Many Mormon fundamentalists restrict blacks from joining despite the 1978 revelation that allowed black men to hold the priesthood. This is considered a landmark moment in LDS history, but many in Mormon fundamentalists believe this 1978 revelation marked the moment the mainstream Church lost its essential authority. This theological break, rooted in Brigham Young’s fiery declarations about race and priesthood lineage, is why most fundamentalist groups reject modern LDS temple work.
Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine
Copyright © 2025
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Why Black Priesthood Revelation Nullified Authority for Fundamentalists
The 1978 revelation that allowed black men to hold the priesthood is considered a landmark moment in LDS history, but for many in Mormon fundamentalism, this decision marked the moment the mainstream Church lost its essential authority. This theological break, rooted in Brigham Young’s fiery declarations about race and priesthood lineage, is why most fundamentalist groups reject modern LDS temple work.
The Conditional Priesthood Restrict Blacks
For groups like the Ross LeBaronites and others who separated from the LDS Church, the 1978 revelation essentially nullified the Church’s priesthood authority. This perspective relies heavily on an address given by Brigham Young in 1852 to the territorial legislature. In this discourse, Brigham Young articulated a powerful condition for maintaining the priesthood:
“If we were to… come and decide that it was right to mingle with the seed of Cain and make them partake of all the blessings that we have then on that day and hour the priesthood is taken from the church and God leaves us to our fate“.
Because of Brigham Young’s strong language, many fundamentalists are “very reticent to consider that Brigham could be wrong” about the priesthood ban. Therefore, they view the 1978 revelation as fulfilling the condition for the priesthood being withdrawn.
The Temple Barrier
The rejection of the 1978 decision has direct implications for temple work. Most fundamentalist groups will not use the LDS Temple because they feel its authority is no longer valid.
This view is so central that it applies even to other fundamentalist splinter groups. The Missouri temple, for example, is noted as the only fundamentalist community that has rejected and lifted the racial teachings, but this decision causes most other fundamentalists to have “reservations about using their temple” for the “same reason” they reject the LDS temple. They view the temple authority as having been compromised.
Was the Ban Revealed in Nauvoo?
While some historians argue that the priesthood ban was a pragmatic decision starting around 1847, possibly catalyzed by incidents involving black men like William McCary and Enoch Lewis—events that prompted Brigham Young to want to put this to a stop. Other evidence suggests the doctrine may have predated the Utah period.
For some, it is difficult to accept that Brigham Young “radically depart[ed] from Joseph Smith” and suddenly invented a racist doctrine. Jacob points to historical sources have fueled this debate:
- Nauvoo Lineage Emphasis: There are indications that an emphasis on lineage and blood connected to priesthood started emerging in Nauvoo. Brigham Young, in 1845, reportedly told the high priests quorum that many elders couldn’t hold the keys of the kingdom until their “blood changes and they become the right lineage”.
- George Q. Cannon’s Diaries: Diaries released in 2016 or 2017 show that George Q. Cannon discussed the priesthood ban in the 1890s, stating that he was taught the ban as a young boy in Nauvoo by John Taylor, suggesting the restriction was in place earlier than commonly dated.
- Elijah Abel‘s Restrictions: In June 1843, apostles restricted the preaching of Elijah Abel—a black elder who held the priesthood—to only his “own race”.
This belief that the restriction was revealed in Nauvoo allows fundamentalists to reconcile the ban with Joseph Smith’s period while maintaining Brigham Young’s authority, even if they struggle with the theological implications. The key takeaway for them is that Brigham Young, whether right or wrong about the lineage-based restrictions, was not acting out of hatred or bigotry, but rather out of a form of “benevolent racism”—believing in a lineage-based restriction without personal malicious intent.
The result is a complex theological landscape where adherence to what is perceived as the divinely revealed structure of the early Church necessitates the rejection of the mainstream church’s post-1978 authority and its ordinances.
For more information regarding the beginnings of the ban, check out Dr Paul Reeve’s amazing research.
Here is a link to Jacob’s paper: TheOriginofthePriesthoodBan.
Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine
Copyright © 2025
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 30:33 — 28.0MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
