In 1852, Brigham Young—second prophet/president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—implemented a ban on people of African descent holding the priesthood and accessing temple rituals, both of which are required for entrance into the highest degree of heaven in LDS theology.
Grounded in Protestant biblical justifications of slavery and racial hierarchy, LDS authorities for decades argued that whiteness was a sign of divine favor and the mark of a chosen race. Conversely, blackness was purportedly the mark of a divine curse or—unique to LDS doctrine—the result of poor decisions in a pre-mortal existence.
Although many members and leaders now describe the ban as simply a policy, a theory, or even folklore, mid-20th century LDS leaders enshrined it as divine doctrine on numerous occasions. The most notable example of this was a 1949 statement issued by the First Presidency, the highest governing body of the church, declaring: "The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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 ... that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time."
Matthew Harris, a historian of Mormon studies, has spent decades meticulously documenting race relations in the LDS Church, including the eventful historical trajectory of this priesthood and temple ban. In his recent bestseller, Second Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality, he masterfully lays out the complex array of political, sociocultural and religious factors that impacted the development and eventual lifting of the ban in 1978.
Not only was the Church confronted on its racism by a host of external forces—including the media, the federal government and academic scholars—there were also courageous internal agitators, from rank-and-file lay members to mid-level Church employees, all the way up to Apostles in its highest governing body.
Harris' book provides vivid details on this activism and dissent, including by First Presidency counselor Hugh B. Brown, who fought tirelessly to lift the ban up until his death in 1975. Surely, one of the most profound takeaways from this dark chapter in LDS history is that racial teachings long codified as eternal doctrine are now disavowed as "theories advanced in the past" or described as "outdated policies," demonstrating a compelling historical and theological blueprint for change within the LDS church. Reflecting on the immeasurable pain, exclusion and oppression that Latter-day Saints of color have experienced as a result of this odious ban compels us to examine similar discriminatory hierarchies in the modern church that privilege and elevate male, cisgender heterosexuality. Currently, people in same-sex relationships and people who have undergone physical or social gender transitions are prohibited from exercising the priesthood and entering the temple. Women are barred from holding the priesthood, but are otherwise allowed access to temple rituals.
Like prior justifications of the race ban, LDS authorities appeal to God as the author of teachings that same-sex relationships and gender transitions are sinful. By putting the onus on God, LDS leaders simultaneously shore up the credibility and strength of these teachings while deflecting responsibility and agency away from themselves.
In addition to prohibiting transgender members from exercising the priesthood and entering the temple, the church recently enacted a series of changes to the General Handbook that further marginalize and exclude trans people. These include mandating specific bathroom usage, requiring trans individuals to attend gender-specific meetings according to their assigned biological sex—not their actual gender identity—prohibiting trans youth from attending most overnight activities and barring trans adults from serving as teachers or working with children.
These sanctions feed into a broader political and cultural atmosphere that dehumanize, stigmatize and "other" trans people as dangerous and predatory toward children. In actuality, cisgender men are far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual violence and assault and, frankly, are the most deserving of bathroom restrictions and prohibitions on working with youth.
If you are a Latter-day Saint and, like myself, oppose the current priesthood/temple ban (and other restrictions) on women and LGBTQ people, what are some steps you can take? Just as courageous members of the 20th century did, express your dissenting opinions confidently and openly in church circles, whether formally in Sunday School or informally amongst friends and colleagues.
Respectful and honest discourse concerning these topics is vital to progress and change. I have observed that openly expressing disagreements over harmful and exclusionary teachings has gradually become a more normal and acceptable aspect of church participation.
If you are a local leader, I would challenge you to be radically inclusive and allow same-sex couples and trans individuals to have the same access to callings as cisgender heterosexual members. You would be joining a small, but crucial group of bishops and stake presidents who disobey institutional mandates they deem discriminatory. If you are opposed to doing that, at least strive to prioritize the wellbeing of your congregants as much as possible over institutional policies and practices.
From an institutional perspective, I would also call upon LDS leaders to stop pairing cisgender heterosexuality with faithfulness and morality, in the same way they gradually untethered race from theological frameworks in recent decades. Simply put, one's access to church rituals, service positions and leadership opportunities should not be determined by a gender transition, one's gender/sexual identity or one's romantic relationships, and should solely be determined by the content of one's character and abilities.
I sincerely yearn and actively fight for the day when the church will change their policies and teachings so that all people, regardless of gender/sexual identity or romantic relationships, will have equal access to all rituals and positions of power within the church.
Private Eye is off this week. Send feedback to comments@cityweekly.net
