January 17, 1954, in Capetown, South Africa. As I stand before you [LDS missionaries] this morning I feel that I am facing a great responsibility.

For several years the Coloured question in South Africa has been called to the attention of the First Presidency. We have manuscripts, page after page, written on it.

I believe there is a misunderstanding regarding the attitude of the Presidency. I felt it before I became President and since the responsibility of presiding has become heavier I have sensed it more keenly. To observe conditions as they are was one of the reasons that I wished to take this trip.

[Quoting from LDS scripture:] [“] Pharaoh signifies king by Royal blood. Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it, and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the Eldest son of Egyptus the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the Government of Ham which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and just[ ly] all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the First Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam and also of Noah, his father who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now Pharaoh, being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of the Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.[”]—[ Book of] Abraham, Chapter 1, Verses 20–27.

Now there’s a nobleman [the Egyptian pharaoh], righteous, fair in his judgment, seeking earnestly to guide the people according to the Priesthood which was given to Adam,—[ a] man who seems to have been worthy in every respect not only in regard to nobility of character but also in regard to ability in leadership, but he could not receive the Priesthood.

Such is the order regarding his descendants of the Church today. In Hawaii, in Brazil, in the Southern States, in other Missions and Stakes, there are worthy men, able men in the Church, who are deprived of the Priesthood because of their lineage.

Now I think there is an explanation for this racial discrimination, dating back to the pre-existent state, but modern sociologists will not accept it, and they are writing appealing to us to lift the ban upon the Negro race, and adopt racial equality in the Church.

I first met this problem in Hawaii in 1921. A worthy man had married a Polynesian woman. She was faithful in the Church. They had a large family everyone of whom was active and worthy. My sympathies were so aroused that I wrote home to President [Heber J.] Grant asking if he would please make an exception so we could ordain that man to the Priesthood. He wrote back saying, “David, I am as sympathetic as you are, but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church.” I sat down and talked to the brother explaining frankly the reasons for such seeming discrimination and gave him the assurance that some day he will receive every blessing to which he is entitled; for the Lord is just, and no Respector of persons.

That man has remained true to the Church and so have his wife and children.

Well until the Lord gives us another revelation changing this practice established anciently and adopted in our day we will follow that policy. It is true in the days of the Prophet Joseph [Smith] one of Negro blood received the Priesthood. Another in the days of President Brigham Young received it and went through the Temple. These are authenticated facts but exceptions.

At present, I repeat, until a new revelation comes, the Church will observe the policy of withholding the Priesthood from men of Negro ancestry. Therefore, wherever you find evidence of a Negro strain in a individual, please explain to him that the blessing of membership including the partaking of the sacrament and the renewing of His covenant weekly, is his.

Now I am impressed that there are worthy men in the South Africa Mission who are being deprived of the Priesthood simply because they are unable to trace their genealogy out of this country. I am impressed that an injustice is being done to them. Why should every man be required to prove that his lineage is free from Negro strain especially when there is no evidence of his having negro blood in his veins? I should rather[,] much rather, make a mistake in one case and if it be found out afterwards suspend his activity in the Priesthood than to deprive 10 worthy men of the Priesthood.

There is a misunderstanding regarding the application of your genealogical work, President Duncan. You have page after page I notice of genealogical records in which men cannot trace their genealogy out of the country yet who show no trace whatever of the Negro blood. Why should they be deprived of the Priesthood? Nobody knows whether their ancestry goes back to a White slave or a Black slave. And so, if a man is worthy, is faithful in the Church and lives up to the principles of the Gospel, who has no outward evidence of a Negro strain, even though he might not be able to trace his genealogy out of the country, the President of the Mission is hereby authorised to confer upon him the Priesthood.

Now this does not mean that you proclaim this ruling or give it too much publicity because it might multiply your difficulties. There are those in the Church here who I am sure are not entitled to receive the Priesthood. But, I am, also sure, after talking with the President and observing other leaders—able leaders—that there are others who are unjustly deprived of the privilege of receiving the Priesthood.

We are assured that the time will come when the Negro will receive every blessing to which he is entitled, including the Priesthood. I mention this merely to help you to explain to some who are probably discouraged and feel that you are showing favoritism.

From now on here in Africa you may treat people just the same as we treat them in South Carolina or in Washington or in New York or in Salt Lake City, or in the Hawaiian Islands. Unless there is evidence of Negro blood you need not compel a man to prove that he has none in his veins.

However, as a precautionary measure all cases of ordinations to the Priesthood, Aaronic and Melchizedek, should be referred to the Mission President.

January 19, 1954, writing from Capetown, South Africa.

Last Sunday afternoon we held a special meeting with the presidency of the mission and the missionaries and presented to them our impressions regarding the perplexing colour questions and the problems involved therein. After careful observation and sincere prayer, I felt impressed to modify the present policy of compelling every man to prove by tracing his genealogy that he has no trace in his blood of negro ancestry. If the present policy were continued for another twenty five years, it is doubtful whether the Church would have sufficient men to carry on the work of the branches, and worthy, capable men, as worthy of the priesthood as any other members of the Church, would be deprived of the blessings of the priesthood.

I am sure that the modification of the plan as set forth in the enclosed manuscript will result in renewed impetus and encouragement in the branches here in the South Africa mission. I will explain to you in detail when I meet you again in council.

February 25, 1954, First Presidency and Council of Twelve. President McKay presented the following recommendation: He said that he had already reported to the First Presidency that we should modify our attitude towards the colored people in the Union of South Africa, and that that would apply to Brazil also. He said that he found that in the Union of South Africa no man can hold the priesthood who cannot trace his genealogy out of South Africa, and he felt sure that there are a dozen or more men who are fully worthy of the priesthood who are deprived of it. In Rhodesia a brother who has the responsibility of the branch and organized the branch cannot hold the priesthood because he cannot trace his genealogy out of the country, and so they have to keep two elders there, 1900 miles away from headquarters, and they are out in the woods and in the mines, and yet that man is as worthy of the priesthood, President McKay thought, as anybody, and there are a score of others in the same condition. He said there is a young man who is a professor in the university, who is working for his doctor’s degree, and is an instructor in the university at Capetown who cannot trace his genealogy out of the country, and so he does not have the priesthood. There is another young man in Johannesburg the same way.

President McKay said he called the elders together, with President [Leroy H.] Duncan, and after due consultation, suggested this: That until the Lord gives us another revelation changing this practice . . . [He repeats the remarks he made to the missionaries in Capetown, omitted here.] President McKay said that was his recommendation.

President Richards said that he thought it was a marvelous, inspired statement, as it was reported to the First Presidency in writing before President McKay returned home. He moved that the Council support the statement of President McKay with reference to this matter of tracing the ancestry of South Africans in order to be eligible for the priesthood. LeGrand Richards seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.