The priesthood and Black african men

[Maverick]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is not my understanding of the matter, either for Elijah Abel or for his sons. 

What’s your understanding of Elijah Abel and his sons and what references do you have to support your views? 

[Carborendum]

Does anyone have any official statements by David O. McKay?

I've read three different types of answers that say "roughly" the same thing, but are potentially quite different.

• "received no answer"
• "wasn't told to lift the ban"
• "was told not to lift it at the present time"

Edited December 1, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

The closest is that he likely approved of the ordination of Elijah Abel, who was only 1/8 black, but there’s also testimonies of witnesses who said that he later recognized that this was an error and told Elijah Abel that he was no longer permitted to exercise the priesthood and perform priesthood ordinances. 

This is not my understanding of the matter, either for Elijah Abel or for his sons. Do you have references supporting this?

I second Vort's request for references or sources.  I've never heard before that someone thought Abel's ordination was an "error", and told him he wasn't permitted to exercise the priesthood.

@Maverick, please tell us who told you that stuff.  I'd really like to know.

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I second Vort's request for references or sources.  I've never heard before that someone thought Abel's ordination was an "error", and told him he wasn't permitted to exercise the priesthood.

@Maverick, please tell us who told you that stuff.  I'd really like to know.

Same. All I got was this from Google. 

[Maverick]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I second Vort's request for references or sources.  I've never heard before that someone thought Abel's ordination was an "error", and told him he wasn't permitted to exercise the priesthood.

@Maverick, please tell us who told you that stuff.  I'd really like to know.

No one told me this stuff. It’s documented history. Here are some accounts I have compiled on this:

Interview with Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot

 

Saturday, May 3 1st, 1879, at the house of President A. O, Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 o'clock P.M. 

 

President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abram O, Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, and the subject of ordaining Negroes to the Priesthood was presented. 

 

President Taylor said: "Some parties have said to me that Brother Zebedee Coltrin had talked to the Prophet Joseph Smith on this subject, and they said that he (Coltrin) thought it was not right for them to have the Priesthood. Whereupon the Prophet said to him that Peter on a certain occasion had a vision wherein he saw heaven opened, and certain vessel descended unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to earth; wherein all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and  fowls of the air — And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God had cleansed, that call not thou common." 

 

And the Prophet Joseph then said to Brother Coltrin, as the Angel said to Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." 

 

President Taylor asked Brother Coltrin: "Did the Prophet Joseph ever make such a statement to you? 

 

Brother Coltrin: "No sir; he never said anything of the kind in his life to me." 

 

President Taylor: "What did he say?" 

 

Brother Coltrin: "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. 

 

Brother Coltrin further said : 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. 

 

President Taylor: Brother Zebedee, you are not one of the Seven Presidents now. What have you been doing? 

 

Brother Coltrin: I was acting then as one of the First Seven Presidents of Seventy and was ordered back into the Quorum of High Priests. I can tell you how that thing first started. Brother Winchester and Brother Jared Carter while on the Brick Yard at Kirtland (Brother Winchester a Seventy and Brother Jared a High Priest) got to contending which held the highest office. Carter was rebuking him on account of his folly, which he said he had no right to do, as he held a higher Priesthood than he did. Jared contended he didn't because he was a High Priest. This thing came to the ears of Uncle Joseph Smith, and then they went to the Prophet Joseph with it. The Prophet then inquired of the Lord, and he afterwards directed that we be put back with the Quorum of High Priests, and other men (five) were then ordained to the Presidency of Seventies, and three out of that five apostatized. Brothers Joseph Young and Levi Hancock were retained and the other five filled the number. 

 

In the washing and annointing of Brother Abel at Kirtland, I annointed him and while I had my hands upon his head, I never had such unpleasant feelings in my life. And I said, "I never would again annoint another person who had Negro blood in him unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so." 

 

ZEBEDEE COLTRIN 

 

Attest: 

 

L. John Nuttall 

 

Brother A. O. Smoot said W. W. Patten, Warren Parrish and Thomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And by those brethren it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted the Prophet Joseph, and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision, as I understood was, they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. 

 

In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in the Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them. 

 

(Signed) A. O. SMOOT 

 

Attest: 

 

L. John Nuttall. 

 

 

–

 

Thomas A. Shreeve

 

Monday, 26 Oct. 1970: Priesthood Answer. Editor, Tribune:

 

What then is the reason for the continued racial exclusion?

 

The answer is simple. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the priesthood from Elijah Able [sic], and revoke the ordination. There is no exception. The continued church’s policy over the years is an evident fact that Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it. Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Able affirmed the fact to father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-1877. At the time, Bro. Able told young Thomas, who baptized Able’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph “came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him [Able] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy priesthood from him.”

 

Patriarch Shreeve, testified many times before his death in 1931, of the facts in the case, and of his close relationship with Brother Able. As of this date there are still living three members of the Shreeve family, who know of the facts to which their father testified Elijah Able told him. (Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr., The Salt Lake Tribune, “Forum,” 26 Oct. 1970)

 

—

 

 

Minutes of Council meeting, Aug. 26, 1908, George A. Smith Papers

 

Zebedee Coltrin also maintained that Elijah had later been dropped from the quorum of Seventies. Abel did, however, receive a patriarchal blessing under the hands of Joseph Smith, Sr., in which it was said: “Thy soul be white in eternity, and receive all the power that thou needest to accomplish thy mission.” He was also promised that he would be “the welding link between the black and white races, and should hold the initiative authority by which his race should be redeemed.” (Council meeting, Aug. 26, 1908, G.A.Smith Papers)

 

—

 

In this connection President [Joseph F.] Smith referred to Elijah 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. Later Brother Abel appealed to President Young for the privilege of receiving his endowments and to have his wife and children sealed to him, a privilege President Young could not grant. Brother Abel renewed his application to President Taylor with the same result; and still the same appeal was made to President Woodruff afterwards who of course upheld the position taken by Presidents Young and Taylor…. (Council Minutes, August 26, 1908; Bennion (or G. A. Smith) papers.)

 

—

 

Joseph Fielding Smith

 

In 1924 Joseph F. Smith noted that: “The question arises from time to time in regard to the Negro race and the Priesthood …. It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine.” (Imp. Era 27:564)

 

—

 

George Q. Cannon

 

“President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.” (Way to Perfection, p. 110)

 

—

 

John Taylor

 

“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.” (1 Apr. 1845, “A Short Chapter on a Long Subject,” Times and Seasons, vol. 6, no. 6, edited by John Taylor [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by John Taylor, 1 Apr. 1845], p. 857.)

 

 

 

 

[mordorbund]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Does anyone have any official statements by David O. McKay?

I've read three different types of answers that say "roughly" the same thing, but are potentially quite different.

• "received no answer"
• "wasn't told to lift the ban"
• "was told not to lift it at the present time"

Not quite what you're looking for, but this is from Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood:

Quote

[McKay] maintained the position that the long-established policy was inspired and that change would require divine intervention.³⁶ President McKay desired and sought such revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.”³⁷ Leonard Arrington reported a statement by Elder Adam S. Bennion in 1954 that President McKay had prayed for change “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.”³⁸

The statement you're looking for may be in Gregory Prince's works.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

Interview with Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot...

There was reason to doubt the accuracy of his account.  While I don't see anyone saying he was "lying," he may have gotten some things mixed up.  The events which he outlined did not line up with other known facts and timelines. 

Example:  He stated (along with the quote that Maverick posted) that Joseph "stripped Elijah Abel of his priesthood ordination."  Yet there was no evidence or any other indication that he ceased engaging in priesthood activities or holding priesthood positions prior to 1852.  To the contrary, Elijah was welcomed and included in many priesthood roles during Brigham Young's tenure.

Quote

Elijah Abels was not the exception, Bush argued; indeed, Ables had been the rule. Joseph Smith had not implemented the priesthood ban, contrary to accepted wisdom. That distinction belonged to Brigham Young. Perhaps the Church could start asking new questions, he hoped, about why it was following the course it was when Church leaders apparently did not fully understand why they were doing it.

 -- Latter-day Saint Historian Russell Stevenson, late 1960s

Also, the "curse of Cain" idea was invented by the Southern Baptists.  There is folklore about how that doctrine flowed into the Church of Jesus Christ.  And there may be truth to this being the source of these theories infecting Church beliefs.  But the theories did NOT come from the Lord.

That explanation was, apparently, fabricated by Southern Baptists in an effort to justify slavery.   And when the brethren heard it, they figured it was a good explanation for why the priesthood was withheld.  So, they advanced the theory.  But that was not through revelation.

Was it a mistake?  Was it a policy?  Was it a false notion?  We may never know until we meet our Maker.  But here is an official statement:

Quote

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization.

 --First Presidency statement, 1949

Why continue to follow a commandment that we find repulsive to our modern sensibilities and alienates a large swath of our brothers and sisters?

I'm having trouble finding the direct quote, but here it is as best as I can remember:

Quote

It is not customary for the Lord to give reasons for his commandments.  If we list all the commandments He has given man, we'll find that less than one in a hundred come with an explanation as to why He commands it of us.

I can testify that I've had dozens of promptings that were certainly revelation and the will of G-d.  And I don't recall a single one of those promptings including an explanation of why.

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Not quite what you're looking for, but this is from Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood:

The statement you're looking for may be in Gregory Prince's works.

I seem to remember a quote attributed to President McKay to the effect that, regarding the question of Priesthood ordination of those of African descent, he felt that the heavens were a brass dome over his head.

[Vort]

On 12/1/2024 at 1:19 PM, Carborendum said:

Also, the "curse of Cain" idea was invented by the Southern Baptists.  There is folklore about how that doctrine flowed into the Church of Jesus Christ.  And there may be truth to this being the source of these theories infecting Church beliefs.  But the theories did NOT come from the Lord.

That explanation was, apparently, fabricated by Southern Baptists in an effort to justify slavery.   And when the brethren heard it, they figured it was a good explanation for why the priesthood was withheld.  So, they advanced the theory.  But that was not through revelation.

Was it a mistake?  Was it a policy?  Was it a false notion?  We may never know until we meet our Maker.

I would point out that it's easy to read the book of Abraham's account of Ham and Egyptus as stating that those of African (Egyptian) heritage with dark skins are descendants of Cain through Ham, son of Noah and a wife of Cain's lineage. In fact, it's difficult to read that account in context and not arrive at that conclusion, though I admit it is not openly spelled out in so many words.

Since I don't understand how God counts lineage, I do not know the answers here—though I would point out that, genetically speaking, the idea that the Priesthood cannot be conferred upon anyone who has "one drop of the blood of Cain" in his veins likely disqualifies every human being, given the nature of how descendancy works. Whatever is going on, our contemporary way of viewing things is clearly insufficient to yield a good explanation.

Having said that, I reject out of hand the all-too-easy and IMO cowardly and dishonorable notion that we are to just claim the former prophets were "racist", and then go about signalling our virtue by saying that the "Priesthood ban" was all a mistake and things are just dandy now among us more righteous people. I may not understand how things work or why things are as they are, but I will stand with the prophets and against the disloyal and cowardly who would speak evil of them in order to gain status in the eyes of the world and the worldly.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Vort
Book of Abraham, not book of Moses

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

No one told me this stuff. It’s documented history. Here are some accounts I have compiled on this:

Coltrin's recollections seems to be inaccurate. Based on Coltrin's 1879 recollection:

Spring 1834: Joseph Smith says, "the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right and cannot hold the Priesthood"

Before April 1837 (when the presidency is restructured): Joseph Smith drops Elijah from the quorum of Seventy

Sometime in Kirtland: Elijah receives the Kirtland endowment from Coltrin

 

I would add to this timeline:

 

1836: Joseph Smith himself signed Elijah's ministerial licence affirming his priesthood office (suggesting that he either didn't know Elijah Able or didn't hold the same views Coltrin ascribed to him 2 years prior)

1839: Fellow quorum members in the Seventy accuse Elijah of teaching outside the orthodoxy in his mission. This suggests that the Seventy (and Elijah) were unaware that he had been released.

Brothers Smoot and Marsh's statement can easily be chalked up to the wisdom of not infuriating the locals where they proselyted. Especially since that advice was given so close to Joseph signing Elijah's license.

Edited December 1, 2024 by mordorbund

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

Here are some accounts I have compiled on this:

Thanks for cutting and pasting all that.   I'm hearing that you have all this in a text file or something?  Do you have a source or a link?

I'm not calling foul or anything, but the rise of modern AI technology just makes it more unwise than ever before to just believe something you see on the internet.   And Carb's links shed some doubt on your compiled accounts.  And I looked around and couldn't find the Interview with Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot on https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/.

Please don't take it personally.  I just prefer to read as close to a source as I possibly can whenever trying to figure out what I think about anything.

Edited December 1, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I seem to remember a quote attributed to President McKay to the effect that, regarding the question of Priesthood ordination of those of African descent, he felt that the heavens were a brass dome over his head.

Still haven't found it yet, but this seems to be closer:

Quote

"I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

 

[Maverick]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Thanks for cutting and pasting all that.   I'm hearing that you have all this in a text file or something?  Do you have a source or a link?

I'm not calling foul or anything, but the rise of modern AI technology just makes it more unwise than ever before to just believe something you see on the internet.   And Carb's links shed some doubt on your compiled accounts.  And I looked around and couldn't find the Interview with Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot on https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/.

Please don't take it personally.  I just prefer to read as close to a source as I possibly can whenever trying to figure out what I think about anything.

Everyone of those accounts is legit. Most of them even have the sources listed. I don’t really feel inclined to dig up links. If you search around a bit, you can find them, though. 

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I would point out that it's easy to read the book of Moses' account of Ham and Egyptus as stating that those of African (Egyptian) heritage with dark skins are descendants of Cain through Ham, son of Noah and a wife of Cain's lineage. In fact, it's difficult to read that account in context and not arrive at that conclusion, though I admit it is not openly spelled out in so many words.

For what it's worth, Nibley's opinion on why Pharoah was of the wrong lineage was because he tried claiming a patriarchal priesthood through a matriarchal line. Also worth considering is that I understand the Book of Abraham was not used as an early source to justify the priesthood ban (obviously it was brought into play later).

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Coltrin's recollections seems to be inaccurate. Based on Coltrin's 1879 recollection:

Spring 1834: Joseph Smith says, "the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right and cannot hold the Priesthood"

Before April 1837 (when the presidency is restructured): Joseph Smith drops Elijah from the quorum of Seventy

Sometime in Kirtland: Elijah receives the Kirtland endowment from Coltrin

 

I would add to this timeline:

 

1836: Joseph Smith himself signed Elijah's ministerial licence affirming his priesthood office (suggesting that he either didn't know Elijah Able or didn't hold the same views Coltrin ascribed to him 2 years prior)

1839: Fellow quorum members in the Seventy accuse Elijah of teaching outside the orthodoxy in his mission. This suggests that the Seventy (and Elijah) were unaware that he had been released.

There are some problems with the dates Coltrin provides, but that isn’t unusual for a recollection from over 40 years later. There’s no reason to conclude that the essence of what he said isn’t accurate. 

What seems likely is that Elijah Abel was told by Joseph Smith that he was no longer authorized to perform priesthood ordinances, because his ordination was invalid. He was nevertheless kept on the rolls of the seventies quorum and permitted to preach the gospel to black people and perform other church service. Probably out of respect and the fact that preaching the gospel and other forms of service didn’t require the priesthood. 

It’s no different than unordained young men and men in the church being on the rolls of priesthood quorums. 

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There was reason to doubt the accuracy of his account.  While I don't see anyone saying he was "lying," he may have gotten some things mixed up.  The events which he outlined did not line up with other known facts and timelines. 

Example:  He stated (along with the quote that Maverick posted) that Joseph "stripped Elijah Abel of his priesthood ordination."  Yet there was no evidence or any other indication that he ceased engaging in priesthood activities or holding priesthood positions prior to 1852.  To the contrary, Elijah was welcomed and included in many priesthood roles during Brigham Young's tenure.

Also, the "curse of Cain" idea was invented by the Southern Baptists.  There is folklore about how that doctrine flowed into the Church of Jesus Christ.  And there may be truth to this being the source of these theories infecting Church beliefs.  But the theories did NOT come from the Lord.

That explanation was, apparently, fabricated by Southern Baptists in an effort to justify slavery.   And when the brethren heard it, they figured it was a good explanation for why the priesthood was withheld.  So, they advanced the theory.  But that was not through revelation.

Was it a mistake?  Was it a policy?  Was it a false notion?  We may never know until we meet our Maker.  But here is an official statement:

Why continue to follow a commandment that we find repulsive to our modern sensibilities and alienates a large swath of our brothers and sisters?

I'm having trouble finding the direct quote, but here it is as best as I can remember:

I can testify that I've had dozens of promptings that were certainly revelation and the will of G-d.  And I don't recall a single one of those promptings including an explanation of why.

I’ll take the words of prophets and apostles who personally knew Joseph Smith over the opinions of Lester Bush every day of the week. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

For what it's worth, Nibley's opinion on why Pharoah was of the wrong lineage was because he tried claiming a patriarchal priesthood through a matriarchal line. Also worth considering is that I understand the Book of Abraham was not used as an early source to justify the priesthood ban (obviously it was brought into play later).

Just realized I wrote Moses, not Abraham. Oops. Write slower and think faster.

[mikbone]

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/license-for-elijah-able-31-march-1836/1

The above is a link to Elijah Able’s record of ordination to Elder and license.

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I would point out that it's easy to read the book of Moses' account of Ham and Egyptus as stating that those of African (Egyptian) heritage with dark skins are descendants of Cain through Ham, son of Noah and a wife of Cain's lineage. In fact, it's difficult to read that account in context and not arrive at that conclusion, though I admit it is not openly spelled out in so many words.

If that's what you're looking for, then yes, I agree.  One could legitimately interpret it that way.  

What I consider is that we have no idea if Cain's mark really was to have genetically darker skin.  And we have no way of knowing if the people of sub-saharan African descent are the same who would have had this supposed darker skin.  Where does the history meet with scripture?  We don't know.

There is a lot we don't know. 

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Since I don't understand how God counts lineage, I do not know the answers here—though I would point out that, genetically speaking, the idea that the Priesthood cannot be conferred upon anyone who has "one drop of the blood of Cain" in his veins likely disqualifies every human being, given the nature of how descendancy works. Whatever is going on, our contemporary way of viewing things is clearly insufficient to yield a good explanation.

Exactly.

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Having said that, I reject out of hand the all-too-easy and IMO cowardly and dishonorable notion that we are to just claim the former prophets were "racist", and then go about signalling our virtue by saying that the "Priesthood ban" was all a mistake and things are just dandy now among us more righteous people. I may not understand how things work or why things are as they are, but I will stand with the prophets and against the disloyal and cowardly who would speak evil of them in order to gain status in the eyes of the world and the worldly.

Yup.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

I’ll take the words of prophets and apostles who personally knew Joseph Smith over the opinions of Lester Bush every day of the week. 

I'm glad you took the time to read all my points.  I'm sure you gave them all the scrutiny that you did the source that you cited.

After all, you believe this 2nd hand witness over a formal document that was signed by Joseph Smith.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm glad you took the time to read all my points.  I'm sure you gave them all the scrutiny that you did the source that you cited.

After all, you believe this 2nd hand witness over a formal document that was signed by Joseph Smith.

The document Joseph Smith signed is not at odds with Zebedee Coltrin’s statement that some time after Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder, Joseph Smith recognized that this was an error and told him his ordination was invalid. 

The only thing it shows is that Coltrin misremembered what year it happened over 40 years later. The exact year is irrelevant. 

And Lester Bush’s claim that ordaining black men was the norm prior to Brigham Young becoming church president is not supported by the evidence.

We only have a contemporaneous record of one black man being ordained back in Lowe, Massachusetts and a 1/8 black man in Kirtland, Ohio. It’s unknown whether Joseph Smith was even aware of the ordination of Walker Lewis in Lowe. So that makes the ordination of a single 1/8 black man the only documented instance of a black African being ordained with Joseph Smith’s approval. That hardly establishes that ordaining black men was the norm under Joseph Smith, especially in light of the evidence that he later recognized that this had been an error. 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Maverick

[Just_A_Guy]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Does anyone have any official statements by David O. McKay?

I've read three different types of answers that say "roughly" the same thing, but are potentially quite different.

• "received no answer"
• "wasn't told to lift the ban"
• "was told not to lift it at the present time"

Prince’s “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”.  It cites 2-3 different people who said McKay told them he had received an explicit “no”.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Prince’s “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”.  It cites 2-3 different people who said McKay told them he had received an explicit “no”.

Thank you.  I read the account that Mordor referred to via EoG.  It seems that for a while McKay received a null answer many times.  And then finally was told essentially "not yet" and "stop asking."

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

For what it's worth, Nibley's opinion on why Pharoah was of the wrong lineage was because he tried claiming a patriarchal priesthood through a matriarchal line. Also worth considering is that I understand the Book of Abraham was not used as an early source to justify the priesthood ban (obviously it was brought into play later).

An interesting thing was that the birthright through Hebrew tradition was through the both the mother and father.  I'm still unclear how that worked, so forgive my ignorance on the matter.  But the authority was vested in the father (patriarchal) but the heir to the rights of that priesthood was chosen by the mother (matriarchal).  I'm pretty sure you know the source I'm echoing.

To this day, Orthodox Jewry will say that you're only Jewish if your mother is Jewish.  i.e. if you have mixed parentage, you aren't Jewish if your father is Jewish, but your mother isn't.  You'll have to go through formal ceremonies to "convert".

That kind of dissolves the idea that anything is inherited through the father. 

Yeah, I can't make sense of it either.

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

The only thing it shows is that Coltrin misremembered what year it happened over 40 years later. The exact year is irrelevant. 

In other words, his recounting of the events was questionable.

20 hours ago, Maverick said:

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. 

Coltrin states that he (Coltrin) was a President of the Quorum (singular) of the Seventy at the time of the conversation.  The second and third quorums were established around 1835, with members being ordained and added over the next two years.

• So, it would have happened around 1835.
• Abel was ordained a Seventy in 1836 (while Coltrin was a president of the Seventy). 
• Abel served in a priesthood capacity at least until 1842. (Essentially a mission president in Cincinatti)
• He was sealed in the temple to his wife in 1846 by Brigham young. 
• He was denied the endowment in 1853 (after the 1852 announcement).

You seem to be fine with Coltrin misremembering the sequence of events or dates, but give no allowance for the idea that maybe he might have misremembered the comments themselves.  Again, after 40 years. 

Ok.  So, if it wasn't 1834 as Coltrin, himself, stated -- when was this conversation?