Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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 that 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 don't 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)

Actually, throughout the scriptures, both Bible and BoM, they talk about physical markings and indications, as well as darkened skin that were placed upon apostates/sinners and their offspring as cureses from God. Throughout both texts there are commandments from God that the righteous people should not associate with these people who have the physical indiacations of the curse upon them. This was done so that the righteous people could tell who the apostates/sinners were so that they could avoid them and not be influenced or corrupted by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to mention that it has never been alright by our standards to be racist. While it may be the case that racism has occurred and may continue in the lives of some people to occur that does not make their actions doctrine. I will cite a reference in the Book of Mormon, which we as Latter-day Saints believe to be the word of God.

Jacob 3:9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

(Jacob, a Nephite prophet. They refers to the Lamanites)

 Epowe (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2009 (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 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 Wikipedia, 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? I've got at least 4 reputable books that explicitly describe the process. I'm not LDS, so I've 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 citations 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)

Initiated members of the LDS church do believe this. Having participated in the temple endowment and marriage sealing ceremony in 1995, I can assure you that the ritual of the wife identifying herself to her husband by her new, celestial name, and the husband thereby recognizing her and escorting her by priesthood authority into the "Celestial Kingdom," is both a fundamental part of the temple endowment and of the wife's exaltation in the afterlife. In LDS theology, it is an unequivocal patriarchal doctrine wherein the wife is subject to the priesthood power of her husband in entering heaven. Therefore, I think a discussion on how black women perceived and were affected by the church's previous policy on the priesthood is apt. However, the above comment that black women did not incur "extra damage" from the policy is also relevant in a doctrinal sense because both men and women were excluded from full priesthood blessings, entering the "Celestial Kingdom" as lone "servants" or "ministering angels," rather than as an eternally-united husbands and wives who could progress to become gods and goddesses.Odigitria (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2009 (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 explicitly defined. What are the rules in case XYZ? We don't know. The early church is even more so, 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)

Scales of darkness shall fall from the Indians

What does this have to do with blacks? I think the whole section should be removed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but maybe they could set up another stub so that it can be greatly expanded to include other racial polices with the LDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.72.144 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What racial policies would those be?--^StormRider 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article is about black people and the LDS church. There is nothing about this that talks about black people. It is talking about how Lamanites can be white/pure people. It is not about other races. It is not an invitation to talk about all racial policies. First of all, this isn't a policy, put a prophecy that the Lamanites would be a pure people. Second, it is already discussed at depth in the Lamanite article. I see no connection with this section and the article at hand.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no one objects, except a weak objection from an IP address, I am going to delete this section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I retroactively agree with your decision to do this. It would perhaps be relevant to an article called Mormonism and race or Mormonism and skin color or Mormonism and Native Americans (or, as you say, most obviously at Lamanite, where it is already), but this is not what this article is about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great article, needs to be tightened up

Facinating article, but needs a little work to compress its overall length. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

White vs Pure in 1840

In the "Book of Mormon" section, 2 Nephi 30:5-6 is quoted. I changed an explanation (which had no citation) from this:

Prior to 1981, most translations had "a white and delightsome people.

into this (citing the 3rd edition BoM PDF):

Originally this read "a white and delightsome people," but was changed to "pure" in 1981 to adopt a change originally made by Joseph Smith in his short-lived 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon.

This was reversed with the comment that "no… the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon corrected it to pure." This reader seems to have misunderstood what I tried to say. Perhaps my attempt at conciseness left my wording too confusing. Can others please suggest a clearer reading?

I was trying to explain that:

• the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon said "white"
• Joseph Smith himself changed this to "pure" in 1840
• the 1981 change to "pure" was based on Smith's 1840 edition

Often, the use of "pure" is thought to originate in the 1981 edition as a politically-correct revision. If so, it was true in 1840 for the 3rd edition, which states on its title page that it was "carefully revised by the translator."

The next editions of the Book of Mormon, printed in the European mission in 1841 and 1849, were based on the 1837 "second American edition" from Kirtland, which still read "white." The European editions were the template for future Utah editions until the 1981 revision. (source: Descriptive Bibliography, v.I, p.151 and Descriptive Bibliography, v.II, pp.79–80)

Essentially, changes from 1840 were overlooked until 1981, and word choices should be understood in context of their correct historical period. Rich jj (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rich, I misread your edit change. I will reverse my edit. Your point is exactly my position. Not very bright on my part. --^StormRider 15:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem; it looked like you meant the same thing I did. I added brief explanation of why the change to "pure" was overlooked for so long.Rich jj (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I reiterated this in the similar section at: Lamanite#Skin colors. Please reword either section if you can figure out how to say it more clearly, without making it into a longer tangent (I'm having trouble striking this balance).

Perhaps we shouldn't have removed Vogel's and Kimball's comments about how righteous Lamanites will become white. Even though "pure" was used in 1840, "white" was used thereafter and taught by the church for a very long time. It's in many church teachings and explanations during that 140-year period and can't be brushed off just because of the Third Edition. Rich jj (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine is found in the scriptures. The Church has a very unclear history of defining the words of leaders and/or prophets as far as doctrine. Brigham Young has had at least one of his teachings identified as false doctrine. I think you will find others in a similar situation. Just because a leader of the LDS Church speaks does not make it doctrine. Teachings become doctrine only when added to the standard works of the Church.

To support your point is that there have been leaders who specifically taught a whiteness of skin versus a purity. For other leaders it was more easily understood to be purity when white is used and not a skin color. What is clear to me is that Joseph meant pure and not white. What is also clear is that the leaders of the Church for whatever reason used the copy of the Book of Mormon that was printed in England and ignored the last changes made by Joseph that clarified this point of purity.

My suspicions are that retaining the English edition facilitate Brigham Young's, and succeeding leaders, firm declaration regarding priesthood and blacks. Regardless, I am against taking quotes and attempting to make those descriptive of the whole range of LDS position. Quotes are personal positions and not the position of the LDS Church. Scripture defines the position of the Church and nothing else. I reject sensationalizing articles to appease the appetites of the fanatic and/or the zealot. Does that make sense?--^StormRider 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that doctrine becomes official by a vote of common consent of the church body. Official binding doctrine of the church is much more limited than the larger collection of teachings offered by various leaders over the years. Leaders have their own understandings and explanations (quotes, as you say) that they offer, which aren't required to have come from revelation and have not been approved by the church for inclusion in the canon. These may conflict with statements from other leaders, or even from themselves. Even though church leaders may have spoken unofficially or "unauthoritatively" about Lamanites becoming white, their quotes were taken seriously by many church members and flavored official church policy and teachings until "corrected."

The article on Blacks and the Church may not be the most appropriate place to address this (maybe the Lamanite article is better), but I think an explanation is necessary that some church authorities promulgated this idea, perhaps mistakenly, and it is no longer accepted. I don't want to neglect this issue and leave a hole in the discussion of racism in the Church that could be construed as trying to conceal an embarrassing past. Rich jj (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The context in which you have stated this would be an ideal manner in discussing it. Some leaders stated their opinion or thoughts as follows...; however, this was not the doctrine of the Church. You then succeed at juxtaposing the Church with the individual. IMHO, it is without doubt that some leaders had racist ideas, Brigham Young, (who is one of my favorites), springs immediately to mind. An aside, it introduces at topic about prophets or inspired men: are they immune to the social mores of society? Why don't they always know the difference between right and wrong? Christ acknowledged and the early apostles and ancient prophets all acknowledged slavery and none of them spoke out about it. Why did they NOT try to correct that wrong? Is God limited in his ability to correct social wrongs through his representatives on earth? Without speaking out against slavery are we to assume they condoned it as an acceptable social condition? What does it mean that the ancient Israelites, the chosen people, were slaves in Egypt for so long? It would be an interesting conversation. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In this particular instance, I think the theory about Lamanites becoming white was official LDS doctrine because it was in the official canon, both before 1840 and after. If there was an error in the official canon, that doesn't make it any less official. As far as I know, edits and changes in the canon, not amounting to a major addition, were not voted on by the church. The 1830 edition that contains "white and delightsome" was (in effect) voted on, as was the 1981 edition if my memory serves me. But in between, I'm not sure there was voting. COGDEN 17:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

COgden, I think the mere fact that Jopseph Smith made the correction in the 1840 edition makes it clear that it was intended to be pure; using white, was not accurate and its reference to color was not intended. What you allude to is those following did not use the 1840 edition and continued to use an older version. It is very possible that these succeeding leaders preferred the older version because it more easily accomodated their personal, speculative views. However, what is evident is that the Church did return to the 1840 version of the language. I see a difference between doctrine and practice. It was the practice of Brigham Young and the Church to restrict the priesthood to whites, but it was not doctrine. Doctrine is found in the canonical scriptures of the Church. This view allows me to acknowledge the frailty of prophets and apostles; they are nothing but men. They carry the mantle of leadeship, but that does not make them perfect or that they know all truth. Just a few thoughts. --^StormRider 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree that common consent/canonization is the only source of official LDS doctrine. Official LDS doctrine exists which is not part of the canon. For example, I believe that the Endowment ceremony constitutes official LDS doctrine. Also, I believe that the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, the 1909 First Presidency Statement regarding evolution, the Second Manifesto, and all other First Presidency statements constitute official church doctrine of their day, even if they later change. In particular, the First Presidency's 1949 statement describing the "Negro Doctrine" and priesthood ban was official church doctrine. For one thing, the statement itself makes it very clear that this constituted church "doctrine", and was not just church practice or policy ("It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church").

With regard to the 1840 edition, my point is that because Joseph Smith's 1840 change was not voted on, then if common consent were the operative standard, his views concerning the propriety of this change in the translation would be just as speculative as Brigham Young's opposing views on the subject. Conversely, the 1840 edition is just as canonical as the 1830 and 1920 editions of the Book of Mormon. I don't believe that—by definition—there is ever anything in the canon (i.e., the Book of Mormon as it existed in the official Standard Works from 1841-1981), that is not official church doctrine. I think the 1840 and 1841 editions of the Book of Mormon were both official church doctrine during the relevant time period when they were given the stamp of official approval by the church. COGDEN 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Just saw this response. All statements made that are doctrine become part of the canon as you see with the Proclamation on the Family is now part of scriptures printed by the Church. I have heard that statements that are signed by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve becomes doctrine and is added to the canon; everything does not carry the weight of being recognized as Church doctrine.

The position you outline above on Joseph and his correction to the 1840 Book of Mormon versus Brigham's choice to use the 1841 English version is more complex than that. I don't think the LDS Church owned the 1840 version, whereas they did have possession of the 1841 version. The major change was the clarification that white meant pure. Both versions are doctrinal, but it is impossible for anyone to say that Joseph's clarification, later made in the 1981, is novel or was not intended by Joseph. Did some leaders of the church misinterpret scripture based upon the 1842 version? Whiteout a doubt in my mind. They argued positions based upon white not meaning pure, but white as in skin color. That position was wrong from the first time it was mentioned. It is not surprising that others argued against it then.

I think there is a conversation, and far more interesting point, discussing why it took until 1981 to accept the clarification made by Joseph. It leads to the conversation when does a prophet speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man? --^StormRider 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

The lead paragraphs are a bit wandering at this point, and could be tightened up considerably. The lead just needs to summarize what is to come in the rest of the article, hitting the major notes. Basically it just needs to state that (1) church membership has never been restricted by race, (2) from B. Young to 1978 the priesthood and temple ordinances were withheld from black people of African descent, (3) the restrictions were lifted in 1978 as a result of a revelation to the president of the church, and (4) a rough estimate of the church's presence in black African countries and among people of black African descent in other countries.

Anyone mind if I tighten it up? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. No compelling argument not to switch to apparently less-offensive term that is in line with other articles related to that term. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — The term 'blacks' is offensive to many, and should be replaced with the far more accepted 'black people'. Little grape (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is too big. I'm wondering that if we are considering a move, if we should also simultaneously consider a split in the article? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The name is fine. Wikipedia is worried about offending people. "Blacks" is perfectly appropriate. Bytebear (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am worried about offending people. I'm not sure which is less offensive, but looking at other articles, like Black people, it seems like that is the least offensive path. If nothing else, there is wisdom in consistency. Black people is also perfectly appropriate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not black and I don't pretend to know how all black people feel; however, I grew up among black people and I have no memory of any of my black friends being offended by the term black. To the contrary, it was their term of choice.

If memory serves, this feeling about the term Black being offensive is a South African concept. Is this accurate or is it a more worldwide feeling? Also, is there any references that state which term is more offensive/preferable? African American does not seem appropriate because the LDS Church's stance was worldwide. I don't have a preference, but I am not interested in changing the title unless I see evidence that the result will be an improvement and not meeting the opinion of a few people. Any references? --^StormRider 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between the term 'black', which as you correctly note is perfectly acceptable, and 'blacks', which is offensive. You are justifying the use of 'blacks' by mistakenly using the term 'black' as an example. Your black friends wouldn't be offended by your describing them as 'black', but if you referred to them as 'the blacks' they would find this extremely offensive. Do you appreciate the difference in this example?Little grape (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the article black people, it states the following:

"The term black was used throughout but not frequently as it carried a certain stigma. In his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech,[37] Martin Luther King, Jr. uses the terms Negro 15 times and black 4 times. Each time he uses black it is in parallel construction with white (e.g., black men and white men).[38] With the successes of the civil rights movement a new term was needed to break from the past and help shed the reminders of legalized discrimination. In place of Negro, black was promoted as standing for racial pride, militancy and power. Some of the turning points included the use of the term "Black Power" by Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael) and the release of James Brown's song "Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud".

In 1988 Jesse Jackson urged Americans to use the term African American because the term has a historical cultural base. Since then African American and black have essentially a coequal status. There is still much controversy over which term is more appropriate. Some strongly reject the term African American in preference for black citing that they have little connection with Africa.[who?] Others believe the term black is inaccurate because African Americans have a variety of skin tones.[39][not in citation given] Surveys show that when interacting with each other African Americans prefer the term black, as it is associated with intimacy and familiarity. The term "African American" is preferred for public and formal use.[40] The appropriateness of the term "African American" is further confused, however, by increases in black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. The more recent black immigrants may sometimes view themselves, and be viewed, as culturally distinct from native descendants of African slaves."

More importantly, it uses the term Blacks throughout the article. I don't have a preference, except for changing it to something that is deemed better by the majority of blacks. Do you or do you not have references. I appreciate reliable references and will readily abandon my life experiences for them. If you have them, please bring them forward and so that we can make the proper decision. --^StormRider 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mild support. Not a big issue, in my opinion, but in light of Black people, I agree that that renaming this for consistency is OK. It certainly doesn't change the meaning, though I can understand the desire to use "black" only as an adjective, and not as a noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The main article is already at black people, why on Earth would this be controversial? Jafeluv (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Very strong Oppose Black people is so named for disambiguation, so that a searcher knows that she's found the article on people, not clothes or horses. This is unnecessary here. While someone will declare any of these terms offensive, including the proposed target, we must chose one, or face an endless circle of move requests; the next one should be People of colour and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Upgraded per comments below. I predict that if we yield to this, we will have someone objecting to the new title in a couple months, and so on. The new title is in itself non-controversial, but so is the present title, at least in American; the most prominent American person of color uses it himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support - no references have been provided that support the proposition and the article, Black people, uses the term Blacks repeatedly throughout the article. I am not interested in entering into a revolving change of titles for this article based upon the personal, subjective taste of the next editor that says a term is offensive without providing more than their opinion. Should reliable references be provided I would change my vote to whatever term is most acceptable.--^StormRider 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The MoS is sufficient for me.--^StormRider 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps WP's own Manual of Style will be reliable enough for you to change your mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=17072530#Identity states in part 'Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns to refer to groups of people within society: use black people rather than blacks'. Little grape (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be? Wikipedia as a whole is not a reliable source; the Manual of Style is Wikipedia without sources or citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. The Manual of Style is quite clear in its guidance. A powerful argument is required to ignore that guidance. I have seen no such argument here other than "I'm sure they don't really mind being called blacks". Well, to be honest I don't know either way. So I look for someone or something to give me some leadership, and that leadership is given strongly and unambiguously by the Manual of Style. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style, is (as too often) incomplete, tendentious, and misleading. It does not represent consensus on most points, and this one is particularly dubious; if the page were in article space, we should call it a POV fork. "Black people" is tendentious in South Africa; American usage is black. The US Census (which carefully avoids potential offense) uses black, as can be seen in Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is, of course, a difference between usage like "I am black" (which the US census uses) and "I am a black" (which this article uses). Jafeluv (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support: See also Talk:Black people. seicer | talk | contribs 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am astounded that you found this section, which you yourself closed and boxed as unproductive, and which is correctly described as a red herring immediately afterward, as any reason to move the article complained of, much less anything else. We are not censored for the appeasement of hysterics, much less ones who are unable to find anyone else who shares their offense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It is true the MoS is not the most perfect of guidelines, but they remain our guidelines. This issue is isignificant IF it does not result in a consistent changing of the MoS to meet the changing tastes of social groups. Although there is nothing that leads me to actually think Black people is better than the term Blacks, what we have today in the MoS is sufficient to guide us. I think further conversation against the action is like...whizzing into the wind. Cheers.--^StormRider 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have limited experience of MoS. Almost everything in it is the product of one (when we are lucky, two or three) extremely -er- original thinkers; this is no exception. Guidelines should not be followed over precipices with skid-marks on them. (And, no, I would not return to that swamp if I were free to; I merely advocate that such clauses be considered as advice - in this case, very bad advice - not as Gospel.) I am therefore perfectly content to leave MOS saying exactly what it does; perhaps by the time this point is raised again, that will taken for what it is: an indication of an option that should be considered, and ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to restore deleted quote

There was a quote removed ... I dont see in the Talk above consensus to remove it. It is a key quote cited by Abanes and Ostlings, indicating a belief by a future church president. The quote is:

In 1960, LDS Apostle (and future church president) Spencer W. Kimball said:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.[3]

I propose to restore this. This quote illustrates a key criticism of notable critics: they claim that many LDS members in the 20th century believed that skin color changes with virtuous behavior.

If there is an objection to including this quote, I suggest that - rather than deleting the entire quote, try to supply additional context or balance. This is not a paper encyclopedia. If there are quotes that show LDS did not believe that, by all means lets include them, but please dont delete fully supported on-point material. --Noleander (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Although that is a wonderfully sensationalistic statement, the topic of this article is Black people and the LDS Church and as such this statement does not apply. Maybe if the title were race and the LDS Church or something similar it would apply. Maybe there is a need for LDS views on the native American people? Surely there must be one, but I can't think of it. I would be careful about using quotes to sensationalize. You begin to violate policies. --^StormRider 09:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got a good point about Native Am. vs African-Americans. Perhaps a new article devoted to "LDS views on how skin color reflects virtue"? You are correct about overly-sensational quotes, but don't forget the source of this quote: Both Abanes and the Ostlings include it in their books as an example, by a future president of the church, of a very astonishing belief that some church leaders held in the middle of the 20th century. Although the quote is bizarre, it is precisely the bizarre-ness that made the Ostlings etc include it in their books.

Removing a, what now appears to be embarrassing, quote by Kimball smacks of white-washing, dont you think?

Question: does anyone have any additional verifiable information (quotes, documents, etc) on this topic (how LDS members viewed the generation-to-generation change of skin color as a reflection of virtue, etc)? I understand it is no longer official church doctrine, but during the early part of the 20th century there may be other documents on this topic. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of a book that solely focuses on the topic, but there must be someone that has done a paper or article. I will review some of my "Journal of Mormon History" editions. The next place would be Dialogue.

To me it is without question that some individual leaders had racist ideas or concepts. IMHO, they created ideas from flimsy positions that resulted in personal beliefs that had no basis in actual Church doctrine. For example, some leaders tied the color "white" to righteousness rather than to purity, which has nothing to do with color. As much as Kimball believed in the Lamanite people, he also had some very bizarre ideas. I do not think it was ever church doctrine, but there is no telling how many were enrolled in their way of thinking simply because were leaders. --^StormRider 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do some research. I'll also go back and find where that quote was discussed by the notable critics. My recollection was that it was in the context of (Im paraphrasing here): "Many LDS leaders held the belief that skin color was corelated with virtue/righteousness. Examples of this belief include [quotes from scripture], [quotes from D&C, etc], [quotes from leaders speeches]". So the context of this quote was in the broader discussion that a key LDS belief was that skin color was related to righteousness. This was, if I recall, within the broader discussion of discrimination against blacks. Although that one particular quote deals with Nat. Am, it was in a racial/black chapter. And, no, the quote was not just about Kimball or certain individuals: it was about church leadership and church doctrines.

My other point was: the quote was originally in this article in a section entitled "Skin Color relates to virtue" or something like that, and it was cited and supported, and the section was taken out without consensus on this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote is in Abanes' book on page 421, in the "Coverups" chapter, in the section dealing with the church revising some LDS scriptures/documents to cover-up past discrimination against people of color. I'll keep looking in other works. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote is in Tanner's "Curse of Cain" part 1. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tanner's "Momonism: Shadow or Reality" has 8 pages (!) documenting original LDS sources that equate skin color with righteousness in one way or another (p. 262 - 270, 5th ed.) but it does not include that particular quote. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is: that there were (are) lots of writings and pronouncements by LDS leaders on the topic of "skin color corelates with righteousness", and a couple of years ago I distilled them all down to a couple of paragraphs and put it in this article (fully cited and supported). And then some editor recently removed them without consensus. --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the "skin color relates to virtue" section was removed around May 2008. There is a comment here on the Talk page (tho no discussion of getting consensus on removing the section) that says "Light skin color indicates virtue was never taught [by the LDS church]." Apparently the section did not have enough detail or background in it? The editor also says that "if we are going to have this information, we should balance it with other things (like examples of people with light skin being virtuous".

I concur with adding additional balancing information. However, the original materials clearly show many church leaders from 1830 through 1970 making many, many statements about dark skin corelating with non-righteousness. The Kimball quote is espically illuminating because it is in writing, made by a future church president (he was one of the 12 when he made the statement), and is very recent (vs many of the documents/quotes from the 1800s).

I propose to restore the section, and encourage other editors to add balancing information, perhaps describing how those views are no longer endorsed by the church, etc. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed the history of this article again, and it looks like the section was deleted in July 2009, and that there _was_ a discussion on this Talk page before deletion. So I was mistaken about the absence of discussion. My apologies. In any case: for the reasons above, I am still proposing to re-institute the quote, but in a clearer fashion, as shown below. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text I propose to restore. I've tried to improve the wording so the Kimball quote makes more sense in that context. In addition, I have a few new paragraphs relating to topics I believe are not yet covered: NAACP interaction, and retaliation against anti-discrimination mormon activists. I'd appreciate any feedback before I put this in the article. (note: the section titles below simply indicate the topic: in most instances, they are simply new paragraphs that would go into existing sections). --Noleander (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot of discussion going on simultaneously on different pages and I am finding that much of our positions are related. Besides the minor issues I have with some of your references (I don't think Abanes is qualified anything; no academic degree and his training in life is dancing, but he has publish books), you still enjoy sensationalized styles of writing, which moves articles from an encyclopedic discussion to anti-Mormon literature. There is a difference between the actions of individuals and the LDS Church. If the Church did not do it, then it does not belong in the article. IF we are going to talk about individual beliefs, then let's change the title so that the topic is broader in scope and we can make it clear to readers where the difference exists. When I write I always ask myself why a quote is necessary? You use them to sensationalize and including them would simply cause others to include a plethora of quotes about the LDS Church's position of how to treat their fellow man regardless of color, kindness, charity, etc. Your text below is not dispassionate, does not seek to inform, but to ridicule, and confuses individuals with the topic, the LDS Church. --^StormRider 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other. One key criticism of the church by the Tanners and Ostlings is that the church is embarrassed by its past, and it actively tries to hide past practices/beliefs/statements by actively distorting history, hiding documents, and changing doctrine (their words, not mine). That is a very, very significant criticism. One example they give is "dark skin - bad" and, more specifically "indians get lighter when in the church". Apologists in this article have tried to de-emphasize that embarrassing past by inserting text and quotes saying: "Oh, the church never taught that. 'White' vs 'Pure' was just a typo". At this point the critics are obliged to insert text: "Hmmm, no, they _really_ did teach that, and here is some proof: [quotes here]". All the preceding are _not_ quotes from the editors mouth, but quotes from church leaders and notable critics.

The whole quote war would go away if the text just said, in a neutral and encyclopedic manner: "The church used to teach that dark skin was equated with [some phrase meaning lack of virtue], and some members believed that [indians would change color]". Would you agree with inserting a simple declarative sentence like that, with no quotes from apologists or critics? If so, I would concur with that. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

... oh, and regarding the quotes on "Examples of discrimination other than priesthood": once again, this in _response_ to quotes put in by apologists. The section started with a simple, neutral statement with no quotes:

"Prior to 1978, the church discriminated against blacks by blah, blah, blah".

Then the apologists added in:

"The discrimination was merely that blacks could not be priests, but blacks could do everything else, such as get into the temple, etc. Here are some quotes from leaders showing that the church welcomed blacks:.... ".

The critics are then obligated to respond:

"No, the blacks were treated as 2nd class citizens in many ways besides the priesthood denial (and BTW focusing on the word "priest" is very misleading since most readers of this encycl wont know the signficance within LDS) and here are some examples of discrimination beyond priesthood denial, including the fact that some blacks couldnt even get into the Recreation room".

Once again, we see how a simple, encycl neutral sentence just cant be left alone: the apologists tend to jump in and add quotes and counter-examples that are very misleading. Once again, I would concur with text that has _no_ quotes apologetic or critical, provided that the text indicated that the discrimination was _not_ limited to priesthood denial alone (and clearly stated what the priesthood denial involved). --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Skin color correlated with virtue

Many LDS church documents and church leaders asserted that dark skin was an indication of sin or a curse. One example from an official LDS magazine is: "A black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven.... We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white.

Skin Color would change over time

One belief held by some LDS members was that skin color of Native Americans would gradually change from dark to light as they repent of their sins. A verse from the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 30:6) relating to that belief discusses the Lamanites (Native Americans) "... and many generations shall not pass away among the, save they shall be a white and delightsome people". Mormon writer George Edward Clark wrote (regarding an Indian tribe in South Carolina): "That tribe, or most of its members, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were white and delightsome; as white and fair as any group of citizens of our contry. I know of now prophecy , ancient or modern, that as had a more literal fulfillment".

Alleged cover-up of earlier skin color beliefs

In 1980, the church changed the wording of that verse of the Book of Mormon from "white and delightsome people" to "pure and delightsome people". Church leaders claimed that they were simply restoring the verse to reflect another early edition of the book, and that the verse did not concern skin color but rather concerned character. But church critic Richard Abanes claims that that change of that verse by the church is an attempt to cover-up its past attitudes. To support his claim, Abanes quotes LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball who said in 1960 (when he was a member of the 12 apostles):

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

Retaliation against mormon anti-discrimination activists

There were some Mormon church members who protested against the church's discriminatory practices. Two Mormon church members, Douglas A. Wallace and Byron Merchant, were ex-communicated by the LDS church (1976 and 1977 respectively) after criticizing the church's discrimatory practices. Mormon church member Grant Syphers objected to the church's racial policies and, as a consequence, his stake president refused to give Sypher permission to enter the temple. The president said "Anyone who could not accept the Church's stand on Negros ... could not go to the temple".

Interactions between the NAACP and the LDS church

The NAACP attempted to get the LDS church to support civil rights legislation and to reverse its racist practices during the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. In 1963 NAACP leadership tried to arrange meetings with church leadership, but the church refused to meet with them. In 1965, the church leadership did meet with the NAACP, and promised to publish an editorial in church-owned newspaper The Deseret News, which would support civil rights legislation pending in the Utah legislature. The church failed to follow-through on the commitment, and church president Tanner explained "We have decided to remain silent". In March 1965, the NAACP led a anti-discrimination march in Salt Lake City, protesting church policies. In 1966, the NAACP issued a statement criticizing the church, saying the church "has maintained a rigid and continuous segregation stand" and that "the church has made "no effort to conteract thewidespread discriminatory practices in education, in housing, in employment, and other areas of life"

In April 2000, the NAACP filed a federal civil rights complaint against the school district in Gilbert, Arizona, claiming the school discriminated against African-American students, and that much of the discrimination was due to Mormon teachers and Mormon students treating African-American students unfairly.

Other examples of racial discrimination (besides racial restriction policy)

The exclusion from the priesthood was not the only discrimination practised by the church. In the 1950s, the San Francisco mission office took legal action to prevent black families from moving into the church neighborhood. In 1965, a black man living in Salt Lake City, Daily Oliver, described how - as a boy - he was kicked-out of an LDS-led boy scout troop because they did not want blacks in their building. Mormon apostle Mark E. Petersen descibes a black family that tried to join the LDS church: "[some white church members] went to the Branch President, and said that either the [black] family must leave, or they would all leave. The Branch President ruled that [the black family] could not come to church meetings. It broke their hearts."

Consequences of priesthood denial

Being a member of the priesthood was a requirement for many basic church activities beyond temple ceremonies. For example, most church leadership jobs, such as the office for managing the church's temporal affairs, were restricted to priests, and boy-scout troop leadership was restricted to priests. Virtually all white male adult members of the LDS church in good standing were priests.

Some of above proposed sections have been inserted

I put in some of the above sections. I did not put in the NAACP issue from recent times; nor did I put in the Mormon Tab Choir topic (below). I did not put in any "cover up" text.

Regarding the "Skin color changes over time", here is the text I put in:

Many LDS church documents and church leaders asserted that dark skin was an indication of sin or a curse.[70][71][72] One belief held by some LDS members was that skin color of Native Americans would gradually change from dark to light as they repented of their sins.[73][74][75]

I hope that is neutral and non-sensational. In any case, it is better than what was there before. If we still think it needs work, lets talk about it here. --Noleander (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New section on integration of M. Tabernacle Choir?

I was thinking of adding a new section regarding the circumstances surrounding the integration of the M. Tab. Choir. Any comments or suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was integrated? --^StormRider 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what you wanted to add and how that relates to the topic at hand. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar search came up with an article from the Sociological Analysis journal indicating that black people were members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir prior to 1978. During what time period were they not members, and was that by policy or was it the demographics of the Salt Lake City area? Alanraywiki (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The source says (I dont have it in front of me now, so Im paraphrasing): The Tab Choir had no black members up until the NAACP threatened a boycott of their album sales in approx 1966, and then 3 weeks later 2 black members were included". It was in the context of the Civil Rights era, new anti-discrimination laws, etc. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move "before 1847" text into "Blacks and LDS movement" article. Okay?

I propose to move the "before 1847" text from this article into the "Blacks and LDS movement" article, for a few reasons:

• 1) Pre-1847 stuff is more appropriate in the "Movement" article that in this article

• 2) That Movement article already has a small mention of the 3 individuals, so it is better co-located

• 3) This article is much larger than the other article, so any (sensible) balancing that can be done is a Good Thing.

Let me know if there are any concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to summarize the information here while moving the section to the other article. There is value in seeing the contrast between what was happening prior to BY and then his actions. Does that make sense? --^StormRider 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Also, there is already a subsection in this article named "Notable early black church members" (near the bottom) which has some possible overlap with this text under discussion. It is rather fuzzy because the 3 individuals were associated with JS before JS's death, but 1 or 2 of them moved to Utah later, so those individuals are relevant to both the "Movement" as well as the COJCOLDS. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this: I create a summary of these 3 individuals, and put the summary into the existing "Notable early black church members" section. But only if the individual moved to Utah. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That works, but it would help to clarify that BY was changing or creating new policy in regards to Blacks and the priesthood. I did not reivew the BY section, but we could easily summarize something there and put the individuals down below. --^StormRider 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the change. Feel free to review and tweak it. --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Slavery section: re-add sentence that Legislature was mostly comprised of church leaders

In the section on Slavery, this article currently has the sentence:

" In 1852, while Brigham Young was governor, the Utah Territorial Legislature officially sanctioned slavery in Utah Territory."

The article, at this point, used to have a sentence to the effect: "The Territorial Legislature at that time was comprised almost entirely of Mormon church leaders". This sentence was supported by citations from several decent history books.

I propose to re-insert that sentence, the purpose of which is to show that church leaders, in their role as Legislators, passed a law approving slavery, at a time when states (and territories) in the nation were deciding whether or not to endorse slavery.

That seems like an important point to make in an article about Blacks and the LDS church. Any comments on this proposal? --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: tighten up "Slavery in Scripture" section

I propose to tighten up two subsections: "Slavery in Scripture" and "Quotes from church leaders on Slavery". They seem overly verbose and detailed, relative to the rest of the article.

Here is the existing text from those subsections:

Slavery scripture

See also: Christianity and slavery LDS scripture has various views on slavery. The Old Testament has stories of slavery, and gives rules and regulations on how to treat slaves. The New Testament tells slaves not to revolt against their masters. It was a commonly held belief in the South that the Bible permitted slavery. However, the Doctrine and Covenants condemns slavery, teaching "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:80) The Book of Mormon heralds righteous kings who did not allow slavery, (Mosiah 29:40) and righteous men who fought against slavery (Alma 48:11). The Book of Mormon also describes an ideal society that lived around AD 34-200, in which it teaches the people "had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 4:3). The Pearl of Great Price describes a similar society, in which "they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). Mormons believed they too, were commanded by the Lord to "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). For a short time, Mormons lived in a society with no divisions under the United Order.

Statements from church leaders

During a sermon criticizing the federal government, Young said, "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."[13]

In 1851, Apostle Orson Hyde said:

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. But if the slave chooses to remain with his master, none are allowed to interfere between the master and the slave. All the slaves that are there appear to be perfectly contented and satisfied.

When a man in the Southern states embraces our faith, the Church says to him, if your slaves wish to remain with you, and to go with you, put them not away; but if they choose to leave you, or are not satisfied to remain with you, it is for you to sell them, or let them go free, as your own conscience may direct you. The Church, on this point, assumes not the responsibility to direct. The laws of the land recognize slavery, we do not wish to oppose the laws of the country. If there is sin in selling a slave, let the individual who sells him bear that sin, and not the Church.[14]

Please let me know if you have any suggestions. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the church's practice was to have members who owned slaves give the slave to the church as tithing, and then have the slave work off his freedom, thereby eliminating slavery by church members, yet, not denying them compensation, and allowed the slave to earn his own freedom. I think it relates to Smith's idea of having the Government purchase the slaves, thus ending slavery. It was a platform of his presidential bid. Do we have information on both issued, and have them covered (if they are not already). Bytebear (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of that concept you discuss: Certainly if it was an important principle of the LDS history, we should get it in the encyclopedia. Which article? Probably better in the sister article "Blacks and LDS movement" which is - more or less - stuff from before 1847. This article here is mostly about post-JS-death topoics. I take it you have no opinion on my suggestion above to tighten up those 2 subsections? --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As to tightening up the Biblical slavery section, I think it is suffice to say that the church was not unusual in it's view of slavery, and like other religious groups of the period, used the Bible to justify the practice. However, I think the church stemming from an abolitionist position was probably more sympathetic to slaves than other churches, while at the same time taking a position of more or less "live and let live" in regards to the continuing practice, so long as slave owners had laws governing the treatment of slaves. Bytebear (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback ... I like the summary you give here, maybe I'll try to re-work it into something that is concise and encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain fact tags in intro paras?

J-johnson: could you please explain the recent fact tags in the intro paragraph(s) of a section (that you just added)? It looks like the statements are elaborated on later in the subsections, with cites, true? I dont know if it is customary for intro statements to have cites, when the intro statement will be elaborated on (with cites) a few paragraphs later. I suppose we could copy the later cites and duplicate them in the intro sentence. Dont forget, this is supposed to read like an encyclopedia: with intro making broad statements, then getting more detailed later.

Or did you put the fact tags in because you think the statements are actually incorrect? If so, could you propose a better wording that you think is more accurate? --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

.. and the fact tag in "Young's adoption of the racial restriction policy" saying that "Young never mentioned Smith ..." is asking editors to disprove a negative. There may be no cite for that statement: the burden is on editors who know that Young _did_ mention Smith to correct the sentence. In other words, consider the sentence "Young never travelled to Alaska". Should that have a cite? No, because the absence of info to the contrary is sufficient. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was writing my reasonings and did not see this section. I don't think the statements are actually correct. I think the lack of evidence is NOT sufficient to say that he never did. This is one of my points. Do we really know what all Young said and what he did not say? Was everything he said recorded? Us as Wiki editors cannot base some conclusion just off of the fact that we can't find anything to the contrary. That is called original research. Saying Young did not do something needs a cite. Otherwise it is OR. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I did not write that subsection on "who originally started the policy". Im just trying to make it read well. Some other editor, apparently, concluded that Young started the policy, not Smith. If you know better, or want to re-word it, go ahead. But this article is several years old, it really shouldnt have any fact tags at this point. Perhaps some LDS historian editor could jump in here and clarify who originated the policy. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know better, otherwise I would have changed it to the correct answer, but if we don't have a reliable source, then I don't think it should be in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the fact tags doesn't solve anything. I'll reword it to make sure it doesn't make any claim not supported by reliable sources. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact needed tag

Do we really know when Young started to espouse the racial policy? Are we positive that it was Young who formulated it, and not some other person in the leadership who formulated. I was always under the impression that we weren't exactly sure when or how the racial policy was formulated. Is there some additional information I am unaware of? I think we need to be very careful about what we say about the intents of historical figures. Historians maybe have their opinions, but we should report that as their opinions. Also, I am very skeptical about reporting what Quinn says happened behind closed doors about Lee blocking the priesthood when he came back. The validity of The Mormon Hierarchy has come under question [1]. I don't know if we can use it as a reliable source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I defer to LDS historians as to who/when the policy was started. My point was simply quality of the article: The article is trying to establish a key fact of who and when started the policy. My recollection is that the article used to say something like "It is not certain who first established the policy: it may have been Young, or perhaps Young was implementing a policy first suggested (but not documented by) Smith". The point is: We dont need to have several fact tags. Good editors have already written the subsections (I did not write them) and it appears that the consensus is that Young created the policy in 1849/1851 timeframe. If that is not accurate, we should disucss that here on the Talk page.

As for Quinn as a source, I believe he is very reputable. If you have contrary information on the "Blocking the change", perhaps you could find a citation and add it into that "Blocked" subsection? --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who started it, if there is no reputable source then we can't keep it in there. If good editors had written the subsections then they would have included a reliable reference. Otherwise, it is called original research. Even if there is a consensus on original research. As for Quinn, I don't think he is reputable. His works have been challenged. At the very least we should say that The Mormon Hierarchy reports that Lee blocked the change, but that the validity of the book has been questioned. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is uncertainty about the origin of this policy. However, this encyclopedia needs to say _something_ about it. It could be

• Young started the policy in year XXX
• Smith started the policy in year YYY
• No one knows who started the policy or when.
• The majority of historians think Young started the policy, but a minority think blah blah.

Simply deleting an introductory paragraph reduces the quality of the encyclopedia. Can you suggest an alternative intro paragraph that improves the readability of this article, and yet does not contain any inaccurate information? --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I just added a fact needed tag. I didn't delete it nor did I suggest deleting it. I would be fine with "No one knows who started the policy or when" which seems to be the best solution with conflicting evidence. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[un-indent] As for Quinn, by most accounts, his accuracy is very, very high. He is cited for much LDS material in this encyclopedia. I dont think we should find every statement that is from Quinn and add "but the source of this statement is considered unreliable by XYZ". That is not encyclopedic. We need to focus on the Lee issue: Do we have any sources that say Lee did _not_ block the policy? Decades have gone by since then: Wouldn't Lee or some other official (who was at the meeting) have corrected Quinn in a document or speech? If it really, really is an issue for you, I suppose we could put your note about Quinn's reputation in the footnote that cites Quinn .. but even that would be abnormal for this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to write, "Quinn believes XYZ" and let the reader decide for themselves what credibility the analysis bears. This goes for all historical analysis, including Bushman, Shipps, etc. Bytebear (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Especially with authors that have been identified as being on one side or the other. Both should be subject to review. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree. These "criticism of .." articles are old, and the content is mature. The time has come for all editors to turn towards the task of making the text more readable and neutral. The article should contain simple declarative sentences "Lee was absent from a meeting ... blah blah". Inserting the source of the fact is a back-handed way of saying "see, this is my opponents source, he's not very trustworthy". That may be okay for some extremist source, but this is Quinn. I suggest we move away from the "he said, she said" style of these articles and make them more polished.

On the specific question of this "Lee blocked ..." paragraph: perhaps we could spend our time, rather than editing the text, questioning LDS historians. Could one of you (who has issues with the Lee paragraph) send an inquiry to the LDS group here on Wiki to see if they have any info on the matter? Or inquire to the official LDS historian's office and get some input? That is where our effort should be directed, instead of back-and-forth editing. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

... also, do either of you have a copy of Quinn's "Extensions of Power"? If so, could you provide the text from that book (on page 14?) that discusses the Lee incident? And, does Quinn have a source/footnote on p. 14 that says where he (Quinn) got the Lee info? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Blacks and the modern LDS church. For Blacks and the early Mormon movement, see Blacks and Mormonism.

The title reads Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we are changing what the article is about, we should change the name. Standard wiki procedure will typically summarize the information that is contained in greater detail in another article. As it stands this article is supposed to be about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which wound include the early church. If we want to exclude the early church, I suggest we rename the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what your point is. Is there some edit you are refering to? There used to be a single article on Blacks and Mormonism, and it got split into two articles: (1) stuff specific to modern LDS church (more or less post-1847 stuff); and (2) LDS Movement (more or less stuff pre 1847). In terms of encyclopedia quality, we should try to avoid too much duplication and put the Joseph Smith-related topics into the Movement article, tho if there is a good reason to put some in this article, that is okay, but it should be a good reason. --Noleander (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think Editor GOGDEN was a key player in breaking the Black article and the Criticism of LDS article into the two articles: Movement vs modern-LDS church. Or maybe it was Descartes1979? Anyway, maybe the editor(s) that did the break-up could provide some insight into your concern. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What prompted it was the removal of JS's statements about slavery, but I noticed that hardly any of early Mormon context is in there. I realize there is a whole other article about the early Mormon church, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can't write an article about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not mention JS's teachings on the subject. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to summarize the early church and with a heading that directed readers to the main article. That is how it is done other places in Wikipedia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The intention was that the section in this article called "Before 1847" would be that summary of the pre-1847 stuff. It has a "main" tag linking to the "Blck s and Movement" article. If you want to beef-up that section in this article, please go ahead. Note that this article is a bit on the large size, so having quotes from JS in that summary section may be inappropriate (since the quotes are already (or - if not - should be )in the other "Blk and Movement" article). --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Slavery in Scripture" section needs work

The "Slavery in Scripture" section needs work. Right now, it is a mish-mash of odd sentences, some having little relation to slavery, some not from scripture. I propose to improve to be more focused and relevant. Here is the section now:

LDS scripture has various views on slavery. The Old Testament has stories of slavery, and gives rules and regulations on how to treat slaves. The New Testament tells slaves not to revolt against their masters. It was a commonly held belief in the South that the Bible permitted slavery. However, the Doctrine and Covenants condemns slavery, teaching "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:80) The Book of Mormon heralds righteous kings who did not allow slavery, (Mosiah 29:40) and righteous men who fought against slavery (Alma 48:11). The Book of Mormon also describes an ideal society that lived around AD 34-200, in which it teaches the people "had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 4:3). The Pearl of Great Price describes a similar society, in which "they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). Mormons believed they too, were commanded by the Lord to "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). For a short time, Mormons lived in a society with no divisions under the United Order.

Any comments or suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that Mormonism teaches that we need to be one, and that the idea of slavery cannot coexist with this teaching. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New Article in SLTribune on slavery

New Article in SLTribune on slavery and the early Mormon Church written by award-winning historian Pat Bagley

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.115.90 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

source 71

I wish to bring into question the reliability of source #71 (Quinn's book). Should the article include information from this book if there is no other reliable source to prove it? Since the section it sources, in my opinion, is controversial, I think that either 1. the section is removed, or 2. another reliable source is found for it. Of course this is just my opinion, and I would like to know what others think. Spalds (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not excited by Quinn as a source; he gets into fringe areas quite easily. However, in this situation, he is correct. Hugh B. Brown autobiography written by his son also discusses this topic and Lee's influence on keeping the status quo. I have HBB's book, but did not find it as I just perused my library. However, I will look for it and give the reference. --^StormRider 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be an excellent source. Spalds (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If it is written by his son it is not an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But if is co-authored by his son it is.

Should we break up the article?

I think I read somewhere that once an article gets above 100,000 bytes it in general should be split. We are over that limit, and loading the article can take a while. I am wondering if there might be ways to either split up the article or have some sections only breiefly cover their topics and then have a link going to a more indepth coverage of that issue. In some ways we have that going on for the pre-1848 section. We may want to consider it for other parts of the article as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. It is a bit large. A couple of paths forward include:

1) splitting the article (e.g. breaking the entire "Black membership" section into its own article)

2) tightening-up some verbose sections that are already covered in other "main" sections (e.g. sections on William McCary and Gladys Knight and Helvécio Martins etc) .. there is no need to duplicate that biographical info here in this article: a link should be fine.

--Noleander (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Another possibility is splitting off and creating a new article "Black people and Mormons" to cover more the person to person as opposed to institutional aspects of the article. I am not sure that such a split would really reduce size much though. Another possibility is geographically sub-dividing the article, because the issues of Black people and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are inherently different in the Carribean, in Africa, in Brazil, in the United States, in France, in Great Britain and in anywhere else. I am not sure outside of Brazil and the US there would be enough information to do an article justice. In Africa outside of South Africa and to a much lesser degree Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the need to address blacks and the Church as seperate article does not now exist, and in the cases of the two latter countries, the particular issues of the Church starting with a majority white membership and spreading to include blacks as well can be treated in the Country articles like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Africa once they are created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the policy actually abandoned in 1978 or simply changed from de jure to de facto?

In 1978, the policy was officially lifted via a new prophecy.

I have, in 2010, met zero black mormon males raised in American slums. The very, very few black males I have seen have been from elsewhere.

The absence of "sons of Ham" suggests that anyone who might announce a calling to the slums of New Orleans, their to recruit new (male) priests is counseled to seek another calling.

In other words, the policy is still there. At least as the church talks the talk of nondiscrimination, and this is good. But it will better when it walks the walk.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Maybe if you started again, use referencese that explain your position, we could assist. As it is now, you are not commmenting on the article and your edit will be deleted unless you clarify. Cheers. --^StormRider 06:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just accidently undid my longish post. I was going to make my new post shorter, but failed in that endevor. Go to www.blacklds.org to see just how wrong you are. Beyond this, your accusation by lack of evidence does not work. To provoe "de facto discrimination" you would have to give some case of de facto discrimination. In general you could not be more wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large presence of missionaries in cities like Detroit, Michigan. When the Detroit Branch was made a ward in 1992 its first bishop was a black man. If my associate Gregorie Eugene Louis was not raised in what you dismissively call "slums", he was raised in Detroit and served a mission for the LDS Church in California, that is he holds the LDS priesthood office of elder. Another of my associates who is currently serving a mission was raised in apartments between the Lodge and Trumball on the south side of Warren Avenue in Detroit. I am not sure if this quite makes it as a slum, but sitll. On the other hand another of my friends is Jesse Thomas, a son of a sharecropper and a former Baptist minister, he may not be from the slums, but no one would deny his blackness. This http://www.mormontimes.com/article/12293/Ex-Black-Panther-finds-strength-in-gospel-path article from the Mormon times tells of Ronald McClain, a former member of the black panthers, who is a Sealer (LDS Church) in the Oakland California Temple. Arguably sealers are the highest ranking non-general authority presithood holders. Neither Helvecio Martins nor Joseph W. Sitati would seem to make StormRider happy with his gripe of "no real black Mormon elders", but I have not yet began to cite. Frank Varner as JROTC director at Renassaince High School and a counselor in the bishopric of the Palmer Park Ward in North-central Detroit (and also Highland Park, the most heavily black city in Michigan) as well as the inner-sburubs of Hazel Park, Ferndale and Pleasant Ridge, is not exactly living in the "slums", but he is not exactly moving as a lone black man in overwhelmingly white circles either. Joseph Freeman was ordained an elder within two weeks of the revelation on the priesthood. Just this last Sunday of the four men passing the sacrament in my ward one was a black man raised in Detroit. Another of my Mormon friends, who was for a while my hometeaching supervisor, is a black man with a black American mother and a Liberian father who was raised largely on the east side of detroit, at times in apartments that may not have been quite slums, but they were much less the Waldorf. I have one half-black Mormon friend who may have grown up in the suburbs largely surrounded by whites, but he regularly sports an Afro, and another who as a teenaged Aaronic priesthood holder sitting by his father in priesthood meeting and sporting an Afro might have been thought to only have an adoptive relationship with his white father, but it was a case of blood of my blood and flesh of my flesh. Another person worth noting is Winston Wilkinson. True, he grew up in an all-black Maryland suburb of DC and not in a slum, but he is undeniably black, unless black also excludes Clarence Thomas. Londo Andrew, bishop of the Petersburg Ward in Virginia, Thurl Bailey and many others are worth siting. In recent years the LDS Church has built chapels in Harlem, New york, on Detroits east side in a very heavily black area, in East St. Louis and in many other locations with significant black populations. Abe Mills, who was part of the band Jericho Road, has a family who joined the Church when he was six so was more or less raised Mormon, in St. Louis. I do not know if it was in any way "slum". He served a mission for the LDS Church, married a white lady, and has five children. His parents served as senior missionaries assigned to Sri Lanka. Then there is Jimmy L. Largin, who the Church news ran an article on him being elder's quorum president back in 2006 not because he was black, but because at age 102 he was probably the oldest holder of that Church office at the time. I have attended meetings in the temple where the only black person was the one incharge, been in wards where the only adult black person present was a member of the High Council seated on the stand, in fact multiple cases of that, been in wards where the only adult black person was a missionary, met a native of Sudan about to get sealed in the Salt Lake Temple, been to many a stake conference or stake priesthood meeting where the majority of the men sustained to be ordained to the melchizedek preiesthood were black men, seen the effect of a proative bishop of Samoan origin in ordaining a recently baptized black man in a properly expeditious manner to the priesthood, seen yet another family with a worth black priesthood holder and a white wife move into a ward I was assigned to as a missionary in Las Vegas. i have not mentioned Alan Cherry, Darius Gray, the Southwest Los angeles Branch, Alex Boye raised in the slums of England, my black friend who I have had as a substitute institute teacher who carries his birth certificate to prove he is black, my black roommate at Especially for Youth, Robert Foster, the black president of BYUSA for the 2002-2003 school year, or several other people I could mention. I will be the first to admit that too many Latter-day Saints maintain racists views, that the fact that I knew someone who blurted out in a restaunt "I do not feel safe with all these black people around" still troubles me 5 years after the fact, that my failure to more boldly confront racism on a few occasions on my mission still leaves me deeply conflicted, That too many white Mormons in the north suburbs of Detroit let 8 mile be an insurmountable boundary and thus while I support Michael J. Lantz's effort to bring a oneness across 8 mile, I will accept that the question of whether to draw ward and branch boundaries so as to incorporate most black members in the same unit on the possibly false assumptions of shared culture or to intentionally draw boundaries in ways to transcent socio-economic borders is a complexed one. I will also admit that the number of black Mormon priesthood holders who are like a few i knew who are adopted children of white parents is probably higher than in the overall population, and I will join with Kevin Perkins and Bishop Bethel of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida Ward in saying there is too much of a failure to speak in language meant to reach out and bring in black people to the fold. However, to claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some sort of de facto rule against ordaining black men to the priesthood is just false. The only way to make this work would be to accept the deepest falsehoods of "scientific" racism and ignore the examples I have given above and a much longer list of men like Officer Solomon Bills of the Detroit Police Officer, first president of the Belle isle Branch, Brother Kiel, long-time president of the Grand River Branch in the opposite corner of Detroit, and Elder Smith in my mission who was from Virginia. I could list many more people who would be needed to ignore, but the claim that there are no black priesthood holders in the LDS Church is just plain ignorant. Here is another site http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/000H14.html about black Mormons. Then there is the Genesis Group which is lead by Three black men all of whom hold the priesthood. There is more I could say, but I will hope that this is enough for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The film Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons would be recomended reading at this point. Tamu Smith does not mince words in speaking of the offensive thing she heard in the Salt Lake temple. However being in the temple is about acceptance into the full rites of the faith. Here story is in many ways an illustration of how teatment by the Church as an institution and treatment of individuals is very different. On the other hand Mrs. Smith clearly has never ridden the buses I have ridden and attended the universities I have attended, especially hanging out in the computer labs. The only amazing thing to my is that Mrs. Smith was never refered to with the use of the n-word before going to the temple. I as a person of primarily European-American as well as a very small amount of Cherokee and a significantly smaller amount of Wampanoag ancestry, am pretty sure that on at least one occasion someone used the n-word in addressing me as a word to describe me (which admittedly is less de-humanizing than the use in overheard conversation between two other people who unlike the one who so addressed me would not self-describe as such) so it is clear that not only do some people use the n-word without restraint, but they use it without any particular order or sense. This is just to say that trying to peg the Mormons as racist based on one conversation by one person, a tactic used by Ms. Stark of the Salt Lake Tribune (a firm believer that one reported incident can be fudged into sounding like multiple ones for dramatic effect) is not justifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Instances of discrimination after the 1978 revelation

I have serious questions about the appropriateness of this section in the article. First off to equate "aloofness" with "discrimination" seems a bit of a stretch. It also has the serious draw back since some people are just aloof in their matter and assuming that this is a racial issue is unwarrented. The bigger issue though is "discrimination" in an article like this would seem to imply policies on the part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organization, and not the individual actions of individual members of the Church. If the article was named "Black people and The Roman Catholic Church" would it be appropriate to mention that Francis X. Smith in going to a parish in northern Louisiana found that the local Catholics refused to sit on the same pew as him, in his view because he was black and they as whites were inherently racist? The confusion of The Church which the actions of individual members should in general be discoraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant to the topic of the article. Half of the material comes from the book Black and Mormon (University of Illinois Press, 2005). If you want to add clarifying material into the section, go ahead (note there is already some in the final paragraph). Make sure that any new material is supported with footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The book title brings up my point. It is Black and Mormon. This is an issue of intersection of blackness, a cultural construct, and Mormoness, a cultural construct. Blackness is categorized as a race, and Mormoness as a religion. However the actions of Mormons as a people are distinct from the actions of The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church. If the article is going to talk about the former instead of the latter, it should be re-named to "Black people and Mormons" or preferrably split. The very name of the book in question points to my sense of what the article is speaking of in this section, which does not seem to be appropriate for an article with this type of name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a specific change to that section? --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic is the Church and a specific racial group. Incidences of members being racist is not the topic. I agree with John that it is not appropriate to discuss the poor behavior of individual Mormons; the focus is what the Church did and how it treated Black people since 1978. -^StormRider 06:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the material is clearly within the scope of the article, and the material is discussed by the reliable sources. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. The article contains many positive examples of individuals (e.g. Gladys Knight, Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, Helvecio Martins, etc, etc) and no one would suggest removing those. If you want to initiate a RFC to get more input, go ahead. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Noleander this is not a question of censorship, it is a question of relevance. You say "this is clearly in the scope of the article" as a declaration of fact. You do not even acknolege the possibility of a distinction between group to group of sub-group to larger group relatation and group of people inside or outside an institution relating to that institution. That is what I am talking about. The fact that some other person in the temple refers to Tamu Smith using phrase X is not an issue of Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is an issue of White Mormons realting to Black Mormons. This could be broadened out to a slightly larger article name of Black people in Mormondom or Race relations in Mormondom or Black/White relations of Mormondom, the last one in theory also allowing us to discuss among other things how black Mormons are treated by white-non-Mormons. Some of the quotes I can dig up that are partially related to the topic might be too much of hearsay to use to shed light on that matter. However the title of the article as it now stands does not seem in my mind to fit the inclusion of this type of issues here. It is people to people relations, not people to Church relations, and the later is what the article says it is about. there is probably a way to justify the inclusion of this material, but it is not to say "this material belongs, so stop questioning if it belongs'. If there is a reason why it belongs than articlulate it and explain it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It belongs because it is within the scope of the article and because the sources (listed in the References section at the bottom of the article) discuss the material. If you want to initiate a RFC to get more input, go ahead .. the outcome will be that the material stays. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, are you equating individual members with the Church itself? This is not a concept that is followed anywhere else on Wikipedia. An organization is only representated by the organization no its members. How could it be? It is not within the scope of the topic at all; it is not even close. If you want to make a new article entitled Black people and individual Mormons, that is fine, but it is not this article. This article is specific, it is the LDS Church, its policies and beliefs in relationship to Black people. It is stretching to include anything else. -^StormRider 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Both this article and Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement rely on reliable sources. The sources extensively describe the experiences of individual African-Americans with the church. The articles reflect the sources. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to propose a new name for the article, see the process at Wikipedia:Moving a page. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not making sense. The title is "Black people and the LDS Church (for short)". You necessarily must talk about black people i.e. individuals. It is their interation with the organization. This is not difficult; what is the problem. You evade all questions and just repeat your position, which has yet to be explained as why you think it is correct. You just keep repeating. The title of this article is what it is. You are porposing it be something else; I am not nor is John. Again, why do you think the LDS Church is the same as individual LDS members? Do you have any source that supports that position other than you preference or opinion? -^StormRider 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The level of detail in the quotations of this section is unusual; however, I can see reason for keeping the section as a whole. I'd suggest we try to extract the essence of the four large quotations and compress it into one paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

I have added a link to blacklds.org. There is at least one foot note that links to material provided by this group. I have also added Genesis Group to the see also list. I might recomend more external links, but too many is discouraged, and blacklds.org keeps its news reports resonably up to date. The note that blacklds.org is not in anyway an official site either operated or owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is crucial. This is not done to try and prove some level of non-biasness, but because The Mormon Church consistently seeks to make it clear what is owned and operated by the Church and what is not, and with this site having a name similar to the official Mormon Church website name (well, at least one of the official Church websites names, there is also http://www.mormon.org/ which does not have all that similar of a name to the indepdent site) if the non-connection was not stated clearly and often some people might be confused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do Church leaders continue to teach that the ban was inspired?

The talk linked to by the first footnote does not support the claim it is given to support. I am not sure if there are any post-1978 statements defending the priesthood ban as inspired. If you know of one, please replace this citation.Felix Sonderkammer (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the church neither officially admits nor denies that the racial ban was inspired. The racial doctrines have not (yet) been officially repudiated despite calls by black Mormons for the church to do so. But at the same time, I don't think the doctrines have been furthered in any official church publications or in any official capacity. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine continued to contain a few racist chestnuts after 1978 (like the idea that blacks were originally cursed because they inherited the curse of Canaan), but that was not technically an LDS publication, and it went out of print in 2010. So I think the answer is, that the church has no comment. You could understand why the church doesn't want to dwell on the precise reasons why it once had a racist policy. COGDEN 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that President David O. McKay, one of the LDS prophets, called this a policy and not a doctrine. As COgden has stated the LDS Church has never taken an official stance. -^StormRider 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern Black Mormons ref

• Mark Oppenheimer (June 10, 2011). "At Picnic for Black Mormons, No Sign of Church's Biased Past". New York Times.

--Javaweb (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Putting 1850's racism into historical perspective

In the mid-1800's such racism among whites was the rule. Among anti-slavery expansion whites in the western states, they were worried about unfair competition from slave labor and races mingling. The curse on Ham and his descendants was preached by white churches throughout the country and was not particular to Mormons. Neither was having blacks leading whites different in the non-Mormon world of the time. At that time, Abraham Lincoln wanted to send the freedmen out of the country and saw blacks as inferior. Smith and Young were men of their times. To include this in the article requires a good reference with page number cites from books like

• Foner, Eric (1995) [1970]. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195094978. OCLC 30626061.
• Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393066180. OCLC 601096674.

--Javaweb (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Text for origin of policy

Javaweb: The article has the following text: "Under the leadership of Joseph Smith, several African-Americans, including Elijah Abel were admitted to the priesthood. But that policy changed sometime before 1852, because in that year, church president Brigham Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that African-Americans "cannot hold the Priesthood."" If I recall, that text was arrived at because there was some discussion about when, precisely, the policy started: was it under JS? or under BY? My recollection was that no sources were available to pin-down the time: it could have started under JS, or under BY ... no source was certain. The text quoted above was adopted as the best way to present what the sources did say. Specifically, the quote from BY to the Legislature is critical because it is the first public announcement of the policy, in 1852, and that critical fact should not be deleted. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)