Welcome to Gospel Tangents, the best source for Mormon history, science, and theology.  I’d like to introduce Dr. Jonathan Stapley.  He has written a new book called the Power of Godliness, which talks about LDS priesthood. Jonathan introduces a new term into LDS lexicon:  cosmological priesthood.  What does that mean?

https://youtu.be/1R3STTDVRY4

Jonathan:  I called that in the book, the “cosmological priesthood.” Now that I've done several book events, I'm tired of that, and I find it annoying and it is a little idiosyncratic and silly. I'm not saying that there was the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Cosmological Priesthood.  It's a heuristic device that we can use to understand the dynamics and what was the work that these rituals were doing in the community that performed them. And so, we have an ecclesiastical priesthood and what I'm framing is the cosmological priesthood, the Nauvoo temple liturgy. And there's how Mormons viewed them and how they interacted with these concepts, a shift and change with successive waves of converts and generations of Mormons.

We’ll also talk about the trite phrase about priesthood and motherhood.

Jonathan:  When I talk to people about this, Mormons have created a dichotomy oftentimes between priesthood and motherhood, which I talk about in the book and I think isn't particularly a historical, it is historical in the sense that it's been around for a while, but isn't, it doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense within our tradition.  But I will often ask, what is "the motherhood?"  And that's a phraseology that doesn't really sound familiar to us. It doesn't make, it doesn't have an obvious meaning, because what motherhood is, is being a mother. That's what it means. So, if you were to say, "the motherhood," you could conceive of it as perhaps a group of mothers. That would be "the motherhood" perhaps.

But priesthood is a similar construction. So, early on, the earliest revelations and the earliest documents we have, construct a priesthood that it is essentially the capacity of a priest, just as motherhood is the capacity of a mother. So, you would ordain somebody to be a priest or an elder and that would be priesthood. And quickly, Joseph Smith has subsequent revelations that create larger cosmological valances to what priesthood is. But what I tried to do is create a framework in the book that makes all the shifts in bicycle dynamics within Mormon discussions of priesthood, sensible and, and the way I do that is by framing one area of priesthood as an ecclesiastical priesthood.

Dr. Jonathan Stapley introduces the concept of "cosmological priesthood."

[paypal-donation]

Don't forget to check out our conversation on priesthood with Greg Prince!  Check out our conversation…..

This is a first time release on YouTube, (previously on Apple Podcasts) of a conversation I had with Dr. Paul Reeve of the University of Utah last year.  I asked if he had anything to do with writing the Gospel Topics Essay (race essay) titled Race and the Priesthood on LDS.org. He was very candid and I think you’ll enjoy listening to his answers on these and other topics.

https://youtu.be/BcNtNHqRluA

GT:  Now I want to ask you another question.  I’m hoping you’ll answer.  I’ve heard rumors, and that’s all they are is rumors that you played a role in compiling that essay [Race and the Priesthood].  Do you have any response to that?

Paul laughs:  I did help with the essay. Yeah, Yeah.

GT:  So was it, can you describe your role?

Paul:  Well the Church History Department invited me to write an extended essay. It ended up being about 55 pages long with footnotes and everything like I would produce as an academic essay.  Once they were satisfied with that it was sent up the line, several layers of approval process and then the Church History Department actually boiled down that longer essay to what got posted online so I had no say over what got posted online, what eventually appeared as Race and the Priesthood, but it was a condensed version of the longer piece that I produced for them.

I asked his opinions on how these race lessons of the past apply to today’s situations. It’s one of my favorite parts of the interview.  I also asked if there were parallels between the black ban and the new gay ban.

Paul:  Well I guess there are ways in which I could see them as similar and ways in which I think they’re distinct.  The similarities could be that, is this simply the sort of cultural context, right?  That is somehow seeping in, it would be hard to argue that the cultural context of America moving towards legalizing gay marriage didn’t impact Mormonism, right?  So it’s Mormonism responding to its cultural context the same way that Mormonism seemed to respond to the racial context in the 19th century, so a parallel there, but I think also important distinctions.

 

Dr. Paul Reeve discusssed the Race and Priesthood essay at LDS.org

I asked Paul how he felt about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing at Pres. Trump’s inauguration.  Don't forget to check out our previous conversations with Paul!

008: Dating the LDS Temple and Priesthood Ban (Reeve)

007: Becoming a Fanboy of Orson Pratt (Dr Reeve discusses the Apostle)

006: The Black Mormon Scandals – Reeve on events inspiring the LDS priesthood/temple ban

005: How did Joseph Smith Deal with Muslims?  (and Chinese and Indians?)

004: How did Others Deal with Slavery?  Dr. Paul Reeve tells why Mormons were persecuted

003: How Mormons Became a Racial Category

Check out our conversation….

[paypal-donation]

Last year, I interviewed Dr. Paul Reeve at the University of Utah on his book Religion of a Different Color.  This is a first-time release on our Youtube channel, but a re-release on audio of our interview last year with Paul Reeve discussing an amazing event with apostle Orson Pratt.  You may have heard of his more famous brother Parley P. Pratt.  Anyway, Orson was not only opposed to Utah legalizing slavery in Utah, but supported black voting rights before the Civil War.  Listen to Paul Reeve describe these events

https://youtu.be/t1n0o_O5P60

Matt:  We know that Pratt spoke the day before and they are in a heated debate, so how does Pratt push back?  The minutes of the legislature tell us that that afternoon of February 5th, after Brigham Young has given this very strong speech, there are two bills that are introduced that are just innocuous bills, like who cares?  It’s the Cedar City and Fillmore municipal bills where they’re just approving them as legal municipal entities, but within the bills are the voting rights for Fillmore and Cedar City.  Who gets to vote in Fillmore and Cedar City?  They stipulate that white men over 21 get to vote, and that’s par for the course for the nation in 1852.

Pratt votes against both of those bills and the minutes tell us that he does so because they don’t allow black men to vote and I believe that’s his effort at again, pushing back against Brigham Young, so Brigham Young got to have his say in the morning and this is Pratt’s way of responding.  I’m going to vote against these two municipal bills to make my point that I believe black men should be allowed to vote in Utah Territory.

GT:  To me that is absolutely astonishing because this is the year 1852.  This is pre-Civil War.

Paul:  That’s right.

GT:  I mean how did Pratt fit in with the rest of America as far as a black man should be allowed to vote because I can’t imagine that’s a popular position?

Paul:  It’s really not.  I mean there are a few people who are arguing for this, you know radical abolitionists but like I said this is just a radical minority.  To stake out that kind of position, you would be branded as a radical minority, marginalized from the mainstream.  It really is kind of a distinct position and for him to be making it in Utah Territory really is quite unique for 1852.  Not many are advocating for black suffrage in 1852.

When Brigham Young made his speech in 1852 to the Utah Legislature where he declared blacks had no right to the priesthood, and Paul says this was likely a reaction to Pratt's speech.  This is part 5 of a 7 part series with Paul.  Check out part 1, as well as our other interviews!

 

Orson Pratt was against slavery in Utah, and for black voting rights in 1852!

[paypal-donation]

Dr. Matt Harris has uncovered that apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote Official Declaration 2, which allowed for the first time in 120 years, open ordination of black church men, and allowed blacks access to the LDS Temple ordinances.  This may seem especially ironic, given the fact that McConkie had long justified the ban through the Curse of Cain and Curse of Ham in his book, Mormon Doctrine.https://youtu.be/I7n9Ku5MzaEMatt:  President Kimball knows what he is doing.  He needs to get Elder McConkie’s buy-in.  When he gets Elder McConkie’s buy-in that the ban needs to be lifted, I mean he feels that there is a tremendous weight off his shoulders.This isn’t to take away of course any of the spiritual aspects of the temple and the revelation, and the things that the apostles will recount afterwards about it being the most magnificent spiritual experience of their life.  I think that’s all very authentic and genuine, but it just speaks to President Kimball’s remarkable leadership, that I order to do this, “I’ve got to really work with my associates and massage them and help them to understand that this is the right thing to do."  To me that is an incredible, remarkable exercise in leadership on President Kimball’s part, because he doesn’t want to create a schism in the Twelve like President Woodruff had under his leadership.I am sure as the church president that President Kimball could have just done something unilaterally.  But if there is no buy-in, what is the point?  Right?  If people don’t realize that this is the right thing to do, that’s really one of the most remarkable things is that he gets the buy-in from Elder McConkie.  Not only is there buy-in from Elder McConkie, the biggest doctrinal hardliner, but it is Elder McConkie who writes the Second Official Manifesto that will be added to the Doctrine & Covenants.  That is his language.We will also discuss a candid discussion between President Kimball and an official from the Carter Administration, who expressed displeasure with the ban. Matt:  Also, going on behind the scenes is President Kimball’s meeting with a man named Jack Carlson.  He is Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.  He is a liberal Mormon democrat.  He is one of the proud three in the ‘70s!  {chuckles} He works in the Carter Administration.  He calls Jack Carlson into his office, and just has this very candid discussion.  This is in I think ’76-77, somewhere in there.  He calls in Jack Carlson and his wife, just the three of them:  President Kimball and the Carlsons.  He says, “Jack, why do the Carter people hate us so much?”He said, “President, don’t you get it?“No, tell me.  That’s why you are here.”He said, “They hate our views on ERA, our views towards women and ERA.”  This is in the midst of the ERA movement. Of course, Utah was the holdup, arguably one of the states that kills the amendment, to be honest.  The church was against it, and that galvanized opposition.  “The other thing is, they don’t like our views towards black people.”President Kimball, without missing a beat, says, “We’ve got to change this policy, but I can’t.  I am worried.  I am worried about how the saints in the South will take this policy.”  It’s the same thing McKay had to deal with, you remember?  “I am worried about my brethren in the Twelve.”  That’s what he said.Matt gets into some other interesting details as well, such as Merrill Bateman's mission to Nigeria in the early 1970s.  This is an interview you don’t want to miss (in addition to our previous discussion of Pres Kimball!) Did you know Elder McConkie wrote Official Declaration 2?Check out our conversation….[paypal-donation]

In our next episode with Dr. Matt Harris, we will talk about how President Kimball persuaded the apostles to lift the priesthood and temple ban on black church members.  It turns out the Brazil Temple was a key part of that, as well as Bruce R. McConkie's change of heart.

https://youtu.be/BCluCf6bA5A

Kimball knows the consequences of doing something unilaterally without quorum buy-in.  He sees that in church history, and he experiences it himself during the McKay administration.  So, President Kimball recognizes this is such a delicate task, and that if he is going to make this, arguably, probably the most momentous—not arguably.  In the 20th century, it is the most momentous decision in the church, second maybe only to plural marriage, giving black people the priesthood.

So, he knows he has to have buy-in.  How do you get buy-in from people who have very, very deep-seated racial views?

...

President Kimball announces the Brazil Temple.  This is a bulwark to help the brethren to come along with this.  He recognizes that you can’t have temple in this heavily bi-racial nation, where the people who sacrificed and do so much to build the temple are shut off from it.  I mean he understands this.

We will also get into more detail on Monroe Fleming's "almost" ordination in 1969!

Matt:  The “loyal negro” at the Hotel Utah is Monroe Fleming.  He had been working there for years.  Church leaders all knew him.  Of course, it is a church-owned property.  He was a very faithful member.  I think he joins in the early ‘50s, so clearly he is a pioneer in the church.  He comes of age in the church before the priesthood revelation, so he understands the restriction.  But it is not clear if there is going to be an announcement; it’s just that “We are going to ordain this loyal negro man.”  That’s all it is.  I think Hugh B. Brown mentions Monroe Fleming in a different document, but the McKay document that I have, it’s just “a loyal negro member at the Hotel Utah.”

Pres. Kimball Announced a new temple in Brazil to get buy-in to help apostles understand why ban needed to be lifted.

Check out our conversation!  Don't forget to listen to Matt describe how McKay almost ordained Monroe Fleming in 1969.

Despite several attempts to end the ban in the 1960s, Hugh B. Brown 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k7cPGtZwHU&t

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.

...

[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.

Lee strongly rejected attempts for black ordination

[paypal-donation]

Check out our other conversations with Matt, like Brown's previous attempts to end the ban.  Check out our conversation….

The United States were grappling with the Civil Rights Movement during the tumultuous 1960s.  In our next conversation with Matt Harris, we will talk about key events in the 1960s that affect the LDS Church’s teaching about race and how the Civil Rights Movement impacted the Mormon Church.  We will even learn that Elder Brown predicted to end ban in 1962 General Conference!

https://youtu.be/023tWoriAqA

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...

We’re continuing our conversation with Dr. Matt Harris.  In our next episode, we’ll talk about the temple and priesthood ban in the 1950s.  Did you know that McKay considered lifting the ban as early as 1955?

https://youtu.be/56oINIiTw5s

Matt:  It’s not surprising that when McKay came back from South Africa and convenes this committee with Elders [Adam] Bennion and Kimball, I’m not sure who else is on the committee, but I know it’s those two.  They ask Lowell Bennion to do some research for them, and he produces a position paper, and he says there is no scriptural justification for any of this stuff.  So, Elder Bennion writes his report to President McKay and tells him that there is no scriptural justification for the priesthood ban.  This is 1954 I should say.

So, President McKay contemplates lifting the ban, but he recognizes that it will cause hardship among the saints in the South.  Keep in mind this is still segregated America.  So, if he lifts this ban, it is going to create hardships among Latter-day Saints in the South.  Also, there are some folks in the Quorum of Twelve who wouldn’t support the lifting of the ban:  Joseph Fielding Smith would be one of them.

We will talk about a pretty significant change from a doctrine in 1949 to a policy in 1955.

This is interesting because President McKay, as a counselor to George Albert Smith had signed that 1949 First Presidency statement that you referenced a minute ago….

GT:  Right.

Matt:  …as a counselor.

GT:  Now let’s talk about that ’49 statement.

Matt:  Yes, we can.  So, as the church president, he signed that statement, and we can go into detail in a minute, but that statement makes it pretty clear that this is the doctrine of the church.

GT:  And it uses the word “doctrine.”

Matt:  It uses the word doctrine.

GT:  That is an important word.

Matt:  Right.  J. Reuben Clark writes the statement, and President McKay signs off on it. George Albert Smith is feeble by this point, and he is going to die a couple of years later, but anyway, President McKay, even though he signs that ’49 statement, now he is the church president and he feels the weight of this policy on his own.

President McKay considered lifting the ban in 1955 but was worried about reaction in the South.

[paypal-donation]

 

Check out our conversation…..  Don't forget to check out parts 1 (about Brazil & South Africa) and 2 (the one-drop rule) of this conversation!

In our next conversation, we’re going to talk to Dr. Matt Harris of Colorado State University-Pueblo.  We will talk about the “one-drop rule.”  How is it that Mormons determined blackness, especially if they were biracial families? We’ll also talk about a Supreme Court decision in the 1960s that legalized interracial marriage.

https://youtu.be/uDNsRXSSTbU

Matt:  What is interesting about this is that depending on the state, these laws are very fluid in the early 20th century.  I tell my students, we teach civil rights and we talk about this.  In fact, we discuss the book Loving vs. Virginia, which is the Supreme Court case that strikes down these miscegenation laws, declares them unconstitutional.  This is 1967.

But anyway, what’s interesting is that in the early 20th century these miscegenation laws are very fluid.  One state might say it’s one-quarter.  Another state might say it’s one-eighth, or one-sixteenth.  I joke with my students sometimes that on Monday, a black man can marry a white woman because they fit within the parameters of the law, but then they change the law on Wednesday and now it’s no longer constitutional.

Don't forget to check out our previous conversation with Matt, and you might want to check out our interview with Dr. Paul Reeve, where we talk about where Woodruff incorrectly quotes Brigham Young referring to anyone with "one-drop" of African blood not being eligible for the priesthood.  (The quote is NOT accurate.)  Check out our conversation…..

How do you determine blackness? Is one-drop enough?

 

I’d like to introduce Dr. Matt Harris in our next conversation.  He has done a lot of Mormon history work and he’s not very well-known, but I think he will be, especially after he finishes his upcoming books.  We will talk about some of these books that he has published, as well as his future books.  We’re also going to talk about the history of the ban.  With the 40th anniversary of the removal of the ban coming up here in just a few weeks, this will be a very timely interview.  Dr. Matt Harris has some really interesting insights and it is going to reveal some really cool, historical information.  It’s one of my favorite interviews yet.  Now, let’s ask a little bit about how he is going to talk about Brazil.  What did the church do with missionaries there?

https://youtu.be/DeOlEgo4vDI

Matt:  In Brazil, they were kind of trendsetters, if you will.  They did what are called lineage lessons.  The mission president instructed the missionaries, and the mission president I should say got approval from Salt Lake to do this lineage lesson.  But it really was just mostly practiced in Brazil, rather than other places with African populations.  But anyway, these lineage lessons stipulated that if missionaries were out proselytizing and they came across somebody who had African ancestry, who had a parent that they felt would be a prime candidate for the restriction.  They were supposed to come to the door, knock on the door, recognize that they were under the ban and they would just say, “Can you tell us we’re in the neighborhood; we are trying to find this general store or other church. Can you tell us where it is?”

If they weren’t sure if this couple had African ancestry, then they would come in and ask questions about their genealogy, trying to determine through discussion if they had African roots.  Sometimes they would even ask to look at their photo album.  They were discrete about it.  They weren’t going to tell people this is what we are looking for, but this shows you how difficult the burden was in determining the bloodline.  J. Reuben Clark recognized this as early as 1938 and expressed skepticism that the church could confer the priesthood on Brazilians without violating this policy.

There were similar issues in South Africa.  What happened there?

Dr. Matt Harris talks about how LDS Church dealt with racial issues in Brazil & South Africa before the 1978 revelation.

Please support Gospel Tangents by purchasing a transcript of previous conversations here on our store:

* Biography of Jane Manning James

* Dr. Paul Reeve:  The Complete Interview on the Ban

* Dr. Newell Bringhurst  Blacks, Brodie, and Brides

* Elijah Ables:  Faithful Black Mormon Pioneer

If you would like a copy of this transcript as soon as it is available, please purchase a subscription for just $10/month to get this and future transcripts.

Check out our conversation…..