Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

[Xmoe]

He can fight his own battles on that.

I will agree with you to a point on JS. (not completely)

He did ordain Elder Abel, but then I believe it was revoked by Brigham Young, and never to be reinstated.

That is not correct.

Elder Abel kept the priesthood, and his membership in the quorum of the 70s, until the end of his life. Quorum of the 70 was the LDS equivalent of a Catholic Cardinal.

On the sad side, Brigham Young kept sending Elder Abel on missions to Canada, and many LDS folks speculate that no one in Utah would notice there was a black priesthood leader.

Joseph Smith was also the first white American recorded to have attempted to adopt a black person as his own child. (I learned that from a non-LDS source, a seminar on the history of race in family law). He also personally ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood.

In my opinion, Brigham Young was less open-minded with regard to African-Americans than his predecessor, Joseph Smith.

If you’re interested in Elijah Abel, I reccomend the wikipedia article for starters: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel

Back when I was LDS, I once challenged Dale Lebaron, the first mission president to Africa after the 1978 revelation, to show any evidence that Brigham Young or any priesthood leader had even claimed a revelation to take the priesthood away from blacks. Brother LeBaron (who was giving a seminar on the topic at BYU Education week!) was unable to cite any reference, and admitted that he’d looked carefully for such information. But he felt confident that Brigham Young would not have taken such action without a revelation. I’m less confident. And a growing number of LDS folks share my opinion, and are willing to say, “Brigham Young and some other leaders made a mistake and thank God for correcting us.”

 

[Janderich]

Your questions have been answered, with the Catholic response, SEVERAL times.

Rebecca,
The following questions in reference to 1 Tim 6:1-3 and Eph 6:5-8 remain unanswered:

1. Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave owner “free your slaves” counsel them to treat slaves fairly? Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave, “leave” counsel them to serve their master as they would Christ?
2. Was this teaching from the Lord?
3. Did the church change from then to now?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
The following questions in reference to 1 Tim 6:1-3 and Eph 6:5-8 remain unanswered:

1. Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave owner “free your slaves” counsel them to treat slaves fairly? Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave, “leave” counsel them to serve their master as they would Christ?
   A. Because the passage is not a treatise on slavery. It is teaching people how to live a Christian life in the circumstances and culture in which they lived. We are all called to serve others as we would Christ.
2. Was this teaching from the Lord?
   A. Divinely inspired, yes.
3. Did the church change from then to now?
   A. No. Paul’s instructions are relevant to all Christians, no matter their particular circumstances. Cultures change, and the Bishop’s of the Church, as the successors to the Apostles, provide teachings on how people can live a Christian life in their present circumstances and cultures. We are and will always be called to serve others as we would serve Christ. Questions may arise as to the “how”, especially in difficult circumstances, and/or with difficult people.

You are ignoring the passage from Galatians that I provided for you. Please put St. Paul’s teachings in context of all he said.

 

[Janderich]

1. Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave owner “free your slaves” counsel them to treat slaves fairly? Why would Paul instead of saying to the slave, “leave” counsel them to serve their master as they would Christ?
   A. Because the passage is not a treatise on slavery. It is teaching people how to live a Christian life in the circumstances and culture in which they lived. We are all called to serve others as we would Christ.
2. Was this teaching from the Lord?
   A. Divinely inspired, yes.
3. Did the church change from then to now?
   A. No. Paul’s instructions are relevant to all Christians, no matter their particular circumstances. Cultures change, and the Bishop’s of the Church, as the successors to the Apostles, provide teachings on how people can live a Christian life in their present circumstances and cultures. We are and will always be called to serve others as we would serve Christ. Questions may arise as to the “how”, especially in difficult circumstances, and/or with difficult people.

You are ignoring the passage from Galatians that I provided for you. Please put St. Paul’s teachings in context of all he said.

So Paul, when specifically discussing how Christian slaves and masters should treat each other, is avoiding the massive elephant in the room and is instead talking in general terms about service? Rebecca, you must see that this interpretation is streaching the scriptures out of context. However, I respect that you had the courage to answer the questions.

There are only a couple of ways to honestly take the passages I have given. Either, Paul was an apostle speaking for the Lord or he was giving terrible counsel not sanctioned by God which was subsequently cannonized as part of the Bible. Joseph Smith rightly explains the matter as indeed it must be explained, “Were the Apostles men of God, and did they preach the Gospel? I have no doubt that those who believe the Bible, will admit that they were: and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches, which they were instrumental in building up.” From earlier in the discourse, “…this people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed…” (History of the Church Vol II p.439)

 

[TexanKnight]

Janderich, your dodges are both accepted and understood. If my leaders had said the things your leaders said, I would try to deflect and dodge it, too. Nothing quite like hate speech from"prophets" to show they were not actually prophets at all.

be Blessed!

 

[RebeccaJ]

So Paul, when specifically discussing how Christian slaves and masters should treat each other, is avoiding the massive elephant in the room and is instead talking in general terms about service? Rebecca, you must see that this interpretation is streaching the scriptures out of context. However, I respect that you had the courage to answer the questions.

You are applying your 21st century view of slavery to the text. Slavery was not a “massive elephant in the room” during Paul’s time. His society was one of distinct classes, which had a slave class. His teaching says nothing about the wrongness/rightness of Roman social classes.

Paul clearly taught that all are equal under Jesus Christ, in more than just one letter. Please apply this teaching to your view of Paul’s teaching regarding Christian behavior.

There are only a couple of ways to honestly take the passages I have given. Either, Paul was an apostle speaking for the Lord or he was giving terrible counsel not sanctioned by God which was subsequently cannonized as part of the Bible. Joseph Smith rightly explains the matter as indeed it must be explained, “Were the Apostles men of God, and did they preach the Gospel? I have no doubt that those who believe the Bible, will admit that they were: and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches, which they were instrumental in building up.” From earlier in the discourse, “…this people were led and governed by revelation, and if such a law was wrong, God only is to be blamed…” (History of the Church Vol II p.439)

And your point is? Nothing I have said denies the Holy Spirit working through Paul. He gave no terrible counsel. That is your conclusion, which stems I would assume from the LDS distrust of the Bible as the infallible word of God.

But this is a diversion, and has nothing to do with the statements of your church’s leaders. Brigham Young is not St. Paul, and St. Paul is not Brigham Young.

 

[Porknpie]

Rebecca,
The following questions in reference to 1 Tim 6:1-3 and Eph 6:5-8 remain unanswered:
QUOTE]

Rebecca has the accurate exegesis. But also look at verses 3-5 too as there is heeding not to follow those with a different gospel than what is being preached by St. Paul. This is true in the 1st century and true in the 21st century.

1 Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching* may not suffer abuse.

2 Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.

3 **Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching

4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions,

5 and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.**

 

[Xmoe]

If anyone is interested in Elijah Abel, there’s a neutral Wikipedia article on him. When I was LDS I never heard about him in church, but he sounds to have been a faithful LDS leader and priesthood holder until his death. Unfortunately, and probably because of the way that Brigham Young treated Elder Abel, his descendants left the church.

twopekinguys, I appreciate the tone that you bring to this discussion, and please don’t take my corrections as any sort of reproach.

He can fight his own battles on that.

I will agree with you to a point on JS. (not completely)

He did ordain Elder Abel, but then I believe it was revoked by Brigham Young, and never to be reinstated.

You are correct that JS did ordain Elder Abel. (According to a race, family, and law seminar that I attended a few years ago *, JS also was the first white US citizen known to have attempted to adopt a black child into his family). But I am certain that you are mistaken that BY revoked his priesthood. Not sure where you got that. I can provide you with numerous sources that show the contrary.

What BY did was keep Elder Abel out of sight, by sending him to Canada on mission after mission until Elder Abel took sick and died.

Also, I am still looking for the exact reference,(I knew I should have bookmarked it) I believe it is in the history of the church. Smith did advocate using public money to purchase the slaves away from their owners, BUT, his intent was to then force them to go to Texas, tofight in whatever war was going on at the time

I am certain that you are correct that Smith advocated using public money to purchase slaves from their owners. What you may not know is that such advocacy was part of Joseph Smith’s platform as a US presidential candidate, and that he did not say this in capacity as an LDS church leader.

I have never heard what you said about an intent to force the freed slaves to go fight in Texas. I cannot prove it, but I believe you are mistaken. For one thing, how would freed women and children go to fight a war? I had understood that Smith was proposing a return trip to Africa, if the freed slaves wanted it. Smith’s proposal sounded outrageously expensive, but compared to the expenses of the Civil War …

If you have any sources on this matter, I’d appreciate them. Like JS said, it’s easier to leave the LDS church than to leave it alone … *

 

[twopekinguys]

If anyone is interested in Elijah Abel, there’s a neutral Wikipedia article on him. When I was LDS I never heard about him in church, but he sounds to have been a faithful LDS leader and priesthood holder until his death. Unfortunately, and probably because of the way that Brigham Young treated Elder Abel, his descendants left the church.

I found this site, which indicates that Elijah was ordained, It also has a couple more interesting facts.

It appears that Mr. Abel was light skinned, because it appears that at some point, there was a question as to his ethnicity.

In 1853, Brigham Young refused to allow Elijah to receive his endowments. Aren’t the endowments part of the priesthood, or priesthood process?

twopekinguys, I appreciate the tone that you bring to this discussion, and please don’t take my corrections as any sort of reproach.

No problem here. It’s all good.

You are correct that JS did ordain Elder Abel. (According to a race, family, and law seminar that I attended a few years ago *, JS also was the first white US citizen known to have attempted to adopt a black child into his family). But I am certain that you are mistaken that BY revoked his priesthood. Not sure where you got that. I can provide you with numerous sources that show the contrary.

What BY did was keep Elder Abel out of sight, by sending him to Canada on mission after mission until Elder Abel took sick and died.*

True, and he refused to let him have his endowments (see above)
Same question applies.
Xmoe;9755584:

I am certain that you are correct that Smith advocated using public money to purchase slaves from their owners. What you may not know is that such advocacy was part of Joseph Smith’s platform as a US presidential candidate, and that he did not say this in capacity as an LDS church leader.

I have never heard what you said about an intent to force the freed slaves to go fight in Texas. I cannot prove it, but I believe you are mistaken. For one thing, how would freed women and children go to fight a war? I had understood that Smith was proposing a return trip to Africa, if the freed slaves wanted it. Smith’s proposal sounded outrageously expensive, but compared to the expenses of the Civil War …

If you have any sources on this matter, I’d appreciate them. Like JS said, it’s easier to leave the LDS church than to leave it alone …

See, here is where we have a problem. An ongoing one at that.

When it’s good news, and no problems, he was speaking as a prophet. When it’s not so good, or there is problems, and questions being asked, then he wasn’t speaking as a prophet.

Keep in mind, that even in Smith’s eyes, slaves were possessions to be bought and sold. Sending women and children would not have been an issue for anyone during that time period. You realize that during the civil war, EVERYONE took a side, and did what they could to further their cause. So, as you can see, the women and children thing really has no bearing.

When I have more time, I will do more research on the whole slaves fighting thing. I believe it was in the history of the church, and the proposal was to have them fight against Mexico. But I’ll have to search.

 

[twopekinguys]

OK, Smith’s presidential bid involved paying slave owners for their slaves. He also advocated sending the freed Slaves to Texas. Which, at the time, Texas was still fighting for their independence from Mexico. This involved the Texas War of Independence, and The Mexican War. It really isn’t hard to draw this conclusion.

I think there is alot of useful information at this site.

I really like the part (near the bottom) where it talked about Smith wanting to be Priest, Prophet, and President, for the whole country.

On a side note, I see you list yourself as ex-mormon, but still Christian. May I ask, What does that mean exactly?

 

[TexanKnight]

OK, Smith’s presidential bid involved paying slave owners for their slaves. He also advocated sending the freed Slaves to Texas. Which, at the time, Texas was still fighting for their independence from Mexico. This involved the Texas War of Independence, and The Mexican War. It really isn’t hard to draw this conclusion.

I think there is alot of useful information at this site.

I really like the part (near the bottom) where it talked about Smith wanting to be Priest, Prophet, and President, for the whole country.

On a side note, I see you list yourself as ex-mormon, but still Christian. May I ask, What does that mean exactly?

Actually, in the Counsel of the Fifty, Smith proclaimed himself to be King of the World

 

[Xmoe]

TwoPekingGuys,

Women in the LDS church as well as men receive their endowments. Women in the LDS church don’t get ordained to the priesthood.

So I’d say no, receiving endowments is not an office in the priesthood.

 

[Xmoe]

“It appears that Mr. Abel was light skinned, because it appears that at some point, there was a question as to his ethnicity.”

Again, i’d direct you to the Wiki site. There’s a photo, and there’s no doubt about his ethnicity, his skin tone notwithstanding.

There’s no avoiding the fact that JS gave the priesthood to blacks, and tried to adopt one, and that BY allowed at least one temple marriage between a black man and a white woman, until an incident at Winter Quarters with an apostate black LDS priesthood holder raised racist feelings that until that point had pretty much been suppressed among the saints. Only at that point do you see BY announcing racist policies and theories. Theories which BTW there was always at least one member of the Quorum of the 12 who resisted making them official doctrines.

 

[Xmoe]

“Which, at the time, Texas was still fighting for their independence from Mexico. This involved the Texas War of Independence, and The Mexican War. It really isn’t hard to draw this conclusion.”

“Sending” them to Texas forcibly, or offering them land in Texas?

Surely you see a distinction.

If they were freed, then you could not force them to go to Texas.

Offering them land as an incentive to help the US with the Mexican war, that’s another matter entirely. And quite possibly thrown in there to get support for the idea of freeing the slaves.

Do you disagree with my analysis that if the country had followed JS’ recommendations re the slaves, that the country and African-Americans particularly would have been better off than what happened with the civil war, etc?

I’m NOT using that as an argument that JS was a true prophet. Just that he isn’t the monstrous con man that some folks would make him out to be.

 

[TexanKnight]

“Which, at the time, Texas was still fighting for their independence from Mexico. This involved the Texas War of Independence, and The Mexican War. It really isn’t hard to draw this conclusion.”

“Sending” them to Texas forcibly, or offering them land in Texas?

Surely you see a distinction.

If they were freed, then you could not force them to go to Texas.

Offering them land as an incentive to help the US with the Mexican war, that’s another matter entirely. And quite possibly thrown in there to get support for the idea of freeing the slaves.

Do you disagree with my analysis that if the country had followed JS’ recommendations re the slaves, that the country and African-Americans particularly would have been better off than what happened with the civil war, etc?

I’m NOT using that as an argument that JS was a true prophet. Just that he isn’t the monstrous con man that some folks would make him out to be.

the Mormons had no authority to offer ANYONE land in Texas.

 

[Xmoe]

"On a side note, I see you list yourself as ex-mormon, but still Christian. May I ask, What does that mean exactly? "

It means that I have left the LDS church but that I still reject the foolish anti-mormon arguments that mormons aren’t Christians.

I also don’t think that JS was a con man. With all respect to the good mormons here, I think that Joseph Smith was a manic-depressive. The diagnosis fits the things he said.

Doesn’t actually mean that God never talked to him … If you believe the bible, then JS certainly would not be the first mentally ill person that God ever talked to. But it makes me hesitant to follow every word of the church founded on JS’ testimony.

But with regard to the issue of Race, and several other issues such as social justice, etc., JS was either inspired of God or very much ahead of his time.

 

[Xmoe]

the Mormons had no authority to offer ANYONE land in Texas.

TexanKnight, your profile states that you’re an attorney. Is that right?

Do you really need someone else to explain why it’s irrelevant whether “the Mormons” had authority over Texas land?

Texas was not a state yet.

Texas was disputed land between the USA, Mexico, and the self-proclaimed Texas entity.

Neither JS nor any other Mormon actually offered the land to anyone.

JS suggested that the USA offer the land to emancipated slaves.

Is that more clear to you?

 

[Agni]

Jane Elizabeth Manning James is arguably the most famous black LDS pioneer. The first part of her story—walking 800 miles with her family to get from Buffalo, New York to Nauvoo, Illinois, their shoes wearing out until “you could see the whole print of our feet in blood on the ground”—is familiar (all quotations from Jane James’s life story are found in Church Archives, Wilford Woodruff Collection). The rest of her story is not so frequently told. The most delicate part involves her relentless petitions to Church leaders for her temple blessings.

 

[Xmoe]

Agni:
Thank you, Agni. Yes, Ms. James was the woman whom JS tried to adopt as a child. Her petitions, which Brigham Young refused, were to allow her to be sealed to JS as his daughter, as JS himself had wanted. JS’ wishes conflicted with the racist policies which BY established after Winter Quarters. Ms. James’ requests were not honored until after her death. But that story is often told among church members – that’s how I learned it. Other than the part about JS being the very first American White man to try to adopt an African-American child. That I learned at a legal conference.

 

[TexanKnight]

"On a side note, I see you list yourself as ex-mormon, but still Christian. May I ask, What does that mean exactly? "

It means that I have left the LDS church but that I still reject the foolish anti-mormon arguments that mormons aren’t Christians.

just because someone does not believe Mormons are Christian does not mean they are anti. They do not believe in the Christ of the Bible. that would mean they are not “Christians”, from whence the term came.

I also don’t think that JS was a con man. With all respect to the good mormons here, I think that Joseph Smith was a manic-depressive. The diagnosis fits the things he said.

He was a treasure seeker. he told people he could find treasure using seer stones. If that does not qualify him as a con man, what does?

Doesn’t actually mean that God never talked to him … If you believe the bible, then JS certainly would not be the first mentally ill person that God ever talked to. But it makes me hesitant to follow every word of the church founded on JS’ testimony.

If God had really talked to him you would not have so many odd and different teachings

But with regard to the issue of Race, and several other issues such as social justice, etc., JS was either inspired of God or very much ahead of his time.

He proclaimed himself the King of the World, he started polygamy after being caught in an affair, etc. etc. I would say he was neither inspired by God or ahead of his time