Talk:Blacks and Mormonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archived Discussions 2 Minor Removal 3 Questionable Neutrality 4 Wiki markup 5 State legislatures took action 6 Negroes?? 7 Quotes 8 Too long! 9 Weasel Words 10 Too long and LDS-centric 11 Dark skin as a curse 12 Merger 13 Major rewrite 14 Apostolic United Brethren? 15 POV Tag

[edit] Archived Discussions

• /Archive 1 January 2004 - August 2005
• /Archive 2 July 2005 - August 2005
• /Archive 3 August 2005 - March 2006
• /Archive 4 March 2006 - April 2006

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 [1]. 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."

[edit] 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.^{[citation needed]} To date, the Church has chosen not to address the issue directly.--ErinHowarth 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [2]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)