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. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're uh taking on a really focused exploration, something tailored just for you, looking into a very significant and frankly sensitive area of Mormon history.

We're going to be digging into racist scripture teachings, policies, and you know, cultural norms within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really spanning from its beginnings right up to today.

Yeah. And to really try and get our heads around the nuances here, we've looked at a range of sources you shared with us. These include transcripts from the Mormon Stories podcast. They have some really in-depth talks with historians and black members of the Church as well.

Okay.

And alongside that, articles from which, you know, often tries to harmonize faith with historical context and also the Mormonism Research Ministry, which, uh, tends to offer a more critical perspective.

So, our mission, our goal for this deep dive, it's pretty clear.

We want to understand the historical presence, yes, but also the lasting impact of these racist elements within Mormonism.

Yeah.

How did these ideas pop up? How did they manifest over time? We want to look at the different interpretations from our sources to get hopefully a much clearer picture of this really complex chapter. Okay, let's dive in.

Let's start right at the beginning. There's an incident in Missouri back in 1833 which gives an early maybe uh unsettling glimpse at racial attitudes. Okay, you had Church leaders W.W. Phelps was one actively trying to stop free black people from moving into the state and also from becoming members of the Church.

Wow.

Now, FAIR does offer an interpretation here. They suggest, you know, we need to see this in the context of the 1830s, the social norms back then.

And context is important. Yeah, FAIR points that out. But, you know, doesn't that early action even with the context kind of set a precedent? Exclusion based on race right there in the early Church.

It's a fair question.

But then again, it's also really important to remember that during Joseph Smith's time, the founder, some black men were actually ordained to the priesthood.

That's true.

Elijah Abel is the name that always comes up, right? And he was involved in temple ceremonies, too. So, the general understanding, you know, supported by the Church's own history topics essay is that there wasn't like a solid across-the-board policy denying priesthood during Joseph Smith's life.

But then you look at the Mormonism Research Ministry sources, they bring up a different angle.

Okay, what's that?

They point to George Q. Cannon, who was a really influential leader later on. He apparently stated that Joseph Smith did teach that the seed of Cain couldn't get the priesthood until uh the seed of Abel had precedents.

So conflicting accounts right from the start.

Pretty much. It highlights that even really early on there were different understandings floating around about race and priesthood.

And this is where it starts to get, well, particularly significant. I think the race and Mormon scripture P2 discussion from Mormon Stories.

They argue that the actual foundation for the discriminatory doctrines that came later. You can find hints of it in Joseph Smith's own writings,

specifically the book of Abraham, its story about Egypt's origins and this idea that gets introduced there associating dark skin with a curse.

Ah, right.

So, even if a full-blown priesthood ban wasn't formalized under Smith, it seems like scriptural interpretations were starting to emerge that, well, could be used down the line to justify one.

That's a really critical point to grasp because this idea, this lineage based curse thing, it really solidifies under Brigham Young. Young, Joseph Smith's successor.

Okay,

Young was very explicit. He directly linked black skin to the curse of Cain in speeches 1852, 1859. They're documented in the Journal of Discourses. And the Mormonism Research Ministry really flags these.

And what did he say?

He said quite clearly that black people were the servant of servants and wouldn't be able to hold the priesthood until basically everyone else descended from Adam had gotten its blessings first.

So, it wasn't just framed as a temporary policy then. It was theological.

Very much so. It was being given theological weight.

And it wasn't just about priesthood either, was it? Young also had strong views on interracial marriage.

Oh, definitely. He made pronouncements like in 1863 saying interracial marriage would bring the curse onto the white lineage. And the penalty for that, he said, according to God's law, was death.

Death. Wow, that's intense.

The Mormonism Research Ministry emphasizes how severe those statements were.

Yeah.

Now, the faith matters discussion with Terrell Given and Paul Reeve add some useful context here. They suggest that Brigham Young in 1852 really provided that key theological underpinning for the ban,

Right?

And he might have been influenced by, you know, wider Christian beliefs floating around at the time about a black curse linking it to Cain and Abel from the Bible. So, the Mormon application was specific, but the core idea had broader roots.

But it wasn't monolithic, was it? Even among the early leaders. Uh, not entirely -

because our sources mentioned Orson Pratt, right? Apparently advocating for black men to have voting rights in 1852. That seems like a real contrast to Brigham Young's views.

It absolutely does. It suggests that the development of these racial doctrines, it wasn't like a straight line or everyone agreeing at once. There were different viewpoints. Okay. And then moving forward, late 19th, early 20th century, you see these theological justifications evolving further, especially around the idea of the premortal existence.

Ah, the War in Heaven narrative.

Exactly. Theories started popping up suggesting that black people were well either less valiant in supporting Christ back then before we came to earth or maybe they were neutral - stayed on the sidelines.

And different leaders kind of picked different sides of that argument.

Yeah. B.H. Roberts, he's often linked with the not valiant idea. According to the sources, Wilford Woodruff seemed to lean more towards neutrality,

But not everyone agreed on the neutral part.

Right. Joseph F. Smith and his son, Joseph Fielding Smith. They disputed that neutral position. So again, complexity and disagreement even within these developing ideas.

Joseph Fielding Smith, his teachings seem pretty central here based on what the Mormonism Research Ministry highlights.

They really are. In his book, Doctrines of Salvation, he taught pretty plainly that your circumstances in this life, your race, any disadvantages were a direct result of how obedient you were in the premortal life.

So being born black was seen as a consequence.

Essentially, yes. He said black people were receiving the reward they merit because they were neutral in that premortal war. This became a really really widely accepted theological explanation in the Church for a long time.

So this wasn't some fringe theory. It was mainstream thinking

for many decades. Yes. Which meant it had very real impacts on policy and culture.

Like that 1951 First Presidency statement, the one to the BYU president.

Exactly. To Ernest L. Wilkinson, they explicitly stated that denying the priesthood to black people wasn't unjust. Why? Because they argued spirits were willing to accept this handicap just to get the chance to come to Earth and gain a body.

That really frames it as something divinely sanctioned, doesn't it? Not just a policy.

It absolutely solidified that idea that it wasn't temporary, but rooted in some kind of eternal reality.

And this tied into the interracial marriage ban, too.

Yes, it provided the rationale. John Lewis Lund in his 1967 book, The Church and the Negro, basically argued that you had to avoid interracial marriage to prevent children being born who wouldn't be eligible for the priesthood.

Keeping the lines clear based on that theology.

That was the thinking. Maintaining what they saw as the divinely ordained order.

It's also quite frankly disturbing to read about the language used back then. Mormon Stories points this out. Actual Mormon publications in the early 20th century using terms like darkies, the n-word, coons.

Yeah, it's jarring to see.

And more than just language, right? Actual blackface. Minstrel shows were apparently used as entertainment within the Church. Though that 1963 example from a Church publication in England,

Yes, the Latter-day Saints Messenger in Portsmouth, it really speaks to a deeply ingrained cultural acceptance or at least tolerance of racist depictions and attitudes at the time.

And these weren't just abstract historical things. We have to remember the personal impact.

Absolutely crucial.

Mormon Stories includes those personal accounts. People being told not to date someone because of race. Being told to go back to Africa.

Mhm.

Those firsthand stories really hammer home how pervasive these beliefs were and how deeply hurtful they must have been impacting people's sense of belonging right within their own faith community.

Definitely.

Okay so then the civil rights movement starts gaining serious ground nationally does this cause any shifts within the Church.

It does seem to coincide with some internal questioning from Brown, who was in the First Presidency in the late 50s early 60s. Mormon Stories talks about how he actively tried to get the Church leadership to reconsider the ban.

Was there any traction there?

Well, there was the Bennion Report in 1954, which Mormon Stories also discusses. It apparently concluded there wasn't really a solid doctrinal basis for the ban.

Really? 1954?

Yeah. And it suggested President David O. McKay was personally inclined to lift it, but he hesitated. Apparently, there wasn't enough consensus among the apostles, the other top leaders, and there were big concerns about how members in the south particularly would react.

Uh the potential backlash,

Right? And there also seemed to be this strong reluctance from leadership to look like they were just caving to outside pressure from the civil rights movement.

They wanted it to seem internally driven, like revelation, not politics.

That appears to be the case. Any change needed to be framed as divinely inspired.

We also heard about Lowry Nelson challenging leaders even earlier back in the 40s.

Yes, the Mormon Stories episode on him is fascinating. He directly asked leaders, you know, where's the actual revelation? from Joseph Smith denying the priesthood. He questioned if it was accurate to even say Smith started the ban.

How did they respond?

Firmly. The First Presidency basically doubled down reaffirming the policy. It shows just how entrenched it was at the highest levels.

So dissent existed, but it faced strong resistance. Marian D. Hanks is another name mentioned, right? A general authority who had private doubts.

Yes. Indicating that even within the leadership ranks, there were individuals wrestling with it even if they didn't voice it publicly at the time. 

Which brings us to this whole no apology thing that often comes up. The sources suggest the Church hasn't issued a direct formal apology for the ban and the teachings around it. Is that fair?

It seems to be the general consensus. Yes. No official standalone apology for the ban itself and the supporting theology.

But there are counterarguments, right? Things the Church points to.

Sure. As Mormon Stories discusses, you often hear references to the gospel topics essay on race and the priesthood which does acknowledge the history.

Okay.

Leaders have repeatedly denounced racism in general terms and of course they point to the growth of the Church in Africa since 1978 as evidence of progress.

But for critics or those hurt by the history, that's not enough.

Often no. The argument back is that for generations, this wasn't just a policy. It was taught and understood as fundamental doctrine.

Right. Rooted in scripture and premortal life.

Exactly. And just denouncing racism in general terms today. Well, some feel that doesn't quite equate to taking specific accountability for the harm caused by those past doctrines and practices.

An Elder Oaks’s statement from 2015.

Yeah, that's often cited where he said, "The Church doesn't really seek or give apologies. For many, that kind of reinforces the perception of a no apology stance on this specific issue."

Okay. So, then we get to the huge turning point. 1978, the revelation lifting the restrictions. What led up to that?

A lot of factors, it seems. Our sources really highlight President Spencer W. Kimball’s deep personal anguish over it, particularly concerning members in Brazil.

Why Brazil specifically?

They had just built a temple there in Sao Paulo. And because of the complex racial mixing in Brazil, many faithful members, including leaders, found they had some African ancestry, which meant they and their families couldn't receive temple ordinances or hold higher priesthood offices.

So, the new temple was highlighting the problem in a very direct way.

In a very direct and painful way. Yes. President Kimball was deeply troubled by this.

And wasn't there a specific family story that reached him.

Yes. The story of Helio and Ruda Martins, a devout black Brazilian couple. Their son was reaching mission age but under the ban. Well, it was complicated. Their faithfulness, despite the restrictions, reportedly made a significant impression on President Kimball.

So, it was personal stories, the temple situation, his own prayerful searching.

It seems to have been a convergence of factors leading him to seek definitive guidance

and the revelation itself. Yeah,

It wasn't just one person, right?

No. It's important to understand as Mormon Stories points out that while President Kimball felt the strong spiritual impetus, the actual process involved intense prayer, discussion, and seeking unity among the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Collective discernment.

Exactly. Revelation in the Church often works that way involving council and consensus among the leading brethren.

Now, Bruce R. McConkie’s famous quote after the announcement, forget everything that I have said. How should we understand there? Was it an apology? It's often interpreted that way, but the clarification offered in the Mormon Stories discussion seems more historically accurate,

which is

that he was specifically telling people to forget what he had previously thought about the timing when black members would receive the priesthood. He'd previously taught it wouldn't be for a long, long time.

So, forget the timeline, not necessarily the underlying reasons he taught for the ban.

Precisely. It wasn't necessarily a full disavow of his beliefs about say the curse or premortal valiants. His personal understanding of those theological points might not have changed overnight, even if the policy did.

And did lifting the ban just erase racism from the Church culture?

Oh, definitely not. The sources are clear on this racist attitudes shaped by decades, even centuries of these teachings and cultural norms. They didn't just vanish in 1978.

There was also that incident with the Come Follow Me manual, wasn't there?

Yes. The correlation committee included a quote linking dark skin and curses. Elder Gary Stevenson later apologized to the NAACP for it as Mormon Stories detailed.

So inconsistencies persist.

It shows an ongoing struggle, doesn't it? And a real need for better, clearer guidance on how to handle these difficult historical and scriptural passages sensitively.

And even within the top leadership, there seemed to be differing views on how to frame the history itself

apparently. So yeah, we hear about internal discussions, some leaders leaning towards seeing the ban primarily as a product of historical racism. Others may be suggesting it was divinely permitted for a time, but the time for change came via revelation.

That lack of a single unified narrative must make it harder for members to process.

Understandably, yes. It adds to the complexity people face when trying to make sense of this history. Okay. Finally, let's connect this all to the present day, specifically the Church's growth in Africa. The sources raised some concerns there.

They did. The idea that maybe the Church is presenting a kind of, um, simplified or sanitized version of its history. to new members in Africa. Like maybe downplaying or omitting the whole history of the priesthood ban and the racist teachings that supported it,

Right? And the concern is that this could feel like a form of well modern colonization bringing a version of the faith that doesn't fully reckon with its own complicated past,

especially in places with strong anti-colonial histories. That lack of transparency could be a real issue for how the Church is received.

It could be, you know, appointing the first black general authority Helvecio Martins in '94 was a big step, but the underlying complexities of race history and how it's taught globally, those are still there.

And the sources suggest there are still internal discussions among leaders about how best to teach this history.

Yeah. Different views on whether to frame it as, you know, a mistake rooted in the racism of the times or as something divinely allowed then but changed later through revelation. It's not always presented consistently.

You see that unevenness in Church material sometimes. Definitely. And that 2020 one BYU report finding that many non-white students there still don't feel a strong sense of belonging that suggests the legacy of all this maybe how scripture like the Book of Mormon is sometimes taught regarding skin color still has real effects today.

So there's this tension wanting to acknowledge the past versus reluctance to maybe call past prophetic statements flat out racist is.

It really is. And how the Church navigates that has huge implications for fostering inclusivity moving forward.

Wow. Okay, this has definitely been a deep dive. We've covered a lot. The shifting doctrines, the cultural impact, leaders actions, the ‘78 change, the aftermath, and these ongoing issues today. It's complex, and frankly troubling, history.

It truly is. The sources really lay out that complex evolution.

So, thinking about all this, maybe the final thought for you, the listeners, considering this history, what does it really mean for a global Church that aims for unity and equality now? And maybe what's the responsibility of members today in understanding this past, in grappling with this legacy is definitely something worth reflecting on further, maybe digging into those sources yourself.

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.