Maverick

Thank you for the apology. It certainly is ironic that the two of you jumped to the conclusion that you did about me. That was very unexpected, considering our prior interactions about the character of Brigham Young and the truthfulness of his teachings, where it was very clear that I considered him to be a true prophet and man of God.

This was their official position for a very long time, established by their first church president, Joseph Smith III, when they were still known as the RLDS church. It is my understanding that their church historians have since admitted that Joseph Smith had more than one wife, which led to a schism in their church and the formation of "Josephite" breakoff groups, who still adhere to the original position.

Or perhaps their morning Pepsi or Mountain Dew.

It's certainly a conundrum for those who hate on Brigham Young and consider D&C 132 to be a forgery to justify his abominable practice. If they were consistent they would join the Community of Christ (RLDS), the Rigdonites, or some other group that agrees with their position. But they tend to remain members of our church or become affiliated with fringe groups like the Snufferites or Doctrine of Christ.

Can you please provide the source for this? As I mentioned in the another thread, I think you're referring to the Temple Lot Case, which was after Brigham Young's death, which had nothing to do with a divorce. In the case of the Temple Lot, the testimonies of 3 of Joseph Smith's plural wives given by deposition is evidence that he consummated some of his marriages, but it's not the only source of this evidence. Other testimony by witnesses also show this. There's also considerable evidence that Emma was very upset with Joseph Smith over his marriages to other women. It seems unlikely that she would be this upset if these marriages were nothing more than a ceremonial sealings.

According to the thought process of those who reject that polygamy was commanded by God through Joseph Smith, the church didn't abandon this abomination until after the manifesto in 1890, when the practice began to stop. But I've also seen people in this camp accusing President Nelson and President Oaks of being polygamists because they are sealed to two wives (the first wives being deceased). Agreed. And what drives me crazy is the inconsistency of people who do this. They'll downplay or outright ignore similar teachings and actions of Joseph Smith that they don't like, praising him as a true prophet, while criticizing Brigham Young and speaking evil of him until kingdom come.

If I remember correctly the first 7 presidents of the church had plural wives, so by this logic, the Church leadership only realigned itself with God after 1945. Hating on Brigham Young is an easy out. I know people who essentially disregard his status as prophet, because "too many wives, too racist" Thank you @zil2! This is correct, I was referring to the thought process of those who deny that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy, not stating my own views. I have the polar opposite take on Brigham Young. I consider him to be a true prophet and man of God, who is appropriately referred to as the "Lion of the Lord." I should have been more clear in my post, but I am a bit surprised, that considering my defense of the priesthood ban and the false charge of racism against Brother Brigham, that @Vort and @NeuroTypical jumped to the conclusion that they did.

No, there's really no substance to these theories. This is the basic thought process of people who espouse these theories: 1) I don't like polygamy. It makes me really uncomfortable and I don't want to believe God commanded it. 2) Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith made multiple public denials that they were teaching and practicing polygamy and Emma denied that Joseph ever had any other wives to her children. 3) No known offspring have been found from Joseph Smith by any other woman than Emma. 4) If only accept Joseph and Hyrum's own publicly recorded contemporaneous statements and Emma's later denials as evidence and ignore the mountain of very solid evidence that Joseph Smith taught and practice polygamy, including receiving and teaching D&C 132, then I don't have to believe that polygamy was commanded by God or that Joseph Smith would "lie" or say or do anything that makes me uncomfortable. But now I also believe that Brigham Young was a really bad dude and the church went off the rails after Joseph Smith's death, so I don't really believe that the church is the Lord's church anymore...* Edited for clarity: *I do not espouse these beliefs or agree with this thought process. I'm pointing out the thought process of those who reject D&C 132 and speak evil of Brigham Young over polygamy and other grievances.

Great article, thank you for sharing!

You can count me as one of the Saints who outright rejects organic evolution from a single celled organism billions of years ago as the origin of human life upon this earth. It's not that I'm threatened by this idea, it's that it directly contradicts the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.

Yes, this is correct. And even today all people who marry are marrying their brothers and sisters. As Brigham Young taught in the October 1854 General Conference:

I'm not making a strawman logically fallacy. From the very beginning you have being saying that what was taught as doctrine by the highest authorities of the church regarding the priesthood ban and the reasons for it was the result of faulty scholarship. And when I asked you specifically about whether the covenant path includes believing the teachings of the prophets, you said that it didn't include "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology." Obviously you've dismissed my explanations, which echo what they taught, as "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" as well. And as I have said several times now, you can keep saying this over and over again like a worn out record, but your words ring completely hollow, when you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence or reasoning. You haven't even made any attempt to address the direct evidence you kept demanding, which has now been provided. Until you back up your claims, they don't mean anything.

Your projecting again. And this again rings completely hollow unless you back it up with evidence and reasoning.

We both know that the long established doctrine of the church is that the president of the church is a true prophet, who speaks for God, as are the apostles. And it's the long established position of the church that when they teach doctrine, especially in an official capacity and for many years, that what is taught is true and from God. Again, you are welcome to write off the official doctrine of the church as taught by the highest authorities of the church for 130+ years as the word and will of God, as nothing more than "poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology" if you want to. But this is all on you and your words are completely hollow as long as you refuse to back them up with any kind of evidence and reasoning. And we both know that if this was taught as official doctrine today, the expectation would be that the membership believe and follow this as the word of God, just as it was during the 130+ years that it was taught as official doctrine.

I'm very well versed in the history of plural marriage in the church and I've never heard of this. I think you may be conflating this with the Temple Lot Case, which had nothing to do with a divorce, but was rather a dispute between the RLDS and Hedrickites about who was the rightful owner of the Temple Lot in Missouri. I disagree. If we're talking about the Temple Lot case, the women in question swore under oath that what they said was true and there's substantial other evidence showing that they were Joseph Smith's wives. It's also not the only evidence that Joseph Smith hard marital relations with at least some of his wives. Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this. My understanding is that there testimonies are credible and that they were all members of the church who lived in Nauvoo at the time and personally knew Joseph Smith. I believe at least two of them were known to have been living in the prophets home at the time and their testimonies are corroborated by other sources. As they should in my opinion. It's still eye witness testimony and considered primary source evidence, even if it is from years later. Later testimony is not as reliable as contemporaneously recorded evidence, but it's nevertheless solid evidence from a credible source. His testimony is also corroborated with other evidence, which strengthens its reliability.

Yes, they may very well have had access to information that we do not presently have or received this knowledge by the Holy Ghost. It's also clear that the brethren understood the contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith, that I have been referencing, as him having taught the priesthood ban. I provided the testimony of Thomas Shreeve (as relayed by his three living children) in a recent post in this thread.

We don't know what they based these statements on. It's an assumption on your part that these statements are based on a single known source. Zebedee Coltrin is also not the only known source. There's also Abraham O. Smoot and Thomas Shreeve. Your assumption also discounts the Holy Ghost having confirmed this to the prophets and apostles. Has it, though? Has the church ever come out and actually declared that the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith and was started with Brigham Young instead? It seems the church did intentionally leave this ambiguous in the 2013 essay, so members who are disturbed by the ban can choose to believe this if that will help them maintain their testimony in the restoration.

Agreed. However, prophets and apostles taught that Joseph Smith taught the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood once he discovered it: George Q. Cannon Joseph F. Smith Joseph Fielding Smith Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1949 Harold B. Lee Official Statement of the First Presidency in 1969 If Joseph Smith didn't teach the priesthood ban, then all of these statements by the highest authorities of the church would be wrong. I will also add here, that statements by prophets and apostles, particularly official statements of the First Presidency, hold more weight than a single line from an essay written by unnamed scholars on the church's website, which doesn't even say that the ban didn't originate with Joseph Smith, anyway (though some people interpret it to mean this).

The covenant path does not require poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology If you want to reduce the official doctrine that was taught by the prophets and apostles for well over a century to this, be my guest. The church's Race and the Priesthood essay does not do this, though. That would be all you. We both know that the covenant path, as taught today in the church, does include believing what the current prophet and apostles teach. So at the very least, believing what the prophets and apostles taught about the priesthood ban would have been part of the covenant path for members of the church during the 130+ years that it was taught as the official doctrine.

See the thing is, there's really no solid basis for dismissing the testimony of Zebedee Coltrin, Thomas Shreeve (as relayed by three of his children), and Joseph F. Smith. It's not like this the only evidence that Joseph Smith taught that black men couldn't hold the priesthood and that he stated that they should not be ordained. There's also no record of Elijah Abel having performed a single priesthood ordinance of any kind. He didn't even baptize his own children or grandchildren. One would expect that there would be some record somewhere of him having performed a priesthood ordinance, if he really had been considered a full fledged Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the days of Joseph Smith and afterwards. He served several missions for the church, as well, yet there's no record of a single baptism or confirmation performed by him. There were also at least three black male members of the church in Nauvoo, who the prophet Joseph Smith knew. One of them was Jane Manning James' older brother, who would have been pretty closely associated with the Prophet. None of these three men were ordained, though.

I think that's debatable. In the case of number 1, black members would have been wrongfully denied priesthood and temple blessings for at least 126 years and false racist beliefs would have been taught as true doctrine from God from the highest authorities of the church. That's highly problematic, but for some reason this is preferable to many people than God having instituted the ban and later revoked it for the reasons his prophets taught for over century. I find that pretty mind boggling to be honest. You keep accusing me of this, but since you refuse to provide any alternative explanations for the evidence or provide any reasoning for why you claim that my scholarship is poor and that I'm employing poor logic, your declaration is meaningless. It rings completely hollow, no matter how many times you repeat it, unless you are willing to back it up. Does the covenant path include believing the words of God's prophets? Does it include believing the scriptures and the doctrinal explanations of them from the prophets and the apostles? In my book it does.

This is a reasonable conclusion, if we only accept the available evidence that was recorded while Joseph Smith was alive, and nothing afterwards. Taking just the evidence that was recorded during his lifetime, it's possible that he laid the doctrinal foundation for the ban, but just didn't feel the need to ask and receive the direct revelation that blacks were not to hold the priesthood. Considering that the only man of African decent that we know he was aware of who held the priesthood was the 1/8 Elijah Abel, who was of a light complexion, he may not have felt the need to pray and ask God about it. However, this theory is not sustainable in light of the evidence from credible sources, such as Zebedee Coltrin, who testified that Joseph Smith did teach the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood. It's only when we dismiss this evidence that your suggestion is possible. And even, then we simply wouldn't know one way or the other for sure. As an aside, it appears that you do care about this topic, at least a teeny tiny bit, after all.

There are several potential issues at stake here: If Joseph Smith did not teach the ban and freely allowed black men to be ordained, and then Brigham Young changed things and instituted the ban, then it creates some theological problems: 1) Was Brigham Young wrong to issue the ban (as many members now believe)? If so, he would have led the church seriously astray, as would all of his successors up to Spencer W. Kimball. This opens up a huge can of worms. 2) If Brigham Young was right to institute the ban, then according to all of the associated teachings, Joseph Smith would have been wrong to freely ordain black men. Which would beg the question of why he would have had such a huge blind spot, considering all of his other documented teachings on the subject, including Abraham 1. This weakens the confidence we have in the inspiration of Joseph Smith. From a theological standpoint, having Joseph Smith teach the ban and restrict the priesthood from black men creates a consistent harmonious doctrine that instills greater confidence in God's prophets, the validity of the priesthood ban, and really in the teachings of the restoration in general.

Bingo! Same here.

I wasn't referring to you. You actually did provide a counter explanation and evidence to support why you disagreed with one of my conclusions, in addition to making several very insightful comments, backed by evidence and sound reasoning. This was a helpful contribution to the conversation. Can you please provide a reference where President Nelson has asked us not to discuss evidence about the origin of the priesthood ban and associated teachings? I've never heard of this before.