Newell G. Bringhurst

“their black skin. Further affirming such concepts of black inferiority was a steady stream of authoritative statements by LDS leaders and spokesmen brought forth from the 1830s to the early 1970s.3 Such controversial assertions notwithstanding, major aspects of this thesis has since been incorporated, all or in part, by subsequent scholars in their own studies of Mormonism and race.4 ******************”
― Newell Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism, 2nd ed.

“The dissertation concluded with an epilogue pessimistically predicting that the ban would continue into the indefinite future, citing several factors. Crucial was the canonical status accorded Joseph Smith’s scriptural writings representing “the core of basic Latter-day Saint theology.” From the late nineteenth century on, Church leaders utilized the Pearl of Great Price as essential proof text affirming blacks as the literal descendants of Ham—the accursed son of Noah who had been “cursed as pertaining to the priesthood.” Also discouraging the ban’s removal was that it affected “only a few” individuals—given the stark fact that a mere handful of African-Americans had cast their lot with the LDS Church. A final factor was the potential for backlash against activists calling for change—this coming from Mormon leaders and rank-and-file members. Such was reflected in a 1972 poll which found that 70% of Utah-based Mormons opposed lifting the ban.”
― Newell Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People Within Mormonism, 2nd ed.