The Indians are the Red Men

[theplains]

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

As a preliminary matter, I appreciate both your participation and your extensive knowledge and research on these matters.

Thank you. Likewise.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

Perhaps I have misunderstood, and if so I apologize.

In your post you quoted then-Elder Ezra T. Benson, who - in speaking about the ban - quoted Joseph Smith: "The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, 'the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come.'"

You then said: "This teaching clearly shows the ban was caused by God and that it would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men)."

Because you had just quoted Benson quoting Joseph, I thought that by "this teaching" you were referring to Joseph Smith's comment, which you characterized as "clearly show{ing} the band was caused by God" (presumably through Joseph Smith, whom you had just finished quoting (through Benson), and therefore that the caused-by-God-through-Joseph-Smith ban "would only be revoked" by the same "power as caused" the ban, namely, "by God."

Did I misunderstand you?

There is some historical tension with the church's portrayal of this.

One article says it was Brigham Young who announced the policy restricting men of black African descent 
from priesthood ordination.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng

However, Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly taught that the priesthood restriction did not originate with 
Brigham Young, but with Joseph Smith.  In The Way to Perfection, he wrote "This doctrine did not originate 
with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith".

He then cited minutes from an August 22, 1895 meeting of Church general authorities, in which George Q. 
Cannon reportedly said that Joseph Smith had taught that the seed of Cain could not receive the priesthood 
until the seed of Abel had precedence.

Joseph Fielding Smith made the claim even more explicitly in the April 1924 Improvement Era, saying: "The 
Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him".

But the current LDS Church considers it as a theory, not as a doctrine as the earlier LDS prophets taught.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

Well, we still run into the problem of whether it actually was "doctrine."  There is no record in the archives of the Church of any revelation on this matter.  Do we agree on that?

If so, is is possible that that there was no such revelation, and that opinions and conjecture on the ban (including from Joseph Smith) became characterized as "doctrine" despite the lack of any known revelatory provenance for it?

LDS leaders taught it was doctrine decades ago.  But I can understand why today's leaders prefer to call 
it a theory.  

The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, 
which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred".

It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were 
only recorded later, if at all.

The church says Joseph Smith received over 100 revelations that were recorded, but also explicitly says 
"Several of these revelations were not included in the Church's scriptures or published during Joseph 
Smith's lifetime. They are available today through The Joseph Smith Papers".

And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some 
revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments.

 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

I think a church trying to "hide" its history would not spend such enormous amounts of time, money and effort to publish to the world, for free, the foregoing resourced about its history.

I wonder how many LDS members even read the church's article about Elder Stevenson or the above sources 
you mention.

Yes. The LDS Church has spent an enormous amount of time and money in their effort, but they failed to 
provide a simple "we are sorry", "we apologize" statement.  And they continue to refer to the reason for
the priesthood ban as "theory" instead of "doctrine".

Just tell the LDS membership, and the NAACP, that LDS leaders taught a false doctrine, leading people 
astray for decades and causing ham to others in some way.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand what this quote is intended to show.  Could you elaborate?

That the LDS Church resisted removing the ban even after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young died.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

Generally, yes.  But the question remains: Might it be that the ban was not revelatory, but that the removal of it was?

See above. Early LDS leaders viewed it as a directive from God.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

How do you know what Pres. Kimball "specifically" chose to omit from his remarks?

Also, given that the ban was directed at "those of {sub-Saharan African}-descent," did he really need to specifically "mention" them?

He needed to add context so people inside and outside the LDS Church would know who the ban applied to.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

In a sense, yes.  But the discussion here is whether the leaders of the Church have led members "astray."  I don't think they have.

Believing the Book of Mormon teaching God put a mark of dark skin as a sign of a curse on people and 
then propagating it as "doctrine" to restrict people from holding the LDS priesthood leads people astray 
if it is not true.

The "Religion 327 - Pearl of Great Price Student Manual" says "It must be noted that the mark that was 
set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as 
the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill 
him".

Several LDS leaders explicitly taught that Cain's curse was associated with dark/black skin and that 
the curse continued through his descendants. 

Here are the clearest examples:
 

[1] Joseph Fielding Smith

In "The Way to Perfection", he wrote "A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued 
through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world 
cursed with a black skin... These are the descendants of Cain".

[2] Brigham Young

Brigham Young was even more explicit about the physical mark. In an 1859 sermon he said "The Lord put 
a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin".

He then connected that race to Cain's descendants and said the curse would remain until it was removed 
in the future.

Journal of Discourses 2:179-91, 7:282-91, 11:266-72, 14:78-91

[3] Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff also taught that the blackness/mark of Cain descended to his posterity:

"What was that mark? It was the mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his 
posterity from that time until the present".

He further identified millions of Black people as descendants of Cain.

[4] Bruce R. McConkie

"Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes..".

He also connected Cain, Ham, and Black people with the curse and priesthood restriction.

The later LDS leaders interpreted these passages together and identified the blackness as the mark 
associated with Cain's curse.

If this is false, then they have led their members astray.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  But the issue here is whether Latter-day Saint leaders have done this, and/or if the Lord will allow it.  I think the answer to both inquiries is "No."

Either the priesthood ban was from God or it was from man.  Either God put a skin of blackness on the 
Lamanites and cursed those who married them in the same way or he did not. Either Jesus is the Eternal 
God or he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God.

Wrong teachings lead people astray.
 

On 9/3/2026 at 9:40 PM, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?

If I teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel or a spirit child of a heavenly mother who became a God, then 
I have made a Jesus according to my imagination.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Quote

I understand that this is an area of emphasis for you.  But my question was not whether he "was making an apology for the entire church," but rather whether he was speaking in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP.

If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective.  If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities?

In his speech, Elder Stevenson doesn't indicate that he is speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church.

Two thoughts:

First, we do not appear to have a transcript of his entire remarks, so he may well have said that he was speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church.

Second, there do seem to be some fairly strong indications that he was speaking in a representative capacity.  Most obviously, his remarks were published in the Church News and Deseret News, both of which outlets specifically identified him as a member of the Q12.  From the Church News (emphases added) :

Quote

Using the relationship between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the NAACP as inspiration, Elder Gary E. Stevenson offered three points of counsel to hundreds gathered Monday to honor a storied civil rights activist — “be your brother’s keeper, foster civility and emulate Christlike love.”

Speaking at the 36^th Annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Luncheon in Salt Lake City, Elder Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles addressed the topic, “All are alike unto God.”

Elder Stevenson thanked the NAACP for all the organization does to “eliminate race-based discrimination and ensure the health and well-being of all persons.”

“We commend the work of the NAACP and celebrate its mission to advance equality and justice in our society,” he said.
...

The Church unites with friends and community partners, like the NAACP, to care for the poor and needy, he said.

“We lift our brothers and sisters through various humanitarian and welfare services around the world,” Elder Stevenson explained.

Quoting Proverbs 29:18, Elder Stevenson spoke about the importance of vision, noting “where there is no vision, the people perish.”

“The Church’s relationship with the NAACP has evolved from acquaintance to friend, to linking arms, to locking arms. This could not have happened without vision.”

Elder Stevenson then shared a demonstration highlighting the power of vision. Vision statements from the Church and the NAACP enhance understanding, he said.

Elder Stevenson read a vision statement from NAACP President Derrick Johnson: “We believe all people and organizations and government representatives should come together to work to secure peace and happiness for all of God’s children. Unitedly, we can call on all people to work in greater harmony, civility and respect for the beliefs of others to achieve this supreme and universal goal.”

He followed with a vision statement from President Russell M. Nelson: “We are all connected, and we have a God-given responsibility to help make life better for those around us. … We don’t have to be alike or look alike to have love for each other. We don’t even have to agree with each other to love each other. If we have any hope of reclaiming the goodwill and sense of humanity for which we yearn, it must begin with each of us, one person at a time.”

Elder Stevenson highlighted the three points of counsel that honor the Church of Jesus Christ/NAACP relationship:

“The work of forming a unified society begins in the soul…,” he said. “We fulfill the invitation of the Savior to love one another for love is of God. May we all strive to be our brother’s keeper, to foster civility and to emulate Christ like love.”
...
Quoting the Rev. Amos Brown of the NAACP, Elder Stevenson concluded: “It can be well in this nation when we lock arms, as I locked arms with President Nelson. Not as black and white. Not as [The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Baptist. But as children of God who are about loving everybody and bringing hope, happiness, and health to all of God’s children.”
...

Elder Stevenson began his remarks saying he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by an error included in a recent Church manual referencing outdated commentary about race.

“Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you friends.”

The Des News:

Quote

Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called on all people to act as their brother’s keeper during the 36th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Luncheon, sponsored by the NAACP Monday.
...
“We hope today to come more closely together in unity to build upon our common ground as brothers and sisters and to do something for others,” Elder Stevenson said at the Little America Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City.
...

Elder Stevenson preceded his remarks by expressing regret that the church’s 2020 “Come, Follow Me” gospel study manual includes an old statement that dark skin in the Book of Mormon was the sign of a curse.

Elder Stevenson disavowed that statement.

“One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race,” he said. “It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our annual online manual, which is used by the great majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change.

“We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he added. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters, and I consider you friends. I love and appreciate you,” he said, drawing applause from those gathered.
...

Elder Stevenson noted the deepening friendship and working relationship between the church and the NAACP.

“We thank the NAACP for all that you do to eliminate race-based discrimination and ensure the health and well-being of all persons,” he said. “We hope today to come more closely together in unity to build upon our common ground as brothers and sisters and to do something for others.”d

I just don't see how you can read these remarks and still dispute that Elder Stevenson, a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, was speaking at a public event reported in the Church News and Deseret News on behalf of the Church.  

Second, your response does not not answer my question: If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective.  If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities?

1 hour ago, theplains said:

A person doesn’t need to have a priesthood office or a priesthood responsibility to speak when invited to an event.

How do you account for all the "we" and "our" wording in his remarks, his various and repeated references to the Church, and perhaps most particularly his statement "I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear...")?

1 hour ago, theplains said:

One particularly significant part of the speech concerned the Church's history regarding race. Stevenson said:

"Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form, and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse".

Then 

"I am deeply saddened and hurt by this error".

I don't find Elder Stevenson saying, "I apologize," "we apologize," or "the Church apologizes".

But we do find Elder Stevenson saying "Our position as a Church..."

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I cannot find an official statement in which a Church President or apostle explicitly says, "We apologize for the priesthood ban/restriction".  

Yes.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There are, however, increasingly strong statements of repentance, sorrow, condemnation, and disavowal.

Not sure "repentance" works in a collective sense.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The 1949 First Presidency called the restriction a "direct commandment from the Lord" and connected mortal circumstances with premortal conduct.

As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'"

I think the same must be said about the 1969 item.

What are your thoughts about this?  Is Bro. Kimball correct in his assessment?

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The 1969 First Presidency statement took essentially the same position, saying the restriction: "is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God".

This is important because it shows that the claim continued well after 1949.

This 2023 FAIR article may be worth a read:

Quote

6. President David O. McKay 

“The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God … Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s preexistent state.” (Pres. David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner. Letter of the First Presidency Clarifies Church’s Position on the Negro – Dec. 15, 1969, The Improvement Era, Feb. 1970, p.71)

This is a prime example of why it’s good to read the full document instead of just relying on a cherry-picked quote. This letter also says:

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals his will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man, comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the gospel. … Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await his revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established….

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.

Targeting David O. McKay specifically on this subject is short-sighted and tells me that Faulk didn’t do anywhere near the level of research that he claimed to do. Either that, or he knows better but has no problem at all lying to his audience.

At one point, President McKay told Marion D. Hanks that he’d pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but hadn’t received the answer he wanted. Elder Adam S. Bennion reported that McKay had prayed “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.” But he didn’t give up.

As reported by FAIR and also found in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory Prince:

Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, “I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

He prayed and prayed to reverse the Priesthood restriction, only for the Lord to finally tell him to stop asking because it wasn’t going to happen under his tenure as leader of the Church. Regardless of what you believe or feel about the origins of the restriction, President McKay is not the one to attack for it. We know that some of the justifications he repeated for the restriction were not correct, but he tried as hard as he could to have that restriction lifted.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this assessment.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There was a lot of flip flopping on the priesthood ban.

Yes, there are some inconsistencies.  However, there is a fairly important consistent item, namely, that there is no known revelatory provenance for the ban in the records of the Church.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Quote

"Lead members astray" = "lead them away from Jesus Christ."  I can't agree with that assessment.

Leading members astray also equals leading them away from truth. 

I can't agree with this formulation either.  It is a de facto imputation of inerrancy/infallibility.  

1 hour ago, theplains said:

For example, the LDS Church's teaching that Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God in his premortal life. This is a different Christ.

Could you elaborate?  I would like to understand your perspective here.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Quote

 

Is it also possible that there was no such revelation?

 

Possibly.

I agree.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Nevertheless, it was referred to as direct commandment of the Lord.  

In your view, which of the two propositions is better substantiated?

If the ban was a "direct commandment," but if there is no record of that direct commandment...

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Some LDS Church teachings and policies are not specifically written down and classified as "revelation" or "official doctrine".  

As Boyd K. Packer said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

I'm not quite sure that the first half of this statement ("it isn't a question of who said it or when...") has ready application here.  Nevertheless, the last part is ontologically accurate: "{T}he question is whether it is true."

Where "it" is "Did the priesthood ban originate as a revelation from God, or was it something else?", it seems like the most accurate answer would be something like this: "There is no record of any such 'revelation' in the history or records of the Church."

To which I would personally add: "For my part, the absence of any known revelatory provenance, coupled with the muddled origins we have pertaining to Pres. Young's 1852 address to the Territorial Legislature (and odd venue for declaring a revelation), and in light of the historical circumstances and prevailing racialist sentiments of the era, I provisionally conclude that the ban was 'something else.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 02:59 PM by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

You then said: "This teaching clearly shows the ban was caused by God and that it would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men)."

Because you had just quoted Benson quoting Joseph, I thought that by "this teaching" you were referring to Joseph Smith's comment, which you characterized as "clearly show{ing} the band was caused by God" (presumably through Joseph Smith, whom you had just finished quoting (through Benson), and therefore that the caused-by-God-through-Joseph-Smith ban "would only be revoked" by the same "power as caused" the ban, namely, "by God."

Did I misunderstand you?

There is some historical tension with the church's portrayal of this.

Yes, there are two competing theories, or perhaps three:

Theory 1: The priesthood ban originated with God via revelation.

Theory 2: The priesthood ban originated with man, and arose not by way of revelation, but due to historical circumstances and prevailing racialist sentiments of the mid-19th century.

Theory 3: We do not have a clear, definitive picture either way regarding the origins of the priesthood ban.

The Church hews toward Theory 3, and strongly denounces past theories and characterizations intended to advance Theory 1.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

One article says it was Brigham Young who announced the policy restricting men of black African descent 
from priesthood ordination.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng

However, Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly taught that the priesthood restriction did not originate with Brigham Young, but with Joseph Smith.  In The Way to Perfection, he wrote "This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith".

He then cited minutes from an August 22, 1895 meeting of Church general authorities, in which George Q. Cannon reportedly said that Joseph Smith had taught that the seed of Cain could not receive the priesthood until the seed of Abel had precedence.

Joseph Fielding Smith made the claim even more explicitly in the April 1924 Improvement Era, saying: "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him".

But the current LDS Church considers it as a theory, not as a doctrine as the earlier LDS prophets taught.

Yes.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

LDS leaders taught it was doctrine decades ago.  But I can understand why today's leaders prefer to call it a theory.  

So can I.  We both agree it is possible that there was no revelation instituting the ban.  We have no record of it, and we are a record-keeping Church.  Consequently, 

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred".

It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all.

The church says Joseph Smith received over 100 revelations that were recorded, but also explicitly says "Several of these revelations were not included in the Church's scriptures or published during Joseph Smith's lifetime. They are available today through The Joseph Smith Papers".

And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments.

Yes, our preservation of records was not complete, hence the viability of Theory 1.  It's possible.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

I think a church trying to "hide" its history would not spend such enormous amounts of time, money and effort to publish to the world, for free, the foregoing resourced about its history.

I wonder how many LDS members even read the church's article about Elder Stevenson or the above sources you mention.

We can all do better, but the original point was about the Church trying to "hide" its history.  I just don't see that happening.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes. The LDS Church has spent an enormous amount of time and money in their effort, but they failed to provide a simple "we are sorry", "we apologize" statement.  And they continue to refer to the reason for the priesthood ban as "theory" instead of "doctrine".

Whether the Church should apologize is an unestablished premise and value judgment.  I think the origins of the priesthood ban are best characterized as "theory" until and unless we get more information.  Indeed, the Church is now coping with past leaders making comments not based on information / documentation / revelation.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Just tell the LDS membership, and the NAACP, that LDS leaders taught a false doctrine, leading people astray for decades and causing ham to others in some way.

"Leading people astray."  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

How do you know what Pres. Kimball "specifically" chose to omit from his remarks?

Also, given that the ban was directed at "those of {sub-Saharan African}-descent," did he really need to specifically "mention" them?

He needed to add context so people inside and outside the LDS Church would know who the ban applied to.

Not sure about that, but I'm content to leave the matter unresolved.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

Okay.  But the issue here is whether Latter-day Saint leaders have done this, and/or if the Lord will allow it.  I think the answer to both inquiries is "No."

Either the priesthood ban was from God or it was from man.  Either God put a skin of blackness on the Lamanites and cursed those who married them in the same way or he did not. Either Jesus is the Eternal God or he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God.

Wrong teachings lead people astray.

I don't think erring in doctrine is what Pres. Woodruff had in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac