Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Maverick]

A common belief in the church today is that the Priesthood ban began with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith. In this thread evidence will be provided showing that the ban began with Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young, and that it was in place since ancient times. 

We'll begin with contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith.

From the Book of Abraham:

Quote

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Abraham 1)

In Abraham 1 Joseph Smith revealed that the descendants of Ham through Canaan were under a divine curse that was instituted after the flood through the prophet Noah in which they were cursed "pertaining to the priesthood" and "could not have the right of Priesthood."

In a letter to Oliver Cowdery that was published in the Messenger and Advoctate Joseph Smith identified black Africans as descendants of Canaan and under a divine curse which remained in effect in his day:

Quote

It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

“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.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel. 

Letter to Oliver Cowdery, circa 9 April 1836," p. [289-291], The Joseph Smith Papers https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1

In the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis (Moses 7) Joseph Smith revealed that Canaanites and descendants of Cain are black:

Quote

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. (Moses 7:8)

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. (Moses 7:22)

In additions to identifying black Africans as descendants of Canaan and declaring that they were under a divine curse, Joseph Smith also identified them as descendants of Cain:

Quote

In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain. 

Journal, December 1841–December 1842," p. 59, The Joseph Smith Papers
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/14

From these statements its clear that Joseph Smith considered blacks to be Canaanites and descendants of Cain and under a divine curse that included being cursed from holding the priesthood. 

In 1847, apostle Parley P. Pratt, who had been personally tutored by Joseph Smith, made a direct connection to the priesthood curse mentioned in Abraham and applied it to William McCary, a member of the church who was of African decent, by stating:

Quote

"he has got the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the Priesthood.”

The most logical conclusion is that he was taught this by Joseph Smith, since it fits with Joseph Smith having identified black Africans as Canaanites and declaring them under a divine curse from at least the days of Noah.
 

Edited December 7, 2024 by Maverick

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

A common belief in the church today is that the Priesthood ban began with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.

Which church are you talking about?  I've lived in a dozen wards in half a dozen stakes in 2 different states, and never once ever heard this.  Like, ever.  Not in 35 years of paying attention. 

Any member holding the priesthood can log into the church website and look up their priesthood line of authority, and notice that it has Joseph Smith in it.

Edited December 7, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Which church are you talking about?  I've lived in a dozen wards in half a dozen stakes in 2 different states, and never once ever heard this.  Like, ever.  Not in 35 years of paying attention. 

Any member holding the priesthood can log into the church website and look up their priesthood line of authority, and notice that it has Joseph Smith in it.

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57241071&itype=CMSID

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_temple_and_priesthood_policies_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Edited December 7, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

I’m not saying it’s what I believe, it’s what I found. 

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Which church are you talking about?  I've lived in a dozen wards in half a dozen stakes in 2 different states, and never once ever heard this.  Like, ever.  Not in 35 years of paying attention. 

Any member holding the priesthood can log into the church website and look up their priesthood line of authority, and notice that it has Joseph Smith in it.

He’s talking about the priesthood ban, not the priesthood.

[mikbone]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

2 Ne 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Edited December 7, 2024 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

2 Ne 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Marvin Perkins has argued—he thinks, convincingly—that BoM references to “black” or “white” have nothing to do with skin color.  

Edited December 7, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[laronius]

The essay the Church put out says this:

There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”

Having said that, our knowledge of the past changes as new sources of information are revealed. I think it was Hugh Nibley who said something to the effect that he doesn't hold himself responsible for anything he said more than three years ago for this very reason. I don't know what resources the historians had available when they made the above statement. Perhaps they would say something different now. But regardless I think there are still enough unknowns to say definitively when and why it started.

[Traveler]

Many think of the order of G-d as being binary.  This is because the scriptures divide mankind into the righteous (those justified by covenant) and the wicked (those not justified through covenant).   In reality the divine order is trinary.  In the pre-existence heaven was divided into three parts.  In scripture we are told that a third part of heaven followed Lucifer.  This is thought to mean that 1/3 of heaven followed Lucifer.  That is not true.  The mathematics of the Hebrews and Greeks through which we are provided much of ancient scripture – only integer numbers were understood and used.  Fractions were not defined.  The only possible meaning from that time period was that heaven was divided into 3 parts, one of which followed Lucifer.  There is no logic to assume that the 3 parts were numbered the same or even close to the same.  In reality, in terms of modern mathematics the comparative number that followed Lucifer could have been only 10% or less.

The important thing to remember is that heaven was divided into 3 parts or divisions.  We see this trinary division again following the flood through the three sons of Noah.  The three parts became known as the covenant, the gentiles and the infidels.   In the final judgement, mankind will be divided into three glories.  The telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. 

We are told in scripture that these glories are governed by laws, ordinances and covenants and that the glory is according to the laws, ordinances and covenants that are kept.  In the Book of Mormon (Alma) we learn that initially we were all the same and had the same opportunity but that some would exercise more faith and that only those that exercise greater faith will receive the priesthood.  This would imply that following the final judgement only those of celestial glory will receive the priesthood by ordinance.

According to prophesy we live in a time when all males (male by genetics) can be ordained to hold the priesthood.  This has not always been the case.  For example, in the time of Abraham we learn from scripture that only Abraham’s seed would hold the priesthood.

During the early times of the restoration – those of African decent were commanded to be held from the priesthood until events from our current generation.  I have always assumed and believed that the priesthood would become standard only as a necessary preparation for the coming Messiah.

It is speculation on my part that the time will come when the priesthood (priesthood powers) will not be maintained by any single individual but only through those entering into the divine law, ordinance and covenant of marriage.   At which time men and women will be equal partners under the order of the priesthood.   Whatever authority anything is accomplished in eternity will be channeled and directed through Celestial Kings and Queens (priest and priestesses) that control the keys of the priesthood.

 

The Traveler

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

2 Ne 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

This has nothing to do with the priesthood ban. Throughout human history the priesthood has not been available to most of mankind and women have never been ordained to the priesthood. 

[Maverick]

 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

2 Ne 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Marvin Perkins has argued—he thinks, convincingly—that BoM references to “black” or “white” have nothing to do with skin color.  

Claiming that "black" or "white" in the Book of Mormon does not refer to skin color is a popular trend in the church since the release of the race and the priesthood essay. I completely disagree with this new idea, because to me it's obvious that literal skin color is meant. 

What's interesting is that those who claim that the references to white and dark skin in the Book of Mormon don't refer to literal skin color will still use 2 Nephi 26:33 to show that God loves all people regardless of literal skin color the same. So really what they are claiming is that black and white skin in the Book of Mormon isn't literal when they don't want it to be, but is literal when they want it to be.  

[Maverick]

On 12/7/2024 at 1:49 PM, laronius said:

There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. 

The race and the priesthood essay doesn't really do the topic justice and is actually pretty misleading. This statement is one such example. This statement gives the impression that Joseph Smith was perfectly fine ordaining black men and that they were freely ordained during his lifetime before Brigham Young changed things in 1852, banning them from the priesthood for the first time. 

In reality there's no evidence that Joseph Smith knew about, let alone approved of, the ordination of any black man other than Elijah Abel and Elijah Abel was only 1/8 black and of a very light complexation. It's unknown if Joseph Smith was aware that he was partially of African decent when he signed his ministerial license in 1836, shortly after his ordination. Three credible sources state that when he discovered Brother Abel's lineage he told him that his ordination wasn't valid.  

There were also several black men who were members of the church in Nauvoo at the time Joseph Smith lived there and none of them were ordained to the priesthood.  There's also no record of anyone who knew Joseph Smith claiming that the ban didn't start with him and began with Brigham Young. Instead several individuals stated that it began with Joseph Smith, including several apostles and church presidents. 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Many think of the order of G-d as being binary.  This is because the scriptures divide mankind into the righteous (those justified by covenant) and the wicked (those not justified through covenant).   In reality the divine order is trinary.  In the pre-existence heaven was divided into three parts.  In scripture we are told that a third part of heaven followed Lucifer.  This is thought to mean that 1/3 of heaven followed Lucifer.  That is not true.  The mathematics of the Hebrews and Greeks through which we are provided much of ancient scripture – only integer numbers were understood and used.  Fractions were not defined.  The only possible meaning from that time period was that heaven was divided into 3 parts, one of which followed Lucifer.  There is no logic to assume that the 3 parts were numbered the same or even close to the same.  In reality, in terms of modern mathematics the comparative number that followed Lucifer could have been only 10% or less.

The important thing to remember is that heaven was divided into 3 parts or divisions.  We see this trinary division again following the flood through the three sons of Noah.  The three parts became known as the covenant, the gentiles and the infidels.   In the final judgement, mankind will be divided into three glories.  The telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. 

We are told in scripture that these glories are governed by laws, ordinances and covenants and that the glory is according to the laws, ordinances and covenants that are kept.  In the Book of Mormon (Alma) we learn that initially we were all the same and had the same opportunity but that some would exercise more faith and that only those that exercise greater faith will receive the priesthood.  This would imply that following the final judgement only those of celestial glory will receive the priesthood by ordinance.

According to prophesy we live in a time when all males (male by genetics) can be ordained to hold the priesthood.  This has not always been the case.  For example, in the time of Abraham we learn from scripture that only Abraham’s seed would hold the priesthood.

During the early times of the restoration – those of African decent were commanded to be held from the priesthood until events from our current generation.  I have always assumed and believed that the priesthood would become standard only as a necessary preparation for the coming Messiah.

It is speculation on my part that the time will come when the priesthood (priesthood powers) will not be maintained by any single individual but only through those entering into the divine law, ordinance and covenant of marriage.   At which time men and women will be equal partners under the order of the priesthood.   Whatever authority anything is accomplished in eternity will be channeled and directed through Celestial Kings and Queens (priest and priestesses) that control the keys of the priesthood.

 

The Traveler

I see the trinary division as: 1) those coming into the second estate as accountable; 2) those not accountable; and 3) those never coming into the second estate. The second part are the more valiant of the three.

[CV75]

On 12/6/2024 at 5:55 PM, Maverick said:

A common belief in the church today is that the Priesthood ban began with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith. In this thread evidence will be provided showing that the ban began with Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young, and that it was in place since ancient times. 

We'll begin with contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith.

From the Book of Abraham:

In Abraham 1 Joseph Smith revealed that the descendants of Ham through Canaan were under a divine curse that was instituted after the flood through the prophet Noah in which they were cursed "pertaining to the priesthood" and "could not have the right of Priesthood."

In a letter to Oliver Cowdery that was published in the Messenger and Advoctate Joseph Smith identified black Africans as descendants of Canaan and under a divine curse which remained in effect in his day:

In the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis (Moses 7) Joseph Smith revealed that Canaanites and descendants of Cain are black:

In additions to identifying black Africans as descendants of Canaan and declaring that they were under a divine curse, Joseph Smith also identified them as descendants of Cain:

From these statements its clear that Joseph Smith considered blacks to be Canaanites and descendants of Cain and under a divine curse that included being cursed from holding the priesthood. 

In 1847, apostle Parley P. Pratt, who had been personally tutored by Joseph Smith, made a direct connection to the priesthood curse mentioned in Abraham and applied it to William McCary, a member of the church who was of African decent, by stating:

The most logical conclusion is that he was taught this by Joseph Smith, since it fits with Joseph Smith having identified black Africans as Canaanites and declaring them under a divine curse from at least the days of Noah.
 

I see this as a lesson in sticking to the basic Gospel principles for spiritual purposes and to sound scholarship for intellectual purposes. Even a prophet can deploy incomplete scholarship while holding the keys to the fundamental principles of salvation and exaltation. It takes generations for fallible prophets and members to build upon the shoulders of their predecessors to balance things like these more spiritually and intellectually. I do emphasize building over reminiscing and wallowing in error.

[Carborendum]

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

We'll begin with contemporaneously recorded teachings of Joseph Smith.

OK.  Where is it?

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

From the Book of Abraham:

<Abraham 1: 21-27 with bolded portions for emphasis>

In Abraham 1 Joseph Smith revealed that the descendants of Ham through Canaan were under a divine curse that was instituted after the flood through the prophet Noah in which they were cursed "pertaining to the priesthood" and "could not have the right of Priesthood."

1. That's Abraham.  Not Joseph Smith.  Do you have a commentary from Joseph about this passage?
2. It says that he did not have the Patriarchal Priesthood from Ham because that dispensation handed priesthood down from father to eldest righteous son.  While the Bible doesn't clearly state who was oldest, Ham did not qualify because of his debasing his own father.  Further, we're pretty sure that Shem inherited the priesthood birthright.
3. The Egyptians were a Semitic People (Not black) during the period of 2000-1500 BC (timeframe from Abraham to Jacob).
4. Canaanites were not ethnically different from any of the other Abrahamic peoples. was the land where the Abrahamic peoples originated.  Nothing to do with Sub-Saharan Africa.  In fact, Egypt is not part of Sub-Saharan Africa.

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

In a letter to Oliver Cowdery that was published in the Messenger and Advoctate Joseph Smith identified black Africans as descendants of Canaan and under a divine curse which remained in effect in his day:

He was saying this as a political maneuver to argue for "gradual emancipation" (which was the position of Joseph Smith at the time) and laws which might give slaves some protections from mistreatment.  This was an effort to soften the often extreme tactics of abolitionists of the day (much like Antifa during Trump's first term).  This is not a religious or prophetic pronouncement at all.  It's politics.

Nothing about that statement says it was divinely inspired. He was spouting off the common beliefs of the day that Shem's children were Asians, Ham's children were Africans, and Japeth's children were Europeans.  But that is not factual. 

I'd be happy to claim heritage to Shem when you cannot.  He was, after all, the King of Righteousness to whom even Father Abraham gave homage.  I was alive and conscious in 1978.  So, where is my homage, eh? 

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

In the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis (Moses 7) Joseph Smith revealed that Canaanites and descendants of Cain are black:

No, it does not. 

Quote

And there was a blackness come upon all the children of Canaan that they were despised among all people.

Says nothing about their skin.  You must be pretty racist to believe that anyone would intuitively despise someone for having darker skin.  That refers to their souls, their culture, and their emotional makeup.  They were a miserable and corrupt people.

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

In additions to identifying black Africans as descendants of Canaan and declaring that they were under a divine curse, Joseph Smith also identified them as descendants of Cain:

Again, no sign that this was divinely revealed.  It was a common belief of the time. 

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

From these statements its clear that Joseph Smith considered blacks to be Canaanites and descendants of Cain and under a divine curse that included being cursed from holding the priesthood. 

Nope.  Anything said in casual conversation by a prophet does not automatically become doctrine.

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

In 1847, apostle Parley P. Pratt, who had been personally tutored by Joseph Smith, made a direct connection to the priesthood curse mentioned in Abraham and applied it to William McCary, a member of the church who was of African decent, by stating:

I've already addressed that.

23 hours ago, Maverick said:

The most logical conclusion is that he was taught this by Joseph Smith, since it fits with Joseph Smith having identified black Africans as Canaanites and declaring them under a divine curse from at least the days of Noah.

AH-HAAH-HAHHH !!!!!!!

I'm done.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I do emphasize building over reminiscing and wallowing in error.

It’s your opinion that these teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors were an error. But I disagree, I believe that they taught the truth. 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Maverick

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see the trinary division as: 1) those coming into the second estate as accountable; 2) those not accountable; and 3) those never coming into the second estate. The second part are the more valiant of the three.

You hold infants to such high standards

 

[Maverick]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  Where is it?

This is obviously a disingenuous question as every quote except for the last one is a contemporaneously recorded statement by Joseph Smith. 

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's Abraham.  Not Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith gave us these words of Abraham and considered them to be true teachings revealed by God. 

47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The Egyptians were a Semitic People (Not black) during the period of 2000-1500 BC (timeframe from Abraham to Jacob).
4. Canaanites were not ethnically different from any of the other Abrahamic peoples. was the land where the Abrahamic peoples originated.

Joseph Smith disagreed. He identified black Africans as Canaanites. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No, it does not. 

Yes, it does. It’s literally in the verses from Moses 7 I quoted. In his inspired translation, Joseph Smith said that a blackness had come upon the Canaanites and that the descendants of Cain were black. 

You say it’s not about skin, but Joseph Smith clearly disagreed since he identified black Africans as Canaanites and descendants of Cain. You can believe he was wrong, but that’s what he taught. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Again, no sign that this was divinely revealed.  It was a common belief of the time. 

Again, you’re welcome to believe that Joseph Smith was wrong, but he clearly taught that black Africans were under a divine curse instituted by God through his prophet Noah upon the descendants of Canaan. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

AH-HAAH-HAHHH !!!!!!!

I just can’t take you seriously after this response. Very disrespectful and condescending. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm done.

I hope this is true, if all you’re going to do is try to debunk all the evidence you don’t like in the condescending way you have thus far.

But if you change your mind and decide you want to be civil, I’m happy to converse with you. Otherwise I will only respond for the benefit of others who may be reading this thread. 
 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

It’s your opinion that these teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors were an error. But I disagree, I believe that they taught the truth. 

Of course they taught the truth. There is also nothing wrong with teaching error when the spirit of repentance and progress are employed as Joseph Smith and his successors exemplified so well. He and Brigham would admit when they knew they were wrong or mistaken or in error and make adjustments -- in cases like this they simply did not know what we do, and only knew the accepted history of the time. And so what? Unfortunately many of their admirers and followers do not walk their path in this regard. The teachings and the covenants of salvation and exaltation were restored and taught by Joseph Smith. He also taught his good-faith (but faulty) interpretation of history according to the standards of the time -- what else was he to do? He did the same with financial decisions, banking, farming, settling, etc. I try not to squander my opportunities holding to erroneous notions of the past. My testimony and covenant path is in his prophetic calling, not these kinds of teachings and other failures/failings, real or imagined, anyone wishes to exploit. He did his best and well enough to accomplish all he did by the grace of the Lord.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You hold infants to such high standards

 

I'll defer to Joseph Smith's remarks on infants. Anyone inclined to rank Heavenly Father's children need to remember that abiding mortality into accountability suggests their own third part were not as pure and lovely in the pre-existence as the third part who do not abide that long.

[Maverick]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course they taught the truth. There is also nothing wrong with teaching error when the spirit of repentance and progress are employed as Joseph Smith and his successors exemplified so well. He and Brigham would admit when they knew they were wrong or mistaken or in error and make adjustments -- in cases like this they simply did not know what we do, and only knew the accepted history of the time. And so what? Unfortunately many of their admirers and followers do not walk their path in this regard. The teachings and the covenants of salvation and exaltation were restored and taught by Joseph Smith. He also taught his good-faith (but faulty) interpretation of history according to the standards of the time -- what else was he to do? He did the same with financial decisions, banking, farming, settling, etc. I try not to squander my opportunities holding to erroneous notions of the past. My testimony and covenant path is in his prophetic calling, not these kinds of teachings and other failures/failings, real or imagined, anyone wishes to exploit. He did his best and well enough to accomplish all he did by the grace of the Lord.

While I can respect your opinion that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. were simply products of their time who taught falsehoods as doctrine because they were blinded by cultural racism and other serious blindspots, I respectfully disagree. I believe that what they taught about the curse upon black people and the priesthood ban was true doctrine revealed to them by God. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On the *limited* issue of whether the ban originated with Joseph Smith or not, the following strike me as fair observations:

1.  Smith believed God had, on multiple occasions, created several racial castes to distinguish the posterity of “blessed” individuals from posterity of “cursed” ones.

2.  Roughly-contemporaneous evidence suggests that Smith seemed to believe that African Americans were subject to some kind of unspecified cursing, but that he also was not altogether comfortable with slavery as practiced in the antebellum USA.

3.  Smith approved the ordination of Elijah Abel.  Whether he knew at the time of Abel’s AA ancestry is unknown.

4.  Even after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young didn’t see any basis for a race-based priesthood ban; as evidenced by his exchanged with William McCary in 1846.

5.  Recollections of JS stating that whatever “curse” may have applied to AAs specifically banned their priesthood ordination, tend to be very late.  That doesn’t make them wrong, necessarily—a staggering amount of our documentation about JS’s life and teachings comes from folks who recorded their recollections many decades after his death.  But it does mean that we can take less for granted about this topic than we think we can.  If we take Coltrin and Smoot (who was a slaveowner and therefore not exactly impartial) at face value, then we also have to take the very-noticeably-AA Jane Manning at face value; and she recalled that JS was willing to take her as a plural wife in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage—suggesting that JS had no problem with blacks receiving temple ordinances.

6.  Even if the ban didn’t explicitly come from JS—or, even if the reasons given for the ban turned out to be incorrect or doctrinally unsound—that doesn’t make the ban itself wrong.  A number of doctrines and practices that we hold very dear in the church were implemented and accepted as logical extensions of Joseph Smith’s teachings but were never clearly articulated by him.  And other church leaders (especially President Oaks) have spoken about the dangers of assuming the “why” when all revelation has really given us is the “what”.  I’ve hinted at this before, but . . . I happen to think (and this is all speculative, of course) that if McCary had been able to plausibly and publicly allege an LDS priesthood ordination, he could have created a Black Mormonism that would have rejected the authority of the 12 and could have created real problems for the Church as it tried to expand into the American South and, decades later, into the African continent.  As it was, his movement grew like wildfire in Cincinnati for a couple of months.  (I also think that without the priesthood ban the Church would have joined the colonial scramble for Africa of the late 19th and early 20th centuries—distracting from fruitful efforts elsewhere, depleting much-needed resources, and potentially creating a 21st-century legacy of bad feelings in Africa that would be much worse than anything it currently faces there.  Church critics often perseverate on the ban because they’re hoping the Church will send them a fat reparations check . . . forgetting that if we had spent our first 150 years propping up a large membership in the economic South, we’d have no resources left from which to allocate those coveted reparations payments.)

Edited December 8, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Maverick]

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Recollections of JS stating that whatever “curse” may have applied to AAs specifically banned their priesthood ordination, tend to be very late.  That doesn’t make them wrong, necessarily—a staggering amount of our documentation about JS’s life and teachings comes from folks who recorded their recollections many decades after his death.  But it does mean that we can take less for granted about this topic than we think we can.  If we take Coltrin and Smoot (who was a slaveowner and therefore not exactly impartial) at face value, then we also have to take the very-noticeably-AA Jane Manning at face value; and she recalled that JS was willing to take her as a plural wife in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage—suggesting that JS had no problem with blacks receiving temple ordinances.

1. Zebedee Coltrin’s testimony is much more important than Abraham O. Smoot’s. He is also a very reliable witness, who was intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith, had seen multiple visions including of God the Father and Jesus Christ together with Joseph Smith, and didn’t own slaves. 

2. Do you have a source for Jane Manning James claiming that Joseph Smith wanted her sealed to him as his wife? My understanding is that he and Emma had considered adopting her as a daughter, not as a plural wife. Joseph Smith is also on record opposing interracial marriage between blacks and whites. 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

While I can respect your opinion that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. were simply products of their time who taught falsehoods as doctrine because they were blinded by cultural racism and other serious blindspots, I respectfully disagree. I believe that what they taught about the curse upon black people and the priesthood ban was true doctrine revealed to them by God. 

You are misrepresenting what I said and how I said it, which displays how you are in far greater error than they, and their successors if you take exception to their management of this matter. As far as what you believe, “It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine" (Joseph Smith). Keep the faith!

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You are misrepresenting what I said and how I said it, which displays how you are in far greater error than they, and their successors if you take exception to their management of this matter. As far as what you believe, “It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine" (Joseph Smith). Keep the faith!

Can you please clarify what you meant regarding Joseph and Brigham being in error regarding their teachings about this, since I apparently unintentionally misunderstood what you meant?

And can you please explain why you consider me to be in greater error than they were for believing that their teachings were correct and given to them by God? 

Great quote by Joseph Smith btw. The fact that we disagree on the doctrinal accuracy of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young on this point doesn’t make either of us bad men, regardless of of which one of us is in error on this issue. 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Maverick