Jump to content

Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Section "Racial policy ends in 1978"

I have some problems with this entire section, particularly after the first paragraph until the final two paragraphs. It is wholly dependent on primary sources and is not NPOV. There is even an editorial insertion of italics for emphasis in one of the lengthy quotes. It's my intention to re-write this based on secondary sources and adopting a more neutral perspective. It's likely that this will result in a considerably briefer treatment, one that avoids the excessively self-congratulatory tone of the current language. Thoughts? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the section is overly biased (it's basically a summary of what happened according to the various people), but it is both too long-winded and has too many first-person sources. I would suggest mentioning specifically what you are planning to change here in talk first, though, as many of your edits to this page are not well-received by the community. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
@Jburlinson: I tend to agree that a change needs to be made, and that the citations should be taken from secondary sources, and not from sermons. I don't think there is any need to actually quote OD2, which doesn't actually say a whole lot. It is probably good enough to simply note that on June 8, 1978, the church issued a press release reversing the policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood, and allowing participation in LDS institutions on a race-neutral basis. Mention of McConkie's reversal of his past opinions can maybe be moved to the "Church asked to repudiate" section, and I don't think we need to keep the long quote from his speech. @Araignee: maybe we can see what the edits are, and then if they are controversial, they can be reverted and we'll bring the discussion here. COGDEN 22:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Low attrition for African Americans

Regarding this edit, it seems to be conflating African Americans with black people in general. What the authors of the source are saying is consistent with what the article already says: most black members do not live in the United States. They live in Africa, Brazil, etc. Yes, the membership/retention rate is low in the US, but we need to be careful not to introduce a US-centric bias, confusing the source's term "African Americans" for "black people" in general. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the edit in question makes the conflation that you object to. It very specifically refers to African American converts -- not Africans in other parts of the world. Um, oh by the way, the original edit was deleted -- re-written and moved to another part of the article. Jburlinson (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I edited the statement, because the source explicitly says:
<quote>One survey found that the attrition rate among African America converts was 60 to 90 percent in Columbia, South Carolina, and Greensboro, North Carolina. Commenting on this survey, Richard and Joan Ostling noted, "If these two towns are at all typical, there is a major, if unacknowledged problem."</quote>
This was a survey among black African Americans in two specific cities. It doesn't state that it applies across all of them, it just says that if it IS representative, it's a problem. It doesn't belong in the lead, as the quote is definitely not relevant to blacks around the world, and I'd say it's hardly relevant at all because of a small sample size, but I left that in, including the fact it was a small survey, two cities only (nothing is mentioned on the methodology). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It's relevance is confirmed by a recent survey from the Pew Research Center that indicates that African Americans make up 0% of lifelong members of the LDS church. Considering that it's now nearly 35 years after the lifting of the priesthood ban, this would seem to substantiate the Ostling's concern that the survey of these two towns is typical and that attrition is a major problem.
Just to be sure I understand your concerns about the lead, approximately 95% of the entire article as it now stands is about black mormons in the USA. So why is it inappropriate to mention attrition as a problem for black american mormons? Jburlinson (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ostling never says that those attrition rates are typical, but instead that IF it is typical, then it's a problem. I believe attrition is a problem, but this source doesn't say that, nor do the statistics cited in Pew indicate or imply this. It's not inappropriate to mention attrition, but such statements need to have clear reliable sources backing such statements. The mention of attrition was very specific and didn't belong in the lead because it wasn't clearly representative of all black Mormons, just a subset of black Mormon Americans in two cities.
Attrition vs. number of lifelong members are two separate statistics. As an illustration: there were 300-400 black members in the mid-1960s, and it likely didn't change much until at least 1980, or probably closer to the 90s and the massive expansion into Africa. As such, almost all of lifelong black members would have to be be 30 or younger were they "born" as a member, and the study only includes those 18 or older. Thus the sample size for "lifelong members" is extremely limited, and very close to 0%. That being said, the vast majority of black Mormons are converts (and mostly outside the US), and thus a statement about attrition being evidenced by lifelong members is flawed from the beginning...if 100% of black Mormon converts (which is nearly all black Mormons) remained active in their religion, the "lifelong" stat would still be close to 0%.
The lead itself is fairly global, I think. As for the US-centric nature of the rest of the article, historically the LDS church was predominantly American and hence influenced by U.S. policy. Until a bit before the ban was lifted, there was little expansion among blacks, in or out of the US. However, I definitely agree it could definitely use expansion regarding Brazil, the Pacific Islands, and Africa. If you have things to add there, by all means do. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe content

I recently twice reverted a change that will likely be argued against by its editor, so I figured I'd write my rationale. I don't care if the editors love or hate the LDS church, and I don't have any personal vendetta against individual editors, but I do care that content is relevant to the article topic. Whether or not LDS convert retention is under 25% is not relevant here. Whether or not the LDS church is growing or shrinking worldwide is not relevant here. Likewise, that other religious groups have 150 million African adherents and Mormons only have whatever number is also not relevant unless one was causing the other (jumping the one for the other, conflicts between the two, etc.) If there is information specific to blacks and Mormonism that a person would come here and expect to find/learn, that I would consider relevant.

Also, note that blacks does not mean Africans, and Africans does not mean blacks. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs

There has recently been a spate of bare url's added as references. This runs counter to WP best practice -- |Bare URLs. I would be glad to go back and tidy up these references using the "cite web" template, but recently a number of my edits that have been correctly referenced have been deleted summarily. So I don't want to waste my time by going to the time and trouble to clean up something that will just be zapped cavalierly. As an example, somebody had put a picture of Eldridge Cleaver in the article informing the reader that he was a mormon convert. I went to the trouble to clarify the real situation regarding the late Mr. Cleaver, providing references to two RSs, only to find that I'd wasted 30 minutes of my life when the entire image & text were zeroed out. Apparently, the real story didn't conform with someone's idea of what would be useful in advancing the cause. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of removing hard work. I was not familiar with Cleaver's story. When someone added his picture, I left it in good faith after seeing he was indeed LDS (at one point, apparently). However, thanks to your research, you found he wasn't really an active Mormon and it was just one of many religions he tried, at which point it's hard to justify leaving his picture in there as a "black Mormon" when he wouldn't have identified himself as one. I suggest next time it'd be less work to remove fringe information than to spend time fixing its sources expanding it. I do appreciate cleaning up bare URLs, though. I'm a large infringer on that count. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I used a bot to automatically generate titles for the bare URL references. They're not in templates yet, but it's a step up from where it used to be. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Promoting racism

The following sentence was just revised from: "Today the church professes to oppose racial discrimination and racism in any form." to "The church opposes racial discrimination and racism in any form." The reason given was: Removed words that indicate that they at one point promoted racism. The point of the entire article and the reason for having an article on this subject at all is that, of course, at one point in time the Church did promote racism. The definition of "racism" is: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." At one time, Church policy distinguished black people as inferior by denying them access to the priesthood and other endowments. Whatever the reason for that policy was, it was the policy and it was race-based, hence racism. The first sentence above is more accurate, in that it makes clear that the Church's current position differs from its former practices. Jburlinson (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Individuals indeed had racist ideas and feelings. The policy has never stated that black people are inferior. It was a policy based on race, yes, but in that vein does it make Jews racist for not allowing non-Levites to perform ordinances? Are Mormons sexist because women can't hold the priesthood? Are traditional Christians hate groups because they believe homosexuality as an act is a crime? Yes, there are policies based on various classes, but that doesn't make the classes superior or inferior, it simply defines roles for various classes. I'd be hard pressed to call my mother, a homemaker, an inferior to my father or myself...she ran the house. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Racism" is obviously a very loaded word. But taken simply at the descriptive level, it involves making distinctions and judgments based on race. Wouldn't that be true? Similarly, "sexism" involves making judgments based on gender. So, yes, the Mormon church has sexist polices, as does the Roman Catholic Church. That much is inarguable. Certainly, I nor anyone else would suggest that your mother is inferior to your father; I don't know how you made that inference from anything I've said. Denying an entire race of people access to the privileges and responsibilities of the priesthood simply based on their skin color is in no way comparable to the domestic arrangements of individual families. Jburlinson (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't saying you were calling a mother inferior. I was just trying to make the point that belonging to different "classes" or "groups" of sorts does not inherently mean one or the other is superior or inferior. It simply means they fill different roles. The key to the racism definition is "so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior". Did a black Mormon consider himself as inferior? Handicapped, perhaps, yes, and unfair, maybe, but subscribing fully to Mormonism at that time didn't make the black Mormon a racist (regardless of whether his colleagues are or the original motives for the ban). Does the edit I make work?
"The church opposes racism in any form[6] and today has no racial policy".
~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Insofar as blacks are concerned, I imagine that your latest edit is correct. I certainly hope so. However, technically speaking, the church still has racial policies associated with its philo-semitism, which is racially based. It's not a negative policy, in this case; just the opposite. But it is a racial policy. Jburlinson (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
With regards to Judaism, what policies does the church have toward the various Jewish races? Indeed there are plenty of prophecies in Christianity in general and Mormonism specifically, but I can't find any reference to a policy toward them as a race. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
“The Lord said he would scatter Israel among the Gentile nations, and by doing so he would bless the Gentile nations with the blood of Abraham. Today we are preaching the gospel in the world and we are gathering out, according to the revelations given to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets, the scattered sheep of the House of Israel. These scattered sheep are coming forth mixed with Gentile blood from their Gentile forefathers. Under all the circumstances it is very possible that the majority, almost without exception, of those who come into the Church in this dispensation have the blood of two or more of the tribes of Israel as well as the blood of the Gentiles.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957–66, 3:63.)
But this isn't a policy...it doesn't state a rule or course of action toward Jews. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How about the ban on baptism for deceased jews? Jburlinson (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that would be a policy on Jews. That being said, it simply says don't baptise deceased Jews (unless relatives and with permission). It doesn't say race; this covers all Jews in religion, regardless of race. Ethnicity sometimes include race, but in the case of Jews includes ideological and religious similarities (note their page doesn't even mention race): "Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion." The inspiration behind the policy is religion, not race. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
For those not familiar, this was recent, at the Jewish faith request. Of course, some LDS have Jewish ancestors. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Necessary for...

A note regarding the recent edits: I suggest that terms like "celestial kingdom" not be used in the first paragraph of the Lead section. Also, I'm not particularly crazy about the whole clause beginning with "considered necessary for..." and in my opinion it could be dropped entirely, since it could be considered misleading without further clarification, and as far as I understand it runs contrary to Mormonism to say that one must receive all the saving ordinances in this life to be saved. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I'm actually the one who added the clause "considered necessary for salvation" in the first place [1]. Ironic that now I'm arguing for it to be dropped. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A good faith editor suggested that rather than simply reverting something it might be more constructive to make tighter wording. Since I agree with the idea noted above, of not being too crazy about the whole thing anyway, I believed the more simplistic notion listed was better in the first place, thus the revert. It was pretty tightly worded as it stood. For now, I have just removed the whole thing - it can stand on its own, that fact that black members were not able to participate in temple ordinances, with no additional attempt to explain - and particularly in that location as noted above. As to other comments, I get that not having access to a source doesn't make it a bad source in and of itself - there just isn't anyway to validate it as a legitimate source, if a reader really wanted to understand more and sought that reference to aid them, it provides absolutely no value as it was done. It makes it such that it's not a useful source. Sometimes being a source that is not at all helpful is worse than trying to have one at all. ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the complete removal. With the "considered" portion, it needed explanations, but without that part, we're good. I don't understand what you mean by not being able to validate something as a legitimate source, though. If a reader wants more info, they can go check out that book...in this situation a moot point, but source availability isn't important. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand completely (and agree in principle) with what you're saying about a source. I was thinking of it more just in a overly-simplified view. So often on WP, we become used to clicking on a reference and it taking us to a news or other article that we can read right then and there. When we put something up as a legitimate source, particularly when it gets into an area that people aren't likely very familiar with and it brings us a book we then would have to go purchase and all that, yada, yada, yada....that's all I was kind of approaching things with. Far less scholarly and perhaps a more practical view of things. Thanks again for your efforts and input. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course the additional clarification of "necessary for" is important for the lay reader of the article. A person who does not understand Mormonism would have no idea of the consequences of not being able to acquire temple ordinances. The fact is that, under the Mormon concept of the afterlife, holding of the priesthood and the associated temple ordinances are essential to gaining access to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Without an awareness of that concept, the reader could very well ask himself, "so what's the big deal about the priesthood and all these ordinances?" The reader would not gain an adequate understanding of the impact the longstanding priesthood ban would have on black members of the church or black people considering joining the church. Removing the clause that explained these consequences is part of a systematic whitewashing of this article. The statement was supported by a citation to a legitimate source that actually included a web link to the text in question; nobody would have needed to purchase an obscure text. Of course, totally zapping the reference renders the citation moot. I believe it's important to provide this clarification to the reader, who is, after all, supposed to be the beneficiary of an objective treatment of this subject. I'm open to suggestions as to the exact wording. FTR, I don't think "necessary to salvation" is accurate, since this implies that lack of the ordinances would make an individual "unsaved", which, to most people familiar with standard Christianity, would mean "damned." This is not the Mormon understanding.Jburlinson (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a suggested edit: "This resulted in black members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances, which would result in their being unable to attain the ultimate exaltation of eternal life, becoming 'equal in power, and in might, and in dominion' with God (D&C 76:95). " Comments? Jburlinson (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Receiving no response to my request above, I've added some clarifying language along with a citation to a reputable source published by a university press. Also, I've included wikilinks to WP articles concerning endowments and the celestial kingdom. These will enable the lay reader to easily access the explanatory information necessary to understand the significance of the priesthood ban to African Americans. Jburlinson (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed the latest additions on talk, sorry. As far as the edit regarding Gov. Brigham Young (e.g. "if any man mingles his seed"), the source should at least come from a less-biased place, though I think in itself their site is relatively reliable. That being said, it's clearly out of context and referring to this life alone. The paragraph just above, paragraph three of the address, states "But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more". Ultimately the quote parallels the original quote in a less succinct way, so it's like saying "he said A, which apologists claim means B; however, he said A." That being said, the apologist statement also needs a more RS, or should be removed too (FAIR wiki, while rather comprehensive, is essentially self-published research).
With regards to the "ordinances necessary" clause, I definitely think you used a good source, and there are plenty of others that back it up. However, on a different note, I don't think it's necessary to include the phrase "necessary for", for a three-part reason A) this isn't an article on LDS salvation/exaltation, B) it's something that is discussed in a bit more detail later in the article, and C) the rewording you suggest implies that black members were "eternally damned" to the lowest realms of the celestial kingdom; however, it was a ban in this life, and blacks (among all others) were consistently promised ALL blessings "sometime in the future" (even in the aforementioned Gov. talk), be it in this life or a life afterward (by ordinances for the dead), so there was never a claimed "limit" to their potential except in their life on earth.
I'll not revert that edit, as I'll let others chime in with their opinions. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I did remove the "necessary for" clause from the Lead for the reasons mentioned above. Talking about celestial kingdoms and exaltation in the 1st paragraph of this article is a little much. Also, as Araingee pointed out above, not receiving the temple ordinances (in Mormon belief) did not prevent them from being saved, since Mormons perform all their temple ordinances on behalf of the dead. In fact, page 155 of the source you cited seems to reference this when it says, "President Smith predicted Jane Elizabeth Manning James 'would in the resurrection attain the longings of her soul.'" I really think these kinds of details are too specific for the 1st paragraph of the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I obviously do be believe that the "necessary for" clause is important and needs to be included in the lead. Without it, the lay reader of this article will not understand the significance of the priesthood ban and the enormous disability placed upon black people during the existence of the policy. It is for this reason that black membership in the church was so low during the period when the ban was in place. The reader of the article deserves to understand this. This article is supposed to be an objective treatment of the subject, which, to a great extent, is a historical subject -- the article should not be not a varnished version representing contemporary Mormon thinking which differs from a policy that was in effect for over a century. Several different attempts have been made to provide wording that would convey this simple objective fact, and all have been summarily deleted. I cannot understand this in any other way than that certain person who are partial to Mormonism are insistent in dealing with this topic in the most anodyne way possible. The simple fact is that black people were denied for over a century, by policy, certain ordinances of the church, ordinances that are deemed essential to the highest level of exaltation in the Mormon scheme of salvation. To claim that this is not relevant or "a little much" is simply to attempt to sanitize the past. It deserves to be stated explicitly in the lead. I can be very flexible on the exact wording. Even the long-standing "essential for salvation" is better than saying absolutely nothing at this point of the article. Jburlinson (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I could argue the opposite point the same way: adding the "necessary for" clause misleads the lay reader into believing that black people would never have the opportunity to receive said ordinances or the highest level of LDS exaltation. To the lay reader, the important (and only accurate part) regarding the ban from certain ordinances was that they were excluded; to state more would cause a sensationalist reading that blacks were considered to be eternally damned at one level or another, which is simply not true per sources you've cited and per statements later in this very article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Then what's wrong with stating this explicitly and simply? How about: "This resulted in black members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances, which meant that while the policy remained in force, black people were not eligible to attain the highest level of exaltation in the Mormon scheme of salvation." (This could perhaps include a wikilink to the article on "degrees of glory", which could assist the reader in learning more about the Mormon concept of the afterlife.) This paragraph in the lead already contains language that explains that there was a promise that the ban would be lifted at some unspecified point in the future -- so I can't see how anybody would be misled into thinking this constituted a permanent damnation. By saying nothing about this in the lead, the reader has the impression that black people were simply denied some esoteric niceties that weren't of any particular consequence in the scheme of salvation -- and this is patently misleading. If you want to tweak the suggested wording, please be my guest. Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought my explanation was pretty explicit...as far as esoteric niceties, for all practical purposes in LDS theology that's all it was with regards to salvation (ordinances are necessary->blacks can't have them->blacks will receive them->blacks are/will be entitled to all privileges of faithful LDS->no need to make a big deal about what that meant, because again it doesn't mean much in LDS theology with regards to salvation...none are rewarded in mortal existence anyway). Blacks were always eligible for the highest levels per the various quotes mentioned, but the prereqs, as it were, were not able to YET be fulfilled until the ban lifted. Otherwise it's like saying I'm not eligible to graduate because I haven't yet walked (and again, all checklist prereqs are GUARANTEED to be fulfilled per LDS theology; it's just a matter of timing). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we're attacking the wrong problem here. I did a little reading trying to see what Richard Bushman had to say on the matter (Mormonism: a very short introduction page 127). I frequently use this source because it's short and I find it useful for determining Weight: if something is mentioned, it's important. Bushman didn't make that connection to salvation; based on what he wrote, the most notable thing was the amount of pressure on the church during the 1960s and the criticism from outside and inside the church.
I did a more thorough search of Mauss's All Abraham's Children. I began by scanning the chapters about the priesthood ban, and I couldn't find anywhere where he discussed the salvation/celestial kingdom problem. I checked the index for temple, ordinance, salvation, celestial, and none of the words had entries. I did a Google Books search for the word Temple. The only relevant result I could find was on page 215 where it's talking about Elijah Abel, but even there Mauss doesn't make the salvation connection. Mauss talks about the Mormon posture toward blacks, the origins of the policy, how it became official, the civil rights movement and changes, the larger American context, and sources of racial prejudice. The next chapter is devoted to the change: what led up to it, internal and external pressures, and the church post-revelation.
So if I can't find support for this in two of the best sources around, and the source you provided seems to contradict what the sentence you wrote, I can't see an argument for having it in the first paragraph of the Lead.
Now one thing I did find that you might want to pursue is that one of the main reasons the policy was notable was because the majority of males received the church's lay priesthood, making the policy much more noticeable than contemporary Christian churches who also restricted their priesthood. That's something tangible we can talk about, rather than arguing in circles about who gets to be saved in the complicated Mormon concept of salvation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing some legwork. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gender inclusive language

As the title of the article is "Black people and Mormonism", I would suggest that the text of the first sentence of the article be changed from "prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood." to a more representative and historically accurate "prevented most persons of black African descent from participation in LDS temple marriage and ministerial leadership"[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanbrown (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In the LDS Church only men can hold the priesthood. I think using men is actually the proper term. --StormRider 03:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
But remember that the "priesthood ban" prevented both men and women of black African descent from receiving the temple endowment or sealings. So I do think a more gender-inclusive wording may be in order. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Mentioning men and women together in reference to the priesthood ban would be actively misleading, or at least confusing, as it sort of implies that the ban on black women was also due to their race. If we're talking about the disabilities that are unique to black people, you want "men" in that setence.
But Titanbrown's statement about the temple marriage is an important one that does encompass black women. What about: "prevented most persons of black African descent from participation in LDS temple marriage, and most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood." --Jfruh (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Interracial marriages & Brigham Young

Under the interracial marriage heading it says, "Some modern Mormon apologists argue that he was condemning the abuse of black women by white men; in particular, the relations between a slaveowner and his female slaves," but the citation links to a FairMormon article that doesn't support the claim at all, unless I'm entirely missing something there. The quote that is being interpreted is, "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

I can find an article by an apologist that argues that he was just condemning abuse; however, the apologetic argument seems to be blatantly misleading, as anyone who has objectively read Brigham Young's other writings and the whole of the source of the original quote would likely see that Young was opposed to interracial marriage, and that he was clearly talking about the "mixing of seed" in general and not in terms of rape. Other quotes show that he was entirely against "mingling" with the seed of Cain, whether consensual or otherwise.

Brigham Young said, "The day they consented to mingle their seed with Canaan, the Priesthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judah's seed will never get any rule or blessings of the Priesthood until Cain gets it. Let this church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth: we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Counsel, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the Black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction; we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed." [2]

Young also advocated for the Act in Relation to Service, which legalized slavery and made sexual intercourse between any white person and any African illegal. And if the wiki article isn't considered a sufficient source to support the idea that he advocated it, Brigham Young at least signed the legislation given his absolute vetoing power as territorial governor.

All of this evidence (and I'm sure there's even more out there) and a complete reading of the source material leads me to think that this apologetic argument really has no substance to it at all and is just a misdirection. If the original quote must be tied to that argument, then we may as well just use the quote above in it's place to avoid distracting from the purpose of the section with unnecessary clutter and controversy.

Apologies if removing this sentence/point causes any issues or if I'm misinterpreting anything, but it seems to me that it's simply misleading to imply that Young didn't mean exactly what he said; and if it isn't, there are plenty of other quotes that can be used as completely equivalent substitutes to demonstrate Young's sentiment. 174.27.203.107 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal again

Much of these two articles have redundant information. The other hasn't been as well curated, but does have some things we could probably add. Also, I wonder if this article should be renamed to more appropriately reflect policy/doctrine/ban/commandment on blacks as opposed to simply "black people" (there is already an article on Black Mormons), as well as reflecting the fact that the article is LDS-centric instead of the overall Mormon movement (nothing in here regarding the Community of Christ or FLDS, to name two). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the article Black people in Mormon doctrine there are also articles titled Black people and early Mormonism and Black Mormons. Should they all be considered possible merger candidates? I agree that a section on the FLDS would be useful in whatever article(s) that emerge. Jburlinson (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, all of them overlap a lot and probably should be at least rearranged. I'd figure articles like this:
  • Blacks and the Latter Day Saint Movement (encompassing early church history as well as a summary of positions in the various sects (in particular, the FLDS position).
  • List of Black Mormons (various Mormons that are black, similar to now but more focused on the specific individuals)
  • Blacks and the LDS Church (the general relationship between blacks and the LDS church, including in particular the ban and its effects)

Just a quick suggested breakdown. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm against merging because times have changed. That was then (Black people and early Mormonism) and this is now (Black Mormons). Wikipedia readers who go to these two articles go there for two different reasons: to learn about past history or to learn about Black Mormons now. Do not merge the two. Besides, the importance (and size) of the two subject matters deserves two articles. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that there are currently four articles: Black people and Mormonism, Black people in Mormon doctrine, Black people and early Mormonism, and Black Mormons. I don't suggest we merge them all, I suggest something like the three articles above, with a clearer delineation and less overlap. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds excellent. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm dubious, in that it's possible (likely?) that some of the less-than-flattering content will get lost in the transition. Jburlinson (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article needs a little UN-merging. The ONLY non-mainstream LDS denomination referred to here, is the FLDS, at the bottom, with some VERY inflammatory remarks. coupling them with the picture of Gladys Knight at the top just gives the impression that the LDS Church itself thinks those things about black people--and she buys it! Either move the FLDS to their own article on the subject or delete them altogether. Playerpage (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The section in question is appropriately designated as relating to "mormon fundamentalism" and care is taken to identify the specific denomination involved, so the careful reader will not confuse the statements with pronouncements by the mainstream LDS church. Any church with splinter groups or different modalities is subject to this kind of problem. BTW, the "inflammatory" remarks are direct quotes from a leader in the FLDS, not the opinions of the WP editors who added the section, so any objectionable content is highly relevant to the article as a whole. --Jburlinson (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote that section, I was very careful to not conflate FLDS and LDS beliefs. The section states that the FLDS Church teaches that "the LDS Church's failure to do so [continue to withhold the priesthood from black people] is one sign of its apostasy". It's hard to make it more clear than this—the two churches are not the same and disagree on important doctrinal points, to the point where one accuses the other of being in apostasy. I don't think there will be any confusion when readers read. Like it or not, Mormon fundamentalism is a part of "Mormonism". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Going back and reading it, I still think the section assumes a bit of "jargon knowledge" on the part of the reader. I had to go and find what you were referring to about "failure to do so" because I'd missed it before. The wording and construction of the whole piece pulls the reader right over that and into the meat of the section. I barely found and understood it after two reads, and I'm LDS. I would suggest a simple change of, in that section only, referring to the LDS Church as "Mainstream Mormonism, the LDS Church headquartered in Utah," or some other ultra-specific designation. Just a simple matter of, as the saying goes, writing not merely to be understood, but also writing to avoid being misunderstood. Playerpage (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we can only write and hope that it will be read. Users "miss" stuff all the time in reading, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Another user has slightly amended the wording to make it more clear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold claim, needs more detail and specifics of claim

The sentence "Historically, Mormon attitudes about race were generally close to or more progressive than the national average" to me, looks weasley - there's a clarification needed and of the 2 citings, one of them needs the page specified. Therefore I'm going to remove this but giving a heads-up in case someone wants to revert it and for the person who put it there so that they know to put specifics in terms of elaboration such as examples, the citation that needs a page number and perhaps a quote? groovygower (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added clarification to the footnote and tweaked the wording in question. (see [2]) Does this resolve your concerns? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly better. :) I think that 'close to those of other Americans' and 'not very different from other Americans' are still vague though, but the latter comes from the book, so what can you do? groovygower (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

The presence of the many maintenance tags on this article has been questioned by an editor who has suggested that the problems should be discussed on the talk page. Although these issues have been discussed in various of the sections above, this is an attempt to bring the various problems together into one section. Taking the tags in order of appearance:

1. This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. There are numerous instances of Mormon scripture like the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and even the Book of Mormon being used for explanatory purposes. See the sections on "Slavery - In Mormon Scripture" and "Entrance to the highest heaven" for examples.

2. This article relies on references to primary sources. Similarly , there are many references to church-published material like the Journal of Discourses, LDS Church Archives, LDS Church News, New Era, Letters of the First Presidency etc. - the list goes on and on.

3. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. See items 1 & 2. At best, this results in original research, which is deprecated by Wikipedia. More often than not, though, it constitutes using clearly biased material as if it were reliable sources.

The reader of this article needs to know right up front that there are serious and multiple problems. Individual instances are also tagged in a number of the sub-sections. Until the article is revised in a systematic way, so that, as a whole, it properly relies on reliable, secondary sources, the maintenance tags should remain, IMO.

I'd be happy to discuss this either generally or in specific. --Jburlinson (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you proposing exactly? We'd be hard-pressed to find the same information in impartial, unbiased sources that demonstrate a neutral point of view. If the Church can't speak for itself, who can? Any other sources we would be likely to find would be unbalanced in favor of an anti-LDS POV. I agree that these are genuine issues of concern and need to be addressed, but I don't see how they can be without being biased one way or the other. LDS-related sources have been considered reliable enough in other Wikipedia articles about LDS subjects to highlight the Church's position, so why is it such an issue here? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are many reputable, mainstream and academic publishers that have issued material on this subject, including some notable historians who are mormons. The article should be based on these RS's, not on primary materials that have a clear bias. This is basic Wikipedia policy -- nothing earth shaking. Quotations from Mormon scripture should all be deleted. To do otherwise would be to let the Pope write all the articles on Catholicism. Collecting assemblages of scripture as if it were fact is prohibited by WP, and synthesizing scripture constitutes OR. --Jburlinson (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jburlinson, thank you for the clarification. I agree that #1 is a problem, particularly in the "In Mormon scripture" section, which I intend to rewrite tomorrow. #2 could be a bit problematic if there is original research/synthesis going on, but I'll have to look more closely. The sources you listed are being used, however I think at least some of the instances are acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. (It's ok to source information about an organization from material published by the organization provided it's not controversial, unduly self-serving, and third party sources are likely to agree.) On #3, I'm still a bit confused as to what you mean by "clearly biased material". Perhaps specific examples would be helpful here. Even though Brigham Young was president of the LDS Church and was biased toward it, I don't think it's biased for the article to occasionally reference him directly to make a statement about his views. Similarly, I don't see a problem with occasionally referencing an LDS Church publication to make a statement about the church's position on something. Obviously the article should not be entirely based on such sources (it's not) but I'm just saying it's not always bad. Anyway, as I find time over the next few days, I plan to do some editing to fix some of the issues. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as "clearly biased material" goes, one example would be nearly the entirety of the section "Racial policy ends in 1978", which is based almost completely on 1st person accounts by church leadership at the time and, therefore, reads as if the revelation were a matter of fact -- in other words, it takes Mormon doctrine at face value and presents it as unquestioned reality. The reversal of the policy has been described many times by objective, disinterested parties. A simple statement of what happened based on one or more reliable secondary sources would be much more preferable than the circumstantial account provided by interested parties, which is described at length and in such detail as to underscore the indubitable nature of the revelation. Explanations as to why the reversal of policy took place could be included, as long as they're documented by RSs and fair attention is paid to potentially contrary views. At least, that's my opinion. Thanks for taking the trouble to do some revising. Please let me know if you'ld like me to take a stab at this section or any other. --Jburlinson (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Even though Brigham Young was president of the LDS Church and was biased toward it, I don't think it's biased for the article to occasionally reference him directly to make a statement about his views." In principle I agree with you, this is OK when done in moderation and clearly situates the material in historical context. What bothers me a little is that when, a year or two ago, I tried to do the very same thing with the pronouncements of another very prominent Mormon leader, Joseph Fielding Smith, my edits were deleted with the comment that Fielding Smith's writings were only one man's opinion and did not necessarily reflect Church doctrine. Young was a Church President, so was Fielding Smith. In my mind, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. :) --Jburlinson (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black people and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia

However, he [Young] rejected the teachings of contemporary Mormons including Orson Pratt, that Africans were cursed because they had been less valiant in a pre-mortal life. Young also stated that curse would one day be lifted and that black people would be able to receive the priesthood post-mortally.

So:

(1) Young rejected the teaching that Africans were cursed.
(2) Young stated that the curse would one day be lifted.

Typical result of a multi-author document. Tiny losses of continuity. (Are you still beating your wife or have you stopped?)

Or did Young accept that Africans were cursed, but rejected the explanation (namely, that they be less valiant in a former life)? Logically, this is is an escape route. But if so, the sentence needs to be rewritten to make this clear. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

New information needs to be incorporated

This article needs to incorporate insights from For the CAuse of Rightenousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013. It won the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award in 2014. That this book is not even listed as a source shows how underdeveloped this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Is 2004 book really the best we have on black Mormons in US?

The whole paragraph on the number of black Mormons in the US is from a 2004 book. That means that statistics are at least 12 years old, but probably more. That seems a long time for what purports to be coverage of current conditions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of civil rights

The lead says that "before the civil rights movement, the LDS Church's policy went largely unnoticed and unchallenged". There are several civil rights movements. In the 1850-1860, slavery in the territories were a big deal, and one of the main pillars of the Republican party was to defeat slavery in the territories. The Mormon church's stance on slavery was attacked in Congress and written up in several papers. I added the phrase "Their views were criticized by abolitionists of the day" to summarize the views of the abolitionist Republicans and newspapers who attacked the church's stance on slavery. This was removed with the explanation "Citation contains no support for the deleted information". I do not understand how a congressional speech on the evils of Mormon involvement in slavery and a newspaper reporter criticism of Mormon position does not justify that summary. The more detailed version is elaborated in the article, but I do not think it is accurate summary to say that it was "unnoticed" when it was the subject of congressional speeches and newspapers. FreePeoples (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're on solid ground and agree with what you have done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Another needed source

The book "Religion of a Different Color" provides some insights on the issues discussed here that need to be incorporated into the article through reliance on such strong secondary sources instead of use of primary sources used in what amounts to original research by the editors involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black people and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Mark E. Petersen's Quote

I think that there are two people's quotes who are confused. I believe that the quote given is by John Lewis Lund in his book "The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood.". Mark E. Petersen has a number of *other* quotes from from Race Problems as They Affect the Church that definitely belong in the article.

I agree. I found my quote in the physical copy of "The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood" and am going to go ahead and fix the citation. I am unsure why it was attributed to Petersen in the first place, but thank you for your help. Were you planning on finding and adding more Petersen quotes to the article? There are already a couple quotes of his in the article, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding more.Phelps (BYU) (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it may come from the fact that the Lighthouse Ministry's page on the issue has the two next to each other, but I don't know. I don't consider Lighthouse Ministries to anywhere close to a Neutral Source, I just used it to find things. I didn't realize there were already three quotes from Petersen in the article, that's probably enough. I think we may be able to combined the quotes from "Race Problems". I'm not sure that using page numbers to reference particular pieces of "Race Problems" is the right way to do this, unless the page number in https://archive.org/details/RaceProblemsAsTheyAffectTheChurchMarkEPetersen or elsewhere is official.Naraht (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that the title should be changed to what individual Mormons have said about this issue rather than what Mormonism. There is a significant difference between what the Mormon Church taught, what individual people said, and what individual members believed. This article is written in a manner that conflates all three.

I understand the sensationalism of cherry picking comments by individuals - it makes for exciting reading, but it is not neutral, it is not honest, and results in a form of propaganda.

There are serious issues to discuss, but this approach falls far short of a serious article on the topic. --StormRider 01:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss Mark Petersen's quotes. On the one hand, he was an apostle when he said those things, and ignoring them seems like hiding an important, if offensive, part of church history. On the other hand, the direct quotes place undue emphasis on his outlying opinion. Maybe we can move the direct quotes to the Mark E. Petersen page and summarize them here? Does anyone else have opinions on the Petersen quotes? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Moving quotes that belong to an individual rather than the LDS Church makes sense. The accusation of "hiding" quotes of individuals who do not speak for a church, any church, makes for good propaganda, but that is not the standard used for any scholarly article UNLESS you specifically state that the quotes have nothing to do with the actual position of a church, organization, etc. If you are going to talk about Mormonism you have to address Mormonism as a whole and not the actions/statements of individuals. The Community of Christ and all the other smaller splinter groups have a wide variety of positions.
I don't see anything similar on the Catholic page or any other article about an organization. It is strange that this specific church has a different standard; why? --StormRider 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
General comments. even before the days of the correlation committee, an apostle's statements especially in absense of countervailing statements by other prophets would be expected to speak for the church expect for situations which specifically need the prophet to indicate what revelation. I'm fine with countervailing statements by other apostles, Spenser W. Kimball would be particularly appropriate, but many should remain here.
As for the Catholics, I'm not aware of any official or even publicized unofficial rules that would have prevented those of african descent from holding high office in the Roman Catholic Church, but would look forward to an article on it. The only other group I can think of would be the Southern Baptist Convention. As for information on other branches(proper term) other than the LDS and one specific FLDS, I'd love to see that added.Naraht (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ten Commandments in Catholic theology (an FA) does have some quotes from popes and Catholic apologists. We're not trying to reflect only the "official" position (that's covered pretty well in Black people in Mormon doctrine, though there is debate about how useful that page is). I think this page should consider statements that reflect historical cultural beliefs of Mormons about blacks even if they weren't in official church publications (i.e., in letters, BYU devotionals, etc.). Would you agree? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Rachel, I respect your desire for the article to include what some Mormons believed about Blacks; however, that is not the title of the article. I suggest you propose a title for the article that would reflect your desired direction. I will support one that would include your objectives, but the current title sets parameters that does not seem to include your objectives. Or am I missing something? If I just read the title I would assume I was going to read about what/how Black people interacted, participated, experienced Mormonism. --StormRider 01:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested in any suggestions for article titles that you have. Essentially the articles Black people in Mormon doctrine, Black people and early Mormonism, Black people and Mormonism, and Curse and mark of Cain are the background for 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. Do they need better titles/merging , I'm open to discussion.Naraht (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
there's a bit of discussion from last year on this topic at Talk:Black_people_in_Mormon_doctrine#Merge. I completely agree that we should consider the best place to put various information and what the best article title is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think Black people and Mormonism sounds like it is going to talk about all aspects of the interaction between black people and Mormonism, including any teaching by leaders, views of members or historical occurrences. I actually oppose any distinction based on any attempt to delineate between doctrine and opinion in the LDS Church, unless doctrine is limited to scripture, in which case it should be called Black people in Mormon scripture to avoid confusion. Any other definition of doctrine is ill-defined, which makes it ripe for POV issues. Brigham Young clearly taught the doctrine of the church was that blacks could not have the priesthood because the Lord put them under the Curse of Cain. There was no question in the late 1800s whether the Curse of Cain was church doctrine or not. The church eventually started moving away from that and by the 1950s, they got away with saying "there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse". When did it cease becoming doctrine and start becoming Brigham Young's opinion? And what would you do with conflicting statements, like the current essays which denounce racism, and the Pearl of Great Price which states that Pharaoh couldn't have the priesthood because of his race? What more does the church have to do to make something doctrine than have a prophet declare it to be the will of the Lord? If Brigham Young's declarations weren't ever considered doctrine, then neither should the current essays put up by the Church, and it should only include scriptures which have been accepted by the Church by the law of common consent. However, I strongly oppose any attempt to cherry pick statements that fit current LDS teachings to represent doctrine and dismiss others as "simply their opinion" in order to make it seems like the church has always been opposed to race-based discrimination. FreePeoples (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The challenge using the term Mormonism is that it must include all of the diverse churches within Mormonism. The RLDS/CofC have a different interpretation of scripture than the LDS. In fact, as Naraht cites below, doctrine and policy are different things. Then there are all of the other small groups and their individual beliefs.
Then you have to separate the different views of individuals from the entity of the Church itself, which were diverse. The First Presidency and the Qof12 voted in the 1960 to reverse the policy and it lost by a single vote - one individual was against it and everyone else voted to reverse the policy. This is not addressed in the any article that I have read on Wikipedia - source would be HBB's son's biography of his father.
I appreciate your opinion and everyone has one. I don't see where your opinion, "FreePeoples", is the end all be all of opinions.
My suggestion is that we write these articles in a nuanced manner. What is fact is that blacks initially held the priesthood. At some point under BY blacks were no longer ordained to the priesthood. At no time did the Church ever teach that this position was permanent, but only temporary. Different leaders believed different things. They each suffered from being human. Members from different parts of the world also have differing opinions just as members have different opinions about a whole host of things today. What the LDS Church teaches and what members believe are two different things exactly in the same what that what the Catholic Church teaches and what their members believe are two distinctly different things - which is the same things found in every church, organization, and group. If you have two people coming together you have two different opinions/beliefs.--StormRider 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Other Mormon denominations are indeed mentioned, though inconsistently. Black people and Mormonism talks about fundamentalism, while Black people in Mormon Doctrine includes Bickertonite and Strangite, while Mormonism and slavery includes Community of Christ. It is inconsistent, which partly comes from the vague definition of "doctrine".
"Then you have to separate the different views of individuals from the entity of the Church itself, which were diverse." What is view of the entity of the LDS church? Is it the standard works? Is it what is taught in general conference? Is it what is taught in manuals? Is it what is on the website and public affairs? What was before the Internet? What was it before correlation? My issue is it seems that everyone wants to choose what they want to represent the view of the LDS church, when in reality the LDS church is a collection of people with often conflicting views. It is a POV minefield.
"The First Presidency and the Qof12 voted in the 1960 to reverse the policy and it lost by a single vote - one individual was against it and everyone else voted to reverse the policy. This is not addressed in the any article that I have read on Wikipedia" - It is covered in 1951–77. FreePeoples (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge

the two pages seem to cover the same information. So either we need to make clear what each page is for or merge them. Miiohau (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this merger proposal at the other talk page over here. Deaddebate (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion about merging these two pages and further refining the many articles that contain overlapping or redundant content can be found at the talk page for Black people in Mormon doctrine. All interested editors are encouraged to participate in this discussion, which may result in significant changes to "Black people and Mormonism". --Jburlinson (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What next?

I have been working on the this page Black people and Mormonism for over a month now and have tried to familiarize myself with all of the proposed changes that were made at the end of last year. I work with User: Rachel Helps (BYU) who was involved in the previous merge discussion found on the Talk:Black_people_in_Mormon_doctrine#Merge page. It seems that in the end the decision was made to clean-up the Black people and Mormonism page and then decide if the name should be changed (creating a page solely about Black people and the priesthood (LDS)). I have spent many hours trying to find secondary sources and get rid of any unnecessary information on this page, but I am not sure where to go from here. I would like to resume the discussion about the previously proposed changes to see where we stand and to have a clearer picture of where to go from here. Thanks! @FreePeoples, Good Olfactory, Johnpacklambert, COGDEN, Bahooka, Jburlinson, and Rachel Helps (BYU): Phelps (BYU) (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In order to reiterate previous proposals made by User: FreePeoples, I propose that we redirect the Black people in Mormon doctrine page to Black people and the priesthood (LDS) in order to avoid a merge. I propose that we summarize all of the priesthood info on the Black people and Mormonism page and have this page be the summary page for all relating topics, but that supporting articles (such as the recently created Mormonism and slavery) be created to expound upon specific topics that need more weighted attention. What are your thoughts fellow editors? Phelps (BYU) (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I vote we move forward and move Black people in Mormon doctrine to Black people and the priesthood (LDS). I think it would make it easier to clean up, and we could more easily put the right information on the right page. You asked what is next. I think getting the priesthood section on Black people in Mormonism well-sourced and moving relevant information from this page over there is the next step. We could do that even before we rename it. Also, we still need to figure out how Black people in early Mormonism fits into everything. Why distinguish early Mormonism when this page covers several denominations of Mormonism anyway? There is a lot of work that needs to be done over there too. And, there are still some problems with original research on this page. Statements can still be considered original research just by the way they are placed, even if they are true in isolation. For example, we can't just put scriptures or talk about the United Order if there is no obvious connections to blacks. Were blacks even allowed to participate as full members in the United Order? To imply it does by talking about the United Order in the civil rights section is original research. FreePeoples (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've renamed the Mormon Doctrine page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Order of other groups?

In Other Latter Day Saint groups' position section, it goes RLDS/CoC, then an FLDS group and then two of the other older split groups. Any suggestions on an order?Naraht (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reorder sections

Actually, I think that it may make sense make section 3 be "Latter Day Saint group positions" or something similar and have the LDS, COC, etc each at the same level. Note this would probably involve rewriting the lead.Naraht (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction seems to focus on the priesthood policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It doesn't mention anything of any other Mormon denomination nor anything about slavery. A page called Black people and Mormonism should have an introduction that summarizes the important issues related Black people and Mormonism, not just one issue for one denomination. FreePeoples (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to make any changes that you think are appropriate. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering that 98% percent of Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the claim that the introduction is misfocused may be off. On the other hand, I still think the biggest problem is that the article reflects too little on the sustained widespread growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria especially over the last few years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The main article for the sustained widespread growth among black people is Black Mormons. I think it is odd that this page has more information than the main page. I agree that the introduction should have an emphasis on the main Mormon denomination, but in a way that isn't completely dismissive of other denominations. FreePeoples (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts.

  1. Brigham Young was more Anti-Negro than Joseph Smith on the subject of race, and functionally, Brigham Young's beliefs became policy for the church. (Whether policy=doctrine is a different question)
  2. Neither position was significantly unusual for a white man raised in 1820s New York.
  3. If the Church had changed policy even 10 years earlier, I'm not sure it would have been as large of an issue for the Church.Naraht (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have heard Darius Gray argue that the issue was most heavily covered and agitated on in about 1968, not 1978. So actually it appears to have been more of an issue 10 years before. How a change 10 years earlier would have impacted events both in the US and in Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Brazil and many other places for the LDS Church is of course not answerable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agitated within or without?Naraht (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
By the change in policy, I assume you mean removing the ban on priesthood ordination and priesthood ceremonies, right? We are not talking about slavery or interracial marriage, right? See, I think that is why we should separate out the priesthood policy from other aspects of the interaction between black people and Mormonism. It is really only one of many issues. Change has been constant. FreePeoples (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The issues of slavery have to do with laws, not with LDS Church policy. The issue of inter-racial marriage has never been shown to relate deeply to Church policy. Single quotes from heads of the Church do not create policy. Nor even do generalized teachings. Policy is actual actions. No one has ever shown the Church has ever disciplined anyone after 1900 for inter-racial marriage, and the evidence on the matter before 1900 is pretty weak. In fact, there is strong evidence of people in inter-racial marriage being given standing in the Church. The first man of African descent ordained to the melchizedek priesthood in 1978 had a non-black wife. Of course, to even assume the main racial issue on the minds of anyone in Utah in 1955 was black/white is to misunderstand the US. There were far more Native Americans than blacks in Utah and even more so in Arizona and Idaho in that year than blacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
General teachings and doctrines affect actions. The single quotes reflect general teachings and general interpretations of doctrine that give context to actions such as legalizing slavery in Utah, or illegally holding slaves against their will in San Bernardino. My understanding is that the D&C teaching that members shouldn't try to free slaves or the Pearl of Great Price and JST teaching that the Canaanites were black and cursed and that the Egyptians descended from them is considered doctrine, even today. FreePeoples (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I can appreciate your understanding or opinion, but do you actually have a reference for that position? --StormRider 03:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Which position are you talking about? FreePeoples (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Naraht, never start a GA review for a nomination that you have made. Instead, follow the instructions in the failed GA template. I also question your statement that the last reviewer "had done extensive editing on the topic." Wikipedia guidelines say that anyone who has not significantly contributed to the article can review it. The reviewer only edited the article on the day that he failed it, and never before. That he may have extensively edited articles on related topics is irrelevant. Many GA reviewers have done that. In many ways, that's a good thing, because it means that the reviewer is more knowledgeable about the topic and can more likely determine whether the article has undue weight, comprehensiveness, broadness, and accuracy. Display name 99 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99 Thank you for this reponse. My note there was to indicate why an immediate resubmission for GA. I'd be happy to remove that note in the GA2.
I agree that in some cases that work in the area may be useful, however in this case, his prior edits in the topic I viewed as problematic. Do you have an opinion on the text of the GA review?Naraht (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't just delete the note. You've got to remove the whole page, or else people will think that the article is already being reviewed and pass it over. If you ask for the article to be reassessed, I advise you to include the edits you consider problematic, and explain why they are so. I did not intend to, nor will I now, offer any opinions on the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
So create it as GA3? The edits that are problematic are the previous reviewers notes and the NPOV and Primary that he added to the article. I would like the article reassessed as it *was*.Naraht (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE FAILED GA TEMPLATE. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The link for "Reassessment" doesn't seem to apply. The first sentence is "Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not." This indicates to me that Reassessment is the procedure if an article has been previously found to be a GA and someone believes that it no longer meets the criteria.Naraht (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Current status.

I've resubmitted the article for GA review in the hope of getting a review by someone less involved in the issue. I found the review by Signedzzz to be inappropriate given his current editing areas and the lack of good faith showed in the review.

This appears to be the official line of the Mormon church, which the (paid) nominator was no doubt instructed to promote, in contravention of policy. It seems highly unlikely that the editor will fix a problem they were paid to create, in any normal time-frame, so reluctantly I am forced to fail this.

. Signedzzz also added NPOV and Primary Sources tags, without any comment here on the talk page. The place to discuss tags is here on the talk page, not an uneditable GA review page. (and as a caveat because I am quite sure it will come up, I'm *not* a member of the LDS faith, I'm Jewish.Naraht (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: The review is here. You are free to edit it, although I can't think why you would want to, nor why you think I give a fuck about your religion. Try reading WP:AGF?zzz (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I have, didn't you see the blockquote from it? Please point me to where in the GA review process that it indicates that the GA review page should be edited once the review has been made. You obviously care greatly about the religion of the other proposer. I just figured I'd cut out the point where you accused me of being LDS. And the reason that the article doesn't deal with Joseph Smith is that the Pre-1847 content got moved to Black people and early Mormonism. I have, are you claiming that you haveAassumed Good Faith when it comes to "nominator no doubt instructed to promote" or did you have another point?Naraht (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"I have, didn't you see the blockquote from it?" Explain. zzz (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That should have been "I have read it".Naraht (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Great. I won't go through each one of your statements; suffice to say, you need to read what you are commenting about more carefully. zzz (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Signedzzz I did read what I was commenting about, which is the unacceptability of the contents of your GA Review. Your lack of good faith that the editor could create such an article *and* was instructed in the manner to edit the page by the church is unacceptable and your *one* actual content comment regarding the lack of mention of Joseph Smith is because that section has been moved to another article. Black people and early Mormonism. Naraht (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) (Fix template u reference)
Hi. I agree that the article doesn't currently meet GA criteria. Phelps (BYU) nominated the page and she is a former student worker of mine. I don't agree that I as a paid editor would be unhelpful in improving the page. I want the page to be historically accurate and NPOV. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

citing scriptures

When citing scriptures, it's important to cite a commentary to go with them, since it's tempting to interpret scriptures when citing them, which is original research. I've found some sources that discuss the scriptures used in this article. I'm going to be replacing scripture references with the sources that discusses the topic or ideally, the specific scriptures. Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is an FA, which occasionally references scriptures, but sparingly and with other references for context. I'll be using it as a model of how to use scriptures in a Wikipedia article. If you don't agree with my edits, let's talk. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll change some of these scripture references to footnoted references. But I'm unsure of what the best practice is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

problem with David Oliver quote

I found out that David Oliver was born in 1894. The LDS church did not adopt the Boy Scout program until 1913. Oliver would have been 18 in 1912, yet he says that he attended mutual in order to be a boy scout. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The BSA became official in 1910. The BSA's first "scouting council" was established by the LDS Church in 1913, but it's likely that there were scout troops associated with various local Mormon churches from the inception of the movement 3 years earlier. For example, there is documentation to the effect that one Boy Scout Troop got its start in Logan, Utah in 1910 --Jburlinson (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Brigham Young on slavery

There are some conflicting statements about Brigham Young's stance on slavery. Did his view change over time or was he just not consistent? thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The quote in question states "Young--perhaps like Jefferson--opposed slavery in principle but was willing to tolerate it (in Utah) temporarily for certain practical reasons." First, the way it is currently written in the article, makes it seem like "practical reasons" was a quote from Young, since there is no reference to Mauss. Second, even Mauss qualified it with saying perhaps like Jefferson, rather than definitively like Jefferson. I would reword it to make it sound like Mauss was expressing his opinion that Young opposed slavery, since that seems to be the way that Mauss was intending it. Other authors have come to other conclusions, such as Turner who believed he didn't want to live among black slaves, but loathed abolitionism.see here. Turner goes into much more length trying to diagnose Young's support of slavery. What is the common way to handle different secondary source's interpretation of a historical figure's motives? For Thomas Jefferson, there is a separate section on evaluation of Jefferson's position by historians. Perhaps we could do something similar for Young? I do think we should make a clear distinction between the fact that he verbally supported slavery, and the conjecture that he actually internally opposed it.
I personally am more inclined to side with Turner. He backed his opinion up with more research, and his conclusion seems to square with the known statements given by Young. I think a lot has to do with how you define slavery. Young characterized himself as neither pro-slavery nor pro-abolitionist. Modern readers are often confused how you can simultaneously oppose both slavery and the freeing of slaves, but it was actually a common position back then. He believed black people were children of God who had been cursed to be in perpetual servitude to benevolent white masters, rather than property to be sold and bought without any rights as was done in chattel slavery. Hence he saw no contradiction in opposing both chattel slavery and abolitionists' efforts to end all forms of slavery. The other question is whether Young wanted slavery in Utah, which he did not. I think this is what Mauss was referring to, that Young didn't want slavery in Utah in principle, but allowed it for practical reasons. I think this interview with Greeley clarifies the supposed contradiction:
So in summary, my opinion is that Young opposed chattel slavery, felt black servitude was mandated by God and opposed all forms of black slavery or servitude in Utah, but allowed it for practical reasons. But, of course, that is my opinion. I think the article should reflect the opinions of various scholars, and not just cherry-pick one statement by one author as authoritative fact. FreePeoples (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to add an in-depth "Evaluations by historians" section to the main Mormonism and slavery and summarize it on Black people and Mormonism. Would it be appropriate as a sub-heading under "Legal period"? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. It would be appropriate, but personally I would put it directly under "In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as the last point, since historians often do a comprehensive evaluation of motives, which would expand both before and after the actual legal period. In fact, much of what we know about Young's position was actually after the emancipation, but I think it would also work in the legal period.FreePeoples (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Condensing "Proselytization efforts" and "Black membership"?

Hello again fellow editors,

I'm looking for ways to condense information on this page, because it is very long. Do you think I could combine the "Proselytization efforts" and "Black membership" sections, putting most of the detail on the relevant sub-pages? Also, I don't think the section on humanitarian aid in Africa belongs and I'm thinking of moving it to the LDS Humanitarian Services page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with combining proselytization and black membership. Humanitarian aide could be relevant if it could be shown that giving humanitarian aide to Africa is indicative of a charitable attitude towards blacks, which seems obvious but still hasn't been shown. FreePeoples (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

primary and secondary sources sections

Does anyone have strong feelings on keeping these sections? It looks like the only reference that is actually using these sections is the Mauss reference in the "Before 1947" section. Is it okay if I change that reference and delete these sections? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Condensing "Proselytization efforts" and "Black membership"?

Hello again fellow editors,

I'm looking for ways to condense information on this page, because it is very long. Do you think I could combine the "Proselytization efforts" and "Black membership" sections, putting most of the detail on the relevant sub-pages? Also, I don't think the section on humanitarian aid in Africa belongs and I'm thinking of moving it to the LDS Humanitarian Services page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with combining proselytization and black membership. Humanitarian aide could be relevant if it could be shown that giving humanitarian aide to Africa is indicative of a charitable attitude towards blacks, which seems obvious but still hasn't been shown. FreePeoples (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/
  2. ^ Esplin, Ronald. "Brigham Young and Priesthood Denial to the Blacks: An Alternate View". BYU Studies. 19: 394-402.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_people_and_Mormonism/Archive_6&oldid=1092050500"