In parts I-IV of this series, we were introduced to “Jack Mormon” Stewart Udall. Early in his adult life he made a conscience based separation from Mormon orthodoxy, yet continued to stand up for what he believed was right. His career eventually found him Secretary of the Interior, the highest ranking Mormon government official, at the time he wrote an open letter calling for the end of the LDS church policy on banning black members from Priesthood ordination.

In our last post we reviewed the body of letters that Udall received from his fellow church members in response to his appeal. I encourage you to review them. Modern members may be incredulous that such ideas would be held by members in the past, or may assume that those members who wrote Udall were statistical outliers – extremists on the fringe of Mormon thought regarding race and equality at the time.

Imagine a great conference with all the church leaders on the podium and all the members in the pews. Udall stands up and boldly declares that the racist notion of a curse is wrong and the prohibition of priesthood to the black members is wrong. While a few people seated right around him nod in agreement, the whole majority of the membership shouts him down. They defend the racist teachings. They chastise him for embarrassing the church. They tell him he should leave and join some other congregation. They insult his intelligence and family. All the while, the leaders look on. Then a hush settles over the crowd as two Apostles stand to respond to Udall’s brazen statement. We could tell if the members were out of line by comparing their statements with those of the leaders. Would the Apostles echo the sentiments of the members, or would they take a different tone?

Fortunately, we have a way to find out. In addition to receiving letters from fellow church members, Udall also received letters from the 2 acting LDS Apostles who hailed from his home state of Arizona – Spencer W Kimball and Delbert L Stapley. Udall had sent them copies of his letter prior to publication. Let’s examine what they had to say

Spencer W Kimball

Just a few days after Udall’s letter was published, LDS Apostle Spencer W Kimball wrote to him in response. I recommend you read the letter, available at archive.org, and draw your own conclusions as to its content. I will include the text below with some commentary:

Dear Stewart: These days, papers and magazines are flooded with articles relating to this matter written by people relatively unknown. Most of them are rehashes. All of them show a woeful ignorance of the subject they so presumptiously attempt to treat. I never dignify any of them with a reply or comment but you have sent me a copy of your letter to President McKay with a personal note attached. I am acknowledging that note and my brief reply is to you personally.

It is interesting to note that the dignity of an Apostle of Jesus Christ is above responding to people who ask publicly why the church had adopted policies and teachings which are now disavowed as racist and erroneous. It may be that if the Apostles were concerned less about their own dignity and more about truth and integrity, there would have been a shorter period of sanctioned racism in the church. In any event, the high visibility of Udall’s letter demanded a response, and Spencer W Kimball obliged.

Stewart, I cannot believe it! You wouldn’t presume to command your God nor to make demand of a Prophet of God! I wish you had edited it after fasting and prayer. I am not surprised at the Browns and the Greens and the Blacks for they perhaps do not know better but you with your background !

Recall from our review of the letters sent by members to Udall that there were several common themes. One of these was the idea that Udall’s letter was particularly bad because it showed that Udall didn’t know his place as a member. By calling for a change in the policy and teaching, Udall was interpreted as lecturing the Prophet or assuming to know better than the heads of the church. Here Kimball is chastising Udall for the same reason. It is interesting to note that in Kimball’s view there is not difference between commanding God or making demands of the Prophet. He is not reprimanding Udall for standing against racism, but for calling for a change and presuming to tell the Prophet that the policy and teachings are wrong – a great sin for a Mormon.

For days now, I have deliberated long and earnestly, trying to assess a motive. It couldn’t be politics — you would not stoop to that; it couldn’t be money — you have enough for your needs. Surely, it couldn’t be for prestige and renown— you have that in great abundance. It couldn’t be hate or revenge or disloyalty, I am sure. I know you have regard for your forebears and for your people. I have kept wanting to think it was the result of a sincere but ill-advised effort in behalf of the welfare of a minority. I have tried to believe that you just did not understand.

It speaks volumes to the mind of a Mormon Apostle of Christ where the motive of a man calling for universal brotherhood is questioned as such. Only after excluding wealth, fame, power or revenge did Kimball conclude that Udall may be simply standing up for the welfare of a minority – but then Kimball tells Udall that such a motive is ill-advised and uninformed!

I have watched you climb to high places in the secular world. I have seen your picture numerous times in countless places. I have read many of your pronouncements and in much that you have done and said, I have been proud of you. But my dear Stewart, neither your eminence in secular matters nor your prominence in government circles has justified you in any such monumental presumption. You are here with a little boulder in your hand, but out there beyond this earth is a sun, a galaxy, a universe. You too have clothed this whole matter in ragged, human apparel.

The “Appeal to Authority” rhetorical fallacy is one in which an argument is justified by attributing it to a supposed authority. Here Kimball is warning Udall against that fallacy by observing that just because Udall holds a position of prominence does not justify his call for change. Kimball is, unfortunately, blind to his own “Appeal to Authority” (i.e. to himself) – racist policies are not justified, simply because the Prophet and Apostles say so.

Kimball reminds Udall that while he is only looking at the issue from the perspective of a human grounded in the temporal world, the Church leaders have a wider universal view of creation and God’s plan. A view in which the religious segregation and denigration of an entire race of humans is completely justified and divine.

To such presumption, I must quote the Lord: “And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church.” D&C 28:6 Stewart, I earnestly hope this note may be for your good. I am not angry with you. I am sorry for you. Sincere kind wishes .

Kimball was courteous, at least, in reprimanding Udall for his “presumption” to lecture the brethren. This idea that members have no right to instruct the leaders of the Church is still very much alive and well. It is the main argument against the Ordain Women Movement.

Delbert Stapley

Delbert Stapley was another Apostle from Udall’s home state of Arizona. Stapley was no stranger to this issue, having previously written to Michigan Governor George Romney reprimanding him for his position on civil rights. You can read about that letter in the blog post “George Romney and the Delbert Stapley Letter” In that letter, Stapley issued a sort of dire divine death threat to Romney. Let’s examine Stapley’s letter to Udall and see what approach he took. You can view the original letter at archive.org and I encourage you to read it first and come to your own conclusions. I will review the text below with commentary:

Dear Stew: Thanks for your thoughtfulness sending me a copy of your letter dated May 16 to President David O McKay; also a copy of your article “An Appeal for Full Fellowship For the Negro”, which is to appear in the Dialogue Magazine. This article you released to the press for national consumption. No one will question your right to make such a statement, but I sincerely believe you should have submitted the article here to determine the facts before releasing it to the press, because there are some mis-statements. Your statement has done the church a great dis-service. Any misunderstandings within the church should be ironed out among ourselves and not paraded before the world.

Stapley is echoing the sentiment that many of the letters from members held – thou shalt not embarrass the church!

I can visualize your article being a stumbling block to George Romney if he decides to run for President. It certainly creates many difficult problems to him and any other church member seeking State or National office. We in the church, must remember that instruction and guidance come down from above and not from below, otherwise this church would just be another church.

In addition to the worldly concerns about church members obtaining national political office, Stapley reiterates, as many members did, that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members muct know their place and not presume to know better than the leaders. Of course, looking back in retrospect, if the leaders had been humble and teachable in listening to members such as Stewart Udall, Jeff Nye and Lowry Nelson, then they would have escaped out from under the error of their predecessors decades sooner. This notion of leaders never learning from the body of the membership of the church has kept Mormons years behind the rest of the world in progress on many social issues.

As you know, the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthian saints said that the things of man are understood by the spirit of man but the things of God are understood by the spirit of God. Man does not know the mind and will of God, therefore he is not in position to declare against the things God has revealed.

Any time members point out injustice or inconsistencies in Church, teachings, scripture or policy – you can bet that some leader somewhere is going to pull out this particular trope. Since the Church leaders are the only ones with the blessing of being the spokesperson for God, they have the privilege of defying logic and reason and then claiming a special divine exception for doing so.

We can now look back in history and acknowledge that all the things these leaders were attributing to God about race are now considered false and disavowed. This means that those church leaders did not themselves know the mind of God and that their claim to understand by the spirit of God was baseless. The implications for today’s church leaders is unavoidable – they have no credibility in claiming to speak the mind or will of God.

Embarrassingly, Stapley goes on to demonstrate that this disconnect with God extends as far back in church history as the Prophet Joseph Smith himself:

In this article you stated that the Prophet Joseph Smith was pro-negro. I don’t think the prophet was against the negroes, however it appears you are not familiar with some of the statements made by him concerning this race of people. In his teachings, as compiled by President Joseph Fielding Smith, page 269, under status of the negro, we find the following statement recorded: “At 5 went to Mr. Sollars with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city and find an educated negro who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, ‘Put them on the level, and they will rise above me’. I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen prophet, and they were capable of leading the people although I never attempted to oppress them, but have always been lifting them up?” Then this significant statement: “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization .” Again, in the “History of the Church”, volume II, commencing at page 436, the prophet expresses his views on abolition. I am attaching hereto his statement and ask you to pay particular attention to the last paragraph on page 438 which I have underlined.

In this last citation, Stapley is quoting the same paragraph that he used to issue the divine death threat to Governor George Romney just 3 years previously. This is the paragraph he is referring to:

[stextbox id=”alert” bgcolor=”F2F2F2″ bgcolorto=”DBDBDB” image=”null”]Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.

(History of the Church, vol 2, pg. 438 byu.edu)[/stextbox]

You can read how Stapley used this same paragraph to warn George Romney that those who support racial equality may find themselves shot or drowned or worse in the prior post. He is implying that people who oppose the racist teachings of the church will be punished for doing so.

Next, Stapley provides scriptural justification for the church policy. He cites the verses in Abraham which refer to the “curse” which precluded some people from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-27 lds.org)

Also refer to Abraham, 1st Chapter, the 21 to 27 verses inclusive.

It is worth noting that this entire concept has now been disavowed by the church in the Race and the Priesthood essay.

Moving on to the issue of segregation specifically, Delbert Stapley, Apostle of Jesus Christ, goes on to lecture Udall about how the scriptures demonstrate that God Himself supports racial segregation:

Now Stewart, you know the Lord has a chosen people who stem through the loins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the twelve sons of Jacob. The children of Israel were forbidden by the Lord to take wives not only from the descendants of Cain and Ham but from the other nations among whom the children of Israel sojourned. The Apostle Peter said of them: “But ye are chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: “Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained much.” (1st Peter 2:9-10). In Exodus, chapter 6, the 7th verse, the Lord said: “And I will take you to me for a people,” It was through Israel, particularly through his son Joseph, that all nations of the earth were to be blessed in the latter days. Now can we accuse God of not knowing what he is doing? Because he does not agree with the concepts of man today doesn’t prove him wrong. The atheist or the non-christian does not prove that the savior was not the son of God, our law-giver, redeemer and king. What God does man should not attempt to interfere. God himself placed the curse upon the negro and it is up to him and not to man to lift that curse. The church cannot lift the restriction against the negro until God authorizes it. As to the timing, or if it ever occurs, we do not know but must assume that if a negro accepts and lives the gospel, even though there may be some limitations, his opportunities eternally place him in a more favorable position to be rewarded for his faithfulness. We have many negro members in the church. The greater part of them are very faithful and devoted, yet are cognizant of their limitations. We try to be helpful to those who become church members. Because men want to change the order God has ordained does not mean that the good Lord will approve.

We can see that the Apostles have taught the members well because Stapley is using the exact same arguments that those irate members used in writing to Udall. The idea that God himself supports segregation. The excuse that black members are aware of and accept the teachings and prohibition on priesthood ordination. The notion that members cannot rightly instruct the Prophet as to what is right. All of these ideas were seen in the letters that members sent to Udall and are all seen here as originating from the highest levels of Church leadership. The leaders create the culture.

Stapley goes on to demonstrate how he can both respect black people and support segregation and white supremacy in the same breath.

Now our company employ negroes. One has been with us over 35 years. We hold these negro employees in high regard and place much confidence in them. I don’t want you to think I hold anything against the negro, but I fully support the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the teachings of the Lord as given to Father Abraham. The extremeists of modern religious and social thought mentioned by you does not justify repudiating the counsels and the acts of our God. You know, as well as I do, that all men are not created equal. We learn this fact from the Book of Abraham also. It is true we may have equal rights, opportunities and privileges, but that doesn’t mean that we are all equally endowed. We have leaders, we have followers and those in between. Some are rich, some are poor, some enjoy good health, some are weighted down by their physical ailments. Because the people, among whom Christ lived, did not receive him as their Lord and Redeemer, doesn’t disprove his divine status. There are hundreds of millions of people who do not believe in the Christ and many who do not believe in God but that doesn’t prove they both do not exist.

It is particularly interesting that Stapley states that “You know as well as I do that all men are not created equal” This betrays one of the most revered documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independance:

[stextbox id=”alert” bgcolor=”EDF4FF” bgcolorto=”DEE4FF” image=”null”]”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

(The Declaration of Independence, archive.org)[/stextbox]

Stapley states that, sure all men may have equal rights, but they are not equally endowed with intelligence or other aspects. In making this distinction Stapley is actually reinforcing the principals upon which white supremacy are based – that black people are less capable, moral or intelligent because of their race alone. This is ugly, despicable stuff. To see a man claiming to be a special witness of Christ repudiate a member of the church who has called for the dignity and equality of races in such a manner is revolting to the senses of any Christian mind.

Stapley continues his letter:

I am including a recent letter addressed to President David 0. McKay written by John E. Olson, Jr., M.D., dated May 2, 1967 Now Stew, this letter is for your own consumption. I don’t believe any one here intends to excite controversy over your article. It would only add fuel to the fire and nothing is to be gained. This outburst is unfortunate.

Stapley correctly observes that if the Church leadership were to respond to Udall’s letter it would only make matters worse. That is because of the simple truth that Stapley’s letter is the substance of what any response would be – a reinforcement of racist doctrines, support of segregation and religious white supremacy and a condemnation of members presuming to lecture the Brethren on what is right. These would not play well on the public stage.

The letter that Stapley refers to can be viewed at archive.org. It is a brilliant example of slobbering sycophantic prose which praises the “wonderful leadership” of the Prophets and Apostles which were “chosen by the Lord” while at the same time ridiculing “self-appointed so-called intellectuals” and “progressive Mormons” for asserting the equality of men and naming the “alleged Negro and Priesthood problem” – No doubt that Stapley was providing an example of the sort of attitude a good Mormon should have in deference to his leaders.

Stapley continued:

A few other brethren have been guilty of attempting to destroy the image of the church. I am sure the work of the Lord will continue to go forward because the destiny of his latter day kingdom is clear. In spite of oppositions and road blocks, the good Lord will look after his own. I have this confidence and testimony. This letter does not require an answer. I am writing accepting full personal responsibility for it. I appreciate my friendship with you and the Udall families for whom I have great love and respect. P.S. Again I request that this letter, or any part of it, is not given to the press nor is the letter to be used in any way. You are a member of the church and I thought that you personally should have the information I am sending you. It is not to be shared with any one else. The present National situation will be greatly aggravated should it fall into other hands. I know I can trust you with its contents.

It is notable that Stapley lumps Udall in with “other brethren” who are guilty of attempting to destroy the image of the church. This reveals that, unlike Kimball, Stapley presumes to know the motive of Udall. Rather than, as Kimball did, giving Udall the benefit of the doubt of mistakenly standing up for a disadvantaged minority, Stapley assumes that his intention was to damage the image of the church.

He goes on to preach a sermon of the persecuted yet triumphant church. In this he is completely blinded to the fact that it is the church’s own policy which had enacted a persecution of those black men and women who were unfortunate enough to accept the teachings about their less valiant and cursed nature.

Conclusion

Mormons believe that their church holds the same organizational hierarchy as existed in the Church established by Christ and his Apostles in the meridian of time – the “Primitive Church.” These letters show that, whatever the organization, the church was “primitive” but for other reasons altogether with men such as Kimball and Stapley in authority. When reading the letters sent by members to Udall, it may be tempting to assume that those were the isolated sentiments of fringe members. These letters from sitting Apostles reveal that, in fact, the members were acting in a manner consistent with their leaders who endorsed the exact same arguments and held out the same outdated, primitive racist notions in their own letters to Udall.

In any organization, the leaders have the ability to affect the culture of the members. This is particularly true of groups with a rigid top down hierarchy such as the Mormon Church. Members show such great deference to the leaders that it is completely disingenuous to say that the Priesthood ban was kept in place because the membership of the church was too racist to accept it and the leaders had to wait for the membership to awaken to equality. Yet this very excuse has been given to me as a cause for the late removal of the ban on a number of occasions.

The fact of the matter is that if the members held racist views, it was because they were empowered to hold them by the leaders and those notions were further reinforced by a culture which condemned questioning of authority or divergence of thought. The lesson of these Apostolic letters to Stewart Udall is that the leaders themselves held racist views, taught them and reproved anyone who rejected those ideas.

It would be just a couple of decades later that the church would publish an article presuming to lecture the world about the evils of racism. In order to have the air of legitimacy and moral authority, the author blatantly whitewashed history, declaring that the Mormon church has never been racist:

“How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.”

(Alexander Morrison of the Quorum of the Seventy “No more strangers” Ensign Sept 2000, lds.org)

It is no different now than it was back then – the image and appearance of the church and its leaders is more important than the truth.

Men claiming to be special witnesses of Christ should be held to a higher standard when it comes to their teachings of how men and women should act and feel towards their neighbors, regardless of race. The letters of Kimball and Stapley reveal that in the Mormon Church it is the image and authority of the organization which are the prime concern of the leaders – not love or justice. Members who are unteachable, who refuse to take any council but their own and who condemn any critic are justifiably considered stubborn and prideful. What is to be thought of Church leaders who exhibit the same symptoms and yet are revered for it?

Next

In the next and final part of this series we will examine the fruit that was born of Mormonism around the time of Stewart Udall and compare it to the fruit that other faiths were bearing with the example of a remarkable young woman with much the same spirit of Mr. Udall.