Elijah Abel

[inquiringmind]

I've been reading about Elijah Abel, a black man who Joseph ordained to the priesthood.

Some sources say that two of his sons were later ordained to the priesthood (after Joseph's death), but I find this confusing.

If there was a ban on blacks holding the priesthood that goes back to Ham, and it was only removed in 1978, how could blacks have been ordained to the priesthood in the 19th century?

[erichard]

Hi,

You can read what Ogden Kraut wrote about it:

http://ogdenkraut.co...20Formatted.htm (go to Chapter 13)

I knew Ogden a bit and he was a pleasant person. He was cast from the LDS church for his plural marriages and beliefs.

Richard

[rpn]

There has been a lot of research done on this point and no one has found any recorded revelation or mention of one about a BAN on blacks of african origin holding the priesthood (in the 1960's David O McKay verbalized that small group of blacks as those who were limited, not the broader world of those with skin that might be as dark or even those with what were then called "negroid" features). There were many blacks of other than african origin who received the priesthood from 1960 on.

My personal speculation is when we learn the full truth it is going to be that after what happened with prominent Black Bostonian member and priesthood holder Nathaniel Lewis's son marrying interracially immediately after MA made that legal in 1846 or so AND _______ (can't recall is name off the top of my head) being excommunicated in Winter Quarters after starting his own church which apparently required white women sleep with him in daylight to join --- both incidents of which BY became aware of within a short span of time ---, Brigham Young felt that the potential social implications and potential persecution (not to mention trouble getting into the Union eventually when Utah Territory was allowed admittance as a slave state) were simply more than the church could withstand at the moment, and the only way to prevent the co-mingling was to not give men of color the priesthood. I think it will turn out that he prayed about it and felt that was an appropriate solution to the issue, and that BY was well-steeped in the "curse of cain" theology long before he ever joined the church of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 15, 2011 by rpn

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

An excellent history: "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood", by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies.

[erichard]

There has been a lot of research done on this point and no one has found any recorded revelation or mention of one about a BAN on blacks of african origin holding the priesthood ...

Hi,

There is an LDS accepted revelation, of course, that verifies that there is a lineage, though Ham, that does not qualify for 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; --Abraham 1:27

It would make sense that a latter-day Prophet would identify that lineage for our day. Right?

If President Young --an ordained revelator for the church-- was wrong that the Negro are the seed of Ham, then what other Prophet has identified the lineage spoken of in Abraham 1:27?

My own faith, by the way, is that President Young was only partly correct in what he was teaching. There is a significant matter that he did not know about.

Richard

[David T]

Hi,

There is an LDS accepted revelation, of course, that verifies that there is a lineage, though Ham, that does not qualify for 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; --Abraham 1:27

It would make sense that a latter-day Prophet would identify that lineage for our day. Right?

In light of Peter's revelation removing the clean-unclean restrictions of non-Israelite nationalities, and presenting all with equal standing before God in terms of being presented the full Gospel, any such questions based on such any such interpretation of that scriptural narrative would be moot post 1st Century Christianity anyway.

Edited October 15, 2011 by nackhadlow

[K-2]

In light of Peter's revelation removing the clean-unclean restrictions of non-Israelite nationalities, and presenting all with equal standing before God in terms of being presented the full Gospel, any such questions based on such any such interpretation of that scriptural narrative would be moot post 1st Century Christianity anyway.

It sounds like you're saying that any priesthood denial based on lineage that occurred after Peter's experience was unwarranted. Is that what you mean by this?

[David T]

It sounds like you're saying that any priesthood denial based on lineage that occurred after Peter's experience was unwarranted. Is that what you mean by this?

Yep.

[Kevin Christensen]

See, among other things, Nibley's Abraham in Egypt:

Answer: Verses 21 through 25 in Abraham 1 must be read carefully to get straight a number of specific propositions:

1. Egypt is the "Chaldean" name for the land: "Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt" (Abraham 1:23). Here the Book of Abraham is right: Egypt is not the Egyptian name for the land,⁴⁰⁸ but was first applied to it by the Canaanites ("in the Chaldean"), making its first known appearance in Ugaritic as Ḥkpt, that being an adaptation of the old Egyptian name for Memphis, Ḥw.t-kɜ-ptḥ,which the Egyptians did not apply to the land as a whole, but only to the city.⁴⁰⁹ It was the "Chaldeans" who gave it to the land. Such is the prevailing, but by no means only, explanation of the name among scholars.

2. The Egyptians, like Pharaoh himself, were of mixed stock, being partakers "of the blood of the Canaanites" (Abraham 1:21—22). Unhindered by natural boundaries, the Canaanites at all times filtered into Egypt by the oldest road in the world, presenting a recurrent menace throughout all her [Egypt's] history, according to Gardiner.⁴¹⁰ The Delta that attracted them was like the garden of the Lord, offering tempting grazing and farming lands from the earliest times. Examination of skulls from Canaan shows "an array of cranial characteristics surprisingly similar to those of ancient Egypt."⁴¹¹

Question: Who were the Canaanites?

Answer: "The title 'Canaanites,' if it be used at all, must be reserved for the third-millennium Semitic inhabitants of Syria-Palestine and their second-millennium descendants."⁴¹²

3. There has been a great deal of hair-splitting on the subject of Egypt and Canaan, but one sure thing is that Canaanite blood was shared one way or another by almost every pharaoh whose line can be traced:⁴¹³ "Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham" (Abraham 1:25) "and Egyptus" (Abraham 1:23). The name Egypt is a title, as was Pharaoh ("which . . . signifies king by royal blood"—Abraham 1:20), and was given to the land, just as the title of Pharaoh (like that of Caesar) was given to all who ruled after him. As in the Old Testament, "father" can mean ancestor, or "son" or "daughter" can mean "descendant";⁴¹⁴ this is clear from Abraham 1:26, where Noah is called Pharaoh's father.

4. 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—27). His earthly rule was blessed (Abraham 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother. There is an interesting parallel here with the case of Job, who, according to a newly found Testament of Job, though the most righteous of men and a direct descendant of Jacob or Israel, cannot claim a place among the patriarchs of the line because it is through his mother that he relates to Jacob, while his father's line, through Esau, was invalid because Esau had forfeited the priesthood.⁴¹⁵ Pharoah finds himself in exactly that situation: The male line of Ham had become rebellious, while the female line was not patriarchal.

At many points this relates to the classic story of the marriage of Joseph and Asenath,¹⁵⁷ which explains the mingling and reconciling of the blood of Ham with the blood of Israel. For Asenath, it will be recalled, was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Genesis 41:45; 46:20), and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim (Genesis 41:50—52; 46:20). The purpose of the story is to tell how she became an Israelite and he became the heir of Pharaoh.

These few observations, kept to a minimum, should be enough to make it clear that there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between the Egyptians and the blacks, or between any of the above and any particular curse. What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right to the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession.

That is, what is denied in our Book of Abraham is a recognition of a patriarchal right to the priesthood based on a claim of matriarchal succession. That is what shows up when the text is read carefully against the ancient context. What happened in LDS history is quite different: a misreading of LDS texts against 19th Century Western cultural assumptions based on a longstanding misreading of the curse of Ham that originally appeared as a justification for the slave trade.

See Stirling Adam's discussion of two recent non-LDS studies into the history of Biblical interpretation of the key passages.

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

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Maidservant]

@Kevin Christensen's post:

not to mention that now we don't count Melchizedek priesthood by blood lineages any more, yay!

[Cobalt-70]

There is an LDS accepted revelation, of course, that verifies that there is a lineage, though Ham, that does not qualify for 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; --Abraham 1:27

From the context of the Book of Abraham passage, this is talking about what Joseph Smith later described as the "Patriarchal Priesthood." It is the priesthood that was passed down from father to first-born son, through Noah to Shem, eventually to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This priesthood is a different order of priesthood than the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, and was most recently held by the Presiding Patriarch, until that office was suspended by the LDS Church several decades ago. The reason why Ham's descendants could not hold this patriarchal priesthood is because Shem was the firstborn, and it went to him, not Ham. The scripture says nothing about race.

[inquiringmind]

This priesthood is a different order of priesthood than the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, and was most recently held by the Presiding Patriarch, until that office was suspended by the LDS Church several decades ago.

Why was it suspended?

(I thought everything was supposed to be restored in this dispensation?)

And wouldn't the Presiding Patriarch be the First President?

Edited October 16, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

Why was it suspended?

(I thought everything was supposed to be restored in this dispensation?)

And wouldn't the Presiding Patriarch be the First President?

No, the Presiding Patriarch was a different office. Joseph Smith instituted the office by ordaining his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., who then ordained Hyrum Smith, and it was to be passed from father to son. Smith once said that this was the highest office in the LDS Church. However, the stature of the office was diminished after Hyrum died (Hyrum, who was also the Assistant President, would have succeeded Joseph Smith had he survived him). Then, in 1942, the Presiding Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith was discovered to be in a gay relationship, which diminished the stature of the office even further. In 1979, the church granted emeritus status to the last Presiding Patriarch, Eldred G. Smith. There is currently nobody holding the office.

[inquiringmind]

Then, in 1942, the Presiding Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith was discovered to be in a gay relationship

But wasn't Joseph Fielding Smith also a Prophet (and first President)?

Smith once said that this was the highest office in the LDS Church.

Where did Joseph Smith say that?

Is it a well documented, reliable quote (or the kind of questionable quote I've come across on anti-Mormon web sites, and have been told to beware of)?

[K-2]

From the context of the Book of Abraham passage, this is talking about what Joseph Smith later described as the "Patriarchal Priesthood." It is the priesthood that was passed down from father to first-born son, through Noah to Shem, eventually to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This priesthood is a different order of priesthood than the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, and was most recently held by the Presiding Patriarch, until that office was suspended by the LDS Church several decades ago. The reason why Ham's descendants could not hold this patriarchal priesthood is because Shem was the firstborn, and it went to him, not Ham. The scripture says nothing about race.

Interesting.

What about what it says in Genesis 9:26 footnote "a" (footnote doesn't work for some reason [???] on lds.org) / JST Genesis 9:30? What does it mean?

30 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.

[Cobalt-70]

But wasn't Joseph Fielding Smith also a Prophet (and first President)?

It was a different Joseph Fielding Smith.

[selek1]

Then, in 1942, the Presiding Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith was discovered to be in a gay relationship, which diminished the stature of the office even further.

Given the seriousness of this allegation, I doubt you'd mind providing some evidence to substantiate the charge.

Thus far, the only references I've been able to find "supporting" this accusation are of dubious authenticity (the notoriously biased and dubious D. Michael Quinn) and rely heavily on innuendo, what-if's, and an agenda-driven revision of history.

In point of fact, every instance I've been able to find online was either written by or in cooperation with the execrable Quinn (and thus influenced by his passion for self-justification).

Neither have I been able to find a single first-hand report or direct evidence supporting the accusations against Patriarch Smith, though I'll keep looking.

Since you made the charge, however....

Edited October 16, 2011 by selek1

[Skylla]

Given the seriousness of this allegation, I doubt you'd mind providing some evidence to substantiate the charge.

Thus far, the only references I've been able to find "supporting" this accusation are of dubious authenticity (the notoriously biased and dubious D. Michael Quinn) and rely heavily on innuendo, what-if's, and an agenda-driven revision of history.

I haven't been able to find a single first-hand report or testimony supporting these charges, though I'll keep looking.

Since you made the charge, however....

Agreed.

Cobalt: Let's not make such claims without reliable references.

Skylla

[Cobalt-70]

Where did Joseph Smith say that?

Is it a well documented, reliable quote (or the kind of questionable quote I've come across on anti-Mormon web sites, and have been told to beware of)?

The quote is reliable. It is from the official Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, taken by Willard Richards on May 27, 1843, in which Joseph Smith said, during a meeting with the Twelve, that "the patriarchal office is the highest office in the Church." He apparently said this as a bone thrown to Hyrum, who the day prior had just very reluctantly given up his vehement objection to plural marriage.

[ldsfaqs]

I've been reading about Elijah Abel, a black man who Joseph ordained to the priesthood.

Yep, him and others over the years have been given the priesthood.

Some sources say that two of his sons were later ordained to the priesthood (after Joseph's death), but I find this confusing.

Yep, and many more. Not confusing at all.

If there was a ban on blacks holding the priesthood that goes back to Ham, and it was only removed in 1978, how could blacks have been ordained to the priesthood in the 19th century?

Because you are operating under several false assumptions.

1. The Ban only applied to those of "African" lineage, not "blacks". Blacks of the Islands, Central/South America, India, and more WERE given the Priesthood when their lineage were determined. Even whites had the priesthood denied or taken away when their lineage were determined.

2. Having "exceptions" to the rule are not unheard of. When Christ was on the earth the Gospel was "banned" to non-Jews, and it took Peter getting a revelation after Christ's death to then take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Yet, we also know that Christ and others taught and baptized some Gentiles because of their belief. Likewise, the same thing happened in the early days of the Church.

3. We don't actually know the lineage of Elijah Abel.

4. We don't know if the ban was actually a "long term" ban. As far as we can tell, we don't really now the reasons for the ban. Some of the assumptions made from scripture likely weren't correct.

5. It is my view that the ban was entirely put in place due to the racism in the world itself at the time, that God didn't want the Church to be effected by it. It almost being destroyed because of Polygamy was likely enough. Throw in blacks in mass migrating to the Church and having Priesthood Authority, who knows what the results would have been. Note how the ban ended at the same exact time racism ended in society? Talking of course about actual racism that was widespread in society which no longer exists, not the fantasy made up version still promoted by Liberals and black liberals, nor the extremely rare case nutball, nor reverse racism by blacks and liberals.

[ldsfaqs]

The quote is reliable. It is from the official Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, taken by Willard Richards on May 27, 1843, in which Joseph Smith said, during a meeting with the Twelve, that "the patriarchal office is the highest office in the Church." He apparently said this as a bone thrown to Hyrum, who the day prior had just very reluctantly given up his vehement objection to plural marriage.

Well, in a particular context Joseph is correct that the Patriarchal office is the highest in the Church. It doesn't have the same "Keys" to run the Church, but it can be said to be the highest "Spiritual" office of the Church. Just like Patriarchs in a Stake of the Church. They are often well known to be the most spiritual men of the stake, and the Church, men who receive direct revelation and communication from God on a daily more specific basis.

Patriarchs are kinda like Fathers, like God is our Father. However, we all know that "The Church" isn't the Fathers Church, it's ran by Christ.

The Prophet of the Church while the top authority of the Church, the one who runs it and has say, the Patriarch can be said to be the Father of the Church.

Thus, Joseph's words need to be understood in the context they were meant.

[Cobalt-70]

Thus far, the only references I've been able to find "supporting" this accusation are of dubious authenticity (the notoriously biased and dubious D. Michael Quinn) and rely heavily on innuendo, what-if's, and an agenda-driven revision of history.

In point of fact, every instance I've been able to find online was either written by or in cooperation with the execrable Quinn (and thus influenced by his passion for self-justification).

Neither have I been able to find a single first-hand report or direct evidence supporting the accusations against Patriarch Smith, though I'll keep looking.

These are not "accusations against" him. It's not like he committed a crime. He wasn't even excommunicated--the church just prevented him from speaking in church or holding callings until a decade later he confessed to his wife and wrote a letter of confession to the First Presidency.

It is not just Quinn's' research. The earliest research was pulled together by Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: the Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch. Quinn simply added some additional supporting material to that. There is a ton of documentary evidence. But it is getting far afield of the topic.

[Cobalt-70]

Well, in a particular context Joseph is correct that the Patriarchal office is the highest in the Church. It doesn't have the same "Keys" to run the Church, but it can be said to be the highest "Spiritual" office of the Church. Just like Patriarchs in a Stake of the Church. They are often well known to be the most spiritual men of the stake, and the Church, men who receive direct revelation and communication from God on a daily more specific basis.

Patriarchs are kinda like Fathers, like God is our Father. However, we all know that "The Church" isn't the Fathers Church, it's ran by Christ.

The Prophet of the Church while the top authority of the Church, the one who runs it and has say, the Patriarch can be said to be the Father of the Church.

Thus, Joseph's words need to be understood in the context they were meant.

I'm not so sure it is that clear-cut. For one thing, it was Presiding Patriarch John Smith who set apart President Joseph F. Smith as President of the Church in 1901. That implies that the Presiding Patriarch had at least as many "keys" as the President of the Church.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[selek1]

These are not "accusations against" him. It's not like he committed a crime.

They are precisely that. You (and Quinn) have accused Smith of deeply immoral and deeply shameful behavior, Cobalt.

Behavior that almost inevitably leads to excommunication even in today's more "permissive" and "tolerant" environment.

The Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith work reference allegations and second hand reports. Yet you and Quinn persist as though the accusations against Smith were a done deal. In fact, with the exception of the Bates and Smith work (which is far more circumspect than either you or Quinn) , every single source available through a web search points back to Quinn.

He wasn't even excommunicated--

Quite correct. In point of fact, he was never tried in a Church court for the alleged sins, nor even disfellowshipped according to the extant records.

Yet you trot out his unproven "guilt" as a matter of course.

In fact, the few records and journals Bates and Smith cite (granted not all of those citations were available in the GoogleBooks copy) refer to conversations about the Patriarch's health and condition- not about his alleged sin.

the church just prevented him from speaking in church or holding callings

Considering that he was officially released due to concern about his health, this seems perfectly reasonable.

until a decade later he confessed to his wife and wrote a letter of confession to the First Presidency.

Again, the GoogleBooks copy does not include the footnotes substantiating this little tidbit.

I do note that the Bates and Smith work references a full written confession- but the details of what was being confessed are remarkably absent.

It is not just Quinn's' research. The earliest research was pulled together by Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: the Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch.

Which does not appear to say what you and Quinn claim it does.

Quinn simply added some additional supporting material to that.

This sentence might be better written as "Quinn engaged in his nigh-legendary penchant for mind-reading, unprovable supposition, and the wholesale spinning of facts to supoort his personal world-view."

There is a ton of documentary evidence. But it is getting far afield of the topic.

Then perhaps you might provide some.

However far afield the derail may be, YOU made the accusation.

Can you support it factually?

Edited October 16, 2011 by selek1

[selek1]

One other thing, Cobalt....

I can see how (if true) the alleged behavior would diminish Joseph Fielding Smith (II).

(I can also see them diminishing Smith's reputation even if those are false. Where, after all, would the man go to regain his reputation in the face of slander?).

What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is how these charges can be construed by any fair-minded assessment to have "diminished the stature of the office [of Presiding Patriarch] even further."

Surely, any objective observer would differentiate between the intrinsic dignity and moral responsibility of the Office even while acknowledging the failures of the flawed, mortal men holding that office.

We've had some real doozy's as President of the United States (current and past) and will undoubtedly have some in the future.

Yet can anyone really say that these individuals have lessened the stature or public regard for the Office of the President?