Talk:Black people and Mormonism

}}

The Negro Has No Soul Complaint

I Removed the Claim that some Religious Leaders argued that Blacks have no Souls. This does not seem supported by available evidence, especially given Theologians such as Charles Hodges and John Miller and by Benedict Pictet said Animals had Souls.

I Know it is Popular for some today to say Animals have no Souls, but this was not the view of 18th or 19th Century Christians and seems a corruption, taken from Popular Imagination. It seems the concept that Man has an Immortal Soul, and and Animals do not transformed into Humans have Souls and Animals do not. It is the same as Einstein saying He did not believe in a personal God and finding this used to say He was an Atheist, as He did not believe in God.

Still, I Can find No evidence whatsoever that any Religious Leader argued The Negro had No Soul, and most Christian Leaders maintained the Traditional View that All Life had a Soul, and the Soul was a Prerequisite for Life.

I therefore feel it inaccurate to say Religious Leaders argued Blacks have No Souls.

SKWills (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Never Mind. Was Re-Reverted...

SKWills (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea that black people have no souls is a fairly well-known past justification for slavery. There were some religious leaders who adopted this position. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in this article since the view that they had no souls wasn't the predominant position of non-Mormon religious leaders that Smith's teachings are being contrasted with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Smells of crypto Jews reversing the truth. 2A00:23C6:DF96:F001:C452:C755:A323:408E (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Page name change

Hey Johnpacklambert, I noticed that you changed the title of this page from "Black people and Mormonism" to "Black people and Latter-day Saint belief." I liked the old title better. This page includes the beliefs of others churches within the Latter Day Saint movement, so "Latter-day Saint" is not accurate. "Mormon" is within the Wikipedia style guide as an umbrella term, but if we are trying to avoid it, it seems like "Beliefs of the Latter Day Saint movement about black people" would be more appropriate. What do other people think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that something along the lines "Relationship between Black people and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" wuld be good but I acknowledge that that title is very long. I am unsure if reffering to Mormons as Latter Day Saints (as opposed to memebrs of ...) is correct, but if it is that works. "Black people and Latter-day Saint belief" I think is good but I wonder if it is too vague. Modernglamour13 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) LocalPunk (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

First, that is for the naming of articles, not necessarily in article text - although, usually the two are fairly well aligned. Second, this was discussed at WT:MOSCAPS#Proposed_update_to_MOSCAPS_regarding_racial_terms with the consensus being not to capitalize as such for now. Finally, especially when you are changing quoted text, if the capitalization was not in the original document, it should not be done. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Then I suggest that discussion be reopened as the consensus's ruling is completely incorrect on its rulings and also on its reasons for such a ruling. LocalPunk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Additionally, it is considered much more appropriate to capitalise, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Wikipedia's style guide should be respectful and anti-racist. This is not to create a monolith because personal preferences may and can vary. I strongly suggest that the consensus be reviewed. I hope that this makes sense. LocalPunk (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC) You can disagree with the consensus. That's not uncommon. Most of the time there is a subset of editors active in a dispute that will disagree with the consensus. You are not free, though, to edit in a way that ignores the consensus or disregard guidelines like MOS:STYLEVAR. For example, I disagree with the consensus reached regarding certain parts of MOS:LDS that disregard how the church and members church want to be referred to as, but I respect it and edit accordingly. Continuing to disregard consensus as you did today will likely get you blocked. Consensus can change. However, given that this is a recent consensus, you should probably wait awhile to before restarting it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) As I have already mentioned previously, that consensus was reached on inaccuracies and bias. LocalPunk (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) There is also some derogatory and racist language used as encyclopedic. Alongside the issues of capitalisation here, this also needs to be resolved. I have tried to fix this but my edits were reverted. LocalPunk (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia should be neutral. It should not be "anti-racist". This is an extreme postion, that is really racist. We should use the same capitalization for both white and black. Anything else is clearly biased and discriminatory. Wikipedia should most certainly not be "anti-racist", that is a call on Wikipedia to be biased and clearly violates NPOV guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Did I read that correctly?! Did you just call being anti-racist... racist? You realise that there are genuinely some things that you should not be neutral on, right? Discrimination is one of those. Being anti-racist isn't biased. Lending any form of validity to racism is. Your own racism is very obvious here. LocalPunk (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• • So called "anti-racism" doctines are in fact very racist, and posit false ideas like some people are inherently racist based on their race. They are very clearly and without question racist whenever examined from a neutral view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Neutral Point of View is not one of the principals that guides choosing names. Names of articles should respect the self chosen names of the subjects they cover.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I attended Brigham Young University from 1973 until graduating in 1978. I am not Mormon, only 2% of BYU students were Non-Mormon. It appears that the reality of "Mark of Cain" policies have been scrubbed from the historical record. This wasn't a ban on only Black individuals. This ban was could be more accurately described as Non-White. In 1978 the first race of people to be granted full church "privileges" were the American Indians. Peter Mitchell Constantine (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Native Americans were joining the LDS Church back in the 19th century. In 1873, the Shoshone chief Sagwitch was baptized a member, leading to the rest of his band, totalling about 100 people, also being baptized. Sagwitch was ordained an elder in the church, and in 1875, Sagwitch and his wife were sealed in the Endowment House. His grandson Moroni Timbimboo was the first Native American to serve as a bishop in the church. --Jburlinson (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete section on NAACP and UCF

I propose deleting the section titled "Cooperation with the NAACP on various endevors[sic]". It is rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Even words in the section heading are misspelled. There is also only one source cited, which does not support the entirety of the section. The formatting of this source is sub-standard. It reads more like a press release, which is what the cited source is, than part of an encyclopedia article. Please see WP:NOTADVOCACY. In all, this section is so far below the minimal standards of the MOS that it should be re-written or deleted.--Jburlinson (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Section deleted for the above reasons.--Jburlinson (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1949 first presidency message on blacks and the priesthood

Why is there no mention in this article of the 1949 first presidency message on blacks and the priesthood? 73.181.190.61 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is, at the Direct commandment of God (Doctrine) vs. Policy. Not sure how much that needs to be expanded, the article is pretty complex as it is. (A discussion of splitting the article might be appropriate)

Copy notes

Pastelitodepapa (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Pastelitodepapa (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Pastelitodepapa (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of Policy Change

Some date changes have recently been made. News reports state the date of the policy change as June 9. Hoewver, Official Declaration 2 shows a date of June 8. Per the Church News coverage of the event, it appears to me that the policy changed on June 8 and the statement of the change was released to the press on June 9. I am changing the date back to the long-standing June 8, but it can be discussed here. Bahooka (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The policy change was received on June 8, with the announcement thereof on June 9. I've read numerous biographies of those involved in that process, and can confirm from those that this change is both justified and warranted. Good catch. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just looked over the relevant text, and the paragraph in question refers to when the Church released the information about the policy change and not when the policy change was received. So I am reverting the date change in question, in view of that fact. If we want to add a note specifying that the revelation in question was received the day before the announcement, we can do so. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The edit was not incorrect as written because news agencies were notified on June 9. However, more relevant for an encyclopedia is the date the policy actually changed. That was June 8. The press release on the 9th is more verifiable, but less relevant IMO. Bahooka (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My thanks to Bahooka for inviting my thoughts. For my thoughts, I would argue that a change in policy doesn't do anything until it's announced to the world. The discussion on Official Declaration 2 would have included one of when to release it for publication. I have checked to see if word got out to any of the afternoon papers on June 8, and I can't find it. There would be other dates that one could say it happened. A biography of Spencer Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, notes that Kimball and the quorum of 10 members of the Twelve Apostles approved the policy change on June 1, 1978, seven days before it was put in writing. The biography also suggests that Kimball received the revelation on May 30 These are, of course, just my thoughts, and I appreciate the opportunity to voice them.Mandsford 12:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bahooka, the current paragraph's wording refers to when the announcement was publicly made, and cited sources support that wording. If we want the wording to reflect when the revelation was received, the cited sources need to reflect that. So that requires more than just changing the date. The wording and sources would also need to be changed. That's why I reverted your edit, because it changed the date without also updating the associated wording and sources. Hope that explains my revert more thoroughly. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References