Question: Did the Church refute the "neutral in the pre-existence" teaching only to preserve their public image?

Table of Contents

Question: Did the Church refute the "neutral in the pre-existence" teaching only to preserve their public image?

This claim is utter nonsense and simply represents the opinion of yet another one of MormonThink's numerous "anonymous sources"

The critical website MormonThink quotes one of its many anonymous sources:

One apologist (a personal good friend of mine) told me in confidence that he personally thought that blacks were 'fence-sitters' in the pre-existence and were indeed cursed from Cain and that the prophets were correct about the doctrine and the reasons for it. They don't talk about it for the obvious public image problems that it would cause for the church in modern times. Perhaps that's true - we'll never really know. But this is further evidence that the church needs to make a more official statement on the reasons for the ban.

The critics are simply trying to assert, based upon anonymous speculation, that Church members still believe this secretly. It does not matter whether they are quoting an "apologist" or a "critic." Unsupported speculation is simply rumor. However, there does exist a very clear a statement that it has been rejected by the Church.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. ("Race and the Priesthood," Gospel Topics on LDS.org off-site)

The only people demanding a statement of reasons for a ban which was lifted over 30 years ago are ex-Mormons and critics.

What some unnamed "apologist" is alleged to have said is not "further evidence" of anything. ("a personal good friend of mine" is not a reference). It is evidence of precisely nothing. The only thing that can be concluded is that some Church members used to believe in the "neutral in the pre-existence" idea as an explanation for the ban. The modern Church does not accept or believe that this explanation is valid.

None of the apologists that we know believe this.

Notes