The relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon church) and Black people is a complex and painful chapter in American religious history. This topic touches on real doctrines that existed and their lasting impact, so I will lay out what is historically documented.

From the founding of the LDS Church in 1830 under Joseph Smith, attitudes toward Black members shifted over time. In the early years, Joseph Smith ordained at least a few Black men to the priesthood, most notably Elijah Abel in 1836. Abel remained active in the church for decades and was even re-ordained after being dropped from the rolls. So the earliest period of Mormonism was not uniformly exclusionary toward Black people, at least in terms of priesthood ordination.

The situation changed significantly under Brigham Young, who assumed leadership after Smith's death in 1844 and led the Mormons to Utah. Young implemented a policy in 1852 that explicitly barred Black men from holding the priesthood, and this prohibition remained in place for over a century. Young framed this in theological terms that drew on a long-standing Christian and Jewish interpretive tradition surrounding the story of Cain and the story of Ham in Genesis. In this framework, Black skin was said to be the mark placed upon Cain for murdering his brother Abel, and the descendants of Ham (through his son Canaan) were said to be cursed with servitude. These interpretations were not original to Mormonism. They had been used for centuries by various Christian denominations to justify slavery and racial hierarchy. What made the Mormon case distinctive was that these older folk-theological ideas became institutionalized and formally tied to priesthood policy in a way that lasted much longer than in most other American churches.

The key scriptural and doctrinal sources that informed this position include passages in the Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the LDS standard works. In the Book of Abraham, verses in chapters 1 and 3 reference the idea that those of Ham's lineage were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood. Joseph Smith translated this text from Egyptian papyri, and the church accepted it as scripture. These passages became the primary textual justification cited for the ban, even though the interpretation of exactly what the text meant and how binding it was became a subject of internal debate among Mormon scholars and leaders over the decades.

There was also a related but distinct teaching that gained circulation in the 19th and early 20th centuries, commonly called the "curse of Cain" theology and sometimes connected to the "war in heaven" narrative. In its popular form, this teaching suggested that Black people had been less valiant or neutral in a pre-mortal existence, and that their earthly condition reflected that spiritual state. It is important to say that this specific framing was never adopted as official doctrine in any formal canonical statement, and several later church leaders distanced themselves from it or rejected it outright. However, it was taught widely enough in Sunday schools, seminary programs, and informal settings that it shaped the worldview of many members for generations.

The priesthood ban persisted through the entire civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, which created significant tension both internally and externally. Some Mormon leaders and intellectuals criticized the ban or expressed discomfort with it. For instance, Elder Hugh B. Brown, who served in the First Presidency, reportedly favored lifting the restriction as early as the 1960s. Others, including Apostle Mark E. Petersen and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, defended the ban publicly, sometimes in language that by today's standards is plainly racist. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, first published in 1958, contained statements about Black people and the priesthood that were bluntly discriminatory, though some of the harshest passages were softened in later editions.

The pivotal change came on June 8, 1978, when church President Spencer W. Kimball announced what is known as Official Declaration 2, which stated that God had revealed that the priesthood should be extended to all worthy male members regardless of race. This was subsequently sustained by the membership as binding scripture. From that point forward, Black men could hold the priesthood and Black members could participate fully in temple rituals, including marriage sealings, which had previously been denied to them. The announcement was met with relief by many members and with praise from outside observers, though it also raised difficult questions about why the ban had existed at all and what its legacy meant.

In the years since 1978, the church has taken various steps to address the history. In 2013, the church published an essay titled "Race and the Priesthood" on its official Gospel Topics section of its website. This essay acknowledged that the ban had no firm scriptural foundation, noted that Brigham Young's implementation of the policy occurred in a specific historical context, and stated that the theories used to justify the ban, including the curse of Cain and pre-mortal unvaliance, were not and had never been official doctrine. The essay also affirmed that Joseph Smith had ordained Black men and that the earliest church was more racially inclusive than the later Utah period. This was widely understood as a significant, if incomplete, reckoning with the past.

However, critics have noted that the church has not issued a formal apology for the priesthood ban or for the teaching of racial theories in its ranks. The 2013 essay was described by church leadership as an act of transparency and clarification rather than contrition. The Book of Abraham, which contains the scriptural passages most directly linked to the ban, remains canonized scripture, though the essay frames those passages as not supporting the exclusionary reading that was applied to them for over a century. There are ongoing tensions within the church and among Black Latter-day Saints about whether the institutional response has gone far enough.

The Mormon church did have a formal policy for 126 years that denied the priesthood and temple blessings to Black members, and this policy was justified using a combination of inherited American racist theology, selective readings of its own scriptures, and speculative teachings about pre-mortal existence. The church now repudiates the theological justifications for that ban while retaining the texts that were used to support it. Whether the history constitutes an active ongoing racist doctrine depends on how one weighs the formal 1978 reversal and the 2013 disavowal against the long preceding period and the absence of a formal apology. But the history itself is not disputed, and the church itself now acknowledges that the ban and its rationales were human products of their time rather than divinely mandated eternal principles.

Cheers!
-warmfuzzy/SilentPartner

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
* Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (700:100/37)

On 03 Aug 2026, warmfuzzy said the following...

The relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon church) and Black people is a complex and painful chapter in American religious history. This topic touches on
real doctrines that existed and their lasting impact, so I will lay out what is historically documented.

From the founding of the LDS Church in 1830 under Joseph Smith,
attitudes toward Black members shifted over time. In the early years, Joseph Smith ordained at least a few Black men to the priesthood, most notably Elijah Abel in 1836. Abel remained active in the church for decades and was even re-ordained after being dropped from the rolls. So the earliest period of Mormonism was not uniformly exclusionary toward Black people, at least in terms of priesthood ordination.

The situation changed significantly under Brigham Young, who assumed leadership after Smith's death in 1844 and led the Mormons to Utah.
Young implemented a policy in 1852 that explicitly barred Black men
from holding the priesthood, and this prohibition remained in place for over a century. Young framed this in theological terms that drew on a long-standing Christian and Jewish interpretive tradition surrounding
the story of Cain and the story of Ham in Genesis. In this framework, Black skin was said to be the mark placed upon Cain for murdering his brother Abel, and the descendants of Ham (through his son Canaan) were said to be cursed with servitude. These interpretations were not
original to Mormonism. They had been used for centuries by various Christian denominations to justify slavery and racial hierarchy. What
made the Mormon case distinctive was that these older folk-theological ideas became institutionalized and formally tied to priesthood policy
in a way that lasted much longer than in most other American churches.

The key scriptural and doctrinal sources that informed this position include passages in the Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the LDS standard works. In the Book of Abraham, verses in chapters 1 and 3 reference the idea that those of Ham's
lineage were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood. Joseph Smith translated this text from Egyptian papyri, and the church accepted it
as scripture. These passages became the primary textual justification cited for the ban, even though the interpretation of exactly what the text meant and how binding it was became a subject of internal debate among Mormon scholars and leaders over the decades.

There was also a related but distinct teaching that gained circulation
in the 19th and early 20th centuries, commonly called the "curse of
Cain" theology and sometimes connected to the "war in heaven"
narrative. In its popular form, this teaching suggested that Black
people had been less valiant or neutral in a pre-mortal existence, and that their earthly condition reflected that spiritual state. It is important to say that this specific framing was never adopted as
official doctrine in any formal canonical statement, and several later church leaders distanced themselves from it or rejected it outright. However, it was taught widely enough in Sunday schools, seminary
programs, and informal settings that it shaped the worldview of many memb

The priesthood ban persisted through the entire civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, which created significant tension both internally and externally. Some Mormon leaders and intellectuals criticized the ban or expressed discomfort with it. For instance, Elder Hugh B. Brown, who served in the First Presidency, reportedly favored lifting the restriction as early as the 1960s. Others, including Apostle Mark E. Petersen and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, defended the ban publicly, sometimes in language that by today's standards is plainly racist. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine, first published in 1958, contained statements about Black people and the priesthood that were bluntly discriminatory, though some of the harshest passages were softened in later editions.

The pivotal change came on June 8, 1978, when church President Spencer
W. Kimball announced what is known as Official Declaration 2, which stated that God had revealed that the priesthood should be extended to all worthy male members regardless of race. This was subsequently sustained by the membership as binding scripture. From that point forward, Black men could hold the priesthood and Black members could participate fully in temple rituals, including marriage sealings, which had previously been denied to them. The announcement was met with
relief by many members and with praise from outside observers, though
it also raised difficult questions about why the ban had existed at all and what its legacy meant.

In the years since 1978, the church has taken various steps to address
the history. In 2013, the church published an essay titled "Race and
the Priesthood" on its official Gospel Topics section of its website. This essay acknowledged that the ban had no firm scriptural foundation, noted that Brigham Young's implementation of the policy occurred in a specific historical context, and stated that the theories used to
justify the ban, including the curse of Cain and pre-mortal unvaliance, were not and had never been official doctrine. The essay also affirmed that Joseph Smith had ordained Black men and that the earliest church
was more racially inclusive than the later Utah period. This was widely understood as a significant, if incomplete, reckoning with the past.

However, critics have noted that the church has not issued a formal apology for the priesthood ban or for the teaching of racial theories
in its ranks. The 2013 essay was described by church leadership as an
act of transparency and clarification rather than contrition. The Book
of Abraham, which contains the scriptural passages most directly linked to the ban, remains canonized scripture, though the essay frames those passages as not supporting the exclusionary reading that was applied to them for over a century. There are ongoing tensions within the church
and among Black Latter-day Saints about whether the institutional response has gone far enough.

The Mormon church did have a formal policy for 126 years that denied the priesthood and temple blessings to Black members, and this policy was justified using a combination of inherited American racist theology, selective readings of its own scriptures, and speculative teachings
about pre-mortal existence. The church now repudiates the theological justifications for that ban while retaining the texts that were used to support it. Whether the history constitutes an active ongoing racist doctrine depends on how one weighs the formal 1978 reversal and the 2013 disavowal against the long preceding period and the absence of a formal apology. But the history itself is not disputed, and the church itself
now acknowledges that the ban and its rationales were human products of their time rather than divinely mandated eternal principles.

Cheers!
-warmfuzzy/SilentPartner

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
* Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (700:100/37)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Linux/64)
* Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (700:100/37)