McMurrin then described that part of his March 1954 conversation with McKay in which the church leader had stated his own belief that the priesthood ban was policy, not doctrine, and therefore susceptible to change. McMurrin added: "I am able to report your father's words with near accuracy because they were strongly impressed upon my memory and because within a few hours after our meeting I made a detailed recording of the entire discussion."

In about 1980, McMurrin dictated a reminiscent analysis of his underlying reason for writing the letter: "I was a little afraid that President McKay might die without coming out with a statement such as he had given me, that this divine curse business was not a doctrine of the Church, and that there is no doctrine whatsoever respecting the Negroes, as he put it, and that the practice of withholding the priesthood would be changed. . . . I was interested in making at least some kind of a written statement about this statement of President McKay's."

Llewelyn, fascinated by the new information, read the letter to his father and then reported the visit to McMurrin, who made it part of his dictated reminiscence:

[Llewelyn] said, "Father was very lucid, very interested and very much aware. He was in good shape." Apparently, from what Llewelyn has said, President McKay [ninety-five years old] was somewhat disoriented on some days, but on other days and at other times, he was in very good mental shape, and he assured me that that was the case on this occasion. He said, "I read the letter to him, and when I got through, he said, 'That is exactly what happened, and that is exactly what I said.'"

Llewelyn's brother, Edward, echoed his statement when he wrote a letter responding to McMurrin's letter: "In my discussions with father, I have gathered the same impression as you. He is much more liberal on this subject than many of the brethren."