Armand Mauss: 3 Unresolved LDS Historical Issues

[paulpatter]

. . . .

Many of us, including me, do not accept such a pristine view of the history of the Church, its members and its leaders. Many of us believe that God, as He did in the Old Testament, can call very fallible men as His servants. And we can believe that such men can make serious mistakes, even in patriarchal or ecclesiastical leadership positions--and yet the institution can still be God's divine Church, with His blessing and endorsement.

Amen, and Amen.

[Lamanite]

Many of us, including me, do not accept such a pristine view of the history of the Church, its members and its leaders. Many of us believe that God, as He did in the Old Testament, can call very fallible men as His servants. And we can believe that such men can make serious mistakes, even in patriarchal or ecclesiastical leadership positions--and yet the institution can still be God's divine Church, with His blessing and endorsement.

I've got to co-sign this too!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Glenn101]

daz2, on 13 June 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

Many of us, including me, do not accept such a pristine view of the history of the Church, its members and its leaders. Many of us believe that God, as He did in the Old Testament, can call very fallible men as His servants. And we can believe that such men can make serious mistakes, even in patriarchal or ecclesiastical leadership positions--and yet the institution can still be God's divine Church, with His blessing and endorsement.

I've got to co-sign this too!

Big UP!

Lamanite

Balaam made a mistake, and his mistake is recorded for posterity. Moses made a mistake (at the rock) and his mistake is recorded for posterity. Miriam made a mistake when they tried to "steady the ark", i.e. when they tried to counsel Moses because of the Ethiopian woman that he had married because they "knew" that Moses was wrong. Their mistake is recorded for posterity.

Glenn

[Obiwan]

You overstate your case. Some of those "processes and procedures" failed, which makes it difficult to believe they were "engineered" by God. Anyone remember the "Prospective Elder" program? How about the Lamanite Placement program? And then there was the Church Basketball program. These programs, and others like them, were well-intentioned, but I doubt they were inspired by God.

Nope, you overstate your case.

I wasn't talking about "programs" in the Church, those come and go. Goodness!

I was talking about REVELATION/DOCTRINE.... There are processes and procedures which determine such. Name one "doctrine" that has failed, that doesn't already have scriptural precedence??? There are only two that relate, and those are Polygamy and the Priesthood. BOTH are given and taken away according to God's Will, all through scriptural history. So again, what "failed" in the modern day Church???

Further, who are you to say those programs "weren't" inspired??? Did you ever think that they served their purpose the times they were done? And since when were "methodology's" and "practices" actually "doctrine"??? Your like the anti-mormon who ignorantly claims that Temple changes (which have nothing to do with doctrine) actually makes false prophets, or the Church changing "revealed doctrine". Give me a break.

If that's true, how do you explain (to cite just one example) the illegal, rash destruction of the Expositor printing press--an act that led directly to Carthage and the murders of Joseph and Hyrum?

You're really kidding aren't you???

The Expositor was a "city" action.... It had nothing to do with the Church other than it's main target. The destruction was to help prevent further public disorder etc., not some kind of "revelation" or "doctrine". What in the world are you talking about??? "The Church" is not the minutia and nuances of human affairs. Where did you get the idea it was?

I agree that the Church is led by God; otherwise, I wouldn't be a faithful, life-long member (you have me "pegged" as an "anti"), Our "issue" is that you think every decision is inspired and our leaders our infallible. Our leaders must undergo the same learning processes here in mortality as everyone else.

I didn't peg you as an anti, I said you are taking an anti position.

You are now changing your argument.... I NEVER EVER claimed that everything our leaders said or did was inspired alone, or infallible. I said THE CHURCH was as it pertains to "Truth" and being led by God in said Truths. Never said anything different about their learning process, you are attributing false claims to me.

Our "leaders" are not "The Church". The Church is separate from individual parts. "The Church" is what the 12 Apostles, the Presidency, the General Body of the Church, the Scriptures, and the Holy Ghost ALL AGREE UPON. It's not one individual, it's not a couple, it's the cohesive unit AS ONE, all working together to create the PERFECT WHOLE that is "The Church of Christ", the "Kingdom of God" on the earth.

I understand, but Mauss is worth listening to, whether you agree with him or not. I'm reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement, "I am the student of every man."

When did I ever make the claim he wasn't "worth" listening to???

I simply was addressing what was quoted of him in the OP, which is something I've noticed from him for a long time, and something that I did not like, and something that WAS/IS acting directly against the Church and the leadership of the Brethren.

Would you like to elaborate? References?

You're really trying to get me to track down quotes to "prove" to you that "The Church" is not it's weakest links, and that it's actually lead by God, and NOT MEN??? This is such a dumb argument that I can't believe I'm having it with someone who's supposedly "faithful LDS". This is basic stuff that every LDS knows. That is that every nuance things done by a member of the Church is not "The Church". That there are systems in place which determine doctrine and truth, and thus the Church is separate from said human nuances.

Forget the "anti" label if you're directing it at me.

That remains to be seen.... I did a search reviewing many of your posts, and you many times come close and sometimes over to their side. So, I guess I'm not surprised then you are having this "flawed" view of the way the Church works.

The Church does not exist in a vacuum. It is led and administered by fallible human beings, divine influence notwithstanding. Consequently, there have been and will continue to be some stumbles. The Catholics teach "papal infallibility"; we do not teach anything comparable to that.

I'm well aware of "fallible HUMAN BEINGS" (being the operative word), but "The Church" is above such stumbles when it concerns DOCTRINE. Yes, LDS do not teach anything similar to "Papal Infallibility" (operative word being "Papal" i.e. POPE) But we DO unequivocally and in totality state that "The Church" is the True Church, and is Christs. You not being able to see the "subtle" difference between the humans in the Church and the Church itself is fascinating to me, and by the way the way anti's look at the Church, so as to feel justified in their criticism of it, and PROOF that it is false, led by "false prophets", etc.

And that's another thing.... Since you do not separate the leaders of the Church from "The Church", can you please tell us they how we are any different from any other religion then (in a practical sense)? Can you also tell us since you do not separate the leaders of the Church from "The Church", how do you determine what is actually doctrine and what is simply someones opinion? Seems to me your claiming everything someone does and says in the Church "IS" the Church. After all, you are the one who says the Church "is the men in it", that there is no separation. Man, you are like round and round in circles making no sense at all.

So. . . . ."human nuances" were very much involved, weren't they?

What is your point??? Never said they weren't existing "within" the Church. But such never "makes" or "is" The Church as you have been claiming. McConkies book was his own work, his responsibility, and as a human sometimes errors. But again, such has NOTHING to do with "The Church". The Church is not McConkie. The Church is not even Joseph Smith for that matter. His KFD as just one example was his "own opinion", not "Doctrine" of the Church, and he never claimed it OR even made it Doctrine of the Church. This example ALSO proves you wrong, and proves me right that "The Church" is SEPARATE from it's leaders.

You are aware of statements by Brigham Young and other early Church leaders--right?

Yes, so what are you going to do, try and tell me those were "doctrines" of the Church, especially the anti-mormon "perversions" of their words were "doctrines" of the Church???

And that was the principal rationale cited by Brigham Young--president of "The Church."

Yes it was..... True or not, don't know.... But still not "The Church".

[Obiwan]

For authentic insight into how lifting the priesthood ban became a reality, I encourage you to read Edward Kimball's first-rate article entitled "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies, 47:2. The article supports some of what you say. I think you'll find it exceptionally revealing, if not surprising.

I've read "everything" on the ban and whatever can possibly relate.

I'm a former anti-mormon/anti-religionist who left the Church primarily because of the Priesthood ban and Polygamy.

So, there is nothing you can say that I don't know already, as well as years and years of dealing with anti-mormons.

[Obiwan]

I have heard it said that the prophet cannot make a material mistake in leading the Church--sort of a Mormon infallibility doctrine--i.e., that when the prophet leads, he is perfect. True, prophets are not perfect men, but their imperfections are in immaterial matters--choice of tie color, for example.

No such claim here....

On this thread, I read people arguing something slightly different. For example, that prophetic teachings can be wrong--such as Brigham Young's and John Taylor's about black Africans--but that the "Church's" teachings can never be wrong. Of course, I am not sure what would have qualified as the "Church's" officials teachings at that time, other than the teachings of its leaders.

The Church has always been separate from it's leaders. We are to ourselves go to the scriptures, prayer, the Holy Ghost, "official" Church teachings etc. for the "truth". Any one of those alone are not infallible, but all together they make "The Church", and the Church is infallible.

The inference I make from these claims is that the "Church", and its teachings, must be as without flaw as God Himself, else the Church is not true. Or alternatively, that a prophet must be as perfect, without material flaw in behavior or teachings, or he is a false prophet.

Understand, never have claimed for example that a Church manual can contain no error, or the headings of LDS scriptures can contain no error, etc. etc. I live by the BOM Title page, "if there be the mistakes of men, condemn not the things of God". Again, another statement which shows that "The Church" is separate from men.

The Church in relation to "doctrine" etc. IS "perfect". That doesn't mean in everything else in which "men" have soul alone authority over can't ever make mistakes. Talking "doctrine" here, not human issues. LDS nor I have ever taken the view either that the "men" must be without flaw or they are false prophets. That's an anti-mormon position, and in fact paulpatter is taking the same position but in relation to "The Church", that there is no separation between the men, and the Church. I contend there is. He leaves it open for the Church to be lead by false prophets, I don't.

Thus, it is essential to read all Church history in a manner either than mistakes of prophets were immaterial or they were not officially "Church" teachings.

And what is so wrong with that....? The Church "is" separate from it's human element. How do you think it remains "pure" and "united"???

With this world view, anyone who asserts or believes, inside or outside of the Church, that a prophet or an official Church teaching was not, throughout time, at a pinnacle of perfection becomes an anti-Mormon.

Hardly.... Nice bearing false witness of our position. Anti-mormonism is the misrepresentation of leaders words, and claiming such as "doctrine" of the Church (especially the misrepresentation), when it never was. "Anything" taught or said is not "doctrine". Never has been. The Church is "separate" from such things.

Many of us, including me, do not accept such a pristine view of the history of the Church, its members and its leaders. Many of us believe that God, as He did in the Old Testament, can call very fallible men as His servants. And we can believe that such men can make serious mistakes, even in patriarchal or ecclesiastical leadership positions--and yet the institution can still be God's divine Church, with His blessing and endorsement.

Never said anything other than this..... But again, The Church is not the men alone in it.

I don't believe in a Church led my men.... I believe in a Church that is "separate" from the men. A church which stands apart, that has checks and balances to prevent false doctrine from leading men astry, has checks and balances to prevent false prophets from leading the Church, or at the least staying very long, on and on and on.

Anyway, blah blah blah.... So dumb I can't believe I'm having to argue it.

[semlogo]

I never really liked "everything" Armand Mauss has ever said or written on this issue. I think he "too much" makes the Church out to be "racist" and having to apologize etc. when there is actually "more" to the issue. He incorrectly thinks he and/or Bush are simply "matter of fact" in their works, when they clearly operated from a bias that the Church was "racist".

I think he incorrectly assumes there "is not" a "Faithful" history that can be told on this or any other issue, yet still maintaining intellectual integrity, balance of facts, etc. Many LDS scholars seem quite "able" to tell the whole truth, yet it be Faithful and not condemnatory of the Church, and they do so because they actually ARE telling the whole truth. Frankly in answer to his question, I don't think there is "room" in the Church for "wolves in sheep's clothing", and there never has been. If you are slanting the evidences in a negative way, and not telling all the "positive" things, then you simply aren't being "matter of fact", and you aren't telling the whole truth, especially if you are a Faithful member. Bush clearly wasn't a Faithful member to have left the Church over the issue.

The "signs of apostasy" are in the writing already before hand.... And that applies to Armand Mauss as well.

http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/

[Kevin Christensen]

That is correct and I'll be willing to bet that there will never be a rejection of it. The prior latter-day priesthood ban is still a doctrine:

I have my doubts on the latter day priesthood ban as doctrine. Joseph Campbell commented that one of the functions of a mythology is to "sustain the social order." This review in BYU Studies is important, as it notes the history of a set of ideas that LDS members inherited from the larger culture, and therefore colored the way that they read Genesis and Abraham, conditioned their readings, and limited the questions they could imagine asking.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7582

D&C 1 explicitly tells us to expect the the errs of our leaders will be made manifest, that revelation comes from time to time, conditionally, based on our seeking.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

David O McKay consistently distinguished that the ban was 'Policy' and not 'Doctrine'.

[Glenn101]

David O McKay consistently distinguished that the ban was 'Policy' and not 'Doctrine'.

I agree with that. God has instituted several policies throughout history, and changed those policies when the time came. And he has made exceptions also during the time of those policies.

One example is that of the Samarians called by the woman at the well to whom Jesus expounded his word and stayed with them two days, even though the time that the gospel was to be taken to the gentiles had not yet come.

But we can go around and around with this for days. The ban has been lifted. That's all I really know right now.

Glenn

[Lightbearer]

Thirty years ago, when I first heard the news of the new revelation, I rejoiced! Finally the Gospel can go forth without the burden of such a doctrine (yes, doctrine!) and we can put this behind us and move forward in teaching the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel to all men. Little could I imagine that after 30 years the enemies of the Church and their faithless willing accomplices who call themselves "critics" would still hammer on this issue. Instead of glorying in the long awaited revelation, it is still used as a weapon against the Lord's Church, to cause doubt, disrespect and contention. It makes one wonder what indeed would have happened if people complained in the meridian Church of the Gospel going to the Gentiles? If Peter had not received the revelation to bring forth the Gospel to all nations (a policy change or a doctrinal change?) What would have happened? It was a hard thing for many of the Jewish members of the Church to accept, in fact it caused contention even among the leadership. But Peter and Paul eventually got on the same page. But what if there were those who said that there never should have been a prohibition on teaching Gentiles in the first place? What if they said that it was just Jewish bigotry in the first place that got that idea up... all this talk of the house of Israel and the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, was He not the God of the whole earth?

I do not deny the doctrine of the priesthood ban, and I think it is phony political correctness that tries to say it was not doctrine and only "policy" giving the impression that the "policy" was something that men, in their bigotry got up and that it was not inspired of God. Placing the revelation that is the OD-2 as a mere "policy statement" like it was some phony political stance. I am sure it is hard for some to accept but according to the book of Abraham it was a restriction placed on a lineage by God Himself. See the following:

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

It is quite clear that it was a curse, and that part of that curse was that they could not have the right of the priesthood. This looks like a doctrine, not a policy, however it was not an unchangeable doctrine. It appears like most curses and limitations to be limited to certain conditions. The conditions are not fully explained and the reason for the curse is not clear, that is where the years of speculation have come in. Now for the most interesting point, while whole families were restricted to the priesthood in this life for a certain time period, after 1978, this curse is lifted, not just on those who lived after 1978 but also those who have gone before, in faith, hoping for the day that the rights of the priesthood would be granted to them. They can be ordained to the priesthood by proxy, I would say even the righteous Pharaoh mentioned in the scripture can be heir to these blessings. The only thing that keeps this point of contention going on is Satan, who wants to harden peoples hearts against the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our enemies continue to bash us with it, and accuse us of racial bigotry, ironically when I went on my mission in 1979 the first converts I had were a black family from the Dominican Republic, I never had to explain the priesthood ban to them, mostly because it was a non-issue. Do I know the reason for the ban? No. Do I know that God placed a ban there? Yes. Is it lifted today and is a non-issue? Yes or it should be a non-issue to anyone that has faith in the restoration.

[semlogo]

All gentiles of the same period couldn't have the priesthood either. Is there any reason to believe that that wasn't done away with 2000 or so years ago, for both black and white gentiles?

[BCSpace]

I do not deny the doctrine of the priesthood ban, and I think it is phony political correctness that tries to say it was not doctrine and only "policy" giving the impression that the "policy" was something that men, in their bigotry got up and that it was not inspired of God.

Well said (whole post). It's political correctness that distracts us from the true doctrine and dilutes it. It's a sign of apostasy.

[David T]

All gentiles of the same period couldn't have the priesthood either. Is there any reason to believe that that wasn't done away with 2000 or so years ago, for both black and white gentiles?

Exactly. There is no evidence the ban was instituted or reinforced in our dispensation by revelation, but mainly on an interpretation that Abraham 1 extended to the present day. The only revelation we have on record on the matter says that the priesthood is available to all worthy men.

[cinepro]

I find President Hinckley's statement to be unusual in that I can't read it as supporting a "divine origin" for the ban.

Again, here is what he says:

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

The Need for Greater Kindness

General Conference, April 2006

The first three sentences make perfect sense. President Hinckley, from his position in the Church, obviously hears about problems with Church members all over the world. He can choose to address certain problems to the Church-wide audience at conference. And racism (including slurs and denigrating remarks) are never appropriate for followers of Christ. 'Nuff said.

But why the fourth sentence/rhetorical question? His statement would still be clear and forceful without it. So, are there members of the Church who, even today and in contradiction to OD2, are promoting the idea that certain people of a different skin color should not have the priesthood? I would find that pretty surprising.

Even if that were the case, President Hinckley would be aware that there is a very simple answer to his question. And that answer is "Because sometimes God commands it." And such an answer isn't a result of arrogance, it's a result of faith. With such an easy, plain answer to the question, it utterly fails as a rhetorical device. If he had delineated the question to specify a post-1978 timeframe, then it would be clear.

But President Hinckley didn't limit his remarks to a few racist LDS in 2005 who don't think blacks should have the priesthood. As worded, his comment applies to all LDS, including the LDS of the 19th Century. Including Brigham Young and other leaders.

In which case, the question makes more sense. He is saying there is no reason other than arrogance for someone to believe that. End of story.

[Kevin Christensen]

I am sure it is hard for some to accept but according to the book of Abraham it was a restriction placed on a lineage by God Himself.

Culturally conditioned readings are one thing (see the BYU Studies review I linked earlier on the history and relatively late origins of the Biblical interpretations that developed to justify slavery from the Bible): the Abraham text more carefully in the ancient context may provide something else. Hugh Nibley's Abraham in Egypt should be an eye-opener:

Pharaoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham (Abraham 1:25

[juliann]

But President Hinckley didn't limit his remarks to a few racist LDS in 2005 who don't think blacks should have the priesthood. As worded, his comment applies to all LDS, including the LDS of the 19th Century. Including Brigham Young and other leaders.

In which case, the question makes more sense. He is saying there is no reason other than arrogance for someone to believe that. End of story.

They certainly had an opportunity to correct the published version if he didn't convey his intention. I can see why they are reticient in making more direct statements when they really don't know why or how this happened without a visible paper trail.

[juliann]

Well said (whole post). It's political correctness that distracts us from the true doctrine and dilutes it. It's a sign of apostasy.

Or racism. Those who lived in times where such beliefs were the norm have some excuse. But not today.

[Calm]

Considering Abraham 1, "Africans" is not an unreasonable attempt to follow the scriptures.

Except for the fact that the only 'race' referred to in Abraham 1 is the Canaanites, which race would have included much of the Mideast more than Africa. Extrapolating Egypt=Africa is contradictory to history as Egypt has had much more to do with the rest of the Mideast rather than continental Africa.

[Calm]

8. Interesting to note that by the 70's Racism and even slavery of the black African had finally ended the world over.

Not from what I've seen in other countries....racism is alive and well and while slavery may not be official any more, it certainly still exists in many, many places.

[yesucan2]

I skimmed over the responses so my points may have been covered.

First we must remember that everything that is Church policy is not spelled out in the Doctrine and Covenants. There are other ways that Church policy can come into play.

It is my understanding that this policy was in part learned by experience. As I remember, there were some black members who were ordained to the priesthood early on, and it was through the spirit that it was learned that there was a problem. I think one who did this was Zebedee Coltrin, who was a friend of Joseph Smith's. The way I heard the story was that apparently he ordained a black man to the priesthood, but was immediately seized upon with a powerful sense that what he did was wrong. He went to Joseph Smith and told him what happened, and Joseph told him not to do it again.

[Kevin Christensen]

I skimmed over the responses so my points may have been covered.

First we must remember that everything that is Church policy is not spelled out in the Doctrine and Covenants. There are other ways that Church policy can come into play.

It is my understanding that this policy was in part learned by experience. As I remember, there were some black members who were ordained to the priesthood early on, and it was through the spirit that it was learned that there was a problem. I think one who did this was Zebedee Coltrin, who was a friend of Joseph Smith's. The way I heard the story was that apparently he ordained a black man to the priesthood, but was immediately seized upon with a powerful sense that what he did was wrong. He went to Joseph Smith and told him what happened, and Joseph told him not to do it again.

That story has a history and a context that is worth looking up and considering. And it does not stand alone but has to be fit with the stories of Elijah Able, and Walker Lewis, who were ordained.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

Culturally conditioned readings are one thing (see the BYU Studies review I linked earlier on the history and relatively late origins of the Biblical interpretations that developed to justify slavery from the Bible): the Abraham text more carefully in the ancient context may provide something else. Hugh Nibley's Abraham in Egypt should be an eye-opener:

See Hugh Nibley's Abraham in Egypt http://maxwellinstit...d=48&chapid=295 and http://maxwellinstit...d=48&chapid=296

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I find it remarkable that people often ignore the obvious fact that the Pharaoh could not receive a patriarchal priesthood through his mother as is specifically pointed out in the scriptures and yet insist that the curse was due to the line of Cain when Cain isn't even mentioned in the chapter (only the Canaanites who descended from Ham.)

If the curse of the Canaanites was due to the blood of their mother, then why weren't the rest of Ham's sons also cursed? Instead Noah curses on one son and for nothing having to do with Cain. At best, one could point to a curse of Canaan, to make the jump to a curse of Cain is totally inappropriate based on the scriptures.

[Calm]

I skimmed over the responses so my points may have been covered.

First we must remember that everything that is Church policy is not spelled out in the Doctrine and Covenants. There are other ways that Church policy can come into play.

It is my understanding that this policy was in part learned by experience. As I remember, there were some black members who were ordained to the priesthood early on, and it was through the spirit that it was learned that there was a problem. I think one who did this was Zebedee Coltrin, who was a friend of Joseph Smith's. The way I heard the story was that apparently he ordained a black man to the priesthood, but was immediately seized upon with a powerful sense that what he did was wrong. He went to Joseph Smith and told him what happened, and Joseph told him not to do it again.

CFR

Also if it was something that shouldn't have been done, then why wasn't the priesthood removed from these men and why have the descendants of these men who were given the priesthood under Joseph Smith also given the priesthood?

[yesucan2]

CFR

Also if it was something that shouldn't have been done, then why wasn't the priesthood removed from these men and why have the descendants of these men who were given the priesthood under Joseph Smith also given the priesthood?

Why should it have been removed unless there was specific injunction to do so? Were their descendants given the priesthood, and if so, was there a rationalization given for doing so? By the way, it is my understanding that at least one was instructed not to use his priesthood.