I was asked once by a non-member friend why black members of the Church were not allowed the priesthood. I told them that they were wrong. Black members of the Church were, in fact, allowed the priesthood. I was correct. Partly.
What I did not know was that this was not always the case. Until 1978, black members of the Church were not allowed the priesthood. They were not allowed to receive their temple endowment, and they were not allowed to be sealed in eternal marriage.
“For much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.” [1]
There has been a tremendous effort to explain the ban on the grounds of anything but racism. Some have blamed the government. Others have blamed the blacks themselves. Most choose to blame God.
The history is clear. The priesthood and temple ban against black Latter-day Saints had nothing to do with God, and everything to do with racism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was built on a foundation of racism and discrimination, and the stains from that history remain.
In 1958, Bruce R. McConkie said of black people:
“As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.” [2]
In 1939, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, George F. Richards, spoke of the valiance (or lack thereof) of the black race in his Conference Report.
“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 can not 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.” [3]
Brigham Young spoke against black people in a General Conference address:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone 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.” [4]
First Presidency Counselor George Q. Cannon said this of black people:
“We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of Heaven placed upon some portions of mankind…. No mark could be so plain to his fellow-men as a black skin. This was the mark God placed upon him, and which his children bore. After the flood this curse fell upon the seed of Ham, through the sin of their father, and his descendants bear it to this day…. Their skin is black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.” [5]
In opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, Apostle Mark E. Petersen said:
“I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing—what God hath separated, let no man bring together again.” [6]
Again, Elder Petersen spoke against interracial marriage:
“Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro.” [7]
Wilford Woodruff had similar views on interracial marriage, though his were more severe. He proposed that all men who intermingled with “the seed of Cain” would require decapitation to be forgiven for that sin.
“If any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground—it would also take the life of his children.” [8]
Like polygamy, the priesthood ban was not a temporary commandment. It was the doctrine. Blacks were not allowed the priesthood, nor were they allowed temple blessings. This doctrine was not meant to change.
The unfortunate truth for the modern LDS Church, though, is that the priesthood ban did not begin with Joseph Smith.
During the initial introduction of the priesthood into the Church, there was no discrimination based on race. In fact, in 1836, Joseph ordained Elijah Abel, a free black man, to the office of Elder, and later appointed him as a Seventy.
The first mention of any sort of priesthood or temple ban on black members was delivered by Parley P. Pratt in 1847, three years after the Prophet’s death. He spoke of a black member of the Church, claiming his blood to be “cursed” in regards to the priesthood.
“[William McCary] was a black man with the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the priesthood.” [9]
The policy was officially recorded as doctrine in 1852 by Brigham Young. It was the first time the ban had ever been proposed by a Prophet, and the first time it was officially implemented.
“If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain…I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood…Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot.“ [10]
Joseph was not the instigator of the priesthood ban. The instigator was Brigham Young—our denomination’s (and only our denomination’s) second prophet.
Since the ban reversal in 1978, there has never been a single disavowing of any of the racist actions of Church leaders.
In 1995, A. David Jackson, a black member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, asked Gordon B. Hinckley to disavow the Church’s past racist teachings.
Hinckley refused.
Though the ban was reversed in 1978 as a matter of policy, Jackson expressed his grief at the lack of doctrinal reversal:
“What [the 1978 revelation] doesn’t say is we’re no longer of the lineage of Cain, that we no longer did these things in preexistence. It does not say we are not cursed with black skin.” [11]
As a result of the avoidance in accountability from Church leaders, many members still believe in the doctrine associated with the policy: that black members of the Church have a curse; that black members are less valiant; and, that black members were wicked in the preexistence. Until the Church publicly disavows these racist teachings, they will remain the doctrine—hidden, though it may be.
Native American Racism
Latter-day racism was not exclusively shown to black members. In fact, the entire religion was founded on a racist principle which targeted another group: Native Americans, primarily those found in North America.
The entire thesis of the Book of Mormon is the singular cause for the long-lasting racism towards Native Americans from leaders of the LDS Church. The Book was written, it claims, to them; the descendants of Laman and Lemuel; the Lamanites; the Cursed; the Wicked; the Dark Skinned. The Book is for them. It’s written in the first sentence of the entire book.
“Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;” [12]
The wicked Lamanites, for whom the Book was written, were cursed for their wickedness. The were cast away from God, and as a sign of their wickedness, they were given a dark skin.
“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.” [13]
If The Book of Mormon is the “keystone of our religion,” then racism and bigotry must be the keystone of the Book of Mormon.
Much has been said regarding the racism in the Book of Mormon. This discussion will focus on the words of Church leaders regarding Native Americans in these Latter-days.
There are two main controversial teachings from Church leaders regarding Native Americans. The first teaching is that Native Americans are cursed, and the sign of their cursing is a dark skin. The second teaching is that assimilation of Native Americans into the gospel and into the Church would literally cause their skin to become whiter.
The Prophet Joseph was the first to teach this concept:
“For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and just…” [14]
Brigham Young, a Prophet of God, made an even more egregious claim, calling Native Americans “loathsome” and “ignorant.”
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” [15]
In the October 1960 General Conference, Spencer W. Kimball spoke of Joseph’s teaching, claiming that the prophecy was being fulfilled, and that the skins of the Native Americans were becoming whiter.
“The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”
“At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen —sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.” [16]
Kimball’s statement was not the first of its kind. In fact, the doctrine of the lightening of once-cursed-skin was a common one. In the 1927 Conference Report, Elder Eugene J. Neff spoke similarly of Native Hawaiian members:
“The first missionaries went from this section around to another little town on the east side of the island, and there they gathered in a grass hut one hundred people to hear the message of these strange white men, As they all sat around the mat and heard the voice of this missionary from Utah, they were transfigured before George Q. Cannon, and he saw ninety-seven of them become white, and three of them remained dark. He did not understand. He did not know why it was that three of them would remain dark and all the rest should become light. He received a partial answer to this manifestation when it was learned that ninety-seven of those people in meeting at this time joined the Church, became devout members, lived and died Latter-day Saints, while three of them never did. It is said that they will become a white and delightsome people. They are delightsome at present, and I believe they are going to become white. They are growing whiter from year to year. I have said to myself and to some of my intimate friends that I thought the Hawaiian people would become white and delightsome, through intermarriage.” [17]
There is no mistaking their words: a dark skin is a curse; a sign of deep wickedness. Those cursed with such a skin could become white by following the gospel of the Church. There is nothing righteous about this doctrine. There is nothing Christian about this doctrine. Yet, for many years, it was the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was preached by Prophet, Apostle, missionary, and parent. It was universally believed, and widely taught.
This doctrine is no longer supported. Please do not misunderstand: it has never been condemned—not once by any leader of the Church. Rather, leaders have stopped teaching it. They’ve even gone so far as to change the very words of the Book of Mormon. Editions of the Book of Mormon between 1840 and 1981 called righteous members “white and delightsome” while unrighteous Lamanites were referred to as “dark, a filthy, and a loathsome.” In the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 30:6 changed the words “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome.” The change was made to make the Book of Mormon seem more socially acceptable—less white-favoring. One must ask why the most correct book ever written ever needed changed?
The doctrine of Christ should never change. The prophets should never get it wrong. Again, I am not claiming that prophets are infallible. I am claiming, however, that doctrine widely taught by a Prophet of God should not be condemned once he’s dead. What good is a Prophet if his statements, one day called true doctrine, are the next day rejected? What good is a Prophet who doesn’t know the will or the doctrine of the Lord?
If the Prophets are wrong, they are not true Prophets. So said the Prophet Wilford Woodruff.
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” [18]
A similar sentiment was stated by Harold B. Lee.
“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen.” [19]
Gordon B. Hinckley echoed:
“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray.” [20]
God will not let a Prophet lead his people astray. So said the Prophets. It is clear, though, that the Prophets do lead the people astray. They preach false doctrines. Yesterday’s Prophets are rejected by today’s Prophets.
If there is one man on whom we should rely to preach the truest doctrines, it is the Prophet. And yet, history demonstrates that the Prophets are often the men who preach the falsest doctrines.
If a Prophet leads us astray, is he really a Prophet? And, if the man leading the Church is not really a Prophet, then can the Church be true?
No.
In a true Church, there should be no erasing of doctrine. There shouldn’t need to be any corrections of doctrines taught by past leaders. The doctrine should be the doctrine, and it should not change.
In a true Church, Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” needn’t have been banned from printing and publication. He was a prophet, after all. In a true Church, the doctrines taught by its second Prophet, Brigham Young, would still be accepted and taught. Brigham Young would not need to be demoted by current members as “old” or “crazy” or a “product of his times.”
In fact, in a true Church, the Prophet should not be a “product of his times” at all. In a true Church, the true Prophet should rise above his culture and world view. He should stand above the teachings of an imperfect, uninspired civilization, immune to the teachings of his surrounding world. Prophets shouldn’t be racist. Fallible, yes. Racist, sexist, not so much. Prophets shouldn’t marry children, and they shouldn’t have children with those children. It doesn’t matter that the world said it was okay. It was a Prophet who said that we, the members, are to live “in the world, but not of the world.” [21] Does the same admonition apply to the man who spoke those words?
Imagine a train, built 200 years ago. 200 years ago, that train would have been pulled by horses. It would have had a few cars, and it would have hauled a few things. Let’s imagine that the horse-powered train set off on a 200 year long journey across the world. It begins in New York. It’s loaded up with some food, some books, some clothes, and a little gold. It’s owned and ran by a young guy, a little less than 20 years old. It’s one of its kind. The wood floors are maple. The walls are painted. On that old train, women heal their children. Revelation happens every day, and it’s written down in God’s own words.
As it begins its journey, its slow. The horses get tired fast, so they make frequent stops to drink water and have a snack. A few years go by. That young guy is now in his late twenties. He’s gotten bigger. He doesn’t fit this small car anymore. So, he stops the train, hops off, and buys a bigger chair. A bigger bed. He tosses the old stuff.
The train rolls ahead again. It goes for a little while. Soon, it sees a powerful black engine coming toward it on the adjacent tracks. It’s got a plume of smoke as tall as a tree. It whistles and it grinds and it jets past the little train.
So, the young man stops the train again. He cuts the horses free. He exchanges the reigns for gears; the hay for coal. The train’s stronger now, so he adds a few cars.
It continues like this for a long time.
The young man is killed by train robbers. It’s not the end of the train, though. It’s got a destination to get to! A new conductor jumps on board. He sees the wooden floorboards of the old train, and he swaps them for steel. The straw mattress is now wool. The walls are torn down, and metal beams are put in their place. The wheels, once wagon-ready, are now black iron. It goes for a while. Conductors rise and they fall, some better than those who’ve gone before. Some worse. Each make their changes to the train. It’s had wallpaper in the cabin-car for a decade or so. That’s torn down. It’s got lace curtains on the windows for a while. Those are scrapped. It’s hauling forty cars or so by now. It’s a lucrative thing. Powerful.
It doesn’t care so much about its original mission. It meanders around, making deliveries, collecting payments, hauling loads. It’s got spray paint on all of its cars. They’re grotesque pictures, filthy words, but they’re too far behind the conductor’s cabin. He’s seen them, but he doesn’t really care. After all, he wasn’t the one who painted all of that. He’s got a job to do! Coal to sell! New stations to build!
The train’s all black and rusty. Its plume of smoke is tall. It’s covered in coal dust. It reeks of oil and metal bits.
That old train is gone. There isn’t even a shadow of it left. The horses have died. The wood’s all gone. It’s just hauling coal now. Just plain black coal. Just plain black coal, like all the others.
[1] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics Essays, “Race and the Priesthood”
[2] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 109
[3] George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59
[4] Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291
[5] “The Negro Race”, Juvenile Instructor (1868, Oct. 15), Vol. 3, No. 20, p. 157
[6] Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems – as they Affect the Church, pp. 1, 20
[7] Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems – as they Affect the Church, pp. 19
[8] Wilford Woodruff, Diary, January 4, 1852
[9] Parley P. Pratt, “General Minutes”, April 25, 1847.
[10] Brigham Young, speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852. Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah
[11] A. David Jackson, quoted from the Los Angeles Times, Larry B. Stammer, “Mormons May Disavow Old Views on Blacks,” May 18, 1998
[12] The Book of Mormon, “Title Page of the Book of Mormon”
[14] The quote is derived from an unpublished revelation given by Joseph Smith, recorded by his scribe, William W. Phelps, on July 17, 1831. The revelation was then re-recorded into a letter written by Phelps to Brigham Young, as Brigham Young did not have access to the letter at the time. Interestingly, Phelps writes an additional paragraph, detailing how those in attendance could “take unto [them] wives of the Lamanites,” if the men were already espoused (polygamy was only practiced in secret by Joseph and perhaps a few others in 1831). Having asked the question to the Prophet, Joseph answered, saying, “In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.” This is an interesting note, as the practice of polygamy was hitherto unknown by most members. It stands as one of the earliest mentions of the Prophet’s vocal acceptance of polygamy.
[15] Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses”, Volume 7, page 336
[16] Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, Oct. 1960
[17] Eugene J. Neff, Conference Report, April 1927, p.49
[18] Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, recorded fom the sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.
[19] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533
[20] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Be Not Deceived,” Ensign, Nov. 1983, 46
[21] “President Joseph Fielding Smith Speaks to 14,000 Youth at Long Beach, California,” New Era, July 1971, 8.
