Priesthood Ban - Evidence For When It Began?

[cinepro]

CFR:

Chapter 1.

Bernard

Assuming you have access to the internet and could easily search, cut and paste, please quote the specific verses you feel "explain" the "temporary exclusion". Unless you are claiming that every verse the in chapter specifically applies, that's pretty weak (and I suspect, to some degree, evasive).

Edited December 22, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Then permit me to rephrase: there is absolutely no rational reason why the ban should have any relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

Well, to be fair, there's no rational reason the ban should have had any relevance to the life of any past Latter-day Saint either.

At least from a genetic standpoint.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Sethpayne:

"Oh you can't change what you said after the fact, Pahoran and say you are rephrasing. You said that the restriction had NO impact on any current or future Saints. What you said is patently false. You are simply bringing up rationality now to try and recover from an unsupported claim which I imagine you *wish* were true. Well, Pahoran, I wish it were true as well. Unfortunately, it isn't."

Yes and no. Given the growth of the Church since 1978 there are relatively few that the ban had any effect on for this earth life. It never did nor will have for the next life.

Edited December 22, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[birdgirl]

I thought the "ban" was there from the very beginning but some people misunderstood or didn't know that some men had African American ancestors.

From The Church and the Negro by John L. Lund:

It is obvious that when Joseph Smith said , "No Person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood," that is exactly what he meant. This was the situation in Elijah Abel's case. A quote from Berrett's supplement to Mormonism and the Negro reveals that Elijah was "one-eighth Negro and light of color." Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood. Berrett also explains in referring to the entry cited in Jensen's LDS Biographical Encyclopedia,

The entry is misleading because it does not disclose that Elijah Ablel was only part Negro and does not disclose the fact that in a meeting, May 31, 1879, at the home of President A. O. Smoot, Provo, Utah, leaders of the Church reapproved that the Priesthood was not for the Negro, and that Elijah Ablel was not to exercise any priesthood rights.

Why is there a debate about "when it began" as if it were a later change or institution of the rule? Did Smoot and Lund and many (virtually all) others misquote/misunderstand Smith in "reapproving" the ban? Lund makes it sound like this rule was in clearly in place from the begining.

Edited December 22, 2011 by birdgirl

[Bernard Gui]

Assuming you have access to the internet and could easily search, cut and paste, please quote the specific verses you feel "explain" the "temporary exclusion". Unless you are claiming that every verse the in chapter specifically applies, that's pretty weak (and I suspect, to some degree, evasive).

Suspect?

Bernard

[lachrymolotov]

I think it is worth mentioning that people in the LDS church are not the only ones that still consider black skin to be the mark of Cain.

The reason people won't let it die is because it is obvious there is some kind of discrimination that had gone on in the church for a very long time and a revelation from God seems a little too convenient for many outsiders. As time has gone on, understanding and awareness of discrimination has increased. The revelation lifting the ban conveniently coincided with this increase in awareness.

I think the most important issue with this "ban" is that Joseph Smith Jr. gave the priesthood to Elijah Abel, then the church steered in a direction that was contrary to Joseph Smith's. Considering the nature of how the church split, this is a clear indication that Brigham Young may have been the wrong one the Saints should have followed. If Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God, then Brigham Young was a pretender for making up revelation that Joseph Smith knew was wrong.

I do believe Joseph Smith Jr. had a more open-minded attitude towards black people and slavery for the time. I don't recall why I think that, but Elijah Abel's obtaining the Priesthood is clear evidence that the 1st and 2nd President of the Church had a difference of opinion. If they were both receiving revelation, then it is a difficult discrepancy to explain.

[thesometimesaint]

What pray tell was "convenient" about the lifting of the ban? !978 was very quiet on that front.

While Cultural practices did become entrenched I know of no revelation prior to the OD2 concerning african blacks and the priesthood.

[Damien the Leper]

What "gospel principle" is that?

I am aware that bits of The Way to Perfection, along with bits of Journal of Discourses and The Seer, are popular anti-Mormon talking points. Those who legitimately seek to learn and understand LDS doctrine will always balance these with other sources -- if, indeed, they use them at all.

The former Priesthood ban is not, and never was, a "gospel principle" in any sense. It is a historical footnote that is 33 years in the past, and continuing to recede, year by year. It has absolutely no relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

The refusal of anti-Mormons to let it go, and the determination they show to try to label it as some kind of core piece of LDS doctrine, demonstrates how desperate they are to find some cause to accuse the Church of something.

Regards,

Pahoran

I cannot say that I believe the ban was right or wrong. I believe that it was a more complicated issue than many of us, who don't understand it as well as others, are able to fully comprehend.

I doubt that our detractors will ever let us forget about our 'racism' (though some may actually have been racist) especially when citing Bruce McConkie. They will then cite the 1978 declaration and throw that in our face as a means to show 'we shift with the times' and also show that we are Satan's minions here to lead the world to the Pit.

To which I respond with a chuckle and turn away.

[birdgirl]

I think it is worth mentioning that people in the LDS church are not the only ones that still consider black skin to be the mark of Cain.

The reason people won't let it die is because it is obvious there is some kind of discrimination that had gone on in the church for a very long time and a revelation from God seems a little too convenient for many outsiders. As time has gone on, understanding and awareness of discrimination has increased. The revelation lifting the ban conveniently coincided with this increase in awareness.

I think the most important issue with this "ban" is that Joseph Smith Jr. gave the priesthood to Elijah Abel, then the church steered in a direction that was contrary to Joseph Smith's. Considering the nature of how the church split, this is a clear indication that Brigham Young may have been the wrong one the Saints should have followed. If Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God, then Brigham Young was a pretender for making up revelation that Joseph Smith knew was wrong.

I do believe Joseph Smith Jr. had a more open-minded attitude towards black people and slavery for the time. I don't recall why I think that, but Elijah Abel's obtaining the Priesthood is clear evidence that the 1st and 2nd President of the Church had a difference of opinion. If they were both receiving revelation, then it is a difficult discrepancy to explain.

Right up until 1978 Lund and many others seem to say that Joseph Smith accidentally gave Elijah Abel the Priesthood because he was unaware that Abel had "Negro" blood. Is there clear evidence that Smith knew Elijah Abel was of mixed race when he gave him the priesthood? President Smoot clearly felt that Joseph never would have given Abel the priesthood had he known.

Edited December 22, 2011 by birdgirl

[sethpayne]

Sethpayne:

"Oh you can't change what you said after the fact, Pahoran and say you are rephrasing. You said that the restriction had NO impact on any current or future Saints. What you said is patently false. You are simply bringing up rationality now to try and recover from an unsupported claim which I imagine you *wish* were true. Well, Pahoran, I wish it were true as well. Unfortunately, it isn't."

Yes and no. Given the growth of the Church since 1978 there are relatively few that the ban had any effect on for this earth life. It never did nor will have for the next life.

Fair point and I do agree with most of what you are saying. However, I remember GBH given a talk in conference a few years back stating that anyone who claims that another person should not have the priesthood due to race or skin color were themselves, not worthy of the MP. I have family members who, all these years later, still believe in this curse of cain nonsense. Indeed, I was taught the curse of cain nonsense growing up. From my experience over the past few years I know that the remnants of this false teaching still bothers some african american members of the Church. I can't speak beyond my own experience but I know of at least 2 individuals and 1 couple who are extremely bothered by the fact the curse of cain falsehood has not been officially repudiated. But, as Pahoran has pointed out they simply need to "get over" it.

IMO, the church would benefit a great deal by officially repudiating the false teachings of past leaders and it would go a long way to counter the false perceptions that as a group, Mormons are racist. BRM threw his own previous teachings under the bus after 1978 but an official repudiation of past false teachings would really send a positive message in my view.

[lachrymolotov]

Right up until 1978 Lund and many others seem to say that Joseph Smith accidentally gave Elijah Abel the Priesthood because he was unaware that Abel had "Negro" blood. Is there clear evidence that Smith knew Elijah Abel was of mixed race when he gave him the priesthood? President Smoot clearly felt that Joseph never would have given Abel the priesthood had he known.

It seemed obvious to me.

Judge for yourself...

[Kevin Christensen]

Essential context for understanding the larger cultural background behind the rise of the defunct LDS priesthood policy, and the pre existing misreading of the story of Noah's curse used to rationalize it, and as well as essential context for understanding how that context lead to a misreading of Abraham 1, (which says nothing about race but describes, as Nibley explains in Abraham in Egypt, how Pharoh imitates the patriarchal priesthood while claiming it through matrilineal ancestry), see Stirling Adams in BYU Studies, a Review of Stephen R. Haynes, "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery."

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

And I would not forget to consider D&C 1, particularly in "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[sethpayne]

Essential context for understanding the larger cultural background behind the rise of the defunct LDS priesthood policy, and the pre existing misreading of the story of Noah's curse used to rationalize it, and as well as essential context for understanding how that context lead to a misreading of Abraham 1, (which says nothing about race but describes, as Nibley explains in Abraham in Egypt, how Pharoh imitates the patriarchal priesthood while claiming it through matrilineal ancestry), see Stirling Adams in BYU Studies, a Review of Stephen R. Haynes, "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery."

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7582

And I would not forget to consider D&C 1, particularly in "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Great insight, Kevin. Thanks for sharing.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, I haven't illustrated anything. Lester Bush and Armand Mauss did that a long time ago.

Oh, I see. So when you previously wrote:

I completely agree. The restriction of men of black African heritage holding the priesthood and being given the blessings of the initiator, endowment, and sealing has never been a gospel principle. Of course, by saying this I mean to illustrate that members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles.

Are you now saying that you misspoke?

That's all right, Seth. Human language is always imprecise, and I'm not so petty and spiteful as to accuse you of lying if you now tell us that what you previously wrote did not perfectly reflect your intent. That kind of behaviour is far, far beneath me.

Hmm..... a "sunset clause?" Someone forgot to tell Joseph Smith about the restriction when he ordained Elijah Abel to the MP.

So they did, but how on earth does that relate to the (rather uncontroversial) fact that the Priesthood ban had a "sunset clause," i.e. it was always known that it would eventually come to an end?

I don't think BY was an uber-racist. He was a product of his time and culture. Presentism is a terrible thing and BY should not be judged by 2011 cultural norms. He should be understood by 19th century cultural norms and, given his time and place, we should recognize that BY was very much like many of his peers. Given the controversy regarding slavery at that time (1852) It is no surprise that the issue of descent would be discussed.

I agree that Brigham wasn't an uber-racist, but that is how he is frequently portrayed. I point out that under Brigham's leadership, Utah had laws that protected slaves and punished their masters if they mistreated them. Brigham was quite unlike most of his peers.

Oh you can't change what you said after the fact, Pahoran and say you are rephrasing.

Actually, as the one and only person who owns my position, and the sole world authority on what I think about any subject, that is precisely what I can do.

You said that the restriction had NO impact on any current or future Saints.

And as Jane Austen (who most people think knew a thing or two about how the English language works) once pointed out, it is not reasonable to expect absolutes and superlatives used in everyday conversation to be mathematically precise. I stand by what I said, but only in the sense that I originally meant it.

When the earthquakes happened in Christchurch earlier this year, I knew about them and felt concern and sadness. But when people asked me if they had any impact on me, I unhesitatingly said no, they did not. They happened a long way away from me; not nearly as far as 33 years away, but still a long way away; my house did not fall down, my water and power were not cut off. When I speak of "impact" I mean practical impact, not how someone might choose to feel about something that did not happen to them. I cannot, after all, control what people choose to take umbrage about.

I weary myself with this long-winded explanation, not to justify myself to you, of all people, but so that you may understand the nature of your offence. Your remarks here are arrogant and judgemental.

What you said is patently false.

What I said was absolutely true.

You are simply bringing up rationality now to try and recover from an unsupported claim which I imagine you *wish* were true.

You will kindly do me the honour of accepting that I understand what I mean and intend by what I say, and refrain from projecting your own imaginings upon me.

Thank you.

Well, Pahoran, I wish it were true as well. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Actually, it is.

Yeah! Just like we should just "get over" Haun's Mill, being driven from Missouri, the murder of Joseph Smith, and the seizure of Church property by the US government. The fact is, our history is part of our culture. You can't "get over" history but you can learn lessons from history. (I'm certainly not equating the persecution/murder of the Saints with the restriction. I'm using hyperbole intentionally and need to make that explicitly clear before you employ your very impressive rhetorical skills to avoid/miss the point entirely.)

And when I meet a Missourian today, it does not occur to me to accuse him of living in an anti-Mormon state, or assume that he is loading up his musket in preparation for the next Extermination Order. If I were an American, and was contemplating a move to Missouri, the history of events in the 1830's would not be a factor in my deliberations. In the sense I was recommending, I am confident that we have gotten over it.

It is terrible, isn't it? Unfortunately it happens. Truth be told, US Mormons are actually statistically less racist than other Christian peers according to Mauss' study of the issue.

The fact remains that certain communities within the US perceive the Church as racist.

I wasn't aware that "communities" in the US have "hive minds" so as to uniformly share perceptions. If you tell me that people within certain communities in the US perceive the Church as racist, I would find that a reasonable assertion.

And I believe that the best remedy for false preceptions is to begin with a healthy dose of facts. We could begin with the fact that the historical Priesthood ban, which always had a sunset clause in it, had absolutely no impact upon any current or future Latter-day Saint.

Given (and it is a given) that voluntary, vicarious indignation is not an "impact" in any meaningful sense.

Snip fluff.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

The reason people won't let it die is because it is obvious there is some kind of discrimination that had gone on in the church for a very long time and a revelation from God seems a little too convenient for many outsiders. As time has gone on, understanding and awareness of discrimination has increased. The revelation lifting the ban conveniently coincided with this increase in awareness.

Or, with increasing awareness, the Church was then prepared for the revelation.

Bernard

[cinepro]

Suspect?

Bernard

Yes. Which specific verses are you referring to?

[birdgirl]

It seemed obvious to me.

Judge for yourself...

Looks like a white guy with black hair to me but the photo is kind of grainy. More importantly, Lund and other church leaders from Abel's day up until 1978 maintained that "...the Priesthood has been mistakenly given to some Negroes who are light of color." (The Church and the Negro p. 78)

So if Joseph knew that Elijah Abel was one-eighth "Negro" and gave him the priesthood anyway, why did he say, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood"? Didn't President Smoot know Elijah Abel before 1879? Abel was ordained an Elder in 1836 and as a Seventy 1841 so he wasn't unknown to the leadership. What I've read that was written pre-1987 says that Elijah Abel was clearly a case of mistaken pedigree that was rectified upon discovery. I'm fine with the alternate explanation that Smith was more progressive but why didn't Smoot or Young or anyone else seem to believe that Smith would have approved of his own actions?

[Pahoran]

Looks like a white guy with black hair to me but the photo is kind of grainy. More importantly, Lund and other church leaders from Abel's day up until 1978 maintained that "...the Priesthood has been mistakenly given to some Negroes who are light of color." (The Church and the Negro p. 78)

So if Joseph knew that Elijah Abel was one-eighth "Negro" and gave him the priesthood anyway, why did he say, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood"? Didn't President Smoot know Elijah Abel before 1879? Abel was ordained an Elder in 1836 and as a Seventy 1841 so he wasn't unknown to the leadership. What I've read that was written pre-1987 says that Elijah Abel was clearly a case of mistaken pedigree that was rectified upon discovery. I'm fine with the alternate explanation that Smith was more progressive but why didn't Smoot or Young or anyone else seem to believe that Smith would have approved of his own actions?

Before you ask why a person said something, you need first to establish that he did say it. I am unaware of any contemporary source for that alleged statement.

Elijah Abel (or Able) was not only ordained by Joseph Smith, but so were his male descendants, even though their lineage was known. I don't know what your point is Birdgirl, but there's more to the pre-1978 story than a simple, blanket restriction.

I've read a number of things about the origins of the ban, and the evidence that Joseph Smith originated it is far from univocal.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

Yes. Which specific verses are you referring to?

To be frank, I don't enjoy conversing when someone suspects I am lying.

Would you mind clarifying?

Bernard

[birdgirl]

Before you ask why a person said something, you need first to establish that he did say it. I am unaware of any contemporary source for that alleged statement.

Elijah Abel (or Able) was not only ordained by Joseph Smith, but so were his male descendants, even though their lineage was known. I don't know what your point is Birdgirl, but there's more to the pre-1978 story than a simple, blanket restriction.

I've read a number of things about the origins of the ban, and the evidence that Joseph Smith originated it is far from univocal.

Regards,

Pahoran

Good point. John L. Lund only gives Abraham O. Smoot as the source of the quote but perhaps he did shoddy research and didn't bother to either confirm this statement with other sources or identify in his text that its origin was questionable. He just wrote "It is obvious that when Joseph Smith said, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood," that is exactly what he meant."

Edited December 22, 2011 by birdgirl

[Pahoran]

Good point. John L. Lund only gives Abraham O. Smoot as the source of the quote but perhaps he did shoddy research and didn't bother to either confirm this statement with other sources or identify in his text that its origin was questionable. He just wrote "It is obvious that when Joseph Smith said...

I'm only going from memory here, but I believe Smoot was too; and his report came some years after Joseph's death.

I'm not prepared to accuse Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin of lying, but I'm not certain we can rely upon their memories in detail after forty-odd years. However, the entirety of their statement, IIRC, seemed to relate to slaves, not to Blacks. At that time, most Blacks were slaves, so there wasn't much of a distinction; but to me it is possible that a policy intended to ensure (1) that the Priesthood was not in bondage, and (2) that slave-holders were not alarmed at the prospect that anyone was inciting their slaves to rebellion, ended up being mistakenly applied to all Blacks rather than just those in slavery.

Certain it is that the later "Curse of Cain" and "Pre-mortal unfaithfulness" theories were provided after the fact to explain the Priesthood ban that already existed, and were not given by revelation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Looks like a white guy with black hair to me but the photo is kind of grainy. More importantly, Lund and other church leaders from Abel's day up until 1978 maintained that "...the Priesthood has been mistakenly given to some Negroes who are light of color." (The Church and the Negro p. 78)

He was born into slavery and his parents were slaves.

I wouldn't doubt that church writers questioned his ancestry to explain the apparent incongruity of his ordination. I'm one who believes the ban was begun by Brigham Young to attempt to align politics with the south and to overcome charges that the church consisted of abolitionists. After all, the Republicans were the chief persecutors of the church. John C Fremont to Senator Borah of Idaho.

[cinepro]

To be frank, I don't enjoy conversing when someone suspects I am lying.

Would you mind clarifying?

Bernard

Usually, when someone makes a claim that "the scriptures say ____________", they'll actually cut and paste the actual scriptures being referred to so everyone can read what they say. Sometimes, someone will save themselves the trouble of cutting and pasting a well known passage and just cite the verses.

But it's entirely improper to make a claim that the scriptures "say something" possibly debatable and even inflammatory and then just cite an entire book ("The D&C says there will be progression between the kingdoms"), and narrowing it down to a chapter is only slightly less unhelpful.

If you are claiming that the Book of Abraham actually provides scriptural support for the priesthood ban of the 19th and 20th centuries, do us all the favor of actually cutting and pasting the verses that support that claim. There may be those on this forum who know which verses you are referring to, but there may be newer participants that don't, and it would be a tragedy for someone to think that "the Book of Abraham provides scriptural support for the latter day priesthood ban" if, in fact, it didn't.

[lachrymolotov]

Joseph Smith was a great advocate for the black people; in a time in which many of his fellow white countrymen owned black slaves, and in a time which almost all white Americans believed that "Negroes" were "inherently inferior" to white people. The Prophet Joseph Smith did not believe that Negroes were inherently "inferior" to whites. He said that they were the way they were only because the whites did not allow them to be educated. He said that if one "changed their situation" and educated them "they would be like" the whites. He advocated the freedom, education, and the granting of "equal rights" to blacks at a time when only a small minority of Abolitionists believed that blacks should be granted equal rights. When he was once asked what advice he would give to a man who came into the Church with 100 black slaves, the Prophet replied:

"I have advised them to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free~educate them~and give them equal rights." (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40)

He also said:

"Break off the shackles of the poor black man and hire him to labor like other human beings." (History of The Church 5:209)

Black Mormon History 101

Perhaps this is cherry picking quotes, but this type of thing was always why I assumed that Joseph Smith Jr. knowingly gave the priesthood to a black man. I suppose it is only because of what my perception was of what his perception was of black people. It never occurred to me that anyone would have thought Elijah Abel was white because of the type of hair he had. Now that I have learned that he was born into slavery, it seems that reinforces the idea that he was obviously black.

Edited December 22, 2011 by lachrymolotov

[sethpayne]

Are you now saying that you misspoke?

Indeed I did. I should have been more clear and precise in my use of language. Thank you for the correction, it is greatly appreciated. As I said, I truly admire your rhetorical skills.

That's all right, Seth. Human language is always imprecise, and I'm not so petty and spiteful as to accuse you of lying if you now tell us that what you previously wrote did not perfectly reflect your intent. That kind of behaviour is far, far beneath me.

Thank you for your sincere charity.

So they did, but how on earth does that relate to the (rather uncontroversial) fact that the Priesthood ban had a "sunset clause," i.e. it was always known that it would eventually come to an end?

Yes. As I recall it was supposed to end some time during or after the millenium according to BY. I could be misremembering. I wasn't terribly clear. The entire notion of a "sunset clause" is completely bogus. Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel -- and perhaps others. I'll take Joseph Smith's words/actions over Brigham Young's any day of the week.

I agree that Brigham wasn't an uber-racist, but that is how he is frequently portrayed. I point out that under Brigham's leadership, Utah had laws that protected slaves and punished their masters if they mistreated them. Brigham was quite unlike most of his peers.

Its a miracle. On this we almost completely agree. In many ways BY was unlike his peers and in other ways he was similar. On race, BY=peers. On colonizing the American west, BY far surpasses his peers.

Actually, as the one and only person who owns my position, and the sole world authority on what I think about any subject, that is precisely what I can do.

I admire your rhetoric. You can say one thing and then "clarify" by saying the exact opposite once your position is show to be false. I can't pull that off and your ability to do so is impressive.

And as Jane Austen (who most people think knew a thing or two about how the English language works) once pointed out, it is not reasonable to expect absolutes and superlatives used in everyday conversation to be mathematically precise. I stand by what I said, but only in the sense that I originally meant it.

Bravo!

When the earthquakes happened in Christchurch earlier this year, I knew about them and felt concern and sadness. But when people asked me if they had any impact on me, I unhesitatingly said no, they did not. They happened a long way away from me; not nearly as far as 33 years away, but still a long way away; my house did not fall down, my water and power were not cut off. When I speak of "impact" I mean practical impact, not how someone might choose to feel about something that did not happen to them. I cannot, after all, control what people choose to take umbrage about.

Ok. Feelings don't matter. Only "practical" impact. Got it.

I weary myself with this long-winded explanation, not to justify myself to you, of all people, but so that you may understand the nature of your offence. Your remarks here are arrogant and judgemental.

Please ignore me if you are becoming so weary! Don't waste your time responding. I do love the irony of your last statement, however. Priceless!!

What I said was absolutely true.

What you said is absolutely false. Sorry.

You will kindly do me the honour of accepting that I understand what I mean and intend by what I say, and refrain from projecting your own imaginings upon me.

No can do, Pahoran. Just like you, I call em' like I see em'!

And when I meet a Missourian today, it does not occur to me to accuse him of living in an anti-Mormon state, or assume that he is loading up his musket in preparation for the next Extermination Order. If I were an American, and was contemplating a move to Missouri, the history of events in the 1830's would not be a factor in my deliberations. In the sense I was recommending, I am confident that we have gotten over it.

Do you know how much I wish you had been around to speak with Issac Haight and John D. Lee about Missouri? Seriously, so much trouble could have been avoided if only your wisdom was available to these men in 1857.

And seriously, for your own good Pahoran: ignore me. I don't want you becoming more weary as we approach Christmas.

I wasn't aware that "communities" in the US have "hive minds" so as to uniformly share perceptions. If you tell me that people within certain communities in the US perceive the Church as racist, I would find that a reasonable assertion.

Again, forgive my lack of precision. *Some* within certain communities in the US view the Church as racist, unfortunately. The Pew research center has some data on this I think -- but I could be wrong.

And I believe that the best remedy for false perceptions is to begin with a healthy dose of facts. We could begin with the fact that the historical Priesthood ban, which always had a sunset clause in it, had absolutely no impact upon any current or future Latter-day Saint.

Absolutely false. I know at least 4 who have been impacted.

Given (and it is a given) that voluntary, vicarious indignation is not an "impact" in any meaningful sense.

How about hurt feelings because your sunday school teacher tells you that you were a fence-sitter in the pre-existence or that you carry the curse of cain? Not meaningful. Not meaningful at all.

BTW -- happy Holidays to you and yours.