[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's applicable in that you're insisting that those who reject a theory you propose must necessarily come up with a "better" explanation—"better" meaning more convincing to you. When they don't, you say that by default your explanation must be the most "logical" available, because, you know, where are the competing explanations?

I never insisted that anyone who doesn’t agree with my conclusions must provide a better explanation. Nor did I say that if they don’t it proves that my position is the most logical. 

I said if people are going to repeatedly dismiss my explanations out of hand in a condescending way, without ever providing any alternative explanation for any of the evidence, then all they’re doing is crying foul, which doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe a good example would be:

• I think quantum entanglement can be explained by gremlins who communicate trans-dimensionally.
  • Gremlins?  That's impossible because gremlins don't exist.
• How do you know?  Do you have a better explanation than gremlins?
  • No, of course not.  I have no idea how it happens.
• Hah!  So, that's proof that it's gremlins.

I know you’re trying to make a joke, but with all due respect, this is a terrible example and not at all applicable to this conversation. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

In an 1879 interview with President John Taylor Zebedee Coltrin (a very faithful church leader who had been intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith and had remarkable spiritual experiences, such as seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ during the school of the prophets) related the following experience from 1834:

Quote

The spring that we went up in Zion's Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out south to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the priesthood, and I took up the side he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. 'All right,' said I, 'I hope you will.' And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph's office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, 'Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right and cannot hold the Priesthood." He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don't recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.

According to Brother Coltrin's testimony, Joseph Smith did explicitly state that black men have "no right and cannot hold the priesthood" and also stated in other settings with other individuals that "no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the priesthood." 

Zebedee Coltrin also relayed the following about Elijah Abel, a faithful church member of 1/8 African decent, who had been ordained an Elder and Seventy in 1836, and whose ministerial license Joseph Smith had even signed: 

Quote

Brother Abel was ordained a seventy because he had labored on the Temple, (it must have been in the 2nd Quorum) and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the first Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped. 

According to Brother Coltrin's testimony, Joseph Smith did not know that Elijah Abel was partially of African decent when he was initially ordained, but some time later when he discovered his lineage, he took action and Brother Abel was dropped from the Seventies quorum.

Corroborating Zebedde Coltrin's testimony is Joseph F. Smith. In the minutes of a meeting of the First Presideny and Quorum of the 12 Apostles in 1908, the following is recorded:

Quote

 President [Joseph F.] Smith referred to Brother Abel, who was ordained a Seventy by Joseph Young, in the days of the Prophet Joseph, to whom Brother Young issued a Seventies' certificate; but this ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet himself.

It is not presently known where Joseph F. Smith got his information. Whether he was relying on Zebedde Coltrin testimony, which he deemed credible, he had learned this through personal interviews with other individuals, he had seen it in a record that is no longer extant, the Holy Ghost reveal this to him, or some combination of these things is not presently known. What is known is that both Joseph F. Smith and Zebedde Coltrin where faithful leaders of the church, who were of the highest character. 

An additional source corroborated the testimony of Zebedee Coltrin and the statement by Joseph Fielding Smith. In 1970, Caleb Shreeve, the son of Patriarch Thomas Shreeve, sent a letter to the First Presidency relaying the testimony of his father, who had been intimately acquainted with Elijah Abel. The letter was "Declaration of Fact" that was also signed by his two living siblings, Eva Shreeve and Arnold Shreeve, declaring what their father had relayed to them many times prior to his death. 

Quote

Now, therefore, know all men of all nations, kindred, tongues, and races, unto whom this DECLARATION shall come, that we being duly sworn in honesty, sobriety, and truthfulness make known the following circumstances and facts as to the relationship and religious dialogue that existed and took place between Thomas A. Shreeve, of English descent, AND, Elijah Able, of Negro ancestry, as told and testified to by said Patriarch Shreeve, to the undersigned members of his family on numerous occasions during the period of 1910–1931.

…During the period of 1910 to 1931, the undersigned's father, Patriarch Thomas A. Shreeve, in our presence, when discussing Church history and his activities and relationship with the Church leaders, often told of the crucial territorial days of 1869 to 1896…

One of Father's most interesting narratives delt with his personal friendship with Elijah Able, while living in the "OLD" 10th Ward of Salt Lake City during the 1872–78 period. In speaking of this brotherly friendship Father declared many times, "I have often wondered what Brother Able saw in me. He was 62 years old or more. And I, only 21, and single. I suppose in me he saw himself as a young man. I came from England alone and he from eastern United States to join the Church. I was away from my loved ones for several years and he was too. Brother Able, in many ways, acted like a father to me. Especially in those early days of my life when I was alone, and shortly after my mother, brother and sisters arrived in Salt Lake City. It was to say the least 'hard times'. I have always appreciated my association with Elijah Able. He taught me a lot that was of value all my life."

Because of this friendship Brother Able requested young Thomas to baptize several of his grandchildren which father reported he did. Father Shreeve used to tell us the childrens' names, but at this time (1970) we cannot recall them…

Father Shreeve in telling of his relationship with Elijah Able often detailed the conversation he had with his Negro friend relative to Brother Able's sad experience with the Prophet Joseph Smith… The following is the story which Father Shreeve often told and testified to: 

One day (date not given) Brother Able, in conversation with young Thomas said to him, "Thomas, I will never forget the day Prophet Joseph came to me greatly disturbed and with tears in his eyes and said, 'Brother Able I have been commanded by the Lord to come to you and withdraw from you the Holy Priesthood you now hold'.

"Greatly concerned and shocked I said, 'Brother Joseph, what have I done to deserve this?' 'Nothing in this life,' the Prophet answered, 'it all happened in the pre-existence.'

"With tears in my eyes I then replied, 'Brother Joseph, I would have my skin boiled in oil if it would remove this blackness.' To this the Prophet replied, 'it would do you no good Brother Able, but this I can promise you in the name of the Lord in the heareafter you will stand at the head of the Negro race and in the due time of the Lord, you will inherit all you are entitled to.'

Then Brother Able told young Thomas, "The Prophet put his hands on my head and in the authority of his calling withdrew from me the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood. I cried and so did the Prophet."
 

...This DECLARATION is a statement of facts, as we, the undersigned, know them and is true as stated and is given in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah, pertaining to sworn testimony.

In witness thereof, we the undersigned set our hands and seal as of this 19 day of Nov., 1970.

Sign Here: Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. L.S.

Address: 1760 Lake Street, Ogden, Utah

Sign Here: W. Franklin (Eva Shreeve) L.S. Richards

Address: 3298 Ogden Ave - Ogden - Utah

Sign Here: Arnold T. Shreeve

Address: 4005 Tyler Ave, Ogden, Utah

(Caleb Shreeve, Letter to First Presidency, November 25, 1970, Hyrum B. Wheelwright Papers, Weber State University Stewart Library Special Collections, MS24)

https://bhroberts.org/records/0iOKDx-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able
 

While this account is admittedly very late, and from Thomas Shreeve's children, all three living children affirmed the truthfulness of what their father had told them. 
 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I've been around the issue, the primary alternative explanation is that given by Dr. Paul Reeves as published by Deseret Book in Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood I reviewed the book here

We don't have to accept Dr./Br. Reeves explanations and conclusions blindly, and we can't claim that the church officially endorses or accepts his narrative. It seems to me that, considering his credentials, any alternative explanations we provide will, at some point, come head to head with Dr./Br. Reeves and his research and conclusions.

I appreciate you sharing a book that you believe provides a better explanation of the origins of the priesthood ban. I clicked on the thread you had created and read your description of the Introduction:

Quote

Reeves also explains that he is going to approach this history in 3 phases. Phase 1 he describes as the early years of the restoration when priesthood and temple blessings were available to all. Phase 2 is the period where the priesthood and temple ban is implemented "in fits and starts" until 1978. Phase 3 is the period after the revelation in 1978 which Reeves describes as a return to the original idea of universal access to these blessings for all.

My research into the subject does not support the three phases Reeves claims for the Priesthood ban. I will provide more direct evidence very soon, which supports my position that the ban originated with Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The essay says (with footnoted sources) that is was Brigham Young

No, it does not say this, and you know that. As I already mentioned it says he publicly announced it in 1852. He also publicly announced plural marriage in 1852 and we know that was started by Joseph Smith (though some people deny this, anyway).

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The evidence you present pertains to what is summarized in the essay under paragraphs 3-5 and the first paragraph in "The Church Today", and does not identify who started the ban. It only offers specific examples of what Joseph taught (his primary sources representing the most reliable evidence of what he taught). You keep focusing on what he taught, not what he instituted as a policy.

What Joseph Smith taught matters. He is on record teaching all or most of the things that were taught in association with the ban by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, and many other prophets and apostles for over 100 years. And his teachings on blacks remaining under the divine curse put upon the Canaanites anciently by God through the hand of Noah, is very strong evidence that he considered them under the curse in regards to the priesthood in Abraham 1. I will also point out here that the essay does not make any attempt to address or even mention Abraham 1, even though it is arguably the most important scripture associated with the ban. Which just goes to show that thoroughly addressing the topic was not the intent of the essay. That's not a criticism by the way. It simply a reality. The essay was intended to help people deeply troubled by the ban not lose their testimonies over it. It allows for multiple possible conclusions. It opens up the possibility that the ban was merely a policy put in place by Brigham Young with no doctrinal basis, while also allowing for members to continue to believe that it was put in place by God, that Joseph Smith taught it, and that the previous teachings about it are true. 

And as @Vort pointed out earlier, the church has never declared the previous teachings regarding the priesthood ban to be false. The church says that they don't apply today because the ban was lifted in 1978, and no longer expects the church membership to accept them as official doctrine. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Let's not go back and forth

When you refuse to actually address the evidence and provide what you believe are better explanations, while making claims about the essay that are inaccurate as the only justification for why you keep insisting that my explanations of the evidence regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith are wrong, then unfortunately going back and forth in circles is the natural outcome. But if you would like to wait patiently for me to get to the direct evidence you desire maybe we can finally make some progress. I will have it up soon. 
 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

No.  One can say, "I don't find your conclusions as obvious as you think they are" without having to provide an "alternate theory of the case".  Again, one can both believe that you, @Maverick, are filling in too many gaps with your own assumptions while at the same time maintaining that there are gaps which make a conclusion impossible.

That's not what I said.  I said that it appears you think no one has any business rejecting your conclusions unless they have "better" conclusions.  You appear to be rejecting the right to find your conclusions inadequate and at the same time have no "better" conclusions.

Again, this is an irrational position.  One can both find your explanation poor and believe that there is no known explanation.  Those two positions are NOT mutually exclusive - indeed, they are completely in harmony.  In short, one can say there isn't enough evidence for any conclusion - yours or anyone else's.  There is no logical problem with holding this position.  There is no logical problem with stating this as part of the discussion - it contributes a perspective of "we don't know enough (yet)", and that is in fact a valid perspective that deserves just as much consideration from readers as your own.

People don’t have to agree with me and I don’t expect that those who don’t remain silent unless they are willing to provide an alternative explanation for the evidence. As I said, stating that there isn’t enough evidence to reach a definitive conclusion is a reasonable response. 

But I maintain that repeatedly condescendingly dismissing my explanations out of hand over and over again while refusing to provide any alternative explanation for any of the evidence is nothing more than crying foul, which adds nothing to the discussion. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

One does not need to have a "better" explanation to find your own unconvincing.

I think of one is going to be as dismissive about my analysis of the evidence, particularly in such a condescending manner that has been displayed by the person I was responding to, then one should be willing to provide what one believes is a more reasonable explanation for the evidence. Otherwise it's little more than crying foul.

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

it's perfectly OK to take the position of "we just don't know".

Yes, this is fine. I have no problem with anyone taking this position.

11 minutes ago, zil2 said:

you seem to be suggesting that unless one has a "better" case, then the only right and reasonable thing to do is for people to agree with and accept your case.  Or, that barring a "better" case, one mustn't reject or find fault with yours.  Whether you intend to suggest these things, I cannot guess, but it sure seems that this is your position.

I'm not trying to force my conclusions on anyone, but I do think that if people are going repeatedly declare them poor in a dismissive manner, they should be willing to provide what they believe is a better explanation for the evidence. Otherwise, like I said, they are simply crying foul, which doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

13 minutes ago, laronius said:

There were others such as Q Walker Lewis, ordained by William Smith and once referred to by Brigham Young as one of the best elders they have.

Q Walker Lewis is the only other documented black man to have been ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime. He lived in Lowe, Massachusetts. It's not known whether Joseph Smith was aware of his ordination, let alone of his race. He was ordained by William Smith, who was excommunicated shortly thereafter for serious transgression and teaching false doctrine. What Brigham Young meant in 1847 when he referenced Brother Lewis as "one of the best Elders" and acknowledged that he was an African is not completely clear. Was he acknowledging the validity of his priesthood ordination or was he simply praising him as a faithful male member of the church?

20 minutes ago, laronius said:

If by direct evidence you mean the journal entry of Joseph F Smith, I would not call that direct evidence. He was only about 5 when Joseph Smith died so unless he was in possession of documents we don't have there is no way to know what he was basing his assumption on.

I will discuss the statement by Joseph F. Smith in the minutes of a meeting of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve, along with other corroborating evidence. You're correct that we don't know if President Smith based his statement on information that he had that we don't have access to today, if he based it solely on the testimony of Zebedee Coltrin, if he received divine inspiration as president of the church on the matter, or some combination of these possibilities.

26 minutes ago, laronius said:

At the end of the day if Joseph Smith issued a ban it would have been recorded and to date nothing has been found. 

 It wouldn't necessarily have been recorded contemporaneously and there's no guarantee that if it was that such a record would have survived. But we're jumping the gun here. Let me provide the evidence and my analysis and then we can delve into it more fully. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't have a better interpretation for who initiated the ban than the Church essay

The essay doesn’t make any declaration that the ban did not start with Joseph Smith and began with Brigham Young instead. The essay also doesn’t address any of the evidence I have presented, so this is not a valid answer. 

You keep insisting that my interpretation of the evidence is no good, yet you refuse to provide what you believe is a better explanation. Do you have a better explanation for the specific evidence I presented or not? 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

It seems to me that if the main support for the idea of a Priesthood ban for a certain group of people is based on certain scriptures, then all of those scriptures should be true, and not just a part of them. According to those scriptures, one part of the curse is that the descendants of Cain and Canaan would be servants of servants and another part is that they would be cursed as to the Priesthood. If it can be demonstrated that one part of the curse is untrue, or did not come to pass, or is not universally applicable to the group to whom it is said to apply, then that gives reason to be less certain about the other part of the curse.

I think it is a matter of widely accepted historical fact that over the period from when the curse was first said to apply, up to the time of Joseph Smith, and up to the time when the curse was lifted, there were centuries, perhaps even thousands of years, when a very large proportion of the people to whom the curse is believed to apply, were not servants of servants, but were members of great and powerful kingdoms, exercising power and dominion over many others, and even over those who were descendants of Shem from time to time, up until the establishment of the state of Israel. In particular, its very hard to see how that part of the curse was true during the 400 years that the children of Israel were in bondage to the children of Ham. Who were the servants of servants at that time?

Since it is clear that one part of the curse is completely false/wrong/incorrect/unreliable/misunderstood, I’m not sure why we shouldn’t assume that the other part is equally as wrong and miunderstood.

The purpose of this thread is to look at the evidence that the priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith, not to debate the accuracy or truthfulness of what he and many other church leaders taught regarding black Africans being under a divine curse. 

Having said that, you do raise an interesting point about the nature of the curse upon Canaan and his descendants to be the servant of servants, considering that throughout history a large portion of these descendants were not slaves. 

To address your specific point, Joseph Smith and the other latter-day prophets, who connected the curse upon the Canaanites to be the servant of servants to the enslavement of black Africans, where undoubtedly aware that throughout history many descendants of Cain and Canaan were not slaves, and that in the case of the original Egyptians, they even enslaved Israelites anciently. They also were aware that not all blacks within the United States at that time, let alone the world at large, were enslaved, And there is no indication that Joseph Smith or any other prophet thought that the free blacks needed to be enslaved or that it was wrong for them to free. 

They did however believe that slavery was at least part of what was decreed by God when he cursed the descendants of Canaan to be the servant of servants and that it was wrong to interfere with the purposes of God in this matter. 

As for the priesthood ban, as will be shown when I provide direct evidence that the ban began with Joseph Smith, it was claimed by the highest authorities in the church that the priesthood ban was put in place by revelation and the express command of God, not that it was based on speculative interpretation of scripture about the application of an ancient curses in modern times. 

 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

No conclusion can be reached without direct revelation on the topic. The best you can do is informed speculation. It should be identified for what it is, not called a conclusion. Your speculation is not unreasonable. This is far from saying it is a reliable narrative that should be forwarded. In fact, if it appears to contradict what our leaders have said or the direction they have chosen, it's certainly better to frame it as speculation, and probably not even push the narrative at all. Note that this is the case, even if the speculation later proves to be quite accurate.

I believe my conclusions are the most logical explanation for the available evidence. If you want to call my conclusions reasonable speculation instead, that’s your right. I don’t see any value in squabbling over terminology.

And there’s nothing wrong with the narrative I’m supporting with evidence. If people think they have a better explanation for the evidence and the origin of the priesthood ban, then I would love to hear their explanation. Truth will prevail. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Good historical scholarship is more than making interpretations based on the available evidence and asserting they are reasonable.

If you think you have a better more reasonable interpretation of the evidence, please provide it. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think you misspelled "the most reasonable speculation [IMO]".

If you think you have a better explanation for any specific analysis of the evidence that I believe is the most logical conclusion, I’m all ears. 

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I also see a distinction between a group of professionals who, despite their differences, create a quality essay and an individual who relies on loose possibilities an likelihoods to critique the essay in support of doctrinal bias.

We see what we want to see I guess…

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

6 hours ago, laronius said:

It appears that there were some black men who held the priesthood in Joseph Smith's time. Unless that can be proven otherwise you cannot say the ban was in place then. You can say some of these ideas existed at the time but you cannot say there was a ban or that it was the policy of the Church at the time.

I will provide the direct evidence that Joseph Smith denied blacks the priesthood, and that he revoked the priesthood of Elijah Abel, who is the only documented man of African decent (he was 1/8 black and of a light complexion) whose priesthood ordination Joseph Smith is known to have been aware of, once he discovered his lineage. So far I've just been laying the groundwork with contemporaneously recorded statements by Joseph Smith, the scriptures, and several statements by apostles, who were personally tutored by Joseph Smith, shortly after his death.

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

14 hours ago, Maverick said:

The related teaching that interracial marriage between black Africans and other races was forbidden was also taught by Joseph Smith in a contemporaneously recorded statement to apostle Orson Hyde in 1843:

Quote

Had I any thing to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species.

"History Draft [1 January–3 March 1843]," p. 2, The Joseph Smith Papers
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

In this, we do not agree. Joseph Smith doubtless said the above, and I expect he considered the idea of intermarriage between white people and black people to be objectionable, perhaps even repugnant. That was the common belief of his time. He may or may not have shared this belief, but he certainly supported the idea of drawing that societal distinction, as show in the above quote. However, your quote is misleading in that you put a period at the end, indicating the end of the sentence, when in fact the sentence continued. In full, the sentence read:

"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national Equalization."

Read in the context of the rest of his quote, for which you provide the link, it's clear that Joseph Smith was not talking about preventing intermarriage between whites and blacks.

I think Joseph Smith was clearly referring to interracial marriage with blacks being forbidden when he said that if it were up to him he would "confine them by strict law to their own species." I added the period by mistake, there was no intent on my part to misrepresent what he said. I simply wanted to focus on the part of his statement where he opposed interracial marriage with blacks, because this was an associated teaching with the priesthood ban. 

In his capacity as the mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith also enforced anti-miscegenation laws:

Quote

Cou[r]t. trial on 2 negroes trying to marry wh[i]te wom[e]n fined 1— $25,00. & 1 $5.00

"Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 3, 15 July 1843–29 February 1844," p. [259], The Joseph Smith Papers https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/265

Since we know that Joseph Smith believed that black Africans are descendants of Canaan and that they were under a divine curse that was put upon them anciently that was still in effect in his day, he would have found scriptural support for opposing interracial marriage with them, especially for Israelites. 

Abraham made his servant covenant not to get a wife for his son Isaac from among the Canaanites.

Quote

2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. (Genesis 24:2–4)

Isaac forbade Jacob from taking a wife from among the Canaanites.

Quote

1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
2 Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother.
3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;
4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.
5 And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padan-aram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother. (Genesis 28:1–5)

The Lord commanded Israel not to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan through his prophet Moses. All of the tribes mentioned below are descendants of Canaan, see Genesis 10:6, 15-18.

Quote

1 When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:1–6)
 

The most logical conclusion is that since the Lord's ancient people were forbidden from marrying the Canaanites, that Joseph Smith would have believed that this was forbidden with black Africans in his day, due to the curse which he believed they were still under.

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So why then, on this *one* theological development, do we have a driving need to insist that JS absolutely, positively, no siree, would not have been OK with it and is not responsible even for laying the theological groundwork for such a policy? 

I think the priesthood ban makes most people today very uncomfortable and for whatever reason it's easier to accept the idea that Brigham Young was the author or if it and not Joseph Smith. We see a similar thing going on with the recent resurgence of the old disproven RLDS narrative that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced plural marriage, which is being promulgated by a vocal minority group of members and former members.

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

You might as well assert the ban began with God then, and skip all the middle men!

I do believe that the ban began with God, based on what the scriptures and teachings from God’s prophets (middle men to you) state. However, this thread is about evidence that Joseph Smith instituted the ban in this dispensation. 

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Drawing conclusions from loose possibilities and likelihoods is not good historical scholarship

I don’t know how versed you are in the methods of historical inquiry, but making interpretations based on the available evidence, including indirect evidence, is good historical scholarship, provided that the interpretations are reasonable and can be supported by the evidence. 

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

your conclusions/beliefs about Joseph Smith do not appear in the Church essay. 

As I stated before, the Race and the Priesthood essay was obviously not intended to do a comprehensive analysis of the issue. The intended purpose appears to have been to fill a need to provide an answer for people who were troubled about the ban and going through a faith crisis. Not including the evidence I have provided thus far has nothing to with the quality of my historical scholarship. 

I will provide more direct evidence that Joseph instituted the ban and denied black men the priesthood during his lifetime soon. So far I’ve only been laying the groundwork.

[More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

In a previous post evidence was provided suggesting that the priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. Contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith were provided showing that he taught that black Africans are descendants of Cain and Canaan and that they were placed under a divine curse anciently that had not been lifted yet, and would not be until God lifted it. Joseph Smith quoted from Genesis 9:25-27 to support this teaching. In his inspired translation of the Bible, he also added a phrase to this passage (which has been bolded):

Quote

...and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (JST Genesis 9:29-31) 

This added phrase suggests that the curse put upon Canaan referred to black Africans and that the mark of the curse that was put upon them was black skin so that they could be identified among all men throughout the succeeding generations. 

As noted in the previous post, Abraham 1, which was brought forth as the word of God and holy scripture through Joseph Smith, states that Canaanites were cursed anciently "pertaining to the Priesthood" and that this lineage "could not have the right of Priesthood." From this we would expect that since Joseph Smith taught that black Africans were descendants of Cain and Canaan and under a divine curse put upon them by God, that included being cursed to be the " servant of servants," that he would have believed that the ancient curse in regards to the priesthood applied to them as well. 

On April 1, 1845, just over 9 months following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, apostle and future church president John Taylor published the following in the Times and Seasons:

Quote

After the flood and after Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood, Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son (Ham,) had done unto him. And, as the priesthood descended from father to son, he delivered the following curse and blessing, as translated by King James' wise men and recorded in Genesis:

"And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

"And he said, blessed by the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.

Again Shem or his descendants were blessed with receiving the revelations, prophets, and Savior:—A blessing truly which even the most sagacious infidel has not been able to explain away.

(John Taylor, "A Short Chapter on a Long Subject," Times and Seasons 6 no. 6 (April 1, 1845): 857)

https://bhroberts.org/records/0JitvC-0hz78j/john_taylor_states_that_the_descendants_of_ham_have_black_skin_and_are_apostate_of_the_holy_priesthood_and_that_the_abolitionists_are_trying_to_make_void_the_curse

John Taylor made the exact same argument that Joseph Smith did in his letter to Oliver Cowdery in 1836 regarding the curse of God upon the descendants of Canaan to be the servant of servants, and that the misguided abolitionists were attempting to interfere with the divine decrees of God, but were powerless to do so. Additionally, John Taylor stated that the curse was the result of Ham having "dishonored the Holy priesthood" and that the curse of black skin put upon the Canaanites always follows an "apostate of the Holy Priesthood." In making this statement John Taylor is making the connection between the divine curse upon the Canaanites under the hand of Noah to be the "servant of servants" found in Genesis 9 and the divine curse put upon the Canaanites under the hand of Noah "pertaining to the Priesthood" found in Abraham 1.

As mentioned previously, apostle Parley P. Pratt also stated in 1847:

Quote

...this Black man [McCary] who had got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the Priesthood...

https://mormonr.org/qnas/BT5Sk/black_saints_and_the_priesthood_brigham_young_early_utah_era#footnote-33

So we have two apostles, who were personally tutored by Joseph Smith, teaching that the curse upon black Africans included a curse "pertaining to the Priesthood.” Both statements were made well before Brigham Young's public announcement of the ban in 1852, suggesting that this was taught to them by Joseph Smith and/or the Holy Ghost, not Brigham Young. 

Additional evidence that Joseph Smith very likely instituted the priesthood ban can be found in related teachings that were taught by Brigham Young and other leaders of the church in conjunction with the priesthood ban. These teachings include:

1. Black Africans were under a divine curse put upon them by God that had not been lifted yet

2. They were descendants of Cain

3. They were descendants of Canaan

4. They were cursed to be the servant of servants and it was wrong for abolitionists to interfere with designs of God in this matter

5. The curse would not be lifted until God lifted it

6. The curse included black skin

7. Interracial marriage between black Africans and other races was forbidden

8. The curse was the result of some action or inaction before this life 

Teachings 1-6 have already been shown to have been taught by Joseph Smith in contemporaneously recorded statements. The related teaching that interracial marriage between black Africans and other races was forbidden was also taught by Joseph Smith in a contemporaneously recorded statement to apostle Orson Hyde in 1843:

Quote

Had I any thing to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species.

"History Draft [1 January–3 March 1843]," p. 2, The Joseph Smith Papers
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

Earlier in this same recorded statement to Orson Hyde, Joseph Smith made a remark which could suggest that he believed that the curse was caused by some action or inaction before being born:

Quote

Elder Hyde enquired the situation of the Negro. I replied they come into the world slaves, mentally & physically.

In 1845, less than a year after the martyrdom, Orson Hyde taught: 

Quote

At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had the authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, and considered he had rather the best claim to the government.

These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies ; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth : but it came to pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he lay drunk in his tent, and he with " wicked joy," ran... and made the wonderful disclosure to his brethren ; while Shem and Japheth took a garment, with pity and compassion, laid it upon their shoulders—went backwards and covered their father, and saw not his nakedness. The joy of the first was to expose—that of the second was to cover the unseemliness of their father. The conduct of the former brought the curse of slavery upon him, while that of the latter secured blessings, jurisdiction, power and dominion. Here was the beginning of blessing and cursing in the family of Noah, and here also is the cause of both. Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse... 

Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan ; and hence the negro or African race. Now, therefore, all those who are halting concerning who has the right to govern had better look at the fate of their brethren that have gone before them, and take warning in time lest they learn obedience by the things which they suffer. " Choose ye this day whom you will serve." These things are among the mysteries of the kingdom, and I have told them, not by constraint or by commandment, but by permission.

(Speech of Elder Orson Hyde Delivered Before the High Priests Quorum in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845 Upon the Course and Conduct of Mr. Sidney Rigdon, and Upon the Merits of His Claims to the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. p. 30.)

https://archive.org/details/speechofelderors02hyde/page/30/mode/1up?view=theater

Orson Hyde made this statement two years after having the documented conversation about the status of blacks with Joseph Smith quoted from above. It is likely that Joseph Smith taught him more than what is stated in the brief record of their conversation quoted from above. A distinct possibility is that Joseph Smith taught Orson that blacks were less valiant before this life as a mystery of the kingdom that he was not told to reveal at that time, but then was later authorized by Brigham Young/and or the Holy Ghost to reveal it.

In any event, as shown in this post and the previous one, contemporaneously recorded statements by Joseph Smith match up remarkably well with the related teachings associated with the priesthood ban that were taught publicly as doctrine by the top leadership of the church for over 100 years. Based on this evidence, one would expect the Prophet to have also believed and taught that black men could not hold the priesthood under the divine curse placed upon their race by God anciently, until it would be lifted by God in a future day. 

[Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Now you're making it weird. And still full of logical fallacies... Clearly you don't know any better

You're projecting again.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I will reply when you post proper (by scholarly standards) historical evidence that Joseph Smith instituted the ban.

Sounds good. 

[Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I am taking these sources at face value.

If you take the statements I provided at face value then you must believe that Joseph Smith denied black men the priesthood and instituted the priesthood ban. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think you know what you're doing. Attaching a bad motive is a logical fallacy, and you continue to commit several.

You’re projecting. 

[Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You need to understand that these sources are not reliable for the purpose you wish to use them, and why they are not reliable. Knowing what they do, capable and intellectually honest historians and scholars who wrote the essay cannot with integrity draw the conclusion you do from these evidences.

These sources and others which I will provide are reliable sources from trustworthy individuals. Just as reliable, if not more so, than a number of later statements on other topics by church leaders and faithful witnesses who knew Joseph Smith personally that the church holds up as the gospel truth. And these sources have been used by church historians in the past before the ban was lifted to show that it originated with Joseph Smith, and they weren't being intellectually dishonest. As @Just_A_Guy pointed out, the present day church historians who have written about the ban, such as those who wrote the Race and the Priesthood essay, have their own biases, that prevent them from truly going where the evidence leads them, because they refuse to believe that God could do things that they consider "racist." 

But let's not jump the gun. I will provide the relevant information from these sources, and others, with links to the original sources, in a separate post soon and then we can discuss them. Please be patient a little bit longer. You can do it. 

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

..and I didn't read ahead because I'm impatient, but to do you a favor.

Whatever you want to tell yourself.  

[Jehovah versus Jesus]

11 hours ago, Ruben said:

Is it difficult to think that the Jesus of the New Testament who did not condemn adulterous women was the same one who in the Old Testament had them stoned?

 

John 8:7
...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

How do you explain this to me without beating around the bush?

You’ll notice that Jesus didn’t say that it was wrong to stone her. Instead he said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

He was pointing out their hypocrisy and whatever he wrote in the sand caused them to turn away. My theory is that he listed sins that they were guilty of that were also punishable by death under the law of Moses.

The truth is that it really doesn’t matter whether she was stoned to death and then suffered in hell for her sins or if she later died of natural causes and suffered the same fate. If she ended up having to suffer for her sins anyway, being stoned to death would have been part of that and would have actually lessened her suffering in hell. 

Perhaps she ended up fully repenting and turned away from all of her sins after this incident. Then again, perhaps she didn’t and she ended up suffering in hell anyway. We aren’t told what happened to her. 

[Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You should have had this at the ready

If you're really this impatient and want to read ahead, I provided a list of statements and sources in the other thread, but then Neurotypical insisted on links to the original sources so he could verify that they weren't fabricated through AI. Tracking down all of the links to the original sources takes time, believe it or not. 

[Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I hold in contempt any opinions advanced by any party or "side" that suggest that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or any other Church leaders were racist. When those opinions suggest that the racism of the leaders was the actual reason for the Priesthood ban, I consider that a disloyal and contemptible opinion, one for which I have zero respect.

I wanted to respond to this comment, too. While I agree with you that the ban was instituted by God and is not the product of racism on the part of Joseph Smith, Brigham, etc., I also understand why people would conclude that it was the product of racism and not from God. I believe that the Race and the Priesthood essay was intentionally written in the way it was to allow for this belief. It seems to leave room for both beliefs, or some combination of the two.

I consider the belief that it was all an error caused by the racism of past leaders to be highly problematic, but also I understand that this position may be the only way for some members in our current society, that is hyper focused on condemning and denouncing anything that even remotely appears to be racist, to put the issue on the shelf and retain a belief in the church and the restoration.