The second is that while the teachings of Joseph Smith himself were referenced, no mention is made of the Book of Mormon: The lesson might have been enhanced with quote from Nephi about all being like unto God.

The Book of Mormon also has something to say about how a not even a divine curse justifies racism, and the authors omitted it.

This brings to mind the later comments from Ezra Taft Benson about how we (the church, collectively) had taken the Book of Mormon too lightly. As I recall, Marion G. Romney was hinting at the same kinds of things even earlier. How much further ahead of the curve might Church teachings have been?

The lesson only lightly touches the condition of blacks in the US, and doesn’t mention the apparent disconnect with African blacks not being able to recieve the priesthood at all. I wonder if this might be because the writers didn’t think of it (since it wasn’t a major public issue, then) or because this disconnect was already something of a sensitive topic for thoughtful Mormon students of the scriptures.

Thank you again for reading and commenting.

[Fixed, Ray -- but I'm leaving this one up because, hey, what are kids for if not to serve as convenient scapegoats? -- AEP]

Most of the early Christians were Jews and they brought with them into the new religious group the race prejudices of their own people.

Change “Christians” to “Mormons” and “Jews” to “Protestants” and “race prejudices” to “incorrect traditions of their fathers, including race prejudices” and you have a perfect description of one of the central issues of the Restoration – and why I think Jacob 5 and the on-going pruning is important to understand.

I don’t have much time right now, but I really appreciate this post. I might borrow blatantly from it for my own blog, but I will link to your full post if I do so.

My perception is that, historically, within the Church, those who took the race/lineage equality position were perceived as more “liberal” and those who took the race/lineage distinctness approach as more “conservative.”

I defer to Ardis on this, but I also have a perception that during this time period some of the general authorities considered that the Church education system had become much too liberal. My recollection is that J. Reuben Clark, Harold B. Lee and Boyd K. Packer worked very hard to make that Church education more conservative, and I think they were successful.

I wonder if this lesson is evidence of the “liberalism”, if not of Church education employees during the 1930s, but at least of manual writers.

[David, your comment was caught in the spam filter, I don't know why. Sorry for the delay in posting. - AEP]

Justin, my whiskers twitched at the same places. Whoever the unknown writer is (and I think it must have been an individual rather than a committee, although the Board undoubtedly passed it), he is deliberately stepping outside the traditional Mormon literalist interpretation to make his point about the relation of religion and race relations. I can’t tell whether he is saying that relationship had illegitimate origins or not; he is only explicit in citing the religious ideas as origins, isn’t he?