In the Lord of the Ring saga at the end of the second age of Middle Earth there is a battle fought between an alliance of Men and Elves against the forces of Sauron on the plains of Dagorlad. (Geek alert: This is the battle depicted in the opening prologue of the Fellowship of the Rings movie) Any nerd worth their salt knows that just as the victory was in sight for the last alliance – Sauron himself appeared in corporeal form, bearing the ring of power and killed Elendil, King of men. Elendil’s son Isildur then took up the broken fragment of his father’s sword, Narsil, and cut the Ring of Power from Sauron’s hand – apparently vanquishing the enemy.

Job well done. Everyone can now go about their business right?

Well, anyone who knows their Tolkeinology will tell you that this is hardly the end of the story. Elendil claimed the Ring of Power as a trophy and much to the dismay of Agent Smith… err… Elrond, he refuses to destroy it by casting it into the fires of Mt. Doom “from whence it came”.

The conflict that is portrayed in the excellent books and movie of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the direct result of Isildur’s decision to keep the Ring of Power after defeating the enemy. You see, the physical body that they destroyed was not the root of the evil. The Ring of Power was the core essence that gave Sauron the life force to bring darkness into the world. Sauron would be diminished by destroying his body for a time, but so long as the Ring of Power still existed, Sauron lived. He was dormant – waiting to once again gain hold on the hearts of men and grow in strength and power.

By killing the body but not destroying the ring the forces of good had missed the mark entirely focusing only on the most obvious manifestation of the enemy, but not the true source of it’s power.

With this story in mind I would make the following assertion:

There is a latent seed of bigotry lying dormant in the heart of Mormonism. It is the same seed which gave power to the ban on blacks receiving the Priesthood and racist worldview of early church leaders. It is the doctrine of the First Estate.

How could this be? Mormon’s today are not racist – they are compassionate and loving! I agree. But the people and the church are two different things. The church exists on the basis of it’s doctrine. The members may ignore some aspects of doctrine or deny it’s relevance, but to do so is to invalidate the necessity for a restoration of the fullness of the gospel which brought Mormonism into existence in the first place. Doctrine matters.

Priesthood Ban Removed – Problem Solved?

To explain, the ban on the priesthood was just the outward manifestation of an underlying doctrine. In our Tolkein story, the ban was just the big guy in the pointy helmet tossing elves and men about with a weighty mace. Of course you had to get rid of that. It is the doctrine that justified that policy that is the real issue. The doctrine is the Ring of Power. Just as the One Ring was not destroyed – the doctrine was not revoked or changed one bit. Only the outward manifestation of it was repealed. But just what was the doctrine which justified the policy? The various statements made by church leaders forge the metal that shaped this doctrine.

I have traced the roots of the doctrine in a very lengthy narrative which includes numerous quotes. Expand the section below to read it, but be warned that it is long. Too long. Feel free to skip it if you are already familiar with the doctrine underlying the Ban and the First Estate.

Extended Edition Content The Curse of Cain Prohibition linked to Cain’s Lineage Some may suggest that prohibition of blacks holding the priesthood started with Brigham Young (the recent essay on Race and the Priesthood on LDS.Org makes this claim). Joseph Fielding Smith sets the record straight: “This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: ‘President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring… [regarding Joseph Smith] we all know it is due to his teachings that the Negro today is barred from the Priesthood” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 110.). Joseph Smith himself wrote of the curse of Cain in a letter to Oliver Cowdery on the matter of slavery: “I can say the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good. ” (Joseph Smith, Messenger & Advocate 2:290; History of the Church 2:438.) A puzzling Exception Despite this, on March 3, 1836, Joseph Smith himself performed the ordination of Elijah Abel, a black man. This is an inconsistency which has not been completely explained. (Perhaps it was the seed of this “Abel” that the prophet referred to in the prior quote – Abel’s son was also ordained an elder on November 27, 1900.) Ban attributed to the curse Brigham Young expands on this teaching regarding black people by providing greater detail on the prohibition and labeling it a ‘curse’: “The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. … How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.” (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291). Here President Young introduces the idea that Cain was cursed because of the murder which he commits against his brother Able. The result of this curse is that the descendants of Cain cannot hold the priesthood (until everybody else has been given it). But how are we to know who the descendants of Cain are? Here, Brigham explains that the Lord conveniently gave Cain the mark of a “flat nose and black skin” so that we could tell who was of that cursed lineage. Punished for Cain’s transgression Brigham returns to this subject a number of times, each statement filling in more of the gaps. Here he explains that the edict that men are to be “punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgression” is true, but it appears that black men may be punished for Cain’s sins: “Why 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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God” (Brigham Young, August 19, 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:272). This idea that men may be punished for someone else’s sins does not sit well with modern Mormon sensibilities, and further light and knowledge provided by Brigham’s successors will show that Cain’s sins are not the only justification for the curse of blackness. More on this later. Blacks today from Cain? Some inquisitive people may ask – how do we know that the black people living today are of the same lineage of the black people who were descended from Cain – there was a flood that killed everyone from that antediluvian time wasn’t there? This is an excellent question and one that John Taylor, the next prophet anticipated: “And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God” (John Taylor, August 28th, 1881, Journal of Discourses 22:304) President Taylor not only describes just how we can know that blacks today are descended from Cain, but also throws in the useful trivia that they represent Satan on the earth as well (can of worms opened – but we won’t go there). Scriptural Support for the Curse Still, the question remained – what scriptural support for these revelatory statements can be found? Then Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith elucidates in a 1924 Improvement Era Article: “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, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: ‘Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.’ Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:25-26” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “The Negro and the Priesthood,” Improvement Era, April 1924, p. 565) It is noted that in laying out this rationalization, Smith reinforces the notion that no amount of personal righteousness could overcome the prohibition on priesthood ordination. It was a condition that was dictated by God based on factors other than performance in this life. That this verse in the Book of Abraham is the only scriptural support for the prohibition was repeated by David O McKay: “I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26)” (David O. McKay cited in The Church and the Negro, p. 91). Clearly, this doctrine of prohibition has existed primarily upon the strength of prophetic authority and revelation, rather than scriptural cannon. Accountable for their own sins The early Prophets emphatically established that there was a curse tied to Cains lineage, that blacks made up that lineage and that the curse and lineage extended through the flood to today. There was still one glaring doctrinal inconsistency. As described in the 2nd Article of Faith, Mormons don’t weather the notion of being held accountable for Adam’s transgression. Additional revelation expanded that concept: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78) In Mormon theology men and women are only held accountable for their own sins – and cannot justly be punished for anyone else’s sin or transgression (we will leave the implications of Eve’s sentence in the Garden of Eden alone for now). The idea that black men and women are recipients of a curse for no reason other than that Cain was at the root of their family tree is an injustice that doesn’t fit with the God of Justice and Mercy. Clearly more light and knowledge was needed. Indeed a further facet of the doctrine of the Curse of Cain was being forthcoming, though it was attended with no small element of confusion and was not well documented early in Church history. It centered around the emerging doctrine of our pre-mortal existence. Pre-Mortal Existence Antecedent Theories The notion that men existed as spirits in a life before this one has been debated and held in various forms throughout history. Some held that our spirits and bodies were created out of nothing at the time of our birth, but omniscient God knew what choices we would make and our election was foreordained as a result of this knowledge. Others, both within and outside Christianity, held that we had an immaterial spiritual existence prior to this life. Various biblical scriptural supports for these positions were proposed, however the issue remained one of serious debate (see Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence). New Revelations The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, did not contain any verses that were more explanatory than those found in the Bible on this issue. Shortly after publishing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith began his inspired translation of the Bible parts of which are now canonized as the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Additionally, Egyptian scrolls brought to Josephs attention in 1835 were subsequently translated into the Book of Abraham – also containing new key doctrine. These new scriptures in conjunction with revelations received in the next few years opened a new world of understanding on this issue. Spiritual Creation Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible revealed significant new knowledge of what preceded the Biblical creation story. Canonized in the Book of Moses, this prologue to the book of Genesis introduced the doctrine of the pre-earthly spiritual creation of man: “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; ” (Moses 3:5) Further confirmation of spiritual creation was received by revelation in September 1830 to Joseph as recorded in D&C 29: “For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work;” (D&C 29:30-32) The confirmation that our pre-existent spiritual being was similar to our earthly form came by way of further revelation in March 1832: “that which is spiritual [is] in the likeness of that which is temporal and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual the spirit of man in the likeness of his person as also the spirit of the beast and every other creature which god has created” (D&C 77:2). With these revelations, the concept of spiritual creation was established and the picture of a definite existence prior to this mortal life was coming into view. These concepts of pre-mortal creation and existence did not spring forth at once in full detail to the membership of the church. Even though they were known to Joseph Smith and those close to him as early as 1830, the first mention of preexistence in publication to the church as a whole came in June of 1835 where W.W. Phelps, Joseph Smith’s scribe, wrote the following in the Messenger and Advocate: “New light is occasionally bursting into our minds, of the sacred scriptures, for which I am thankful. We shall by and by learn that we were with God in another world, before the foundation of the world, and had our agency;” (Messenger and Advocate Vol 1 No. 9 , June 1835, p. 130) Further explanation of the events of the Pre-existence were subsequently published and widely disseminated in the revelations included in the Doctrine and Covenants, printed in 1835 and in the Book of Abraham first published in 1842. This idea that we were spiritually created before the world was made and before we were born into it had been one of the possibilities that various sects had considered through the ages. Several scriptures in the Bible refer to pre-earthly activities (Job 38:4-7; Jer. 1:5; Rev. 12:3-7😉 Those sects which did not believe human pre-existence, usually considered these scriptures to be speaking of angels, or the hosts of heaven, which they did not consider to be the same sort of beings as God’s human creations. With Joseph Smith’s new revelations he declared that human pre-existence was God’s truth. War in Heaven One key scripture alluding to a preexistence of some sort was the War in Heaven referred to in Revelations 12:7. Joseph’s revelation that men were created spiritually in a premortal existence and were with God at this war pointed to certain conclusions: If we existed with God prior to this life, then we were present for that pre-mortal war. If there was a war or rebellion, then each of us had the opportunity to choose a side. If we could have chosen a side – then each of us had agency in the pre-mortal life. This new reality raised more questions: What happened to those who chose to follow Satan and to those who fought for God? What exactly was the rebellion fought over? The answers to these questions and others came to Joseph in these early revelations: The revelation received in Sept 1830, now recorded in D&C 29, answered many of these questions: “And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.” (D&C 29:36-38) The fourth chapter in the Book of Moses further described the events that led to the division of God’s children: “And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will by done, and the glory by thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. “(Moses 4:1-4) Having established that Satan rebelled against God in an attempt to gain His power, this scripture provided a more complete picture of the council which spawned the rebellion and established that the war may not have taken the form of a violent conflict but rather a clash of ideas – the plan of God/Christ vs Satan with pre-mortal spirits able to choose a side and be subject to the consequences thereof. Introducing the First Estate Further detail of this council in heaven and a new description of something called the “First Estate” would be forthcoming in the Book of Abraham: “And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.” (Book of Abraham 3:22-28) These several verses in Abraham answer a vague reference to ‘estates’ from the Book of Jude in the New Testament: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6) This is the only reference to an “estate”, first or otherwise, found in the Bible, and it’s significance was not clearly explained until Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham. While these verses establish that the First Estate is the pre-mortal existence, they also reinforce that each spirit has agency, or the freedom to choose right or wrong in that state. Those choices had consequences then, just as our choices in this life carry consequences – establishing a pattern that is consistently repeated throughout the phases of man’s existence introduced by Joseph Smith. No Neutral Spirits in the War Descriptions of the War in Heaven clearly indicate that one third of the hosts of heaven followed Satan. Having not kept their first estate, these spirits were cast out of the presence of God and lost hope of further glory as indicated in the Book of Abraham. What of the remaining two thirds of the hosts of heaven – did they all choose to follow Christ’s plan or did some remain neutral? This question arose in the time of Brigham Young, who stated that Joseph Smith himself answered it: “Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. Presidet Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. he said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary” (Waiting for World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Susan Staker, ed., p. 300. Wilford Woodruff recounting Brigham Young’s remarks on December 25, 1869. Spelling and punctuation in original) This answer received further prophetic endorsement by Joseph Fielding Smith: “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65- 66.) Noble and Great Leaders Having established that every spirit who kept their first estate did indeed choose Christ and God – The Book of Abraham reveals something more of the character of those spirits who sided with God: “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.” (Book of Abraham 3:22-23) Revealed scripture clearly demonstrates that among those spirits who sided with God, there were some that stood above the rest and they were rewarded with positions of authority and power when they were born into life on the earth. This concept gives an aura of merited greatness and divine sanction to each and every one of the modern day Prophets – for if they are among the rulers in God’s Kingdom here on earth – they must have been one of the Noble and Great ones described in this scripture. This concept has been confirmed repeatedly throughout church history. The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, in describing his counselor N. Eldon Tanner, stated the following in General Conference: “President N. Eldon Tanner is also one of the noble and great ones who was prepared from eternity to render the important service he is now performing in this, the Lord’s church. He is a man of surpassing ability and integrity.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Oct 1971 General Conference) Furthermore, this notion that you may assume the pre-mortal righteousness of Church leaders by nature of their calling has been extended to local leaders as well: “May I assure you that bishops and stake presidents are not in the habit of betraying these sacred confidences. Before being ordained and set apart, their very lives have been reviewed in that upper room in the temple by those divinely called as prophets, seers, and revelators. Without question, they are among the noble and great ones of this world and should be regarded as such by the Saints.” (“Courts of Love” Elder Robert L Simpson April 1972 General Conference) Noble and Great Members Not only is this positive message of divine election based on our valiant choices in the preexistence extended to leaders – it also extends to anyone who is blessed enough to be born into or convert to the Mormon religion. This notion began early in Church History with Orson Pratt preaching the principle in 1852: “I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born” (Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852, Journal of Discourses1:62-63) If you ask any youth in the church today, they will tell you that they have had such doctrine repeatedly reinforced though youth and church leaders and conferences. The principle that members in the Church today can feel assured of their pre-mortal valiance and righteousness has been preached in General Conference as recently as 2008: “Reserved to come forth in these last days and labor for our Father and His Son are some of the most valiant and noble of our Father’s sons and daughters. Their valiance and nobility were demonstrated in the pre-earth struggle with Satan. There, ‘being left to choose good or evil,’ they ‘[chose] good’ and exhibited ‘exceedingly great faith’ and ‘good works.’ Such are the traits that are now needed to sustain the work of God in the earth and to save the souls of men from the intensifying wrath of the adversary. Now, my young friends of the Aaronic Priesthood, you are these valiant and noble sons of our Father! You are the strength of the Lord’s house, His warriors! You are those who chose good over evil and who exhibited ‘exceedingly great faith’ and ‘good works.’ And because of your personal history, you were entrusted to come to the earth in these last days to do again what you did before—to once again choose good over evil, exercise exceedingly great faith, and perform good works—and to do so in behalf of the kingdom of God on the earth and your fellowman!” (James J. Hamula, “Winning the War against Evil,” Ensign(Conference Edition), November 2008, pp. 50-51. Brackets in original). Less Great. Less Noble. So it is clear that the leaders and members of the LDS church are counted as the great and noble spirits who sided with God in the pre-mortal war in heaven. Logic dictates that that they could only be called such in comparison to spirits who did not enjoy such an elevated status – that is, they were not as valiant or righteous in the preexistence, but still chose to follow God and Christ and rejected Satan (remember that none were neutral). President George Q Cannon reaffirmed this doctrine: “Some spirits are more capable than others because of past faithfulness in times of trial. When Lucifer, who was once a mighty angel before the Lord and held great power, became rebellious and sought to lead away the children of God, he was followed by one-third of the hosts of heaven. Of the remaining two-thirds some were, doubtless, more valiant than others” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Sermons and Writings of President George Q. Cannon 2:87) Now that we know how to tell who were the most valiant in the preexistence, what factors may inform us about those who were relatively less so? Numerous early Prophets revealed God’s truth in this matter: “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. (Apostle George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59). “That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born. Yet, like all other spirits who come into this world, they come innocent before God so far as mortal existence is concerned, and here, under certain restrictions, they may work out their second estate. If they prove faithful in this estate, without doubt, our Eternal Father, who is just and true, will reward them accordingly and there will be in store for them some blessings of exaltation” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way To Perfection, p. 43). “We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here” (Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Reports, April 1915, p. 62). “We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 11). “The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant” (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, October 1947, p. 57). “There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61.) I will spare you any further examples. It is clear that this idea has been firmly enshrined within Mormon doctrine.

The One Ring – The Doctrine So it is established that the policy relating to the prohibition on blacks receiving the priesthood was based on the following points of doctrine: Black people of African descent are of the lineage of Cain, through Ham

Black people were cursed as to the Priesthood, meaning that they were denied the ability to be ordained.

This prohibition was punishment for less worthy choices in the pre-existence, the First Estate, and can therefore be seen as merited justice. The keystone of this entire doctrinal foundation is the notion of the First Estate. If you remove the principle that earthly birth circumstances are a reward or punishment for pre-mortal actions, then a curse based on race would be unjust. There would be no basis upon which a ban on black receiving the priesthood could exist under a just God without the First Estate. The issue before the people however, was the Priesthood ban – not the doctrine of the first estate. Returning to our analogy: the ban was the 11 foot obvious bad guy wielding a mace on the field of battle and the First Estate doctrine was the tiny inconspicuous ring on his finger that gave him his power. My Precious… Why did they just kill the bad guy but keep the ring? All of the different forces and people in the Lord of the Rings were incapable of destroying the One Ring because of the power that it granted to them. Those who became ensnared in the power of the ring were bound up with it and would be damaged irreparably upon its destruction. As a result, even if you started with a disposition to destroy the ring, once you held it to carry out that aim – it corrupted you with it’s power. Tempting people to do good with it’s power, it would change their mindset to preserve the ring rather than destroy it. In inevitably led to corruption. This is also true of the Church. In order for the church to remove the Doctrine of the First Estate, which is the poison behind the racist policies, it would have to admit that there are key doctrinal errors in the Book of Abraham which contains the notion that Blacks were descendants of Cain, subject to the curse and banned from the priesthood: Now this king 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. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Book of Abraham 1:21-27) The Book of Abraham also includes the principle of the First Estate which provides the necessary justification for the prohibition: “And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.” (Book of Abraham 3:22-28) This admission would have a cascading effect which would topple the entire edifice of the church’s structure of power and authority. The Book of Abraham came solely from the divine calling and translating power of Joseph Smith.

If Joseph Smith’s Powers or translation are called into question, then the same power which was used to produce the Book of Mormon is also suspect.

If those powers are suspect, then the divine calling of Joseph Smith himself is suspect.

If Joseph Smith’s power and authority are suspect, then every single prophet or apostle since Joseph Smith has neither power nor authority. Can you start to see a vision of a great tower falling? Of course, the people who are in those positions of power and authority do not want that to happen – just as Isuldur, Smeagol and Frodo were unable to intentionally destroy the ring. They are so attached to their power that they were happy to just remove the obvious evil, leaving the insidious source of that power dormant. Return of the Ring How can we know that this evil still lurks in the doctrine of mormonism? The doctrine of the First Estate has good and bad manifestations – just at the Ring of Power was a blessing and a curse to it’s bearers. To see if the doctrine is still accepted by the Church one needs simply to ask this question: Have you been told that you were a chosen generation, held to come forth in these latter days because of your valiant nature? As a youth growing up in the church I heard this message regularly. It was in Sacrament talks, Stake Conferences, Youth conferences, seminary and even general conferences. This message, which undoubtedly provides a great deal of self-confidence in it’s targets, is the positive corollary of the racist doctrine that less valiant souls are born into less blessed circumstances. You cannot have one message without implying the other. Any time you hear this message preached, the unspoken message is the same message of racism that existed before the revelation removing the ban on the priesthood. If the church truly wanted to divorce itself from the root of racism it would have to not only disavow the Book of Abraham, but would also have to never sanction these messages of self-righteousness based on pre-earthly valiant.

The Powers of the Ring Despite the persistence of the doctrine of the First Estate and what use it was once put to, the church now only uses it to bolster the confidence of it’s membership now, which is a positive thing right? The ban on the priesthood is a blemish on the history of the church, but surely that is really the only evil that ever came of the doctrine, right? These suppositions may be true. Just as the One Ring had powers other than invisibility (look it up, it’s true), the doctrine of the First Estate has been used to justify other policies and mindsets Us versus Them Now that the church has abandoned it’s priesthood ban and adopted a more universal worldview, one would think that notions of privileged status for racial, ethnic or religious groups would also be gone. This is not true in the church. They have simply moved the line. The line of priesthood privilege previously separated white church members from Black members and the rest of the world. Now it separates all church members from the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world doesn’t yearn for that priesthood, and so such a line does little to effect the worlds outlook. However, to the members of the church that line is still justified by the notion that they were more righteous in the pre-existence. As mentioned above, there are still talks, articles and sermons about how church members are a chosen generation preserved to be born in the church in the latter-days on account of their valiant preexistence. How does such a self-important and self-righteous worldview effect the way that you view those whom you interact with on a day to day basis? Might it lead to the notion that all the world outside of your insular community is “the mission field”? Might it lead to an arrogant, paternalistic attitude toward anyone outside of your faith? Mormon’s have been accused of having this sort of reputation. The First Estate justifies it. Family Size, Contraception Once you accept the notion that the great spirits are to be born into families within the church – there are implications for how you view the role of those who usher those spirits into this world. Each child born to a faithful LDS family can, by nature of their birth alone, be assumed to be one of the valiant ones. The more children that LDS parents conceive – the more valiant souls are brought into the earth. As such each family has a duty to have as many children as possible, not to increase the tithe-paying membership base, but to make sure that the spirits waiting entry into this life make it into a righteous home. Brigham Young revealed the following, and it is still published in manuals on the Church website:

“Birth Control – There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?—To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth” (“Scriptures As They Relate to Family Stability” Marion G Romney citing the Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197).

Remember that no positive effect of this doctrine exists without the negative implication. What does this justification for large LDS families say about the spirits of people who are not born into the church? By holding onto the doctrine of the First Estate, the stage is set for a divisive and judgmental world view of church members. They have the religious sanction of an outlook that facilitates judgement of someone’s spirit worth based on the status of their birth.

Physical and Mental Disability

I have previously written on how the doctrine of the First Estate was used to explain why some children are born into this world with physical or mental disabilities. Harold B Lee states it succinctly:

“The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations.” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 165).

I invite you to read the full article on Mormon Handicaps to see more.

Gay spirits?

The recent new official church website MormonsAndGays.org introduced a dramatic shift in the position of the Church towards Gay men and women – it conceded that same sex attraction was not a choice or result of personal iniquity, implying that it is a natural phenomenon:

“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.” (MormonsAndGays.org)

This assertion could empower church members to view homosexuality as a sort of gender disability. An aberration of genetics or physical development that is analogous to any other disability. Based on the statements of the Prophet Harold B Lee as described above and in the Mormon Handicaps article, they could find religious sanction to draw the conclusion that gay people were less valiant in the preexistence.

The Latent Seed of Bigotry

It can be confidently said that the doctrine of the First Estate will never have such a visible negative policy as the Priesthood ban again. When Sauron was destroyed he was never able to take a corporeal form again, but existed as an ethereal all-seeing eye that influenced the hearts of his servants through fear and temptation.

The ‘first estate’ doctrine is the latent seed of bigotry in the LDS church. It is still alive however muted. Only, now the bigotry is not solely focused on a particular race or lineage, but diffusely cast on all of those who deny mormonism. When you make negative generalizations about people for things which they have no control over which are different from you – you are engaging in bigotry. The self-righteous worldview that members have because of the tempting aspects of the doctrine of the First Estate implies an underlying negative generalization about anyone who is not born blessed into sufficiently appealing circumstances to signify their valiant pre-mortal character.

Fear of those who are not blessed to be born in the church and who can be surmised to have been poor servants of God in the preexistence sets up a stark dividing line between members and those who are not in the fold. This is seen when a son or daughter brings home a non-LDS significant other and is met with distrust and aloofness. It exists when a member invites a non-LDS friend to attend church, but refuses to reciprocate and attend the service of their friend. It shows up when you are afraid to listen to the legitimate reasons that a close friend or family member might have to leave the Mormon church. It blossoms when members quickly and enthusiastically support government and military policies that treat people of other nations and religions as somehow less deserving of sovereignty and respect than our own exceptional nation.

Conclusion

Believing members of the church today in general do not espouse or act on any of these implications of the First Estate doctrine. I sincerely doubt that any of these pernicious ideas of racism, exceptionalism or eugenics would ever take hold of the hearts of the church members again.

But the doctrine is still there. The Ring was cut from the hand of Sauron, but it was carried on by those who vanquished the foe only to continue to corrupt the hearts of it’s bearers. The Doctrine of the First Estate hasn’t been revoked, denied or destroyed. The Ring lives on!

The church has stopped the institutionalized bigotry of priesthood denial – but it did not dispute or revoke the doctrinal basis for it. It did not cast off the scriptures which establish and support the doctrine. It is that doctrine which is the thing that should really have been abandoned, then the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and all other bigotry rooted in the First Estate could be cast off as well. Since the First Estate is inextricably linked to The Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, all the modern prophets and the authority and power that they hold – it is highly unlikely to be destroyed. And so, the First Estate lies dormant in the heart of Mormonism. Effecting it’s subtle influence in the minds of the saints as they work in the world. Who knows what form it may take if allowed once again to flourish?

Addendum 1

I have had some feedback indicating that some people are confused about what I mean by “First Estate.” they tell me that people who did not keep the first estate were not born into this world and so there could be nothing racist said about them. I just want to clarify that this article is not talking about those spirits who followed Satan and did not keep their first estate. The doctrine of the First Estate that I am referring to in this article is that those spirits who did keep the first Estate and follow God and Christ’s plan were not all of the same level of righteousness. Some were greater and some were lesser in their righteousness (according to LDS teachings and scripture). If this is not clear – please take the time to expand the lengthy doctrine section above and trace out the various teachings from the prophets as this doctrine unfolded in the church.