Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[Calm]

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes

Quote

Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that “the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood.” President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy “was allowed to remain”. The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

Quote

 

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: “Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood.”

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[rongo]

.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding is that Coltrin contradicted himself.  I will go doublecheck in a bit, but if so it does draw into question his claims. (see the link I give in the thread below...assuming it is still there).

 

This is according to how blacklds.org and others portray what Coltrin said ---- and editorial commentary. Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

Quote

I think it is important to note that Able baptized and confirmed people on his missions, thus showing that his priesthood was not only confirmed but he was allowed to practice it.

 

Friendly CFR. I've read that he served as a missionary but wasn't allowed to use his priesthood. In that old thread, I asked for references or evidence that he had performed any ordinances, and nobody replied to that. Can anyone supply any evidence that he did? In other words, when you say that "it is important to note that Able baptized and confirmed people on his missions," how do you know that? Can that be proven?

Edited January 29, 2016 by rongo

[Calm]

Council minutes are a quote.

At least one of the baptisms is listed in the timeline I linked to in the old thread.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Very interesting, and very one sided.  I will say some of the information was new to me.
However:
You could just as easily create a similar powerpoint showing the opposite.
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith prohibiting interracial marriages or of him fining people for interracial marriage?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith concerning the mental state of the Negro?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith stating that Negros were descendants of Cain?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith stating that black skin was a sign of apostasy from priesthood?
Where are the quotes from the Book of Mormon on dark skin?
Where is the quote from Zebedee Coltrin concerning the ordination of Elijah Abel?

I am not defending the ban, but to state it started with Brigham alone after Joseph's death is still false.

Yeh, where are those claimed quotes?  Several are tendentious or false at best (for example, the Book of Mormon on dark skin, the descendants of Cain, etc.).  When I was young, there were all manner of false statements circulating about "negroes," and how one should never intermarry with them, and how barbaric they were, etc.  I met otherwise nice Mormons who circulated all manner of folklore about black people.  I knew that they just didn't know any better, and that they were wrong -- I just knew that the same kind of racist nonsense was wrong about the Jews.  Later I would find that I had been correct all along, and was satisfied that the racists had gotten their comeuppance.

Of course, the nonsense persists in some form in the deep South, and among some Mormons, but the younger generation just isn't buying into it.  Thankfully.  God was certainly not happy with such views.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, where are those claimed quotes?  Several are tendentious or false at best (for example, the Book of Mormon on dark skin, the descendants of Cain, etc.).

Really?  False sources like History of the Church, Times and Seasons, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith said/believed:

Interracial Marriage

1. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them....
Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 216,218

2. Thursday, 8--Held Mayor's court and tried two negroes for attempting to marry two white women: fined one $25, and the other $5 (History of the Church 6: 210).

Descended from Cain
3.  In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes or sons of Cain" (History of the Church 4:501.)

Priesthood
4. He [Noah] cursed him [Canaan, Ham's son] by the Priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the Priesthood which he held... and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:445-6)

And less than a year after his death Times and Seasons published this - Joseph didn't write it but I would call that contemporary with his time :
5. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom. (Times and Seasons 6:857)

And of course the claims by Brigham, Joseph F. Smith, and George Q. Cannon who all said Joseph taught the priesthood ban.  Are we saying they are all lying?
Not to mention the Books of Moses and Abraham which Joseph translated/revealed.

My issue isn't the good riddance to the ban, but I will NOT lay the blame for the teaching that led to it at Brigham's feet.

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

I went to high school with a number of Abel children, and they were all Mormon.  The girl my age seemed particularly nice, but I never got to know them well.  I have wondered in subsequent years whether they were descendants of Elijah Abel.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?  False sources like History of the Church, Times and Seasons, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Only the primary sources can be claimed valid.  The HC regularly puts words into Joseph's mouth which are not in the original MSS.

Joseph Smith said/believed:

Interracial Marriage

1. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them....

I can agree wholeheartedly with that statement, reflecting Joseph's belief that negroes would be the same as whites if given the opportunity.  That is an anti-racist statement.
Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 216,218

I would have to see the original manuscripts of this latter statement, but even at that is only reflective of the accommodationist reality of that day and time.

2. Thursday, 8--Held Mayor's court and tried two negroes for attempting to marry two white women: fined one $25, and the other $5 (History of the Church 6: 210).

Descended from Cain
3.  In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes or sons of Cain" (History of the Church 4:501.)

Both of these require a look at the Joseph Smith Papers Project, as the HC can no longer be depended upon to reflect Joseph's actual views.

Priesthood
4. He [Noah] cursed him [Canaan, Ham's son] by the Priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the Priesthood which he held... and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:445-6)

This does reflect the BofA, but likewise does not provide any negro or black connection.  And we do need to see the original MSS.

And less than a year after his death Times and Seasons published this - Joseph didn't write it but I would call that contemporary with his time :
5. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom. (Times and Seasons 6:857)

Funny how specific and brutal the quotes get after the death of Joseph.

And of course the claims by Brigham, Joseph F. Smith, and George Q. Cannon who all said Joseph taught the priesthood ban.  Are we saying they are all lying?
Not to mention the Books of Moses and Abraham which Joseph translated/revealed.

These sources are not reliable as to Joseph's views, and the BofMoses and BofA do not make negroes out to be banned from the priesthood, nor do they suggest the connections you made in your list.  Others have made those connections, often in a well-meaning way, but they were simply wrong.

My issue isn't the good riddance to the ban, but I will NOT lay the blame for the teaching that led to it at Brigham's feet.

There is only one boss prophet at a time, and the buck stops with him -- blame comes with the territory.  I have tremendous respect for Brother Brigham.  He was our American Moses, and without him our people would have fallen apart and died out in the West.  I love the guy, and my ancestors loved him.  He was a great prophet, but (like all prophets) he had feet of clay.  He has learned better by now in the courts on high, just as Elder McConkie did in 1978 -- and openly admitted as much.

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Looks like from men is kicking butt in the poll. And the I don't knows are leaning more towards from men.

I am also an "I don't know" and lean toward "from men."

[cinepro]

I think the true test of where we think the priesthood ban came from is to imagine how we would react if President Monson stood in Conference and revealed that God was instituting a new Priesthood ban, this time against people with red hair and freckles.  No reason given; God works in mysterious ways and we must have faith.

The idea that God wanted to withhold the priesthood from blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries is just as preposterous.  The racism of early Church leaders and members only explains why they accepted the policy, not why God would need such a policy in the first place. 

[BCSpace]

On 1/29/2016 at 8:55 PM, Rivers said:

I came away from the race and priesthood essay without an answer as to whether the ban was divine or man-made. It appears to me that this question has been left open.

IIRC, it refers to a newspaper article in which BY said basically it was from his understanding of the scriptures and experience in the Church.  Obviously, a newspaper article isn't official doctrine, but being referenced as part of the explanation found in the essay, which is official doctrine, means that what is refernced becomes official doctrine.

So I would have to say that if one accepts BY as the prophet at the time, one would have to go with the ban being God inspired.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the true test of where we think the priesthood ban came from is to imagine how we would react if President Monson stood in Conference and revealed that God was instituting a new Priesthood ban, this time against people with red hair and freckles.  No reason given; God works in mysterious ways and we must have faith.

That's how I feel every time an ordinance alteration was made.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

IIRC, it refers to a newspaper article in which BY said basically it was from his understanding of the scriptures and experience in the Church.  Obviously, a newspaper article isn't official doctrine, but being referenced as part of the explanation found in the essay, which is official doctrine, means that what is refernced becomes official doctrine.

So I would have to say that if one accepts BY as the prophet at the time, one would have to go with the ban being God inspired.

Funny how neither Apostle Orson Pratt nor Pres McKay accepted that line of reasoning.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is only one boss prophet at a time, and the buck stops with him -- blame comes with the territory.  I have tremendous respect for Brother Brigham.  He was our American Moses, and without him our people would have fallen apart and died out in the West.  I love the guy, and my ancestors loved him.  He was a great prophet, but (like all prophets) he had feet of clay.  He has learned better by now in the courts on high, just as Elder McConkie did in 1978 -- and openly admitted as much.

I've now tried this 3 times, so if this fails again I give up. I 100% agree with this statement. THat said, I looked up several of JLFHProf's quotes in the JS papers:

2&3 are basically word for word the same 

Here's 4:

"I reproved him as Pharisaical and hypocritical; and not  edifying the people; and shewed the Saints what Temperance, faith  virtue, charity and truth were. I charged the Saints not to follow the  example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said “if you  do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have  no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the  Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I  will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will  not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw  a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours— for charity  covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is  not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I  will break it down:” I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine but doing no harm.  Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine, and  became intoxicated the Lord did not forsake him in consequence  thereof; for he retained all the power of his Priesthood and when he was accused by Cainaan, he cursed him by the  Priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his  word and the Priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was  drunk; and the curse remains upon the posterity of Cainaan  until the present day." 

The problem with this is proving that "the curse" was pertaining to the priesthood. JS's other quotes and actions, would suggest it wasn't tied to priesthood ordination but slavery:

"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject,  I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising  their voice against the South, will cry out against me  as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind,— wholly  unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privi lege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and ex amine the teachings of the Ancients upon this matter, as  the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have  of slavery is found in the holy Bible, pronounced by a  man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse  from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument  of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion  of all who have cried out against the south, in con sequence of their holding the Sons of Ham in servitude!  “And he said cursed beCanaan; a servant of servants shall  he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem:  and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge  Jopheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servants. Gen. 8 9: 25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event, down  to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of  the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me  to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken  off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it  is effected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of  God in this matter, will come under the least condem nation before him; and those who are determined to pursue  a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when per haps it is too late, for their own good, that God can do his own  work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."

 

And here's one that I just thought was cool and can indicate the complexity of JS's perspectives:

I see those who are actuated by patriotic and noble principles, who will  stand up in defence of the oppressed, of whatever country, nation, color or clime. I see it in  their countenances; it is planted by the spirit of God; they have received it from the great Eloheim, <and> all the power or influence of mobs, priestcraft and corrupt men cannot quench it; it  will burn; it is comprehensive as the designs of God, and as expansive as the universe, and reaches to all the world, no matter whether it was an Indian, a negro, or any other man, or  set of men that are oppressive, you would stand forth in their defence. I say unto you continue  to cherish those principles; let them expand; and if the tree of liberty has been blasted in  this nation— if it has been gnawed by worms, and already blight has overspread it, we  will stand up in defence of our liberties, and proclaim ourselves free in time and in  eternity.

 

Basically I find it hard to assert the main thrust of the ban didn't land squarely in BY's Presidency. JS had de facto racial ideas that were extant with the society he came from. BY's practice gave them greater religious viability. To be fair to BY, I think his views also developed to become more rigid and was not latent to character but subject to his time and increased tensions. 

 

P.S. I would put in the links to all these but I'm really afraid it wont post ....again. You can just copy and paste key words into the josephsmithpapers search drive to verify/look up.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 30, 2016 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Very interesting, and very one sided.  I will say some of the information was new to me.
However:
You could just as easily create a similar powerpoint showing the opposite.
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith prohibiting interracial marriages or of him fining people for interracial marriage?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith concerning the mental state of the Negro?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith stating that Negros were descendants of Cain?
Where is the quote from Joseph Smith stating that black skin was a sign of apostasy from priesthood?
Where are the quotes from the Book of Mormon on dark skin?
Where is the quote from Zebedee Coltrin concerning the ordination of Elijah Abel?

I am not defending the ban, but to state it started with Brigham alone after Joseph's death is still false.

I am not a historian and I have not read the book

I found it fascinating though that Mormons were seen as an inferior "race" due to polygamy and intermarriage.  I avoid historical questions because it is so difficult to cut through his story and her story to get to "what really happened".  I have learned ago that when two are disputing something there are always at least three sides to every story.

[canard78]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:37 AM, Bobbieaware said:

The essay speaks approvingly of the 1978 revelation to end the ban. Since Official Declaration Two indicates a revelation from God was needed to end the priesthood ban, and since the leaders of the Church in 1978 most solemnly testified they did indeed receive a revelation to end the ban, the way I see it is there are 3 possibilities:

1) The leaders of the Churvh spoke the truth when they said God intervened and revealed to them the time had come to end the ban. Therefore the ban was of God.

2) The leaders of the Church lied when they said they received a revelation to end the ban. Therefore the ban was not of God.

3) The leaders of the Church were sincere but delusional when they said they received a revelation to end the ban. Therefore the ban was not of God).

Here is Official Declaration Two, with the portions most pertinent to this subject highlighted in bold...

You missed option 4:

4) The leaders of the Church spoke the truth when they said God intervened and revealed to them the time had come to end the ban. The leaders believed a revelation was needed to end the ban and therefore they were given one to do so. The ban was not of God in the first place, but became so entrenched in Mormon culture and practice that the leaders felt they needed God to guide them in lifting it.

Imagine the following scenario:

• Bishop Jones calls Sister Doe to be Young Women's president. He does it as a personal preference and not by praying about it, seeking revelation.
• Two years later, Bishop Jones is released and brother Smith is called as Bishop
• Bishop Smith believes that all callings should be ended and extended after seeking inspiration through prayer.
• He prays and feels inspired to release Sister Doe as YWP

Does the fact that Bishop Smith sought divine guidance to end the calling mean that Bishop Jones did the same to issue the calling? 

No. It doesn't. People seeking divine guidance to make a change to a situation doesn't always mean that the situation was divinely implemented.

[canard78]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:54 AM, The Nehor said:

I think God allowed it until enough saints prayed to want it gone. We know President McKay wanted to end it, prayed, and got a "no". So it was allowed by God to continue no matter how it started.

That's not entirely accurate. 

The essay more correctly states that:

Quote

After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban

There is a difference between having a divine message that actively says "no" vs not getting any response or impression to do so.

[canard78]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:57 AM, rongo said:

I believe that the inception of the ban, and its lifting (in other words, the timetable) were God's will. I don't think the witness statements from people like Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin that the ban came from Joseph Smith himself can be as glibly dismissed as they are by members who don't want to believe that the ban came from Joseph Smith. For these members, the priesthood ban is our version of how the RLDS Church treated polygamy for many years (Joseph had nothing to do with it! It was all Brigham Young's fault!). 

I agree with the opening post that the essay on the ban leaves it wide open to believe whatever one wants about the ban's origins. It condemns explanations for the ban (lack of valiance in the pre-existence, etc.), but falls short of stating that the ban itself was a mistake of man. I'm very grateful for that. 

I wish that we had bold statements from the Brethren themselves on these big, weighty issues, instead of anonymous, plausible-deniability essays, but we're in a "PR savvy" era of extreme caution right now.

So when prophets spoke, on record, about the reasons for the ban, they were not inspired?

But when second/third hand hearsay about what Joseph may or may not have said about the black ban, it's to be believed and trusted?

Given the only documented actions we have from Joseph in relation to blacks having the priesthood is allowing it (at least twice on record) why does the much later quotation from Smoot/Coltrin have any credibility? It doesn't correspond with his actual behaviour.

[canard78]

On 1/29/2016 at 7:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

Then don't worry about it.

It's not important to know.  It's water under the bridge and the answer is unknowable.

Get on with life.  It's irrelevant.  It's like asking why something exists rather than nothing.  The answer cannot change your life because it is unknowable.

It's not irrelevant mfb.

It's a simple test of whether Mormon prophets are reliable sources of divine will and doctrine.

From end to end the black ban stands as evidence that they are not.

That doesn't alter the fact that they can be good sources of advice. I'm fully willing to acknowledge them as well-meaning individuals sharing their well-considered opinions. I'd even acknowledge that the Alma 32 approach to testing their opinions often leads me to accept their words as "true" pieces of advice. But that doesn't mean that the fundamental Mormon doctrine that they are the chosen mouthpiece of God is reliable or accurate.

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, canard78 said:

There is a difference between having a divine message that actively says "no" vs not getting any response or impression to do so.

A bit more detail from Greg Prince's book (pp. 103-04, heavily edited for space but not content):

Quote

On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary, ... expressed her anguish that black male children ... were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood ... 'Can't they be ordained also?' she asked. He replied sadly, 'No'. 'Then I think it is time for a new revelation'. He answered, 'So do I'.

Marion D. Hanks ... related an incident ... in which he had comforted a wounded black LDS soldier. As he told the story, McKay began to weep. Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay say, 'I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer'.

Lola Gygi Timmins, a secretary in McKay's office from 1960 to 1968, recalled a day when he returned from a meeting with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Temple ... obviously venting some private feelings, he had told the secretaries in his reception room that he had inquired of the Lord several time on the matter, and that the answer was, 'Not yet'.

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 through the time of McKay's death in 1970:

'... We could see that that he was very much distressed. He said, "I've had it! I'm not going to do it again!" Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone"'.

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 7:55 PM, Rivers said:

I came away from the race and priesthood essay without an answer as to whether the ban was divine or man-made. It appears to me that this question has been left open.

My impression from the essay is that the authors wanted to suggest it was the result of Brigham Young's culturally influenced racism. 

The story is more complicated than that, because Brigham Young actually changed his mind on the subject in the same year (1847).

There were specific things going on that appear to have caused his change of heart, but revelation is not one of them.

I have no doubt that the priesthood/temple ban on blacks was not from God.

And I seriously doubt God played in part in lifting the ban, either.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 11:06 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

It's not important to know.  It's water under the bridge and the answer is unknowable.

 

Now, hold on there, Bubballooey!

You say it isn't important to know whether the priesthood ban came from God?

I have to disagree with you on this.

The Church practiced this racist ban for over 100-years.

It was claimed by the highest leaders in the Church to be "doctrine," and not "policy."

If it was not from God, the prophets who began it and perpetuated it have their prophetic calling called into question.

And if their prophetic calling is called into question, so is the prophetic calling of those that came after them.

Including President Thomas S. Monson.

This is a very important thing to know.

[Sanpitch]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A bit more detail from Greg Prince's book (pp. 103-04, heavily edited for space but not content):

 

"Lola Gygi Timmins, a secretary in McKay's office from 1960 to 1968, ......"   Lola Gygi.  Sorry to interrupt but that is not a common name, I'll bet I worked with her in 1958-9 at McFarland Meats in SLC.  That company is long gone now.  Everything is so long ago, that was 58 years ago.

I also read Greg Prince's book and loved it, it gives so much inside information about the workings of the church.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Sanpitch

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A bit more detail from Greg Prince's book (pp. 103-04, heavily edited for space but not content):

 

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary, ... expressed her anguish that black male children ... were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood ... 'Can't they be ordained also?' she asked. He replied sadly, 'No'. 'Then I think it is time for a new revelation'. He answered, 'So do I'.

Marion D. Hanks ... related an incident ... in which he had comforted a wounded black LDS soldier. As he told the story, McKay began to weep. Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay say, 'I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer'.

Lola Gygi Timmins, a secretary in McKay's office from 1960 to 1968, recalled a day when he returned from a meeting with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Temple ... obviously venting some private feelings, he had told the secretaries in his reception room that he had inquired of the Lord several time on the matter, and that the answer was, 'Not yet'.

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 through the time of McKay's death in 1970:

'... We could see that that he was very much distressed. He said, "I've had it! I'm not going to do it again!" Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone"'

Thanks, very interesting. It's a shame that these are mostly quite obscure references and also hearsay. There's also something of a contradiction in these stories. Some say there has been no answer, others say there was an answer given and the answer was not yet. 

Is it significant that the essay uses a very neutral language in defining whether he received a specific answer or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I've now tried this 3 times, so if this fails again I give up. I 100% agree with this statement. THat said, I looked up several of JLFHProf's quotes in the JS papers:

2&3 are basically word for word the same 

Here's 4:

..............................................................

P.S. I would put in the links to all these but I'm really afraid it wont post ....again. You can just copy and paste key words into the josephsmithpapers search drive to verify/look up.

.............................................

Thank you for all that careful work, BD.  Please notice the many copying errors of the scribes who were taking dictation or filling out their notes:  The misspelling of "Canaan" as "Cainaan" in several cases (showing the folkloric combination of two completely separate Hebrew words, Canaan [kena'an] and Cain [qayin], which only look and sound similar in English), and "oppressive" when "oppressed" was intended.  I think your appraisal of Joseph balanced, but we would probably want to have the dates of each item, and check to see whether there was any evolution in his thought over time.