S9 E8 Prophets Under Pressure: Ending the Blacks Priesthood Ban

Episode 8 of Changes examines prophetic pressures surrounding priesthood ban on Black members and its 1978 removal. 

Sources

• Video_Hugh B Brown End Priesthood Ban_1969_MS
• Essay: Race and Priesthood_Gospel Topics_LDS.org
• Essay: The Real Story of the Priesthood Temple Ban_FaithMatters
• Essay: Discussing Difficult Topics__BYU RSC
• Video: From Policy to Doctrine: MS 1910
• Video: Revelation or Secret Meeting?_MS_1954
• Video: The Lasting Legacy of the LDS Priesthood Ban_MS 1965
• Video: The End of the Priesthood Ban Came with a Catch_MS 1958
• Video: Renegade Mormon Apostle: MS 1928
• Video: Mormon Apostle Tries to End LDS Priesthood _MS_1941

AI Prompt
Act as a reporter and create a deep dive into the end of the blacks priesthood and temple ban. Explore, the who, what, when, where, why, and how? Start with the policies and doctrine related to blacks. Discuss Hugh B. Brown's role, external pressures, internal politics, and other factors that led to change. What was the change? Was their a change in official doctrine or an apology? Focus on the process of making changes. What can members learn about how big changes happen within the Church?

Transcript

Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

You know, when we look at institutions that have been around for well, for a long time, it's easy to wonder how they navigate really significant shifts.

Right

Today, we're going deep into a truly monumental change. The moment the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ended its ban on black members holding the priesthood and fully participating in temple ordinances, those really central sacred rituals within the church.

Exactly. And this isn't just about recounting history, is it? Our mission here is to understand the policies and uh doctrines that underpinned this ban, the key factors that led to its removal in 1978

and what this whole process tells us about how change happens within a deeply rooted religious institution. Sort of understanding the dynamics of institutional evolution, you know.

Yeah. Getting under the hood a bit to get a real handle on this. We've looked at a wide range of materials, discussions with historians, transcripts of interviews with people who were right there, you know, during these pivotal times and official church documents, too. It's definitely a story with many layers

for sure. So, we're taking a multifaceted approach to understand it fully. Now, as we start, it's interesting, isn't it, that the early days of the church actually show a period of, well, more openness regarding black members and the priesthood.

What's fascinating here is that initially there wasn't a formal policy preventing black men from being ordained or participating in temple practices. It wasn't codified like it later became.

So, like examples from the very beginning.

We have examples right from the start. There's Black Pete who joined the church in 1830, its founding year,

and then Elijah Abel, who was ordained an elder in 1836, and even served in the third quorum of the 70, which is a missionary group,

and leaders knew he was black.

Absolutely.

It's important to know that church leaders were aware of Abel's race at the time. That's documented.

Okay. So, we have this initial period, maybe a bit more fluid, less rigid. Then our sources point to a significant shift around 1852. That's when Brigham Young publicly articulated a restriction,

right?

What was the main reasoning behind this change? What did he say?

The primary justification Brigham Y. Young consistently used was the curse of Cain.

Okay.

He taught that black skin was the mark placed on Cain after he killed his brother Abel. Therefore, uh he believed that those descended from Cain whom he identified as people of black African descent were restricted from holding the priesthood.

So it was tied specifically to that lineage in his view.

Yes. And He also taught that the descendants of Abel, understood generally to be white people, needed to receive the priesthood first before it could go to Cain's line.

It's striking that Brigham. Young relied so heavily on this particular interpretation of Genesis. Right.

It is. And one thing our sources emphasize is that he consistently used this biblical rationale. He never drew upon the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or the Book of Moses to support this specific restriction.

That's a really crucial insight. So this justification, the curse of Cain It wasn't rooted in restoration scripture specifically for this purpose.

Not according to Brigham Young's own explanations. No. While the curse of Cain narrative has a long history in, you know, Judeo-Christian thought, its adoption as the central justification within Mormonism, specifically by Brigham Young, is what really solidified this policy.

Okay.

And as one of our historical sources points out, this created a significant theological tension for members of your faith.

How so? What was the inherent conflict this introduced.

Well, if we connect this to the bigger picture of Mormon theology, it clashes pretty directly with a second article of faith,

right? Men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

Exactly. Brigham Young's explanation essentially held an entire group of people accountable, you could say, for an act committed by a distant ancestor in which they played no part. So, a major insight here is the fundamental clash between this justification and a core tenant of the faith individual accountability.

That's a powerful contradiction. It makes sense then that this would lead to attempts by other church leaders maybe to find alternative explanations, try to reconcile the ban somehow.

It does raise that important question about how people grapple with theological inconsistencies, doesn't it?

Yeah.

And indeed, other church leaders did try to reconcile the ban with core Mormon beliefs. Some proposed explanations rooted in the premortal existence.

Ah, okay. The time before life on Earth,

right? Suggesting that perhaps those born with black skin had been uh less valiant or maybe even neutral in the war in heaven. That conflict believed to have occurred before birth.

So shifting the reason back before mortality

kind of. Yeah. But it's important to note as our sources clarify that Brigham Young himself explicitly rejected the neutrality argument back in 1869. He reaffirmed his focus on the curse of Cain from Genesis.

So he stuck to his original reasoning.

He did. So this premortal explanation was another attempt to understand the ban. but one that shifted the reasoning from a scriptural curse in this life to events believed to have occurred before birth which is a pretty significant difference in theological approach. Right.

Definitely. So even within church leadership there wasn't one single unified theological understanding of the ban beyond Brigham. Young's justification. Now how did this articulation in 1852 translate into concrete policy? What actually happened?

Well the implementation of the ban became clear with Brigham. Young's 1852 announcement before before the Utah territorial legislature. That's when it is officially stated, restricting priesthood ordination for men of black African descent.

Okay. So, it became official policy then.

Yes. And it's also noteworthy that even within this restrictive announcement, Brigham Young stated that black members would eventually have all the privilege and more.

H interesting. Hinting at a future change.

Kind of hinting at it. Yeah. Though the timing and mechanism remained completely unclear. It was very ambiguous.

And this restriction didn't just stay confined to priesthood ordination. It itself did it. It eventually extended to temple ordinances which are, I mean, so central to Latter-day Saint faith.

That's right. The extension to temple ordinances seems to have developed somewhat later or at least the application became more rigid over time. The case of Elijah Abel again but later in 1879 is particularly illustrative here.

The same Elijah Abel from earlier.

The very same Abel who had previously held the priesthood and participated in early temple related practices like washings and anointings in Kirtland. Right.

He applied to then church President John Taylor to receive his full temple endowment and be sealed to his deceased wife.

And this was decades after the 1852 announcement.

Yes. 1879. And this request prompted an investigation into Abel's status as a black priesthood holder.

But wait, what's fascinating here is that if the priesthood restriction was already firmly established and understood to preclude temple ordinances for black members, why would an investigation even be necessary in 1879? Shouldn't it have been automatic.

Exactly. That's the key point. This investigation led by John Taylor reveals the ambiguity, maybe the evolving understanding or application of the policy at that time.

So, what was the outcome?

Ultimately, Taylor allowed Abel's priesthood to stand, acknowledging his prior ordination.

Okay.

But denied him admission to the temple for these specific ordinances, the endowment and ceiling. This really underscores how the implications of the initial priesthood restriction were still being worked out or perhaps tightened in practice. So his priesthood was valid but temple access denied.

Correct.

And what was the impact of this extended restriction on black members of the church? I mean the priesthood and the temple.

The impact was profound. Over time the idea became prevalent really embedded that black members without access to the priesthood and these key temple ordinances were unable to achieve exultation

which is the highest degree of glory in the afterlife according to the theology.

Precisely. And in your faith access to these ordinances is is seen as absolutely essential for achieving that highest state of eternal glory. This created a significant spiritual barrier.

I can only imagine.

Yeah. It caused deep pain and alienation for black members who felt excluded from the fullness of the blessings available to others in the church. It's hard to fully grasp the deep spiritual and emotional toll that must have taken on individuals and families over generations.

It's a heavy history, no question. Knowing this background, let's turn to the factors that eventually led to the dismantling of this ban. Who are some of the key figures maybe pushing for change from within?

Well, High B. Brown really stands out. He emerges as a particularly significant figure who consistently, though sometimes quietly, advocated for a change in the church's policy.

He was an apostle later in the First Presidency. Right.

Yes. And our sources highlight his deep awareness of the discriminatory nature of the ban. Even in private conversations, he expressed his belief that the policy would eventually be reversed.

So, he personally felt it was wrong or at least temporary.

It appears so indicating a personal conviction that differed from the official stance at the time. He seemed uncomfortable with it.

It's powerful to know that there were voices like that within the leadership. Beyond internal advocacy, what external pressures played a role in this shift? The world was changing rapidly then. Oh,

absolutely. Several external factors created a growing pressure for change. The civil rights movement in the United States during the 1950s, 1960s was huge. significantly raised societal awareness of racial inequality and injustice. And this broader cultural shift inevitably led to increased scrutiny of the church's own racial policies both from outside and inside.

So the church wasn't immune to those societal currents.

Not at all. A crucial insight for you to take away is this dynamic interplay between internal pressures like the moral convictions of leaders like High B. Brown and these powerful external forces like the civil rights movement. They fed into each other.

That makes sense. The church couldn't exist in a vacuum and the moral force of the civil rights movement must have had an impact causing members and leaders to question things

right and it wasn't just the US civil rights movement there were other external influences too

like what

another key external influence or perhaps a revealing incident was the experience of church president David McKay in South Africa in 1954

ah okay what happened there

Well there he encountered a situation where individuals who appeared to be white were being denied priesthood ordination because they couldn't definitively prove they had no African ancestry, however distant.

Wow. So the burden of proof was on them to prove a negative.

Essentially, yes. The policy as it was being applied in South Africa operated on a kind of guilty until proven innocent basis regarding any African lineage, no matter how far back or untraceable.

And how did President McKay respond to that?

President McKay unilaterally reversed that specific application of the policy in South Africa. He shifted it to innocent until proven guilty,meaning meaning he questioned the logic of preventing individuals who appeared white from receiving the priesthood based on untraceable possibilities. He decided it was better to err on the side of mercy ordaining them unless clear evidence of African ancestry later emerged.

Interesting. So a localized change but still it's exactly this decision while geographically limited at the time represented a significant departure from the prevailing very strict approach and maybe signaled a potential for broader change down the road.

It sounds like a crack in the dam maybe, so to speak.

Perhaps a small one, but noticeable.

Were there also internal dynamics and disagreements within church leadership itself that contributed to the eventual change? It wasn't all unified behind the ban, right?

Absolutely not. It's important to understand that the leadership of the church wasn't monolithic in their views on the priesthood ban. We already mentioned High B. Brown,

right?

But there were others, too. Some apostles like John Widtsoe earlier in the 20th century openly disagreed with the justifications for the restriction.

Widtsoe, yeah. Known as an intellectual,

right? And our sources mentioned that Widtsoe even included Brigham Young's statement about a future lifting of the ban that quote about all the privilege and more in a compilation of discourses he was working on back in the 1920s.

But that inclusion didn't last, did it? I think I read that.

No, it didn't. Church president at the time, Heber J. Grant, requested that Widtsoe remove that particular statement before publication.

Why?

President Grant expressed concern that it would cause a great deal of discussion among church members basically stir things up too much.

I see. So that incident really highlights the internal unease the differing opinions but also the cautious maybe even resistant approach taken by top leadership at that time

precisely. It shows the tension.

So there were progressive voices like Widtsoe and Brown but also more conservative viewpoints within the leadership holding the line on the established policy. Who were some of the key figures representing these more resistant perspectives.

Well, figures like Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, both future presidents of the church, held more traditional views. They were generally less inclined to support a change in the established racial doctrine. Our sources detail instances where High B. Brown's suggestions or hints of an impending change were met with strong reaffirmations of existing policy by others. Most notably, Harold B. Lee issued a significant statement in 1969 reaffirming the doctrine.

After Brown had publicly hinted that it might be lifted soon.

Exactly. Lee's statement directly countered Brown's implication. This really illustrates the internal resistance that advocates for change faced. It wasn't an easy path.

No, it sounds like real push back. And what about Ezra Taft Benson? His strong conservative political views are well documented. How did he factor into this internal dynamic regarding the priesthood ban?

Ezra Taft Benson’s strong conservative political ideologies sometimes intersected with discussions about race, though maybe less directly about the ban itself. compared to others.

Okay.

While his primary focus wasn't necessarily the priesthood ban per se, his deeply held views on social and political issues, particularly related to communism and the civil rights movement, which he sometimes criticized harshly, often put him at odds with more progressive voices within the leadership, like High B. Brown.

So maybe a clash of world views.

You could say that. Yeah.

Our sources even point to implicit critiques of Benson's rhetoric regarding racism in some of Brown's statements, indicating a clear tension between these differing perspectives. within the quorum of the 12.

Wow, it sounds like a really complex interplay of personalities, beliefs, and perhaps politics within the church's highest leadership circles.

Very complex.

Let's move towards the actual process that culminated in the 1978 announcement. Who was at the helm then leading the church?

By the late 1970s, Spencer W. Kimball was the president of the church.

Okay, President Kimball.

And our sources consistently emphasize his deep personal concern and really spiritual struggle regarding the pre priesthood ban. It weighed heavily on him.

So, it wasn't just a policy issue for him.

No, it seems deeply personal. He engaged in extensive prayer and fasting on this very issue, spending significant time in the temple seeking guidance. This indicates a profound personal commitment to seeking divine direction on the matter.

And was this just a personal journey for him or did he involve the other leaders, the apostles in this process?

Oh, he definitely involved them. President Kimball's concern gradually led to a shift in consensus within the First Presidency. and the quorum of the twelve apostles.

So it wasn't just his decision alone.

No, this wasn't an immediate or unanimous change initially, but rather a process of shared discussion, prayer, study, and what many involved perceived as a collective spiritual seeking over a period of time.

That emphasis on consensus in the quorum seems key.

It is very important in church governance, especially for major shifts.

Were there any tangible signs, any hints that a change was maybe on the horizon before the official announcement actually came out? out in June 78.

Yes. One significant indicator occurred in January 1978, several months before the public announcement.

What was that?

A letter was sent out to stake presidents and other local leaders instructing them to cease sending inquiries to church headquarters about questions of lineage related to priesthood eligibility.

Ah, stop asking Salt Lake to vet genealogies for priesthood.

Essentially, yes. Stop the extensive checking process. This administrative shift, while maybe subtle to outsiders, signaled a change in how the existing policy was being enforced and strongly suggested to those in the no that a broader change might be imminent

kind of clearing the decks administratively

something like that yeah preparing the ground

and then came the official announcement in June 1978 how was this momentous event framed how was it presented

the announcement which is formerly known as official declaration 2 in the doctrine of covenants right

is often referred to within the church as the revelation on the priesthood It was presented as a direct communication from God received by President Kimball and affirmed by his counselors and the Twelve Apostles

and the substance.

It extended the priesthood to all worthy male members of the church explicitly regardless of race or color. And simultaneously, black members, both men and women, were granted full access to temple ordinances, endowments, ceilings, everything.

So the change itself was clear and sweeping. Priesthood and temple access for all worthy members. But what about the underlying doctrine, the curse of Cain reasoning, the premortal ideas, everything that had supported the ban for 130 years? Was there a formal shift or retraction of those past teachings?

This is a really crucial point and the approach taken is quite significant. Instead of a formal repudiation of past teachings as incorrect or mistaken,

which some might have expected or hoped for,

right? Instead, the church emphasized a shift in understanding, an expansion of knowledge. Elder Bruce R. McConkiei, an apostle at the time who had previously written quite definitively supporting the ban based on traditional interpretations.

Yes, I remember his earlier writings were quite strong on it.

They were. He later gave a very prominent speech talking about new light and knowledge that had erased previously limited understanding.

So the framing was more about receiving more truth rather than correcting wrong truth.

That's generally the way it was presented. Yes. A progression of divine revelation like unfolding understanding rather than an explicit admission of past doctrinal error. Now, did any of the historians we consulted offer insights into how this framing was received by members, particularly black members, who had lived under the previous understanding? Was there any sense of validation or maybe frustration with that approach?

That's a great question for further reflection. And what about the deeply felt pain and the historical injustice experienced by black members during the long years of the band? Was there ever an official apology from the church for that? That's another key point. To date, there has not been a formal churchwide apology for the past ban in the herd it caused.

Okay.

In 2015, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, then an apostle, made a statement in an interview that got a lot of attention. He said, "The church doesn't seek apologies, and we don't give them."

Right? I remember that quote.

However, this remains a topic of ongoing discussion and reflection within the church community. Many members, scholars, and even some leaders have expressed the view that an apology could be a crucial step toward healing and reconciliation. So, it's not a settled issue internally.

It sounds like a very sensitive issue with genuinely differing perspectives on its necessity or appropriateness. Our sources also mentioned the Gospel Topics essay on race and the priesthood published by the church more recently on its website. How does that address the historical context?

The race and the priesthood essay is significant. While it's not a formal apology, it does implicitly acknowledge the role that racial prejudice and prevailing cultural theories, particularly from the 19th century, played in the origins and perpetuation of the ban.

So, it moves beyond just the theological justifications.

It does. It offers a much more nuanced historical account and distances the church today from the past theories like the curse of Cain or premortal limitations. Some interpret this essay as a step toward greater understanding and acknowledging the human elements of even without using the word apology.

Okay, providing more context. What were the immediate reactions among church members worldwide to the 1978 announcement itself? The immediate reactions were overwhelmingly positive, almost universally among church members of all races around the globe.

Really widespread joy.

Absolutely. Many Latter-day Saints, white and black, reported weeping for joy. There are countless accounts describing a feeling of a collective burden being lifted, a sense of relief and gratitude.

And for black members specifically,

for black members in particular, who had waited so long, often with incredible faith, it was a moment of profound significance, gratitude, and a deepened sense of belonging within the church family. The change was met with widespread celebration and a feeling that a new more inclusive chapter was beginning.

That sounds like a powerful unifying moment. But did this change in official policy immediately erase all vestiges of racial prejudice or biased thinking within the church membership overnight?

Well, that's the reality check, isn't it? While the official policy changed swiftly and decisively, the deeper shifts in individual attitudes, cultural habits, and local practices - those took time and they weren't universal.

So old habits die hard

pretty much. Our sources acknowledge that some members continue to hold on to racist views or struggle with the implications of the change. The full integration and sense of belonging for black members continued to be and in some ways still is a journey rather than an immediate arrival triggered by the announcement. Change takes time on the ground level.

That makes sense. Reflecting on this entire process, this whole deep dive, what broader lessons can members of the church and maybe even those outside of it looking at institutional change learn about how significant shifts like this happen within long-standing institutions.

I think one key lesson definitely is that change within the Church especially on this scale often unfolds as a gradual process rather than a single sudden event.

Not just flipping a switch.

Not at all. The end of the priesthood ban was the culmination of years, decades really of discussion, private prayer, evolving understanding among leaders wrestling with theological tensions and also the persistent advocacy of individuals both within and outside the church.

So, as we kind of set out at the beginning of this deep dive, we wanted to understand not just the history but maybe the DNA of institutional evolution. Right.

Exactly.

And looking back, we've seen how deeply entrenched policies, especially those rooted in specific interpretations of doctrine, can be. And the powerful combination it often takes internal moral pressure, personal experiences, and those external societal shifts to bring about monumental change. It really underscores the complexity of how institutions adapt and evolve.

It really does. It highlights the importance of time and sustained effort, patience, and persistence.

What about the driving forces? You mentioned internal and external. Was one more important than the other.

Our deep dive really reveals the intricate interplay of both. It's hard to disentangle them completely. Social pressures from the civil rights movement clearly created a context. Personal experiences of church leaders like David O McKay's encounter in South Africa provided pivotal moments of reflection and the inherent theological tensions within the doctrine itself created an internal pressure for resolution. They all contributed to creating an environment ripe for change

and the role of specific individuals within the institution seems crucial too. You mentioned High B. Brown.

Absolutely. The unwavering advocacy of individuals like High B. Brown who continue to push for change even when facing significant resistance or being told to wait that demonstrates the power of individual conscience and conviction in shaping institutional evolution even in hierarchical structures.

What does this case study tell us about the role of leadership particularly the prophet and apostles in the church when it comes to making such profound shifts?

Well, it certainly underscores the significant role of the prophet and the first presidency in discerning and receiving what is perceived as divine revelation. President Kimball's personal spiritual quest was central to the 1978 event. However, it also highlights the critical importance of building consensus and unity within the quorum of the twelve apostles for major doctrinal and policy shifts to be accepted and implemented effectively. The process often requires or at least heavily favors a unified voice from the top leadership.

That need for consensus seems recurring. We also touched on the way the church frames these kinds of doctrinal changes. The idea of new light and knowledge erasing limited understanding rather than explicitly admitting past errors seems to be a somewhat consistent approach.

Yes, that framing is quite common. The church often prefers to present doctrinal developments as a progression of understanding, a gradual unfolding of divine truth over time. This approach allows for change while maintaining a sense of continuity and ongoing divine guidance throughout its history rather than highlighting sharp breaks or repudiations of the past.

Interesting way to manage change and continuity simultaneously. Ultimately then, it sounds like the journey toward greater inclusivity and understanding even after 1978 is an ongoing one.

Precisely. The lifting of the priesthood and temple ban was undeniably a monumental essential step forward.

But the ongoing need for empathy, for understanding, for continued dialogue regarding the church's complex racial history, it all underscores that the journey toward a truly inclusive and equitable community is a continuous process, not a finished event.

So to summarize our deep dive today, the end of the priesthood and temple ban on black members in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't just a singular event in June 1978. It was really the result of a complex interplay of historical context stretching way back. Evolving perspectives among church leaders over decades, significant external pressures from a changing world, internal theological tensions, and ultimately what was received and announced as a revelatory shift under President Kimball.

Absolutely. And this journey from exclusion to inclusion offers, I think, really valuable insights into how institutions, especially religious ones, grapple with deeply ing grain policies and the multifaceted often slow nature of significant change.

Thinking about this deep dive, here's maybe a final thought for you, our listeners. Considering the historical processes of change within institutions that we've explored today, how might understanding those dynamics, the interplay of internal conviction, external pressure, leadership roles, the framing of change, how might that better equip us to engage with contemporary challenges and ongoing discussions about progress and inclusivity in various aspects of our own lives in whatever institutions we're part of.

Yeah, it really makes you consider that delicate balance, doesn't it,

between respecting tradition and history and embracing the necessity of evolution and change when needed.

Definitely something to reflect on.

And we encourage you, if this has sparked your interest, to delve further into the sources we've drawn upon, the historical accounts, the essays, the interviews, explore related materials to gain an even deeper understanding of this significant, complex chapter in church history. There are many more nuances and personal stories to discover.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.