Talk:Black people and early Mormonism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

David O. McKay biography

I'm currently reading the new biography of David O. McKay and there is an entire chapter dedicated to blacks and the priesthood. It is a straightforward, if unflattering, look at the statements and beliefs of Church leaders during the 1950s and 60s. Has anyone else read this? Is there anything that can be culled from there to enhance this article? I'm thinking of a section on the Church's response to the civil rights movement (Hugh B. Brown's support vs. Ezra Taft Benson's criticism). --MrWhipple 20:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The further I get into the biography, the more I'm thinking that this article needs a section on the Mormon response to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. It's pretty clear that most of the top leaders of the Church were not progressive on this issue (if I may understate the case), mainly because of the typical age of a general authority and the fact that most of them had had little contact with Blacks in Utah. Hugh B. Brown -- a member of the First Presidency in the 1960s -- was an exception. But their views were not very different from most Americans' in the 1950s; they just took longer to come around than the rest of the country.

Another reason for a delay in changing the priesthood policy was that Church presidents almost always sought consensus among the Twelve before making any major changes. It took 20 years and a collective spiritual experience among the Twelve before support for the change could be made. --MrWhipple 22:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Whipple, the thing is, one should not need to be in contact with Blacks in Utah to know that this kind of racism is wrong, from a Christian perspective, and here is why. I did my own research, and I found out that in the early period of Christianity before Constantine, the Roman government was dealing with a crisis of sorts because Christian people were in the habit of freeing slaves, and it caused a potential economic problem in Rome, it was one of the reasons that Christians were persecuted in the 2nd and 3rd Century. And one does not need to be bludgeoned on the head to know that the Mormon leaders simply went along with the status quo of the 18th century and their "revelations" merely came after other churches and organizations made changes. See the thing is, it's one thing to say that Christianity didn't comment or explicitly comment on slavery (i.e. didn't do enough). It's quite another to invent godly revelations on a whim and at the appeasement of human, not-godlike people who are prone to their own misunderstandings. The early Christians and Jews had prophecies that went against the grain and put their lives in danger. The Mormons did not do this, but only in the context of the few leaders who were protected by the masses. We could have a whole article about this. But in the end my point is that the few Mormon leaders that taught polygamy, racism, and other regressive activities were acting on their own passions and desires, and knew that they could gather a following from the disgruntled masses. As these activities were of their own motivations, they did not care of the consequences upon the masses, and they really did sacrifice them for this. On one hand, having Black people as followers would have at first been no big deal, but as it interfered with another disgusting institution, the two (U.S. slavery, and Mormon doctrine) collided, and the Mormon leaders had to find a way to appease the slaveholders without totally confounding their members. And when you look at the events in Missouri you see that very consequence, Mormon Danites were fighting against excommunicated Mormons over a variety of issues, because the Mormon leaders flip flopped on their positions.

There wasn't a spiritual experience; there was a realization that they would get themselves in financial and perhaps even organizational trouble with the government. Remember we are talking about the relationship between Blacks and Mormonism, not the theological theories of how Mormon leaders changed their church policies. We can create a separate section titled "Mormon revelation and theological controversy", but trying to somehow "prove" that God changed His mind after the anti-Mormon American society changed theirs, well no, that's not objective, that's POV. I find it hard to believe that God followed the will of the American people, it's supposed to work the other way around. It's not right to say on one hand that they were doing God's will, and then on the other hand to keep "reminding" us(and we need no reminding because this is the whole crux of the matter) that the Mormon church was simply following along and doing what all the other non-Mormon, heretical, abomination following "other" Christians were doing. If Mormonism is supposed to be based on God's word, then they should have set the standards even DESPITE the Roman...I mean American threats.... kind of like how Jesus and the early CHRSITIAN church leaders did.

So I hope you understand clearly where I am coming from, even if I lack the journalistic experience that makes this process more efficient. Obviously I am presenting a point of view that is more balanced in this regard, than merely glossing over a disgusting act of putting Anti-Black racism into God's mouth to satisfy self-idolizing (sin), contemptuous (sin), hateful (sin), greedy (sin), liars that supported the brutal slavery (sin) in America. --208.254.174.148 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon, you are presenting your point of view. We fully understand where you are coming from, as many of us have struggled to understand all of the issues of this teaching and its ramifications. A number of us don't agree that it should have been taught, however, it was. We don't deny this. However, you say you are giving a "balanced" point of view? And then you used words like "disgusting, hateful, greedy? You are pushing a point of view. A balanced point of view would state "Kimball claimed to receive a revelation on the matter, however, critics point to possible evidence of financial and other sanctions if the church did not change its position," or something like that. But to say "this is the only reason, is POV and not in accordance with Wikipedia standards. You must allow for church teaching to come through on a page about church teaching.

Incidentally, can you point to a reference of Danites fighting against "excommunicated" Mormons in Missouri? I find them fighting against mobocrats. I've provided sources. Can you?-Visorstuff 17:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

208.254.174.148, your comments reflect a modern understanding of and distaste for what we now call racism. What is considered "racist" in 2005 is very different from what was considered racist in 1955 (or 1855). David O. McKay was not a progressive civil-rights supporter, but he also did not call for greater segregation or legal restrictions on blacks -- that made him, for his time, quite typical of white Americans, particularly older white Americans. I'm not saying that the personal beliefs of Church leaders in 1955 were correct; I'm just saying they were typical. By modern standards, they appear to be flaming racists; by 1950s standards, they were normal.

It is therefore incorrect to label Brigham Young, David O. McKay or other previous LDS leaders as racists, simply because, by contemporary standards, they weren't. Since that time we have learned some things -- Latter-day Saint Americans as well as all other Americans. The standard of acceptability has been moved (for the better, in my opinion).

A balanced article needs to take this into account. Otherwise we might as well slap the term "racist" on virtually every article about every historical figure before 1960. --MrWhipple 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Extermination Order in Missouri

The Mormon extermination order was Missouri's response to the Mormon "Danite" militant activity in the north of the state. Slavery had nothing to do with the issue as the order was not called until three battles were fought between Mormons, excommunicated mormons, and non-Mormon Missourians. These pre-exterminaton order battles included an assassination attempt on the Governor, two Mormon attacks on Missouri cities, and one massacre of Mormons. In none of these exchanges was the issue of Black people raised. The Governor was responding to a militant threat, not a fear of Black "freedom" or the abolition of slavery. If this Extermination Order is placed within the article again, without evidence to support it, I will remove it. --208.254.174.148 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We have provided references for this. Please see my additions last week. If you have a problem getting a hold of some of the books, please let me know. Please note that wikipedia is not place to make a point, and continued antagonist activity can result in getting banned. I'm not threatening it, just letting you know that you have continued to revert material that has now been referenced and sourced, with the result beginning to become an edit war. -Visorstuff 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes there was a lot of activity regarding that. What I recall is that on one side, someone was postulating that the Extermination Order was in response to anti-slavery activities of the Mormons. The response was that although the Mormon memebers were (primarily northerners) anti-Slavery, the Mormon establishment disavowed this position, BEFORE the Missouri Extermination Order was created. In addition, Brigham Young also made it clear that the Mormon church did not at any point or time try to meddle in the affairs of Missouri or in the slavery issue. Also, I remember much being said about the Danite issue, but Visor, you never replied to that. I did read a lot of what you posted, but in the end, it was not linking "Mormon Extermination Order" to "Slavery". What ended up happening was that A Mormon article was written that Missourians had interpreted as an abolition move, the Mormon leadership renounced this position, but OTHER issues (Joseph Smith saying that Mormons were the chosen people, that they would rule the world, the polygamy, the excommunication of Mormons and their oppression by Danite Janjaweed like militants and other issues) had a much more immediate and relevant impact on WHY the Mormon Extermination Order was implemented by the governor. In addition to THAT, on Wikipedia, the Mormon Extermination Order (which by the way, no one has edited that seems to be related to the "antagonistic" elements in this article.--68.60.55.162 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Mormon Extermination Order, I have reviewed the history of the Mormon War in Missourri and the Danite repression. Since you have not mentioned either, I am starting to wonder if you have actually been reading any books yourself? Throughout of all of the experience from the original settling of Missouri by mormons to the order itself, I have seen one reference to anything positive having to do with Black people, and that is there was an article written in the the Mormon's Star that I have not read that is apparently the "cause?" of the Extermination Order as far as you are concerned? But so you know, i have been rather annoyed with the apparent lack of transparency on this issue with regards to Joseph Smith himself. I understand that the arguements on the Mormon side really focus on how much Smith sided with or against slavery. And I have a habit of watching to see what is NOT mentioned. Please give me your opinion on Joseph Smith Jr's own words in the next section --68.60.55.162 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC):

Joseph Smith's official views on Slavery - By Joseph Smith himself

“DEAR SIR: —This place (Kirtland) having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called ABOLITIONISTS, and his presence having created an interest in that subject, if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the Southern public,...you are at liberty to give them publicity... I FEAR that the sound might go out, that 'an Abolitionist' had held forth several times to this community,...all, except a very few, attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls. I am aware that many, who PROFESS to preach the Gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the South, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship, because they will not renounce the principle of slavery, and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men, and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, OVERRUN OUR COUNTRY, AND VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SOCIETY, CHASTITY AND VIRTUE.... I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. “How any community can ever be excited with the CHATTER of such persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a DECLARATION OF HOSTILITIES, against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union? “After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ....the first mention we have of SLAVERY is found in the Holy Bible,... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the DECREE OF JEHOVAH, to the shame and confusion of all who HAVE CRIED OUT against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in SERVITUDE.... I can say, the CURSE IS NOT YET TAKEN OFF FROM THE SONS OF CANAAN, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who INTERFERE THE LEAST WITH THE PURPOSES OF GOD in this matter, will come under the LEAST CONDEMNATION BEFORE HIM; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the DECREES OF THE LORD, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.” (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, pages 436-438)--68.60.55.162 04:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And yes, some of this WILL be posted in the article, especially in areas where people try to push the idea off that Smith was anti-slavery.--68.60.55.162 04:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

More of Joseph Smith jr's views on Slavery

The Messenger and Advocate was the second periodical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was published at Kirtland, Ohio, from October 1834 until September 1837. Each issue consisted of 16 pages, and it was published once a month.

“Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life— endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets—our prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt....the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!— And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a negro!...(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

68.60.55.162 04:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe this passage would have been originally printed sometime around mid 1837, The Mormon Extermination Order happened in 1838. I flatly reject the notion that one to two years after these comments by Smith, Smith was playing abolitionist and that this has anything to do with the Mormon Extermination Order. --68.60.55.162 05:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, those in here concerned with Wikipeidia policies and on editing wars should note that those who are most concerned, and who consider themselves to be well educated or acquainted with LDS history have little excuse for NOT presenting this information here. I waited patiently for someone to post it and I am yet again amazed at how it had not happened. This I am posting now, and I await the accusations that this periodical never was published. I also await the possible attempts to deny it's authenticity by pointing to a much later edited and republished version of the same periodical. But I can definitely say, I am very much losing patience with this process. So I am going to suggest that we discuss this matter honestly, and I will give until Friday (before I request formal administrator action be taken) for a SERIOUS objection (maybe you can say that this was a made up article, or maybe it was proven to be a misquote). But do not think that retelling this article in a benign-naive light counts as a SERIOUS objection. He said "sons of Caanan" so we know part of this article is going to the Curse of Ham article. --68.60.55.162 04:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction edits

Val you removed content I put into the introduction with the phrase "This level of detail belongs in the article, not the introduction."

You removed the content, and did not take the time to put it where you felt it should be placed. I do not agree and I want it in the introduction. If you can find a better place for it, then put it there. Your next removal will be #3. And I do not believe you are keeping up with the events in the discussion. --68.60.55.162 05:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You said that the information that I removed from the article should be placed in the appropriate place in the article. I'll go through the information point-by-point so that you can see where it is in the article or why it was excluded. That way, you won't have to search (as your discussions with Visorstuff have shown you are averse to reading).

-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see also Mormon) instituted a discriminatory policies, including promoting ideas that justified racism, and racial discrimination against Blacks in government, denying ordination of black men to the priesthood from 1849 to 1978 based on their race, and denying Blacks to operate in positions of authority in areas that were managed by LDS leaders, (ex. Boy Scouts).

This text:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see also Mormon) instituted a policy that did not allow the ordination of black men (of African descent) to the priesthood from 1849 to 1978. Although black men were generally excluded from holding the priesthood and participating in ordinances in the temples, they were not excluded from holding general membership in the Church. Because many leadership positions in the church require ordination to the priesthood, this also meant that blacks could not serve in these leadership positions.

includes all of the information except for the "Boy Scout" issue which is already in the section of "Reversal of the priesthood ban" in the paragraph starting with "The civil rights movement ...." The introduction is meant as an overview of items which are expanded in the article itself. The "racial discrimination against Blacks in government" is probably supportable by some quotation (that you will come up with), but as of now there is no detail in the body of the article to support it being placed in the introduction. When you come up with the supporting detail, you can add the information back in to the appropriate place in the introduction.

Well it's not relevant at this point, although it will be later. - Zaph

-Originally Latter Day Saints, being primarily Northerners had briefly professed their opposition to slavery in Missouri (a slave state) during a time when it was very unpopular and even dangerous to do so, but after an incident involving an anti-slavery article written by an LDS paper, the Mormon Church and its members disavowed their position and supported slavery as status-quo, and as a divine institution from God.

This text:

When slavery and anti-slavery thought clashed in the mid 1800s prior to the American Civil War, the Latter Day Saints openly professed their opposition to slavery in Missouri (a slave state) during a time when it was very unpopular and even dangerous to do so.

includes all of the information except for the article which is already in the section of "Blacks in the early Latter Day Saint movement" in the paragraph starting with "Though membership ...." That the anti-slavery sentiments were brought in by Northerners I felt was sufficiently explained in the section on "Historical and doctrinal background" in the paragraph starting with "These beliefs ...", but apparently not to your satisfaction. You could have just added this information to this paragraph rather than reverting.

Well Val, it seems that you are putting too much weight on the initial "NON-REVELATORY" position of the LDS members, in opposition to the apparent "REVELATION" of Smith, the leader. It's like saying, originally some NAZI's didn't believe in exterminating Jews, so NAZIsm must not be so anti-Jewish, it was only "LATER" when Hitler ordered the exterminations!

-From that time on, LDS policies followed those of the surrounding areas of the U.S. and the LDS leaders were often the last disavow their discriminatory activities.

The above text was just removed because there is no supporting information in the body of the article. And the final clause of the sentence is clearly POV.

Oh that will be re-introduced later. Because it has, and is consistently true. Out of all of the protestant groups of significance (not fringe), the LDS group is the last almost all the time! But ill gather the numbers, crunch them, and repost them. - Zaph

-The LDS still holds documents, some canonized, indicating that Black people were cursed from Cain and Canaan. Throughout the existence of the church, the vast majority of leaders, prophets, and apostles have held positions encouraging and condoning discrimination, and only recently has taken a neutral stance on the issue, due to the lingering scriptural elements supporting the negative connotation with the dark skin of a race of people.

The information in this text, from the second paragraph, is clearly covered in the second half of the section on "Historical and doctrinal background". But the way that you stated it, besides being a run-on sentence, is clearly POV. I haven't had time to fix all of you POV statements; you introduce them too quickly.

Also, in the first sentence in the second paragraph, you put in the word "current". I do follow the discussion about this article because I know that this is your personal POV that you are pushing. But, strangely enough, you had no comment about my comments on what "current doctrine" is in protestant Christian denominations on the "Curse of Cain" talk page. (Hint: Search for "2/3".) And I'll be more disposed to believe that you are keeping up with the discussions when you actually create an account (rather than posting anonymously).

The discussions take an endlessly nested exception, and all burden of proof you expect to come from my side, when I've presented enough of it. So we will take it from the top. And from there once again the article will be re-organized - Zaph.

By the way, you have a habit of using long, run-on sentences. Shorter, more concise sentences tend to be better. Also, this is the third time that you've added the same information back in the article. Make sure to report yourself too. Val42 06:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't feel like reporting myself, since I actually presented the evidence earlier, especially with the Mormon Extermination order, and again, I'm asked to bring "proof". But ok. Round three begins. - Zaph

Date of priesthood ban?

This article states that the beginning of the ban on black africans being excluded from being ordained to the priesthood was 1849. The Curse of Cain article states that it was 1846. We need to fix this. Val42 01:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As usual there is no sensible way to determine when it "officially" happened. Why? because yet again, Mormon "official" "doctrinal" and "church leadership" quotes are or are "not" policy depending on the mood of the LDS apologist --68.60.55.162 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's critical that every quote be taken in context—particularly in a revelatory Church. When Jonah refused to do God's well, the things he said and did were not exactly "doctrine", in any sense of the word (though they are clearly modern "scripture"). In terms of what is and isn't official Church doctrine, the best policy is to see what is current doctrine, and then apply that, unless any official statement has been issued by the Church (such as the "Official Declarations" found in the Doctrine & Covenants) historically, which unequivocally makes clear to us what "official doctrine" was (in contrast to is). There are several cases of prophets being "wrong" in the Bible and Book of Mormon (mostly the Bible), but in each of these contexts it's clear that they were not speaking for God. It cannot be emphasized enough that not every thing that ever issues from the Prophet's mouth is intended to be divine revelation. The Jade Knight 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also an issue regarding the end of the ban, and proper wording. About 1955 David O. McKay had the ban changed from "blacks" to "Africans" (or, rather, he determined that non-African blacks, such as Maori, were not banned from the priesthood). But whites with 1/8 black African blood or more were banned. This led to the statement in 1966:

"The most serious problem facing the LDS Church today is the Negro Question....A man can have skin as black as a moonless night--and he can be a full-fledged member of the Mormon Priesthood. But he can have blue eyes, white skin, and blond curly hair and have an African Negro in his ancestry and find himself rejected by the Mormons as an applicant for the Priesthood...." (The Mormon Establishment, pp.218-9)

But then you have to draw the distinction between a black ban and an African ban.

Current Black Responses

I moved the following section to this page for discussion. The author cites no sources to back up any of the following claims:

The typical Black response to this comment has been that people were, at the time of the racist teachings, responding to the living prophets of their day. It is also important to note that the present revelations indicated no change to the teachings that Cain was the progenitor of the Black race, nor the teachings that God would have punished Black people for the sins of Cain, nor why God would humiliate Black people by associating their natural skin color with God's displeasure or any kind of negative reaction. The numerous edits and modifications to Mormon scripture and other documents by LDS writers to deflect the intensity of the historical prejudice only has given an impression of a cover up. These fundamental issues have been the primary concern that Black people have with Mormonism and the outrage Blacks experience with Mormon belief systems is the comfortability that White Mormons have with accepting the assumption that God did these things. Most Black people have condemned Mormonism as a heresy. Black Mormon apologists however have provided some explanations, arguing that the racially discriminatory policies were contextually necessary. Opponents argue that there is no moral context that can justify these activities in Mormon history, and there are no Biblical elements to substantiate them.

I'm very familiar with edits to LDS scripture, and nowhere to my knowledge has there been any change attempting to "cover up" "historical prejudice" against Blacks. Also, if the author is going to state what the "Black response" (as if there was a single, unified Black voice opposing the LDS church) is, there needs to be sources cited; ditto for "Black Mormon [sic] apologists." This entire section, unless cited, is simply POV. Sources, please? --[User:MrWhipple|MrWhipple]] 17:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a cover up. I go to the www.lds.org, the official church of the Mormon religion, and low and behold, all of this information about Black people is unavailable. In fact, it is refuted, by the LDS church! http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-1203-1,00.html Here is my favorite part, the last sentence: "We have a lay priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive this priesthood." What is there a -non-lay priesthood? Is every worthy man eligible to receive this as well? If so, then why was this greater priesthood not mentioned? Why didn't Hinckley say "We have a lay priesthood and a greater priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive both." Why according to the LDS church: The priesthood has two divisions. The lesser priesthood is called the Aaronic Priesthood, named after Aaron in the Old Testament. It includes the authority to preach the gospel of repentance and to baptize. The greater priesthood is called the Melchizedek Priesthood, named after Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It includes the authority to preside over the Church and to perform all ordinances, including giving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Are Black people allowed to give this gift of the Holy Ghost, or is the idea of a Black man giving the gift... unsettling...to the good white Mormon? Those black hands, actually doing such a pure thing! - Zaph!

Hi Zaph - good questions. Yes, blacks are allowed to receive "both priesthoods" you mention above. We've had a few general authorities that are black since the 1978 revelation. However, you misunderstand church doctrine and practice. There is no professional clergy. Therefore there is no "non-lay" priesthood. Any man ordained to be an elder has the same priesthood authority as President Hinckley. If you go to the church web site and look under publications - and search, you'll find a lot of information about views on blacks and Mormonism by church leaders and members of both races. And yes, of course blacks can give and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is no distinction between the races in the church currently. I've been given blessings by and performed priesthood ordinances with church members and priesthood holders with blacks, oriental, Native American, Maori, and other races. There is no difference. I'm surprised by your perception to be honest. There are congregations all across the world where blacks and/or those of other races lead the congregation and bishops, stake presidents, area authorities and other leadership positions.

The article states that church leaders were unsure if the policy banning those of other races to the priesthood was given by revelation. Yes, the "doctrine" that Cain was cursed and that Canaan was cursed is in the scriptures. And yes, most interpret that these groups had black skin (though the scriptures don't say if they are the same family - ie - was egyptus a descendant of Cain or not). This is why Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, and others felt that a revelation was needed to change the policy. We were unsure as to how the policy was implemented, as most black males prior to the Nauvoo period that joined the church were ordained to the priesthood. The article also states that smith first taught this policy to his inner circle and this was about the same time he taught them polygamy - which wasn't taught publicly until 1852. This policy wasn't implemented until after smith's death. Simply put, historians are unsure why the change in policy instructions by smith, and all of the reasoning behind it. And frankly, speculation about why is lame, as there is no smoking gun document pointing to this. Yes the church has a controversial past, but I'm surprised that the attention it gets - even the Pentecostal sects didn't officially "de segregate" until the 1990s. The Southern Baptists officially renounced their policy toward blacks in the same decade as the Mormons. But for some reason, because the LDS church took a "revelation" to change, rather than a vote, it received more attention. It is apparent that church members were ready to make the change much sooner than their protestant counterparts in many cases, but needed the revelation to move forward. I'm not saying that any form of racial discrimination is right, and many Mormons disagree (and had for many years prior to the policy changed) with the policy implemented by smith and young. However, it is what is, an it is now different, thank goodness. I know it doesn't undo any damage, but history seldom does. Church members just want to move forward as they tend to do and focus on the current prophets teachings which are that all men have access to the same blessings and responsibilities regardless of race. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 13:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, not all Mormons agree that the "Curse of Cain" idea, which was a common belief in 19th century America, was ever actual Church doctrine, though it certainly was taught in the Church. Many consider it a theological rationalization for a social phenomenon (institutionalized racism) common throughout American culture prior to the 1960s and 1970s. These point out that there is no record of an explicit revelation that can be cited as the source of the policy. David O. McKay, for example, was very careful to call the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood a "policy" rather than a "doctrine." B. H. Roberts also openly believed it was not a doctrine. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob durrant (talk • contribs)

Scope and advice

Intro to this section is in need of some citation for legitimacy. For example, the assertion that Joseph Smith invited some early black members to receive the priesthood is questionable at best, and needs documentation. --24.163.193.13

It's far from just questionable. See Newel G. Bringhurst's "The 'Missouri Thesis' Revisited" in Black and Mormon, University of Illinois, 2004. At least one instance of Joseph Smith approving blacks being ordained to the priesthood. Elijah Abel was his name. --Kmsiever 04:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And by my last count, I've found about two dozen black men ordained to the priesthood during the administration of Smith. It was the norm for the small amounts of blacks who joined. This even though the church was officially prohibited from proselytizing to them because of the results of banishment and leaders being forced to sign documents stating such in Missouri. -Visorstuff 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to issues mentioned above regarding scope, this article is too long. Any ideas how it could be split up? Separating it into separate articles may also make it easier to edit. --Kmsiever 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The page scope was expanded since that was originally written. It is now about Mormonism as opposed to the LDS church - big difference. I think we've already broken out Curse of Ham and Curse and mark of Cain. I'm not sure this topic deserves more breaking up, IMO. Anyone else have thoughts? -Visorstuff 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the era from the founding of the church until Joseph's death, and afterwards. Val42 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Josiah Priest

Joseph Smith, and many Mormons today will say that Smith got his ideas on Blacks, their skin color, and the passages in their scriptures from God, but they actually got them from Josiah Priest, who studied the pre-Adamic theory which was being popularized at the time of Smith's revelations. Since I came into these Mormon-Black articles, I have been fighting against the pro-Mormon side, which has used rhetoric to side step the fact: Black skin does not come from a mark on Cain. The idea that it did, does not come from a revelation from God to Smith in 1830, but in a racist-assumption from man-to-man-to-man-to-Smith from the late 14th century to his time. And THAT should be a big reason that people should see Mormonism for what it is a false grafting attempt by a con-man onto Christianity. - Zaph. http://www.christianodyssey.com/bible/africans.html

Sorry, I am going to sidestep your point for just one minute, to ask one question: Why do you feel like you need to fight Mormons? we welcome all people. I'd be willing to bet that if you belong to a protestant denomination that it too has a history of discrimination and uncouth practices. Heck, we may as well try to tear down the United States because of slavery. Yes, slavery and discrimination are both wrong, but why fight something in the past that people are trying to put behind them. The idea of not forgiving is not a Christian, Muslim or Jewish ideal. The church has changed, why others have to be the judge of the Mormon Church. This seems very anti-Christian to me. But maybe I'm missing something.

we don't deny it was taught, what more do you want us to admit? Any why does it matter so much to you?

For just as long as the policy on the priesthood was in effect (actually longer), it was legal to kill, rape and take property from Mormons in Missouri. I had two great-great grandfathers, (and one of their eight-year old sons) who were killed for being Mormon (the eight year old so he wouldn't grow up to be a Mormon). I've been held at gunpoint on one occasion and beat and left to die for being Mormon by a gang on another. I could name numerous other examples of discrimination from rock throwing, to death threats I've had for being Mormon - but yet I have no hard feelings toward Missouri (this law has since been repealed and the latest "legal" killing was in the 1940s), toward the gang or anyone else. I consider it ignorance on their part, but do not fight Missouri because of this law or that they once did it. I've let it go, chalked it up to ignorance, and forgiven. That's what Christ would have me do. In the same vein, why fight against Mormonism because they once taught something? Times have changed, they've moved on, and the higher road is awareness and forgiveness. I hope someday you find the peace that forgiveness brings.

What evidence is there that Smith got his views from Priest? Why couldn't he have got it from other sects? Why couldn't he have gotten it from God? What is the proof of this? Supposition does not work in a historical setting. Evidence does. Interesting that your "christianoddyssey" doesn't mention other sects who held similar views. Having studied Mormon history in depth, I'm unaware that Smith read or mentioned this author. No doubt he got it somewhere or it wouldn't have been taught, but there is no evidence as to exactly where, and speculation to the contrary is futile. Trust me, I've been there. The simple fact is that he taught it as policy, and that the policy was repealed in 1978. -Visorstuff 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Mormon views on blacks and the priesthoods that were widely held during the late 18th and early 19th centuries did not begin with Joseph Smith. In fact, Joseph Smith ordained several blacks to the priesthood. You may want to consider a broader research base in the future. A good start would be a collection of essays called Black and Mormon. Intriguing read. -- Kmsiever 16:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence....

"In general, the relationship of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism) with black people has more or less mirrored the sentiments of many other White Protestant denominations in the United States. "

I'm sorry, this just isn't accurate. Do the other denominations have the blatant racism of The Book of Abraham, the Journal of Discourses and some choice passages of the Book of Mormon? I think not. Not even the slave practicing denominations of the 19th century (e.g. Southern Baptist) went to the extreme of those texts.

Furthermore, many churches in the North were militantly opposed to slavery. The peace churches (Mennonite, Quaker, etc.) were also opposed to slavery and racism. The Quakers banned slavery in the 18th century.

I think such a broad opening sentence is unwarranted, and ultimately, inaccurate.

I think your understanding is inaccurate—when Joseph Smith ran for the presidency, abolition was on his platform. In fact, Mormon tolerance to blacks is one of the reasons they were unpopular in the areas they settled. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon states: "[God] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and femaile; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33) The Jade Knight 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To the Anonymous user who keeps editing the initial sentence: This article is about the relationship between Mormonism and blacks, not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and blacks. Furthermore, your statements don't make much sense in light of the rest of the paragraph. Please discuss the issue here before making further changes! The Jade Knight 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I (the starter of this talk section) didn't change it, though I think it needs a rewrite. Particularly in light of 1 Nephi 11:13, 1 Nephi 12:23, 1 Nephi 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, Mormon 5:15, Book of Abraham 1:20-27 and:

"Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization. Joseph Smith, Jr., First President

"...we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church." The Evening and the Morning Star, July 20, 1833

The ecclesiology of Mormonism is so unique, comparisons really don't work.