In the early 1970s, BYU opened up a brand-new law school. I was surprised to learn that the American Bar Association considered not accrediting the university due to the racial ban in the Church. Dr. Matt Harris describes some of these little-known issues that new BYU president and lawyer Dallin Oaks dealt with this potentially fatal blow to the law school.
Matt: There is new law school popping up and the American Bar Association, they send a letter to Dallin H. Oaks, this brand-new president. He’s a young man. He’s just left his tenured position at the University of Chicago where he went to school and then subsequently joined their law faculty. BYU recruited him to replace Wilkinson. So in 1971, Dallin Oaks comes on board and Oaks receives this letter. “Oh my gosh, they’re not going to accredit us. They’re threatening to not accredit us because of the church’s policy towards blacks.”
GT: On the law school.
Matt: On the law school. They just got it up and running.
GT: So let me make sure. So, 68-69 we’re having these civil rights problems with the entire school in general.
Matt: Yes.
GT: We hire some black faculty. So that gets them off their back.
Matt: Yes.
GT: But now 1971 comes and the Bar Association is threatening to take away the accreditation.
Matt: Yes, and a year earlier, Nixon, the IRS with Bob Jones is out. This is all going on at the same time.
How much did these protests affect the apostles?
Matt: President Kimball said in 1975. Let me get this right. If I don’t lift the ban, my successor won’t do it, nor will my successor’s successor. Of course, he’s talking about Benson and Mark Petersen. So that was President Kimball, saying very clearly if I don’t do this, they won’t. Harold Lee was just intractable. He refused to lift the ban and Joseph Fielding Smith, too. It’s interesting how people evolve because Elder Kimball, I don’t want to give you the sense that he’s a racial progressive. One of the things that his son talks about is my father shared some of the same prejudicial views towards black people that other people of his generation did. Clearly, that’s easy to believe if you realize that we’re all products of our environment, right? But what’s unique about Kimball is not that he had prejudicial views, it’s how he evolved and that he saw that it was the right thing to do to further the advance of the church. That’s why I admire him so much is that he knew that there were obstacles. David O. McKay had the same obstacles, different personalities in the Twelve, but the same obstacles. I think I can make a strong argument that President McKay might have lifted the ban in the 1950s had it not been for some of the hardliners there. What’s different between President McKay and President Kimball, is that Kimball recognize that it was worth fighting for, it was worth going to bat for. I don’t want to say that McKay didn’t think it wasn’t worth it. But Kimball spent a lot of time nurturing relationships with the personalities that he had to work with the most, which is McConkie. I’m not sure about Petersen, how much of the one on one, but I do know with Elder McConkie, he spent extensive time with him working him through these issues. We talked about how McConkie gone to Brazil several times in the weeks and days leading up to the revelation. So when they went to the temple in June of 1978, it wasn’t like the manuals, say, “Oh, I just had a revelation one day.” No, this is something they knew they we’re going to change when they got there. I’m not trying to take away from their revelatory experience and the inspiration of it all. But there’s no doubt in my mind that President Kimball knew the ban was going to go that day and I’m quite certain that the others knew that it was going to go, too. It was just a matter of being unified and probably feeling that last-minute inspiration that they felt they needed to have.
What are your thoughts on Matt’s research on the ban?
What if you were taught to believe the revelation is the Lord’s will communicated to His prophet? That seems to fly in the face of actual experience in which “revelation” is the result of relationships, personalities, opinions, etc. I was referring to the piece above on President Kimball but it could also be applied to President Nelson.
President Lee’s grandson would disagree with Matt
http://thegoateskids.blogspot.com/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html
i’m inclined to believe what he has to say more so than what Matt has to say
Whizzbang, I read the link you posted and there is nothing that refutes anything Matt said.
So racism started to become unpopular after ww2, say 1950, some of the leaders start to think they will change policy 15 or 20 years later, and overcome the hard heads in the quorum in 1978.
I dont see blaming God for any of this.
We now have equality for women and gays, as issues where the world is ahead of the church leaders.
Is there anyone in the 15 who realises these have to change? Did anyone outside the 15 know about the working for change on racism? I would be encouraged to know there are some in the present 15 with a vision for the future of the church without sexism and homophobia.
How long will this take this time to bring the church into line with the gospel, let alone the world? It is sad that the world is closer to the gospel than the church leadership again.
In the days of the internet how long can we afford to wait, before we become totally morally irrelavent?
Geoff-Aus, Perhaps it is worth considering Apostle Orson Whitney’s comment: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people…” (Conference Report, April 1928, p.59). I wonder — including wondering how quickly the church can change as a group when many feel as you do and many, on a world-wide basis, feel otherwise about changes in what you (and I) call sexism or homophobia.
@Rick B. You don’t see a problem with what Matt said, “Harold Lee was just intractable. He refused to lift the ban and Joseph Fielding Smith, too” versus what his grand son wrote? “I have been asked by many people why Harold B. Lee was so “obstinate” in his opposition about extending those blessings. That’s a perception that is wholly inaccurate” he is saying that what Matt said is inaccurate, so I am inclined to believe what his grandson said. He further wrote “For President Lee and for President Kimball, it was not a matter of “if” — only “when” — the Lord would give His revelatory sanction to lift the ban. President Lee waited upon the Lord, believing the matter was out of his hands” meaning he would change if they got a revelation, but they didn’t and Matt is rewriting history now by saying that he wouldn’t change, but based on what we know by his grandson Matt’s perspective is not true and it’s his own bias but it’s not based on evidence
This is further on President Harold B. Lee, it comes from the Autobiography of Russell M. Nelson, pg 159-160
“Since the passing of President Lee, I have had two very special dreams involving him. The first was in April of 1975. The substance of that message is too sacred to mention here, but it was a very reassuring and humbling experience.
The second occurred on September 16, 1978. In the dream were two vivid messages: first, that if President Lee had gone on living, a very severe affliction would have developed in his body which, if allowed to progress, would have given him great pain, suffering, and incapacity. The medical details of this were dreadful and distressing. He said his sudden death in December 1973 was brought about as an act of love and mercy, for the Lord wished to spare him and the Church the misery that otherwise would have ensued. His second message was that the revelations received and the actions subsequently taken by President Kimball were the very same as would have been received and performed by President Lee had he remained as the prophet. President Lee exclaimed that the Lord gives His will to His living prophet regardless of who he prophet is at the time, for the Lord indeed is directing His Church.”
So, President Nelson and his Pres. Lee’s grandson would both say that Matt got it wrong, just plain and simple wrong
whizzbang, I believe I understand your argument. But it doesn’t address the possibility of changes over time in Harold B. Lee’s approach to the matter or SWK’s understanding of HBL’s approach. Further, some have experiential reasons to discount descendants’ and others’ hagiography and dreams, in addition to documentary reasons. I would hesitate to adopt either view whole-heartedly and, to the extent either implies a judgment with respect to HBL, it’s not my place anyway. Still, I wonder.
Matt has provided zero evidence for his belief and I don’t find that convincing, I am not going to just take his word on Harold B. Lee when people who knew him have said otherwise,it sounds like his grandson has been asked this for a long time and clearly says, is “inaccurate”-which means the Matt’s of the world are wrong, just wrong. He is wrong on Pres. Smith as well, when he dedicated the Phillipines in Aug. 1955 the Mission President (H. Grant Heaton) wrote in his autobiography,”President Smith in your prayer I heard you give the Priesthood to the black skinned people in the Phillipine Islands “, he turned to me and I could tell that he was irritated and very much upset and his response was “That is what the Lord required me to do” . As a result I made a note that stated, “I have today seen a prophet of God do two things, 1) to act against his will and 2) to answer an academic question, Dr. Anderson is correct, the Melanesian people are genetic mutations”
Herald Grant Heaton Personal History Vol. 2. MSS 16998. pg 25 All of this is publicly available and i’m surprised Matt didn’t find it or did and never addressed any of it, which is skewing history into basic lying
So, think what you or anyone else will but history in the side of both Presidents Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith
You’re right whizzbang. All those Kimball
and McKay diaries, letters from general authorities, correspondence with Jimmy Carter, the IRS, Lyndon Johnson, Ernest Wilkinson, etc are complete garbage. Nobody should trust actual documentation from mormon leaders. Is that what you’re really saying? Kimball and McKay’s diaries can’t be trusted?
I’m not sure why you’re having such an emotional reaction here. But good luck with your denying Matt’s work. He’s only put in a few thousand more hours studying this issue then you have but I’m sure you’re right. Clearly Matt can’t be trusted.
His book is scheduled to come out in 2021. But you keep listing testimonies here and avoid real documentation. Knock yourself out.
I mean, we’re all having an emotional reaction now, which seems unnecessary.
@Rick B-All of which Matt never cited in his interview with you and just the illusion to stuff doesn’t count. Rick B. you’re flat out wrong, just wrong, how obvious does it have to be? I go by evidence, if you or others won’t then fine by me, but you can’t say that Pres.Lee was not unyielding(Read his biography by his SIL, Goates “It’s only a matter of time” Goates, pg 506-which is exactley what his Grandson said) or Pres. Smith either (even in the KimbalL BYU studies article he talks about the Pres. Smith prophecy in the Phillipines), because he was not. I look forward to this book of his, see what he gets wrong. If Matt has it all figured out then why discuss it? what’s there say? It seems like you want people to become converted to this revisionist nonsense of his, why I have no idea, no idea.
Whizzbang, do you think the Kimball and McKay diaries are respectable sources? Do you think the Wilkinson memos from BYU are respectable sources?
Also did you actually listen to the entire interview, or just read the short snippets I wrote?
Here is one of Matt’s previous books on the race ban. Have you read it?
[I have] https://amzn.to/2MMdMW7
@Rick B.- the place something is said isn’t the issue but what is said, so what did kimball or McKay say in the diaries a and how does all that square with all the other evidence that I am hoping Matt has collected, and not just some evidence. I know he co authored a book before , but I haven’t read it. Has he read kimballs’ byu studies article with lots of sources and has he read the bio on Pres.Lee by Brent Goates, i’m curious as to why he’s getting this wrong. I have listened to the interview
@Rick B. We get that you’re a corporate shill for Matt and besides trying to hock a book ,what is the relevancy to today of all of this? Even Darius Gray said of Matt’s previous compilation, there’s nothing new here, except that you and Matt are like you claim that Presidents Smith and Lee are, unyielding to evidence that clearly show you’re flat out wrong.History isn’t on your side at all.
Whizzbang, From your remarks about President Lee I deduce that you are his descendant. Am I correct?
Sasso, What a nice way to suggest that Whizzbang may be a shill. I wonder.
“A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.” Wikipedia
Regardless, I appreciate his citations to views that differ from others’.
@Sasso-no, I am not a relative of President Lee, I don’t even live in the US.
@Sasso, no, I am not a relative of President Lee, I don’t even live in the US
Whizzbang, enough of the personal attacks. I will ban you if you do it again.
Suffice it to say, I respect Matt’s work. I once respected you, but after this series of rants and attacks, I no longer respect you.
There is no point in arguing which GA was the most racist. There was plenty of racism to go around. The Hotel Utah was segregated well into the DOM presidency. And if you read the DOM biography, you see all kinds of racist statements. FAIR has a letter written by a GA to George Romney (Mitt’s father) complaining about his participation in the Civil Rights movement. ETB felt the Civil Rights movement was a communist conspiracy. We were a racist church, we need to deal with it. There is plenty of guilt to go around. And we still haven’t cleaned up our racial issues.
Rogerdhansen and Rick B —I agree, Rogerdhansen, we need to address our mistakes from the past. We perpetuate the problems that led to those mistakes if we don’t address them fully, completely, and introspectively. Burying history only serves to perpetuate our missteps, even when they are the mistakes of beloved leaders. Rick B, I appreciate your tireless work in presenting these issues in a careful and deliberate manner. Rogerdhansen, I always appreciate your perspective, the measured way you present it, and the fact that you actively live your carefully considered belief system through your work with your NGO (I encourage blog readers to click the link to his blog—his posts are interesting and worth reading). We can appreciate the good work done by earlier church leaders while still recognizing the missteps they made. It’s not an all or nothing endeavor and I appreciate Rick B’s work toward this end. It’s not a small thing.
Roger and Matty, thanks for the kind words. They are very much appreciated!
In his book on McKay, Greg Prince describes the experience of McKay going to the Lord on more than one occasion about giving the priesthood to the blacks and ultimately being told by the Lord that it was not the right time and he was to stop asking the Lord about it. Thus, it would seem that, if we are looking at alleged statements and life experiences as the basis for the decision, the better view would be that his decision was as a result of instructions received from the Lord and not any view that he had about the intractability of the positions of any of the apostles.
As for Kimball, it seems difficult to argue successfully that his decision was made because he was concerned about the intractability of the positions of Benson and Petersen, since he knew that, in making his decision, he would have to convince Benson, Petersen and all of the other apostles that it was the right decision. And in fact they did all sign on with Kimball’s decision which makes one wonder how intractable those views, if actually held, were if he was able to convince them to come on board.
I don’t think anyone has argued or will argue that SWK’s quip about his likely successors’ actions was the reason for his decision. The more interesting story is how he persuaded certain of the Q12 to be open to the possibility and how he and the Spirit persuaded them to accept the revelation.
It would not be surprising if the brief interview reference to Harold B. Lee’s “intractability” were a reference to Hugh B Brown’s story of his having persuaded those of the 12 other than HBL who was absent to make the change as a policy decision, which effort was overruled by HBL on his return. As I understand it, HBB was convinced the black/priesthood & temple ban had no doctrinal basis and could be changed as a matter of policy, while HBL was convinced it had a doctrinal basis and could only be changed by revelation. From HBB’s viewpoint and on his understanding of the matter, then HBL was “intractable” at that time. See “An Abundant Life: the Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown” ed. Edwin Firmage, his grandson. For a summary of that story see this 1988 LA Times article: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-03-me-923-story.html There is a review of the book here: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=byusq and here: https://byustudies.byu.edu › file › download. See also D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1994).
I wonder if expecting more precision and documentation in a chatty interview isn’t just a bit silly. It might be better to ask Matt Harris what he meant or to read his book for footnotes when it becomes available. From my brief acquaintance with him, it seems hardly likely that he is unfamiliar with the Goates/Lee family version of events. I don’t think I’ll bother Matt with it since I have no interest in whether HBL was at any point as intractable or obstinate as some here seem to intractably insist he was or wasn’t .
Rick, It might be worth fishing my earlier comment of today out of moderation.
I totally agree with everything you said wondering. In my previous interview with Matt, he discussed several instances where Lee changed Brown’s decision, including the near ordination of Monroe Fleming, a worker at the Hotel Utah that McKay was well acquainted with. Lee not only stopped the ordination, but forced the q12 to sign the 1969 statement on blacks. Brown signed with tears in his eyes. See https://gospeltangents.com/2018/05/almost-famous-1969-black-ordination-nixed-by-lee/
“The more interesting story is how he persuaded certain of the Q12 to be open to the possibility and how he and the Spirit persuaded them to accept the revelation.”
Given what we know about the difficulty generally of changing the views of racist people, it would seem that the starting point would be that the leaders were not nearly as racist as some commenting here have portrayed them to be,
Sorry Ojiisan, many were racist. The priesthood/temple ban was racist. Hotel Utah was segregated. Why did it take until 1978 to eliminate the ban? There were few if any blacks at BYU prior to 1978. The Church was racist, and still is to a certain extent. We need to deal with it. Instead we keep dealing with largely minor procedural changes. And some members keep throwing God under the bus. God had nothing to do with the Church’s institution racism. The sooner we deal with that reality, the better off we will be.
The GAs were pragmatists. They understood the Church was growing in Ghana and in other areas of Africa. It was almost impossible in Brazil to tell who had black blood. The ban was becoming increasing untenable. Prez. Kimball was enough of politician to reverse the ban. But he didn’t entirely fix the problem.
If you accept McKay’s experience as described by Prince then you have to accept that God was aware of the situation and wasn’t inclined to take any steps at that point in time even though McKay was prepared to do so if so instructed.
And the idea that all of a sudden in 1978 they all became pragmatists and decided to abandon their racist views is interesting but difficult to accept when the clear evidence throughout the world is that people with racist views are loath to change those views even when it is pragmatic or practical to do so. The argument that they believed it was a policy implemented by God until Kimball was able to confirm to them that he had received a revelation from God changing that position is a much more supportable position.
Ojisan
That wasn’t my take at all when I read Prince’s book.
Oj, being a racist (or at least prejudice) and being a pragmatist are not mutually exclusive. Just because they agreed to lifting the ban, doesn’t mean that they didn’t continue to harbor some concerns about blacks.
It’s been a while since I read Prince’s biography of DOM. But I remember being surprised at how many racist discussions were held among the GAs. I agree with HBB. The ban and its continuation until 1978 had nothing to do with God. It had everything to due with human foibles. I’m not willing to throw God under the bus.
Thank goodness that Prez Kimball was farsighted and was a good politician.
I have enjoyed the original opinion post by Rick B and the comments that have followed.
I have my own theory about why SWK was the Church President who felt inspired to lift the priesthood ban. I have not read anything supporting my theory, but hopefully it will receive some consideration.
SWK was by all accounts a humble and down-to-earth man. Unlike HBL, he was not a Type A leader. and did not feel the need to crush people who held different views than his own. He seems to have been conservative in outlook and temperament, but capable of open mindedness, and not rigid. And his General Conference addresses in the 1950s against church-wide prejudices against Native Americans showed a willingness to break the conventional mold. We can look back in 2020 at the views he held on various subjects, and say with a fair degree of confidence that some of those views were informed by the prejudices common to his time (I particularly think of “The Miracle of Forgiveness”). But one of my favorite stories about SWK is how, when he was an Apostle, he marched into a bar in the then-sketchy neighborhoods around 2nd South, to drag out a man that he was working with, as the man struggled with alcoholism. SWK was worried that people would recognize him and that tongues would wag (an Apostle going into a bar!) but he didn’t let that stop him.
Bottom line: SWK had an approachable personality. Many of the Lord’s servants do not. HBL did not, neither MEP nor BRM. (Let’s not go into who among the current Q15 are approachable types, and who are not. With some of them I would be willing to talk about any number of sensitive subjects; there are others with whom it would be dangerous to venture an opinion about even the weather).
So it is my home-spun theory that SWK received the revelation about ending the Priesthood ban was because he was humble enough to listen. And perhaps that is why HBL, a relatively young and vigorous Church President. had such a brief tenure? I would not assert that with any degree of confidence, but the thought has crossed my mind.
Thoughts?
After listening to Rick Bennett and Matt Harris on T.V. and after reading the comments above and being exposed to the black issue for many years, both pro and con, how can anyone seriously conclude that the ban removal is a divine revelation when so many so-called prophets have predetermined its eventual outcome years and years before 1978? With all the unseemly politicking, rancor and division the ban removal has caused among church leaders, this conundrum makes a joke out of their talk of unity, let alone of their qualification for revelation. But according to Hugh B. Brown debate is revelation.
What is really is disturbing to me is how the brethren have gas-lighted the members by camouflaging the Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood with doublespeak. The progressive members are appeased because they believe the ban was a man-made policy while at the same time the orthodox members are appeased because they are lead to believe the ban was a divine revelation now lifted by a new revelation. How can the duplicitous church leaders claim to be prophets, seers and revelators by tricking the members?