Talk:Black people and Mormonism/Archive 7

primary and secondary sources sections
Does anyone have strong feelings on keeping these sections? It looks like the only reference that is actually using these sections is the Mauss reference in the "Before 1947" section. Is it okay if I change that reference and delete these sections? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Multiple issues" tags
Hi fellow editors, I feel like this page has improved a lot since it was tagged with the "relies too much on primary sources" and "neutrality is disputed" tags. I'd like to work to remove the tags, if possible. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're right -- thanks to your determined efforts to overhaul this article, it seems much more consistent with Wikipedia policy than it once was. As the latest person to apply the tags, I'd be fine with your removing them at this point.  My only comment about the article now is that the section on "Teaching about Black People" might be better placed at some point following a description of the discriminatory practices.  But that's not really germane to the "multiple issue" tags and maybe it's just a matter of personal preference on my part.  Congratulations on all your hard work on this.  --Jburlinson (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed
I think the neutrality of the page is pretty good now. What do you think? Are there parts of the page that seem too pro- or anti-Mormon? I did summarize some apologetics at the end of "Curse of Cain and Ham"--is that non-neutral? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is much improved. The current version of the article seems quite balanced to me.  Of course, it's always worth reviewing as time passes to be sure it doesn't swerve too far in one direction or the other.  --Jburlinson (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The neutrality issue, which centred on avoiding the subject of Joseph Smith's support for slavery, is still a serious problem. "In 1835, Joseph Smith wrote an official declaration that opposed baptizing slaves against the will of their masters" is insufficient since the "declaration" went a lot further than that. This is clearly of central importance to this article, so it should be described properly. The section "Before 1847", probably the worst section in terms of neutrality, hasn't been changed at all. It's not a matter of "seem[ing] too pro- or anti-Mormon", but rather one of straightforwardly laying out the relevant facts, including those you see as "anti", rather than burying and glossing over them. I wonder in what sense you think the neutrality has been improved? zzz (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Use "view history", go back about 5 years and read what the article looked like then -- you can see how things have improved significantly. --Jburlinson (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a little more to the explanation of the 1835 statement just now--that it also said it was wrong to make slaves dissatisfied with their situation and that the statement is in the D&C. One of the things I focused on while editing this page was summarizing quotes that are already discussed more in-depth on other pages. It wasn't just quotes I summarized either. I moved information about proselyting in specific countries to the page about the church in that country, and summarized it on this page. I organized the "civil rights movement" section and added more details to it. I rewrote the lead section. I made many other edits, and I haven't been the only person editing the page. I'm not actively trying to bury information, but I concede that I probably made mistakes on this page. That's why I'm seeking your feedback. I agree that the "Before 1847" section is weak. We could delete the "Before 1847" section and move the part about Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis to the start of the "Temple and Priesthood Restrictions" section--what do you think of that idea? The rest of the page is organized by topic, and then chronologically, so I think that would make sense. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with deleting the section (and moving anything salvageable from it), as it stands it makes it impossible to remove the Neutrality tag. Either that, or move all the pre-1847 stuff into the section, whichever you think makes more sense. zzz (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the section and I reordered the sections so that the priesthood restriction section is first. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

1836 essay - source for Smith writing that slavery was ordained of God
I'm looking for the source for "In the essay, he wrote that slavery was ordained of God." The Dialogue article states that Joseph Smith supported his arguments for slavery/against anti-abolitionism with the Biblical precedent for slavery. Is this what the sentence is referring to? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but I will remove it because it is unnecessary now. zzz (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt to summarize point 4, it is not needed now that all 5 points are summarized. FreePeoples (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing parts
There are still some important points that I think we are missing. Under Racial Attitudes of LDS members, not much is discussed about the racial attitudes of early church leaders. I think we should have something about Smith believing blacks could progress like whites given the chance, and Young believing they were inferior. Right now it talks about how Smith and Young handled civil rights issues, which I think should go under a section dedicated to civil rights (maybe merged with black suffrage?) I would also like to see patriarchal blessings discussed, about giving the lineage of Cain/Ham and the policy of not giving a lineage to blacks. I also think we should discuss the idea that the skin of black people would we be turned white in the celestial kingdom. FreePeoples (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for quotes about the skin of black people being turned white in the celestial kingdom, but I haven't found it. I found this essay, on an anti-mormon site that mentions that Joseph Smith advised missionaries to marry Native Americans to make their skin white. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mormonad photo
I propose deleting the photo that appears in the section "Racial Attitudes." It is in violation of the non-free use policy in that its rationale does not explain why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text. In fact, it is conveyed by text in the article. Therefore, the image is redundant and consequently non-compliant. Thoughts? --Jburlinson (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove statement from the lead without discussing here
Hi, I noticed that you took some statements out of the lead because they were unsourced. According to Wikipedia's style guide for lead sections, lead sections do not need to be sourced if the information that supports them is in the body of the paragraph. They should also summarize the body of the page. Other editors have reverted your edits and I agree with them. If you have problems with the sources in the body of the page, let's talk about it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Rachel, thanks for reach-out and the edits. I will certainly defer to you and the other editors as I get to learn the rules and system. Aaron Bailey (Mesa, AZ) (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Article content relating to Black people and Mormonism post-1978
Hi, and any other page editors. Before I try editing again, I would love to get your advice about how I might work to improve this article in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia rules and customs. I don't wish to engage in polemics or apologetics. I've numbered five ideas for improvements--any suggestions about what has potential and which would be wasted effort?

The article focuses almost exclusively on Black people and Mormonism pre-1978, especially if you start at the top and work your way down. The article title is present tense, but it mostly avoids the last 40 years. Black people and Mormons have a lot of history together since 1978.

1. This could be improved by adding more information about Black people and Mormonism since 1978. I am looking at http://www.blacklds.org/history and I see Helvecio Martins, Robert Foster, Jackson T. Mkhabela, and Joseph W. Sitati. Their callings all represented important milestones that could be added.

2. The official 2012 church statement could be touched on rather than just relegated to "further reading". Specifically the part calling explanations for the ban speculative.

3. The article omits what the Church presently teaches about Black people and their relationship with God. Mormons have taught for 40 years that Black people are sons and daughters of God, that the Church belongs to people of all races, and that Black people are heirs of exaltation. Tens of thousands of missionaries have spent two years doing little else, and it is actively taught at nearly every General Conference. The article only uses older quotes that undermine that message, and avoids present-day teaching. This is good for polemics but bad for all other stakeholders.
 * Actually, it's good for historians and bad for apologists. Why don't we have just a single statement at the beginning to the effect that:  "For a limited period of time, long ago, black people had difficulty holding certain Church offices."  (It shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source for that.) Then, we could spend the rest of the article extolling the 1978 revelation and its salutary effects. --Jburlinson (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

4. Mormon humanitarian relief efforts to Black populations in Africa and elsewhere have been significant. That could be mentioned and linked to; could also be its own article

5. Visits to Africa by Church leaders, including Gordon B. Hinkley's 1985 visit and subsequent dedication of three temples; and Pres. Nelson's 2018-04 planned visit

Any thoughts about any of these topics? Aaron Bailey (Mesa, AZ) (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is meant to be a summary article. There are several supporting articles.  Points 1 and 5 are partially covered on the Black Mormons page.  They are summarized under Black_people_and_Mormonism. Point 4 was recently removed.  I think part of the problem was that the sources said that humanitarian aide was done in Africa, but not necessarily among black people, and it wasn't verified by a third party.  I think with a little reworking it could be added back in.  Point 2 is partially covered under the Black people and Mormon priesthood page and summarized under Black_people_and_Mormonism section. With regards to point 3, the LDS church has ALWAYS taught blacks are children of God.  I think that is an important point and you should add a section under Teachings about black people.  The fact that 2 Nephi 26:33 isn't discussed is just embarrassing. That isn't just a post-1978 doctrine. FreePeoples (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be more embarrassing if it were discussed, since it is sourced to a religious text. Any exegesis of it would be OR.  If there is a reliable secondary source that has anything to say about it, perhaps that might be OK. --Jburlinson (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The official church statement is mentioned in the last sentence under "Teachings on black people and the pre-existence." I'm fine with adding a few membership firsts to Black membership: After 1978. I moved the information on humanitarian work because it seemed like it belonged more on LDS Humanitarian Services, and I wasn't sure how relevant it was to this page. Most of the independent, neutral sources I could find focused on historical events, which could explain why there isn't much modern material on the page, though there is a sentence about the church's recent condemnation of racism. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Civil Rights as its own page?
Hi, this page is really long and I'm trying to think of ways we can condense it. What would you think of making the "Civil Rights" section its own page, and then we could summarize it on this page with a link to it? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I made this its own page, supplying a short summary on this page and removing references to it in the lead, as an effort to reduce the page's length. Please comment here if you disagree or add your own edits to the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Smith referred to the curse as a justification for slavery?
From the article, "Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young referred to the curse as a justification for slavery." The cite after "Joseph Smith" includes a link to Google Books. The parts of the linked book that are freely visible seem to contradict the idea that Smith was pro-slavery, and none support it. For example, "In Smith's view, notions of black inferiority were entirely created by environmental circumstances and not inherent racial characteristics". Can anyone verify whether another part of this source actually supports the claim about Smith? Otherwise I think the first part of that sentence should be deleted. Pastychomper (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . On page 126 of Religion of a Different Color, Reeve writes "As Smith articulated it, however, the curse was slavery and not a ban against blacks holding the priesthood." The previous page cites the common belief in the Curse of Ham at the time, and states that "Joseph Smith, Warren Parrish, and Oliver Cowdery were fully immersed in this culture and not surprisingly used the same justification to argue against immediate abolition."

"White and delightsome" vs "pure and delightsome"
I'm looking for a RS for something I was told by a young missionary in the 90s. I think (a) it would be worth including on this page if verifiable, and (b) someone interested in this page may well have come across it.

From memory: The Book of Mormon talks about Lehi's descendants eventually becoming "pure and delightsome". "Pure" was the word in the original (or possibly printer's) manuscript, but early on it was misprinted as "white and delightsome". Some time before 1997 the error was found and corrected, but the "white" version had already been quoted by at least some church leaders, including on mid-20th century tracts in support of the "good Lamanites turn white" theory. It may well be the original source of that phrase, which is used twice in the article.

The B.o.M. passage in question is 2 Nephi 30:6. One of the sources in the article (Randall Balmer, Jana Riess. Mormonism and American Politics) quotes the "white and delightsome" version, and recent versions say "pure and delightsome" - but without a source discussing the change and its significance, this is still basically OR. Thanks. Pastychomper (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again . The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text edited by Royal Skousen has "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6. This FairMormon page explains the textual change to "pure" in 1840 and again in 1981. Citing secondary sources is not considered OR. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Name Change
I'd like to change the name to "Black People and the Latter Day Saint Movement" to reflect other articles and what seems to be in accordance with WP:NCLDS. What say ye? Epachamo (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * fine by me Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of the Mormon Church
Recently, there have been some edits in which the LDS Church is referred to as either the "Restored Church" or the "Jesus Christ Church" or similar variants. This is very confusing, since: (1) there is a splinter group called the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, which is not the Mormon Church that is the subject of the article; (2) there is also a similarly named "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is also not the subject of this article; (3) there is a Restored Church of God which is totally separate from the LDS or any of its offspring; (4) there is also a The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) based in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, which is also not the subject of this article; There seems to be a name change movement going on within the LDS Church. Please see "New LDS domain name may spark brand war over 'Church of Jesus Christ'"  I, for one, am very confused.  It appears that the LDS Church now wants to call itself the Church of Jesus Christ, and yet the main article for the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't mention this at all.

Therefore, I'm removing references to the Church's name that don't include LDS from this article until Wikipedia editors come to some consensus on this talk page about how to proceed. I'm happy to discuss with any and everyone. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:MORMON and MOS:LDS may clear up any confusion on this matter better than I could myself. Above and beyond that, however, on Wikipedia, it's been customary in recent months to use to full name of the church in question (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) on the first reference, with a lower-case "the church" used thereafter. A lot of the issues like the one you're describing are arising from people assuming that Wikipedia should automatically be governed by and comply with this manual of style, released by the Church in October 2018. The problem is that Wikipedia is governed by different parameters in the two MOS's to which I linked above, and yet well-meaning editors (usually anonymous ones) try to get such articles to comply with the Church's MOS rather than keeping those articles compliant with the current Wikipedia manuals of style previously mentioned. It's a thorny, multi-faceted problem that has gone on for months. In general, though, until the manuals of style in question here on Wikipedia change, the regulations therein as they currently stand need to remain the status quo until they are changed. Unfortunately, some here don't seem to want to take time to understand that distinction. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. Makes a lot of sense.  We'll just try to be faithful to the Wikipedia MOS. --Jburlinson (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the main problem I run across is editors not understanding the difference between the main denomination, ie "Latter-day Saints" with the hyphen, and the Latter Day Saint Movement. There is no single "name of the Mormon church", as our MOS, crafter by Mormons and non-Mormons, makes clear. Doug Weller  talk 09:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also note that the Commission only uses the word Mormon, so I'm wondering if WP:MORMON applies here - either that or Latter Day Saint movement in Utah I guess. I've found a link to the report and added it. Doug Weller  talk 09:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that this article be re-titled "Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? Is that how you read WP:MORMON?  I can't help getting the feeling that this name change taking "Latter-day Saints" out of the Church's official name is an attempt to forestall criticism of previous practices by saying something like, "well, that was then; this is now -- and we even have a new name to prove it".  Isn't the current Church the same Church that it was under Brigham Young and many of his successors?  If not, that significant fact needs to be announced clearly in this article and every other article concerning the Church.  If it is the same church, then the name by which it is identified needs to be consistent in order to benefit the understanding of the Wikipedia readership. If there is, as you say, "no single name", that is also a fact that needs to be expressed clearly, and WP:LDSMOS needs to be re-written. --Jburlinson (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the problem has recurred again. The church established by Joseph Smith and subsequently led by Brigham Young has always officially been known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as a proper name. But for the first 20 years of its' history, those who were members of the Church, along with the Church itself, were colloquially and informally known as "Mormons". The nickname stuck and was widely used (and considered acceptable use in most unofficial references thereunto) until steps were taken to correct that, under the direction in the form of guidelines released by Russell M. Nelson in October 2018. A new set of recommendations was released by the Church at that time, but there has been a wide-ranging dispute as to the extent to which those guidelines should or should not apply to Wikipedia articles about the Church. Many of us editors familiar with the guidelines relesaed by the Church in October 2018 have had to strike a careful balance between what Wikipedia guidelines currently dictate in relation to articles about the Church (or subjects or people related thereunto) and how and to what extent we should strive to form consensus on corresponding adjustments to the current manuals of style. So when it comes right down to it, those of us who understand both Wikipedia's current guidelines and the parameters of the updated MOS from the Church have had to resort to supporting the current Wikipeia MOS as it is, not as we'd like it to be. There are some of us trying to strike that balance as carefully as we can, but a lack of support for sufficient adjustments makes the matter more convoluted in that respect. It's difficult to maintain the middle ground when there seem to be many editors, mostly those without an official Wikipedia account, who go too far one way or the other. So the situation continues to cause problems here. I'm not trying to complain by mentioning all of this. My intent is to try and convey the complexity of this issue
 * in summary, the name of the Church as established by Smith and led by Young thereafter has not changed. Common usage of unfavorable terms to define the Church and its members became more of the status quo that has, for roughly a 3-decade period, been discouraged but considered acceptable if there was no other choice. It was not until 2018 that a wide-scale effort to deal with the decades-long problem began in earnest. And trying to work that around current policies has been a thorny issue causing long-term problems here on Wikipedia, primarily because there is insufficient support from people willing to work on tweaking wikipedia guidelines while enabling the current guidelines to remain the status quo on articles like this. And striking that balance is darn near impossible. I hope with this further information the situation has been clarified. Please let me know if that is not the case. I'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions about this. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Religious text template
I have again tagged this article with a religious text primary template because there are again citations to LDS sacred writings, study materials, and other church publications. Recent edits concerning the priesthood and biblical figures such as Ham and Canaan are examples. "Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel" is not a reliable source for factual statements. Neither are the D&C or the Book of Abraham. --Jburlinson (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of source at A&E History
I have deleted a paragraph in the "Slavery" section that I believe misrepresents the cited source: "Mormons Tried to Stop Native Child Slavery in Utah. They Ended Up Encouraging It", at A&E's History website. I think the source is a good, reliable, secondary source, but it should not be cherry-picked to give a misleading impression. In brief, the section removed from WP told the "Mormons Tried to Stop Native Child Slavery in Utah" part, but it left out the "They Ended Up Encouraging It". Here's a link to the source: https://www.history.com/news/native-american-slavery-mormon-utah. I'd be happy to see it used in the article, but care should be taken in being faithful to the article.--Jburlinson (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the original paragraph? I can't figure out how to get it back. I was going to add it back but add more about the implications of the practice and expand on how the Saints', though with good intentions, ended up expanding and encouraging the Native American slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the paragraph and fixed it, emphasizing how the Saints ended up encouraging and supporting the slave trade. Tell me if you see anything else that needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, the paragraph as it now reads is basically irrelevant to the topic of the article. The subject primarily concerns Native American children and slavery.  This leads to confusion on the part of the reader who is not versed in Mormon lore.  For example, the reference to "Lamanites" does not refer to Black people and will not be understandable to a reader unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon.  Native Americans have a very distinct status in LDS thinking, quite different from that of African Americans.  Furthermore, the first part of the paragraph, about Alta California, is totally unsupported by any citation to a reliable source. I propose deleting the entire paragraph.  It should be part of an article on "Native Americans and Mormonism", which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist.--Jburlinson (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, I have removed the paragraph from that section. Epachamo (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have removed the template flagging this section since you made the necessary correction.  All best.--Jburlinson (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Future "priviledge and more"
I have reverted to a previous version in order to delete the latest addition to this article, which read: "At the same time, however, Young also said that at some point in the future, black members of the church would "have [all] the priviledge and more" that was enjoyed by other members of the church.

Not only is this quoted from a primary source associated with the Mormon church, and therefore unacceptable under Wikipedia good practice, but it misrepresents what Young actually said. Immediately following the quoted passage above, the source reads, still quoting Young: "In the kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government they are the subjects the eternal servants of residue of children and the residue of children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of saying to posterity of Cain inasmuch as the Lord [is?] will you may receive the Spirit of Lord by baptism that is the end of their privilege and no power on earth give them any more power". In other words, black people would never have the "priviledge" on earth. The suggestion is that maybe in heaven things might change.

This article already has way too much material based on primary sources. Please don't add any more. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the text has two meanings. For the time being, it probably referred to the heavens, but it seems Brigham Young did truly believe that blacks would have the priesthood in the future. Perhaps it would be best to include the addition and further clarify with that information? Jacobalbee (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the general consensus is that Brigham Young meant that the curse would one day be lifted and that black people would be able to receive the priesthood post-mortally. So both conclusions it seems. That was stated later in the article as well. So it would probably be best to keep it in and add further clarifying information to give it context. Jacobalbee (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be best if anything related to this were supported by a reliable secondary source, per Wikipedia policy. Adding material sourced to primary sources, like Brigham Young's speeches and/or publications of the church, like Journal of Discourses, which is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, is contrary to good practice on Wikipedia. Also, you have recently made a number of recent edits that strike me as dubious.  Changing content without referencing appropriate reliable sources is not acceptable Wikipedia practice.  I can understand changing a mis-spelling, like "linage" to "lineage", but many of your edits seem to be intended to water down the previous language without providing justfication for these changes. A careful review of your many edits may be necessary. --Jburlinson (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I can find some secondary sources. I originally did change some language because I felt it was too suggestive and not entirely neutral but, after those vocabulary changes were undone, I've left it alone. Most of the stuff I added was just to ensure that a broader picture was given, showing both the good things and the bad things to ensure neutrality. I haven't removed any information, just expanded on it and added further content and perspective on the issues. I think its important to report the many bad practices of this church but the article too often reported only one side of the story and left out important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the role of a wikipedia editor to provide "perspective" that is based solely on one's own view of the matter. It's the role of an editor to offer, as much as possible, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please provide a reliable secondary source for your edits. Also, it never hurts to review carefully one of the pillars of WP practice -- Neutral Point of View.  Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, which is why I only added. Like I said, the article left out a lot of important context. I tried adding in some of the context, only to have it removed again. Also, it seems someone has gone through and rewritten a lot of the article, removing passages that were there previously that I never added that also added important context or provided important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.193.199 (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

let's avoid using primary sources
Hey, I noticed someone added a bunch of direct quotes from the Journal of Discourses and other church publications. Those are primary sources and we shouldn't use them. There are plenty of quotes from church leaders discussed in secondary sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Distinction between the church under Joseph Smith and the church after his death
I've noticed while reading through the article that it doesn't adequately distinguish between the church policy under Smith and later church policy, like most other articles on subjects like this. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that the church was originally fairly egalitarian, at least under Smith, inviting blacks to join the priesthood and even admitting Elijah Abel to the Quorum of the Seventy. It seems the Smith family had many close friends that were black as well, such as Joseph T. Ball. The church was also mostly composed of abolitionists and so open to black members that the Missouri governor claimed they were trying to incite a slave rebellion in the "Mormon Extermination Order." Given this information, it seems that some clarification and distinction between Smith's church and Young's church could be necessary. Young is only one of the claimed successors to Smith after all, though the most commonly followed one by far. So emphasizing the egalitarianism of Smith's church prior to the racist policies could be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is currently material in the article that suggests that Smith was more open to black members than were Young and his successors. This material is scattered throughout the article in a non-systematic manner, however, and some of it is duplicated in different sections.  In some cases, there are statements that Smith approved black men holding the priesthood, in other cases, there are assertions concerning Smith's punishing members for interracial marriage and turning away from previously held abolitionist stances.  I, for one, would not object if someone wanted to try to consolidate all these observations into a single section called, for example, "Joseph Smith's Policies Relating to Black People".  It is most important, though, that any and all revisions must be supported by reliable secondary sources, not primary materials from Mormon archives or Mormon apologetics sourced to LDS publications.


 * I see that a section has been added on this topic. There are several problems with it.  For one, it is largely based on one source (Bringhurst), which is listed several times. WP prefers use of WP:REFNAME for this practice, as it decreases clutter in the notes section of the article. There are also numerous references to primary sources, which is deprecated in favor of reliable secondary resources.  Eg. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, is a primary source.  Material sourced to Bringhurst needs to be reviewed carefully to be sure that there is no synthesis involved.--Jburlinson (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed the issue involving primary sources, backing them up with secondary sources as well. Small changes to previously-suggestive vocabulary have also been made to ensure neutrality. I don't understand what you mean when you said that primarily only one source had been used though. I added other sources throughout. It's no matter though anymore. The secondary sources I've added since then should probably be sufficient. Every primary source also has a review by a secondary source cited as well and I've read through everything that's been cited to ensure that the information is correct. Jacobalbee (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The primary sources need to be replaced by reliable secondary sources, not supplemented by other primary sources. Heman C. Smith was a leader in the RLDS -- his writings constitute a primary source.--Jburlinson (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"moderately pro-slavery"
Yes, someone said it. I'm sure that was a huge relief to the millions of enslaved people in America at the time. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank heavens the edit that said "moderately pro-slavery" has been reverted. The editor who used that language has made a number of dubious edits recently, almost all of which are not supported by reliable secondary sources.  The "moderately pro-slavery" comment is a particularly glaring example.  What reliable source ever said that?  --Jburlinson (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I was the one that reverted the edits, and wanted to give an explanation to the person who I'm sure made the edits in good faith. Here are the edits and why I changed it.


 * "in recent years, has become one of increasing outreach, assistance, and proselytization in black communities." I changed this to "which has softened in recent decades."  This subject is actually controversial and more complicated than meets the eye. The NAACP issued a recent statement, "there seems to be 'no willingness on the part of the church,' Colom said, 'to do anything material.' He looks forward 'to their deeds matching their words,' he said. 'It's time now for more than sweet talk.'"  Furthermore there is continued hurt at the church's pointed refusal to apologize for past racism and doctrines.
 * "and opposed interracial marriage" was removed, but I put it back in. The church definitely opposed interracial marriage, and it was sanctioned and official by the church. Interracial couples were not allowed to be "sealed for eternity" in the temple.
 * "The church's first presidents, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, reasoned that black skin could have been the result of the Mark of Cain". I changed the word "could have been" to "was". Brigham Young said, "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ know it is true and others know it."  Joseph Smith said, "The fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. ... The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan."
 * "The LDS Church never took an official stance towards slavery." Brigham Young and Joseph Smith made it clear that the church did take several official stances towards slavery.  Please see above.
 * "Moderately pro-slavery". The justification for saying "moderately" was that the 1852 act was mainly about Native American slavery, and not African descent slavery.  This just is not the case. The lawmakers title the measure an "act in relation to African slavery", but changed it to "An act in Relation to Service".  If you read Young's speech to the legislature, the vast majority is about African slavery. There were 60-70 slaves in the territory belonging to apostles Charles C. rich, William H. Hooper, Abraham O. Smoot and other prominent men. Also, Young hoped to secure possible southern support for Utah statehood. "There were many [brethren] in the South with a great amount invested in slaves" said Young.  The 1852 act in Young's words, was addressed to those "persons coming into this Territory and bringing with them servants justly bound to them."
 * I also removed the words "doctrine" and "policy", which are both intensely loaded terms, and replaced it with the word "stance", which is more NPOV. For many, "Doctrine" implies it is from God, and "Policy" implies it is from Human. Best for Wikipedia to just stay out of that.

Epachamo (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

While I understand some of the changes you've made, I'd like to explain myself. In the same sentence as the one I changed to "moderately pro-slavery," it says that the church leaders took a "moderate abolitionist" stance at some points, which was true. No church president took a "radical" abolitionist stance (calling for an immediate end to slavery). Joseph Smith, for example, believed slavery should have been phased out by 1850. But the same could be said for Brigham Young's position on slavery. While he was crucial to its legalization, he remained very opposed to the creation of a slave-based economy. While he clearly wasn't appalled by slavery in itself, he expressed a dislike towards mass enslavement. These views would have made him "moderately pro-slavery" in the context of 1800s American politics, in contrast to many at the time who called for an expansion of the slave-based economy or the annexation of Mexico as "slave frontier." Brigham Young opposed more radical ideas. Also, the original legalization of the slave trade was actually primarily oriented towards Native Americans. Yes, there were about 60-70 black slaves, but also a few hundred Native American slaves (mostly indentured laborers working to pay off debts incurred for the purchase of their freedom), outnumbering the black slaves. You also seem to confuse "official stance" with the comments of church leaders. Not everything the church leaders said or believed was an "official stance" of the church, and the official stance of the church was actually one of neutrality: no stance at all. Some church leaders were abolitionists, some were neutral or had no firm opinion, and others were for slavery. And, if the first part about the church's actions are controversial because, while they've denounced racism and white supremacy, they haven't made much of a material impact (which I think is wrong considering the church's large donations to black charities), couldn't it be worded differently? Because "softened in recent years," implies thaat the church is still discriminatory, just less so than the past, which we know isn't true. Instead, something that highlights that the church has recently been trying to help black communities but the extent of their help is sometimes controversial would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.193.195 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You persistently make a fundamental error in editing for Wikipedia. WP requires that material be sourced to reliable secondary sources.  Please read the basic guideline WP:RS very closely.  All of this business relating to "moderate abolitionists" and "moderately pro-slavery" is your own personal opinion.  If you want to put this kind of thing into the article, you need to find a reliable secondary source that makes such claims.  Otherwise, this constitutes what's called "original research", which is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".  For clarification, please read another essential policy statement -- WP:OR. Similarly, if you wish to make the point that LDS "official stance" differs from the pronouncements of LDS leadership, past or present, you need to document that by citing a reliable secondary source.  The average layperson, when reading an article about a religious institution, assumes that public statements by the institution's leaders do constitute official declarations.  This is even more pronounced when the leader in question is perceived by the faithful to be a prophet speaking under the authority of divine revelation.  As for your statement that the church is not discriminatory at the present time, that is demonstrably false.  Just this year, an official study guide published by the church referred to "dark skin" being a sign of a curse and divine disfavor.  That happened in the year 2020.  You can't get more contemporary than that.  --Jburlinson (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To user 207.155.193.195, first of welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you stay, there is a lot of work to be done, especially within the Latter Day Saint Movement topics. I'd recommend you get an account too, it will be easier to notify you of responses. I would agree with Jburlinson that anything put on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by reliable secondary sources, especially on something as controversial as this subject.
 * The word moderate: I think I understand your reasoning on the word "moderate." You are correct on why I put "moderate abolitionism," which Smith went to great lengths throughout his life to make the distinction that he was not a radical abolitionist. That distinction is not clear to a modern audience, and in a lead there is little room to provide mid-18th century context. I've noticed a lot of scholars use the word "anti-slavery", instead of "abolitionist" when referring to that time in Smith's life, and will change it to that in the lead, hopefully making it more NPOV.
 * Joseph Smith's views on slavery: Later in life he did indeed advocate against slavery, but in the mid-1830s, he did not. He changed his mind on this subject.
 * Brigham Young on a slave based economy: I'd like to see your sources on his reasoning. The sources I've read agree that he didn't want a slave based economy in Utah, but because it would hurt the chance for Utah to become a state, not because it was inherently evil.  He was not opposed to slave based economies in the South.
 * That slavery was mostly about Indian Slaves: I'd also like to see your source for this one, as it just is not true. Black Slavery and Indian Slavery were two different things in the minds of the early saints, driven by very different motivations. There were two different laws governing black and Native American slavery (see Act in Relation to Service, and Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners.
 * Position of the church: Determining the official position of the church and decoupling personal opinion is notoriously difficult. There are clues that help us determine what the official position was. Did the church preach to slaves without masters permission? No, this was in the Doctrine and Covenants, certainly official position. What was published in official church publications, and who was the editor? Could a slave-owner join the church, go to the temple, serve as an apostle without emancipating his slaves? Yes. Could a person donate a slave to pay their tithing? Yes, and it happened. Could a black person be sealed as an eternal servant to someone in the Celestial Kingdom? Yes, and it happened.  All of these denote an official stance of the church.
 * "implies thaat the church is still discriminatory, just less so than the past, which we know isn't true": I'm not aware of any scholarly source that does not think the church is still somewhat discriminatory. Many of these scholars are Latter Day Saints in good standing as well. The first 15 minutes of this Fairmormon video is a pretty good explanation of this. Additionally, most Latter Day Saints still believe the priesthood ban was of God, and despite (silently) disavowing racist reasoning for the ban, the church has pointedly never disavowed the ban itself. BYU published an article on how artwork in the church is subtly discriminatory, and noted that racially incorrect depictions of Jesus are the only allowed artwork in church buildings. Latter Day Saint scripture still includes racist language, and while some members feel the "curse" was not literal, I am not aware of any church leader or official publication that has taken that position. I still feel that "softened in recent decades" adequately reflects the scholarly view of church doctrine, policy and practice as defined by reliable secondary sources.  If you can think of a better way to phrase it, I'd definitely be open if there is something better.
 * At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter what I think or what you think. As Wikipedia editors, we can only reflect the scholarly consensus as defined in reliable secondary sources, and if you can counter any of the above with reliable secondary sources, I will gladly consent. Epachamo (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually the study guide in question was, in fact, a misprint, as demonstrated here:https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/. There is no substantial evidence of discrimination in the church in the modern day and the church has, in fact, made many statements about racism and white supremacy condemning them. So the passage "softened in recent decades" is wrong in that it implies such official discrimination still exists at all. After the misprint of the manual, the church quickly corrected the questionable passage and disavowed the theories it implied. I also believe that more emphasis on Brigham Young's constantly changing positions on slavery could be needed. At some points, he supported slavery, but emphasized that his personal opinion was that "my own feelings are that no property can or should exist in slaves," though at other times arguing against slavery and sometimes for slavery. This quote comes from https://gregkofford.com/blogs/news/five-times-mormons-changed-their-position-on-slavery. Emphasizing his constant changes in thought and struggle with the issue would be more correct than simply saying that Brigham Young was pro-slavery. Earlier in life it seems he was also a "free soil" moderate abolitionist, according to the same source. I've now gone through and made some necessary additions, and backed up all additions with reliable secondary sources as to ensure that none of my additions are "original content." You're welcome to review any of these and bring them to me if anything seems incorrect, though, now that I have sufficient documentation, nothing should come up. I hope we now have a consensus and no further changes need to be made. I apologize for previously making changes without proper sources. As the article stands right now, I see no problems. Jacobalbee (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Briefly, the study guide was not a "misprint", i.e. a mistake in printed text (such as a deviation from copy or a typographical error). It was a correctly printed statement of racial discrimination which some people, after the fact, decided was an "error", in that the message in the study guide, although consistent with church teaching for many decades, is now disavowed by public spokesmen of the church.  The source you cite actually validates the reality that "official discrimination still exists at all."  Here's a quote from your article:  "The people writing curriculum for the church were socialized at a different time in a different church, when [conservatives] Joseph Fielding Smith and [apostle] Bruce R. McConkie were authoritative voices...[it] disappoints but doesn’t surprise me, given what we know about entrenched conservatism of curriculum writers within the church." In other words, people who write curriculum for the church are entrenched conservatives who still promulgate racist ideology.


 * You have recently made a number of edits sourcing a blog posting on a website of a publisher of Mormon apologetics. This automatically raises doubts about point of view and reliability. The post in question appears to be an extended quote from a book by the respected scholar Newell G. Bringhurst.  Bringhurst's book would be a far better source for citation in wikipedia.  However, an initial comparison of Bringhurst's book with the blog entry reveals that it is not an extended quote at all, but a synthesis of material contained in Bringhurst's book.  As such, it is highly suspect as a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines.  I'm inclined to revert all of these edits, but would like to get a sense from other editors as to their sense of the use of this source. At the very least, the source needs to be redefined to make it clear that it is not a quote from Bringhurst.--Jburlinson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well actually the "blog post" you mentioned was written by Bringhurst himself. That's mentioned at the very top of the page, under the first image. Had it simply been written by an apologist, I would have been more wary of using it. But given that it was written by the author of a book on slavery and Mormonism, I felt it's reliability was exceptional. And, while the people writing the study guide included the somewhat questionable addition, it was quickly fixed. The church disavows racism and, while some in the church may hold discriminatory values,  the majority don't and, given the church's actions,  it's hard to argue that proselytization,  outreach,  and assistance in black communities by the church hasn't increased since the lifting of the priesthood ban. Jacobalbee (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't up to you and me to argue about whether proselytization etc. has increased or not -- as editors, it's up to us to summarize reliable secondary sources that make such claims. And by "reliable secondary sources", I mean sources that are not affiliated with or connected to the LDS church. --Jburlinson (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering the statements of President Nelson, Elder Cook and President Oaks in general conference, as well as President nelson jointly writing a statement with the top leaders of the NAACP it is not reasonable to argue that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes a postion that is other than a total and complete denunciantion of racism. Considering the nature and origins of the 2013 Gospel Topcis essay on Race and the Priesthood the Church has since at least then explicitly condemned any notion that race has any connection to worthiness or rightness before God, and there are faily definitive statements that pre-date that date. I have little hope of Wikipedia adequately covering such a clear reality because of its willingess to overemphasize an aside in a minor meeting and to under emphasize clear statements made in very official contexts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The point here is that there have been numerous instances of phrases like the church "has condemned racism and increased its outreach, proselytization, and cooperation with black communities." Other than giving speeches, the article provides no evidence of "outreach, proselytization, and cooperation with black communities". How has the LDS church done these things? Most of the references to proselytization refer to other parts of the world.  What "cooperation with black communities" is documented in this article?  Reliable secondary sources are required on WP.  If none are provided, there is hardly a "clear reality".--Jburlinson (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And the church is a worldwide church. So the fact that there's rapidly increasing proselytization in Africa and Haiti and other parts of the African diaspora show, very clearly, that proselytization among black members has increased. It's mentioned further down in the article that the number of black members rose from almost a thousand to over a million since the priesthood ban was lifted and proselytization efforts were made in black communities. The word "cooperation" has been removed but it can't be argued that the church hasn't increased it's proselytization efforts and outreach since 1978.

Thank you Lambert. That's what I've been trying to emphasize but you worded it much better than I have. Jacobalbee (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to incorporate some more coverage of President Nelson's talk in Ocotber 2020. I have also tried to make sure the article does not overstate the extent of the June 2020 criticism. The claim that there was a statement that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had failed to do anything it had promised to do does not fit well with the actual context. Also people need to avoid treating every remark by a spokesperson for an organization as if it is an official pronouncement of that origanization. Even more importantly there needs to be an avoidance of implying that statements made in June 2020 can in any way relfect a reaction to what happened in Ocotober 2020.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no such implication. There was published comment by an official NAACP spokesman in June.  Then in October, a church president gave another speech.--Jburlinson (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate statements in the lead
I have twice removed language in the lead that is not supported in the body of the article or by citation to a reliable source. Specifically, I deleted the material in bold in the quote: "In recent decades, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has condemned racism and increased its outreach, proselytization, and cooperation with black communities, but still faces criticism that it is perpetuating implicit racism by not acknowledging, apologizing or adequately restituting for prior discriminatory practices and beliefs. While black people have always been allowed to join the church through baptism,,,,

There is nothing in the article about increased outreach, proselytization, and cooperation with black communities. No examples or instances of any of this are in evidence. There is only mention of speeches at the NAACP. If there is anything more specific, it is so thoroughly buried that I can't find it. Similarly, there is nothing about black people always being baptized. It is inappropriate to make flat statements in the lead that are not based on more detailed and well-sourced material in the body.

The lead is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a place to re-hash, tit for tat, specific points made in the body of the article. The current lead does not adequately summarize the article. That is one of several reasons why the article needs to be downgraded to C-level.--Jburlinson (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the word "cooperation" but kept "outreach" and "proselytization" as the evidence does support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.193.195 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Where does the evidence support this? The material in the article's body about proselytization mostly deals with Africa and other countries, or it deals with the lack of proselytization for many decades.  As for "outreach", unless you mean giving speeches at the NAACP, what outreach is supported by the article? --Jburlinson (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well proselytization is certainly supported, as you just specified. Black membership in the church has grown substantially and temples have been opened all across the African diaspora. Outreach is described in the section on "cooperation with the NAACP," where some joint projects the church undertook with the NAACP are described. The main goal of such projects were to help lift up black communities and organizations. I won't change the first sentence of the lead until we can come to a consensus, but that's my reasoning. I hope we can sort this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.193.204 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of sources in this article
One of the things that keeps bringing this article quality down is poor sourcing, primary sourcing, and grossly misrepresenting sources WP:RAISE. There is so much good scholarship on this subject that there is no reason to include blog posts or primary source documents. Good sourcing is ESPECIALLY important given how controversial this subject is. The only reason I can see to include a primary source is if it is also accompanied by a reliable secondary source. If the publisher is not Oxford, Dialogue, Illinois Press, or some other well respected institution, it simply does not belong in this controversial article. As such, I plan on removing blog post sources, and replacing them with reliable sources if possible, or removing the dubious content if not possible. Any additional content that is NOT properly sourced should be reverted. Epachamo (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The blog post in question was written by Newell G. Bringhurst, a scholar in the field. Of course, if you want to add other sources that back up the same claims I see no issue. Some of his own books may be helpful. Jacobalbee (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The Bringhurst blog post is just one of several less than quality sources. Bringhurst at times delves into apologetic writing, and this is an example of one of them. Also, Bringhurst contradicts or at the very least misconstrues his own previous academic writings in this blog post. Note who his intended audience is on this apologetic publishing blog. It is not academic writing. He has written a lot of good stuff though, and in general I'd say his academic writing is a good source. To be more clear, Joseph Smith said virtually nothing on slavery before 1836, and teasing out his position on slavery is virtually impossible. Bringhurst points out that in the Book of Mormon the Nephites are anti-slavery, and from this one data point boldly states that Smith was abolitionist in the 1820s. To make that claim, you would have to also concede that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Also, even in the Book of Mormon, slavery is only mentioned in reference to fellow Israelites, which is also banned in the Law of Moses, but not for foreigners, so this is quite the stretch that Bringhurst makes in the blogpost, a stretch that he doesn't make in his academic writings. The early church was without a doubt neutral on the subject, baptizing slaveholders, slaves, and abolitionists. Epachamo (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying and, having read the academic papers on the subject, I could understand removing that particular line, given how little we know of Smith's early thoughts. It seems more likely that Smith changed his mind on slavery quite often and didn't take any firm stances until his anti-slavery stance in Nauvoo.

This needs to be a C-class article, at the very best
There are so many problems with this article that it should not be rated a B-class article. I propose changing it to C-class. If there were any lower classification other than "start" or "stub", I'd recommend that. But any article as long as this one could hardly be a "stub", and it's been around so long it's hardly a "start" either. Thoughts? --Jburlinson (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should probably stay a B-class. One of the issues was that people were afraid that the lead section didn't accurately sum up the contents of the article but it seems someone went through and fixed that. I would say that the lead is a pretty good indicator, as of now,  of the contents of the article. As the article currently stands, I don't see too much of a neutrality issue so I think the neutrality tag could be removed. Others may contest that though so we may have to wait to see what others think. Jacobalbee (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A while back (in 2017) I went through the whole page, verified sources, and tried to streamline information (a multiple-month project). I believe at that time it reached B-class, although there is a book I wasn't able to read as closely as I would have liked since it was on course reserve in my library. However, this page is frequently edited, and lately I haven't been able to keep up with its upkeep. If I had time, I would research the recently-added direct quotes from conference/fireside talk. I would look for them in secondary sources, and remove them if other scholars haven't discussed them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Rachel, I agree that after your valiant work a couple of years ago the article was closer to B-class than it is now. This article has gone up and down in quality many times over the past 10 years.  At the present moment, there is simply too much reliance on primary sources and questionable sources of other kinds.  Also, some sources are misrepresented to an unacceptable extent, although it is difficult to take the time and energy to parse the instances of synthesis and editorializing.  I still maintain that, currently, it needs to be labeled C-class until you or some other editors are able, once again, to perform a thorough clean-up. Thanks for all your efforts to raise the standards of LDS related articles.--Jburlinson (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. While I think the article is more of a B-class article at present, a thorough review could be helpful. I think most editorializing has been removed but there's certainly still some that could be found. I've been working to back up claims and information presented in some of my own additions with numerous sources, both primary and secondary. Primary sources are okay if they're accompanied by a secondary source that states the same thing, correct? Jacobalbee (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not exactly the case. Policy states:  "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources".  Furthermore, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."  Please read WP:PSTS carefully. It is far better to remove all references to primary sources in favor of reliable, published secondary sources. If a good secondary source is provided, it is neither useful nor desirable to include a primary source. --Jburlinson (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed this artice to c-class. Considerable editing is needed to solve cleanup problems. This current talk page is abundant evidence of this.--Jburlinson (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie's statements about Joseph Smith's attitude toward black people
There have recently been reversions about Brodie's claims regarding JS's views on black people. I have deleted a recent edit that read: "Others have contested Brodie's claims, however, citing that a priesthood ban was never, in fact, implemented in Joseph Smith's time and that Smith allowed for the ordination of several black men to the priesthood. Critics of the claims that the priesthood ban originated with the teachings of Joseph Smith generally argue that the ban began with the claimed revelation of Brigham Young. Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, most other Latter-day Saint churches remained open to the ordination of blacks into the priesthood. Still others argue that the ban began as several administrative policy decisions under Brigham Young, rather than a revealed doctrine, and was later inaccurately accepted as gospel." A reference to the same source was provided after nearly each sentence of the preceding -- Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds., Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1984).

The cited source does not say that "others have contested Brodie's claims", or "critics [of Brodie]...generally argue that the ban began with the claimed revelation of Brigham Young", or "Still others argue that...". All of these phrases belong to the editor, not the source, and represent, IMO, synthesis WP:SYN. Please do not misrepresent what the cited source has to say. If I am in error, please provide specific page references in the citations to enable the reader to find the specific material in question. Thank you.--Jburlinson (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. Firstly, I edited your original sentence which stated that the Book of Abraham " justifies slavery on the basis of black people's descent from Noah's cursed son Ham." But this is wrong because, firstly, the Book of Abraham made no mention of black individuals and instead referred to "Egyptians." It also never justified slavery but rather a priesthood ban on Egyptians based on their lineage from Ham. Later scholars seemed to assume that this was a reference to black people but page 243 of Lester E. Bush's book, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, states that "In fourteen years Joseph Smith led the church from seeming neutrality on the slavery issue through a period of anti-abolitionist, pro-slavery sentiment to a final position strongly opposed to slavery. In the process he demonstrated that he shared the common belief that Negroes were descendants of Ham, but ultimately his views reflected a rejection of the notion that this connection justified Negro slavery." Directly below this, it's stated that "There is no contemporary evidence that the prophet limited priesthood eligibility because of race or biblical lineage; on the contrary, the only definite information presently available reveals that he allowed a black to be ordained an elder, and later a seventy, in the Melchizedek priesthood." The book as a whole puts the blame for the priesthood ban entirely on Brigham Young. Page 254 contrasts the two leaders beliefs, stating that "In significant contrast to Joseph Smith's optimistic evaluation of Negro potential, the church under Brigham Young characterized the blacks as "uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is bestowed upon mankind." Page 259 states "Through three decades of discourses, Brigham Young never attributed the policy of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, nor did he cite the prophet's translation of the Book of Abraham in support of this doctrine. Neither, of course, had he invoked Joseph Smith on the slavery issue. Nor had any other church leader cited the prophet in defense of slavery or priesthood denial." The book discussed various claims made that Joseph Smith had taught the doctrine and made it clear that such speculation was unfounded and was created long after Joseph Smith's death as a means of trying to justify the difference between Young's doctrine and Smith's doctrine. On page 270, it's stated that "The shift of the rationale ("doctrinal basis") for the Negro policy on to firmer or at least more tangible ground developed not only at a time when traditional beliefs concerning Cain and Ham were fading from the contemporary scene, but also as fundamental assumptions concerning the Negro's social and intellectual status were being challenged." Page 268-269 detail the creation of the myth that the Book of Abraham ever justified a ban on blacks holding the priesthood and the many logical problems with this belief. Throughout the book, Elijah Abel and other black members of the church that were given the priesthood by Joseph Smith were referenced. The book also states that there was no record of any revelation received by Brigham Young concerning the ban and it seems that it may have begun as a series of racially-motivated administrative policies that were given far too much authority than need be and were later inaccurately accepted as gospel by apostles and prophets of the church. There's a fairmormon article that puts forth this same idea. In the foreword to the book, Neither White Nor Black by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, it's stated that "The denial of priesthood to blacks was easily traced to the era of Brigham Young, but evidence for the proscription in Joseph Smith’s time was hardly convincing." In short, most scholars of the Latter-day Saint movement believe Brodie was wrong and there are many critics with far more substantial evidence to refute the claim that the priesthood ban ever began with Joseph Smith.


 * Firstly, I did not say that the Book of Abraham justifies slavery on the basis of descent from Ham; the cited source, Brodie, says it. Brodie was a respected historian and academic and her book on Smith was published by a reputable publishing house.  BTW -- Brodie does not "suggest" it, she states it outright, pp. 172-73. You and I may argue about what the Book of Abraham means, but that does not change what the cited source says.  I have reverted the rest of your edit for two reasons.  (1) Some of it duplicates material already in the article.  (2)  Your cited sources do not say what you claim they say.  Example:  they do not say "Critics of the claim that the priesthood ban originated with the teachings of Joseph Smith generally agree that the ban actually began as a series of racially-motivated administrative policies..." -- there is no mention of "critics of the claim".  Example:  they do not say "Many other scholars, such as Lester E. Bush and Armand Mauss, have contested Brodie's claims,..."  Bush and Mauss are your cited sources, and they don't talk about "many other scholars", nor do they mention Brodie. Where do you see her name in their writing?  If you're going to continue editing using these sources, please be faithful to what they actually say.--Jburlinson (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll add another source then because "Fawn M. Brodie as a Critic of Mormonism's Policy toward Blacks—A Historiographical Reassessment" by Newell G. Bringhurst states "That is, by the 1970s, Mormon historical scholarship on the topic of blacks within the LDS church had moved beyond Brodie.  The most thorough scholarship concerned with the historical origins of Mormonism's black policy had rejected her basic 'Missouri thesis' finding the root cause in other factors. Even Fawn Brodie,  herself, acknowledged this fact, going out of her way to encourage further scholarship in this area. " There's your "many scholars". Modern scholarship has rejected Brodie's Missouri thesis,  which attempted to connect Joseph Smith with the priesthood ban. I also would like you to provide me with the exact quote where it says that the Book of Abraham justified slavery. It didn't. It only mentioned a priesthood ban on Egyptians.  Jacobalbee (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already given you the source about the Book of Abraham, it is Brodie's book "No Man Knows My History", 2nd edition. pp. 172-73. I'm not going to type 2 pages worth of text -- it's available for anyone to read. As for the so-called "Missouri thesis", this is is the argument that the origins of black priesthood denial go back to the Mormon problems in Missouri.  It is associated with Brodie's work. It's true indeed that Bringhurst has written that some more recent scholars have rejected it in favor of other causes.  Bringhurst's article does not say that "By the 1970s, however, Brodie's theory that the priesthood ban originated with Joseph Smith or the Book of Abraham had been rejected by mainstream scholarship". That is an incorrect paraphrase. The "Missouri thesis" is not the same as "Brodie's theory of the priesthood ban."  There is no scholarly consensus about all this.  One of your prime sources, Lester Bush, concluded his well-known Dialogue essay with:  "three fundamental questions have yet to be resolved: First, do we really have any evidence that Joseph Smith initiated a policy of priesthood denial to Negroes?" In other words, this question is still open.  Wikipedia can certainly not make the claim that "Modern scholars generally agree ..."  They don't. As for Brigham Young not saying that Joseph Smith originated the policy, there are other contemporaries of Smith who did -- Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot. I'm tempted to put this into this section, but I really don't think it's appropriate to continue lengthening this paragraph with dueling assertions. Far better, it seems to me, would be to summarize all this with something like: "After Brodie's pioneering publications, succeeding scholars have continued to examine the question of Joseph Smith's authorship of the priesthood ban. Historian Lester Bush has identified it as 'one of the fundamental questions that have yet to be resolved'." If further detail is needed, it can be provided in some properly-sourced footnotes. Help:Explanatory notes Thoughts? --Jburlinson (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that perhaps the "1970s" statement can be removed, it's still pretty clear that Bush and Mauss were critics of Brodie's theories without necessarily mentioning her by name. Their books and writings contested and refuted most of her claims, as supported by the quotes I have above and by Bringhurst's review of Brofie's work, which mentioned them as well. Perhaps simply removing the "1970s" sentence and changing "modern scholars generally agree" to "critics of these claims generally agree." I can make these changes as soon as I have the time if you'd like. Jacobalbee (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement, which is good. However, the entire section is very long and consideration needs to be given to making it more concise in line with the WP manual of style.  In particular, please see MOS:QUOTE for guidance in limiting quotations.  --Jburlinson (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Page name change
Hey Johnpacklambert, I noticed that you changed the title of this page from "Black people and Mormonism" to "Black people and Latter-day Saint belief." I liked the old title better. This page includes the beliefs of others churches within the Latter Day Saint movement, so "Latter-day Saint" is not accurate. "Mormon" is within the Wikipedia style guide as an umbrella term, but if we are trying to avoid it, it seems like "Beliefs of the Latter Day Saint movement about black people" would be more appropriate. What do other people think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the use of the term "Mormon" to refer to anything other than the Book of Mormon or the historic prophet Mormon to always be incorrect and always be in need of being removed. The style guide of Wikipedia was written long before 2018 and there are a few editors who have adamantly refused to even consider any reasonable changes to bring it more in line with logical usage as it exists today. It should not be used, and any other word is always better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am completely confounded by the current state of affairs. What is the name of this article?  "Black people and Mormonism"?   "Black people and priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?  And what is " Beliefs of the Latter Day Saint movement about black people" or " Black people and Latter-day Saint belief"?  It appears that as of right this moment all of these once existed but are now all subsumed into "Black People and Mormonism".  If that's the case, it's a good thing.  It should remain "Black people and Mormonism" until there has been a thorough and complete discussion on this talk page about the pros and cons of changing it.  Just when I thought the treatment of this subject couldn't be more fouled up, I've learned different.  What is the significance of the year 2018? Why is the word "mormon" incorrect since that time?  It was used by members and non-members for decades.  My point is that changes to this and other articles on Black people and the LDS Church should be discussed on the talk page before radical changes are made. I certainly agree with @Rachel Helps (BYU) about "Mormon" being within the style guide.--Jburlinson (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2018 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a request that people stop referring to it with other names, and that people start referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with that terminology or as Latter-day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has since changed a huge number of names of websites, names of email addresses, and names of lots of other things. This is a huge change that signifies a change in desire to see the use change. Wikipedia should respect the right of institutions to choose their own name and how they are referred to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Really people should read this article before they undertake to comment on the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Johnpacklambert Who is this article addressed to? It, like all other Wikipedia articles, is an encyclopedia article written for the general public from a neutral point of view. It is not written for Mormons by Mormons, nor is it intended to be an opportunity for Mormon editors to impose church doctrines on the readership or other editors. If the Church wants to adopt a different name from the one that members and non-members alike have recognized and used for nearly 200 years, changing Wikipedia articles to conform with such a policy does not reflect a neutral point of view.  The article you cite is a flagrant instance of the Church claiming that something is "the command of the Lord".  I don't believe that and readers of this article and other articles about Mormonism should not be required or expected to believe that.  It smacks of the arrogance that underlies the subject of this particular article:  that something was "God's will" until one day it wasn't.--Jburlinson (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * your insistant and rude use of a name that menbers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have asked that people refrain from using, and your utter refusal to allow a group to have any control over how it is refered to show that you are not willing at all to dialogue on this, and instead are willing to double down in using words that people have asked others to stop using. This is just plain rude and unprofessional on your part. People have a right to decide what they are called, and your absolute refusal to respect this at all, and repreated use of a word you have been asked to cease using is the utmost of rudeness. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long history of resisting the use of other names, and groups have a right to choose how they are called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by this form of title or as Latter-day Saints is the most basic coutresy that we should be able to expect from all people engaged in communication on Wikipedia. To refuse to due this is a clear sign of rudeness and disrespect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What's unprofessional, and frankly rude, is to insist that people who don't share your beliefs must conform to the declarations of your prophet. President Nelson himself notes:  "For much of the world, the Lord’s Church is presently disguised as the “Mormon Church.”  In other words, "much of the world" is wrong and needs to be educated.  You are attempting to use Wikipedia to accomplish this.  That is unprofessional. It is not in accordance with the mandate to maintain a neutral point of view.--Jburlinson (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject, why am I "rude", "disgusting", "unprofessional" etc. for using a word that the Church itself seems to be proud of? In 2014, just 7 years ago, the Church issued a widely-distributed movie called Meet the Mormons.  The website with the very same name is still up and running at https://meetthemormons.com/#/filter-all/page-1.  Should the movie, and the Wikipedia article about it, be re-named "Meet the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"?  There are many members of the Church who like being called Mormons. I can share some links with you to confirm that.--Jburlinson (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked that people stop using the word. Your actions are judged based on the realities on the ground in 2021, not those that existed in some former year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My actions are judged, are they? Who is doing the judging?  You, I suppose.  And you judge them to be "rude", "disgusting", "unprofessional" etc.  Is that right? Please read WP:EQ and stop the name-calling. --Jburlinson (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Be One celebration
I have just reverted a passage for the second time. It read as follows: "In 2018 at the Be One Celebration both Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson spoke boldly of the united brotherhood of all mankind. Oaks specifically discouraged all attempts to understand the reasons behind the past restriction, instead urging people to focus on the future and cooperating better in the future. specifically Oaks stated "Regarding past priesthood and temple restrictions, President Oaks encouraged a forward-looking approach: “Let us all look forward in the unity of our faith and trust in the Lord’s promise that ‘he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female’ (2 Nephi 26:33).”

My reasons for reverting are: (1) It contains editorializing. Examples: so and so "spoke boldly"; the word "specifically" is repeated editorial insertion. (2) It is ungrammatical in several places: sentences begin with lower-case letters; the use of quotation marks is inconsistent and confusing. (3) There are logical inconsistencies. For example, how can the following be true: "specifically Oaks stated "Regarding past priesthood and temple restrictions, President Oaks encouraged a forward-looking approach:."  Oaks is quoted as stating that he himself, named in the third person, encouraged something.  (4) Quotation from scripture is deprecated in Wikipedia.  Nephi is LDS scripture.  (5) Using the LDS "newsroom" as a source is obviously NPOV.

It's possible that the gist of this passage could be added to the article, but it would need significant changes to be compliant with MOS. --Jburlinson (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The event clearly needs to be mention and covered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Then do so in accordance with Wikipedia MOS and use of reliable sources and NPOV. Thank you.--Jburlinson (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)