Armand Mauss: 3 Unresolved LDS Historical Issues

[Alf O'Mega]

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

He was a member of the First Presidency when they issued a statement on August 17, 1949, that began:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

[selek]

He was a member of the First Presidency when they issued a statement on August 17, 1949, that began:

Try parsing the sentence (instead of reading into it for polemical advantage), and you arrive with:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is a matter of direct commandment from the Lord that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."

The phrase "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization" refers to and qualifies "direct commandment from the Lord" rather than "the attitude of the Church".

McKay's statement (as understood by competent speakers of the English language) is that both the Ban and doctrine are founded upon commandments from the Lord.

To pretend that he was declaring the Ban to BE doctrine (especially in light of his other statements) is to purposefully distort his statement and to strain at gnats and swallow a camel.

[paulpatter]

. . . .The "man" did not cause that to occur, God did. To prove my point, WHY do you think "the man" worked so hard??? First there were changes in the world and the Church, and second, he worked so hard BECAUSE he was being LED BY GOD!!! That is not "the man" as you falsely claim, that is GOD leading and inspiring the man, preparing him to receive HIS WORD.

So, according to you, God proactively came to President Kimball and said "It's time to lift the priesthood ban." That isn't how it happened--not according to President Kimball's son, Edward (BYU Studies article, cited earlier). President Kimball took the initiative. He pleaded with the Lord for guidance on the matter. Why do you think he had to spend long hours in the temple on his knees? The revelation wasn't handed to him out of the blue.

To the question, "Why wasn't the ban lifted earlier"? no one seems to have a satisfactory answer. You have already admitted that other Prophets were concerned about the ban. You have also indirectly suggested that those other prophets didn't work as hard re. the issue as President Kimball. In effect, then, mortals--one in particular--caused (yes, caused) the ban to be lifted.

BTW, you are fond of saying that other faiths were "man made," but not the LDS Church. Who instigated the founding of our Church? The answer, of course, is a 14-year-old mortal. Who instigated the German Reformation? A German theologian/mortal named Martin Luther. Who instigated the founding of the Christian Science movement? Mary Baker Eddy, a mortal woman who had long suffered severe health problems. Who instigated the founding of Methodism? A mortal man named John Wesley. Moreover, these individuals (and others who founded chuches) claimed they had received spiritual experiences that led them to establish their faith-based institutions.

Excuse me, but I think it's arrogant for anyone to say that all religions with the exception of ours were man-made. We are told the light of Christ abides in every mortal being. To me, that means that some of those beings did, indeed, receive divine guidance--and used it to do enormous good.

[Obiwan]

So, according to you, God proactively came to President Kimball and said "It's time to lift the priesthood ban." That isn't how it happened--not according to President Kimball's son, Edward (BYU Studies article, cited earlier). President Kimball took the initiative. He pleaded with the Lord for guidance on the matter. Why do you think he had to spend long hours in the temple on his knees? The revelation wasn't handed to him out of the blue.

Yep.... Just as he proactively has done everything else related to man.

Of course man "pleaded", just as Joseph did in the Garden, and any other event in scriptural history. But that doesn't change the fact that it was GOD not the man who brought the revelation when HE wanted it done.

To the question, "Why wasn't the ban lifted earlier"? no one seems to have a satisfactory answer. You have already admitted that other Prophets were concerned about the ban. You have also indirectly suggested that those other prophets didn't work as hard re. the issue as President Kimball. In effect, then, mortals--one in particular--caused (yes, caused) the ban to be lifted.

I did not "indirectly" state such.... They absolutely "worked" to desire the Will of the Lord in the matter. But what you don't understand is that both man and God must be ONE. It was then "time", thus God inspired Kimball likely "more" than he inspired others. You just really can't understand the "subtle" difference can you???

BTW, you are fond of saying that other faiths were "man made," but not the LDS Church. Who instigated the founding of our Church? The answer, of course, is a 14-year-old mortal. Who instigated the German Reformation? A German theologian/mortal named Martin Luther. Who instigated the founding of the Christian Science movement? Mary Baker Eddy, a mortal woman who had long suffered severe health problems. Who instigated the founding of Methodism? A mortal man named John Wesley. Moreover, these individuals (and others who founded chuches) claimed they had received spiritual experiences that led them to establish their faith-based institutions.

MOST of those other religion founders were NOT like Joseph Smith, and NONE were fully like him either. They didn't recieve revelations from God, they didn't have vistitations from Angels, they didn't see God and Christ themselves, they didn't recieve new Word of God, they didn't have the "witnesses", on and on. Are you really trying to tell me you can't understand the difference between a "man-made" religion and a religion established by GOD??? The vast majority of other religions founders did so because they "felt" like it, not because they had miraculus experiences. Only a "small" few of the 33,000 religions on the planet had those, and NONE of those come close to what Joseph did.

You aren't a faithful mormon, you are clearly a "pretender".

Excuse me, but I think it's arrogant for anyone to say that all religions with the exception of ours were man-made. We are told the light of Christ abides in every mortal being. To me, that means that some of those beings did, indeed, receive divine guidance--and used it to do enormous good.

And excuse me, but you aren't a faithful LDS to be saying this. The "Light of Christ" is not the Power and Authority of God. The Light of Christ allows men to seek and do righteousness, even miracles, NOT "establish" God's Kingdom on the earth, NOT proclaim authority and truth unto themselves and the world, . Enormous good does not make "God's Kingdom" and "Church" on the earth. You clearly don't understand mormonism, especially when you simply call it another man-made religion. tisk tisk, but you are revealed.

You are out of line with the personal attacks and are banned from the thread.

[Lamanite]

Try parsing the sentence (instead of reading into it for polemical advantage), and you arrive with:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is a matter of direct commandment from the Lord that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."

The phrase "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization" refers to and qualifies "direct commandment from the Lord" rather than "the attitude of the Church".

McKay's statement (as understood by competent speakers of the English language) is that both the Ban and doctrine are founded upon commandments from the Lord.

To pretend that he was declaring the Ban to BE doctrine (especially in light of his other statements) is to purposefully distort his statement and to strain at gnats and swallow a camel.

And while you work from inferences, let us be clear that President McKay has said:

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse...It is a practice not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."

Additionally we have Arrington, who was at the time the Church historian stating:

"A special committee of the Twelve appointed by Pres McKay in 1954 to study the issue concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but the church membership was not prepared for its reversal..."

Most Mormon's weren't even aware of this ridiculous practice at the turn of the century. Even Our beloved Pres McKay hadn't heard of such a thing until 1921 while in Hawaii when he tried to ordain a black guy to the priesthood. (Prince, 74) It remained an obscure practice until 1947 when investigation began into the opening of Cuba for missionary work.

Conclusion: The issue has always been one of cultural prejudice that spawned a practice that was never a doctrine. It did not have a beginning with Joseph Smith and was an extension of cultural racism that was justified by scriptural presentism. Its ultimate reversal had more to do with those who were not of African decent being prepared to receive those who were, into full fellowship.

See Gregory Prince , Edward Kimball, Sterling McMurrin, Hugh B. Brown (God Bless Him), and a few others.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[paulpatter]

Yep.... Just as he proactively has done everything else related to man.

Of course man "pleaded", just as Joseph did in the Garden, and any other event in scriptural history. But that doesn't change the fact that it was GOD not the man who brought the revelation when HE wanted it done.

It would be more accurate to say that it was a dedicated prophet of the Lord who caused God to lift the priesthood ban.

: I did not "indirectly" state such.... They absolutely "worked" to desire the Will of the Lord in the matter. But what you don't understand is that both man and God must be ONE. It was then "time", thus God inspired Kimball likely "more" than he inspired others. You just really can't understand the "subtle" difference can you???

I thought all our prophets and God were "ONE." What does the phrase "prophet, seer, and revelator" mean to you?

: MOST of those other religion founders were NOT like Joseph Smith, and NONE were fully like him either.

Obviously.

: They didn't recieve revelations from God, they didn't have vistitations from Angels, they didn't see God and Christ themselves, they didn't recieve new Word of God, they didn't have the "witnesses", on and on.

Oops, you have gone out on a limb. You know, do you, for a certifiable fact that the individuals I mentioned (and many others not mentioned) did not receive revelations from God? No you don't. Do you know that Martin Luther was not led by God to challenge the selling of indulgences by the Catholic Church? No you don't. Do you know that Mary Baker Eddy did not receive divine guidance in developing her spiritual healing concept? No you don't. Do you know that Mother Teresa didn't receive communication from the Savior as she went about her charitable work? No you don't.

: Are you really trying to tell me you can't understand the difference between a "man-made" religion and a religion established by GOD??? The vast majority of other religions founders did so because they "felt" like it, not because they had miraculus experiences. Only a "small" few of the 33,000 religions on the planet had those, and NONE of those come close to what Joseph did.

I'm trying to help you to see/understand that the world's religions were instigated by mortal beings, some of whom were acting under divine influence--just as Joseph Smith was.

: You aren't a faithful mormon, you are clearly a "pretender".

Have you always practiced rank speculation? For how long have you been making unfounded, reckless charges against those with whom you disagree?

: And excuse me, but you aren't a faithful LDS to be saying this.

(See above.)

: The "Light of Christ" is not the Power and Authority of God. The Light of Christ allows men to seek and do righteousness, even miracles, NOT "establish" God's Kingdom on the earth, NOT proclaim authority and truth unto themselves and the world, . Enormous good does not make "God's Kingdom" and "Church" on the earth. You clearly don't understand mormonism, especially when you simply call it another man-made religion. tisk tisk, but you are revealed.

Your last 21 words, as well as other parts of your post, constitute ad hominem attacks. That tactic does not serve you well. Moreover, it's a violation of the rules of this board.

[semlogo]

And while you work from inferences, let us be clear that President McKay has said:

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse...It is a practice not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."

Additionally we have Arrington, who was at the time the Church historian stating:

"A special committee of the Twelve appointed by Pres McKay in 1954 to study the issue concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but the church membership was not prepared for its reversal..."

Most Mormon's weren't even aware of this ridiculous practice at the turn of the century. Even Our beloved Pres McKay hadn't heard of such a thing until 1921 while in Hawaii when he tried to ordain a black guy to the priesthood. (Prince, 74) It remained an obscure practice until 1947 when investigation began into the opening of Cuba for missionary work.

Conclusion: The issue has always been one of cultural prejudice that spawned a practice that was never a doctrine. It did not have a beginning with Joseph Smith and was an extension of cultural racism that was justified by scriptural presentism. Its ultimate reversal had more to do with those who were not of African decent being prepared to receive those who were, into full fellowship.

See Gregory Prince , Edward Kimball, Sterling McMurrin, Hugh B. Brown (God Bless Him), and a few others.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Agreed.

[alter idem]

This article on Fair is very enlightening when researching the beginning of the Priesthood ban.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

[alter idem]

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.

As I recall, this was related some 40 years later and Coltrin came forward to present his views in support of the ban when the first Presidency was considering whether it should be lifted, therefore, I am skeptical of his version of events and just how good his memory was.

[cinepro]

As far as I can tell, one doesn't need "faith" or any type of inspiration to figure out whether the ban was a divine policy. You just have to think about the logistics of the thing. Does the actual implementation of the ban bear God's fingerprints. And where might it have come from?

Here's the problem. It seems there can only be two "origin" theories for the Priesthood ban:

1. Ancient Source - The ban is based on some ancient "event" that is carried through lineage; thus, modern blacks were ineligible for the priesthood because of their heritage.

2. "Modern" Source - The ban is based on something that made that particular spirit who inhabited a body with black skin and assumed African heritage between ~1850-1978, who had been baptised and was living worthily, ineligible to receive the priesthood (or, for women, go to the Temple). Since there was no discernible Earthly cause (i.e. a black person might be just as righteous on Earth as a similar non-black man), this would have to mean there was some pre-mortal cause that couldn't be repented of.

As I've discussed in my other thread, the absurdity of #2 is that God could have chosen any arbitrary, genetic trait to distinguish the ineligible people. They could have had red hair, or short-lobed ears. God just happened to choose a racial trait that coincided with an extreme racial prejudice at that time.

GOD: Hey, I've got all these spirits who can't have the Priesthood or go to the Temple until Earthtime 1978. I'm not just going to send them to Earth at a time when no one has the Priesthood, or to a country that won't be exposed to the gospel until after 1978.

What can I do to make sure these specific spirits don't get the Priesthood? I'll send them to bodies with African lineage and black skin, and then tell My prophets not to give any people of this lineage the Priesthood (or allow the women to go to the Temple). This won't have anything to do with the extreme racial prejiduce these people will be experiencing in that same society; it's a totally different issue.

Then, I'll time it so everyone that really can't have the Priesthood dies before 1978, but the people that it's OK for are still alive in 1978. Then we'll end the ban, and everything will be fine.

I've already clarified why I think #1 is impossible (population statistics suggest any hereditary curse from Biblical times would apply to all people who weren't totally isolated from the European gene pool), so that leaves us to #2, which just works out to be a mess any way you slice it.

The alternate options put forth (i.e. mixed degrees of "not knowing" and "having faith") seem to be exercises in salvaging faith more than trying to explain or understand anything.

[Ahab]

Pres. McKay is on record saying the ban was not even doctrine. The "lineage/curse of Cain" is old Protestant nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself for clinging to it when the church has rejected it.

I think that's the key point, right there.

Before the church/Church, as a whole, removed the ban on the priesthood, I think the church/Church, as a whole, thought it was okay or at least permissable to "ban" (for lack of a better word) blacks from the priesthood, much like how the church/Church thought it was okay or at least permissable to uphold slavery, rather than support insurrection over the issue of slavery.

If the whole church/Church had been adamant about ordaining men to an office in the priesthood before the ban was removed, regardless of the color of their skin, I think the ban would have been lifted sooner, because the people, as a whole, would have been ready to accept the idea that the ban shouldn't be there.

Prejudice is a very strange thing, and people often have it without realizing they have it.

p.s. Btw, in the end, I don't think it really mattered to God, because God could have, and I'm sure did, see to it that they were ordained in the spirit world when they were ready.

[kamenraider]

Here's a link to a thread in which I posted a "Lineage Lesson" that LDS missionaries used to teach, which advances the "curse of Cain" idea: LINK

[juliann]

Here's a link to a thread in which I posted a "Lineage Lesson" that LDS missionaries used to teach, which advances the "curse of Cain" idea: LINK

Again, Elder Holland's PBS interview...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.

[Calm]

Here's a link to a thread in which I posted a "Lineage Lesson" that LDS missionaries used to teach, which advances the "curse of Cain" idea: LINK

Where did you get the reference from? The only place I can find it was an anti-mormon site....which is always a great place to learn about actual Church doctrine, don't you think?

[kamenraider]

Again, Elder Holland's PBS interview...

Here's the entire quote in context:

Q: What is the folklore, quite specifically?

A: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.

He didn't mention the idea that blacks are descendants of Cain.

edit: ellipses are in the original transcript, btw.

[kamenraider]

Where did you get the reference from? The only place I can find it was an anti-mormon site....which is always a great place to learn about actual Church doctrine, don't you think?

I can't remember exactly where I got it. It's been over a year now since I posted it, and I had it a long time before that. I googled it to try to see what site you are referring to and saw that the translation is posted on a site for ex-Mormons. That's not where I originally got it though, as you'll see that they don't have the images there. I seem to remember getting it from a blog-like site of a guy who was a LDS missionary in Brazil and then converted to Catholicism.

I don't see how it really matters where I got it though, unless you don't believe it is authentic.

[juliann]

Here's the entire quote in context:

He didn't mention the idea that blacks are descendants of Cain.

edit: ellipses are in the original transcript, btw.

Please produce any current declaration of the curse of Cain. I can't think of anything more absurd than trying to promote the idea that the church, let alone Elder Holland, would stand behind that. Produce it.

[juliann]

I don't see how it really matters where I got it though, unless you don't believe it is authentic.

It very well could be. But you also periodically present a John Taylor letter that is not considered authentic by the church with the intent of fooling people by leaving out the reference.

[semlogo]

I can't remember exactly where I got it. It's been over a year now since I posted it, and I had it a long time before that. I googled it to try to see what site you are referring to and saw that the translation is posted on a site for ex-Mormons. That's not where I originally got it though, as you'll see that they don't have the images there. I seem to remember getting it from a blog-like site of a guy who was a LDS missionary in Brazil and then converted to Catholicism.

I don't see how it really matters where I got it though, unless you don't believe it is authentic.

As a missionary in Brazil I received a much photo-copied document from some stake conference talk in Northern Europe(? IIRC), about the less valiant in the pre-existence. Strictly informal, passed from missionary to missionary, you understand. At the time I had no idea that the doctrine was never a revelation but a policy, but the claims made in the document about pre-mortal blacks struck me as pure BS. Sometimes it's difficult to kill a meme, though.

[LeSellers]

I don't see how it really matters where I got it though, unless you don't believe it is authentic.

"Authentic" is one of those words whose vagueness is useful in many cases, as, perhaps, here.

I doubt that anyone is accusing you of posting anything and claiming it to be other than what you say it is. In that sense, this is authentic. But the source (from an former Saint) does raise the probability that it is not exactly what the original source claims it to have been.

The fact that it was not available (at least not easily found) in its original web location makes the whole thing difficult to trace and understand. The fact that the only place it is now available is an anti-mormon webstye also reduces its reliability. And the fact that the original author was also anti-mormon himself completes the trifecta.

Lehi

[Storm Rider]

For me I finally concluded, after much study, that the practice was created by Brigham Young due to him being racist. Further, it carried on because of prejudice in the leadership of the Church until enough of the Brethren were strong enough to stop it. Brigham is one of my favorite prophets, but I also understand him to be a man. As Elder McConkie stated,

<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>"Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord."This is an unfortunate experience where the thoughts of man became the practice within the Church of Jesus Christ. It should be an example to us and forwarn us that we all need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That our leaders have the mantle of leadership placed upon their shoulders, but they are not perfect. That we need to forgive them when they act as men and forget that their mantle and keys do not entitle them to speak for God at all times. The Apostle Paul said it best, "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19.) Heresey will develop in the Church and we must be wary of them. The foolish tradtions of our forefathers should be purged.

I realize that this position may be dangerous for some people, because they will abuse it by thinking the prophets and apostles cannot be trusted and they need to lean unto their own understanding. That would be error. I will follow the prophet and I will pray always to be lead by the Spirit of Truth in my daily actions. The rest I leave to God to handle for he is the ultimate leader of this Church.

[semlogo]

For me I finally concluded, after much study, that the practice was created by Brigham Young due to him being racist. Further, it carried on because of prejudice in the leadership of the Church until enough of the Brethren were strong enough to stop it. Brigham is one of my favorite prophets, but I also understand him to be a man. As Elder McConkie stated,

<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>"Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord."This is an unfortunate experience where the thoughts of man became the practice within the Church of Jesus Christ. It should be an example to us and forwarn us that we all need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That our leaders have the mantle of leadership placed upon their shoulders, but they are not perfect. That we need to forgive them when they act as men and forget that their mantle and keys do not entitle them to speak for God at all times. The Apostle Paul said it best, "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19.) Heresey will develop in the Church and we must be wary of them. The foolish tradtions of our forefathers should be purged.

I realize that this position may be dangerous for some people, because they will abuse it by thinking the prophets and apostles cannot be trusted and they need to lean unto their own understanding. That would be error. I will follow the prophet and I will pray always to be lead by the Spirit of Truth in my daily actions. The rest I leave to God to handle for he is the ultimate leader of this Church.

I agree.

[kamenraider]

. . . The Prophet Joseph in giving us instructions in relation to our labors in

the southern states said that if any of the colored race received the Gospel

we were to baptize them if their masters were willing but we were not to

ordain any of them to the Priesthood. This opened to my mind a field of

reflection. The sectarians did not exclude the colored race from the ministry,

but authorized them to preach. How is this, if Joseph is an impostor, he in

this matter would doubtless have followed the tradition of the age especially

as he sprang from Vermont and was traditioned in the ideas of that portion

of the country in which abolition and anti-slavery doctrines prevailed. This

to my mind was an additional evidence of the divinity of his mission and

like all of his moves was a bold departure from the establish systems and

notions of men.

--Sketch of the Life of John Brown, Written by Himself," Mormon Biography File,

LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, from Remembering Joseph CD-ROM,

Mark L. McConkie editor, SLC: Deseret Book 2003, pg. 110.

Juliann, I seem to remember you saying something about "old Protestant nonsense" above, however John Brown, who actually lived back then and knew Joseph Smith, seems to have had a different idea.

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, has this:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21

[Cold Steel]

(1) In the absence of a formal and public announcement of a divine revelation, how are the devout supposed to know the difference between doctrines originating from heaven and those originating in folklore? There is no clear revelatory origin for either the policy or the associated

[juliann]

Juliann, I seem to remember you saying something about "old Protestant nonsense" above, however John Brown, who actually lived back then and knew Joseph Smith, seems to have had a different idea.

The LDS Institute Old Testament (Gen-2 Sam.) Student Manual, pg. 57, has this:

"...although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21