Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

 

Joseph T Ball was a branch president in 1844.  It would be nice to know if this was before June or not.  If before, wouldn't have Joseph been involved in his appointment and thus confirms JS's acceptance of JTB's Priesthood?

Add-on:  it appears to have been in October, but Ball served a mission with Wilford Woodruff in 1837.  So unless missions were different back then, Joseph allowing him to go on a mission seems to me confirmation.

So that makes 2 out of 5.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 out of probably no more than 15 potential? (Probably less since some would have been slaves unfortunately) isn't bad (12 black members in all the Church in 1839, 22 black members in Nauvoo, double that for all the Church as an estimate, say 45; take 1/3 as adult males for 15...some of which would have been slaves and likely unable because of that to be ordained).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

Edited July 21, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Joseph T Ball was a branch president in 1844.  It would be nice to know if this was before June or not.  If before, wouldn't have Joseph been involved in his appointment and thus confirms JS's acceptance of JTB's Priesthood?

Add-on:  it appears to have been in October, but Ball served a mission with Wilford Woodruff in 1837.  So unless missions were different back then, Joseph allowing him to go on a mission seems to me confirmation.

So that makes 2 out of 5.

http://www.blackpast.org/aah/ball-jr-joseph-t-1804-1861

Probably.  He did live in Kirtland with Joseph when he was sent on his mission.  2/5 agreed.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

5 out of probably no more than 15 potential? (Probably less since some would have been slaves unfortunately) isn't bad (12 black members in all the Church in 1839, 22 black members in Nauvoo, double that for all the Church as an estimate, say 45; take 1/3 as adult males for 15...some of which would have been slaves and likely unable because of that to be ordained).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

From your article -
By 1839 there were about a dozen black members in the Church. Nauvoo, Illinois was reported to have 22 black members, including free and slave, between 1839–1843 (Late Persecution of the Church of Latter-day Saints, 1840).

Ok, I see your point.
I just find it interesting that during Joseph's lifetime only 5 men of black descent were rumored to be ordained, only 4 of them have an actual record or ordination, and only 2 of them had any significant interaction with him.  Yes, the membership numbers were small, but I'm still not convinced Brigham established the ban all by himself contradicting Joseph as so many would like to think.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

JLHP...

Of black members, adult males who weren't slaves that were actually mentioned anywhere, how many were assumed to have been ordained?  Do you know of any who were not said to be ordained?

Edited July 21, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  ..........................................

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, ..............................

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, ...................................

Welcome to the real world, stemelbow.  All three of your points here are valid to a greater or lesser extent.  However, that does not make Lowry Nelson or Jerald Tanner prophets just because they opposed racism.  I also opposed racism then, but that did not make me a prophet.

Most of your summary on McConkie and McKay was on point and germane, although you forgot to note that McKay was not president of the Church in 1949, and was not the guy in charge.  Thus, you gave him a bad image as some sort of hypocrite.  You also failed to note Orson Pratt's strong opposition to the views of Brigham Young on race and priesthood.  Finally, you failed to note that Black men were ordained in Joseph's day, and that Joseph sought an end to slavery in America.  It is easy to adopt a monomaniacal version of what the Mormon Church has stood for, and to forget the actual history.

 

[Bernard Gui]

The 1970s was the perfect time for the ban to be lifted. Any time before this would have resulted in huge divisions in the Church, perhaps even in the failure of the Restoration.

The question of ordination to the Priesthood (racial qualifications) was not an issue in Israel or America at any time before the Restoration, but it was a big issue for those living in the center of the Restoration and establishment of the Church in the West. When the time was right and the people were ready, it happened.

Just my opinion.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

And? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

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.

Paul Reeve's book From Not White Enough to Too White is the most comprehensive look at this I have seen, and is summarized here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

It was pretty clearly a statement of Brigham Young in 1852 as I recall that was the main turning point based on Mormons being seen as a mongrel race due to intermarriage with other races.

Edited July 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here's a quote from the above linked article

Quote

 

On the 23 of January 1852 to the Territorial Legislature, Brigham Young will give the first open articulation of a race-based priesthood restriction by a Mormon prophet-president. It’s to the Territorial Legislature as they are attempting to write a servant-code, or a slave-code, to define the laws that will govern the black slaves who have been brought to the Great Basin by their slave masters who have converted to Mormonism. Some of those slaves are Mormons themselves. Once again, this open racial vision –we’re accepting all people: abolitionists, anti-abolitionists, blacks, freed blacks, enslaved blacks, slave-masters — they are all gathering to the Great Basin. Now we need to figure out how to order them. And Brigham Young will suggest in 1852 that white should take precedent over black.

On the 5th of February 1852 he will give his most forceful articulation. In chapter 5 of the book, I do a thorough deconstruction of this speech. I won’t go into in here, but nonetheless it’s really the most open and forceful articulation of a racial priesthood restriction. “They will not rule over me in this church and they will not rule over me in this territory.” It is in response to an election code that the Territorial Legislature is debating. Most historians who have looked at this in the past have suggested it comes out of the servant code. They argue that this fifth of February speech actually comes in a debate with Orson Pratt over the election code. We know that Orson Pratt gives a speech, because it’s been covered in the minutes of George Watt, who was the scribe for the Territorial Legislature, and it had never been transcribed. The Church History department asked LaJean Carruth to transcribe it after we identified this speech from the 1852 legislature and used it in the book for the first time. We know that Orson Pratt doesn’t like the stance that Brigham Young is staking out and gives a speech on the 27^thof January 1852 against the servant code. He argues or moves that the Legislature should “reject” it in its entirety. He argued that only God administered divine curses and that they were particular to a given time and place. They didn’t automatically pass down from generation to generation. He says that curses are not multi-generational. He says, “Shall we take then the innocent African that has committed no sin and damn him to slavery and bondage without receiving any authority from heaven to do [so]?” He argues that Mormons are not acting on authority from God if they pass this servant code that they are debating. He found the idea “preposterous” and he said that is was “enough to cause the angels in heaven to blush.” We know that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had butted heads before, and this is just another example of Brigham Young and Orson Pratt butting heads again.

 

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Paul Reeve's book From Not White Enough to Too White is the most comprehensive look at this I have seen, and is summarized here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

It was pretty clearly a statement of Brigham Young in 1852 as I recall that was the main turning point based on Mormons being seen as a mongrel race due to intermarriage with other races.

 

Paul Reeve is an excellent historian (and a very nice man).  I haven't read this particular book yet but I'm definitely interested. I recently had my DNA tested through 23 and me and was very surprised to find out that I have sub-saharan African DNA from an ancestor who lived about 250 years ago. My family is about as white as can be from New England puritan ancestry on my dad's side (the side those alleles are from) but according to the "one drop rule", I'm black. I suspect the case is the same in many "white" Americans. Does he discuss whether or not our church's policy subscribed to the "one drop rule"?

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Paul Reeve is an excellent historian (and a very nice man).  I haven't read this particular book yet but I'm definitely interested. I recently had my DNA tested through 23 and me and was very surprised to find out that I have sub-saharan African DNA from an ancestor who lived about 250 years ago. My family is about as white as can be from New England puritan ancestry on my dad's side (the side those alleles are from) but according to the "one drop rule", I'm black. I suspect the case is the same in many "white" Americans. Does he discuss whether or not our church's policy subscribed to the "one drop rule"?

I am not sure about that- I think not, though I know that one of the problems which helped turn the tables on the race issue was that in Brazil, a huge proportion of the population, probably approaching 100% I think, has some African blood.  The church was actively setting up missions there and clearly they could see the conflict coming over the racial issue.

I have not read the book either, but was there for his presentation at FAIR, and cannot remember if he mentioned that there.  Of course you can read his presentation on line on the FAIRMORMON conference site- the presentation was in 2015.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure about that- I think not, though I know that one of the problems which helped turn the tables on the race issue was that in Brazil, a huge proportion of the population, probably approaching 100% I think, has some African blood.  The church was actively setting up missions there and clearly they could see the conflict coming over the racial issue.

I have not read the book either, but was there for his presentation at FAIR, and cannot remember if he mentioned that there.  Of course you can read his presentation on line on the FAIRMORMON conference site- the presentation was in 2015.

IIRC there is an article by Mark L. Grover about Brazil, Priesthood and the Sao Paolo Temple coming in 1978-I can't speak for him but I think he says it was a factor, not the only one 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

JLHP...

Of black members, adult males who weren't slaves that were actually mentioned anywhere, how many were assumed to have been ordained?  Do you know of any who were not said to be ordained?

I am not sure but Jane Manning James arrived in Nauvoo in 1843 with male family members - 3 brothers, a brother in law, and her future husband age 23 was already living in Nauvoo.  There may also have been her oldest son, but I believe he was only around 8 or 9.  None are on record as receiving priesthood and none were slaves.  And we know how close her family was with Joseph Smith.  That's at least 5 black men in Nauvoo, faithful converts, with no ordinations on record.

Edited July 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

The "'one-drop' view of race" is cited in the index with two significant sections and four more mentions.

Has its own chapter (7).

add-on:  Utah never adopted the "one-drop rule", but specified (in 1939) no mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon could marry a white person.  By 1907, the one drop rule however was being used in religious settings by Mormon leaders.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Paul Reeve is an excellent historian (and a very nice man).  I haven't read this particular book yet but I'm definitely interested. I recently had my DNA tested through 23 and me and was very surprised to find out that I have sub-saharan African DNA from an ancestor who lived about 250 years ago. My family is about as white as can be from New England puritan ancestry on my dad's side (the side those alleles are from) but according to the "one drop rule", I'm black. I suspect the case is the same in many "white" Americans. Does he discuss whether or not our church's policy subscribed to the "one drop rule"?

I've read most of the book and own it. It's been a while since I've read it (I suck at reading history books...but was more than willing to buy this one). There's six reference points of discussion of the one drop rule, starting with the story of Scipio Kenner. He was a white man trying to marry his love, who was accused of having "negro blood." He wrote a letter directly to Brigham Young to refute the charge and appeal to a higher authority to clear his name....or lineage, I guess. He was later sealed to his love. Reeves summarizes that if he had been found out to have "'negro blood,' it could have substantially altered his standing in the mormon community and affected his familial ties, his marriage, and his status in american society."  This wasn't all at once but morphed to something more strident as people began sending letters of inquiry to the presidency in the late 19th century (1890's) asking about people who were "tainted with negro blood" in one way or another but as one inquiry put it where the "white blood predominated." To these he states that "leaders struck a predominantly conservative stance in response to the questions that arrived at headquarters; it was a stance that mirrored the growing strident segregation of American society around them." You can see by the institutionalized policies that continued on that they were leaning/subscribing to the one-drop-rule. At least it's pretty obvious to me that's what it is. Which is why when people would defend it not as an issue of race but of "lineage," it rang extremely hollow and blind of historical context. 

  Well, now that the book is off my shelf, I might as well read a bit of it again. One day, I'll learn to enjoy non-fiction more. But it honestly is an illuminating and wonderful read! For reference I read 190 of 270 pages of this book before I lost track of it. Rough Stone Rolling I read maybe 20-30 pages of it. So this is basically a miracle  

 

With luv, 

BD

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I've read most of the book and own it. It's been a while since I've read it (I suck at reading history books...but was more than willing to buy this one). There's six reference points of discussion of the one drop rule, starting with the story of Scipio Kenner. He was a white man trying to marry his love, who was accused of having "negro blood." He wrote a letter directly to Brigham Young to refute the charge and appeal to a higher authority to clear his name....or lineage, I guess. He was later sealed to his love. Reeves summarizes that if he had been found out to have "'negro blood,' it could have substantially altered his standing in the mormon community and affected his familial ties, his marriage, and his status in american society."  This wasn't all at once but morphed to something more strident as people began sending letters of inquiry to the presidency in the late 19th century (1890's) asking about people who were "tainted with negro blood" in one way or another but as one inquiry put it where the "white blood predominated." To these he states that "leaders struck a predominantly conservative stance in response to the questions that arrived at headquarters; it was a stance that mirrored the growing strident segregation of American society around them." You can see by the institutionalized policies that continued on that they were leaning/subscribing to the one-drop-rule. At least it's pretty obvious to me that's what it is. Which is why when people would defend it not as an issue of race but of "lineage," it rang extremely hollow and blind of historical context. 

  Well, now that the book is off my shelf, I might as well read a bit of it again. One day, I'll learn to enjoy non-fiction more. But it honestly is an illuminating and wonderful read! For reference I read 190 of 270 pages of this book before I lost track of it. Rough Stone Rolling I read maybe 20-30 pages of it. So this is basically a miracle  

 

With luv, 

BD

It is very well written, imo.  Gripping story, including examples like Kenner gets me invested.  Otoh, nonfiction tends to be very depressing for me to read (I want happier lives for people without the mistakes), so I am still struggling through the book.  

Edited July 22, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is very well written, imo.  Gripping story, including examples like Kenner gets me invested.  Otoh, nonfiction tends to be very depressing for me to read (I want happier lives for people without the mistakes), so I am still struggling through the book.  

I've been reading/listening to a book called Missoula for work related hours. It's non-fiction accounts of a college town and rape. I feel you on the depressing factor. The book is good but I've never been so angry and conflicted from reading a freaking book. Give me fiction any day over this!

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The 1970s was the perfect time for the ban to be lifted. Any time before this would have resulted in huge divisions in the Church, perhaps even in the failure of the Restoration.

The question of ordination to the Priesthood (racial qualifications) was not an issue in Israel or America at any time before the Restoration, but it was an big issue for those living

in the center of the Restoration and establishment of the Church in the West. When the time was right and the people were ready, it happened.

Just my opinion.

Just a bit confused here.  Do you believe that the race ban was a revelation from God?  

If it was not, then shouldn't it have been removed long ago no matter what feelings members might have on this issue.  Was it fair to deny eternal blessings from a person just because they were black just because members were racists?

If it was a revelation from God, then why was 1978 the right time to remove the band. Because Brigham Young was very clear when the right time for blacks to receive the priesthood and it was not in 1978.  Here is what he stated.

Quote

How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, 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.

If one believes in the first part of the revelation that blacks were not suppose to hold the priesthood, then they have to believe in the second half of the revelation that specifically states when that ban would be lifted,  That was not in 1978.

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, I believe it was a revelation, that it was temporary and had a purpose, that the purpose was served, that it was ended by revelation, that no blessing will be withheld from any of Father's children, that exaltation is and always has been within the reach of every human, that after 40 years in the wilderness we should move on rejoicing in the Restoration and look forward the Day of the Lord. Were Brother Brigham available you and I could ask him to explain. Some day perhaps we can do that.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure about that- I think not, though I know that one of the problems which helped turn the tables on the race issue was that in Brazil, a huge proportion of the population, probably approaching 100% I think, has some African blood.  The church was actively setting up missions there and clearly they could see the conflict coming over the racial issue.

I have not read the book either, but was there for his presentation at FAIR, and cannot remember if he mentioned that there.  Of course you can read his presentation on line on the FAIRMORMON conference site- the presentation was in 2015.

I was there that day, too.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I was there that day, too.

Dang, mist cha!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Just a bit confused here.  

Yes, we know.  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Just a bit confused here.  Do you believe that the race ban was a revelation from God?  

If it was not, then shouldn't it have been removed long ago no matter what feelings members might have on this issue.  Was it fair to deny eternal blessings from a person just because they were black just because members were racists?

If it was a revelation from God, then why was 1978 the right time to remove the band. Because Brigham Young was very clear when the right time for blacks to receive the priesthood and it was not in 1978.  Here is what he stated.

If one believes in the first part of the revelation that blacks were not suppose to hold the priesthood, then they have to believe in the second half of the revelation that specifically states when that ban would be lifted,  That was not in 1978.

We can know that Brigham was inspired to make the ban temporarily for reasons we do not understand

We know that his revelation IF it was one, was, like all revelations FALLIBLE because they come through a human mind with all its prejudices, errors and misunderstandings.

We know that prophets are in general fallible and that we must, each of us, come up with our own revelation- or in terms you will understand- "gut feeling" that they are right or wrong

The "fact" if such things can be called "facts", that Brigham thought the ban would be lifted presumably at the end of time, was another fallible portion of the revelation IF it was one in the first place

Today most church members are aware that prophets are fallible and that each person must obtain their own testimonies.  It has been said regularly in conference talks and this entire race issue is the subject of an essay making the position of the church clear that the church now repudiates these events.

We all know this, you don't

I personally feel the ban was a mistake but I can see it Bernard's way also- there might have been extenuating circumstances in which it was necessary for the survival of the church, with the civil war pending, to keep blacks from church leadership on a temporary basis. Obviously it went on too long.

I don't know- no one will ever know, so it is a moot point to even worry about or discuss

Some on this board just live to bring up what they perceive in their error to be inconsistencies.  They refuse to get on with life and continue prattling on about their particular problems- arguing with their previous selves who believed erroneously what they believed

Such people are confused.

Such is life.

Edited July 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We can know that Brigham was inspired to make the ban temporarily for reasons we do not understand

We know that his revelation IF it was one, was, like all revelations FALLIBLE because they come through a human mind with all its prejudices, errors and misunderstandings.

We know that prophets are in general fallible and that we must, each of us, come up with our own revelation- or in terms you will understand- "gut feeling" that they are right or wrong

The "fact" if such things can be called "facts", that Brigham thought the ban would be lifted presumably at the end of time, was another fallible portion of the revelation IF it was one in the first place

Today most church members are aware that prophets are fallible and that each person must obtain their own testimonies.  It has been said regularly in conference talks and this entire race issue is the subject of an essay making the position of the church clear that the church now repudiates these events.

We all know this, you don't

I personally feel the ban was a mistake but I can see it Bernard's way also- there might have been extenuating circumstances in which it was necessary for the survival of the church, with the civil war pending, to keep blacks from church leadership on a temporary basis. Obviously it went on too long.

I don't know- no one will ever know, so it is a moot point to even worry about or discuss

Some on this board just live to bring up what they perceive in their error to be inconsistencies.  They refuse to get on with life and continue prattling on about their particular problems- arguing with their previous selves who believed erroneously what they believed

Such people are confused.

Such is life.

Survival because of the civli war?  Really?  Only half of the country thought that blacks were inferior and should be treated as chattel.  Why couldn't the saints supported that side of the civil war.  The side that actually won the war.  Why couldn't the revelation been dismissed in 1865?  By that time there was certainly no threat to the church.  

My complaint is that members want it both ways.  They want to say that the priesthood ban was one day going to be lifted.  And they want to say that the priesthood ban was not really a revelation but rather the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young.  It was the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young that also said that in the end, the ban would be lifted.  What is clear is that in 1978 none of the conditions of the lifting of the ban promised by Brigham Young had happened. 

I did not bring this up.  It was Scott that made the false statement that the lifting of the ban was promised.  He completely ignored  the way that ban would be lifted as outlined by the very person who imposed the ban.  Brigham Young.  

It is the whitewashing of history that I object to.