Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 2

message: I counted approximately nine citation needed tags dating back eight months.  Unless someone is in the middle of obtaining a source, I will go ahead and delete that text. Alanraywiki 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give this a couple of more days, but then any unsourced comments need to be removed.  Enough time has elapsed to find citations.  Thanks, Alanraywiki 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted two sections that had citation tags outstanding for 9 months.  If this information is readded, please include the source.  Thanks, Alanraywiki 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove text with old citation needed tags 

message: Is there a way to add the following books to the reading list?  They are currently not referenced in the article:
* Black and Mormon by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith
* Blacks & the Mormon Priesthood: Setting the Record Straight by Marcus H. Martins, Ph.D. 
Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bytebear:  I can add these books to the reference list in this article; or did you just want instructions on how to do it yourself?  If the latter: just view the article, scroll down to the "secondary sources" book list, then press the "Edit" button to the right, and enter the book info (copy-and-paste a pre-existing entry is easiest).  Then press "Save Page".  Apologies if you know that already :-) Noleander (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: I'm preparing a new section on A. David Jackson, the black LDS member who, in 1990s, tried to get the church leadership to issue a formal statement repudiating the past racist statements of church prophets.  Does anyone have any info on what happened to him after 1999?  Thanks in advance. Noleander (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section on A. David Jackson 

message: Here is the status of the POV tag issues, in my opinion:
#DONE Overall tone and balance are skewed: discussion of the racism that lasted over a century is not proportionally discussed
#DONE Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non-priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978  
#DONE Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
#DONE 1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there 
#DONE Some opinions/thoughts/quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978 (has some positive, but no negative)
#DONE Priesthood discussion:  Need more specificity about the discriminatory practices:  what exactly were blacks prohibted from doing?
#Some discussion of LDS views on miscegnation, esp after 1978. 
#Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
#DONE Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
#DONE Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative  
#DONE Uncited OR/opinion-type language must be removed, such as "However, with the calling of Martins as a seventy, the church had, it may be argued, gone full circle on this issue. The African American policy evolved in a peculiar way, from exclusion, which was the status quo of the time, to equality, which is the ideal for the future"
So it appears that there are just a couple of items left (7) and (8), and then I would be comfortable with removal of the POV tag.  Of course, if anyone feels the pendulum has swung the other way, they can simply re-add the tag. Noleander (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag removal progress 

message: I found this reference and thought it had some interesting things.  I will summarize them for use in the article:
* According to sociologist Amand L. Mauss, a president of the Mormon History Association, the church's racist beliefs originated within protestant denominations from which many Mormons converted. He said in 1998: "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham." - Bill Broadway, "Black Mormons Resist Apology Talk," Washington Post, 1998-MAY-30, Page B09. See: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lds_race.shtml
** Cain is described in the book of Genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) as a son of Adam. Cain was jealous of his brother Abel, because God had rejected Cain's offering, while accepting Abel's. In Genesis 4:8, he is described as having "attacked his brother Abel, and killed him." 
**Ham is described in Genesis 9 as a son of Noah who had seen his father naked. Ham himself was not punished. But Ham's son, Canaan, was cursed. Genesis 9:25-27: <bockquote>"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'."</blockquote>
**This became known as the Curse of Ham.
**Most Christians found it convenient prior to the 19th century to assume that the Curse of Ham was to continue to all of Ham's African descendents. This justified human slavery. 
**The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice.
*The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress because of the fact that the Bible taught something that was apparently against the will of God. Beliefs of the inferiority of blacks died a slow death among the leading denominations.
* Non-racist statements in the Book of Mormon
**2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." 10 
**2 Nephi 26:33: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he 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, both Jew and Gentile." 10 
**3 Nephi 27:14 & 15: "And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works."  
Note, I am leaving out some things in the article that are incorrect. The Book of Mormon does not say anything about African Americans (or blacks in general) at all.
It goes on to quote some 1800s statements about the black intermarrying and being worthy in the pre-existence, but interestingly enough it does not quote McConkie who basically said that after the 1978 revelation, all of those ideas needed to be abandoned.  (can someone find this quote?)  I think we can add that information, but it needs to be balanced with the context of the time, and a strong emphasis that the concepts were never "canon" and were almost universally rejected after the ban was lifted.
* Civil Rights statements in the 1960s"During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.
We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man." - 1963-OCT-06, General Conference 
"The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."
"Next, we must not participate in any so-called "blacklash" activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people. 
"We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them." - Mormon racism in perspective: An example for possible future changes in policy relating to women and gays," at lds-mormon.com a non-official LDS website.I don't know how we can incorporate this, but it might be interesting.  The article definitely has a push toward gay rights, which is fine by me, but I don't want that to influence this article.  I would rather use the primary references than this article directly as a reference. Much of the information comes from lds-mormon.com which is not a primary source, so I hope we can use the information but get primary references directly. Bytebear (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of that 1960 - 1963 text (3 paragraphs up) is already in the article in Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Civil Rights Movement Noleander (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting reference 

message: I'm looking for cites on church policies on interracial marriages:  pre-1978 and post-1978. Can anyone point me at some church doctrine?  Noleander (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't find church "doctrine" on the matter as there isn't any "doctrine" on the matter (you may want to read a short discussion on what is LDS Church doctrine found here. Nor has their ever been. However, you may find some isolated statemements of church leaders. I'd start at the Genesis group's site. -Visorstuff (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policies on interracial marriages 

message: Various editors have used the word priest when speaking of ordination to the priesthood.  It should be noted that a priest in the LDS Church is generally 16-17 years old or a newly baptized member.  It is one of the offices in the priesthood.  Better terminology would be ordained to or holding the priesthood. See Priest (Latter Day Saints). Alanraywiki (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my mistake:  I've fixed it per your suggestion.  Noleander (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word priest 

message: There are two sentences in the article (not written by me .. they've been there awhile) that say that black church members could not enter temples prior to 1978.   On the other hand, there is one sentence saying they could go into temples, but just couldn't participate in certain rituals.  Does anyone have a citation to a written church policy on that issue?  Or was temple admission policy enforced in an ad hoc manner, so some temples in some years didn't permit black church members to enter, but other temples in other times did?  In any case, we need to tweak the text in the article to be more precise and consistent. Noleander (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it really depends on the decade. It was inconsistent. -Visorstuff (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question would be about baptisms for the dead.  Currently (I don't know if that was always the case) a male must hold the priesthood in order to be the proxy in these baptisms, so it could be that black males were not able to be the proxy in these baptisms.  What about black females who had no such restrictions?  Could they participate? Alanraywiki (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that both groups could do baptisms for the dead, but would have to double check. Incidentally, you do not need the Aaronic priesthood to do baptisms, in fact, the minimum age for years was 8 years, and currently new male converts can without holding the Aaronic priesthood. -Visorstuff (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I did not know that.  I thought they had to have the Aaronic priesthood.  Interesting...  In that case, I would agree that blacks (both male and female) could do baptisms in the temple.  Was that always in practice though?  Also, could black women take their endowments prior to 1978?  I suspect it was common practice for women to not do so unless they were getting married, so, in essence, the interracial marriage issue would creep in.  But I don't really know of the details, and I believe they are hard to come by. Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I double-checked.  Currently, a male must hold the priesthood in order to do baptisms for the dead.  It would still be good to know if black women could participate because I think that may change this article somewhat to being more of a priesthood issue. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alanraywiki - I just double checked the new gray CHI - you are correct, that a male 12 years old and older currently needs to hold the AP to receive a limited use recommend. Wow. However, males can enter the temple between the ages of 8 and 12 without holding it (but at this time can't do B4tD). This has not always been the case, but it makes sense, as the same worthiness standards to enter the temple are similar to holding the AP. Historically, this has not always been the case. As i mentioned earlier, it used to be church policy that anyone 8 and up could do baptisms at the temple. I'm actually glad they changed the policy. Thanks for out and correcting me. -Visorstuff (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent sentences on temple admission for blacks 

message: Well it now looks like we have every complaint ever written about the LDS church and Blacks from an anti-Mormon point of view. We now need to add reality to the article by addressing the growth of the church among black people throughout the word. We should also add a multitude of statements by these black saints for why they feel the church is true to balance the large number of quotes by those who have attacked the church. The article will turn into a giant article, but at least it will find a modicum of balance. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Direction of article

message: The article indicates that the number of black members has been estimated to be 500,000.  Actually, it appears that the source cited in note 1 indicates that approximately that number have African roots, not that they are necessarily black.  It does not indicate if they are white individuals from, for example, South Africa.  Individual church records do not include the race of a member (but they do include place of birth), so how would the number of black members be determined? Alanraywiki (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I cant help there.   That 500,000 figure and 5% figure have been in the article for a while ... I didn't put them in.  I have done some research and the official LDS statistics are headcounts only:  the church doesn't identify members by race, so the church doesn't produce racial stats.  I'm sure some people familiar with LDS growth, demographics or global distribution could come up with a rough estimate ... perhaps that is where the 5% came from? Noleander (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics on number of black members 

message: There are several secondary sources being cited as if they were primary sources.  This needs some clean up.  For example, the article says (paraphrasing) "In 1969, the Apostles voted to remove the ban, but Harold B. Lee reversed the decision."  The reference is Quinn, but what is his reference?  The sentence should say something like "According to author Quinn, the apostles supposedly voted to remove the ban..." Unless there is a primary source, you cannot state this as fact.  I would be interested to know where Quinn got his facts though. Bytebear (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know if D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy should be used as a secondary source. When FARMS scholar Duane Boyce reviewed the book, he said "In too many ways it both misleads and distorts; sad to say, it appears to be a book that cannot be read innocently or with conﬁdence."  Let's try to only use WP:Reliable Sources.Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources 

message: Bytebear:can you please provide a cite for:After the ban was lifted, he rescinded all of his past statements relating to the matter.Most assertions in this article are cited, and we should try to keep to that high standard.  Also, that assertion should probably go down farther in the article, which proceeds chronologically:  the early parts of the article explain how the restrictions got established and justified; then later in the article are the reversals, etc. Noleander (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking, but this reference should be utilized extensively. Bytebear (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite needed

message: JoshuaJohnson:  I see you added some quotes to "Interracial marriage policies after 1978".  The two quotes seem almost identical in substance (to the latter seems more comprehensive).  Is there some way you could pick one or the other: this article is rather large already.  Any given point could be supported by 10, 20 or more quotes.  It is best to pick the most informative quote and use it.  An exception might be applicable if two quotes were significantly different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Noleander (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the quote as redundant.  If I am reading this correctly, one quote is from 1978, and another based on current church policy, but I could be reading things wrong. Bytebear (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is to show that in 1978 there was no problems with interracial marriage and the other to show there had not been anything since 1978.  By the way, I do not like the way it is spilt up into before 1978 and after 1978.  That implies that the revelation on the priesthood included something about interracial marriages.  Even in 1965 Kimball said there was no condemnation in it.  I also don't like the terminology calling policy.  Was it ever policy?  Brigham Young obviously taught against it, and Peterson obviously had his views, but that doesn't make it policy, especially in light of Kimball's remarks. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree.  The timeline format isn't ideal.  There are many issues that do not coincide with the 1978 revelation, and they need to be addressed separately. Bytebear (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant quotes?

message: JoshuaJohnson:  the newspaper article you deleted was printed in the SAME EDITION of the newspaper as the article announcing the reversal.  Clearly church authorities wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, they didn't want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage. Noleander (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the Church News is not the official newspaper of the church.  You cannot make any assumptions on what the church authorities did or did not want to let the people know because they do not print the paper.  It is printed by the Deseret Morning News, which happens to be owned by the church, so it obviously favors the church, but you cannot interpret anything it does as being done by the church.  It can only report on what has been previously said, and that is what it did.  It reported on a statement given in 1965, and hence should go in the pre-1978 statements.  It may be that the editor of the newspaper wanted to let people know that, although blacks could be priests, he didn't want to encourage (post 1978) interracial marriage, but that was the editor of the newspaper's call and cannot be taken as church doctrine.  It did not report any statement by church leaders after 1978 and should therefore go in the pre-1978 section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper article

message: JoshuaJohnson:  you changed a key word in the Brigham Young section, and your comment says there is some debate over which church leader started the racial ban.  All the reference works I've seen on the subject say it was Brigham Young.  Do have some citations that show otherwise?  If so, could you please provide them?  Thanks.   Noleander (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brigham Young was the first leader we have record of that denied the priesthood based on race, but several people, like John Taylor concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young. (see Neither White nor Black, 77–78)  If you want to read up on different theories on how the ban got started, see the FAIR wiki entry on the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajohanson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Young may have started it, but there is no smoking gun declaration or revelation.  Remember, in LDS practice only the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles can declare doctrine.  This was not done with the ban, but it was done to reverse it.  So, maybe it was Young, or he and a few other leaders, but we will never know because there is no written declaration. Bytebear (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brigham Young started it?

message: What does this have to do with this article's topic?  "Today, even non-Mormons can be leaders of an LDS Boy Scout troop." Noleander (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is significant because it shows that the position is a secular one and not a religious one.  It is the only church calling that I know of that can be held by a non-Mormon (although I could be wrong). Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this sentence here?