The second principle of the gospel is repentance.

To be happy in life, we must repent and accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Fixating on past errors and sorrows creates discontentment and ingratitude and limits our ability to grow. Happiness requires moving on from past wrongs and focusing on improving the present and the future.

This is a foundational principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That said, it is still important to understand history so we can learn from it and improve. To properly understand the history of Black members and the priesthood, it is necessary to understand the culture of the time, as well as how that culture—and the consequences faced by early Saints who opposed slavery shaped their decisions and experiences.

Understanding Culture of the Time

In the 1830s, slavery not only existed but was at its height in the United States. Black slavery had been part of American culture and law for hundreds of years. People’s attitudes and opinions about Africans were very different from those held today. This was the culture. This was the worldview. This was how people understood the world at the time, and it is unfair to impose our modern perspective as if we were in their place when we were not. Slavery itself normalized racial hierarchy and prejudice among Americans.

Science of the Day

I am always very skeptical with “Science” because history is so full of bad science. In the early 1800’s the science taught that Black people were biologically inferior to whites, claiming they had smaller brains, were a lesser or separate species, or were closer to animals than humans. These ideas were treated as objective science, not prejudice, which gave them credibility and widespread acceptance.

Interracial marriage was viewed as dangerous and unnatural. Most states passed laws banning it, and fear of racial “amalgamation” was regularily used to argue against emancipation and equality. These beliefs were mainstream assumptions, held even by respected scientists, politicians, and intellectual figures now praised for moral leadership. The moral blind spots were reinforced by what was considered legitimate scientific consensus at the time.

People were conditioned to believe that Black people were a lower class and that they were fundamentally different from whites. Many believed that Black and white people could not successfully procreate together, or that such unions would result in unnatural or defective offspring.

These ideas were not accurate, but they were treated as fact by society during this time. This was the cultural environment people grew up in, shaping how they thought about race long before they ever questioned it.

This podcast does an excellent job explaining the historical context in that day.

Religious Racist Culture of the Day

In general Christians in the US and Europe, primarily those trying to justify the existence of slavery, believed that Blacks were descendants of Cain who slayed his brother, and the skin of blackness was a mark of that curse. They also believed that mixed race couples would lead to infertility and prevent people from fulfilling their obligation to multiply and replenish the earth.

History of Blacks in the Early Church

In the early days of the Church, Black members were welcomed into the Church, given the priesthood, and treated—mostly, notwithstanding the general racism of the day—as equals.

Joseph Smith advised that enslaved people be brought to free states, educated, emancipated, and granted equal rights, while still reflecting the era’s widespread discomfort with racial integration.

Church publications in the 1830s repeatedly affirmed that redemption in Christ is available to all people regardless of lineage or race. Importantly, the historical record shows no Church policy restricting Black participation during Joseph Smith’s presidency. Black men such as Elijah Abel and Q. Walker Lewis were ordained to the priesthood, served in leadership and missionary roles, and participated in temple ordinances.

Green Flake was a member of the Church, and still technically a Slave, when he went with the Vanguard company and was the first Mormon Pioneer to enter the Salt Lake Valley.

Persecution of the Saints from Opposition to Slavery

As the Church grew, it repeatedly ran into serious conflict because its teachings disrupted the racial and social order of slaveholding America. While most Saints were not radical abolitionists, many opposed slavery in principle and came from northern states, which put them at odds with slave-owning communities who feared that the political influence of the Saints might threaten their livelihoods and their perceived right to own other human beings.

Saints Get Driven From Jackson County for Opposition to Slavery

The expulsion of the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri, was driven largely by fear of slavery being undermined. The immediate catalyst was an 1833 article written by W. W. Phelps stating that there was no Church rule barring “free people of color.” Local Missourians interpreted this as an invitation for free Black people to gather with the Saints. In the aftermath of Nat Turner’s rebellion, slaveholders feared that northern Saints would gain political influence, encourage racial integration, and provoke slave uprisings. These concerns were stated openly in the mob’s own manifesto and played a central role in the destruction of the Church press and the violent removal of the Saints from the county.

Political Fear and the Missouri Expulsion

Beyond the Phelps article, Missourians feared the growing political power of the Saints, who were largely northerners and viewed as hostile to slavery. This fear of losing control over local government, combined with racial anxiety, escalated tensions and contributed to the Saints’ broader persecution and eventual forced removal from Missouri. Slavery and race were the central issues to why the Saints were seen as a threat in Missouri.

Nauvoo and Restrictions on Proselyting to Slaves

After Missouri, Church leaders became more cautious in how they addressed slavery publicly. In Nauvoo, the Saints assured surrounding communities that they would not proselyte to enslaved people without the permission of their masters. This didn’t mean that they endorsed slavery, but was an effort to avoid violence and accusations of inciting slave rebellions, and to avoid the disastrous outcome of Missouri.

Ending Slavery as a Presidential Platform

When Joseph Smith decided to run for president in 1844, one of the primary focuses of his platform was ending slavery. He proposed abolishing slavery by 1850 by having the U.S. government purchase enslaved people from their owners and grant them freedom. He suggested funding this plan by selling public lands and natural resources the United States had acquired as it expanded westward.

Joseph Smith understood the economic dependence slaveholders had on the institution of slavery, and his proposal aimed to address that reality. His plan would have allowed the southern economy to continue while granting people of African descent equal rights to life, liberty, and property. This was a revolutionary idea, and had it succeeded, it could have saved millions of American lives and ended slavery more than a decade earlier.

This position placed him far ahead of his time and intensified political hostility toward him. But, opposition to his anti-slavery stance added to the pressures surrounding him and contributed to the persecution that led to his martyrdom.

After Joseph Smith’s death, some leaders who had previously deferred to his more inclusive approach began expressing views that aligned more closely with the dominant racial ideas of 19th-century America.

Change in Race Attitude in the Church

In 1847, several events involving Black Church members intensified these tensions. William McCary, a Black member, married a white woman and later claimed prophetic authority while introducing his own distorted form of “plural marriage.”

Brigham Young initially defended McCary by stating that race was not the issue, but McCary was eventually excommunicated for his behavior and immoral actions. In the aftermath, Parley P. Pratt made the first recorded statement linking the protestant belief of Black lineage to the biblical curse of Ham.

Soon after, Church leaders learned that Enoch Lewis, the son of Q. Walker Lewis, had married a white woman and that they had a child together. This disturbed some church leaders who shared cultural fears and beliefs about racial mixing.

At this point, there was still no formal or written Church policy restricting Black members. Practices developed gradually and inconsistently, shaped largely by cultural prejudices.

Politics in Utah Territory

In 1852, Brigham Young publicly articulated a priesthood restriction during a session of the Utah Territorial Legislature while debating slavery. He did not present it as a recorded revelation or divine command. The position reflected a blend of political realities, cultural assumptions, and his own views at the time.

Brigham Young attempted to position Utah Territory in a way that would make it acceptable to slaveholding states in order to secure political support for statehood. But, as part of his laws for Utah as a slave state, all children born to enslaved people were to be born free. Enslaved individuals had to consent to come to Utah, were required to be treated properly, and were to receive compensation and medical care.

Essentially, slavery would end after one generation in the state and slaves were essentially indentured servants as opposed to the way slaves were treated in the South. If these conditions were violated, the slaves could be legally set free.  While Brigham used pro-slavery language in the political debate, the legal framework in Utah would have ended it.

Making the Ban on Priesthood Church Policy

After Brigham Young’s public statements in 1852, the restriction gradually became assumed practice, but it was not consistent or formally defined. Records show that some Black men were still ordained to Priesthood offices in the decades that followed.

As time passed on Church leaders treated Joseph Smith’s ordination of Black men as an early mistake, reasoning that he had acted before what they believed was a later-understood “greater order,” often tied to the curse of Cain. This interpretation reframed early Black priesthood ordinations as errors.

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Church faced intense external pressure as Utah sought statehood and Church leaders worked to distance the institution from the stigma of polygamy. At this time, the United States was entrenching segregation through Jim Crow laws, which legalized racial separation as “separate but equal.”

Church Continues to Align With Cultural Norms

During the Reed Smoot hearings (1904–1907), the Church was scrutinized by the federal government and portrayed by critics as un-American and radical. In this environment, Church leaders focused on standardizing doctrine and policy and aligning with mainstream American norms, which at that time included racial segregation.

In 1907, the Church adopted a written policy formally barring anyone with known Black African ancestry from holding the priesthood or receiving temple ordinances. This was the first clear, systemized rule on the issue with an official, enforceable policy.

Culture and Norm of Racism

False Beliefs of Church Members

As time went on, most Church members were no longer aware that Black members during Joseph Smith’s lifetime had held the priesthood and received temple blessings. As that history faded, false ideas such as the curse of Cain and the belief that dark skin was a sign of premortal disobedience became widely accepted among members of the Church.

Some members came to believe, without any doctrinal or revelatory basis, that Black people had been less righteous in the premortal life and were therefore restricted from priesthood blessings and the responsibilities tied to those covenants. Dark skin was treated as a visible marker used to justify that restriction. Over time, folklore and tradition filled in the gaps. Stories circulated claiming that if a Black member was baptized and later fell away, the person who baptized them could be held accountable. None of these ideas came from revelation, but they spread informally and were treated as fact by many.

Reversal on the Priesthood Ban

As cultural attitudes began to change, Church leaders increasingly recognized that there was no recorded revelation establishing the priesthood restriction and that the policy would eventually need to end. When David O. McKay became President of the Church in 1951, he concluded that the priesthood restriction had no clear scriptural basis.

Some apostles, including Mark E. Petersen and Bruce R. McConkie, strongly opposed changing the policy, believing it had been ordained by God and warning against yielding to civil or cultural pressure. Because there was no unanimity within the Quorum of the Twelve, no change was made at that time.

The US Civil Rights Movement

The 1960s civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr., and marked by his courage in standing against racism and unjust laws, brought national attention to issues of racial equality. During the 1960s, several federal actions were taken that made racist laws unconstitutional.

• 1964: The Civil Rights Act banned race-based segregation and employment discrimination.
• 1965: The Voting Rights Act outlawed racial barriers to voting.
• 1967: Loving v. Virginia struck down laws banning interracial marriage.

The civil rights movement, along with shifting cultural and global perspectives, helped bring a long-neglected Church policy to the forefront of Church leaders’ consideration.

Official Declaration 2

In 1969, the First Presidency issued a statement backing away from earlier racial explanations and acknowledged that the reason for the priesthood restriction was unknown. President Joseph Fielding Smith and President Harold B. Lee both taught that full inclusion would eventually come, but only through revelation. This was different from many earlier revelations, which came in response to specific doctrinal questions. In this case, there was no prior revelation to reverse.

By the early 1970s, many members of the Quorum of the Twelve felt that the restriction should end, but President Harold B. Lee believed that such a significant change could only come through direct revelation, not consensus or outside pressure.

In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball approached the issue with intense spiritual focus. He had wrestled with it for years through study, prayer, and personal pleading with God. He worked deliberately to build unity within the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

After hours of discussion in the temple and complete agreement among those present, President Kimball led the First Presidency and the Twelve in prayer. Those in the room later described a powerful, shared spiritual confirmation that the time had come. Several apostles compared the experience to Pentecost or the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. This was a life changing event for them where they felt the power of God in remarkable ways. They described this event as one of the most profound and unified revelatory experiences in modern Church history.

President Kimball then ensured full unity by personally contacting the absent apostles and later all general authorities and the public announcement now known as Official Declaration 2 was made.

Why would God Allow a Ban on Priesthood for Africans?

The Church acknowledges today that Church leaders made mistakes. To understand why God allowed this to happen, we need to remember God’s purpose:

This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

We do not know exactly why God allowed this policy to exist, but here are some questions worth considering:

• Why did God choose to not have descendents of Ham hold the priesthood?
• Why were was Abraham’s son Ishmael not able to have the priesthood?
• Why did Jesus Himself preach only to the house of Israel?
• Why did God allow the children of Israel to go to Egypt, where they would eventually be enslaved for hundreds of years?
• Why did Jesus allow the Church He established on the earth to apostatize, and the priesthood be removed?
• Why did He wait until 1830 to restore it?
• Why do people in places like China, Iran, and North Korea not have access to the priesthood or the covenants today?

We do not always understand God’s ways or His purposes, but we are asked to trust that He sees the beginning from the end and understands our eternal nature better than we do. As the Lord said:

My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord.

If it is better not to make a covenant with Christ than to make one and not keep it, could it be that not being able to make priesthood covenants may have been more beneficial for many people throughout history, including African Americans from the 1850s to the 1970s?

Is it true that members of the Church suffered persecution from the 1850s to the 1970s?

Is it true that African Americans suffered persecution during the same period?

For someone who was both African American and a member of the Church, might they have faced even greater trials and persecution during that time? Would it have been even more difficult for them to remain true to their covenants?

Agency is Part of the Plan

Agency is and always has been part of our Father In Heavens plan. Sometimes God allows the poor decisions made by some to effect the lives of others.

Testimony of Faithful African’s Who Lived Without The Priesthood

Today, looking from our perspecitive, our culture, it is easy to judge the actions made in the past. Like with other controversial topics it is important that we look at things from the perspective of the world view.

Despite the racism. Despite the challenges of being deined priesthood blessings there were faithful African Descendants who were strong active faithful members of the church and that were honored and respected.

Elijah Able

Green Flake

Markus Martins

The Martins family joined the Church in Brazil in 1972. Despite the fact that they knew they would not be allowed to have the priesthood they were strong and faithful members. They served callings, and were content that God still loved them and this was his Church.

Saints in Nigeria – Before the Church Was Established

What It Means For Us Today

The thing that is so tricky about Race and the Priesthood is that this is an instance where the modern church realizes that things were done wrong and church leaders made mistakes.

To me this is the best anti-mormon argument, the best way to show faults in the church, because it is a fault of church leaders.

When I was a missionary in the 90’s, just 20 years after the priesthood ban was removed, the “Blacks and The Priesthood” anti Mormon argument was rarely brought up or used. For the most part it was not seen as a big deal because most people still were products of a time when racism wa part of culture for so many.  Understanding thoughts, attitudes, and cultures of the time is a really big deal.

It seems with the modern “anti racist” movement, the Blacks and the Priesthood anti mormon argument is far more prevelant today, even though there are far less people around who were actually effected by it. The focus of the woke movement is to look for and treat things as injustices and focus on any example of inequality and try and make it apply to all.

The best thing to do is rather than dwell on or harbour feelings for things of the past of which we cannot control is to focus on the present and the future. And do you know who doesn’t dwell on this fact or this policy, who doesn’t judge the history of the past but focuses on the blessings of living the Gospel today?

It’s the members of the church who live in Africa! Today, Africa is the fastest growing segment of the church. These people who are so poor as to the things of this world are full of faith and Love through the restored gospel of JEsus Christ.

The church has blessed the lives of so many by providing faith, hope, clean water, education, and jobs for what are many of the poorest countries in the World.

I have spent more than a month in two different Africa nations and grew to love the faithful members of the church today. I know that God loves them too and that they Love God and being part of His Church.

What makes the issue of race and the priesthood especially difficult is that it represents a clear case where the modern Church acknowledges that mistakes were made. Cultural assumptions influenced decisions, false explanations took root, and leaders acted with limited understanding. The Church now openly recognizes that this history reflects human error rather than divine doctrine.

More Resources

Gospel Topic Essay – Race and the Priesthood

Church History Matters Podcast – Race Temple and the Priesthood

Come follow Him Podcast

 

 

Continue reading at the original source →