Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Saints Unscripted - Series of Vids Re: Blacks and the Priesthood


Recommended Posts

In the middle of last week, just a few days after the news story about Brad Wilcox's comments arose, Saints Unscripted posted a longer-than-usual (20+ minutes) video:

What was the Latter-day Saint Black priesthood ban?

It's a pretty good, though concise, summary of the ban.

In the intro to this video SU points to three previously-published videos in which black Latter-day Saints are at the center stage:

Apparently that third video above was published subsequently, featuring an discussion with Mauli Bonner:

My Experience with the LDS Priesthood Ban | with Mauli

Then, just an hour ago (on February 15), SU published yet another video, apparently the first of a series involving Paul Reeve:

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 1

UPDATE: SU just posted part 2:

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 2

Additionally, SU also published this video in July 2020 (featuring two black sisters, Alexis and Chante, whom I knew when they were kids many years ago) :

Teaching our kids not to be racist | Ft. Let's Talk Sis

And this one in May 2021:

The Priesthood and Temple Ban didn't mess Jesus' work up! | SU Podcast clip ("The Mormon Priesthood and Temple Ban")

And this one from June 2017:

Blacks and the Priesthood | 3 Mormons

In light of the discussion triggered by the Brad Wilcox mess, I think it's helpful to present these and listen to what our some of our black brothers and sisters are saying on these matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

Tangential to this opening post, but relevant to the topic:

I'm interested in hearing people's sources for the claim that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel and other black men (or authorized them to be ordained). I'm particularly interested because of Zebedee Coltrin's claim that **he** ordained him, not Joseph Smith (I can conceive of both being correct --- e.g., one ordaining to the Aaronic, and the other to the Melchizedek). 

I'm interested in the source material. Coltrin's statement is of known provenance (the John Taylor commission to consider the question). 

Thanks in advance to any and all!

---

ETA: How many men are claimed to have been ordained, other than Walker Lewis and Elijah Abel? 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, rongo said:

Tangential to this opening post, but relevant to the topic:

I'm interested in hearing people's sources for the claim that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel and other black men (or authorized them to be ordained). I'm particularly interested because of Zebedee Coltrin's claim that **he** ordained him, not Joseph Smith (I can conceive of both being correct --- e.g., one ordaining to the Aaronic, and the other to the Melchizedek). 

I'm interested in the source material. Coltrin's statement is of known provenance (the John Taylor commission to consider the question). 

Thanks in advance to any and all!

---

ETA: How many men are claimed to have been ordained, other than Walker Lewis and Elijah Abel? 

I hadn't heard of the claim that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel.  I did a quick search and came across https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/03/24/did-joseph-smith-jr-ordain-elijah-abel-to-the-priesthood/ which says that the source for the claim of Joseph ordaining him is from a late remembrance (1885) of a member Eunice Kenney who wrote:

Quote

In the spring of 1838 I heard the first gospel serman [sic] by a Latterday [sic] Saint. His name was Elijah Abel. He was ordained by Joseph the martyr.

You can see his Elder's license at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/license-for-elijah-able-31-march-1836/1

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

ETA: How many men are claimed to have been ordained, other than Walker Lewis and Elijah Abel? 

Consider these 2018 remarks by Paul Reeve:

Quote

Although Brigham Young’s two speeches to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 mark the first recorded articulations of a priesthood restriction by a Mormon prophet-president, it is a mistake to solely attribute the ban to seemingly inherent racism in Brigham Young. His own views evolved between 1847, when he first dealt with racial matters at Winter Quarters, and 1852, when he first publicly articulated a rationale for a priesthood restriction.

In 1847, in an interview with William (Warner) McCary, a black Mormon who married Lucy Stanton, a white Mormon, Brigham Young expressed an open position on race. McCary complained to Brigham Young regarding the way he was sometimes treated among the Saints and suggested that his skin color was a factor: “I am not a president or a leader of the people,” McCary lamented, but merely a “common brother,” a fact that he said was true “because I am a little shade darker.”

In response, Brigham Young asserted that “we don’t care about color.” He went on to suggest that color did not matter in priesthood ordination: “We have to repent and regain what we have lost,” Brigham Young insisted, “we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell—a barber,” he reported. Brigham Young here referred to Q. Walker Lewis, a barber, abolitionist, and leader in the black community in Lowell, Massachusetts. Apostle William Smith, younger brother to Hyrum and Joseph Smith, had ordained Lewis an elder in 1843 or 1844.

By December of 1847, however, Brigham Young’s perspective had changed. 

And here:

Quote

McCary arrived in Nauvoo, Illinois, in late 1845. He claimed he was a half-African American and half-Native American named Okah Tubbee and the "lost" son of Choctaw chief Mushulatubbee. McCary was also known as a skilled ventriloquist and musician.[3] In Council Bluffs, Iowa, in February 1846, he was baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by apostle Orson Hyde, and he was probably ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.[3] 

...

3. Bringhurst, Newell G. (1981), Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As to who ordained him... it looks complicated https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/elijah-able 

 

Doesn't look that complicated.

Ambrose Palmer ordained him an Elder.  Zebedee Coltrin advanced him to a Seventy.

The Ambrose Palmer ordination record was discovered a few years ago showing the Joseph Smith ordination as a popular folk legend, but not true.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2019/01/18/guest-post-newly-discovered-document-provides-dramatic-details-about-elijah-able-and-the-priesthood/

 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't look that complicated.

Ambrose Palmer ordained him an Elder.  Zebedee Coltrin advanced him to a Seventy.

The Ambrose Palmer ordination record was discovered a few years ago showing the Joseph Smith ordination as a popular folk legend, but not true.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2019/01/18/guest-post-newly-discovered-document-provides-dramatic-details-about-elijah-able-and-the-priesthood/

 

Thanks for that! We can put the "Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Able" claim to rest, then. It also shows the Zebedee Coltrin's claim to having ordained him is valid (he reported at the Taylor commission that he had never felt so bad and chastened by the Spirit in his life as after he had ordained him. This is what prompted him and another missionary to the South to ask Joseph Smith about it, and he claimed that Joseph dropped his head and was silent for a long time, and then said that the Lord had revealed that blacks should not be ordained to priesthood office). This is dismissed out of hand by those who insist that Joseph Smith had zero to do with the ban's inception, and the possibility that this is true (that it really happened as Coltrin reported it) is simply unthinkable to them).

How many black men were ordained by elders before this was settled? Literally just a few? 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rongo said:

Thanks for that! We can put the "Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Able" claim to rest, then. It also shows the Zebedee Coltrin's claim to having ordained him is valid (he reported at the Taylor commission that he had never felt so bad and chastened by the Spirit in his life as after he had ordained him. This is what prompted him and another missionary to the South to ask Joseph Smith about it, and he claimed that Joseph dropped his head and was silent for a long time, and then said that the Lord had revealed that blacks should not be ordained to priesthood office). This is dismissed out of hand by those who insist that Joseph Smith had zero to do with the ban's inception, and the possibility that this is true (that it really happened as Coltrin reported it) is simply unthinkable to them).

How many black men were ordained by elders before this was settled? Literally just a few? 

So JS ok’d him being made a 70 even though he knew it went against God’s commandments?

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So JS ok’d him being made a 70 even though he knew it went against God’s commandments?

I think these ordinations all happened without authorization. Elders in the mission field who felt they could do it* did it.

The ones the missionaries to the South disagreed about wouldn't logistically have been able to be approved (no telegraph, etc.). Coltrin and another missionary disagreed strongly in discussing this, and the other guy suggested they settle it by asking Joseph Smith directly.

*I don't think any ordinances in the early years of missionary work were "approved" by higher priesthood authority in the sense that we understand it today. People who accepted baptism were baptized, and men whom they thought were ready and worthy to be ordained, were ordained. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rongo said:

I think these ordinations all happened without authorization. Elders in the mission field who felt they could do it* did it.

The ones the missionaries to the South disagreed about wouldn't logistically have been able to be approved (no telegraph, etc.). Coltrin and another missionary disagreed strongly in discussing this, and the other guy suggested they settle it by asking Joseph Smith directly.

*I don't think any ordinances in the early years of missionary work were "approved" by higher priesthood authority in the sense that we understand it today. People who accepted baptism were baptized, and men whom they thought were ready and worthy to be ordained, were ordained. 

But we have a paper outlining that Elijah had priesthood authority with JS’s signature on it.   That’s pretty bad if he knew that God gave him no authority whatsoever to act in His name. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But we have a paper outlining that Elijah had priesthood authority with JS’s signature on it.   That’s pretty bad if he knew that God gave him no authority whatsoever to act in His name. 

1) I'm not certain of the timing between the two. It's possible that what Joseph Smith felt was revelation changed previous views.

2) Elijah Able was by all accounts very light (octaroon; 1/8). Joseph may not have known or had a thought that he was black.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) I'm not certain of the timing between the two. It's possible that what Joseph Smith felt was revelation changed previous views.

2) Elijah Able was by all accounts very light (octaroon; 1/8). Joseph may not have known or had a thought that he was black.

It still seems to me that we have an exceedingly small number of black men who were ordained while Joseph Smith was alive, whether or not he know about it. Granted, there was not a high number of black members of the Church at all then, but there were enough for the Mob Manifesto to list that blacks worshipped freely with whites as one of the reasons for expelling the Mormons from Missouri. 

I think some of the arguments against the policy are sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst. e.g., "Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Able," "Black men were ordained with full Church endorsement, but Brigham Young unilaterally took this away in Utah," etc. Black ordination was a tiny, exceptional outlier, and where it happened, questions about lineage were probably not even a thought (e.g., Able), or were done by men acting on their own. I think the extreme paucity of ordinations supports the argument that Brigham Young, et. al. were influenced to an extent by Joseph Smith's teachings on this. 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, rongo said:

It still seems to me that we have an exceedingly small number of black men who were ordained while Joseph Smith was alive, whether or not he know about it. Granted, there was not a high number of black members of the Church at all then, but there were enough for the Mob Manifesto to list that blacks worshipped freely with whites as one of the reasons for expelling the Mormons from Missouri. 

I think some of the arguments against the policy are sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst. e.g., "Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Able," "Black men were ordained with full Church endorsement, but Brigham Young unilaterally took this away in Utah," etc. Black ordination was a tiny, exceptional outlier, and where it happened, questions about lineage were probably not even a thought (e.g., Able), or were done by men acting on their own. I think the extreme paucity of ordinations supports the argument that Brigham Young, et. al. were influenced to an extent by Joseph Smith's teachings on this. 

Do we know of free Black men who were "active" (you know what I mean) who were not ordained during this period?

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we know of free Black men who were "active" (you know what I mean) who were not ordained during this period?

It would be fascinating to know more about black baptized members and "investigators" (or at least, church attendees) during the Missouri/Illinois periods. I don't know specific people, other than the few historical figures we already know about. 

There weren't very many free black people who could have attended church without owners' approval, so it's a good question how many people there were who raised the ire of the locals. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rongo said:

It would be fascinating to know more about black baptized members and "investigators" (or at least, church attendees) during the Missouri/Illinois periods. I don't know specific people, other than the few historical figures we already know about. 

There weren't very many free black people who could have attended church without owners' approval, so it's a good question how many people there were who raised the ire of the locals. 

MIssouri locals wanted to keep slavery legal, but Missouri was positioned so that it could easily have become a free state if enough citizens wanted it that way.  Under those circumstances, all that the locals would care about was the saints being anti slavery.  And even one or two black saints worshipping and living among white saints as equal would be enough for the locals to be upset over.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

MIssouri locals wanted to keep slavery legal, but Missouri was positioned so that it could easily have become a free state if enough citizens wanted it that way.  Under those circumstances, all that the locals would care about was the saints being anti slavery.  And even one or two black saints worshipping and living among white saints as equal would be enough for the locals to be upset over.  

Yes, the political buzzsaw of slavery might have been a bigger factor than pure religious hatred. 

I agree with you that there probably weren't very many black members or friends worshipping with them (I wonder how many free blacks there were in that area, period?), and that only a couple would have been enough to be beyond the pale to the Missourians. 

Now, I'm wondering how much info we have on black converts from the Kirtland and Missouri periods. Jane Manning James was actually raised in a free family in Connecticut, and was baptized in 1842 (bringing eight members of her family with her to Nauvoo --- her mother, six siblings, and a sister-in-law). Most of our stories are probably from Nauvoo. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, rongo said:

Thanks for that! We can put the "Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Able" claim to rest, then. It also shows the Zebedee Coltrin's claim to having ordained him is valid (he reported at the Taylor commission that he had never felt so bad and chastened by the Spirit in his life as after he had ordained him.

I think I'm missing something.  

1. Paul Reeve previously wrote a blog post on March 24, 2015 stating that

  • A) he did not, at the time, believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. had ordained Able,
  • B) that Joseph had nevertheless "sanctioned" Able's ordination, and
  • C) that the identity of the person who ordained Able to the priesthood was unknown.

2. The next day, on March 25, 2015 "MormonHistoryGuy" posted a blog article titled "Was Elijah Able{s} Ordained by Joseph Smith? A Response to W. Paul Reeve," commenting as follows:

Quote

In most regards, he captures the essentials of the argument.  However, Reeve leaves out key evidence that provide stronger (though not definitive) support for Joseph Smith playing a direct role in Elijah’s ordination.

Reeve writes that “the record of Abel’s ordination as a Seventy is extant but the record of his ordination as an Elder is not.” However, his Elder’s priesthood certificate is in fact accessible at the LDS Church History Library, and the full-text of that license has been reprinted in my book, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013The Elder’s priesthood certificate reveals some details of Able[s]’s ordination that Reeve does not include. Reeve notes that the ordination took place on March 3, 1836. The license demonstrates that Joseph Smith personally signed off on the ordination on March 31, 1836, as can be seen in the digital version of the license below; however, the identity of the person performing the ordinance remains a mystery.  The license also states with legalistic offialdom that Able[s] had “been ordained an Elder according to the rules & regulations” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [1]

There is other important documentation attesting to Elijah’s ordination as well, such as John Broeffle’s September 1838 letter, which includes contemporary, non-Mormon confirmation that Elijah was 1) readily identifiable as a “negro” and 2) ordained at least one man, William Riley, to priesthood office. Reeve’s piece was a blog post, after all, so Reeve should not be expected to be exhaustive in laying out all the evidence for Able[s]’s priesthood status. [2]
...
Does the March 1836 priesthood certificate demonstrate that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Able[s] to the priesthood? Possibly, but it’s still lacks the certainty we crave.
...
Regardless of the precise date, we have evidence both official and anecdotal, Mormon and non-Mormon, attesting to Able[s]’ priesthood status. As Reeve notes, the evidence is “overwhelming,” a documentary trail even more plentiful than the one presented to us in his work. We can say with certain confidence that Elijah Able[s] was black priesthood holder working with Joseph Smith’s express support and confidence.

3. The blog post by Paul Reeve, dated January 18, 2019, posits that, based on recently "processed" papers from Joseph F. Smith, the identity of the man who ordained Elijah Able as an elder was Ambrose Palmer.

4. As regarding your paraphrase of Zebedee Coltin ("he had never felt so bad and chastened by the Spirit in his life as after he had ordained him..."), I assume you are referencing this (from a 1973 Dialogue article by Lester E. Bush, Jr., later re-published in 2012) :

Quote

With reference to the [Negro] question President [Joseph F.] Smith remarked he did not know that we could do anything more in such cases than refer to the rulings of Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and other Presidencies on this question …

Council Minutes, 1908

When John Taylor assumed the leadership of the Church in 1877 there was no real question as to the basic Mormon policy towards Negroes. Brigham Young had made it quite clear that blacks, as descendants of Cain, were not entitled to the priesthood. It shortly became apparent, however, that all the related questions had not been resolved. In fact, decisions made during the next four decades were nearly as critical for modern Church policy on the blacks as those made by Brigham Young.

By virtue of his role as first prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith has always been especially revered, and it is a rare Church doctrine that has not been traced, however tenuously, to the Prophet to demonstrate his endorsement. It was therefore no mere curiosity when just two years after Brigham Young’s death, a story was circulated that Joseph Smith had taught that blacks could receive the priesthood. As these instructions were allegedly given to Zebedee Coltrin, John Taylor went for a firsthand account.
When presented with the story Coltrin replied that on the contrary Joseph Smith had told him in 1834 that “the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.” Though Coltrin acknowledged washing and anointing a Negro, Elijah Abel, in a ceremony in the Kirtland Temple after receiving these instructions, he stated that in so doing he “never had such unpleasant feelings in my life-and I said I never would again Annoint another person who had Negro blood in him. [sic] unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so.” Coltrin did not mention ordaining Abel a seventy (at the direction of Joseph Smith?), but he did state that he was a president of the seventies when the Prophet directed that Abel be dropped because of his “lineage.” Abraham Smoot, at whose home the 1879 interview took place, added that he had received similar instructions in 1838.113
...
113. Journal of John Nuttal, I (1876-1884): 290-93, from a typewritten copy at the Brigham Young University Library. The interview took place May 31, 1879. A corrected copy of theaccount is included in the minutes of the Council Meeting of June 4, 1879 in the Bennion papers.

5. Regarding Zebedee Coltrin May 31, 1879 recollection (from Wikipedia) :

Quote

On May 31, 1879 a meeting was held at the residence of Provo mayor Abraham O. Smoot to discuss the conflicting versions of Joseph Smith's views on black men and the priesthood, in response to Abel's petition to be sealed to his recently deceased wife.[64][40] Abel had been first ordained to the priesthood by Ambrose Palmer in January 1836, then as a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin in December of the same year.[1][4] Coltrin claimed, however, that Abel had been ordained as a Seventy in exchange for his work on the temples at Kirtland and Nauvoo, but that Joseph Smith had later realized his "error" and promptly "dropped" Abel from the quorum because of "his lineage.[21][40] Coltrin reported having this conversation with Joseph Smith in 1834—yet Abel had not received the priesthood nor had been made a Seventy until 1836, and construction had not even begun on the Nauvoo Temple until 1841, thus making it impossible to have been "dropped" from any such capacity in 1834.[40] Joseph F. Smith contradicted Coltrin by pointing out that he had verified as being in Abel's possession two certificates which notarized his 1836 and 1841 priesthood licensings that declared Abel to be an elder of the church and a seventy.[3][21]

Beyond suddenly bringing into question Abel's long-held authority in a high-profile and likely humiliating setting, the "Smoot meeting" was essentially a reaffirmation of the church's 1849 policy of excluding black men from receiving the priesthood. The meeting did not change the fact that Abel held the Melchizedek priesthood.[40]

It seems like there is a pretty broad consensus that Coltrin's recollection on this point is per se unreliable.  Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

3 hours ago, rongo said:

This is what prompted him and another missionary to the South to ask Joseph Smith about it, and he claimed that Joseph dropped his head and was silent for a long time, and then said that the Lord had revealed that blacks should not be ordained to priesthood office). This is dismissed out of hand by those who insist that Joseph Smith had zero to do with the ban's inception, and the possibility that this is true (that it really happened as Coltrin reported it) is simply unthinkable to them).

I am not sure if the "dismissed out of hand" characterization is fair.  Coltrin's recollection being unreliable does not appear to be "out of hand," but rather based on a number of considerations, including:

  • Coltrin's recollection was recorded 45 years after the events in question.
  • Coltrin reported having this conversation with Joseph Smith in 1834—yet Abel had not received the priesthood nor had been made a Seventy until 1836.
  • Coltrin ordained Able as a Seventy in December 1836, and yet his recollection states that Able was ordained a seventy because he had labored on the Temple.  Work on the temple did not commence until 1841.  
  • Coltrin's recollection is that in 1834 Joseph "dropped" Able from the Quorum of Seventy because of Able's "lineage."  Again, Able was not ordained a Seventy until December 1836.  Moreover, Able served as a Seventy well after that. 
  • Joseph F. Smith "contradicted Coltrin by pointing out that he had verified as being in Abel's possession two certificates which notarized his 1836 and 1841 priesthood licensings that declared Abel to be an elder of the church and a seventy."

And so on.  The Dialogue article provides some further context for Coltrin's 1879 recollection:

Quote

The charge that Abel was dropped from the priesthood originated with Zebedee Coltrin. It is unfortunate that his memory proved unreliable on this point, as he should have been in a position to provide valuable information—for it was he who ordained Abel to the office of seventy two years after purportedly being told that Negroes were not to receive the priesthood.36 The circumstances of Coltrin’s account may be of some relevance. He claimed to have questioned the right of Negroes to hold the priesthood after a visit to the South. Abraham Smoot, the only other person to claim first-hand counsel from Joseph Smith on this subject also had asked about the situation in the South: “What should be done with the Negroes in the South as I was preaching to them? {The Prophet} said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them.” Additionally, a second-hand account related by Smoot in which Smith allegedly gave the same advice was also directed at Negroes “in the Southern States.”37 Most, if not all, of the Negroes involved in these accounts were slaves. It may be, notwithstanding the lack of contemporary documentation, that a policy was in effect denying the priesthood to slaves or isolated free southern Negroes. In any case, a de facto restriction is demonstrable in the South, and empirical justification for the policy is not difficult to imagine.

Thoughts?

3 hours ago, rongo said:

How many black men were ordained by elders before this was settled? Literally just a few? 

As far as we know, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems like there is a pretty broad consensus that Coltrin's recollection on this point is per se unreliable.  Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

I think it's correct "in the main," while being inaccurate as to years or sequence of events in some cases(1834 vs. 1836, for example. This is not unheard of with human memory 40+ years after the fact, and I don't think it disqualifies witnesses if they are otherwise trustworthy and reliable. That would be up to individual juries :) ). I confounded the administering of washings and annointings with ordination, but Coltrin's detail about feeling bad spiritually about it was correct. 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure if the "dismissed out of hand" characterization is fair.  Coltrin's recollection being unreliable does not appear to be "out of hand," but rather based on a number of considerations

I think it boils down to some people want what Coltrin says happened not to be true, and then a persuasive argument case is built around poking holes in his account, a la Lester Bush and Paul Reeve. 

It is clear to me that it did not appear with Brigham Young in Utah Territory out of whole cloth, as is portrayed by the "disavowals." I believe that Joseph Smith's teachings impacted how the Church thought about, discussed, and dealt with the question. I think trying to make Brigham Young the fall guy --- with Joseph Smith having nothing to do with it --- is ridiculous. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's correct "in the main,"

By "it" are you referencing Coltrin's recollection?  Or are you referencing the consensus that his recollection is unreliable?

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

while being inaccurate as to years or sequence of events in some cases(1834 vs. 1836, for example. This is not unheard of with human memory 40+ years after the fact, and I don't think it disqualifies witnesses if they are otherwise trustworthy and reliable. That would be up to individual juries :) ).

But it's not just the dates.  The sequencing of events doesn't work. 

How could Able have been ordained as a Seventy in 1836 (or in 1834) due to his laboring on the temple when work on the temple did not commence until 1841?

Why did Able function as a seventy for many, many years after he was purportedly "dropped" from the quorum?

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I confounded the administering of washings and annointings with ordination, but Coltrin's detail about feeling bad spiritually about it was correct. 

How do you know that?  All we have is Coltrin's very late recollection of the events in question, which seems to be demonstrably unreliable.

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it boils down to some people want what Coltrin says happened not to be true, and then a persuasive argument case is built around poking holes in his account, a la Lester Bush and Paul Reeve. 

Not really.  I think the critique of Coltrin's recollection is pretty objective.  

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is clear to me that it did not appear with Brigham Young in Utah Territory out of whole cloth, as is portrayed by the "disavowals."

Reeve posits that the ban likely began to coalesce in 1847 at Winter Quarters:

Quote

Although Brigham Young’s two speeches to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 mark the first recorded articulations of a priesthood restriction by a Mormon prophet-president, it is a mistake to solely attribute the ban to seemingly inherent racism in Brigham Young. His own views evolved between 1847, when he first dealt with racial matters at Winter Quarters, and 1852, when he first publicly articulated a rationale for a priesthood restriction.

In 1847, in an interview with William (Warner) McCary, a black Mormon who married Lucy Stanton, a white Mormon, Brigham Young expressed an open position on race. McCary complained to Brigham Young regarding the way he was sometimes treated among the Saints and suggested that his skin color was a factor: “I am not a president or a leader of the people,” McCary lamented, but merely a “common brother,” a fact that he said was true “because I am a little shade darker.”

In response, Brigham Young asserted that “we don’t care about color.” He went on to suggest that color did not matter in priesthood ordination: “We have to repent and regain what we have lost,” Brigham Young insisted, “we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell—a barber,” he reported. Brigham Young here referred to Q. Walker Lewis, a barber, abolitionist, and leader in the black community in Lowell, Massachusetts. Apostle William Smith, younger brother to Hyrum and Joseph Smith, had ordained Lewis an elder in 1843 or 1844.

By December of 1847, however, Brigham Young’s perspective had changed. 

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think these ordinations all happened without authorization. Elders in the mission field who felt they could do it* did it.

Yes, the early days of the Church may well have been more loosey-goosey in that regard as compared to today.  But what are your thoughts about Reeve's arguments pertaining to Joseph's subsequent apparent ratification of Bro. Able's ordination? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think it's correct "in the main," while being inaccurate as to years or sequence of events in some cases(1834 vs. 1836, for example.

I think there are other reasons to question Coltrin's reliability on reporting history.  The claim that Able was dropped from the priesthood also originated from Zebedee Coltrin - a claim that was refuted by Joseph F. Smith shortly after being put forth.  He was simply unreliable on many different levels.

Furthermore, Abel was well known to Joseph Smith and even lived with him for a time (the claim that Joseph didn't know that he was black but Zebedee did, is really weak), and was given his patriarchal blessing by Joseph Smith Sr. after being ordained an Elder.  Not only was he ordained as a seventy afterwards, but his certificate was renewed several times (even after arriving in SLC).

Quote

Elijah Abel was ordained an elder March 3, 1836, and shortly thereafter received his patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith Sr.  In June he was listed among the recently licensed elders, and on December 20, 1836, was ordained a seventy. Three years later, in June 1839, he was still active in the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum, and his seventy's certificate was renewed in 1841, and again after his arrival in Salt Lake City. Moreover, Abel was known by Joseph and reportedly lived for a time in the prophet's home. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

Quote

So long as we have no special rule in the Church, as to people of color, let prudence guide, and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful God, we say: Shun every appearance of evil. - W.W. Phelps, 1833, 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

If Joseph had proclaimed a revelation to Zebedee that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood (as alleged by Coltrin), doesn't it seem strange that there is no written documentation of a revelation or record attempt to disseminate such a policy throughout the church?  No attempt to drop Able from the priesthood (as was falsely claimed by Coltrin) given the revelation )? Why would he only tell these 2 missionaries?  Seems unlikely given how important it was to Joseph to record his history and revelations and policies etc.  Why was there no visible or recorded effort to ban blacks from the priesthood if Joseph did indeed receive that revelation?  The claim simply is not reliable on so many different levels.

Quote

No discrimination was evident in the 1836 rules governing the temple in Kirtland, which provided for "old or young, rich or poor, male or female, bond or free, black or white, believer or unbeliever."  Nor was a discriminatory policy projected for the Nauvoo temple when the First Presidency anticipated in 1840 that "we may soon expect to see flocking to this place, people from every land and from every nation, the polished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Laplander. Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Host.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

Quote

In fourteen years Joseph Smith led the church from seeming neutrality on the slavery issue through a period of anti-abolitionist, pro-slavery sentiment to a final position strongly opposed to slavery. In the process he demonstrated that he shared the common belief that Negroes were descendants of Ham, but ultimately his views reflected a rejection of the notion that this connection justified Negro slavery. There is no contemporary evidence that the prophet limited priesthood eligibility because
of race or biblical lineage; on the contrary, the only definite information presently available reveals that he allowed a black to be ordained an elder, and later a seventy, in the Melchizedek priesthood. The possibility has been raised, through later testimony, that within the slave society of the South, blacks were not given the priesthood.

After the prophet's death, most of his philosophy and teachings were effectively canonized. There was one significant subject on which this does not appear to have been the case - the status of the Negro. A measure of the influence of Joseph Smith's personal presence in shaping early Mormon attitudes on this subject can be obtained by contrasting the church position prior to his death with the developments which followed.

[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]. . .in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of
Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it. - Brigham Young, 1852
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45226775.pdf

It seems that even Brigham Young himself eludes to the idea that Joseph Smith never "spake it".

1 hour ago, rongo said:

a la Lester Bush 

I think Lester Bush is a very credible with extremely well documented sources.  He is likely one of the significant influences for the questioning and prayers which led to the 1978 revelation and deserves much credit for his work in this important history. 
 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not just the dates.  The sequencing of events doesn't work. 

How could Able have been ordained as a Seventy in 1836 (or in 1834) due to his laboring on the temple when work on the temple did not commence until 1841?

Kirtland Temple.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Kirtland Temple.

Ah.  Solid point.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

Priesthood ordination and church participation

Upon the prophet Joseph Smith's declaration in 1836 that Elijah Abel was "entitled to the Priesthood and all the blessings,"[4] Abel was ordained an elder of the LDS Church on January 25, 1836.[22] He had been an active participant in the construction of the Kirtland Temple over the preceding months.[23] 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

This has been discussed before, though before the finding of Ambrose.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62439-on-what-grounds-are-zebedee-coltrin-and-ao-smoot-dismissed/

I think it highly likely that Coltrin confused after many years a discussion about slaves with blacks in general, which might have been helped due to his bias as a slave owner.  I can see him replaying a discussion about slaves in his head over the years and it being morphed by his understandable desire not to be a bad guy.

Quote

 Joseph F. Smith says he thinks Brother Coltrin’s memory is incorrect. One interesting note that may be relevant if accurate: Both Coltrin and Smoot claim to have asked Joseph Smith what to do with the “Negroes in the Southern States.” “[The Prophet] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them.” (Above sources as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 60.)

While the meeting with John Taylor did not change things in regards to Ables’ access to the temple, it didn’t change his priesthood standing either.  If they had believed Coltrin, why wouldn’t they have pulled it or at least benched him.  Instead he continues to act as a Seventy and goes on a mission four years later.

Quote

Elijah Abel Still Has the Priesthood
He is still on record as a Seventy in the Seventies Minutes dated December 10.

Elijah Abel Sent On a Mission
In his seventies, Abel returns home in early December 1884 and dies two weeks later.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...