Talk:Black people and Mormonism

Proposal to move "before 1847" text into "Blacks and LDS movement" article. Okay?

I propose to move the "before 1847" text from this article into the "Blacks and LDS movement" article, for a few reasons:

• 1) Pre-1847 stuff is more appropriate in the "Movement" article that in this article

• 2) That Movement article already has a small mention of the 3 individuals, so it is better co-located

• 3) This article is much larger than the other article, so any (sensible) balancing that can be done is a Good Thing.

Let me know if there are any concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to summarize the information here while moving the section to the other article. There is value in seeing the contrast between what was happening prior to BY and then his actions. Does that make sense? --^StormRider 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Also, there is already a subsection in this article named "Notable early black church members" (near the bottom) which has some possible overlap with this text under discussion. It is rather fuzzy because the 3 individuals were associated with JS before JS's death, but 1 or 2 of them moved to Utah later, so those individuals are relevant to both the "Movement" as well as the COJCOLDS. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this: I create a summary of these 3 individuals, and put the summary into the existing "Notable early black church members" section. But only if the individual moved to Utah. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That works, but it would help to clarify that BY was changing or creating new policy in regards to Blacks and the priesthood. I did not reivew the BY section, but we could easily summarize something there and put the individuals down below. --^StormRider 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the change. Feel free to review and tweak it. --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Slavery section: re-add sentence that Legislature was mostly comprised of church leaders

In the section on Slavery, this article currently has the sentence:

" In 1852, while Brigham Young was governor, the Utah Territorial Legislature officially sanctioned slavery in Utah Territory."

The article, at this point, used to have a sentence to the effect: "The Territorial Legislature at that time was comprised almost entirely of Mormon church leaders". This sentence was supported by citations from several decent history books.

I propose to re-insert that sentence, the purpose of which is to show that church leaders, in their role as Legislators, passed a law approving slavery, at a time when states (and territories) in the nation were deciding whether or not to endorse slavery.

That seems like an important point to make in an article about Blacks and the LDS church. Any comments on this proposal? --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: tighten up "Slavery in Scripture" section

I propose to tighten up two subsections: "Slavery in Scripture" and "Quotes from church leaders on Slavery". They seem overly verbose and detailed, relative to the rest of the article.

Here is the existing text from those subsections:

Slavery scripture

See also: Christianity and slavery LDS scripture has various views on slavery. The Old Testament has stories of slavery, and gives rules and regulations on how to treat slaves. The New Testament tells slaves not to revolt against their masters. It was a commonly held belief in the South that the Bible permitted slavery. However, the Doctrine and Covenants condemns slavery, teaching "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:80) The Book of Mormon heralds righteous kings who did not allow slavery, (Mosiah 29:40) and righteous men who fought against slavery (Alma 48:11). The Book of Mormon also describes an ideal society that lived around AD 34-200, in which it teaches the people "had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 4:3). The Pearl of Great Price describes a similar society, in which "they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). Mormons believed they too, were commanded by the Lord to "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). For a short time, Mormons lived in a society with no divisions under the United Order.

Statements from church leaders

During a sermon criticizing the federal government, Young said, "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."[13]

In 1851, Apostle Orson Hyde said:

We feel it to be our duty to define our position in relation to the subject of slavery. There are several in the Valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them. There is no law in Utah to authorize slavery, neither any to prohibit it. If the slave is disposed to leave his master, no power exists there, either legal or moral, that will prevent him. But if the slave chooses to remain with his master, none are allowed to interfere between the master and the slave. All the slaves that are there appear to be perfectly contented and satisfied.

When a man in the Southern states embraces our faith, the Church says to him, if your slaves wish to remain with you, and to go with you, put them not away; but if they choose to leave you, or are not satisfied to remain with you, it is for you to sell them, or let them go free, as your own conscience may direct you. The Church, on this point, assumes not the responsibility to direct. The laws of the land recognize slavery, we do not wish to oppose the laws of the country. If there is sin in selling a slave, let the individual who sells him bear that sin, and not the Church.[14]

Please let me know if you have any suggestions. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the church's practice was to have members who owned slaves give the slave to the church as tithing, and then have the slave work off his freedom, thereby eliminating slavery by church members, yet, not denying them compensation, and allowed the slave to earn his own freedom. I think it relates to Smith's idea of having the Government purchase the slaves, thus ending slavery. It was a platform of his presidential bid. Do we have information on both issued, and have them covered (if they are not already). Bytebear (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of that concept you discuss: Certainly if it was an important principle of the LDS history, we should get it in the encyclopedia. Which article? Probably better in the sister article "Blacks and LDS movement" which is - more or less - stuff from before 1847. This article here is mostly about post-JS-death topoics. I take it you have no opinion on my suggestion above to tighten up those 2 subsections? --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As to tightening up the Biblical slavery section, I think it is suffice to say that the church was not unusual in it's view of slavery, and like other religious groups of the period, used the Bible to justify the practice. However, I think the church stemming from an abolitionist position was probably more sympathetic to slaves than other churches, while at the same time taking a position of more or less "live and let live" in regards to the continuing practice, so long as slave owners had laws governing the treatment of slaves. Bytebear (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback ... I like the summary you give here, maybe I'll try to re-work it into something that is concise and encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain fact tags in intro paras?

J-johnson: could you please explain the recent fact tags in the intro paragraph(s) of a section (that you just added)? It looks like the statements are elaborated on later in the subsections, with cites, true? I dont know if it is customary for intro statements to have cites, when the intro statement will be elaborated on (with cites) a few paragraphs later. I suppose we could copy the later cites and duplicate them in the intro sentence. Dont forget, this is supposed to read like an encyclopedia: with intro making broad statements, then getting more detailed later.

Or did you put the fact tags in because you think the statements are actually incorrect? If so, could you propose a better wording that you think is more accurate? --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

.. and the fact tag in "Young's adoption of the racial restriction policy" saying that "Young never mentioned Smith ..." is asking editors to disprove a negative. There may be no cite for that statement: the burden is on editors who know that Young _did_ mention Smith to correct the sentence. In other words, consider the sentence "Young never travelled to Alaska". Should that have a cite? No, because the absence of info to the contrary is sufficient. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was writing my reasonings and did not see this section. I don't think the statements are actually correct. I think the lack of evidence is NOT sufficient to say that he never did. This is one of my points. Do we really know what all Young said and what he did not say? Was everything he said recorded? Us as Wiki editors cannot base some conclusion just off of the fact that we can't find anything to the contrary. That is called original research. Saying Young did not do something needs a cite. Otherwise it is OR. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I did not write that subsection on "who originally started the policy". Im just trying to make it read well. Some other editor, apparently, concluded that Young started the policy, not Smith. If you know better, or want to re-word it, go ahead. But this article is several years old, it really shouldnt have any fact tags at this point. Perhaps some LDS historian editor could jump in here and clarify who originated the policy. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know better, otherwise I would have changed it to the correct answer, but if we don't have a reliable source, then I don't think it should be in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the fact tags doesn't solve anything. I'll reword it to make sure it doesn't make any claim not supported by reliable sources. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact needed tag

Do we really know when Young started to espouse the racial policy? Are we positive that it was Young who formulated it, and not some other person in the leadership who formulated. I was always under the impression that we weren't exactly sure when or how the racial policy was formulated. Is there some additional information I am unaware of? I think we need to be very careful about what we say about the intents of historical figures. Historians maybe have their opinions, but we should report that as their opinions. Also, I am very skeptical about reporting what Quinn says happened behind closed doors about Lee blocking the priesthood when he came back. The validity of The Mormon Hierarchy has come under question [1]. I don't know if we can use it as a reliable source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I defer to LDS historians as to who/when the policy was started. My point was simply quality of the article: The article is trying to establish a key fact of who and when started the policy. My recollection is that the article used to say something like "It is not certain who first established the policy: it may have been Young, or perhaps Young was implementing a policy first suggested (but not documented by) Smith". The point is: We dont need to have several fact tags. Good editors have already written the subsections (I did not write them) and it appears that the consensus is that Young created the policy in 1849/1851 timeframe. If that is not accurate, we should disucss that here on the Talk page.

As for Quinn as a source, I believe he is very reputable. If you have contrary information on the "Blocking the change", perhaps you could find a citation and add it into that "Blocked" subsection? --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who started it, if there is no reputable source then we can't keep it in there. If good editors had written the subsections then they would have included a reliable reference. Otherwise, it is called original research. Even if there is a consensus on original research. As for Quinn, I don't think he is reputable. His works have been challenged. At the very least we should say that The Mormon Hierarchy reports that Lee blocked the change, but that the validity of the book has been questioned. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is uncertainty about the origin of this policy. However, this encyclopedia needs to say _something_ about it. It could be

• Young started the policy in year XXX
• Smith started the policy in year YYY
• No one knows who started the policy or when.
• The majority of historians think Young started the policy, but a minority think blah blah.

Simply deleting an introductory paragraph reduces the quality of the encyclopedia. Can you suggest an alternative intro paragraph that improves the readability of this article, and yet does not contain any inaccurate information? --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I just added a fact needed tag. I didn't delete it nor did I suggest deleting it. I would be fine with "No one knows who started the policy or when" which seems to be the best solution with conflicting evidence. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[un-indent] As for Quinn, by most accounts, his accuracy is very, very high. He is cited for much LDS material in this encyclopedia. I dont think we should find every statement that is from Quinn and add "but the source of this statement is considered unreliable by XYZ". That is not encyclopedic. We need to focus on the Lee issue: Do we have any sources that say Lee did _not_ block the policy? Decades have gone by since then: Wouldn't Lee or some other official (who was at the meeting) have corrected Quinn in a document or speech? If it really, really is an issue for you, I suppose we could put your note about Quinn's reputation in the footnote that cites Quinn .. but even that would be abnormal for this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to write, "Quinn believes XYZ" and let the reader decide for themselves what credibility the analysis bears. This goes for all historical analysis, including Bushman, Shipps, etc. Bytebear (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Especially with authors that have been identified as being on one side or the other. Both should be subject to review. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree. These "criticism of .." articles are old, and the content is mature. The time has come for all editors to turn towards the task of making the text more readable and neutral. The article should contain simple declarative sentences "Lee was absent from a meeting ... blah blah". Inserting the source of the fact is a back-handed way of saying "see, this is my opponents source, he's not very trustworthy". That may be okay for some extremist source, but this is Quinn. I suggest we move away from the "he said, she said" style of these articles and make them more polished.

On the specific question of this "Lee blocked ..." paragraph: perhaps we could spend our time, rather than editing the text, questioning LDS historians. Could one of you (who has issues with the Lee paragraph) send an inquiry to the LDS group here on Wiki to see if they have any info on the matter? Or inquire to the official LDS historian's office and get some input? That is where our effort should be directed, instead of back-and-forth editing. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

... also, do either of you have a copy of Quinn's "Extensions of Power"? If so, could you provide the text from that book (on page 14?) that discusses the Lee incident? And, does Quinn have a source/footnote on p. 14 that says where he (Quinn) got the Lee info? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Blacks and the modern LDS church. For Blacks and the early Mormon movement, see Blacks and Mormonism.

The title reads Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we are changing what the article is about, we should change the name. Standard wiki procedure will typically summarize the information that is contained in greater detail in another article. As it stands this article is supposed to be about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which wound include the early church. If we want to exclude the early church, I suggest we rename the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what your point is. Is there some edit you are refering to? There used to be a single article on Blacks and Mormonism, and it got split into two articles: (1) stuff specific to modern LDS church (more or less post-1847 stuff); and (2) LDS Movement (more or less stuff pre 1847). In terms of encyclopedia quality, we should try to avoid too much duplication and put the Joseph Smith-related topics into the Movement article, tho if there is a good reason to put some in this article, that is okay, but it should be a good reason. --Noleander (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think Editor GOGDEN was a key player in breaking the Black article and the Criticism of LDS article into the two articles: Movement vs modern-LDS church. Or maybe it was Descartes1979? Anyway, maybe the editor(s) that did the break-up could provide some insight into your concern. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What prompted it was the removal of JS's statements about slavery, but I noticed that hardly any of early Mormon context is in there. I realize there is a whole other article about the early Mormon church, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can't write an article about Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not mention JS's teachings on the subject. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to summarize the early church and with a heading that directed readers to the main article. That is how it is done other places in Wikipedia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The intention was that the section in this article called "Before 1847" would be that summary of the pre-1847 stuff. It has a "main" tag linking to the "Blck s and Movement" article. If you want to beef-up that section in this article, please go ahead. Note that this article is a bit on the large size, so having quotes from JS in that summary section may be inappropriate (since the quotes are already (or - if not - should be )in the other "Blk and Movement" article). --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Slavery in Scripture" section needs work

The "Slavery in Scripture" section needs work. Right now, it is a mish-mash of odd sentences, some having little relation to slavery, some not from scripture. I propose to improve to be more focused and relevant. Here is the section now:

LDS scripture has various views on slavery. The Old Testament has stories of slavery, and gives rules and regulations on how to treat slaves. The New Testament tells slaves not to revolt against their masters. It was a commonly held belief in the South that the Bible permitted slavery. However, the Doctrine and Covenants condemns slavery, teaching "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:80) The Book of Mormon heralds righteous kings who did not allow slavery, (Mosiah 29:40) and righteous men who fought against slavery (Alma 48:11). The Book of Mormon also describes an ideal society that lived around AD 34-200, in which it teaches the people "had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 4:3). The Pearl of Great Price describes a similar society, in which "they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). Mormons believed they too, were commanded by the Lord to "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). For a short time, Mormons lived in a society with no divisions under the United Order.

Any comments or suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that Mormonism teaches that we need to be one, and that the idea of slavery cannot coexist with this teaching. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New Article in SLTribune on slavery

New Article in SLTribune on slavery and the early Mormon Church written by award-winning historian Pat Bagley

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.115.90 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

source 71

I wish to bring into question the reliability of source #71 (Quinn's book). Should the article include information from this book if there is no other reliable source to prove it? Since the section it sources, in my opinion, is controversial, I think that either 1. the section is removed, or 2. another reliable source is found for it. Of course this is just my opinion, and I would like to know what others think. Spalds (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not excited by Quinn as a source; he gets into fringe areas quite easily. However, in this situation, he is correct. Hugh B. Brown autobiography written by his son also discusses this topic and Lee's influence on keeping the status quo. I have HBB's book, but did not find it as I just perused my library. However, I will look for it and give the reference. --^StormRider 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be an excellent source. Spalds (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If it is written by his son it is not an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But if is co-authored by his son it is.

Should we break up the article?

I think I read somewhere that once an article gets above 100,000 bytes it in general should be split. We are over that limit, and loading the article can take a while. I am wondering if there might be ways to either split up the article or have some sections only breiefly cover their topics and then have a link going to a more indepth coverage of that issue. In some ways we have that going on for the pre-1848 section. We may want to consider it for other parts of the article as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. It is a bit large. A couple of paths forward include:

1) splitting the article (e.g. breaking the entire "Black membership" section into its own article)

2) tightening-up some verbose sections that are already covered in other "main" sections (e.g. sections on William McCary and Gladys Knight and Helvécio Martins etc) .. there is no need to duplicate that biographical info here in this article: a link should be fine.

--Noleander (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Another possibility is splitting off and creating a new article "Black people and Mormons" to cover more the person to person as opposed to institutional aspects of the article. I am not sure that such a split would really reduce size much though. Another possibility is geographically sub-dividing the article, because the issues of Black people and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are inherently different in the Carribean, in Africa, in Brazil, in the United States, in France, in Great Britain and in anywhere else. I am not sure outside of Brazil and the US there would be enough information to do an article justice. In Africa outside of South Africa and to a much lesser degree Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the need to address blacks and the Church as seperate article does not now exist, and in the cases of the two latter countries, the particular issues of the Church starting with a majority white membership and spreading to include blacks as well can be treated in the Country articles like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Africa once they are created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the policy actually abandoned in 1978 or simply changed from de jure to de facto?

In 1978, the policy was officially lifted via a new prophecy.

I have, in 2010, met zero black mormon males raised in American slums. The very, very few black males I have seen have been from elsewhere.

The absence of "sons of Ham" suggests that anyone who might announce a calling to the slums of New Orleans, their to recruit new (male) priests is counseled to seek another calling.

In other words, the policy is still there. At least as the church talks the talk of nondiscrimination, and this is good. But it will better when it walks the walk.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Maybe if you started again, use referencese that explain your position, we could assist. As it is now, you are not commmenting on the article and your edit will be deleted unless you clarify. Cheers. --^StormRider 06:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just accidently undid my longish post. I was going to make my new post shorter, but failed in that endevor. Go to www.blacklds.org to see just how wrong you are. Beyond this, your accusation by lack of evidence does not work. To provoe "de facto discrimination" you would have to give some case of de facto discrimination. In general you could not be more wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large presence of missionaries in cities like Detroit, Michigan. When the Detroit Branch was made a ward in 1992 its first bishop was a black man. If my associate Gregorie Eugene Louis was not raised in what you dismissively call "slums", he was raised in Detroit and served a mission for the LDS Church in California, that is he holds the LDS priesthood office of elder. Another of my associates who is currently serving a mission was raised in apartments between the Lodge and Trumball on the south side of Warren Avenue in Detroit. I am not sure if this quite makes it as a slum, but sitll. On the other hand another of my friends is Jesse Thomas, a son of a sharecropper and a former Baptist minister, he may not be from the slums, but no one would deny his blackness. This http://www.mormontimes.com/article/12293/Ex-Black-Panther-finds-strength-in-gospel-path article from the Mormon times tells of Ronald McClain, a former member of the black panthers, who is a Sealer (LDS Church) in the Oakland California Temple. Arguably sealers are the highest ranking non-general authority presithood holders. Neither Helvecio Martins nor Joseph W. Sitati would seem to make StormRider happy with his gripe of "no real black Mormon elders", but I have not yet began to cite. Frank Varner as JROTC director at Renassaince High School and a counselor in the bishopric of the Palmer Park Ward in North-central Detroit (and also Highland Park, the most heavily black city in Michigan) as well as the inner-sburubs of Hazel Park, Ferndale and Pleasant Ridge, is not exactly living in the "slums", but he is not exactly moving as a lone black man in overwhelmingly white circles either. Joseph Freeman was ordained an elder within two weeks of the revelation on the priesthood. Just this last Sunday of the four men passing the sacrament in my ward one was a black man raised in Detroit. Another of my Mormon friends, who was for a while my hometeaching supervisor, is a black man with a black American mother and a Liberian father who was raised largely on the east side of detroit, at times in apartments that may not have been quite slums, but they were much less the Waldorf. I have one half-black Mormon friend who may have grown up in the suburbs largely surrounded by whites, but he regularly sports an Afro, and another who as a teenaged Aaronic priesthood holder sitting by his father in priesthood meeting and sporting an Afro might have been thought to only have an adoptive relationship with his white father, but it was a case of blood of my blood and flesh of my flesh. Another person worth noting is Winston Wilkinson. True, he grew up in an all-black Maryland suburb of DC and not in a slum, but he is undeniably black, unless black also excludes Clarence Thomas. Londo Andrew, bishop of the Petersburg Ward in Virginia, Thurl Bailey and many others are worth siting. In recent years the LDS Church has built chapels in Harlem, New york, on Detroits east side in a very heavily black area, in East St. Louis and in many other locations with significant black populations. Abe Mills, who was part of the band Jericho Road, has a family who joined the Church when he was six so was more or less raised Mormon, in St. Louis. I do not know if it was in any way "slum". He served a mission for the LDS Church, married a white lady, and has five children. His parents served as senior missionaries assigned to Sri Lanka. Then there is Jimmy L. Largin, who the Church news ran an article on him being elder's quorum president back in 2006 not because he was black, but because at age 102 he was probably the oldest holder of that Church office at the time. I have attended meetings in the temple where the only black person was the one incharge, been in wards where the only adult black person present was a member of the High Council seated on the stand, in fact multiple cases of that, been in wards where the only adult black person was a missionary, met a native of Sudan about to get sealed in the Salt Lake Temple, been to many a stake conference or stake priesthood meeting where the majority of the men sustained to be ordained to the melchizedek preiesthood were black men, seen the effect of a proative bishop of Samoan origin in ordaining a recently baptized black man in a properly expeditious manner to the priesthood, seen yet another family with a worth black priesthood holder and a white wife move into a ward I was assigned to as a missionary in Las Vegas. i have not mentioned Alan Cherry, Darius Gray, the Southwest Los angeles Branch, Alex Boye raised in the slums of England, my black friend who I have had as a substitute institute teacher who carries his birth certificate to prove he is black, my black roommate at Especially for Youth, Robert Foster, the black president of BYUSA for the 2002-2003 school year, or several other people I could mention. I will be the first to admit that too many Latter-day Saints maintain racists views, that the fact that I knew someone who blurted out in a restaunt "I do not feel safe with all these black people around" still troubles me 5 years after the fact, that my failure to more boldly confront racism on a few occasions on my mission still leaves me deeply conflicted, That too many white Mormons in the north suburbs of Detroit let 8 mile be an insurmountable boundary and thus while I support Michael J. Lantz's effort to bring a oneness across 8 mile, I will accept that the question of whether to draw ward and branch boundaries so as to incorporate most black members in the same unit on the possibly false assumptions of shared culture or to intentionally draw boundaries in ways to transcent socio-economic borders is a complexed one. I will also admit that the number of black Mormon priesthood holders who are like a few i knew who are adopted children of white parents is probably higher than in the overall population, and I will join with Kevin Perkins and Bishop Bethel of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida Ward in saying there is too much of a failure to speak in language meant to reach out and bring in black people to the fold. However, to claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some sort of de facto rule against ordaining black men to the priesthood is just false. The only way to make this work would be to accept the deepest falsehoods of "scientific" racism and ignore the examples I have given above and a much longer list of men like Officer Solomon Bills of the Detroit Police Officer, first president of the Belle isle Branch, Brother Kiel, long-time president of the Grand River Branch in the opposite corner of Detroit, and Elder Smith in my mission who was from Virginia. I could list many more people who would be needed to ignore, but the claim that there are no black priesthood holders in the LDS Church is just plain ignorant. Here is another site http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/000H14.html about black Mormons. Then there is the Genesis Group which is lead by Three black men all of whom hold the priesthood. There is more I could say, but I will hope that this is enough for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The film Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons would be recomended reading at this point. Tamu Smith does not mince words in speaking of the offensive thing she heard in the Salt Lake temple. However being in the temple is about acceptance into the full rites of the faith. Here story is in many ways an illustration of how teatment by the Church as an institution and treatment of individuals is very different. On the other hand Mrs. Smith clearly has never ridden the buses I have ridden and attended the universities I have attended, especially hanging out in the computer labs. The only amazing thing to my is that Mrs. Smith was never refered to with the use of the n-word before going to the temple. I as a person of primarily European-American as well as a very small amount of Cherokee and a significantly smaller amount of Wampanoag ancestry, am pretty sure that on at least one occasion someone used the n-word in addressing me as a word to describe me (which admittedly is less de-humanizing than the use in overheard conversation between two other people who unlike the one who so addressed me would not self-describe as such) so it is clear that not only do some people use the n-word without restraint, but they use it without any particular order or sense. This is just to say that trying to peg the Mormons as racist based on one conversation by one person, a tactic used by Ms. Stark of the Salt Lake Tribune (a firm believer that one reported incident can be fudged into sounding like multiple ones for dramatic effect) is not justifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Instances of discrimination after the 1978 revelation

I have serious questions about the appropriateness of this section in the article. First off to equate "aloofness" with "discrimination" seems a bit of a stretch. It also has the serious draw back since some people are just aloof in their matter and assuming that this is a racial issue is unwarrented. The bigger issue though is "discrimination" in an article like this would seem to imply policies on the part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organization, and not the individual actions of individual members of the Church. If the article was named "Black people and The Roman Catholic Church" would it be appropriate to mention that Francis X. Smith in going to a parish in northern Louisiana found that the local Catholics refused to sit on the same pew as him, in his view because he was black and they as whites were inherently racist? The confusion of The Church which the actions of individual members should in general be discoraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant to the topic of the article. Half of the material comes from the book Black and Mormon (University of Illinois Press, 2005). If you want to add clarifying material into the section, go ahead (note there is already some in the final paragraph). Make sure that any new material is supported with footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The book title brings up my point. It is Black and Mormon. This is an issue of intersection of blackness, a cultural construct, and Mormoness, a cultural construct. Blackness is categorized as a race, and Mormoness as a religion. However the actions of Mormons as a people are distinct from the actions of The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church. If the article is going to talk about the former instead of the latter, it should be re-named to "Black people and Mormons" or preferrably split. The very name of the book in question points to my sense of what the article is speaking of in this section, which does not seem to be appropriate for an article with this type of name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a specific change to that section? --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic is the Church and a specific racial group. Incidences of members being racist is not the topic. I agree with John that it is not appropriate to discuss the poor behavior of individual Mormons; the focus is what the Church did and how it treated Black people since 1978. -^StormRider 06:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the material is clearly within the scope of the article, and the material is discussed by the reliable sources. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. The article contains many positive examples of individuals (e.g. Gladys Knight, Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, Helvecio Martins, etc, etc) and no one would suggest removing those. If you want to initiate a RFC to get more input, go ahead. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Noleander this is not a question of censorship, it is a question of relevance. You say "this is clearly in the scope of the article" as a declaration of fact. You do not even acknolege the possibility of a distinction between group to group of sub-group to larger group relatation and group of people inside or outside an institution relating to that institution. That is what I am talking about. The fact that some other person in the temple refers to Tamu Smith using phrase X is not an issue of Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is an issue of White Mormons realting to Black Mormons. This could be broadened out to a slightly larger article name of Black people in Mormondom or Race relations in Mormondom or Black/White relations of Mormondom, the last one in theory also allowing us to discuss among other things how black Mormons are treated by white-non-Mormons. Some of the quotes I can dig up that are partially related to the topic might be too much of hearsay to use to shed light on that matter. However the title of the article as it now stands does not seem in my mind to fit the inclusion of this type of issues here. It is people to people relations, not people to Church relations, and the later is what the article says it is about. there is probably a way to justify the inclusion of this material, but it is not to say "this material belongs, so stop questioning if it belongs'. If there is a reason why it belongs than articlulate it and explain it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It belongs because it is within the scope of the article and because the sources (listed in the References section at the bottom of the article) discuss the material. If you want to initiate a RFC to get more input, go ahead .. the outcome will be that the material stays. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, are you equating individual members with the Church itself? This is not a concept that is followed anywhere else on Wikipedia. An organization is only representated by the organization no its members. How could it be? It is not within the scope of the topic at all; it is not even close. If you want to make a new article entitled Black people and individual Mormons, that is fine, but it is not this article. This article is specific, it is the LDS Church, its policies and beliefs in relationship to Black people. It is stretching to include anything else. -^StormRider 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Both this article and Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement rely on reliable sources. The sources extensively describe the experiences of individual African-Americans with the church. The articles reflect the sources. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to propose a new name for the article, see the process at Wikipedia:Moving a page. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not making sense. The title is "Black people and the LDS Church (for short)". You necessarily must talk about black people i.e. individuals. It is their interation with the organization. This is not difficult; what is the problem. You evade all questions and just repeat your position, which has yet to be explained as why you think it is correct. You just keep repeating. The title of this article is what it is. You are porposing it be something else; I am not nor is John. Again, why do you think the LDS Church is the same as individual LDS members? Do you have any source that supports that position other than you preference or opinion? -^StormRider 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The level of detail in the quotations of this section is unusual; however, I can see reason for keeping the section as a whole. I'd suggest we try to extract the essence of the four large quotations and compress it into one paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

I have added a link to blacklds.org. There is at least one foot note that links to material provided by this group. I have also added Genesis Group to the see also list. I might recomend more external links, but too many is discouraged, and blacklds.org keeps its news reports resonably up to date. The note that blacklds.org is not in anyway an official site either operated or owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is crucial. This is not done to try and prove some level of non-biasness, but because The Mormon Church consistently seeks to make it clear what is owned and operated by the Church and what is not, and with this site having a name similar to the official Mormon Church website name (well, at least one of the official Church websites names, there is also http://www.mormon.org/ which does not have all that similar of a name to the indepdent site) if the non-connection was not stated clearly and often some people might be confused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-organizing the Black people/Mormonism articles.

This article, Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, and 1978 Revelation on Priesthood share a lot of the same subject matter. This article, however, is getting way too large, and it seems appropriate to think about how to best re-allocate the subject matter between multiple articles. Of the many topics discussed in the present two articles, I divide them in to the following categories:

• Black people and slavery in Joseph Smith-era Mormonism
• The so-called "Negro doctrine" from the Brigham Young era and into the 20th century
• The 1978 revelation, including its influences and its aftermath

• Black Mormons

• Mormon humanitarianism in Africa.
• Black Latter Day Saints other than Mormons.

Of these, I think the last category is probably not worth its own article. If various churches such as the Community of Christ and the Strangites want to discuss their multiculturalism in their own articles, that's fine, but each of these churches has a completely different history relating to black people, and they don't fit well into a single article. I'd compare such an article with an article about Dentistry and Presidents of the United States. Sure, all U.S. presidents have issues with teeth, but they all have different teeth.

Also, the information about Mormon humanitarianism in Africa isn't really about black racial or cultural issues. The LDS Church does humanitarian work everywhere and they don't do it because the recipients are black, they do it because they are poor. Black race is pretty irrelevant. So this material can be moved to LDS Humanitarian Services.

Therefore, I would propose dividing the present three articles into the following four articles:

Black people and early Mormonism

would contain most of the existing Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, except the denominational material, which would be deleted or moved to denomination-specific articles

Negro doctrine

would contain the racist doctrinal material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the post-Smith slavery-related information, and the other 19th century material. Also would include info about modern efforts to get the LDS Church to explicitly renounce the doctrine or apologize

1978 Revelation on Priesthood

would contain all the material from the existing article, plus further material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relating to the revelation, the influence of the civil rights movement, and the aftermath of the change

Black Mormons

would contain material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about particular modern black Mormons, Genesis group, lingering racism or successful multiculturalism, etc.

COGDEN 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Though you've shuffled the names around, it seems to me that the intended residence of material wouldn't really change much, with the exception of the new Black Mormons article. Black people and early Mormonism = Black people and the LDS movement. Negro doctrine = Black people and TCOJCOLDS. "Negro doctrine" is a rather sketchy name for an article, though; the current name is better imho. Glancing over the layout and main sections of each article involved, I don't see a ton of overlap. The 1978 article should be considered a subarticle of this one, and this article should be considered a subarticle of the "Black people + LDS movement" article. It's expected for parent articles to contain summaries of their children articles. I support splitting "Black Mormons" into a new subarticle of this article, so only a terse summary of the large "Black membership" section need be kept at this article. I'm not really sure I agree that the topic of "lingering racism or successful multiculturism" be moved away from this article, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we basically agree, except that we need to figure out a name for what I would call the "Negro doctrine" article. I used that term because that is typically what the 19th century doctrine is called in literature. However, maybe a better name would be "Black people in Mormon doctrine". It would cover all the doctrinal or quasi-doctrinal issues. Incidentally, Black Mormons is a natural sub-article for the new Mormons article. COGDEN 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems

I've been bothered by a while with the way some of the information is split up here. Here's a summary of the articles we currently have that cover this subject:

• Black people and early Mormonism — 45,556
• Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — 29,161
• 1978 Revelation on Priesthood — 9,998
• Black Mormons — 8,982
• Black people in Mormon doctrine — 6,431
• Official Declaration—2 — 1,454

The numbers to the side indicate how many times the article has been viewed in the past 90 days. As you can see, the "Black people and early Mormonism" article wins by a long shot, most likely because of WP:Commonname. (It's the only one that has "Mormonism" in the title.) The problem that I'm seeing is that there's not a clear "parent" article. This one would be the best parent article, but it only touches lightly on the early Mormonism bit, and comes in second place in page views. The early Mormonism is a poor candidate because it says little about current policies, etc., leading to readers wondering what the current church policy is. [3]

I'm not sure what the best way to solve this problem is. Perhaps if we moved this article to Black people and Mormonism, and then merged in Black people and early Mormonism? The length issue could be partially dealt with by cutting down many of the long quotes from primary sources and summarizing them in a sentence or two.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to merge Official Declaration-2 into the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood article. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I generally concur with Adjwilley's observations and suggestions here. I understand the original motivation for naming Black people and early Mormonism vs Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but Adjwilley is right: we should reorganize this material so that it is more accessible to readers. Let's definitely create the Black people and Mormonism article to be the "parent" article here. We could still keep Black people and early Mormonism and Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as separate articles if desired, though I think the content overlap between them and the parent would be significant, so it would probably be best to simply merge them together and then rename. The new article should probably touch on the Community of Christ's past and current policies regarding Black people; I know they don't consider themselves part of Mormonism but the article is effectively about the "Latter Day Saint movement". Perhaps that should be the name: Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, isn't "LDS movement" the status quo we have agreed upon for naming things like this? The "and Mormonism" variant should of course exist as a redirect. On a slight tangent: having separate articles for OD2 and 1978 revelation makes no sense; they are obviously the same topic so merge those immediately. I'd say OD2 is the better name for it, but that discussion should occur on those pages. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I have just one point of disagreement: I'm fairly certain the Community of Christ would appreciate not being included in this mess. The racial policy happened after they had separated and they had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think we can safely make this about Mormonism without broadening it to include the whole of the Latter Day Saint movement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with renaming this article to Black people and Mormonism. The Black people and early Mormonism article is already a fairly large article, so I think we should retain it as a sub-article to this one, and include just a summary of its contents in this article. I don't think we need a "Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement" article, because these issues are not shared with the Community of Christ. The priesthood ban was a Utah thing. COGDEN 03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll wait a day or two to see if anybody else is watching and wants to comment, and then make the move. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen anybody screaming in protest, so I'm going to be bold and make the move. Moves are easy enough to revert, so if anybody disagrees, let me know. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Do Church leaders continue to teach that the ban was inspired?

The talk linked to by the first footnote does not support the claim it is given to support. I am not sure if there are any post-1978 statements defending the priesthood ban as inspired. If you know of one, please replace this citation.Felix Sonderkammer (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the church neither officially admits nor denies that the racial ban was inspired. The racial doctrines have not (yet) been officially repudiated despite calls by black Mormons for the church to do so. But at the same time, I don't think the doctrines have been furthered in any official church publications or in any official capacity. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine continued to contain a few racist chestnuts after 1978 (like the idea that blacks were originally cursed because they inherited the curse of Canaan), but that was not technically an LDS publication, and it went out of print in 2010. So I think the answer is, that the church has no comment. You could understand why the church doesn't want to dwell on the precise reasons why it once had a racist policy. COGDEN 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that President David O. McKay, one of the LDS prophets, called this a policy and not a doctrine. As COgden has stated the LDS Church has never taken an official stance. -^StormRider 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern Black Mormons ref

• Mark Oppenheimer (June 10, 2011). "At Picnic for Black Mormons, No Sign of Church's Biased Past". New York Times.

--Javaweb (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Putting 1850's racism into historical perspective

In the mid-1800's such racism among whites was the rule. Among anti-slavery expansion whites in the western states, they were worried about unfair competition from slave labor and races mingling. The curse on Ham and his descendants was preached by white churches throughout the country and was not particular to Mormons. Neither was having blacks leading whites different in the non-Mormon world of the time. At that time, Abraham Lincoln wanted to send the freedmen out of the country and saw blacks as inferior. Smith and Young were men of their times. To include this in the article requires a good reference with page number cites from books like

• Foner, Eric (1995) [1970]. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195094978. OCLC 30626061.
• Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393066180. OCLC 601096674.

--Javaweb (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Text for origin of policy

Javaweb: The article has the following text: "Under the leadership of Joseph Smith, several African-Americans, including Elijah Abel were admitted to the priesthood. But that policy changed sometime before 1852, because in that year, church president Brigham Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that African-Americans "cannot hold the Priesthood."" If I recall, that text was arrived at because there was some discussion about when, precisely, the policy started: was it under JS? or under BY? My recollection was that no sources were available to pin-down the time: it could have started under JS, or under BY ... no source was certain. The text quoted above was adopted as the best way to present what the sources did say. Specifically, the quote from BY to the Legislature is critical because it is the first public announcement of the policy, in 1852, and that critical fact should not be deleted. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Comments

This material was previously found at Talk:Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Comments, but it really belongs on this talk page, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate this article to be reviewed for neutrality and accuracy. The initial statements of the article are clearly directed towards a certain point of view. One of the first sentences reads something like "...one of the most common misconceptions of the LDS church is...." Is this article about factual histories of the church and their policy towards blacks, or is the purpose of this article to "debunk" what some see as misconceptions about the church? The opening sentence clearly indicates the latter, and the article is therefore biased. Either the title of the article needs to be changed to "LDS Apologism", or the thrust of the article should be about factual history. One or the other.

152.2.181.72 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the priesthood

This sentence was recently removed and deemed irrelevant:

"Whereas other churches usually have full-time salaried clergy of whom individual members are often the chief minister to several families, in the LDS Church virtually all male head-of-household church members are part of the priesthood."

I restored it because I think it's quite relevant to the article's topic. Most people not familiar with LDS church terminology would probably hear "priesthood" and think of the definition as in the Catholic or Episcopal church -- that is, they'd think it refers to a clergyperson. In the LDS church, basically every adult male is holds the priesthood. Thus, barring blacks from the priesthood would not (to use an rough analogy with the Catholics) be like banning them from the Catholic priesthood; it would be like preventing them from going through confirmation, essentially saying that they can't be spiritual adults.

I'm open to changing the wording, but I think that essential fact needs to be conveyed up front to make it clear what barring blacks from the priesthood meant. --Jfruh (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph needs to be edited before it is included. There is no linking sentence to establish why this information is relevant to this article. I will leave the revision up to you, since it's your paragraph. In the meantime, I am removing the paragraph until its relevancy is established by revision. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is required because most readers don't know what LDS priesthood is and most readers would think it is like being a priest in another faith. Jfruh's characterization of it signifying a man's spiritual adulthood is a good way to put it although the original is fine. It was in a good place in the article because this is where a definition is required.

--Javaweb (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I re-added, with an explanation of relevance made explicit. --Jfruh (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Araignee just deleted as "irrelevant" and I reverted. Before we go into a revert war, I think we should discuss it here? I think it's important for people to realize that the casual non-LDS reader of this article will not understand what "priesthood" means within the Mormon tradition, and having a wikilink to the priesthood article in the previous setnecen (with the fact that it's to a LDS-specific priesthood article hidden by the pipelink) isn't enough. Since the whole pre-1978 policy revolved around not letting black males hold the priesthood, it's completely relevant to explain to a general audience up front what holding the priesthood entails -- specifically, that it's not like being a clergy memeber in a non-LDS church.

If the facts of the matter have been misrepresented obviously that should be corrected, but I see no harm and great benefit in having a short sentence in the lede paragraph explain what the stakes in the debate were. --Jfruh (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it being a lay priesthood is an important distinction. I'm not sure how much that should be emphasized in the first paragraph of the Lead. I think the current sentence is rather long and could be improved/trimmed substantially if consensus is to keep it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize to Jfruh and any others that I may have slighted...for some reason the talk page wasn't watched on my watchlist, only the main article. :^) I just now added it and see these comments. Relevance wasn't the issue so much as redundancy (I flipped the words while I was tired, I guess) and undue weight of this in the lede itself. While the priesthood is fairly important as far as the big picture (read: temple worship) for LDS, the day-to-day is less evident...members that don't have the priesthood can participate rather fully in the normal activities of weekly worship, including sermons, prayers, lessons, and other auxiliary leadership positions, excepting the blessing and distributing of the sacrament (but not the partaking of it), which is typically performed by a small group of priesthood anyway. Many that have it don't often use it. It would be different if there was the "blacks" Sunday school class and the "priesthood" class, but there is no and was no distinction of that sort.

Let me know if those changes I made are better. If not, consensus can determine the best action. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Current wording works for me. As you noted, the nature of the priesthood is described later in the article. The thing I felt was necessary to have in the lede was that blacks weren't excluded from a small professional priesthood, but rather from the usual role an adult male would have in the church. --Jfruh (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do understand the purpose. Glad we got that worked out. :^) ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to throw a wrench in your consensus... I wasn't quite happy with the wording and I changed it again. The phrase "black men of African descent" was used in two consecutive sentences, and it said twice that they couldn't hold the priesthood. I also didn't like the "virtually" bit. I added a link to Laity and explained the result more clearly I hope. If you liked the previous wording better, feel free to revert and we can work out something better. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It'll work for me. I didn't like the length, and Jfruh wanted the importance of priesthood emphasized, both of which I think are satisfied. That being said, I added back the word "some"...to LDS, baptisms for the dead are still essential for their ancestors, and blacks could participate fully. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me as well. I had dropped the word some because baptisms for the dead isn't considered necessary for the people's own salvation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Racial policy under Brigham Young

I see there's been some back and forth going on in this section lately. A quotation was changed in this edit without changing the context or the reference's page number. For example, the original quote was from a statement made on 13 February 1849. The second quote was made in 1852. The quotes are almost identical in their content – one difference is that the new one uses the word "prophet". I am just going to go ahead and make some tweaks to the article to reflect the new quotation. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are two paragraphs, and the first one already references the 1852 gubernatorial address. Isn't it redundant to essentially say the same thing (in slightly more detail) in the second paragraph? Braincricket (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just tweaked both paragraphs to get both quotes in the article and to give each proper context. Braincricket (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not entirely clear on what was going on there. I swapped the order of the two paragraphs and modified the 2nd as I explained in the edit summary. I expect I'll be editing those more in the future, as I think those two paragraphs should be a brief summary of the rest of the subsections, and thus should probably not be quoting Young extensively. (I'll make sure to keep the quotes though.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a post on Reddit today about it. Someone thought it was important to use a quote which included the word "prophet". Apparently there is a difference between what Young said as a prophet and what he said as a man. I haven't studied Mormonism, so I don't know, but I thought this would be a good compromise. I swapped the order of the paragraphs to reflect the chronology of the quotations, but after reading your edit summary I like your arrangement better. Cheers. Braincricket (talk)

Woah, that's crazy. I had no idea there were forums like that. It looks like this is the diff they're talking about. I had removed the longer quote because it was quite redundant with the paragraph two above it, which was quoting the same thing. In my experience, Mormons do distinguish between between what someone says "as a prophet" and what they say "as a man", and it's not always clear which is which. (It's especially fuzzy for Young, since he was acting as both church president and governor at the same time.) Apparently the people in the forum want it to say that Young said it "as a prophet", which probably goes against what many Mormons would like to think about it. As far as I know, there's not really a scholarly agreement on why the ban was instituted, though there's a fair consensus that it was a "policy" and not a "doctrine". I have a fair amount of literature on it, so I'll read up on it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1847, 1852, or when?

The article mentions a specific start date in the lead as being from 1852. To my understanding, the policy doesn't have a clearly defined start, with dates at least as early as 1849 listed by some. 1852 is when he stated it to a government body, but is there any reason to think that was the "beginning"? Several LDS leaders (John Taylor, George Q. Cannon) believed this policy started with Joseph Smith, though this article tends to ignore that.

Also, while it was a policy, there were clear exceptions to it, including a couple of Elijah Abel's descendants. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, the actual starting date is unclear but most list it as being 1852. Mauss, for example, says, "The reasons are not entirely clear, but the policy seems to have begun officially in 1852 with an announcement by Brigham Young, who was Church president at that time." [4] Bushman says "From the 1850s on..." (Mormonism: a very short introduction p. 111) I think we could be pretty safe saying "From about 1852 to 1978...". ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation 4 is down

Citation four is a dead link "The Church Continues to Grow in Africa" 125.253.96.174 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)