The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[Tacenda]

What do some of you think about this statement from Fair?

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2012/02/25/three-mormon-myths-about-blacks-and-the-priesthood

Myth #1: Blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because they had the curse or mark of Cain

This belief was commonly held by many Protestant denominations in early American history. It was often used as a justification for slavery and reached its peak about the time of the Civil War. Many people who joined the LDS Church brought this teaching into the Church with them. Most Protestants later changed their talking points on this to say the children of Cain were wiped out during Noah’s flood, so the cursing came though the flood through Ham. Therefore, the more modern phrasing of this belief is the so-called “curse of Ham.” But the curse of Cain continued to be taught in the then geographically isolated LDS Church.

While the scriptures do talk about a mark being put on Cain, there is no scriptural explanation of what that mark may be or how it relates to the priesthood. One member of my high priest quorum suggested the mark is likely to be male pattern baldness.

There is a scripture in the Book of Moses talking about the children of Canaan being black (Moses 7:8), but there is no given connection between Cain and Canaan. Just because a name sounds similar, doesn’t make it the same.

Even in the Book of Abraham, the priesthood restrictions were not put on “blacks”, but on the lineage of the Egyptian Pharaoh. This was at the time of Abraham, long before Jesus Christ. If you were alive at that time, it is likely you would have been restricted from that priesthood as well.

[Tacenda]

Here is a side by side timeline of black history and LDS black history. http://www.blacklds.org/history

I noticed this quote by Lorenzo Snow:

President Lorenzo Snow Expresses Doubts On the Issue
On August 18, 1900 President Lorenzo Snow states that he isn’t sure whether the existing explanations for the ban had been personal opinions or actual revelations. This is recorded in the minutes of the Council of the Twelve.

[JulieM]

2 hours 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.

I think it’s best to just own it (that it was a ban for blacks, with that skin color), accept responsibility for something done that was racist and then state “never again”, and we’ve made it right since 1978.  It sets a bad example for our youth and others when you do what you’re trying to do and is quite frankly embarrassing to see.  

[MormonMason]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Nope.  Lineage is lineage and race is race.  Some people tend to overlap them and sometimes there can be overlap under the right circumstances.  But this is not the case with the priesthood ban.  If it were strictly based on race, then why were some Blacks ordained even during the ban? No one seems to want to discuss that.  It happened.  And I know for a fact that some Blacks were ordained while during the ban, two of whom were the son and grandson of Elijah Abel.

As to Joseph and Asenath, we are not told what her lineage is, only that she was Egyptian.  But at the time of Joseph was around the time of the Hyksos.  Hyksos were foreign rulers of Semitic descent.  Some priests in Egypt were called Egyptians even though strictly they were not descended from Ham.

The claim that the Israelites came out of the Canaanites is based on tenuous assumptions at best.  And some people identified as Canaanites weren't.  We have Bible mistranslations to blame for that.  Still doesn't change the fact that it was not based on skin color, as was stated in the 1847 Church Council.  And it wasn't.  If it were, again, why did some Blacks continue to be ordained, with those ordaining them knowing their race?

That all came out of Africa also is based on limited information that could change at any time.  I mean, if we go back far enough, sure, hominids may have come from there but the lineage question did not come up until there were established lineages to bring up.  It began with a specific human ancestor in a specific period in the timeline and thereafter.  It was not based on initial biological origin of the entire species.

[MormonMason]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it’s best to just own it (that it was a ban for blacks, with that skin color), accept responsibility for something done that was racist and then state “never again”, and we’ve made it right since 1978.  It sets a bad example for our youth and others when you do what you’re trying to do and is quite frankly embarrassing to see.  

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color.  He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color.  All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded.  There is nothing embarrassing in looking at all sides of the equation, as I have done.  I have no problem with owning that it happened.  But I also know that it had nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins.

But some people want to lay it all aside and claim it was a cosmic accident that was made right after the fact, when it follows established patterns in scripture for other situations, such as when God banned two light-skinned nations from becoming members of the congregation of God (because of something done by their ancestors), or when Jesus set things up so that a Canaanite had to admit in so many words she was a dog before he would even help her, or when the Holy Ghost forbade the apostles from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor for a period of time.  There is long history of God doing stuff like this.  This cannot be denied and one claim that only one example of such a pattern of God's dealings with men in modern times was nothing more than a cosmic accident.

By the way, I've looked into claims that the LDS idea of some Africans being of the line of Cain, as a means to justify slavery, came from anything prior to 1852.  From all I have seen, that is an untruth, a twisting of sources, and it seems FAIR/FairMormon continues spreading it.  None of the primary sources I have consulted from the 1800s have anything like that in them, until 1852 (after the priesthood ban).  Unless you have a primary source or two prior to 1852 that does mention it? I've seen nothing of the kind in any of the primary sources I've consulted on the matter, to date.

Edited May 11, 2018 by MormonMason

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Nope.  Lineage is lineage and race is race.  Some people tend to overlap them and sometimes there can be overlap under the right circumstances.  But this is not the case with the priesthood ban.  If it were strictly based on race, then why were some Blacks ordained even during the ban? No one seems to want to discuss that.  It happened.  And I know for a fact that some Blacks were ordained while during the ban, two of whom were the son and grandson of Elijah Abel.

As to Joseph and Asenath, we are not told what her lineage is, only that she was Egyptian.  But at the time of Joseph was around the time of the Hyksos.  Hyksos were foreign rulers of Semitic descent.  Some priests in Egypt were called Egyptians even though strictly they were not descended from Ham.

The claim that the Israelites came out of the Canaanites is based on tenuous assumptions at best.  And some people identified as Canaanites weren't.  We have Bible mistranslations to blame for that.  Still doesn't change the fact that it was not based on skin color, as was stated in the 1847 Church Council.  And it wasn't.  If it were, again, why did some Blacks continue to be ordained, with those ordaining them knowing their race?

That all came out of Africa also is based on limited information that could change at any time.  I mean, if we go back far enough, sure, hominids may have come from there but the lineage question did not come up until there were established lineages to bring up.  It began with a specific human ancestor in a specific period in the timeline and thereafter.  It was not based on initial biological origin of the entire species.

Are you suggesting Elijah Abel was not of the same lineage the other blacks were?

While he had the Priesthood and his descendants, he was not allowed to go to the temple and take out his endowments and as far as I know other ordained blacks were not either.

The ban may have been partially lifted for a few, but it was not fully lifted.

Skin color or lineage, what does it matter?  Either would still qualify as discrimination (the question being whether such discrimation of one group was appropriate).  All were allowed the Priesthood and temple blessings save one group of people.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color.  He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color.  All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded.  There is nothing embarrassing in looking at all sides of the equation, as I have done.  I have no problem with owning that it happened.  But I also know that it had nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins.

But some people want to lay it all aside and claim it was a cosmic accident that was made right after the fact, when it follows established patterns in scripture for other situations, such as when God banned two light-skinned nations from becoming members of the congregation of God (because of something done by their ancestors), or when Jesus set things up so that a Canaanite had to admit in so many words she was a dog before he would even help her, or when the Holy Ghost forbade the apostles from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor for a period of time.  There is long history of God doing stuff like this.  This cannot be denied and one claim that only one example of such a pattern of God's dealings with men in modern times was nothing more than a cosmic accident.

By the way, I've looked into claims that the LDS idea of some Africans being of the line of Cain, as a means to justify slavery, came from anything prior to 1852.  From all I have seen, that is an untruth, a twisting of sources, and it seems FAIR/FairMormon continues spreading it.  None of the primary sources I have consulted from the 1800s have anything like that in them, until 1852 (after the priesthood ban).  Unless you have a primary source or two prior to 1852 that does mention it? I've seen nothing of the kind in any of the primary sources I've consulted on the matter, to date.

If I were you I wouldn't give that much credence to something in the Bible, especially if you've done your research on how the information was passed down. There are people that are still paying for what a few verses have said about them...women, gays and blacks. In each of  these categories there has been some pretty sickening abuses. It's not God breathed at all and these people are still feeling or receiving the devastating results of these scriptures. It's time people don't rely on the words of man and use some common sense, deep down common sense and a sense of right and wrong.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color.  He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color.  All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded.  There is nothing embarrassing in looking at all sides of the equation, as I have done.  I have no problem with owning that it happened.  But I also know that it had nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins.

“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.”  -  Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291

“For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should of them should repent.... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark”. - prophet John Taylor (1808 - 1887

“The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood.” - Apostle George F. Richards (1861 - 1950 )

“It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness... It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, v. 27, n. 6, p. 565

“... a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind”  - The Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833, reprinted in History of the Church, v. 1, pp. 378-379

“We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind.... We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white.” -  Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, p. 165

“The Saints would have been so much better off if they had never gone near Missouri because they... compromised their position by adopting an idea that already prevailed... that 'Negroes are cursed with a black skin and that they are intended as the curse of Noah on Canaan goes, to be 'servant of servants.'” - Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 1974

Edited May 11, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color.  He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color.  All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded.  There is nothing embarrassing in looking at all sides of the equation, as I have done.  I have no problem with owning that it happened.  But I also know that it had nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins.

But some people want to lay it all aside and claim it was a cosmic accident that was made right after the fact, when it follows established patterns in scripture for other situations, such as when God banned two light-skinned nations from becoming members of the congregation of God (because of something done by their ancestors), or when Jesus set things up so that a Canaanite had to admit in so many words she was a dog before he would even help her, or when the Holy Ghost forbade the apostles from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor for a period of time.  There is long history of God doing stuff like this.  This cannot be denied and one claim that only one example of such a pattern of God's dealings with men in modern times was nothing more than a cosmic accident.

By the way, I've looked into claims that the LDS idea of some Africans being of the line of Cain, as a means to justify slavery, came from anything prior to 1852.  From all I have seen, that is an untruth, a twisting of sources, and it seems FAIR/FairMormon continues spreading it.  None of the primary sources I have consulted from the 1800s have anything like that in them, until 1852 (after the priesthood ban).  Unless you have a primary source or two prior to 1852 that does mention it? I've seen nothing of the kind in any of the primary sources I've consulted on the matter, to date.

You can, of course, write FM with your ideas and see if the wiki editors and scholars in this area agree.  We are always looking at ways to improve the site.

[MormonMason]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting Elijah Abel was not of the same lineage the other blacks were?

While he had the Priesthood and his descendants, he was not allowed to go to the temple and take out his endowments and as far as I know other ordained blacks were not either.

The ban may have been partially lifted for a few, but it was not fully lifted.

I never stated that it was fully lifted.  Exceptions were made, too.  We see the same thing happen in the Bible.  If you were descended from Moab and Ammon, no membership in the congregation of God for you "even to the tenth generation...forever" (Deut. 23:4-5; Neh. 13:1-3).  But Ruth was let in and accepted in spite of the Lord's complete ban on those two nations.  And so were David and Solomon, both of whom had Ruth as their grandmother.

In the case of Elijah Abel, he was told by Joseph Smith and via patriarchal blessing that he would "be made equal to thy brethren...entitled to the priesthood".  At least his son and a grandson also were ordained years later, while the ban was in force.  Elijah Abel was listed as a member of the "3rd Quorum of the Seventy" after being in Utah.

Yes, it was partially lifted for a few.  If it had been based on the color of skin or on race alone, there would have been no exceptions.

[Calm]

"-Yes, it was partially lifted for a few.  If it had been based on the color of skin or on race alone, there would have been no exceptions."

Why not?

If exceptions can be made for one category, why wouldn't they have been for another category?

[MormonMason]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.”  -  Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291

“For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should of them should repent.... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark”. - prophet John Taylor (1808 - 1887

“The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood.” - Apostle George F. Richards (1861 - 1950 )

You're doing the same thing cinepro did.  The quotes speak of the physical characteristics, not as the reason why they were banned from the priesthood with few exceptions.  If it were based on skin color, why were some Blacks ordained anyway while the ban was in force?

Even your latter quote separates the black skin from the priesthood ban.  Nice try but no cupie doll.

[MormonMason]

Just now, Calm said:

"-Yes, it was partially lifted for a few.  If it had been based on the color of skin or on race alone, there would have been no exceptions."

Why not?

If exceptions can be made for one category, why wouldn't they have been for another category?

Because it wasn't done.  Skin color was not the reason for the ban.

[MormonMason]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can, of course, write FM with your ideas and see if the wiki editors and scholars in this area agree.  We are always looking at ways to improve the site.

Someone I know did that years ago, to no avail.  It did not matter what primary source was cited.  Opinions were fixed and unbending.  It was like what happens from time to time on Wikipedia.  That was pretty discouraging for me to hear so I've never bothered.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Because it wasn't done.  Skin color was not the reason for the ban.

Pretty sure it was based on those from Africa, and guess what? Made it possible to excuse slavery, ever think of that?

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

You're doing the same thing cinepro did.  The quotes speak of the physical characteristics, not as the reason why they were banned from the priesthood with few exceptions. 

You should just stop.   Own what took place and make sure it never happens again.  That’s what the leaders of the church are doing.  Follow their example. 

(You missed some of the quotes too....were all those prophets and church leaders wrong?)

Edited May 11, 2018 by JulieM

[MormonMason]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If I were you I wouldn't give that much credence to something in the Bible, especially if you've done your research on how the information was passed down. There are people that are still paying for what a few verses have said about them...women, gays and blacks. In each of  these categories there has been some pretty sickening abuses. It's not God breathed at all and these people are still feeling or receiving the devastating results of these scriptures. It's time people don't rely on the words of man and use some common sense, deep down common sense and a sense of right and wrong.

I've done the research.  Much of it ends up going into the discard.  Most of this material is based almost entirely on the thinnest of assumptions that groupthink turned into consensus in spite of the huge lack of evidences therefore.  May I suggest that you consult R. K. Harrison's Introduction to the Old Testament? It is a thick read (over 1,300 pages) but well worth the labor.  Everything after page 693 are summaries of the various books of the Old Testament and various issues with each.  Everything before that discusses archaeology and the weaknesses of the Documentary Hypothesis that was created in the 19th Century and rehashed with little change since then.  But it also is your opinion that particular scriptures you don't like aren't God-breathed.  I don't accept such opinions.  Humans don't really get to make such judgments without some good, hard evidence to back such opinions.  For instance, I know that there are issues with some texts of the Bible.  Some have been rewritten.  Others are translation issues.  I don't have to accept such texts as have those kinds of issues as "God-breathed" but I have seen hard evidence for those.  Not so much for the claims about how the Bible came to be.

[MormonMason]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Pretty sure it was based on those from Africa, and guess what? Made it possible to excuse slavery, ever think of that?

After 1852, maybe it became a justification for some people.  But the ban still was not based on the color of the skin.  Did you not read what I quoted from the 1847 Council of the Church minutes? The Church did not care about the color of one's skin.  The color of McCary's skin was not the reason why he did not hold the priesthood and they did not care about skin color.  President Young told him that and all at the Council agreed.  That seems not to be enough?

[MormonMason]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You should just stop.   Own what took place and make sure it never happens again.  That’s what the leaders of the church are doing.  Follow their example. 

(You missed some of the quotes too....were all those prophets and church leaders wrong?)

Why should I? I know of what I speak.  And it likely will never happen again.  It is irrelevant.  And I missed nothing.  None of your quotes say that skin color was the reason for the priesthood ban.  Got any that actually do? Let's see them in context.

Were they wrong or right? It is irrelevant.  Priesthood ban is over.  Done deal.  Everyone's opinions prior to that time don't really matter all that much in the eternal scheme of things.  Prophets are entitled to their opinions and personal quirks, wrong or right.

Edited May 11, 2018 by MormonMason

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Why should I? I know of what I speak. 

I think all those quotes say otherwise 

[MormonMason]

Just now, JulieM said:

I think all those quotes say otherwise 

None of those quotes say that skin color was the reason for the ban.  Period.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Why should I? I know of what I speak.  And it likely will never happen again.  It is irrelevant.  And I missed nothing.  None of your quotes say that skin color was the reason for the priesthood ban.  Got any that actually do? Let's see them in context.

Were they wrong or right? It is irrelevant.  Priesthood ban is over.  Done deal.  Everyone's opinions prior to that time don't really matter all that much in the eternal scheme of things.  Prophets are entitled to their opinions and personal quirks, wrong or right.

And, yet, here you are defending it as if it was still going strong and more important than anything in the world.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

None of those quotes say that skin color was the reason for the ban.  Period.

Since African and African American skin color can range from albino to the darker skin tones of the Dinka people, I would agree the discrimination was based more on the idea of blood than skin (I believe BY used the "one drop" elimination rule, but that may have been a recollection, not firsthand).

Whether it was skin color, lineage, blood...all have been used to define "race", but even "race" may be viewed as irrelevant and only the fact that there was discrimination that eliminated one group (defined then as the African/Negro race) out of all other groups categorized that way need be addressed, imo, a group already subject to numerous oppressions by the most dominant groups.

Using examples of lineage in the Bible where it was always the majority of humanity that was banned from participating fully in religious rituals does not demonstrate that excluding one group out of the many has historical precedents, imo.

And pointing out that exceptions were made only seems to indicate that the choice could very well have been arbitrary since it wasn't an inherent attribute of the group that caused them to be banned if some could be given the Priesthood.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Why should I? I know of what I speak.   

Actually, you don't. And this is my thread and I am also going to ask you to stop. You are just repeating yourself.

[MormonMason]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And, yet, here you are defending it as if it was still going strong and more important than anything in the world.

I'm not defending anything "as if it were still going strong and more important than anything in the world."  Your (false, reactive) interpretation of my actions.  What I am doing is showing why it is that it isn't entirely manmade.  It is becoming commonplace to do that sort of thing nowadays when the full array of the evidence considered together implies otherwise.  Throw away a council where it is explained that skin color has nothing to do with it.  Throw away the council of John Taylor where, after President Taylor said he would have to pray about it because the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent, the ban continues.  Throw away the actions of David O. McKay to remove the ban, and his actions after prayer, namely the continuation of the ban he badly wanted to end. Claim it all is nothing more than a cosmic accident and that they all were doing it on account of the color of skins when it really wasn't the case? Where is the logic in doing all of that? Because it makes our "social justice warrior" insides feel good? I think not.  Until I see proof-positive evidence it all was a cosmic accident based on full-on racism, I'll stick to what I know.  Until then I'll defend why I hold such a position as I do.  That is all I am defending.