emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

This is what I found, Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel ordained an Elder on the 10, Nov,1900, by John Q. Adams (Logan 5th),  then Elijah Abel, the son of Enoch Abel ordained a Priest on 5, July, 1934 by J.C. Hogenson and then to the office of Elder, 29, sept, 1935 by Ruben S. Hill (Logan 10th).  Then President McKay agrees to ordain a black man named Monroe Fleming, who worked at the hotel Utah in September of 1969.  Harold B. Lee stops it, and McKay says he's too old too fight him over it and let Lee worry about the problem.  In terms of exceptions I think the question should be reversed.  Do we have the name of any black converts prior to 1847 who were not ordained to priesthood because of African lineage, cain, ham curse?  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

This is what I found, Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel ordained an Elder on the 10, Nov,1900, by John Q. Adams (Logan 5th),  then Elijah Abel, the son of Enoch Abel ordained a Priest on 5, July, 1934 by J.C. Hogenson and then to the office of Elder, 29, sept, 1935 by Ruben S. Hill (Logan 10th).  Then President McKay agrees to ordain a black man named Monroe Fleming, who worked at the hotel Utah in September of 1969.  Harold B. Lee stops it, and McKay says he's too old too fight him over it and let Lee worry about the problem.  In terms of exceptions I think the question should be reversed.  Do we have the name of any black converts prior to 1847 who were not ordained to priesthood because of African lineage, cain, ham curse?  

Maybe you should revise that last question to "Do we know of any male black LDS converts not ordained to the priesthood?" It will take a bit of research but may be worth the effort. I have not found anything easily to answer that question. From what I have been able to determine, there were maybe a dozen Negro converts in Nauvoo in the mid to late 1840's. Some were women, of course, but were there any of age that did not receive the priesthood?

One of your posts mentioned that the ban was "suggested in 1847." I assume you are referring to Parley P. Pratt's comment about the "man who has got the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards to the priesthood." It seems logical to me that both Pratt, Joseph, and Hyde were talking about the same thing in light of that passage from the Book of Abraham to which Pratt was pretty obviously referring.

I am not trying to prove anything one way or the other. The written record is too sparse and the anecdotal comments are not well enough buttressed to make any definite conclusion. I just feel that there is enough to information and ambiguity for people to believe that the ban had its origins much earlier than 1847. And, without further revelation, we will not find out the entire truth of the matter this side of the veil, or the Millennium.

This is really a subject that I do not think upon very much any more, until someone decides to pick off some scabs again. It seems that such efforts are more inclined to be viewed as "picking a fight" than anything else. If you will read back on the posts in this thread and others like it, I doubt that you will find very many whose opinions have changed and I also do not think that continually calling out "people" because of this or that perceived faulty understanding of the matter is helpful at all. It seems that the church as a whole is moving forward. The new collaborative efforts with the NAACP is one example.

And I think I have said my last on this subject, at least in this thread. 

Glenn

Edited July 31, 2018 by Glenn101
Added a thought.

[Calm]

Quote

were there any of age that did not receive the priesthood?

There were some who did not receive it, but it was the same for whites, so that doesn't prove anything.

There were a number of blacks who did receive it (Elijah Abel, Thomas Ball, Walker Lewis, William McCary, for example; Green Flake was not ordained, I believe, but was a slave, I don't know if Isaac James received it or not).

I think an argument can be made that it was believed the Priesthood should not be given to slaves (though I am going off of memory), so it makes sense to me to look at only the percentages of free black men who were baptized, but not given the Priesthood.  Better if we have evidence on nonpriesthood required activity in the Church, such as contributing to temple building such as Elijah Abel..  If we are talking about less than one percent receiving the Priesthood, it appears to me it is likely exceptions were being made from the beginning instead of exceptions being made after the ban was in place for those who could prove their father was ordained (as was the case for Elijah Abel's descendants).

Edited August 1, 2018 by Calm