On Elijah Able - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Goatnapper'96 · 06-12-2008, 05:53 PM

I must say that IMO Waters' and Darron Smith's argument appears to be more supportable by historical fact.

Brother Millet responded to my questions concerning his reference of Joseph Smith restricting Elijah Able's priesthood with the following response:

There is precious little information or few if any sources on this
topic. I gave as my opinion, and that is all it is, that the Priesthood ban
dates to the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of Abraham, chapter 1, which
refers to a curse upon Cain, Ham, and his descendants, including Pharaoh. We
have no documents specifically linking the policy to Joseph Smith, but then
we have none linking it to Brigham Young, either. The restriction was
certainly broadened and enforced by Pres. Brigham Young and maintained until
June of 1978. I am not enough of a historian to know whether or to what
extent Joseph Smith or Brigham Young restricted Elijah Abel's use of the
Priesthood (he had been ordained a Seventy). The leaders of the Church today
have been silent as to what if any connection the Abraham 1 episode might
have to subsequent restrictions of black members of the Church. Further, in
spite of a mass of doctrinal folklore that surrounds the "Why" of the
Priesthood ban, we simply do not know the answer.
Sorry I cannot offer more insight.

RLM

Rest assured progressives, there appears to be no evidence supporting that Brother Joseph initiated any restriction of Elijah Able.

Boobs are in!

Indy Coug · 06-12-2008, 05:56 PM

That was from today? You're better than Waters then. He just pisses and moans. You act.

Well done.

Tex · 06-12-2008, 05:59 PM

Interesting. I wonder what he was referring to when he said "somewhere in the late 1830s, he begins a policy of restriction concerning the priesthood" and "in fact individuals who had held the priesthood, like an Elijah Abel, was now restricted as to the use of that priesthood."

I'm disappointed he didn't substantiate that a little better, but thanks for emailing him Goat. As Indy says, it's more than a scholar like Waters would do.

Jeff Lebowski · 06-12-2008, 07:26 PM

So Millet admits he was blowing smoke and that he has no secret evidence to the contrary, and Indy and Tex respond with a jab at Mike? Now that's chutzpah, folks.

Millet is blowing more smoke about the BY link, BTW.

Sleeping in EQ · 06-12-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So Millet admits he was blowing smoke and that he has no secret evidence to the contrary, and Indy and Tex respond with a jab at Mike? Now that's chutzpah, folks.

Millet is blowing more smoke about the BY link, BTW.

Indeed. Brigham Young lays it out in the infamous 1852 speech.

Indy Coug · 06-12-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So Millet admits he was blowing smoke and that he has no secret evidence to the contrary, and Indy and Tex respond with a jab at Mike? Now that's chutzpah, folks.

Millet is blowing more smoke about the BY link, BTW.

Listen Tweedle Dee, I didn't side with Millet. All I wanted to know is if he had some information that others weren't aware of. Mike flew off the handle without bothering to ask. Goatnapper did.

Therefore, the kudos rightfully go to Goatnapper who actually did something constructive rather than protray himself as a sham of a moral crusader.

Jeff Lebowski · 06-12-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Therefore, the kudos rightfully go to Goatnapper who actually did something constructive rather than protray himself as a sham of a moral crusader.

Sham? If Millet was wrong all along, then Mike is vindicated.

Indy Coug · 06-12-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Sham? If Millet was wrong all along, then Mike is vindicated.

You're deliberately missing the point. If Mike had gone to the trouble of doing what Goatnapper did and then proceeded to fly off the handle, this whole thing would have been avoided.

Jeff Lebowski · 06-12-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You're deliberately missing the point. If Mike had gone to the trouble of doing what Goatnapper did and then proceeded to fly off the handle, this whole thing would have been avoided.

Mike and I (and others) both said that Millet was clearly FOS on the issue. You refused to take our word (no surprise there). GN simply confirmed what we were saying all along.

Yes, kudos to Goat.

Indy Coug · 06-12-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Mike and I (and others) both said that Millet was clearly FOS on the issue. You refused to take our word (no surprise there). GN simply confirmed what we were saying all along.

Yes, kudos to Goat.

Why should I blindly take your word? Do you think you know and have read everything that Millet knows and has read? What if he had something new to offer? Was there any harm in asking? Was there any harm in waiting to weigh in on the subject until after Millet responded?

Is intellectual curiosity only a good thing until you've made up your mind, after which trying to find out more is a bad thing?

Don't try and paint me as saying that Mike was wrong on this subject. The only thing I said he was wrong about was not asking Millet to find out what, if anything, he based his comments on.

Holy shit, that was an unreasonable position I took.

06-12-2008, 05:53 PM	#1
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	On Elijah Able I must say that IMO Waters' and Darron Smith's argument appears to be more supportable by historical fact. Brother Millet responded to my questions concerning his reference of Joseph Smith restricting Elijah Able's priesthood with the following response: There is precious little information or few if any sources on this topic. I gave as my opinion, and that is all it is, that the Priesthood ban dates to the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of Abraham, chapter 1, which refers to a curse upon Cain, Ham, and his descendants, including Pharaoh. We have no documents specifically linking the policy to Joseph Smith, but then we have none linking it to Brigham Young, either. The restriction was certainly broadened and enforced by Pres. Brigham Young and maintained until June of 1978. I am not enough of a historian to know whether or to what extent Joseph Smith or Brigham Young restricted Elijah Abel's use of the Priesthood (he had been ordained a Seventy). The leaders of the Church today have been silent as to what if any connection the Abraham 1 episode might have to subsequent restrictions of black members of the Church. Further, in spite of a mass of doctrinal folklore that surrounds the "Why" of the Priesthood ban, we simply do not know the answer. Sorry I cannot offer more insight. RLM Rest assured progressives, there appears to be no evidence supporting that Brother Joseph initiated any restriction of Elijah Able. Boobs are in! __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

06-12-2008, 07:26 PM	#4
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	So Millet admits he was blowing smoke and that he has no secret evidence to the contrary, and Indy and Tex respond with a jab at Mike? Now that's chutzpah, folks. Millet is blowing more smoke about the BY link, BTW. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

06-12-2008, 05:56 PM	#2
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	That was from today? You're better than Waters then. He just pisses and moans. You act. Well done.

06-12-2008, 05:59 PM	#3
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Interesting. I wonder what he was referring to when he said "somewhere in the late 1830s, he begins a policy of restriction concerning the priesthood" and "in fact individuals who had held the priesthood, like an Elijah Abel, was now restricted as to the use of that priesthood." I'm disappointed he didn't substantiate that a little better, but thanks for emailing him Goat. As Indy says, it's more than a scholar like Waters would do.