I was extremely pleased to have Dr Matt Harris on the podcast to discuss his best-selling book on Mormon history and theology. Matt’s book “Second Class Saints” sold out its first print run and will have a second printing soon. Matt shares his experience of switching from early American history to Mormon history, citing practical advantages such as access to sources. He noted the ease of accessing Mormon archives in Utah, including the Church History Library and University of Utah, and notes the abundance of sources available.
Follow up on Ezra Taft Benson
Ezra Taft Benson was quite conservative with regards to civil rights. Matt discussed his previous 2 books on Ezra Taft Benson, including “Thunder from the Right” and “Watchmen on the Tower.” Matt shared his insights on Benson’s political views and their influence on the church, including the priesthood ban and race. It was interesting to learn that President Lyndon Johnson was a good friend to David O McKay, despite McKay’s conservative views. Ironically, Utah greatly supported Johnson’s Great Society program. Utahns supported both Lyndon Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, despite church leaders’ counsel against supporting these “liberal” presidents.
Elder Benson’s Political Views/Policies as Agriculture Sec under Eisenhower
Matt discusses the shift in Latter-day Saint political views, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Gordon Hinckley’s sermon in the mid-1980s allowed students to accept government assistance as students as BYU and other universities. Benson has previously given a 1977 devotional address at BYU, where he advised students to drop out of school before accepting government assistance. This highlights the tension between the church’s teachings and the reality of government aid for young families. Elder Benson’s political views were seen as radical by many in the LDS Church, causing tension in the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency. As Agriculture Secretary under Eisenhower, Benson’s policies were recommended by Senators Arthur Watkins and Robert Taft to President Eisenhower.
Early black priesthood holders in the LDS Church, including Elijah Abel.
Matt referred to a few 19th century black men that held priesthood, including Elijah Abel, Joseph Ball, and Walker Lewis. In 1954, J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency wanted to acknowledge the existence of black priesthood holders, but President McKay nixed the talk due to concerns about race ban and civil rights.
Brigham Young’s views on race and interracial marriage.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young acknowledged black priesthood holders. Matt noted that Joseph Ball had black ancestry and was the branch president near Boston. Rick noted that Paul Reeve argues that Joseph Ball may have passed as white, making it unclear to leaders his racial status. Paul notes that Ball was listed on census as white.
Following Warner McCary and Enoch Lewis marrying white women, Brigham Young decided to ban blacks from priesthood and temple ordinances to prevent marriages between black men and white women after learning of such unions. Joseph Smith and others in the church believed that interracial marriage between white and black people was wrong. Young even said people engaged in such unions should be killed.
Mormon Doctrine Regarding race and Skin Color
Matt explains the Latter Day Saints in the 19th century believed that all humans were white before sinning and getting cursed with dark skin. He notes that this curse is offensive to our modern sensibilities but was seen as legitimate at the time. In a 1944, the First Presidency wrote a letter stating that the color of “negroes” (as they were called then) in the hereafter is unknown. Joseph Fielding Smith and Mark Peterson, two apostles, discussed the possibility of Negroes losing their skin color in the resurrection or mortality. Skin color was seen as racial fluidity into the 1970s, despite the Church not teaching it currently. Even President Kimball believed that Native Americans could become “white & delightsome.” Elder Kimball taught in 1960 that Lamanites (Native Americans) could lighten their skin color through gospel nurturing in white Latter-day Saint homes. In 1979, President Kimball was asked for examples of skin lightening due to gospel influence, but he couldn’t provide any, acknowledging it’s a theological question with no scientific basis. Matt discusses the controversial teaching of white and delightsome in the Book of Mormon, which was revised to “pure and delightsome in the 1980s to confirm closer ton the original manuscript.
Lester Bush’s Breakthrough Article on the Ban
Matt discusses Adam Bennion’s family donating church documents to BYU, including minutes of Quorum of the 12 meetings. Chad Flake, a maverick librarian, allowed Bush’s brother to access the minutes, which were part of a study on lifting the ban on black priesthood ordination. Part of the donation included discussions in the 1950s about the origins of the ban. This led Lester Bush to conclude the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith in his seminal 1973 article. Lowell Bennion may have written The Bennion Report with apostle Adam Bennion’s approval, stating there’s no scriptural justification for the ban. Joseph Fielding Smith likely was not on the committee, despite him building a theological scaffolding around the curse and ban being tied to Joseph Smith. ‘
Mormon Church history and race policy.
President McKay told Sterling McMurray that the ban on blacks in priesthood was a policy and practice, not a doctrine. Elder Bennion compiled minutes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that dealt with the race issue, which were later donated to BYU and published in an article by Lester Bush in 1973.
Reuben Clark’s Mixed Views on Blacks & Jews
Matt and Rick discussed J. Reuben Clark’s anti-Semitic views and contrast with his openness towards blacks. Reuben Clark, a former inactive Latter-day Saint, became a diplomat and apostle in the church, despite rarely attending church. Clark had conservative political views and only read materials that confirmed his beliefs, despite his education at Columbia Law School. Reuben Clark promoted reading of anti-Semitic literature, including Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Clark knew this was controversial, and advised poeple like Ezra Taft Benson, his protege, to keep it confidential, indicating that he knew it was not widely accepted, especially by Presidents Grant and McKay.
With regards to blacks however, Clark was more liberal. He proposed to ordaining biracial men to the priesthood. This was rejected but seems surprising to many. Matt argues that racial purity is a myth, citing DNA evidence and historical interracial encounters show that everyone has mixed ancestry going back 200 years. The policy in South Africa made it nearly impossible to ordain “pure race” white men, leading to David O. McKay’s 1954 visit to South Africa.Missionaries in South Africa and Brazil in the mid-20th century were instructed to only missionize in white regions, avoiding areas with black populations. Many Nazis escaped to South America at the end of World War II, including some who were baptized by American missionaries. This was ok by church leaders, yet blacks were still considered cursed.
Matt discussed responses of church leaders to questions from black Latter-day Saints about the priesthood ban, noting the lack of clear answers and the reliance on the pre-existence as an explanation. Now that there is no longer a ban,
Matt discusses the church’s new branding efforts, including the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, have led to increased focus on racial equality in scripture interpretation. “All are alike unto God.” That scripture was mostly ignored until 1978.
Have you read Matt’s book? What do you think of his research? What stands out to you?
Wheat & Tares 
I haven’t read the book but I did listen to Harris on RadioWest twice because his comments were so revelatory. The bottom line for me after listening to him is in any organization but particularly in an organization that purports to speak for God when there is no open discourse or transparency and to preserve branding, there are no open rebuttals to those who go against the advice of the leader you are going to hurt your organization.
There may have been a discussion of the doctrine among members but it was met with retribution from leadership. Leadership may have had a discussion about the doctrine but it was done in secret. You’d think that if the prophet said something, it would be listened to but Pres. Kimbal had to work five years to convince not just one but it appears to have been almost half the quorum of the twelve how they needed to change their views and he wasn’t able to finally “win” until he sent one apostle away on an assignment, another was in the hospital, he confronted two in an open meeting with specific questions about growth in a country which was predominantly black and he had to pray for 12 minutes with the 12 to convince the last holdout at that same meeting, Ezra T. Benson, about God’s will with the policy. Even then, when they voted and carried unanimously, he still had to call Mark E. Peterson who was on assignment to inform him of the vote and then had to step back the policy a bit by conceding that interracial marriage was still out.
Finally, it was a change in policy and presented as such in the Offical Declaration 2 but a couple of the apostles at family reunions embellished it as a revelation with direct communication with God to legitimatize the policy change with their family but eventually to the church.
It’s hard for me to feel comfortable with how all this happened and then apply it to what’s happening now in the church. We say we believe in a prophet but when he is not even listened to in the 12 and has to convince everyone to have a unanimous conscience for anything thing to change, it’s hard to believe God’s will will ever come through. Instead, it will be the fears and prejudices of old men that will rule. Couple that with the lack of true open dialog in the church, the corporate structure of its operations, and the administration of the church by a policy handbook and I doubt anything relevant will ever change. Women in leadership are treated as equals or the recognition of the value of individuals even if they have same-sex attraction, let alone open discussion and transparency with finances, investment policies, and addressing social issues.
The whole process of how the policy regarding blacks and the priesthood was both adopted and later changed has cracked the door open for a peek into and has shed light on the internal workings of the top levels of leadership in the church. It doesn’t look good.
There’s was a nice piece in the SLTrib by a Natalie Brown about how the Church seems to work hard at claiming “revelation” is necessary for significant change. She points out how the big change in 1978 was anything but revelation.
It would be nice if the COJCOLDS could admit that it’s a big corporation and like other big corporations there is a process in place for change that includes a board of directors (Q12) a COO (Presiding Bishopric) a president (Prophet), etc. I think most members would accept this but I guess some of you like the holy mantle stuff.
When the Church executed the policy of exclusion in 2014 and then reversed it in 2018 36 months later many of us could see right through the “Lord’s will” arguments on both ends. And we were critical. I would have been much less critical if they were honest about it and admitted that they made Policy 1 for x reasons and Policy 2 for y reasons. We could have handled it. Instead we have a dumbing down of the definition of revelation for things like Come Follow Me and two-hour church. Come on.
correction: 41 months later
The Ezra Taft Benson 1977 talk addressed in the original post is ETB, A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion, a devotional at BYU on April 12, 1977. Two quotes:
Quote 1: When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers’ money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society—to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord’s base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man’s social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for “something for nothing” may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, “I am a contributing taxpayer too.” By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Quote 2: I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don’t have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You’ll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
When I went to BYU, they had no problem with my Pell Grant, and student loans were part of the financial aid package. The Church may have turned 100% from ETB’s position. We used to teach members to avoid all Government assistance, and go to your family and bishop for your needs, but never to the government. We now teach to go to the government before coming to the Church. Heber J Grant is clearly on record as hating old age pensions, what we now call Social Security. We don’t condemn elderly church members who receive Social Security, and I am glad that we do not.
I’ll make the same comment here as I did on the Youtube video. If anything, this history should engender more humility concerning our religion practices and positions in this world and less certainty. The hardliners were so certain about their positions that they were completely blind to the damage they were causing. They used their certainties to excuse themselves from any personal, moral, and prejudicial introspection and growing-up. Obedience to their own ideas of things was greater than people. I frankly makes me question what this is all for. The church keeps saying prophets can see around corners, but this history shows me it’s more like looking back and wishing for the old days. I just don’t see any more how they can be trusted when the unanimous front seems to all be for show. I get it that there are many who have followed the prophet and had a positive experience. But, this is not unique to the prophet. Many people follow other people in business, finance, life advice, etc to great personal reward. Yet, what is ignored are the people for whom it doesn’t work. And rather than learn from that and do better, we pretend as if it is Satan’s doing. I just don’t see how “true church” can ever be a thing until honesty and vulnerability become core to who we are, rather than obedience and keeping up appearances.
chrisdrobison, you write, in relevant part: “I just don’t see any more how they can be trusted when the unanimous front seems to all be for show.” The unanimous front took a hit, in my mind, with using Mormon being a victory for Satan, and God being offended when members use a nickname. We remember then Elder Nelson’s April 1990 general conference talk on the name of the Church, and President Hinckley’s gently correction in October 1990. We saw the Meet the Mormons advertising campaign,as well as mormon.org and lds.org, while Elder Nelson was in the Twelve. The 2015 movie is available on the Church’s website at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2015-01-1000-meet-the-mormons?lang=eng, where the description says “This movie examines the very diverse lives of six devout members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).” The nickname is still there. President Nelson ascended to the presidency in early 2018. Sister Wendy Nelson said that her husband was free to do things that he had not been free to do before. She said on 28 October 2018 in an interview about the dedication of the Concepción Chile temple: “I have seen him changing in the last ten months,” said Sister Nelson. “It is as though he’s been unleashed. He’s free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he’s free to follow through with things he’s been concerned about but could never do. Now that he’s president of [the Church], he can do those things.” These words are on the church’s website at: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry.
All of this makes it appear that unanimity in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is more an aspirational goal than an achieved reality, and that isn’t a bad thing as people work together to move forward. I choose to trust them. They sit in Moses’ seat and I sustain them there. I will admit that I do not always understand. I take everything with a grain of salt because people are fallible, something we say we teach but our practice seems to belie our teaching. I think that a healthy belief in fallibility is like unto a grease that helps keep the moving engine parts from breaking or getting too hot. Humility goes a long way, too. We need less dogmatism and more acceptance, more making the gospel a joy to live instead of a burden to carry, more focus on blessings than on punishment, and more expressions of hope than of fear. This is also an aspirational goal more than an achieved state.
Georgis,
I am sympathetic to your thoughts, and I wish more of our leaders (or frankly, any of them) would agree — but it seems they want to maintain an image of unanimity on every little matter, and they want to attribute all of their considered decisions to God Himself. I don’t think any of this is necessary for legitimate church leadership, but it is our church culture.