The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the LDS Church or Mormon Church, teaches today that Black people are equal children of God and must be treated with dignity, fairness, and love. It rejects racism and no longer restricts Black members from priesthood ordination, temple worship, or full participation in church life.
That current position exists alongside a painful history. From the mid-1800s until 1978, the church restricted most Black men from priesthood ordination and prevented Black members from receiving certain temple ordinances. Church leaders also promoted explanations about race that the church later disavowed. Understanding both the present teaching and the historical record gives a more accurate answer than treating either one alone.
What the LDS Church officially teaches about race today
The church teaches that all people are beloved children of God, regardless of race or ethnic background. Its central religious beliefs emphasize the divine worth of every person, the universal need for Jesus Christ, and the importance of making covenants and participating in worship. Those teachings apply to Black members in the same way they apply to members of every other background.
Church materials now describe racism as contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Members are encouraged to reject prejudice, racist language, discrimination, and assumptions about another person based on skin color or ancestry. A person’s race is not presented as evidence of greater or lesser faith, intelligence, moral worth, or spiritual standing.
The church also teaches that salvation and exaltation are available to all who accept the gospel and seek to follow Christ. Black members can be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, serve in callings, receive priesthood ordinances if they are men who meet the same standards as other male members, and worship in temples. Black women participate in temple ordinances and church service under the same general requirements as other women.
Direct answer: Current LDS teaching does not say that Black people are cursed, spiritually inferior, or less worthy of God’s blessings. Those ideas appeared in past explanations but are rejected by the church today.
Official teachings do not mean every individual member has always behaved consistently with them. As in other religious communities, LDS members have held different personal views, and some have expressed prejudice. The church’s stated doctrine and the attitudes or conduct of individual members are not always identical.
Why Black members were once denied priesthood and temple access
The most significant historical issue is the church’s former priesthood and temple restriction. For much of the church’s history, Black men generally could not be ordained to the priesthood. Black members also could not receive temple endowment ordinances or be sealed to spouses and children in the temple, though they could attend meetings, be baptized, and participate in some forms of church life.
The restriction developed during the nineteenth century. Brigham Young, who led the church after Joseph Smith’s death, publicly taught in 1852 that Black men should not receive the priesthood. In Utah, he also supported laws connected to slavery and racial separation. These actions and teachings are part of the historical record and cannot be explained simply as a neutral administrative policy.
Earlier church history was more complicated than the later restriction suggests. Some Black men were associated with the early Latter-day Saint movement, and the historical record does not show a single, clearly documented statement from Joseph Smith that established the later system in the form it eventually took. That uncertainty has led to continuing historical discussion, but it does not erase the discriminatory policies that developed afterward.
Over time, church leaders and members offered several explanations for the restriction. Some connected it to interpretations of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or the story of Cain. Others claimed that Black people had been less faithful in a premortal existence, or that they had descended from a particular biblical line. These theories were used to explain or defend the policy, but they were not based on a single consistent teaching accepted by every leader.
Those explanations also changed over time. Some were presented as doctrine, while others appeared in sermons, lessons, publications, or informal statements. The mixture of speculation and institutional practice made the issue especially confusing for members and outsiders. It also caused real harm by attaching racial hierarchy to religious ideas.
During the twentieth century, the restriction became an increasingly visible source of concern. Black members, potential converts, other Christians, scholars, and some white Latter-day Saints questioned why a church that taught the universal reach of Christ would exclude Black people from ordinances it considered essential. Black Latter-day Saints continued to worship and serve despite those barriers, and some publicly or privately challenged the policy.
What changed in 1978 and what the church later rejected
In June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball announced that church leaders had received what they described as a revelation extending priesthood ordination and temple blessings to all worthy male members, without regard to race or color. The change was accepted by the church’s highest governing body and became a major turning point in LDS history.
The 1978 change meant that Black men could be ordained to the priesthood and that Black members could receive temple ordinances. Families of Black members could also be sealed together in temples. It did not erase the earlier restriction or its effects, but it ended the institutional barrier.
The announcement itself did not provide a detailed historical explanation for why the restriction had existed. Some members therefore continued to repeat older theories. Others interpreted the change as evidence that the former policy had been a human error rather than a permanent divine command. The church did not immediately settle every question about the origin of the restriction.
In a 2013 essay titled Race and the Priesthood, published in its Gospel Topics materials, the church addressed the subject more directly. The essay states that the church disavows theories that black skin is the result of a curse, that Black people were less valiant in a premortal life, or that interracial marriage is sinful. It also rejects the idea that Black people are inferior in any way.
The essay acknowledges that past church leaders and members had offered racial theories and that some had used scripture to justify the restriction. It explains that the restriction’s origins are not fully known and warns against treating those earlier explanations as church doctrine. This marked a significant clarification of the official position.
The church has also removed or revised some older teaching materials that presented racial theories as settled truth. That process matters because ordinary lessons, books, and sermons shaped how generations of members understood Black people and the restriction. Removing outdated material does not undo its influence, but it helps establish what the church teaches now.
Historical distinction: The 1978 revelation ended the restriction; later official materials more clearly rejected the racial explanations that had been used to support it. Those are related but separate developments.
How Mormon scripture is understood regarding Black people
Latter-day Saints use the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and teachings from modern prophets as scripture. Some passages in those texts refer to skin color, lineage, or peoples described as receiving a curse. Historically, some Latter-day Saint writers interpreted those passages racially and applied them to Black people.
Current church teaching does not authorize that interpretation. The church does not teach that Black people carry a divine mark, inherited curse, or spiritual defect. It also does not teach that skin color reveals a person’s righteousness. The modern approach is to read difficult passages in their historical and literary context rather than use them to rank racial groups.
One frequently discussed example appears in the Book of Mormon, where a group is described as receiving a “mark” and being separated from another group. Earlier Latter-day Saint readers sometimes connected that description to Black people. The church’s current position does not make that connection and rejects the idea that the passage establishes a doctrine of Black inferiority.
Another historical interpretation involved the biblical account of Cain or the descendants of Ham. Some leaders and members linked those stories to the priesthood restriction. The church has rejected the use of those interpretations to explain race or to justify discrimination. Biblical ancestry does not determine whether someone may receive God’s blessings or participate fully in the church.
LDS scripture also contains teachings that support the equal spiritual worth of humanity. The Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that God invites people from every nation and does not deny access to anyone because of nationality, race, or social position. Those teachings are now central to the church’s explanation of its position on race.
That does not mean every difficult passage has an easy interpretation. Black Latter-day Saints may still encounter scriptural language that feels painful because of how it was used historically. A respectful discussion should acknowledge that emotional and historical context rather than insisting that a verse’s meaning can be separated from the ways institutions applied it.
What Black members can expect in the church today
Black members participate in local congregations, called wards or branches, alongside members of other races. They may hold leadership and teaching callings, serve missions, speak in worship services, attend church classes, and take part in community activities. Church participation is organized by membership and local calling rather than by racial category.
Black men who meet the church’s standards can receive priesthood ordination. Priesthood holders may serve in roles such as deacon, teacher, priest, elder, or bishop, depending on age, calling, and local circumstances. Black women can serve in a wide range of leadership and teaching roles and participate in temple worship under the same policies that apply to other women.
Church members who are worthy under LDS standards may enter temples regardless of race. Temple participation involves interviews and religious commitments concerning faith, conduct, honesty, and church participation. Race is not a disqualifying factor, and neither a person’s skin color nor ancestry determines access to temple ordinances.
Black Latter-day Saints are not a single, uniform group. Some joined the church recently, while others belong to multigenerational LDS families. Some are deeply connected to Black Christian traditions, African American history, or local cultural communities. Others experience the church primarily through family, missionary work, or personal spiritual practice.
Their experiences can also differ sharply by location and congregation. A Black member in a diverse urban ward may have a different experience from a Black member in a mostly white rural congregation. Questions about representation, cultural understanding, interracial marriage, missionary outreach, and local leadership can affect whether a member feels fully included.
Some Black members appreciate the church’s teachings about family, service, Jesus Christ, and personal revelation while also criticizing its racial history. Others leave the church because the former restriction, past teachings, or present experiences create an unacceptable conflict. Both reactions are understandable responses to a complicated institutional history.
Current participation: Black members may worship, serve, teach, lead, and receive ordinances under the same general standards as other members.
Historical memory: Families and communities may still feel the effects of earlier exclusion, even after the policy changed.
Individual experience: Acceptance can vary between congregations and depends partly on local culture and leadership.
Official expectation: Members are expected to reject racism and treat people of every race with Christlike respect.
How to evaluate claims about Mormon views on race
Claims about LDS beliefs often mix current doctrine, nineteenth-century sermons, unofficial publications, and the opinions of individual members. A statement made by one leader is not automatically the same as a formal church teaching, especially when later church materials explicitly reject it.
When assessing a claim, separate historical practice from current doctrine. For example, it is accurate to say that Black men were historically denied priesthood ordination. It is not accurate to say that the church still teaches that Black men are spiritually unworthy, because that contradicts current official teaching.
It is also useful to ask what kind of source is being quoted. A nineteenth-century sermon, a missionary pamphlet, an official handbook, a modern Gospel Topics essay, and a personal social-media post do not carry the same authority. Dates and context matter, especially when older statements are presented as if they represent the church’s current position.
Several questions can help clarify a disputed claim:
Was the statement made by an individual or formally adopted by the church?
Does it describe a past policy or a current requirement?
Has the church later corrected, disavowed, or removed the teaching?
Does the claim confuse priesthood ordination with salvation, temple worship, or membership?
Does it describe what official policy says, or only what some members believe or practice?
Those distinctions do not require minimizing the past. The former restriction was an institutional form of racial exclusion, and the theories used to defend it caused harm. A fair account can recognize the church’s current rejection of racism while also acknowledging that its earlier policies and teachings were discriminatory.
For readers who want primary material, the church’s official Gospel Topics resources on Race and the Priesthood and related subjects provide its current account. Histories written by Black Latter-day Saints and independent scholars add perspectives that official materials may not fully capture. Reading both kinds of sources can show the difference between institutional explanation and lived experience.
The clearest present-day answer is therefore two-part: LDS teaching now affirms the full spiritual and human equality of Black people, but the church has a documented history of racial restrictions and teachings that it now rejects. Both facts belong in any honest explanation of what Mormons believe about Black people.
Frequently asked questions
Do Mormons believe Black people are cursed?
No. The LDS Church has officially rejected the idea that Black skin is a divine curse or that Black people are spiritually inferior. Some past leaders and members taught theories connecting race with biblical curses or premortal behavior, but the church now identifies those explanations as mistaken and does not consider them official doctrine.
Can Black men hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church?
Yes. Since 1978, Black male members who meet the church’s ordinary requirements can be ordained to the priesthood and serve in priesthood callings. Race does not create a separate standard. Black members may also receive temple ordinances and participate fully in church worship.
Why did the Mormon Church restrict Black members before 1978?
The church has not provided a definitive historical explanation for the restriction’s origin. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century leaders offered several racial theories, including claims about biblical ancestry and premortal conduct. The church later disavowed those theories, and current materials acknowledge that the origins of the restriction are not fully known.
Are Mormons still racist?
The church officially condemns racism, but its members are individuals with differing attitudes and behavior. Some Black members report supportive experiences, while others have encountered ignorance, exclusion, or prejudice. The church’s stated position and the conduct of local members are not always the same, so personal experiences can vary considerably.
Leave a Reply