The LDS Priesthood Ban on Black Members: History and Reversal

How the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excluded Black men from religious leadership for 126 years, then reversed the policy.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 3, 2026

Branched from How Latter-day Saint Doctrine Evolves Over Time

Quick take

The LDS Church prohibited Black men from holding the priesthood from 1852 to 1978, a practice rooted in early church teachings about race and worthiness.
Church leaders justified the ban using religious doctrine tied to pre-mortal existence and lineage, though the scriptural basis was disputed even internally.
A 1978 revelation by President Spencer W. Kimball reversed the ban, allowing all worthy male members regardless of race to hold the priesthood.
The reversal remains one of the most significant doctrinal shifts in LDS history and reflects broader pressure from civil rights movements and membership concerns.

From 1852 to 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) prohibited Black men from being ordained to the priesthood—the religious authority believed by members to be essential for leading ceremonies, performing sacred rites, and progressing spiritually. This 126-year ban meant Black male members could not serve in leadership roles, participate in temple rituals, or access certain religious privileges. The policy was formally reversed on June 8, 1978, when church president Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation that opened priesthood ordination to all worthy male members regardless of race.

Origins and Early Justification (1852–1890s)

The priesthood ban was not part of the church's founding doctrine in the 1830s. During Joseph Smith's lifetime, at least a few Black men were ordained to the priesthood. The restriction began under Brigham Young, the church's second president, in 1852—four years after the church arrived in Utah. Young tied the ban to a doctrine about pre-mortal existence: the idea that souls existed before birth and were assigned different races based on their spiritual worthiness or actions in that pre-mortal life. Those deemed less valiant were said to have been born as Black people and thus were unworthy of priesthood authority.

This theology, sometimes called the 'curse of Cain' or 'curse of Ham' doctrine, drew loosely on biblical passages but was developed specifically within LDS teaching. Church leaders also cited the Book of Abraham (a text Smith claimed to have translated from Egyptian papyri) as scriptural support, though the passages were interpreted in ways many scholars and even some church members found questionable. The doctrine became embedded in official church teaching and was taught in Sunday schools, seminary, and from the pulpit for over a century.

Maintenance and Internal Conflict (1900s–1960s)

Throughout the 20th century, successive church presidents reaffirmed the ban, though some expressed discomfort with it. As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and 1960s, the policy became increasingly controversial. Church leaders faced pressure from members, academics, and the public. Some church officials privately acknowledged that the ban lacked clear scriptural justification, yet the institution publicly defended it as doctrine. A few prominent church members, including some apostles, privately questioned the policy, but public dissent was rare and discouraged.

By the late 1960s, the church faced mounting external pressure. Universities began to boycott BYU (Brigham Young University, the church's flagship school) over the policy. Civil rights leaders criticized the church. Some Black members and their allies within the church advocated for change. Yet official statements remained firm: in 1969, church president Joseph Fielding Smith reaffirmed that the ban would not change. This stance put the church increasingly at odds with mainstream American values and even some of its own membership.

The 1978 Reversal

In June 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, who had become church president in 1973, announced that he had received a revelation reversing the ban. The official announcement, known as Official Declaration 2, stated that all worthy male members could now be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or ethnicity. Kimball did not explicitly disavow the theological reasoning behind the original ban, nor did he offer a detailed explanation for why the revelation came at that moment. The announcement was brief and presented as divine direction, which is how major doctrinal changes are typically framed in LDS theology.

The reversal was overwhelmingly accepted by church members in a sustaining vote at the general conference. Most members were relieved; some were jubilant. A small number of conservative members objected, and a few left the church over the decision. The change was also celebrated by civil rights advocates and observers who saw it as a long-overdue correction. However, the church did not formally apologize for the ban or fully repudiate the doctrines used to justify it for many decades.

Why This Matters

The priesthood ban and its reversal illustrate how religious institutions adapt doctrine in response to social change, internal dissent, and reinterpretation of sacred texts. For the LDS Church, the reversal was a watershed moment: it removed a formal barrier to full membership participation and signaled that the church could change core teachings. For Black members and prospective Black converts, the 1978 reversal opened pathways to leadership and ritual participation that had been closed for generations. Yet the reversal also raised enduring questions about how the church's leaders had justified the ban for so long, and why the theological rationale was not more thoroughly addressed in the official reversal. The policy's legacy continues to shape conversations about race, authority, and religious reform within the LDS community and beyond.

Key Dates

1852: Brigham Young institutes the priesthood ban.
1969: Church president Joseph Fielding Smith reaffirms the ban will not change.
June 8, 1978: Spencer W. Kimball announces the reversal via Official Declaration 2.
1980s–2000s: Church gradually acknowledges historical racism but stops short of full apology.
2013: Church publishes an essay acknowledging the ban lacked clear scriptural basis.

The Theological Reckoning

In the decades after 1978, the church's approach to the ban's theology evolved. For years, church leaders largely avoided discussing it. Starting in the early 2000s, some church scholars and leaders began to acknowledge that the doctrine had been rooted in 19th-century racism rather than clear scriptural mandate. In 2013, the church published an official essay on its website acknowledging that the ban 'was not part of the Church's founding doctrines' and that 'Church leaders at the time believed these statements reflected divine will.' The essay also noted that 'the exact circumstances that led to the ban are not known' and that 'Church leaders have not made official statements about all the reasons behind the ban.' This measured acknowledgment fell short of a full apology but represented a significant shift in how the institution discussed its past.

Did Joseph Smith institute the priesthood ban?

No. Joseph Smith, the church's founder, did not establish the ban. A few Black men were ordained during Smith's lifetime. Brigham Young, the second president, instituted the ban in 1852, about four years after the church's arrival in Utah. The exact reasons Young made this decision are debated by historians, though it coincided with the church's growing entrenchment in the American West and reflected broader 19th-century racial attitudes.

What scriptural justification did the church cite for the ban?

Church leaders pointed to the Book of Abraham (which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from Egyptian papyri) and to a doctrine about pre-mortal existence and spiritual worthiness. They also invoked biblical references to the 'curse of Cain' and the 'curse of Ham,' though these interpretations were not mainstream in other Christian denominations. Most scholars now agree the scriptural basis was weak and that the doctrine was shaped more by 19th-century racial ideology than by clear religious texts.

How did Black members respond to the ban?

Some Black members left the church in frustration. Others remained, hoping for change. A few advocated quietly for the reversal. After 1978, many Black members felt validated and welcomed more fully into the community, though some remained skeptical of the church's handling of its racist past. The ban's legacy continues to affect how Black members relate to the institution and how the church addresses its history.

Has the church formally apologized for the priesthood ban?

The church has not issued a formal, unambiguous apology. It has acknowledged that the ban was rooted in racism and lacked clear scriptural basis, particularly in essays published since 2013. However, church leaders have generally framed the ban as a historical error rather than a moral failing requiring repentance, which some critics argue falls short of genuine accountability.

Why did the reversal happen in 1978 specifically?

The exact reasons remain unclear. Historians point to mounting civil rights pressure, internal church concerns, and Spencer W. Kimball's own evolving views on race. Kimball presented the change as a revelation, which is how the LDS Church frames major doctrinal shifts. Some scholars suggest Kimball may have been influenced by practical concerns—universities boycotting BYU, membership growth in Africa, and the need to modernize the church's image—but the official account centers on divine revelation.

Sources

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 'Race and the Priesthood.' Official essay published 2013.
Newell, Donna, and Valeen Tippetts Avery. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. University of Illinois Press, 1994.
Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism. Greenwood Press, 1981.
Bush, Lester E., Jr. 'Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview.' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 8, no. 1, 1973.