Gospel Topics Chapter 10 Harris Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. Hoping you're having a very pleasant Friday, welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. Today we wrap up our look at Chapter 10 in the book The LDS Gospel Topics Series, A Scholarly Engagement. Matthew L. Harris, one of the editors of the book, tackles the Gospel Topics essay titled Race and the Priesthood. In the past couple of days, we were talking about Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th president of the church, and some of the comments that he made regarding race, as well as comments made by his son-in-law, Mormon apostle, Bruce R. McConkie.

It's easy to see quotes like that and draw the conclusion that, well, that seems so long ago. But today we want to talk about a comment that was made by Thomas S. Monson. He was the 16th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he passed away on January 2, 2018. In 1985, Thomas S. Monson wrote a book titled On the Lord's Errand, Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson. The reason why we want to cite from this book is to show that here we have a person who at this time is not a general authority in the church. He recently served as a bishop, but at this point in time, he's not an apostle.

He certainly did not become the president until years later. But you can see how this doctrine that was a part of Mormon thought obviously played a role in this comment that Thomas S. Monson records on page 184 of his book On the Lord's Errand. Monson writes, in about 1956, we recognized that our neighborhood was deteriorating.

We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of trick-or-treat. The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking counsel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, who for many years had been the general manager of the Deseret News.

O. Preston Robinson, my former professor of marketing at the University of Utah, has succeeded Brother Peterson as the general manager at the News. As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don't you build a house in my ward? Now, notice how he refers to this question. It was his dilemma.

What, of course, is the dilemma? Well, as he says, he observed on one Halloween evening by the nature of the people who came in the guise of trick-or-treat that the, quote, minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Now, could we conclude that the old-time families that he's referring to are probably white members of the church?

This is Thomas Monson's dilemma. But what's fascinating about this story, and quite honestly, Eric, I don't know why he includes this story in his book on the Lord's errand. You would think he would be embarrassed by what he's thinking and what he's saying, and by how he was answered when he talked to Mark E. Peterson, an apostle in the church who only a couple years earlier gave that infamous speech called Race Problems as the effect the church, which we cited in yesterday's show. He goes on and he says, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, who for many years had been the general manager of the Deseret News.

Now, that's where Thomas S. Monson worked at one time before he became a general authority in the church. But it's interesting the guidance that Peterson gives him. Now, you would think normally the answer might be something like, well, you know, Tom you might want to get over those feelings because those feelings seem to smack of prejudice to a certain degree.

Maybe you need to talk to the Lord about that. But no, that's not the guidance that Mark Peterson gives him. What does he say? He says, your obligation of that area is concluded. Why don't you build a house in my ward? So in other words, your dilemma is you're seeing the minority elements moving into your neighborhood and the apostle that you seek guidance from says, hey, your obligation to that area is concluded.

I didn't know he had an obligation to a certain area. Is that what Mormons think that because they live in a certain neighborhood that that's their obligation to live there? Well, Peterson somehow, maybe through revelation, I don't know, he doesn't say, but he tells them that his obligation to that area is concluded and says, well, why don't you build a house in my ward? Now I can guarantee you at this time that it's probably a pretty good bet that Markey Peterson isn't living in downtown Salt Lake City, where Thomas Monson is noticing the minority elements are moving in.

He probably lived in the avenues, a nicer place in Salt Lake City, but Bill, I'm thinking about this. How much do you think that the culture played in what really is a racist statement, the minority elements were moving into the area? Or do you think that because of the ban on blacks in the priesthood, that that could have also played a role in making a man like Thomas S. Monson with racist attitudes because he believes this, not only did he believe it in 1956, but so did so many others, including Peterson. And then for him to repeat this story in 1985, well after racism has already been acknowledged through the 60s and 70s, in 1985, he doesn't say this in a way that he's trying to apologize for it at all. Yeah, he doesn't seem embarrassed by the comment that he made or the thoughts that he was having at that particular time.

So it does seem, because he's not embarrassed by that, that it's still a part of his thinking, perhaps? It's hard to say because Monson has been dead, as I said, since January 2nd, 2018, but this is a man who didn't die in the 20th century, he's dying in the 21st century. It's not that long ago when this man passed away, and he of course was the 16th president of the church. In the chapter that Matthew L. Harris wrote, he writes of distinguished LDS scholar Richard L. Bushman, who was the author of the book Rough Stone Rolling, an acclaimed biography of Joseph Smith. He says how Bushman also weighed in on the implications of the document, the document being the Gospel Topics essay, Race in the Priesthood.

He characterized it as, written as a historian might tell the story, and not as a theological piece trying to justify the practice. By depicting the priesthood band as fitting the common practices of the day, Bushman commented that it was something that just grew up and in time had to be eliminated. But accepting that, Bushman added, requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking, noting that Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Brigham Young could make a serious error, it brings into question all of the prophet's inspiration. Let me stop you there, because I think he makes an excellent point, and I'm glad that Mr. Harris cited this statement from Richard L. Bushman. He's right, and I think it plays into the same dilemma that many Latter-day Saints probably would have had when they lived during the time of the Manifesto in 1890. Let's not forget, folks, that up until the time the Manifesto went into effect, Mormon leaders were saying that they would never give up the practice of plural marriage, because God instituted this. To give up the practice of plural marriage was like giving up their Mormonism.

You just could not do that. So there was a lot of bravado going on when it comes to the sayings and teachings of the LDS leadership at that time, including, we should say, Wilford Woodruff himself, who signs the Manifesto and has to deliver it to his people, because in 1890 he is the prophet-sir and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's a huge contradiction, and no doubt it caused a lot of confusion among the membership, so much so that later on after the Manifesto is made public, you would find decades down the road people who were once faithful to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now breaking away from the Church and starting their own splinter groups known as fundamentalist Mormons, who still believed in that practice, espoused by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and we could even say Wilford Woodruff, but they felt that they were teaching the correct doctrine as it came forth from God, because that's what they were told.

They saw Wilford Woodruff as really betraying, you might say, the legacy of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, and felt that they had to separate themselves from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bill, let me give you the final thoughts of Mr. Harris on page 279, and he says, The Race and Priesthood Gospel Topics Essay is the best official expression at date concerning LDS racial teachings. The essay should be praised, even celebrated, but it stops short of full disclosure. In its defense, the LDS hierarchy had to walk a delicate line acknowledging past teachings while protecting earlier leaders from charges of doctrinal error. Thus, the Race and Priesthood Essay offers neither a full disclosure of LDS racial teachings nor provides an avenue for healing by offering an apology in recognition of the pain caused by the Church's institutionalized racism. The essay does not acknowledge or attempt to explain the continuing presence of whiteness teachings in LDS scripture and discourse. I think he's accurate, and it tends to bring to the surface the fact that the leadership in dealing with this subject come off as acting pretty cold.

They seem to have no heart towards those who were mostly affected by this teaching. And you would think even if you're not a member of color, the fact that this doctrine would taint your thinking as a white individual. Nothing is said about that, and I think Mr. Harris is absolutely correct. The LDS hierarchy did have to walk a delicate line acknowledging past teachings while protecting earlier leaders from charges of doctrinal error.

Now, there's a footnote there, number 87, and at the bottom of 279, it cites Richard Bushman, who we just quoted. Historian Richard Bushman noted the precariousness of the position when he observed Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God. So if you say Brigham Young could make a serious error, it brings into question all of the prophet's inspiration. And we would agree that's a very smart statement, because if he's wrong here, where else could he be wrong? And obviously, when you look at the teachings of Brigham Young, he's wrong in a lot of areas.

And you would think that all those mistakes, I would say it's even more serious than mistake. This guy is claiming to be a prophet who never said anything that wasn't something that they could take away as scripture. Here you have Brigham Young making horrible comments regarding race and then terrible comments regarding other issues as well. Why would anybody want to claim Brigham Young as being a true prophet of God, much less the second president of your church? Thank you for listening. If you would like more information regarding Mormonism Research Ministry, we encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org, where you can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Researched. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.