Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 1

message: I would like to see more citation.  I am reading Rough Stone Rolling, and there is a ton of great information there.  I would like to see Joseph Smith's history with blacks cited and fleshed out more, particularly with their issues with local government, and how the church was basically neutral, and then had to present themselves as not supporting freedom for slaves, more for their own survival and peace with their neighbors.  Remember, they were being forced out of their homes and their very survival depended on good ties with their non-mormon neighbors. Bytebear 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherever you would like to see a citation, place a  tag.  The section on Joseph Smith is at Blacks and Mormonism.  I think you've found it already.  It's a mess.  I think it has had many contributors and it needs a lot of clean up.  It's completely disjointed.  I started on such a project once, but I became overwhelmed.  I, for one, would appreciate you're input.  On the other hand, I reject the theory that the Saints adopted a racist policy in order to get along with their neighbors, in part, because it didn't work.  They were not racists enough to get along with Missourians.  I believe they remained true to their own feelings against slavery while simultaneously remaining true to their feelings of racial superiority.  In other words, they didn't think that blacks should be slaves, but they were obviously inferior, very complicated, but there is good evidence to suggest that Joseph began maturing away from this position while he lived in Nauvoo.  Also remember that a person could oppose both slavery and abolition at the same time.  Abolition called for the immediate release of all slaves.  This terrified many people who called for granting freedom to the slaves in a more orderly and gradual manner. -ErinHowarth 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: I'll tell you where this all stems from. Joseph Smith was given a revelation to not let the "Blacks" have the priesthood. He then told the Church this and gave no supporting explanation other than "thus saith the Lord." The general membership and many of the leadership have tried over the years to back it up with some scriptural reference giving rise to the lame Cain & Ham theories. The truth is the people were weak and could not handle the higher law and God gave them a lesser law. When the people as a whole could handle the higher law the lesser law was repealed. --Evan Davis 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite disagree.  The evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught anything concerning restricting blacks from the priesthood is highly suspect.  Many people claimed to have learned the doctrine from Joseph, but none of their recollections are contemporary.  In contrast, we know that Joseph personally laid his hands on the head of Elijah Abel (a black man and former slave) and ordained him to the office of Elder.  I firmly believe this all came from Brigham, from his own understanding of the scriptures, without any revelation at all.-ErinHowarth 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Smith

message: I wonder if it would be appropriate to mention the formation of the Genesis Group, as it was a response by the First Presidency to assess and address the needs of black members of the church? Nhansen 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wonder.  I know that it would be appropriate to mention the group.  It seems this article is mostly about blacks and the priesthood, rather than blacks and the church.  There is very little information about blacks in the church after the 1978 revelation, such as the growth in Africa, conversion of Gladys Knight, or how many blacks are in the church now.Joshuajohanson 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Genesis Group? 

message: It's interesting to me that the 1978 revelation accounts and McKay dealings keep get edited out of this article. Rather than introducing yet another version of the revelation that will undoubtedly get removed, i'll place it here. On June 1, 1978, at a regular temple meeting of the general authorities, Kimball asked the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve to stay for a private conference. In a spirit of fasting and prayer, they formed a prayer circle. Kimball opened by saying he felt impressed to pray to the Lord and asked their permission to be “mouth.” He went to the altar. Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve - at least two have said so publicly - were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former president of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowledged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, “through the still, small voice.” The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding. At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the quorum members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God-an ineffable experience.  Two of the apostles present described the experience as a “day of Pentecost” similar to the one in Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God. (Adventures of a Church Historian. Leonard J Arrington Pages 176-177 -Visorstuff 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great stuff.  I've never read that before.  I wonder if it would be appropriate to add it to WikiQuote. -ErinHowarth 07:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another revelation account

message: In addition to only presenting one view as to why the blacks received the priesthood, this article makes other NPOV comments, like "Church policy was not arbitrarily racist but African Americans actually deserved this restricted status as a result of their lack of faithfulness before birth."  It also makes many sweeping generalizations about "why" leaders made the choices they did.  For example, it says "Church leaders needed something else to justify priesthood restriction", "Brigham Young saw no need to go beyond the cursed genealogies", and Joseph statements about blacks were made "in an attempt to correct the misunderstanding."  How do we know why they did and said what they did?  If some historians view those are the reasons, then it should be expressed as the historians viewpoint, especially when the church makes claims to the contrary.  For example, it says "Joseph Smith was easily and repeatedly referred to as the author of many statements, which had actually been made by Brigham Young." If the church refers to Joseph Smith as the author, but another says it was made by Brigham Young, why do we assume the other source is right.  Also, an inordinate amount of time is spent on the priesthood, and not enough on civil rights and current viewpoints.Joshuajohanson 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel you should be bold in deleting anything that resembles original research.  We should not put words in the mouths of any church's leaders; rather we use quotes from qualified references. If there is a dispute providing quotes from various perspectives is desired.  I would also say that I never favor looking at history through the perspective of today. IMHO, I have always found that to be hypocritical. In doing so we attempt to judge individuals by standards unheard of and/or unexpected in their day. Civil rights was not a topic of the 1830's and did not become a real issue in US society until the mid 1900's.  Current standards mean nothing to history; it is a cloudy lense in which to review the actions of historical figures. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm Rider, in as far as I infer from the above that you are arguing for humility in the evaluation of the actions of others from a different place and time, I would agree with such a sentiment. However, your statement seems to imply that there is some neural lens from which to view history. But history's are themselves historical, and subject to revision so no clear vision is possible. If human history is the interaction between ideology, practice and consequences (whether divine or mundane) then we can and should as moral, rational beings, concern ourselves with the said history from the only perspective we have, which is the one we each occupy. This does not negate the need to also attempt to understand the perspective of others from another place and time, but we should not assume that we can ever do so accurately, and in fact we imagine their perspective from our own. It best we can edit this article in a way that minimizes the bias we each bring to it, in as far are we are able to be conscientious in our inevitable disagreements.--Betamod 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: In my humble opinion, this article (in today's version, at least) is probably as neutral in content as it would be possible to make it.  I am a member of the LDS Church, so I see the issue from the inside, but I also have some experience outside Church circles on this topic, and the article seems to be reaching to both areas.  Therefore (again IMHO) I have deleted the POV question (for now).  I hope that is not too offensive for y'all Raymondwinn 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View?

message: What's the tag for "this whole article has few to no sources whatsoever, and needs some since none of the information in it is the official view of the Church nor of any BYU history professors...?"  ;)  Naw, really, I'd like to see a million sources for precisely that reason--there are a lot of statements made here that really cannot be believed outside of their being heavily sourced.  I mean, as far as I've always been taught all the arguments for why black people didn't get the priesthood were intellectual arguments made by secondary commentators, and need to be presented as such.  And for that matter, wasn't it all people of African descent, not black people.  I.e. didn't it include the 30% of Africans that are not black?  --Mrcolj 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation