The Priesthood Restriction — What the Critics Get Wrong
The restriction on Black men holding the priesthood was not original to Joseph Smith and was never established as eternal doctrine by revelation. In 1978 the restriction was lifted by revelation, restoring the original pattern under which Joseph Smith himself ordained Black men. The critics treat it as a fatal flaw. The evidence tells a different story.
What the Restriction Was Not
The standard attack assumes the restriction was an original, revelatory doctrine of the Restoration. It was not. No revelation ever established the priesthood restriction as eternal doctrine. To the contrary, Joseph Smith ordained Black men to the priesthood. Elijah Abel was ordained an elder in 1836 under Joseph Smith’s direction — and later ordained to the Seventy. Walker Lewis was also ordained to the priesthood during Joseph’s lifetime. These ordinations are the proof: the restriction that emerged in subsequent decades was a policy development, not a founding revelation from Joseph. Conflating the two is a basic historical error — and it is the error on which the entire attack depends.
Joseph Smith himself was a vocal advocate for the rights of Black Americans at a time when such advocacy was politically costly. His 1844 presidential platform included a proposal to end slavery through compensated emancipation. He was not the architect of the restriction. Laying it at his feet is revisionism.
The Matthew 19:8 Parallel
The critics’ framing assumes that any policy permitted under a prophetic administration must be eternal divine will. Jesus directly answered that assumption.
“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
The Pharisees pressed Jesus on why Moses permitted divorce. His answer was precise: God — through Moses — adapted practice to the condition of the people in that moment of history. The underlying principle never changed. The practice adjusted to human readiness. And when the Savior arrived, the fuller law was restored.
The priesthood restriction fits this pattern. It was permitted, not commanded as eternal doctrine, and it was lifted by revelation when the time was right. The Bible itself establishes that this is how God operates through prophets. The critics’ objection proves too much — if permitted policy equals eternal doctrine, then Moses’s divorce allowance is also eternal doctrine. They will not accept that. They should apply the same standard consistently.
The Restoration of the Original Pattern
Official Declaration 2 (1978) is not an embarrassment. It is evidence for the claim the Church makes about itself. A living prophet received new revelation. The restriction was lifted, and the original pattern — under which Joseph Smith ordained Black men — was reaffirmed by revelation. The process was not a capitulation to social pressure — President Spencer W. Kimball and the full Quorum of the Twelve Apostles fasted, prayed, and sought the Lord until the Spirit confirmed the answer clearly.
A dead church cannot receive revelation. A living one is led by revelation — and a restriction removed in God’s timing through a living prophet is precisely what the Restoration promises. The critics treat Official Declaration 2 as proof that prophets follow culture. The account of how it actually happened treats it as what it was: revelation.
1. Joseph Smith’s View and Early Church Practices
The assertion that this was a consistent doctrine “from the days of the Prophet Joseph” is not supported by historical records. In fact Elijah Abel, was ordained during Joseph Smith's lifetime by one Ambrose Palmer in 1836, and later a Seventy. Another Black man, Walker Lewis, was also ordained to the priesthood. If this restriction had been an unchanging doctrine from the beginning, these ordinations would not have occurred.
 |
The historical record is clear that Joseph Smith did not prohibit Black men from holding the priesthood. Several Black men, including Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis, were ordained as elders and participated in Church leadership during Joseph’s lifetime.
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever taught or implemented a priesthood restriction. If such a restriction had been a revealed doctrine, it would have been established from the beginning of the Church. The restriction, rather, was introduced under Brigham Young as an inspired accommodation to the conditions and demands of the society in which he and the Saints then lived — not as eternal doctrine, but as a permitted measure suited to that time, later restored to the Lord’s ideal by revelation in 1978. |
Furthermore, Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign platform in 1844 explicitly opposed slavery. He called for the “breakdown” of racial barriers and promoted equal rights. The priesthood restriction that later took shape under Brigham Young was an accommodation to the very different and far harder conditions the Saints faced in the years that followed — a measure suited to that society, not a contradiction of the Lord’s eternal will.
Thus, the priesthood restriction was not an established doctrine from the time of Joseph Smith. It was instituted later as an inspired accommodation to the conditions of the time — permitted for a season, as Moses was permitted to allow what was not so “from the beginning” (see Matthew 19:8 below).
2. Questioning by Church Leaders
The claim that “it has never been questioned by Church leaders” is incorrect. Several Church leaders, including President David O. McKay, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (before becoming President), and President Spencer W. Kimball, questioned and reexamined the policy over time.
-
David O. McKay (1954–1970): As President of the Church, he clarified that the restriction was not a matter of doctrine but rather a policy. He sought revelation on the matter and, while not receiving a clear answer at the time, made administrative changes allowing Black members to participate more fully in the Church.
-
Spencer W. Kimball (1978): He and the Quorum of the Twelve sought and received revelation lifting the restriction, leading to Official Declaration 2 in 1978.
Clearly, if the policy was never questioned, then the revelatory process leading to its removal would not have taken place.
3. The Levite Parallel: A Limited Comparison
You argue that, because only Levites held the priesthood under the Law of Moses and because Jesus’ ministry was initially limited to the House of Israel, it follows that restricting Black individuals from the priesthood was not unusual. However, this comparison fails in key ways:
a) The Levites Were a Temporary Priesthood Order
- The restriction to the Levites was tied to the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 7:11–12).
- After Christ, priesthood authority was given to all worthy males, regardless of lineage (Acts 10:34–35, Galatians 3:28).
- The New Testament Church had no race-based priesthood restrictions; in fact, the first recorded non-Israelite convert was the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–39).
b) Jesus’ Ministry to Israel First Was a Step, Not a Rule
- While Jesus initially focused on Israel (Matthew 15:24), He commissioned His apostles to take the Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19–20).
- Paul, called as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), demonstrated that the Gospel was intended to be universal.
- The early Christian Church did not impose race-based priesthood restrictions.
Thus, the analogy to the Levites or Jesus’ initial ministry does not support the idea that a racial restriction on the priesthood was intended to be a lasting doctrine.
4. The 1978 Revelation and Modern Doctrine
The priesthood restriction was lifted in 1978 via Official Declaration 2, which states:
Official Declaration 2
“The long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom.”
If the restriction had been a permanent, God-given doctrine rather than a temporary policy, it would not have been lifted by revelation.
Additionally, the Church has since disavowed past theories about the restriction. In the Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church states:
Gospel Topics Essay: Race and the Priesthood
“Today, the Church disavows the theories 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.”
Conclusion
- Joseph Smith ordained Black men to the priesthood, showing that the restriction was not original doctrine.
- Church leaders have questioned and reexamined the policy, leading to its removal.
- The Levite and House of Israel examples are not strong justifications, as Christ expanded priesthood and gospel blessings to all.
- The 1978 revelation affirms that all worthy men are entitled to the priesthood and past justifications have been disavowed.
Therefore, the claim that the Church has always held this as doctrine, that it was never questioned, or that it was comparable to biblical precedents does not hold up under historical and doctrinal scrutiny.
It is important to be precise about what the Church has disavowed. What has been set aside as speculation are the later folk theories — the curse-of-Cain rationale, the notion that dark skin signified divine disfavor, and similar attempts to explain the restriction. These explanations were never canonized doctrine, and the Church has disavowed them. This is not an admission that the timing of the priesthood was an error, nor that a prophet taught false doctrine; it is a setting-aside of human attempts to account for an accommodation whose reasons were never fully revealed. The Church today teaches that all are equal before God, and that priesthood and temple blessings are available to all, regardless of race.
An Accommodation, Not an Error: The Principle of Matthew 19:8
Scripture itself teaches that the Lord, through a true prophet, may permit an accommodation suited to the hardness and conditions of a people without that accommodation being His eternal ideal — and without the prophet being false or in error. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce, He answered by pointing to a true prophet who had been authorized to permit something that was never the divine standard:
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Note what Jesus does not say. He does not call Moses a false prophet, nor accuse him of teaching error. Moses was authorized — “suffered” — to permit divorce as an accommodation to the hardness and condition of the people. It was a real, prophet-sanctioned provision for that society, even though “from the beginning it was not so.” The accommodation was permitted for a season; the eternal ideal remained unchanged and was later restored.
The same principle illuminates the priesthood restriction. Just as Moses was authorized to permit divorce because of the conditions of his people, the restriction was introduced because of the society Brigham Young lived in and the demands of that society — a permitted accommodation to the conditions of the time, not eternal doctrine. “From the beginning it was not so”: Joseph Smith had ordained Black men, and the eternal ideal — priesthood for every worthy man — was never abolished, only set aside for a season and then restored to its fullness by revelation in 1978. To recognize this is not to say a prophet erred, any more than Jesus charged Moses with error. It is to recognize an inspired accommodation suited to a hard time.
Questions and Answers
What about the LDS Leaders and the fact that they haven’t apologized for blocking Blacks from the priesthood?
The priesthood ban was much as this, as well as Matthew 19:6–9 concerning Adultery. Does the Christian churches NOW, TODAY live by this word of God direct from Jesus Christ’s own mouth? Did he apologize to all the women of Israel when he clearly stated that it was not GOD’S will that this happened? No — he did not. Why?