LDS Prophets on Race: A Historical Documentation

From 1852 to 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formally prohibited men of African descent from holding the priesthood or participating in temple ordinances. This policy was not presented as administrative or uncertain. It was defended by multiple presidents and apostles as a direct commandment of God, grounded in theological doctrines about the pre-mortal existence and the curse of Cain. These justifications were published in official church manuals, canonized in teaching materials, and taught to generations of members as revealed truth.

In 1978, the ban was reversed by Official Declaration 2. In 2013, the LDS Church's own Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" formally disavowed the theological justifications that had been taught as prophetic revelation for over 125 years. This page presents the documented record of what was taught, who taught it, with what claimed authority, and what the Church now says about it — without editorial commentary beyond what the sources themselves require.

📋

Methodology: All quotations are drawn from primary LDS sources — the Journal of Discourses, official First Presidency statements, LDS Church publications, and the Church's own Gospel Topics Essays. No anti-Mormon secondary sources are cited. The LDS Church's own 2013 Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" confirms the historical accuracy of the record documented here.

1852

Brigham Young formally announces the priesthood ban to the Utah Territorial Legislature, invoking "the law of God."

1880s–1960s

Ban systematically defended by successive prophets and apostles as divine commandment based on pre-mortal theology.

1949 & 1969

First Presidency issues formal written statements declaring the ban "a direct commandment from the Lord" — not human policy.

1978

Official Declaration 2: President Spencer W. Kimball announces revelation lifting the ban. Sustained by church membership.

2013

Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" formally disavows all prior theological justifications for the ban as false theories.

I — The Ban Established: Brigham Young (1852)

Brigham Young — Address to the Utah Territorial Legislature

January 23, 1852 · Brigham Young Papers, LDS Church History Library

Prophetic Declaration Formal Ban

On January 23, 1852, Brigham Young addressed the Utah Territorial Legislature to establish the formal policy restricting Black members from holding the priesthood. He framed this explicitly as divine law, not administrative policy. The address was recorded by Thomas Bullock, Young's clerk, and is preserved in the LDS Church History Library. The following are among the most directly documented passages.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

— Journal of Discourses 10:110 (March 8, 1863) · cf. Legislative Address (1852)

"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other Prophet ever spake it before, I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ: I know it is true and others know it."

— Legislative Address, January 23, 1852 · Recorded by Thomas Bullock · LDS Church History Library

The prophetic authority claim is explicit: Young does not hedge this statement as personal opinion, historical custom, or administrative prudence. He invokes the name of Jesus Christ, asserts personal prophetic knowledge ("I know it is true"), and challenges any prior prophet to have said otherwise — framing the proclamation as a direct revelation. This is the linguistic register of authoritative prophecy, not pastoral guidance.

Sources: Thomas Bullock Minutes, January 23, 1852 (LDS Church History Library) · Journal of Discourses 10:110 (1863) · LDS Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" (2013), which confirms Young formally announced the restriction in 1852

II — The Theological Justifications: Curse of Cain & Pre-Mortal Valiance

Joseph Fielding Smith — The Way to Perfection (1931)

Published by the Genealogical Society of Utah · Standard LDS Doctrinal Manual

Apostle & Future Prophet Pre-Mortal Theory

Joseph Fielding Smith served as President of the Quorum of the Twelve and later as the 10th President of the Church (1970–1972). The Way to Perfection was published by the Church's own Genealogical Society and used as a standard doctrinal text. Chapter 7 provides the fullest official articulation of the "pre-mortal fence-sitter" theory used to justify the ban.

"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 more or less valiant in that pre-existence… Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."

— Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 42–43 (1931)

"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel."

— Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101 (1931)

The theological architecture is explicit: Smith presents two interlocking justifications — the pre-mortal "less valiant" theory and the Curse of Cain doctrine — as established LDS doctrine, not speculation. Both are presented as explanatory of a divine and just arrangement. The 2013 Gospel Topics Essay specifically names and disavows both of these theories by name. Smith became Church President in 1970 — two years after these same teachings remained standard LDS doctrine.

Sources: Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1931), pp. 42–43, 101–105 · Confirmed as published LDS doctrinal material by the 2013 Gospel Topics Essay

First Presidency Statement — George Albert Smith, Presiding

August 17, 1949 · Official First Presidency Statement

First Presidency Divine Commandment Claim

This formal written statement from the First Presidency — the highest governing body of the LDS Church — was issued in response to civil rights era inquiries about the Church's racial policies. It explicitly frames the ban not as historical custom or human tradition, but as divine commandment. The statement was cited and reproduced by the LDS Church itself in subsequent years.

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may neither hold the Priesthood nor attend the temple… Faithful members of the Church and honest investigators will accept this teaching, trusting in the justice and wisdom of God, that in his eternal plan, all men shall have opportunity to receive the blessings of the Gospel."

— First Presidency Statement, August 17, 1949 · Cited in LDS Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" (2013)

The most consequential phrase in this documentation: "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord." This statement removes every available escape from the prophetic authority problem. It is not attributed to culture, prior tradition, human error, or administrative necessity. The First Presidency — speaking in its highest collective capacity — declares this a direct divine commandment. The 2013 essay does not dispute that this statement was made; it cites it directly.

Sources: First Presidency Statement, August 17, 1949 · Cited verbatim in LDS Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" (LDS Church, 2013) · Also cited in Lester E. Bush Jr., "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," Dialogue 8:1 (1973)

First Presidency Statement — David O. McKay, Presiding

December 15, 1969 · Official First Presidency Statement

First Presidency Nine Years Before Reversal

Issued just nine years before the 1978 revelation lifting the ban, this First Presidency statement reaffirms the ban's divine origin and explicitly addresses the pre-mortal justification. President McKay was regarded during his tenure (1951–1970) as a progressive and beloved prophet — yet under his presidency, this statement was issued in his name and the names of his counselors.

"Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, 'The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God… Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state'… President McKay has stated that we must accept the testimony of the prophets… that dark skin is the result of divine decree."

— First Presidency Statement, December 15, 1969

The 1969 statement is significant for two reasons. First, it was issued less than a decade before the 1978 reversal — demonstrating that the ban was not treated as uncertain or under active reconsideration. Second, it explicitly invokes "revelation" as the source of the restriction's rationale, and attributes the theological justification directly to the living prophet. No hedging, no admission of uncertainty. The 2013 essay would later write: "We do not know precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" — a statement incompatible with 1969's "it goes back into the beginning with God."

Sources: First Presidency Statement, December 15, 1969 · Lester E. Bush Jr., Dialogue 8:1 (1973) · LDS Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" (2013)

III — Bruce R. McConkie: Mormon Doctrine (1958) and the 1978 Reversal

Bruce R. McConkie — Mormon Doctrine, First Edition (1958)

Published by Bookcraft · LDS Apostle, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve

Apostolic Teaching Standard Reference Work

Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine became one of the most widely distributed doctrinal reference books in LDS history. Though not formally canonized, it was treated by generations of members and missionaries as a reliable guide to LDS theology. Under the entry for "Negroes," McConkie articulated the pre-mortal justification as settled doctrine. The book went through multiple editions and printings through the 1970s.

"In the pre-existent eternity various degrees of valiance and devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups of souls. The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned… the negro, as indicated above, was not neutral in heaven, for he has been given a mortal body… but under the established order of things is not entitled to receive the priesthood at the present time."

— Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (1st ed., 1958), entry: "Negroes"

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them… Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain."

— Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (1st ed., 1958), entry: "Negroes"

"Under no circumstances" is among the most absolute formulations available in doctrinal writing. McConkie did not present this as provisional, culturally conditioned, or subject to future reconsideration. The phrase echoes the eternal, unconditional language of doctrinal definition. Nineteen years later — not centuries — these exact conditions would be reversed by the same church that published this work as a doctrinal reference.

Sources: Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), pp. 476–477 · 2nd ed. (1966), revised but retaining the restriction as current doctrine · LDS Gospel Topics Essay "Race and the Priesthood" (2013)

Bruce R. McConkie — "All Are Alike Unto God" (1978)

Address to CES Religious Educators, August 18, 1978 · Seven Weeks After Official Declaration 2

Post-Reversal Self-Correction

Seven weeks after Official Declaration 2 was announced, McConkie addressed LDS seminary and institute teachers. His remarks — candid and remarkable in their admission — have become among the most widely cited statements in the entire race-and-priesthood discussion. McConkie directly addresses what should be done with everything he and others had taught for decades.

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore."

— Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," CES Religious Educators Symposium, August 18, 1978

This statement is the most important single admission in this documentation. McConkie does not merely acknowledge that the ban is lifted — he acknowledges that everything previously taught to justify the ban was wrong, said with "limited understanding," and should be forgotten. Note what this requires: the First Presidency statements of 1949 and 1969 — which declared the ban "a direct commandment from the Lord" founded on "revelation" — must now also be forgotten. The prophets who spoke those words spoke with "limited understanding." McConkie's candor is admirable. But his words constitute a direct confession that authoritative prophetic teaching on a major doctrinal question was systematically, categorically wrong for over a century.

Sources: Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," address to CES Religious Educators Symposium, Brigham Young University, August 18, 1978 · Published by the Church Educational System, LDS Church · Widely reproduced in LDS periodicals

IV — Official Declaration 2: The 1978 Reversal

Spencer W. Kimball — Official Declaration 2

June 8, 1978 · Canonized Scripture · D&C Official Declaration 2

Canonical Revelation Sustained by Membership

On June 8, 1978, the First Presidency under Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation lifting the priesthood and temple ban for Black members. The announcement was canonized as Official Declaration 2 and is now part of the Doctrine and Covenants. It was sustained unanimously by the general conference membership in September 1978. The language of the Declaration is notably brief about reasons — it does not explain why the restriction had existed.

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

— Official Declaration 2 (June 8, 1978) · Doctrine and Covenants

What Official Declaration 2 does not say is as significant as what it says. It does not say the restriction was a human error. It does not say the prior justifications were false. It does not explain why what was a "direct commandment from the Lord" (1949) is now reversed. The declaration announces the change as a new revelation — which raises its own question: if God is now revealing that "every faithful, worthy man" may receive the priesthood, was He previously revealing the opposite? Or was the previous restriction not, in fact, revealed at all? The 2013 essay would eventually grapple with this — and its answer is as consequential as the Declaration itself.

Sources: Official Declaration 2, Doctrine and Covenants · First Presidency Letter, June 8, 1978 · Sustained at the 148th Semi-Annual General Conference, October 1978

V — The 2013 Gospel Topics Essay: Disavowal of the Justifications

LDS Church — Gospel Topics Essay: "Race and the Priesthood"

Published December 2013 · LDS Church Website (Gospel Topics Essays) · Official Church Publication

Official Disavowal Church Published

As part of a broader initiative to address difficult historical questions, the LDS Church published a series of Gospel Topics Essays in 2013–2014. The essay "Race and the Priesthood" is perhaps the most significant. Published on the official LDS Church website and acknowledged by Church leadership as an official document, it directly addresses and repudiates the theological justifications used by prophets and apostles for over 125 years.

"The Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

— LDS Gospel Topics Essay, "Race and the Priesthood," LDS.org (December 2013)

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past… We do not know precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have little clarity on the issue."

— LDS Gospel Topics Essay, "Race and the Priesthood" (2013)

These two sentences, read together, constitute the decisive evidence in this documentation. The first disavows the pre-mortal theory and the Curse of Cain doctrine — the precise justifications taught by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and multiple First Presidency statements as divine revelation. The second admits that the Church does not know how or when the restriction began. Compare this directly with the 1949 First Presidency statement: "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord." The 1949 prophets said they knew exactly: it was a direct commandment from God. The 2013 essay says: "We do not know precisely why, how, or when this restriction began."

Sources: "Race and the Priesthood," Gospel Topics Essays, LDS Church (December 2013), available at ChurchofJesusChrist.org · Confirmed as official Church document by the Office of the First Presidency

VI — The Prophetic Authority Problem

📜

The Claim Was Prophetic

The restriction was not presented as policy, tradition, or pastoral prudence. Multiple prophets, two formal First Presidency statements, and a standard doctrinal reference work all declared it "a direct commandment from the Lord" grounded in revelation about the pre-mortal existence.

❌

The Claim Was Disavowed

The specific theological doctrines used to justify the ban — pre-mortal fence-sitting, the Curse of Cain, racial inferiority — were formally disavowed by the Church in 2013 as "theories," not revelations. The Church now says it does not know how or when the restriction began.

⚖️

No Escape From the Dilemma

If the prophets were speaking prophetically, they were wrong. If they were not speaking prophetically, the LDS claim that members have a "living prophet" who speaks for God requires massive qualification. Either conclusion destabilizes the foundational LDS truth claim.

✦ The Logical Structure of the Problem ✦

P1.

The LDS Church claims that the President of the Church, when speaking on doctrinal matters in his official capacity, speaks as a prophet of God — representing divine will, not merely personal opinion.

P2.

Multiple Presidents of the Church, and formal First Presidency statements, declared the priesthood and temple ban to be "a direct commandment from the Lord" grounded in revealed theology about the pre-mortal existence and the lineage of Cain.

P3.

The LDS Church's own 2013 Gospel Topics Essay disavows those theological justifications as false theories, and acknowledges it does not know "precisely why, how, or when this restriction began." Bruce R. McConkie, speaking as an apostle seven weeks after the reversal, stated that everything previously taught on this subject was said with "limited understanding" and should be forgotten.

Therefore: Either (a) prophets speaking as prophets on doctrinal matters can be systematically, categorically wrong for over a century — in which case the LDS concept of continuous prophetic authority provides no reliable access to divine truth; or (b) those prophets were not speaking prophetically when they made these declarations — in which case LDS members have no reliable way to distinguish when a prophet speaks for God and when he does not, since the prophets themselves claimed divine authority for these teachings.

VII — Common LDS Responses & Their Problems

Response 1: Prophets Are Fallible Men

Prophets are human and can express personal opinions that do not represent divine revelation. The ban may have reflected cultural prejudices of the 19th century rather than revealed doctrine. The Church has always taught that the prophet can be wrong on matters of personal opinion.

Why This Fails

The 1949 First Presidency statement — the highest collective governing voice in LDS polity — explicitly ruled this out: "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord." A First Presidency statement does not occupy the same register as personal opinion. Additionally, Joseph Fielding Smith in The Way to Perfection and Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine both presented the ban's theological justifications as revealed doctrine, not cultural opinion. If the First Presidency can issue formal statements declaring God's direct commandment — and be wrong — then no First Presidency statement carries reliable doctrinal authority.

Response 2: Progressive Revelation

God reveals truth incrementally. The 1978 revelation was an advance, not a correction — God chose that moment to extend the priesthood as He had always planned, in the same way circumcision was fulfilled in baptism and the Mosaic Law was fulfilled in Christ.

Why This Fails

Progressive revelation explicates what was implicitly present — it does not reverse prior declarations made in God's name. The New Testament does not declare that Moses spoke with "limited understanding" about circumcision; it reveals its fulfilment in Christ. But McConkie instructed teachers to forget everything previously said on this topic. The 2013 essay does not say God revealed more of what He had always planned; it says the Church does not know "why, how, or when" the restriction began — a direct contradiction of the 1949 statement that it was "a direct commandment from the Lord" going "back into the beginning with God." These are incompatible framings of the same history.

Response 3: Brigham Young Was Wrong, Not Speaking as Prophet

Brigham Young's more extreme racial statements were personal views, and the Church has never formally canonized his 1852 address. The restriction may have arisen from his cultural context rather than revelation.

Why This Fails

Young explicitly claimed prophetic authority — invoking "the name of Jesus Christ" and his personal prophetic knowledge ("I know it is true"). More critically, Young's position was confirmed by subsequent prophets and First Presidencies, including formal written statements declaring it "a direct commandment from the Lord" in 1949 and 1969. If Young was wrong, every prophet who confirmed his teaching was also wrong — and the LDS Church's claim to continuous living prophetic authority becomes very difficult to distinguish from ordinary institutional fallibility. The problem does not shrink by blaming Brigham Young; it grows.

✦ The Catholic Theological Contrast ✦

The Catholic Church's claim to authoritative teaching rests on a carefully articulated epistemology: the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, the consensus of the Fathers, the sensus fidelium, and the irreformability of solemn dogmatic definitions. Catholics acknowledge that individual popes can err in their personal theological opinions. What the Church does not claim — and has not done — is issue formal pronouncements from its highest governing body declaring a practice "a direct commandment from the Lord" and then, 29 years later, disavow the theological foundation of that pronouncement while admitting it does not know how the practice began.

The LDS race-and-priesthood record does not merely present a church that made mistakes. It presents a church whose most authoritative governing voices — in formal, collective statements, explicitly framed as divine revelation — taught doctrines that the same church now calls false theories. The Catholic apologist need not argue that LDS prophets are bad men. The argument is far simpler and more devastating: if the prophets were right in 1949, the 2013 essay is wrong. If the 2013 essay is right, the prophets were wrong in 1949. There is no third option. And a prophetic tradition that can be wrong in this way, on this scale, for this long, while explicitly invoking the name of God, is not the kind of prophetic authority that can sustain the LDS claim to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ.