Racist statements by LDS leaders

Earlier leaders and publications associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints described race through theological explanations that assigned different spiritual status to people of African descent. These ideas were used to justify restrictions on priesthood ordination and participation in temple rites.

Early teachings about race

In nineteenth-century addresses, Brigham Young linked Blackness to the biblical story of Cain and taught that interracial marriage should receive severe punishment. His explanations treated inherited appearance and social status as evidence of a supposed ancestral curse. Modern historical scholarship and contemporary LDS teaching reject those racial claims.

Joseph Fielding Smith later presented a related explanation: people were said to have shown different degrees of obedience before mortal life, and those differences were used to account for unequal circumstances at birth. The theory placed responsibility for racial disadvantage on supposed actions of earlier generations or a premortal existence.

Statements and policy in the 1950s

During the 1950s, some LDS speakers and writers continued to defend the restriction that Black men could not be ordained to the priesthood. They also treated interracial marriage as religiously objectionable and described racial inequality as part of a divine order.

One influential 1958 doctrinal publication attributed priesthood restrictions to supposed differences in premortal faithfulness. Later printings removed this material or changed the wording. The shift illustrates why editions, dates and publication history matter when studying religious doctrine.

The restriction did not prevent Black people from joining the church, but it limited access to offices and ceremonies that were central to LDS religious life. Women also remained excluded from priesthood ordination, though that issue followed a different history and should not be collapsed into the question of race.

The 1978 change and later interpretation

In 1978, church leaders announced that priesthood ordination and temple blessings would be extended without regard to race or skin color. The change ended the formal restriction, although it did not erase the effects of earlier teachings or the experiences of members who had encountered discrimination.

A later official essay on race and the priesthood stated that past racial explanations reflected the views of earlier leaders rather than revealed doctrine. It also rejected the idea that Black skin is a sign of divine disfavor and acknowledged that the church had previously repeated theories that are now disavowed.

Why the history still matters

Historical study is useful when it distinguishes between a policy, the arguments used to defend it and the people affected by it. It also helps readers understand why present-day statements about equality may be heard alongside memories of exclusion.

Readers comparing religious traditions can ask several questions: Who had authority to define doctrine? Which sources were treated as official? How did social assumptions shape interpretation? When did policy change, and how did the institution explain that change?

References used

The original essay identified the following historical sources. They are retained here as a concise research trail; wording from the sources is not reproduced on this page.

For broader background, see the site's pages on Christianity, LDS Restorationist traditions, comparing religions, and human rights.