The Mormon Church was organized in 1830 and the first black Mormon was baptized in 1832. His name was Elijah Abel. He would also receive the priesthood and become a seventy, a high-ranking church leader. Abel is believed to have escaped slavery through the underground railroad. He would help to build the temple in Salt Lake Temple and served several missions.

Elizabeth Jane Manning was another early black Mormon. She converted in the late 1830s and, as a teenager, led a group of black Mormons to Illinois, where the Mormons then lived in a city called Nauvoo. Upon arrival, she and her family and friends were taken into Joseph Smith’s home to stay until they found jobs and homes of their own. Joseph Smith was the first prophet and president of the Mormon Church. When everyone but Jane found a job and a home, Joseph Smith and his wife offered her a job working for them. She continued to live with them until Joseph was murdered by a mob, at which time she went to work for Brigham Young, the second Mormon prophet. In Utah, she and her brother had reserved seats at the front of the tabernacle for important meetings because of their high level of service to the church.

In 1833, God gave Joseph Smith a specific revelation that slavery was immoral: Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. (See Doctrine and Covenants 101:79.) In 1842, Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that he believed the slaves should be freed, educated, and  given equal rights. The next year, he contradicted the popular belief of the time that blacks did not have souls. He said that they were merely products of their environments and that given the same opportunities as white people, they would have the same level of accomplishment. When Joseph Smith ran for president, he proposed that public lands be sold to purchase the freedom of all slaves, and that slavery should be abolished by 1850.

It has long been a matter of controversy that at some point in Mormon history, black Mormons were denied the  priesthood and access to the temples. The first record of this occurred in 1853, when Elijah Abel was denied permission to receive his endownments (special ordinances) in the Mormon temple by Brigham Young. The following year, Young secured the freedom of a Mormon slave, Green Flake.

We do not know what led to the change in policy. Many efforts have been made, beginning very early in church history, to trace the procedural change in order to understand whether it was a revelation or a policy, but without success. The change was never canonized as official doctrine.

In order to understand this, there are several principles of Mormonism that must be understood. The first is that of agency. Mormons believe that agency is absolutely critical to our lives on earth. We are here to make choices and to be held accountable for those choices. God will not interfere with our agency, although others might interfere with it. If a person makes a poor choice, everyone affected lives with the consequences of those choices. In reverse, we often benefit from the good choices of others.

Second, a prophet is also a person. He is a product of his own time, culture, and circumstances. As you read the Old Testament, you’ll see that the prophets were ordinary people. They spoke according to whatever wisdom they had at the time. This is why we sometimes see prophets making scientifically inaccurate statements—those weren’t prophecy; they were opinion or knowledge based on the beliefs of the time. Prophets have agency, just as we do. When an official doctrine doesn’t exist, prophets, like the rest of us, are free to make our own choices.

Third, as we study the Bible, we learn God never gave his priesthood to all people. The Aaronic priesthood initially went only to men of one family and they couldn’t have a blemish or disability. Jesus did not even allow the gospel to be preached to certain groups of people. Why? We don’t know. God never said why. We do know He acts in wisdom for His own purposes and does not owe us an explanation for everything he does.

Fourth, there is a difference between practices and doctrine. Practices change. Truth doesn’t. As an example, the name of the women’s auxiliary has changed a few times over the years and the nature of some of the meetings has altered. The specific classes taught by the auxiliary on Sunday sometimes changes. These are practices and change to meet the practical needs of the church at that time. However, the essential roles of women have not changed because those are based on eternal truths. Because nothing was ever put in writing at the time of the change, we do not know if the changes were practice or truth.

Finally, Mormons believe that we are never punished for things that are beyond our control. No black Mormon is denied eternal blessings or the ability to return to God or to be saved because of the ban. In the eternities, God makes up for the deficiencies of earth life. Therefore, while the ban created a temporal trial, it would not have a negative eternal impact on black Mormons. In fact, where there are greater challenges, there are greater blessings, so those who chose to join the church despite the ban will most likely receive greater blessings for having done so.

Mormons do not know whether or not God instituted the priesthood ban. They do know He allowed it to continue. Why? He didn’t feel we needed to know that. There have been many theories, but they are only theories, even when spoken by Mormon leaders. Remember, Mormon leaders are also people and they are allowed to have opinions, just as the early prophets of the Bible were. They did not canonize those statements, so they were not doctrine, nor were they official policy. They were opinions. Some people took them as doctrine, but that did not make it so. Scriptures show us many times when God allowed people to make choices that weren’t necessarily wise, but which recognized their agency and which allowed them to learn from their choices.

Despite this ban, there have always been black Mormons in the church. Each one had to pray and receive his or her own confirmation that the church was true. Most also prayed to understand the ban and each received a personal confirmation that everything would be okay in the eternal scheme of things and that they need not worry about it.

Bruce R. McConkie, a source of some of the opinions about the priesthood ban that were taken as fact, spoke openly of this when the ban was lifted in the 1970s. He wrote,

“People write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept…. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore” (Bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137).

McConkie’s statement makes clear another critical Mormon belief. We believe in continuous revelation. In t he Bible, there was not just one prophet. There were many prophets, one after another. They did not all teach exactly the same things. Noah was taught to build an ark. Moses was commanded to take the people into the wilderness. The Law of Moses was enacted, even though earlier Jews were not required to live it and Jesus taught that it did not need to be lived after his mission ended. This didn’t make Moses a false prophet. He was simply doing what prophets do—they teach eternal truths to the extent the people are ready to receive them. The people of Moses’ time needed a different type of law than did the early Christians. Just as Jesus didn’t repudiate Moses’ calling as a prophet, Mormons believe God will reveal truth as we are prepared to receive them or as they meet the Lord’s needs for that time. He doesn’t always explain, but we can pray for our own reassurance that everything is under control. We needn’t take any human’s word for it.

Today, there are black Mormons throughout the world and who are serving in high level church positions. Some, like Gladys Knight, are famous. Most are just ordinary people living a life of faith and service.

“Strictly speaking, the Law of Moses consists of the first five books of the Old Testament-what the Jews call the Torah. These five books of Moses (Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; and Deuteronomy) are also called the Pentateuch, but in the New Testament they are usually just “the Law.” Sometimes the term “the Law” was used for the whole Old Testament, but usually a distinction was made between the books of Moses (the Law) and those of subsequent prophets (the Prophets); hence, the custom in Jesus’ time of referring to the Hebrew scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (for example, Matt. 5:17; Matt. 7:12).

The Law was revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and came to be respected even by the gentiles for its antiquity and its comprehensive fairness. By the time of Jesus, it had stood as the criminal, civil, and religious code of the Jewish people for well over a thousand years. It had guided them in every aspect of human activity for so long that Jews found it difficult to conceive of life without “the Law” (Stephen E. Robinson, “The Law after Christ,” Ensign, Sep 1983, 69).

Robinson, who was at the time the article was written, an assistant professor of religion in Pennsylvania, explained that many Jews were angry at Jesus for teaching that the law of Moses was a temporary and lesser law, because it had become for them, “identified as the divine will itself-perfect, absolute, forever unchanging and unchangeable. The Law was thought of as the will of God exactly, precisely expressed; therefore, any deviation at all from the letter of the Law of Moses was also deviation from God. There was no room for flexibility or “extenuating circumstances.”

Jesus lived the Law of Moses and taught his followers to do the same until the atonement was fulfilled. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18 in the New Testament of the King James Bible).

When Jesus atoned for our sins, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and the people could take on a higher law.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,” Jesus said. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). The meaning of this verse may be amplified by an alternate translation: “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets, I have come not to abolish but to complete, to make their meaning full.” 1 The Hebrew word Torah, which literally means “teaching or doctrine,” is rendered in the New Testament by the Greek word nomes, which means “law.” Therefore, what Jesus was conveying is that whenever He spoke of or taught from the law of Moses, He would render a fuller or more complete meaning. The law had been given to Moses by Jehovah, who was now upon the earth in His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ; therefore it was His prerogative to make the meaning of the law, the teachings, and the doctrine “full” and “complete.”

Jesus used the law of Moses as it was intended to purify lives and teach of salvation through the Messiah. The law of Moses, correctly understood and applied, would raise the natural man to a spiritual level and fortify him against the cunning of the devil. (See Thomas F. Olmstead, “The Savior’s Use of the Old Testament,” Ensign, Jul 2002, 47.)

Olmstead also pointed out that Jesus used the law to help explain his own actions, such as healing on the Sabbath. He taught the law. Olmstead explains, “Jesus did not reject the Law of Moses-the Torah-as found in the Old Testament. Rather, He used it to affirm its own truthfulness and give a more complete meaning.” Mormons refer to the more complete meaning as the higher law.

For the Jewish people of the time, this was difficult to understand. Robinson explained, “Furthermore, most Jews of Jesus’ day had come to believe that salvation came only by observance of the Law of Moses as the highest possible expression of God’s will, and in no other way.”

In contrast, James Faust, a former Mormon leader in modern times, said, “…the intent of a person alone becomes part of the rightness or wrongness of human action. So our intent to do evil or our desire to do good will be a freestanding element of consideration of our actions. We are told we will be judged in part by the intent of our hearts.” (See James E. Faust, “The Surety of a Better Testament,” Ensign, Sep 2003, 2-6.) This was the law introduced by Jesus during his ministry. Although obedience is required, so is intent and faith. A person must also believe, not just carry out the appropriate actions. This is a change from what was taught in Jesus’ day.

Jesus taught his followers to obey the law and then to take it a step higher. He taught that the law said that to commit adultery was a sin, and that the higher law was that it was a sin even to contemplate adultery or to think about someone other than your spouse in an inappropriate way. It was no longer enough to be just physically faithful to your spouse-you had to be emotionally faithful as well. While the law taught not to kill, Jesus added the requirement to avoid anger at the person. It was no longer enough just to avoid killing him. Each law was taken to a higher level, requiring more faith on the part of believers.

One important part of the law was the law of sacrifice. The Israelites were required to sacrifice their animals. Christians today are taught instead to sacrifice themselves. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice by dying for our sins, and each Sabbath, we take a sacrament of bread and water to remember that sacrifice. But we are also required to make personal sacrifices. God asks of us to give up our worldly desires and focus our lives around Him. The greater our faith, the better able we are to sacrifice for God.

Elder Ballard taught, “While the law of Moses was fulfilled, the principles of the law of sacrifice continue to be part of the doctrine of the Church. The primary purpose of the law of sacrifice still is to test us and assist us in coming unto Christ. After the Savior’s ultimate sacrifice, two adjustments were made in the practice of this law. First, the ordinance of the sacrament replaced the ordinance of sacrifice; and second, this change moved the focus of the sacrifice from a person’s animal to the person himself. In a sense, the sacrifice changed from the offering to the offerer.”

What does the Law of Moses mean to a Mormon? In the early days of the church, Robinson says this was a major issue of concern to those who belonged to the church, particularly to those who converted to Judaism. They wanted to know the restored gospel was an addition to the law of Moses or if it was an entirely new law. Jesus had answered that question quite clearly in his earthly ministry. It was a law designed to lead people to Jesus and to help them understand the sacrifices He would make for them. The law was fulfilled by the atonement of Jesus. Aspects of it, including sacrifice, continue to be a part of the gospel, but in a more personal way, through personal sacrifice of selfishness and worldliness, not animal sacrifice. The law of Moses did not have the power to save us-only the atonement could do that. Despite this, it was an important step in the progression of man.