How the LDS Church Fooled the World on the Origins of

its Racial Policies

Posted on 12/8/2014 by TruthIsReason
Originally posted on 12/30/2013 as Brigham Young Did NOT Announce a Priesthood Ban
in 1852. This article is a revision of the original.
Summary: A year ago to the day, the LDS Church released an essay claiming that in 1852,
church president Brigham Young instituted its infamous policy that black members could
not receive the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances. Members, nonmembers,
and prominent media outlets the world over have accepted and even praised the claim,
assuming it to be a humble concession and therefore seeing no reason to question it. The
historical record (including the sources cited in the essay itself), however, boldly refutes
the claim and shows it to be a clever attempt to rewrite history in a way that shields the
churchs founder who is arguably more likely to be the policys true originator from
suspicion. Its time to set the record straight.
Challenge: Find a single scholar of Mormon history who is willing to publicly and explicitly
endorse the claim that Brigham Young instituted a policy of barring black members from
the priesthood in 1852.
On December 8, 2013, the Mormon Church released an essay on its website called Race
and the Priesthood that discusses the policy the church had from the mid-1800s to 1978 of
not allowing its black members to receive the priesthood or enter its temples. The essay
covers numerous aspects of the history of this priesthood ban (as it has come to be
known) as well as the church doctrines it relates to. It has been confirmed by multiple
faithful sources, including Deseret News, to have been approved by the churchs highest
leadership the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. According to
reports received by MormonThink.com from church insiders in early June of last year, this
essay is the third in a series of at least 13 essays addressing controversial historical
Church topics (the others that have been released thus far can be read here). These essays
were also foreshadowed nearly three years ago in a discussion that then-Church
Historian/General Authority Marlin K. Jensen had with a religious studies class at Utah
State University.
This particular essay has been the topic of much controversy among believing members
and critics alike due to the boldness and unprecedented nature of many of its concessions
and also due to the fact that many of its claims are easily shown to be inaccurate or
otherwise problematic when the entirety of the Mormon scriptures and the historical
record are considered. For example, this paper identifies and thoroughly refutes 10 of
these claims (and others are refuted in the articles linked in the Additional Reading
section at the end), but there is at least one more that needs to be addressed and its a big
one probably the biggest one the claim that Brigham Young is responsible for the
priesthood ban.
1

Not only does the essay point to Brigham as the bans originator, it points to a particular
point in time at which he originated it:
In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black
African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood.
Two paragraphs later, it reiterates and elaborates on this position and the reasoning
behind it:
In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January
and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of
black African descent from priesthood ordination
The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about
racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black
servitude in the Territory of Utah.
More than once, it also makes points like the following in order to imply that the churchs
racist doctrines and policies like the priesthood ban should be blamed on the fact that the
church was surrounded by racism:
The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in
the United States [Racism] influenced all aspects of peoples lives, including
their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were
segregated along racial lines.
Strangely, these statements appear to contradict the scriptural Official Declaration 2
contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, which declares that
Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.
Another official statement that the church put out less than three years ago is even more
explicit:
For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male
members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when
this restriction began in the Church...
So it had been 34 years since the restriction was lifted and the church was still in the dark
on why, how, and when it began. Then, in the following year, it suddenly knew precisely
why, how, and when it began it began when Brigham Young announced it on two
particular days of 1852 as a result of his being a product of his time and culture who was
heavily influenced by pro-slavery arguments. This abrupt acquisition of crucial historical
knowledge is quite impressive perhaps a little too impressive.
After all that time, how did the church finally discover the answers to these highly
important questions? Did its historians stumble across new sermons, journal entries, or
meeting minutes that hadnt seen the light of day since the 19th century? Had it mistakenly
2

overlooked information that was readily available but little-known? Did it simply fail to put
the pieces together that had long been under its nose? As it turns out, we dont have to look
far to realize that the answer is none of the above.
At the end of the paragraph that mentions Brighams speeches from early 1852, we are
directed to footnote #8, which points us to three sources the two speeches in question as
well as a Deseret News article printed a couple months later:
Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and
Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City,
transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; To the
Saints, Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.
While this intimidating citation makes it sound like youd have to make a trek to Salt Lake
City to dig up these sources, theyre actually much easier to come by since both speeches
were published in Volume 3 of The Teachings of President Brigham Young in 1987, which
can be read online, and since the news article is on the website of BYUs library:

The January 23 speech can be read here.

The February 5 speech can be read here and here (make sure youre sitting when
you read this one; its a doozy).
Both speeches can be read here.
The April 3 news article can be read here and here (if you use the first link, click
Page 2 to the right of the image to pull up the article).

After carefully reading these sources, I can confidently say that there is nothing in them
that supports the claim being made about them that they contain an announcement of a
new policy wherein black men could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. Read them
for yourself and see if you can find any hint of such a revelation. In them, Brigham
mentioned the policy, justified it, and explained that God himself instituted it when Cain
killed Abel and told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his
seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the
redemption of the earth, but at no point did he say or imply that he was revealing anything
new or instituting a new policy. On the contrary, every indication is that the policy, along
with the underlying doctrine, had already been in place. If such an important policy were
being announced for the first time, we would expect this to be clear in the speeches and for
at least a portion of the speech to be focused on it. Instead, what we see are brief mentions
of the policy and related doctrines scattered throughout the speeches, which clearly had a
different focus.
Brighams stated purpose in addressing the legislature was to voice his views on a bill it
was considering An Act in Relation to African Slavery which aimed to define the legal
status of black slaves in Utah. His views were 1) that blacks had been divinely consigned to
slavery and 2) that they should be disallowed from holding office in government, and his
speeches were designed to persuade the legislative body of these positions. When he
brought up the topic of the priesthood ban, he was using it only to support his arguments.
His reasoning was that since God had deemed blacks unworthy to rule in His own kingdom
3

(and since He intended for them to be slaves), he would surely also deem them unfit to rule
in the kingdoms of men. The following excerpts should make this abundantly clear.
Jan 23:
Inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the
ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must
believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses,
which they have in their families and their classes and in their various
capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him
who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am
not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery
The Black African cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule;
they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them;
they are a "servant of servants".
Feb 5:
Again to the subject before us, as to the men bearing rule--not one of the
children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in
government affairs from first to last; they have no business there
I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate me or any
brethren with regard to church or state government If the Africans
cannot bear rule in the church of God, what business have they to bear
rule in the state and government affairs of this territory or any others?...
In the government affairs of states and territories and kingdoms, by right God
should govern Consequently, I will not consent for a moment to have the
children of Cain rule me nor my brethren. No, it is not right
They shall have the right of citizenship, but shall not have the right to
dictate in church and state matters
What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our
privilege. My voice shall be against [it] all the day long. I shall not consent for
one moment. I will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one
moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. It shall
not be while I am here.
It should now be readily apparent that Brigham Youngs reason for mentioning the
priesthood ban in these addresses was not to unveil it as a new policy but rather to use an
existing policy to support his arguments against allowing blacks to hold government office.
These arguments would have been baffling and entirely unconvincing to anyone listening if
they were based on a policy that had yet to exist. They would only make sense if the policy
had already been in force and was widely known. Furthermore, why would the churchs
president announce such an important change in church practices when speaking to a
4

legislative body as a statesman rather than when speaking to the church as a prophet? He
wouldnt and he didnt.
Numerous statements from Young himself and other early church leaders make it clear that
the racist policy and underlying doctrines were established well before 1852 came around.
Ill give a few of them here but for the sake of brevity, I wont elaborate on the
circumstances that prompted them. If youd like to read up on the contexts in which they
were each made, you can go to the links I provide for each (which are all scholarly and proMormon):
In 1849, Brigham Young told the Apostle Lorenzo Snow that
[T]he Lord cursed Cains seed with blackness and prohibited them the
priesthood
In 1847, the Apostle Parley P. Pratt mocked some church members for following a
black/Native American self-proclaimed prophet named William McCary, who was expelled
from the church but brought some followers with him. He referred to him as a
Black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as
regards the Priesthood
In 1847, William Appleby wrote the following in his journal:
In this Branch there is a coloured Brother, An Elder ordained by Elder Wm.
Smith while he was a member of the Church, contrary, though[,] to the order
of the Church on the Law of the Priesthood, as Descendants of Ham are not
entitled to that privilege
For any who dont have the time to look into these quotes but suspect that Im taking them
out of context, note that The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, as visible on BYUs website,
notes in its entry on Blacks that
Although several blacks were ordained to the priesthood in the 1830s, there
is no evidence that Joseph Smith authorized new ordinations in the 1840s,
and between 1847 and 1852 Church leaders maintained that blacks should
be denied the priesthood because of their lineage.
The glaring question now is Why? Why would the church resort to deceptive methods in
order to advance a false claim about its history that appears on the surface to be of little
consequence? Perhaps its because, in actuality, its not of little consequence. You see, there
is only one way to shield the churchs founder from suspicion of having originated this
embarrassing policy himself and that is by finding a scapegoat in other words, by
pretending to know that someone else was the originator. Then, to make the claim credible
to make it sound like a closed case that no one needs to investigate precise details
regarding when, where, and why this feigned culprit instituted the policy are given. Then,
to prevent 99% of people from scrutinizing these details, obscure references to sources are
given that could only be checked after travelling to the Church History Library in Salt Lake
5

City and rummaging through old papers, and no hint is given that the sources are freely
accessible online.
This ruse has clearly worked as designed since the web is chock full of widely circulated
articles, including some from normally-credible outlets, that report on the churchs essay
and echo that Brigham Young was the man behind the priesthood ban. Some even
incorporated the claim into their headlines. For example, the Salt Lake Tribune printed an
article titled Mormon church traces black priesthood ban to Brigham Young a week after
the essays release that reports:
[T]he record clearly shows that, in 1852, Young Smith's immediate
successor "publicly announced that men of black African descent could no
longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to
join the church."
How could a journalist have been led to believe that the record [is] clear that Brigham
Young implemented the priesthood ban in 1852 when it clearly isnt? Because the essay
claims it with such confidence using scholarly language and references and gives the
appearance of supporting the claim with explanatory details. She probably didnt think
anyone would have the audacity to wear such an exuberant faade of transparency and
scholarly caution while actually dispensing blatant propaganda and thus didnt see any
need for critical in-depth fact-checking. In other words, she was duped like everyone else.
Another question some will ask is Why Brigham Young? Brigham Young is the only logical
choice for a scapegoat since, as far as we currently know, he did make the first
documented, surviving statements that unequivocally articulated both the doctrines and
policies of the church regarding blacks and the priesthood. The problem is that this does
not implicate him as the creator of the doctrines and policies (and it certainly doesnt mean
that he first announced them while making these statements in early 1852). To see why,
note the following excerpts from a paper written by Ronald K. Esplin, the managing editor
for The Joseph Smith Papers and former managing director of the Joseph Fielding Smith
Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University, while he was a PhD
candidate in history at BYU and a research historian in the Historical Department of the
church in 1979:
Brigham Young was first a great disciple and student of Joseph Smith and
only secondly a great leader in his own right. He saw himself as the masterbuilder not the architect of the Kingdom and of Zion. And while he taught
the necessity of revelation to carry out the program, and claimed revelation
himself, he felt it was Joseph Smiths special calling to have given the patterns
and to have taught all the necessary principles of priesthood and
government
[O]nly a small portion of [Josephs] public teachings and very little of his
extensive private teachings were recorded. Dean Jessee research historian
with the LDS Historical Department, has shown that of approximately 250
public sermons mentioned in diaries and minutes (and surely joseph gave
others), we have a fairly adequate account (notes, not verbatim reports) of
6

only 54 of them, not to mention the numerous private sessions held with the
Twelve and others, especially during 1843 1844. The latter were not
recorded nor meant to be recorded. Rather, they were the proper forum for
the teaching of the mysteries of the kingdom
Brigham Young and the Twelve, then, had access to a much larger corpus of
Joseph Smiths teachings than we presently enjoy in written form.
The next questions that one might ask are Why does the church feel a need to shield
Joseph Smith from suspicion? Why would anyone think that he instituted the ban? Wasnt
he a racially progressive abolitionist? In reality, Joseph very well may have instituted the
ban and we can say this for a number of reasons.
First, we know that he laid the doctrinal foundation for the policy. According to the
scriptures he dictated and published, the curse on the posterity of Canaan (who was Hams
son and Noahs grandson) had three parts:
1. They were to be black (Moses 7:8, JST Genesis 9:29-30).
2. They were to be slaves (JST Genesis 9:29-30).
3. They were to be denied the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-27).
For your convenience, here are the verses referenced:
For behold, the Lord shall curse the land and there was a blackness
came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all
people. (Moses 7:8)
And Noah said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be
unto his brethren and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall
be known among all men. (JST Genesis 9:29-30)
[The pharaoh] of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a
partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all
the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the
land from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the
land Noah, his father cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now,
Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of
Priesthood (Abraham 1:21-27)
Second, as the essay points out, Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith
openly opposed slavery. That qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important and it
raises the question of what Joseph taught earlier in his life. As it turns out, only a few years
earlier, his views on slavery lined up quite well with Brighams (and may have been the
source of Brighams). In 1836, he wrote a three-page letter to Oliver Cowdery (which was
published in the church newspaper) in which he adamantly supported slavery and even
declared that those who opposed it would be condemned by God. He also said within it that
the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by
as great a power as caused it to come. Five years later, he similarly stated that the curse
7

remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day. (History of the Church 4:445)
When taken in conjunction with the verses above, these statements from Joseph imply that
he believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood. Note that he wrote this letter to
Cowdery in April 1836 only 5 months after finishing the translation of the Book of
Abraham. You can see a photocopy of an original printing of the letter in the church
newspaper here (click "Vol. 2 No. 7, 1836" to the right of the image and then click
"Communication from J. Smith Jr. on Abolition"). You can read a text version on a BYU
website here. You can read highlights from it with commentary here.
Third, several church presidents have taught in no uncertain terms that Joseph Smith was
the man behind the ban and that he taught the doctrines underlying it. Here are some
examples, the first two of which are official First Presidency statements:
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding
presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes... were not yet to receive
the priesthood. (First Presidency Statement, December 15, 1969)
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has
always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct
commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church
from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes are not
entitled to the priesthood at the present time. (First Presidency Statement,
August 17, 1949)
From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the
doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that
the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. (The First
Presidency to Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947)
It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this
has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this
doctrine, and it was made known to him (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement
Era 27:565, April 1924)
There are also numerous statements from early apostles and other general authorities that
attest to Joseph having taught this doctrine (which was clearly a doctrine rather than a
theory as the essay claims), several of which can be read in this article. On the other hand,
to the best of my knowledge, no church president has ever said on the record that Brigham
Young originated the doctrine or implemented the ban, and I have not been able to find any
official church publication that has made such a claim prior to this new essay "Race and the
Priesthood".
In addition to the claim that Joseph was a staunch abolitionist, the other argument
commonly used to distance him from the priesthood ban invokes his ordination of a black
man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood, but there are a number of nuances that poke holes in
this argument as well. For starters, if Joseph was opposed to granting the priesthood to
blacks, Abel could have easily been an exception to the rule since Joseph was not afraid to
make exceptions to the counsels and policies he revealed. For example, we know that even
8

after recording the Word of Wisdom in 1833, he liked his tea strong, occasionally drank
wine, gave some of the brethren money with instructions to replenish their whiskey
supply, and, on one occasion, even rode through the streets of Nauvoo while smoking a
cigar right after preaching a sermon on the Word of Wisdom. Thus it cannot be said that his
ordination of one black man proves that he had no policy against ordaining black men
generally.
Moreover, it was alleged in a meeting of the brethren that Abel had been taught that he
would be the welding link between the black and white races, and that he should hold the
initiative authority by which his race should be redeemed. This statement suggests that
Abel was thought to have a unique, important role among blacks, thus supporting this
notion that he was intended to be an exception to the rule.
Finally, there is some reason to believe that Joseph Smith did not initially realize that Abel
was black and that his views with regards to Abels worthiness to hold the priesthood
changed upon discovering his ethnicity. During the early years of Abels church
membership, there was some dispute over his ethnicity and some even described him as
white. In a meeting between John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and others in 1879, it was noted
in the minutes that Brother Abel is understood to be an octeroon [octoroon], which was a
term for a person who was one-eighth black. Five days before this meeting, Zebedee
Coltrin, a patriarch who had personally ordained Abel to the Seventy while serving as a
president of the Seventy in 1836, said that when Joseph Smith learned of Abels African
lineage he was dropped from the quorum and another was put in his place. In 1908,
Joseph F. Smith, as president of the church, echoed this view by affirming that while Abel
had been ordained a seventy in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith this ordination
was declared null and void by the Prophet himself when he became aware of this lineage.
More recently, in 1970, the son of a patriarch, Thomas A. Shreeve, who baptized Abels
grandchildren, reported in the Salt Lake Tribune that Abel had told his father that
The Prophet Joseph came to him with tears in his eyes one day and told him
[Able] [sic] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy
priesthood from him.
Patriarch Shreeve testified many times before his death in 1931 of the facts
in the case and of his close relationship with Brother Able. As of this date,
there are still living three members of the Shreeve family who know of the
facts to which their father testified Elijah Able told him.
As we have seen here, the question of who instituted the infamous Mormon priesthood ban
is complex and difficult to answer with certainty. I do not claim to have presented all
information relevant to the case, but I believe I have presented more than enough to show
what I set out to show that Joseph Smith may well be the culprit. It is my belief that he
probably is. From what I can tell, thats where the bulk of the best evidence points. My
position can be summarized by the following excerpt from Esplins paper (referenced
earlier):
[B]oth the substance and style of Brigham Youngs leadership and the
demands of the arduous Iowa trek of 1846 argue against his having
9

formulated fundamental policy about temple or priesthood during that

period. Nor is there any evidence that he did
It is clearly too early to conclude that Joseph Smith did not teach of
priesthood denial to the Blacks. In fact, in this case the circumstantial
evidence increases rather than narrows the probability that he did
[I]t seems far more compelling to accept that possibility, one in harmony
with what we know of Brigham Young and of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, than to
continue to believe in the absence of documentation that Brigham Young
made a fundamental innovation of his own during those tumultuous years
It is my feeling that the doctrine was introduced in Nauvoo and consistently
applied in practice at least by 1843, although it would require additional
documentation to raise the possibility from the realm of the probable to the
certain.
My objective in this paper is not to prove conclusively that Joseph started the ban; its to
show that this case is far from closed. Its to show that anyone who confidently asserts that
Brigham started it, especially without acknowledging the contrary evidence, is either
ignorant of the facts or is not being honest. In the case of Race and the Priesthood, the
churchs assertions are especially egregious because not only do they fail to acknowledge
any contrary evidence, they embolden the claim by putting a date on Brighams supposed
announcement of the ban and attempt to conjure supporting evidence for it out of thin air
by referring to speeches that do not actually support the notion in any way. This is
historical revisionism and, in my opinion, its unbecoming of an organization that purports
to be directly led by a perfectly truthful Being. And dont forget that this is only one of the
essays many inaccuracies. Its no wonder that no one is willing to explicitly sign their name
to the piece, and this is why Ive issued the challenge found at the beginning of this paper
to see if we can find a single scholar willing to endorse what I see as the essays central
claim. If none are willing to do so (and even if one or two somehow are), the piece should
be rewritten and rereleased, accompanied with a public recantation of its deceptive claims.
The lengths to which this essay goes to protect Joseph Smith from any and all suspicion and
criticism has been matched in each of the other essays that the church has released on
problematic areas of its history. This approach is in line with the following statement that
Elder Dallin H. Oaks made to the authors of the award-winning book Mormon Enigma:
My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most
unique about the LDS Church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony
regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the
Saviour. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of
those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is
detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to
limit its influence and that of its authors.
Indeed, the church has shown that it is willing to sacrifice at least in part the reputation
of every prophet from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball and throw them under the
bus in order to protect the testimonies of its members regarding the Restoration and
10

Joseph Smith. But are church leaders like Elder Oaks really willing to sacrifice everything
to protect them? If so, does that include truth and their own integrity and credibility?
Should it include them? Is belief really more important than truth?
In my view, history belongs to all of us and no one should be able to distort it without being
corrected. Thousands of Latter-day Saints over the last 150+ years have been made to toil
in confusion and injustice over their churchs racist policies and the truth behind these
policies demands to be told. If you feel as I do and think that truth should be valued over
belief, please help me correct the misunderstanding that has been widely promulgated by a
carefully crafted propaganda piece. Please spread the word that there is much more to this
story so that we can give credit, blame, and suspicion where they are due and properly
honor those whove gone before us. Since the church wont do it, its up to us the lowly
students of Mormonism to set the record straight.
Additional Reading: Since I released the first version of this paper nearly a year ago, at
least three excellent, well-sourced articles have appeared that echo my thoughts regarding
the originator of the priesthood ban while also aptly refuting other inaccuracies and
fallacies of the churchs essay:

Race and the Priesthood: Analysis of the New Mormon Statement (link) from the
Institute for Religious Research
Race and the Priesthood - Response to LDS.org (link) from MormonThink
A Doctrine that was to always be (link) from the Mormonism Research Ministry

TruthIsReason
Please send questions, comments, and corrections to TruthIsReason7@gmail.com

11