In general, the relationship of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism) with black people has more or less mirrored the sentiments of many other White Protestant denominations in the United States. Initially incorporating the generally anti-slavery views of the Northern communities in which the movement was founded, the leadership and ranking members moderated their positions as early as 1833 in response to pro-slavery sentiments in Missouri, where slavery was the hot-button issue of the day.

Mormonism arose during a time when nearly all American white Christian slaveholders, as well as many abolitionists and slaves, assumed the doctrine, now generally considered false, offensive and racist, that black people inherited the curse of Ham or the curse and mark of Cain. Without much critical examination, early Mormons, including the movement's founder Joseph Smith, Jr., incorporated one or both of these doctrines into their belief system, and interpreted the Bible and Mormon scripture as supporting them. However, Smith encouraged the conversion of black people into the faith, and supported the ordination of a few black members to the Mormon priesthood.

It is important to note that Mormonism, unlike other Protestant denominations, owed their negative views on blacks to the revelations Joseph Smith said came directly from God through Joseph Smith, their sole authority to interpret God's message. In contrast, other Protestant groups were divided on how to interpret Biblical passages on slavery, human origins, and black people, and this division, not present in Mormonism, was the root cause of abolitionist movment, and one of the major motivating factors in the civil war. It is also important to understand that the Biblical messages in the Christian faith were not established in America, or by one prophet, but instead occurred over time, through many prophets, some of whom may have married Black people (specifically, Moses and Tzipporah, Joseph bin Jacob and Asteroth) and fathered children by them. Even if their heritage was in question, there is no doubt that these unions were with people of enough black descent to be considered by Mormon leaders, partakers of the Curse of Cain and/or Ham. Thus, this position by the founders of Mormonism is criticized as a contradiction not present in the foundation of Christianity.

For some Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ, such doctrines have long been rejected, and there is relatively little controversy over their treatment of blacks. Within other denominations of the movement, however, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and its offshoots, these doctrines lingered much longer, and were taught openly well into the 20th century. In addition, this denomination instituted an officially-sanctioned ban on blacks holding the Priesthood. Since 1978, the LDS Church has ended this, and quietly renounces its earlier controversial doctrines. Today, the only Latter Day Saint denominations that officially teach these doctrines, or who maintain a ban on blacks in the priesthood, are within the various small sects of Mormon fundamentalism, which disagrees with the LDS Church's 1978 reversal.

Apart from each denomination's current official position on blacks, each denomination continues to have its own challenges rooting out racism and insensitivity, and improving relationships between black and white members. Some call upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to offer an apology, or at least to announce officially that the curse of Ham and curse of Cain doctrines are incorrect.

More recently, a growing number of Mormon intellectuals and other scholars are showing evidence that the Book of Mormon peoples called the Jaredites were black by race, citing internal textual evidence from the Book of Mormon.

Blacks in early Mormonism

Historical and doctrinal background

Until about 1833, when it was forced to respond to charges of abolitionism by pro-slavery forces in Missouri, the Latter Day Saint movement had no official policy towards blacks or slavery. From its very beginnings, however, most Latter Day Saints, including founder Joseph Smith, Jr., took for granted some of the racial doctrines then circulating within American Christianity. The most notable of these doctrines was that Adam and Eve where white, and that dark skin of any kind was generally the result of a curse from God.

Black skin as a curse

The most significant racial doctrines in early Mormonism had to do with the curse of Ham and the curse and mark of Cain, which many Mormons thought explained the dark skin of people of African ancestry. However, the first reference in Latter Day Saint describing dark skin as a mark of the curse of God related to Native Americans, rather than blacks. The Book of Mormon, dictated in the late 1820s, states the following about Lamanites, who were the ancestors of some tribes of Native Americans:

And 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." (Second Book of Nephi 5:21 (1981 ed.)).

When a group of Lamanites known as Anti-Nephi-Lehies or Ammonites converted to the group of God, "they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them," (Book of Alma 23:18) And later, when some Lamanites converted, "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.. and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites." (Third Nephi 2:15-16). And so, we can call the separation of the people from the people of God which results in ignorance and iniquity, the curse, and the black skin that represents spiritual blindness (see Second Nephi 30:6) the mark of the curse.

However, the Book of Mormon never actually countenanced any form of curse-based discrimination. It stated that the Lord "denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile". (Second Nephi 26:33). In fact, prejudice against people of dark skin was condemned:

O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness.." (Book of Jacob 3:8-9).

The idea of black skin being the mark of a curse is also found in Smith's translation of the Bible, circa 1830, which describes a pre-deluge people called the "people of Canaan" (not to be confused with Canaan, the son of Ham, or the Biblical Canaanites), who were cursed because they fought against the "people of Shum". Their cursing was described as follows:

"For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Book of Moses 7:8).

There is no clear indication in Smith's translation of the Bible, however, that the "people of Canaan" survived the deluge, or that they have any relationship to modern blacks. However, it is clear that Joseph Smith, Jr. personally believed that the dark skin of modern blacks was a consequence of yet another curse, the curse of Ham, which took place after the deluge. There is also some tenuous evidence that, toward the end of his life, Smith may have believed that modern black skin was related to the curse and mark of Cain. Both of these doctrines were common throughout the 19th century, both within the Latter Day Saint movement and in American culture. As late as 1908, a Latter-day Saint writer commented:

"That the negroes are descended from Ham is generally admitted, not only by latter-day Saint writers but by historians and students of the scriptures. That they are also descended from Cain is also a widely accepted theory, though the sacred history does not record how this lineage bridged the flood." ("The Negro and the Priesthood", Liahona, The Elders' Journal, 5: 1164-67 (1908)).

Curse of Ham doctrine in early Mormonism

The curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan (the son of Ham) after Ham had done something to Noah while Noah was naked and unconscious in his tent because of drunkenness. In the 19th century, when Mormonism was founded, this curse was widely accepted by many Christians in the West as a rationalization for racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham, either through Canaan or his older brothers.

This belief, as well as the early anti-slavery position were incorporated into Latter-day Saint ideology as doctrine, despite being brought by converts from other Christian denominations. In Smith's own translation of the Bible, it is written that part of Noah's curse on Canaan was that "a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men" ().

Although many Mormons have indicated that the mark of blackness was an analogy to a fallen state, and not literally black skin. However, their prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. clearly disagreed in 1836:

"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Him in servitude!

"And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant." —

"Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least



condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel." - (Joseph Smith Jr., Messenger and Advocate Vol. II, No. 7, April 1836, p. 290; History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 30, pp. 436-40.)

In addition, many of Smith's close associates represented black people as the descendants of Cain and/or Canaan. Smith, being the leader of the Mormon religion, never expressed any variance with this viewpoint. Smith's use of "black" in his writings about Canaan, during the height of the racial interpretation, only reinforced this racialized view. This was universally accepted by Mormon leaders who knew him personally, as well as those who served in any official capacity in the church over the next century and a half.

Curse of Cain doctrine in early Mormonism

The curse of Cain doctrine, related to the curse of Ham doctrine, was much less popular at the time, but it made a limited appearance in early Mormonism. However, it is not known whether Joseph Smith, Jr. accepted this doctrine. The only early possible reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in his translation of the Bible, which included the following statement:

"And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them." (Moses 7:22 (for a side by side comparison of relevant sections of Joseph Smith's translation to the KJV, see Curse of Cain/Genesis))

It is not clear from Smith's translation, however, that the descendants of Cain were intended to be modern African people. These descendants of Cain did not "mix" with the "sons of Adam", and were destroyed in the deluge. This has led some to understand that unlike the descendants of Ham, Smith understood the black people referred to in the Book of Moses not to be modern African people, but just one of several societies of people which, according to Mormon scriptures, were cursed with a black skin.

By 1835, however, one of Smith's associates proposed a resolution to the question of whether the descendants of Cain might have survived the flood. On February 6, 1835, Smith's associate W. W. Phelps wrote a letter theorizing that the curse of Cain survived the deluge by passing through the wife of Ham, son of Noah, who according to Phelps was a descendant of Cain. (Messenger and Advocate 1:82) In effect, Phelps was attempting to provide a rational link between the curse of Cain and the curse of Canaan. In addition, Phelps introduced the idea of a third curse upon Ham himself for "marying a black wife". (Id.) This black wife, according to Phelps, was not just a descendant of Cain, but one of the pre-flood "people of Canaan" (not directly related to the Biblical Canaanites after the flood) which according to Smith's translation of the Bible were darkened by yet another curse because they fought against the "people of Shum". (Moses 7:8).

There is no clear indication that Smith agreed with the multiple-curse theory of W. W. Phelps; in 1842, however, he did make one parenthetical allusion to blacks being the "sons of Cain":

"In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes or sons of Cain" (History of the Church 4:501.)

Early black Latter Day Saints

The Church never denied membership based on race, and indeed several black men were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime. The first known black Latter-day Saint was "Black Pete", who joined the Church in Kirtland, Ohio. At least two African Americans, Elijah Abel in 1836 and Walker Lewis in 1844, were ordained to the priesthood during Smith's lifetime. William McCary (later excommunicated) was ordained in 1846. Two of the descendants of Elijah Abel were also ordained Elders, and two other black men, Samuel Chambers and Edward Leggroan, were ordained Deacons.

Early black members in the Church were admitted to the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, where Elijah Abel received the ritual of washing and anointing (see Journal of Zebedee Coltrin). Abel also participated in at least two baptisms for the dead in Nauvoo, Illinois.

According to statements made by Church members who received the Endowment in the Red Brick Store (many of whom were members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Council of Fifty, or Anointed Quorum), Smith gave specific instructions as to the policy of ordaining black men and those not of the tribe of Ephriam to the priesthood during one meeting. Parley P. Pratt referenced this discussion during the 1846 migration of the Mormon Pioneers when the policy was first publicly acknowledged and promoted. There is some confusion based on Smith's instruction as to whether the policy stemmed out of revelation, policy, culture or attitudes toward the church by non-Mormon slaveholders, similar to the policy on blacks that stemmed out of the Missouri era and Phelp's comments.

By 1839 there were about a dozen black members in the Church (Late Persecution of the Church of Latter-day Saints, 1840). Nauvoo, Illinois was reported to have 22 black members, including free and slave, between 1839-1843.

Early church views on slavery

Until about 1833, the Latter Day Saint movement had no official policy or views on the issue of slavery. In the early 1830's, however, as Mormons began entering Missouri, pro-slavery forces in the state began to worry about Mormons "tampering" with their slaves. Moreover, although it is unknown whether the settlers were aware of it, a revelation from Joseph Smith, Jr. in late 1832 had predicted that there would be war between the North and South, and that "after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters." (LDS D&C 87). In the summer of 1833, W. W. Phelps published an article in the church's newspaper, seeming to invite free blacks into the state to become Mormons, and reflecting "in connection with the wonderful events of this age, much is doing towards abolighing slavery, and colonizing the blacks, in Africa." (Evening and Morning Star 2:111 (July 1833).

After the outrage that followed Phelps' comments, he was forced to retract and clarify his views, which he claimed were "misunderstood", but this reversal did not end the controversy. Just after the Mormons were expelled from Jackson County, Missouri in December 1833, Joseph Smith, Jr. dictated a revelation stating that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage to another." (LDS D&C 101:77-79). Nevertheless, as a practical matter, the church issued an official statement in 1835 indicating that because the United States government allowed slavery, the church would not "interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men." (LDS D&C ).

In the Messenger and Advocate pg. 290 Vol. II. No. 7. Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1836, Smith said the following:

Thinking, perhaps, that the sound might go out, that "an abolitionist" had held forth several times to this community, and that the public feeling was not aroused to create mobs or disturbances, leaving the impression that all he said was concurred in, and received as gospel and the word of salvation. I am happy to say, that no violence or breach of the public peace was attempted, so far from this, that all except a very few, attended to their own avocations and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.

Warren Parrish (Smith's secretary) wrote in 1836 regarding the sentiments of the people of Kirtland:

Not long since a gentleman of the Presbyterian faith came to this town (Kirtland) and proposed to lecture upon the abolition question. Knowing that there was a large branch of the church of Latter Day Saints in this place, who, as a people, are liberal in our sentiments; he no doubt anticipated great success in establishing his doctrine among us. But in this he was mistaken. The doctrine of Christ and the systems of men are at issue and consequently will not harmonize together.

In the 1850s, Brigham Young, as church president refuted the idea that the church interfered with slave owners in Missouri:

In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them. (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172)

This statement draws a connection between Black people and the "children of Ham" one of which (Canaan) was denied the priesthood in the Book of Abraham.

One of many reasons the Church was forcibly expelled from the state of Missouri and the Extermination Order was perception of the Anti-slavery, abolitionist stance of Joseph Smith and his followers. Although this may have been a factor in the initial conflict between the Missourians and the Mormons, it played a minor role at best. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith clearly indicated that the Mormon church had made no attempts to disrupt the institution of slavery.

Beginning in 1842, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In March 1842, Smith began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?" (History of the Church, 4:544). In 1844, Smith ran for President of the United States on an anti-slavery platform aimed at ending all slavery by the year 1850 by having the government buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands.

During his election campaign, he stated, "If I had anything to do with the Negro, I would confine him to his own species and put him on national equalization." Although this notion of "separate but equal" mirrored the sentiments of the period in America, but it was at odds with the vast majority of Christians throughout the world, especially in Latin America, Africa, India and Catholic Europe, whose own patron saints and priests consisted of Black Africans. Smith's position as a representative of Jesus Christ invariably set this notion against the principles championed by Christian followers through the present day.

Treatment of blacks in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see also Mormon) instituted policies denying ordination of black men to the priesthood from 1849 to 1978 based on their race, and denying Blacks the ability to hold positions of authority in areas that were managed by LDS leaders, such as LDS Boy Scout troops. Originally Latter Day Saints, being primarily Northerners, had briefly professed their opposition to slavery in Missouri (a slave state) during a time when it was very unpopular and even dangerous to do so, but after an incident involving an anti-slavery article written by an LDS paper, Mormons disavowed their position and supported slavery as status-quo.

The current official position of the Church of Jesus Christ is that both the policy excluding blacks from the priesthood and the 1978 reversal of this policy were directed by God. The LDS still holds documents, some canonized, indicating that Black people were cursed from Cain and Canaan, as contained in The Book of Abraham:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Acceptance by church leaders of a combined curse of Ham/curse of Cain doctrine

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith's church. Brigham Young, the church's president, clearly believed that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Cain. In 1852, he reportedly stated:

"ny man having one drop of the seed of .. 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.." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, January 16, 1852).

Throughout his ministry, Young maintained his view that black skin was part of the curse of Cain, and that black people were still under that curse. On February 5, 1852, Young stated:

"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.. I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain." (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, located in LDS Church Historical Dept.) On October 9, 1859, he stated:

"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. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290-91.)

Similar doctrine was continued by Young's successors as President of the Church, such as John Taylor, who adopted the theory of W. W. Phelps that Cain's descendants survived the flood via the wife of Ham. In 1881, Taylor stated:

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." (Journal of Discourses 22:304)

Adoption of the priesthood ban

After the assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844, remaining Church leaders initially continued to condone the ordination of blacks to the priesthood, although the tenor of Church dialog on black people deteriorated further into a racist policy. In April, 1845, an article appeared in Times and Seasons (edited by John Taylor) stating, "The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom." (6 Times and Seasons 857).

On April 27, 1845, Orson Hyde taught the doctrine that blacks were cursed with servility because of their actions in the Pre-existence ("Speech Delivered Before the High Priests Quorum in Nauvoo", MS in Utah State Historical Society). However, Orson Hyde apparently did not, at this time, advocate a ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood, because on October 1846 he baptized and ordained to the priesthood a black Native American named William McCary. (Voree Herald, Oct. 1846)

It may have been the actions of McCary that led, in part, to the eventual ban on ordination of blacks to the priesthood. On March 26, 1847, Brigham Young confronted McCary concerning some of McCary's alleged sinful behavior, and stated, "its nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent (and) regain what we av lost--we av one of the best Elders an African in Lowell ." In April, 1847, Apostle Parley P. Pratt questioned McCary's right to hold the priesthood: "This black man has got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards to the Priesthood". Then in fall 1847, McCary took several women into unsanctioned polygamous marriages. He was quickly excommunicated.

In any event, soon after McCary was excommunicated, Brigham Young declared black members ineligible to participate in certain ceremonies in temples. On February, 1849, Brigham Young announced the policy that black members could no longer be ordained to the priesthood "because Cain cut off the lives of Abel .. the Lord cursed Cain's seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood."

Of the original pioneer company that entered the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1849, three black slaves accompanied the party.

Since the church has a lay ministry and many positions rely on those who are ordained to the priesthood, the priesthood ban also meant that blacks were excluded from many leadership positions.

Other early Latter-day Saint views on race

Brigham Young also taught that interracial relationships would be punished by God. In Journal of Discourses Vol. 7, pg 290-291, he says:

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.

Whether one interprets this as the promise of an immediate act by God, a call for the immediate death penalty or a 'death' in a spiritual sense or having your children be inelligible for the priesthood, it's a harsh condemnation of interracial couples. Some believe Brigham Young's words were only intented as threats against white slave-holders who might sexually exploit female slaves. According to Young's defenders, his words did not apply to all white women or black men who could possibly have been married, nor to the free black women who could also possibly been in interracial unions. Young's defenders also argue that rape of black slaves by white masters was common in the South at that time, and Brigham Young was threatening the white man and not the black female slaves (i.e. "If the White man..mixes his blood..the penalty..death on the spot").

The church always allowed black membership in all its congregations. The priesthood ban typically applied to men of black African descent regardless of skin color (white Afrikaaners and Armenian Egyptians, for example, were not under this ban), although it occasionally applied to other races or lineages (including some Caucasians). Dark-skinned South Pacific Islanders were ordained to the priesthood, for example, while light-skinned Africans were not. Native Americans were always eligible for priesthood ordination, despite having dark skin.

A relatively modern Prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, taught that, after accepting the Gospel, dark-skinned people would gradually be made white, a process that would take place over a significant number of generations. It has been upheld by Mormon apologists as a meaningful relationship between "lighter skin" and "good character" and "God's approval" or "pure in spirit", and seeks to vindicate the racial belief that a lighter skinned individual inherently exhibits a better character or that their lighter skin is a reflection of God's blessing.

After visiting a mission site in South America, he said in his General Conference Report of October, 1960 (quite a number of years before he became the president of the church), which was published in Improvement Era, December 1960, pp 922-923:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.. 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.. 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.

Kimball's use of the phrase "white and delightsome" refers to a Book of Mormon prophecy regarding the future status of the Lamanite people, generally accepted by Latter-day Saints as the ancestors of modern American Indians. It is unclear whether he meant for this change to apply to blacks or other groups. (For a Mormon apologetic examination of this issue, see the web site.)

Other church leaders have stated that the priesthood would be given to blacks after the blood of Israel flowed in the veins of all peoples of the earth.

According to his ex-Mormon grandson Steve Benson, Ezra Taft Benson, who succeeded Kimball as President of the Church, was a noted racist . However, while acting as President of the Church, he did not make a single remark that could be accurately construed as racist; on the contrary, while Prophet he publicly affirmed his love for all of God's children, "of every color, creed and political persuasion."

Revelation or Policy?

There has been some dispute as to whether Brigham Young's adoption of a racial exclusion policy was a matter of doctrine and revelation to him or Joseph Smith, or whether it merely reflected the personal feelings of Young and other early Latter-day Saint leaders. In 1949, the Church's First Presidency stated:

The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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 become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

However, not all Church leaders agreed with this statement. One notable leader in dissent was the Apostle Hugh B. Brown. Moreover, the historical record does not support the claim that racial exclusion has been Church doctrine "from the days of its organization", and no revelation, canonized or otherwise, has ever been produced as evidence that the practice was a "direct commandment from the Lord". In short, there is confusion as to whether or not there was a revelation, if it was the political climate, or other issue that led to the ban. Because of this, church leaders, including Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee, felt that a revelation was needed to reverse the ban.

By the late 1960s, the Church had expanded its missionary efforts into Brazil, the Caribbean, and the nations of Africa, and was suffering criticism for its priesthood policy. In 1970, during the administration of David O. McKay, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency had voted to end the policy; however, McKay was absent because of age-related disability and First Counselor Harold B. Lee was traveling on church business. When President Lee returned, he called for another vote on the issue, and this time it was defeated, upon Lee's belief that such a large change in Church policy should originate in revelation. (Edwin B. Firmage, ed., The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, "Editor's Afterward", Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1988.)

Hugh B. Brown, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the person who had proposed the vote, later stated:

A serious problem that has confronted us, especially during the past few decades has been our denying the priesthood to the Negro. Personally, I doubt if we can maintain or sustain ourselves in the position we have adopted but which has no justification in the scriptures, as far as I know. The president says it can only come by revelation. If that is true, then change will come in due course. It seems to me that if we had admitted the Negro to the church as a full member, at the time of Joseph Smith, we would have had more trouble with the government than we then had. Holding ourselves aloof from that until after the Civil war gave us the opportunity to establish the church without that question coming to the front. It was, in other words, a policy, not necessarily a doctrine. (Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, page 129)

Again, the question arose on whether or not the instruction allegedly given by Smith in the Red Brick Store and the policy implemented by the Brigham Young and the Twelve after the death of Smith was strictly policy or revelation.

During this same period of time, President McKay also said he struggled with the issue. According to his biography, "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" (pages 103-104), McKay prayed for a revelation multiple times:

Mildred Calderwood McKay , who served on the general board of the Primary.. expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white male children during their Primary years.. were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve. "Can't they be ordained also?" she asked. He sadly replied, "No." "Then I think it is time for a new revelation." He answered, "So do I." Hanks related an incident from a prior trip to Vietnam, in which he had comforted a wounded black LDS soldier. As he told the story, McKay began to weep. Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

Richard Jackson, a Church architect at the time is quoted in the biography as saying:

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office. We could see that he was very much distressed.. He said, "Well, I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.." I can still see him coming in with a bit of a distraught appearance, which was unusual for President McKay.

The American Civil Rights Movement also contributed to external pressures for change, and there were internal pressures as well. Sterling McMurrin, a controversial Mormon philosopher and writer, publicly opposed the "Negro doctrine," and was nearly excommunicated for his outspokenness on the topic. Many other members were privately uncomfortable with the policy, and some took actions to publicly express their concerns. John W. Fitzgerald, a retired elementary school principal in Salt Lake City, was excommunicated in the 1960's after writing a series of articles for the Salt Lake Tribune. In 1973, a year after a number of other Southern-U.S. Protestant sects officially renounced racial policies, Mormon scholar Lester E. Bush wrote an influential historical study questioning many popular assumptions about the policy that was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Byron Marchant, a member of the church and scoutmaster of a Mormon-sponsored Boy Scout troop, notified the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1973 that an official church "correlation policy" required all troop leaders to belong to the Mormon Aaronic Priesthood, effectively preventing him from promoting two non-Mormon black scouts who were members of his troop. After the NAACP filed a lawsuit against the Scouts, the church publicly apologized and abandoned the correlation policy that affected its scouting programs, but Marchant was excommunicated in 1977 following repeated public statements in which he continued to challenge the priesthood ban. Another internal dissenter, attorney Douglas Wallace, was excommunicated in 1976 after he conducted a public protest by baptizing and ordaining a black man named Larry Lester in front of news reporters. It has been suggested that this political pressure is evidence of prophesy over policy, though the reverse has also been suggested.

Reversal of the priesthood ban

In June of 1978, under the administration of Spencer W. Kimball, the Church announced that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood" regardless of race, reversing earlier policies (see Doctrine and Covenants, ). In a statement on June 8 of that year, an official declaration was given, citing a revelation from God received by Kimball on June 1, who was by then President of the Church.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

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. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

N. ELDON TANNER

MARION G. ROMNEY

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was one of thirteen men who was present when the revelation was received. He later recounted:

On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came.. Well, this is a glorious day. This is a wondrous thing; the veil is thin. The Lord is not far distant from his church. He is not far removed..

Regarding the history and doctrinal ramifications of the change in practice, he continued:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever 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 any more. (", address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, 1978.)

In the 1978 , the church said nothing about the curse of Cain nor the curse of Ham. Despite urging from a number of black Mormons, church leaders have not officially and explicitly repudiated the belief. A 1998 Los Angeles Times report indicated that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Cain and curse of Ham doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold. (Stammer, "Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity", L.A. Times, May 24, 1998).

See also

• Elijah Abel
• Curse and mark of Cain
• Curse of Ham

References

• Joseph Smith Jr, "Messenger and Advocate" Vol. II. No. 7., Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1836.
• Armand L. Mauss, "Dispelling the Curse of Cain," Sunstone 134 (December 2004). ()
• The Jaredites Were Black by David Grant Stewart, 1978, p.22