July 4, 1978

President Spencer W. Kimball

Church Office Building

47 East South Temple

Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

Dear President Kimball:

One of my children has recently returned from a Church mission and three more have been preparing to go on missions. However, the recent announcement that the Priesthood can now be given to the Negroes has raised several questions in my mind. Before I can sustain or support my children on missions for the Church, I must have the following ten questions satisfactorily answered.

1. This announcement contradicts the statements of all previous presidencies of the Church. The word of the Lord should be consistent and unchangeable, “for God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said….” (D.& C. 3:2) . . .

2. Why was this revelation proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church before the members had an opportunity to vote on it? We are told by the Lord that “all things MUST be done in order, and by COMMON CONSENT in the Church, by the prayer of faith.” (D. & C. 28:13; see also D. & C. 26:2) This is a privilege and a duty of the members. The right of common consent in God’s Church prevents dictatorship so that unwanted decrees cannot be hoisted upon its members without their approval. Even the ancient church of God followed this procedure. Why has this new edict overturned the established order of procedure as outlined by the Lord? . . .

3. Why was the announcement of this revelation given to the public news media before it was published or printed in any of the Church publications, or before it was announced to the members of the Church? The haste and manner by which it was proclaimed to the world, rather than to the members, has the essence of satisfying public clamor rather than the needs of the Church. The revelations of the Lord have always been for the benefit of Church members, not to meet the demands of society or for gentile approbation. Was this announcement generated to satisfy Civil Rights groups and appease the wrath of those bringing lawsuits to you and the Church, rather than for some spiritual merits achieved by the Negroes, of which we are all unaware?

4. Within two days after this announcement, Negroes were being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Within two weeks of that announcement, Negroes were administering the sacrament, taking out their endowments, being sealed in mixed marriages in the Temple, and being called on missions! Why the extreme rush to put the Negro into these positions and appointments without proceeding through the same step by step gradations that have been required of the whites? Men should be advanced to the Priesthood according to their faithfulness and accomplishments in each of the offices of the Church to prove their worthiness for Priesthood advancement. Now the Negro is receiving preferential treatment, and Church procedure with the Negro is creating a discrimination against the white man.

5. Where is this revelation? If such a revelation is to be thrust upon four million members of the Church as official doctrine, they are entitled to read it. If it is a revelation, then it should be published, voted upon, and added to the standard works of the Church as scripture. If the Lord should reveal something to you, which is of a personal nature, then you have the right to keep it secret, and probably should. But when a revelation comes through the president of the Church for its members, then they are entitled to have it. . . .

In summary, then, your “revelation” (a) contradicts a former revelation, (b) it has not been voted upon by the members of the Church, and (c) it is not to be found in the Archives of the Church or in any of the Church publications. How then can we have any assurance that it came from God?

6. Calling the house of Cain to receive the rights of the Priesthood makes a distinct change in our Articles of Faith. Since we no longer apparently believe in “…the literal gathering of Israel” and the “…restoration of the ten tribes,” but now have included the “tribe” of Cain, I presume these articles will have to be re-written. The Lord declared that we “…are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect…” (D. & C. 29:7). What has brought about this change that the call is being made to the unelected? Is there a justification and reason for this reversal in the articles of our faith?

7. According to the word of the Lord, the descendants of Cain received a dark skin, which was a distinguishing feature of those who would be “…cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood,” and should not have the right of possessing the Priesthood. (Abraham 1:27) If those of that lineage are worthy to receive the Priesthood, why are they still cursed with a black skin? If God placed this mark upon that certain lineage for a particular reason, wouldn’t He remove that mark when it was time for them to obtain the rights of the Priesthood? He has removed that stigma before (2 Nephi 30:6), and He can do this again if He chooses to bestow Priesthood upon them.

The skin of blackness was a curse given to the Negro race because of their disappointing weakness in the pre-existence; therefore, they forfeited the right to obtain the Priesthood in mortality. If they are still being born black, they must still be of that class to whom the curse was given in the pre-existence. How can there be any justification for giving the Priesthood to anyone who still has the mark of a curse from their pre-mortal life?

8. Do members of the Church now have any justifiable grounds for segregation of the races? Before this announcement came, members had the right of religious convictions for not intermarrying and inter-mixing races, but now there are no apparent grounds to prevent intermarriage. Any mention of discrimination by natural selection, or right of preference, can now bring trouble and lawsuits by any blacks who wish to use the law for their own personal wishes. What right are members left to claim segregation of their own race?

9. How long, and how many times, has the presidency of the Church appealed to the Lord for a change on this issue? The very fact that the Lord has warned us not to “ask for that which you ought not” (D. & C. 8:10) because “if ye ask anything that is not expedient for you, it shall turn unto your condemnation” (D.& C. 88:65), should be remembered. When Joseph Smith continually pleaded to the Lord for permission to give the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript to Martin Harris, the Lord finally consented. The Lord finally gave him permission, not because it was right but because of Joseph’s persistence. I am wondering if such a situation has again occurred. . . .

10. Why have written revelations and spiritual gifts declined so much over the past 80 or 90 years? The last written revelation that carried a “Thus saith the Lord” was recorded in 1889 which stated in part:

Thus saith the Lord…Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men. . . . Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. . . .

All of this brings me to the sobering thought that this “revelation” which you claim may not be from the Lord! In fact, all of the evidence so far leads to this conclusion. If your “revelation” is not from God, or even if your “revelation” is premature, the consequences could be catastrophic! . . .

Because these Priesthood matters are of such vital importance, I have been prompted to write this letter. I would very much appreciate your interest and concern to such an extent that you would respond to these questions.

Sincerely,

Ogden Kraut

cc: Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve