NOM

Paul Reeve wrote:Thank you for all of your comments and feedback. Sorry for my slow response. I echo what Ardis has said above. I do want to make sure that I address one issue raised in a couple of the comments: that is how Able was racially understood in the 19th century. Sometimes I see people dismissing him as a black priesthood holder with the suggestion that no one knew or understood him to be black. There is considerable evidence otherwise. I invite readers here to look at his biography posted at CenturyofBlackMormons which addresses this issue with evidence.

Here is the relevant paragraph from that bio: “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 completion 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.”

Paul Reeve wrote:I need to make a point of clarification. I did not personally find this new document. The Joseph Smith Papers team recently—and with no fanfare—updated the bio of Elijah Able at the Joseph Smith papers site. The update included these new words: “Ordained an elder by Ambrose Palmer, 25 Jan. 1836.” Intrigued, I looked at the footnote which contained a link to a digital scan of the new document. There it was, publicly available for the world to see. The JSP team sometimes does this from what I can gather—make electronic updates to their sources and say nothing about them, even when they are a big deal, like this new source seems to be. The footnote that the JSP team created reads “Joseph F. Smith, Notes on Elijah Able, undated [likely ca. 1879], CHL.” I learned that the Joseph Smith Papers team verified it was Joseph F. Smith’s handwriting and had concluded that it likely originated in 1879, as seems obvious when one is aware of the records of the Taylor investigation that year into Able’s priesthood. I also noticed that the LDS Church History Department had updated its bio of Able on its Saints history topics site. I followed their lead and updated the bio of Able at Century of Black Mormons. Ardis then agreed to host a blog post about the new document here at Keepapitchinin. I do not deserve credit for finding it. The Joseph Smith Papers and Church History Department really are doing what they can to make sources available, sometimes surprisingly so, such as when something like this shows up unannounced.

Ardis E. Parshall wrote: Gary, it’s been long enough now that I hope I won’t ruffle too many CHL feathers by stating this publicly: I was working short-term on a project at CHL when the first Gospel Topics essays were posted. I knew they were going live about two hours before they did so, and asked if I could post a short announcement here on Keepa. You would have thought I’d proposed throwing a kegger in the temple: No way, no how, never, on pain of who knows what, could I say anything publicly about those essays. They were certain the essays would “fly under the radar” (the exact term they used), and I could not, repeat not, say anything.

It was 20 minutes after the first essays went live when I saw the first discussion on Facebook.

As I document in Religion of a Different Color we can see Joseph F. Smith’s memory change over time:

In 1879 he defended Able’s priesthood as valid.
In 1895 he reminded LDS leaders that Able was ordained to the priesthood “at Kirtland under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
In 1904 he called Able’s ordination a mistake that “was never corrected.”
In 1908, he claimed that Able’s priesthood “ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet [Joseph Smith] himself.”

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:26 am My last comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek. I thought about the issue more. At first, I was going to say that it is ridiculous to think the essays could be posted under the radar. But in a way, the church has been able to. Most members know that the essays exist. The only people that I have talked to who have read them are people who are mostly out. The typical active member hasn't looked at them.

I think this puts those going through faith transitions in a bad spot. We have questions. We read the essays for faithful answers, but then we can't really talk with anyone about our questions because no one around us is aware of the issues.

moksha wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:39 pm

As I document in Religion of a Different Color we can see Joseph F. Smith’s memory change over time:

In 1879 he defended Able’s priesthood as valid.
In 1895 he reminded LDS leaders that Able was ordained to the priesthood “at Kirtland under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
In 1904 he called Able’s ordination a mistake that “was never corrected.”
In 1908, he claimed that Able’s priesthood “ordination was declared null and void by the Prophet [Joseph Smith] himself.”

Wonder what caused this shift to Joseph F. Smith's hard-heartedness and compelled him to lie? Wonder if it was the gradual corrupting influence of power?

ChrisClarke, the historical documents do not offer evidence of intent. Just matter of fact statements which are data points for change over time. For those scholars who do memory studies the four data points I shared are what they might expect.

I develop the context for the change over time in more depth in Religion of a Different Color. Between his 1895 statement and his 1908 statement think about these events: The Supreme Court has declared separate but equal the law of the land in 1896. States move toward “one drop” laws in order to determine a person’s legal racial status. In 1904 JFS testifies in the Reed Smoot hearings in the Senate. Some of the political cartoons published in the wake of his testimony suggest that Mormons continue to facilitate race mixing and thereby darken the white race, making it unfit for democracy. In 1908 Jane Manning James dies and JFS speaks at her funeral.

The two black agitators, James and Able, are now dead. JFS can start to shape a white future for the church and erase from collective memory the black LDS pioneers who complicate the new story. That same year he and the Liahona announce a new mission policy, NOT to actively seek black converts. If black people apply for baptism, that is fine, but missionaries should no longer actively seek them out. I see it as a part of Mormonism’s passage to whiteness.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:02 am I would have loved seeing a kegger in the temple.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:38 am

The two black agitators, James and Able, are now dead. JFS can start to shape a white future for the church and erase from collective memory the black LDS pioneers who complicate the new story. That same year he and the Liahona announce a new mission policy, NOT to actively seek black converts. If black people apply for baptism, that is fine, but missionaries should no longer actively seek them out. I see it as a part of Mormonism’s passage to whiteness.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:39 am Does it not seem self-evident the church is using a type of cunning deception with how they lay the trail for "plausible deniability"? They put the essays out, and when people have questions about things, the church then comes along and says: "Oh, we've already answered that....see?...we haven't held anything back..."

A very disingenuous pathway.