Priesthood and Race

This is an important event in that a narrowing of the covenant population is being established in scripture for the second time after Cain marked himself and his posterity, cutting them off from the presence of the Lord (the first narrowing was with Seth). That means from this point forward, the terms of the new and everlasting covenant belong not to just any of Seth’s posterity but to that portion that come through Enoch mingled among the rest (which is about to drastically slimmed down through Noah and his sons).

Here we see the new and everlasting covenant renewed upon the head of Noah, making him one of the fathers unto whom the promises were made, which promises his children in the last days would look back to. Again, this promise is made to those fathers who prove worthy and entails a continuing winnowing and narrowing of the covenant blood line through to the last days. This means that in the future there would be at least three distinctions in blood lines to note going forward:

• The bloodline of Shem,
• The bloodline of the gentiles who did not inherit the covenant (through Japheth; see Get. 10:2 – 5), and
• The bloodline of Canaan (meaning, “the children of Cain”).

The first thing to note in this passage is the identification of Ham as “the father of Canaan,” which has been shown refers to those who bear Cain’s mark. Thus this title is not meant to specify Canaan alone as one of the grandsons of Noah, as is sometimes speculated, but to refer to all those who were born of Ham through their Canaanite mother, Egyptus. This interpretation stands even in the light of Joseph Smith’s comments on the subject in November 1841 AD (see below).

The second thing to note is that here Canaan, or the dark-skinned children of Ham, has the curse of Cain renewed upon their heads. This can be surmised by the writings of Abraham that later specify the inability to hold priesthood as being part of the curse applied by Noah, which appears consistent with Enoch’s exclusion of Canaan in his preaching efforts noted above after it was said to Cain that he would be shut out of God’s presence (and by extension any thought of priesthood). This renewal seems symbolically fitting given that Noah had himself just had the covenant blessings of his father, Enoch, renewed upon his head and thence to Shem (see the underlined in the verses above).

Thirdly, some have assumed that the curse to be a servant would imply the necessity of priesthood since those who bear the priesthood are to be servants of all, but this ignores the fact that righteous rulers are to be servants while having the right to rule and reign:

“They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son” (D&C 76:56 – 57).

It is recounted in the Book of Jubilees, a non-Mormon work, how the land of Canaan came to be. Here the word ‘Canaan’ as referencing the actual son of Ham and not just those with the mark of Cain in general. It is also used to reference the land stolen by the descendants of this particular son. What is needful to note in this apocryphal and ancient reference is the fact that Ham and his other sons told the man Canaan that they were all together ‘bound’ by ‘the curse’ given by Noah. This is a stunning and solemn witness to the fact that the term ‘Canaan’ as used in Noah’s curse had reference to the whole of Ham’s marked sons and not just the one named Canaan. 

These verses secondly show that for reason of envying Shem’s covenant land, Canaan, the son of Ham heaps additional curses to his already cursed self and posterity.

In attempting to give his own history and the reason why he was mixed up at all with the heathen Egyptians, Abraham gives the facts in relation an entire religion that believed they had the priesthood but were deceived. The means of this deception Abraham identified clearly as the cursed lineage of the pre flood Canaan, or children of Cain. This is critical information to have in the scriptures because it shows that to Joseph Smith it was revealed that the ancients recognized that there was a pre-flood Canaan, those who were descended from Cain and not preached to by Enoch, and that their distinctive blood was ‘preserved in the land’ despite so many other lineages being cut off by the deluge. 

The whole passage must be taken as a logic argument by Abraham who points out that Pharaoh’s cursed lineage really started with Ham, whose cursed lineage really started with a pre-flood Canaan. This stands as a further witness of the curse applying to all of Ham’s children since Pharaoh would have been the descendant of Ham’s son Mizraim (מִצְרַ֙יְמָה֙ [miṣ·ray·māh, “Egypt”]) and not Ham’s son Canaan.

Abraham’s explanation for the preservation of the pre-flood Canaanite blood through Ham explains why, later in life, he takes such extreme measures to guard his only covenant heir from marrying a local after he settles in the rightful land of Shem that had been stolen by Canaan the son of Ham. He knows that those who would mix their seed with any of the seed of Cain would be cursed from the priesthood, as he had before explained concerning the Egyptians. 

Whether or not Esau could have obtained a covenant with God regarding his posterity, his parents were clearly highly upset by his choice to marry Hittite women as they were a subset of local Canaanites (children of Heth, the son of Canaan, the son of Ham). When Isaac and Rebekah counseled with Jacob about his opportunity to marry, he was given the same caution Abraham had given when a wife for Isaac was being sought out: do not intermarry with Canaan. As a result of not doing so, Isaac said Jacob would receive the ‘blessing of Abraham,’ being worthy to be counted as one of the fathers of the new and everlasting covenant to whose promises latter-day descendants would turn their hearts. 

This comes from the Book of Jasher, a very important apocryphal work, which, like the Book of Jubilees, again bears a synchronous witness to the fact that Canaan denoted the blood of Cain present in all of Ham’s lineage, being that blood of the black skinned people from before the flood.

In this account, Moses is given a black woman to be his bride by a people he had subdued, namely the descendants of Cush, one of Ham’s other sons. But Moses refuses to even entertain the idea of marrying her (‘turned not his heart not his eyes’ to her) citing the strict segregation enumerated by his righteous fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The passage then cites the slavery terms Noah added to Ham and his children. Moses knew that he could marry a gentile and raise up seed that could qualify to rule with priesthood (such as his Midianite stepfather, Jethro, from whom he obtained the Melchizedek Priesthood [see D&C 84:6]), but should he mingle his seed with ‘the children of Ham,’ he knew that his posterity would be unable to rule and reign or inherit the promises of the fathers.

Finally to the new world and to the stick of Joseph the mechanics of the mark of a curse is recorded. What is important to note here is that the Lord specifically says he leverages the darkening of skin as a means of dissolving natural feelings of sexual attraction between populations, echoing the words of Noah that the mark of Canaan was given that they could be “known among all men.”

That God has designed phenotypes, or genetic outward markers, to communicate visually to man who another’s ancestor is reveals the genius of our Creator’s design. Without such distinct markers, the Lord tells Nephi that his people and their religion would be dissolved over time due to the nature of those in a disbelieving bloodline to mishandle sacred things.

This verse establishes a curious doctrine regarding resurrection, which is that a person’s skin color at the time of the resurrection could be darker in proportion to the degree of spiritual filthiness one retains through life. It also establishes that there will come a time when the Lamanites would have their mark removed. That a mark can be removed at all is a scriptural feature that will come up in official capacities in Joseph Smith’s day (see for example the March 1844 AD entry below).

Zechariah here prophesies that in the millennium Canaanites would need to be removed from the Lord’s house, or temple. In Zechariah’s day, Canaanites were not allowed in the temple, so the millennial setting of the prophecy is telling for it means that sometime between Zechariah’s day and the millennial reign of the Lord, Canaanites would be incorrectly allowed into the temple. This mistake would have to be corrected as part of the putting back in order of all things. From a modern Mormon perspective, the requisite conditions for the fulfillment of this verse are plain to see.

It should be noted that Bible translations have gone back and forth with sometimes replacing the words ‘Canaanite’ with “merchant,” citing contextual issues. The Vulgate too takes the fiduciary interpretation, but the Septuagint uses again a decidedly ethnic term: Χαναναῖος Chananaios (“of Canaan”). In terms of textual criticism, the latter is the more original and thus more likely of the two (it tends to be future scribes who make appeasing alterations to how a text reads) but it also accords to other Hebrew codices. The modern desire to translate it as “merchant” always returns to the lack of context: why would Zechariah make this comment in the first place? The problem is, as one researcher exasperatedly remarked, “The likelihood of Canaanites in the Jerusalem temple seems quite remote.”

Seemingly as a second witness of the literalness of the curse of dark skin described almost 500 years earlier by Nephi and Jacob, the Book of Mormon provides another description of the nature of the mark applied to the Lamanites and the attendant risks delineated by God in its application lest any reader be tempted to think that the first language used by Nephi and later Jacob were not solemnly literal. That 500 years of time would not change the understanding of the mark witnesses its plain and easily observed and comprehended outward, physical nature.

Here we see that the mark of the curse is still connected with skin color and that the removal of the curse conforms to a lifting of the mark. This doctrinal concept was already established by the prophet Jacob who said that in the resurrection the mark of a curse could be lifted (or applied) depending on one’s actions in life, but this passage shows that the lifting of the curse could take place in mortality as well, a sign from God that he had removed the effects of the curse from the people involved. 

Applying this same scriptural logic to Canaan, it is plain to conclude that the bearing of the mark of that curse reveals God’s disposition regarding the status of the associated curse. In other words, when a curse is lifted, the mark is removed; when the curse remains, the mark is in place:

“Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil” (Jer. 13:23, CSB).

Jesus’ interactions with Canaan in the scriptures is limited to the above, but its contents powerfully attest to the cohesion of the narrative thus far. The fact that initially Jesus even refuses to give the ‘woman of Canaan’ a reply is telling of his high regard for the mission he had toward Seth’s seed through Israel, the inheritors of the promise he was sent to work out. Yet the Lord is compassionate and does not deny his grace on the basis of lineage. These two factors may have sought resolution in his mind, hence his initial silence. As Ellicot’s commentary on the Bible states:

“The silence is significant, and implies a conflict. It would have been easy to dismiss her with a word. But the tenderness which He felt towards this sufferer, as towards others, forbade that course, and yet the sense of the normal limitation of His work forbade the other. Silence was the natural outcome of the equilibrium of these conflicting motives.”

Here we must depart with the commentary, however, for instead of having the benefit of apocrypha and the inspired translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith, Ellicot goes on to assume Jesus’ focus to Israel was a popularity issue wherein other nations would overwhelm his position and obscure his message to Israel had he started helping just anyone and everyone. This, however, does not explain Jesus’ ready aid given to the Roman centurion who also adjured him (see Matt. 8:5). With the aid of our fuller timeline above, we can go beyond Ellicot’s observation to see that Jesus drew a distinction between the bloodlines of Seth and Cain. 

This point is slightly obscured by Mark’s version of the events wherein he calls her a Greek Syrophoenician instead of a Canaanite, but can be easily explained by the context of the target audiences of Matthew and Mark being different. As one writer noted:

“Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
“Accordingly, with reference to this woman who lived in the sea-coast region in northwestern Palestine, he calls her a ‘Canaanite’ lady. The pagan inhabitants of the land which Israel conquered under Joshua were known as Canaanites, being descended from Canaan, the grandson of Noah (Gen. 9:18). Many of the Canaanites had been pushed northward into Phoenicia when the Hebrews invaded the territory. This dear woman was designated as a Canaanite because her ancestry was of these despised enemies of Israel.
“Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (cf. 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34)” (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, “The Canaanite Woman: A Conflict between Matthew and Mark?”, emphasis added).

To some this does not sound like Christ, turning a deaf ear to a person of a cursed lineage; but most do not know Christ correctly, as Joseph Smith noted:

“I have not the least idea, if Christ should come to the earth and preach such rough things as He preached to the Jews, but that this generation would reject Him for being so rough” (STPJS, 307).

Recognizing the truth of her situation, the woman unhesitatingly agrees to the Lord’s analogy that she, of her lineage, is not entitled to receive his ministrations on the same terms as others, accepting that she is only meant for ‘the crumbs,’ perhaps referencing the preparatory gospel of repentance. Her humility in acquiescing to her lot stirs the compassion of the Savior and is counted to her as an act of faith wherewith her daughter is then healed.

Some have posited that Jesus’ disciple ‘Simon the Canaanite’ was of Canaan by blood, but that Jesus would so quickly establish the distinction between the woman and the house of Seth to whom his covenant work pertained shows clearly that he was of Canaan by geographical association only (an Israelite born in the ‘land of Canaan’).

The time for the fulfilling of the promises made to Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the righteous fathers was declared to finally come in Joseph Smith’s day. The hearts of Seth’s latter-day descendants who had been hid in Christ and prepared to come forth in the last days were to turn back to the promises made to those venerated ancients. And this by the revelation and restoration of their covenant, the new and everlasting covenant.

These promises were made to the ancestors of a bloodline distinct from that of Cain, to whom no promises were made. In the time after Jesus’ death, the priesthood went from the bloodlines of Israel to those of the gentiles—the sons of Japheth—and through the process of the restoration of the Gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith, the priesthood was to go back from the bloodlines of the gentiles to those of Israel. This was in accordance with the promise to Seth that his seed would be among all nations, and thus the priesthood would be among all nations. But to Canaan Seth’s promises did not extend.

This scriptural, plain, and simple doctrine was not at first comprehended by the prophet and his associates, but the Lord promised to deal with them as children in their education. As he mercifully said in 1831:

“Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth” (D&C 50:40).

That ‘knowledge of the truth’ would take many years and many mistakes to solidify.

Beginning right away in church history, but only sporadically so, Canaan was called and ordained to the priesthood. Of course the laying on of hands does not guarantee any type of actual bestowal of authority from heaven (see D&C 121:37), but the saints mercifully did not act in this way, being without a knowledge of the truth, too often. As the lord later declared regarding the calling up of Elders all over the church:

“There has been a day of calling, but the time has come for a day of choosing; and let those be chosen that are worthy. And it shall be manifest unto my servant, by the voice of the Spirit, those that are chosen” (D&C 105:35 – 36).

It was, and is, good and right for repentant Canaan to enter the waters of baptism and live worthy of the Celestial kingdom. And for this, many of Cain’s seed will be blessed who turned aside from their sins. It is the right to rule and reign as gods—priest-kings with priestess-queens—that they cannot qualify for in this life. To borrow the analogy used by Jesus to the woman of Canaan, exaltation is the “children’s bread” that is not for all blood lines to partake of at the table of this probation. Given that few who are called to the priesthood are chosen by God to receive his power, it is notable that the bestowal of priesthood to the chosen bloodlines of Seth will damn far more of them than it will exalt:

“Hearken and hear, O ye my people, saith the Lord and your God, ye whom I delight to bless with the greatest of all blessings, ye that hear me; and ye that hear me not will I curse, that have professed my name, with the heaviest of all cursings” (D&C 41:1).

At this point, 5 years after the first Canaanite man is called to the priesthood, Joseph Smith begins to translate the Book of Abraham and learns of the preservation of the Canaanite line through the destruction of the flood. As early as 1830, when Joseph began the inspired translation of the Bible, the episode with Ham, the father of Canaan, being cursed would have shed some light on this subject. Encountering the verses in Abraham would prove to be a second, clarifying witness to the impact of the events lightly treated in Genesis. More scriptural witnesses were to come.

Some have supposed these rules show that blacks were to have full sacerdotal access to priesthood and its accoutrements in temple worship, but the inclusion of other faiths in having a right to speak or preach there—as was done from time to time—shows that Joseph Smith did not necessarily intend for use of the Kirtland temple to always have something to do with priesthood holders, or even that the definition of “worshiping the LORD” at the temple had to involve holding the priesthood. This accords perfectly with Zechariah’s prophecy that “all nations” would worship at the temple while simultaneously prohibiting ‘the Canaanite’ from polluting it (see the Abt BC 518 entry above).

Although it is often claimed that Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, there is actually no reliable evidence to substantiate this claim according to W. Paul Reeve, author of Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (2015). Elijah Abel himself did not even make that claim though he attempted multiple times in his life to defend his ordination. Elijah Abel was never admitted to the rites of the temple, however, and thus he ought to have passed away under no false assumption about his eternal destiny. Had he been a participant in those ordinances, his fate would be that of those many who will come forth in the resurrection thinking they have a claim where they do not, as Joseph Smith taught:

“Many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy” (Lyman Omer Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints [Logan, Utah: The Utah Journal Co., 1888]).

About a year into translating the account of Abraham on the papyri, Joseph Smith wrote about the topic of slavery using Abraham as the proof positive that the practice was not inherently opposed to by God. Most notably, Joseph declares that not only is slavery of Canaan justified according to the scriptures, he also says that the curse is not yet removed and that it would not be ‘until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come.’ Thinking back to the Book of Mormon doctrine that the lifting of a curse is manifest by the removal of the mark, Joseph’s pronouncement accords itself well with the revealed scriptural history thus far.

Noting that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable church prophesied in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 13:26), their pronouncement can almost always be relied upon as error parading as piety. It is very interesting to note that only a few months after Joseph Smith declared the scriptural certitude of slavery, the pope would come forth to declare the opposite. 

No record of Joseph Ball’s ordination exists, but it is assumed he was called to the priesthood as he served as a missionary with Wilford Woodruff and later William Smith. His lot is the same as the three others noted in this history, namely that he was called to the priesthood but never sent through the ordinances of the House of the Lord.

As with Joseph’s rules for using the Kirtland temple (refer to January 1836 AD entry), reference is again made to temple worship, though this time more clearly limited in scope to prayers (‘orisons’). The fact that Joseph would lump in ‘the degraded Hottentot’ (a reference to black Africans) is very consistent with the idea that worship at the temple was not considered to be limited to performing priesthood ordinances as it is construed today. Future statements by the prophet will show that he very much considered Canaan to be divinely restricted despite the hope that they would repent and come offer prayers at the temple.

The language employed here could be taken to read as though Canaan, the son of Ham, is being referred to; however, it may also read as Canaan, the bloodline of Ham’s sons. It is not uncommon to refer to a race in the singular in such a way as “[Noah] cursed him,” as we see commonly done in the scriptures, for example:

“Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand” (Ezekiel 37:19).

The curse of Noah regarding servitude was clearly still in force according to Joseph Smith as late as 1841.

From this point forward, the saints would become more and more familiar with the content of the Book of Abraham, though it would be another 9 years before a permanent publication of the Pearl of Great Price would make its contents easily accessible, and another 38 years until it became canonized and formally studied by by church membership. Until then, doctrinal points from its contents would need to be disseminated by church leaders familiar with its contents.

Sometime between 1841 and 1842, Joseph Smith obtained a copy of the Book of Jasher (ספר הישר Sefer haYashar), a venerated ancient Hebrew work that was translated into English in 1840. Joseph, having just commenced publication of the Book of Abraham, must have been elated at discovering the parallel witnesses within the Book of Jasher. As the above quote shows, Joseph discovered place name parallels for Abraham’s journey, and a continued reading by him would have shown the parallels between the restrictions on the lineage of Ham in both accounts too.

There are three things to note from this quotation. The first is that Joseph Smith was clearly not a believer in inherent racial superiority, which is coherent with the scriptures, which say:

“[The Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

Joseph did not view people of varying skin shades as anything other than brothers or sisters of varying lineages from Adam, all with the basic endowment of the light of Christ to enable them to progress in their lives as they applied their minds (see John 1:9). Joseph illustrated the point by noting that besides the enslaved and the ‘degraded Hottentots’ on plantations in the South, there were conversely black men of high social standing and accomplishments in Yankee cities. Thus segregation and being cursed as to the priesthood were not tokens of any sort of inferiority in Joseph’s mind, but rather the correct course dictated by deity in view of the spiritual and the eternal progress of man in his various stations.

The second thing to note is that the full context of Joseph’s remarks about people rising up is given in a negative sense, not a positive one. By drawing a parallel to how Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer resentfully tried to ‘rise above’ him when he had raised them ‘to be [his] equal,’ Joseph is insinuating to Orson Hyde that if those who had been enslaved, meaning Canaan, were made free but allowed to freely mingle, the result would be attempts by the emancipated at gaining power over their former masters. As Joseph pointed out, this is what Cowdery and Whitmer tried to gain over Joseph despite his not even oppressing them in the first place. With the benefit of modern retrospection, this viewpoint has proven quite prophetic in American politics.

Lastly, it is not possible to know definitely whether Joseph Smith was able to read through the entirety of the Book of Jasher by this date let alone whether that reading would have influenced his views, but it is evident—no matter how he got there—that within four months of publicly extolling the Book of Jasher, Joseph is on record endorsing its views exactly on intermarriage with Canaan, which is that it should it not occur even on a legal basis.

Kwaku Lewis’ lot too is the same as the three other African Americans noted in this history, namely that he was called to the priesthood but never sent through the ordinances of the House of the Lord. What’s interesting to note at this point is that he, as with all the others excepting Elijah Abel, had a connection in his supposed priesthood career with William Smith, Joseph Smith’s brother.

As a city official, Joseph Smith oversaw the legal implementation of the social rules he had gleaned from the patriarchs as he had seen confirmed in the Book of Jasher. That this segregation would have extended to eternal marriages is presumable but a moot point given the prerequisite that a man be chosen to receive priesthood authority (beyond being called) before being sealed, which choosing Joseph never pronounced upon any men of Canaan either.

Lest there be any ambiguity based on Joseph’s comments above about confining ‘the negro’ racially in line with the scriptural and apocryphal adjurations of Abraham, Moses, etc., and his intention behind fining interracial marriages, the prophet again here declares his segregating intentions with relation to the habitation and affairs of Canaan. Though it is truly prophesied that all nations would come up to the temple to offer prayers, Joseph confirms here is intended conformation to the terms of the curses that marked Cain, Ham, etc.

Most revealing are the words of the Church Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, the brother and chosen successor-Prophet to the church after Joseph Smith ascended to become Priest and King. Only three months before his death, Hyrum pronounces a patriarchal blessing on Joseph Smith’s servant woman, Jane Manning, wherein he follows the precedent of his father before him—the previous Patriarch to the church, Joseph Smith Sr.—when Smith Sr. declared in Elijah Abel’s patriarchal blessing thatm, as a person of African descent, he did not belong to the house of Israel; and so here neither is Jane Manning. 

In a doctrinally cohesive manner, Hyrum declares in the blessing to her that through her faithfulness, the mark of the curse (which he describes as ‘upon your forehead’) may one day be lifted in tandem with the removal of the curse. That he pronounces her as a descendant of ‘Cainaan the Son of Ham’ also fits inasmuch as Canaan was also the name of one of Ham’s sons. 

Of most importance is to note the final term of the blessing given as it mirrors almost exactly the words given to Cain after his sacrifice was rejected:

“If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door” (Moses 5:23).

What other reason could the Patriarch have had in mind than to connect her to that person he believed to be her ultimate ancestor? This Hyrum pronounced under the inspiration of the Almighty who knows the scriptures are true that say the blood of Canaan is the blood of Cain.

One year after the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, William Smith’s lasciviousness is revealed as he had been pronouncing women as his wives during their patriarchal blessings with no prior authorization, a possible result of his connections to John C. Bennett’s spiritual wifery corruption. In connection with William Smith’s excommunication, and also for reasons of sexual impropriety, Joseph T. Ball is also ousted, he being one of the few black men called to the priesthood (it was said that “Elder Ball tries to sleep with [girls and women] when he can.”). Again it is strange to note and perhaps no coincidence that almost all of the black men called to the priesthood were associated historically with William Smith, a historically rebellious character, in some way.

William McCarry bears the ignominious honor of being the last Canaanite to be called to the priesthood before the church adopted a policy across the board of not conferring it on men of black African descent. The trouble with Joseph T. Ball and William Smith were only foretastes to the depths of depravity that were to be introduced by McCarry. The historical record shows that even Brigham Young did not find in McCarry any issue with his ordination and lineage early on, but it is also not known how familiar he was with the briefly published Book of Abraham content at the time. 

What appears consistent is that this viewpoint turns sharply after McCarry’s sins are made bare to Brigham Young and the other apostles. An inspection of Brigham Young’s words about McCarry before this point show no inborn animosity toward blacks as some attempt to pin on Brigham, calling him a racist. He had said in fact:

“[I]ts nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent & regain what we have lost—[W]e have one of the best Elders an African in Lowell—a barber… (Walker Lewis)… [W]e dont care about the color” (Quorum of the Twelve meeting minutes, 26 Mar 1847).

McCarry quickly went on to betray the trust he was given, and began sealing himself to multiple women by way of a sexually obscene ordinance, the details of which were so repugnant to the mind tempered in strict virtue, as with the Twelve Apostles who had been tried and tested before being introduced to plural marriage, that beyond excommunicating him the question of why lasciviousness was being repeatedly perpetrated by Canaan was brought to the forefront. Joseph Smith himself conjectured that Canaan would tend toward debauchery if not strictly segregated, calling them:

“A community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue” (Joseph Smith, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Apr. 1836, 289).

That the quorum as a whole finally and fully grew into the ‘knowledge of the truth’ on the scriptural matter of Canaan is made plain by the fact that it was not Brigham Young, as some have assumed, who first made public remarks directing the saints to the curse continued through Ham; it was Parley P. Pratt, the Archer of Paradise. And his arrow hit the mark, for from this point forward no man of black African descent would be called to the priesthood. Elijah Abel, perhaps because of his previous faithfulness and sacrifices, was allowed to continue as a claimant of the priesthood, but neither he nor any other man of Canaan was given another crust of Gospel bread (meaning the temple ordinances) when the crumbs were finally recognized as their lot and inheritance. Joseph and Hyrum had seen the implementation of marital segregation according to the scriptures and new that a power beyond man’s would be needed to remove the curse and its mark upon Canaan, and now their successors in the Quorum of the Twelve had taken the final step to ensure that, according to the Lord’s decree, there would be “no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”