Race And The PriesthoodEdit
Race And The Priesthood
The phrase Race And The Priesthood refers to a historical set of policies, doctrines, and practices within the Latter Day Saint movement concerning who may be ordained to church priesthood and who may participate in temple rites. From the mid-19th century until 1978, leadership in the church restricted priesthood ordination and related temple privileges for many men of African descent. In 1978, the church announced Official Declaration 2, which opened the priesthood to all worthy male members, regardless of race. The episode sits at the intersection of doctrine, institutional governance, religious freedom, and social history, and it continues to invite debate among adherents, historians, and observers outside the faith.
Conceptually, the issue is often framed as a conflict between religious authority and evolving civil and cultural norms. Supporters of the church’s governance emphasize the distinct nature of divine revelation, the autonomy of religious institutions, and the belief that church leaders act with divine guidance, even when policies appear difficult or objectionable in retrospect. Critics point to the long duration of the policy, its real-world harms, and the ways in which racialized language and assumptions entered into doctrinal explanations. The article below traces the arc of the policy, the rationale historically offered by church leaders, the 1978 reversal, and the continuing debates around race, doctrine, and institutional memory.
Historical context
Origins and early development
The church’s approach to priesthood and race did not arise from a single, explicit doctrinal statement but evolved through a combination of scriptural interpretation, cultural assumptions of 19th‑ and early‑20th‑century America, and institutional decisions made in different places at different times. In some periods and statements, leaders invoked lines of interpretation that linked priesthood eligibility to beliefs about lineages, curses, or spiritual condition. Among the terms used in various eras are references to concepts such as the “curse” or “mark” of certain lineages, which later church historiography disavowed as a doctrinal justification. The church’s official stance today treats such explanations as historical, not doctrinal, undergirdings for the policy. For readers interested in the broader religious and social history, see Latter Day Saint movement and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Operation of the ban and its consequences
Over several decades, the policy effectively blocked ordination to the priesthood for many black men and limited their access to some temple rites. The ban also shaped lay leadership, missionary work, and community life in many branches of the church, particularly in the United States and in territories where church members lived in tight-knit, racially stratified contexts. The policy’s persistence contributed to a sense among some members of exclusion or second-class status, while others accepted the church’s governance as a matter of revelation and discipline within a divine framework. Throughout the era, church leaders maintained that membership in good standing and personal worthiness were the relevant gates for priesthood access, framed within the church’s evolving understanding of divine instruction.
Pre-1978 statements and the sense of doctrinal justification
Before 1978, the church offered explanations for the ban in various venues—public statements by presidents and general authorities, formal letters, and published works by some church scholars. These explanations often combined doctrinal language with cultural and historical arguments, reflecting a period when religious explanations for social hierarchies were more common in American religious life. In hindsight, many observers view a portion of these explanations as shaped by the era’s prevailing racial attitudes, even as others within the church argued for interpretations anchored in revelation and pastoral care. For those tracing the scholarly debate, see discussions of curse of Cain and curse of Ham as historical interpretive frameworks that appeared in some early or informal lines of commentary, though the church has since disavowed these as doctrinal grounds for the ban.
Official declarations, policy changes, and the road to 1978
The pivotal moment came in 1978 with Official Declaration 2, commonly associated with President Spencer W. Kimball and the church leadership of the time. The declaration stated that “all worthy male members may hold the priesthood without regard to race,” effectively ending the priesthood ban for black men. The change was presented as a revelation to church leadership and a correction of previous policies, aligning church practice with a broader moral framing of equality before God. In the decades since, church leaders have framed the reversal as a movement toward greater consistency with core doctrinal commitments about the worth of all human souls and the capacity of individuals to respond to divine guidance.
Aftermath and broader context
The 1978 reversal did not end all conversation about race and the priesthood. Debates continue about the extent to which historical explanations for the ban reflected culture, doctrine, or both, and about how the church should handle legacy, memory, and reconciliation. In the years following the change, the church has published materials intended to provide historical context and to explain that the policy had no doctrinal footing in the sense of a binding eternal principle. See for example church publications and essays that address the topic directly, as part of ongoing historical clarification. For researchers and readers, related context is found in Civil rights movement history, discussions of Race and religion, and the church’s public-facing materials on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The policy’s doctrinal and cultural dimensions
Doctrinal vs. cultural explanations
A central part of the contemporary conversation is whether the ban rested on doctrinal revelation or on cultural attitudes of church members and leaders. Right-leaning critique often emphasizes that religious institutions administer doctrine and governance through ongoing discernment, revelation, and pastoral leadership, and that changes reflect changes in understanding within that framework. Critics argue that the policy represented racial discrimination by the church, while defenders point to the complexity of interpreting revelation over time and to the fact that the policy was reversed through revelation, not merely through secular pressure. The distinction between doctrinal principle and cultural accommodation remains a key point in debates about the episode.
Leadership, revelation, and religious autonomy
From a governance standpoint, supporters argue that a religious body preserves its theological autonomy to determine priesthood eligibility based on criteria it believes to be divinely guided at a given time. The 1978 reversal is often cited as an example of the church’s capacity to adjust its practices in light of new understanding, while still claiming continuity with a broader theological framework that emphasizes individual worth and divine potential. Critics, however, contend that the policy reflected negative racial assumptions and that the church’s failure to address the harm caused by these assumptions undermines its moral credibility. The debate thus centers on the proper balance between fidelity to perceived revelation and accountability for the consequences of policy.
Temple and priesthood implications
The ban affected both priesthood ordination and temple participation in ways that extended beyond ceremonial access. In some periods and places, the consequences of the policy were tied to broader social practices and segregated institutions within American society. The 1978 change is widely recognized as removing the priesthood barrier, and over time the church has sought to integrate its leadership and theological explanations with a more explicit commitment to racial equality as a moral and doctrinal concern. Contemporary discussions emphasize that temple rites and priesthood are part of a broader set of ecclesial practices that the church continues to interpret through the lens of revelation, repentance, and reform.
Contemporary debates and responses
In recent decades, the topic has become part of broader conversations about race, religion, and national identity. Advocates of religious liberty have argued that religious communities must be allowed to govern themselves and interpret revelation without external coercion, while critics have urged fuller acknowledgments of historical harm and more proactive reconciliation. Some conservative observers contend that the church’s trajectory—acknowledging past errors while maintaining doctrinal integrity—illustrates a disciplined approach to evolving doctrinal understanding. Critics of this stance argue that the church’s historical explanations were inadequate and that more direct accountability is warranted. In either case, the episode remains a focal point in discussions about how religious institutions respond to social change while preserving core beliefs.
See also