More evidence that the Priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith

[Vort]

4 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 knew gravity was caused by gravity fairies! I knew it!

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

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. 

It's applicable in that you're insisting that those who reject a theory you propose must necessarily come up with a "better" explanation—"better" meaning more convincing to you. When they don't, you say that by default your explanation must be the most "logical" available, because, you know, where are the competing explanations?

[Maverick]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's applicable in that you're insisting that those who reject a theory you propose must necessarily come up with a "better" explanation—"better" meaning more convincing to you. When they don't, you say that by default your explanation must be the most "logical" available, because, you know, where are the competing explanations?

I never insisted that anyone who doesn’t agree with my conclusions must provide a better explanation. Nor did I say that if they don’t it proves that my position is the most logical. 

I said if people are going to repeatedly dismiss my explanations out of hand in a condescending way, without ever providing any alternative explanation for any of the evidence, then all they’re doing is crying foul, which doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I said if people are going to repeatedly dismiss my explanations out of hand in a condescending way, without ever providing any alternative explanation for any of the evidence, then all they’re doing is crying foul, which doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion.

For the record, I have not dismissed your explanations, certainly not condescendingly. I have little interest in the topic other than defending the integrity of the prophets, past and present. And our present prophet has asked us not to speculate on the issue.

I personally understand his expressions and actions as a call to let sleeping dogs lie and quit picking at the scab, and probably several other trite expressions, as well. I fear this thread itself and many of my contributions to it and like threads violate the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the prophet's and apostles' requests. For this reason, I think I will probably drop out of this type of thread now and (if I can discipline myself) in the future.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

For the record, I have not dismissed your explanations, certainly not condescendingly.

I wasn't referring to you. You actually did provide a counter explanation and evidence to support why you disagreed with one of my conclusions, in addition to making several very insightful comments, backed by evidence and sound reasoning. This was a helpful contribution to the conversation. 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

And our present prophet has asked us not to speculate on the issue.

Can you please provide a reference where President Nelson has asked us not to discuss evidence about the origin of the priesthood ban and associated teachings? I've never heard of this before. 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Maverick

[MrShorty]

I notice that your latest batch of evidences relies heavily on Zebedee Coltrin and Caleb Shreeve. I have seen these evidences critiqued in a few places. The B. H. Roberts Foundation website succinctly summarizes the critiques, thus:

Quote

Did Elijah Able have his priesthood revoked by Joseph Smith?

Probably not. The only evidence of this is a secondhand account from Caleb Shreeve[BIO] that claimed that his father was personally told by Elijah Able that Joseph "withdrew" his priesthood, however this account cannot be corroborated.[60]

There is also an account from Zebedee Coltrin recalled many decades later that Joseph dismissed Elijah Able from the quorum of the seventy in 1836, however Joseph F. Smith recorded that he saw Elijah's ordination certificate dated in 1841 that confirmed he was a Seventy.[61]

https://mormonr.org/qnas/AqRt9/black_saints_and_the_priesthood_joseph_smith_era

I will admit that I find your overall premise -- to demonstrate with some confidence that the priesthood and temple ban began with Joseph Smith -- to be an ambitious undertaking. As near as I can tell, the overall evidences and proofs are at best inconclusive. As the same mormonr website says:

Quote

So did Joseph Smith implement the priesthood and temple restriction for Black Saints?

It's unclear. Some historians believe so,[80] others do not.[81] The Church does not take a position on this question,[82] and the documentary record is open to interpretation.

I'm interested to see the other evidences you present and how you interpret them compared to how others have interpreted them.

[NeuroTypical]

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So did Joseph Smith implement the priesthood and temple restriction for Black Saints?

It's unclear. Some historians believe so,[80] others do not.[81] The Church does not take a position on this question,[82] and the documentary record is open to interpretation.

Honestly, this is the sanest thing I've seen on the topic since the discussion began. 

It sort of begs the question - does it really matter?  I've never understood why anyone would NEED the ban to have begun with one prophet or the other.  

Since we like to argue - here's a question: Why should I care whether Joseph or Brigham instituted the ban?  Is my testimony supposed to be bolstered or attacked if it's one and not the other?

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Since we like to argue - here's a question: Why should I care whether Joseph or Brigham instituted the ban?  Is my testimony supposed to be bolstered or attacked if it's one and not the other?

Yes. The current narrative, which is frighteningly enough widely shared among the Saints (!!), is that the Priesthood ban was instituted by Brigham Young because Brigham Young was a racist and had hateful feelings toward black people. If you suggest that Joseph Smith instituted the ban, that pushes the onus back a generation and threatens many people's rosy view of the Prophet Joseph Smith. For some bizarre reason, many Saints who would feel threatened by overt personal moral criticism of Joseph Smith don't mind at all when such criticism is applied to Brigham Young.

However that may be, the evidence that Brother Brigham (a Yankee) considered racially black people to be children of God and subjects of salvation is much too overwhelming for any reasonable person to deny. The fact that President Young himself, in discussing the Priesthood ban, openly said that the ban was a temporary measure that would one day be lifted seems to be forgotten in the rush to judgment and condemnation.

I stand with Brigham Young, and I stand against any who would suggest that he was "racist" or that his "racist motivations" were at the root of the Priesthood ban. I believe that the Priesthood ban was instituted by God for good and sufficient reasons, reasons to which I am not privy and on which I do not speculate.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Honestly, this is the sanest thing I've seen on the topic since the discussion began. 

It sort of begs the question - does it really matter?  I've never understood why anyone would NEED the ban to have begun with one prophet or the other.  

Since we like to argue - here's a question: Why should I care whether Joseph or Brigham instituted the ban?  Is my testimony supposed to be bolstered or attacked if it's one and not the other?

I don't think it matters, so I don't think anyone should care, except for people who have a valid interest in quality history. The process of researching history is a worthy and helpful pursuit -- much like family history, it can help people appreciate both our roots and how things move forward in the Lord. It helps people prioritize our history with our faith in the living Christ. 

[NeuroTypical]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe that the Priesthood ban was instituted by God for good and sufficient reasons, reasons to which I am not privy and on which I do not speculate.

Same.  But my question still remains: Assuming that's true, what does it matter if God instituted it with Brigham or with Joseph?

I mean, I don't care what people think or what state of reality makes it harder or easier for them to think it.  Elder Oaks talk on the difference between righteous and unrighteous judgment saved me from caring about any of that.  When you're forced to pick between competing 2ndhand accounts, and guess at what it's more likely someone meant by what they said, it would seem that principle 4 applies.  

 

[Carborendum]

44 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Since we like to argue - here's a question: Why should I care whether Joseph or Brigham instituted the ban?  Is my testimony supposed to be bolstered or attacked if it's one and not the other?

As for myself?  I don't really "care" about who originated the ban. 

I am a data collector.  And I'd like to collect "correct" data.  That is why I object to arguments and supposed evidence that don't really hold water.

[Maverick]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

The current narrative, which is frighteningly enough widely shared among the Saints (!!), is that the Priesthood ban was instituted by Brigham Young because Brigham Young was a racist and had hateful feelings toward black people. If you suggest that Joseph Smith instituted the ban, that pushes the onus back a generation and threatens many people's rosy view of the Prophet Joseph Smith. For some bizarre reason, many Saints who would feel threatened by overt personal moral criticism of Joseph Smith don't mind at all when such criticism is applied to Brigham Young

Bingo!

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

I stand with Brigham Young, and I stand against any who would suggest that he was "racist" or that his "racist motivations" were at the root of the Priesthood ban. I believe that the Priesthood ban was instituted by God for good and sufficient reasons

Same here.

[Maverick]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Why should I care whether Joseph or Brigham instituted the ban?  Is my testimony supposed to be bolstered or attacked if it's one and not the other?

There are several potential issues at stake here:

If Joseph Smith did not teach the ban and freely allowed black men to be ordained, and then Brigham Young changed things and instituted the ban, then it creates some theological problems:

1) Was Brigham Young wrong to issue the ban (as many members now believe)? If so, he would have led the church seriously astray, as would all of his successors up to Spencer W. Kimball. This opens up a huge can of worms. 

2) If Brigham Young was right to institute the ban, then according to all of the associated teachings, Joseph Smith would have been wrong to freely ordain black men. Which would beg the question of why he would have had such a huge blind spot, considering all of his other documented teachings on the subject, including Abraham 1. This weakens the confidence we have in the inspiration of Joseph Smith. 

From a theological standpoint, having Joseph Smith teach the ban and restrict the priesthood from black men creates a consistent harmonious doctrine that instills greater confidence in God's prophets, the validity of the priesthood ban, and really in the teachings of the restoration in general. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Maverick

[SilentOne]

If it could have been wrong for African-descended men to hold the priesthood during the time of President McKay and right during the time of President Kimball, I don't see why it can't have been right during the time of President Smith and wrong during the time of President Young.

[zil2]

35 minutes ago, Maverick said:

If Brigham Young was right to institute the ban, then according to all of the associated teachings, Joseph Smith would have been wrong to freely ordain black men.

Was it wrong of the Nephite prophets to teach only of heaven and hell, without mention of the three degrees of glory?  This could have been an example of line upon line.  The Lord tends to reveal things when we inquire and leave us to wallow in our ignorance when we don't think to ask - see 3 Nephi 15:14-24 and 3 Nephi 16:1-4, particularly v4:

Quote

4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.

If the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith, I would have to assume it was because he didn't ask.  And if it began with Brigham Young, I would have to assume it was because he did ask.

36 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

If it could have been wrong for African-descended men to hold the priesthood during the time of President McKay and right during the time of President Kimball, I don't see why it can't have been right during the time of President Smith and wrong during the time of President Young.

IMO, it seems unlikely that it would go on and off like that: OK during Joseph Smith's time, not OK from Brigham Young through President Kimball.  I can only imagine that being the case if the Lord did it because of the weakness of men (like divorce) rather than for some other reason.  But it would create confusion if it were handled this way - what happens to those already ordained and who have received temple ordinances?  God isn't the author of confusion, so it seems unlikely He would handle it in a way He would know would create confusion.  Heaven knows, though, and no answer to this question is going to impact my faith or life in the gospel.

 

Meanwhile, on to far more important matters, my demon cat will NOT stop pestering me.  Pray for my soul and his life - one of them is nigh to be lost!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

There are several potential issues at stake here:

If Joseph Smith did not teach the ban and freely allowed black men to be ordained, and then Brigham Young changed things and instituted the ban, then it creates some theological problems:

1) Was Brigham Young wrong to issue the ban (as many members now believe)? If so, he would have led the church seriously astray, as would all of his successors up to Spencer W. Kimball. This opens up a huge can of worms. 

2) If Brigham Young was right to institute the ban, then according to all of the associated teachings, Joseph Smith would have been wrong to freely ordain black men. Which would beg the question of why he would have had such a huge blind spot, considering all of his other documented teachings on the subject, including Abraham 1. This weakens the confidence we have in the inspiration of Joseph Smith. 

From a theological standpoint having Joseph Smith teach the ban and restrict the priesthood from black men creates a consistent harmonious doctrine that instills greater confidence God's prophets, the validity of the priesthood ban, and really in the teachings of the restoration in general. 

But in both #1 and #2, the Church was never led astray, and anyone's reaction to any prophet's fallibility is a personal choice. Life is messy. I do not think poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology promote saving faith in a messy world; the covenant path does. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SilentOne said:

If it could have been wrong for African-descended men to hold the priesthood during the time of President McKay and right during the time of President Kimball, I don't see why it can't have been right during the time of President Smith and wrong during the time of President Young.

It may not have been a matter of cosmic right and wrong after all, depending on the circumstances, at least nothing the Lord couldn't rectify. If you become good with the Lord in your lifetime, that is all that matters.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

Was it wrong of the Nephite prophets to teach only of heaven and hell, without mention of the three degrees of glory?  This could have been an example of line upon line.  The Lord tends to reveal things when we inquire and leave us to wallow in our ignorance when we don't think to ask - see 3 Nephi 15:14-24 and 3 Nephi 16:1-4, particularly v4:

If the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith, I would have to assume it was because he didn't ask.  And if it began with Brigham Young, I would have to assume it was because he did ask.

IMO, it seems unlikely that it would go on and off like that: OK during Joseph Smith's time, not OK from Brigham Young through President Kimball.  I can only imagine that being the case if the Lord did it because of the weakness of men (like divorce) rather than for some other reason.  But it would create confusion if it were handled this way - what happens to those already ordained and who have received temple ordinances?  God isn't the author of confusion, so it seems unlikely He would handle it in a way He would know would create confusion.  Heaven knows, though, and no answer to this question is going to impact my faith or life in the gospel.

 

Meanwhile, on to far more important matters, my demon cat will NOT stop pestering me.  Pray for my soul and his life - one of them is nigh to be lost!

Aren’t all cats demonic? 
 

😜 

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

Was it wrong of the Nephite prophets to teach only of heaven and hell, without mention of the three degrees of glory?  This could have been an example of line upon line.  The Lord tends to reveal things when we inquire and leave us to wallow in our ignorance when we don't think to ask - see 3 Nephi 15:14-24 and 3 Nephi 16:1-4, particularly v4:

If the ban didn't begin with Joseph Smith, I would have to assume it was because he didn't ask.  And if it began with Brigham Young, I would have to assume it was because he did ask.

This is a reasonable conclusion, if we only accept the available evidence that was recorded while Joseph Smith was alive, and nothing afterwards. Taking just the evidence that was recorded during his lifetime, it's possible that he laid the doctrinal foundation for the ban, but just didn't feel the need to ask and receive the direct revelation that blacks were not to hold the priesthood. Considering that the only man of African decent that we know he was aware of who held the priesthood was the 1/8 Elijah Abel, who was of a light complexion, he may not have felt the need to pray and ask God about it. 

However, this theory is not sustainable in light of the evidence from credible sources, such as Zebedee Coltrin, who testified that Joseph Smith did teach the ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood. It's only when we dismiss this evidence that your suggestion is possible. And even, then we simply wouldn't know one way or the other for sure. 

As an aside, it appears that you do care about this topic, at least a teeny tiny bit, after all.  

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Maverick said:

As an aside, it appears that you do care about this topic, at least a teeny tiny bit, after all.  

It's not that I care about the topic, it's that I care about the logic used in the discussion.

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

But in both #1 and #2, the Church was never led astray

I think that's debatable. In the case of number 1, black members would have been wrongfully denied priesthood and temple blessings for at least 126 years and false racist beliefs would have been taught as true doctrine from God from the highest authorities of the church. That's highly problematic, but for some reason this is preferable to many people than God having instituted the ban and later revoked it for the reasons his prophets taught for over century. I find that pretty mind boggling to be honest. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do not think poor scholarship, poor logic and convenient theology promote saving faith in a messy world

You keep accusing me of this, but since you refuse to provide any alternative explanations for the evidence or provide any reasoning for why you claim that my scholarship is poor and that I'm employing poor logic, your declaration is meaningless. It rings completely hollow, no matter how many times you repeat it, unless you are willing to back it up. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

the covenant path does

Does the covenant path include believing the words of God's prophets? Does it include believing the scriptures and the doctrinal explanations of them from the prophets and the apostles? In my book it does. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I notice that your latest batch of evidences relies heavily on Zebedee Coltrin and Caleb Shreeve. I have seen these evidences critiqued in a few places. The B. H. Roberts Foundation website succinctly summarizes the critiques, thus:

I will admit that I find your overall premise -- to demonstrate with some confidence that the priesthood and temple ban began with Joseph Smith -- to be an ambitious undertaking. As near as I can tell, the overall evidences and proofs are at best inconclusive. As the same mormonr website says:

I'm interested to see the other evidences you present and how you interpret them compared to how others have interpreted them.

See the thing is, there's really no solid basis for dismissing the testimony of Zebedee Coltrin, Thomas Shreeve (as relayed by three of his children), and Joseph F. Smith. It's not like this the only evidence that Joseph Smith taught that black men couldn't hold the priesthood and that he stated that they should not be ordained. 

There's also no record of Elijah Abel having performed a single priesthood ordinance of any kind. He didn't even baptize his own children or grandchildren. One would expect that there would be some record somewhere of him having performed a priesthood ordinance, if he really had been considered a full fledged Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the days of Joseph Smith and afterwards. He served several missions for the church, as well, yet there's no record of a single baptism or confirmation performed by him.  

There were also at least three black male members of the church in Nauvoo, who the prophet Joseph Smith knew. One of them was Jane Manning James' older brother, who would have been pretty closely associated with the Prophet. None of these three men were ordained, though. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Maverick

[SilentOne]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

IMO, it seems unlikely that it would go on and off like that... But it would create confusion if it were handled this way...

In 2015, a policy was announced about not allowing baptism of children with married gay parents(? - I don't remember the exact details) to be baptized without first presidency approval. In 2019, that requirement was removed. As I recall, both times, revelation was cited. That caused confusion and contributed to faith crises.

I believed them about the revelation both times and still believe there was good reason for both changes.

So I may not understand why He'd go back and forth about the priesthood, but don't see a reason not to believe that He might.

[zil2]

31 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

In 2015, a policy was announced about not allowing baptism of children with married gay parents(? - I don't remember the exact details) to be baptized without first presidency approval. In 2019, that requirement was removed. As I recall, both times, revelation was cited. That caused confusion and contributed to faith crises.

I believed them about the revelation both times and still believe there was good reason for both changes.

So I may not understand why He'd go back and forth about the priesthood, but don't see a reason not to believe that He might.

Good example!

[Vort]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Same.  But my question still remains: Assuming that's true, what does it matter if God instituted it with Brigham or with Joseph?

I mean, I don't care what people think or what state of reality makes it harder or easier for them to think it.  Elder Oaks talk on the difference between righteous and unrighteous judgment saved me from caring about any of that.  When you're forced to pick between competing 2ndhand accounts, and guess at what it's more likely someone meant by what they said, it would seem that principle 4 applies.

I don't disagree. I was not actually explaining why you should care; rather, I was explaining my view of why I think other people seem to care.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Vort