It seems, to my genuine surprise, that they are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the policy is divinely instituted, and intimated strongly that this had been made manifest to President Lee. [While Packer strongly implied this conclusion, he used a double negative to make this point, which I thought odd. I asked if he considered it possible that continuation of the policy of priesthood denial was the Lord's will, even without it having originally been a revealed or inspired practice. He hesitated, unexpectedly, but eventually said that for him this was not a possibility. I also asked—more than once, what he thought about the inspiration of the intertwined teachings linking blacks to Cain, Ham, Canaan, etc. He always dismissed this—again, often with a wave of the hand, as though these links were without merit but without actually saying this explicitly. But then, toward the very end of our discussions he followed up some point by saying that there just was something about "that lineage"—referring to the traditional biblical genealogy—which would bar interracial temple marriages with blacks even after they received the priesthood.]

I expressed hope that [the modern confirmation to President Lee] would be made known to the membership of the Church, [but this suggestion] was more or less sidetracked with references to looking for a sign. [And I said that] at the least I thought that the historians could be asked about First Presidency statements that purported to give historical facts, which gave the impression that conclusions were being drawn from history that might (and did) prove inaccurate [to which there was no response].