Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, gopher said:

Yes.  It's my opinion that calling prophets racist is wrong and we shouldn't do it.  I'm not claiming prophets are without flaws, but God refines them as they repent and grow in their responsibilities as His messengers.   Jonah is a good example of how God doesn't allow His prophets to be racist.  In the end, Jonah repented and changed his attitude towards the people of Nineveh after God taught him that he was wrong.  If the priesthood ban was a result of racist prophets, why didn't God teach them they were wrong as He did with Jonah?

That is a good question. I think you are approaching it the wrong way. Instead figure out if they were racist by reading what they said and wrote. Then figure out why God didn’t act instead of assuming they cannot be racist since God didn’t act. God seems to allow a LOT of evil both in and out of His church without interfering.

12 hours ago, gopher said:

It's also my opinion that prophets aren't atheists.

Racism and atheism are somehow interchangeable?

[gopher]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume by "prophets" you are referring to those who hold the office of "Presiding High Priest," is that correct?

In modern times, I am referring to the prophet and president of the Church since the priesthood ban could only be implemented with his approval.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I did not say that.  Rather, I said that "some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments."

Thanks for clarifying.  I couldn't tell if you were pushing back against my opinion that we shouldn't call these prophets/presidents racists.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

We don't know the origins of the ban. 

Our record-keeping church lacks evidence in its records of it having revelatory origins. The implementation of the ban occurred during turbulent and uncertain times.

We have instances during Joseph's tenure of black men being ordained to the Priesthood (Elijah Abel, Q. Walker Lewis, Peter Kerr (?)).

The historical record (particularly pertaining to Pres. McKay and Pres. Kimball) indicate, to me, that whatever the origins of the ban, the revelation ending it came to us on the Lord's timeline.

Exactly.  That's why I feel I can come up with speculation that doesn't include calling the presidents of the church racist.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.  

I was trying to be clever.  The God of the scriptures didn't take too kindly when His prophets chose to disobey Him as in the case of Jonah.  It makes sense to me that if these modern prophets/presidents of the church disobeyed God by implementing or continuing the priesthood ban, God would have found a way to remind them that He is in charge and encourage them to follow His will.  Instead, we had over 120 years of the priesthood ban in place during the times of multiple prophets/presidents.  Can we really believe that all were able to ignore God and keep the ban in place without divine approval?

[gopher]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a good question. I think you are approaching it the wrong way. Instead figure out if they were racist by reading what they said and wrote. Then figure out why God didn’t act instead of assuming they cannot be racist since God didn’t act. God seems to allow a LOT of evil both in and out of His church without interfering.

I disagree that the evil comes from prophets/presidents of the church, which is the point I've been pushing.  Of course there's has been evil in and out of the church when people don't follow God's commandments.  God does allow a lot of evil to occur before He finally acts.  But He seems to act much quicker when His prophets choose to disobey Him.

I wish we had more of what earlier prophets said and wrote so we could have the actual, complete truth.  That's been one of the causes of this confusion with the priesthood ban as people have tried to come up with their own wacky theories which were usually racist.  I think we now rely too heavily on scholars, historians, and surveys to help us form our opinions of these past leaders.  Of course, there is also the option of just trusting God and confirmations from the Holy Ghost, but that's not an option for some.   I look forward to the day when we can get clarification directly from these past prophets, but in the meantime, I'm very reluctant to judge them based on the incomplete and limited information we currently have.  

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Racism and atheism are somehow interchangeable?

Of course not.  I wanted to see if I would get similar pushback with the claim that prophets aren't atheists as I did with the claim they aren't racists.  I was just entertaining myself.

[Senator]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

 

 That's why I feel I can come up with speculation that doesn't include calling the presidents of the church racist.

 

Why?

If, per Smac97,   "some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments."

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I disagree that the evil comes from prophets/presidents of the church, which is the point I've been pushing.  Of course there's has been evil in and out of the church when people don't follow God's commandments.  God does allow a lot of evil to occur before He finally acts.  But He seems to act much quicker when His prophets choose to disobey Him.

I wish we had more of what earlier prophets said and wrote so we could have the actual, complete truth.  That's been one of the causes of this confusion with the priesthood ban as people have tried to come up with their own wacky theories which were usually racist.  I think we now rely too heavily on scholars, historians, and surveys to help us form our opinions of these past leaders.  Of course, there is also the option of just trusting God and confirmations from the Holy Ghost, but that's not an option for some.   I look forward to the day when we can get clarification directly from these past prophets, but in the meantime, I'm very reluctant to judge them based on the incomplete and limited information we currently have.  

Of course not.  I wanted to see if I would get similar pushback with the claim that prophets aren't atheists as I did with the claim they aren't racists.  I was just entertaining myself.

Why couldn't past prophets and apostles have been racist?  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I disagree that the evil comes from prophets/presidents of the church, which is the point I've been pushing.  Of course there's has been evil in and out of the church when people don't follow God's commandments.  God does allow a lot of evil to occur before He finally acts.  But He seems to act much quicker when His prophets choose to disobey Him.

I wish we had more of what earlier prophets said and wrote so we could have the actual, complete truth.  That's been one of the causes of this confusion with the priesthood ban as people have tried to come up with their own wacky theories which were usually racist.  I think we now rely too heavily on scholars, historians, and surveys to help us form our opinions of these past leaders.  Of course, there is also the option of just trusting God and confirmations from the Holy Ghost, but that's not an option for some.   I look forward to the day when we can get clarification directly from these past prophets, but in the meantime, I'm very reluctant to judge them based on the incomplete and limited information we currently have.  

The scholars and historians are the ones trying to get that clarification. They have mostly found more racism.

[gopher]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why couldn't past prophets and apostles have been racist?  

I haven't said anything about apostles, just prophets who are also presidents of the church.  Don't you think being an unrepentant racist would disqualify a man from serving in that calling?  Just the same as if he were an unrepentant adulterer, liar, thief, abuser, rapist, murderer, etc?  God seems to have set a much higher standard for prophets than we do for presidents of the US, for example.  What do you think?

[bluebell]

Just now, gopher said:

I haven't said anything about apostles, just prophets who are also presidents of the church.  Don't you think being an unrepentant racist would disqualify a man from serving in that calling?  Just the same as if he were an unrepentant adulterer, liar, thief, abuser, rapist, murderer, etc?  God seems to have set a much higher standard for prophets than we do for presidents of the US, for example.  What do you think?

I think that prophets and apostles (I include them since we sustain them as prophets and we've never had a prophet that wasn't an apostle except JS) are fallible men who do the very best they can (and are very very good men) but can still have sinful attitudes and weaknesses that can lead to incorrect beliefs.

If they knew they were racist and unrepentant then yes, I do think that would disqualify them.  If they believed that their views were in line with God and that they were teaching truth (as it appears they clearly did believe, though they were wrong), then no, I don't believe that disqualifies them.  

 

[gopher]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The scholars and historians are the ones trying to get that clarification. They have mostly found more racism.

yeah, they are good at doing that with historical figures.  Thanks to them, I have now go to work on Columbus Day.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, gopher said:

haven't said anything about apostles, just prophets who are also presidents of the church.

So what happens if the apostle who is next in line is racist and the president (maybe best to use president instead of prophet to avoid confusion as I thought you meant apostles as well) is dying?  Does God visit him and teach him correct principles or does God sustain the president until that apostle is dead himself and the next one is not racist? Or has God arranged the callings in such a way to ensure it’s all taken care of without needing to do anything when someone is dying?  Serious question as I am wondering how you see this happening while preserving agency of the apostles and soon to be presidents of the Church.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I haven't said anything about apostles, just prophets who are also presidents of the church.  Don't you think being an unrepentant racist would disqualify a man from serving in that calling?  Just the same as if he were an unrepentant adulterer, liar, thief, abuser, rapist, murderer, etc?  God seems to have set a much higher standard for prophets than we do for presidents of the US, for example.  What do you think?

I would like to think being an unrepentant racist would disqualify someone from being the prophet but the evidence says otherwise.

If only Orson Pratt had been the prophet:

https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/1852-legislative-session-this-abominable-slavery/

Saying it was just a product of the times is, in a sense, correct but Brigham Young married the slavery apologist “Curse of Caine” doctrine to the Church. Orson Pratt shows that it didn’t have to go this way. He was a product of the times too and fought against this. There was another way. We just didn’t take it.

Edited July 16, 2024 by The Nehor

[GoCeltics]

On 7/13/2024 at 1:36 PM, bluebell said:

Exactly. To say that black men were never ordained and that Joseph Smith taught the ban doesn’t work with the data. 

The doctrine, as writings keep referring to it as, began with Joseph Smith after a few black members were given the priesthood. 

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

The doctrine, as writings keep referring to it as, began with Joseph Smith after a few black members were given the priesthood. 

There is no evidence of that though. People make the claim but it’s completely unsupported. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is no evidence of that though. People make the claim but it’s completely unsupported. 

Not quite precisely stated…

There is no firsthand evidence from Joseph himself.  Some really dodgy imo late second or thirdhand claims from highly biased men (former slaveowners, one of whom described himself as disgusted after having to touch and ordain a Black man) and some third or fourth hand (Thomas Shreeve’s claim about Elijah Able telling him as told by Thomas’ kids) that appears to me to be contradicted by contemporary sources (Stevenson’s book has quite a few iirc) and then some unsupported statements from leaders.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not quite precisely stated…

There is no firsthand evidence from Joseph himself.  Some really dodgy imo late second or thirdhand claims from highly biased men (former slaveowners, one of whom described himself as disgusted after having to touch and ordain a Black man) and some third or fourth hand (Thomas Shreeve’s claim about Elijah Able telling him as told by Thomas’ kids) that appears to me to be contradicted by contemporary sources (Stevenson’s book has quite a few iirc) and then some unsupported statements from leaders.

Thanks for the correction.  I should have said that there are no trustworthy evidence.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for the correction.  I should have said that there are no trustworthy evidence.

I figured you meant that, but not sure GoCeltics would.

[gopher]

On 7/16/2024 at 1:48 PM, Calm said:

So what happens if the apostle who is next in line is racist and the president (maybe best to use president instead of prophet to avoid confusion as I thought you meant apostles as well) is dying?  Does God visit him and teach him correct principles or does God sustain the president until that apostle is dead himself and the next one is not racist? Or has God arranged the callings in such a way to ensure it’s all taken care of without needing to do anything when someone is dying?  Serious question as I am wondering how you see this happening while preserving agency of the apostles and soon to be presidents of the Church.

Promise this isn't a trap?   I think your example of Jonah shows us how God can correct His prophets when they have racist attitudes.  It's remarkable how patient He is with us as He teaches us to become more like Him.  To answer your question, I do think that God has a higher standard with much greater expectations for the men He calls as president of the church.  Of course, they still have flaws, but there is a high level of decency that we can expect.  I think that modern day prophets/presidents have a good track record of being decent men who are willing to obey the will of God.  And in assuming the role of president, they may have to leave behind certain attitudes and beliefs.  President Benson is usually used as an example here.  I don't know if God uses death to remove stubborn prophets (or even apostles) who won't repent of racist or other incorrect beliefs.  But now you got me wondering if that was behind President Hunter only serving for 9 months?  I'm joking.

It's interesting that God would allow the priesthood ban to exist for over 120 years if there was no divine approval (I'm using the phrase used by others here).  If BY implemented the ban because he was racist, why didn't God convince him to change it before he died or why wasn't it immediately removed by John Taylor when he first became president?  No one has to like or defend the ban, but I'm not sure we have the full  understanding yet of why it was in place for so long.  We have other statements by presidents of the church during that time that shows they were lousy racists since they taught we are all children of God and should show love and kindness to everyone.

 

[gopher]

On 7/16/2024 at 2:29 PM, The Nehor said:

I would like to think being an unrepentant racist would disqualify someone from being the prophet but the evidence says otherwise.

If only Orson Pratt had been the prophet:

https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/1852-legislative-session-this-abominable-slavery/

Saying it was just a product of the times is, in a sense, correct but Brigham Young married the slavery apologist “Curse of Caine” doctrine to the Church. Orson Pratt shows that it didn’t have to go this way. He was a product of the times too and fought against this. There was another way. We just didn’t take it.

Orson Pratt was definitely ahead of his time.  My speculation is that the ban wouldn't have been implemented if there were more members and nonmembers like Pratt.  Or it would have been lifted much sooner if more members fought against it.  It took only 3(?) years for the Nov 2015 policy to be removed after members protested.  It took over 120 years for the priesthood ban to be removed.

There's also the option to trust that God knows what He's doing and allowed the priesthood ban for reasons we don't know yet.  But I realize that's not a popular view for many.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Orson Pratt was definitely ahead of his time. 

Plenty of people were opposed to slavery in the 19th century.  The abolitionist movement was relatively small in numbers, but still influential. Prominent abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and Harriet Beecher Stowe.  These folks vocally opposed to slavery, but they did not represent a majority of the population.

Economic factors played a significant role in how slavery was rationalized and justified, particularly in the South, while the industrialized North's opposition to slavery was influenced by different economic and social dynamics.  Many people in the Northern states were opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, even if they were not necessarily in favor of immediate abolition. The Republican Party, founded in the 1850s, opposed the spread of slavery and gained significant support in the North.  In contrast, the Southern states were largely supportive of slavery, which was integral to their agrarian economy. Slaveholders and those economically dependent on slavery were vehemently opposed to its abolition.

Public opinion on slavery was complex and varied widely. Some Northern individuals and groups supported the idea of "free soil," which opposed the expansion of slavery but did not necessarily advocate for immediate abolition in the South. Others were more moderate, supporting gradual emancipation or compensating slaveholders (I think Joseph Smith fell into this category).  Opposition to slavery varied by region and was influenced by economic, social, and political factors. The Northern states had a significant portion of the population opposed to the expansion of slavery, while the Southern states largely supported it. Abolitionists, vocal but numerically small, played a crucial role in shaping public discourse and policy leading up to the Civil War.

Which brings us to Orson Pratt.  He expressed some anti-slavery sentiments in his writings and sermons. In his 1852 speech in the Utah Territorial Legislature, he condemned the institution of slavery and described it as a curse.  Nevertheless, although he held anti-slavery views, Pratt did not play a significant role in the abolitionist movement.  Pratt's views on slavery were influenced by his religious beliefs, as he believed that all men were created equal in the eyes of God and that slavery was morally wrong. However, his primary focus was on spreading the teachings of the Church and supporting its leadership.

The Church's stance on slavery was complex and sometimes contradictory. While some church leaders, like Pratt, expressed anti-slavery views, others, including Brigham Young, held pro-slavery views or supported the practice to varying degrees. This complexity reflected the broader societal tensions over slavery in the United States at the time.

3 hours ago, gopher said:

My speculation is that the ban wouldn't have been implemented if there were more members and nonmembers like Pratt. 

Perhaps so.  Pratt's views on slavery should have achieved more purchase and influence.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

On the 23 of January 1852 to the Territorial Legislature, Brigham Young will give the first open articulation of a race-based priesthood restriction by a Mormon prophet-president. It’s to the Territorial Legislature as they are attempting to write a servant-code, or a slave-code, to define the laws that will govern the black slaves who have been brought to the Great Basin by their slave masters who have converted to Mormonism. Some of those slaves are Mormons themselves. Once again, this open racial vision –we’re accepting all people: abolitionists, anti-abolitionists, blacks, freed blacks, enslaved blacks, slave-masters — they are all gathering to the Great Basin. Now we need to figure out how to order them. And Brigham Young will suggest in 1852 that white should take precedent over black.

On the 5th of February 1852 he will give his most forceful articulation. In chapter 5 of the book, I do a thorough deconstruction of this speech. I won’t go into in here, but nonetheless it’s really the most open and forceful articulation of a racial priesthood restriction. “They will not rule over me in this church and they will not rule over me in this territory.” It is in response to an election code that the Territorial Legislature is debating. Most historians who have looked at this in the past have suggested it comes out of the servant code. They argue that this fifth of February speech actually comes in a debate with Orson Pratt over the election code. We know that Orson Pratt gives a speech, because it’s been covered in the minutes of George Watt, who was the scribe for the Territorial Legislature, and it had never been transcribed. The Church History department asked LaJean Carruth to transcribe it after we identified this speech from the 1852 legislature and used it in the book for the first time. We know that Orson Pratt doesn’t like the stance that Brigham Young is staking out and gives a speech on the 27^th of January 1852 against the servant code. He argues or moves that the Legislature should “reject” it in its entirety. He argued that only God administered divine curses and that they were particular to a given time and place. They didn’t automatically pass down from generation to generation. He says that curses are not multi-generational. He says, “Shall we take then the innocent African that has committed no sin and damn him to slavery and bondage without receiving any authority from heaven to do [so]?” He argues that Mormons are not acting on authority from God if they pass this servant code that they are debating. He found the idea “preposterous” and he said that is was “enough to cause the angels in heaven to blush.” We know that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had butted heads before, and this is just another example of Brigham Young and Orson Pratt butting heads again.

The minutes of the Legislative session give us an indication that Orson Pratt speaks on the 4^th of February. Unfortunately that speech was not recorded by George Watt. I don’t know what he said on the 4^th of February. But Brigham Young, then, gives his most forceful articulation of a priesthood restriction on the 5^th of February. I think it’s in debate with Orson Pratt. Following that speech you have Orson Pratt, I think, pushing back again. One way he does so, there are two seemingly innocuous bills that come up for consideration, after Brigham Young gives his speech, and Orson Pratt votes against both of them. He votes down the Cedar City municipal bill and the Fillmore incorporation bill. Hey, who cares if Cedar City and Fillmore are incorporated?

Well, the minutes of the legislative session tell us why Pratt does so – because the provisions in those bills suggest or stipulate that only white men over age twenty-one are allowed to vote in Cedar City and Fillmore. It’s the same language that had passed the day before for the election law for the entire territory of Utah, white men over 21. This is standard fare for 1852 America, nothing remarkable.

Orson Pratt actually argues that black men should be allowed to vote, and he votes against the Cedar City and Fillmore bills because they don’t allow black men to vote. “Councilor Pratt opposed the bill on the ground that colored people were there prohibited from voting,” the legislative minutes tell us. [Legislative minutes on Fillmore incorporation bill.] So he’s staking out a very progressive attitude towards black rights at the same time that Brigham Young is arguing for a racial priesthood restriction – that black people will not rule over us in Utah Territory and they will not rule over us in the Mormon church.

(Emphases added.)

3 hours ago, gopher said:

There's also the option to trust that God knows what He's doing and allowed the priesthood ban for reasons we don't know yet.  But I realize that's not a popular view for many.

I presently subscribe to this view.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

Promise this isn't a trap?  

I don’t trap, too much work, lol.

I just love to see how people reason out their ideas.  And your ideas are reasonable imo.

Quote

I'm not sure we have the full  understanding yet of why it was in place for so long.

I am certain we don’t have a full understanding.
 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of people were opposed to slavery in the 19th century.  The abolitionist movement was relatively small in numbers, but still influential. Prominent abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and Harriet Beecher Stowe.  These folks vocally opposed to slavery, but they did not represent a majority of the population.

Economic factors played a significant role in how slavery was rationalized and justified, particularly in the South, while the industrialized North's opposition to slavery was influenced by different economic and social dynamics.  Many people in the Northern states were opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, even if they were not necessarily in favor of immediate abolition. The Republican Party, founded in the 1850s, opposed the spread of slavery and gained significant support in the North.  In contrast, the Southern states were largely supportive of slavery, which was integral to their agrarian economy. Slaveholders and those economically dependent on slavery were vehemently opposed to its abolition.

Public opinion on slavery was complex and varied widely. Some Northern individuals and groups supported the idea of "free soil," which opposed the expansion of slavery but did not necessarily advocate for immediate abolition in the South. Others were more moderate, supporting gradual emancipation or compensating slaveholders (I think Joseph Smith fell into this category).  Opposition to slavery varied by region and was influenced by economic, social, and political factors. The Northern states had a significant portion of the population opposed to the expansion of slavery, while the Southern states largely supported it. Abolitionists, vocal but numerically small, played a crucial role in shaping public discourse and policy leading up to the Civil War.

The North was primarily antislavery but not abolitionist before the war. During the war the North rapidly became more radical. This was particularly fast amongst the soldiers many of whom often actual slavery for the first time while occupying the Confederacy. John Brown went from being a deranged radical to becoming a glorious martyr. Also abolition became almost a necessity by 1863 and definitely by 1864. So many slaves had been freed that the institution could not realistically be reimposed. After the Civil War alternate means to achieve similar ends were used by white supremacists in the South and Reconstruction ended way too soon. Lincoln was great but he had terrible tastes in choosing his VP. Damn you John Wilkes Booth!!!

For those not familiar with John Brown he led a slave revolt that didn’t go as planned and he was captured, interviewed/interrogated (and the records of that interview are some of the best abolitionist writing we have), and then killed. He scared the South which was a good thing.

 

There are variants of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” that sing of John Brown and the song as we have it was (mostly) created during the Civil War:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

That is the most obvious allusion to the Civil War’s objective.

Some of the John Brown lyrics:

John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching on.

 

And have an obligatory Nehor ‘Punch White Supremacists’ verse:

They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree!
As they march along!

 

And one common for marching:

Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
As we are marching on!


And a good version with more lyric variety:

Old John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But though he sleeps his life was lost while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save;
And now, though the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see—
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue.
And heaven shall ring with anthems o'er the deed they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
And his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

Which leads to the obvious conclusion: This should be in the new hymnal as a patriotic song!

 

One quibble with what you said. While the rationalizations for slavery were influenced heavily by economic forces the antislavery sentiment in the North was primarily driven by a moral drive. In the North it just had fewer practical factors getting in the way. Saying that the North opposed slavery and wanted it to end (before the war most of the sentiment was for a gradual end) primarily for economic and political reasons is often used as a way to equivocate and state that the North and South were both driven by economic and political advantage and there was no moral component. This take comes from Neo-Confederate ‘Lost Cause’ propaganda. It is a loser rationalization written by losers for losers. Not saying you were trumpeting that view but it is an important distinction.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which brings us to Orson Pratt.  He expressed some anti-slavery sentiments in his writings and sermons. In his 1852 speech in the Utah Territorial Legislature, he condemned the institution of slavery and described it as a curse.  Nevertheless, although he held anti-slavery views, Pratt did not play a significant role in the abolitionist movement.  Pratt's views on slavery were influenced by his religious beliefs, as he believed that all men were created equal in the eyes of God and that slavery was morally wrong. However, his primary focus was on spreading the teachings of the Church and supporting its leadership.

Of course he didn’t play a prominent role in abolitionism. He was in Utah where it was a moot point after he lost.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church's stance on slavery was complex and sometimes contradictory. While some church leaders, like Pratt, expressed anti-slavery views, others, including Brigham Young, held pro-slavery views or supported the practice to varying degrees. This complexity reflected the broader societal tensions over slavery in the United States at the time.

The Church’s stance was more along these lines:

“Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands.... Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.”

“What is the cause of all this waste of life and treasure? To tell it in a plain, truthful way, one portion of the country wish to raise their negroes or black slaves and the other portion wish to free them, and, apparently, to almost worship them.”

“According to accounts, in all probability not less than one million men, from twenty to forty years of age, have gone to the silent grave in this useless war [the Civil War], in a little over two years, and all to gratify the caprice of a few ‑‑ I do not think I have a suitable name for them, shall we call them abolitionists, slaveholders, religious bigots, or political aspirants?”

-Brigham Young

The first quote seems to hold that no power can flee the slaves until the curse is removed. My guess is that and Brigham Young’s general belief that slavery would endure until the end comes from D&C 87 which prophesied that the Civil War would end with “until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations” which didn’t happen.

The second quote reminds me of whining about all battles for rights in society. A whiny complaint that the marginalized people who want rights expect abject worship and privilege. I hear it all the time now about my trans friends and about how honored and valued they are which is just not a thing. Those who fight for the marginalized and seek equality for them are not putting them on a pedestal for veneration. Bad Brigham!!!

And then the last quote lamenting how both sides are basically the same and both are bad. Those who gave their lives so that others can be free are somehow equivalent to those who gave their lives so that others would not be free? Be better Brigham.

Le sigh.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/17/2024 at 10:16 AM, bluebell said:

There is no evidence of that though. People make the claim but it’s completely unsupported. 

@Calm
 

“This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: ‘President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 110. See also Milton R. Hunter’s Pearl of Great Price Commentary, 1948, pp. 141-142.

 

“It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: ‘Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.’ Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:25-26” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Negro and the Priesthood,” Improvement Era, April 1924, p. 565).

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to’” (Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p. 89).

 

“The former decree of God concerning the Negro has been reaffirmed in modern times. According to George Q. Cannon, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following doctrine: ‘That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s off-spring.’ Other reports confirm the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Negro cannot yet receive the priesthood” (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, p. 402).

Others taught it as folklore.

Edited July 20, 2024 by GoCeltics

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

@Calm
 

“This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: ‘President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 110. See also Milton R. Hunter’s Pearl of Great Price Commentary, 1948, pp. 141-142.

 

“It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: ‘Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.’ Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:25-26” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Negro and the Priesthood,” Improvement Era, April 1924, p. 565).

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to’” (Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p. 89).

 

“The former decree of God concerning the Negro has been reaffirmed in modern times. According to George Q. Cannon, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following doctrine: ‘That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s off-spring.’ Other reports confirm the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Negro cannot yet receive the priesthood” (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, p. 402).

Others taught it as folklore.

Why oh why does the LDS church trail behind in these things??? I wish they'd take the lead in matters like these. 

I wish Joseph Smith hadn't let the surroundings affect the teachings he thought were true and taught them but weren't, I guess he wasn't perfect. That is why we must not just believe anything or everything a prophet says w/o going to our own God given moral compasses or after our own searching/praying.

Edited July 20, 2024 by Tacenda

[MrShorty]

On 7/19/2024 at 6:17 AM, gopher said:

I think your example of Jonah shows us how God can correct His prophets when they have racist attitudes.

Slavery might be an interesting counter example to Jonah, because it seems that God allowed His prophets and His people to believe that slavery was good for a very long time without correction (Ben Spackman has a good essay: https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/ ). I don't think the question is about God's ability to correct His prophets, but whether He universally, 100% of the time corrects them within their lifetime. The issue of slavery suggests that God doesn't always correct them. Which leads back to the question of how God decides when to intervene and when not to intervene and the significance of His intervention/lack of intervention.

On 7/19/2024 at 6:32 AM, gopher said:

My speculation is that the ban wouldn't have been implemented if there were more members and nonmembers like Pratt.  Or it would have been lifted much sooner if more members fought against it.

I've said before that the priesthood and temple ban can be a compelling case study in our "model of prophets, scripture, and revelation" (see Spackman's essay above), and this particular bit of speculation is one I find quite fascinating. Basically, this line of speculation suggests that we as people and prophets and our beliefs and attitudes determine, at least in part, what revelation(s) God chooses to give or withhold and/or, at least partially, determines "God's timing" for some revelations. I suppose I would first ask if we really believe this? If we do, then what are implications for other revelations -- especially the some of the other controversial beliefs that we claim come from revelation? If we are serious about learning from our history so we can do better in the future, this seems like an important feature of revelation to understand, how our attitudes or the attitudes of our broader culture determine what God reveals to us when?

[Calm]

On 7/20/2024 at 9:15 AM, Tacenda said:

I wish Joseph Smith hadn't let the surroundings affect the teachings he thought were true and taught them but weren't, I guess he wasn't perfect. That is why we must not just believe anything or everything a prophet says w/o going to our own God given moral compasses or after our own searching/praying.

George Q Cannon is not reporting firsthand. Whether or not Joseph taught what was claimed for him by Cannon, Coltrin and others is highly debatable. 

Memories of teachings over whether slaves could receive the priesthood (which might put them in dangerous positions if their owners didn’t like that idea) could have been confused and morphed into free Black men not getting the priesthood. 

Edited July 22, 2024 by Calm