Evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

what you need to show is whether Joseph Smith implemented the ban, and not Brigham Young as the essay says

This essay doesn't say that Brigham Young implemented the ban, not Joseph Smith. The essay states that Brigham Young publicly announced the ban in 1852. He also publicly announced plural marriage that year, too, yet we know that it was started by Joseph Smith privately at least a decade earlier. The scholar who wrote the essay didn't consider the evidence that Joseph Smith denied black men the priesthood reliable, but there was no definitive declaration that the ban did not begin with Joseph Smith. 

[MrShorty]

I've been following with interest, since this is becoming a major part of my own faith crisis.

I don't have any answers to contribute. The observation I want to make is how the church is seeming divided on this topic. I noted with interest the data from the B. H. Roberts foundation showing the church just about evenly split over the origins of the priesthood and temple ban. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/  I wonder to what extent this will become a truly divisive issue in the church, or if we will figure out how to be (uncomfortably?) at ease with members believing different things about the ban.

I would suggest that, if it is important that we as a church unite ourselves behind one side or another on this issue, it seems to me that we have a long way to go to realize that kind of unity.

[zil2]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I was making a jab at the typo in his post.

Oooooh.  I went back and looked at the original, not what I had quoted - he had fixed it by then, so it was very confusing - you should have double-quoted, then I might have caught on.  Sorry for being dense.

[Maverick]

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

You have to demonstrate that those interpretations were given when they were "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

I don't have to prove that their statements were made as "moved upon by the Holy Ghost." When prophets make official doctrinal statements in their capacity as prophets, then the belief is that this was given to them by God through the Holy Ghost. That holds true then and it holds true now. If there are contradictions between different prophets on a subject, then it's up to us to receive personal revelation on the matter for ourselves.

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Moses 7:7-8 says

7 And the Lord said unto me [Enoch]: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

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.

Enoch uses words that indicate the curse will happen in the future. To conclude that they are the same curse, you will need to demonstrate that Enoch lived before Cain killed Abel.

You didn't bold the most important key word "and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." Came is past tense, not future tense. Thus the blackness had come upon them before the incident with the people of Shum. 

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This doesn't really bolster your argument at all. You're effectively saying, "well, the land was cursed except for where it wasn't." 

I didn't bring up the land being barren and unfruitful to bolster my point. You brought that up. Now it's on you to show that the Canaanites (whoever you believe they are) all lived in a land that was exclusively barren and unfruitful from then until the present day. Otherwise your interpretation of this verse doesn't hold up. 

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Furthermore, this doesn't establish a lineage between Cain and Egyptus. 

I don't have to prove a lineage between Cain and Egyptus. It's a valid conclusion from the text and from the statements of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. It's also mentioned in the guide to the scriptures, lets not forget that.

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The Hyksos wouldn't have been interested in the area if it didn't have value. What it seems like you're saying is that Egypt was barren until Hyksos kicked out the Canaanites. And then Egypt flourished. And then the Egyptians (Canaanites) came back, and the land continued to flourish.  Why didn't the curse return?

Again, I don't think your interpretation that all Canaanites would forever live in a land that was 100% barren and unfruitful holds up at all. But the Hyksos conquest and the subsequent return to power of the original Canaanite Egyptians is significant. 

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

It is at best inconclusive

I acknowledged that the evidence from this data point is not definitive already. That doesn't mean it's not worth considering. 

21 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

what the Lord's seer brought forth does not support your conclusion.

The teachings of the Lord's seer about black Africans being Canaanites and descendants of Cain and under a divine curse that remained to that day absolutely support my conclusion that the ban began with him and that it was put in place by God. 
 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Between Noah and Joseph of Egypt, there was sufficient intermarrying that all of Egypt had mixed ethnicity. 

This is an assumption on your part. Moses 7 talks about the Canaanites or descendants of Cain being separate from the rest of the human family and not mixing with them. God also commanded the Israelites through Moses not to intermarry with the Canaanites specifically. So it’s reasonable to conclude that the Canaanites were not generally mixed in with the other races in Moses’ day. 

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Joseph took an Egyptian princess (Potiphar's daughter, Asenath) to wife.  She gave birth to both Ephraim and Menasseh. 

If we believe that the "curse" (if any) was transferred to the Egyptians through Egyptus, then we must also believe that all the restoration of the Gospel should never have happened through the line of Ephraim.

No, because the Hyksos (who were ethnically similar to the Hebrews), not the original Canaanite Egyptians, had conquered Egypt and were ruling it at the time of Joseph. So Joseph would have married a Hykso princess, not a Canaanite one. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Maverick

[Vort]

I feel on both sides of the increasingly zigzagging fence with this thread, so to be clear, let me state my understandings and opinions:

• The so-called Priesthood ban was instituted by the highest leadership in the Church, either Brigham Young or Joseph Smith.
• The Priesthood ban required a divine revelation to be removed. A simple "change in policy" was insufficient.
• In my opinion, God Himself was probably the Being with whom the Priesthood ban originated. I admit that it is possible that the Church's president (Smith or Young) made that decision on their own, but I disbelieve that.
• Assuming that God was the Author of the Priesthood ban, which is the default position and the one I tend to believe, I do not know why He instituted the ban.
  • But the speculation as to "why" has some pretty evident answers, historically and scripturally. I am talking specifically about the now-disavowed* theories of why African blacks were excluded from holding the Priesthood and from post-baptismal temple blessings.
  • The fact that those theories have been "disavowed" does not mean they have been proclaimed false. These answers may or may not have validity. They may be fundamentally right, or they may be totally wrong. The often-advanced claim that the theories have been disavowed by the Church, and therefore have been proclaimed to have been false, is itself false.
• In matters of scriptural interpretation, I tend to agree pretty closely with @Maverick. I have no problem owning the previous teachings of the Church. I feel not the least bit of shame or embarrassment over the Church's doctrines or actions, any more than I might somehow feel ashamed to own Jesus Christ. I am not ashamed. I stand with the prophets, even in my (and their) imperfections.
• In matters of current teachings, I fully accept the 1978 revelation (which, by the way, was received with great joy not only by my 15-year-old self, but by everyone in my family—and frankly by everyone in the Church that I knew). While I have no shame or guilt or any other foolish negativity toward the Church's previous teachings and practices, I rejoice that the long-promised day came in my lifetime, and even in my childhood/very young adulthood.
• I hold in contempt any opinions advanced by any party or "side" that suggest that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or any other Church leaders were racist. When those opinions suggest that the racism of the leaders was the actual reason for the Priesthood ban, I consider that a disloyal and contemptible opinion, one for which I have zero respect.
• We really, actually, truly did live before this life. We lived for a very long time, much longer than the history of this earth. During that time we made decisions, and we progressed (or failed to progress) based on those decisions. We had our agency, and we exercised that agency. Exactly how this inarguable truth might interface with the Priesthood ban, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone else knows. But to think that our premortal life/lives and our decisions made in our premortal history can have no bearing on our station in this life beggars the imagination.
• I have no interest in arguing about the Priesthood ban. Rather, I have an intense interest in arguing for and defending the integrity of the prophets. To chalk the Priesthood ban up to prophetic ignorance or racism or stupidity or any other antiChrist motive is, in my view, dishonorable and disloyal. I will speak up against such heretical statements when I can. If people want to think that makes me a racist, I welcome the false accusation, and believe it will be heaped on the heads of the false accusers. If you think to damn me for "racism", you damn yourselves for your false witness.

* "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Edited December 10, 2024 by Vort

[Vort]

7 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I was right with you in your analysis until I reached this. I believe this is patently false, and I believe that any in-depth reading of the Book of Mormon shows that, as a culture and through time, the Nephites were in fact much less racist than they have been portrayed. Frankly, they are notable not for their racism, but rather for their lack of racism.

I'm going to have a little fun with you here, because if you go back to my original posting where I lay out the justification of my claim of Nephite racism, you're among the people who liked it. At the time you seemed to have no objection. 

So what changed? 😝

That I found your overall post helpful and insightful doesn't imply that I agreed with every point. You referenced an earlier post of yours, where you argued a more nuanced position—not one that I necessarily agree with completely, but one which I find, again, helpful and insightful. I appreciate your incisive and insightful comments. I will still argue that the Nephites, as a group, were very remarkably not racist, all things considered. But I also realize that the "Nephites were racist!" trope is common in LDS circles, so I'm not shocked by the claim.

I am happy to see you back. You have been missed (even if the feeling is not reciprocated). Welcome back.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

This essay doesn't say that Brigham Young implemented the ban, not Joseph Smith. The essay states that Brigham Young publicly announced the ban in 1852. He also publicly announced plural marriage that year, too, yet we know that it was started by Joseph Smith privately at least a decade earlier. The scholar who wrote the essay didn't consider the evidence that Joseph Smith denied black men the priesthood reliable, but there was no definitive declaration that the ban did not begin with Joseph Smith. 

So why should the essay use what the scholars considered unreliable evidence or make an unsubstantiated declaration about Joseph Smith based on absence of proof? The essay is built on better scholarship than what you are proposing.

But most significantly, you haven't provided the reliable evidence that Joseph denied black men the priesthood in practice (the ban), or that he started the practice.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I've been following with interest, since this is becoming a major part of my own faith crisis.

I don't have any answers to contribute. The observation I want to make is how the church is seeming divided on this topic. I noted with interest the data from the B. H. Roberts foundation showing the church just about evenly split over the origins of the priesthood and temple ban. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/  I wonder to what extent this will become a truly divisive issue in the church, or if we will figure out how to be (uncomfortably?) at ease with members believing different things about the ban.

I would suggest that, if it is important that we as a church unite ourselves behind one side or another on this issue, it seems to me that we have a long way to go to realize that kind of unity.

1. Being at ease with members believing different things on one topic or another is a matter of personal tolerance. The world or the Church isn't going to end just because members have differing views. In this topic, there are many more than just two "sides" also.

2. For this reason, I don't think it important that the covenant-keeping members unite on much more than the Lord and the choice to remain members of the Church on that basis.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Being at ease with members believing different things on one topic or another is a matter of personal tolerance. The world or the Church isn't going to end just because members have differing views

Well said.

[Maverick]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I've been following with interest, since this is becoming a major part of my own faith crisis.

I don't have any answers to contribute. The observation I want to make is how the church is seeming divided on this topic. I noted with interest the data from the B. H. Roberts foundation showing the church just about evenly split over the origins of the priesthood and temple ban. https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/  I wonder to what extent this will become a truly divisive issue in the church, or if we will figure out how to be (uncomfortably?) at ease with members believing different things about the ban.

I would suggest that, if it is important that we as a church unite ourselves behind one side or another on this issue, it seems to me that we have a long way to go to realize that kind of unity.

I think the days of the church taking a hardline stance on controversial or sensitive issues, like insisting that the origin of the priesthood ban came from God and expecting the members to all accept that, are over. Today the idea seems to be to allow for diversity of thought and for people to pretty much believe whatever they want to if it keeps them in the boat. 

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

So why should the essay use what the scholars considered unreliable evidence or make an unsubstantiated declaration about Joseph Smith based on absence of proof?

The church is in a tough spot on this issue because anything that can be construed as racial prejudice is completely taboo in our society today. There's little to be gained for the church in trying to provide a doctrinal defense for the legitimacy of the ban, now that it has been lifted for over 40 years. It's much easier to just say that none of the previous explanations are considered doctrine today, that church doesn't consider dark skin to be a sign of divine disfavor today, or that interracial marriage is wrong today and leave it at that. 

I don't think the intent of the essay was to provide good scholarship and fully address the issue at all. I think the original intended purpose was to provide an answer for people who are deeply troubled by the ban and having a faith crisis over it. The essay made no attempt to provide all of the relevant information about the ban and to thoroughly address it. The goal appears to have been to give those who find the ban deeply disturbing the ability to write it off as mistaken policy that was the result of unjustified cultural prejudice in society at large, while also leaving room for those who believe that the ban was from God to continue to believe that as well.

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

But most significantly, you haven't provided the reliable evidence that Joseph denied black men the priesthood in practice (the ban), or that he started the practice.

I don't know why you keep pressing me for this. I said I will provide it in a separate post soon, and I will. I just need a little bit of time to track down links for the original sources so people can verify the information for themselves. I want to do my due diligence. Please be patient. I'll provide the information soon. 

 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems worth noting that the question of whether the priesthood/temple ban originated with Joseph Smith, is quite distinct from the question of whether the ban reflected what God wanted the Church to be doing during the time that the ban was in force.  A response of "no" to the first question (which seems to be the primary topic of this thread), does not preclude an answer of "yes" to the second. 

As to the first question:  I tend to be an "institutionalist".  I think that generally speaking, professional Church historians (and by this I mean, primarily, those employed by the Church) are acting in good faith.  If they say there's no good evidence that JS originated the ban--I'm inclined to believe them.

At the same time:  I think @Maverick has raised some points that, frankly, I don't recall either Church historians or some of the acknowledged "experts" like Paul Reeve, et al, bring up.

And frankly, whatever policies re ordination Joseph Smith did or didn't implement:  He left us with a heck of a lot of scriptural evidence that God does sometimes consider certain lineal groups "cursed"--both in a general sense, and in a Gospel/sacerdotal-privileges context.  And while we're generally quick to impute "racism" in Brigham Young while denying/excusing it in Joseph Smith:  Smith seems to have genuinely thought that African Americans of his day were "cursed", at least in a very general sense.  It doesn't take a dyed-in-the-wool racist to look at the breadcrumbs Joseph Smith left, and "connect the dots" in the way that Pratt, Young, Taylor, Smith, et al. subsequently did.

I think historians, and even professional Church historians, do tend to lean a little bit leftwards.  I don't think most of them are mentally/emotionally prepared to grapple with a God who would deliberately do something that most of them openly describe as "racist".  (And a subset of them, frankly, see this as "battlespace prep" in trying to erode the credibility of the current crop of apostles on LGBTQ issues).  And I think these professional historians' work on this particular issue can't help but reflect these biases.  It's rather like secular historians who try to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon but start with the proposition that it just couldn't have been what Joseph Smith said it was--props to them for being true to themselves, I guess . . . but the simple fact is that they aren't truly willing to fearlessly go wherever the evidence takes them, and so the result of their work is somewhat compromised.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Maverick]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

• The so-called Priesthood ban was instituted by the highest leadership in the Church, either Brigham Young or Joseph Smith.
• The Priesthood ban required a divine revelation to be removed. A simple "change in policy" was insufficient.
• In my opinion, God Himself was probably the Being with whom the Priesthood ban originated.

These are excellent points. Bullet points 1 and 2 support bullet point 3, that God was the one with whom the ban originated. There have been many "policies" in the church that have been changed without a revelation like the one in OD-2, even long standing ones. In modern times Church presidents David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee prayed to know if they should lift the ban and reported being told by God not to lift it at that time. The only reasonable explanation for this is that God was the author of the ban. 

14 hours ago, Vort said:

• But the speculation as to "why" has some pretty evident answers, historically and scripturally. I am talking specifically about the now-disavowed* theories of why African blacks were excluded from holding the Priesthood and from post-baptismal temple blessings.
• The fact that those theories have been "disavowed" does not mean they have been proclaimed false. These answers may or may not have validity. They may be fundamentally right, or they may be totally wrong. The often-advanced claim that the theories have been disavowed by the Church, and therefore have been proclaimed to have been false, is itself false.

Great points here as well. You are correct that it's a false claim that the statement by the church that TODAY previous explanations are disavowed means that they have been declared false. All it means is that the church doesn't believe that they apply today and that they are no longer considered doctrinally binding upon the church membership. Logically and scripturally, at least some of the past explanations are far more sound than chalking the whole thing up to unfortunate racial prejudice common in the mid 1800s. 

14 hours ago, Vort said:

We really, actually, truly did live before this life. We lived for a very long time, much longer than the history of this earth. During that time we made decisions, and we progressed (or failed to progress) based on those decisions. We had our agency, and we exercised that agency. Exactly how this inarguable truth might interface with the Priesthood ban, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone else knows. But to think that our premortal life/lives and our decisions made in our premortal history can have no bearing on our station in this life beggars the imagination.

There's no question in my mind that our action or inaction before this mortal probation impact our station in this life. In my opinion it's completely illogical to believe otherwise. 

14 hours ago, Vort said:

To chalk the Priesthood ban up to prophetic ignorance or racism or stupidity or any other antiChrist motive is, in my view, dishonorable and disloyal. I will speak up against such heretical statements when I can. If people want to think that makes me a racist, I welcome the false accusation, and believe it will be heaped on the heads of the false accusers. If you think to damn me for "racism", you damn yourselves for your false witness.

I have similar sentiments. I believe that the ban came from God and that it wasn't a product of ignorance and racism by past prophets. I believe that the ban was scripturally and theological sound and will defend the ban as having been instituted by God, even if that means I am falsely accused of racism by those who disagree. 

 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

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

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

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

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

I think the days of the church taking a hardline stance on controversial or sensitive issues, like insisting that the origin of the priesthood ban came from God and expecting the members to all accept that, are over. Today the idea seems to be to allow for diversity of thought and for people to pretty much believe whatever they want to if it keeps them in the boat. 

The church is in a tough spot on this issue because anything that can be construed as racial prejudice is completely taboo in our society today. There's little to be gained for the church in trying to provide a doctrinal defense for the legitimacy of the ban, now that it has been lifted for over 40 years. It's much easier to just say that none of the previous explanations are considered doctrine today, that church doesn't consider dark skin to be a sign of divine disfavor today, or that interracial marriage is wrong today and leave it at that. 

I don't think the intent of the essay was to provide good scholarship and fully address the issue at all. I think the original intended purpose was to provide an answer for people who are deeply troubled by the ban and having a faith crisis over it. The essay made no attempt to provide all of the relevant information about the ban and to thoroughly address it. The goal appears to have been to give those who find the ban deeply disturbing the ability to write it off as mistaken policy that was the result of unjustified cultural prejudice in society at large, while also leaving room for those who believe that the ban was from God to continue to believe that as well.

I don't know why you keep pressing me for this. I said I will provide it in a separate post soon, and I will. I just need a little bit of time to track down links for the original sources so people can verify the information for themselves. I want to do my due diligence. Please be patient. I'll provide the information soon. 

 

I keep pressing you for this because you keep saying tangential stuff already addressed broadly in the essay that warrants the refocus. Impatience has nothing to do with it.

You should have had this at the ready, holding yourself to the same standard of diligence you suggest for the essay writers, instead of belaboring the soapbox.

 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You should have had this at the ready

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

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

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

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

Edited December 10, 2024 by CV75

[Maverick]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

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

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

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

Whatever you want to tell yourself.  

Edited December 10, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

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

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

Whatever you want to tell yourself.  

I am taking these sources at face value. They are not reliable for the essay to state that Joseph Smith instituted the ban. I don't think you know what you're doing. Attaching a bad motive is a logical fallacy, and you continue to commit several.

 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I am taking these sources at face value.

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

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

You’re projecting. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

You’re projecting. 

Now you're making it weird. And still full of logical fallacies according to these three lines. Clearly you don't know any better. Your understanding of evidence reminds me of the kindly elderly gentlemen, ostensibly a tour guide at the Conference Center in SLC, who followed me around with his loose-leaf book of photos of showcasing Nephite petroglyphs, including Moroni's signature: the letters "M-O-R" engraved above an etching of a human eye: Mor-on-eye, Moroni. Clear as the nose on your face.

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

Why don't you send your collection and treatise to the Church History Office and ask them to comment on how the evidence reasonably proves that Joseph Smith instituted the ban?

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

You're projecting again.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

Sounds good. 

[NeuroTypical]

Alrighty folks, this thread has run its course.  Just a reminder of the site rules.  Y'all agreed to them when you signed up.  You can find the link at the top of every page.