Talk:Blacks and Mormonism/Archive August 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 External Links 2 Curse of Cain 3 Mormon Extermination Order in Missouri 4 Joseph Smith's official views on Slavery - By Joseph Smith himself 5 Date of priesthood ban? 6 More of Joseph Smith jr's views on Slavery

External Links

I am concerned about a recent link added by COGDEN, that of Darrick Evenson's "The Black Mormon Homepage" [1]. Evenson is an unstable fellow who was once a Mormon, but is now Bahá'í (or something like it). He writes frequent letters to the LDS First Presidency and other Mormons; these are typically full of profanity and condemnation for not practicing the LDS faith correctly, as he sees it. His Black Mormon Homepage is full of errors and misintepretations. For this reason, I removed it from the list of links several months ago. I do not believe it is a fair or accurate representation of Latter-day Saint history, belief or practice. For this reason, I recommend removing the link. --MrWhipple 05:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I did a Google search on Darrick Evenson and concur with MrWhipple's conclusions. Evenson's page is full of interesting but highly idiosyncratic information, and he is clearly speaking for no one but himself. Over the years he has represented himself as a New Ager, born-again Christian, passionate Mormon, passionate anti-Mormon, passionate Baha'i, passionate anti-Baha'i, and passionate racist. A Google search for his name shows him to be constantly embroiled in passionate and frequently profanity-filled "he said-she said" arguments with anybody and everybody. Currently he seems to believe that the Baha'i religion is the fulfillment of prophecies by Joseph Smith, an interpretation that I think would find few supporters either among the Baha'i or the Mormon religions. Given that he speaks for no one other than himself, I don't think his "Black Mormon Homepage" belongs in an encyclopedia article, and I have therefore removed it. --Sheldon Rampton 05:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I just figured it was the most detailed web page on the subject. It does have some good material on it that has a constituency, but I agree that some of it is a bit strange, and I'm fine with excluding it. COGDEN 19:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Curse of Cain

I've made several edits tonight on the Curse of Cain article. I'm planning on doing future edits, but I welcome edits from those who are working on this article. I figured that people who have been editing this page should be made aware of a related, but separate, article. Val42 04:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Extermination Order in Missouri

The Mormon extermination order was Missouri's response to the Mormon "Danite" militant activity in the north of the state. Slavery had nothing to do with the issue as the order was not called until three battles were fought between Mormons, excommunicated mormons, and non-Mormon Missourians. These pre-exterminaton order battles included an assassination attempt on the Governor, two Mormon attacks on Missouri cities, and one massacre of Mormons. In none of these exchanges was the issue of Black people raised. The Governor was responding to a militant threat, not a fear of Black "freedom" or the abolition of slavery. If this Extermination Order is placed within the article again, without evidence to support it, I will remove it. --208.254.174.148 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We have provided references for this. Please see my additions last week. If you have a problem getting a hold of some of the books, please let me know. Please note that wikipedia is not place to make a point, and continued antagonist activity can result in getting banned. I'm not threatening it, just letting you know that you have continued to revert material that has now been referenced and sourced, with the result beginning to become an edit war. -Visorstuff 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes there was a lot of activity regarding that. What I recall is that on one side, someone was postulating that the Extermination Order was in response to anti-slavery activities of the Mormons. The response was that although the Mormon memebers were (primarily northerners) anti-Slavery, the Mormon establishment disavowed this position, BEFORE the Missouri Extermination Order was created. In addition, Brigham Young also made it clear that the Mormon church did not at any point or time try to meddle in the affairs of Missouri or in the slavery issue. Also, I remember much being said about the Danite issue, but Visor, you never replied to that. I did read a lot of what you posted, but in the end, it was not linking "Mormon Extermination Order" to "Slavery". What ended up happening was that A Mormon article was written that Missourians had interpreted as an abolition move, the Mormon leadership renounced this position, but OTHER issues (Joseph Smith saying that Mormons were the chosen people, that they would rule the world, the polygamy, the excommunication of Mormons and their oppression by Danite Janjaweed like militants and other issues) had a much more immediate and relevant impact on WHY the Mormon Extermination Order was implemented by the governor. In addition to THAT, on Wikipedia, the Mormon Extermination Order (which by the way, no one has edited that seems to be related to the "antagonistic" elements in this article.--68.60.55.162 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Mormon Extermination Order, I have reviewed the history of the Mormon War in Missourri and the Danite repression. Since you have not mentioned either, I am starting to wonder if you have actually been reading any books yourself? Throughout of all of the experience from the original settling of Missouri by mormons to the order itself, I have seen one reference to anything positive having to do with Black people, and that is there was an article written in the the Mormon's Star that I have not read that is apparently the "cause?" of the Extermination Order as far as you are concerned? But so you know, i have been rather annoyed with the apparent lack of transparency on this issue with regards to Joseph Smith himself. I understand that the arguements on the Mormon side really focus on how much Smith sided with or against slavery. And I have a habit of watching to see what is NOT mentioned. Please give me your opinion on Joseph Smith Jr's own words in the next section --68.60.55.162 04:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC):

Joseph Smith's official views on Slavery - By Joseph Smith himself

“DEAR SIR: —This place (Kirtland) having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called ABOLITIONISTS, and his presence having created an interest in that subject, if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the Southern public,...you are at liberty to give them publicity... I FEAR that the sound might go out, that 'an Abolitionist' had held forth several times to this community,...all, except a very few, attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls. I am aware that many, who PROFESS to preach the Gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the South, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship, because they will not renounce the principle of slavery, and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men, and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, OVERRUN OUR COUNTRY, AND VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SOCIETY, CHASTITY AND VIRTUE.... I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. “How any community can ever be excited with the CHATTER of such persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a DECLARATION OF HOSTILITIES, against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union? “After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ....the first mention we have of SLAVERY is found in the Holy Bible,... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the DECREE OF JEHOVAH, to the shame and confusion of all who HAVE CRIED OUT against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in SERVITUDE.... I can say, the CURSE IS NOT YET TAKEN OFF FROM THE SONS OF CANAAN, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who INTERFERE THE LEAST WITH THE PURPOSES OF GOD in this matter, will come under the LEAST CONDEMNATION BEFORE HIM; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the DECREES OF THE LORD, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.” (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, pages 436-438)--68.60.55.162 04:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And yes, some of this WILL be posted in the article, especially in areas where people try to push the idea off that Smith was anti-slavery.--68.60.55.162 04:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Date of priesthood ban?

This article states that the beginning of the ban on black africans being excluded from being ordained to the priesthood was 1849. The Curse of Cain article states that it was 1846. We need to fix this. Val42 01:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As usual there is no sensible way to determine when it "officially" happened. Why? because yet again, Mormon "official" "doctrinal" and "church leadership" quotes are or are "not" policy depending on the mood of the LDS apologist --68.60.55.162 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's critical that every quote be taken in context—particularly in a revelatory Church. When Jonah refused to do God's well, the things he said and did were not exactly "doctrine", in any sense of the word (though they are clearly modern "scripture"). In terms of what is and isn't official Church doctrine, the best policy is to see what is current doctrine, and then apply that, unless any official statement has been issued by the Church (such as the "Official Declarations" found in the Doctrine & Covenants) historically, which unequivecally makes clear to us what "official doctrine" was (in contrast to is). There are several cases of prophets being "wrong" in the Bible and Book of Mormon (mostly the Bible), but in each of these contexts it's clear that they were not speaking for God. It cannot be emphasized enough that not every thing that ever issues from the Prophet's mouth is intended to be divine revelation. The Jade Knight 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also an issue regarding the end of the ban, and proper wording. About 1955 David O. McKay had the ban changed from "blacks" to "Africans" (or, rather, he determined that non-African blacks, such as Maori, were not banned from the priesthood). But whites with 1/8 black African blood or more were banned. This led to the statement in 1966:

"The most serious problem facing the LDS Church today is the Negro Question....A man can have skin as black as a moonless night--and he can be a full-fledged member of the Mormon Priesthood. But he can have blue eyes, white skin, and blond curly hair and have an African Negro in his ancestry and find himself rejected by the Mormons as an applicant for the Priesthood...." (The Mormon Establishment, pp.218-9)

But then you have to draw the distinction between a black ban and an African ban.

More of Joseph Smith jr's views on Slavery

The Messenger and Advocate was the second periodical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was published at Kirtland, Ohio, from October 1834 until September 1837. Each issue consisted of 16 pages, and it was published once a month.

“Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life— endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets—our prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt....the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!— And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a negro!...(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

68.60.55.162 04:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe this passage would have been originally printed sometime around mid 1837, The Mormon Extermination Order happened in 1838. I flatly reject the notion that one to two years after these comments by Smith, Smith was playing abolitionist and that this has anything to do with the Mormon Extermination Order. --68.60.55.162 05:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, those in here concerned with Wikipeidia policies and on editing wars should note that those who are most concerned, and who consider themselves to be well educated or acquainted with LDS history have little excuse for NOT presenting this information here. I waited patiently for someone to post it and I am yet again amazed at how it had not happened. This I am posting now, and I await the accusations that this periodical never was published. I also await the possible attempts to deny it's authenticity by pointing to a much later edited and republished version of the same periodical. But I can definitely say, I am very much losing patience with this process. So I am going to suggest that we discuss this matter honestly, and I will give until Friday (before I request formal administrator action be taken) for a SERIOUS objection (maybe you can say that this was a made up article, or maybe it was proven to be a misquote). But do not think that retelling this article in a benign-naive light counts as a SERIOUS objection. He said "sons of Caanan" so we know part of this article is going to the Curse of Ham article. --68.60.55.162 04:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)