{"id":3964,"date":"2016-06-14T18:28:15","date_gmt":"2016-06-15T00:28:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/?p=3964"},"modified":"2026-07-01T12:40:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T18:40:38","slug":"ces-reply-no-clear-insights-into-the-origins-of-this-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/ces-reply-no-clear-insights-into-the-origins-of-this-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"CES Reply: No clear insights into the origins of this practice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Continuing\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/CESReply.pdf\">my reply<\/a>\u00a0to Jeremy Runnells \u201cLetter to a CES Director,\u201d with Jeremy\u2019s original words in green:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Other Concerns &amp; Questions:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">These concerns are secondary to all of the above.\u00a0 These concerns do not matter if the foundational truth claims (Book of Mormon, First Visions, Prophets, Book of Abraham, Witnesses, Priesthood, Temples, etc.) are not true.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Okay.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">1.Church\u2019s Dishonesty and Whitewashing Over Its History<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Adding to the above deceptions and dishonesty over history (rock in hat translation,<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Yeah, gotta get in at least one more mention of the rock in the hat.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">polygamy\/polyandry, multiple First Vision accounts, etc.),<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Which, of course, we\u2019ve repeatedly discussed already,<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">the following bother me:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">2013 Official Declaration 2 Header Update Dishonesty:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<ol>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lds.org\/scriptures\/dc-testament\/od\/2?lang=eng\">Offending text<\/a>:<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">\u201cEarly in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent.\u00a0 Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Haven\u2019t we already talked about this? I guess this is a minor variation on a previous theme \u2013 not a complaint about the priesthood ban, but on how we talk about it. The Church says that we don\u2019t have clear insights about how the ban started. That\u2019s an accurate statement. Yet you offer the following to claim that it\u2019s inaccurate:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">The following is a <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"http:\/\/en.fairmormon.org\/Mormonism_and_racial_issues\/Blacks_and_the_priesthood\/Statements\">1949 First Presidency Statement<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Not really. The following is a letter written by the First Presidency to a private individual. Calling it a \u201cFirst Presidency Statement\u201d implies that it was issued to the general membership of the church, which it was not.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">\u201cAugust 17, 1949<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Hey! That\u2019s my birthday! (Well, not the 1949 part.)<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">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 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">direct commandment from the Lord,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>I, too, have problems with the underlined part of this statement, as it contradicts President McKay\u2019s labeling of the ban as a \u201cpolicy, not a doctrine,\u201d but I presume you\u2019ve underlined it because you think it contradicts the statement that we don\u2019t have clear insights into the origin of the ban. It doesn\u2019t. We have no record of a revelation \u2013 i.e. a direct commandment from the Lord \u2013 putting the ban in place, and we don\u2019t know when the ban actually began, given the fact that Joseph Smith ordained black people to the priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>This was written in 1949, around a century after the ordination of black people stopped, but we can\u2019t put a precise date on when that happened, since Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. (See what I did there?)<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: \u2018Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Okay, I find the underlined portion to be a racist explanation for the ban that the Church has since disavowed, but how does it offer any clear insight as to how and when the ban began?<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: \u2018The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.\u2019<br \/>\n<\/span><br \/>\nSee? There was some light amid the darkness. No clear insight into the origins of the ban here, though.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span style=\"color: #008000; text-decoration: underline;\">The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\"> The First Presidency\u201d<br \/>\n<\/span><br \/>\nThis is a faulty and racist explanation of the ban, surely, but it in no way offers insight into how and when the ban originated.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly \u201cjustifying\u201d the Church\u2019s racism.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Correct. But your problem, as you described it initially in this objection, is that you think the Church is lying when it says we don\u2019t know when and how the ban first began. Faulty justifications for racism are a problem, but they\u2019re a different problem than the one you\u2019re raising here. You\u2019re switching horses in midstream.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">So, the 2013 edition Official Declaration 2 Header in the scriptures is not only misleading, it\u2019s dishonest.\u00a0 We do have records \u2013 including from the First Presidency itself \u2013 with very clear insights on the origins of the ban on the blacks.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>No, these are insights into why the ban was perpetuated, not into how it began. When was the ban implemented? We don\u2019t know; Church records provide no clear insights. Was the ban a deliberate decision, or was it just something that started happening in practice and was later institutionalized as church policy? I believe the latter to be the case, but we don\u2019t know for sure \u2013 Church records provide no clear insights.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">December 2013 Update: \u00a0 The Church released a <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lds.org\/topics\/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng\">Race and the Priesthood <\/a>essay which contradicts their <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lds.org\/scriptures\/dc-testament\/od\/2\">2013 Official Declaration 2 Header<\/a>.\u00a0 In the essay, they point to Brigham Young as the originator of the ban.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Not really. The essay insists that Brigham Young was the first to announce the ban in 1852, but there is plenty of evidence that, in practice, black people had not been ordained to the priesthood for many years prior to that announcement. Did the ordination of black people stop at some point in Joseph Smith\u2019s lifetime? Maybe. Many leaders after Brigham certainly thought it did. Fact is, we don\u2019t know. Church records offer no clear insights as to the origins of the ban.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Further, they effectively throw 10 latter-day \u201cProphets, Seers, and Revelators\u201d under the bus as they \u201cdisavow\u201d the \u201ctheories\u201d that these ten men taught and justified \u2013 for 130 years \u2013 as doctrine and revelation for the Church\u2019s institutional and theological racism.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>When additional light and knowledge comes into the world, we rejoice for what we now have rather than condemn those who didn\u2019t have it. People are judged only according to the light and knowledge they have received. That way, nobody gets thrown under the bus.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Finally, they denounce the idea that God punishes individuals with black skin or that God withholds blessings based on the color of one\u2019s skin while completely ignoring the <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"http:\/\/cesletter.com\/debunking-fairmormon\/img\/prophets\/blacks-curse.png\">contradiction<\/a> of the keystone Book of Mormon teaching exactly this.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>You couldn\u2019t be more wrong on this one. The Book of Mormon\u2019s references to skin color have precisely zero to do with the priesthood ban, which was solely applied to men of African descent, not Native Americans, who, because of the Book of Mormon, are promised tremendous blessings that are arguably even greater than those promised to us boring white people.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the Lamanites were never denied the priesthood and had no blessings withheld because of their skin color, and were often more righteous than the lighter-skinned Nephites. Here\u2019s some good anti-racist counsel from a Nephite prophet: \u201cWherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them [i.e. the Lamanites] because of the darkness of their skins;\u201d (Jacob 3:9.)<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Yesterday\u2019s revelation and doctrine is today\u2019s \u201cdisavowed theories.\u201d Yesterday\u2019s prophets are today\u2019s disavowed heretics.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Amen! Here a little, precept on precept, great things to be revealed, and all that stuff I\u2019ve already said every time you repeat this little mantra of yours.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Zina Diantha Huntington Young:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">The following is a quick biographic snapshot of Zina:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">She was married for 7.5 months and was about 6 months pregnant with her first husband, Henry Jacobs, when she married Joseph after being told Joseph\u2019s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword.<br \/>\n<\/span><br \/>\nWrong. She was sealed to Joseph for eternity only, never married to him. (No sex.) The angel with the drawn sword did not threaten to kill Joseph if he didn\u2019t marry Zina.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">After Joseph\u2019s death, she married Brigham Young and had Young\u2019s baby while her first husband, Henry, was on a mission.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Since she and her first husband, Henry, were no longer living as husband and wife\u00a0when she had Young\u2019s baby, the fact that he was on a mission is irrelevant. You\u2019re misleadingly implying that this was polyandry, when it wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Zina would eventually become the Third General Relief Society President of the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Good for her! Sounds like she was a remarkable woman.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">If anyone needs proof that the Church is still whitewashing history in 2014 aside from the above-mentioned issues, Zina is it.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Cool! A smoking gun! Let\u2019s hear it.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">The\u00a0 following are 100% LDS\u00a0 sources: <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\"> Zina\u2019s biographical page on <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lds.org\/callings\/relief-society\/relief-society-presidents\/zina-h-young\">LDS.org<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">In the \u201cMarriage and Family\u201d section, it does not list Joseph Smith as a husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s probably because Joseph wasn\u2019t her husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs. They never lived together as husband and wife.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">In the \u201cMarriage and Family\u201d section, it does not list Brigham Young as a concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Probably because she ended her marriage with\u00a0Henry Jacobs when she was sealed\u00a0to Brigham Young.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">There is nothing in there about the polyandry.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Which is not surprising, given the absence of polyandry.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">It is deceptive in stating that Henry and Zina \u201cdid not remain together\u201d while omitting that Henry separated only after Brigham Young took his wife and told Henry that Zina was now only his (Brigham) wife.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>How is it deceptive? They did not, in fact, remain together. The idea that Henry was the only one who \u201cseparated\u201d and that Brigham Young \u201ctook\u201d Henry\u2019s wife is rather sexist, as it presupposes that Zina herself had no say in the matter. The LDS.org biography plainly states that Zina was Brigham Young\u2019s plural wife.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">This is Zina\u2019s index file on LDS-owned <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/familysearch.org\/pal:\/MM9.2.1\/M18Z-MPT\">FamilySearch.org<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">It clearly shows all of Zina\u2019s husbands, including her marriage to Joseph Smith.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Wasn\u2019t your problem that the LDS Church was whitewashing its history by purging references to Zina\u2019s sealing to Joseph? If that\u2019s the case, how did this reference escape the purge?<\/p>\n<p>In any case, the purpose of Family Search.org is to gather information for temple work, so it makes sense that an eternity-only sealing would be referenced.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Why is Joseph Smith not listed as one of Zina\u2019s husbands in the \u201cMarriage and Family\u201d section or anywhere else on her <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lds.org\/callings\/relief-society\/relief-society-presidents\/zina-h-young\">biographical page on LDS.org<\/a>?<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Because the \u201cMarriage and Family\u201d section doesn\u2019t have any lists at all. She never lived with Joseph as his wife \u2013 she was sealed to him for eternity only. He was not one of her husbands in mortality.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Why is there not a single mention or hint of polyandry on her page<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Because she was not engaged in polyandry.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">or in that marriage section when she was married to two latter-day prophets and having children with Brigham Young while still being married to her first husband, Henry?<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Because she was not married to two latter-day prophets. She was married to one and only sealed to the other. Also because she was not still married to Henry when she had a single child \u2013 not multiple children \u2013 with Brigham Young.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Brigham Young Sunday School Manual:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">In the Church\u2019s Sunday School manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, the Church changed the word \u201cwives\u201d to \u201c[wife].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Yeah, that probably wasn\u2019t the best choice. In fact, the parenthetical insertion probably calls attention to Brigham\u2019s polygamy more than if it had been left unchanged. (If the Church was really trying to whitewash, they would have just left off the S and not acknowledge that the text had been changed.) The case can be made that they\u2019re changing the word to apply Brigham\u2019s teachings to a modern audience, but if I were making the call, it\u2019s not what I would have done.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist but it\u2019s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young\u2019s real teaching on marriage:\u00a0 &#8220;The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&#8221; \u2013 <a style=\"color: #008000;\" href=\"http:\/\/journalofdiscourses.com\/11\/41\">Journal of Discourses 11:269<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve covered this. In the same speech, he clarified twice that this meant you had to accept the doctrine of polygamy, not necessarily be a polygamist.<\/p>\n<p>When you repeat yourself, I have to repeat myself. It gets really tedious.<\/p>\n<p><em>Next: Follow the Money<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Continuing\u00a0<ahref=\"http:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/CESReply.pdf\">my reply\u00a0to Jeremy Runnells \u201cLetter to a CES Director,\u201d with Jeremy\u2019s original words in green:<span style=\"color: #008000;\">Other Concerns &amp; Questions:<\/span><span style=\"color: #008000;\">These concerns are secondary to all of the above.\u00a0 These concerns do not matter if the foundational truth claims (Book of Mormon, First Visions, Prophets, Book of Abraham, Witnesses, Priesthood, Temples, etc.) are not <\/span> ... <a title=\"CES Reply: No clear insights into the origins of this practice\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/ces-reply-no-clear-insights-into-the-origins-of-this-practice\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about CES Reply: No clear insights into the origins of this practice\">Read more<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3964","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3964"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3964\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5170,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3964\/revisions\/5170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}