On What Grounds Are Zebedee Coltrin And A.o. Smoot Dismissed?

[rongo]

I'm aware that most people in discussing the priesthood ban dismiss Zebedee Coltrin's statements that he asked Joseph Smith about blacks and the priesthood, and that he declared after obtaining revelation that blacks should not have the priesthood (the context was President John Taylor asking him about this, since Coltrin was one of the seven presidents of the quorum of the seventy when Elijah Abel was dropped from the 2nd quorum because of his race). They also dismiss Abraham O. Smoot's testimony that he and others asked about the issue while serving missions in the South, and Joseph Smith likewise stated that blacks should not have the priesthood.

 

I have never had it explained to me in a satisfactory manner *why* these (and other) witnesses are dismissed when considering whether Joseph Smith has any connection with the ban (most today seem to lay it solely at the feet of Brigham Young, with Joseph Smith being the polar opposite). I have heard people say that Smoot was a slave owner, so of course he would be pro-ban, but this to me doesn't countermand his testimony. And I have never heard any reasons for dismissing Coltrin, except for the unstated one that his statements don't fit with how they want things to be (have been).

 

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Thanks! 

[Calm]

Iirc, Coltrin actually ordained Able, but later claimed it was revoked by Joseph Smith which was not true.

Coltrin also stated that JS denounced giving the Priesthood to the blacks in 1834 while Able was ordained in 1836.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

How do we know it isn't true? He was in the presidency of the Seventy, which one would suppose would put him in a position to know about removal from a lower quorum. President Taylor seemed to agree with his testimony.

 

Is the claim that Coltrin, Smoot, et. al. were lying, or just mistaken? And again, on what grounds? How do we know?

Edited December 20, 2013 by rongo

[Calm]

His Priesthood and his descendants was confirmed by all prophets following JS IIRC plus no record of its removal.

Off the top of my head so my memory may be wrong.

FairMormon should have all the details. Also blacklds.org.

[Stone holm]

So you think Joseph Smith should join Brigham Young under the bus?

[JLHPROF]

So you think Joseph Smith should join Brigham Young under the bus?

 

I think the bus needs to be removed.  There was a teaching in the church that is no longer accepted as coming from God.  It doesn't make the men who believed it or taught it evil or wicked.  It makes them wrong.  It makes them mistaken.  Why do we need to take out anger on them instead of putting the past in the past?  Are we as petty as those who took this doctrine and ran with it to the harm of others, or can we be grateful it's over?

 

You are derailing and will be removed if it continues.

[Stone holm]

I think the bus needs to be removed.  There was a teaching in the church that is no longer accepted as coming from God.  It doesn't make the men who believed it or taught it evil or wicked.  It makes them wrong.  It makes them mistaken.  Why do we need to take out anger on them instead of putting the past in the past?  Are we as petty as those who took this doctrine and ran with it to the harm of others, or can we be grateful it's over?

Am grateful that the ban is no longer with us, and am grateful that the erroneous explanations have been disavowed, but I still think that God had a hand in the ban and it's long duration. So I was being sarcastic about the bus, and I believe BY is being scapegoated as there were plenty of Prophets after him who could have lifted the ban had God told them to do so.

 

You are derailing and your drive by sarcasm is wearing very thin.

[Calm]

How do we know it isn't true? He was in the presidency of the Seventy, which one would suppose would put him in a position to know about removal from a lower quorum. President Taylor seemed to agree with his testimony.

 

Is the claim that Coltrin, Smoot, et. al. were lying, or just mistaken? And again, on what grounds? How do we know?

As part of this investigation Zebedee Coltrin recalled that Joseph Smith said in 1834 that "the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." However, this claim is suspect given Coltrin's errors on the circumstances of Elijah Abel's ordination, participation in Kirtland temple ordinances, and retention in the Seventies quorum all under the supervision of Joseph Smith.^%5B14%5D

President Taylor seemed to agree with his testimony.

If he had then why was Elijah Able and his sons able to continue in their Priesthood?  The JT investigation was in 79.  I believe Able's last mission as a seventy was in  1884.

 

I don't know of any positive claims beyond speculation though I vaguely remember someone proposing that one of them had signs of memory loss that might have contributed to confused dating.  One would have to be a mind reader or lucky enough to find a journal of the two man outlining their thoughts on the matter where there was recognition they were wrong and how they reconciled that in their mind...but I suspect that is something that must wait for an encounter in the next life.

 

All that can really be said is that it was claimed that Elder Able's Priesthood was revoked while the reality was he served as a seventy until his death and at least two of his sons were also given the Priesthood.

Does this help? If not, I highly suggest blacklds.org it has a nice time line that helps put what happened when and where and therefore may lead to a better 'why' for you.

My, they've upgraded it since last I visited, been quite awhile:

http://www.blacklds.org/history

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin Claim Joseph Smith Instituted the Priesthood Ban

Smoot, who owned two slaves, and Coltrin claim that Joseph Smith instituted the ban in the 1830s and dropped Abel from the priesthood. (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU). Coltrin is working from an old memory and makes several factual errors. Joseph F. Smith provides the two certificates indicating Abel’s status as a Seventy, which contradict Coltrin’s claims, as does Abel’s patriarchal blessing, which is read aloud at the meeting. Joseph F. Smith says he thinks Brother Coltrin’s memory is incorrect. One interesting note that may be relevant if accurate: Both Coltrin and Smoot claim to have asked Joseph Smith what to do with the “Negroes in the Southern States.” “[The Prophet] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them.” (Above sources as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 60.)

Notice that the claim is about slaves...they could be baptized with consent of their masters but not given the Priesthood.

 

I see it as quite possible that this was in their memory expanded to cover all blacks, free and slave.  If they were from the South, they probably were much more familiar with slaves than freemen sad to say and might have just assumed "Negroes" meant "slave"...because that was how they saw them.

 

See one needs mindreading skills to figure out why they said what they did.  Luckily the records speak louder than faulty memory here with Elder Abel still working hard in the faith doing missionary work at the age of 76.  Good man.

[cdowis]

duplicate

Edited December 20, 2013 by cdowis

[rongo]

Am grateful that the ban is no longer with us, and am grateful that the erroneous explanations have been disavowed, but I still think that God had a hand in the ban and it's long duration. So I was being sarcastic about the bus, and I believe BY is being scapegoated as there were plenty of Prophets after him who could have lifted the ban had God told them to do so.

This is my view as well: the priesthood ban and time frame was God's will, and so was the ending and its timing. In their zeal to release Joseph Smith from any "culpability" for it, those who do not believe the ban was inspired seek to place all of the responsibility on Brigham Young. To do this, they have to explain away any possibility that Joseph Smith at any time held views in support of the ban. 

 

I think that people with this view dismiss Coltrin, Smoot, et. al. out of hand, without good cause (just because they don't want their testimony to be true). If Joseph Smith did indeed say to them what they said that he did, then none of the explanations to dismiss them matter. 

[rongo]

 

All that can really be said is that it was claimed that Elder Able's Priesthood was revoked while the reality was he served as a seventy until his death and at least two of his sons were also given the Priesthood.

 

Don't even those who hold the ban to be "racist" agree that Able was restricted as to his priesthood (i.e., he was told not to exercise it)? I can see that as making both Coltrin and "anti-Coltrin" correct: he wasn't technically "dropped" from the quorum, but his priesthood was "inactive."

 

Luckily the records speak louder than faulty memory here with Elder Abel still working hard in the faith doing missionary work at the age of 76.  Good man.

 

I know that he served as a missionary, but I don't think that he was allowed to use his priesthood. Is there any evidence of him performing ordinances? Simply having been a missionary isn't, on its face, evidence of "the record" disproving Coltrin's alleged "faulty memory."

[rameumptom]

If Coltrin and Smoot were right and believed, Elijah Abel and his sons would have not been able to practice their priesthood until past the time of Brigham Young, etc.  I agree that Joseph Smith most likely stated that black slaves could not hold the priesthood, so that they would not see themselves as superior to their owners and attempt to violently break free.

 

It may very well be that God put the ban in place. However, we have no evidence of it. What we do know is that it was not because the blacks were cursed, the children of Cain or Cainan, or were not valiant in the spirit world.  We also know that it was lifted by revelation.

 

Elijah Abel baptized on his missions, and gave the gift of the Holy Ghost.  He tells of giving blessings of healing, as well.

 

As for Joseph Smith, there is no evidence that he had anything to do with the ban.  The impetus for it is clearly the actions of William McCary at Winter Quarters.  He was a black elder, who set up his own town and tried enticing white sisters to be sealed to him.  This shocked many of the members, including Brigham Young, and would easily lead to a ban to prevent interracial marriage in the temple.

Edited December 20, 2013 by rameumptom

[rpn]

I dismiss Bro. Coltrin because of the suck up way he is described in the D&C and because the evidence is that he was actually present when Elijah Abel was ordained, and then he flat out said all the Joseph Smith stuff and that Elijah Abel had not been ordained ---- which Joseph F. Smith's investigation proved to be wrong.   I think he said what he thought powerful people wanted to hear.  (He was also involved in the Dream Mind.)

[Stone holm]

This is my view as well: the priesthood ban and time frame was God's will, and so was the ending and its timing. In their zeal to release Joseph Smith from any "culpability" for it, those who do not believe the ban was inspired seek to place all of the responsibility on Brigham Young. To do this, they have to explain away any possibility that Joseph Smith at any time held views in support of the ban. 

 

I think that people with this view dismiss Coltrin, Smoot, et. al. out of hand, without good cause (just because they don't want their testimony to be true). If Joseph Smith did indeed say to them what they said that he did, then none of the explanations to dismiss them matter.

We living in the 21st Century tend not to understand all of the complex views on race that were swirling around in the minds of Americans, both North and South in the pre Civil war days and even during the founding of the Republic. Jefferson and Madison knew we were headed for racial conflict in the future, and yet they could not see a way to dismount the Tiger. Both thought that there was no way that if the Blacks were freed and left in America that the hatred they would rightfully hold by reason of their horrid treatment would eventually boil over. Lincoln in his second inaugural indicated that the bloodbath we call the Civil War was the penance that we received for one having engaged in slavery (the South) and for having allowed it to endure so long ( the North). I believe at this distance removed in time, it is virtually impossible to really grasp what was going on in the minds of Americans and we underestimate the difficulty The Lord was confronted with in preserving not only this nation, but His Church through this time which continued to erupt in violence right through the decade before the ban was lifted, and to a very reduced degree smoulders on today. So yes the ban was racist. But we really do not understand fully the whole playing field The Lord was dealing with, we don't even understand fully how our parents and grandparents felt.

[rongo]

rpn: CFR (in your view ---- I just want you to lay out what you see in D&C that "portrays" Coltrin as a "suck up," etc. Specifics?) on your claims about Coltrin's portrayal in D&C.

 

Coltrin didn't claim he wasn't ordained, just that he was "dropped from the quorum." The claim in question is that he asked Joseph Smith about black ordination, and that Joseph Smith dropped his head for a long time and then said that God had revealed that blacks should be restricted as to the priesthood. I think there are indications that Joseph Smith was not consistent in his views on this (because he responded to revelation over time).

Edited December 21, 2013 by rongo

[Stone holm]

This is my view as well: the priesthood ban and time frame was God's will, and so was the ending and its timing. In their zeal to release Joseph Smith from any "culpability" for it, those who do not believe the ban was inspired seek to place all of the responsibility on Brigham Young.

 

I agree with this totally.