Jump to content

Talk:Black people and Mormonism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Mark E. Petersen's Quote: I am focusing on the title
Line 93: Line 93:


::[[Ten Commandments in Catholic theology]] (an FA) does have some quotes from popes and Catholic apologists. We're not trying to reflect only the "official" position (that's covered pretty well in [[Black people in Mormon doctrine]], though there is debate about how useful that page is). I think this page should consider statements that reflect historical cultural beliefs of Mormons about blacks even if they weren't in official church publications (i.e., in letters, BYU devotionals, etc.). Would you agree? [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
::[[Ten Commandments in Catholic theology]] (an FA) does have some quotes from popes and Catholic apologists. We're not trying to reflect only the "official" position (that's covered pretty well in [[Black people in Mormon doctrine]], though there is debate about how useful that page is). I think this page should consider statements that reflect historical cultural beliefs of Mormons about blacks even if they weren't in official church publications (i.e., in letters, BYU devotionals, etc.). Would you agree? [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

:::Rachel, I respect your desire for the article to include what some Mormons believed about Blacks; however, that is not the title of the article. I suggest you propose a title for the article that would reflect your desired direction. I will support one that would include your objectives, but the current title sets parameters that does not seem to include your objectives. Or am I missing something? If I just read the title I would assume I was going to read about what/how Black people interacted, participated, experienced Mormonism. --<sup>[[user:Storm Rider|'''''<font color="01796F">Storm</font>''''']]</sup>[[User talk:Storm Rider#top|'''''<font color="1C39BB">Rider</font>''''']] 01:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:32, 3 February 2017


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

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

Criticism of civil rights

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

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

Another needed source

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

Mark E. Petersen's Quote

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, let's discuss Mark Petersen's quotes. On the one hand, he was an apostle when he said those things, and ignoring them seems like hiding an important, if offensive, part of church history. On the other hand, the direct quotes place undue emphasis on his outlying opinion. Maybe we can move the direct quotes to the Mark E. Petersen page and summarize them here? Does anyone else have opinions on the Petersen quotes? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving quotes that belong to an individual rather than the LDS Church makes sense. The accusation of "hiding" quotes of individuals who do not speak for a church, any church, makes for good propaganda, but that is not the standard used for any scholarly article UNLESS you specifically state that the quotes have nothing to do with the actual position of a church, organization, etc. If you are going to talk about Mormonism you have to address Mormonism as a whole and not the actions/statements of individuals. The Community of Christ and all the other smaller splinter groups have a wide variety of positions.
I don't see anything similar on the Catholic page or any other article about an organization. It is strange that this specific church has a different standard; why? --StormRider 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments. even before the days of the correlation committee, an apostle's statements especially in absense of countervailing statements by other prophets would be expected to speak for the church expect for situations which specifically need the prophet to indicate what revelation. I'm fine with countervailing statements by other apostles, Spenser W. Kimball would be particularly appropriate, but many should remain here.
As for the Catholics, I'm not aware of any official or even publicized unofficial rules that would have prevented those of african descent from holding high office in the Roman Catholic Church, but would look forward to an article on it. The only other group I can think of would be the Southern Baptist Convention. As for information on other branches(proper term) other than the LDS and one specific FLDS, I'd love to see that added.Naraht (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Commandments in Catholic theology (an FA) does have some quotes from popes and Catholic apologists. We're not trying to reflect only the "official" position (that's covered pretty well in Black people in Mormon doctrine, though there is debate about how useful that page is). I think this page should consider statements that reflect historical cultural beliefs of Mormons about blacks even if they weren't in official church publications (i.e., in letters, BYU devotionals, etc.). Would you agree? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel, I respect your desire for the article to include what some Mormons believed about Blacks; however, that is not the title of the article. I suggest you propose a title for the article that would reflect your desired direction. I will support one that would include your objectives, but the current title sets parameters that does not seem to include your objectives. Or am I missing something? If I just read the title I would assume I was going to read about what/how Black people interacted, participated, experienced Mormonism. --StormRider 01:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]