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

[webbles]

Did Joseph Smith ever rescind or cancel the ordination of someone?

[Calm]

On the spelling of Ables’ name:

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2013/06/27/elijah-able-and-elijah-ables-two-signatures/
 

Quote

Most renderings suggest that Elijah’s name was  spelled “Elijah Abel.” Indeed, W. Kesler Jackson’s recent biography of him makes it appear that he has found the signature of Elijah Abel; however, as one of his editors told me, the “signature” was “just a pretty font.”  The only instances we have of people spelling his name “Elijah Abel” are when white people are doing the recording.

According to two early manuscript sources, Elijah spelled his name alternatively as “Elijah Ables” and “Elijah Able.”  In 1854, a letter from “Elijah Ables” came to the office of Brigham Young.  The letter specifically indicates that this letter belonged to someone in the Appleton M. Harmon company, making it a positive ID for the first black Elder.  Four years later, Elijah signed a receipt of payment as “Elijah Able.”

 

Able or Ables are likely the most appropriate. 

[Calm]

Haven’t mined it yet, but this could generate a list of early black priesthood holders:

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/century-of-black-mormons/page/who

Going off the stats page, my guess is there may be 5 men who were known to be given the Priesthood before the ban that are listed on that site so far.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

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.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

Coltrin was a slave owner?  Those are some pretty hefty biases to overcome.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Coltrin was a slave owner?  Those are some pretty hefty biases to overcome.

Both he and Smoot were from the south.  I can’t remember if Smoot owned slaves as well at any time or not.  .Added:  Smoot owned at least 3 slaves while in Utah, Mormonwiki says they got their freedom after two years…but not why, I have seen one source that says it happened with the emancipation, but the author is not a reliable source and she says one died before the Emancipation where he had lived at least 9 years in Utah, so my guess is she didn’t know the dates of their freedom.

He may not have freed them himself.

Quote

The early Mormon leader and businessman also held three slaves — Tom (Church) from Tennessee, Jerry (Lewis) from Kentucky, and Lucy (Crosby) (Lay) from Mississippi.…

Some of the historical information provided in the letter is not accurate, says historian Amy Tanner Thiriot, author of the forthcoming volume, “Slaves in Zion: African American Servitude in the Utah Territory.”

“Smoot did not free anyone. Jerry is not known to have been a baptized member of the church,” Thiriot says. “Jerry did not go with Smoot to Provo; he drowned and was buried in an unmarked grave in the Salt Lake Cemetery.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/09/02/descendants-slaveholder/

None of the three are listed in the Century of Black Mormons…

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Did Joseph Smith ever rescind or cancel the ordination of someone?

There was no reason to other than for excommunication, that I am aware of.  "Amen to the priesthood and authority of that man..."

Able, on the other hand, would have given him reason if it is true that he received a revelation that blacks should not hold the priesthood.  At the very least, you would expect him to prohibit him from exercising the priesthood - that never happened.    

Quote

 

Ambrose Palmer, the presiding Elder at New Portage, Ohio ordained Able an Elder in the LDS lay priesthood on 25 January 1836. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of Mormonism, signed Able’s ministerial certificate substantiating that fact on 30 March.

LDS leaders were fully cognizant of Able’s racial status and still counted him among the priesthood brethren of the church. He is consistently listed in U.S. Census records as either quadroon or mulatto, an indication that he likely had a lighter complexion than some African-Americans, but that nonetheless he was legally black according to prevalent racial standards in operation in the United States. More crucially, LDS leaders recognized and understood him to be “colored” and a faithful priesthood holder. This fact was in clear evidence during a Cincinnati LDS branch conference in 1843, when Able resided in that city. After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts. Clearly LDS leaders understood him to be black and recognized his status as a priesthood holder, even as they recommended he concentrate his missionary efforts among black people. [15]

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/century-of-black-mormons/page/who

 

 

 

[Calm]

Quote

Learning about Tom, a fellow Latter-day Saint who died enslaved to his bishop has “haunted me,” Reeve said. “Finding his records personalized it for me in a way that studying the law hasn’t.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2019/08/09/pioneer-benefactors-ties/

[rongo]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Coltrin was a slave owner?  Those are some pretty hefty biases to overcome.

Do you think such hefty biases are unable to be overcome? That is, would they on their face mean that one should not be believed? That sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me. 

I know you are not categorically stating that, but I think many come close to that. Whether or not Joseph Smith said what Coltrin said he did is independent of whether or not he was a slave owner. The trick in our day is deciding what we each believe, and the relative weight and reliability we assign Coltrin or other eye and ear witnesses. 

[rongo]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

There was no reason to other than for excommunication, that I am aware of.  "Amen to the priesthood and authority of that man..."

Able, on the other hand, would have given him reason if it is true that he received a revelation that blacks should not hold the priesthood.  At the very least, you would expect him to prohibit him from exercising the priesthood - that never happened.    

I think Able was prohibited from using the priesthood on his mission to Canada. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think Able was prohibited from using the priesthood on his mission to Canada. 

CFR

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Do you think such hefty biases are unable to be overcome? That is, would they on their face mean that one should not be believed? That sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me. 

I know you are not categorically stating that, but I think many come close to that. Whether or not Joseph Smith said what Coltrin said he did is independent of whether or not he was a slave owner. The trick in our day is deciding what we each believe, and the relative weight and reliability we assign Coltrin or other eye and ear witnesses. 

In combination with his other errors and the evidence of the conversation about baptizing slaves, him and Smoot being slave owners are all part of the context.  It is not ad hominem if the attribute is relevant to the discussion.  It is not ad hom, for example, to require researchers to post possible conflicts of interests.  This is a conflict of interest.  Someone who believed he had a moral right to own blacks is likely to see them as inferior in general.  In fact the very description Coltrin gives of his repugnance in ordaining Able a Seventy should be seen as evidence, IMO.  It is not the typical reaction imo to the withdrawal of the Spirit.  I don’t remember anything similar outside the presence of something evil…and there is no indication Able was anything but a good man.  Speculation:  if he was truly not to ordain Able, an impression/revelation to stop seems like it would have been more effective than a vague feeling of disgust or whatever he felt.  I have had revelations to stop amd all it took was a “No” in one case.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Do you think such hefty biases are unable to be overcome? That is, would they on their face mean that one should not be believed? That sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me. 

I know you are not categorically stating that, but I think many come close to that. Whether or not Joseph Smith said what Coltrin said he did is independent of whether or not he was a slave owner. The trick in our day is deciding what we each believe, and the relative weight and reliability we assign Coltrin or other eye and ear witnesses. 

No, I don't think they are unable to overcome, but they would be very difficult to overcome, which I think should be taken into consideration.  To believe--to the extent that you physically participated in enslaving multiple people for your own personal gain--that a different race was inherently inferior to you in every way, and then to be asked to ordain someone of that race to the same "rank" as you, making them your equal, is a huge paradigm shift.  Not to mention the implications of past actions, which, under that paradigm shift, have now become moral sins that you need to attempt to make restitution for and repent of. 

Of course all of that should be taken into account when we read about his reaction to that ordination.

All we have to judge this is secondary sources and we will never be able to prove anything from them.  But all evidence should be used when trying.  Though what we consider relevant will mostly come down to our own biases as well.

Edited February 17, 2022 by bluebell

[Kevin Christensen]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

Do you think such hefty biases are unable to be overcome? That is, would they on their face mean that one should not be believed? That sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me. 

I know you are not categorically stating that, but I think many come close to that. Whether or not Joseph Smith said what Coltrin said he did is independent of whether or not he was a slave owner. The trick in our day is deciding what we each believe, and the relative weight and reliability we assign Coltrin or other eye and ear witnesses. 

If you consider that the long cultural history of the background rationalizations for the Biblical justification of slavery, Coltrin having not only been part of a country that rationalized slavery, and even after the Civil War, perpetuated Jim Crow laws and the widespread terror and violence that enforced such things, and to this day includes people who have hissy fits over the possibility that teachers in schools might mention such things in class rooms, but was part of the slave owning community, then this is not at all ad hominem, but rather addressing the impact of soil and nurture on the harvest. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-curse-of-ham-race-and-slavery-in-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-the-biblical-justification-of-american-slavery/ 

Joseph Campbell observes that one of the functions of a mythology to to "sustain and uphold a social order." So it is important to check one's eye for beams and figure out what particular social order we ought to be upholding by emphasizing which stories.  Zion, or Babylon?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 18, 2022 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Quote

Coltrin was a slave owner?  Those are some pretty hefty biases to overcome.

Do you think such hefty biases are unable to be overcome?

She seems to be saying that these biases are hefty.  The inference, I think, is not that Coltrin was "unable" to overcome such biases, but that he may well not have.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

That is, would they on their face mean that one should not be believed?  That sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me. 

I don't think anyone is resorting to ad hominem here.  Nobody is saying "Coltrin said X about Elijah Able and the priesthood ordination of black people.  Coltrin was from the south and held slaves, ergo what Coltrin said about X was false."  There is a lot more circumspection and nuance in the analysis of Coltrin's recollections than just rejection of them "on their face."  The potentially salient factors include A) the recollections were very late (45 years after the events in question), B) patently inaccurate as to dates, C) contradicted by Elijah Able's priesthood ordination certificates, D) contradicted by Elijah Able serving as a Seventy (despite purportedly having been "dropped" from that quorum because of his "lineage"), and, yes, E) Coltrin's recollection may have been affected (confabulated, embellished, whatever) by his cultural perspectives on black people and slaves.

Racism is a disease of the mind, often infecting people without their fully realizing it.  Racism was often then, and to an extent now still is for some, a moral blind spot.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I know you are not categorically stating that, but I think many come close to that. Whether or not Joseph Smith said what Coltrin said he did is independent of whether or not he was a slave owner.

I think a big part of excusing / rationalizing / justifying the ownership of slaves was the "otherizing" of those held in slavery.  That is, viewing them as something other than people or human beings.  Legally, this was done by the state and society in general characterizing slaves as "chattel," defined here:

Quote

Chattel

A catch-all category of property mostly associated with movable goods.  At common law, chattel included all property that was not real estate and not attached to real estate.  Examples included everything from leases, to cows, to clothes.  In modern usage, chattel often merely refers to tangible movable personal property.

Thus, a slave was not a person, but a thing.  Like a farm animal or a lamp or a saddle.  A possession that could be bought and sold, or destroyed, for any reason or no reason at all.  A slave was broadly not viewed a human being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... {including} Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In our day, we still struggle with racism (though I think we have moved beyond the characterization of members of a given racial category as "chattel").  We do, however, have a corollary to the above excusing / rationalizing / justifying the ownership of slaves.  That would be . . . abortion.  We justify it by "otherizing" in utero babies.  They are not persons, but a clump of cells.  A possession that can be destroyed for any reason or no reason at all.  

If legalized slavery was among the preeminent moral stains of our ancestors' time, I can't help but think that elective abortion is one of the great moral stains of our day.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The trick in our day is deciding what we each believe, and the relative weight and reliability we assign Coltrin or other eye and ear witnesses. 

First, I think the normative tools of historiographical analysis and assessment, when clinically and dispassionately applied to Coltrin's recollections, render those recollections suspect.

Second, the unreliability of Coltrin's (and Smoot's) recollection is relevant to the overall quantum of evidence pertaining to tracing the source of the priesthood ban to Joseph Smith.  That quantum is . . . not very good at present.

Third, I think Mormon 9:31 can and ought to apply here: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I don't know that we benefit much by condemning historical figures because of their flaws.  We can acknowledge those flaws and errors, sure, but these folks are long dead and gone, so the utility of condemnation becomes suspect.  So let's neither condemn, nor ignore, and instead let us "give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto {us their} imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they} have been."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[pogi]

It appears there was at least one other black man given the priesthood in Joseph Smith's lifetime.  Quack Walker Lewis was ordained an Elder by the apostle William Smith (Joseph Smith's brother) in 1843 or 1844.

Quote

African-Americans in small numbers had been members of the Church from its days in Nauvoo. At least two black men, Walker Lewis, an elder, and Elijah Abel, a seventy, were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.2 Lewis was ordained by Apostle William Smith, brother of the Prophet, in 1843 or 1844 in Lowell, Massachusetts.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/spencer-w-kimball-and-the-revelation-on-priesthood/

Woodruff visited Lewis' branch to adress an issue where all the male members resigned their offices "except one colourd Brother who was an Elder", Woodruff wrote in a letter to Brigham Young.  It should be noted that Woodruff raised no question or concern about Lewis's priesthood ordination in the letter.  Smith, Woodruff, and Young were all aware of his race and ordination in 1844 with no issue, concern, or action taken against him.  

It is a fascinating bit of history that I was not aware of.  Lewis was a prominent black leader and abolitionist activist in Massachusetts.  His son (also a member of the church) married a white member of the church.  This stirred up not a small amount of controversy in the church that was discussed among the top leadership and reached Brigham Young's ears just weeks before he was made President of the Church.  His response was over-the-top Brigaham style blood atonement about needing to be killed type response.   There is some speculation that this relationship partly influenced Brigham Young's priesthood and temple ban:

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/century-of-black-mormons/page/lewis-quack-walker#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-412%2C-13%2C1421%2C514

The article is an interesting read and history of Lewis and his family.  It states that there were at least three black men ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime, but doesn't give the name of who the third black man might be.

Edited February 17, 2022 by pogi

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

It appears there was at least one other black man given the priesthood in Joseph Smith's lifetime.  Walker Lewis was ordained an Elder by the apostle William Smith (Joseph Smith's brother) in 1843 or 1844.

I've been reading things since yesterday, and found that Parley P. Pratt made an interesting statement:

"In fact, one dozen free Negroes or mulattoes have never belonged to our society in any part of the world from its organization to this day [1839]" ("Late Persecution of the Church of Latter-day Saints," New York: J.W. Harrison, 1840. P. 28)

I think black membership increased in the Nauvoo period, but not by much (Jane Manning James brought seven members of her family to Nauvoo). The number of ordained black men in the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime can safely be counted on one hand, I think. I can only think of Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.

[Calm]

In the 1850 census, there were only 50 “colored” individuals listed in Utah, 1860 59, though there may have been more who were passing as white. (Century of Black Mormons have some accounts of such.) Not surprising there weren’t that many earlier. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[rongo]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR [that Elijah Abel was prohibited from using his priesthood on his mission to Canada].

I don't think we have any record of him ever baptizing, confirming, or ordaining anybody. That alone speaks volumes because he served in an era when missionaries had frequent baptisms, unlike today, when it is entirely possible to go a whole mission without any baptisms. There wouldn't be any record for blessings of healing, of course.

It appears that his work was limited to preaching to blacks. 

"Abel’s desire to engage in missionary work in Cincinnati, Ohio, presented special difficulties for a traveling high council comprised of Apostles John E. Page, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, and Lorenzo Snow. Despite their respect for 'a coloured Bro.,' the brethren felt 'wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public . . . [but] Bro Abels [sic] was advised to visit the coloured population.” 

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Elijah_Abel

I haven't been able to find what I am looking for (I seem to remember having read that he was permitted to serve missions but was specifically told not to perform ordinances).

 

[pogi]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

I think Able was prohibited from using the priesthood on his mission to Canada. 

Not likely given the fact that he baptized several on his mission in Canada and was later reconfirmed as a seventy in 1841 to the third quorum of the priesthood, where he served - thus exercising his priesthood. 

Also unlikely considering that at least one other black man (Walker Lewis) was ordained to the priesthood much later in 1843 or 44 by Joseph Smith's brother.  There is no way that a policy would have been in place to block black men from the priesthood and prohibit any who had been given the priesthood from exercising it without William Smith , an apostle and brother of Joseph Smiths knowing about it, and without Wilford woodruff and Brigham Young knowing about it.  They all knew of Walker Lewis, his race, and ordination and made no attempt to question or challenge or limit the exercise of his priesthood before Joseph Smiths death later that year in 1844. 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Elijah_Abel

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by pogi

[rodheadlee]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:27 PM, 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.  

My relatives from Missouri fought on each side of the war. It's not all that cut and dried. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think we have any record of him ever baptizing, confirming, or ordaining anybody. That alone speaks volumes because he served in an era when missionaries had frequent baptisms, unlike today, when it is entirely possible to go a whole mission without any baptisms. There wouldn't be any record for blessings of healing, of course.

It appears that his work was limited to preaching to blacks. 

"Abel’s desire to engage in missionary work in Cincinnati, Ohio, presented special difficulties for a traveling high council comprised of Apostles John E. Page, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, and Lorenzo Snow. Despite their respect for 'a coloured Bro.,' the brethren felt 'wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public . . . [but] Bro Abels [sic] was advised to visit the coloured population.” 

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Elijah_Abel

I haven't been able to find what I am looking for (I seem to remember having read that he was permitted to serve missions but was specifically told not to perform ordinances).

 

See my comment above.  There is record of him baptizing. 

I already addressed the quote you listed here, with a little different spin:

Quote

More crucially, LDS leaders recognized and understood him to be “colored” and a faithful priesthood holder. This fact was in clear evidence during a Cincinnati LDS branch conference in 1843, when Able resided in that city. After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts. Clearly LDS leaders understood him to be black and recognized his status as a priesthood holder, even as they recommended he concentrate his missionary efforts among black people. [15]

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/century-of-black-mormons/page/who

There was no indication that he was prohibit from exercising his priesthood, but found it wisdom to limit his service to black people. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I've been reading things since yesterday, and found that Parley P. Pratt made an interesting statement:

"In fact, one dozen free Negroes or mulattoes have never belonged to our society in any part of the world from its organization to this day [1839]" ("Late Persecution of the Church of Latter-day Saints," New York: J.W. Harrison, 1840. P. 28)

I think black membership increased in the Nauvoo period, but not by much (Jane Manning James brought seven members of her family to Nauvoo). The number of ordained black men in the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime can safely be counted on one hand, I think. I can only think of Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.

I don't disagree.  While there was no policy or doctrine, the practice in the southern slave states was to not give blacks the priesthood - likely for political purposes, but in free states there is evidence that they were given the priesthood.  The date of Lewis' ordination by Joseph Smith's brother and apostle is telling - 1843 or 1844 - Joseph was killed in 1844.  That means that there was no known policy or practice in place up until the year of Joseph's death banning priesthood ordination for black people in free states. 

In fact, interestingly, Joseph Smith in 1842 confined missionary activities "to the free states' and not to go into any of the "slave states", as recorded in Woodruff's journal.  Perhaps in part to avoid the whole blacks and baptism/priesthood issue among slave owners, along with Josephs evolving stance on slavery.  

Edited February 17, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

On 2/15/2022 at 3:31 PM, smac97 said:

SU published yet another video, apparently the first of a series involving Paul Reeve:

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 1

SU just posted part 2:

Blacks and the Priesthood - Paul Reeve, Pt 2

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not likely given the fact that he baptized several on his mission in Canada and was later reconfirmed as a seventy in 1841 to the third quorum of the priesthood, where he served - thus exercising his priesthood. 

Also unlikely considering that at least one other black man (Walker Lewis) was ordained to the priesthood much later in 1843 or 44 by Joseph Smith's brother.  There is no way that a policy would have been in place to block black men from the priesthood and prohibit any who had been given the priesthood from exercising it without William Smith , an apostle and brother of Joseph Smiths knowing about it, and without Wilford woodruff and Brigham Young knowing about it.  They all knew of Walker Lewis, his race, and ordination and made no attempt to question or challenge or limit the exercise of his priesthood before Joseph Smiths death later that year in 1844. 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Elijah_Abel

 

Do you have a citation for baptisms in Canada? I'm sure you do --- I'm just interested in seeing them. That is news to me. 

As far as William Smith ordaining Walker Lewis --- William many issues that ultimately led to his excommunication. Some of this was due to rebelliousness and stubbornness in fighting against policy, doctrines, and practices. B.H. Roberts records a touching account of visiting him in his wretchedness while on his mission, and he quotes a blessing Joseph Smith gave him addressing this tendency in him. I can conceive of William's ordination of Walker Lewis as being a case of "going rogue."

I don't think we can nail down anyone besides Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis, though, as being ordained, can we?

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

See my comment above.  There is record of him baptizing. 

There was no indication that he was prohibited from exercising his priesthood, but found it wisdom to limit his service to black people. 

Obviously, serving as a missionary is "exercising his priesthood" to some degree, but I thought that he had been prohibited from performing ordinances. If I can be shown that he baptized people, I will have learned something today.  

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

They all knew of Walker Lewis, his race, and ordination and made no attempt to question or challenge or limit the exercise of his priesthood before Joseph Smiths death later that year in 1844. 

Is there any record of Walker Lewis ever performing any ordinances?