110 years ago today - Feb 11, 1908

[First Presidency to David H. Cannon letter]
... you stated that there was a certain person working in the [St. George, Utah] temple whose sister was married to a man said to have had negro blood in him, and because of this suspicion you decided that her children (who are dead) could not be sealed to their mother and the man she was to be sealed to. But as the friends of the deceased woman did not feel altogether satisfied with your decision, and that injustice might not be done to the deed, you referred the question to us for our consideration. But in your letter of the 3rd inst., you refer to these children as possessing, without question, a taint of negro blood, and to the oldest as a negro. In the first place we felt to give the children the benefit of the doubt which your letter carried; and in the second place, even if the blood of the children were tainted, and the sealing ordinance performed in their behalf, they could not become heirs of the priesthood without ordination; and we took it for granted that the authority behind the veil is beyond question competent to judge in all questionable cases, and that ordination will not be bestowed on any not entitled to it. Having expressed our views in regard to this matter, we leave it now entirely with you to perform the sealing or otherwise as you may elect, in the understanding of course that, if you decide to withhold the sealing ordinance from the children, it must be done on your own responsibility. But, should you conclude to perform the sealing ordinance in their behalf, it will not be necessary to endow the oldest child, he, according to your last letter, having reached the age of twenty-one at his death.

[Source: First Presidency, Letter to David H. Cannon, as quoted in Minutes of the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1835-1951, Electronic Edition, 2015]