Talk:Black people and early Mormonism

Minor Removal

"This, perhaps, is a natural reaction on the part of a farming community towards the hunter-gatherer lifestyle." Where "This" refers to the characterization of Native American's as tricky in the BoM.

I've deleted it primarily because it is an unsourced statement but also its not particularly relevant and reflects the opinion of an author.

Questionable Neutrality

I for one would like to see a stamp put on this article. I find its current contents notably biased and past renditions to likewise have problems. Obviously this is a politically charged issue that causes many to take sides instead of reporting facts. There is a desire by one group to protect practices despite obvious questions that should be raised and another group attempting to report practices and opinions as official positions and doctrine. Adjoining to either of these extremes and producing wikiarticles/edits along those lines is misleading. This is not a neutral article and there is too much conjecture. -- 206.196.172.2 12:16, 17 May 2006

I agree with User:206.196.172.2, and I would like to make the following recommendations:

The Wikipedia style guide states: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Therefore, I take issue with the title of this article. I understand that it used be titled "Blacks and the priesthood (LDS)," but that is equally problematic. I recommend something like: Racial policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The following statement violates the neutral point of view NPOV) : "Some leaders of the LDS Church have disavowed certain past explanations as to why the priesthood ban was instituted by God, but the Church has never disavowed the teaching that the ban was, in fact, instituted by God. According to official statements and declarations of the LDS Church, God was the source of the priesthood ban for blacks." While this may be true, by placing this stement in the introcution, the author betrays his bias. An encyclepedic article should attempt to present the facts nuetrally without passing judgement. Recommend that the issue of diavowal be treated in a seperate section of the article rather than the lead section.

I would further recommend that the section headings follow a more chronological layout. By focusing on the history of the policy, it may be easier for authors and present the facts more nuetrally.

For example:

• Section 1: Racial policies of Jospeh Smith (1830-1844) This section might include Joseph's statements for abolishion and the example of Elijah Abel.
• Section 2: Racial policies of Brigham Youn (1847-1877). This section should include the discussion of the curse of Cain. Someone might also contribute his views on Native Americans.
• Section 3: Justifications of Jospeh F. Smith (1901-1918). This section would include the discussion of the curse of Ham.
• Section 4: The Way to Perfection by Joseph Filding Smith (1970). This section would discuss the theory that people of Afican descent were somehow less valient than others in the pre-mortal life. This theory had roots farther back in history, but it achieved a quasi-offcial status upon the publication of The Way to Perfection which was often quoted by other leaders of the church.
• Section 5: Policy modifications by David O. McKay (1951-1970). A white man of Africn descent received the priesthood, and in an official statement, President McKay admitted that the reasons for the ban were not fully known.
• Section 6: Official Declaration 2 (1979).

This layout would also make it easier for other contributers to insert sections referring to the athletic boycotts at BYU in the 1960s, and the disavowal non-news item of the 1990s.

ErinHowarth 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem of course is that this article is not about all racial policies. It is about a single racial policy. Or rather it isn't about policies for more than one race (or ethnicity). I think this issue is significant enough that it should not be grouped with other racial policies/issues. I should also mention that much of the POV 206.196.172.2 may have been referring to was taken out when I removed the copyright material last week. --Kmsiever 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is still in violation of the Wikipedia style guide: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." 'Blacks and Mormonism is not acceptable. I wrote a paper in college titled African American Mormons and the Evolution of Church Policy. Maybe Policies and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding persons of African descent. That's pretty long. How about: Policies of the LDS Church regarding Africans. ErinHowarth 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the policies were not directed specifically at Africans; they were also directed at Jamaicans, Americans, Brazilians, English, Canadians, Australians. Anyone who was Black. I am not arguing in favour of the current title, only that I cannot think of another that works as well. In other words, I am not sure it is possible (to quote the style guide). --Kmsiever 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The current title is just fine. See the page history for how it became what it did. -Visorstuff 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki markup

When there is a need for separating a block of text

The blockquote command will indent both margins when needed instead of the left margin only as the colon does.

This is useful for (as the name says) inserting blocks of quoted (and cited) text. |

<blockquote>
The '''blockquote''' command will indent 
both margins when needed instead of the 
left margin only as the colon does.  
</blockquote>

Wikipedia:How to edit a page ErinHowarth 05:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, Erin. Someone told me about a year ago not to use the blockqoute tag and I had assumed that wikipedia replaced : with <blockquote> when it rendered the page. I reverted it. Thanks for the link; I will definitely use it in the future. --Kmsiever 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmsiever. I'm new here. I'm trying to read the how to pages before I make changes. I thought I was starting with something harmless. I was afraid I had misunderstood. I appriciate you putting the blockquotes back. ErinHowarth 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a flag at the top of the article requesting that the article be wikified. The tag has been there for more than a month now. Does anyone here know what it means exactly? The article looks like a wiki article to me. Any guess what it is that needs doing? -ErinHowarth 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

State legislatures took action

I deleted the following paragraph because it does not seem relevant.

As slaves in the new America began converting to Christianity, their Christian owners adopted interpretations of the Word of God that justified the practices of the time. State legislatures also took action. North Carolina made it illegal to teach slaves in 1740, Georgia in 1770, Missouri in 1817, Virginia in 1819, Mississippi in 1823, Louisiana in 1830, and Alabama in 1832. Other laws were enacted in Delaware and Florida to punish slaves for congregating. At the same time, several states prevented Negroes from working at jobs requiring a "knowledge of letters". Churches were giving in to the pressures of the law and the wrath of wealthy slave owners by backing away from actively proselytizing Negroes. Abolitionists and proslavery activists alike focused their respective arguments on the Bible as tensions mounted during the great religious revival in the south between 1829 and 1835. (James O. Buswell III, Slavery, Segregation, and Scripture , 1964, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. pp. 37-45)

I just don't see how giving the years that several states out-lawed the teaching of blacks has any impact on blacks and Mormonism. If there is a connection that I'm not seeing then the author needs to draw it more clearly.ErinHowarth

The following has been added to the begining of the article:

When Joseph Smith declared Jackson County to be the land of Zion and gathering place for the members the new church, it had been illegal to educate or proselytize blacks in Missouri since 1817 (James O. Buswell III, Slavery, Segregation, and Scripture , 1964, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. pp. 37-45) As it became known that Mormons had begun preaching to the local Native Americans, the suspicions of Missouri citizens were raised that the large numbers of voting Mormons would threaten their policies on people of color.

I remain unconvinced that (1) laws prohibiting the education of blacks, (2) the mission to preach to Native Americans, or (3) the Mormons voting power are relevent to this discussion.--ErinHowarth 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Negroes??

I'm scratching my head over the renaming of this article to Negroes and Mormonism by User:Conrad Devonshire, with the comment that it was a "more apporpriate title". How could that possibly be true? COGDEN 04:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a major change should have been discussed. I've renamed it back. Val42 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I've collected some quotes on this question, which I've posted to http://www.allaboutmormons.com/racism.php. I'd like to include that page as an external link, but I wanted to get permission from the community first. Thanks.

I think adding an external link is one of the least disruptive edits you could have made. I certainly have no objection. -ErinHowarth

Sounds great. With your permission, then, I'll post the external link. Thanks. SLCMormon 18:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think some of the quotes I've posted at http://www.allaboutmormons.com/racism.php would fit well into this article, but my inexperience with Wikipedia and the fact that this topic is so "hot" make me reluctant to make any changes myself. Anyone interested should feel free to use the quotes in this article if they like, though.

I noticed that someone deleted the allaboutmormons.com link without explaining why on this talk page, while many "anti" links were retained. Because the allaboutmormons.com link was previously authorized by the community, I'm going to restore it. Please let me know if anyone has any objections. SLCMormon

I'm dumb. The link wasn't deleted afterall. Sorry! SLCMormon

Too long!

The article is really too long. I think one of the least painful things that should be trimmed out is Official Declaration 2. Of course it is a very important part of this topic, but it is not necessary to quote the entire text in this article, when it is so easy to link to at any one of several sources. -ErinHowarth

Although more painful, I think another possible edit might be to remove the section titled "Revelation or policy." Certainly, the debate over whether the priesthood ban was a matter of revelation or a matter of policy is an important one, but the title of this article is Blacks and Mormonism, which suggests a social and historical discussion. The section about the debate between revelation or policy is really a theological discussion. I suggest this article be divided in two: Blacks and Mormonism will discuss the relationship between those two groups, and another article, perhaps titled: The Priesthood Ban, would discuss the myriad theological issues regarding this policy (or revelation). Comments -ErinHowarth 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the following paragraphs for the reasons noted:

The church always allowed black membership in all its congregations. The priesthood ban typically applied to men of black African descent regardless of skin color (white Afrikaaners and Armenian Egyptians, for example, were not under this ban), although it occasionally applied to other races or lineages (including some Caucasians). Dark-skinned South Pacific Islanders were ordained to the priesthood, for example, while light-skinned Africans were not. Native Americans were always eligible for priesthood ordination, despite having dark skin.

This statement merely serves to define the nature of the priesthood ban, again. It should not be necessary to define the nature of the ban more than once in this article.

A relatively modern Prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, taught that, after accepting the Gospel, dark-skinned people would gradually be made white, a process that would take place over a significant number of generations. It has been upheld by Mormon apologists as a meaningful relationship between "lighter skin" and "good character" and "God's approval" or "pure in spirit", and seeks to vindicate the racial belief that a lighter skinned individual inherently exhibits a better character or that their lighter skin is a reflection of God's blessing. After visiting a mission site in South America, he said in his General Conference Report of October, 1960 (quite a number of years before he became the president of the church), which was published in Improvement Era, December 1960, pp 922-923:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

Kimball's use of the phrase "white and delightsome" refers to a Book of Mormon prophecy regarding the future status of the Lamanite people, generally accepted by Latter-day Saints as the ancestors of modern American Indians. It is unclear whether he meant for this change to apply to blacks or other groups. (For a Mormon apologetic examination of this issue, see the SHIELDS web site.)

President Kimballs statements are very interesting, but the scope of this article is limited to Blacks and Mormonism. A seperate article on Native Americans and Mormonism would be very interesting.

Other church leaders have stated that the priesthood would be given to blacks after the blood of Israel flowed in the veins of all peoples of the earth.

This fact would be interesting if it were part of a real paragraph, but standing alone it is not. Generally, references to church leaders" should be avoided. I don't think it would be too difficult to find an actual quote to attribute to an actual leader. Bruce R. McConkie comes to mind for this one.

According to his ex-Mormon grandson Steve Benson, Ezra Taft Benson, who succeeded Kimball as President of the Church, was a noted racist [3]. However, while acting as President of the Church, he did not make a single remark that could be accurately construed as racist; on the contrary, while prophet he publicly affirmed his love for all of God's children, "of every color, creed and political persuasion."

Steve Benson's opinion on his father's racial attitudes is really not relevant to this article. Ezra Taft Benson's racial attitudes might be relevant, but "nothing" is offered here, literally: "he did not make one single remark."

Weasel Words

I added a tag to the top of the article to draw attention to the use of weasel words. One example: the references to the disavowal are not clear on who it is calling for the church to disavow previously taught doctrines regarding blacks. --ErinHowarth 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The following statements have been removed until "some leaders" and the "some who call" can be identified.

• "Some leaders of the LDS Church have disavowed certain past explanations as to why the priesthood ban was instituted by God, but the Church has never disavowed the teaching that the ban was, in fact, instituted by God."
• Some call upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to offer an apology and to announce officially that the curse of Ham and curse of Cain doctrines are incorrect and that the policy of racial discrimination was in error. To date, the Church has chosen not to address the issue directly.--ErinHowarth 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too long and LDS-centric

The article is currently 47K long. The article is also exclusively about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its treatment of blacks. While the most widely known, it is not the only church in the LDS movement. There is nothing about the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) which probably ordained blacks earlier. From the statements from Warren Jeffs (that were released to the public by a third party), I suspect that the FLDS church doesn't even ordain blacks now days. (Do they even have any black members?) I propose the following structure:

• Introduction
• Early LDS movement (Before death of Joseph Smith, Jr.): includes information currently in those sections.
• By denomination: (But find a better name) Explain briefly in this section about succession crisis (w/link to that article) and sects that resulted.
  • LDS Church: Since this is the largest part of the article (and will likely remain so), split this off in to its own article with a summary here.
  • Community of Christ
  • etc.

What do others think about this structure? Val42 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not favor a split of the article, but certainly believe the article could be greatly shortened. As I read the article there is a lot of redundancy. A great deal could be deleted. The LDS point to make is Blacks were initially ordained to the priesthood, Joseph was an abolitionist, and later blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood and why, and then a statement when all worthy males were allowed to hold the priesthood. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article will need to be split, but I don't think denominations will be the right way. I think seperate articles on history and theology might be a good idea, but first this article needs structure. Currently it meanders something awful, which has lead to a great deal of redundancy. My personal views on the topic have been greatly influenced by a book titled Neither White Nor Black. The structure of Chapter 3 is historical with emphasis on how the nature and justification of the priesthood ban changed over time. The book is out of print, but the full text is available online [4]. I suggest the following structure:

• Blacks and Joseph Smith
• Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  • Blacks and Brigham Young (includig discussion of the Curse of Cain)
  • Blacks and Joseph F. Smith (including discussion of the Curse of Ham)
  • Blacks and Joseph Fielding Smith (including discussion of the faithfulness in the pre mortal life)
  • Blacks and David O. McKay (including discussion of the Civil Rights Movement)
  • Blacks and Spencer W. Kimball (including discussion of Official Declaration 2)
• Blacks and the Community of Christ
• Blacks and the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--ErinHowarth 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added sections for some other Mormon denominations, but the information I found was quite limited. Hopefully, other contributors will have more to offer. --ErinHowarth 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the structure should generally be as suggested by Val42, in that there is a separate section about Mormon theology and policy regarding Blacks during the life of Joseph Smith, followed by a per-denomination discussion. The LDS section, which will undoubtedly be the largest by far, might be split off as a separate article (with an abbreviated summary here), and it might follow the general outline suggested by ErinHowarth. The split-off article could be called Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which currently redirects here). COGDEN 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at summarizing the section on the LDS Church and starting a seperate article on the redirect page. I fear I was a little extreme, but the structure and content was so disjointed and meandering that I used an old college paper that I wrote on the subject. It's a good paper. I got an A, but I think the tone might be a little casual for an encyclopedia. That shouldn't be difficult to fix.

I skimmed through your paper and I think it's a good starting-point. Is there any significant information from the old version that got lost in the process? COGDEN 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The other contributors seemed to be making essentially the same points, using different quotations for support and all going in different directions. Now that I think about it the section on internal dissenting voices does not make an appearence in the new article. Personally, I don't consider it relevant. Members of the Chruch cannot influence policy that way, but it does say something about how members felt about the restriction. I will work it back in. Another section on whether or not the priesthood restriction representeed a policy or a doctrine recives only a single sentence in the new article. Whoever contributed that section obviously felt strongly about it, but it seemed obvious to me that it was a theological discussion, perhaps unsuited to an encyclopedia. What do you think? --ErinHowarth 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark skin as a curse

The entire section entitled Dark skin as a curse is about verses in the Book of Mormon. I am not aware of anyone using verses from the Book of Mormon to justify the priesthood ban. Although it is interesting information, in the interest of brevity and clarity, I recommend that the entire section be struck. Opinions?--ErinHowarth 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Book of Mormon cites are relevant, in that the book provides a foundation in Mormon theology for the idea that dark skin is a curse. However, citations to the Book of Mormon should be qualified, to make clear that the book does not reference people of African ancestry. COGDEN 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Shouldn't most if not all of this article be in Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It seems that this articles only difference is the inclusion of splinter groups, which could be the meat of this article, and have a link to the main LDS article. I also think this and the LDS article should read like a history lesson. No judgments, no POV. Simply a history of blacks role in the church and church policy, with some explanation of why, but noting that the why is speculative as there is no official doctrine on the why. Start with Joseph Smith, and end with the baptism of Gladys Knight. I also think right at the start, you need to point out that blacks were always welcome to baptism. Many people do not understand the difference between priesthood office and membership. Bytebear 07:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not favor a merger. I think splitting the page is the best way to respect the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole. I agree that there are really two ways to tackle the issue at hand. During the 1960s, LDS historians did a great deal of research and writing on this topic and a discussion of the policy is pretty much a straightforward review of historical events. That is what I had intended the Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be; although it does also contain discussion of doctrine.

1. Discussions of the beliefs and doctrines supporting the policy are much slipperier, primarily because Mormon Doctrine is a slippery thing. The curse of Ham, the curse of Cain and the idea the blacks were less valiant in the pre mortal life were all taught by prophets and apostles of the Church at one time or another. Today we say that they were never official doctrine, but at the time, I'm not sure anyone was saying that, so I would support splitting the topic further to create a third page which discusses just the doctrines. Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is too long anyway. We still have a redirect page at Blacks and the Priesthood (LDS). Of course, such a page should link back to the other two pages, and they should link to it.
2. I agree that Joseph Smith, Jr. is the right place to start, but Gladys Knight is not the right place to end. I think the ordination of Helvecio Martins to the Second Quorum of the Seventy is the most logical place to end. Gladys Knight is more famous, but she does not hold the priesthood.
3. Finally, I also agree that the issue of baptism could and should be discussed earlier in the page. Perhaps by inserting the story of Jane Manning James. ErinHowarth 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So what should the differences between the LDS church perspective and the LDS movement perspective be? Bytebear 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I think there is a significant difference between the experiences of Black Latter-day Saints during the life of Joseph Smith and the experiences of Black Latter-day Saints during the administration of Brigham Young. If the articles don't make that clear, then they need more work. -ErinHowarth 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I've attempted a major re-write of the page with three goals

1. to place the various elements of the article in chronological order
2. to shorten the article by eliminating repeated concepts. This is probably most notable by the new section titled W.W. Phelps which deals with the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham with links to those main pages and the elimination of the sections devoted specifically to those doctrines.
3. bring the introductory paragraphs in line with the new focus of the article since it was split from Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There are still lots to do:

1. I think we need a quote from Joseph Smith III either on slavery or race.
2. citation styles could be cleaned up for consistency. I recommend we follow the example found in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., a featured article. ErinHowarth 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep up the good work. COGDEN 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic United Brethren?

Does anyone know this denominations teaching on the topic?

No, but see here for an article implying their position. The article is based largely on anyonymous interviews, however, and it doesn't give a citation on this point. You might send an email to the webmaster if you are interested in documentation. COGDEN 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1990s members of the AUB discovered within their congregation, a Caucasian-looking man who had African ancestry had been ordained to the priesthood. A controversy ensued, which resulted in the release of Richard Kunz from his position as a President in the AUB’s Council of Seventy."

It's a vague reference, but my guess is that as a fundamentalist group, they uphold Brigham Young's position, and that Richard Kunz is the name of the "Caucasian-looking man who had African ancestry." I'm sure there is an interesting story there. This article describes a legal battle between his first wife and his plural wives centering on the fact that he did not leave her children his inheritance, but it doesn't mention the issue of race. -ErinHowarth 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

I added the tag because I felt the article lacked the essential disinterest an article must possess. The author(s) seem to take for granted the historical beliefs of the LDS as being true, none of which can, nor have, been, to this date at least, scientifically verified. After all, the encyclopedia traces its roots to the enlightenment, the scientific, rational questioning of all previously "held-for-granted" beliefs.

May I suggest that you flag those areas that you think are POV. Add a "citation needed" tag where you question the assumptions. A single "POV" tag isn't that helpful for making the article better. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While it is certianly a matter of opinion whether or not the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. It is a matter of fact that the Book of Mormon says certain things that can be interpreted as racist. -ErinHowarth 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of disinterest in expressing the LDS pov and that of the Book of Mormon is probably what earns it the distinction of a neutrality-disputed article. Though argued from an LDS standpoint, one must avoid doing such, as dispassion is an integral part of any article, regardless of how passionate one may feel towards it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.16.155 (talk • contribs)

I still don't get what you're trying to say. The Book of Mormon is only relevent to the discussion as far as the members of the Church believe that it is the word of God. -ErinHowarth 05:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the tag is not within policy. All tags must be specifically explained on the discussion page. The explanation should be explicit enough so that the correction can easily be measured. So far the ANON has said nothing that can be measured or corrected. She/he has stated an opinion that up to now is unsupported. Either meet the demands of policy or remove the tag. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some passages I think reflect what the initiator of this thread was talking about:

• "Possible intermarriage wilth local tribes would explain both the heritable nature of the dark skin and the sudden change from civilized Hebrew society to a loin-cloth culture of idleness, 'full of mischief and subtlety'." (This passage appears to treat BOM events as historical fact rather than explain the article's topic.)
• The discussion of Smith's "people of Canaan" and their supposedly nonexistant relationship with to Canaanites seems contrived. Is there evidence that Smith meant a group besides the Canaanites? this may or may not be a true POV issue, but it certainly needs more context
• The Civil War prophesy section barely mentions race (saying only that slaves will rise up against their masters) and mostly seems to be a place to say that Smith made a prophesy of coming war (which was also a quite common fear throughout the country at the time).
• There is undue weight in the "Joseph Smith on the Bible and slavery" and "Abolistionists" sections. These should be short summaries, perhaps with links to the full text in Wikisource

There's more, but I've taken a stab at at least some of it. -Porlob 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the article today and though I think I have improved it by deleting unneeded material, improving grammar, and adding citations; I have come to the conclusion it is generally in keeping with NPOV policy, but it is a poorly written article. It really just is a collection of thoughts about blacks within Mormonism. There does not seem to be an "article" per se, just a list of statements.

I suggest that the article could be improved by writing a narrative supported by references, which are found in the current list. The question is how do we begin the rewrite without entering into disputes. I have found change very difficult to come by with groups of editors. Any suggestions? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that is what's wrong with it... By the way, good work on what you've done in the last day or so. I agree that the article could use a significant overhaul. A rewrite might take care of perceived POV and other issues. Other than the instances I noted above (some of which you've already taken to task), I don't have any specific suggestions). -Porlob 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-slavery

From the article: "When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Initially, Joseph Smith, Jr. supported the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders as a matter of peace and order, but eventually rejected the institution and supported its abolishment."

I believe Smith ran for US president on a anti-slavery platform. I don't have have a reference, but this may be a good place to look if the statement above is true.--Dbolton 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WW Phelps wrote an editorial that enoucraged blacks to come to Missouri and convert to mormonism. This was obviously controversial and originally approved by the paper's editor - Joseph Smith. Becuase of public outcry, the first presidency not only recanted and disavowed the editorial, but put in place a policy of not baptizing slaves to keep the peace. It wasn't until the Illinios period that Smith took a completly abolitionist stance - you may want to read this recent blog post which is most enlightening and pretty much a summation of this, but I believe the other blacks and the lds church, or mark of cain or curse of ham, etc articles deal with this issue, but can't recall. History of the Church volume 3's introduction by BH Roberts deals with the slavery and missouri question, and is quite frank on the above. It would provide a decent reference. -Visorstuff 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Christian Church Fathers were 'White Supremacists'

Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1

“Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II

St. Jerome: “Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body.” (The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28).

The Eastern Christian work, the Cave of Treasures (4th century), explicitly connects slavery with dark-skinned people: “When Noah awoke. . .he cursed him and said: ‘Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers’. . .and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.” La caverne des trésors: version Géorgienne, ed. Ciala Kourcikidzé, trans. Jean-Pierre Mahé, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 526-27, Scriptores Iberici 23-24 (Louvain, 1992-93), ch. 21, 38-39 (translation).

St. Ennodius (474-521): “Keep your chastity constant. Don’t let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face.” Epistulae 7.21

John Philoponus, Greek Christian philosopher (6th century): “The Scythians and Ethiopians are distinguished from each other by black and white color, or by long and snubbed nose, or by slave and master, by ruler and ruled,” and again, “The Ethiopian and Scythian. . .one is black, the other white; similarly slave and master.” A. Sanda, Oposcula Monophysitica Johannes Philoponi (Beirut, 1930), pp. 66,96 (Sanda’s Latin translation).

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139.

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43)

Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.” Joannes C.J. Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 274-275, Scriptores Arabici 24-25 (Louvain, 1967), 1:56 (text), 2:52-55 (translation).

Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.

Gomes Eannes de Zurara (official royal chronicler of Portugal, 1453): “These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.” C.R. Beazley and E. Prestage, The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea in the Hakluyt 1st series, no. 95 (London, 1896), 1:54.

Francisco de la Cruz (Dominican, 1575): “The blacks are justly captives by just sentence of God for the sins of their fathers, and that in sign thereof God gave them that color.” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History (DeKalb, Ill., 1971), p. 417. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Curse of Cain material

Ephrem the Syrian (306-378): “Abel was bright as the light, / but the murderer (Cain) was dark as the darkness.” Tryggve Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1-11, pp. 135-42.

Ambrose: “The meaning of Ethiopia in Latin is ‘lowly and vile (abiecta et vilis).’ What is more lowly, what is more like Ethiopia, than our bodies, blackened, too, by the darkness of sin?” De Paradiso, 3.16

Augustine: “A gouty doctor of [Carthage], when he had given in his name for baptism, and had been prohibited the day before his baptism from being baptized that year, by black woolly-haired boys who appeared to him in his dreams, and whom he understood to be devils, and when, though they trod on his feet, and inflicted the acutest pain he had ever yet experienced, he refused to obey them, but overcame them, and would not defer being washed in the laver of regeneration, was relieved in the very act of baptism, not only of the extraordinary pain he was tortured with, but also of the disease itself, so that, though he lived a long time afterwards, he never suffered from gout.” The City of God, 22.8

Didymus the Blind (313-398): The Devil is black “because he fell from the splendor, virtue, and spiritual whiteness which only those who have been whitened by God can possess.” “Those who fall beneath the stroke of God’s sword are the Ethiopians, because they all share in the malice and sin of the Devil, from whose blackness they take their name.” Sur Zacharie 4.312

In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face.” The History of Abel and Cain, 10, in Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 145, 250 (text) and 160, 271 (translation).

The Kebra Nagast (6-7th century), the Christian Ethiopian national epic, has the queen of Ethiopia speak to King Solomon concerning their son: “Thy son whom thou hast begotten, who springeth from an alien people into which God hath not commanded you to marry, that is to say, from an Ethiopian woman, who is not of thy color, and is not akin to thy country, and who is, moreover, black.” E.A.W. Budge, The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek, p.102.

The Vienna Genesis (11-12th century) shows black skin as the externalized sign of internal sin: some of Adam’s offspring “completely lost their beautiful coloring; they became black and disgusting, and unlike any people. . . [They] displayed on their bodies what the forebears had earned by their misdeeds. As the fathers had been inwardly, so the children were outwardly.” John B. Friedman, The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought (Cambridge, 1981), p. 93.

The Irish Saltair na Rann (The Versified Psalter, AD 988), records Gabriel announcing to Adam: “Dark rough senseless Cain is going to kill Abel.” D. Greene and F. Kelly, The Irish Adam and Eve Story from Saltair Na Rann (Dublin, 1976), 1:91, lines 1959-1960.

A medieval Armenian apocryphal work, The History of the Creation and Transgression of Adam 27 says of Eve: “Even though she had been stripped of the heavenly light, she was nonetheless beautiful, for her flesh was dazzling white like a pearl because she was newly created.” William Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 112 and 122. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.100.43 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag Added

In the interests of improving Wikipedia, and especially this article, Im adding a POV tag to help stimulate some improvement to this article. The criteria that we need to meet to make this article neutral are:

• Need a named subsection addressing the lengthy "non priesthood" LDS period 1860(?) - 1978
• Need a named subsection about LDS role when Utah legalized slavery (e.g. were church members leaders of the territory?)
• 1978 Revelation: some information about expansion in Brazil and the new temple there
• Some opinions/thoughts/quotes of black church members 1860 to 1978, positive and negative
• Picture: the single picture of a black, with a pronounced caption "was a priest and held several positions" is highly POV and has a "token negro" feel to it. The picture must be removed, or balanced with a picture of a black church member that was not satisified with church policies.
• Priesthood discussion: omits key fact that virtually all white male members of the church are/were priests.
• Some discussion of LDS views on miscegnation, esp after 1978.
• Need some rough statistics of black church membership, especially in USA
• Need statistics on current black participation in top levels of current LDS church hierarchy (e.g. "2 of 12 are black")
• Some mention of current attitudes of black members of LDS church, positive and negative

Noleander (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no comments on these suggested changes, I'll start making headway on some of them. Others I'll need help with, but I can at least do some of the simpler ones. Noleander (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive removed the POV tag, since all the issues are now covered (and most resolved) in the Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. Noleander (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Walker Lewis and Brigham Young

It is my understanding that the whole (or most of) controversy with Blacks and the priesthood began with Brigham Young being infuriated with the interracial marriage of Walker Lewis's son. Shouldn't that get a mention in here somewhere? If it wasn't for that event, IMHO, this entire issue would not really exist, not even for the other Latter Day Saint movement denominations. Please correct my understanding of the history if I am incorrect. If not, perhaps a "Walker Lewis" section?--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a Walker Lewis section on the Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. How it affects other denominations is unclear. I wouldn't put it on unless you can find sources to show it did affect other denominations.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed bias in race statement

I removed the words "/and or seemingly racist". We're talking about if they made racist statements. Wikipedia acknowledged that. Someone attempt to soften that was inappropriate bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.240.57 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The words "race" and "racist" are defined and re-defined endlessly to suit the agenda of the speaker (and even undefined). Facts are communicated better if neither is used, at all. Likewise, the use of the word "African" in this context is typically an attempt to soften bias. To communicate clearly, use the unmistakable term, damn the outrage. Even "black" (or "Black") is not truly definitive of persons of negroid descent, as there are some negroids with lighter skin color than some caucasians. Anyone's personal offense is irrelevant to communicating facts. Find an appropriate exact synonym if you like, but clearly and concisely assert facts, please. If you're confused, then yes, I am requesting that all appearances of the words "black", "African", and most especially "African-American" that reference ethnic decent or appearance be replaced with "negro", "Negro", "negroid", or "Negroid". 96.226.204.58 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

racist

I want all racists out of wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rename as suggested -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested Move

Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement → Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement — The term 'blacks' is offensive to many, and should be replaced with the far more accepted 'black people'. This brings it in line with such articles as Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was changed some time ago. Little grape (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment That might be a good change. Could you provide some supporting information, such as: some WP policy, or some prior discussion on the topic (from another article's Talk history)? or some statement by some authoritative group (NAACP, etc). I'm sure this wording question has been discussed scores of times already. I dont object to the change: I just want to make sure that the new title is not even more offensive. --Noleander (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The last discussion is archived here [5], which resulted in a move. I'd have done this one too at that time, but have only just noticed it. A reasonable view might be that any article that refers to 'blacks' should be moved or its content changed to reflect current thinking. In short, 'black' should be used as an adjective not a noun. This used to be specifically referred to at MOS:IDENTITY with the words 'Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns: for example, use black people rather than blacks, gay people rather than gays, disabled people rather than the disabled.', but someone appears to have removed that line from the section (I've replaced it).

Plus of course we have the article Black people, not 'Blacks', so perhaps simply on the ground of consistency we might ensure all these get changed? Little grape (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename - Thanks. I now see the recommendation at MOS:IDENTITY, so I concur with your recommended move. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I suspect that almost all language we use will offend someone at some point, but this move clarifies the intent desired. --^StormRider 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Outline is chronological, not topical

I noticed some editors recently made some good-faith edits to add material into the article. Please note that the article is organized by chronological period (and, toward the bottom, by branch of Mormonism). So, if the new content is organized by religious text, that has to be fit into the chronological sections in a sensible way (by date of publication?); or perhaps create an entirely new group of sections at the bottom of the article: one section per text (but before doing that, make sure that the new content does not fit sensibly into one of the chronological sections... for instance, the "New York" section contains a discussion of the Book of Mormon). --Noleander (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Better source for Fund. quotes?

There are a couple of problems with the Fundamentalist section: (1) it is not written in encyclopedic prose (instead is just just some quotes); (2) the quotes are not well-sourced. The source for the quotes is [6] but it is just a web page (not a book, or academic source) and the web page is missing some key information: when did Jeffs say this? Who recorded it? What was the context of the speech? WP material needs better sources. If these bigoted viewpoints are so central to the Fundmntl church, there should be other, more reliable sources that convey the same information. --Noleander (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing Black people/Mormonism articles

Please see the discussion here about reogranizing the existing articles about Black people and Mormonism, including this article. COGDEN 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is some material here about blacks in non-Mormon Latter Day Saint denominations, which is no longer relevant to the re-titled article. This material does not really coherently belong in the same article anyway. I place it here in case we need further reference, or we want to move it to denominational articles. COGDEN 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Latter Day Saint movement denominations After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1844, the movement underwent what is referred to as a succession crisis, when it split into several groups, leading eventually to dozens of separate denominations. Each of these denominations has treated the issue of race, and specifically the idea of a black race, differently. Below is a summary of how several denominations have dealt with these issues. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Main article: Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints After the death of Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet Brigham Young Sr.taught that “Negroes” were black due to the mark of Cain, which also meant that they were Canaanites and were under the curse of Ham. For this reason, most black people of African descent—along with a smaller number of non-black people that the Church also deemed to be Canaanites—were ineligible to be ordained to the Priesthood. They were also barred from participating in the Endowment and celestial marriage, but were allowed to enter the church’s temples to perform baptism for the dead. While this policy existed for over a century, it was always with the promise that "the time will come when [black men] will have the privilege of all [white men] have the privilege of and more." In 1978, church leaders said they had received a revelation that this long-promised time had come, and the Priesthood was offered to black men. All women, black and white, remain ineligible to receive the priesthood. For critics, the fact that Blacks were not allowed into the priesthood until 1978 supports the on-going argument of racism within the Church. In 1981, a verse that used "white and delightsome" to describe the reward of dark-skinned people if they repented was changed to read, "pure and delightsome." Additional accusations of the Church's underlying policy of racism occurred in December of 2010, when the Church made changes to chapter headings in its online version of The Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, the original wording was: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." The phrase, "skin of blackness" is removed in the re-write and becomes: "Because of their unbelief, the Laminites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." The second rewrite appears in Mormon, Chapter 5 that used to state, "The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people . . ." The new version deletes the label of "dark, filthy, and loathsome" and now reads, "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them." These on-going changes to The Book of Mormon are seen by critics to support the impression of racist rhetoric in The Book of Mormon and the Church's attempts to obliterate that impression. Community of Christ The Community of Christ accepts the doctrine of human worth or the "worth of all persons", and states that "God loves each of us equally and unconditionally. All persons have great worth and should be respected as creations of God with basic human rights. The willingness to love and accept others is essential to faithfulness to the gospel of Christ." A revelation given through Joseph Smith III on May 4, 1865, specifically addressed the ordination of black men. It was added to the Community of Christ edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 116. Although the official policy was in full support of the ordination of black persons, Community of Christ was not always free from regional discrepancies, and the prejudices of the prevailing culture. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints In 2005, the Intelligence Report published the following statements made by Warren Jeffs, President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: "The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth." "[Cain was] cursed with a black skin and he is the father of the Negro people. He has great power, can appear and disappear. He is used by the devil, as a mortal man, to do great evils." "Today you can see a black man with a white woman, et cetera. A great evil has happened on this land because the devil knows that if all the people have Negro blood, there will be nobody worthy to have the priesthood." "If you marry a person who has connections with a Negro, you would become cursed." Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), James Strang presided over general conference resolutions to allow African-Americans to hold the high priesthood by 1849. This was consistent with Joseph Smith’s known ordination of a black man named Elijah Abel to the high priesthood office of Seventy in 1836. The Book of Mormon says that “black and white” are all invited and “all are alike to God.” There were two significant Black elders in the church under James Strang while he was alive, namely Samuel Chambers and Samuel Walker. Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) has advocated full racial integration throughout all aspects of the church since its organization in 1862. In 1905, the church suspended an elder for opposing the full integration of all races. Historian Dale Morgan wrote in 1949: "An interesting feature of the Church's doctrine is that it discriminates in no way against ... members of other racial groups, who are fully admitted to all the privileges of the priesthood. It has taken a strong stand for human rights, and was, for example, uncompromisingly against the Ku Klux Klan during that organization's period of ascendancy after the First World War." At a time when racial segregation or discrimination was commonplace in most institutions in America, two of the most prominent leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) were African American. Apostle John Penn, a member of the Quorum of Twelve from 1910 to 1955, conducted missionary work among many Italian Americans, and was often referred to as "The Italian's Doctor". Matthew Miller, an evangelist ordained in 1937, traveled throughout Canada and established missions to Native Americans.

References

Reality Check

The following comment was added as a new section to the article by User:Guy Noir Private Eye. I reverted and placed it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The current position of the LDS is to comment that the church 'was against slavery', but two FACTS contradict this:

a) Utah (first 'Deseret') had the option of entering the U.S. as a "Slave" or non-slave territory. Historians tell us that this choice was presented as a means to not upset the 'balance' between other states & territories. Utah, headed by Brigham Young 'Prophet of the Most High God', chose to enter as a Slave Territory. b) Mormons brought negro slaves with them from the East to Deseret/Utah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Noir Private Eye (talk • contribs)

It would be worthwhile for you to go back and read the way a slave could exist in Utah. Working off of memory: a slave had to agree to be a slave to remain a slave; if they did not agree they were declared free. A slave owner had to properly care for their slaves i.e. pay them, educate them, clothe them, and treat their children in the same manner. In essence, a slave could only exist IF they chose to be one. Not really slavery at all. --^StormRider 11:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and early Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140604030004/http://christopherrandallnicholson.webs.com/lds-racial-history to http://christopherrandallnicholson.webs.com/lds-racial-history

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

D&C 101:79

The verse D&C 101:79 was put in this article to imply that the early Church was against slavery. It reads: "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." This is in reference to economic bondage, not chattel slavery. (see "The Mormon Church and Blacks" A Documentary History" e-book location 457 of 6260, Lester E. Bush Jr., "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine," 56; Lester E. Bush Jr., "A Commentary on Stephen G. Taggart's Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins," in Bush and Mauss, "Neither White nor Black," 34) The subject of section 101 and further sections make clear that this is the case, and how it was understood by early Saints. See also D&C 104:83-84 which makes clear that this is the case. See also D&C 134:12 Epachamo (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This page has a lot of those kinds of problems (using scriptures as sources). Do you think it should be merged with Black people and Mormonism? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be merged, although Black people and Mormonism has many of the same problems.--Jburlinson (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU) and Epachamo: After I make the proposed merger of the 1978 Revelation into Black People and Priesthood, would it be OK if I pursued this merger? The timeline would be to propose a merger later this month. --Jburlinson (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

go for it! would you be merging it into Black People and Priesthood? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)