Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So, you're thinking that every policy variation, no matter how small, requires ratification by the entire church?

Nope. That’s the point I’m arguing against! The November 5th change was described as a revelation. Clearly something does not need to be put to the sustaining vote of the church to count as a revelation. Thank you for making my point. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.”

The idea that God’s methods are analogous to ours in all ways seems like a leap beyond reason and revelation.

But that is not what I am suggesting. His thoughts and ways are not ours in the heat of the moment, but the divine plan is consistent through and through, pointing to Christ in all things, having Him at the center of the divine plan. This calls for children being born of a man and a woman a) following His pattern and b) bearing record of Him -- which are the same thing, I suppose. The plan can be disrupted here and there in this world (that is the nature of it), but the eternal theme or ideal is consistent throughout all the estates, and actualized in exaltation.

I'd be happy to walk through Moses 3 with you if that would help explain my specific views about how it forms a solid basis for D&C 132 and not same-sex marriage.

Edited October 27, 2021 by CV75

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

But that is not what I am suggesting. His thoughts and ways are not ours in the heat of the moment, but the divine plan is consistent through and through, pointing to Christ in all things, having Him at the center of the divine plan. This calls for children being born of a man and a woman a) following His pattern and b) bearing record of Him -- which are the same thing, I suppose. The plan can be disrupted here and there in this world (that is the nature of it), but the eternal theme or ideal is consistent throughout all the estates,and actualized in exaltation.

I am not convinced that your premises conclusively support your conclusion.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope. That’s the point I’m arguing against! The November 5th change was described as a revelation. Clearly something does not need to be put to the sustaining vote of the church to count as a revelation. Thank you for making my point. 

And BY didn't have to say the ban was revealed to him in order for people to say he said the ban was revealed to him?

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced that your premises conclusively support your conclusion.

Like I said, I'd be happy to walk you through it if interested.

ETA: I have a bad habit of editing my posts instead of proofreading them them beforehand.

Edited October 27, 2021 by CV75

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not sure what the issue is with this. One can believe that something is going to happen at some time in the future, and still be surprised when it actually happens. By "surprise" might be understood "unexpected", but certainly includes "earlier than expected". In my own case, I expected the priesthood ban to be lifted at some point, just as I expect the Second Coming to occur. I was "surprised" by the former's actual occurrence, but not because I didn't expect it. I had no idea on the timetable. Thus the surprise was like what I got for my birthday. Expected a present, didn't know it would be that particular present.

By the way, for my birthday earlier this month my stepson got me something completely unexpected, the DVD set of the John Adams biographical miniseries. It was something I had long wanted to watch, but had never gotten around to obtaining. I was very pleasantly surprised at the gift, but not that I received a gift, just that gift.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across.

 

Scott Lloyd claimed on page 1 of this discussion

Quote

That’s not consistent with my recollection. Most faithful Latter-day Saints believed, as I did, that it could happen anytime. That apparently was President Kimball’s understanding as well, as reflected in OD 2. 

 

That really wasn't true.  79% were surprised by it happening in 1978 according to the survey conducted by The Daily Universe.

Quote

 

Those surveyed appeared surprised by the announcement, Haroldsen said.  Thirty-nine percent said they did not think "it would ever happen" -- that the priesthood would ever be given to blacks.

Another 40 percent expected it years in the future, after Christ's return, during the Millenium, or "not in my lifetime."

 

Sorry, your spin isn't really supported by the data taken at the time the revelation was announced.  Both you and Scott are wrong.  It was widely known throughout the Church that BY revealed that the negros would not receive the priesthood until after the Millennium.  Trying to paint the idea that it could happen at any time is false and misleading as to what members were taught and believed in 1978.

I am not a big fan of the Church rewriting history to whitewash it to fit what they think the members will accept better even if it is historically wrong and is not supported by documents at the time of the event.   I guess it is a bad habit that is hard to break.  BY revelation laid out a specific time period when the negros would receive the priesthood.  1978 is not the end of the millennium no matter how much you and Scott want it to fit.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I myself have received personal revelations, and I would go so far as to say that I am being "run by Christ" in the sense that I seek to do His will and seek His guidance. But I don't get daily, weekly, monthly, annual, or semi-annual revelation calls directing me to do this or that. He lets me run my own life according to the principle Joseph Smith expressed as "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." 

It means that we are on our own in the main, but from time to time the Lord might intervene to get us closer to the road He wants us to travel.

Or do you think that for it to be the "true church" that the Lord must dictate things hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annually?

Hyperbole.  I never suggested hourly, daily weekly, monthly.  Annually?   Well that seems reasonable if Christ is actually running the Church.  When was the last time a revelation was officially recognized by the Church?  Was it 1978, Almost a half century ago? Or do you have an example of a later revelation?

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

DC 38:27 - "...if ye are not one ye are not mine." That's pretty official.

You think this applies to this situation?  You gotta explain how this fits with your argument. Evidently the 15 were not one on this issue for a century.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Are the Twelve robots?

So the only way an apostle would be getting revelation is in your mind he would have to be a robot?  Since they are not robots, then they don't receive revelation on a doctrine that was around for more than a century?

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps there was a reason why President Lee's tenure was only a few months. He was young enough to have endured a long time. 

Are you suggesting that God took out President Lee because he didn't accept a revelation when he was an apostle?  Seems like the time to take him out would be before he was President of the Church.  Again, your logic fails.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And so we come back to perfection again. Not that it matters to some, but a casual reading of the New Testament will yield the information that the Twelve in post-resurrection days were also not in agreement about many things. The principle of unanimity seems not to have been strictly followed at all times, but still they seem to have striven for it. And they weren't going to let the Gentiles in until Peter had a revelation about the subject. I suspect there was a Mark E. Peterson analog not wanting to go along with the revelation -- but whoever it was, he was still an apostle.

And this brings us back to those non-robots of the Twelve. Is it required that they be perfect servants of God in order for the Church to be true? Some seem to hold to that principle.

You're welcome.

You are kinda proving my point.  Peter received a revelation from God.  That was it.  No hold out apostle stopping that revelation from becoming Church doctrine.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope. That’s the point I’m arguing against! The November 5th change was described as a revelation. Clearly something does not need to be put to the sustaining vote of the church to count as a revelation. Thank you for making my point. 

It was described by one member of the policy quorums as a revelation.  It was not described as revelation by all 15 of them. Therefore, it was not considered revelation.

Thank you for making MY point.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Sorry, your spin isn't really supported by the data taken at the time the revelation was announced.  Both you and Scott are wrong.  It was widely known throughout the Church that BY revealed that the negros would not receive the priesthood until after the Millennium.  Trying to paint the idea that it could happen at any time is false and misleading as to what members were taught and believed in 1978.

I gave several teachings from prophets shortly before 1978 where they said it could happen at any time (see here).  So the members were taught before 1978 that it could happen at any time.

In addition, the survey shows that 39% didn't think that blacks would ever receive the priesthood.  So we can't even say that "it was widely known throughout the church that BY revealed that the negros would not receive the priesthood until after the Millenium."  39% didn't think the priesthood ban would ever be rescinded, 40% thought it would happen sometime in the far future, and 21% thought it would happen sooner.  So, less than half of the group actually believed what Brigham originally taught.  39% were mistaught and 21% were listening to the more recent leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The ban has an ending for sure (at the end of the millennium after every other eligible male received the priesthood). That’s not the only change though. All the revealed doctrine supporting the ban has also been abandoned and disavowed. And as has been shown in this very thread the scriptural foundations for the ban have also been completely reinterpreted too! I mean in 1960 then Elder Kimball still believed it when the Book of Mormon said the lamanites would become “white” again as indicated in his general conference address on the subject. Now we have statements like this when this teaching is accidentally revived:

”“During the publication of the ‘Come, Follow Me’ manual for 2020, there was an error that resulted in the printing of material that doesn’t reflect the church’s current views on the topic,” she said in a statement. “To correct this, a decision was made to modify the content in the digital version of the lesson."

 https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/

 

So the ban was to have an ending (at the end of time), but the revealed doctrine supporting the ban as well as the scriptures did not. That did not stop them from being reinterpreted or completely abandoned/ disavowed. 

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day abandon the Lord’s law of matrimony? 

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day abandon the Lord’s law of matrimony? 

This seems like it will be quite a change:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Have a better one that is supposed to hit in mortality:

“I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married…. such a condition would have to be kept secret, until the laws of our government change to permit the holy order of wedlock which God has revealed, which will undoubtedly occur at no distant day, in order to correct the social evil.” - George Q. Cannon

“If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.” - Wilford Woodruff

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - Lorenzo Snow

So the law of chastity will be abrogated for some unmarried couples? That will be quite a departure from the current law of matrimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This seems like it will be quite a change:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Have a better one that is supposed to hit in mortality:

“I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married…. such a condition would have to be kept secret, until the laws of our government change to permit the holy order of wedlock which God has revealed, which will undoubtedly occur at no distant day, in order to correct the social evil.” - George Q. Cannon

“If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.” - Wilford Woodruff

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - Lorenzo Snow

So the law of chastity will be abrogated for some unmarried couples? That will be quite a departure from the current law of matrimony.

That’s quite a convoluted dodge of what I thought was a simple question. 
 

Let me be more explicit: Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships? 
 

Failure to give a direct, candid and good-faith answer is quite telling. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement after the start of the ban from prophets/apostles prior to 1950 (and the start of the civil rights movement) supporting the baseless supposition that any black man of African descent would get the priesthood before it was given to every single male ever to be born of every other race?

Edited October 27, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement after the start of the ban from prophets/apostles prior to 1950 (and the start of the civil rights movement) supporting the baseless supposition that any black man of African descent would get the priesthood before it was given to every single male ever to be born of every other race?

Prior to 1950, I don't think there was a lot of discussion about it.  It wasn't until the civil rights movement that we got a lot of the statements.  But I'll see what I can find.

But we do have Elijah Abel (ordained in 1836), Enoch Abel (ordained in 1900), and Elijah Abel (ordained in 1935).  All of them are of African descent.  So at least 3 black men received the priesthood "before it was given to every single male ever to be born of every other race".

[SeekingUnderstanding]

59 minutes ago, webbles said:

Prior to 1950, I don't think there was a lot of discussion about it.  It wasn't until the civil rights movement that we got a lot of the statements.  But I'll see what I can find.

But we do have Elijah Abel (ordained in 1836), Enoch Abel (ordained in 1900), and Elijah Abel (ordained in 1935).  All of them are of African descent.  So at least 3 black men received the priesthood "before it was given to every single male ever to be born of every other race".

It’s more informative to look at what people where saying about this in the 1950’s and 60’s than what we think about it today in a post ban church. There is this from President Lee:

Quote

Some are heralding the fact that there was one of colored blood, Elijah Abel, who was ordained a Seventy in the early days. They go to the Church chronology and find the date of this ordination, and hold that up as saying that we departed from what was started way back, but they forget that also in Church history is another interesting observation. President Joseph F. Smith is quoted in a statement under date of August 26, 1908, when he referred to Elijah Abel who was ordained a Seventy in the days of the Prophet and to whom was issued a Seventy’s certificate. This ordination, when found out, was declared null and void by the Prophet himself and so likewise by the next three presidents who succeeded the Prophet Joseph. Somehow because of a little lapse, or a little failure to do research properly, some people reach a conclusion that they had wanted to reach and to make it appear as though something had been done way back from which we had departed and which now ought to be set in order” (Harold B. Lee April 19, 1961, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1961, p.7).

https://askgramps.org/was-the-ordination-of-elijah-abel-to-the-priesthood-an/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It was described by one member of the policy quorums as a revelation.  It was not described as revelation by all 15 of them. Therefore, it was not considered revelation.

Thank you for making MY point.

So plural marriage which was rejected by William Law of the first presidency was not a revelation correct?

Edited October 27, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So plural marriage which was rejected by William Law of the first presidency was not a revelation correct?

To help me better seek understanding, what is the most important point you are trying to explore?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s quite a convoluted dodge of what I thought was a simple question. 
 

Let me be more explicit: Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships? 
 

Failure to give a direct, candid and good-faith answer is quite telling. 

It was an answer to a specific question you asked. You kept it vague either out of stating it too quickly or that the broadness of the question would make it a more comprehensive defense of the permanence of all marriage traditions, laws, and customs. I was showing that prophets have considered a change in some ways even more extreme. Call it a dodge if you want but you can only blame yourself for walking into it which is QUITE TELLING whatever that is supposed to mean.

[Stormin' Mormon]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So plural marriage which was rejected by William Law of the first presidency was not a revelation correct?

Was plural marriage taught openly to the church at the time of William Law?  When it was taught openly did it have the backing of all 15 men in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

[smac97]

So here's the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "common consent":

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.

More here:

Quote

Why Must There Be Unity within the Presiding Quorums of the Church?

Post contributed by BMC Team

September 21, 2021

KnoWhy #617

 

“And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other.”

Doctrine and Covenants 107:27

The Know

In the early years of the Church, the structure and organization of the priesthood and leadership was constantly being adapted by revelation in order to meet the needs of the rapidly growing body of Saints. Some of the most significant developments came in the early months of 1835, when both the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy were first organized.1

Soon afterward, in the spring of 1835, Joseph Smith received revelation regarding the priesthood, with special emphasis on how the new presiding quorums were to operate and work with the First Presidency (which had been previously organized in 1832) to administer to the needs of the Church. This revelation was combined with previous revelations on priesthood offices and administration to provide an up-to-date guide for the early leaders to follow. Doctrine and Covenants 107 constitutes that combined revelatory text.

After describing the organization, role, and authority of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and Quorum of the Seventy, the revelation states that “every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other” (D&C 107:27).

While exceptions to this rule of unanimity can be made “when circumstances render it impossible” for all members of the quorum to gather (D&C 107:28), to this day the presiding quorums of the Church act only with a unanimous voice on all major decisions. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained that “any major questions of policy, procedures, programs, or doctrine are considered deliberately and prayerfully by the First Presidency and the Twelve together.” President Hinckley went on to say that when these quorums meet, each individual member has “total freedom to express himself, [to] consider every major question.” When it is time to make decisions, however, President Hinckley was clear:

No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice.2

President Henry B. Eyring witnessed this process unfold during his first time participating in a meeting with members of the Frist Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and other general authorities. Approaching the meeting with a Harvard Business School background, he said people were disagreeing with “an openness that I had never seen in business … [the discussion] was more open than anything I had ever seen in the groups I had ever studied in business.” President Eyring said that as the discussion ensued, he witnessed a miracle.

Then after a while the conversation cycled around, and they began to agree. And I saw the most incredible thing. Here are these very strong, very bright people, all with different opinions; suddenly the opinions began to line-up. And I thought “I’ve seen a miracle. I’ve seen unity come out of this wonderful, open kind of exchange that I’d never seen in all my studies of government or business or anywhere else.”  

President Eyring found this whole exchange to be quite faith promoting. “This is what it claims to be,” he said. “This is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Revelation is real.”3

The Why

According to the revelation given to Joseph Smith, the unanimous voice of the presiding quorums of the Church is required “in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other” (D&C 107:27). Thus, statements given by individual Church leaders may not “necessarily constitute doctrine.” Instead:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.4

As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has noted, “the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.”5 Striving for unanimity is what forces each individual member of the presiding quorums to set aside their personal feelings and desires and seek out the Lord’s will. They seek unity not only among themselves but with God. That was the miracle President Eyring had witnessed—several bright and strong-willed individuals submitting their will to God, thus allowing the Spirit of the Lord to guide and inspire them toward unanimity.

In leading the Church in this way, the Apostles operate in accordance with the mind and will of the Lord and Savior. At the end of the Last Supper with His Apostles in Jerusalem, Jesus prayed that “they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21). After His resurrection, the first thing that Jesus commanded His newly appointed twelve disciples was that “there shall be no disputations among you” (3 Nephi 11:28). On the following day, Jesus prayed that those twelve “may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them” (3 Nephi 19:29). Thus, unanimity is a force for goodness, righteousness, and purity and leads to harmony with both the Father and the Son.

This administrative process, which is followed scrupulously in the Lord’s Church, ensures that established doctrines and policies do not simply reflect the opinions or agendas of specific individuals. Rather, as President M. Russell Ballard testified, “when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time.”6

And here:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Was plural marriage taught openly to the church at the time of William Law?  When it was taught openly did it have the backing of all 15 men in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

Publicly taught? What? You said all 15 had to be on board with the revelation for it to be a real revelation. That's the way it worked. William Law clearly wasn't on board. I'm getting dizzy with this conversation.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Publicly taught? What? You said all 15 had to be on board with the revelation for it to be a real revelation. That's the way it worked. William Law clearly wasn't on board. I'm getting dizzy with this conversation.  

My apologies if I've taken shortcuts with the language.  I have intended to be consistent with these remarks from Elder Anderson:

Quote

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

 

[Canadiandude]

Has anyone brought up the Dr. Lowry Nelson exchanges? It demonstrates well what the First Presidency believed to be doctrine at the time that the exchanges took place.

There’s a lot of apologetic revisionism going on in this thread. 
 

Archival link

 

Here’s an oldie and goodie blog article written by a lay historian on the matter:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lowry-nelson-exchange/

[CA Steve]

26 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

There’s a lot of apologetic revisionism going on in this thread.

"apologetic revisionism" is redundant. 😋

[webbles]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s more informative to look at what people where saying about this in the 1950’s and 60’s than what we think about it today in a post ban church. There is this from President Lee:

https://askgramps.org/was-the-ordination-of-elijah-abel-to-the-priesthood-an/

The story for Elijah Abel is quite a bit more complicated than that.  "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historic Overview" is pretty good in talking about all the pieces.  You can read it at https://www.jstor.org/stable/45226775.  It is on page 36-39,41 of the PDF (260-263,265 of Dialogue).  A brief summary is:

* 31 May 1879 - President John Taylor hears a rumor that Joseph Smith had taught that Negros could receive the priesthood.  He tracked down Zebedee Coltrin who was the apparent source.  Coltrin actually says the opposite and that Joseph had dropped Abel from the seventies.

* 4 June 1879 - President Taylor brings this to the apostles and Joseph F. Smith disagreed.  He had seen Abel's certificate for the seventy that was issued both in 1841 and later in Salt Lake City.  I believe Joseph F. Smith's notes on Elijah Abel can be seen at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/bc-jsp/content/jsp/images/content/pdf/Docs/Able_bio_sketch.pdf.  President Taylor is recorded to have said "that he [Elijah Abel], having been ordained before the word of the Lord was fully understood, it was allowed to remain."

* 1883 - President Taylor calls Elijah Abel on a mission as a seventy.

* 1884 - Elijah Abel dies

* 22 August 1895 - Jane James (another black member) asks to receive her temple ordinances.  Joseph F. Smith points out in the discussion that Elijah Abel had been ordained a seventy "under the direction of Joseph Smith."

* 2 Jan 1902 - President Joseph F. Smith reviewed the rulings on Elijah Abel and remarks that Elijah Abel had been "ordained a seventy and received his patriarchal blessing in the days of Joseph Smith."

* 26 Aug 1908 - President Joseph F. Smith says "this ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet himself."

So, President Taylor considered Elijah Abel's ordination to be a mistake but left it alone.  Joseph F. Smith argued at least 3 times in favor of Elijah Abel's ordination (twice as an apostle and once as a prophet) but then reversed his stance in 1908.  What caused him to switch sides?  We don't know.