More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Maverick]

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

2. They were descendants of Cain

3. They were descendants of Canaan

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

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

6. The curse included black skin

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited December 14, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

This added phrase suggests that the curse put upon Canaan referred to black Africans and that the mark of the curse that was put upon them was black skin so that they could be identified among all men throughout the succeeding generations. This appears to be how Joseph Smith understood it anyway, since he felt inspired to add this specific phrase, as he worked to restore plain and precious truths that had been lost from the Bible, and based on his other teachings about this scripture and its connection to black Africans in his day.

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

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

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

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

So we have two apostles, who were personally tutored by Joseph Smith, teaching that the curse upon black Africans included a curse "pertaining to the Priesthood" within 9 months and 3 years of the Prophets death, respectively. Both statements were made well before Brigham Young's public announcement of the ban in 1852, suggesting that this was taught to them by Joseph Smith and/or the Holy Ghost, not Brigham Young. 

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

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

2. They were descendants of Cain

3. They were descendants of Canaan

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

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

6. The curse included black skin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might as well assert the ban began with God then, and skip all the middle men! But the ban as a formal policy for the Church organization is something very different from misunderstood scripture (doctrine). Drawing conclusions from loose possibilities and likelihoods is not good historical scholarship and is why your conclusions/beliefs about Joseph Smith do not appear in the Church essay. 

[Maverick]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

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

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

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

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

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

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

Edited December 14, 2024 by Maverick

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You might as well assert the ban began with God then, and skip all the middle men! But the ban as a formal policy for the Church organization is something very different from misunderstood scripture (doctrine). Drawing conclusions from loose possibilities and likelihoods is not good historical scholarship and is why your conclusions/beliefs about Joseph Smith do not appear in the Church essay. 

The thing is—when it comes to Joseph Smith and LDS doctrine, we do that quite a lot.

The endowment as administered when the St George Temple was completed (or the one today) looked very different then the one Joseph Smith administered in 1842; but we (rightly, I think) tell ourselves that many of those later changes were simply syntheses of concepts JS had begun to visualize but perhaps not fully articulated or developed.

Ditto for temple marriage as we know it today.

Ditto for parent-child sealings, a ritual that we have no evidence Joseph Smith ever did.

Ditto for much of what we understand about proxy temple work and the need to work out our genealogies.

Many of our modern conceptions about “spirit birth” and what happens to children who are resurrected, don’t perfectly square with what we know Joseph at times taught.  And on, and on, and on.

We’ve implemented far more radical changes in the Church, for reasons whose linkage to Joseph Smith’s teachings are far more tenuous; and we generally have no trouble accepting that if Joseph Smith had been alive today he would have welcomed these developments as the further light and knowledge God has always promised to unveil for the faithful.

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

Even among professional historians and anthropologists:  “Drawing conclusions from loose possibilities and likelihoods“, is a hallmark of their trades; because the surviving evidence is often so sparse and fragmentary.  Whether we’re talking about the identity and use of stone-age tools, or Joseph Smith’s marital trends, or the 1619 Project—professional historians extrapolate and yes, even speculate, to startling degrees; and much of that is a fairly transparent attempt to overly their own political values or notions of social justice onto past events and trends.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[laronius]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. They were descendants of Cain

3. They were descendants of Canaan

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

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

6. The curse included black skin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

As I have said before, I tend to agree with many of your scriptural interpretations on this matter. They are the traditional interpretations, but as (or more) importantly, they seem to me to be the natural reading of the verses. Those explanations that try to pooh-pooh the whole matter—arguing that ancient curses don't mean modern curses or, more often, that "darkness" or even "dark skin" doesn't actually refer to dermal pigmentation, but rather to some form of "spiritual darkness" that becomes visible in one's countenance—ring very hollow to me. Such things seem to me as grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to avoid racial implications in what would, at any other time and place in history, be considered the obvious meaning of words.

(Anecdotally, one of the greatest supporters of the idea that some sort of premortal unworthiness or transgression was the motivation for the Priesthood ban—an idea of which I am not an advocate, just to be clear—was a marvelous African Church member in my previous stake. African, not African American; he and his wife had immigrated from an African country several years prior, and had had several children since arriving. He actually brought the issue up while we were chatting and sort of filled me in on his views. I was surprised that he was even familiar with the idea, much less that he agreed with it.)

However, despite the idea that dark skin may have been a mark of a curse (or, as JAG has pointed out, more likely a mark of protection) in this particular case, dark skin per se was never the doctrinal issue. As time passed in the Restoration, it became increasingly clear that dark-skinned members of non-subSaharan African origin could participate in Priesthood rites such as temple endowments, and obviously the men could hold the Priesthood. So this doctrine was a ban on a specific, narrowed subset of "dark-skinned people". Full-blooded American Indians of various tribes could be very dark-skinned indeed (ironically enough, something seemingly explained in the Book of Mormon itself as a curse of sorts), yet there was never any doubt that American Indians, as children of Lehi and heirs to the covenants of their fathers, could hold and exercise the Priesthood.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Vort

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Read in the context of the rest of his quote, for which you provide the link, it's clear that Joseph Smith was not talking about preventing intermarriage between whites and blacks. Rather, he was stating as clearly as possible that black people of his time were a downtrodden, enslaved people, and that if they had the societal and educational advantages that white people of the time had—remember that Joseph Smith's own formal education was measured in weeks rather than years, so we're not talking about a high level of education—that they would do as well as the white people had done.

(This was a remarkable statement for the time, something reminiscent of the things said by abolitionists. But while Joseph Smith clearly disapproved of slavery and proposed methods to abolish the abominable practice, he was no abolitionist in the political sense. Today we tend to think that abolitionists were these righteous, forward-thinking people acting with great integrity; but in Joseph Smith's time, abolitionists were considered a sort of extremist fringe group, even in the North. Later history would demonstrate that, in many instances, abolitionists like John Brown were not much more than domestic terrorists embracing extralegal means to enforce their own ideas. Think something like Antifa.)

Edited December 14, 2024 by Vort

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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

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

Edited December 14, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

14 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Edited December 14, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, laronius said:

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

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

Edited December 14, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

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

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

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

Yes, this thread is about your belief, based on your treatment of what you consider evidence, that Jospeh Smith instituted the ban.

Good historical scholarship is more than making interpretations based on the available evidence and asserting they are reasonable. It involves assessing the various qualities for reliability as linked to the subject event. It does not involve logical fallacies such as appealing to motive and ignorance as you have done regarding the Church essay. It also does not lay groundwork by defending a doctrinal bias based on poor scholarship. Hard work doesn’t count, either.

Let me know when you've provided your direct evidence by replying to this post -- please don't bother otherwise. Thank you!

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is—when it comes to Joseph Smith and LDS doctrine, we do that quite a lot.

The endowment as administered when the St George Temple was completed (or the one today) looked very different then the one Joseph Smith administered in 1842; but we (rightly, I think) tell ourselves that many of those later changes were simply syntheses of concepts JS had begun to visualize but perhaps not fully articulated or developed.

Ditto for temple marriage as we know it today.

Ditto for parent-child sealings, a ritual that we have no evidence Joseph Smith ever did.

Ditto for much of what we understand about proxy temple work and the need to work out our genealogies.

Many of our modern conceptions about “spirit birth” and what happens to children who are resurrected, don’t perfectly square with what we know Joseph at times taught.  And on, and on, and on.

We’ve implemented far more radical changes in the Church, for reasons whose linkage to Joseph Smith’s teachings are far more tenuous; and we generally have no trouble accepting that if Joseph Smith had been alive today he would have welcomed these developments as the further light and knowledge God has always promised to unveil for the faithful.

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

Even among professional historians and anthropologists:  “Drawing conclusions from loose possibilities and likelihoods“, is a hallmark of their trades; because the surviving evidence is often so sparse and fragmentary.  Whether we’re talking about the identity and use of stone-age tools, or Joseph Smith’s marital trends, or the 1619 Project—professional historians extrapolate and yes, even speculate, to startling degrees; and much of that is a fairly transparent attempt to overly their own political values or notions of social justice onto past events and trends.

This describes one contributing factor to bias, but does not justify poor historical scholarship as I think has been displayed here. Your penultimate paragraph is an example of an appeal to motive logical fallacy. I also see a distinction between a group of professionals who, despite their differences, create a quality essay and an individual who relies on loose possibilities an likelihoods to critique the essay in support of doctrinal bias.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

The most logical conclusion

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

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

We see what we want to see I guess…

[Maverick]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

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

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

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

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

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

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

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

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

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

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

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

Edited December 15, 2024 by Maverick

[askandanswer]

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

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

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

Edited December 15, 2024 by askandanswer

[Maverick]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Maverick

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

I don't have a better interpretation for who initiated the ban than the Church essay, which is clearly superior to yours. Please let me know when you show the solid evidentiary link between what Joseph Smith taught and his formalizing the ban that is stronger than that which is used in the Church essay for Brigham Young formalizing the ban. Retorts and refutations don't count.

[Maverick]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

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

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

[laronius]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

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

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

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

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

You keep insisting that my interpretation of the evidence is no good, yet you refuse to provide what you believe is a better explanation.

You've said something like this multiple times.  Please note that the following statement is not me taking sides on this issue - as I mentioned before, I couldn't care less about this topic.  Rather it is frustration with your apparent blind spot.

One does not need to have a "better" explanation to find your own unconvincing.  One can simply find that "we don't have enough information to draw conclusions" and leave it at that.  In other words, one does not have to accept whichever suggested understanding appears to have the most / best evidence or to be the most "logical conclusion".  One can say, "none of them have enough evidence".  In still other words, it's perfectly OK to take the position of "we just don't know".

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

Personally, I think we don't have a clue, and I think God wants it that way.  Just yesterday I tripped over two things related to Church history that suggest that some portion of what we think we know about what Brigham Young and Joseph Smith said aren't correct (which we now know due to better research and scholarship).  [ETA: IMO, the Deseret News article is annoyingly written, with a bunch of junk tossed in to up the word count.  IMO, every reporter who fails to stick to just the facts ought to be fired. /rant]

Edited December 15, 2024 by zil2

[Maverick]

13 minutes ago, laronius said:

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

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

20 minutes ago, laronius said:

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

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

26 minutes ago, laronius said:

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

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