Talk:Black people and Mormonism

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)

Please discuss this merger proposal at the other talk page over here. Deaddebate (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

What next?

I have been working on the this page Black people and Mormonism for over a month now and have tried to familiarize myself with all of the proposed changes that were made at the end of last year. I work with User: Rachel Helps (BYU) who was involved in the previous merge discussion found on the Talk:Black_people_in_Mormon_doctrine#Merge page. It seems that in the end the decision was made to clean-up the Black people and Mormonism page and then decide if the name should be changed (creating a page solely about Black people and the priesthood (LDS)). I have spent many hours trying to find secondary sources and get rid of any unnecessary information on this page, but I am not sure where to go from here. I would like to resume the discussion about the previously proposed changes to see where we stand and to have a clearer picture of where to go from here. Thanks! @FreePeoples, Good Olfactory, Johnpacklambert, COGDEN, Bahooka, Jburlinson, and Rachel Helps (BYU): Phelps (BYU) (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In order to reiterate previous proposals made by User: FreePeoples, I propose that we redirect the Black people in Mormon doctrine page to Black people and the priesthood (LDS) in order to avoid a merge. I propose that we summarize all of the priesthood info on the Black people and Mormonism page and have this page be the summary page for all relating topics, but that supporting articles (such as the recently created Mormonism and slavery) be created to expound upon specific topics that need more weighted attention. What are your thoughts fellow editors? Phelps (BYU) (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I vote we move forward and move Black people in Mormon doctrine to Black people and the priesthood (LDS). I think it would make it easier to clean up, and we could more easily put the right information on the right page. You asked what is next. I think getting the priesthood section on Black people in Mormonism well-sourced and moving relevant information from this page over there is the next step. We could do that even before we rename it. Also, we still need to figure out how Black people in early Mormonism fits into everything. Why distinguish early Mormonism when this page covers several denominations of Mormonism anyway? There is a lot of work that needs to be done over there too. And, there are still some problems with original research on this page. Statements can still be considered original research just by the way they are placed, even if they are true in isolation. For example, we can't just put scriptures or talk about the United Order if there is no obvious connections to blacks. Were blacks even allowed to participate as full members in the United Order? To imply it does by talking about the United Order in the civil rights section is original research. FreePeoples (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've renamed the Mormon Doctrine page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm interested in any suggestions for article titles that you have. Essentially the articles Black people in Mormon doctrine, Black people and early Mormonism, Black people and Mormonism, and Curse and mark of Cain are the background for 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. Do they need better titles/merging , I'm open to discussion.Naraht (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

there's a bit of discussion from last year on this topic at Talk:Black_people_in_Mormon_doctrine#Merge. I completely agree that we should consider the best place to put various information and what the best article title is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Black people and Mormonism sounds like it is going to talk about all aspects of the interaction between black people and Mormonism, including any teaching by leaders, views of members or historical occurrences. I actually oppose any distinction based on any attempt to delineate between doctrine and opinion in the LDS Church, unless doctrine is limited to scripture, in which case it should be called Black people in Mormon scripture to avoid confusion. Any other definition of doctrine is ill-defined, which makes it ripe for POV issues. Brigham Young clearly taught the doctrine of the church was that blacks could not have the priesthood because the Lord put them under the Curse of Cain. There was no question in the late 1800s whether the Curse of Cain was church doctrine or not. The church eventually started moving away from that and by the 1950s, they got away with saying "there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse". When did it cease becoming doctrine and start becoming Brigham Young's opinion? And what would you do with conflicting statements, like the current essays which denounce racism, and the Pearl of Great Price which states that Pharaoh couldn't have the priesthood because of his race? What more does the church have to do to make something doctrine than have a prophet declare it to be the will of the Lord? If Brigham Young's declarations weren't ever considered doctrine, then neither should the current essays put up by the Church, and it should only include scriptures which have been accepted by the Church by the law of common consent. However, I strongly oppose any attempt to cherry pick statements that fit current LDS teachings to represent doctrine and dismiss others as "simply their opinion" in order to make it seems like the church has always been opposed to race-based discrimination. FreePeoples (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The challenge using the term Mormonism is that it must include all of the diverse churches within Mormonism. The RLDS/CofC have a different interpretation of scripture than the LDS. In fact, as Naraht cites below, doctrine and policy are different things. Then there are all of the other small groups and their individual beliefs.

Then you have to separate the different views of individuals from the entity of the Church itself, which were diverse. The First Presidency and the Qof12 voted in the 1960 to reverse the policy and it lost by a single vote - one individual was against it and everyone else voted to reverse the policy. This is not addressed in the any article that I have read on Wikipedia - source would be HBB's son's biography of his father.

I appreciate your opinion and everyone has one. I don't see where your opinion, "FreePeoples", is the end all be all of opinions.

My suggestion is that we write these articles in a nuanced manner. What is fact is that blacks initially held the priesthood. At some point under BY blacks were no longer ordained to the priesthood. At no time did the Church ever teach that this position was permanent, but only temporary. Different leaders believed different things. They each suffered from being human. Members from different parts of the world also have differing opinions just as members have different opinions about a whole host of things today. What the LDS Church teaches and what members believe are two different things exactly in the same what that what the Catholic Church teaches and what their members believe are two distinctly different things - which is the same things found in every church, organization, and group. If you have two people coming together you have two different opinions/beliefs.--^StormRider 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Other Mormon denominations are indeed mentioned, though inconsistently. Black people and Mormonism talks about fundamentalism, while Black people in Mormon Doctrine includes Bickertonite and Strangite, while Mormonism and slavery includes Community of Christ. It is inconsistent, which partly comes from the vague definition of "doctrine".

"Then you have to separate the different views of individuals from the entity of the Church itself, which were diverse." What is view of the entity of the LDS church? Is it the standard works? Is it what is taught in general conference? Is it what is taught in manuals? Is it what is on the website and public affairs? What was before the Internet? What was it before correlation? My issue is it seems that everyone wants to choose what they want to represent the view of the LDS church, when in reality the LDS church is a collection of people with often conflicting views. It is a POV minefield.

"The First Presidency and the Qof12 voted in the 1960 to reverse the policy and it lost by a single vote - one individual was against it and everyone else voted to reverse the policy. This is not addressed in the any article that I have read on Wikipedia" - It is covered in 1951–77. FreePeoples (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts.

1. Brigham Young was more Anti-Negro than Joseph Smith on the subject of race, and functionally, Brigham Young's beliefs became policy for the church. (Whether policy=doctrine is a different question)
2. Neither position was significantly unusual for a white man raised in 1820s New York.
3. If the Church had changed policy even 10 years earlier, I'm not sure it would have been as large of an issue for the Church.Naraht (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have heard Darius Gray argue that the issue was most heavily covered and agitated on in about 1968, not 1978. So actually it appears to have been more of an issue 10 years before. How a change 10 years earlier would have impacted events both in the US and in Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Brazil and many other places for the LDS Church is of course not answerable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agitated within or without?Naraht (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

By the change in policy, I assume you mean removing the ban on priesthood ordination and priesthood ceremonies, right? We are not talking about slavery or interracial marriage, right? See, I think that is why we should separate out the priesthood policy from other aspects of the interaction between black people and Mormonism. It is really only one of many issues. Change has been constant. FreePeoples (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The issues of slavery have to do with laws, not with LDS Church policy. The issue of inter-racial marriage has never been shown to relate deeply to Church policy. Single quotes from heads of the Church do not create policy. Nor even do generalized teachings. Policy is actual actions. No one has ever shown the Church has ever disciplined anyone after 1900 for inter-racial marriage, and the evidence on the matter before 1900 is pretty weak. In fact, there is strong evidence of people in inter-racial marriage being given standing in the Church. The first man of African descent ordained to the melchizedek priesthood in 1978 had a non-black wife. Of course, to even assume the main racial issue on the minds of anyone in Utah in 1955 was black/white is to misunderstand the US. There were far more Native Americans than blacks in Utah and even more so in Arizona and Idaho in that year than blacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

General teachings and doctrines affect actions. The single quotes reflect general teachings and general interpretations of doctrine that give context to actions such as legalizing slavery in Utah, or illegally holding slaves against their will in San Bernardino. My understand is that the D&C teaching that members shouldn't try to free slaves or the Pearl of Great Price and JST teaching that the Canaanites were black and cursed and that the Egyptians descended from them is considered doctrine, even today. FreePeoples (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate your understanding or opinion, but do you actually have a reference for that position? --^StormRider 03:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction seems to focus on the priesthood policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It doesn't mention anything of any other Mormon denomination nor anything about slavery. A page called Black people and Mormonism should have an introduction that summarizes the important issues related Black people and Mormonism, not just one issue for one denomination. FreePeoples (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to make any changes that you think are appropriate. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Considering that 98% percent of Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the claim that the introduction is misfocused may be off. On the other hand, I still think the biggest problem is that the article reflects too little on the sustained widespread growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria especially over the last few years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The main article for the sustained widespread growth among black people is Black Mormons. I think it is odd that this page has more information than the main page. I agree that the introduction should have an emphasis on the main Mormon denomination, but in a way that isn't completely dismissive of other denominations. FreePeoples (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Order of other groups?

In Other Latter Day Saint groups' position section, it goes RLDS/CoC, then an FLDS group and then two of the other older split groups. Any suggestions on an order?Naraht (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reorder sections

Actually, I think that it may make sense make section 3 be "Latter Day Saint group positions" or something similar and have the LDS, COC, etc each at the same level. Note this would probably involve rewriting the lead.Naraht (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)