emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

No assumptions necessary. Brigham Young was explicit. He was also wrong.

He was explicit in his beliefs, not in articulating their connection to an implementation of a ban. The assumption is that he did! Some people accept a such a leap (which is an unrecognized and unacknowledged "we do not know") while others accept the gap between facts.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

I am responding to the various "connections" that do not indicate proactive or prescriptive connection between these ideas and instituting a ban. There is no ban in his letter, any more than there is a ban in the various quotes from Brigham Young that have been shared in this thread. The Book of Abraham likewise imposes no ban; the understanding that there was a restricted lineage was already been in place, even for him. A doctrinal point, correctly understood or not, does not an LDS priesthood ban imposed in the 19th century make.

So, you are asking for a definitive point when a ban was imposed. I can't help you with that. But it's pretty clear where the rationale for such a ban comes from, given that the reasons were outlined before any such ban was implemented and were used by prophets and apostles for generations to justify the ban. That we have no "thus saith the Lord" ban in writing is irrelevant. 

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He was explicit in his beliefs, not in articulating their connection to an implementation of a ban. The assumption is that he did! Some people accept a such a leap (which is an unrecognized and unacknowledged "we do not know") while others accept the gap between facts.

His beliefs (ie his interpretation of scripture and doctrine) are the direct reason for the ban. It's not an assumption or a leap. He told us why he did it. Why don't you believe him?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Gray

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He was explicit in his beliefs, not in articulating their connection to an implementation of a ban. The assumption is that he did! Some people accept a such a leap (which is an unrecognized and unacknowledged "we do not know") while others accept the gap between facts.

I don't see how making the connection between Brigham Young's statements and the ban is such a big leap. Brigham Young, president of the church, obviously thought a certain way and the ban started in full force during his tenure.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you are asking for a definitive point when a ban was imposed. I can't help you with that. But it's pretty clear where the rationale for such a ban comes from, given that the reasons were outlined before any such ban was implemented and were used by prophets and apostles for generations to justify the ban. That we have no "thus saith the Lord" ban in writing is irrelevant. 

I’m not asking, just saying it hasn’t been shown and I haven’t found it. The ideas shared have been around a long time, but connecting them to the LDS ban is about as direct as connecting the broader history of the practice of banning and restriction to these particular ideas. Suddenly it seems like you’re saying, “We do know—well, at least well enough.”

2 hours ago, Gray said:

His beliefs (ie his interpretation of scripture and doctrine) are the direct reason for the ban. It's not an assumption or a leap. He told us why he did it. Why don't you believe him?

CFR that Brigham Young said he put the ban in place, explaining when and why he did it. If you can't do that, you are making an assumption or a leap.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't see how making the connection between Brigham Young's statements and the ban is such a big leap. Brigham Young, president of the church, obviously thought a certain way and the ban started in full force during his tenure.

Because a leap or an assumption simply is not knowledge or fact. Those are what we need to say "we know."

Edited July 27, 2018 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not asking, just saying it hasn’t been shown and I haven’t found it. The ideas shared have been around a long time, but connecting them to the LDS ban is about as direct as connecting the broader history of the practice of banning and restriction to these particular ideas. Suddenly it seems like you’re saying, “We do know—well, at least well enough.”

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the rationale given by church leaders from Joseph Smith on for over 100 years is pretty clear. The church has disavowed that rationale, which means there is some other reason for the ban, and the church is not saying what it is. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

CFR that Brigham Young said he put the ban in place, explaining when and why he did it. If you can't do that, you are making an assumption or a leap.

 

Brigham Young directly explained the reasoning for the ban here. In his mind it wasn't anything new - it was just a continuance of something in place since the beginning of humankind on earth:

 

Quote

Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature. Feby. 5th 1852 giving his veiws on slavery.

 

What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

    Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptisam; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.

 

 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the rationale given by church leaders from Joseph Smith on for over 100 years is pretty clear. The church has disavowed that rationale, which means there is some other reason for the ban, and the church is not saying what it is. 

Are you saying you think "the church" knows what that reason is?  'Cuz they are saying they don't.  If the biographer of DOM is to be credited, DOM himself didn't know, commissioned research on the subject, came up with no answers in the historical record, but became convinced it would take a revelation to get rid of it, and he never got that revelation.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

Are you saying you think "the church" knows what that reason is?  'Cuz they are saying they don't.  If the biographer of DOM is to be credited, DOM himself didn't know, commissioned research on the subject, came up with no answers in the historical record, but became convinced it would take a revelation to get rid of it, and he never got that revelation.

I am not saying the church knows what the reason is, though on rereading myself, I can see why you took it that way. I don't think the church has explicitly said "we don't know," but that seems to be the implication of the essay on the topic. 

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am not saying the church knows what the reason is, though on rereading myself, I can see why you took it that way. I don't think the church has explicitly said "we don't know," but that seems to be the implication of the essay on the topic. 

Pax, brother.

[Exiled]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not asking, just saying it hasn’t been shown and I haven’t found it. The ideas shared have been around a long time, but connecting them to the LDS ban is about as direct as connecting the broader history of the practice of banning and restriction to these particular ideas. Suddenly it seems like you’re saying, “We do know—well, at least well enough.”

CFR that Brigham Young said he put the ban in place, explaining when and why he did it. If you can't do that, you are making an assumption or a leap.

Because a leap or an assumption simply is not knowledge or fact. Those are what we need to say "we know."

If a laurel, unmarried, came to church one day, pregnant, and you were the bishop, what would you say to her if she denied ever breaking the law of chastity?  You weren't there to see the act, only the results of what presumably happened some time ago.  So, in this scenario, do you really know if the laurel broke the law of chastity or not?  She refuses to admit it and there is nothing by way of written evidence or other to give conclusive proof.  Do you immediately call SLC and say there must have been another immaculate conception?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the rationale given by church leaders from Joseph Smith on for over 100 years is pretty clear. The church has disavowed that rationale, which means there is some other reason for the ban, and the church is not saying what it is. 

No, it means the Church has disavowed earlier rationale, there must be some other rationale for the ban, and the Church does not know what that is according to the best scholarship and revelation currently available.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Brigham Young directly explained the reasoning for the ban here. In his mind it wasn't anything new - it was just a continuance of something in place since the beginning of humankind on earth.

Directly explaining a belief is not directly connecting the evidence. Mind-reading Brigham Young doesn’t count. Sorry, your insistence on substituting prsumptie mind-reading for documentation is getting just a leeeeetle weird! Have a nice weekend!

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

If a laurel, unmarried, came to church one day, pregnant, and you were the bishop, what would you say to her if she denied ever breaking the law of chastity?  You weren't there to see the act, only the results of what presumably happened some time ago.  So, in this scenario, do you really know if the laurel broke the law of chastity or not?  She refuses to admit it and there is nothing by way of written evidence or other to give conclusive proof.  Do you immediately call SLC and say there must have been another immaculate conception?

Why would I suggest such a thing? I’m not sure how your hypothetical relates to the ban anyway, since the reasons for the pregnancy may well have nothing to do with her moral character, and there are many justifications for starting a pregnancy as well as the absence of any thought about it at all.

Now, if a man came to me and said that he refuses priesthood ordination for any of the 7 reasons in the OP (or for any disavowed reason) I would have to correct his understanding.

[blueglass]

On 7/25/2018 at 5:58 PM, Gray said:

• The ban is based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites
• Per the premises of the ban, all of "Ephraim" (most of the LDS church) would be disqualified for the priesthood. Ephraim had a "cursed" Egyptian mother
• All human beings have African ancestry, making the ban incoherent

I like what Nibley said on the ban in a personal interview with Lester Bush (Journal of Mormon History, Vol 25, No1 (Spring 1999), pp 229-271.) In October of 1976 Hugh Nibley said in the interview that he does not find any clear support for the priesthood denial/book of abraham relationship  in the early texts or "I would be shrieking it from the house tops."  He does not think the blacks are related to Cain, or the early Canaan, and probably not to ham, egyptus, canaan or Pharaoh.  He's unsure but would guess now that Brigham Young was "wrong" relating blacks to Cain.  He said -"we all have Negro blood" - there was intermixture everywhere.  I asked about the accounts of the early patriarchs marrying apparent blacks.  He exclaimed yes.  I mentioned Moses - yes.  but the real irony was Joseph marrying a daughter of the priest of On who he says by definition had to have been a Hamite- and their sons were Ephraim and Manasseh, who[m] we are all so proud to claim.  He said it was as though the Lord was trying to tell us something. "

[blueglass]

On 7/26/2018 at 4:52 PM, jkwilliams said:

If people believe it was a mistake, that's their prerogative. As I said, I have my own opinion about it, but I am not constrained by any need to believe God was involved.

From the Lester Bush paper (Journal of Mormon History, Vol 25, No1 (Spring 1999), pp 229-271).
"I talked to two of then-President David o. McKay's sons - one a patient and one a doctor.  I was curious about their father's views on blacks and found both seemingly of the opinion that there was surprising latitude on Church policy.  My conversation with Llewelyn McKay in the fall of 1968 was the most remarkable.  he told me that he personally believed the Negro doctrine to be a historical accident, stemming indirectly from the slavery controversy in Missouri.  I asked him about his father's views, and he said that he understood them to be compatible with his own."

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, it means the Church has disavowed earlier rationale, there must be some other rationale for the ban, and the Church does not know what that is according to the best scholarship and revelation currently available.

Directly explaining a belief is not directly connecting the evidence. Mind-reading Brigham Young doesn’t count. Sorry, your insistence on substituting prsumptie mind-reading for documentation is getting just a leeeeetle weird! Have a nice weekend!

Why would I suggest such a thing? I’m not sure how your hypothetical relates to the ban anyway, since the reasons for the pregnancy may well have nothing to do with her moral character, and there are many justifications for starting a pregnancy as well as the absence of any thought about it at all.

Now, if a man came to me and said that he refuses priesthood ordination for any of the 7 reasons in the OP (or for any disavowed reason) I would have to correct his understanding.

If you care to admit (and your certainly aren't required to do so) the analogy was pointing toward admitting an obvious conclusion. It seems obvious what the reasons are for the ban even though you deny them, and ask for written confirmation. (Nice response in feigning shock)

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Exiled said:

If you care to admit (and your certainly aren't required to do so) the analogy was pointing toward admitting an obvious conclusion. It seems obvious what the reasons are for the ban even though you deny them, and ask for written confirmation. (Nice response in feigning shock)

To me, the analogy was based on limited facts and an incredible lack of open-mindedness, interest in and empathy for the confessor. Show me when and where the LDS ban was put in place (sometime after April 6, 1830) and we'll have something to talk about. I wasn't feigning shock; it was an honest rhetorical question in light of the lack of facts provided and how I approach such situations.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To me, the analogy was based on limited facts and an incredible lack of open-mindedness, interest in and empathy for the confessor. Show me when and where the LDS ban was put in place (sometime after April 6, 1830) and we'll have something to talk about. I wasn't feigning shock; it was an honest rhetorical question in light of the lack of facts provided and how I approach such situations.

You don't deny that there was a ban, right?  So, does the date matter when it started?  Does the lack of an official starting point somehow diminish the reasons why it continued?  What about the Melchizedek priesthood restoration, when did that actually occur? Did that occur since we don't know the exact date?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

You don't deny that there was a ban, right?  So, does the date matter when it started?  Does the lack of an official starting point somehow diminish the reasons why it continued?  What about the Melchizedek priesthood restoration, when did that actually occur? Did that occur since we don't know the exact date?

There was a ban; the date matters when placing its implementation or continuance (and its continuance after what?) before or after an explanation given for it in relation to whether we know why it was implemented between April 6, 1830 (but long before June 6, 1978). We don’t know the date of the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, but as you point out, we don’t know whether the ban was implemented during the LDS Church’s history or continued or assumed from earlier period, with or without explanation in both cases.

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There was a ban; the date matters when placing its implementation or continuance (and its continuance after what?) before or after an explanation given for it in relation to whether we know why it was implemented between April 6, 1830 (but long before June 6, 1978). We don’t know the date of the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, but as you point out, we don’t know whether the ban was implemented during the LDS Church’s history or continued or assumed from earlier period, with or without explanation in both cases.

I still don't see why this matters. Not knowing the date of the ban's inception doesn't change the effects of it or its existence. Do you think God was the author of it?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I still don't see why this matters. Not knowing the date of the ban's inception doesn't change the effects of it or its existence. Do you think God was the author of it?

But the issue being discussed is not its existence and its effects, but whether we know why it was in effect specifically during the LDS Church’s existence as part of her ecclesiastical practice. To know that, we need to know from primary sources when the Church put it into effect, the attendant reasons, and, whether it originated as a formal policy (in D&C terms, church covenants and articles) or simply as a vestige of pre-restoration ideology and practice which was ended by revelation in 1978, and

As long as I don’t have these facts, I can’t think of who in particular is the author of it. I believe God is the author of the revelation referred to in OD-2. I believe men are the authors of the disavowed doctrines and explanations, but these do not qualify the ban as a church covenant and article.

If knowing who the author is matters to you, I recommend taking the same disciplined approach rather than settling on casual assumptions.

[blueglass]

On 7/28/2018 at 4:00 PM, CV75 said:

There was a ban; the date matters when placing its implementation or continuance (and its continuance after what?) before or after an explanation given for it in relation to whether we know why it was implemented between April 6, 1830 (but long before June 6, 1978). We don’t know the date of the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, but as you point out, we don’t know whether the ban was implemented during the LDS Church’s history or continued or assumed from earlier period, with or without explanation in both cases.

Again back to Lester Bush's paper, "The priesthood ban - first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852 - was inevitably applied to the "descendants of Cain," and slavery was deemed justified among the descendants of Ham and Canaan - rather than in either instance specifying African blacks per se the rationale for both policies was thus explicit, and over three decades.  Young never varied from this point of view."   For more detail on the events of 1847, 1849, and 1852 see Matt Harris/Newell Bringhurst book Ch 3&4, Paul Reeve's Ch5, as well as Turner's Brigham Young: Pioneer prophet Ch8.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Again back to Lester Bush's paper, "The priesthood ban - first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852 - was inevitably applied to the "descendants of Cain," and slavery was deemed justified among the descendants of Ham and Canaan - rather than in either instance specifying African blacks per se the rationale for both policies was thus explicit, and over three decades.  Young never varied from this point of view."   For more detail on the events of 1847, 1849, and 1852 see Matt Harris/Newell Bringhurst book Ch 3&4, Paul Reeve's Ch5, as well as Turner's Brigham Young: Pioneer prophet Ch8.  

And again, this sort of material speaks of a ban in broader terms as a principle and practice, not as a new ecclesiastical policy /edict / "dispensation" in a Catholic sense (or a church “covenant” or “article” or a revelation instructing the restriction to begin*). These scholars are working with all the material they’ve got, but at the end of the day they simply won’t make up connections that aren’t documented.

* If you have one of those, please share.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, blueglass said:

Again back to Lester Bush's paper, "The priesthood ban - first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852 - was inevitably applied to the "descendants of Cain," and slavery was deemed justified among the descendants of Ham and Canaan - rather than in either instance specifying African blacks per se the rationale for both policies was thus explicit, and over three decades.  Young never varied from this point of view."   For more detail on the events of 1847, 1849, and 1852 see Matt Harris/Newell Bringhurst book Ch 3&4, Paul Reeve's Ch5, as well as Turner's Brigham Young: Pioneer prophet Ch8.  

 

That is still ignoring Orson Hyde's comments in his 1845 speech in opposition to Sidney Rigdon's claim to be the rightful successor to Joseph Smith. And it is ignoring the 1836 letter by Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery on the subject.

Glenn

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is still ignoring Orson Hyde's comments in his 1845 speech in opposition to Sidney Rigdon's claim to be the rightful successor to Joseph Smith. And it is ignoring the 1836 letter by Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery on the subject.

Glenn

Orson Hyde's speech says a lot about the pre-existence and neutral spirits influenced by the devil to then become the african race, but it says nothing at all about priesthood restrictions.  You can't use this, because Brigham Young would not use it himself in 1845.  Brigham is on record defending Walker Lewis ordination as an Elder as late as 1847.  Also Orson Hyde himself ordained the african american William McCary in Oct 1846.  To use Joseph's 1836 letter to Oliver as a rationale for the priesthood ban beginning with Joseph Smith is not supported because Joseph never used this theory for restricting priesthood from anyone.  How do we know this?  Because he himself authorized Elijah Abel's priesthood ordination and signed his certificate in 1836, and his brother William ordained Walker Lewis in 1843.  Also we have the ordination of Joseph T. Ball an Elder by 1837 as acknowledged by Wilford Woodruff.  Walker Lewis as an ordained Elder, becomes a free-mason, and an abolitionist.  Ball after ordination as a high priest becomes the first black branch president in Boston, MA over a mixed-racial congregation from 1844 - 1845.  

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Orson Hyde's speech says a lot about the pre-existence and neutral spirits influenced by the devil to then become the african race, but it says nothing at all about priesthood restrictions.  You can't use this, because Brigham Young would not use it himself in 1845.  Brigham is on record defending Walker Lewis ordination as an Elder as late as 1847.  Also Orson Hyde himself ordained the african american William McCary in Oct 1846.  To use Joseph's 1836 letter to Oliver as a rationale for the priesthood ban beginning with Joseph Smith is not supported because Joseph never used this theory for restricting priesthood from anyone.  How do we know this?  Because he himself authorized Elijah Abel's priesthood ordination and signed his certificate in 1836, and his brother William ordained Walker Lewis in 1843.  Also we have the ordination of Joseph T. Ball an Elder by 1837 as acknowledged by Wilford Woodruff.  Walker Lewis as an ordained Elder, becomes a free-mason, and an abolitionist.  Ball after ordination as a high priest becomes the first black branch president in Boston, MA over a mixed-racial congregation from 1844 - 1845.  

It is evident from the records that there were exceptions made. Wasn't Elijah Abel's son ordained an Elder in 1900 and his grandson ordained an Elder in 1935?

Glenn