Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 5

From Talk:Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Comments

 * This material was previously found at Talk:Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Comments, but it really belongs on this talk page, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate this article to be reviewed for neutrality and accuracy. The initial statements of the article are clearly directed towards a certain point of view. One of the first sentences reads something like "...one of the most common misconceptions of the LDS church is...." Is this article about factual histories of the church and their policy towards blacks, or is the purpose of this article to "debunk" what some see as misconceptions about the church? The opening sentence clearly indicates the latter, and the article is therefore biased. Either the title of the article needs to be changed to "LDS Apologism", or the thrust of the article should be about factual history. One or the other.

152.2.181.72 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-organizing the Black people/Mormonism articles.
This article, Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, and 1978 Revelation on Priesthood share a lot of the same subject matter. This article, however, is getting way too large, and it seems appropriate to think about how to best re-allocate the subject matter between multiple articles. Of the many topics discussed in the present two articles, I divide them in to the following categories:
 * Black people and slavery in Joseph Smith-era Mormonism
 * The so-called "Negro doctrine" from the Brigham Young era and into the 20th century
 * The 1978 revelation, including its influences and its aftermath


 * Black Mormons


 * Mormon humanitarianism in Africa.
 * Black Latter Day Saints other than Mormons.

Of these, I think the last category is probably not worth its own article. If various churches such as the Community of Christ and the Strangites want to discuss their multiculturalism in their own articles, that's fine, but each of these churches has a completely different history relating to black people, and they don't fit well into a single article. I'd compare such an article with an article about Dentistry and Presidents of the United States. Sure, all U.S. presidents have issues with teeth, but they all have different teeth.

Also, the information about Mormon humanitarianism in Africa isn't really about black racial or cultural issues. The LDS Church does humanitarian work everywhere and they don't do it because the recipients are black, they do it because they are poor. Black race is pretty irrelevant. So this material can be moved to LDS Humanitarian Services.

Therefore, I would propose dividing the present three articles into the following four articles: CO GDEN  23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Black people and early Mormonism: would contain most of the existing Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, except the denominational material, which would be deleted or moved to denomination-specific articles
 * Negro doctrine: would contain the racist doctrinal material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the post-Smith slavery-related information, and the other 19th century material. Also would include info about modern efforts to get the LDS Church to explicitly renounce the doctrine or apologize
 * 1978 Revelation on Priesthood: would contain all the material from the existing article, plus further material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relating to the revelation, the influence of the civil rights movement, and the aftermath of the change
 * Black Mormons: would contain material from Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about particular modern black Mormons, Genesis group, lingering racism or successful multiculturalism, etc.


 * Though you've shuffled the names around, it seems to me that the intended residence of material wouldn't really change much, with the exception of the new Black Mormons article. Black people and early Mormonism = Black people and the LDS movement. Negro doctrine = Black people and TCOJCOLDS. "Negro doctrine" is a rather sketchy name for an article, though; the current name is better imho. Glancing over the layout and main sections of each article involved, I don't see a ton of overlap. The 1978 article should be considered a subarticle of this one, and this article should be considered a subarticle of the "Black people + LDS movement" article. It's expected for parent articles to contain summaries of their children articles. I support splitting "Black Mormons" into a new subarticle of this article, so only a terse summary of the large "Black membership" section need be kept at this article. I'm not really sure I agree that the topic of "lingering racism or successful multiculturism" be moved away from this article, though. ...comments? ~B F izz 02:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we basically agree, except that we need to figure out a name for what I would call the "Negro doctrine" article. I used that term because that is typically what the 19th century doctrine is called in literature. However, maybe a better name would be "Black people in Mormon doctrine". It would cover all the doctrinal or quasi-doctrinal issues. Incidentally, Black Mormons is a natural sub-article for the new Mormons article. CO GDEN  23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems
I've been bothered by a while with the way some of the information is split up here. Here's a summary of the articles we currently have that cover this subject: The numbers to the side indicate how many times the article has been viewed in the past 90 days. As you can see, the "Black people and early Mormonism" article wins by a long shot, most likely because of WP:Commonname. (It's the only one that has "Mormonism" in the title.) The problem that I'm seeing is that there's not a clear "parent" article. This one would be the best parent article, but it only touches lightly on the early Mormonism bit, and comes in second place in page views. The early Mormonism is a poor candidate because it says little about current policies, etc., leading to readers wondering what the current church policy is. I'm not sure what the best way to solve this problem is. Perhaps if we moved this article to Black people and Mormonism, and then merged in Black people and early Mormonism? The length issue could be partially dealt with by cutting down many of the long quotes from primary sources and summarizing them in a sentence or two. Also, I think it would be a good idea to merge Official Declaration-2 into the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood article. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Black people and early Mormonism — 45,556
 * Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — 29,161
 * 1978 Revelation on Priesthood — 9,998
 * Black Mormons — 8,982
 * Black people in Mormon doctrine — 6,431
 * Official Declaration—2 — 1,454
 * I generally concur with Adjwilley's observations and suggestions here. I understand the original motivation for naming Black people and early Mormonism vs Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but Adjwilley is right: we should reorganize this material so that it is more accessible to readers. Let's definitely create the Black people and Mormonism article to be the "parent" article here. We could still keep Black people and early Mormonism and Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as separate articles if desired, though I think the content overlap between them and the parent would be significant, so it would probably be best to simply merge them together and then rename. The new article should probably touch on the Community of Christ's past and current policies regarding Black people; I know they don't consider themselves part of Mormonism but the article is effectively about the "Latter Day Saint movement". Perhaps that should be the name: Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement, isn't "LDS movement" the status quo we have agreed upon for naming things like this? The "and Mormonism" variant should of course exist as a redirect. On a slight tangent: having separate articles for OD2 and 1978 revelation makes no sense; they are obviously the same topic so merge those immediately. I'd say OD2 is the better name for it, but that discussion should occur on those pages. ...comments? ~B F izz 00:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment; I have just one point of disagreement: I'm fairly certain the Community of Christ would appreciate not being included in this mess. The racial policy happened after they had separated and they had absolutely nothing to do with it. I think we can safely make this about Mormonism without broadening it to include the whole of the Latter Day Saint movement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with renaming this article to Black people and Mormonism. The Black people and early Mormonism article is already a fairly large article, so I think we should retain it as a sub-article to this one, and include just a summary of its contents in this article. I don't think we need a "Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement" article, because these issues are not shared with the Community of Christ. The priesthood ban was a Utah thing. CO GDEN  03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I'll wait a day or two to see if anybody else is watching and wants to comment, and then make the move. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't seen anybody screaming in protest, so I'm going to be bold and make the move. Moves are easy enough to revert, so if anybody disagrees, let me know. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Racial policy under Brigham Young
I see there's been some back and forth going on in this section lately. A quotation was changed in this edit without changing the context or the reference's page number. For example, the original quote was from a statement made on 13 February 1849. The second quote was made in 1852. The quotes are almost identical in their content – one difference is that the new one uses the word "prophet". I am just going to go ahead and make some tweaks to the article to reflect the new quotation. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are two paragraphs, and the first one already references the 1852 gubernatorial address. Isn't it redundant to essentially say the same thing (in slightly more detail) in the second paragraph? Braincricket (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just tweaked both paragraphs to get both quotes in the article and to give each proper context. Braincricket (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not entirely clear on what was going on there. I swapped the order of the two paragraphs and modified the 2nd as I explained in the edit summary. I expect I'll be editing those more in the future, as I think those two paragraphs should be a brief summary of the rest of the subsections, and thus should probably not be quoting Young extensively. (I'll make sure to keep the quotes though.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a post on Reddit today about it. Someone thought it was important to use a quote which included the word "prophet". Apparently there is a difference between what Young said as a prophet and what he said as a man. I haven't studied Mormonism, so I don't know, but I thought this would be a good compromise. I swapped the order of the paragraphs to reflect the chronology of the quotations, but after reading your edit summary I like your arrangement better. Cheers. Braincricket (talk)
 * Woah, that's crazy. I had no idea there were forums like that. It looks like this is the diff they're talking about. I had removed the longer quote because it was quite redundant with the paragraph two above it, which was quoting the same thing. In my experience, Mormons do distinguish between between what someone says "as a prophet" and what they say "as a man", and it's not always clear which is which. (It's especially fuzzy for Young, since he was acting as both church president and governor at the same time.) Apparently the people in the forum want it to say that Young said it "as a prophet", which probably goes against what many Mormons would like to think about it. As far as I know, there's not really a scholarly agreement on why the ban was instituted, though there's a fair consensus that it was a "policy" and not a "doctrine". I have a fair amount of literature on it, so I'll read up on it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nature of the priesthood
This sentence was recently removed and deemed irrelevant:

"Whereas other churches usually have full-time salaried clergy of whom individual members are often the chief minister to several families, in the LDS Church virtually all male head-of-household church members are part of the priesthood."

I restored it because I think it's quite relevant to the article's topic. Most people not familiar with LDS church terminology would probably hear "priesthood" and think of the definition as in the Catholic or Episcopal church -- that is, they'd think it refers to a clergyperson. In the LDS church, basically every adult male is holds the priesthood. Thus, barring blacks from the priesthood would not (to use an rough analogy with the Catholics) be like banning them from the Catholic priesthood; it would be like preventing them from going through confirmation, essentially saying that they can't be spiritual adults.

I'm open to changing the wording, but I think that essential fact needs to be conveyed up front to make it clear what barring blacks from the priesthood meant. --Jfruh (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This paragraph needs to be edited before it is included. There is no linking sentence to establish why this information is relevant to this article. I will leave the revision up to you, since it's your paragraph. In the meantime, I am removing the paragraph until its relevancy is established by revision. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is required because most readers don't know what LDS priesthood is and most readers would think it is like being a priest in another faith. Jfruh's characterization of it signifying a man's spiritual adulthood is a good way to put it although the original is fine.  It was in a good place in the article because this is where a definition is required.
 * --Javaweb (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * I re-added, with an explanation of relevance made explicit. --Jfruh (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Araignee just deleted as "irrelevant" and I reverted. Before we go into a revert war, I think we should discuss it here?  I think it's important for people to realize that the casual non-LDS reader of this article will not understand what "priesthood" means within the Mormon tradition, and having a wikilink to the priesthood article in the previous setnecen (with the fact that it's to a LDS-specific priesthood article hidden by the pipelink) isn't enough.  Since the whole pre-1978 policy revolved around not letting black males hold the priesthood, it's completely relevant to explain to a general audience up front what holding the priesthood entails -- specifically, that it's not like being a clergy memeber in a non-LDS church.


 * If the facts of the matter have been misrepresented obviously that should be corrected, but I see no harm and great benefit in having a short sentence in the lede paragraph explain what the stakes in the debate were. --Jfruh (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it being a lay priesthood is an important distinction. I'm not sure how much that should be emphasized in the first paragraph of the Lead. I think the current sentence is rather long and could be improved/trimmed substantially if consensus is to keep it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize to Jfruh and any others that I may have slighted...for some reason the talk page wasn't watched on my watchlist, only the main article. :^) I just now added it and see these comments. Relevance wasn't the issue so much as redundancy (I flipped the words while I was tired, I guess) and undue weight of this in the lede itself. While the priesthood is fairly important as far as the big picture (read: temple worship) for LDS, the day-to-day is less evident...members that don't have the priesthood can participate rather fully in the normal activities of weekly worship, including sermons, prayers, lessons, and other auxiliary leadership positions, excepting the blessing and distributing of the sacrament (but not the partaking of it), which is typically performed by a small group of priesthood anyway. Many that have it don't often use it. It would be different if there was the "blacks" Sunday school class and the "priesthood" class, but there is no and was no distinction of that sort.


 * Let me know if those changes I made are better. If not, consensus can determine the best action. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Current wording works for me. As you noted, the nature of the priesthood is described later in the article. The thing I felt was necessary to have in the lede was that blacks weren't excluded from a small professional priesthood, but rather from the usual role an adult male would have in the church. --Jfruh (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I do understand the purpose. Glad we got that worked out. :^) ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to throw a wrench in your consensus... I wasn't quite happy with the wording and I changed it again. The phrase "black men of African descent" was used in two consecutive sentences, and it said twice that they couldn't hold the priesthood. I also didn't like the "virtually" bit. I added a link to Laity and explained the result more clearly I hope. If you liked the previous wording better, feel free to revert and we can work out something better. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It'll work for me. I didn't like the length, and Jfruh wanted the importance of priesthood emphasized, both of which I think are satisfied. That being said, I added back the word "some"...to LDS, baptisms for the dead are still essential for their ancestors, and blacks could participate fully. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 18:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me as well. I had dropped the word some because baptisms for the dead isn't considered necessary for the people's own salvation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1847, 1852, or when?
The article mentions a specific start date in the lead as being from 1852. To my understanding, the policy doesn't have a clearly defined start, with dates at least as early as 1849 listed by some. 1852 is when he stated it to a government body, but is there any reason to think that was the "beginning"? Several LDS leaders (John Taylor, George Q. Cannon) believed this policy started with Joseph Smith, though this article tends to ignore that.

Also, while it was a policy, there were clear exceptions to it, including a couple of Elijah Abel's descendants. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, the actual starting date is unclear but most list it as being 1852. Mauss, for example, says, "The reasons are not entirely clear, but the policy seems to have begun officially in 1852 with an announcement by Brigham Young, who was Church president at that time." Bushman says "From the 1850s on..." (Mormonism: a very short introduction p. 111) I think we could be pretty safe saying "From about 1852 to 1978...". ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation 4 is down
Citation four is a dead link "The Church Continues to Grow in Africa" 125.253.96.174 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that. I just fixed it.  The ref was to a .com instead of the correct .org. 72Dino (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, abolitionist?
The article states that Joseph Smith held abolitionist sympathies in his behaviors and doctrines. Yet "The Prophet Joseph Smith's Views on Abolition" stated that abolitionism was "calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, overrun our country, and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity  and  virtue." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.30, April 9, 1836, p.436). This text concludes with the words: "Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the traveling Elders. You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you; and that you are accountable to God, for all you teach the world. In my opinion, you will do well to search the Book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the Church, concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would be much better, and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness: remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring." Jburlinson (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Useful source
I recently read and it seems like an excellent secondary source to use for this article. It pre-dates the 1978 declaration, so despite its thorough analysis of the history of the subject to that point, it should probably be used in conjunction with more recent secondary sources to reflect what's changed since it was written. alanyst 05:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting source, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to support a neutral point of view, being written by and for a "faithful Mormon". Jburlinson (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for policy about blacks and the priesthood
In the interests of trying to clarify the historical policy of the Church regarding blacks and the priesthood, I've added a sub-section on "rationale for racial restrictions." My first attempt at this was reverted as it was considered OR. So I've re-done it using reliable secondary sources. I'd be interested in feedback. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From my talk page, to further the discussion:


 * Hello. I'm a little puzzled as to your reasons for reverting the entire section "rationale for racial restrictions".  Your stated reason was: "Contrary to claiming rationale for such a policy, the LDS Church has explicitly denied neutrality in the life before, and stated that all were pure entering this world. Opinions of leaders does not equate doctrine."  I have trouble following this logic.  How does "policy" differ from "opinions of leaders"?  The "policy" was that blacks could not hold the priesthood.  The "opinions of leaders" supplied the rationale for that policy.  Also, as I understand it, the church leaders quoted in the reverted passage stated that there was no neutrality in the life before; it's just that blacks did not oppose Satan "valiantly" enough.  This was not just the "opinion" of a leader, but the long-time teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith, for many years an Apostle before he became President of the Church.  He asserted this tenet in many of his published writings.  Please help me to better understand your thinking on this.  Thanks.  Jburlinson (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few problems with this. The first and foremost is the fact that this asserts the LDS Church claimed one rationale or another as part of their official doctrine or policy. This is not the case, and has been refuted time and time again by the church, other than to explain it was simply a modern commandment for that time and they don't know the reason why God commanded it. That doesn't prevent individuals from speculating as to why such a ban was mandated, and many did, but this does not in any way mean it is the reason for the ban. In particular see this section, which clarifies that not all statements from church leaders, including the standing prophets, are doctrine; indeed, many leaders have expressed opinions and then retracted them (a famous example includes Bruce R. McConkie's retraction: "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world").


 * The rewrite to include secondary sources and analysis is better than the original paragraph. That being said, it still needs to be put into context of individual opinion, not church doctrine as currently implied. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to have the section called "speculation regarding the ban" with various individuals' stances, or various opinion classes including the following:


 * valiance in the premortal existence
 * seed of Cain (genetic reasons, not by choice)
 * contemporary racist opinions


 * It is valuable to see internal and external analysis of the ban, yes. But by claiming these as rationale for the ban when the LDS Church does not and has not done so, it's somewhat a straw man argument. It leaves out the reason the church has given throughout: a commandment given by God with no accompanying explanation. It's like trying to explain the 10 commandments given to Moses in a purely socioeconomic context (leading to scientific reasons that are still just speculation) rather than the often "irrational" or non-existent reasons for many religious practices.


 * Sorry for the long-winded response. The tl;dr version: please don't try to portray opinions and speculation as church positions and doctrine. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research
The sub-section "In LDS scripture" under the section "Slavery", appears to be original research based on Mormon scripture. Is there a reliable secondary source that presents this information? Jburlinson (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree. I don't even see much value in keeping it as-is. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jane Manning James
I'm disappointed that the details of Jane Manning's experience as an african-american woman in the Church were deleted. I'm considering reverting this passage because it provides a compelling personal dimension to an issue which otherwise is being treated in a more abstract way that minimizes the emotional and spiritual consequences of the Church's policy on individuals. The article is about black people and their experience with the Mormon church -- impact on individuals is certainly relevant, IMO. Without this specific information, the caption to the photograph leaves the reader uncertain as to the status of Mrs. Manning in the Church; one could easily form the impression that she was an intimate of the Prophet and that her experience in Utah was no different than that of the other pioneers. Before reverting, I'm open to other thoughts. Jburlinson (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the location of the image has been changed to a less prominent part of the article. Placement at the top of the article is more appropriate, IMO, in that it provides counterpoint to the image of a contemporary African-american woman who is a church member.  Although I disagree with moving the image, I will let it stand.  I have, however,  reverted the deleted text for the reasons expressed above. Jburlinson (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert, but you should probably keep an eye on the tone. I don't think "rebuff" is the right word. (Rebuff v. Reject (someone or something) in an abrupt or ungracious manner.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The main issue I have with this is the tone. The additions imply that she was a special case. Yes, she was a special lady, but the policy still applied: she was black and per policy had her requests denied. Also, it seems anecdotal to add that extended explanation, something that doesn't add to and that doesn't belong on a general article: she already has her own article, and has an entry in the Black Mormons article as well. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is titled "Black people and Mormonism." How can information about a black Mormon not be relevant or appropriate?  Once again, stripping the article of specifics as to how Church policies affected individual persons is a disservice to the reader.  Also, I'm a little troubled that the caption has been edited to remove a reference to the fact that the endowments denied to Mrs. James were considered by her and the Church to have been essential for admittance to the highest level of the celestial kingdom.  This is what so concerned her as she grew older -- the idea that, despite her faithful observance of all Church commandments and the righteous quality of her life, her status as a servant in this world would be perpetuated for eternity in the next.  Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's relevant in the general sense, but her specific case is not particularly relevant or unique with regards to the ban. I agree with you that the title is not entirely correct for this article. There is Black Mormons, which better fits the specific prominent cases. As far as her concern about not getting the endowment, it can hardly be claimed that she had more concern than any other faithful black member...and this is already discussed in the policy section. Also in that section is mentioned that church leaders from the beginning had mentioned that all faithful would one day be eligible for the highest rewards. If one wants to learn more about the endowment, there's a full article on its importance in LDS theology. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispassionate tone
The following sentence has been redacted twice in order to remove an offensive racial epithet: "At that time, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Joseph Fielding Smith, soon to become the tenth President of the Church, who had declared that Mormons had no particular animosity toward blacks, by stating: "darkies are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."  The last time it was changed, the reason given was that an encyclopedia should have a "dispassionate tone."  This is true, insofar as it regards the language of WP editors.  However, accurately quoting historical figures is not only appropriate but essential to conveying reality.  Changing the word "darkies" to "blacks" not only sanitizes the language but actually renders the quotation highly misleading as to its connotation and import.  Whatever dispassion may exist is on the part of the original speaker. Accordingly, I've revised the passage again, pointing out the use of the word, which is definitely part of the historical record and which gives the reader a clearer understanding of attitudes held by church leadership at the time. Whether we may like it or not, WP editors should not be in a position to distort the facts. Jburlinson (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Quotations:
 * Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.
 * The meaning of words like "darkies" and "Negros" has changed over time; both are now considered offensive and inflammatory, but when the statement was made the words were commonplace. The context of the quote makes it clear that the term "darkies" isn't meant to be offensive, but you seem to be reading the quote through the glasses of today's vernacular. In other words, by using the original language, you are introducing a bias that was not in the original statement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "distort the facts". Which facts, specifically, are being distorted? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The facts are that Joseph Fielding Smith used a racial epithet that was recognized at the time and earlier to be a disparaging term. As such, and especially considering his exalted place in the Church hierarchy, it provides the reader a better understanding of the attitudes of church leadership when the policy was not revised in the late 1960's.  Jburlinson (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason there is to include "darkies" in the article is to a) illustrate anti-black sentiment in the quote, which the quote does not do, or b) describe a controversy regarding the phrase, which did not exist. Please don't add it again. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was alive at the time (1969) -- and the word "darky" was most definitely understood in those days as offensive and inflammatory. No question about it.  To claim that it had no disparaging connotations is just flat wrong.  For example, the word was used deliberately to insult the young Martin Luther King during his years at Crozer Theological Seminary in the late 1940's. By stating that "darkies" have a place in the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith was reaffirming precisely what this "place" was. Jburlinson (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let RS expose it as inflammatory and offensive. As it stands, there was no controversy/backlash with the statement (within or without the church), so there's no reason to include it here. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, I won't attempt to revert or reintroduce this quote again. I will, however, delete the remainder of the quote as its sanitized version is misleading.  Jburlinson (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That removes the disagreement on this subject. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Church doctrine
A sentence has been added to the sub-section on the rationale for the racial restrictions. This sentence reads: "However, the church has never sanctioned this position as doctrine." The position in question concerns the pre-mortal existence called the "first estate" and the teaching that those who were less valiant in the war in heaven against Satan were assigned black skins in this world and denied access to the priesthood and other church endowments. I have tagged the quoted sentence with "citation needed". I'm considering deleting the sentence entirely, because it is not accurate. In 1949, the First Presidency of the Church published a statement that reads in part: "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes." [emphasis added] In 1969, this teaching was confirmed again by the First Presidency with a statement that reads, in part:  "Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…. Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.” It is very clear that these statements explicitly affirm the fact that this tenet is doctrine confirmed by revelation. I'm open to discussion. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It never states that blacks were less faithful. Please read the statements carefully. It clearly states that while conduct affected one's mortality, the plan existed prior to this life, and for reasons unknown, blacks were born as such. It does NOT state that "blacks were less faithful, ergo were black and can't have the priesthood." In fact, it explicitly states that the lack of priesthood should be considered a handicap like any other, accepted in premortal existence. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the statement needs to be read carefully. Let's do so.  The passage quoted above starts with a declaration of intent, to the effect that we can understand the Church's position on denying the priesthood to blacks in light of church doctrine.  Which church doctrine?  The doctrine that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality".  This is the doctrine.  It is being used to explain the policy regarding blacks being disqualified from holding the priesthood.  It couldn't be more clear.  As you say, it constitutes a "handicap" and is the consequence of behavior in the premortal existence.  Jburlinson (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the conduct during premortal existence affecting one's mortality is clearly stated doctrine in LDS theology. However, it does not say blacks were less righteous OR that less righteous people were born black OR that handicaps of any sort are a result of conduct. It simply states that conduct results conditions here, once again a LDS theological fact. As for the second, it's a stated fact that the plan that they would be born with said handicap was determined before this life. This is not a statement of doctrine that blacks did not receive the priesthood because they were less valiant. This was reaffirmed (just 5 years after the 1949 declaration and before the 1969 declaration) with the statement by then-standing prophet David O. McKay, clearly refuting the "doctrine" stance:
 * "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."
 * While some sources claim it was actual doctrine (Prentiss), McKay explicitly refutes this, acting as the highest authority on the subject. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article still contains this phrase: "the church has never sanctioned this position as doctrine."  I'm troubled by this statement as it conflicts with the specific language of the 1949 declaration of the First Presidency concerning the "doctrine" that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality."  The First Presidency itself called this a doctrine.
 * I'd be willing to go along with deleting this phrase while retaining the rest of the sentence. Would that be acceptable? Jburlinson (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But then-president McKay says it is not and never has been a doctrine that blacks "are under a divine curse". This isn't an article about the premortal existence. Apparently people misinterpreted this statement as meaning blacks were cursed due to their conduct in the previous life, which is why McKay refutes it. There are several sources supporting that in the article. Of note is the fact that it directly confronts the idea that it was a doctrine and says it is not and never was. Also of note is that this is a contemporary authoritative statement of the other two statements that Prentiss interprets as doctrine. I don't think one can get much clearer. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who grew up in the Mormon church during the 1950's & '60's, I can tell you that this most definitely was identified as doctrine. I heard it directly from 3 bishops, 2 stake presidents and a Seventy (who was also my junior-high school football coach.)  I realize that these gentlemen are not RS's in the WP scheme of things; but at the time, they represented church authorities to all who worshiped within their jurisdictions.  Were they all wrong?  Was my mother wrong when she gave me the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith in answer to my questions?  Was JFS wrong? Jburlinson (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, yes, they were wrong. All men are fallible. Yes, some had the opinion it was the reason for the ban. Many, even. This included JFS, who was wrong in his opinion. But JFS never did call it doctrine. McKay, another prophet, did call it not doctrine, and made his explicit statement while you were growing up. Likewise, Bruce R. McConkie believed they were cursed as the seed of Cain, and upon further revelation changed his opinion. Opinions are just that: opinions. They can change and vary based on one's understanding. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 13:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

JFS quote
Figured I'd make a section on this one too. A few notes: JFS was not an apostle at the time. The idea that blacks were cursed in some sense or another has already been discussed, though is never stated as doctrine, so the quote doesn't offer much new. That being, the quote goes further, resulting in a much less one-sided JFS: "we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren—children of God—notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness." Once again, the edits seem to be for an agenda, but don't add anything; without context, they show another leader's opinion that mirrors that of several already mentioned, and with context they show that it's not really a racist citation disdaining blacks, but instead describing a religious policy (with hope that some day all will be able to receive the same blessings). ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You bet the quote goes further. Here's a little bit more:  "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel.  These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning."  An inferior race.  You can't get any clearer than that.  The man was a racist, pure and simple (well, maybe not so pure, but definitely simple.)  At the time, JFS wasn't just anybody; he was the official Church Historian and Recorder and was president of the Genealogical Society of Utah.  Jburlinson (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the edit that has been deleted summarily. quotation from JFS in The Way to Perfection.  It's my contention that this is wholly appropriate to the article in that:  (1) JFS was a notable functionary of the Church at that time (1935), being Church Historian and Recorder, (b) he was a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, a very high position within the Church, being ordained Apostle and called to the Quorum in 1910 (c) he was president of the Genealogical Society of Utah in 1935, and in that capacity had been asked to write his book to provide instruction and validation to church workers dedicated to genealogical research (d) he was to become the 10th President of the LDS Church, the highest office possible in the church (e) he never renounced or even temporized his pronouncements, in fact he amplified on them in numerous other writings, and (f) these writings have been (and still are) highly influential texts that have been used by generations of Mormons to better understand the tenets of their faith.
 * I now request reasons as to why this passage should not be reverted back into the article. If you wish to add the supplemental language quoted at the beginning of this discussion section, I have no problem with it.  Thanks for your consideration and response.  Jburlinson (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, Jburlinson, you want to quote "the official Church Historian and Recorder and was president of the Genealogical Society of Utah", for a doxtrinal position of The Church of Jesus Christ? I wonder if this logic holds for other relgious groups. Do we go to the history group of the Catholic Church or do we go to the Magisterium, you know the group responsible for doctrine?
 * If the objective is to demonstrate that there were racists in the Church, then there is no problem quoting racist statements by members just as there is no problem quoting members that were not racists. However, if the objective is to quote actual doctrine then it is absolutely necessary to quote those responsible for the Church's doctrine.
 * This is simple and straight forward, just state the facts. It is not a time for people with an agenda or an axe to grind. The truth is that there have been racists in The Church of Jesus Christ from the beginning and there are still recists in the Church today. This is not surprising given that the world has been filled with racists from the beginning and is still filled with racists today. The objective is to report on that which is unique to the history of The Church of Jesus Christ. It seems pretty mindless and less than meaningful to try and prove there were racists within the organization. It is also highly POV to try and force a square peg into a round hole; stick to the facts and forget your agenda. - Storm  Rider  06:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's get this straight. JFS was not only the church historian & recorder and President of the Genealogical Society," he was also an Apostle and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.  This group is defined in the Doctrine & Covenants as:  "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling (107: 23)...to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews (107:33)...holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.(107:35)."  So your analogy to the Magisterium is right on target.
 * It is simple and straight forward. JFS was an Apostle, authorized to speak authoritatively on behalf of the church.  The quotation that you find so disturbing was placed in a part of the article that includes lengthy quotes from other church functionaries that, for some reason, don't seem to pose much of a problem for you.  Why is it admissible to quote Spencer W. Kimball and Hugh B. Brown and Bruce R. McConkie at length and not include a quote from JFS?  They were all apostles at the time they made their statements.  Could it be that SWK and HBB and BRM said things that are a bit more tolerable to a contemporary readership?  Could it be that their quotes have been cherry picked to promote an "agenda"?  It is certainly not "mindless" to provide evidence of racism on the part of church leaders, it's totally relevant to the subject of this article.
 * If you continue to insist that the JFS quote cannot be included in the article, the same logic would dictate deleting all the others I've just mentioned along with several others of the same nature. Although I don't think that would necessarily be a good thing, I'm willing to go along with it for the sake of consensus.  However, it seems to me that the article is better for including quotes of both types, to illustrate the thought processes of the historical participants.  What I'm saying is that we can't have it only one way -- that would be a disservice to the objective-minded reader who is seeking the facts.  If the opinions of certain apostles are facts worthy of quotation, so are others.  Jburlinson (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW. The page on JFS at the LDS Church web site states that:  "Joseph Fielding Smith's numerous books and articles helped educate generations of Latter-day Saints about the history and doctrine of the Church."  From personal experience, I know this to be a fact.  To claim that his words have minimal significance and can be dispensed with in an article of this type is a serious error. Jburlinson (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, what does this add? There were racists, yes, in all levels of leadership...a hodge-podge of quotes that you deem racist don't belong here, though. What was unique about the people already cited? Kimball was the president that reversed the ban. Brown pushed for review of the ban as well as pushing for an official statement of the church promoting civil rights for blacks, counter to public opinion. McConkie was center to the Mormon Doctrine "Cain" controversy and famously switched his opinion. These all were notable. JFS, however, restated something that was contemporary thought at the time, with nothing new or profound in his writings that hasn't already been stated by predecessors or explained in the article. He doesn't even build on previously promoted opinions. It's more or less a rewording of what Brigham Young, the probable originator of the ban, stated. As such, it's just undue weight on a rehashed theme. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The same is true of the quotes from Kimball, Brown, McConkie etc.; they're all re-workings of the same basic theme -- the restrictions come from the Lord and they'll be lifted in the sweet bye and bye. Why do these sentiments need to be repeated at length over and over again?  Once again, could there be an "agenda" at work here?  Jburlinson (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary quotes
I oppose the recent edits that keep introducing more and more quotes and examples into the article. Wikipedia articles should not be collections of primary quotes and little factoids. This added paragraph introduces quotes and positions of 6 different people. It should be a single sentence, not a paragraph, and the sentence should present the central point of what was being expounded in the source: that most of those in president McKay's inner circle opposed the civil rights movement. We don't need a bunch of cherry-picked quotes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage in question is a single sentence. This passage is a summation of 3 pages from a well-regarded reliable source (University of Utah Press) that is documented inline; it is not simply a "collection of primary quotes and little factoids."  It was placed in its current position in the article to provide some context for the very lengthy quote from Spencer W. Kimball that immediately follows it.  If the article shouldn't be a "collection of primary quotes," why isn't this paragraph-long extract from President Kimball under challenge?  There are similar instances throughout the article providing lengthy quotes from church leaders expressing sympathy or support for black people.  It appears that this practice is only objectionable when the quotes reveal racial prejudice.  Boiling down the specifics in the passage under consideration would be a disservice to the reader, who would be deprived of data instantiating the nature of church leadership's hostility to civil rights.  Jburlinson (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the article or put in any of the quotes you're talking about, and if I had my way I'd cut them all out. My objection isn't the reliability of your source, it's that your collection of quotes and examples is overkill. One might even argue that the undue weight is pushing a point of view not espoused by the source. What's wrong with simply stating that many of the church leaders of the era were opposed to the civil rights movement? Why do you insist on including inflammatory and outdated words like "Negro" and "darkie"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From the tone of the writing, it is as if the additions are trying to "prove" that the church is/was anti-black. In my opinion, a listing of anecdotes that in themselves are not important doesn't belong here. One could easily find statements, racist and anti-racist from leaders throughout the history of the church which is rather thoroughly covered, and often does NOT represent official views of the church itself. I don't think the additions Jburlinson put in really supplement the article. Instead it puts undue weight on random contrived trivia. As an example, in that single chapter of the book cited, I could add a variety of items (OR, so I won't post it to the article):


 * BYU (and the Church) allowed blacks on campus despite opposition by Lee (who was in the minority and not the president at the time), so they clearly weren't racist
 * Turns out the "racist agenda" of the John Birch Society was not racist at all, but anti-Communist. In fact, per its wiki article, "antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons." Benson publicly reiterated the agenda of said society, proclaiming the "evils" of communism, not racism. The book even mentions that the issue Benson had with the civil rights movement (not rights, but the movement) was to do with communists "using the Negroes to further their own schemes and foment trouble". Later in the chapter, it quotes Benson that the "legislation is...about 10 per cent civil rights and 90 per cent...socialistic federal controls".
 * The "darkies" quote was already discussed earlier on this talk page. Sure, it might have been politically incorrect. The context, however, is clearly not racist; it is praising blacks.
 * Yes, it was discussed earlier and you advised me to find a reliable secondary source. I've done so.  Yet, still, it's being expurgated.  And stating that blacks "having a place" in the church is not praise; it's a variation on the standard phrase of the period that blacks need to "stay in their place."  It's segregationist jargon.  And "darkies" was most definitely well understood as a derogatory term in 1963.  To suggest that it was some sort of laudatory term is totally implausible. Jburlinson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested that it should not be included unless there was coverage of a public outrage over the term. Were there a protest against him for saying this, or were he lambasted in contemporary publication, it would be relevant. Fact is, the interview was published in a general-public magazine, passing editors as acceptable for the time. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 04:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also cited in the chapter is a fun little anecdote which results in leadership drafting and presenting a statement that all should enjoy "full civil rights...regardless of race, color, or creed" with regards to employ, education, citizenship, or worship. When the NCAAP protested a lack of ongoing commentary a few years later, McKay made it clear that they had already been clear on their position about the above rights, but allowed it to be reprinted, which appeased them.


 * Anyway, I've digressed. Simply put, it seems odd to me to have added so many anti examples, and not include the full context. Also, were they more than anecdotes, but instead a groundbreaking chapter, I would have expected a brief mention in the article of the book itself (no doubt it'll be added shortly after I post this). In short, I have to question the motives/agenda of the added text. I support keeping them out. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As for most of the quotes being racially-prejudiced, look at most of the ones in the "Young's personal views" section. Throughout the article, prejudiced statements are included, including several anecdotes. The sections I'm most careful on are ones that are talking about official statements and policies, which tend to get distorted, uncontextualized, and misinterpreted despite constant reiterations of the same things. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is called, and is supposedly about, "Black people and Mormonism." It is incredible to me that there would be a concerted effort to expunge evidence from a well-regarded reliable source demonstrating that Mormon church leaders repeatedly objected to the expansion of civil rights to black people.  I fear that I'm beginning to suspect that this article has become an exercise in Mormon apologetics as opposed to an encyclopedia entry about historical reality.  It's inaccurate to label as "trivia" a discussion of efforts to derail establishing an army base in Utah because it would bring black families into the area.  Similarly, it's not "trivial" to point out that a church leader tried to control African-american settlement in Salt Lake City; it's very much to the point.  The reference to the John Birch Society's racism came from Prince & Wright's book; if you have a problem with it, I'd suggest taking it up with them.  The "darkies" quote is also straight out of the RS.  This is Wikipedia, not MormonWiki, where the article on "Black Mormon" barely makes a single glancing mention of the priesthood ban.  WP editors do not have the authority to redact credible evidence just because they don't like it.  It's a shame that the Mormon church was so racist, but the fact is that it was.  Simply erasing every reference to the historical record is irresponsible.
 * I find myself strongly inclined to replace the offending passage again. To fail to do so would be a disservice to the objective-minded reader who is seeking facts.  Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's trying to hide facts or censor information. My problem, as I stated above, is with the presentation. Would you mind explaining why you object to simply stating the facts and quoting secondary sources as opposed to trying to demonstrate and imply facts through a collection of primary quotations and examples? Saying that multiple church leaders opposed the civil rights movement is a simple statement of fact. Saying that A said such and such about "darkies", B said such and such about "Negroes", C said such and such about segregation, D did this, E did that, etc., is not a simple statement of fact, but a collection of factoids that may or may not imply the point of view of the secondary source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these "factoids" came directly out of the secondary source. It's not my business as an editor to "imply" their point of view, but simply to present as accurately as possible what they had to say.  Do you believe I misrepresented them?  I ask you to read the pages in question and tell me honestly if my treatment is erroneous or misleading.  Jburlinson (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with presenting each side. The issue I have is that every single edit is made in a passionate tone. State the facts without the use of purposeless inflammatory words and statements. It's not a contest between racist and non-racist views. It's supposed to be an article where people can see what the church's relationship with blacks was. Leave the rest of the judgments up to the reader. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 02:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The passionate tone is that of the original speaker(s). In the article, my own tone as editor is neutral, as is the tone of Prince & Wright, the authors of the RS.  The quotes are taken from the RS.  (I'll admit that my tone might be somewhat more strident here in the talk page, but this is a different forum than the article, after all.)  Here's an analogy:  in the WP article on Samuel Adams, he is quoted as saying:  "If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?"  This is passionate language -- Samuel Adams' passionate language.  It could be paraphrased as something like, "Samuel Adams occasionally expressed reservations about paying taxes," but 90% of the meaning and import would be lost.  Exclusively quoting the more sober and politic language of Spencer W. Kimball, or even an occasionally more temperate passage from JFS, does not tell the whole story.  Prince & Wright included the quotes in their work for a reason -- because it brings home the significance of the issue and the mindset of the speakers.  These are relevant to the subject of the article. I have absolutely no problem with the reader making his/her own judgment based on the evidence: but first, the reader actually has to be presented the evidence.  Jburlinson (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Samuel Adams was passionately opposed to taxation without representation, and I'm sure there's no shortage of secondary sources that agree with me there. Just to clarify, are you arguing that church leaders were passionately opposed to civil rights? ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly some of them were. Harold B. Lee, for example, got so agitated at a meeting of the trustees of BYU that he burst out:  ""If a granddaughter of mine should ever go the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy, I would hold you responsible!"  In other words, to him it was personal.  It seems to me that it would take some sort of passionate conviction to go so far as to mount a systematic campaign to control black settlement in cities and state.  But, to be honest, my perceptions are not really the issue here.  What is important is that readers of the article have access to the facts.  Considering the topic of this article, it's highly relevant for the reader to know about the efforts of church leaders to erect barriers to black people having access to housing and education.  That is what the RS brings out.  It's part of the story and it needs to be told.  I'm mulling over how to express this in a way that might be more palatable to you.  If I understand you and Araignee correctly, what you seem to be objecting to is the use of quotations; is that right?  The fear is that the reader might be offended by the type of rhetoric used by the church leaders, am I right about that?   Jburlinson (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that there is undue weight regarding individual opinions. As stated many times throughout the article, many leaders had prejudices and racist ideas (such was commonplace within and without the church). But, for example, in the BYU example: Lee was in the minority. By putting examples like that, it implies that BYU and the church were racist in their policy above and beyond the overall culture, even though though church leaders explicitly overruled Lee. That instance, were it worth including, would belong in a "personal opinions of HBL" section or in his own article, but I think there's already more than enough in the article as it stands to say there were prejudices, etc., in individuals. We could easily list each example of prejudice and kindness every direction...that's not the purpose of this article, though. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You kind of dodged my question above, but I'll oblige and clarify my main concern. It is not, as you suggested, that people might be offended by the rhetoric, but that the rhetoric is being used to push a point of view not supported in the secondary source. (See WP:Quotations.) Would you mind directly answering my question now? Are you arguing that in general church leaders were passionately opposed to civil rights? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't dodge your question and the example of Harold B. Lee is proof of that. But let me be more explicit.  My point, and the point made by the RS, is, quote:  "Nearly all the voices he [David O. McKay] heard on a regular basis were opposed to expanded civil rights for blacks." (p. 63)  The specifics are all examples of that observation.  Now simply stating that point in one sentence is informative, but on a very generic level.  Stated so broadly, it gives the reader very little understanding of exactly how these "voices" expressed themselves and what actions they took to stifle civil rights.  What you seem to be saying is, "why not just state the overarching point and skip the messy details?"  But the details are what enlighten the reader.  Again, it would be like a WP article on the American Revolution that satisfied itself with the simple statement that, "The colonists didn't like being taxed without representation, so they rebelled against the Crown."  Case closed.  That's certainly true enough, but does it give the reader any kind of understanding of the complexities and the impact?  Learning that these church leaders did things like controlling black settlement in Salt Lake City, attempting to impose restrictions on BYU admissions, pressuring the Defense Department to relocate an army base to California because there were blacks among the troops, etc. etc. make the issue real and comprehensible to the reader.  They're not just trivia, they're the meat of history. Jburlinson (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets try a different track for a minute, because I believe we're talking past each other. Let's see if we can't find some common ground. I'll start by putting forward some simple statements that I think we should all be able to agree on.
 * In or around 1852, Brigham Young instituted a policy of excluding black people of African descent from the priesthood.
 * Nobody really knows why he did this, but there are theories.
 * If you mean that no one could read Young's mind, you're probably right. However, people can read his words, which are very, very clear: "Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off." Speech to Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, 1852. This is Young's rationale out of his own mouth. It's not a "theory", or, if it is, it's Brigham Young's theory. Jburlinson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the next hundred or so years, the policy went largely unnoticed by Mormons and non-Mormons alike, with a few exceptions.
 * Not true. The policy was noticed by any African american who looked into the situation. Also by any child brought up in the Mormon church. My grandfather was taught this, as was his mother. My mother was taught this. I was taught this. Everyone who lived in my little community, which was 100% LDS, knew this, and it was discussed in Sunday School, Sabbath meetings, Mutual societies, Priesthood meetings, etc. Jburlinson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mormon attitudes toward black people were middle-of-the-road in early 20th century America. Most Americans held racist views at the time, including members of religious denominations. Very few have anything to be proud of.
 * These observations might be very pertinent in articles about Presbyterians & Blacks, Lutherans & Blacks, Methodists & Blacks, Catholics & Blacks, even, in a broader view, Christians & Blacks. This particular article is about Mormonism & Blacks. BTW, comparing the LDS church to all other Christian churches is an odd thing to do, since the Doctrine & Covenants states that the Mormon church is: "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." Saying that the Mormon church is just like all the others flies directly in the face of Church doctrine. Jburlinson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing exceptional about the Mormons was that they had an actual policy.
 * Yes, and this was a very specific policy, affecting both black men and women and even extending to anyone who had the slightest little bit of African ancestry. Jburlinson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * During the Civil rights movement the policy finally came into the spotlight. Many Mormons were uncomfortable with it, but many defended it as a religious belief. (Entrenchment instead of conforming) This is the period in which people began treating folklore as doctrine.
 * Not the case. Joseph Fielding Smith, a major functionary in the Church, was making these claims as early as 1935. The First Presidency issued a statement to this effect in 1949, which predates what is normally understood as the civil rights movement in the US. By "folklore", I assume you mean the doctrine of the first estate. This is actually fundamental to Mormonism and is announced in the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine & Covenants, going back all the way to Joseph Smith. Jburlinson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, this was already discussed in its own section. Your interpretation of said statement was explicitly refuted by standing prophet. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 04:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we may be talking at cross purposes. The doctrine of pre-mortal existence was not refuted by any prophet.  It is explicit in the Book of Abraham and the D&C Section 138. Jburlinson (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop twisting my words. "Your interpretation of said statement was explicitly refuted". Not the doctrine of premortal existence. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I have to disagree; at least in my mind "my interpretation" has not been refuted explicitly. Here's my logic:  (1)  The pre-mortal existence is clearly LDS doctrine, with scriptural underpinnings in The Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine & Covenants.  Can we agree on that?  (2)  The August 17, 1949 statement of the First Presidency was particularly written to explain "the attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes."  (3)  The 1949 statement says the following:  "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality."[emphasis added].  (4)  The only possible inference that could be drawn from this is that black people cannot achieve the priesthood and other blessings because of their conduct as spirits in the first estate.  (5)  The Dec. 15, 1969 statement of the First Presidency confirms this interpretation, by saying, in part:  "Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, 'The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state.'"[emphasis added]  In other words, the living prophet affirms that revelation is the basis of the church's policy on blacks.  I don't know how else this could be understood.  Where have I gone wrong? Jburlinson (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, premortal existence is a doctrine.
 * 2. Yes, this document is regarding blacks.
 * 3 and 4. Yes, it is LDS doctrine that conditions in premortal existence affect people mortality. The letter states that "details of the principle are not known". It does not say they were less righteous or more righteous. In like manner, a blind person is born blind as part of an eternal plan per LDS theology. Perhaps blacks were more valiant and needed more testing. Who knows. But it does not state that they were less valiant.
 * 4.5. Perhaps due to misinterpretations of this statement, much like the interpretation you have of it, McKay flatly states 5 years later that there is no doctrine of divine curse, and never has it been taught as such.
 * 5. Yes, once again blacks were determined as such before they were born, according to divine wisdom. What it boils down to: "Everything is part of God's plan, and the ban was not instituted by man." One could extrapolate this same statement and put "the non-Jew" instead of "the Negro": "God discriminated against Gentiles by preventing them from having his priesthood as part of a plan that predated man." Nothing earth-shattering there.
 * ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 05:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can everybody agree with the above 7 bullet points? If not, what specifically do you disagree with? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In 1978 church leaders announced that they were reversing the ban. We don't really know the reasons behind this either. One theory is that it was to accommodate mixed-race converts in Brazil. Another theory is that the church leaders from the previous racist generation had died off. (If the reversal had been 10 years earlier, political pressure would also be a viable theory.)
 * I agree with the above. I believe this is more or less what the article states. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not in agreement on all points. Specifics are provided above.  In addition, there's one point that's an odd omission when considering the title of the article:  Those few African americans who joined the Church pre-1978 were denied full status and blessings.  Also, calls from more African members to denounce the policy have not been answered to their satisfaction.  Also, another also, there's nothing in the article about non-American black people.  For example, the only missions of any consequence to the continent of Africa prior to the mid-1970's were to South Africa, where their audience was the white population.  I need to research this a little bit more.  Jburlinson (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree on the latter point. More could be devoted to non-American Africans. ~Araignee (talk &bull; contribs) 04:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, out of town all day today, just got back. Thank you for your responses. I think the next step will be to crack open the sources to see what they say about the various points. The rule of the game is that only secondary sources count. A quote by Bushman or Mauss is worth ten quotes by Brigham Young or Joseph F. Smith. You'll probably get a head start me as I have a fairly busy weekend, but I'm hopeful that we'll be able to come to a consensus. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Table
I've posted a table including 7 points above. I've tweaked a couple of them, based on the initial feedback, and have provided support for the statements where there wasn't complete consensus. I'd invite any interested parties to add to the table, either adding new points, or adding quotations from secondary reliable sources. (Again, primary quotations don't cut it, and the more scholarly the better. Let's try and stay away from apologetics and polemics.) The sources I'm citing above include Mauss's All Abraham's Children, Bushman's Mormonism: a very short introduction, Bowman's The Mormon People, and Prince's and Wright's David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism that Jburlinson brought to the table. Other good sources might include Bringhurst's Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism (1982), Bush's Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview (1973), and Bringhurst and Smith's Black and Mormon (2006). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, are we to understand that we are working toward deleting all primary source material from the article? If so, I'm all for it.  But, if we're not, then we're going to have to agree to accept primary source material of all kinds, not just those that support one or another agenda.  Is there agreement on that? Jburlinson (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed people talking a lot about "agendas" here and I don't think that kind of talk is very helpful here. I try to ignore it as a red herring but it's still kind of annoying, and I think it's distracting us from working collaboratively. I personally am in favor of replacing all the primary sourced material with secondary sourced material. I'm not saying that all the primary sourced material should be indiscriminately deleted all at once, and my plan of action is to gradually work through the article and replace it bit by bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. As the only person who's been specifically accused of having an "agenda", I'd be happy to drop it.  Jburlinson (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The same goes for everyone else as well. (I was looking mainly at the following section). As for your responses to date in the table, I will reiterate that for the purposes of Wikipedia primary examples will almost never trump secondary analysis. I know this seems weird, but that's how we have to work. If we were analyzing the statement "All odd numbers are prime" and we had consensus in secondary, published, reliable sources saying that "all odd numbers are prime" then Wikipedia would say, "All odd numbers are prime", even if editor Joe Blow insists on the talk page that 9 is odd and 9 is not prime (primary counterexample). Obviously this is a stupid example because all odd numbers aren't prime, and there's no way you'd get a scholarly consensus saying otherwise, but this is how Wikipedia works. We follow the secondary sources. We don't do original research. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, these quotations are from a secondary source, the very source that you advised me to consult in the section "Useful Source" above. Every word in the "oppose" column has come, so far, from Lester E. Bush, Jr., associate editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.  Every so often, Dr. Bush illustrates his points with quotations, but these are always within the context of his own writing.  This is a common practice in scholarly research and is a hallmark of secondary sources the world over. Jburlinson (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between primary quotes and examples reproduced in a secondary source and a synthetic statement by the source's author. I read a good portion of the article, and the strongest statement on the reasons for the ban I could find was "Though it is now popular among Mormons to argue that the basis for the priesthood denial to Negroes is unknown, no uncertainty was evident in the discourses of Brigham Young. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young (or any other leading Mormon) invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks." Granted, this still doesn't give a reason for instituting the ban, (it's talking about the rationale) but you would have a much stronger argument if you replaced the three examples/quotes with this short excerpt. On the second topic (when the ban became a major problem) the article says very little, probably because the author didn't have the benefit of hindsight in 1973 that scholars in the 21st century now have. I suggest you find a different source if you wish to continue arguing that point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You're saying that Brigham Young had a different reason for instituting the policy, a reason that differs from the rationale he repeatedly provided.  OK, then, how would it be if we were to say something like:  "Nobody knows Brigham Young's reason for instituting the racial policy, but he did provide a rationale based on his belief that blacks were the descendants of Cain and suffered under God's curse."  Would that be better? Jburlinson (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it was not I who recommended the source to you in the section above, though I'm flattered that you would confuse me with User:Alanyst. I do still think it's a good source, albeit a little dated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I apologize to you both. Jburlinson (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. Our usernames both start with an A. Regarding the sentence you suggested, I think it would be better to say something along the lines of "The reasons for the policy are unclear. Young's personal views likely played a role, as he endorsed popular theories of the day that black people were descended from Cain, and therefore under a curse. The apostasy of African American convert William McCary may have also played a role." (This is just a rough draft/idea of how it might read.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)