More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Maverick]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

One does not need to have a "better" explanation to find your own unconvincing.

I think of one is going to be as dismissive about my analysis of the evidence, particularly in such a condescending manner that has been displayed by the person I was responding to, then one should be willing to provide what one believes is a more reasonable explanation for the evidence. Otherwise it's little more than crying foul.

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

it's perfectly OK to take the position of "we just don't know".

Yes, this is fine. I have no problem with anyone taking this position.

11 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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.

I'm not trying to force my conclusions on anyone, but I do think that if people are going repeatedly declare them poor in a dismissive manner, they should be willing to provide what they believe is a better explanation for the evidence. Otherwise, like I said, they are simply crying foul, which doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. 

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I think of one is going to be as dismissive about my analysis of the evidence, particularly in such a condescending manner that has been displayed by the person I was responding to, then one should be willing to provide what one believes is a more reasonable explanation for the evidence. Otherwise it's little more than crying foul.

No.  One can say, "I don't find your conclusions as obvious as you think they are" without having to provide an "alternate theory of the case".  Again, one can both believe that you, @Maverick, are filling in too many gaps with your own assumptions while at the same time maintaining that there are gaps which make a conclusion impossible.

54 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I'm not trying to force my conclusions on anyone

That's not what I said.  I said that it appears you think no one has any business rejecting your conclusions unless they have "better" conclusions.  You appear to be rejecting the right to find your conclusions inadequate and at the same time have no "better" conclusions.

56 minutes ago, Maverick said:

but I do think that if people are going repeatedly declare them poor in a dismissive manner, they should be willing to provide what they believe is a better explanation for the evidence

Again, this is an irrational position.  One can both find your explanation poor and believe that there is no known explanation.  Those two positions are NOT mutually exclusive - indeed, they are completely in harmony.  In short, one can say there isn't enough evidence for any conclusion - yours or anyone else's.  There is no logical problem with holding this position.  There is no logical problem with stating this as part of the discussion - it contributes a perspective of "we don't know enough (yet)", and that is in fact a valid perspective that deserves just as much consideration from readers as your own.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

No.  One can say, "I don't find your conclusions as obvious as you think they are" without having to provide an "alternate theory of the case".  Again, one can both believe that you, @Maverick, are filling in too many gaps with your own assumptions while at the same time maintaining that there are gaps which make a conclusion impossible.

That's not what I said.  I said that it appears you think no one has any business rejecting your conclusions unless they have "better" conclusions.  You appear to be rejecting the right to find your conclusions inadequate and at the same time have no "better" conclusions.

Again, this is an irrational position.  One can both find your explanation poor and believe that there is no known explanation.  Those two positions are NOT mutually exclusive - indeed, they are completely in harmony.  In short, one can say there isn't enough evidence for any conclusion - yours or anyone else's.  There is no logical problem with holding this position.  There is no logical problem with stating this as part of the discussion - it contributes a perspective of "we don't know enough (yet)", and that is in fact a valid perspective that deserves just as much consideration from readers as your own.

People don’t have to agree with me and I don’t expect that those who don’t remain silent unless they are willing to provide an alternative explanation for the evidence. As I said, stating that there isn’t enough evidence to reach a definitive conclusion is a reasonable response. 

But I maintain that repeatedly condescendingly dismissing my explanations out of hand over and over again while refusing to provide any alternative explanation for any of the evidence is nothing more than crying foul, which adds nothing to the discussion. 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Maverick

[Vort]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

[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]

Just thumbs-upping your rant. I hate artificially boosted wordcount. I understand the perceived need for such, but that does not change my position by a millimeter. Say what needs to be said, as clearly as reasonably possible, and then move on (or shut up).

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

Do you have a better explanation for the specific evidence I presented or not? 

As I've been around the issue, the primary alternative explanation is that given by Dr. Paul Reeves as published by Deseret Book in Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood I reviewed the book here

We don't have to accept Dr./Br. Reeves explanations and conclusions blindly, and we can't claim that the church officially endorses or accepts his narrative. It seems to me that, considering his credentials, any alternative explanations we provide will, at some point, come head to head with Dr./Br. Reeves and his research and conclusions.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

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? 

I am waiting for your evidence that Joseph Smith instituted the ban. The essay says (with footnoted sources) that is was Brigham Young, and this my better explanation. The evidence you present pertains to what is summarized in the essay under paragraphs 3-5 and the first paragraph in "The Church Today", and does not identify who started the ban. It only offers specific examples of what Joseph taught (his primary sources representing the most reliable evidence of what he taught). You keep focusing on what he taught, not what he instituted as a policy.

Let's not go back and forth, just Posted 7 hours ago

 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am waiting for your evidence that Joseph Smith instituted the ban. The essay says (with footnoted sources) that is was Brigham Young

Whaaa...? I must have glided right over something. (Happens to me a lot, more these days than it used to.) I missed this, and in rereading the essay, I can't find it. Can you point out to me where the essay on Race and the Priesthood states that Brigham Young instituted the ban?

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Whaaa...? I must have glided right over something. (Happens to me a lot, more these days than it used to.) I missed this, and in rereading the essay, I can't find it. Can you point out to me where the essay on Race and the Priesthood states that Brigham Young instituted the ban?

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

"During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. 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.”4

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

This is the establishment of the ban as Church policy/practice as far as it can be accurately traced.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

"During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. 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.”4

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

This is the establishment of the ban as Church policy/practice as far as it can be accurately traced.

That does not say that Brigham Young instituted the ban. It says only that he (Brother Brigham) announced it in 1852. It is a reasonable conjecture that the ban was effectively in place before that time, perhaps as early as 1844 or before.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

That does not say that Brigham Young instituted the ban. It says only that he (Brother Brigham) announced it in 1852. It is a reasonable conjecture that the ban was effectively in place before that time, perhaps as early as 1844 or before.

The essay does not entertain conjecture, nor should it. It is better than that. The presiding leader who publicly announces a policy is the one codifying or instituting it, and so we can trace it to Brigham Young according to the best evidence and judgement. The theory surmised by the OP is not supported by quality scholarship, too many steps from explaining doctrine to setting policy are missing, as well as primary sources for the latter.

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The essay does not entertain conjecture, nor should it. It is better than that. The presiding leader who publicly announces a policy is the one codifying or instituting it, and so we can trace it to Brigham Young according to the best evidence and judgement. The theory surmised by the OP is not supported by quality scholarship, too many steps from explaining doctrine to setting policy are missing, as well as primary sources for the latter.

Hmm. Maybe this is an issue of semantics. I was expecting evidence that Brigham Young said, in effect, "I have decided (or it has been revealed to me) that black men of African descent shall no longer be ordained to the Priesthood." Instead, there is an "announcement" (which may have simply been an acknowledgement; this is my guess) that a policy was in place that blacks of African descent could not receive higher temple ordinances or be ordained—along with the explicit acknowledgement that this was a temporary restriction that would be removed at some future date, and the continuing teaching that all men (meaning people) of every race, including African blacks, were subject to salvation and exaltation based on obedience to God's commandments.

The institution of a policy is the moment at which it begins being practiced, not the moment when it is publicly acknowledged. I realize that, ideally, these two should be the same, but they often are not. Apparently, they were not in this case. My question is, When was the policy instituted (and not merely acknowledged or even announced)? It appears that we don't know the answer to that question.

The essay explains that there is no evidence that such a policy existed during Joseph Smith's lifetime, so we assume that the policy was formally instituted by Brigham Young. Which is fine; I have no objection to that. It sounds like good practice when understanding history. But the key word is "assume"; it is merely an assumption. To go from "We assume Brigham Young instituted this policy" to "Brigham Young, and not Joseph Smith, instituted this policy" to "Joseph Smith did not want this policy, but Brigham Young introduced it" to "Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith introduced this policy based on his [Brigham's] own opinion and/or understanding" to "Brigham Young was a vile racist who instituted a racist policy" is unwarranted at every step.

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The essay says (with footnoted sources) that is was Brigham Young

No, it does not say this, and you know that. As I already mentioned it says he publicly announced it in 1852. He also publicly announced plural marriage in 1852 and we know that was started by Joseph Smith (though some people deny this, anyway).

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The evidence you present pertains to what is summarized in the essay under paragraphs 3-5 and the first paragraph in "The Church Today", and does not identify who started the ban. It only offers specific examples of what Joseph taught (his primary sources representing the most reliable evidence of what he taught). You keep focusing on what he taught, not what he instituted as a policy.

What Joseph Smith taught matters. He is on record teaching all or most of the things that were taught in association with the ban by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, and many other prophets and apostles for over 100 years. And his teachings on blacks remaining under the divine curse put upon the Canaanites anciently by God through the hand of Noah, is very strong evidence that he considered them under the curse in regards to the priesthood in Abraham 1. I will also point out here that the essay does not make any attempt to address or even mention Abraham 1, even though it is arguably the most important scripture associated with the ban. Which just goes to show that thoroughly addressing the topic was not the intent of the essay. That's not a criticism by the way. It simply a reality. The essay was intended to help people deeply troubled by the ban not lose their testimonies over it. It allows for multiple possible conclusions. It opens up the possibility that the ban was merely a policy put in place by Brigham Young with no doctrinal basis, while also allowing for members to continue to believe that it was put in place by God, that Joseph Smith taught it, and that the previous teachings about it are true. 

And as @Vort pointed out earlier, the church has never declared the previous teachings regarding the priesthood ban to be false. The church says that they don't apply today because the ban was lifted in 1978, and no longer expects the church membership to accept them as official doctrine. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Let's not go back and forth

When you refuse to actually address the evidence and provide what you believe are better explanations, while making claims about the essay that are inaccurate as the only justification for why you keep insisting that my explanations of the evidence regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith are wrong, then unfortunately going back and forth in circles is the natural outcome. But if you would like to wait patiently for me to get to the direct evidence you desire maybe we can finally make some progress. I will have it up soon. 
 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I've been around the issue, the primary alternative explanation is that given by Dr. Paul Reeves as published by Deseret Book in Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood I reviewed the book here

We don't have to accept Dr./Br. Reeves explanations and conclusions blindly, and we can't claim that the church officially endorses or accepts his narrative. It seems to me that, considering his credentials, any alternative explanations we provide will, at some point, come head to head with Dr./Br. Reeves and his research and conclusions.

I appreciate you sharing a book that you believe provides a better explanation of the origins of the priesthood ban. I clicked on the thread you had created and read your description of the Introduction:

Quote

Reeves also explains that he is going to approach this history in 3 phases. Phase 1 he describes as the early years of the restoration when priesthood and temple blessings were available to all. Phase 2 is the period where the priesthood and temple ban is implemented "in fits and starts" until 1978. Phase 3 is the period after the revelation in 1978 which Reeves describes as a return to the original idea of universal access to these blessings for all.

My research into the subject does not support the three phases Reeves claims for the Priesthood ban. I will provide more direct evidence very soon, which supports my position that the ban originated with Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Hmm. Maybe this is an issue of semantics. I was expecting evidence that Brigham Young said, in effect, "I have decided (or it has been revealed to me) that black men of African descent shall no longer be ordained to the Priesthood." Instead, there is an "announcement" (which may have simply been an acknowledgement; this is my guess) that a policy was in place that blacks of African descent could not receive higher temple ordinances or be ordained—along with the explicit acknowledgement that this was a temporary restriction that would be removed at some future date, and the continuing teaching that all men (meaning people) of every race, including African blacks, were subject to salvation and exaltation based on obedience to God's commandments.

The institution of a policy is the moment at which it begins being practiced, not the moment when it is publicly acknowledged. I realize that, ideally, these two should be the same, but they often are not. Apparently, they were not in this case. My question is, When was the policy instituted (and not merely acknowledged or even announced)? It appears that we don't know the answer to that question.

The essay explains that there is no evidence that such a policy existed during Joseph Smith's lifetime, so we assume that the policy was formally instituted by Brigham Young. Which is fine; I have no objection to that. It sounds like good practice when understanding history. But the key word is "assume"; it is merely an assumption. To go from "We assume Brigham Young instituted this policy" to "Brigham Young, and not Joseph Smith, instituted this policy" to "Joseph Smith did not want this policy, but Brigham Young introduced it" to "Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith introduced this policy based on his [Brigham's] own opinion and/or understanding" to "Brigham Young was a vile racist who instituted a racist policy" is unwarranted at every step.

The essay is just fine, then, and good, sound practices are behind the conclusions. Further research may well discover that Joseph Smith publicly announced and instituted/codified it. The cascade of increasingly extreme assumptions you listed do not reflect sound practices, as the cascade of assumptions in the OP do not reflect sound practice.

Edited December 16, 2024 by CV75

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The essay is just fine, then, and good, sound practices are behind the conclusions.

I never had issue with the essay. My objection is that you claimed (unless I'm misremembering) that the essay stated that Brigham Young instituted the policy, which I thought (and think) is not the case. The essay makes no such statement.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

I never had issue with the essay. My objection is that you claimed (unless I'm misremembering) that the essay stated that Brigham Young instituted the policy, which I thought (and think) is not the case. The essay makes no such statement.

I guess that's semantics and context again. It is readily and responsibly inferred by the text of the essay that its message is that Brigham Young instituted the ban. There is no similar evidence to show otherwise, especially that Joseph Smith did what Brigham Young did; the text is based on the available good and reliable evidence. If new and proper evidence comes up, the essay text and message of the essay can be reasonably challenged. Maneuvers to justify bias and doctrinal theory and belief do not count.

[JohnsonJones]

Just as an aside, I joined the church before the ban was done away with.

When I was taught, the ban was taught, basically, just like Maverick is talking about.

It was taught right alongside the idea that we were sealed for time and all eternity in the temple, that we had the ability to be sealed to our spouse, and that the priesthood authority was found in the Church.  It was considered as strong a doctrine and as revelation as that of Joseph Smith receiving the Aaronic Preisthood, and the fact that we had the Melchizedek Priesthood.

If what was taught as doctrine is not considered doctrine now, what about everything else that was taught as doctrine alongside it.  Are those things which were taught in conjunction with it no longer doctrine also?  (I obviously would say they would not be, but some of these items are just as nebulous as the racial doctrine taught, and some of them are not actually found so distinctly spelled out in the scriptures as we may think they are.  In fact, the ideas Maverick has talked about are actually more clear than some of the things we think are taught in the scriptures.  One prime example is that families are sealed together forever, where does it say that we an take a child and seal it to their parents in such an explicit manner so that it is unmistakably done in how we perform it as quoted by the scriptures?)

The reasons were also taught as Maverick has presented them.  It was not some nebulous, unknown.  It was not some strange, or crazy thing that we had no idea what the reasons for. 

If one wants to know what was taught, if one can find a copy of Mormon Doctrine, McConkie probably simply just recites what was already common knowledge at the time of it's writing. 

For interest, instead of quoting the 1966 version, I'll use the 1978 version (which should be obvious the reason if one understands what occurred during that year).

Quote

Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to use as the negroes.  Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin.  (Moses 5:16-41, 7:8, 12, 22.)  Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood (Abra. 1:20-27)

Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, Bruce.  Negroes pg 527, Bookcraft (c. 1966) p 1978.

This is not to say that McConkie was correct, as he was not writing this as a prophet at the time, however, his writing in this shows the common teaching (in otherwords, this wasn't McConkie who made this up, or came up with this.  These were things that appeared to be officially approved by the First Presidency in the teachings we got in Church Wardhouses at the time).  Many try to point fingers at McConkie and use him as a scapegoat, and while this idea may hold true for a few items, in many of the things he wrote or commented on, he simply was gathering what was already commonly taught or given to us at the time as church doctrine.

And I will say, it was taught as Doctrine.  Not policy, not opinion...doctrine. 

It has become a great difficulty (and stumbling block) for some in our modern time, because if we discard what has been taught as being doctrine and revelation, and then simply say it was not so (I think people call this gaslighting), it calls into question what exactly is doctrine to us (though, I hold that it is what we find in the Standard Works, everything else is debatable, but the Standard Works is what we have as our doctrine that is the same and unchangeable)?

It should be noted, the Essays are Not taught to be doctrine.  They are Not taught to even be policy.  They are written to help educate and illuminate our own knowledge.

I'm not going to take a side in this argument (some may say I have by stating what I have in this post, but this is something I just wanted noted by those trying to equate the essays as the doctrine of the Church, in comparison to what actually Was taught as doctrine in the past, even though today it is quite different then it was previously).

So, what, ultimately do I want to point out by posting this.  It doesn't matter what was taught in the past, or what we think was taught in the past.  The past has things that were pertinent for that time period.  The Israelites had particular laws that were set forth that they were to obey.  These laws had things that pertained to what they could eat (no shellfish for example...and I love Lobster), things they could wear (no mixed cloth type garments for example), and how they were to conduct themselves (an eye for an eye as an example).  This was doctrine for their day.  We no longer follow that doctrine because we have been given other doctrine that pertains to us. 

Elder Cook stated in his April 2020 Conference message some of the following (and you can find the full talk here, and it's is a great talk to read)

The Blessing of Continuing Revelation

Quote

We are incredibly grateful for the revelation to President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church in June 1978.

I have served with many of the Twelve who were present and participated when that precious revelation was received. Each of them, in personal conversations, confirmed the powerful and uniting spiritual guidance President Kimball and they had experienced. Many said it was the most powerful revelation they had received before or after that time.

----------------------------------

I declare with all solemnity that continuous revelation has been received and is being received through channels the Lord has established. I testify the new proclamation President Nelson delivered this morning is a revelation to bless all people.

We, as modern Apostles, have had the privilege of working and traveling with our current prophet, President Nelson. I paraphrase what Wilford Woodruff said about the Prophet Joseph Smith; it is equally true of President Nelson. I have seen “the workings of the Spirit of God with him, and the revelations of Jesus Christ unto him and the fulfillment of those revelations.”

Furthermore, what may be seen as a way of presenting a doctrine, may have been a policy as such.  What we see as doctrine, may have only been the means and the means was a policy.  Russel M. Nelson explained this in a speech he gave to BYU students a few years back when explaining changes in regards to the children of LGBT families and parents.  To the outsider it may have seemed as a change to doctrine, but in reality it was merely a change in policy, while the doctrine behind the ideas were done by the brethren.

Love and the Laws of God

Quote

God has also not changed His law of chastity. Requirements to enter the temple have not changed. And our desire for there to be love at home and harmony between parent and child has not changed.

Though we of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles cannot change the laws of God, we do have the charge “to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations.”¹⁰ Thus we can adjust policy when the Lord directs us to do so. You have recently seen such examples. Because the Restoration is ongoing, policy changes will surely continue.¹¹

^{-----------------------------------}

Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love—the love of our Heavenly Father for His children and the love of the Brethren for those whom we serve.

 

This of course is a much more recent change in the Conversations of the Church than the Blacks and the Priesthood.

Finally, the Prophet talked several years ago about his revelation and our need for revelation in his April 2018 talk,

Revelation for the Church, Revelation for our Lives

Quote

When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.

In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!

And from the same talk, far more important, and probably pertinent to this conversation and to any time when we have questions of the gospel and doctrine.

Quote

Our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, will perform some of His mightiest works between now and when He comes again. We will see miraculous indications that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, preside over this Church in majesty and glory. But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

It does not mean we receive revelation for the entirety of the church or for overall doctrine, but it means that we can receive the necessary revelation for our own spirits and families in order to have what we need in order to survive spiritually in these turbulent times, and at the end of the day...that's what is really important.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 12/15/2024 at 2:19 AM, 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.

I would respectfully come at it from a somewhat different—perhaps even opposite—perspective.

To me, the fact that it was a church policy created a (concededly, rebuttable) presumption that the policy was divinely inspired.  The presumption strengthens, as I have argued elsewhere, when one considers that President McKay claimed that of himself he would prefer to remove the ban but that God had expressly denied him permission to do so.

Since one naturally can’t prove that a church leader *didn't* receive a particular revelation, the default critique of the ban becomes “well, the God I worship just wouldn’t do something like that!”  Modern ban-defenders then reply “not only would He; but He has—repeatedly—here’s the scriptural evidence.”

The progressive argument against the authenticity of the ban is, fundamentally, that the progressives understand God and His essential character (not just theology or sacred history, but God’s very nature) better than did any of the LDS prophets between Presidents Young and Lee.  The value of the scriptural citations that often come up in these sorts of discussions isn’t “this is how this particular ban against this particular group got started and why the Church continued to enforce it for so long”; it’s “God is way, way bigger than the cage you’re trying to shove Him into.”

Edited December 16, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

On 12/15/2024 at 10:23 AM, zil2 said:

No.  One can say, "I don't find your conclusions as obvious as you think they are" without having to provide an "alternate theory of the case".  Again, one can both believe that you, @Maverick, are filling in too many gaps with your own assumptions while at the same time maintaining that there are gaps which make a conclusion impossible.

I believe a good example would be:

• I think quantum entanglement can be explained by gremlins who communicate trans-dimensionally.
  • Gremlins?  That's impossible because gremlins don't exist.
• How do you know?  Do you have a better explanation than gremlins?
  • No, of course not.  I have no idea how it happens.
• Hah!  So, that's proof that it's gremlins.

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

gremlins

Zil looks to one side and whispers, "Quick, back in the closet while I make sure all my cameras are covered!"

[CV75]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just as an aside, I joined the church before the ban was done away with.

When I was taught, the ban was taught, basically, just like Maverick is talking about.

It was taught right alongside the idea that we were sealed for time and all eternity in the temple, that we had the ability to be sealed to our spouse, and that the priesthood authority was found in the Church.  It was considered as strong a doctrine and as revelation as that of Joseph Smith receiving the Aaronic Preisthood, and the fact that we had the Melchizedek Priesthood.

If what was taught as doctrine is not considered doctrine now, what about everything else that was taught as doctrine alongside it.  Are those things which were taught in conjunction with it no longer doctrine also?  (I obviously would say they would not be, but some of these items are just as nebulous as the racial doctrine taught, and some of them are not actually found so distinctly spelled out in the scriptures as we may think they are.  In fact, the ideas Maverick has talked about are actually more clear than some of the things we think are taught in the scriptures.  One prime example is that families are sealed together forever, where does it say that we an take a child and seal it to their parents in such an explicit manner so that it is unmistakably done in how we perform it as quoted by the scriptures?)

The reasons were also taught as Maverick has presented them.  It was not some nebulous, unknown.  It was not some strange, or crazy thing that we had no idea what the reasons for. 

If one wants to know what was taught, if one can find a copy of Mormon Doctrine, McConkie probably simply just recites what was already common knowledge at the time of it's writing. 

For interest, instead of quoting the 1966 version, I'll use the 1978 version (which should be obvious the reason if one understands what occurred during that year).

This is not to say that McConkie was correct, as he was not writing this as a prophet at the time, however, his writing in this shows the common teaching (in otherwords, this wasn't McConkie who made this up, or came up with this.  These were things that appeared to be officially approved by the First Presidency in the teachings we got in Church Wardhouses at the time).  Many try to point fingers at McConkie and use him as a scapegoat, and while this idea may hold true for a few items, in many of the things he wrote or commented on, he simply was gathering what was already commonly taught or given to us at the time as church doctrine.

And I will say, it was taught as Doctrine.  Not policy, not opinion...doctrine. 

It has become a great difficulty (and stumbling block) for some in our modern time, because if we discard what has been taught as being doctrine and revelation, and then simply say it was not so (I think people call this gaslighting), it calls into question what exactly is doctrine to us (though, I hold that it is what we find in the Standard Works, everything else is debatable, but the Standard Works is what we have as our doctrine that is the same and unchangeable)?

It should be noted, the Essays are Not taught to be doctrine.  They are Not taught to even be policy.  They are written to help educate and illuminate our own knowledge.

I'm not going to take a side in this argument (some may say I have by stating what I have in this post, but this is something I just wanted noted by those trying to equate the essays as the doctrine of the Church, in comparison to what actually Was taught as doctrine in the past, even though today it is quite different then it was previously).

So, what, ultimately do I want to point out by posting this.  It doesn't matter what was taught in the past, or what we think was taught in the past.  The past has things that were pertinent for that time period.  The Israelites had particular laws that were set forth that they were to obey.  These laws had things that pertained to what they could eat (no shellfish for example...and I love Lobster), things they could wear (no mixed cloth type garments for example), and how they were to conduct themselves (an eye for an eye as an example).  This was doctrine for their day.  We no longer follow that doctrine because we have been given other doctrine that pertains to us. 

Elder Cook stated in his April 2020 Conference message some of the following (and you can find the full talk here, and it's is a great talk to read)

The Blessing of Continuing Revelation

Furthermore, what may be seen as a way of presenting a doctrine, may have been a policy as such.  What we see as doctrine, may have only been the means and the means was a policy.  Russel M. Nelson explained this in a speech he gave to BYU students a few years back when explaining changes in regards to the children of LGBT families and parents.  To the outsider it may have seemed as a change to doctrine, but in reality it was merely a change in policy, while the doctrine behind the ideas were done by the brethren.

Love and the Laws of God

 

This of course is a much more recent change in the Conversations of the Church than the Blacks and the Priesthood.

Finally, the Prophet talked several years ago about his revelation and our need for revelation in his April 2018 talk,

Revelation for the Church, Revelation for our Lives

And from the same talk, far more important, and probably pertinent to this conversation and to any time when we have questions of the gospel and doctrine.

It does not mean we receive revelation for the entirety of the church or for overall doctrine, but it means that we can receive the necessary revelation for our own spirits and families in order to have what we need in order to survive spiritually in these turbulent times, and at the end of the day...that's what is really important.

I joined the Church in 1975 as a college student. I can relate to what you say what was taught, mostly informally to me, but also printed in Mormon Doctrine which I studied thoroughly. However, when I studied Abraham 1, I couldn't square the "genealogy" of the curse very well with Genesis, but figured there were far more important things to figure out. Later, when I heard about two Cumorahs, it began to make sense: there were more than one of just about anything, including more than one Canaanite people, more than one curse, more than one incident and type of blackness, etc. Not to mention exceptions.

Edited December 16, 2024 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would respectfully come at it from a somewhat different—perhaps even opposite—perspective.

To me, the fact that it was a church policy created a (concededly, rebuttable) presumption that the policy was divinely inspired.  The presumption strengthens, as I have argued elsewhere, when one considers that President McKay claimed that of himself he would prefer to remove the ban but that God had expressly denied him permission to do so.

Since one naturally can’t prove that a church leader *didn't* receive a particular revelation, the default critique of the ban becomes “well, the God I worship just wouldn’t do something like that!”  Modern ban-defenders then reply “not only would He; but He has—repeatedly—here’s the scriptural evidence.”

The progressive argument against the authenticity of the ban is, fundamentally, that the progressives understand God and His essential character (not just theology or sacred history, but God’s very nature) better than did any of the LDS prophets between Presidents Young and Lee.  The value of the scriptural citations that often come up in these sorts of discussions isn’t “this is how this particular ban against this particular group got started and why the Church continued to enforce it for so long”; it’s “God is way, way bigger than the cage you’re trying to shove Him into.”

I don't think the essay critiques the ban, it just states the best facts about it and disavows the theories supporting it. Which prophet started the ban and whatever they taught that was brought into justifying it is a matter of historical scholarship, and pales in comparison to the keys of salvation and exaltation they exercise to our benefit. This is why I think over the Church's history our Prophets and Apostles have leaned more and more into the covenants: that is what is most important. The Church History Office makes the world a better place much like BYU does, by carrying an authoritative voice of the Church in historical and academic matters respectively. But this is only to bring people to Christ through the covenant path, where correct doctrine distills collectively, individually, and in both cases through the keys as exercised by the Lord's authorized servants. Sometimes this distillation takes time, and the Lord is patient and graceful whether it comes fast or slow.

Edited December 16, 2024 by CV75

[LDSGator]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

and the Lord is patient and graceful

Wise advice on any topic really. 

[Maverick]

In an 1879 interview with President John Taylor Zebedee Coltrin (a very faithful church leader who had been intimately acquainted with Joseph Smith and had remarkable spiritual experiences, such as seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ during the school of the prophets) related the following experience from 1834:

Quote

The spring that we went up in Zion's Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out south to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the priesthood, and I took up the side he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. 'All right,' said I, 'I hope you will.' And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph's office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, 'Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right and cannot hold the Priesthood." He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don't recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.

According to Brother Coltrin's testimony, Joseph Smith did explicitly state that black men have "no right and cannot hold the priesthood" and also stated in other settings with other individuals that "no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the priesthood." 

Zebedee Coltrin also relayed the following about Elijah Abel, a faithful church member of 1/8 African decent, who had been ordained an Elder and Seventy in 1836, and whose ministerial license Joseph Smith had even signed: 

Quote

Brother Abel was ordained a seventy because he had labored on the Temple, (it must have been in the 2nd Quorum) and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the first Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped. 

According to Brother Coltrin's testimony, Joseph Smith did not know that Elijah Abel was partially of African decent when he was initially ordained, but some time later when he discovered his lineage, he took action and Brother Abel was dropped from the Seventies quorum.

Corroborating Zebedde Coltrin's testimony is Joseph F. Smith. In the minutes of a meeting of the First Presideny and Quorum of the 12 Apostles in 1908, the following is recorded:

Quote

 President [Joseph F.] Smith referred to Brother Abel, who was ordained a Seventy by Joseph Young, in the days of the Prophet Joseph, to whom Brother Young issued a Seventies' certificate; but this ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet himself.

It is not presently known where Joseph F. Smith got his information. Whether he was relying on Zebedde Coltrin testimony, which he deemed credible, he had learned this through personal interviews with other individuals, he had seen it in a record that is no longer extant, the Holy Ghost reveal this to him, or some combination of these things is not presently known. What is known is that both Joseph F. Smith and Zebedde Coltrin where faithful leaders of the church, who were of the highest character. 

An additional source corroborated the testimony of Zebedee Coltrin and the statement by Joseph Fielding Smith. In 1970, Caleb Shreeve, the son of Patriarch Thomas Shreeve, sent a letter to the First Presidency relaying the testimony of his father, who had been intimately acquainted with Elijah Abel. The letter was "Declaration of Fact" that was also signed by his two living siblings, Eva Shreeve and Arnold Shreeve, declaring what their father had relayed to them many times prior to his death. 

Quote

Now, therefore, know all men of all nations, kindred, tongues, and races, unto whom this DECLARATION shall come, that we being duly sworn in honesty, sobriety, and truthfulness make known the following circumstances and facts as to the relationship and religious dialogue that existed and took place between Thomas A. Shreeve, of English descent, AND, Elijah Able, of Negro ancestry, as told and testified to by said Patriarch Shreeve, to the undersigned members of his family on numerous occasions during the period of 1910–1931.

…During the period of 1910 to 1931, the undersigned's father, Patriarch Thomas A. Shreeve, in our presence, when discussing Church history and his activities and relationship with the Church leaders, often told of the crucial territorial days of 1869 to 1896…

One of Father's most interesting narratives delt with his personal friendship with Elijah Able, while living in the "OLD" 10th Ward of Salt Lake City during the 1872–78 period. In speaking of this brotherly friendship Father declared many times, "I have often wondered what Brother Able saw in me. He was 62 years old or more. And I, only 21, and single. I suppose in me he saw himself as a young man. I came from England alone and he from eastern United States to join the Church. I was away from my loved ones for several years and he was too. Brother Able, in many ways, acted like a father to me. Especially in those early days of my life when I was alone, and shortly after my mother, brother and sisters arrived in Salt Lake City. It was to say the least 'hard times'. I have always appreciated my association with Elijah Able. He taught me a lot that was of value all my life."

Because of this friendship Brother Able requested young Thomas to baptize several of his grandchildren which father reported he did. Father Shreeve used to tell us the childrens' names, but at this time (1970) we cannot recall them…

Father Shreeve in telling of his relationship with Elijah Able often detailed the conversation he had with his Negro friend relative to Brother Able's sad experience with the Prophet Joseph Smith… The following is the story which Father Shreeve often told and testified to: 

One day (date not given) Brother Able, in conversation with young Thomas said to him, "Thomas, I will never forget the day Prophet Joseph came to me greatly disturbed and with tears in his eyes and said, 'Brother Able I have been commanded by the Lord to come to you and withdraw from you the Holy Priesthood you now hold'.

"Greatly concerned and shocked I said, 'Brother Joseph, what have I done to deserve this?' 'Nothing in this life,' the Prophet answered, 'it all happened in the pre-existence.'

"With tears in my eyes I then replied, 'Brother Joseph, I would have my skin boiled in oil if it would remove this blackness.' To this the Prophet replied, 'it would do you no good Brother Able, but this I can promise you in the name of the Lord in the heareafter you will stand at the head of the Negro race and in the due time of the Lord, you will inherit all you are entitled to.'

Then Brother Able told young Thomas, "The Prophet put his hands on my head and in the authority of his calling withdrew from me the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood. I cried and so did the Prophet."
 

...This DECLARATION is a statement of facts, as we, the undersigned, know them and is true as stated and is given in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah, pertaining to sworn testimony.

In witness thereof, we the undersigned set our hands and seal as of this 19 day of Nov., 1970.

Sign Here: Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. L.S.

Address: 1760 Lake Street, Ogden, Utah

Sign Here: W. Franklin (Eva Shreeve) L.S. Richards

Address: 3298 Ogden Ave - Ogden - Utah

Sign Here: Arnold T. Shreeve

Address: 4005 Tyler Ave, Ogden, Utah

(Caleb Shreeve, Letter to First Presidency, November 25, 1970, Hyrum B. Wheelwright Papers, Weber State University Stewart Library Special Collections, MS24)

https://bhroberts.org/records/0iOKDx-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able
 

While this account is admittedly very late, and from Thomas Shreeve's children, all three living children affirmed the truthfulness of what their father had told them. 
 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe a good example would be:

• I think quantum entanglement can be explained by gremlins who communicate trans-dimensionally.
  • Gremlins?  That's impossible because gremlins don't exist.
• How do you know?  Do you have a better explanation than gremlins?
  • No, of course not.  I have no idea how it happens.
• Hah!  So, that's proof that it's gremlins.

I know you’re trying to make a joke, but with all due respect, this is a terrible example and not at all applicable to this conversation. 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Maverick