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 September 10 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

[theplains]

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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) :

Noted. 

But he never said "we are sorry" or "we apologize".

Let's again focus on part of what he 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. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you 
friends".

But black or dark skin being a sign of a curse was taught as a truth, not a theory.

"The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and 
to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal 
of the Spirit of the Lord" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012, President Joseph Fielding Smith)

"Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The 
changing of the Lamanites' skin was only a mark or sign of the curse" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher 
Manual, 2017).

"The Lamanites remained in the land and rebelled against the Lord. They "were cut off from his presence" 
(2 Nephi 5:20). The curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20-24). The 
changing of the Lamanites' skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully 
understood" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2024).

 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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?

I now see the references to "we" in a representative capacity.

But still, no "we are sorry" and/or "we apologize".  

And the LDS Church still continues to propagate that what former LDS leaders taught were theories in 
regards to the priesthood ban.  

It's time to end this mantra.  It was doctrine.

"It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. 
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such 
statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the 
Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: "Now this 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 justly 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.' Pearl of Great Price, 
Abraham 1:25-26" (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Negro and the Priesthood," Improvement Era, April 1924, 
p. 565).

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a 
matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the 
doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members 
of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the 
Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 
"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence 
of their fathers' rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to 
death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then 
that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, 
and receive all the blessings we are entitled to'" (Official statement of the First Presidency, dated 
August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 89-90).

Then there's the First Presidency letter of 1969.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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...")?

I addressed some of this earlier.  Their position continues to say it was a theory, but we know it was not.

But still, no admitting "we are sorry", "we apologize", and "we taught a false doctrine".
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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

The LDS Church is not accurately depicting how it was taught in their past. History shows otherwise.

It's time to get that skeleton out of the closet and finally bury it.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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?

I already addressed this earlier.  Lot's of flip-flopping.

Then you have Kimball's statement in the 1960 General Conference:

"The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking
contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales
of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing de- lightsome, and they are now becoming 
white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen 
of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home 
placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
 
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member 
girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter 
than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. 
There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that 
he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. 
These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly 
said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process 
might be accelerated".
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

This 2023 FAIR article may be worth a read:

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

Nothing to add regarding the FAIR article or the one by Gregory Prince other than to say they tried to 
reverse the ban which was a doctrine as taught by former LDS leaders.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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.

As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. And the reason for the ban was considered a 
doctrine back then. But these days, it has become 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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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

The Muslim verse of Jesus is only a prophet. The JW version of Jesus is Michael the Archangel. The Hindu 
version of Jesus is only a great teacher. The LDS version of Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents
who became a God. Another Jesus is the Eternal God.

These are examples of different Christs.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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...

As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded.

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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng

As shown earlier, it was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said:

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.'"

Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God".

Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but 
from man".

It isn't a question of who (Person A or B) said it or when. The question is whether a statement is true.

[theplains]

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Yesterday's doctrine and direct commandment from God became tomorrow's theory.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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,

Already addressed previously.

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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng

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.

I am not privy to all the records of the LDS Church so I don't know what all is there or not.

It was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. 

One thing we know for sure – it was taught as doctrine. This won't change no matter how many times the 
current LDS Church tries to disavow them as theories instead.

Then we have all the teachings recorded by President George Cannon in the book "Gospel Truth", mentioned 
at the start of the thread "The Red Men are the Indians"

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113467-the-indians-are-the-red-men/

I wonder if the LDS Church has disavowed those LDS "truths" as theories too.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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

Recorded teachings from past LDS leaders refer to it as doctrine and a direct commandment from God.  
That's sufficient preservation. 

Doctrine back then, but theory today.  That doctrine was of God or it was of man.

This explains why the LDS Church cannot issue a simple "We are sorry, we apologize" statement.

I suspect The Family – Proclamation to the World "doctrine" will become a theory in the LDS Church some 
day.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Considered theory today, taught as doctrine back then.
 

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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

The Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses publish/teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that he 
returned invisibly in 1914 and made them (members of that body) the faithful and discreet slave to dispense 
spiritual food to the world. Only 144,000 belong to the Bride of Christ.

Are they leading people astray?
 

On 9/10/2026 at 4:11 PM, smac97 said:

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

Erring in teachings sounds more appropriate as some people don't consider all teachings to be doctrines.

"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from 
a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we 
proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different 
gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians that someone can present a different Jesus while still using 
Christian-sounding language.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Noted. 

But he never said "we are sorry" or "we apologize".

Quote

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?

I now see the references to "we" in a representative capacity.

But still, no "we are sorry" and/or "we apologize".  

I am glad that we cleared that up.

I don't think there is a dispute about whether he used particularized words ("we are sorry" and/or "we apologize").  Rather, I think the dispute is whether he or the President of the Church should apologize, and if so how and to whom.

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

And the LDS Church still continues to propagate that what former LDS leaders taught were theories in regards to the priesthood ban.  

It's time to end this mantra.  It was doctrine.

Well, I wonder if this is down to an issue of semantics.

I think comments from Elder Bednar (previously summarized here) help provide some framework:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

 

I think it is fair to say that we cannot presently state with clarity and confidence that the ban was revelatory.  Ipso facto, I likewise think we cannot state with clarity and confidence that the ban was "doctrine."

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.

Let's review a bit.

What the Church says now: The heading to Official Declaration 2 (2013 scriptures) and the Gospel Topics essay Race and the Priesthood are the controlling texts. They say Church records “offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice,” that Black men were ordained in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and that Brigham Young publicly announced the restriction in 1852. Past explanations (curse of Cain, premortal unworthiness, racial inferiority) are disavowed. Elder Holland’s 2018 statement is the pastoral version of the same point: the old explanations were “folklore”; “we simply do not know why that practice was in place.”

Thus, the Church's current position is effectively an institutional retreat from and disavowal of both mid-century First Presidency letters. It does not say “Brigham invented it and God had nothing to do with it.” It says the documentary origin is Brigham’s public articulation, the earlier justifications are rejected, and no revelation instituting the ban is in the record.

1949

Edward Kimball’s statement above is accurate. The 1949 circular claimed:

• “not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord”
• “the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization”
• the curse-of-Cain framework
• premortal conduct as the theodicy

There is no text in the canon or in Joseph’s papers that is a “direct commandment” instituting a race ban. Elijah Abel and other Black men were ordained with Joseph’s knowledge.

Further, the Church History Department has since described 1949 as standard language in private correspondence, not a public proclamation—but the wording is still the wording. Kimball is right: those two clauses go beyond the evidence.

1969

The December 15, 1969 letter (Brown and Tanner to local leaders; published in the Church News 10 January 1970) is more careful on rationale and less careful on origin.

It drops the curse-of-Cain language and the 1949 claim of a “direct commandment.” It says the reasons “we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man,” and it flags continuing revelation as the way the practice could change. That is a real shift.

It does not drop the historical claim that is the problem. The operative sentence is:

Quote

“From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes … were not yet to receive the priesthood…”

 

That is the same "beyond the evidence" error as 1949’s “from the days of its organization,” only in different clothes. The surviving record does not show Joseph teaching a race-based priesthood ban, and it shows the opposite on ordination. The first clear presidential articulation is Brigham Young (1849 privately, 1852 publicly). So Kimball’s critique—this statement goes beyond the evidence on origin—does apply to 1969, even though 1969 is more modest about why.

1969 also still treats the restriction as having a divine source (“not something which originated with man”), which is a theological claim, not a documentary one. That is a different kind of assertion from “Joseph taught it from 1830.” The first could have previously been held as as a matter of faith (not now, though); the second is a historical statement that does not hold up.

The Church no longer defends the 1949 claim of a recorded “direct commandment,” nor the claim that the restriction was doctrine “from the days of [the Church’s] organization.” The 1969 letter already softened the justifications, but it repeated the Joseph-from-the-beginning origin story. That origin story is what later official materials walked away from. Calling the ban “doctrine” in those decades was common speech among leaders; it was never backed by a canonized revelation instituting it. Official Declaration 2 is a revelation ending the practice. It does not contain, and the archives have not produced, a revelation that began it.

What the current essay does not do is take the next step some critics, and some members, want: declare that the restriction was only Brigham’s policy and therefore never binding. It leaves the “why” unanswered and treats 1978 as the revelatory event that matters. That is a narrower claim than 1949 or 1969, is the one that better reflects our knowledge and understanding, and it is the one the Church is actually standing on right now.

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Quote

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...")?

I addressed some of this earlier.  Their position continues to say it was a theory, but we know it was not.

Actually, I think we do know it was a theory.  We know that because we have no recorded revelation for it.

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church is not accurately depicting how it was taught in their past. History shows otherwise.

I think that sentence bundles three different claims, and only one of them is clean.

If you mean the Church now understates how authoritatively the restriction was taught—commandment, doctrine, the Lord’s policy, from Joseph on down—I agree the current essay could be more comprehensive.  The 1949 and 1969 First Presidency statements, and President Kimball in 1973, did not talk the way the essay talks, and the essay does not specifically address them. A member who only reads the essay will not see how hard those claims were driven.

If you mean the Church is hiding that leaders offered racial explanations, I respectfully disagree. The essay names those explanations and repudiates them. Elders McConkie, Oaks, and Holland already said the old reasons were wrong or folklore. The live question is not whether those teachings existed. It is whether we are still bound by them. Officially, we are not.

If you mean the current claim about origins—no clear originating revelation, Black men ordained under Joseph, Brigham announcing the restriction in 1852—that claim is what the documents support. The part of the old teaching that does not survive contact with the record is “Joseph taught this from 1830 as a direct commandment.” That is the sentence Edward Kimball said went beyond the evidence in 1949. The same problem is in the 1969 letter.

So I would not say the Church is fabricating a past. I would say it has narrowed what it will defend: the 1978 revelation stands; the old justifications do not; the originating commandment is not in the file. What it has not done well is describe, in the same breath, how confidently those justifications were once taught. Those are different failures. One is a historical correction. The other is an incomplete account of our own prior voice.

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

It's time to get that skeleton out of the closet and finally bury it.

I can appreciate the sentiment behind “get the skeleton out of the closet and bury it.”

If it means: stop treating the priesthood/temple restriction as unmentionable, stop recycling the old justifications, and be honest about the pain it caused—then that work is already largely done. The Church published the Race and the Priesthood essay, disavowed the theories that Black skin was a curse or a premortal penalty, and leaders have condemned racism past and present. Elder McConkie said to forget the old explanations. President Oaks has said he never received a spiritual confirmation of those explanations and that the Lord rarely gives reasons for the directions He gives His servants. That is not a locked closet.

That said, if “bury it” means a formal institutional apology that treats the Church as a single moral person who can confess, atone, and be absolved, I think that is a philosophical preference more than a moral necessity given what we actually believe about sin and accountability.

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (AoF 1:2). The Church as an institution is not a soul. It exists only as living people who join it, lead it, and comprise it. The men who announced or defended the restriction are dead. They will answer for their own actions, words, motives, sins and errors. Current members and current leaders did not impose it. Collective guilt and collective apology are both theologically awkward in a faith that is as individualistic and this covenantal as we are. An institution can correct course, disavow false teachings, and change practice—which it did in 1978 by revelation and has continued to do in how it teaches the history. That is not the same thing as a living body of Saints inheriting someone else’s sin as a transferable moral debt.

I also have reservations about some of the demands for an apology. Not all of them. Some people who are hurt and offended want acknowledgment, and acknowledgment matters. But some of the demands are, I think, pretextual: it is less about burying a skeleton than about requiring the Church to accept a particular narrative of its own origins and authority—that the restriction was only racism and never anything the Lord permitted or withheld reasons for—and then to perform a ritual of submission to that narrative. If the demand is really “concede that prophets were merely products of their culture here, and therefore here, and therefore here,” it is not mainly about healing Black Saints. It is about leverage for opponents of the Church, who I don't think give two figs about the welfare of the Church.  Ulterior motives may well be in play that have nothing to do with righting a moral wrong.

I can mourn the restriction, reject the folk theology that grew up around it, and still not think that a corporate/institutional apology from people who were not there is the moral hinge on which the legitimacy of the Restored Gospel turns. The hinge is still Jesus Christ, individual faith in Him, individual repentance, individual efforts, all combined in the service of the same God who “denieth none that come unto him.”

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Quote

This 2023 FAIR article may be worth a read:

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

Nothing to add regarding the FAIR article or the one by Gregory Prince other than to say they tried to reverse the ban which was a doctrine as taught by former LDS leaders.

Not sure what you mean here.

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Quote

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.

As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. And the reason for the ban was considered a doctrine back then. But these days, it has become a theory.

The differentiation is whether there was a revelation.  Not only do we now have any such revelation, Brigham Young didn't even claim to have had one.  He did not dictate a revelation in the Joseph Smith pattern (scribe, “thus saith the Lord” text, presented to the Church for sustaining as scripture).  The 1852 statements were political-legislative speeches, not a temple-received or conference-canonized document.  There is no contemporary record of a specific revelatory event that originated the policy, which is why the Church’s current history topics essay and Gospel Topics essay put the public origin with Brigham in 1852 and say records “offer no clear insights into the origins” of the practice.

47 minutes 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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng

You seem to be leaning rather heavily on speculation along the lines of "Hey, there may have been a revelation that was either lost or never recorded."  

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Quote

Quote

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.

The Muslim verse of Jesus is only a prophet. The JW version of Jesus is Michael the Archangel. The Hindu version of Jesus is only a great teacher. The LDS version of Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Another Jesus is the Eternal God.

These are examples of different Christs.

I still don't understand.

If I say "When Clinton was in the White House...," I may be referring to Bill or Hillary, depending on the context.  Bill is a numerically distinct "Clinton" from Hillary, and vice versa.  Bill is a "different" Clinton from Hillary, and vice versa.

However, if I were to say "Bill Clinton was a great president," and if another person were to say "Bill Clinton was a horrible president," are they speaking of "different," numerically-distinct-from-each-other persons, both of which just happen to have the same name?  Nope.  They are speaking about different perspectives and opinions about the one person: Bill Clinton.

When Muslims speak of Jesus, are you claiming that they are speaking of a numerically distinct Jesus wholly differentiated from the Jesus of the New Testament?  Or is it that Muslims have different perspectives and opinions about the Jesus of the New Testament?

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God".

Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man".

It isn't a question of who (Person A or B) said it or when. The question is whether a statement is true.

Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God".

Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man".

Entity C (the institutional Church) makes this statement: "The records of the Church 'offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice,' that Black men were ordained in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and that Brigham Young publicly announced the restriction in 1852."

Which of these is, in your view, the most accurate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Yesterday's doctrine and direct commandment from God became tomorrow's theory.

Which does not speak to Theory 3, which I think is the most accurate summary of where things actually stand.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I am not privy to all the records of the LDS Church so I don't know what all is there or not.

Well, that becomes regressive pretty quickly.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

It was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. 

And yet, there is no recorded revelation substantiating these characterizations.  Hence the relevance of Edward Kimball observation: "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.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

One thing we know for sure – it was taught as doctrine. This won't change no matter how many times the current LDS Church tries to disavow them as theories instead.

I'm not sure I understand your position.  I have repeatedly acknowledged the 1949 and 1969 statements, as well as their "beyond the evidence" status.

I more or less agree with the historical point. For a long time it was not taught as a tentative theory. Presidents and apostles taught the restriction and the supporting explanations as the mind of the Lord. Relabeling those explanations “theories” in 2013 does not change how they landed in 1852 or 1949.

What I don’t grant is that “it was taught as doctrine” freezes the explanations in place or makes the later disavowal a kind of fraud (is that where you are going?).

In the Church, “taught as doctrine” has never been the same thing as “canonized and closed.” A great deal has been taught with prophetic certainty and later limited or discarded when further light came. The Church is not claiming Brigham and McConkie never spoke that way. It is saying those reasons—curse-as-skin, premortal failure, racial inferiority—are not doctrine now and were wrong. McConkie himself said to forget what he and earlier brethren had said that contradicted the 1978 revelation. That is not a cover-up of the teaching. It is a repudiation of the explanations by someone who had taught them as doctrine.

If the argument is simply “leaders used to teach this authoritatively,” that is true. If the argument is “therefore the current Church cannot honestly disavow the explanations, and every essay is just PR,” that only follows if you have already decided that once a prophet teaches something as doctrine, later prophets cannot correct the reasons. That is a rule this faith has never actually lived by. 1978 is the correction of the practice. The essay is the correction of the folklore that grew up around it. You can think both should have come earlier and still not treat “it was taught as doctrine” as the end of the discussion.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Then we have all the teachings recorded by President George Cannon in the book "Gospel Truth", mentioned at the start of the thread "The Red Men are the Indians"

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113467-the-indians-are-the-red-men/

I wonder if the LDS Church has disavowed those LDS "truths" as theories too.

I take the priesthood-restriction discussion seriously when the aim is to tell the truth about what was taught, to reject the old racial explanations, and to refuse to treat Black Saints as a problem to be managed. I can respect a call for apology if it is really about repairing a moral wound.

When the next move is, “Then what about Cannon and the Red Men—has the Church disavowed those truths as theories too?” I start to hear a different project. That question can be asked in good faith. It can also function as a test that no institution can ever pass. There will always be another chapter, another Journal of Discourses paragraph, another introduction that used to say “principal ancestors.” If the standard is “every authoritative-sounding sentence from the nineteenth century must be individually recanted in the same genre as the 2013 essay, or the Church is still 'hiding skeletons,'” the list will never end. Faultfinding of that kind is not a path to burial. It is a path that requires the grave to stay open.

I am not interested in chasing that carrot. Not because the history of LDS teaching about Native peoples is tidy—it is not—but because I can tell the difference between “help us tell the truth and treat people as children of God” and “keep producing exhibits until confidence in the Restoration collapses.” The first I will work at. The second I will not treat as the same kind of conversation.

If your concern is specific harm in how the Church has spoken about Indigenous people, please say that, and we can talk about that. If the point is that once a prophet taught something as “gospel truth,” the only moral option is an endless sequence of institutional confessions and apologies and retractions and grovelings, we do not share a theory of repentance, accountability, or what the Church even is. I would rather be clear about that than keep moving the goalposts and calling it peacemaking.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Recorded teachings from past LDS leaders refer to it as doctrine and a direct commandment from God.  That's sufficient preservation. 

On 16 March 1862 in Dundee, while serving in the European Mission presidency, Amasa Lyman preached “Nature of the Mission of Jesus.” The Millennial Star printed it. The sermon treated Jesus as teacher and exemplar and denied that His death was a necessary, predetermined atonement. Man, being innately good, could redeem himself by stopping sin. That was a doctrinal claim, delivered by an apostle, in a Church publication.

By your reasoning, then, the Church is locked into this.  Forever.  It's etched in stone.  It cannot be denied or revoked or disavowed.

I don't think the Church is locked in.  

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Doctrine back then, but theory today.  That doctrine was of God or it was of man.

This explains why the LDS Church cannot issue a simple "We are sorry, we apologize" statement.

I don't understand your reasoning here.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I suspect The Family – Proclamation to the World "doctrine" will become a theory in the LDS Church some day.

I actually anticipate the opposite: I think the Proclamation will eventually be canonized.  I hope so, anyway.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

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

Erring in teachings sounds more appropriate as some people don't consider all teachings to be doctrines.

"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians that someone can present a different Jesus while still using Christian-sounding language.

Not sure how we went from the priesthood ban to "a different Jesus."

Thanks,

-Smac