On Elijah Able

[Goatnapper'96]

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]

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

Well done.

[Tex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Goatnapper'96]

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.

The reality is that Mike's righteous indignation about this guy making the claim he did, in light of the reality that most borderlander/progressive's argue that the genesis of the ban came under BY's leadership, is pretty justified. Millet knows what the borderlander/progressive argument is and he sought to win over the hearts and minds of the faithfull by linking the ban to Joseph Smith. As Mike's irate actions indicate linking it to the prophet puts a big dent in their argument. Personally, I don't care. Either it was of God or it wasn't and whether its genesis is with Joseph as the President or Brigham Young makes me no nevermind. For the borderlanders it is a big deal as a big part of the support for the claim that it was never revelatory lies in Joseph Smith having no role in initiating the ban.

Either way I think for someone who seeks to be a legitimate academic I found Millet's response to be rather incriminating. Millet should be familiar enough with the alternate theory to know such a claim that Joseph Smith restricted Elijah Able's rights to utilize the Priesthood conferred upon him should be supportable or not made.

I don't know as to what Millet's motivation is for the promulgation of unsupportable assertions/falsehoods so as to whether or not it is priestcraft, I cannot judge.

[Indy Coug]

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]

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.