Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remove text with old citation needed tags

I counted approximately nine citation needed tags dating back eight months. Unless someone is in the middle of obtaining a source, I will go ahead and delete that text. Alanraywiki 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will give this a couple of more days, but then any unsourced comments need to be removed. Enough time has elapsed to find citations. Thanks, Alanraywiki 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted two sections that had citation tags outstanding for 9 months. If this information is readded, please include the source. Thanks, Alanraywiki 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to a different title please

Here in the UK, the use of the term "blacks" is dated and considered derogatory. I appreciate that Americans will have written this article but please think about your UK audience, especially black people who will feel bad when they see this title. We would say "black people" or "people of African descent". Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.50.201 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of this negative connotation and should be changed if it is so; however, your first proposal seems rather obvious while the second would make the title long indeed. The objective is to have a title which readers could easily find, which typically demands concise language. I think it would be helpful to gain the assistance of others. Instead of "Blacks" we could use Africans, but that does not seem right either. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Black people and ..." seems like an OK solution. Snocrates 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Why not? How is "Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" worse? I propose we move it to that, since it's been agreed on. FitzCommunist (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the term is dated and derogatory, but so is the subject of this article. It has always been about the "blacks." Joseph Smith said that God revealed to him that the blacks should not receive the priesthood. He never elaborated on this. Any references to cain, premortal unrighteousness or lineage has been added by people since then to make sense of the policy. So the title only makes sense. Evan Davis (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested move for a number of reasons:

First, it does not meet naming conventions for either racial terms or Mormonism.
Second, the two of the three editors who are suggesting the move have been around for less than 45 days, and the third has less than ten edits in his six-month history. Unfortunately, due to the controversial nature of race and religion, this sudden interest in a move smells fishy.
Third, according to Black People and Black British, the term "black" is used by the British government as a classification - therefore is a standard term, and should not be widely offensive to anyone in the UK - especially with how politically correct the British government is.
Fourth, the topic of Blacks and the LDS Church is a historical one - and the term black was the term that was used during this controversy from a historical perspective. Just as "Negro" and "Mormon" are both considered derogatory, both are used from a historical perspective - and thus the naming of this article, as it is historical - should reflect the historical terminology: "black."

Don't move the page until some experienced editors weigh in - as this smells of some sort of POV pushing that is not widely accepted. Wikipedia stays with the standard norms and scholarly usage for the most part. Get someone with experience to weigh in on this, and it will be considered, but until someone who has a trusted history weighs in, don't suggest the move. -Visorstuff (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, cowboy, looks like you have some assuming of good faith to do! Second, an editor's opinion is no more valuable just because he has been around for longer than another. Lastly, please expand on how adding the word "people" to the title would make it "not meet naming conventions for either racial terms or Mormonism". If the article is at Black people, I doubt that using the term violates any naming convention. But you, of course, with your vast quantity of experience and trusted history and balanced views of norms and scholarly usage can set us straight. Snocrates 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, using a government source to determine what is acceptable language to use with respect to races is not always the most reliable method of finding out what the situation may be in the "real world". Case in point: Canada still has a government department with a cabinet-level minister called the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, but most of the Aboriginal organizations in Canada have said that calling their groups "Indians" or even "Canadian Indians" is offensive and inappropriate. Snocrates 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not about good faith or bad faith - this is a controversial topic, and according to the policy at Wikipedia:Requested_moves this should likely be reviewed by many others in the community. I am not discounting anyone's opinion, I am simply stating that we need much more people to weigh in on the topic before a true consensus is reached - and we should include others who are trusted in the wikipedia community for this consensus. And as an admin, that it is part of my duties to help with requested page moves. Length of time does matter in a number of items on wikipedia - I'd recommend that you become familiar with which policies this refers to. Sorry that I come across as snobby on this topic, but I've seen this particular page change namespaces at least a dozen times in the past few years in its existence, many which were unnecessary, and it has ended up at the original location largely due consensus from the entire wikipedia community - Mormon or not. We need to take time and get input from those who have been around and involved in this issue in the past.

As far as your government example, you'll find the same in the United States with "Indian reservations" and "Indian affairs," however, in all three of these cases, there is a historical reason for keeping the name. For the purposes of this article, if I started a wikiquote page for "Statements of Brigham Young about Negros" would be as equally accurate as "Statements of Brigham Young about Black People" - one is a historical and the other is modernized. As the issue of Black people and the LDS church is largely historical, a historical term should be used - and the term used in 1978 was largely "Blacks." I'm more than willing to move the page if a true consensus is reached, and I can easily be persuaded to use a different term, however, it needs to be a true consensus, not a consensus of three editors with less than 500 edits who aren't familiar with the history of this page and its various names, forks, etc. Put forth a good argument, and get others to weigh in and let's move it. But no consensus has been reached at this point. Storm Rider, Trodel, would you agree or disagree with my assessment - you are both familiar with the history of this page? -Visorstuff (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Evan, your statement, "Joseph Smith said that God revealed to him that the blacks should not receive the priesthood. He never elaborated on this" is not correct from a historical perspective. Historical documents suggest that Young was the source of the policy, however, even if Smith did tell Young and others (which is likely), there is no record of Smith "saying" that it was revealed by God, or simply a policy, or simply another reason. We all need to be careful on conclusions we make. -Visorstuff (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, Visorstuff, and I understand your concerns, and I'm sorry for my return snobbiness. I for one thought that going through a WP:RM was what was going to result, not a sudden move, but of course that presumption could be wrong. Snocrates 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I've just seen too much hastiness with this particular page, so wanted to remind all to be patient. Thanks for understanding. I look forward to working with you. I've been on wikiholiday way too long. -Visorstuff (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag Added

In the interests of improving Wikipedia, and especially this article, I'm adding a POV tag to help stimulate some improvement to this article. The criteria that we need to meet to make this article neutral are:(Edited after initial post to add numbering) Noleander (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall tone and balance are skewed: discussion of the racism that lasted over a century is not proportionally discussed
Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non-priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978
Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there
Some opinions, thoughts and quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978 (has some positive, but no negative)
Priesthood discussion: Need more specificity about the discriminatory practices: what exactly were blacks prohibited from doing?
Some discussion of LDS views on miscegenation, esp. after 1978.
Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative
Un-cited or opinion-type language must be removed, such as "However, with the calling of Martins as a seventy, the church had, it may be argued, gone full circle on this issue. The African American policy evolved in a peculiar way, from exclusion, which was the status quo of the time, to equality, which is the ideal for the future"

Noleander (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions above reads like an anti-Mormon article; why not just refer to your preferred web site? They are all POV, none is neutral which is the objective of Wikipedia. You might want to consider a personal blog to achieve your objectives and not attempt to rewrite articles to meet your specific objectives rather than the neutral manner that is desired for Wikipedia. I suggest you make all of your changes first be brought here for discussion or I will revert them if they follow the highly POV proposals you have above. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real, Storm Rider? Surely points 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 can't be objectionable. Beyond that, you seem to think it's "anti-Mormon" simply to mention that LDS had racist policies for a long time. The basic problem is that you've convinced yourself that a pro-LDS POV is NPOV, and thus that any attempt to insert the other side into this is "anti-Mormon." The idea that you are lecturing someone else on how to be neutral is ridiculous. john k (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you are admitting 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11 are objectionable? As for your statistics, they are also misleading. What about Asians. They also make up a small minority in the church, but there was never a ban affecting them. Native Americans were considered the "chosen people" in the early church (and still are to a degree), and yet, they also are not a majority in leadership roles. Seems your data is skewed. Bytebear (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As for statistics, you have [adherents.com] which has stats from 2000. It's not quite up to date, but it's a start. Bytebear (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my attempts to restore neutrality the article offended anyone. I assure you that my only goal is to make wikipedia as high quality as possible. The article, as written now, although technically accurate, is biased by omission. Clearly well intentioned advocates of the LDS faith wrote it. Many facts are not cited. The person-based section titles are odd and misleading. The over-riding fact of the LDS church and blacks is: "Racist policy for over a century". Other facts (Gladys Knight, for example) deserve treatment, but not on the same scale :-) This article is not neutral. Lets work together to make it more neutral. Noleander (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly it was written by well-intentioned advocates of the LDS faith." There are some editors that are going to be surprised to be declared, "advocates of the LDS faith." I will let them make their own case that they are not. — Val42 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How was the membership of the Black people in the LDS church different from all other Christian churches? Was there a marked difference? Was all other churches "racist" (I love that term, it is so neutral in scope; not even a hint of attack or prejudgment!) I have been a long-term editor of Wikipedia and I can assure you that my commitment is based upon maintaining a neutral, professional encyclopedia. My expertise is in religion and it is for that reason that I edit those articles. I detest editing that poses as neutral when in fact is highly POV.

First of all, the history of the LDS church is what it is. To call it racist from the beginning to have already arrived at a conclusion: the very definition of POV editing. It is more akin to yellow journalism. If you cannot see the obvious POV of the proposition, I suggest you begin to study some of the better articles on Wikipedia and attempt to understand the meaning of neutral.

The nature of participation in the priesthood by blacks is one that evolved with several different prophets. They are distinctly different. Breaking the periods up by the period of leadership is both logical and helpful to the readers. It is also neutral; it reports facts and not a position or POV. The titles suggested are highly POV and attempt to follow a personal agenda rather than report facts.

I have no problem working with other editors and have a long history of positive relationships with neutral editors; however, I will not allow another article to be rewritten to meet a personal agenda or a skewed perception of religious history. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be using a different dictionary than you ... for "racism" mine says:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I think the LDS church's policy from 1860 to 1978 was clearly racist. There are tons of quotes from LDS presidents that are very, very racist ... and I don't see too many of them quoted in this article. But I suppose we could use the term "discriminatory" if that is more palatable. Noleander (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither word is acceptable because both are POV and fail policies of wikipedia. The topic is really focused on the priesthood in the LDS church. It is appropriate to review the priesthood in the Judeo-Christian tradition. From the very beginning the priesthood was limited to a select few. Under Moses only the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood; in the entire world it was the only group. Within orthodox Christianity only men could hold the priesthood from 325 until today with some exceptions in smaller Christian denominations. Within Mormonism all men could hold the priesthood initially. It then appears to have evolved into a phase when the priesthood could only be ordained to men no of African descent. In 1978 the policy of the church was formally changed to recognize that all worthy males could hold the priesthood. Those are the facts without putting wikipedia in the position of making a judgement.

What you are seeking is a judgment. The way that we observe wikipedia policies in this situation is quoting specific, reputable experts that state the policy was racist. That is acceptable because the expert is saying it is racist, not wikipedia. Do you see the distinction? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can provide citations from several notable critics saying that the church's policies were racist. Also, regarding citations: this article has many, many un-cited sentences and facts that need to be removed or cited. Maybe I'll tag some of those to get a clock ticking. Noleander (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand your "priesthood" comments. For over a century, the LDS church denied black members the opportunity to get married in the temples. This ended only in 1978, 13 years after passage of the Civil Rights act, and over a century after the 14th amendment. If a substantial number of blacks feel that that was a racist policy, then we need to capture that sentiment in this Wikipedia article. Noleander (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the priesthood I don't think are difficult to understand; since of the time of ancient Israel the priesthood has been restricted to a specific subset of individuals. However, have you ever heard anyone accuse ancient Israel of being racist or sexist? Why? What was different from what ancient Israel did and what LDS did under Brigham Young.

My only point is to ensure that Wikipedia does not take a position in any article; we report facts, we do not editorialize. In this topic we simply quote from reputable sources what they think about Blacks and the LDS church. I am still not sure you understand the distinction being drawn by Wikipedia, but let's move on and implement some edits.

Given your penchant for dates and how the policy changed "only" in 1978, it appears we might want to compare the LDS church's stance vis-a-vis other denominations, the Southern Baptists is particularly relevant. I think you will find most Evangelicals to fall into the same time period; given that context is would seem that the only real difference is that LDS allowed Blacks to be members of their church and all the others flatly rejected membership; there was no opportunity to hold the priesthood because the priesthood does not exist in these groups. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the priesthood ban did not only restrict blacks but also others who were not of the tribes of Ephraim. For example, Pacific islanders couldn't hold the melchizedek priesthood for many years. I agree with Storm Rider, that in comparison to the Southern Baptists, Mormon history on the matter is prettier. A comparison to similar time period should be included in the narrative of this article - as we forget the criticism of the SBC and collegiate sports issues for southern colleges, including Southwest Baptist University, during the same time period.

Also, I disagree that there are "tons" of "racist" statements by LDS Church presidents. I think you'll find limited ones from Young, Taylor perhaps Kimball (and perhaps isolated statements from Benson and JF Smith JR), but you'll find tears and grief on the topic and statements encouraging equality from Woodruff, Snow, JS Smith, McKay, GA Smith, JF Smith (Sr.), Lee, Snow, Grant, Kimball, Taylor and Hinckley. You'll even find kind statements toward Blacks from Young. It was a very complex and difficult topic for church leaders as well as church members - who were encouraged to participate in the Civil Rights movement. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Storm Rider and Visorstuff that there should be a comparison of racial policies of organizations (religious and otherwise) in the United States, this isn't the article for it. (Is there already such an article?) Said article should be linked to from this article. — Val42 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To not include a summary of the beliefs in the 1800's in this article is to then too easy to take comments out of context. What is fact is that some of the LDS leaders held similar, if not identical, beliefs as the majority of Christian churches in the US during the period. In fact, these beliefs continued up to the 1970's when churches, including the LDS church, made statements that clarified or changed previous positions. Omission results in a misunderstanding of history and context.

Including a brief comparison would also take the sword out of the hand of many critics that are ignorant history. They make a mountain out of a molehill without understanding that this position was common in US Christianity. In addition, context provides a format to explore the diverse beliefs that existed in the LDS church; it was not unified nor was it identical from Joseph Smith to the present. It is apparent that the position evolved over time until such time that specific revelation was sought for and received to clarify the final position the church.

Your recommendation of a separate article to go into more detail sounds intriguing. Do you know if there is not already such an article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the historical context as long as this article can be kept on topic. I don't see how it can be done, but go ahead and try; I'd like to be surprised.

As for the other article, I don't know if there is such an article. I did a preliminary search but didn't find any such article. This (not finding an existing article) has happened to me before when I haven't figured out the terms that are used to title the article. Make a few searches and if you don't find it, go ahead and create the article; you obviously know more about this subject than I do. If we or someone else finds the article we should have used, the two articles can always be merged. — Val42 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section titles are whitewashes

The section titles in this article do not accurately reflect the history of blacks in the LDS church. The section titles are odd: naming individuals, mostly presidents. This is highly POV (the comments after the name, e.g. "John Smith: beginning of a new era" or whatever). This article reads like a junior high school essay. This is wikipedia. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are tons if POV issues listed above (that no one took any issue with) that I'm starting to work on. It will take awhile. Be patient. Noleander (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your objectives are at odds with Wikipedia policy; I strongly suggest that your make your proposed changes here on the discussion page first before making them. Section titles are intended to treat topics in a neutral manner without already assuming a conclusion or taking a position. Your proposals are highly POV and are disputed in total.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, happy to suggest new section titles here. The big "missing" sections are

Racist policies 1870 to 1978
Utah sanctions slavery in 1852
Curse of Cain
Attitudes of blacks that are not members of LDS Church
David Jackson: LDS member rebuffed by Church leaders
BYU sports boycotts

And the existing sections:

[Titles with odd OR phrasing] change to years e.g. change "John Smith: start of a new era" to "1943-1952" or whatever.

Noleander (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the existing section titles: I'm willing to agree that a chronological approach to sections (moving forward from 1850 to present time) is fine. But one example of the problem with the current titles is the virtual absence of dates. The sections have "Joseph Fielding Smith" and "Kimball" and so on ... but the typical wiki reader will have no idea what decades are involved. Shifting to a date approach seems to give more information to the reader. For instance: "1960 to 1978 - Civil Rights era" would be okay. And then "1978 to 1982: Policy reversal" and so on. Noleander (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Noleander, I'd be careful about including "Utah" anything in this article - the article is not about Utahans and Blacks, but about the LDS church and blacks. Just because Utah "sanctioned" or "permitted" or whatever slavery is a completely different issue than the church. Utahans have a long-time record of having libertarian attitudes toward governmental laws. A good example of this is that Utah was the swing vote that repealed the US prohibition amendment, making it legal to produce and sell alcohol in the US again - even though as a populous church members believed in abstaining from alcohol. There are a number of political, social and religious factors that typically make scholars distinguish between Utah and Latter-day Saints - I think we should follow their lead and not bring in Utah policies on an article about the church.

I'd also like to see more on the contemporary beliefs of churches as a comparison. The section could discuss factors that influenced Mormon thought - including the controversies that led to the southern Baptist convention's founding, catholic church policies in the southern U.S., the dates that other congregations desegregated officially (most in the 1960s and 1970s), etc. For example, it IS significant that the Southern Baptist convention has officially made statements criticizing the LDS church for it's racism, yet, slavery was the core issue as to why SBC was founded, and they changed their policy toward segregated congregations in 1972 just six years prior to the Mormons. Yet, Methodists never officially had a policy toward blacks that I'm aware of, and typically naturally desegregated in the 1960s. The fact that Methodists and Mormons shared a close heritage of church government, practices, structure, and Mormons drew many converts from Methodism, this is significant as both groups promoted the civil rights movement over their pulpits, etc.

I'm not sure i have an opinion on section headers yet. I understand why the major figure in the era was included in the section titles, but i also agree that time periods would be wise. we need others to weigh in on this. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Utah sanctioned slavery" ... that paragraph was already in the article (under "Brigham Young" section) ... I was just suggesting that it deserved a named subsection. I'm not a Utah history buff, but I do recall reading somewhere that Brigham Young was governor of the Utah territory when Utah passed some law in 1852 sanctioning slavery. If that is correct (and I'm not saying it is) and if B.Y. was president of the LDS church at the time (and was more or less contemporaneously denying the priesthood to blacks) then, yes, I think that subject should be in this article. Noleander (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Brothels were also legal in Utah during the same time, but there is a clear split in Mormon thought between political and religious - particularly, as Deseret was trying to become a U.S. territory in 1852, and was trying to make compromises with specific senators to get accepted as such. And I could give a dozen more examples of where Utah laws during the 1850s-1877 were in direct conflict with church teachings, policies, etc. (Utah history during that time was my research and publication focus for about five years). There are too many factors and too many theories to tie Utah politics and Mormonism's treatment of political issues together during the time frame. Again, most historians will make sure to distinguish between the two. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More on the contemporary position of others, national context and the term "racist." Here is a statement that should probably be included from 1858:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This statement, like young's, discusses intermarriage, etc. However this statement is not by a Mormon, but another national figure, which shows the national context and view on interracial marriage during the time period (ironically enough, this statement was made six years after Young's). The only difference is that this discriminatory statement was made by another "racist" - Abraham Lincoln found here. The national view was, like most Northern abolitionist's view - they didn't even think blacks and whites were equals, but that slavery was wrong.

I think that if we said that Lincoln was a racist on this page, the statement would upset many. I certainly don't consider him a racist. It was a different time period, with different views. This is merely one reason why Storm Rider and I have issues with the term Racist and discrimination for this article. If you want to use the term, let's get them to use it at Abraham Lincoln. There is a double standard toward the LDS church on the matter of race, and I'm fine with including any term, as long as it is unilaterally used to describe other churches during the time and other prominent figures.

And let me also say that I find the views of Young and Lincoln very racist in my world view, and do not agree with them in any way. They are ugly and repugnant to me. However, I have a 21st century view, and theirs was a mid-19th century view, when most white people held ugly views. And yes, Lincoln and Young both held those ugly views, as did most white Americans. Here's a decent blog post that discussed 19th century religious views toward blacks -Visorstuff (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's more on the southern context of slavery and religious justification: http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html a couple chapters starting on page 259. -Visorstuff (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

New Section on A. David Jackson

I'm preparing a new section on A. David Jackson, the black LDS member who, in 1990s, tried to get the church leadership to issue a formal statement repudiating the past racist statements of church prophets. Does anyone have any info on what happened to him after 1999? Thanks in advance. Noleander (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Term needed for the policy

We need to come up with a term for "the policy of the LDS church from 1870 to 1978 of denying priesthood, sealing and endowment to persons with African ancestry". That term is needed in several places in the article. We need a uniform term or phrase. After it is mentioned once in a section, just saying "the policy" is sufficient. But when it is mentioned the first time in any section, the policy needs to be identified. Some possible terms are:

Anti-black policy
Discrimination policy
Curse of Cain policy
Anti-African policy
Priesthood and Ceremony denial policy
Racist policy
LDS black policy
Negro policy
Persons of African decent policy

We should pick one of these and use it uniformly thru the article. Any suggestions? Noleander (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "Priesthood limitation policy" or "Priesthood restriction policy" alternatively "persons of Black African descent" is technically the most correct. Bytebear (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Terms "Priesthood limitation policy" or "Priesthood restriction policy" seem to exclude the sealing and endowment policies. In other words, a reader might think "this section is only talking about the priesthood exclusion, and not addressing sealing and endowments.". The term I'm looking for would include priesthood _and_ sealing and endowment exclusions. Noleander (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But temple attendance was tied to priesthood. No man can enter a temple without being first ordained, even for baptisms for the dead. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I need some more education :-) Several editors have posted information saying that blacks (during the anti-black policy era) _could_ enter the temple and be baptized. It was only the marriage and sealing and Endowment (and a few other ceremonies) that blacks could not participate in. If that is correct, then you can see how the term we select cannot just be limited to "priesthood". Noleander (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Pre-1978 anti-black policy". This makes it clear to the casual reader that the LDS church no longer embraces the policy, and also captures the essence of the policy from African-American vantage point. I know "black" is not the most precise term (since mulattos were subject to the policy, but black polynesians were not), but at least in America it is a well-understood term that conveys the essence of the policy. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"anti-Black" is too pov. Many Mormons were involved in the Civil Rights movement, so the term implies something that wasn't there. Blacks were always welcome to join the church, attend services in non-segregated congregations (something that other Christians didn't allow). Also, as has been pointed out, the "racist" views were in line with the times, and even Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying similar things. So, you need to take out the context of "anti" and "racist" because they do not accurately depict the policy. And you MUST avoid "African American." It had nothing to do with America. It was global, and pressure to change didn't come from America (at least not in 1978 when the ban was lifted), but rather expansion into Brazil and Africa led to the change. Bytebear (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that most members of the LDS church don't think the term "anti-black" or "discriminatory" or "racist" fits the policy, but I believe most others would concur that those are accurate terms that belong in an encyclopedia in this context. I daresay that we don't have any African-Americans editing this page right now, but if we did, they would have some insights that you and I can't bring. Granted, other institutions in America had anti-black policies during this timeframe, but I believe it is common to use the words "discriminatory" or "Jim crow" or "anti-black" or "racist" to describe those policies. If this is a sticking point, we may want to bring in a mediator that can bring a fresh, outsider viewpoint. What about the term "Discrimination Policy" ... is that more acceptable? Noleander (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Black African lineage". Bytebear (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is okay to describe the people involved, but the term Im searching for (for use in this article) is a noun that identifies the 1870-1978 policy, not the people. Noleander (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the above suggestions completely capture what it was. It wasn't Anti-black or African, because blacks were welcome to join. It can't be called "African" or "black" properly because it affected other races at various times (Pacific Islanders, Oriental, Indians, etc.). I agree that black people were undoubtedly the most widely affected by this, but it does an injustice to others that were denied the priesthood or advancement in the priesthood. As stated above, it can't be called racist, unless you say Abraham Lincoln and other during the 19th century were racist. I've seen the term Negro policy in academia to refer to the policy from George Albert Smith's 1st presidency statement to Kimball's 1978 revelation. I think "Priesthood limitation policy" is too watered down because the temple is an extension of priesthood rites, we don't need to say "ordinance restriction." I do like "Racial priesthood restriction policy" or "racially restricted"- it is most descriptive. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive input! I think having only the word "priesthood" is not optimal for two reasons: (1) Typical readers of wiki would not know that "priesthood" includes the ability to get married in the church; (2) The word "priest" to many readers is a small fraction of men, whereas in LDS it is a nearly all men. I like your suggestion of "racially restricted" ... but we need to turn it into a noun phrase ... how about "Racially restricted policy" or "Policy of racial restrictions" or "racial restriction policy"? An example of its use in this article would be something like: "When the church lifted the racial restriction policy in 1978....". Not sure about capitalization of this ... I guess lower case since it is not an official phrase outside this article. Noleander (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are best off defining the "policy" in the intro and calling it "the policy" throughout the article. Saying "Racial restriction policy" makes it sound like a formal name. There was no official name for the policy, so "the policy" is probably the best compromise. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, but there are few downsides to using just "the policy": (1) many readers may just skim the Intro section, and get confused when they encounter the term "the policy"; (2) many wikipedia users jump around in the articles (skip the intro altogether) and we should try to help those readers as best we can by striving the make each section as "stand alone" as possible; (3) There are several policies discussed in this article, and "the policy" would be ambiguous. I think "the policy" would be useful in an article _about_ the policy, that is, for a Wikipedia article entitled "LDS African-descent person policy 1870 to 1978". In such an article "the policy" would be unambiguous. As you say, the LDS church did not have an official term for the policy, so we cannot capitalize any term we use. I think lowercase will indicate to readers that the phrase is simply a convention used within the article, as in "Elder XYZ spoke out against the racial restriction policy in a speech ..." or "Younger church members began to question the racial restriction policy ...". Noleander (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with that, as long as it isn't overused, and only for clarity, otherwise the article will be too wordy. Similar to using "the church" instead of the full name on every instance, we should use "the policy" unless clarity is required. Bytebear (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A good rule of thumb might be: Use the detailed phrase once at the first occurrence in a major section, thereafter use "the policy" (unless there are two policies being discussed at that point). Noleander (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree on the non-use of the term "priesthood." Rather than not use the term, we need to do a better job of explaining up front what the priesthood means in Mormonism. If not, we'll lead readers to believe that the racial restrictions was more than it was, and end up with more of this type of ignorance. Most of the readers of Wikipedia read the article from top to bottom, not skip around from paragraph to paragraph. If there are ambiguous statements and they are not reading sequentially, the any indirect statements in later paragraphs will encourage them to read more, thereby gaining a fuller understanding. We don't need more bigots like Lawrence O'Donnell who don't get it and apply this policy just to blacks and to church membership instead of what it was. Other than that, we are heading in a very good direction with the rest of the discussion, and I'll support the rest of the above... -Visorstuff (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting video. Did Lawrence know that George Romney (Mitt's father) marched with Martin Luther King? This should be in the article, as well as corrections that blacks were always members of the church from the onset, and crossed the plains with the pioneers (as free men and women). There was never segregation of congregants. That Mormons were primarily anti-slavery. That Christian and political leaders at the time were equally bigoted to race relations. What is sad is that no one on the panel knew enough about Mormonism to correct him. This article needs to fill that gap. Context is crucial to this article. Bytebear (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "priesthood restriction policy" is rather misleading to non-LDS readers (who would guess that it means that blacks could get baptized, but couldn't get married?). The phrase "racial restriction policy" seems informative and accurate to me ... it's a rather generic phrase that includes all the various aspects of the policy: priesthood, marriage and endowment. My impression is that the LDS church did not have the the Official List of What Blacks Could and Could Not Do. Under the policy, blacks could to some things that LDS priests could do; and were prohibited from doing other things that priests could do, true? How about "racial or priesthood restriction policy"? That phrase includes the word priesthood and seem to capture the essence of the policy. Noleander (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But blacks could be baptized and participate in all church activities. They could not attend the temple, which includes baptism for the dead, the endowment and marriage (although they could marry civilly). They could not hold priesthood leadership positions (but other positions (like Ward Clerk), Sunday school teacher, etc., could be done by blacks. The restriction was strictly based on priesthood, and nothing else. Perhaps you need a clarification of what activities and positions require priesthood. Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need more education about priesthood: Women cannot be priests, correct? So prior to 1978, when a black woman member of the church couldn't participate in certain temple ceremonies, was that based on priesthood restrictions? I guess I'm still not clear what the objection to "racial restriction policy" is? The phrase seems concise, accurate, and informative. Is there a concern that the word "racial" is too inflammatory because it is similar to "racist"? "Priesthood restriction policy" is misleading for the typical wikipedia reader for several reasons: (1) Most readers identify "priest" with a small fraction of the church men, whereas in the LDS church it is virtually _all_ males; (2) Most readers wont think that a "priesthood restriction" would prohibit members from getting married in the temple; (3) "Priesthood" implies that the restrictions apply only to men, but black women were equally affected. As I said before, it is likely that we editors are all white males, so it is hard for us to put ourselves in the shoes of blacks, and especially black females, but when selecting words for an encyclopedia, we have to do so. I understand that many other American institutions had discriminatory policies, and I would hope that Wikipedia articles on those institutions use candid, accurate words to document those past practices. How about "race-based restrictive policy" Noleander (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh - herein lays the problem. Not holding the priesthood in LDS practice means basically three things: 1 - you can't officiate in ordinances that pastors in normal churches would and 2 - you can't participate in the higher priesthood ordinances found only in the temples. 3-you couldn't be a bishop or president of a priesthood quorum (they could have even been be general church authorities, but just couldn't hold priesthood keys).

For example, many of the "latter rain" churches in America (a new non-denominational evangelical movement - mega church pastor Rick Joyner's group for example), don't let you participate in church leadership until you've been through training courses, and then only if you've "proven your self worthy" of leadership and are personally invited to participate. Look at the leadership of his home church, and tell me if you think he is discriminatory. What about those church conferences who require pastors to participate in paid training before becoming clergy, knowing that many blacks cannot afford such training? Is this discriminatory?

Priesthood, although essential to LDS church organization, in practice means one thing - congregational leadership, the same as other church groups. So your statement above that "all men" can hold the priesthood is also misleading. LDS doctrine on the matter is summed up in the article of faith: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." Just being a white man prior to 1978 didn't automatically mean that you would automatically hold the priesthood. You had to be called the ministry. Since 1978, there is a progression of sorts for MOST men that they will be able to hold the priesthood. I'm aware of dozens of cases where priesthood is not given to a man (actually, in every case I can think of it is a white man) because the revelatory approval is not there.

Blacks could still pray in church, participate in every activity, get married in a Mormon wedding ceremony (just not in the temple), could have their temple work done for them posthumously.

Women (of any race) are a completely different issue. I'd say there is not a gender restriction policy on the priesthood, but on holding priesthood keys and priesthood offices. But again, it is a different issue. Women (black and white) do have and officiate in priesthood ordinances, and are authorized to do so only in certain places and specific situations, such as in the temple. Historically, women may have stood in the circle when a child is blessed or even anointed with oil when a priesthood brother couldn't administer to the sick. However, women are not ordained to priesthood office, but are anointed to hold the priesthood with their husbands (for those who are married) in temples (unmarried women hold it in the hope to share with husbands when they are married). The women-priesthood issue is much more complex and it would be an arduous task to treat on wikipedia. This is a complex issue that scholars write hundreds of pages of essays on - see for example D. Michael Quinn's work on Women and the priesthood (groundbreaking research, but funky conclusions and narrative, in my humble opinion).

I will say that you just don't quite have a full grasp on the concept of priesthood as taught and practiced by the LDS Church, which limits your research and editing pretty heavily - as you grasp onto smaller emphasized statements that are exceptions to the rule rather than the mainstream in Mormonism. (Not meant to offend, just an observation from this conversation) I'd suggest reading Priesthood and Church Government by John A. Widstoe (published in the 1920s I believe) for starters. I'm not sure how many Mormons really have a solid understanding of it either, so you are in good company. Amazing how many church members don't read their own church's scriptures, as we should.... Bottom line the paragraph above is comparing apples to oranges. -Visorstuff (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess my point is that, although 90% of the restrictions on blacks may have been priest-related, the fact that there are some restrictions that are not (e.g. white LDS parents that adopted black children could not be sealed to the children) means that the restrictions were not entirely about the priesthood.

As an analogy, pretend a bigoted state passed a law saying "Mormons cannot eat in public restaurants" and described it as a "restaurant health law". As newspapers wrote stories about it, and persons talked about the restrictions, they would call them the "Mormon restrictions". No one (except the state, trying to justify the law) would focus on the restaurant aspect of the restrictions.

That is what appears to be the case here: The LDS church had some practices that treated blacks as inferiors, there were some religious justifications (pre-existence spirits, Curse of Cain, etc); most restrictions - but not all - focused on priesthood privileges. The church and its members prefer to call them "priesthood restrictions"; blacks prefer to call them "racial restrictions".

And the question facing us is: for an encyclopedia, aimed a general audience, what term do we use here? What do you think of "Priesthood racial restrictions" or "Pre-1978 priesthood racial restrictions"? Noleander (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Noleander, this is exactly what I'm talking about - your comparison is not a comparison - you don't quite understand what is being discussed. We are talking past each other. Incidentally, I'm fine with the term "racial restrictions," but it is more than just about blacks. It is about most Mormons being of the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh, who's right it was to hold the priesthood in the last dispensation (like only Levites could under the reforms of King Josiah). Incidentally, LDS parents who would have adopted black children could have them sealed to them, just not in a living ceremony - it would be done posthumously. No blessing in the eternities would be held those who don't hold the priesthood, only the current "blessing" of church leadership in mortality. And church leadership means 20-60 hours of church work on top of your normal career.

The issue is that the priesthood was limited to white Caucasians of certain European descent (and some American Indians) from 1852 until the early 1900s (doing genealogy, you'll find that many early Mormons are distantly related in family groups of royals- Young, Kimball, Smith, Pratt and Cowdery were related within six generations of each other, as were most church members of the Nauvoo period). Then it was gradually expanded to other races, including Orientals, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians from 1900s to 1950s. Then in the 1950s (it was actually GA Smith's first presidency statement in the 1940s) it became an issue just about blacks.

Using your example above of the restaurant law, it would be like saying only those with the last name of Smith, Jones, Johnson, Thomas, Walker and Brown can eat at the restaurant. As time goes on, it is expanded to be those who are traditional American names, as long as they aren't catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or Assembly of God. Then slowly they allow Catholic, then Jehovah's Witness, then Assemble of God then eventually Mormons. This is a more accurate depiction of what actually happened. Was it discriminatory in today's eyes? Yes. But it was a gradual unfolding and expansion of priesthood authority from a small-interconnected group. The issue was only directly about blacks for 30 years of the approximate 125-year "ban."

From an official standpoint, blacks were not treated by the church as inferiors. Some statements by MEP, BRMC and Brigham Young may have alluded to them not having equal standing in mortality (and I'm positive some church members were racist, as in any church during the time), but they were promised every blessing of any other member in the eternities if they were faithful, just as any other church member. Again, the difference in officiating in priesthood ordinances. The church did not teach they were second-class citizens, but that they would one day have all the blessings in mortality.

I appreciate that you are trying to grasp this concept, but you are not quite there yet, and are still way oversimplifying. A comparison would be like saying the only issue in the civil war was cotton (that's right, not slavery, not states rights, not right of succession, not fiscal policy, not voting issues, not manufacturing and not interstate tariffs, but cotton). One of my favorite quotes is "The first rule of historical criticism in dealing...is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader.... Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the [history] contains."

If we oversimplify this, we will do future generations an injustice, leaving them to have misperceptions as you have had. I do appreciate your effort to better understand this. -Visorstuff (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take you up on your offer when you say "Incidentally, I'm fine with the term "racial restrictions,". So for the immediate question of what phrase or term to use in the article to identify the policy that was started in late 1800's and ended in 1978, lets use that phrase. Noleander (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I suggested the term "Racial priesthood restriction policy" above. But do clarify in the text that it did apply to other groups of people. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag removal progress

Here is the status of the POV tag issues, in my opinion:

DONE Overall tone and balance are skewed: discussion of the racism that lasted over a century is not proportionally discussed
DONE Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non-priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978
DONE Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
DONE 1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there
DONE Some opinions/thoughts/quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978 (has some positive, but no negative)
DONE Priesthood discussion: Need more specificity about the discriminatory practices: what exactly were blacks prohibted from doing?
Some discussion of LDS views on miscegnation, esp after 1978.
Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
DONE Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
DONE Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative
DONE Uncited OR/opinion-type language must be removed, such as "However, with the calling of Martins as a seventy, the church had, it may be argued, gone full circle on this issue. The African American policy evolved in a peculiar way, from exclusion, which was the status quo of the time, to equality, which is the ideal for the future"

So it appears that there are just a couple of items left (7) and (8), and then I would be comfortable with removal of the POV tag. Of course, if anyone feels the pendulum has swung the other way, they can simply re-add the tag. Noleander (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Item (8) is done, and (7) is partially done, so I'm removing the POV tag that I added. If anyone thinks the pendulum swung too far the other way, feel free to re-add the POV tag. Noleander (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reference

I found this reference and thought it had some interesting things. I will summarize them for use in the article:

According to sociologist Amand L. Mauss, a president of the Mormon History Association, the church's racist beliefs originated within protestant denominations from which many Mormons converted. He said in 1998: "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham." - Bill Broadway, "Black Mormons Resist Apology Talk," Washington Post, 1998-MAY-30, Page B09. See: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lds_race.shtml
- Cain is described in the book of Genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) as a son of Adam. Cain was jealous of his brother Abel, because God had rejected Cain's offering, while accepting Abel's. In Genesis 4:8, he is described as having "attacked his brother Abel, and killed him."
- Ham is described in Genesis 9 as a son of Noah who had seen his father naked. Ham himself was not punished. But Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed. Genesis 9:25-27: <bockquote>"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'."
- This became known as the Curse of Ham.
- Most Christians found it convenient prior to the 19th century to assume that the Curse of Ham was to continue to all of Ham's African descendents. This justified human slavery.
- The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice.
The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress because of the fact that the Bible taught something that was apparently against the will of God. Beliefs of the inferiority of blacks died a slow death among the leading denominations.
Non-racist statements in the Book of Mormon
- 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." 10
- 2 Nephi 26:33: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 10
- 3 Nephi 27:14 & 15: "And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works."

Note, I am leaving out some things in the article that are incorrect. The Book of Mormon does not say anything about African Americans (or blacks in general) at all. It goes on to quote some 1800s statements about the black intermarrying and being worthy in the pre-existence, but interestingly enough it does not quote McConkie who basically said that after the 1978 revelation, all of those ideas needed to be abandoned. (can someone find this quote?) I think we can add that information, but it needs to be balanced with the context of the time, and a strong emphasis that the concepts were never "canon" and were almost universally rejected after the ban was lifted.

Civil Rights statements in the 1960s
"During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.

We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man." - 1963-OCT-06, General Conference

"The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."
"Next, we must not participate in any so-called "blacklash" activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.
"We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them." - Mormon racism in perspective: An example for possible future changes in policy relating to women and gays," at lds-mormon.com a non-official LDS website.

I don't know how we can incorporate this, but it might be interesting. The article definitely has a push toward gay rights, which is fine by me, but I don't want that to influence this article. I would rather use the primary references than this article directly as a reference. Much of the information comes from lds-mormon.com which is not a primary source, so I hope we can use the information but get primary references directly. Bytebear (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of that 1960 - 1963 text (3 paragraphs up) is already in the article in Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Civil Rights Movement Noleander (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies on interracial marriages

I'm looking for cites on church policies on interracial marriages: pre-1978 and post-1978. Can anyone point me at some church doctrine? Noleander (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't find church "doctrine" on the matter as there isn't any "doctrine" on the matter (you may want to read a short discussion on what is LDS Church doctrine found here. Nor has their ever been. However, you may find some isolated statemements of church leaders. I'd start at the Genesis group's site. -Visorstuff (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word priest

Various editors have used the word priest when speaking of ordination to the priesthood. It should be noted that a priest in the LDS Church is generally 16-17 years old or a newly baptized member. It is one of the offices in the priesthood. Better terminology would be ordained to or holding the priesthood. See Priest (Latter Day Saints). Alanraywiki (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake: I've fixed it per your suggestion. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent sentences on temple admission for blacks

There are two sentences in the article (not written by me .. they've been there awhile) that say that black church members could not enter temples prior to 1978. On the other hand, there is one sentence saying they could go into temples, but just couldn't participate in certain rituals. Does anyone have a citation to a written church policy on that issue? Or was temple admission policy enforced in an ad hoc manner, so some temples in some years didn't permit black church members to enter, but other temples in other times did? In any case, we need to tweak the text in the article to be more precise and consistent. Noleander (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

it really depends on the decade. It was inconsistent. -Visorstuff (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question would be about baptisms for the dead. Currently (I don't know if that was always the case) a male must hold the priesthood in order to be the proxy in these baptisms, so it could be that black males were not able to be the proxy in these baptisms. What about black females who had no such restrictions? Could they participate? Alanraywiki (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that both groups could do baptisms for the dead, but would have to double check. Incidentally, you do not need the Aaronic priesthood to do baptisms, in fact, the minimum age for years was 8 years, and currently new male converts can without holding the Aaronic priesthood. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I did not know that. I thought they had to have the Aaronic priesthood. Interesting... In that case, I would agree that blacks (both male and female) could do baptisms in the temple. Was that always in practice though? Also, could black women take their endowments prior to 1978? I suspect it was common practice for women to not do so unless they were getting married, so, in essence, the interracial marriage issue would creep in. But I don't really know of the details, and I believe they are hard to come by. Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked. Currently, a male must hold the priesthood in order to do baptisms for the dead. It would still be good to know if black women could participate because I think that may change this article somewhat to being more of a priesthood issue. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanraywiki - I just double checked the new gray CHI - you are correct, that a male 12 years old and older currently needs to hold the AP to receive a limited use recommend. Wow. However, males can enter the temple between the ages of 8 and 12 without holding it (but at this time can't do B4tD). This has not always been the case, but it makes sense, as the same worthiness standards to enter the temple are similar to holding the AP. Historically, this has not always been the case. As i mentioned earlier, it used to be church policy that anyone 8 and up could do baptisms at the temple. I'm actually glad they changed the policy. Thanks for out and correcting me. -Visorstuff (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Direction of article

Well it now looks like we have every complaint ever written about the LDS church and Blacks from an anti-Mormon point of view. We now need to add reality to the article by addressing the growth of the church among black people throughout the word. We should also add a multitude of statements by these black saints for why they feel the church is true to balance the large number of quotes by those who have attacked the church. The article will turn into a giant article, but at least it will find a modicum of balance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Format, title, and article content

The article title is at odds with the article. The article seems to only focus on the priesthood and how others have viewed it as discriminatory. It is not about the relationship of the LDS church with black people. The title may need to be changed or the article needs to be balanced in reporting on Blacks and the LDS church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to represent the relationship of LDS church to blacks very accurately. This is manifested in several ways:

The article proceeds chronologically, from about 1847 to present time (that organizational scheme was established by an LDS editor over a year ago), and the racial restrictions were in place from arount 1860 to 1978. So we have 13 years of roughly equal treatment; 118 years of discrimination; then 29 years of equal policy (not to say equal treatment). The text in the article mirrors those proportions.
Published resources (books, web sites, etc) that discuss the relationship between the LDS church and blacks contain, roughly, 90% discussions of the racial restrictions and about 10% on the how the church currently has an equal-treatment policy.
The article contains information in proportion to what wikipedia readers are coming to Wiki to learn about. Anecdotally, it seems that the vast majority of people are curious about the LDS churches past discriminatory treatment of blacks, so it makes sense for the article to mirror that interest.
The article has sections on the following "LDS friendly" topics and individuals: [Reformatted with bullets after initial edit]
Elijah Abel
Walker
Jane Manning James
Green Flake
Samuel D. Chambers::*Wynetta Willis Martin
Church support of Civil Rights movement
Mary Lucille Bankhead.
Helvécio Martins
Growth in Africa
Humantarian aid to Africa
Genesis group
Gladys Knight

Although the content of this article may be embarrassing to LDS church members, it is a violation of POV policy to swamp the article with "uncle tom" (not my words: the words of about a dozen African-American LDS critics I could cite) anecdotes in an attempt to hide the church's past racial practices. Noleander (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to only have a negative article about the LDS church; it seems to be a personal preference, but it is one that violates NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not a personal blog and is not used to promote an agenda. More importantly, I don't give a flying fig what critics of the LDS church think or feel or about they might think "Uncle Tom" stories might or might not exist. What is clear is that this article has been slanted to highlight/focus/scream negative anecdotes and stories. It does not explain the relationship of the LDS church today with people of African heritage. Items missing are:

growth of the church in Africa
temples in Africa
Perceptions of black members of the church today
why does the church continue to grow among blacks given its "racial" practices as perceived by critics?

I know it is frustrating to critics of the LDS church to be faced with reality, but I think that is a personal problem and is not a concern of wikipedia and its policies on balance and NPOV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You point out four things missing in the article. I agree that all four of those topics could be enhanced. The article already has a start on them:

Growth in Africa: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Expansion in West Africa: 1940 to present
Temples in Africa: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Expansion in West Africa: 1940 to present
Perceptions of black members today: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Wynetta Willis Martin and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Gladys Knight and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Reaction of black church member Mary Lucille Bankhead and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Notable black Mormons and Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Genesis Group
Why does church grow among blacks: see Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Critics claim church hides racist past

But you are correct that all four of those areas could be enhanced. Noleander (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is off. Genesis group was founded in 1971, but it is in the post 1978 section, implying it was started after the ban was lifted. Clearly the church was reaching out to black members prior to 1978. Bytebear (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on number of black members

The article indicates that the number of black members has been estimated to be 500,000. Actually, it appears that the source cited in note 1 indicates that approximately that number have African roots, not that they are necessarily black. It does not indicate if they are white individuals from, for example, South Africa. Individual church records do not include the race of a member (but they do include place of birth), so how would the number of black members be determined? Alanraywiki (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cant help there. That 500,000 figure and 5% figure have been in the article for a while ... I didn't put them in. I have done some research and the official LDS statistics are headcounts only: the church doesn't identify members by race, so the church doesn't produce racial stats. I'm sure some people familiar with LDS growth, demographics or global distribution could come up with a rough estimate ... perhaps that is where the 5% came from? Noleander (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There are several secondary sources being cited as if they were primary sources. This needs some clean up. For example, the article says (paraphrasing) "In 1969, the Apostles voted to remove the ban, but Harold B. Lee reversed the decision." The reference is Quinn, but what is his reference? The sentence should say something like "According to author Quinn, the apostles supposedly voted to remove the ban..." Unless there is a primary source, you cannot state this as fact. I would be interested to know where Quinn got his facts though. Bytebear (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy should be used as a secondary source. When FARMS scholar Duane Boyce reviewed the book, he said "In too many ways it both misleads and distorts; sad to say, it appears to be a book that cannot be read innocently or with conﬁdence." [1] Let's try to only use WP:Reliable Sources.Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite needed

Bytebear:can you please provide a cite for:

After the ban was lifted, he rescinded all of his past statements relating to the matter.

Most assertions in this article are cited, and we should try to keep to that high standard. Also, that assertion should probably go down farther in the article, which proceeds chronologically: the early parts of the article explain how the restrictions got established and justified; then later in the article are the reversals, etc. Noleander (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking, but this reference should be utilized extensively. Bytebear (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

“There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.”

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.” - Bruce R. McConkie, 1978 (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator’s Symposium, August 17-19, 1978)[2] </blockqutoe>

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Redundant quotes?

JoshuaJohnson: I see you added some quotes to "Interracial marriage policies after 1978". The two quotes seem almost identical in substance (to the latter seems more comprehensive). Is there some way you could pick one or the other: this article is rather large already. Any given point could be supported by 10, 20 or more quotes. It is best to pick the most informative quote and use it. An exception might be applicable if two quotes were significantly different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Noleander (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the quote as redundant. If I am reading this correctly, one quote is from 1978, and another based on current church policy, but I could be reading things wrong. Bytebear (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One is to show that in 1978 there was no problems with interracial marriage and the other to show there had not been anything since 1978. By the way, I do not like the way it is spilt up into before 1978 and after 1978. That implies that the revelation on the priesthood included something about interracial marriages. Even in 1965 Kimball said there was no condemnation in it. I also don't like the terminology calling policy. Was it ever policy? Brigham Young obviously taught against it, and Peterson obviously had his views, but that doesn't make it policy, especially in light of Kimball's remarks. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The timeline format isn't ideal. There are many issues that do not coincide with the 1978 revelation, and they need to be addressed separately. Bytebear (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper article

JoshuaJohnson: the newspaper article you deleted was printed in the SAME EDITION of the newspaper as the article announcing the reversal. Clearly church authorities wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, they didn't want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage. Noleander (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, the Church News is not the official newspaper of the church. You cannot make any assumptions on what the church authorities did or did not want to let the people know because they do not print the paper. It is printed by the Deseret Morning News, which happens to be owned by the church, so it obviously favors the church, but you cannot interpret anything it does as being done by the church. It can only report on what has been previously said, and that is what it did. It reported on a statement given in 1965, and hence should go in the pre-1978 statements. It may be that the editor of the newspaper wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, he didn't want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage, but that was the editor of the newspaper's call and cannot be taken as church doctrine. It did not report any statement by church leaders after 1978 and should therefore go in the pre-1978 section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. I've updated the text to reflect that the paper is not the official paper of the church. Noleander (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young started it?

JoshuaJohnson: you changed a key word in the Brigham Young section, and your comment says there is some debate over which church leader started the racial ban. All the reference works I've seen on the subject say it was Brigham Young. Do have some citations that show otherwise? If so, could you please provide them? Thanks. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young was the first leader we have record of that denied the priesthood based on race, but several people, like John Taylor concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young. (see Neither White nor Black, 77–78) If you want to read up on different theories on how the ban got started, see the FAIR wiki entry on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajohanson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Young may have started it, but there is no smoking gun declaration or revelation. Remember, in LDS practice only the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles can declare doctrine. This was not done with the ban, but it was done to reverse it. So, maybe it was Young, or he and a few other leaders, but we will never know because there is no written declaration. Bytebear (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this sentence here?

What does this have to do with this article's topic? "Today, even non-Mormons can be leaders of an LDS Boy Scout troop." Noleander (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is significant because it shows that the position is a secular one and not a religious one. It is the only church calling that I know of that can be held by a non-Mormon (although I could be wrong). Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather irrelevant to the article to me. But if it is important to you, we need to add some text to clarify the point (as it stands now, it is a bit of non sequitur), something along the lines of: "Church policy prohibited non-church members from holding troop leadership positions until year XXXX". What year did that change? If you let me know, I can add that sentence. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.