Talk:Black people and temple and priesthood policies in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black people in Mormon doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Black people in Mormon doctrine. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

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) 08:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, much of the information is duplicated. If the pages are merged, it would be nice to keep the "doctrine" of the day separate from statements from leaders that weren't doctrine. It's difficult to separate those, though... Would the new page be "Black people in Mormonism" and have a section on Black People in Mormon Doctrine? I'm a little worried that the page will be too long if all the information is merged--it might be better to have a summary section in the Black People and Mormonism page that directs to Black People in Mormon Doctrine. What are your thoughts? Here are some other users who have worked on either page and might wish to comment: @FreePeoples, Good Olfactory, Johnpacklambert, COGDEN, Bahooka, and Jburlinson: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is what constitutes Mormon "doctrine". When a Mormon prophet says "thus saith the Lord", other prophets can later say he was only expressing his opinion. Even scriptures could be downgraded to stories or symbolism (like 6 days really means 6 creative periods, and not actual days.) Even if we as wiki editors were to somehow come to a consensus on what constitutes Mormon doctrine, new editors will invariably stumble upon the same pit falls. It may be better to avoid trying to split it along doctrinal/non-doctrinal lines. Right now it seems that Black people in Mormon doctrine focuses mostly on the priesthood ban, while Black people and Mormonism incorporates several aspects of the interaction between the LDS church and black people. I think the priesthood ban is big enough to warrant its own article. I propose we rename Black people in Mormon doctrine to something like Mormon priesthood ban, which could also incorporate information about women and the priesthood. I propose we have Black people and Mormonism be the main article that summarizes everything about the LDS church and black people, and then add supporting articles like Black people and early Mormonism, Mormonism and slavery, Mormon priesthood ban and Black Mormons. I am working on Mormonism and slavery offline and I think breaking that article out will keep the main article from getting too long. FreePeoples (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tried to incorporate the information contained in the "Race and the Priesthood" Essay into the Black people in Mormon doctrine article. This subject needs to be covered in a way that reflects current theological teaching. Strong statements by Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks on the matter are probably also needed in the article. There is a place for a consideration of history, but with the articles current name it needs to start with a consideration of the reality of what the doctrine is at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about splitting out History of Mormon Priesthood ban or History of Priesthood (LDS Church)? That way, this article can focus on the current status and the history stuff can be covered in the supporting article. That would emphasize that the priesthood ban was historical, and not today. (Though I am still confused about the modern interpretation of the Book of Abraham.) It could also be linked from other articles such as Priesthood (LDS Church) which should have similar information. FreePeoples (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just noticed that there is a redirect called Blacks and the Priesthood (LDS). Maybe we should just redirect this page there (so no merge needed) and only keep the stuff about the priesthood, and then summarize the priesthood stuff on the Black people and Mormonism page and redirect. FreePeoples (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like this idea. If you changed this page to Blacks and the Priesthood (LDS), would the page look pretty much the same, or would the information about the curse of Cain and such be moved to the more general page? The attitudes of the leaders about race may have influenced their continual denial of the priesthood to Blacks (so it might make sense to keep a lot of the information here). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The way I envision it (there is no controlling wiki editors) is that Blacks and the Priesthood (LDS) would look a lot like this page. We would probably take out slavery, and darkness associated with sin, since while that is related to doctrine, it isn't specific to the priesthood. We could probably summarize related concepts and link it to Black people and Mormonism. The big change is that we would summarize all of the priesthood information in Black people and Mormonism and then link it to the Black people and the Priesthood (LDS) page. I also think it would be more intuitive so that new editors will better understand where new information goes. FreePeoples (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering the LDS priesthood restrictions on women and those of African descent in the same article is a horrible idea that shows a failure to understand the situation for either. To understand LDS doctrine one must realize that the most sacred ordinances occur in the temple. Thus despite some outward rhetoric what matters most is not holding priesthood office but being able to go to the temple. In the case of those of African descent before 1978 after about 1850 there were very few cases in which they could enter the temple, by either men or women. On the other hand, women have had full access to the temple since the 1840s and some of the ordinances of the temple are administered by women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that certainly is not clear from reading this article. A wiki article is supposed to be geared towards those who do not understand the situation. I think an article explaining who could use the priesthood and when they can use it would help clarify the situation. There is no mention of the situation of women being different than blacks because non-black women could administer some of the ordinances in the temple. The Priesthood (LDS Church) article isn't much help either. It says "The Aaronic priesthood is conferred upon male church members beginning at age twelve by the laying on of hands by men who hold either an office in the Melchizedek priesthood or the office of priest in the Aaronic priesthood." No mention of women using the priesthood in the temples. If the situation with women is different than with blacks than that should be clear, at least somewhere. Maybe it is more appropriate for the Priesthood (LDS Church) article, which doesn't really give any information about the history. FreePeoples (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnpacklambert's comment above is not entirely accurate. Black women did not have "full access to the temple since the 1840s". Even if a black woman could enter a temple and receive the endowment, she could not receive the highest ordinance of the temple – sealing or celestial marriage – if her husband was black, because a man had to hold the priesthood to participate in that ordinance. So while technically the church could say that nothing was being withheld from black women, in the vast majority of cases black women were married to black men, so the highest ordinances were being withheld from black women. Also, the concept of women using the priesthood in the temples is controversial and not clear cut because it is not often spoken of by church leaders or set out clearly in church teachings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - I propose we move Black people in Mormon doctrine to Black people and the Priesthood (LDS). I propose we modify this article to just talk about the priesthood, with a small summary of related issues pointing to Black people and Mormonism for more details. I further propose we summarize the information on the priesthood on the Black people and Mormonism page, with a link to Black people and the Priesthood (LDS) for more information. This would greatly reduce the overlap of information and hopefully be an easier distinction to understand. I had mentioned this in the comments, but I wanted to make an official proposal. Please vote on the proposal. FreePeoples (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is too much overlap between the two articles as they now stand, but I think that "Black people and the Priesthood (LDS)" has too narrow of a focus. There was also an endowment and marriage sealing ban, and there was also the closely related practice, in at least one (and maybe only one) case, of sealing black people to white people as their servants (see Jane Elizabeth Manning James). Therefore, I would favor something that more broadly included Mormon rituals in general. I would be tempted to call it "Black people and Mormon ordinances", but Mormons use the term ordinance in a somewhat archaic sense that most readers other than Baptists would not understand. Maybe "ceremonies" or "rituals"? This article would still have to at least briefly summarize the historical doctrinal context of these bans, but could leave the doctrinal details to the main article. COGDEN 21:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would temple ordinances and sealings be extensions of the priesthood, specifically the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood? I think when people talk about the ban, they usually refer to it as the priesthood can. The LDS church's article is called Race and the Priesthood, even though it talks about the temple and sealings. I agree that calling it the priesthood can seem a bit misleading, because you usually don't think about women entering into the new everlasting covenant of the priesthood as being part of the priesthood, or even about receiving blessings and sealings for that matter. You usually think about ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood, but the priesthood is much more than that. Confusion aside, it is standard practice to have the title be how it is commonly referred, even if it is technically inaccurate, (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use common name)) which is why people look up Mexico instead of the more accurate United Mexican States. Most people refer to it as the Priesthood ban, even though it involved aspects other than priesthood ordination. We should make it clear in the introduction that it included several aspects. FreePeoples (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that someone typing in "Blacks priesthood Mormons" should reach the page. I also agree that the page should cover more than just the priesthood ban. I like FreePeoples's proposal so far... but Cogden, do you still prefer Black people and Mormon ceremonies? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before any action is taken to merge or re-title these articles, it is necessary to address the serious, perhaps fatal, issues plaguing this article and the "Black people in Mormonism" article, both of which have numerous tags which have not been addressed for years. The most significant problems relate to use of religious texts as sources, over-reliance on primary sources associated with the LDS church, and original research. There is also an article titled "Black people and early Mormonism" that covers the same subject matter and suffers from the same defects. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I don't want to stand in the way of any revisionary work going on here. I think it's moving in a positive direction overall. COGDEN 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - I propose that "Black people in Mormon doctrine" be withdrawn entirely, due to its almost total reliance on questionable source material. It is basically a summary of positions held by the LDS church, sourced nearly entirely by LDS primary materials. As such, it constitutes original research under Wikipedia policy. In addition, the content provided by the article is nearly duplicated by other articles that utilize at least some appropriate reliable sources. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think deleting the page entirely is a bit extreme. I agree that the page needs more contextualization and neutral sources. There are some places on the page that refer to scriptures for their sources, and I believe it would be preferable to link to commentary on the scriptures. There are also sections that are well-researched and represent issues well. If the page were deleted, would you move some of its information to Black people and early Mormonism? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which sections you're referring to. They may be "well researched", but Wikipedia is not a forum to publish original research. This is a major part of the problem with these articles. Combing through LDS scripture and primary materials constitutes original research -- which is contraindicated by WP policy. What unduplicated material of substance is contained in this article that should be brought forward? As to the article on Black people and early Mormonism, it is even more troubled by problems with inappropriate sources than this article is, with long sections actually quoting passages from Mormon scripture. There is almost a cottage industry in writing articles about black people and the Mormon church, including an article on "Black Mormons" and an article on "1978 Revelation on Priesthood", both of which suffer from the same problems. In my opinion, there should be a thoroughgoing reconsideration of all of these various articles, with the goal of reducing their sheer number and improving the quality of sourcing. What do you think? --Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you and I think we need to come to a consensus about how to make further edits; a page entitled Black people in Mormon doctrine sort of welcomes the sort of primary research we want to avoid. Do you think we should delete this article and keep the others? Which article should we concentrate on improving first? FreePeoples, I know you've been working on this and similar topics--what do you think of Jburlinson's proposal? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to comment more specifically on the problem of quoting primary sources. I think that any page about this topic is going to have to quote LDS scriptures and prophets at some point. Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is an FA that deals with a similar problem. For every verse it discusses, it uses the discussion of Catholic commentators to support the discussion. However, sometimes the commentator is the pope, as in the section on the third commandment (which I think is similar to our problem of how to quote prophets). This is an FA, so it seems like it's acceptable to quote prophets when discussing their interpretation of scriptures. Would you agree, Jburlinson? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article on the 10 commandments and Catholicism would be a good model; it's clear from the discussion of the FA review that the editors made a strong good faith effort to offer a balanced view from protestant and catholic theologians, that reliable secondary sources predominate and that the references to scripture were illustrative in nature and not intended to "preach" dogma. To be more specific in my proposal regarding WP articles on black people and Mormonism -- I'd recommend that all of the following be consolidated into a single article: Black people and Mormonism, Black people in Mormon doctrine, 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, Black people and early Mormonism, Black Mormons. and Mormonism and slavery. All of these articles cover much the same territory and all suffer from the same pervasive problems with sourcing and original research. The historical and doctrinal situation as regards the LDS church and black people is treated in a number of reliable secondary sources published by scholarly presses and written by mormons and non-mormons alike, including Richard and Claudia Bushman, Newell Bringhurst, Armand Mauss, John G. Turner, and Gregory Prince. There are others, of course. Such an effort might work best if done in a coordinated fashion by a team of editors who would be willing to work together under the wikipedia guidelines. I, for one, would be happy to take part in such an effort. Thoughts? --Jburlinson (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm happy to help with such an effort. Mormonism and slavery seems like it should have its own page, and it could use more secondary sources as well. We're wrapping things up for the semester break here, so I'll be on wikibreak until January, but I'm planning to help out then. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great. Thanks. I'll take some time to go over these articles more thoroughly and perhaps come up with an outline of what a consolidated article might look like. The general contour of the Black people and Mormonism article might be a starting point, with an effort made to winnow out the duplication, redundancy and questionable sourcing. Does that sound OK for a plan? January sounds like a good time to make a resolution to address the longstanding issues that have been troubling these articles. Have a happy holiday season! --Jburlinson (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we should focus on Black people and Mormonism. Once we get that cleaned up, we will have a better idea of the size of the cleaned up version and what sub-topics actually warrant a supporting article or not. At that point, we can decide whether to clean up the supporting articles, move the relevant information into Black people and Mormonism, or completely reorganize it. I personally think there is enough information to warrant multiple articles, but I think the current separation is a vague and repetitive. However, I don't think we should delete any pages until we have a chance to clean it up. I agree with Rachel that Mormonism and slavery deserves a separate article. I also think there should be a page that specifically talks about the priesthood ban, however we want to name it. FreePeoples (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly OK with starting with Black people and Mormonism. I'm willing to hold off on the others until that article is up to snuff. It's my belief that if that article is covered satisfactorily, there will be no particular need for "black people in mormon doctrine", "black mormons" or an article on the priesthood ban. What more need be said about that subject if it is covered accurately in Black people and Mormonism? The only other thing that's salient about priesthood bans is the ban on women holding the priesthood, which is addressed in Mormonism and women, although that article too has more than its share of problematic issues. If there is agreement on starting first with the article on Black people and Mormonism, what should the next step be? My suggestion would be to work from that article's talk page; there's already a "merge" topic there that basically refers interested editors to this talk page. However, if we're going to revise that article, it should probably be done on the other talk page, in order to ensure that the largest number of interested editors are able to contribute. --Jburlinson (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here we are, four years later. Although there's been a lot of water under the bridge, neither the water nor the bridge has changed all that much, except that Black people and Mormonism has declined somewhat. To get things started, I've proposed merging this article, Black people and Mormon priesthood with 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. Specifically, I would take properly sourced, unduplicated material from the revelation article and transfer it to this one. Please see the talk section of the latter article for some preliminary discussion -- Merger proposal. @FreePeoples, Good Olfactory, Rachel Helps (BYU), COGDEN, Bahooka, Johnpacklambert, and Dithridge: My plan is to make this merger in a week or two, which should give editors time to give this proposal some thought. I consider this a first step in taking a comprehensive look at all the articles relating to this topic, which are legion. To my mind, a single article on "Black people and mormonism" would be sufficient. If, however, such a consolidated article would tax WP size limits, another sub-article might be needed. Thoughts? --Jburlinson (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jburlinson it sounds like an okay plan to me --Dithridge —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you meant it that way, but it feels like you dismissed the considerable work I and my student put into Black people and Mormonism. I know I haven't been able to keep up with recent changes, but it's depressing to think that those months of verification and research are undetectable now. In the past I felt some pangs at the sunk costs of deleting pages, but I think I'm past that. Merging the 1978 revelation and Black people and Mormon priesthood sounds like a great idea. I don't think it's possible to contain all the relevant topics in sufficient detail on the Black people and Mormonism page. I ended up making a separate page for the church and civil rights issues, with a summary on the Black people and Mormonism page, and more detailed information about the church in specific countries on their church-specific project (WIP). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU):Sorry if I wasn't clear, but in no way did I mean to undervalue the work of you and your colleagues. Black people and Mormonism was a much better article after you all cleaned it up some time ago. I seem to recall applauding your work in some talk page which is now buried in some archive at this point. If only it could have stayed that way; but, sadly, in this case, Wikipedia moved on and much new material has been added. Much of the new stuff falls below your standards of editing. This is in the nature of a collaborative project like WP, and is a reason I have many of these articles on my watchlist. I, like you, don't like deleting pages -- in fact, I've never done so before. It's just that this topic seems to have spawned multiple articles that often rehash the same content. The proposed merger of 1978 revelation and Black people and Mormon priesthood seemed like a relatively easy first step. You're probably right about the need for additional pages than Black people and Mormonism, but I'd like to take a 30,000-foot view of the issue(s) to see if a clear outline could be developed. From that perspective, I'm not sure Black people and Mormon priesthood needs to be a separate article; much of the content is duplicated in Black people and Mormonism. The same thing is probably true of Black people and early Mormonism. At any rate, one step at a time. Are you OK if I go ahead and merge the two "priesthood" articles? --Jburlinson (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was a bit sensitive! I haven't been able to work on Wikipedia as much as I'd like lately, and I feel frustrated that I haven't been able to keep up with the edits on Black People and Mormonism. I Support merging 1978 Revelation on Priesthood and Black people and Mormon priesthood. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merging 1978 Revelation on Priesthood into Black people and Mormon priesthood. I do not support further merging into Black people and Mormonism. There is just too much information for a single article. Epachamo (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been meaning to comment here for a while but haven't yet found the time to actually sit down and review all the currently existing articles (yes, there are too many) and think about what should be merged where. It might be helpful to have a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement. But for now, here are a few scattered thoughts on the articles that Jburlinson suggested be merged into a single article:
      • WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement is currently listed as "semi-active", whatever that means. I'm more than happy to participate in a larger discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus on a solid schema for this subject. So many of the breakaway articles are simply restatements of content in the parent plus a whole lot of circumstantial detail that often consists of numerous, lengthy quotations and is almost always sourced inappropriately.--Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black people and Mormonism and Black people in Mormon doctrine sound like the same topic. So probably merge. Agree Black people and Mormonism should be the parent article of any remaining articles.
      • Agree. This sounds like a reasonable idea. I can support Black people and Mormonism as the parent article for articles whose contents would increase the parent beyond acceptable size limits.--Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1978 Revelation on Priesthood seems substantial enough to have a standalone article. (Do we have articles for other "official declarations" like the Family Proclamation?)
      • Is this an "oppose" for the currently proposed merger? Much of 1978 Revelation on Priesthood is already in Black people and Mormon priesthood. As to the Family Proclamation, there is a current article The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which is seriously flawed for several reasons that also pertain to other articles mentioned here, including problems with NPOV, reliance on primary sources, reliance on sources closely affiliated with the LDS church, and others.--Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black people and early Mormonism seems like a legitimate daughter article to Black people and Mormonism. They would cover a lot of the same ground, but that's ok because Wikipedia is not paper. And breakaway series are common, for example, we have a whole set of daughter articles to Joseph Smith, beginning with Early life of Joseph Smith.
    • Black Mormons also seems like a separate subject. Like how we have Mormonism (the article about the religion) and Mormons (the article about the people).
    • Mormonism and slavery This also seems like a separate subject. It still falls under the umbrella of "Black people and Mormonism", but it should just be a section there with a couple of paragraphs and a link to the "main article". Actually, I just checked and that is in fact what we've done. Black_people_and_Mormonism#Slavery
    • Black people and Mormon priesthood seems like kind of a weird one. Maybe that would be the one to turn into an article about the priesthood ban?
      • That's one of the reasons why 1978 Revelation on Priesthood is proposed for merger into it. The "1978 revelation" is but one aspect of the full subject. --Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~Awilley (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I'm all for taking a more comprehensive look at all the various articles dealing with black people and mormonism, but I'm reluctant to wait any longer for that to happen. If anything, the problem is only being exacerbated by the introduction of more new articles. I believe it's best to go ahead and make some incremental improvements in a step-by-step fashion, starting with this proposed merger. Of course, an alternative would be to strip out the duplicative detail from Black people and Mormonism in favor of its inclusion in all the various spinoffs. This would drastically reduce Black people and Mormonism, but that's not atypical of high-level, overview articles. That way, each section of Black people and Mormonism would become merely a summary of what will be found in the various daughter articles. Even if we went in that direction, I would see Black people and Mormon priesthood as one of the daughters; and it would not need a grandaughter in 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. --Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and the priesthood, Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks quotes[edit]

This article seems to need to beter incorporate the Official LDS essay "race and the priesthood".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you know the modern interpretation of Abraham 1:27? While the essay unequivocally condemns all racism, Mormon scripture supports the idea that people of a certain lineage could not have the priesthood. While there is room to argue whether Pharaoh was black, he was certainly denied because of his race, whatever it might be. So you have the essay saying one thing and the scriptures saying another thing, even calling certain races "chosen". Which is a better reflection of Mormon doctrine? To me, it seems that the essays simply show their opinion, just like Young's statements were his opinion, while the scriptures are better indication of doctrine. FreePeoples (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS church isn't a neutral source in itself either, so citing a neutral third party (difficult with Mormon issues!), in addition to stating the current "official" position would be ideal, in my opinion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the need to base these articles on neutral sources, but I don't think it's so difficult to identify these sources. There has been a great deal written on this subject by credentialed historians and other scholars, both Mormon and gentile, and issued by reputable scholarly publishers. Even statements of the "official" position could be sourced to reliable news media and not reliant on pronouncements by the Church itself. This article, and the other related articles, would be considerably shorter than they are now, without the extended quotations of passages from primary texts; but that would only be to the good, IMO. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recently checked out several books on the subject that seem fairly neutral, and I'm hoping to have one of my students start editing pages soon. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. That would be a big step forward in the treatment of this subject. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacy and Mormonism[edit]

Where is it heading and should we forget it's historical background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba.olatunde (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Thanks. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted page move[edit]

@Marvello123 Because you do not have a User talk page, I just wanted to explain why I undid the the page move. First of all, such a drastic change should be discussed with other editors who contribute to the page. The page Black people and the priesthood (LDS) follows the page name organization of other LDS pages. Thanks! Phelps (BYU) (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callings[edit]

Does anyone know about any restrictions about callings? Obviously, without the priesthood black men couldn't serve as bishops, but could black women serve as the relief society president, for example? FreePeoples (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent BYU Studies Turley article[1], it stated that black members in South Africa were allowed to pass (but not to bless) the sacrament. It looks like Mary Lucile Perkins Bankhead was a RS president in 1971.[2]Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turley, Richard E., Jr. and Jeffrey G. Cannon, "A Faithful Band: Moses Mahlangu and the First Soweto Saints," BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 1 (2016): 31–36
  2. ^ Young, Margaret Blair. "Howell, Martha Ann Jane Stevens Perkins (1875–1954) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed". www.blackpast.org. Humanities Washington. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
Thanks for the research. I might be missing something, but the first source seems to talk about plans to allow Nigerian saints to pass the sacrament without the priesthood, but was never realized because of problems with establishing the church in Nigeria. In fact, the article said it wouldn't work in South Africa since it still required white people to bless the sacrament and white members didn't meet with black members in South Africa. Still, I have never heard about the First Presidency indicating that you did not need the priesthood to pass the sacrament because there was no scriptural reference. In the second one, it seems Bankhead was the Relief Society president of the Genesis Group, which Wikipedia characterizes as a social group. I guess I don't know what that means to be the Relief Society president of a social group. Do you know if it was considered a ward calling or was it just a social position? I guess I don't completely understand how the Genesis Group worked and how it was different from a regular ward. FreePeoples (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused about if the Genesis Group was a social group or a more formal branch. The Facebook group has a quote about how they are/were more than just a fireside group, since they had a presidency set apart to preside over them (and a RS presidency). But they weren't the same as a ward or branch. I want to update the Genesis Group Wikipedia page now! Black Saints in a White Church states that the Genesis Group was an auxiliary program that conducted Relief Society, Primary, and MIA (early YM/YW) for black members, but that members of Genesis were still expected to attend Sunday meetings in their home wards[1] (at that time Sunday meetings were sacrament meeting, Priesthood meetings, and Sunday School[2]).
You're right about the Turley article; I incorrectly summarized it. I was also surprised that they had planned to let members without the priesthood pass the sacrament. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Embry, Jessie L. (1994). Black Saints in a white church : contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. p. 183. ISBN 1560850442.
  2. ^ Christensen, Tom (18 April 2014). "History of the LDS three-hour Sunday block". Standard-Examiner. Retrieved 17 July 2017.
"at that time Sunday meetings were sacrament meeting, Priesthood meetings, and Sunday School" Are you sure that blacks attended priesthood meetings? Today, men without the priesthood, both new members and non-members, attend priesthood quorum meetings. However, they are still categorized by their potential to hold the priesthood, either investigators or prospective Elders. Part of that might be that today it is part of the block. Were black men still invited to gather with the priesthood? FreePeoples (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It looks like some early black members were not permitted to attend Priesthood meetings.[1] Another source, which claims it's a copy of Kimball's Lengthen Your Stride states that before the priesthood ban was lifted, Brazilian black members could be assigned as home teachers, attend priesthood meetings, and be "acting deacons."[2] An Associated Press article states that black men could attend Priesthood meetings prior to 1978.[3] A Sunstone article states that Samuel Chambers was made an acting deacon and his wife an acting deaconess (!).[4] That's what I was able to find.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Embry, Jessie L. (1994). Black Saints in a white church: contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. ISBN 1560850442. Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  2. ^ Teachings, LDS Scripture (2 December 2016). "A segment from the book "Lengthen Your Stride" by Edward Kimball". LDS Scripture Teachings. Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  3. ^ "Mormons to mark 30 years of blacks in priesthood". NewsOK.com. 7 June 2008. Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  4. ^ Bush, Lester (May–June 1979). "Mixed Messages on the Negro Doctrine" (PDF). Sunstone. 4 (3). Retrieved 18 July 2017.
Somewhat related, I found a source that mentions the restrictions in more detail, as defined in the late 1960s. Black men could serve in leadership roles in auxiliary organizations. For men this would be Young Men's or Sunday School (but I'm confused, because I thought the presidencies of either organization had to hold the priesthood). Deceased blacks could not have their temple work done by proxy, but black children could perform baptisms for the dead in temples. Also, white parents could be sealed to an adopted black child.[1]: 95  Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Prince, Gregory A. (2005). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-822-7.
Regarding "I have never heard about the First Presidency indicating that you did not need the priesthood to pass the sacrament because there was no scriptural reference." Once blessed, the sacrament is generally passed freely among the congregation. In many (but not all) congregations deacons typically walk through the aisles to facilitate distribution, but it is then passed freely from person to person through the congregation. In smaller congregations it is often passed directly to the congregation from the priest who blessed it. Various groups have pushed for what they believe to be a change in the policy about who passes the sacrament, but policy in Doctrine and Covenants 20:58 (adopted the time the church was organized) is quite clear, it is only the priests who are "administering" the sacrament, neither teachers nor deacons have authority to administer it. Wards where passing between the aisles the congregation is done by teachers and deacons is for convenience and regional tradition only, and can be done by anyone. The current policy (General Handbook 18.9.2) says that deacons usually perform the duties of passing to the congregation, but it is up to the bishop for who is invited to assist. Some websites have done a deeper investigation with specific timelines for when responsibilities shifted, and the possibility of young women passing it, with discussion on how young men passing the sacrament has been called a custom rather than requirement since at least 1928.[1] Bwagstaff (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Black people and priesthood (LDS). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename of article.[edit]

This article should be named Black people and priesthood. LDS is not needed as a DAB term as there is no article called Black people and priesthood nor any starting with that phrase.Naraht (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation terms are supposed to make it clearer to the reader what the subject matter of the article is. While "LDS" may be a familiar abbreviations to those in the church or who deal with the subject often, it is not a common abbreviation, which is the primary reason that I moved the article. If someone has a better choice which isn't extremely long ("Black people and priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is unwieldy), then that's fine, but disambiguation terms should disambiguate, not cause more but confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also preferred the former title since "Mormon priesthood" isn't really a term Mormons (or sources about Mormonism) use very often. Perhaps Black people and the priesthood (Mormonism) would solve the problem? ~Awilley (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested title would cover priesthood in any religion. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this suggested move. No objection to a move per my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS[edit]

This entry need a disclaimer in that it is not complete and relies heavily on church doctrines without any critical analysis of what actually took place in 1978 in regards to the threat of cessation for civil rights violations, which preceded the "revelation" from church leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.88.82 (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up tags[edit]

I removed the clean up tags at the talk. If anyone feels they should be re-added, let's discuss specifically what is wrong and make this a better article. Epachamo (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this back to Black people and the priesthood (LDS)[edit]

Apparently this page was named Black people and the priesthood (LDS) a few years ago. But now it was moved to this obnoxiously long name for some reason. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The temple ban is more important than just the priesthood aspect. Additionally, according to WP:NCLDS, articles about just the one denomination should have the full church name in the title:
"Naming articles about the Latter Day Saint movement: ... Articles about only one Latter Day Saint denomination should use the full name of the denomination as it exists on the denomination's Wikipedia page. For example: History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
I agree this article title is long, but, unfortunately, the full name of the LDS Church is itself really long, and Wikipedia seems to want it spelled out FULLY in the article title for situations like this. Perhaps there's a case to be made to change the manual of style there, but that would need to be discussed on MOS:LDS.
Pastelitodepapa (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_people_and_temple_and_priesthood_policies_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&oldid=1212256619"