Over the past year I’ve researched the now-condemned doctrine that was taught for 150 years regarding black people; how they were less valiant in the pre-existence, that they were “fence sitters” because they wouldn’t choose Jesus or Satan, and because of this they were cursed with a dark skin. I learned that not only were they banned from receiving the priesthood, but they also were banned from going to the temple. They could not receive their endowments, which also prevented them from going on missions, and they could not be married in the temple. They couldn’t be eternally sealed to their families, no matter how valiant they were there was no assurance that once they died they would be able to live with their families forever.

This doctrine was taught and enforced for a century and a half, and then one day it changed. As I researched this priesthood and temple ban and how the church changed its doctrine, I couldn’t help but draw parallels from that doctrine to the current doctrine on gay people. And then I thought, “if the church has changed one of its fundamental doctrines [regarding black people] then why can’t it change its doctrine when it comes to gay people?”

CHURCH DOCTRINE REGARDING BLACK PEOPLE

Prophets and apostles of the church taught for 150 years that black people were an inferior race due to their lack of “spiritual valiance” in the pre-existence. It was also taught they were born black because they were sympathizers with Satan and his plan, and hence were cursed with a “black skin”. Because of this doctrine it was prophesied, countless times, that they were to never receive the priesthood or be allowed in the temple in this life. At times it was even taught they could reach the Celestial Kingdom, but only as servants to non-black people.

“…those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan ; and hence the negro or African race[1]

“Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them… negroes are not equal with other races… but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate [the pre-existence].”[2]

“…If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.”[3]

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”[4]

“It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine…” [5]

At this point you may be saying, “well all the churches at that time were racist! Prophets are just a product of their time”, and you’d be right. But does that mean that the Mormon leaders were no more inspired than those of other churches? Does that mean that Mormon leaders were simply as blinded as the Catholic church, the Methodist church, etc.? Isn’t the point of having a modern-day prophet to know God’s will and prevent us from falling into the incorrect beliefs and ideologies of society? If that’s the case, then God failed the church by allowing prophets to believe for 150 years that black people were inferior, inherently sinners, and should be banned from the priesthood and the temple.

If the prophets were not able to correctly decipher God’s revelation and will, what is the point of having a modern-day prophet? Shouldn’t God’s prophets be the most qualified to get ahead of these societal and equality issues rather than merely reflect the times and the societal ideologies in which they live? If God has called modern prophets to decipher His will, then why should Mormon doctrine and teachings simply reflect the times in which those prophets lived?

From the beginning of the church, the concept of treating all men equally has been taught. But if that’s believed by church leaders then why would the true church be the last significant church to change their policy to allow blacks to have the priesthood? Shouldn’t the one true church have been on the forefront of the civil rights movement, rather than one of the last major churches to support racial equality?

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN DOCTRINE ON BLACK PEOPLE AND GAY PEOPLE

The more I’ve researched the history of the Priesthood and Temple Ban I’ve come to realize there are some eerie similarities between the church’s previous doctrine on black people and the church’s current doctrine on gay people. So, my questions is – if the church has changed its doctrine on polygamy, the Blood Atonement (the teaching that some sins were so egregious that the Atonement could not cover them and that person had to be murdered to atone for that sin), the Adam-God theory (Brigham’s teaching that Adam was actually God) and on the temple/priesthood ban for black people, why can it not change its stance on gay people?

People today say (I have specifically had things like this said to me), “the doctrine on gay people will never change! It’s not something that can be changed, it’s from the Lord and it’s doctrine. Doctrine doesn’t change.” Think back to the time when the Civil Rights Movement was happening and the subsequent years. The church was receiving an enormous amount of pressure from society, and, even members within the church, to change its doctrine and policy and to allow black people to receive the priesthood and have all the blessings of the white members. There was enough outcry that apostles and prominent church members made statements saying this doctrine would never change:

“Those who believe that the Church ‘gave in’ on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine…. Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven.” [6]

“Those who would try to pressure the Prophet to give the Negroes the Priesthood do not understand the plan of God nor the order of heaven. Revelation is the expressed will of God to man. Revelation is not man’s will expressed to God. All the social, political, and governmental pressure in the world is not going to change what God has decreed to be.” [7]

“The Church is either true or it isn’t. If it changes its stand on the strength of the ‘great stream of modern religious and social thought,’ it will be proven criticism…. If the Church is true it will hold to its beliefs in spite of its members.” [8]

“The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God.” [9]

“The attitude of the Church with reference to 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.”[10]

As you can see from these quotes the doctrine on why black people were born black, the reasons they were not able to receive the priesthood, go on a mission, or go to the temple, were clearly taught as just that – doctrine.

MEMBERS WERE ADVOCATING FOR A CHANGE IN DOCTRINE FOR YEARS

In a letter written to the First Presidency by Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior (of the United States), in 1961 he told the First Presidency how unsettling it was to him that the church held to its racial inequality views and how it treated the rights of minority groups:

“I am deeply concerned over the growing criticism of our Church with regard to the issues of racial equality and the rights of minority groups.”[11]

This was the First Presidency’s response:

“In 1949 the First Presidency, after discussion with the Council of the Twelve, wrote the following:

‘The attitude of the Church with reference to 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.’”[12]

After being dissatisfied with the First Presidency’s response and the following years of continual racial inequality in the church, Stewart Udall wrote an article for the Dialogue magazine and newspaper in 1967 in which he urged the First Presidency to change their doctrine on the priesthood and temple ban. In response, there were many active members of the church who wrote into the newspaper praising Udall for his courage to speak out against the doctrine and to say that he is not alone in his desire for the church to change. They wrote to say that thousands of members had been wanting racial equality in the church and trying their best to advocate for that change, to little effect.

“Your letter, or parts of it, to Dialogue came out in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning. Those of us, and there are many, who’ve been trying for years to make even a small dent in the church’s armor of discrimination and intolerance against the Negro rejoice that you’ve come out against bigotry and unchristian dogma. … Speaking frankly, too many of our people show too much of the “sheep-like” quality of blind follower ship and are over-anxious to conform, passing the responsibility to “The Brethren” for their spiritual and religious decisions. ”[13]

“Let nobody doubt that Stewart Udall has spoken for thousands upon thousands of his concerned and thoughtful fellow churchmen. …The problem will not go away by being ignored. Decisions are urgently needed, for no reason other than the moral one to bring our principles of universal brotherhood into clearer view. There is, in my view, only one right — and righteous— answer.”[14]

“Congratulations on your encouragement of our Mormon Leaders to come to grips with the inequality of Negroes in the Church. You are dead right –most of all we harm ourselves by continuing to maintain a posture of superiority.”[15]

“I wish to congratulate you on your excellent and timely article dealing with the attitude of the Mormon Church on the negro problem… I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that the time has arrived when the Church should re-examine its doctrine, so long accepted by the great majority of its members, the doctrine that the negro is cursed with a black skin because of pre-existant [sic] sin on the part of the spirit which now inhabits his body. Not only must this doctrine be abandoned, but the entire concept of a connection between skin color and righteousness must be repudiated. To equate skin color with good and evil, as is done in the Book of Mormon, perverts all our thinking on the negro problem.”[16]

“I have been reading in the newspapers about your article in Dialogue Magazine on the Negro problem, and, as a fellow Latter Day Saint, just wanted to let you know that I agree with your views. It is true, as Governor Romney says, that the doctrine can only be changed thru revelation, but this fact (to my mind) only points up the further fact that we need new revelation. However, we cannot expect to receive any word from the Lord on this subject until we, as a people, are ready and willing to receive it. For, He will not force anything on us. So, articles such as yours are of value and do some good…. In any case, just wanted to let you know that you are not alone!”[17]

“This is to congratulate you and commend you for your clear courageous statement in the current issue of “Dialogue” on the attitude of our Church on the Negro problem. …. Your statement has been long overdue and we are hopeful that it will have some effect on highest levels of Church authority. However we are not too sanguine that the “Revelation” ending this long-standing discrimination will result directly from what you have said.”[18]

“Congratulations on your very forthright statement in Dialogue. It says so well what many of us believe so deeply. It is encouraging indeed to have such a statement from a person in high office, and to have it put in such eloquent words. I hope it is read and understood at 47 East South Temple.[19]

Now, think about the past 10 years as far as members of the church advocating for marriage equality. A minority of the members have been condemning the doctrine that gay people who choose be in same-sex relationships are sinners and unworthy of the full blessings that straight members, or celibate gay members, are worthy of. How many tens of thousand of members have been advocating for the church to change its doctrine and view on this? How many thousands of people have been saying that the church is wrong and their teachings need to change because people are literally killing themselves over this doctrine?

These advocating members have been met with resistance at every side – people viewing them as “going off the deep end”, as apostates, telling them they’re wrong because the church has spoken and that’s the end of it. The majority of members say the church can’t change its doctrine regarding homosexuality because “doctrine can’t be changed”, especially at the will of the people. Yet, the doctrine regarding black people changed. Why can we not change the doctrine regarding homosexuality, then?

THE DOCTRINE CHANGES

In 1978, President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency issued the following statement from President Spencer W. Kimball:

“…all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.”[20]

Keep in mind that President Tanner, the apostle delivering this statement, said 11 years earlier that the church has “no intention” of changing its doctrine regarding “the negro” and “there’s really nothing we can do to change this” because it’s the “law of God”.[21]

Over the course of 150 years apostles and prophets repeatedly said the doctrine on black people and the subsequent ban thereof would never change. It was the will of the Lord, it was doctrine, and would never be altered regardless of external pressures. In 1978 that doctrine changed. Does that mean the prophets and apostles who enforced this false doctrine and ban were not inspired of God? Did they misinterpret the will of God? Up to this point, 1978, literally 100% of the church’s prophets and apostles had been teaching false doctrine.

In 2012 the church published a Gospel Topic Essay called Race and the Priesthood in which they stated:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories [notice how they never use the word ‘doctrine’] advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”[22]

From the time I was a child I was taught to sing “follow the prophet” because he “won’t lead us astray”. I was taught that God would never allow the prophet to lead us astray, implying God would kill the prophet [23] if he did so (side note: this is still being taught in church manuals. How can we be teaching this when clearly the prophets have led us astray?). However, if that were true, all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball (12 prophets; 100% of the church’s prophets at the time) would have been killed, or “removed” as the quote says, because they led every single member of the church astray for one hundred and fifty years. And not just the members of the church, but the entire population of the world since it’s taught prophets receive revelation for the world!

For 150 years prophets taught false doctrine simply because, well, they don’t know why. In the Official Declaration 2 the church states:

“Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this [the priesthood ban] practice.”[24]

What if there’s no “clear insight” as to why gay people are not allowed to fully participate in and enjoy the blessing of the gospel? What if there is no clear insight as to why children of gay parents are not allowed to be baptized into the church, or to receive the priesthood or go to the temple? What if there is no reason that they have to literally disavow their parents’ same-sex relationship in order to be baptized once they reach adulthood, or to go through the temple and receive a mission call? What if the rejection of not only gay people but also of their children is happening with no “clear insight?”

IF DOCTRINE HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST, WHY CAN IT NOT CHANGE NOW?

If, for over 150 years, the leaders of the church misinterpreted and misunderstood such a significant revelation from God (or as in the previous statement – they don’t even know why that ban was ever put in place), who is to say they are not currently misunderstanding the will of God? What if being gay isn’t a sin at all, just as we now know it’s not a sin to marry someone of another race[25] or that being born black is not a sign of disobedience or not being valiant enough in the pre-existence[26]?

Prophets and apostles are simply products of their time; they are imperfect men who make mistakes. We all make mistakes. However, if that is the case then we have got to stop teaching that the prophet will never lead astray, that we need to “follow the prophet” regardless of what our conscience or logic says, and that those who do not follow the prophet are sinning.

Prior to September of 1978, if people had supported the civil rights movement and encouraged the church to let black people receive the priesthood and go to the temple they would have been seen as teachings things contrary to the prophets and in danger of apostatizing. Then, literally overnight, those members who fought for civil rights and the equality of black people in the church were right! It was just the 12 prophets and countless apostles prior to them who were wrong.

Consider this alarming quote from Bruce R. McConkie where he tells members to literally forget everything he taught previously regarding black people:

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that 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?” All I can say 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 whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding[27]

A mere two months before this statement, those members “hesitant” to accept black people as equal were 100% in line with the church’s teachings! A mere two months before this statement, those who were teaching that black people should have the priesthood and be allowed to go to the temple were seen as apostates and going contrary to the teachings of the church. They even were in danger of being excommunicated for advocating for racial equality!

Then, again literally overnight, everyone was just supposed to disregard the past 150 years of doctrine that prophets and apostles taught. This doctrine was a foundational truth in the church. You had to change your views and opinions and teachings 180° or else you would be going against church teachings and doctrine. Can you image the mental whiplash that would cause?

CONCLUSION

Doctrine has changed. It will change. How can we know that what is being taught by President Monson and the apostles regarding homosexuality won’t be condemned and disavowed by church leaders in 50 years? What if in 50 years the prophet receives a revelation that being gay is not a sin, yet we spent the majority of our lives believing gay people were sinners and not only that, but that we required those who were gay to be celibate in order to receive the full blessings of being members in the church?

What if for 50 years of your life you believed it was right to deny those gay people of love, affection, simply being in a relationship, having children, and companionship – all because your church leaders told you to. You supported the doctrine that prevents them from having normal, intimate relationships, that prevented them from growing and developing in ways that straight, cis gender members are allowed to. What if you realize in 50 years that your support of this doctrine literally caused hundreds of suicides – members old and young – because those gay members believed they were sinning and could only escape their sin by ending their own life?

I literally can’t write, or re-read, that without crying. I feel terrible that for 8-10 years of my life I expected gay people to be celibate for their entire life because a church leader told me that’s what was supposed to happen. I feel terrible that I perpetuated the teachings that they are sinners, that there’s something wrong with them, and that they’ll be “fixed” in the after-life.

How would you feel if in 50 years you realized that hundreds of believing gay members were killed or killed themselves simply because prophets are a product of their time? What if our church leaders are currently misinterpreting the will and revelation of God, just as Joseph Smith and all other 11 prophets up until 1978 did?

Who is to say that in 50 years an apostle will not be saying, just as Bruce R. McConkie did regarding the ban on black people:

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that being gay is wrong and homosexuality is a sin….All I can say 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 whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding….” (Compare to footnote #[27])

We can readily admit that our past prophets and apostles, as well as the majority of members, were racist. We can readily condemn the racist prophets and apostles in our past. Can we see now, then, that in 50 years we will probably be admitting that our prophets, apostles, and the majority of members have been homophobic? Can we see how in 50 years we will probably be condemning the doctrine and the homophobic teachings of the current leaders?

I’m not simply doing this to be contrary to the church, I’m doing this because people are killing themselves over the homophobic teachings of the church and it has to stop. I have spent countless hours researching and writing this because my conscience can’t just take the back seat anymore. Chances are that you have a sibling, a niece or a nephew, a child, a friend, even a parent who is gay or bisexual and has felt the need to hide this their entire life. What if the things we are learning and teaching in church each week, and worldwide every 6 months, is leading them to contemplate and attempt suicide?

I have cousins, friends, and even a sibling who are gay and/or bisexual and I am so glad that they are all still here, that they are still alive. Many people are not as lucky as I am. I’m so glad that I no longer have to feel that the doctrine in the church can’t change, because clearly it can and it has.

For those of you who have taken the time to read this you may be thinking that I’m simply trying to cause problems in the church, that I just need to leave things alone because the prophet knows best, that “things will all work out in the end”, and I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may think I’m trying to destroy the church, trying to make the leaders and prophets look bad, or am simply trying to stir up trouble.

All I can say is that I am doing exactly what President Monson and other prophets, church leaders, and my parents have taught me to do, which is to stand up for what I believe to be true, even if I stand alone.

“May we ever be courageous and prepared to stand for what we believe, and if we must stand alone in the process, may we do so courageously[28]

The next time we are presented with doctrine that doesn’t settle well with us, I hope that we will all choose our conscience over doctrine.

RESOURCES:

[1]Speech of Elder Orson Hyde Delivered Before the High Priests Quorum in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845 Upon the Course and Conduct of Mr. Sidney Rigdon, and Upon the Merits of His Claims to the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. p. 30

[2]Bruce R. McConkie; Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528

[3] Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Affect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954.

[4] Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7

[5] Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, v. 27, n. 6, p. 565

[6] John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 104-105, 1967

[7] John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, p. 109

[8] Paul C. Richards, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967

[9] Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, Dec. 1967, p. 60

[10] The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949

[11] Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Letter Written to First Presidency, 1961

[12]First Presidency statement issued on August 17, 1949

[13]Positive Letter 1, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[14]Lowry Nelson to Editor, Dialogue, Fall 1967

[15]Positive Letter 3, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[16]Positive Letter 4, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[17]Positive Letter 7, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[18]Positive Letter 11, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[19]Positive Letter 15, “Stuart Udall and the Consequences of Conscience”

[20]Official Declaration 2; Released September 30, 1978

[21]Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, Dec. 1967, p. 60

[22]Race and the Priesthood; Gospel Topic Essay on LDS.org

[23]Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual

[24]Official Declaration 2

[25]Response from First Presidency in 1947

[26]Elder Arthur M. Richardson, That Ye May Not Be Deceived, pp. 9-10

[27]Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2

[28]Dare to Stand Alone; President Thomas S. Monson

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Blacks and the Priesthood

The Stewart Udall Sequence

I, Too, Have Been Born of Goodly Parents