Smith's comments together, like his view that they should be brought "into a free country and set ... free—Educate them and give them equal rights." That talks both about his view they should be free as well as his view that they should have equal rights. I mean: having equal rights assumes not being in slavery. I also don't understand the problem with the racial views section. It isn't a hodgepodge, but all about racism (Young thinking blacks were uncouth, linking skin color with virtue, denouncing racism, instances of racism, claims of racism, fighting racism.) Young's comments are rather hodgepodge, but they are in the main article too. I can fix that.Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with the outline in the "temp" page (as it appears at the time of my signature time stamp), with the following modifications:

• Move Slavery up to a top-level section (African Americans, and most readers would not consider slavery as merely a "civil rights" issue)
• Move "Blacks not represented in church leadership" to a top level section
• Move Boy scout section into "racial restriction policy" section
• Move Interracial marriage section up to top level
• Combine "Racial Policies" section with "Modern Stance on Priesthood" section, and do not put the combined section as first section. We cannot have the first named section describe the "modern stance", because then that section must also contain a balancing subsection on "past stances", and then that whole section would essentially duplicate the entire article. But that could be avoided by just putting the "modern stance" section after the 1978 revelation section. Or, why not just beef-up the (unnamed) Intro paragraphs mention both the current stance and past stances (it already does ... but you could polish it)

Other than that, I have no big heartburn with the reorganization as shown in the "temp" page at this moment. I understand you are committing to keeping all the text and citations intact (perhaps with a few textual additions), true? Also, for such a major revision on a controversial article, I would suggest getting the outline in "final form" and presenting it here on the Talk page or /Temp for a couple of days and letting other editors weigh-in. I think only 2 editors have commented so far. Noleander (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am working on rearranging, starting with the less objectionable changes, as I write the missing glue.Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Slavery verses: selectively POV

Someone added some Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants verses to the Slavery section. I have no objection to that, but they were selected to include only "anti slavery". There are dozens of "pro slavery" verses in the Old Testament. If we are going to put in sacred text verses, we need to include balance. Furthermore, actions speak louder than words, and putting selective "anti slavery" verses prominently at the top of the section, and pushing the fact that the LDS prophet and president led the Utah territory into approving slavery (when it could just as well have abolished it as many other states did) is very POV. This is a controversial article; please try to discuss things on the Talk page before making edits. See note at the top of the Talk page. Noleander (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sentence I am proposing to put into the slavery section:

Many historians state that the Utah Territory was a theocracy in 1852 (when territory leaders sanctioned slavery) because the territory was led by church prophet and president Brigham Young, and because territory policies were determined by church leaders.

Let me know if you see any inaccuracies, or if the sentence is not relevant to this article. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add Old Testament verses. I usually concentrate on Mormon-specific scriptures, but go ahead. However, I disagree that indirect actions of a 19th century leader takes precedence over scripture. Mormon theology never claimed its leaders to be perfect.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree on this one :-) My point is that we have a section on Slavery, and we could insert 10 scripture verses saying, "Slavery is bad" and 10 scripture verses saying, "slavery is okay". And the reader of this article is no better off. On the other hand, the fact that the church president and prophet, while the territory was a theocracy, led the Utah territory to sanction slavery, when it could have chosen the abolitionist path, is critically important. Perhaps we should try a Request for Comment or some kind of mediation? Noleander (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Selectively POV

During the last couple months I have tried to bring balance to several sections, but I still have problems with the following sections being selectively POV: Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Light skin color indicates virtue: Maybe some people taught that, but the majority of leaders do not believe this. This should not be in here unless the majority balances it.
• Apostle Harold B. Lee blocks policy change in 1969: This was the opinion of Quinn and should not be presented as fact.
• Critics question motivation of policy reversal: This should be balanced by a defense of the motivations behind the policy change.
• Critics claim that 1978 revelation undermines prophets: This should be balanced by the viewpoint that it doesn't undermine prophets
• Blacks not represented in church leadership: No mention of the numerous members of the quorum of the seventy that have been and are black
• Attitudes of non-LDS black community towards LDS church: What, so every black person hates the church? This is hardly POV
• Critics claim church hides racist past: Again, no defense?
• Instances of discrimination after 1978 revelation: What no instances of non-discrimination? What about BYU being the ONLY predominately white school to elect a black student body president, EVER? What about the fact that the LDS church has one of the few congregations that has NEVER been separated based on race. The concept of a black church does not exist in Mormonism, and never has?
• Church asked to repudiate past racist declarations: They have given reasons why they don't make statements, and they are much more involved than a simple "The 1978 declaration speaks for itself ... I don't see anything further that we need to do" which is the way this section portrays it.

Balancing statements would make this a better article, and are welcome. Although I think you will find that many balancing statements are already present in the article: Humanitarian aid to Africa, the Genesis group, post-1978 statements, pre 1850 statements, Elijah Abel, etc. Several "critical" sections are simply balancing "pro church" sections above them, and so no additional balance is needed; for example: the "critics claim 1978 revelation was motivated..." is already balanced by the section immediately above it on the 1978 revelation. Regarding # blacks in quorums of 70, I tried to find that fact and could not. Any new statements need to be cited, of course. Noleander (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Entering temples

The section on temples says "blacks were not permitted to enter temples." I had thought they could enter and do baptisms for the dead. Am I mistaken?Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Journals of black members prior to 1978 says they did perform baptisms. I will check the document. I had changed the wording a day or so ago to reflect this. Bytebear (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with statements from past leaders

I find it interesting how these two sentences are presented:

Ostling cites the example of a textbook published by the Church Educational System on the subject of Church History, that has no mention of the racial restriction policy, and only 10 words devoted to the 1978 revelation.

There are Church members today who continue to summon and teach at every level of Church education the racial discourse that blacks are descendants of Cain, that they merited lesser earthly privilege because they were "fence-sitters" in the War in Heaven, and that, science and climatic factors aside, there is a link between skin color and righteousness.

Not only is the church hiding it, they are also teaching it at every level of Church education. There are two ways to deal with the past, be open about it, or move on. Apparently different people have different ideas of what should be done, yet somehow this article finds a way to blame the church for two extreme sides. I purpose joining these two ideas into one section called "Dealing with statements from past leaders." It would begin by talking about what the church does do - holding special conferences at BYU devoted to the subject, talking to journalists about it, printing the revelation in every single set of LDS scriptures, talking about the early black pioneers, as well as Deseret Book on the subject. Then we can have a subsection on people who want the church to move past it, and their reasoning's, and another subsection on people who want the church to talk more openly about it, and their reasoning's. That would be fair and balanced. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DELETING ANYTHING. I am only rearranging it so the reader can see the two camps of thought, rather than blaming the church for not being in both.Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ostlings are often contradictory in their presentation of information. One thing to remember is the Ostlings are not historians. They are journalists, which means they are looking for the story, and are more interested in making something compelling, rather than accurate. Bytebear (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Those two statements aren't contradictory. The first says the church is suppressing the history of their previous official restrictions against blacks in the priesthood. The second says that, regardless of whether or not they're permitted to pursue the priesthood, blacks' skin color results from a curse, fence-sitting, and sin. The two quotes do not represent two separate schools of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research in "Blacks in church leadership" section

The section called "Blacks in church leadership" seems to be mostly composed of WP:OR. Linking a video for "visual confirmation" that someone is black should be a dead giveaway. We should look for a source that discusses blacks in church leadership rather than searching out black leaders on our own initiative. Snocrates 04:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know in the Ensign they show photos of all the General Authorities. Is there an online equivilant? Bytebear (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an online version of all Ensigns on the church's web site, but it only shows seventies from the first two quorums of the seventy, and most blacks come from the third (the one over Africa). Anyway, that would still be visual confirmation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The church does not publish any stats based on race, so "visual confirmation" is all that we have. What proof do you have that there are no current black general authorities? I look at the Ensign photos, and can "visually confirm" that indeed there are no black general authorities, yet somehow that is sufficient but watching a black member of the general relief society board share her testimony in general conference is "Original Research"? It goes both ways. Either you can't say Florence Chukwurah is black (because looking at her would be OR) nor can you say there are no current black general authorities, or you're realistic and say she is black but none of the general authorities are: one or the other. If you play that route, perhaps we should get rid of the whole section. By the way, right now the article says there is a black member on the relief society board. I would like to challenge that. To say there is a black member indicates that there is only one, and you can't say that unless you prove the others aren't. Also, the section mentions all Apostles and Prophets have been white, but don't mention there are several current general authorities from a variety of backgrounds. Let's stick with black leadership. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I said the entire section appears to be original research. You can't look at pictures or video and then write your findings and conclusions you've drawn. This is classic WP:OR, and I at least think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more cut and dried case of it. If you can't find sources that discuss these issues that are being discussed, then we shouldn't be including the section at all. That goes both for saying leaders are white and for saying leaders are black. I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense or assuming that I am trying to include some information but exclude other information. I oppose the inclusion of ALL WP:OR material. Snocrates 09:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not drawing any conclusions. SHE'S BLACK. Anyone looking at her can tell that. That's not OR. OR is coming up with something on your own. Visual information is just as valid information as written information. When we read written information, we still summarize it in our own words, unless we are quoting it directly, same thing with visual information. We see it, and summarize what we see, unless we are putting the actual image in. A simple summary is not OR, unless you are adding something that isn't obvious from what you are summarizing. The fact that she is black is obvious. Do you disagree that she is black? Do you think any logical person who can see and has at rudimentary control over the English language could honestly disagree? I think it pasts the test better than most information in this article. I did change the reference and the wording to reflect the new reference. Is that sufficient? I think I can find something that mentions her being black. It seems you are valuing written information over visual information.

I did think you were talking about just my edits, because I had just barely put in that information. I jumped to conclusions. My main objection was that I thought (incorrectly) that you only wanted to change my information. I am sorry.Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I disagree that it's not original research. "Anyone" may be able to tell such-and-such with any of their five senses, but it's still original research unless you have a source discussing the issue in the same context that you wish to use it. I may think "Joe Public Figure" looks like a Japanese person, but unless I cite a source saying he is of Japanese ancestry, it shouldn't be said in the WP article. C'mon, this is Original Research 101. Arguing that it passes the test better than most other information in this article is not convincing; all information needs to be assessed on its own merits and there is no "sliding scale" of acceptability based on what other articles or other sections of the same article include. You also seem to be confusing what you find objectively true and what is worthy to be included in WP. They are not co-extensive. And if you "think [you] can find something that mentions her being black", then why isn't it sourced rather than relying on your own research into the matter? Snocrates 10:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When discussing racial heritage it is not appropriate to make assumptions based upon what an individual looks like. Snocrates is correct in stating that is original research. Sources are needed for these types of statements. If a statement is not sourced it probably should be deleted or marked as such for a period to allow others to support the statement. If sources cannot be found it/they should be deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the Apostles, it would be less POV to say they the majority of them are from the intermountain West, but not all. If we are talking minorities, well, Asia, Europe, Australia, South America, and even the Eastern United States are all underrepresented to the same degree as Africans. Bytebear (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Bytebear. I see sources that discuss where apostles and church leaders are born, where they lived, etc., but I don't see much in the way of sources that discuss what minorities these leaders are not from. It's probably better to state where they come from, not where they don't come from. Snocrates 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not just that she looks black. She is African, she is from Nigeria, she has an African name, she discusses representing Africans, being a part of the African culture and what it means to be an African in a church that banned the priesthood from blacks. She did not mention how being African was related to being black. I guess we are all in the dark there. With the Japanese analogy, if the person was from Japan, had a Japanese last name, talked about Japanese culture and other issues relating to only Japanese, and looked Japanese, I think it would be safe to say that person was Japanese, but I guess that is my own interpretation of what it means to have original research.

Either way, I have complied with your request. I have removed the original research and have changed the entry so it says nothing of her being black, only that she is African, which is backed up with a source from the Deseret News saying she is African. I still don't understand why a picture can't be a source, but whatever you decide to do, make sure you do it for both sides (i.e. you have to find a written source saying none of the apostles are black.)Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1978 Revelation on Priesthood Merge?

Does the article 1978 Revelation on Priesthood really need to exist, or can it be merged into this article? Bytebear (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think redundancy is not a good thing; is there something there that can be merged here? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This evening I deleted a quote from the article that was out of a Wall Street Opinion piece. First of all, this does not come close to a peer-reviewed source. Second, I can't find any qualifications for Mr. Riley other than he serves on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. We need to make sure we are not just becoming a collection of quotes, which violates WP:NOT, and are only including quotes that improve the article rather than fit the titillating, sensational writing of the common, POV, rags. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Entrance to the highest heaven

Joshuajohanson (talk): how are scriptures which say everyone can be saved irrevelant to the question of whether blacks can be saved? Obviously they aren't, but that's not the question asked in this section. The first sentence states: A celestial marriage was not required to get into the celestial kingdom, the Mormon heaven, but was required to obtain a fullness of glory within the celestial kingdom. The rest of the section, with the exception of the final paragraph, deals with that question. It's not about whether blacks can be saved, it's about whether they could get into the highest heaven. Thus, the final paragraph has nothing to do with the rest of the section. Whether it's removed or relocated, it doesn't belong there. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think salvation is? Joseph Smith said, "Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else." (Lectures on Faith, pp. 63-67.) While most of the Christian world was debating whether blacks even had souls, Mormons were proclaiming that blacks could become gods. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think salvation is? By the Christian definition, getting into heaven. But that's not the point here, because as I've already pointed out the whole section is about getting into the highest heaven, as the very title of the section proclaims. The quotes are quite clear on this: blacks could get into heaven just like anyone else, but they couldn't obtain "a fullness of glory within the celestial kingdom" until after 1978. That's the issue at hand; the final paragraph just muddies the water. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Could blacks be married postumously, pre 1978? If so, then the issue is moot. The issue is moot now, as all have had their ordinances performed postumously, so the issue is not relevant to the church today. Also, baptism, which was and always has been open to blacks, is the only requirement for the Celestial Kingdom. Marriage is the only other thing required for a "fullness of glory." 72.194.73.21 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage is the only other thing required for a "fullness of glory." So you agree the final paragraph is irrelevant to this section? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot more is required for the Celestial Kingdom than baptism. You also need faith, repentance and so on. Marriage is the only other thing we know of that is required for the fullness of glory, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything more. There is a lot that we don't know about the difference between the upper third and the rest of the celestial kingdom. Celestial marriages could not be performed posthumously for blacks until after 1978, but it was prophesied that one day blacks would be able to have the celestial marriage, and as part of the sealing, there needs to be a direct chain back to Adam, so that would mean their ancestors would receive it too. It seems obvious from studying that it was never thought blacks would be barred from the upper third, but one apostle seemed to disagree. I don't know why, and he never promoted his idea in church, only at BYU. For church members, that is not where we get our doctrine from, but unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have as high of a standard, so it is in this article. However, in order to not give it undue credit, we need to show the overwhelming evidence that it was not the case. Those versus in particular are important, because they were part of the reasoning Elder McConkie gave for petitioning the Lord to end the ban.[1] Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that final link gives excellent reasons for retaining the citations. If these scriptures were used in the process of policy change, that should definitely be stated. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. I learned a lot from that article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The line "Since the Revelation on the Priesthood in 1978, the church has made no distinctions in policy for blacks, but it remains an issue for many black members of the church." appears in the Modern Church section. Seems weasely to me. How many is "many black members"? Does anyone have any info on this so we can do a rewrite? CsikosLo (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently

Bytebear reverted my edit labelling the church's position on racial discrimination as "current". My edit in turn reverted Storm Rider's removal of said word. Perhaps my edit comment could have been better phrased. With "it's at the very least disputed" I was replying to Storm Rider's comment "it was never officially anything else". Given that the very same paragraph begins with "Official racial discrimination in the church dates to Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as president of the church." and that the article devotes considerable space to documenting said racial discrimination, the removal of the word "current" confuses the article. It should definitely be added back. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Racial discrimination is the perspective of the LDS critic and is perceived as a twisting of what LDS believe is the position of ancient Israel and the history of the workings of the priesthood.

I changed it initially because the word implies that LDS concur with the position of its critics and only recently has come to a conclusion of nondiscrimination. This is not an accurate description of the LDS position. Wikipedia has a long history of not describing churches or other entities by the views of their critics, but by what they self describe. That is not to say that opposing views are not fully encouraged as this article is evidence. However, tone is important; this is just one of those tweaks that is POV and should be discouraged and deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I think the current edit makes the LDS look worse than mine did. That position is new (and rather baffling) to me, so I won't push the matter. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Light skin color indicates virtue

Since when has the LDS church EVER taught that "Light skin color indicates virtue"? Creating a section with cherry-picked quotes taken out of context and misrepresent LDS teachings seems to be POV violation. LDS scripture says God looks on the heart, not outward appearance.(1 Sam 16:7) There are plenty of examples in Mormonism where people with dark skin are represented as righteous, like Samuel the Lamanite, the Ammonites, the three virgins descended from Cain in the Book of Abraham who were sacrificed because of their virtue, the Pharaoh in the Book of Abraham was was "a righteous man", as well as modern day examples of Elijah Able and so forth. Those quotes are taken out of context and the section needs to be removed if the correct context can't be given. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Another concern I have is with the headings. Light skin color indicates virtue was never taught. Let's take the quotes individually. The first quote promotes the theory that the skin of blackness was part of the curse of Cain. To be balanced it must also have other theories proposed by Mormons. Even so that is limited to the Lamanites and descendants of Cain, and you can't extend it to the general assertion "Skin color becomes darker with sinful behavior". Certainly there are instances of wickedness in the scriptures where there is no mention of skin color. The second part says people who have lost their blessings "have turned dark". It is unclear whether it was their skin that turned black or their countenance. I find it unlikely that is in reference to their skin color. That's called a tan.

The second quote is very specific to the Lamanites, and cannot be applied to a general "Skin color becomes lighter with virtuous behavior". It seems to be in reference to a Book of Mormon prophecy that "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." It appears Kimball believed the scales of darkness applied to skin color, and saw some evidence this might be the case. I don't think this is the generally accepted interpretation of the scripture, and it should be balanced with other views. Even so, it is also not clear that the two attributes (white and delightsome) are necessarily linked. They could have simply both occurred at the same time. For example, white because of intermarriage and delightsome for accepting the gospel. Anyway, the section headings seem very OR to me. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The first quote had its context removed. Without its proper context it could be seen as agreeing with Tvedtnes, when it's clearly not. Also "LDS apologist [Tvedtnes] argues that this darkness is a spiritual darkness, since the Nephites had white skin." makes little sense in this context, since the passage which "this darkness" refers to is talking about Lamanites, not Nephites. I added the alternate translation, so the reader will know where Kimball's statement comes from. I'm keeping the titles, as the older ones were OR, but they should probably be changed at some point. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)