Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[stemelbow]

I see the topic has been raised a couple of times in recent threads.  Maybe we can approach it again. 

After June 1978 Bruce R McConkie said:

Quote

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/

I've noticed a number of my fellow Church members dismiss the mistakes of the past as simple man-made mistakes.  I'd agree, they certainly were, particularly on this topic.  This topic speaks clearly to latter-day revelation.  What it means to receive revelation, and how we interpret that which is revealed, or that which is communicated to us about what was revealed.  Elder McConkie's statement above is one of the great admissions in all of Church history if you ask me.  The brethren who presumed to speak for God spoke presumptuously on this topic.  They put upon the people ideas and teachings, as if they came from modern day prophets, as if the presumptuous ideas came from God.  Indeed, the ideas presented as doctrine, official Church teaching, and revelation were later condemned by the Church--albeit anonymous authors of an essay that few in the Church seem to have read or know about.  "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The implications of this example in history have been huge for me.  in what other ways have mistakes like this been introduced?  We simply would never know.  many members, I've noticed don't seem to think there is hardly anything to note here.  To me clearly this example tells us that not only are our leaders sometimes mistaken, but that they will preach untruths as truths, from time to time.  We as members ought to be more careful about buying their lines hook, line and sinker.  They need it, to keep them from preaching awful doctrine as they did, and we need it, so we can expel evil from amongst us. 

One way, I"ve noticed that members try to seemingly get out of the implication of this whole mess, is by saying that leaders always knew the time would come when the rights of the priesthood would be given.  Elder McConkie says, "here are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say".

I think Elder McConkie has a better handle on it.

In the Race and the Priesthood essay, it says:

Quote

In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

If you read the two speeches you will quickly learn that this quote from the essay, officially sanctioned by the church is misleading.  Nowhere do either speech say that--and yet it's put into quotation marks as if they both teach it.  There is a reference in one of the speeches that says,

Quote

I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael's seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off.

At other times before the ban was lifted, leaders suggested, similar things:

Quote

How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

--Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290-91 (October 9, 1859)

David O'McKay's presidency period of the Church (1951-70) had much to do with the change in 1978, I'd say.  McKay seemed to not like the priesthood ban but also felt powerless to change it unless a revelation came

Towards the end of his life the first presidency, amid seeming disagreement within the first presidency (see previously linked essay), the first presidency made another official statement about race.  In it, they said blacks "were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."  In 20 years, President McKay went from knowing the doctrine that had caused the ban, in 1949, to not knowing.  This is a good thing in terms of love, and acceptance and all of that.  But it's a bad thing in terms of revelation and the organization which is the Church works.  Either President McKay said he knew that which he did not, in 1949, or agreed to it, or he felt like he had to agree to that which he did not agree to. 

In the midst of President O'McKay's presidency, late in it, it seems, he started to describe the doctrine, previously stated, to be "policy", and could be subject to change, much to the chagrin of another in his presidency, so much so the other denied President McKay said it.  The world, as we like to describe thoughtful push back, played a huge role in getting McKay's attitude in line with what turned out to be God's view, but certainly not without push back from the other leaders of the Church (aside from, most prominently Hugh B. Brown).  After McKay died in 1970 two presidencies came, headed by those from a near opposite perspective of Hugh B. Brown and a lesser extent to that of McKay's. 

Three things to discuss here:

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

Thanks.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Three things to discuss here:

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

Thanks.

1. Cite a revelation instituting the ban and then we can discuss how foolproof it was so we can discuss it. Question: are you using “evil” in the secular or the supernatural sense?

2. Cite a member’s claim that inspiration is the basis for opposition to a Church teaching and we can discuss it. Some people are more, whether slightly or not, engaged in their own interests (professions, hobbies, politics, material goods, ideologies, ego, etc.) than they are God’s. I think such perceived relative inspiration can be made to seem to happen when neither revelation nor inspiration can be cited, and when people put their own interests first.

3. Many, many things factor into the evolution of thought: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng . I think personalities are a spiritual gift and that God’s will is manifest through them when their intent is aligned with His.

Edited July 21, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

1. Cite a revelation instituting the ban and then we can discuss how foolproof it was so we can discuss it. Question: are you using “evil” in the secular or the supernatural sense?

There was no revelation, as far as I'm aware.  The problem, of course is, is that it was presented as if settled by revelation, even given as official Church doctrine by the First presidency of the Church.  I agree that there was no revelation, but that is a big part of the problem.  it was presented as official, true, and doctrine, even as if it came from God, yet nothing to support that. 

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

2. Cite a member’s claim that inspiration is the basis for opposition to a Church teaching and we can discuss it. Some people are more, whether slightly or not, engaged in their own interests (professions, hobbies, politics, material goods, ideologies, ego, etc.) than they are God’s. I think such perceived relative inspiration can be made to seem to happen when neither revelation nor inspiration can be cited, and when people put their own interests first.

How does on cite the inspiration of another?  What are you looking for? 

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

3. Many, many things factor into the evolution of thought: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng . I think personalities are a spiritual gift and that God’s will is manifest through them when their intent is aligned with His.

So what happens, like in this case, when their personalities are not aligned and yet they are called upon to speak for Him? 

Thanks.

[rpn]

After I studied all the history, I came to the conclusion that BY instituted the ban, not directly because of racial things, but because he was concerned about managing both polygamy and interracial marriage in a culture for which both were rejected.  (He heard about a son of a prominent Black member's marriage to a white person soon after the law in that state allowed it, AND person of color member  Mr. McCrary's new church in winter quarters, that was attracting white women within less than a month of each other.  It should be plain that if black men held the priesthood and were entitled to temple blessings, there would be no reason women of any race would not reasonably consider them as marriage partners, and that a ban on priesthood, neatly curtailed risks of interracial marriage.)

Obviously God knew all about it.  Heck there were two separate Apostolic investigations of the ban before President McKay's time, both acknowledging that JS ordained/authorized ordination of men of color, and there was no revelation recorded or referred to making the change to forbidding it.

I think the genius of Church Administration is that all members get their own experiences try to figure out in callings what God wants them to do, and sometimes failing, even badly, despite good intentions and solid study.   This should make it clear how important it is to be open to our own biases, and that the notion of unaniimity requires some to wait patiently until all  can hear His desires.  And also make it easy to accept that errors can be made by well meaning people.

We may sometime find out whether there were leaders who were simply unable to hear God, or whether God was  waiting for a different time in history or whether it was that interracial marriage in the US only became legal in 1967 and is still not widely accepted in  all communities that prompted the ban.

Edited July 22, 2017 by rpn

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

After I studied all the history, I came to the conclusion that BY instituted the ban, not directly because of racial things, but because he was concerned about managing both polygamy and interracial marriage in a culture for which both were rejected. 

He didn't do because of racial things but because of marriage as it pertained to race?  Not sure I see the difference, but ok. 

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

(He heard about a son of a prominent Black member's marriage to a white person soon after the law in that state allowed it, AND person of color member  Mr. McCrary's new church in winter quarters, that was attracting white women within less than a month of each other.  It should be plain that if black men held the priesthood and were entitled to temple blessings, there would be no reason women of any race would not reasonably consider them as marriage partners, and that a ban on priesthood, neatly curtailed risks of interracial marriage.)

It makes ya wonder why we have so few examples of those who were black and received the priesthood before this McCrary incident, or set of incidents, if you will.  Whatever the case it became policy based on clear doctrines that Brigham and many others since expressed. 

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

Obviously God knew all about it.  Heck there were two separate Apostolic investigations of the ban before President McKay's time, both acknowledging that JS did it and there was no revelation recorded or referred to making the change. 

Can you cite those investigations please?  Anything about them would be good to bring to this discussion. 

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think the genius of Church Administration is that all members get their own experiences try to figure out in callings what God wants them to do, and sometimes failing, even badly, despite good intentions and solid study.   This should make it clear how important it is to be open to our own biases, and that the notion of unanonimity requires some to wait patiently until all  can hear His desires.

Sure.  I agree. 

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

We may sometimes find out whether there were leaders who were simply unable to hear God, or whether God was  waiting for a different time in history or whether it was that interracial marriage in the US only became legal in 1967 and is still not widely accepted in  all communities.

I wonder how good of an idea it is for God to wait for something to be acceptable in all communities before he teaches his prophets the truth about it.  I guess that's why we're so wrong about gay marriage in the Church.  God's just waiting for enough to accept it. 

[bluebell]

It seems like we get ourselves into the most trouble when we make absolute statements based on interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation of scripture alone, without God backing it up in obvious ways, is a real slippery slope.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like we get ourselves into the most trouble when we make absolute statements based on interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation of scripture alone, without God backing it up in obvious ways, is a real slippery slope.

I agree.  Creating dogma is going to happen in religion, but in so creating of that dogma, we might be making errors.  Dogmatic statements are always hard to deal with, says me who used a dogmatic statement to make my point. 

Life's tough.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  Creating dogma is going to happen in religion, but in so creating of that dogma, we might be making errors.  Dogmatic statements are always hard to deal with, says me who used a dogmatic statement to make my point. 

Life's tough.

I don't think there's anything wrong with dogma in and of itself.  But sometimes we create dogma without revelation/God behind it and then it ends up being a stumbling block more than a stepping stone.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with dogma in and of itself.  But sometimes we create dogma without revelation/God behind it and then it ends up being a stumbling block more than a stepping stone.  

Yep.  That's what I'm getting at.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, rpn said:

After I studied all the history, I came to the conclusion that BY instituted the ban, not directly because of racial things, but because he was concerned about managing both polygamy and interracial marriage in a culture for which both were rejected.

I think the history is far too muddy to lay the blame at Brigham's feet.  He may have formalized the policy, but some did claim that it was Joseph's teaching too.

 

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I think the history is far too muddy to lay the blame at Brigham's feet.  He may have formalized the policy, but some did claim that it was Joseph's teaching too.

 

 

They sure did.  But why?  What is their basis?  That'd be nice to get a good feel for that.  Any references for us to consider here?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like we get ourselves into the most trouble when we make absolute statements based on interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation of scripture alone, without God backing it up in obvious ways, is a real slippery slope.

This is true.
The Book of Abraham and Book of Moses scriptures are the ones that are most consistently used to uphold the ban.

Making the assumption that the BoA is inspired scripture, the only clear teaching is that there was a lineage to who the priesthood was forbidden.  Identifying it as applicable to every person of color is a leap of genealogical faith that I don't think anyone can reasonably make.

And making the assumption that the Book of Moses is inspired scripture, the inhabitants of the City of Zion/Enoch makes no mention of priesthood qualification nor any connection to the scripture in Abraham.

I can see how the scriptures and the now disavowed interpretations could be made to agree, but I don't think the evidence there is conclusive at all.
But I think the biggest lesson here is that we can use scripture to prove almost anything.  Proof texting gets us nowhere nearer to truth.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They sure did.  But why?  What is their basis?  That'd be nice to get a good feel for that.  Any references for us to consider here?

There are entire books written on this.   Books I don't have handy right now.  But Wikipedia refers to statements by Zebedee Coltrin, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and others.

I personally am of the belief that Brigham did exactly what he was commissioned to do - institute and formalize the teachings Joseph gave.  He did it with the temple.  He did it with plural marriage.   He attempted to do it with United Order/Consecration.  And I have no problem believing that he was doing the same thing here.

Just as with polygamy, if it were proven that Joseph had instituted the ban before his death and we got an essay to that effect, would it cause yet additional mass apostasies and faith crises?
The fact that errors occurred is one thing.  I don't see why it needs to be placed on Brigham instead of Joseph.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see why it needs to be placed on Brigham instead of Joseph.

I always assumed that the reason the ban is laid at the feet of BY is because JS ordained some black men.

[thesometimesaint]

For me it was a hard decision, but fortunately the Church started seeing things my way. Am I better off disagreeing with the Church on this one issue and not becoming a member. Or am I better off disagreeing with the Church on this one issue and becoming a member. I believe I chose the latter wisely.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

Three things to discuss here:

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

Thanks.

 

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

Yes

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

See number 1.

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

See number 1.  We are to receive our own testimonies of every principle and follow our testimonies lest we fall into blind obedience which is Satan's plan, not the Lord's

Thanks.

Anytime.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

1.  Revelation at best is the human enterprise of seeking to understand the divine will.  It will always be contextual to the understanding of humans, and therefore always flawed and limited.  We seek for greater understanding, empathy, love, goodness, these affirmations are vague attempts to articulate the divine will.  Revelation is not the pure will of God, I don't think that is accessible.  Every word ever spoke by a human being is always filtered through the brain of that human being, and therefore instantly becomes limited, finite, corrupted, and at best an approximation of the divine will, but cannot and will never represent the ineffable.  As a Mormon, I am a strong believer in ongoing revelation, meaning whatever we think we know today, can change tomorrow, based on the context of the situation, greater understanding and is relative to the circumstances.  

2. This is why its so important that we all participate in the revelatory process.  Since we've agreed to a church structure that is led top down, we are in the in a conundrum of having to wait for the top leaders to find consensus on major policy issues prior to implementing change.  This makes it hard when good individuals in the church, understand that the policies of the church are flawed and out dated, in the case of the priesthood ban, there were members of the church who ordained blacks to the priesthood prior to 1978 or spoke out about their concerns about the policy, and who were mistreated by the institution.  The wheels of revelation in the modern church are slow moving and sometimes take a step in the wrong direction, as with the Nov 2015 policy.  But that doesn't mean we as individuals have to outsource our personal integrity.  It is our duty to stand up for what we believe in (choose the right) even if that means not waiting for top leaders to lead, and when we feel inspired to do so, to stand for goodness in spite of how that might marginalize us in our community.  Its a balancing act, this is my opinion, and I think everyone has to decide for themselves how they can negotiate this.  

3.  Personalities played a huge role, Pres. Lee was a roadblock toward the change, and Pres. Kimball seemed uniquely qualified to be willing to rethink this prior doctrine and be bold enough to change.  I think we can see this as God working through these personalities as well, not just the other way around.  I think it goes both ways.  

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I always assumed that the reason the ban is laid at the feet of BY is because JS ordained some black men.

Except the evidence of that is sketchy.
There is debate as to whether Joseph ordained Elijah Abel or if it was Zebedee Coltrin for instance.

The early ordinations during Smith's lifetime are seemingly exaggerated too.  During Joseph's life there are possible records of precisely 5 black men being ordained - "Black Pete", Elijah Abel, Joseph Ball, Isaac Van Meter, and Walker Lewis.

• "Black Pete"/Pete Kerr- Very early in the 1830s, excommunicated after a very short membership, no actual record of ordination, an assumption made due to his believing he was divinely commissioned to preach.
• Elijah Abel - Confirmed to be ordained a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin.  Rumored to have ordained an Elder a few months earlier by Joseph, but may not have happened.
• Joseph T. Ball - Listed as Elder in 1837 in Woodruff Journal, HP in 1844 by William Smith, excommunicated in 1845
• Isaac Van Meter - Listed as Elder in 1837 in Woodruff Journal, lived in Maine, left the Church
• Walker Lewis -  Elder in Fall of 1843 by William Smith in Massachussetts.

That's a total of five possible ordinations of black men during Joseph's lifetime, and only one that is tied directly to Joseph in any way, although not confirmed.  (12,000 saints in the city of Nauvoo - including families like the Manning James family record no ordinations of male family members).
I think all this proves is what we already know - the ban wasn't formalized during Joseph's lifetime.
However I still think concluding Brigham started this ban all on his own is historically stretching.  In fact, historically speaking, there were just as many black men ordained after Brigham formalized the ban as there were during Joseph's lifetime pre-ban.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except the evidence of that is sketchy.
There is debate as to whether Joseph ordained Elijah Abel or if it was Zebedee Coltrin for instance.

The early ordinations during Smith's lifetime are seemingly exaggerated too.  During Joseph's life there are possible records of precisely 5 black men being ordained - "Black Pete", Elijah Abel, Joseph Ball, Isaac Van Meter, and Walker Lewis.

• "Black Pete"/Pete Kerr- Very early in the 1830s, excommunicated after a very short membership, no actual record of ordination, an assumption made due to his believing he was divinely commissioned to preach.
• Elijah Abel - Confirmed to be ordained a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin.  Rumored to have ordained an Elder a few months earlier by Joseph, but may not have happened.
• Joseph T. Ball - Listed as Elder in 1837 in Woodruff Journal, HP in 1844 by William Smith, excommunicated in 1845
• Isaac Van Meter - Listed as Elder in 1837 in Woodruff Journal, lived in Maine, left the Church
• Walker Lewis -  Elder in Fall of 1843 by William Smith in Massachussetts.

That's a total of five possible ordinations of black men during Joseph's lifetime, and only one that is tied directly to Joseph in any way, although not confirmed.  (12,000 saints in the city of Nauvoo - including families like the Manning James family record no ordinations of male family members).
I think all this proves is what we already know - the ban wasn't formalized during Joseph's lifetime.
However I still think concluding Brigham started this ban all on his own is historically stretching.  In fact, historically speaking, there were just as many black men ordained after Brigham formalized the ban as there were during Joseph's lifetime pre-ban.

However, didn't Joseph send Able on a mission and if so, that would be a confirmation of his Priesthood?

[Bob Crockett]

It was a temporary measure to persuade the Southern states to admit Utah under the Missouri Compromise.  

Revelation or not, the President of the Church has the authority to specify who is entitled to hold a license as an ordained minister and who does not. 

I'm still not reconciled with the fact that Leviticus holds that a man whose testicles are injured cannot enter the congregation of Israel, and that a Moabite cannot enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation.   And then there's Ruth, the Moabite, the grandmother of Daivd.  

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, didn't Joseph send Able on a mission and if so, that would be a confirmation of his Priesthood?

I think what we do where Elijah Abel is concerned, is use one exception to prove a rule didn't exist.  To me that is still shaky ground.
There were numerous good and faithful black men who were members of the Church during Joseph's lifetime who were never ordained.  To take one exception (the one out of five that Joseph had any regular contact with) and say "Joseph didn't ban black men from holding priesthood" is pretty shoddy history.

The essay says "There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime."
The fact that there were more black men in Nauvoo than Elijah Abel, and we have record of them, and yet we only have record of his ordination during Joseph's life is the evidence.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It was a temporary measure to persuade the Southern states to admit Utah under the Missouri Compromise.  

Revelation or not, the President of the Church has the authority to specify who is entitled to hold a license as an ordained minister and who does not. 

I'm still not reconciled with the fact that Leviticus holds that a man whose testicles are injured cannot enter the congregation of Israel, and that a Moabite cannot enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation.   And then there's Ruth, the Moabite, the grandmother of Daivd.  

?
Utah wasn't admitted to the Union until after the Civil War.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There was no revelation, as far as I'm aware.  The problem, of course is, is that it was presented as if settled by revelation, even given as official Church doctrine by the First presidency of the Church.  I agree that there was no revelation, but that is a big part of the problem.  it was presented as official, true, and doctrine, even as if it came from God, yet nothing to support that. 

How does on cite the inspiration of another?  What are you looking for? 

So what happens, like in this case, when their personalities are not aligned and yet they are called upon to speak for Him? 

Thanks.

I’m not sure what you mean by foolproof revelation, then. Also, what do you mean by “evil” – are you using it as a secular or spiritual term?

I’m asking you to offer something written by or about the member that says he was inspired by God to oppose such-and-such Church doctrine.

I assume you’re referring to a prophet’s personality as a contributing factor in how much love he has for “fellow people,” each a factor in his evolution of thought (whether that is being influenced by others or influencing others’ thought as he leads inspired change). Both charity and the personality, as spiritual gifts, need to be developed, and should a prophet not have one of both gifts, God cannot use that gift through him, but He may certainly use other gifts the prophet has developed. But as a mentioned, the evolution of thought entails much more than personality and a loving attitude.

[rpn]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder how good of an idea it is for God to wait for something to be acceptable in all communities before he teaches his prophets the truth about it.  I guess that's why we're so wrong about gay marriage in the Church.  God's just waiting for enough to accept it. 

But maybe the interracial unacceptance would have prevented His gospel from spreading?

[USU78]

26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It was a temporary measure to persuade the Southern states to admit Utah under the Missouri Compromise.  

Revelation or not, the President of the Church has the authority to specify who is entitled to hold a license as an ordained minister and who does not. 

I have long suspected it had something to do with slavery and the Church's difficult history with the Southern States during the antebellum years following the Utah War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

If true, no clear record was ever kept, though you cannot fault the Church for failing to live up to their undertaking for the benefit of the Southern States.

Have you information that a record was kept somewhere?  Because if you do, that's pretty important.