Talk:1978 Revelation on Priesthood/Archive 1

Name
This is more commonly called the "Revelation on Priesthood" than "1978 Revelation". I agree that "1978" should be included in the title, because in the LDS Church there is more than one "revelation on priesthood". I would suggest "1978 Revelation on Priesthood" would be best. Snocrates 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Noleander (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of material
This article is essentially a duplication of what exists already at Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, what is there about the revelation is far more extensive. I'm not sure what this contributes as a stand-alone article. If nothing unique is added here, it should probably just be merged back there. Unless, of course, the material is removed from the main article, which it has not been. Snocrates 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Im in the middle of creating this article ... it will probably take a day or two.  When the dust settles, we can see how the overlap with BaCOJCOLDS article plays out.  Im sure that, working together, we can make sure that this collection of articles is most useful to Wikipedia users. Noleander (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fine then. I thought you had finished it. I think it definitely can survive independent of the main article with additional info. Snocrates 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing Black people/Mormonism articles
Please see the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Re-organizing_the_Black_people.2FMormonism_articles. here] about reogranizing the existing articles about Black people and Mormonism, including this article. CO GDEN  23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/priesthood.html
 * In 1978 Revelation on Priesthood on 2011-05-25 04:48:40, 404 Not Found
 * In 1978 Revelation on Priesthood on 2011-06-07 00:34:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.signaturebooks.com/outofprint/neither.htm
 * In 1978 Revelation on Priesthood on 2011-05-25 04:48:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 1978 Revelation on Priesthood on 2011-06-07 00:34:49, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that the article Official Declaration—2 be merged into this one. This seems to be the main article, and it already has a section where OD-2 could be cut and pasted. See also the discussion at Talk:Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge p  b  p  15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there hasn't been an overwhelming response, but it's been two weeks, and two other users have expressed support for this on another page. I think I'll just make the merge and call it good. If anybody disagrees this talk page will still be here, and it's an easy revert. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit removed
, what exactly is the problem with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood&curid=15124285&diff=715325154&oldid=715289900 the material] that you removed, which was recently added by User:Dithridge? I feel that it is quite appropriate background, and well sourced. I think the article could do with more background information on some of the pressures on the LDS Church that led up to the 1978 revelation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to include more information in the events leading up to the revelation section about events external to the church that contributed to the priesthood ban being enough of an issue that it became a focus of president kimball. My edit was reverted with the suggestion that it be discussed here first.


 * The main information to include is the fact that there were both protests from people outside the church and administrative difficulties inside the church related to the priesthood ban. Some specific protests are the NAACP threat to picket general conference and the boycotting of sports games by athletes competing against byu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dithridge (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the question and explanation. I was concerned when I saw this material, because, at a cursory glance, I could not tell whether or not it was sufficiently or reliably sourced. I feel it is always better to get consensus on major changes to any article, such as this one. That was my main concern. I am satisfied with the explanation and discussions contained herein. I would therefore have no problem in adding my voice to what seems to be the consensus that this material is so reliably sourced and therefore very good to include. Sorry if my revert made me seem to be a jerk. That was in no way, shape or form my intention. I realize there are some who will see my reverting material that is added in good faith as being bullying. I've been accused of bullying on LDS Church pages before. I won't bore you with the details. The important thing is that proper discussion has taken place and that all editors who have commented herein have agreed by consensus to reinclude this material. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Nothing wrong with asking for a bit of discussion. Dithridge (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversial statement added by Dithridge
Dithridge, since I am posting to query the intent behind and the verification for the statement you recently added, I am tagging you so you will see this comment. I was a little concerned about the statement, which was to the effect that by the time this policy was rescinded by revelation, many of those in opposition of the policy being rescinded, including Harold B. Lee, had died. To me, this statement seems to imply that the main reason behind the policy being rescinded was the death of all those who had raised objections to that happening. We know that's not true. This rescinding of policy had nothing to do with Lee's death and everything to do with the apostles unanimously agreeing and feeling impressed that the time had come for the policy reversal. Does that make sense? What say you, my fellow Wikipedians? Am I being unnecessarily anal, or is this an issue that deserves discussion and consensus? Again, I don't want to come across as being a bully, but the wording does concern me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgstokes (talk • contribs)
 * In Lee's absence in 1969, the apostles had voted unanimously to overturn the ban. Lee called for a re-vote so he could be present, and then the vote was not unanimous. After Lee's death, there again was unanimity in 1978. I think there's a pretty direct line between these facts and the statement in question. I agree though that we should get a source that supports the statement; I think there are several available. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was not aware of that fact or of the existence of any such sources. Did you have any in mind for this particular statement? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will look for a good source. Dithridge (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If one can be found, that would completely resolve my concerns. Sorry. Don't mean to come across as a stickler or bully. Just want to ensure that the correct procedure is followed here, and my intentions tend to be misunderstood, so I thought I'd explain myself. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221081807/http://www.signaturebooks.com/outofprint/neither.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/outofprint/neither.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

tribe of Israel adoption
A recent edit by makes the claim that one ramification of the new policy was that it allowed black people to be adopted into a tribe of Israel. Does anyone have a reference for that? Was it church policy not to do that before the 1978 policy?
 * I added some references. It is discussed on the Black_people_and_Mormonism page in more depth. FreePeoples (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
There are a number of concerns about this article. Chief among them is that it is predicated on a religious experience which is presented in an unobjective way as if it were undisputed fact. The critical section is "Revelation", which is based primarily on a single source: the biography of one participant's offspring, supplemented by a couple of first-hand reminiscences of colleagues. The considerable circumstantial detail seems to be intended to bolster the veracity of the happening.

Much of the content of this article is expressed in others of the numerous articles relating to black people and Mormonism. I recommend that what little is unique to this article, and is also reliably sourced, be integrated into one of these others: the likely candidates being Black people and Mormon priesthood and/or Black people and Mormonism. Frankly, I'm not sure why there needs to be two different articles about this subject. But there certainly doesn't need to be three.

As it stands, this article is not NPOV.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I wrote most of the "Events leading up to the revelation" section. It is the longest section of this article and I think it is reliably sourced and fairly neutral. I can support merging this article with one of the other existing ones as long as the content from that section gets incorporated into the merged article. Dithridge (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's OK by me. I'd suggest that this content be integrated into the "1951–1977" of the Black people and Mormon priesthood article.  If you'd like, I could take a shot at doing that.  Or would you prefer doing it yourself?  Once that's done, I'd be glad to make sure that any other properly sourced and non-duplicative content in this article be integrated into one of the others.  Then, this article can be put to rest.  Sound OK?--Jburlinson (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. I don't mind if you or someone else takes the lead on editing that section. Dithridge (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK -- two years later, but who's counting. In a week or two, I'll make the suggested changes in Black people and Mormonism and delete this one; unless any other editor would like to discuss further.  Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a number of articles that are all about very similar topics. As noted, Black people and Mormonism and Black people and Mormon priesthood, but also Black people and early Mormonism. I would think that the material from this article fits best in Black people and Mormon priesthood. Perhaps what should be proposed, either before or after this change, is some sort of broader consolidation of articles? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with you. There are numerous articles dealing with Mormons and black people, including Black people and early Mormonism, Black people and Mormonism, Mormonism and slavery, Interracial marriage and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Black Mormons, along with the article of this talk page.  There is a massive amount of duplication in these articles, and all have, to a greater or lesser extent, problems with primary sourcing and NPOV, along with other issues.  Ideally, a "birds-eye view" should be taken to determine how best to present the salient information to WP readers while minimizing clutter and redundancy, and maximizing unbiased and thorough coverage.  I wonder if this could possibly be coordinated through WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, although that project is now listed as "semi-active".  An alternative would be for interested editors to discuss this overall topic on one of the talk pages.  From my point of view, this subject could be covered by a single article, or, perhaps, a primary article with a sub-article if the primary starts to exceed WP size limits.


 * For now, I think your idea of merging the current article with Black people and Mormon priesthood is a good one. Would you be OK if I proceeded along those lines in a week or two, to give other editors a chance to weigh in?--Jburlinson (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be fine. Civil rights and Mormonism—the list goes on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * just in case you're still in the mood ... there doesn't seems to be any objection to the merge you propose. Klbrain (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)