How the LDS Church Changed Doctrine on Race and Priesthood in 1978

The reversal of a 126-year-old ban that barred Black members from the priesthood and temple ceremonies.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 20, 2026

Branched from Key Differences in Mormon Scripture and Doctrine Between Groups

Quick take

From 1852 to 1978, the LDS Church prohibited Black men from holding the priesthood and Black members from temple endowments—a policy rooted in interpretations of scripture and early leaders' statements.
President Spencer W. Kimball announced the reversal in June 1978 through Official Declaration 2, opening priesthood ordination and temple participation to all worthy members regardless of race.
The shift came after decades of civil rights pressure, internal theological reconsideration, and what Church leaders described as divine revelation.

For 126 years, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) maintained an official policy denying the priesthood—its system of religious authority and ritual practice—to Black members. Beginning in 1852 under Brigham Young, and continuing through the civil rights era, this restriction barred Black men from ordination and Black members (men and women) from participating in temple endowments, the Church's most sacred ceremonies. On June 8, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced a reversal through Official Declaration 2, stating that all worthy members could now receive the priesthood and temple access regardless of race. The change marked one of the most significant doctrinal shifts in modern LDS history.

The Origins and Rationale of the Ban (1852–1978)

Brigham Young, the Church's second president, instituted the priesthood ban in 1852, though no official written policy was published at that time. Early LDS leaders justified the restriction through a combination of scriptural interpretation and folklore. They pointed to Genesis 9:20–27, the story of Noah's curse on Ham's son Canaan, and claimed this passage supported restricting priesthood to those of certain lineages. Some leaders also referenced Doctrine and Covenants 121:34–35, which discusses worthiness to hold the priesthood. Additionally, church leaders circulated a folk doctrine—never canonized—suggesting that Black people carried the 'mark of Cain,' a theological claim not found in official scripture but deeply embedded in early Mormon teaching and culture.

For over a century, the policy remained largely unchanged and unchallenged within the Church hierarchy. Church leaders did not actively recruit Black members, and those who joined faced exclusion from key rituals. Outside the Church, however, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s intensified public and internal pressure. Black members and their allies inside the Church, as well as critics outside it, questioned how a faith claiming restoration of ancient truth could maintain a racially exclusionary policy. By the 1970s, the Church faced mounting criticism from civil rights advocates, and some universities and states began to withdraw support or recognition from the institution.

The Reversal: Official Declaration 2 (1978)

On June 8, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had received a revelation rescinding the ban. The announcement came in the form of Official Declaration 2, a formal statement added to the Doctrine and Covenants (one of the Church's four standard works of scripture). The declaration stated that 'all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color' and that 'all worthy members of the Church may receive their endowments and be married in the temple of the Lord.'

The declaration did not explicitly apologize for the previous ban or explain its theological foundations. Instead, it reframed the issue by asserting that the priesthood restriction had been a policy, not a doctrine—a distinction some scholars and members have questioned. Church leaders stated that the change came through revelation to President Kimball, though the specific circumstances and details of that revelation were never publicly disclosed. The announcement was immediate and binding; no theological debate preceded it within Church leadership.

Why and When the Change Mattered

The 1978 reversal was transformative for Black LDS members and reshaped the Church's public identity. It removed the most visible barrier to full participation in the faith's central rituals and authority structures. For Black men, it meant access to ordination and leadership roles; for all Black members, it opened temple participation previously denied. The timing was crucial: the announcement came at the tail end of the civil rights era, when institutional racism was increasingly untenable in American public life. For the Church, the shift helped restore relationships with universities, governments, and civil rights organizations that had begun to distance themselves from the institution. It also addressed recruitment challenges in Black communities and internationally, where the policy had been a significant obstacle to growth.

Internally, the change prompted ongoing theological and historical reckoning. Many Black members and scholars have noted that the reversal did not address the original justifications or offer a formal apology. In 2012 and again in 2013, the Church published essays acknowledging that past leaders' statements about race were wrong, but these came decades later and were not part of the initial 1978 announcement. The reversal itself, however, was immediate and complete—there was no gradual phase-in or exceptions. By 1979, Black men were being ordained to the priesthood, and Black members were participating in temple ceremonies.

Key Facts About the 1978 Reversal

Official Declaration 2 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants and is treated as scripture by the Church.
The announcement came without prior public debate or theological justification for the previous ban.
No Black apostles or senior leaders were part of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve at the time of the announcement.
The Church later issued essays (2012–2013) acknowledging that earlier leaders' racial teachings were wrong, but these came long after 1978.

Was the priesthood ban ever officially written down in Church policy?

No formal written policy was published by the Church leadership. Brigham Young announced the ban orally in 1852, and it was enforced through practice and reiterated by subsequent leaders in sermons and letters. This lack of a formal written policy later allowed Church leaders to characterize it as a practice rather than official doctrine, though it was enforced uniformly for 126 years.

Did Church leaders give a theological reason for reversing the ban in 1978?

Official Declaration 2 does not provide a theological explanation for the reversal or address the previous justifications. President Kimball stated that the change came through revelation, but the specific content of that revelation was never publicly disclosed. This lack of detailed explanation left many questions about the theological basis for both the ban and its reversal.

How did Black members respond to the 1978 announcement?

Responses were mixed. Some Black members felt relief and gratitude that they could finally access the priesthood and temples. Others felt pain that the change had taken so long and came without acknowledgment of the harm caused. Some saw it as validation of their faith; others struggled with the lack of apology or explanation. The response reflected the complexity of having been excluded from core rituals for over a century.

Did the Church apologize for the priesthood ban?

Not in 1978. The original announcement made no apology. In 2012 and 2013, the Church published essays on its website acknowledging that past leaders' statements justifying the ban were wrong and that the ban itself was a mistake. However, these came 34–35 years after the reversal and were not formally presented as an official apology by Church leadership.

What is the difference between 'doctrine' and 'policy' in this context?

Church leaders later characterized the priesthood ban as a policy (a practice or rule) rather than doctrine (revealed truth). This distinction allowed them to reverse it without necessarily invalidating earlier leaders' teachings. However, scholars and many members have questioned this distinction, noting that the ban was enforced as strictly as any doctrine and was justified using scriptural arguments.

Sources

LDS Church. Official Declaration 2, Doctrine and Covenants (1978).
LDS Church. 'Race and the Priesthood' essay, lds.org (2013).
LDS Church. 'Blacks and the Priesthood' essay, lds.org (2012).