The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[juliann]

A false claim was made in the now closed thread, "Be One." Regarding the Coltrin testimony, it was said "They are dismissed because people don't like what he said." The poster also claimed that Coltrin's dates were not incorrect. This is what is used to justify the ban as God originated. I'm going to do this the lazy way because this is so well documented and use links. 

 It was only after Abels' death that Coltrin and Smoot started the story that JS instituted the ban on the priesthood. So let's look at just a couple of respected scholars, this one doesn't allow cut and pasting. https://books.google.com/books?id=0ZVdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=zebedee+coltrin+testimony+on+ban&source=bl&ots=lU3zqBYncx&sig=ZXuNP1btNEEFWoLVcP5_udjLoE0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ieud5PvaAhVX7mMKHfR4A1MQ6AEITzAH#v=onepage&q=zebedee coltrin testimony on ban&f=false    (scroll down the page.)

It gets better.  Smoot is also the source of the Patton story of Cain roaming the earth as a hairy black man. I think that it is only fair to expect those who believe these after the fact ban reminicenses over the word of Abel himself,  also be expected to promote Cain roaming the earth as a hairy black man.

https://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-h-crapo-chronology-pertaining-to-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood/comment-page-1/

Quote

 

1834 – According to Zebedee Coltrin (as recalled in 1879, some 45 years later) Joseph Smith in the presence of Coltrin receives a revelation that Blacks are not to be ordained.  

1879 – Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal, Diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had “masters”. This affidavit says that Smoot, “W. W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them” (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of the CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

• Coltrin more emphatically generalizes that the ban was applied to all Blacks. The Journal of L. John Nuttal (pages 290-293) reads, “Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, . . . . Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.”
• According to Coltrin, “…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.'” 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.”

 

 

So I posit that this data is not created because scholars "don't want to believe it [Coltrin]."  I think anyone who has cause to believe Abel over sketchy stories from Coltrin and Smoot who made no bones about their racism is on solid ground. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by juliann

[JLHPROF]

We do have the revelation on which the ban is based.  For better or for worse the ban originated from the Book of Abraham (and Moses) teachings.

And Joseph produced them.  He also made numerous statements that would be considered racist today that weren't later recollections.

The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham just like polygamy.  

But just like polygamy the doctrinal background leading to the ban and its beginning implementation came under Joseph.

 

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We do have the revelation on which the ban is based.  For better or for worse the ban originated from the Book of Abraham (and Moses) teachings.

And Joseph produced them.  He also made numerous statements that would be considered racist today that weren't later recollections.

The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham just like polygamy.  

But just like polygamy the doctrinal background leading to the ban and its beginning implementation came under Joseph.

 

Unlike polygamy, though, I believe the doctrinal support of the practice is very tenuous (not that I'm a fan of polygamy, mind you).

[rongo]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 It was only after Abels' death that Coltrin and Smoot started the story that JS instituted the ban on the priesthood. 

So what? Are you insinuating that he needed to be safely dead so he couldn't contradict their story? The John Taylor inquiry was held in the 1880s because of Jane Manning James' request to receive temple blessings. That's why Coltrin and Smoot gave their testimony when they did. It wasn't because enough time had safely passed.

Quote

It gets better.  Smoot is also the source of the Patton story of Cain roaming the earth as a hairy black man. I think that it is only fair to expect those who believe these after the fact ban reminicenses over the word of Abel himself,  also be expected to promote Cain roaming the earth as a hairy black man.

Why do you think President Kimball included the story in Miracle of Forgiveness? Are you including President Kimball in this group you are trying to shame with using this story as well?

Quote

I think anyone who has cause to believe Abel over sketchy stories from Coltrin and Smoot who made no bones about their racism is on solid ground.

Where do Coltrin and Smoot "make no bones about their racism?" I think you simply define this as them stating that Joseph Smith told them what they say he told them (i.e., that is de facto, prima facia "making no bones about their racism"). 

Quote

 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.

Are you willing to apply this same standard to First Vision accounts, or Palmyra/Manchester revivals?

If he was off by a couple of years in the 1880s speaking about events in the 1830s, that doesn't contradict his central story of the ordination. I doubt any of us could nail down an exact year more than 50 years after something happened, but we would be "close enough." 

Quote

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.

Why do you suppose Abel had three separate ordination dates to the office of seventy?

----

juliann, I believe Coltrin and Smoot as far as their testimony of what Joseph Smith told them. I don't think they are lying. You do not believe them.

What, if any, effect would it have on your views if Joseph Smith did in fact tell them what they said he told them? We can't know for sure, and we're pretty much left to believing what we want to, given the evidence. But hypothetically, would it change anything if there were evidence outside of Cotrin and Smoot?

I'll repeat my question from the other thread, which I suppose is the reason it was abruptly locked (but who knows why? There didn't appear to be any reason to me):  why do you think God allowed it to continue for as long as he did if he was definitely and uncategorically opposed to it? Why didn't he correct Brigham Young by revelation? Given your feelings on this subject, and the passion with which you express them, do you think this constitutes "leading the Church astray?" Or did it fall short of that standard? Why do you think God allowed it to persist so long?

Edited May 10, 2018 by rongo

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

We do have the revelation on which the ban is based.  For better or for worse the ban originated from the Book of Abraham (and Moses) teachings.

And Joseph produced them.  He also made numerous statements that would be considered racist today that weren't later recollections.

The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham just like polygamy.  

But just like polygamy the doctrinal background leading to the ban and its beginning implementation came under Joseph.

Hogwash.  Pres David O. McKay could find no such revelation at all, and he had his associates looking for such a revelation for years. Your claim about the BofA and Moses is completely false.  However, you are correct to say that "The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham."  Every competent historian knows that.  Additionally, polygamy began under Joseph -- as every competent historian knows (and as the RLDS Church and its History Commissioner Richard Howard formally admitted).  There is no moral equivalence of racist denial of priesthood to Africans with the practice of polygamy -- which was an ancient biblical practice of the Patriarchs and of Israelite kings, and declared by Martin Luther to be biblical.  We need to admit these facts up front, even if it makes some of us squirm.  Orson Pratt loudly opposed Brother Brigham's new racist policy, just as he opposed the Adam-God nonsense.  Today it is Orson Pratt whose theology is the official theology of the LDS Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

So what? Are you insinuating that he needed to be safely dead so he couldn't contradict their story? The John Taylor inquiry was held in the 1880s because of Jane Manning James' request to receive temple blessings. That's why Coltrin and Smoot gave their testimony when they did. It wasn't because enough time had safely passed.

Why do you think President Kimball included the story in Miracle of Forgiveness? Are you including President Kimball in this group you are trying to shame with using this story as well?

Where do Coltrin and Smoot "make no bones about their racism?" I think you simply define this as them stating that Joseph Smith told them what they say he told them (i.e., that is de facto, prima facia "making no bones about their racism"). 

Are you willing to apply this same standard to First Vision accounts, or Palmyra/Manchester revivals?

There is a great difference between actual accounts written down by the primary source, and folks many years later giving hearsay, particularly if they have a racist motive that is quite common throughout the community.  We saw that tendency particularly in the South among Bible-believing Christians of all sorts.  We also saw it in Emma declaring that her husband never practiced polygamy -- an understandable emotional response, but a lie just the same.  Professional historians must deal with such problems all the time, and they try very hard not to allow emotion to determine the truth.

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

juliann, I believe Coltrin and Smoot as far as their testimony of what Joseph Smith told them. I don't think they are lying. You do not believe them.

What, if any, effect would it have on your views if Joseph Smith did in fact tell them what they said he told them? We can't know for sure, and we're pretty much left to believing what we want to, given the evidence. But hypothetically, would it change anything if there were evidence outside of Cotrin and Smoot?

I'll repeat my question from the other thread, which I suppose is the reason it was abruptly locked (but who knows why? There didn't appear to be any reason to me):  why do you think God allowed it to continue for as long as he did if he was definitely and uncategorically opposed to it? Why didn't he correct Brigham Young by revelation? Given your feelings on this subject, and the passion with which you express them, do you think this constitutes "leading the Church astray?" Or did it fall short of that standard? Why do you think God allowed it to persist so long?

Your rhetorical question about God allowing such nonsense to take place misses the point, and completely misunderstands the nature of God.  You may as well parrot the evangelical query as to why God would allow the Great Apostasy.  God has always allowed ignoble people to do ignoble things.  Apostasies from the truth have been normal throughout history, as anyone who reads the Bible or studies history can discern.  He is patient and long-suffering, but he does not micromanage.  He expects us to carry much of the burden.

[cinepro]

Relevant blog post:

"No known records exist: The fallacy of racial restriction origins..."

 

Quote

In a well-meaning Ensign article commemorating the end of the Mormon Temple and Priesthood restriction against Black people, an unattributed author makes a pernicious claim about the origin of the restriction. I do not think the author was lying. The author was repeating a fallacy that has been growing in circulation for years, but is nevertheless wrong. And if the author was even remotely aware of recent years’ scholarship, then the author is engaging in prevarication.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To reiterate, Brigham Young, from before the official announcement of the restriction in 1852 to his death in 1877, consistently reiterated the reason for the restriction. The documentation is ubiquitous. The framework that supported Young’s narrative declined after his death, and outside of this context Young’s racial narrative made little sense. It eventually became irreconcilable to church members and leaders, who found other explanations, like premortal valiancy, to have greater explanatory power in the twentieth century. See Paul’s book on this.

In order to maintain the fallacy that “no known records exist that explain the origin of the practice” we have to actively forget what Brigham Young taught, which is, as Emily Jensen shows, precisely what the author of the Ensign piece did:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An analogical example would be a parent who explicitly explains that they have taken their child’s smartphone away because they were playing too many video games, and reiterates that explanation for decades, refusing to release the phone. It would be odd for someone to later claim that “we don’t know why the smartphone was taken.” We know exactly why the phone was taken. But in the case of the restriction, it was no fault of black members.

We can do better. The church publications department can do better. To assert ignorance is a betrayal of our history, our faithful spiritual progenitors, and our black pioneers. Any assertion of the fallacy during the 40th anniversary of the revelation ending the temple and priesthood restriction is an affront to the revelation and the work it has done in those years.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hogwash.  Pres David O. McKay could find no such revelation at all, and he had his associates looking for such a revelation for years. Your claim about the BofA and Moses is completely false.  However, you are correct to say that "The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham."  Every competent historian knows that.  Additionally, polygamy began under Joseph -- as every competent historian knows (and as the RLDS Church and its History Commissioner Richard Howard formally admitted).  There is no moral equivalence of racist denial of priesthood to Africans with the practice of polygamy -- which was an ancient biblical practice of the Patriarchs and of Israelite kings, and declared by Martin Luther to be biblical.  We need to admit these facts up front, even if it makes some of us squirm.  Orson Pratt loudly opposed Brother Brigham's new racist policy, just as he opposed the Adam-God nonsense.  Today it is Orson Pratt whose theology is the official theology of the LDS Church.

I disagree completely.  The doctrine is clearly in the Books of Abraham and Moses.

Perhaps they were looking for a revelation to Joseph or Brigham as in the D&C.

And today the "official theology" of the Church may match Orson, but that makes it neither more true nor more correct.

[MormonMason]

In the other thread that got locked I posted the following regarding the ban:

Quote

People who claim it was because of skin color have no clue as to the realities of the situation.

The poster cinepro then tried to create an apparent contradiction by quoting from Brigham Young.  I still stand by what I posted.  Since the thread is locked I cannot reply so thought instead of replying in full I would just post a portion of the Church minutes dealing with that very subject.

Quote

B.Y. its nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent and regain what we have lost - we av one of the best Elders an African in Lowell - a barber-

* * * * *

McCary ... Thats enough you av answered the question yourselves. I am satisfied. I want you to intercede for me. I am not a Pres:, or a leader of the wise but a common bro: - because I am a little shade darker.

B.Y. we don't care about the color.

McC. do I hear that from all -- (all Aye)

(General Church Minutes, 26 March 1847, Church History Library)

As I stated, it was not because of skin color, it was about lineage, no matter what people might say or might have said about the potential reasons for the existence said skin color in certain lineages.  You cannot get much clearer than the above from the minutes of the Church.  President Young and all present did not care about one's color, and so stated that it was not the reason for the ban.  McCary and others of African descent not being able to hold the priesthood, while some did both earlier and during the ban, was not based on the color of the skin.

Figured I'd better get this said before this thread gets locked, too.

Edited May 10, 2018 by MormonMason

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

In the other thread that got locked I posted the following regarding the ban:

The poster cinepro then tried to create an apparent contradiction by quoting from Brigham Young.  I still stand by what I posted.  Since the thread is locked I cannot reply so thought instead of replying in full I would just post a portion of the Church minutes dealing with that very subject.

As I stated, it was not because of skin color, it was about lineage, no matter what people might say or might have said about the potential reasons for the existence said skin color in certain lineages.  You cannot get much clearer than the above from the minutes of the Church.  President Young and all present did not care about one's color, and so stated that it was not the reason for the ban.  McCary and others of African descent not being able to hold the priesthood, while some did both earlier and during the ban, was not based on the color of the skin.

Figured I'd better get this said before this thread gets locked, too.

You do realize that skin color and lineage have a very significant relationship, right?

[MormonMason]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You do realize that skin color and lineage have a very significant relationship, right?

They didn't in Brazil!  People there are so blended there that in some cases you can no longer tell in some circumstances who has African descent and who doesn't.  There are people whiter than myself who have African y chromosomes and African mitochondrial DNA, showing their African lineage but not displaying it in their skins.  That was part of the problem, why it became necessary to start using Patriarchal blessings to determine lineage in Brazil, and why it became such a concern to President Kimball when they were preparing to build a temple in a land where many would not be able to attend the very temple they helped to build.

This is anecdotal but I thought I would mention that someone I know personally knew a man who was white but could not receive the priesthood.  His patriarchal blessing stated that he was of the lineage of Ham.  No ordination for him until the ban was lifted.

Edited May 10, 2018 by MormonMason

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

They didn't in Brazil!  People there are so blended there that in some cases you can no longer tell in some circumstances who has African descent and who doesn't.  There are people whiter than myself who have African y chromosomes and African mitochondrial DNA, showing their African lineage but not displaying it in their skins.  That was part of the problem, why it became necessary to start using Patriarchal blessings to determine lineage in Brazil, and why it became such a concern to President Kimball when they were preparing to build a temple in a land where many would not be able to attend the very temple they helped to build.

Eventually that was the case.  Do you dispute that skin color was the de facto test for lineage and Priesthood ordination for many, many years?

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You do realize that skin color and lineage have a very significant relationship, right?

You do realize that Australian aboringinals are sometimes just as dark as some Africans, yet do not share lineage with them? And not them alone, but also some Melanesians (South Pacific islanders)? 

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Eventually that was the case.  Do you dispute that skin color was the de facto test for lineage and Priesthood ordination for many, many years?

Years ago, there was a TV show about some guys trying to break into a hotel.  Two of the guys were trying to get past a security guard, and one was white and the other was black.  The white guy got flustered and said they were brothers, and the security guard looked quizzically at the black partner.  The black partner just shrugged his shoulders and said "Don't look at me.  I'm an Intelligent Design guy myself."

For some reason that came to mind.  But yeah, saying the issue was about lineage and not skin color is mystifying.  How were members of the cursed race supposedly able to be identified if not by skin color?

Edited May 11, 2018 by cinepro

[MormonMason]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You do realize that Australian aboringinals are sometimes just as dark as some Africans, yet do not share lineage with them? And not them alone, but also some Melanesians (South Pacific islanders)? 

Micronesians and Melanesians, too.  In fact, at one time even they could not hold the priesthood for a period of time.  People don't much talk about that.  Of course, most members aren't aware of it because it did not last long and was resolved in the 1950s, if I recall correctly.

[MormonMason]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Eventually that was the case.  Do you dispute that skin color was the de facto test for lineage and Priesthood ordination for many, many years?

There were those who attempted to do that but the Church tried to help people avoid by communications with Bishops.  But again, some few people who had black skin were ordained to the priesthood even during the ban.  I've seen the membership records so I know better than to believe that skin color was the primary basis for determining whether someone could be ordained.  Melanesians received the priesthood in spite of their skin color and their African appearance, and that was before the ban was lifted.  There was a restriction for a time for their ordination but that was cleared up in short order.  If skin color and appearance really were the primary basis for whether or not they could be ordained, they never would have been ordained before the ban was lifted.  And that skin color test also doesn't explain ordinations of descendants of Africans that still occurred during the time of the ban.

Edited May 11, 2018 by MormonMason

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You do realize that Australian aboringinals are sometimes just as dark as some Africans, yet do not share lineage with them? And not them alone, but also some Melanesians (South Pacific islanders)? 

And? So, you've identified an additional classifier - geography.  Let's go back to the U.S., where this was an issue more than other places throughout the majority of the duration of the ban.  What was the litmus test, here?

[cinepro]

So here's a question for those who believe the priesthood ban was divinely inspired.

In the past few years, ancestry testing has become popular, with people submitting DNA samples and their ancestry being mapped out based on their DNA.

Suppose someone who appears Caucasian submits their DNA and finds out that their ancestry includes a significant amount of black/African DNA, with a strong indicator that their male ancestors who were Priesthood-holding LDS during the first half of the 20th century also had that black/African ancestry.   What would this mean for the theory that the ban was based on lineage and not presumed-lineage based on appearance?

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

And? So, you've identified an additional classifier - geography.  Let's go back to the U.S., where this was an issue more than other places throughout the majority of the duration of the ban.  What was the litmus test, here?

Not even sure what you're on about here. Geography? An aborigine is an aborigine whether he is in Oz or Sweden.  All I was saying is that lineage and skin color are not necessarily intertwined. I'm part Native American, but you wouldn't know it to look at me.

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Not even sure what you're on about here. Geography? An aborigine is an aborigine whether he is in Oz or Sweden.  All I was saying is that lineage and skin color are not necessarily intertwined. I'm part Native American, but you wouldn't know it to look at me.

I never said it was a 100% relationship.  I said it was "very significant." I would think it's self-evident that there is plenty of room in that phrase for many exceptions.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So here's a question for those who believe the priesthood ban was divinely inspired.

In the past few years, ancestry testing has become popular, with people submitting DNA samples and their ancestry being mapped out based on their DNA.

Suppose someone who appears Caucasian submits their DNA and finds out that their ancestry includes a significant amount of black/African DNA, with a strong indicator that their male ancestors who were Priesthood-holding LDS during the first half of the 20th century also had that black/African ancestry.   What would this mean for the theory that the ban was based on lineage and not presumed-lineage based on appearance?

I don't know that it would have much of an impact on the idea that the ban was based on lineage, but it would show (which seems obvious to me) that though the ban was based on lineage it was applied based on color in most places.  

I think the most significant issue of your scenario would be in how it will (because i'm sure this is going to happen or has already) change our understanding of lineage as declared in patriarchal blessings (either by facing that sometimes patriarchs were wrong, or by learning a new interpretation of what declared lineage means).

[juliann]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

 

Why do you think President Kimball included the story in Miracle of Forgiveness? Are you including President Kimball in this group you are trying to shame with using this story as well?

 

I dunno. Why do you think Elder Holland included the bogus missionary story in his talk (which he later rescinded.) Do you really think Pres. Kimball is telling this story in heaven?

Quote

juliann, I believe Coltrin and Smoot as far as their testimony of what Joseph Smith told them. I don't think they are lying. You do not believe them.

 Actually, those LDS historians that Elder Ballard refers members to don't believe them. The difference between their position and yours is that substantiate it.

 

Quote

I'll repeat my question from the other thread, which I suppose is the reason it was abruptly locked (but who knows why? There didn't appear to be any reason to me):  why do you think God allowed it to continue for as long as he did if he was definitely and uncategorically opposed to it? Why didn't he correct Brigham Young by revelation? Given your feelings on this subject, and the passion with which you express them, do you think this constitutes "leading the Church astray?" Or did it fall short of that standard? Why do you think God allowed it to persist so long?

OK, I'll play. Why hasn't God corrected cancer? Why didn't Pres. Nelson come up with the cure for heart disease? Why didn't he get airplanes in the air faster? Think of all the baptisms we could have gotten! But most of all, why the heck did God wait so long to restore the church while the entire world was being led astray?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Years ago, there was a TV show about some guys trying to break into a hotel.  Two of the guys were trying to get past a security guard, and one was white and the other was black.  The white guy got flustered and said they were brothers, and the security guard looked quizzically at the black partner.  The black partner just shrugged his shoulders and said "Don't look at me.  I'm an Intelligent Design guy myself."

For some reason that came to mind.  But yeah, saying the issue was about lineage and not skin color is mystifying.  How were members of the cursed race supposedly able to be identified if not by skin color?

There is also that instruction that missionaries were to look at family pictures to determine if there was dark skin African lineage in high incidence countries like Brazil.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

In the other thread that got locked I posted the following regarding the ban:

The poster cinepro then tried to create an apparent contradiction by quoting from Brigham Young.  I still stand by what I posted.  Since the thread is locked I cannot reply so thought instead of replying in full I would just post a portion of the Church minutes dealing with that very subject.

As I stated, it was not because of skin color, it was about lineage, no matter what people might say or might have said about the potential reasons for the existence said skin color in certain lineages.  You cannot get much clearer than the above from the minutes of the Church.  President Young and all present did not care about one's color, and so stated that it was not the reason for the ban.  McCary and others of African descent not being able to hold the priesthood, while some did both earlier and during the ban, was not based on the color of the skin.

Figured I'd better get this said before this thread gets locked, too. 

Lineage in this case is just a way of getting around saying race. It was based on race. Not skin color, but race.

Given that every human on earth has African lineage, the priesthood ban was always based on bad information. And Canaanites were ethnically identical to Israelites (the latter sprang out of the former). Oh, and Joseph in the Bible married an Egyptian woman. The doctrine on this was incoherent from the start.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Gray

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is also that instruction that missionaries were to look at family pictures to determine if there was dark skin African lineage in high incidence countries like Brazil.

i remember reading about this years ago..and heard stories related to it from a cousin who served in the 60's.  I had forgotten about this..and so my stomach turns again..😒