The priesthood and Black african men

[Maverick]

16 hours ago, mordorbund said:

hat 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).

Abraham 1 was actually alluded to in the earliest contemporaneously recorded statement on blacks being denied the priesthood currently available. 

On April 25, 1847, Parley P. Pratt stated that William McCary “has got the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the Priesthood.”

 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

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

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?

I’m looking at all the evidence. Coltrin isn’t the only one who claimed that Joseph Smith later revoked Elijah Abel’s priesthood. I’m not sure exactly when the conversation would have happened. I’m reading up on Coltrin’s history and he served multiple missions after 1834, including in 1836, 1840, 1842, and 1843. Presumably he could have had this conversation upon returning from one of these later missions. 

In a meeting in 1843 in Cincinnati, three visiting members of the quorum of the 12 stated that Elijah Abel was not to be publicly recognized as an Elder and that he was only to preach to black people. 

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1b94b8d8-d94b-499b-bd61-ca3a0caad6d1/0/6

One of those was Orson Hyde who had a documented conversation with Joseph Smith a year earlier concerning blacks in which blacks in Cincinnati was specifically mentioned by Joseph Smith.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

So it’s conceivable that what Orson said regarding Elijah Abel not being publicly acknowledged and that he should only preach to black people came from Joseph Smith. 

And let’s not forget the multiple later statements by apostles who personally knew Joseph Smith who said that the ban originated with him. 

All of this is consistent with the essence of what Coltrin said. So it’s hardly reasonable to write off his entire account because he got the dates mixed up. 

[NeuroTypical]

40 minutes ago, Maverick said:

In a meeting in 1843 in Cincinnati, three visiting members of the quorum of the 12 stated that Elijah Abel was not to be publicly recognized as an Elder and that he was only to preach to black people. 

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1b94b8d8-d94b-499b-bd61-ca3a0caad6d1/0/6

That link shows a page which reads in part: "Brother Pratt arose and stated that the duty of the 12 is to ordain and send men to their native country.  Brother Able was advised to visit the colored plantation. The advice was sanctioned by the conference."  Then they changed subjects and talked about the temple.  

I can't really see how this record supports your claim.  I see nothing about how he shouldn't be publicly recognized as Elder.  There's nothing there about "only" preaching to black people - you added that yourself.  It wasn't 3 Q12 members, it was Brother Pratt.   It wasn't something he "stated", it was something he "advised".  Everyone agreed it was good advice. 

 

Quote

One of those was Orson Hyde who had a documented conversation with Joseph Smith a year earlier concerning blacks in which blacks in Cincinnati was specifically mentioned by Joseph Smith.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

?    This page seems to be good evidence for a position exactly opposite what you're claiming.   "Elder Hyde enquired the situation of the Negro. I replied they come into the world slaves, mentally & physically. Change their situation with the whites, & they would be like them. They have souls & are subjects of Salvation. Go into Cincinati. or any city, and find an educated negro. who rides in his carriage, and you will see a being who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability."  Joseph is basically saying "there's really no difference between black and white folk, other than the circumstances of their environment, and a black man can do anything a white man can.  Just look at black folk in Cincinnatti."

Yeah, @Maverick I'm glad you're providing links.  They're not supporting your claims.  

 

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I’m looking at all the evidence. Coltrin isn’t the only one who claimed that Joseph Smith later revoked Elijah Abel’s priesthood. I’m not sure exactly when the conversation would have happened. I’m reading up on Coltrin’s history and he served multiple missions after 1834, including in 1836, 1840, 1842, and 1843. Presumably he could have had this conversation upon returning from one of these later missions. 

The point is that this doesn't jibe with the calendar of events.  Did Coltrin remember properly or not?

Maybe a certain year may have escaped memory.  But when he specifically says that it was during his tenure of the Quorum of Seventy, that is a related event of which he had clear memory.  Coltrin had some sort of conversation of this matter in 1835.  And there is clear proof that Able was not denied temple blessings until after 1852.

If you deny this, you must deny his relating of events as "clear and convincing."  If this is not clear and convincing, then stop harping on it.  It is not a dependable accounting of events or wording.

Then you would have to also explain that Joseph refused to tell anyone else.  Did Joseph simply "forget"?  Was Brigham never told?  What has a previous prophet not informed the next senior apostle of a major point of doctrine?

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

In a meeting in 1843 in Cincinnati, three visiting members of the quorum of the 12 stated that Elijah Abel was not to be publicly recognized as an Elder and that he was only to preach to black people. 

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1b94b8d8-d94b-499b-bd61-ca3a0caad6d1/0/6

I read that page you linked to.  I couldn't find anything to corroborate what you said.  If they said anything about not recognizing him as an Elder, you'll have to point to it. 

As far as "only" preaching to black people, you inserted that word into the document.  That word does not appear in such context.  He was assigned to preach to the black population, yes.  This is just like a Spanish speaking missionary in the US being assigned to Spanish wards/branches.  That does not preclude them from teaching whomever they come across if the occasion warrants it.  As a note, I was a Span-Am.  And I did teach to English speaking families on two occasions for special reasons.

So, please point out the words you claimed.

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

One of those was Orson Hyde who had a documented conversation with Joseph Smith a year earlier concerning blacks in which blacks in Cincinnati was specifically mentioned by Joseph Smith.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

Nothing in that document talks about Blacks being ordained to the priesthood or not.  And they actually speak very highly of Blacks.  They say that if they were simply given the same upbringing and rights as Whites, they would behave as whites and probably better. 

What is your point with this document? 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 can't really see how this record supports your claim.  I see nothing about how he shouldn't be publicly recognized as Elder.  There's nothing there about "only" preaching to black people - you added that yourself. 

...

I don't understand what you're claiming here.    This page seems to be good evidence for a position exactly opposite what you're claiming.   

Yeah, @Maverick I'm glad you're providing links.  They're not supporting your claims.  

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I read that page you linked to.  I couldn't find anything to corroborate what you said.  If they said anything about not recognizing him as an Elder, you'll have to point to it. 

As far as "only" preaching to black people, you inserted that word into the document.  That word does not appear in such context. 

...

Nothing in that document talks about Blacks being ordained to the priesthood or not.  And they actually speak very highly of Blacks.  They say that if they were simply given the same upbringing and rights as Whites, they would behave as whites and probably better. 

NT, Great minds, brother.  Great minds.

@Maverick,

You now have two people who have independently come to the same conclusion on your links.  Were they mistaken links?  Where is the corroboration of your claims?

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I see nothing about how he shouldn't be publicly recognized as Elder.

It’s in an earlier page in the document. 

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Maverick said:

It’s in an earlier page in the document. 

What page?

[Maverick]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What is your point with this document? 

As I stated originally, the point was to show that Orson Hyde had a conversation about blacks with Joseph Smith a year earlier in which Joseph Smith specifically mentioned blacks in Cincinnati. Obviously we don’t have a record of the entire conversation, but it’s altogether possible that Orson Hyde was taught his views on blacks from Joseph Smith. It’s actually quite likely. 

[Maverick]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What page?

The first one I believe. 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

it’s altogether possible that Orson Hyde was taught his views on blacks from Joseph Smith. 

Well, since you were kind enough to provide a link, recorded by Willard Richards and Thomas Bullock who were acting in their capacity of church historians, I think I'll stick with what what this record says about Joseph's views, ca 1843:

 "Elder Hyde enquired the situation of the Negro. I replied they come into the world slaves, mentally & physically. Change their situation with the whites, & they would be like them. They have souls & are subjects of Salvation. Go into Cincinati. or any city, and find an educated negro. who rides in his carriage, and you will see a being who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability." 

In other words, "There's really no difference between black and white folk, other than the circumstances of their environment, and a black man can do anything a white man can.  Just look at black folk in Cincinnatti."

In still other words, your claim continues to go unsupported by anything you've provided.

And, since it's easy to lose track of stuff in threads, here's your original claim: 

Quote

 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. 

 

I'm always struck that Joseph had plenty to say about black folk and slavery, and when closely viewed (like I just did in italics above), it sort of reflects our modern understanding of humans and humanity.  2 decades before the US went to war with itself over the matter, it seems like Joseph had it figured out. 

Edited December 2, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

The first one I believe. 

Nope. I'm on page 5.  No mention of blacks.  "Bro, Elder Ables" appears to have had a complaint about how he was treated ("misused"), but no details are offered, and by the middle of page 6 we're on to another topic. Page 7 has mention of "coloured population" and Bro Ables being "advised" to visit them.  The end.

That would have been a waste of time but for the highlight of this document: Brother Kimball telling people who couldn't stop evil speaking of others to "make a hole in their tongue and put in a ring and tie it up to something" ... concluding with quoting "hold your tongue and mind your own business".

Edited December 2, 2024 by zil2

[Carborendum]

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

As I stated originally, the point was to show that Orson Hyde had a conversation about blacks with Joseph Smith a year earlier in which Joseph Smith specifically mentioned blacks in Cincinnati. Obviously we don’t have a record of the entire conversation, but it’s altogether possible that Orson Hyde was taught his views on blacks from Joseph Smith. It’s actually quite likely. 

The links you provided do not say that.

42 minutes ago, Maverick said:

The first one I believe. 

Nope.

• The first page was the title page.  
• The first page of the actual minutes was page 3.
• The sentence (I presume) you referred to was on page 5.

But it was not as you said it was (again).

Quote

Elder Page said he respects a coloured Bro. as such but wisdom forbids that we should introduce before the public.

That's all.  There is no other mention.  Nothing upon which to determine what the context was or what his meaning was.

The take away for me is that he was all for the "Black Elder'.  But he was just afraid of the common folk who would have prejudices.

Remember that Abel was only 1/8 black.  He "passed" as a white man.  So, Page was saying that it was fine to ordain him and have him lead.  But don't tell anyone he's black or else people will likely refuse to follow his lead.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

That would have been a waste of time but for the highlight of this document: Brother Kimball telling people who couldn't stop evil speaking of others to "make a whole in their tongue and put in a ring and tie it up to something" ... concluding with quoting "hold your tongue and mind your own business".

Heber C. Kimball was a true prophet.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

One of those was Orson Hyde who had a documented conversation with Joseph Smith a year earlier concerning blacks in which blacks in Cincinnati was specifically mentioned by Joseph Smith.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-january-3-march-1843/2

I just went through all 26 freaking pages of that document.  Nothing of what you said.  If you still think it's there, you'll have to find it and give a specific location.

We've given you the benefit of the doubt.  We've played along with you.  But if you make any more claims that aren't common knowledge, you need to carry the water on it.

I'm done.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

This is beginning to sound an awful lot like the CES Letter.  Claims are made, but 15 minutes of research debunks any single claim.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is beginning to sound an awful lot like the CES Letter.  Claims are made, but 15 minutes of research debunks any single claim.

Lol. You haven’t debunked anything. 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Maverick

[NeuroTypical]

33 minutes ago, Maverick said:

You have debunked anything. 

Just so you know, most rational humans who argue and debate and discuss all tend to agree on this thing called the burden of proof.   Wiki's definition is pretty good: "The burden of proof (shortened from 'the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies') is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

You made a claim.  It's on you to back it up.  You haven't backed it up.   

I mean, there's not exactly a penalty or punishment.  People expressing their opinions fail to support/substantiate/prove their opinions all the time.  There is a consequence though.  People who express opinions but provide little to persuade, start being regarded as someone with opinions that are not worthy of consideration. 

There are ways to avoid this consequence:
- Provide better evidence supporting your opinion.
- Express a lot of opinions, and have persuasive evidence for most of them.  Nobody is perfect.
- Say something like "Huh-maybe I need to re-think my position.  I thought my evidence was more persuasive."

Here are common ways to increase the chances of people placing low or negative value in your opinions: 
- Accuse those responding to your efforts of failing to prove or debunk anything. 
[I can think of others if anyone wants to hear them.]

Edited December 2, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Maverick]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We've given you the benefit of the doubt.  We've played along with you.  But if you make any more claims that aren't common knowledge, you need to carry the water on it.

I'm done.

You’ve ignored, downplayed, or attempted to discredit every piece of evidence I have provided because it contradicts the narrative you would like to believe. 

If you want to believe that all the brethren who claimed that the ban began with Joseph Smith were lying or remembered events that never actually happened, that’s fine. 

[Maverick]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just so you know, most rational humans who argue and debate and discuss all tend to agree on this thing called the burden of proof.   Wiki's definition is pretty good: "The burden of proof (shortened from 'the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies') is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

You made a claim.  It's on you to back it up.  You haven't backed it up.   

I did back up my claim that there’s evidence that Joseph Smith recognized that the ordination of Elijah Abel was an error and that Elijah Abel was told he couldn’t exercise the priesthood and that the ban began with him. 

People are free to not believe the evidence because they don’t find it credible and it goes against what they want to believe. That’s up to them. 

[Maverick]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here are common ways to increase the chances of people placing low or negative value in your opinions: 
- Accuse those responding to your efforts of failing to prove or debunk anything. 

Rational people don’t generally insist they have debunked a claim because they have a different interpretation of what the evidence shows or how credible it is. 

There’s also no evidence that Elijah Abel performed any priesthood ordinances or that any of the leaders of the church claimed that the ban began with Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith. Instead the evidence shows that they held that it began with Joseph Smith. 

[mikbone]

4 minutes ago, Maverick said:

There’s also no evidence that Elijah Abel performed any priesthood ordinances or that any of the leaders of the church claimed that the ban began with Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith. Instead the evidence shows that they held that it began with Joseph Smith. 

We have an ordination certificate.  The rest is hearsay

The word evidence has meaning.

[Maverick]

13 minutes ago, mikbone said:

The word evidence has meaning.

Yes it does. And recorded interviews with witnesses are considered evidence.

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Yes it does. And recorded interviews with witnesses are considered evidence.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Yes it does. And recorded interviews with witnesses are considered evidence.

The problem in this discussion is that we are not in a court of law. We're in a discussion group. More importantly, we are a part of God's kingdom. In looking for answers to why such-and-such occurred, the most relevant piece of information is what our current leaders say about things.

As far as I know, our current leaders do not subscribe to the current fad of calling Brigham Young a racist and saying that the whole Priesthood ban was just a big mistake. I see exactly zero evidence of any such belief. On the other hand, nor do our current leaders subscribe to the explanations given in the past that attempt to explain or quantify the reasons for the Priesthood restrictions, such as "curse of Cain" or "lack of premortal valor". On the contrary, they have explicitly distanced themselves ("disavow" is the word used) from such explanations, and have instead clearly stated that we do not know the reasons for instituting the Priesthood ban.

On an institutional level, this is clearly the case: We don't know why the Priesthood restrictions were enacted. On a personal level, I suppose that God can make known to whomever He chooses whatever He deems fit, so there are perhaps some who understand God's reasoning and actions on a deeper level. But such people are under commandment to keep their private revelations private, so their presumed knowledge does not change the situation.

I will continue to argue, forcefully and vociferously, against the ill-considered and even traitorous practice of labelling our Church leaders as racists and otherwise seeking the approval of the world—ironically and fittingly, an approval that would never come unless we literally left all truth behind and simply bowed to the world's will. On the other hand, I will not accept poorly documented opinions as the word of God. What I will accept as the word of God is what our current leaders, those anointed by God to lead His kingdom, have to say. And what they have said is not that those of black African descent before 1978 had no ability to hold the Priesthood. The opposite appears to be the case; for example, no one disputed that Elijah Abel held the Priesthood, only whether or not he should exercise the rites of that Priesthood he held.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

make a hole in their tongue and put in a ring and tie it up to something" ... concluding with quoting "hold your tongue and mind your own business

Looks like @NeuroTypical is getting a new signature.