Suzie

Oh wow, to be honest Vort I am very, very surprised with your response because I did not take issue with your reply at all, I was only expressing how *I* truly feel about people expressing their views. I am quite surprised you assumed that, I did not mean to shame you, why would I do that? And I deeply apologize if my response stating that I am cool with other people's opinion made you feel like I was taking issue with your view, I assure you it did not cross my mind for one second.

And you are refuting his points so what exactly seems to be the issue?

It means, that a lot of past Church leaders were just expressing their personal views on the topic and yes, we can add Pratt, McConkie, Young and anyone who shared opinions about Blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence, carrying Cain's curse, etc. The restriction was never doctrinal, it was a policy, a practice and policies and practices do change.

I meant that if he says it is his personal opinion, I am cool with it.

I try my best to detached myself emotionally from internet discussions, it doesn't always work. It is easy to type and say whatever you like when hiding behind a computer screen so I try to take it easy. It doesn't mean I am not going to refute a point if I have proof, it doesn't mean I am not going to disagree but I rather do it peacefully: 1) Because I already live a very stressful life and coming here actually relaxes me and helps me cope and 2) Because it is more productive to do it that way, IMO. People are entitled to their views, even if I believe they are misinterpreting a point on purpose. I can refute the point if I think is worth it or feel to do so and show how wrong they are if I have proof but I do not believe in censuring their views IF they are expressed in a respectful manner. Once the disclaimer of "In my opinion"/"IMHO"/"In my personal view" is there, I am cool with it. Being "cool" does not mean I agree, it means it doesn't bother me in the least that he expressed his opinion in a respectful manner.

Romance for me are not flowers, chocolate or romantic movies. Romance for me is chicken fettuccine Alfredo, garlic bread and a great salad!!! Ummmm..of courseeee with your best half next to you.

I wrote a little about it on post #140.

Everyone reads what they want to read. I am cool with anyone's opinion as long as they state it is their personal view.

I really can't see Young being concerned about McCary in that way, I do not thiink there is any serious indication that it was the case but I suppose it could be a possibility. However, I believe we can agree that his statements with regards to the Priesthood restriction around the same time of McCary's incident is not pure coincidence. JAG, you ultra-conservative Mormon! I really appreciate the discussion. We disagree in a lot of other topics but we always remain courteous. How great is that? :)

Let me clarify. I lived in a few countries around the world, I travel. I lived in a couple of them where the majority of the population was Black. In one of these countries, using the term "Negro" is a colloquial way to describe someone who is Black, the locals use it all the time, it is NOT a derogatory term but some of them are clearly not keen when someone who isn't a local and happens to be of another ethnicity uses the term. So you can say I had a couple of bad experiences so I try to be very careful about how I describe others. I really do not care about being politically correct but I do not wish to offend others. I use both Black and African-American depending on the situation and place. Nope. My goodness! LOL When I read that I was eating a peanut butter bar and almost choked! Man, you're wicked.

Eowyn, I thought you wrote that beautifully.

JAG, I am the kind of person that tries to make others feel comfortable and if I can help it, I do it. I know it is not practical at all times and with all people but I try to give it a shot. Look how the way we describe African-Americans have changed over the years?

Let's keep in mind that Young never approved interracial marriages. He tolerated them for a while but as a typical 19th century man, he believed interracial marriages would cause the sterilization of mankind, hence when he found out about Enoch's marriage and newborn child with Matilda, he was very upset. According to some sources, Walker Lewis's wife, Elizabeth Lovejoy was biracial making Enoch of a mixed heritage but I am aware that some other sources said both were black slaves. Elijah Abel was also of mixed heritage (Octoroon). McCary was also biracial (mom was black, father was her slavemaster). I find it interesting because all these people were not purely African-American and yet a lot of controversy was surrounded with regards to the Priesthood. Even though during the 19th century, the "one drop rule" was not made yet into law, it is clear that was very much alive and kicking. Just before the Priesthood restriction was lifted, the Church faced a similar challenge with questions arising from all over Brazil with regards to individual of mixed heritage and the Priesthood restriction.

Well, I have a few things to say about the matter. 1. Just because it might not affect us directly, doesn't mean everybody is or should be okay with the term. 2. A lot of people when they think about Lamanites they automatically think of the words "dark-skinned, loathsome people". In my opinion, it is how the word is being used and the motive behind it. Is it to put someone down? Is it to imply some sort of racial inferiority? Or is it simply to describe Native Americans? If it is used to describe someone, can we do better?

NickN, I kindly invite you to the discussion we are having right now about the Priesthood restriction here: http://www.lds.net/forums/church-news-events/56776-church-issues-race-priesthood-statement-rejecting-theories-past-ban-blacks-priesthood-14.html#post785732 It's 14 pages long, I suggest to read them all if you have the chance and of course, feel free to chime in. *Edit: I think one of the moderators joined both discussions and moved the post I wrote in the other thread, here. Just explaining in case someone gets confused as to why I am linking to the same thread.

To be fair to the other side who believes the restriction has a divine origin, the present-day Church never stated that the ban was not from God. Remains unclear on the origin means "we are not sure where it comes from".

I thought both writers quote the "unlock the door" phrase? (or perhaps my memory fails me) And what exactly Snow mean by that? What is Turner's source for that quote? I find it vague (not trying to be difficult), do you have anything about Snow's reply if any? As I said before I believe McCary was the catalyst of the whole issue or at least played a big part on Young's decision and of course, Enoch Lewis as well. As you probably know, Enoch's wife was already pregnant when they got married. Is it coincidence that during the same year of the McCary incident, Young makes the first statement about Priesthood restriction even though when he was with McCary he specifically said it had nothing to do with the blood? Is it coincidence that just a month after McCary is excommunicated and expelled Pratt is quoted as saying Blacks do not have the right to hold the Priesthood? I do not think all these facts are coincidence, I think they all added up into this HUGE drama ball, add to that the pressure Young was receiving from other members when McCary was going around trying to kiss and sleep with their daughters. I find interesting that Abel, McCary and Enoch himself were all of mixed heritage and not purely African-Americans. Aren't we safe in stating we do not know really who instituted the ban? The present day- Church had the opportunity to clearly state that it was instituted by God, however they stated: Not entirely clear? The Church, as any other institution, try to carefully word each one of their statements specially with regards to this topic, I just wish they can be as clear as water, leaving no room for speculation and frankly state whether or not the Lord is the one who instituted the restriction but unfortunately, if they do so and the answer ends up being that it did not have a divine origin, it will open a whole can of worms that in the Internet and Social Media era will prove to be detrimental to the Church and cause a lot of people to leave. I believe not everyone will truly understand the meaning of "Our leaders are imperfect and Prophet and all sometimes they DO mess up". So we are left with research, speculation and half answers.

He just asked Young what was the chance of redemption for the African race and Young replied that the curse remained upon them because of Cain. The quotation is vague, we do not really know whether he was personally interested in having Black people being ordained to the Priesthood in 1849 or he was just asking that out of curiosity. As I mentioned earlier, interracial marriages were somewhat tolerated but the idea of offspring as a result really bothered Young and that’s one of the first things he talks about when he learns of Enoch’s marriage. I am just throwing the idea of him being good looking/charming as a possibility because there is nothing about that man that could possibly be attractive to me. Of course, history disagrees with me.

JAG, thank you for taking the time to read my long post and reply with some many good thoughts. Again, this all based on whether or not McKay received such prompting but if he did perhaps the Lord saw something we weren’t able to see before 1978. I do not know. He does indeed work in mysterious ways and sometimes strange ways. Yet, my point remains the same…allowing it for whatever unknown purpose, doesn’t equal He being the one who instituted the restriction in the first place. I agree, however let’s keep in mind that Taylor himself said a few things about Black people that would cause a mob to damage him permanently if he was living in 2013 and Pratt was one of the Apostles involved in restricting Abel’s missionary work so yes, even though these men were outspoken and did not have a problem in opposing Young, they also shared the typical 19th century view on African-Americans. Why would they disagree with Young? Well, remember that in that same council they were also trying to determine McCary's race. He identified himself as a Native American at first but we know he made it up to promote one of his many deceiving business. His mother was a Black slave and his father was a White man (slavemaster), but early accounts refer to him as the “lamanite prophet” or as a “mulatto” or “indian”, it was actually something that truly bothered McCary that he even made arrangements to have a doctor involved in that same council to help him to establish his ethnicity. At that time, we know interracial marriages were frown upon but somehow tolerated apparently if they did not have any children. I would assume that since McCary’s ethnicity was in doubt, there was a higher level of tolerance towards him. He was definitely charming and a good looking guy I assume since the majority of his followers were white, young LDS women. I see Young as someone who really, really tried to follow Smith’s example of compassion and view about Blacks but overtime, he seems to have changed his mindset or the pressure was too much to bear. In that same council, Young even helped McCary financially which proves to me that he really was trying to do what was right but when he finds out in that same year about Enoch’s marriage he just went biserk. This reminds me of people who perhaps try to be nice with someone from a particular race or ethnicity (despite people advising them against) and the person in question end up using them or hurting them or doing something really bad or something they do not accept and suddenly, all that tolerance and acceptance is thrown out of the window in an instance and they are ready to label a whole race for the bad experience with a few. Perhaps, but was McCary truly a threat? His followers were around 60 and most of them young ladies. After all the drama, the number dropped significantly. Not to mention he was a complete nut case. It is very hard to believe that he would have any followers at all or become a serious threat to the Church. I want to believe that at some point in order to make the revelation binding to the whole Church it will be presented for voting and some sort of written record of it should exist.

Well, to be fair it is not firsthand information. I know, I know, as a Historian/Historiographer I also use first, second and even third hand accounts and to be completely honest, I do not have a reason to believe it did not take place at all, I am open to the possibility nevertheless, my position remains the same. 1. Did he indeed receive such answer? 2. If the Lord allegedly said “not yet” does it automatically mean he was indeed behind the placement of the ban or did he allow the continuation for another reason unknown to us? 3. If he was not the one who instituted the ban, did Brigham Young’s personal bigotry (full or in part) caused the prohibition of the rights to the Priesthood to thousands of members across the world for over 100 years? JAG, I read your analogy but I believe you would agree with me that the Lord gave us free agency for a reason, some use it, others abuse it and he is not there every single time trying to stop us from hurting ourselves or others. Your whole analysis is based on Mc Kay receiving the answer as “not yet” or “stop asking me about it”. Is that a possibility? Absolutely. What about the contrary? Could it have been that many leaders after Young’s death just automatically assumed he was right all along and did not dare to question the practice? You and I know that Young was an assertive man and he spoke with authority and power as most strong leaders do. Would anyone dare to question him? Well, I would say it depends. As we previously discussed, quite a few did not have a problem stating their disapproval with regards to the Adam-God theory but here we are talking about 19th century America mindset and their views about race. A typical 19th century white American guy will not see "Whites" and "Blacks" as equal. Young as well as Pratt and others were not any different, even when they were prophets and leaders of the true Church of Christ. Smith seems to have been quite progressive for his era. No need to apologize at all. I did not feel you crossed any line, I enjoy discussing this topic with you. I like the point you are making and it makes a lot of sense. We are all seeing this from a different perspective based on our own personal history, knowledge, per-conceived notions or experience. I admit, I am passionate about this particular topic because well, I study about it, write about it and I have for many years. However, being passionate about it doesn’t make me emotionally attached to it. I am not African-American, I have no relatives who are African-Americans either, I just like to analyze it and the characters on this whole issue through a purely historical context minus the emotional charged judgment of whether or not Young was a fallen Prophet. This topic for me is like a puzzle and one of the biggest conundrums in Church history. We have the founder of this Church giving the Priesthood to at least one Black member of the Church (Abel) who also got his washing and anointing at Kirtland and he is even ordained a Seventy. We know through research that a few people were questioning his right to the Priesthood because of Abel’s race. Coltrin was one of them and said that Smith stated as early as 1834 that Blacks were not entitled to the Priesthood and yet was Smith himself who ordained Abel to the Priesthood. And on top of that it was Coltrin himself who ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836 and as you know there are several meetings held afterwards to discuss Abel, his race and his rights but his Priesthood remained intact. However, from that point we see a change taking place with regards to the rights Abel held. Just three years later after those meetings, they restricted his missionary work out of the blue yet his Priesthood (so far) remained the same and then as you know, another Black man (Lewis) was ordained to the Priesthood by one of Smith’s brothers. We know these two men were LDS members in good standing, faithful and active. But then just a little over 10 years (1847) of Abel’s ordination, Mc Cary comes to the picture and I believe he is the catalyst of the whole issue or at least in part. He believes he is a Prophet, seduces white LDS women into marrying him, makes his own wife witness him having sexual relations with these women, believes he is some sort of Indian spirit and I can go on and on and on. Why is Mc Cary the catalyst of the placement of the ban? Simply, because it was during the same year (just a few months after when the issue still very much fresh and alive) when Young declared that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Do you truly believe this is pure coincidence? Honestly, I do not. When Pratt found about what McCary was doing with the white sisters of the Church, he was the one that is quoted as asking (paraphrasing) “Why in the world would they (the women who were fooled by Mc Cary) follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? Now, that’s interesting because just before the McCary incident, Black men indeed held the Priesthood but the quote can gives us an idea that a few members as I mentioned earlier were already (by the time of Abel) questioning why a Black man was allowed to hold the Priesthood. The McCary affair seems to have been the perfect excuse (IMO) to put some pressure and end the lunacy with a ban in place. In a period of two years, Young totally changes his mind with regards to whether or not it has to do with the “blood” (race), what happened during those two years that made Young changed his mind from "it has nothing to do with the blood" to it was because of the blood, remains a mystery to me. At this point of time, Abel still holds the Priesthood even though there have been some failed attempts to discredit the ordination (and we have certificates to prove it!), he remains a faithful and active LDS member and even serves a third mission later in life. Why was then he denied the right to receive his own endowments by Young himself? Again, this man held the Priesthood and he was a Seventy and served at least two missions for the Church at that moment, why was he denied the opportunity to enter the Temple and receive his own endowments when he fully qualified to enter? This is what I am talking about when I say I cannot fully state or believe that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the placement of the ban. Just after two years of Abel’s request being denied, Young dies and now we see the arise of someone (Joseph F. Smith) who seems to be (at that moment) someone that would defend Abel’s ordination a few times when Coltrin still claimed that when Smith learned that Abel was black he was dropped from the Quorum of the Seventy (for those who do not know, Abel was mulatto). Joseph F. Smith had no problem of defending Abel’s ordination and showed the certificates that proved it. Even a decade after Abel’s death, they were still talking and wondering about Abel’s ordination and same Smith defended Abel’s right to hold the Priesthood. Abel’s son and grandson were ordained and I am sure quite a few people know they held the Priesthood as far as 1935. And then the other mystery. What really happened during those 40 years that made Joseph F. Smith completely change his mind about it and declare that Joseph Smith Jr. did indeed established that Abel’s ordination was “null and void”? Even though he provided in the past the certificates of Abel’s ordination when Coltrin and others tried to discredit it! Bizarre! Then we have Lewis’s son marrying a white woman and Young learning about it and how he felt about the whole affair and so on, all this happening around the same time the ban was placed but perhaps we can leave that for another post or time since I did not expect to make this post this long, thank you and others for reading all of this so far. So sincerely forgive me for not simply accept or believe outright that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the ban and that Mc Kay was told “not yet”. I think it is wonderful to walk by Faith but at the same time, it is also imperative that we can all study and analyze our own Church history in order to try to understand these men, gather facts, examine, dissect and reach some sort of explanation about how the ban was instituted and by whom. There are many unanswered questions and who placed the ban I believe, remains a mystery.

JAG, again if it means that the Lord allowed the ban to be in place for so long it doesn't automatically equates to the Lord instituting it. I really have a hard time accepting this reasoning or making this connection because it is not an automatic one. We have no evidence or written revelation where we can state categorically that the Lord was indeed the one that instructed Brigham Young to put the ban in place as well as forbid Black LDS women from entering the Temple. I can swallow and digest the fact that our Church leaders were and are imperfect. I can swallow the fact that past leaders were products of their time with views that (in the present time) are considered to be racist in nature. I do have a problem with people pointing out that those of us who do not think the Lord instituted the ban see past leaders as a bunch of evil, wicked men. It may well be the case for some who perhaps are more connected emotionally to the topic or those who have an axe to grind. Having said that, for some of us this is only a historical discussion where we accept the fact that our Church leaders such as Brigham Young was dead wrong in a few things and we see a leader, yes even a Prophet of God who thought exactly like a typical 19th century man. I do not have a problem in seeing the possibility of the Lord instituting the ban. However, the other side seems to have a problem in just consider the possibility that the Lord did not.

Also, when we discuss this topic we refer to it as a "Priesthood ban" only, but let's keep in mind that both men and women were prohibited from participating in temple liturgy.

An interesting letter-exchange between Dr. Lowry Nelson and the First Presidency, in 1947 with regards to the Church position on Blacks. Please read carefully. The letters signed by the First Presidency talks about being "doctrinal" issues, now in 2013 we are saying otherwise. http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

JAG, if allegedly the Lord indeed denied McKay's request of removing the ban, how this equals to "The Lord instituted the ban"?

In my personal study and research on this topic, I never came across anyone who denied or put in doubt the First Presidency letter that was quoted here many times. I will check my archives to see if I might have a copy but I doubt it.