# Talk:Spencer W. Kimball

Spencer W. Kimball being unable to speak because of his throat cancer was unique among leaders of men as a listener rather than a talker. This ability has made him contemplative in his prayer life and given him the gift to hear God, this coupled with the Charasmatic office of Prophet has made his presidency a great one. Just as all milkmen are not as good all prophets are not as good. - David Murdoch

Marked as needing some work but deleted - preserving here in case someone wants to edit for neutrality:

During his apostleship, Elder Kimball's labors spanned the globe as he served both members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints along with other people he came in contact with. Primary duties included visiting and organizing stakes, wards, and branches of the Church, calling missionaries, performing temple marriages, and teaching the Mormon religion. Dedicated to the people whom he served, he spent much of his time interviewing, teaching, and counselling members and others about how to live Christ-centered lives.
Spencer found himself teaching the principles of repentance and forgiveness quite frequently. Referring to many of the same scriptures and teachings over and over, he wondered if his notes might be used to serve more than those he could meet with personally. In response to this need, he compiled his oft used notes and scripture references in book form, and titled it; "The Miracle of Forgiveness".
--Trödel 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out one obvious stumbling block to this article being selected as a GA, which is that more than 95% of the article appears based on work by Kimball's sons. Have no independent figures written about Kimball? Are there no academic or journalistic accounts that touch on his life in any way? His own sons seem unlikely to have taken a complete and dispassionate view of him and his work, and it's hard to imagine this article could be neutral while based solely on the writings of his family. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the only other full biography of Kimball is by Francis Gibbons and is of inferior quality compared to Edward Kimball's books, particularly the 2nd (2005) one.  Kimball (2005) is of excellent academic quality.  I think it a poor judgment to discount it because the subject is the author's father, in classical Chinese work (my main Wikipedia field) we deal with this regularly.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good_Olfactory – you made some good changes, but do we really need to change the dates to the MM/DD/YYYY format?  Does Kimball really qualify under strong national ties?  I think those are fine as they were.  The LDS Church uses DD/MM/YYYY for its records now, anyway, so who cares? I say we follow the "Maintain the Existing Variety" doctrine. White Whirlwind  咨  00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would we want two different date formats in the same article? I don't care which is used, but articles about American people usually use MM-DD-YYYY. But either way, should it not be consistent at least internally to this article? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I know that Kimball was preceded and succeeded in all 3 positions by Harold B. Lee and Ezra Taft Benson respectively. Ezra Taft Benson spans 3 rows, while Harold B. Lee is listed once for each position. I have tried every way I know how to eliminate the redundant listings for Lee and combine them to one row, but it is not working. Does anyone know how to fix this? I feel this is an important and appropriate change. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.
I agree that the change is appropriate, but I can't say I feel it was particularly important.  When you have an issue like this, it's best to look at talk pages for the template involved: in the case, the answer was at Template_talk:S-start#Why_does_the_code_break.3F.   White Whirlwind  咨  00:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me fix this. I ran into problems every time I tried to make it look like the other box. Thank you for referring me to the appropriate section for help in the future. I will try to remember that. Thanks again! IMHO, this issue can be considered closed with honor. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There is ample evidence from a wide variety of sources that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never excluded people from anything based on the color of their skin. Indeed, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that "the Lord... inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God..." (2 Nephi 26:33). The priesthood restrictions herein discussed applied to anyone ostensibly of Canaanite descent, regardless of skin color; and did not apply to anyone not ostensibly of Canaanite descent, again regardless of skin color. This is stated explicitly in Kimball (2008), page 7, as included in the sources.
While the previously cited statement, from Prince & Wright (2005), 73, claims that "blacks were denied ordination to a priesthood that was available to all other worthy males", this statement is incredibly misleading when removed from context. If one continues to read, Prince & Wright explain that that was not strictly correct; that the policy that most resembles this was made up by a single mission president with no authority to do so (ibid., 75); and that President McKay clarified that the ban applied "to blacks of African origin" (ibid., 78). In short, some—even most—blacks were excluded, but not all. By implying that "blacks" equals "all blacks", it would also be appropriate to state that "whites were denied ordination to a priesthood that was available to all other worthy males", since some were.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOtter (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC) 

@TheOtter: New talk page sections go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top.
You're making a complete tautological point here: you're arguing that it was only black ("Negro", using the terminology of that era) people of African (ostensibly "Canaanite", as you said) descent who were prohibited, which of course is exactly what the section in question has stated ever since I first wrote it: "...individuals of black African descent were prohibited from..."  The prohibition was not imposed on fair-skinned Africans, like South Africans of British or Dutch ancestry or Arabs, nor was it imposed on other "Negrito" or black people from Australia and other non-African locales, which is why I worded it the way I did originally.  You didn't read the original wording carefully enough or parse it accurately enough.
With regard to your desire to add content about the very rare exceptions to the priesthood ban, such as Elijah Abel's son and grandson, those are esoteric exceptions noted only in Black and Mormon (as far as I've read), and aren't notable enough for inclusion on an article about President Kimball except perhaps as in a note, which I have included to accommodate your feelings.  A sentence or two would be appropriate on Black people and Mormonism, though.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@White whirlwind: My apologies for the erroneous placement of my last statement.
The problem is that your assertion of tautology doesn’t change the facts: not all blacks of African descent were restricted from Priesthood ordination. The Abel family is of course a notable exception, but not the only one. Those who were adopted out of the lineage were also released from said restrictions (see, for example, Prince, Gregory A. (Spring 2002). "David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation" (PDF). Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 35 (1). Dialogue Foundation: 153. Retrieved 28 June 2015.). By continually removing the clarification that the restrictions did not apply to all blacks of African descent—a fact that you have already conceded—you are leaving the reader with incomplete information. TheOtter (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@TheOtter:: I assume the passage you are referring to on page 153 is: "First, as mentioned earlier in this paper, McKay relaxed the rule governing ordination of men whose black African ancestry may have been suspected but not proven, thereby opening the doors of the priesthood to thousands, particularly in South Africa and Brazil. Second, he allowed Blacks to be called to leadership positions in auxiliary organizations. Third, he allowed Blacks to enter temples to be baptized for the dead. Fourth, on occasion when white parents adopted children of black ancestry, he authorized those children to be sealed to their adopted parents."
Again, the relevant points there (#2 and #4) are esoteric and rare circumstances that do not in any way affect the validity of the statement that "individuals of black African descent were prohibited from ordination to the LDS Church's priesthood...."  These rare situations where children were adopted by white parents (and could only be sealed to them, as Prince states) and where black African ancestry was suspected but not proven are utterly out of place in an article on President Kimball.  I understand that you may feel very strongly about this—people often come to Wikipedia with an axe to grind regarding some issue or phrase (I did too)—but please take this to an article where it has a chance of being within the article's scope, such as Black people and Mormonism, as I already mentioned in an earlier post.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@White whirlwind:: I get that, but I'm just not understanding why you've taken such umbrance with the addition of a single word that clarifies the issue. The statement regarding "individuals of black African descent" is technically accurate, but implies that all "individuals of black African descent" were so restricted. The addition of the word "most" clarifies the statement and in no way detracts therefrom. TheOtter (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@TheOtter: The issue here is balancing the connotations.  If you were to go ahead and add something like "most" or "many" in front of the phrase in question, a reader could easily feel like there were a significant number of exceptions to the rule, which there were not, there were extremely few.  You are correct to say that some readers could possibly infer that our general statement might mean there were no exceptions whatsoever (though the text does not say that).  The most commonly encountered sources on modern day Mormonism use the phrasing of the latter, and thus we should go with that here.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the rollback of my edits yesterday. Please give me the chance to finish my editing of this section. (there were problems with the Internet connection where I was working.) There are extensive cites from RS that I need time to add. It is not original research. There was a suit filed against the church in 2015 related to this, and recently the federal district court has said that the Navajo Nation Tribal Court has jurisdiction over a suit brought by four former students in the program. Kimball was in charge during this time.Parkwells (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Indian Placement Program (IPP) is certainly relevant to Kimball's life and leadership, as he initiated it due to his concern for Native Americans, and it reached the peak of student and family participation during his years as head of the church. The paragraph I have added back is sourced to a BYU academic book; certainly that should meet editors' standards for RS. This has been national news; I will look for other sources. Indian Country Today happens to be a Native American-founded and operated newspaper; editors should read more of its articles before trying to dismiss it as a source. It is certainly reporting factually on the federal judge's dismissal of the LDS Church's effort to have jurisdiction over the sexual abuse case moved out of the Navajo Nation Tribal Court.Parkwells (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As head of the church during the growth of the IPP, Kimball had influence and his remarks in 1960 at the general conference about Lamanites were quoted by The Atlantic in a recent article. They are relevant to this article.Parkwells (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Kimball's 1960 remarks are repeatedly referred to in articles about the church's position related to Native Americans and other peoples. He was quoting from the contemporary edition of the Book of Mormon. In 1981 he approved changes to the BOM that incorporated what were reportedly Joseph Smith's changes in an 1840 version: conversion making a people "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome." Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor here disputed my use of Indian Country Today Media Network as a Reliable Source in this article. It was founded and owned by Tim Giago in 1981. It is now owned by the Oneida Nation and based in New York City. It is a newsweekly described by the Associated Press in 2013 as "a leading source of Native American news" when reporting their decision to go digital. - KRISTI EATON (AP) "National Native American magazine going digital", Big News, 14 July 2013 [1]. I think that speaks to the magazine's ability to report on the Indian Placement Program and its relation to the LDS Church. This article relies heavily on the biography by Kimball and Kimball; other sources commenting and reporting on the period of Spencer Kimball's life and his programs are also useful.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "a leading source in Native American news [in 2016]" is supposed to be a reliable source for a program that ended well over 50 years ago.  In any case, your adding all this extraneous information on the IPP to the article on Kimball is utterly pointless, as this information (if indeed reliable) belongs on the IPP article, not Kimball's.  It now has a full four paragraphs of text on a topic that is of minor importance to the man himself, or about 10% of the paragraphs in the main portion of the body (prior to Parkwell's edits dumbing down sentences and splitting paragraphs needlessly).  I've often thought recently that the entire section on Native Americans will probably need to either be deleted or otherwise greatly truncated in preparation for a possible push to FA status that will necessitate a trimming of the biographical material in order to make room for an "Influence" or "Legacy" section.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment For what it is worth, the Indian Placement Program was not fully phased out until the late 1990s. I once came upon a study (I believe it was a masters thesis) about it from about 1996 or so, and in the study they mentioned  that even though the IPP still existed, most people thought it had been phased out. The reason for this is that it had gone from placing children starting at age 8 to only placing juniors and seniors in high school (16-18 years old or so), and even that on a much more limited basis. Indian Country Today has a clear partisan reason for misconstruing the issues involved, since it is basically acting as a voice for the plaintiffs in the suit alleging some participants in the IPP suffered sexual abuse from their host families and that the LDS Church neeeds to be held financially responsible for this abuse. This is the perfect set of ingredients for out-of-context quote mining from statements made over half a century ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone! Anyone familiar with the facts surrounding Nelson's operating on Kimball knows that Nelson reported his feeling during the operation that Kimball would be president of the Church. It is also interesting (and perhaps not coincidental) that Kimball would approve Nelson's appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in April 1984, and that Nelson himself has since become Church president. If a NPOV way can be found to mention all of this here, it might not be a bad idea to do so. But I wanted to put the idea out there and seek for consensus in that regard before I did anything. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This a somewhat interesting story for LDS readers in particular, and perhaps we could find an NPOV reliable source that describes the incident, but even if we could I am not certain that we could find enough sources to demonstrate that the story is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)