On June 1, the LDS Church is hosting a celebration of the 40th anniversary of Pres. Kimball revelation lifting the ban. But it could have been a decade sooner under President McKay. In our conversation with Dr. Matt Harris, he will describe several of Brown’s attempts to persuade McKay to lift the ban as early as 1962, and almost succeeded in 1969!
Matt: Hugh B. Brown was front and center in church leadership trying to get the brethren to overturn the ban. He is working behind the scenes. He is doing the best that he can, but it is very, very challenging for him. In 1962 he will have a private meeting with Lowell Bennion, whom we have already talked about who didn’t support the ban and told President McKay in private. So, it was no secret that President McKay knew where Brother Bennion stood. Anyway, in March of 1962, Hugh B. Brown tells Lowell Bennion, “We’re going to lift the ban here next month. Make sure you come to [General] Conference.”[1]
GT: ’62?!
Matt: This is March of ’62.
GT: Wow.
Matt: “Come to Conference next month. We’re going to lift the ban.”
The prediction of course is in April of ’62, we’re going to have this big announcement at General Conference. “We have been studying this issue, and there is nothing more difficult for the church,” Brown tells Bennion, “than this issue, and we’re going to fix it.”
So, I can only imagine Bennion showing up and nothing happens!
We will also talk about the motivation behind the 1949 First Presidency statement, and apostle Hugh B. Brown’s attempts to rescind the ban.
Matt: Recognizing that Lowry Nelson had spent time in Cuba as part of his profession, his field research, he decided to reach out to Nelson and ask him about Cuba and the racial population there because Nelson had lived there for a while. Lowry Nelson wrote back and just said, “I don’t think you can determine who has got negroid blood, and you shouldn’t even try! That’s just immoral!”
Nelson said something that is probably less than candid. He said, “That was the first time I knew that the church felt this way about this.”
Come on Lowry. You grew up in the church. So, Lowry Nelson writes the First Presidency after he exchanged correspondence with his good friend Heber Meeks. He said, “Is it true that you are trying to establish a mission in Cuba, and just focus on the white population there and not the colored, the brown population? Is that true?”
The First Presidency wrote him back a series of letters. They said, “Yes that is true, and we don’t understand why God wants this ban, but this is the way it is. Who are you to determine what God should do?”
Nelson was really upset with the response, thinking that it was just a policy that could be changed. But the brethren dug their heels in and sort of exacerbated the problem. When they wrote back to Lowry Nelson, it was the first time where the First Presidency goes on record, and they sign the letter. It is interesting. They all sign these letters back and forth, all three of them: George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay. Clearly, they are trying to make a statement about the church’s racial teachings, at least by the mid-20th century.
What is interesting is he shares these letters on the underground with people. He sends them to Juanita Brooks.[2] He sends them to George Boyd who is the Institute person. He sends them to all of these Institute people that he felt like he had a liberal kinship with, and they write him back. ”Oh my goodness. I didn’t know the brethren felt this way, that they felt this strongly about it.”
We’ll also talk about Michigan and Mormon Governor George Romney’s run for the U.S. presidency. You might recognize his famous son Mitt Romney did the same just a few years ago. George Romney’s cousin was also an LDS Apostle, and the 1960s had a lot of factions for and against the ban on blacks from temple and priesthood.
Matt: I think nationally this racial story gets really highlighted when George Romney decides to run for president. This is really interesting. He is the governor of a state that has a heavy African-American population.
Now think about that for a moment. Your church doesn’t grant priesthood rights to black people, and you are running in a campaign for governor, and you are having to convince people that you are not a racist or that somehow if you are elected you won’t listen to their needs and create public policy that will benefit their lives.
When George Romney is governor, when it is known that he is considering a run for the presidency, it is pretty interesting because a lot of the news media are writing about the LDS Church priesthood ban, and that Governor Romney may be a racist because his church is racist. It’s pretty tough stuff, and George Romney will say something interesting. He will say, “If you want to know my views on race, look at my record when I was the governor. Look at what I did with civil rights.”
So, he cleverly sidesteps his church’s racial teachings and puts the spotlight on him, which is truthfully probably what he probably should have done and what he did. But nonetheless the media will continue to hammer this issue. Spencer W. Kimball in particular, he writes letters to various people. He writes in his journal, and he says, “The media is just killing us with George Romney. Is that all they ever want to talk about is the negro issue?”
Even though rebuffed, Brown didn’t stop trying. He made one final attempt in 1969 and almost succeeded. However, the attempt was nixed by Harold B. Lee. Dr. Matt Harris will give us more information on this, and I think you will hear some really amazing stuff in this next episode.
Matt: Anyway, the McKay sons and Brown, when Taggart’s thesis comes out, they will use Taggart’s research and say, “Look. This is just a policy. This is a policy, it is not a doctrine. So, if it is just a policy, President McKay, then we can overturn this.” President McKay agrees to ordain a black man named Monroe Fleming, a loyal member at the Hotel Utah. This is in September of 1969.
GT: Wow.
Matt: Yes, yes. So, he agrees to ordain Monroe Fleming to the priesthood. It is interesting, the document that I have that talks about this. It just says Monroe Fleming. It doesn’t say all persons of African ancestry. But you can only imagine that if you allow Monroe Fleming the priesthood, based upon his worthiness of course, then that means that other worthy black members of the church can now hold the priesthood. That’s how I interpret that.
…
Harold B. Lee thought black ordination was improper and supported segregation.
[McKay] agrees to do it, and when Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith, mostly Harold B. Lee, because Joseph Fielding Smith is now in his 90s, and his health is getting the best of him. But when Harold B. Lee finds out about it, he puts an end to it and says, “This is not something that we can do, and if we do it, it has to have buy-in from the Quorum of the Twelve, the full quorum.”
So, President McKay, and I’m going to paraphrase, he says, “I’m too old to fight him. I’m not going to do it. We will let President Lee worry about this problem.” That’s what he says, this “problem.”
We will also talk briefly about some of the BYU protests where other teams were protesting the church’s stance with blacks and the priesthood and temple ban.
Matt: President Brown wants to lift the ban to get the athletic protests off their back. In November of ’69 he tells Kenneth Pitzer the Stanford President. He calls him up. He said, “This is Hugh Brown of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I just want you to know, we are going to lift the ban.”
GT: He calls the Stanford University president.
Matt: Yes, he calls the Stanford president and tells him we are going to lift the ban, and even writes him a letter.
GT: The reason why is because Stanford had just cancelled some sort of a series.
Matt: Correct.
GT: Was it football or basketball? Do you remember?
Matt: Basketball, I think it was basketball. It was that fall, they cancelled their contract with BYU basketball.
I can’t wait for Matt’s book to come out to learn even more about his groundbreaking research. What are your thoughts on Brown? What are your thoughts on the ban as we approach what could have been the 50th, rather than 40th anniversary?
These historical insights are interesting. I’m glad this matter is behind us, and race is no longer a factor in matters of priesthood. “God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
JI, I am glad you liked the presentation, but continually asserting the “matter is behind us,” doesn’t make it so. The hoax apology shows us that your repeated assertion is simply not true. May we look at the past so it doesn’t get repeated, learn to be kinder to each other, and fight injustices against immigrants and people of all races and ethnic backgrounds.
But the matter of race and priesthood is wholly behind us.
The hoax apology shows us that your repeated assertion is simply not true.
I think it is very clear, both as a matter of policy as well as a matter of practice, that the priesthood is available to all men without regard to race. I’m glad for that.
I think it is very clear, both as a matter of policy as well as a matter of practice, that there is still racism in the church. I’m sad for that.
Wherever racism exists, I’m sad, too.
I’m ashamed to be associated with a church that held such racist views, and don’t feel celebratory at being reminded of that fact. As far as I’m concerned we’d be better off getting on with enacting a truly integrated church. I’m wondering how it feels for my black sisters and brothers to be reminded that it was not always like this. Certainly can’t be helping our young people who haven’t necessarily been aware of this, or the crazy doctrine associated with the ban. Our poor seminary and institute teachers and parents of students could live without this I’m sure.
Handlewithcare, I understand that at least other Christian churches in the US and UK held such racist views in the 19th century and well into the 20th. I’ve read that most, not having a “lay priesthood” but requiring study in a seminary (not the Mormon-speak meaning of that word), accomplished preventing blacks from attaining “priesthood” by the simple expedient of not allowing their admission to seminaries. Maybe a historian can confirm. Supposedly that led to the formation of black churches (Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) with their own seminaries. Such churches were quite independent of their white counterparts. None of that is a good excuse for how long such racism persisted in the LDS church, but LDS ideas of priesthood hierarchy, ordination, revelation, “doctrine” and historical continuity made it much more difficult to make a change and effectively precluded the formation of a black LDS church that could claim authority in the same way US black Christian churches did.
I am appalled at the thought of a “celebration” of the 1978 revelation just because it functions as a reminder to me — not of the general racism of Anglo-American Christianity — but of how long it took the LDS church to get to that point. I’d feel better about it if someone could tell me it was initiated by black Mormons and not by the church hierarchy. I’ll be pleased only if it includes a no-holds-barred apology on behalf of the church. I rate the likelihood of that at zero %.
I am not ashamed to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I joined after the 1978 revelation, so I don’t feel “tainted” by the earlier ways. Even so, I choose to look on earlier Saints as charitably as possible, and am grateful for all the good they did. If there was culpable error, I’m content to leave that in God’s hands. If there are lingering pockets of racism in the Church, well, those Saints will die off as time passes and the rising generation takes their place. Indeed, “God works in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
“I am appalled at the thought of a “celebration” of the 1978 revelation just because it functions as a reminder to me — not of the general racism of Anglo-American Christianity — but of how long it took the LDS church to get to that point. I’d feel better about it if someone could tell me it was initiated by black Mormons and not by the church hierarchy. I’ll be pleased only if it includes a no-holds-barred apology on behalf of the church. I rate the likelihood of that at zero %.” JR, I’m appalled also. I just don’t understand. Although I’m excited to hear Gladys Knight.
Do we suppose there are members of the 15, and others respected by them, working to resolve the present discrimination, against women and non hetrosexuals?
Wouldn’t it be good to know?
I was on the other side of the world in the time discussed above, was it known the Hugh B was doing this in Utah at the time. Hugh B was a Canadian, pesky progressive foreigner.
Of course it is complete speculation, but Dieter Uchtdorf got booted from the FP, just like Brown. Christofferson has a gay brother, so of course they trotted him out to defend the PoX, right after that kerfuffle. It certainly makes you wonder, but it may take 30 years to know for sure.
Wowsers, I’d like to see the citation for the last quote in the OP (calling the president of Stanford). I’m not questioning it necessarily, but I’d like to see the provenance of the quote.
Bro Jones, You’ll have to wait for the book (tentatively 2019)!
I know I’m way late to this conversation, but Sterling McMurrin’s account of the 1963 “declaration” by Hugh B. Brown is somewhat different than Dr. Harris’. Dr. Harris made it sound like Pres. Brown’s announcement was to prevent a demonstration, whereas Sterling McMurrin claims he’d encouraged the NAACP (he was a member) to meet with the church before holding the demonstration to ask for assistance rather than simply protesting. He arranged a meeting between Pres. Tanner and Pres. Brown and the NAACP, but the NAACP did not threaten the church with the demonstration, merely asked for the church’s support for the civil rights legislation. Subsequently, he stated that he, Sterling McMurrin, was the one who proposed they wait to protest until after the Sunday morning conference session, in case the church made an announcement to their liking.
Wheat & Tares 
These historical insights are interesting. I’m glad this matter is behind us, and race is no longer a factor in matters of priesthood. “God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
JI, I am glad you liked the presentation, but continually asserting the “matter is behind us,” doesn’t make it so. The hoax apology shows us that your repeated assertion is simply not true. May we look at the past so it doesn’t get repeated, learn to be kinder to each other, and fight injustices against immigrants and people of all races and ethnic backgrounds.
But the matter of race and priesthood is wholly behind us.
The hoax apology shows us that your repeated assertion is simply not true.
I think it is very clear, both as a matter of policy as well as a matter of practice, that the priesthood is available to all men without regard to race. I’m glad for that.
I think it is very clear, both as a matter of policy as well as a matter of practice, that there is still racism in the church. I’m sad for that.
Wherever racism exists, I’m sad, too.
I’m ashamed to be associated with a church that held such racist views, and don’t feel celebratory at being reminded of that fact. As far as I’m concerned we’d be better off getting on with enacting a truly integrated church. I’m wondering how it feels for my black sisters and brothers to be reminded that it was not always like this. Certainly can’t be helping our young people who haven’t necessarily been aware of this, or the crazy doctrine associated with the ban. Our poor seminary and institute teachers and parents of students could live without this I’m sure.
Handlewithcare, I understand that at least other Christian churches in the US and UK held such racist views in the 19th century and well into the 20th. I’ve read that most, not having a “lay priesthood” but requiring study in a seminary (not the Mormon-speak meaning of that word), accomplished preventing blacks from attaining “priesthood” by the simple expedient of not allowing their admission to seminaries. Maybe a historian can confirm. Supposedly that led to the formation of black churches (Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) with their own seminaries. Such churches were quite independent of their white counterparts. None of that is a good excuse for how long such racism persisted in the LDS church, but LDS ideas of priesthood hierarchy, ordination, revelation, “doctrine” and historical continuity made it much more difficult to make a change and effectively precluded the formation of a black LDS church that could claim authority in the same way US black Christian churches did.
I am appalled at the thought of a “celebration” of the 1978 revelation just because it functions as a reminder to me — not of the general racism of Anglo-American Christianity — but of how long it took the LDS church to get to that point. I’d feel better about it if someone could tell me it was initiated by black Mormons and not by the church hierarchy. I’ll be pleased only if it includes a no-holds-barred apology on behalf of the church. I rate the likelihood of that at zero %.
I am not ashamed to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I joined after the 1978 revelation, so I don’t feel “tainted” by the earlier ways. Even so, I choose to look on earlier Saints as charitably as possible, and am grateful for all the good they did. If there was culpable error, I’m content to leave that in God’s hands. If there are lingering pockets of racism in the Church, well, those Saints will die off as time passes and the rising generation takes their place. Indeed, “God works in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
“I am appalled at the thought of a “celebration” of the 1978 revelation just because it functions as a reminder to me — not of the general racism of Anglo-American Christianity — but of how long it took the LDS church to get to that point. I’d feel better about it if someone could tell me it was initiated by black Mormons and not by the church hierarchy. I’ll be pleased only if it includes a no-holds-barred apology on behalf of the church. I rate the likelihood of that at zero %.” JR, I’m appalled also. I just don’t understand. Although I’m excited to hear Gladys Knight.
Do we suppose there are members of the 15, and others respected by them, working to resolve the present discrimination, against women and non hetrosexuals?
Wouldn’t it be good to know?
I was on the other side of the world in the time discussed above, was it known the Hugh B was doing this in Utah at the time. Hugh B was a Canadian, pesky progressive foreigner.
Of course it is complete speculation, but Dieter Uchtdorf got booted from the FP, just like Brown. Christofferson has a gay brother, so of course they trotted him out to defend the PoX, right after that kerfuffle. It certainly makes you wonder, but it may take 30 years to know for sure.
Wowsers, I’d like to see the citation for the last quote in the OP (calling the president of Stanford). I’m not questioning it necessarily, but I’d like to see the provenance of the quote.
Bro Jones, You’ll have to wait for the book (tentatively 2019)!
I know I’m way late to this conversation, but Sterling McMurrin’s account of the 1963 “declaration” by Hugh B. Brown is somewhat different than Dr. Harris’. Dr. Harris made it sound like Pres. Brown’s announcement was to prevent a demonstration, whereas Sterling McMurrin claims he’d encouraged the NAACP (he was a member) to meet with the church before holding the demonstration to ask for assistance rather than simply protesting. He arranged a meeting between Pres. Tanner and Pres. Brown and the NAACP, but the NAACP did not threaten the church with the demonstration, merely asked for the church’s support for the civil rights legislation. Subsequently, he stated that he, Sterling McMurrin, was the one who proposed they wait to protest until after the Sunday morning conference session, in case the church made an announcement to their liking.
Click to access Dialogue_V12N02_62.pdf