Most Latter-day Saints know that for over a century, the Church restricted men of black African descent from holding the priesthood and black members from temple ordinances, but the specific origins of this ban—and specifically how Brigham Young’s teachings on the “curse of Cain” hardened into policy—remain a source of confusion and pain for many. Did it begin with Joseph Smith, or was it a later development? A recent interview over at the Latter-day Saint history blog, From the Desk, tackles these difficult questions head-on, featuring historian W. Paul Reeve, author of Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood, who cuts through the folklore to examine the specific historical moments where views shifted and offers a clear-eyed look at how theological speculations became institutional practice.

Tracing the Shift

One of the most critical points Reeve makes is establishing the timeline. The restriction was not present from the beginning; it evolved. Reeve points to a specific window—March 1847 to January 1852—as the turning point.

Brigham Young transitioned from an open attitude about priesthood ordination to a strident stance grounded in the “curse of Cain” between March 1847 and January 1852.

In March 1847, he offered a favorable assessment of Q. Walker Lewis, a Black priesthood holder … when he called Lewis “one of the best elders, an African.”

Brigham Young replaced that open attitude with a deep and abiding concern over race mixing beginning in December 1847.

This indicates that the ban was not originally from Joseph Smith, but dates instead to the first decade of Brigham Young’s leadership of the Church.

The 1852 Articulation

Reeve identifies the February 5, 1852 speech to the Utah Territorial Legislature as the moment the restriction was fully articulated. Importantly, this wasn’t just a sermon; it was a political debate with Orson Pratt regarding voting rights and slavery. In this speech, Young codified his views on the “mark” and the “curse.”

According to Brigham Young… “I will put a mark on you. What is the mark? You see that mark on the face [and] the countenance of every African you ever did see…”

“The Lord told Cain [that] he should not receive the blessings of [the] priesthood until the last of [the] posterity of Abel had received the priesthood…”

If there never was a prophet or Apostle of Jesus Christ [who] spoke it before, I tell you this people that [are] commonly called Negros are [the] children of Cain, I know they are; I know they cannot bear rule in [the] priesthood.

A Theological Conundrum

Perhaps the most significant theological insight from the interview is how Young’s justification created a “theological conundrum” that contradicted Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Brigham Young held the supposed descendants of Cain accountable for a murder in which they took no part.

Joseph Smith taught that humankind would be held accountable for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. Brigham Young, in contrast, held the supposed descendants of Cain accountable for a murder in which they took no part.

He thus created a theological conundrum that violated the second Article of Faith.

This is a crucial distinction: Joseph Smith emphasized individual accountability, while Young’s “curse of Cain” logic relied on an inherited, multi-generational punishment.

This is one reason that Young’s racist teachings are so problematic and have been rejected by the Church. For example, in Saints 2 (which is an official institutional history approved by the First Presidency), we read:

Like other groups of Christians at this time, however, many white Saints wrongly viewed black people as inferior, believing that black skin was the result of God’s curse on the biblical figures Cain and Ham. Some had even begun to teach the false idea that black skin was evidence of a person’s unrighteous actions in the premortal life (p. 71).

The idea of the Curse of Cain is clearly and explicitly labeled as a wrong belief here.

Likewise, the Gospel Topics essay on “Race and the Priesthood” states that “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. … 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.” As a prominent explanation and justification for the priesthood ban, the Curse of Cain falls under the category of a theory in mind when stating that “None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.” Even in Brigham Young’s time, as Reeve noted in the interview, “Orson Pratt rejects his [Young’s] only rationale for a priesthood restriction, the ‘curse of Cain.’“

Conclusion

This interview is essential reading for anyone wanting to understand the “how” and “why” of the priesthood ban, especially the influence of Brigham Young’s “curse of Cain” theology, without flinching from the historical record. For more on the legislative context of the 1852 speech, the debate with Orson Pratt, and the legacy of these teachings, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history blog, From the Desk, to read the full interview with W. Paul Reeve.

Now, this is a topic that I have strong feelings about and (as a result) have written about on several occasions. See my collection on Race and the Priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, particularly Reconsidering the Curse of Cain and On the Priesthood and Temple Ban.