The policy was that those with black African ancestry weren’t supposed to get the priesthood. Those with pacific black ancestry (Australian aborigines, Fijians, Filipinos, those from Oceana, etc) were not barred from the priesthood. In South Africa for a time the practice was that men had to trace all of their ancestry to Europe in order to get the priesthood, but that was changed because it was having such a dramatic effect on the ability of units to function as lots of people ran into dead ends a few generations back, so the new practice was to assume that a man who looked white didn’t have black African ancestry and was eligible, unless they discovered otherwise. The church did not enter Haiti until after the 1978 revelation, the church had a presence in Jamaica before the revelation, but it was small and there were no fulltime missionaries assigned until after the revelation. (Note: there were a few visits by missionaries to Jamaica as early as the 1840s, but the stay was brief with no success). I don’t have any information about black Jamaicans holding the priesthood prior to the revelation.

Can you point out exactly when God said that men of African ancestry could not hold the Priesthood? I don’t seem to find any source for that information. Moreover, when the Lord indicated to Peter that the Gospel was to be taken to all nations, I believe He meant ALL nations. If there was to be any restriction in this dispensation I find it difficult to understand why we don’t have a record of any revelation indicating so. Rather all revelations given to the Joseph Smith indicate the the Priesthood was to be given to all men on conditions of worthiness.

My personal opinion deals with the signs of the curses issued to Cain, to Ham, and others. While the mark was placed on Cain as a protection to him, to serve as a mark of identification, and also to warn others not to lose their Priesthood by mixing with his seed, etc, a lot of the manifestations of that curse (I haven’t studied Ham’s curse in great depth) had been lifted by the 1970s – not just the civil rights movement in the US, but the governments and conditions in Africa and elsewhere, the immigration of blacks out of the desolate lands of Africa, interracial marriages became more acceptable by the general public, and other conditions and factors concerning blacks of African descent around the world.

When Adam and Eve became cursed by partaking of the fruit, God pronounced the curse, but they activated it by virtue of their actions. For example, imagine if you invented heat, and created people who could be burned by touching a hot stove. You warn the people that if they touch the stove, they will be cursed by a burn scar. When they touch it, and their skin begins to blister and welt, you remind them of why it happened, and let them know what to expect as a consequence of their actions. You aren’t cursing them – even if you made the curse possible, you’re telling them of the curse associated with their actions. You’re officially pronouncing the curse that was preassigned to that action.

Likewise, was having black skin a curse or a sign of a curse? Either way, slavery was justified by skin color, and much of Africa was barren and oppressive and empty of education, etc. It was reenforced by African culture, climate and geographic conditions, etc. Seems like a curse to me. Many Prophets had prayed early on in the church – clear until the Prophet Spencer W Kimball asking God if the time was right to lift the Priesthood “ban”. None received the affirmative answer until President Kimball and the Quorum of the Twelve at that time. Leading up to that, from the official declaration by Brigham Young, church leaders found the situation to be more and more increasingly complex and confusing, and tough to determine who should or shouldn’t hold the Priesthood based on race, and Brigham Young himself had assured the blacks of the church in his day that one day they would have all of the blessings of the Priesthood restored to their race.

Certain parts of the Bible that I have read denote the cleansing of racial impurities and curses – curses that were pronounced to endure for several generations. I noted that after marrying into the tribe of Israel, and having children who also married into the house of Israel, after a few generations, the blood line could be pronounced clean and could be eligible for spiritual promises of Israel.

Additionally, something I read caught my attention in “Jesus The Christ”, a book by James E Talmage. John the Baptist was baptizing repentant people back into the house of Israel. It denoted entrance to the tribe of Israel, a promise to live the Law of Moses (God’s law), and a washing and shedding of racial impurity. When Christ approached him, John didn’t know that Christ was the Savior yet, but recognized him as being certainly more obviously Israeli pure-bred and of royal birth than himself and in greater authority to perform baptisms. Christ noted to him the actual spiritual implications of the underlying principles of baptism which was ultimately to leave impurities and worldly heritage behind, to make covenants to obey Heavenly Father, and to be purified and reclaimed by God; He told him that His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness.

It wasn’t until after the completion of His baptism that John had the revelation given to him from the mouth of God that Jesus was the Christ – God’s only begotten Son in the flesh. I believe tat this also denotes that Mary wasn’t free from the effects of the fall of Adam. I believe that this type of approach, thinking, and tradition of ancient Israelites was not only well thought out by the High Priests and Prophets of that time, but also that divine inspiration influenced it.

So, I believe that the curse began to be gradually lifted by God himself, and that the manifestations of righteousness of so many black african-descendant people shined so brightly (including the mercy of their and our governments) until that curse was pronounced to be not enough of an issue anymore to prevent all worthy men (including blacks) to hold the priesthood and fulfill priesthood responsibilities. Joseph Smith was inspired when he wrote “We believe that a man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.” While I don’t think that this refutes the laws surrounding curses in the Old Testament, it demonstrates that God judges us based on what we do with what we’re given, not based on what we’re given by God or our inherited circumstances. If we are capable of following the Gospel, keeping our covenants with Heavenly Father, and providing fruit worthy of God’s blessings, and we don’t do those things, we’re in much worse shape than someone who never had nor understood the law – including people who can’t or didn’t hold the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

The church didn’t have segregated congregations even back in the 1800s. Mormons were not any more or less racist than the whole of the population at the time. Some people believed in slavery, and some were abolitionists (including Joseph Smith), and some even helped in the underground railroad (which was frowned upon by Joseph Smith because it involved breaking the laws of the land, and because he believed that slaves could be freed in lawful ways).

Although blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood back then, women still can’t hold the priesthood today – and it’s not due to them not being as good as blacks. In fact, Utah was the first state that allowed women to vote. The Priesthood is about an elect responsibility – and has nothing to do with whether or not God loves one child more than another. Why was it that only the Levites were allowed to carry the arc of the covenant? Talk about discriminating. In all seriousness, the Lord chooses who will and who will not hold the Priesthood – and it’s not up to our own prejudices and limited understanding of God’s laws and God’s will.

I like that you pointed out that it was those with sub-Saharan African ancestry, because there was many Black’s that held the Priesthood, those of from such places as Jamaica, New Zealand and Haiti as just a few examples.

Are you kidding me? This really makes me angry that the brethren are so out of touch and “not leaders”, that they leave their “folks” to fend for themselves on subjects like this.

The Priesthood is the power to act in the Name of God. It is God’s to give or withhold as He sees fit.

When the Israelites left Egypt, God told Moses that the Priesthood would be held by worthy male members of the tribe of Levi.

Why only males — why not females as well? (We don’t know.)

Why only one tribe — why not all tribes? (We don’t know.)

If only one tribe, why Levi — why not Dan? or Asher? or Judah? or some other tribe? (We don’t know.)

Soon after the Restoration of the Gospel in this dispensation, God said that men of sub-Saharan African ancestry were not to hold the Priesthood. Why? (We don’t know.)

To this I add: Why, in June 1978, was the ban lifted? (We don’t know.)

Where I was a missionary one elder explained it this way though it is doctrine acourding to Elder Mantei . He would ask who he was teaching, in the beginning of the church? It was before the civil war when blacks were still slaves.And had the priesthood been given to the blacks, making them equal to whites in the church, what might have happened with those who were for slavery? They may have killed those blacks. So the priesthood was withheld until everyone could be free. Heavenly father doesn’t want his children to be killed needlessly. Humans are cruel when they dont understand something. He was protecting them. I liked that perspective.

I don’t believe a temporary ban can be considered “doctrine.”
No eternal truths were altered when the ban was incorporated or lifted. When the missionary ages were lowered recently, that was a very significant change, but that certainly doesn’t mean that our doctrine changed. The Church is growing and so are the people. Of course the Lord is going to order changes to be made in the Church to accommodate the changing world.
Another example takes place back in the New Testament, when it was revealed to Paul that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles. God didn’t suddenly decide that He loved the Gentiles, too. He loved them just as much as He loved the Jews and He had this change in mind all along because He knew exactly when the world would be ready for it. I guess the world just wasn’t ready for blacks to hold the priesthood at the time discussed in the article. I don’t claim to know the reason why, but I will promise that God does know what He is doing and it’s for the good of all this children.
God doesn’t change, nor does His doctrine.