Cain, Canaan, and Priesthood: Racial Teachings and the 1978 Change

How should the scriptural accounts regarding Cain, Canaan, and Priesthood be understood alongside modern changes in LDS teaching and practice? These are distinct questions of text, historical interpretation, and religious authority. This essay seeks to discuss these issues candidly while respecting the dignity of all involved.

Nothing in this discussion warrants hatred, oppression, cruelty, violence, or mistreatment towards any person. Questions of scripture and history should be approached with charity and respect for others.

Understanding the Scriptural Accounts

Genesis 4 (and its Restoration counterpart in Moses 5) describes Cain’s murder of Abel as being inspired by the devil, the same serpentine being who previously appeared to Adam and Eve. These scriptures describe the subsequent curse that came upon Cain for his crime, together with a mark that Yahweh placed upon him, which was said to provide protection against further retribution.1

Genesis 9 recorded Noah’s pronouncement upon Canaan for the dishonorable act of Ham, stating that he would be “a servant of servants… unto his brethren,” specifically naming Shem and Japheth as the recipients of Canaan’s servitude. Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the same passage added that “a veil of darkness shall cover him [i.e., Canaan], that he shall be known among all men.” The qualifier that this “veil of darkness” would signify Canaan’s status to “all men” indicates that this was not a feature perceptible only to spiritual eyes.2

In the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, the posterity of both Cain and Canaan are described as “black” within the same chapter, and as being segregated from the rest of Adam’s posterity. Abraham 1:21–27 introduces an account of Pharaoh’s lineage, earthly kingship, and the divine restriction concerning the Priesthood as applied specifically to the Canaanites who were descended through Ham. This lineage is identified as “cursed… as pertaining to the Priesthood,” and moreover when speaking of Egypt’s revealed origins, the revelation states that “from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.”3

In 1836, Joseph Smith published a letter to Oliver Cowdery in the Church’s own newspaper, candidly setting forth his views on the subject of slavery in the United States as then practiced in the South. He quoted relevant scriptures extensively, meticulously citing the biblical precedents for such a practice, and additionally reprimanded what he viewed as hypocrisy by white northerners and abolitionists who had never dealt with any slaves themselves. Nevertheless, his overarching theme was an urgent call for peace and union between the states—understood more fully when viewed in context of the latent fears about civil conflict already percolating even then (the Prophet had already received his own prophetic revelation concerning the future outbreak of such a war in 1832).

In this letter, the Prophet specifically referred to the slaves then residing in the South as “the sons of Ham,” and further stated that “the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.”4

In 1842, the Prophet’s own journal (kept by his scribe Willard Richards) recorded him as debating with John C. Bennett and others on the subject of how the Native Americans, or “Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites than the Negroes or Sons of Cain.”5 Since these remarks were recorded in longhand rather than shorthand, it is unclear whether this document represents the Prophet’s own precise verbiage, but it seems likely to be substantially accurate. In either case, the remarks entered into a record which was directly under his own supervision, without any evident protest. It also demonstrates the currency of this teaching during the Nauvoo period, rather than being something innovated later in Utah. In light of these statements, the Prophet’s own terminology indicates that he concretely identified the cursed lineages described in his revelations.

In 1852, President Brigham Young delivered a speech before the Utah Territorial Legislature concerning his views on slavery.6 George D. Watt’s account of this speech (based on his own shorthand notes, which have since been transcribed and published as well) was first discovered and published in the modern era by Brother Fred C. Collier, who has written about his discovery of this document in The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood.7 Fred did not know at the time of his discovery that the LDS Church was soon to change their longstanding policy on Priesthood and lineage. In any case, President Young’s speech on this occasion provided one of the most blunt and focused statements on this subject ever delivered by any Latter-day Saint leader, although many of his peers shared his views and expressed them in various ways. In this speech, President Young connected the biblical curse of Cain with modern questions unambiguously, and stated in his capacity as “a Prophet or Apostle of Jesus Christ” that his teachings were “the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained,” and that even angels and earthly powers were impotent to undo these divine decrees.8

As pertaining to issues of apostasy and Priesthood authority, perhaps the most conspicuous statement in his entire speech was: “Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the Earth; we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do so, the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction — we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the Priesthood until that curse be removed.”9 From President Young’s other sermons, it is clear that he taught the curse upon Cain’s posterity would only be lifted after the rest of Adam’s posterity were given an opportunity to receive the Priesthood and a resurrection from the dead.10

What is also remarkable about the future scenario that he warned against in 1852 is that it was not then under debate—only the legislation of slavery in the Utah Territory as a secular matter. He had no reason at that time to believe or suspect that the Church would convene such a meeting and approve such a decision. However, what he described would later come to pass almost precisely as he described.11

The Nineteenth-Century Restriction and the 1978 Change

The 1978 decision on this topic issued under Spencer W. Kimball’s presidency was preceded by practical problems, sustained internal discussions, and a concerted effort by Kimball to maneuver the apostles under him into agreement with his desired goals. LeGrand Richards’ recorded interview and correspondence with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos describe the Brazilian temple problem as a key factor, as well as individual consultations with the Twelve, including arguments raised both for and against the decision, a group prayer, and the quorum’s ultimate approval of the announcement. Richards did not describe any visitation by Joseph Smith or any separate dictated revelation aside from the announcement’s text itself. Fred has printed this interview and subsequent correspondence in his aforementioned paper on this topic, pp. 133–142. In his September 19, 1978 reply to Vlachos, Richards accepted the latter’s summary of their conversation as accurate.12

Matthew L. Harris’ Second-Class Saints traces the internal pressures and negotiations preceding the decision, including Kimball’s effort to secure solidarity. His account describes McConkie, Packer, and Monson as speaking in support of the change in an effort to persuade Ezra Taft Benson to concede also, prior to the group prayer. He also describes how Kimball obtained the majority of the apostles’ agreement while two opponents of the change, Mark E. Petersen and Delbert L. Stapley, were absent.13

Leonard Arrington’s diary entries of June 27, June 29, and July 5, 1978 record how McConkie’s account of the decision circulated through his family and others, with misleading comparisons to Kirtland visions and exaggerated claims about the spirits of departed prophets visiting them. Harris documents how remarks about the portraits of former Church Presidents hanging on the wall transformed into comparisons with such experiences, and eventually dramatic stories of heavenly visitors and voices. He also describes Kimball subsequently directing McConkie to recant such claims and correct the rumor mill. These embellishments were real and materially affected how the decision was understood in the popular mind. They should not replace Richards’ more concrete account of the deliberations, nor be used as evidence that the alleged visitations actually occurred.14

In a handwritten reply to a letter by Paul A. Douglas, former President Jimmy Carter acknowledged how he had “expressed [his] opinion to the LDS leaders” during this period, evidently regarding the inadvisability of their perpetuation of this doctrine from a secular perspective—likely raising issues about tax exemption and other such matters—although he declined to characterize his advice as a threat. Ogden Kraut’s contemporaneous work The Segregation of Israel (1979) likewise identified political pressures surrounding the decision, discussing public controversy, litigation, and Carter’s intervention.15

The 1978 decision happened just as LeGrand Richards described. His was perhaps the most candid account regarding the LDS hierarchy’s internal process toward the decision, which was also contemporaneous. The decision came as a result of social pressures both within and outside of the Church. To state otherwise is historically and factually inaccurate.16

Fred C. Collier’s Scriptural Argument

In The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood, Fred examines biblical and Restoration scriptures in defense of earlier prophetic teachings. His arguments should be assessed by the authorities he cites, not through assumptions about the personal motives of earlier or present-day believers. On p. 10, Fred also expressly condemns racial hatred, persecution, and meanness towards others of any race. His discussion of the Good Samaritan stresses that those who are kind and caring toward others will fare better at judgment day regardless of their lineage, including those who claim covenant lineage yet lack such charity. These obligations must govern how any historical or doctrinal issue is discussed. Heber Harwell’s The Curse of Canaan provides a related treatment of the Genesis narrative.17

The Question of Apostasy

The historical inquiry asks what past leaders taught and implemented; the theological question consists of whether later changes have fulfilled or departed from the laws of God as given in scripture and elucidated by latter-day prophets. The former question can be determined by careful study and investigation; the latter can only be determined through prayer and a witness from God.18 Nothing written here permits or encourages contempt, violence, or disrespect towards any individual or group of people.

Sources

  1. Genesis 4:8–15; Moses 5:16–41. ↩
  2. Genesis 9:20–27, King James Version; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 9:30, in Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible: A complete parallel column comparison of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures and the King James Authorized Version (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1970), introduction by F. Henry Edwards, p. 68. Compare the source manuscript: Old Testament Revision 1, p. 25, Joseph Smith Papers. The RLDS edition likewise standardizes the manuscript spelling “vail” as “veil”; the explanatory bracket identifying Canaan is added. ↩
  3. Moses 7:6–8, 22; Abraham 1:21–27. ↩
  4. Joseph Smith, letter to Oliver Cowdery, circa April 9, 1836, Messenger and Advocate 2:289–291, especially p. 290, Joseph Smith Papers. ↩
  5. Joseph Smith, journal, January 25, 1842, p. 59, in Willard Richards’ handwriting, Joseph Smith Papers. ↩
  6. Brigham Young, speech before the Utah Territorial Legislature, February 5, 1852, in Fred C. Collier, ed., The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pp. 41–50 (complete speech). See also University of Utah, shorthand account and transcription. ↩
  7. Fred C. Collier, The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood, Part 1 (December 2014), pp. 130–131, his account of discovering and publishing the 1852 speech. ↩
  8. President Young, February 5, 1852, in Collier, ed., The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 43, including the statements about a Prophet or Apostle, eternal principles, and the inability of earthly or angelic powers to remove the restriction. ↩
  9. President Young, February 5, 1852, in Collier, ed., The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 46. Capitalization follows this edition; editorial footnote markers are omitted. ↩
  10. President Young, Journal of Discourses 2:143 and 7:290–291, on the eventual lifting of the restriction and the order of blessings. ↩
  11. President Young, speech of February 5, 1852, in Collier, ed., The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 46 (the hypothetical assembly and its consequences); pp. 41–50 for the legislative setting and full speech. ↩
  12. LeGrand Richards, interview with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, August 16, 1978, and September 1978 correspondence, in Collier, The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood, pp. 133–142. Recording; additional recording witness; correspondence images. ↩
  13. Matthew L. Harris, Second-Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford University Press, 2024), electronic edition, chapter 7, “Lifting the Ban, 1973–1978,” account of the June 1 meeting and the June 8–9 announcement, including the discussion and preparations. ↩
  14. Harris, Second-Class Saints, electronic edition, chapter 8, “Debris in the Streets, 1978–1985,” discussion of portraits, the McConkie/Pope accounts, and the corrections of visitation and voice stories. Leonard J. Arrington, diaries, June 27, June 29, and July 5, 1978, excerpts from Confessions of a Mormon Historian: The Diaries of Leonard J. Arrington, 1971–1997, ed. Gary James Bergera (Signature Books, 2018). ↩
  15. Jimmy Carter, handwritten response on Paul A. Douglas’ letter of November 11, 2017. Carter acknowledges expressing his opinion and denies threatening LDS leaders. See also Paul A. Douglas, Letter to an Apostle; Ogden Kraut, The Segregation of Israel (1979), pp. 193–196, discussing opposition, litigation, and political pressure. ↩
  16. LeGrand Richards, interview with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, August 16, 1978, and September 1978 correspondence, in Collier, The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood, pp. 133–142. Recording; additional recording witness; correspondence images. See also Matthew L. Harris, Second-Class Saints (Oxford University Press, 2024), electronic edition, chapters 7–8; Ogden Kraut, The Segregation of Israel (1979), pp. 193–196. ↩
  17. Collier, The Whites — The Blacks and the Right of Priesthood, p. 10; Heber Harwell, The Curse of Canaan, discussion of Genesis 9. ↩
  18. James 1:5–6; Moroni 10:4–5; Doctrine and Covenants 9:8–9; 46:7–8; 50:17–24. ↩

Read the related studies in Faithfulness to the Restored Gospel: Continuity, Change, and Apostasy.