Introduction and Background on the RLDS Church

John Dehlin [00:00:03] And one of his counselors in the RLDS Church First Presidency suggested that he ought to be horsewhipped. So that's quite interesting. He has taught religion, history, political science and sociology at Graceland College since 1966. Let's see. Grant McMurray, the new prophet president of the RLDS Church, is well prepared for his new position by the virtue of having had the privilege of taking six religion courses from Brother Russell at Graceland between 66 and 69. So I think that's interesting.

John Dehlin [00:00:40] He has published Treasure in Earthen, An Introduction to the New Testament back in 1966 and is currently working on three books. He has published articles in a variety of journals including Dialogue, Sunstone Journal, Mormon History and the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal was given the True Believer Comeback of the Year Award by the John Whitmer Historical Association 1985 for affirming the Book of Mormon as legitimate scripture. Shortly after advocating the LDS Church quit publishing the Doctrine and Covenants has since reevaluated his position on the Book of Mormon.

Guest [00:01:24] And of course, probably the only LDS

John Dehlin [00:01:27] or RLDS person who has taught Von Brody. No man knows my history as an adult Sunday school class text, which is quite interesting. Quite interesting. His wife lois. He has two daughters and one granddaughter who arrived back on February 25th. So I think we have a lot to learn from Brother Russell this morning and it's good to have you here, Brother Russell.

Guest [00:01:55] I stay at Lavina and Paul's house and when went into Christian's room, Christian's on a mission, you know, and they gave me Christian's room and there on the dresser was a cop of treasure in earthen vessels that I wrote in 1966. They just told me for sure that Christian had been reading that regularly before he left on to get ready for his mission.

Guest [00:02:18] Just one little footnote before I start, and that is this is related to a book I'm writing on the struggle that's taken place in the RLDS church the last 40 years. And I was very involved in that struggle. And so I have to be especially careful to try to be objective as I can about something that I was involved in this PA to argue that the 1960s was the decade of decision for the RLDS church in which the decisive mood I'm sorry, move from a sectarian worldview to a denominational worldview took place among the RLDS general authorities. And that by the time of the biannual World Conference in April of 1970, the new direction of the RLDS church was becoming quite clear.

Guest [00:03:04] And the more alert and politically sophisticated among the rlds fundamentalists were understandably alarmed because they understood that in a hierarchical church, the members usually follow leaders or resist unsuccessfully. These fundamentals were not placated when at that conference the general authorities explained that they weren't really trying to make significant changes in the church. But I would argue that the significant changes had pretty well already been made.

Guest [00:03:33] A word about terminology. Fundamentalists, of course, I mean, referring to RLDS members has nothing to do with polygamy. It's simply fundamentalist is just a person who holds that to the traditional teachings of the church. And they attempt to base their teachings almost exclusively upon the inspired version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which we call the three standard Book.

Guest [00:03:56] The liberals, on the other hand, are those who believe scripture is conditioned by culture and while it is important, it is far from infallible. They seek to make RLDS theology more compatible with mainstream Christian thought. And then finally, we don't use the term general authorities for our first presidency, 12 apostles and presiding Bishopric, but I will use it here today, hoping that that will give my paper more authority.

How Major Doctrinal and Institutional Changes Unfolded

Guest [00:04:24] Major changes, plus it's easier to say than the long phrase we have major changes rarely begin at the beginning of a decade. History doesn't really cooperate that way so much. So let's begin the decade of the 1960s 15 months early for RLDS purposes. In October of 1958, when W. Wallace Smith became the president of the church, his father, Joseph III, had been president of the church for nearly 55 years. And then three of Joseph III's sons were president in order. Fred M. Israel A. And W. Wallace. And they occupied the presidency for the next 63 years.

Guest [00:05:01] You folks out here in Utah value lineage really more than we do, but we have the royal family. At the time that W. Wallace Smith took the helm In October of 1958, the RLDS church saw itself as a sect, although we didn't use wouldn't have used that term, but we thought of ourselves as the one true church of Jesus Christ on the face of the earth. As a child, I was very aware that my chances of being born into the one true church had been about 1 in 20,000 globally. So I considered myself an extremely incredibly fortunate young man.

Guest [00:05:38] But during the 1960s, most of the general authorities shifted away from the sectarian one true Church worldview and embraced instead a denominational perspective in which they regarded the RLDS Church as merely one part of the body of Christ on Earth.

Guest [00:05:54] Contributing greatly to the shift from sect to denomination were four men that W. Wallace Smith called to high office in the church at that October 1958 conference. And that's why I start my book and this story in October of 58. He called Morris L. Draper to be a counselor in the First Presidency, joining F. Henry Edwards, Paul's father, who remained as a holdover from the previous presidency. In the same revelation, he called Charles Neff and Clifford Cole to the Council of 12. And then Roy A. Cheville, my religion professor at Graceland, who taught there for 40 years to become presiding patriarch. Schaville had his Ph.D.

Guest [00:06:31] from the University of Chicago in the sociology of religion. And it's my understanding from what I remember Chaville saying, that he knew Sidney Sperry at Chicago. Playing a key role in the shift of perspective were three sets of professional people who occupied positions of influence in the church.

Guest [00:06:49] First were the men at the Department of Religious Education at the church headquarters in Independence. This department was responsible for producing programs and materials for people of all ages, including materials for the Sunday schools throughout the church. Secondly, at the church's Herald publishing house in Independence, a shift in Editorial Leadership in 1960 paved the way for the publication of articles and books that were not in the traditional sectarian mold. And then finally, at the church's only college, Graceland, where I've taught for a million years, young faculty in religion, philosophy and history were introducing ideas that were contrary to what had been taught in the church through the years.

Guest [00:07:29] These young professionals at these three departments and institutions of the church probably had no idea that their writings would produce a storm of protests in the next decade. A storm which would not abate until the 1990s as Roy Scheville was leaving Graceland to become the presiding patriarch in the late 50s, Graceland was expanding the size of its faculty as it was making the transition from a junior college to a four year liberal arts college. Four new faculty members were hired in religion and philosophy in the years 58 to 60 as the college established a BA program in religion. First was Lloyd Young, who taught courses in sociology and religion and was Cheville's replacement as the campus minister for the student organization on campus, the student chapel.

Guest [00:08:13] Over 90% of Graceland's approximately 1,000 students in those days were RLDS members. It's only about 50% now and church attendance was very high. Second hiring was Lee Nygaard, who joined the faculty in religion. Also, he was a graduate of Union Theological Seminary in New York City, where he'd taken courses from under Reinhold Niebuhr. Third was Robert Speaks, a graduate of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago, where Cheville had gone.

Guest [00:08:43] Union and Chicago were highly regarded theological seminaries, each with a liberal reputation. Joining the faculty to teach philosophy and history was Paul Edwards, who some of you know, grandson of Frederick Madison Smith and the son of member of the First Presidency, F. Henry Edwards, who Paul claims said that I should be horsewhipped.

Guest [00:09:02] Also contributing significantly, he thought Paul should be too, so Paul leaves that out. Also contributing significantly to the study of religion at Graceland were two historians, Robert Flanders, who many of you have heard of, and Alma Blair, some of you might also know, who came to the faculty those two. In 1955, they shared the teaching of an RLDS history course which had a high enrollment and contributed to the rethinking of the RLDS tradition that was taking place in the college and in the church. Flanders participated in the formation of the Mormon History association, and Paul Edwards became the first RLDS president of the Mormon History Association.

Guest [00:09:40] Chaville had been teaching at Graceland since the 20s until he became presiding patriarch in 1958. His teaching had drawn some criticism from fundamentalist church members over the years. And also during that same time, Gus Plotz, gust of Plotz, had been teaching evolution in his biology classes at Graceland, which is pretty controversial too. So Grayson and Chaville and Platz and some other faculty had been kind of sowing the seeds of this liberal revolt of the 60s for some time.

Guest [00:10:10] But the tension between the teaching of religion and what students had been taught growing up, I don't think was ever as strong under Seville as it was under these new young Turks hired in the late 50s and early 60s. The second group of young professionals was located at the Department of Religious Education at church headquarters. Beginning in 1959, quite a number of professional staff persons in the department began to take courses at St. Paul School of Theology, a new Methodist seminary that began to offer opened its doors in 1959. So the two leaders of the department, Clifford Buck and Richard Lancaster, began taking courses there and ultimately graduated with a Master of Divinity degree.

Guest [00:10:52] And then others in the department followed suit. Virtually all of their department, eight or 10 people, took courses at St. Paul during the years in the early 60s. Since the department produced church school material for members of all ages in the church, these men were in a good position to affect the thought of the church.

Guest [00:11:12] And the third group of young professionals was located at Herald Publishing house, where in 1960, the 72 year old managing editor Chris B. Hartshorn retired and was replaced by 29 year old Roger Yarrington as editor of church publications, including its official magazine, the Saints Herald. Hartshorn had seen it as his job to protect the traditional theology of the church.

Guest [00:11:35] Articles submitted were judged in part by whether or not they were in harmony with the traditional teachings of the church. And that would often be the letter of rejection. Your article is not in harmony. But Yarrington did not see that as his role. He was a professional journalist and was open to new ideas and paid much more attention to what was going on in the religious world outside the borders of the RLDS church. Yarrington had received his master's degree in journalism from the University of Iowa and saw many flaws in the way the Saints Herald had been published through the years.

Guest [00:12:06] As a result, he made changes in the church publications which made them more professional in quality and appearance and more open to new ideas. With Yarrington's blessing, his two young assistant editors who he hired shortly after he became editor, yours truly, William D. Russell and Roy Muir, also enrolled in courses at St. Paul School of Theology.

Guest [00:12:26] The writings and teachings of these Young Turks in the church offices and at Graceland became a matter of concern for some church members with more fundamental views. More traditional views. One of the earliest, probably the earliest big controversy was a Sunday school quarterly on the Old Testament written by Garland Tikamar for high school youth published by the Department of religious ed in 1960.

Guest [00:12:47] This year long series of quarterlies sparked negative reaction from some fundamentalists who did not like Tickenmayer's evolutionary approach to the Hebrew Bible. Tickemeyer's treatment of the Book of Genesis was especially controversial in Exodus and so forth. Opposition to the quarterlies seemed the strongest among members of the church's quorum of 70s.

Guest [00:13:08] These men were mostly full time paid missionaries, ministers and missionaries and most of them preached the RLDS gospel in fundamentalist terms. So as they saw it, these quarterlies were undercutting their missionary message. Some of the fundamentals of the 70s were successful in getting the in blocking the use of this quarterly in the places where they were living.

Guest [00:13:32] The content of articles in the Saints Herald also became a subject of controversy. Probably the two articles in the early 1960s which upset the fundamentalists the most was James Lancaster's 1962 article on the translation of the Book of Mormon and Lloyd Young's 1964 article on the Virgin birth.

Guest [00:13:50] Lancaster was the church statistician and the older brother of Richard Lancaster in the department of religious education. His article drew the conclusion that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with his face buried in a hat while gazing through a peep stone, dictating to a scribe the plates lying under cover at a table nearby.

Guest [00:14:10] This article was profoundly disturbing to many saints who had always believed that Joseph Smith had looked at the golden plates through the Urim and Thummim, which they saw as something akin to dyeglasses. The editors of the Saints Herald received a lot of letters from readers protesting the publication of Lancaster's article. I remember reading all of these as they came in.

Guest [00:14:30] Lancaster had been working closely with Charles E. Davies, an Australian who had become the church historian a few years before his retirement. Davies had recently been teaching this new conclusion about the method of translation of the Book of Mormon to the new full time paid ministers hired by the church. And that was creating a decent amount of controversy.

Guest [00:14:53] Davies wrote extensively on church history in the Saints Herald. He was soon assisted by Richard Howard, who some of you know, who became the church historian when Davies retired in 1965. Howard became the president of the Mormon History association in the early 90s. I say many of you know him.

Guest [00:15:09] Lloyd Young's article on the virgin birth and his teachings on that subject and others at Graceland also were controversial. But soon the question of whether Joseph Smith had been a polygamist became an even bigger issue of controversy. When Graceland history professor Robert Flanders published Kingdom on the Mississippi in 1965 and concluded that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, the book was condemned by many RLDS members who have traditionally denied, often vehemently, that the founding prophet was never, ever a polygamist and never even thought of such a thing. Like my mother could not believe that I liked Val and Linda's biography of Emma because of the polygamy in it.

Guest [00:15:52] In fact, she couldn't even believe that I'm good friends with them. So in the 1960s. So the 1960s had begun with the publication of Old Testament quarterlies and then controversies over the translation of the Book of Mormon. The virgin birth and Joseph Smith's polygamy soon followed.

Guest [00:16:09] Some fundamentalists fought back, most notably some 70s and some members of the Graceland board of trustees. The Graceland faculty always feared they were going to get fired. They knew new people, not tenured until they've been there six years.

Guest [00:16:22] Tired of the battle with the fundamentalists, Lloyd Young decided to leave Graceland in 1965. Bob Speaks followed suit two years later. And then when the Graceland board decided to delay for one year a decision on tenure for Leland Eagard. And it was kind of complicated, but Lee was convinced that the AAUP guidelines meant that they had to decide on him now and could not wait a year. Then Lee and Paul Edwards quit in protest of the board's action. Thus, all four professors hired five six years earlier in religion and philosophy, left Graceland in the year 6567 after a relatively short period of time teaching there.

Guest [00:17:01] At about the same time, Clifford Buck and Richard Lancaster resigned from church appointment at the Department of Religious Education. Possibly some fundamentals were hardened by these departures, but these men were replaced by liberals both at the department and at Graceland. And I was one of those liberals that replaced Lloyd Younger, one of those guys at Graceland.

Guest [00:17:21] Harold House also suffered losses. Roger Yarrington resigned in 1962, Roy Muir in 64, and yours truly in 66 to move over to Graceland. Wellington became managing editor. Paul Wellington became managing editor when Yarrington resigned, and he continued Yarrington's policy of making the church's official organ, the Saints Herald, open to a variety of views. Complaints by readers regarding articles reflecting liberal theology and liberal social action, like On Civil Rights, were a frequent concern for the First Presidency. Who are the editors in chief of The Herald?

Guest [00:17:56] By 1967, the first presidency had decided to make the Herald more a house organ and avoid controversy and not have debate articles like we had in the early 60s. And so the new blandness of the Herald left a void for the liberal intellectuals in the church. So a group of them, centered at Graceland and including Paul Edwards and Barbara Higdon, began publishing an independent quarterly called Courage, a journal of history, thought and action Pattern after Dialogue, which began publication in 1966. Four years earlier, the first issue of Courage rolled off the Press in April 1970 in an article in that first issue, which I think is probably the most important single article if you wanted to see the difference in worldview of the two perspectives in the church, was Don Landon's on Means and the debate over Religious education.

Guest [00:18:53] Landon had become the replacement for Roy Chevrolet for Cliff Buck as director of the department when he had left Landon. Anyway, the liberal journal failed for financial reasons after 11 issues in three years, although the content of the Herald became less controversial in the late 60s. During that time, young liberals published several books that reflected their appreciation for religious scholarship, an appreciation not shared by the fundamentalist critics on world religions. Wayne Hammond published BYU master's degree in Hebrew, published Man's Living Religions. In 1966. I wrote my little text on the New Testament treasure In Earthen Vessels. Also that year in the area of theology, there was Harold Schnaback and Vern Sparks on the Body of Christ and the theological enterprise in 68 and 69.

Guest [00:19:44] Both were graduates of Union Seminary in New York City. And then Robert Smith, who graduated from Chicago Divinity School, published For what Purpose? Assembled by Herald house also in 69. So a series of books in the late 60s kind of helped replace the lack of controversy or new ideas in the Herald there in the late 60s. Meanwhile, officials at the General Authorities level were moving much more cautiously than the young professionals toward a new theology that would downplay the traditional sectarian worldview. The Basic Beliefs Committee of the World Church had, which is led by church leaders, had been discussing theology for most of the decade and was finally ready by 1968 to begin publishing what amounted to a new creed for the church.

Guest [00:20:28] They published a series of articles in the Saints Herald during 68 and 69 and then published them in the form of a book called Exploring the Faith in 1970. The committee was composed of highly placed church leaders, including seven apostles and one member of the First Presidency. A total of 15 church leaders on the committee all were men, since there were no women in the priesthood yet, and in those days few in the church thought of women as people who would do theology.

Guest [00:20:56] These leaders had produced what might reasonably be called a new creed for the Church. We had traditionally ourselves as having no creed, reflecting the Book of Mormon statements to that effect denouncing the various creeds. But we really had our own slightly different version of the Articles of Faith, which we call the epitome of faith. We've got to do things differently than you folks.

Guest [00:21:17] The new theology published by the Basic Beliefs Committee was entitled Exploring the Faith, and this book clearly de emphasized some of the unique RLDS doctrines. The traditional RLDS notion of the Church as the restoration of New Testament Christianity was undercut as it declared, we ought not read into the early Christian Church the counterpart of our own organization and structure in any detailed way.

Guest [00:21:41] And the statement also downplayed the traditional concept of apostasy and presumed that God grants his authority to whomever he will, and it is not ours to judge the relationship of others to him. The new theology clearly reflected the shift from sect to denomination in worldview, which was still in its early stages at the end of the 1960s.

Guest [00:22:03] A second significant development among the general authorities during the late 60s was the fact that they began to hold a series of private seminars which were taught by three professors at St. Paul. Now this is Very controversial. I had sort of snuck away from Herald House to take courses at St. Paul and I graduated in 1967. But I told as few people as possible that I was taking courses at this point. Methodist Seminary. So this was these seminars with the Joint Council, as we call our general authorities.

Guest [00:22:34] These seminars were private. That's an appropriate word because when the Saints Herald ran a news story about these seminars, the saints weren't even told that the three professors from the nearby Methodist Seminary were the teachers of these seminars. You got the impression from the Herald articles that the general authority was sitting around teaching each other theology among themselves rather than getting it from these non rlds professors.

Guest [00:22:59] Some of these general authorities here in the late 60s were for the first time in their lives becoming significantly aware of some of the intellectual difficulties that exist for one who tries to maintain the traditional Latter Day Saint sectarian theology. For example, the notion that Christ established the church during his earthly ministry and that the New Testament Church contained an ironic and Melchizedek priesthood and so forth is virtually impossible to maintain in scholarly research. While some of the general authorities were already well aware, some were well aware of these issues, others weren't.

Guest [00:23:30] Some observers believe that the seminars caused some of these high church officials to revise their theology in ways that was similar to what the young professionals were teaching at Harold House, Graceland College and church headquarters. The end result of the seminars was the leadership elite, less committed to the traditional sectarian distinctives of the church and more inclined to an ecumenical perspective.

Guest [00:23:54] Most of the leaders were no longer viewing the earliest church as the true church with correct doctrine. For the new school thinkers, what mattered most was not correct doctrine, but discipleship. The position stated in Landon's article encourage. The seminars focused on the concept of incarnation, stressing that the church is true to the extent that it reflects the spirit and personality of Jesus Christ.

Guest [00:24:19] Soon another controversial development occurred, this time not involving all of the general authorities, but several key ones. The Department of Religious Education began planning a new curriculum for Sunday school study throughout the church. A committee was created to formulate plans for the new curriculum. The committee included again very high church officials, two members of the Presidency, three of the Apostles and others. Various staff members like Landon and Jeff Spencer and so forth were assigned to write position papers for the committee in the various areas that would be involved in the curriculum, such as the Book of Mormon, the nature of Scripture, the nature of the Church, the Church's teachings about Zion and so forth.

Guest [00:25:01] These papers generally took a very liberal revisionist perspective. For example, the paper on the Book of Mormon written by BYU graduate Wayne Ham took the position that the book should not be read as historical writing. Ham wrote, quote, perhaps the time has come in the church to recognize that some members want to openly espouse a non literal view of the Book of Mormon, treating it as a non historical treatise in much the same manner as modern critics view the books of Jonah, Ruth, Job and Daniel in the Old Testament. Ham's paper suggested that the department should approach the Book of Mormon with strategic caution.

Guest [00:25:39] Ham had received his master's, as I said in Hebrew from byu, but to the best of my knowledge, his position on the Book of Mormon has not received the imprimatur of the general authorities out here, nor of the Department of Church History and doctrine at BYU where he was taught.

Guest [00:25:54] Not every member of the curriculum committee was sympathetic to the liberal positions in these papers. And so by one person leaked copies outside. So they relate to fundamentalists outside the auditorium who xeroxed hundreds and maybe thousands of copies of these position papers and distributed them to fundamentalist church members to show to them what an alarming thing was taking place at church headquarters.

Guest [00:26:19] And so the circulation of these papers led to demands from the fundamentalists that people like Don Landon and his other staff members, the authors of these papers, be made to stand accountable to the church as to what they believed and whether the position papers reflected the expected content of the new curriculum. Sometimes it got nasty. Land at one time had garbage thrown on his lawn, but most of the time it was just nasty rhetoric.

Guest [00:26:45] Some general authorities made public declarations that the papers were only food for thought. Again, hierarchy trying to cover up only food for thought and discussion among the committee members and not the position of the department or of the curriculum that was to be developed. But it seemed. It's obviously an opinion here, but it's obvious, and Landon says so himself, that his associates really did intend these papers to be the theological presuppositions upon which the new curriculum would be based.

Fundamentalist Reactions and the Split

Guest [00:27:13] Yet another action by the general authorities and this special interest to folks out here in Utah was the shock. But which produced a shock for fundamentalists was the baptism of polygamists in south India in 1968. The first presidency and two or three apostles that were involved in it had made the decision quietly in 1968, and it did not become general knowledge until 1970.

Guest [00:27:41] Since the earliest church has historically come to the. Has historically come into existence over opposition to polygamy and spent most of the last century denouncing the Utah Mormons for their polygamous sins. This greatly upset many RLDS fundamentalists when they heard the news.

Guest [00:27:57] The general authorities took what I thought was a very reasonable position that these polygamous men could join the church and they could keep their current wives. It would be terrible not to have them keep their current wives, but they simply, now that they were believers, could not take on additional wives.

Guest [00:28:14] Interestingly, and in my understanding is the Utah church, which we have condemned for polygamy, I think today does not baptize polygamous people in third world countries. So I say let's resume the old polygamy debates that we used to have, but just switch sides. I think that would be thus. It appears that by the time the smoke had cleared from the various brush fires that had occurred during the decade of the 60s, most of the top leaders themselves had become at least somewhat liberal or ecumenical in their thinking.

Guest [00:28:45] At the end of the decade, some liberals not connected with the hierarchy were beginning publication of a liberal journal. Meanwhile, the leaders at church headquarters had written a theology for the church, had been taught by Protestant theologians, had begun preparing a new curriculum reflecting these new theological perspectives, and to top it off, had baptized polygamists in South India. It should not be surprising that as the world conference of 1970 approached in April of 1970, we hold them every two years, there were some fundamentalist delegates coming loaded for bear to the conference, determined to stop the liberal movement which they thought was taking the church down that slippery slope into apostasy.

Guest [00:29:25] Fundamentalists feared that the unique restoration doctrines were fast being eliminated, that the church leaders no longer were thinking of Joseph as a prophet and the Book of Mormon is authentic and and so forth. They feared that the ultimate objective of the church was to abandon all restoration distinctives and join the National World Council of Churches. And then we'd have open communion and recognition of baptism performed by other churches and so forth.

Guest [00:29:52] And so at the World Conference, though, President W. Wallace Smith in the first Presidency spoke out in support of Don Landon and his associates. Fundamentals brought in various motions to cripple the department, eliminated entirely, cut its budget in half, and so forth. A number of motions came in and they all got defeated, probably because of the strong statement that the First Presidency made of open support for Landon and his department.

Guest [00:30:17] From that day on, the fundamentals would fight many battles over the next 20 years, many battles with the leadership, but they would almost always lose. One issue, though, was looming beneath the horizon, barely visible in 1970, the feminist movement was coming into widespread public consciousness in the US at the end of the 60s this would lead some RLDS members in the 70s to begin demanding priesthood ordination for women in the church. But in 1970, this was not one of the issues on the radar screen of the fundamentalists or of the liberals. And it did not occur to the fundamentalists that this issue would before long become the issue that above all others would divide the fundamental fundamentalists and the ecumenical or liberal saints.

Guest [00:30:59] And while the 1984 revelation, you know, coming 14 years after this decisive conference, I'm talking about the 1984 revelation on women, section 156, was what finally ignited the major schism, it appears that in 1970 the die had already been cast between the two worldviews when Smith and the presidency backed Landon and the department and they won all the battles at conference that year.

Guest [00:31:23] As the fundamentalists saw it, the general authorities and their professional staff at headquarters and at Graceland in Iowa were leading the church into apostasy. Thus, it appears that the ordination of women was not the real issue that caused the recent serious split in the RLDS church in the late 80s.

Guest [00:31:40] By 1970, the breach had already become almost irreparable long before the women's issue arose and to trigger this serious split that finally finally occurred when approximately one fourth of our active membership left over the ordination of women in the late 80s. But the real issue had already been fought over for 20 years or so before that. The fact that the issue that finally brought the division to a head was the ordination of women was probably beneficial to the liberal faction in the church, the liberal leadership.

Guest [00:32:10] This caused many people to see it as a difference between a faction which was resisting women's drive to achieve equal dignity and status in society and in the church versus those who recognize that this traditionally marginalized group should be brought into full partnership in the church with men.

Guest [00:32:28] It was a break for the liberals because it meant that the differences over the nature of Revelation, the understanding of history regarding the apostasy and restoration, understanding the Book of Mormon of Zion and so forth, were somewhat pushed aside in the debate over women's roles. Ordination of women required specific decisions by the membership in that locality for every ordination that was to take place, so they could vote no for every woman that came up and these other issues subsided. The liberals would have been much more comfortable. They were much more comfortable arguing for the inclusion of women. They would have been far less comfortable if the debate had focused around their de emphasis on the Book of Mormon and these other issues that I've just mentioned.

Guest [00:33:10] And so as a result, I think it was A historical accident that helped the liberal cause, but nevertheless, one fourth of the active membership of the church left by 1990 in the six years right after section 156. So, open for questions. We have about 25 minutes left on the clock. Yes.

Membership Losses and What Came After

Guest [00:33:30] What happened to this order of the membership that left? Did they reorganize the reorganization or what? It's been a perpetual reorganization process since 1984. There are probably, I'd say, at least 300 local RLDS, splinter groups now. Some of them are extremely small or faded away very fast, like the one in Salt Lake City. I believe there's one still surviving in Orem, though.

Guest [00:33:58] What's the name of the guy? James Wardle used to cut hair down here near downtown Salt Lake City. He was the leading RLDS fundamentalist here in Salt Lake City, but he was getting pretty old and never really led. And they didn't get a full branch going. But there are some restoration branches, as they're called, usually that are very large in Independence, Missouri, probably, I would say the fundamentalists in their local groups. And there's about 25 of them in Independence. There's about 25 of our congregations and about 25 Restoration branches in Independence. And some of them are big. I think they probably have more people in the pews on Sunday morning than we do in Independence.

Guest [00:34:33] But elsewhere it's. But there's a diversity of kinds of groups. Some are just independent restoration branches with no authority beyond their local branch, waiting for God to call a prophet, but to bring them all together. And then there's others that said, hey, we can't wait any longer, or I've seen light, you know, Melvin Smith is the one to lead us. He's not a direct descendant of Joseph Smith Jr. But he's a direct descendant of Melvin Smith Sr. So that's good enough.

Guest [00:34:55] But that movement never got off ground. But anyway, some have already proceeded to organizing a new church with prophet or apostles and stuff like that. But I'd say 80% of them still are saying, no, that time hasn't come yet. We're following the lead of the 1850s when Brigham and all those heretics went west and we stayed in the Midwest with our independent Restoration branches. That is, we kept the true gospel alive in Illinois and Wisconsin and Michigan with local branches that kept the truth alive as we saw it until finally Joseph Smith III accepted the call to be our first president.

Guest [00:35:29] So I don't know if that answers your question. If you have a follow up, go ahead. Yes, two questions. The loss of membership that you recently sustained over the liberalization. How does that compare in either numbers or percentages with the losses that occurred? Was it in the 1920s with frame directional control populace? Yeah, it's worse than the twenties, but in one way it's a significant. Well, maybe it's not. Maybe it's similar in some ways the 20s controversy was worse because there was. The hierarchy was split, publicly divided, and some of the apostles left the church. I think one or two bishops might have left. The top bishops in the presiding bishopric, Wallace Frederick M.

Guest [00:36:15] Smith, the president, his own brother Israel, who later became his successor, was more or less on the other side of some of those key issues in the 20s. So the hierarchy was really divided. By the late 1980s, any of the fundamentalists in the hierarchy had retired, let's say in 1970, just after those seminars. If there were any remaining fundamentalists in the hierarchy, those big 18, as I think of them, by 84 they'd retired and been replaced by people who were sympathetic to the new direction. So the hierarchy was united in the 80s, divided in the 20s. In terms of members numbers.

Guest [00:36:53] It was significant in the 20s, but I don't know that it reached one fourth of the active membership. My uncle was one of the. My great uncle was one of the apostles who was dumped by fred M. In 22 because he wasn't supportive and he was replaced by Paul Edwards. Dad. That's why there's always been this hostility between Paul and I.

Guest [00:37:11] But F. Henry Edwards was a young up and coming guy. He was one of five or six new apostles and about five or six were dumped, including my uncle. So yes, Yeah, I think I forgot to rephrase the earlier questions. First I was asked about the new thinking on the apostles and then secondly, how the fundamentalists responded to several of these issues.

Guest [00:37:52] Well, in the apostasy, I think just the conclusion from historical study was that, well, first of all that Jesus didn't really build a church. I mean, the idea that Jesus established a church, New Testament scholarship tends to debunk that. And then I think most of these liberals, if you call them that, concluded that God's never withdrawn his concern for people and that Roy Cheville wrote a book called did the Light go Out? And he said, no, it didn't go out.

Guest [00:38:25] During Christian history, the light dims sometimes and then there's reform and then it dimmed and there's reform. So the idea of there being this true church which died and then it was resurrected from a historical perspective, that just didn't make sense to the Liberals. Now, your other question was about whether or not there were some fundamentalists who accepted these new views, but then women was over the line for them. I don't think so. I think virtually all a lot of fundamentalists have told me, and I've interviewed a lot of them personally. A lot of them said women in the priesthood really is not the issue.

Guest [00:38:57] And I don't know a single one who would say, well, everything was fine, you know, in the rethinking of these other things. But, boy, you know, none of them are pure male chauvinist pigs, you know, that were liberals otherwise. But, you know, there's certainly plenty of male chauvinism in restoration branches and probably more. Probably a good share of it in the RLDS Church, too. But I don't know if that answers your question or not. Nadine has been answering.

Guest [00:39:31] Yeah, not in membership, but I think. I think it's led to a refreshing. It's been a breath of fresh air. And I hate to say that because I don't take the view that, oh, good riddance, you know, glad you folks left. I take the view that the leadership, the first presidency, and most specifically the two counselors to the president during that crisis acted in extremely arrogant ways and drove a lot of fundamentalists out. They should have realized, you know, I just assumed and this happened that they'd give the fundamentalists 10 or 20 years to absorb this radical change.

Guest [00:40:04] And rather they. The fundamentals who were publicly critical got silenced, that is their priesthood removed. So I think they drove a lot of fundamentals away. They didn't have to. So in terms of the pattern for Utah, well, you know, if it had been handled more skillfully, I think it would have come out better.

Guest [00:40:22] I don't think I've really answered all your questions, though. Oh, yeah? Yeah. Does it really help? Yeah, yeah. I say, yeah, I guess I have two parts to that. One is that we lost an awful lot of members and a lot of congregations just really were depressed for several years. But then many of them began to say, well, hey, you know, like in my congregation on the Moni once, Roland Prather and six other guys went off and joined and formed the Decatur City Restoration Branch and left our congregation along with several others. We have been free to do things that we really wanted to do.

Guest [00:40:58] I mean, a lot of us wanted to do for years. And so it really is a new church in Lamoni in the sense of just a whole different breath of fresh air came. And so our focus on the new themes of the church as a peace church, an interest in peace and justice and so forth. Boy, we would have gotten flack for a lot of that stuff. The last World Conference I introduced a motion opposing the death penalty. It passed by two thirds margin. I mean, if those fundamentalists were still in the church, we wouldn't have had a prayer. So it's freed us to be more what we wanted to be.

Guest [00:41:29] My general view is both sides are happy in the sense that both sides are now able to have worship life and church life of the type they really would like to have, because it's such a. Two such different worldviews that it was hard to live together. So I regret the loss, but I think in many ways we're better off. Rebecca?

Guest [00:41:55] No, there is the, you know, there is a. I guess it's a danger of the feminization of the church because, you know, churches are voluntary associations in America and rely upon the contribution of. The voluntary contribution of time and money from individuals. And I think some men are just kind of happy to share the owner's burden. A lot of our congregations are small. I used to go out to little congregations and preach, and there'd be like 15 people there and 10 women and five men. And three of the five men are up front with me. And I think these guys got to do this every week with just a minor bit of rotation.

Guest [00:42:29] And these poor guys who are, you know, bank clerks and custodians and public school teachers and stuff, and, you know, they must have to preach to this congregation six, eight times a year or more, although they brought in a lot of outsiders like myself. Anyway, I thought. And then I'd go for Sunday school. And in Sunday school I listen and, boy, the sharpest people in this congregation are the women, you know, when you hear them talk in Sunday school. And why aren't they up here, you know, taking praying and preaching and stuff. So I think for a lot of the men, it was a relief to have some help.

Guest [00:43:01] But I'm sure some men, you know, were kind of resisted that one pattern that I think is sometimes a woman. There's some concern sometimes maybe we shouldn't ordain a woman to a higher office than her husband. And I was a low priest, as I always said, an aaronic priest for 41 years, an adult Aaronic, and kind of proud of it, because I had ruffled enough feathers during the years that I just. My pastor thought I was a communist. I naturally didn't get called to be an elder. And so.

Guest [00:43:31] But anyway, recently they called me to be an elder after 41 years. And then shortly thereafter they called my wife to be a priest and they've indicated that she's going to become an elder pretty soon. Well, you know, they didn't have to ordain me an elder. I was happy as a low priest. I say proud of it. And if the lowest had been an elder and I was a priest, that's probably about the way it ought to be anyway.

Guest [00:43:51] But anyway, I think there's some of that. But there are a lot of cases where the women have passed their husbands in the priesthood hierarchy. Yes, Rebecca? Yeah, Well, they're right around a quarter of a million, but, you know, probably 10 or 15,000 or 20,000 of these are probably fundamentalists who've never taken their names off the books and are attending restoration branches. So there hasn't been. The membership's kind of leveled off as we lost a bunch and, and we made some good gains in world missions, but in the US we're at best holding our own hands over here for quite a while.

Guest [00:44:35] It's hard to interest RLDS people in Utah Mormonism because, for one thing, even though the relationship has become much more friendly in the last 30 years. Mormon history Association, Smith family reunions and some other context. Mormon Tabernacle Choir performed at the auditorium President Wallace Smith, Wally B. The son W. Wallace had dinner with Gordon B. Hinckley. I guess before the ceremony there'd been a lot of friendly context. But on the other hand, you folks have moved more to the right and we've moved quite a bit more to the left during that same time period. So for a lot of our people kind of losing interest in Latter Day Saint things.

Guest [00:45:13] But there are young people that are interested in Utah Mormonism. How do you view the future of the. Well, I think there's got to be some kind of break sometime. I mean, I don't think you can, you know, I have no way of predicting what that's going to be. But, you know, and I hate to make this comparison, but the communist regime, you know, finally cracked. I mean, if you really require uniformity of thought, you know, there's some time when it's going to break. I mean, person, unless you're not here, person like Lavina, you know, obviously Lavina's not going to. Not going to.

Guest [00:46:01] She didn't, you know, go back to her home and close the door and lower the blinds and turn out the lights and hide. You know, she fought back and there will be a, you know, a Martin Luther, Levine Anderson or something. There'll Be some incident, I assume, that will cause significant defection. It may be 5% or something, I don't know. But I just don't think you can require uniformity. Since humankind's knowledge of the truth evolves and is affected by culture, I don't think we can remain wedded to 1830s worldview that we've canonized. I don't think we can hold that forever.

Audience Questions on Doctrine and Church Identity

Guest [00:46:43] Probably everybody disagree with that. Second row there. Yeah. What is the Book of Mormon? We don't have one really. No, I guess traditionally we have said that. I mean, officially we believe in the Book of Mormon, but I would say, you know, that that's, that's kind of like the platform of the Democratic Republican Party. You got a written platform, but the real platform of the Republican Party is what George Bush is going to be saying in these next three months and what Al Gore is going to be saying is the other platform. And so officially, we still.

Guest [00:47:15] A statement during Joseph Smith III's time in 1880s has kind of been the standard. We believe our doctrine is based on the inspired version of the Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants. And probably majority of our members still are pretty firm adherence to the Book of Mormon, including its historicity. But I would say most of the leadership have a position pretty similar to mine. That is it's fiction, but that it nevertheless deserves its place in the canon because it's the founding document of Mormonism. It should be read completely aside from its historicity for the religious value that's found in the stories in the Book of Mormon, that we should approach it on that basis.

Guest [00:47:51] Andrew Bolton, our director of peace and justice, he wrote an article in John Whitmer a year ago, which he goes through the Book of Mormon and kind of finds hope for there being a peace church, a peace gene in the Book of Mormon, you know, the pacifist strain that's in the book and so forth. Anyway, it's still part of our canon. Very few people would, Very, very few people would say dump it from the canon. But a majority of what I'd call the leadership elite, vast majority of the leadership elite would say, well, it's not history. Grant McMurray, in your radio, one of your radio interviews here in the summer of 96, Steve Mayfield gave me a copy of it.

Guest [00:48:25] He was very blunt with whoever called in. What's your position on the Book of Mormon, Grant? The new president of our church said, well, you just. I'm sorry. He said, do you believe that the Book of Mormon is history and you weren't sure whether he meant the church or Grant. And Grant said, well, that's something you just can't be historically verified. History doesn't provide us tools to decide whether or not to resolve that issue. So somebody else called him and said, what do you believe?

Guest [00:48:53] We've had that happen a lot to us. You know, what do you personally believe is the Book of Mormon history? And Grant says, that's something I can't make any determination of. History doesn't provide us the tools to make any definitive conclusion on that. And I thought, wow, he's saying this in Salt Lake City.

Guest [00:49:09] And I've enjoyed a couple times I've been on the radio in Salt Lake City, too. I think Grant enjoyed it a lot, probably. I think you've been raising your hand for something. Fred M. Smith, the grandson of Joseph the Martyr and the son of Joseph III, was president.

Guest [00:49:30] He had gotten a Ph.D. in sociology from Clark University and decided and then he felt the church was much too decentralized and really lacked leadership. And so he decided by about 1920, about five years after he became president of the church, decided that in the 20s, he was really going to put push for strong executive leadership in the church. And so we call it supreme directional control, because the critics said, hey, you know, you're taking supreme control of the church away from the membership. We're still we're supposed to operate by common consent. And a lot of the fundamentalists Today, in the 90s, in this last 15 years, you know, agree that this is the elders as a whole should be making these decisions or the members as a whole, and not directed by the heart.

Guest [00:50:12] So as a centralization of power issue, November 17 18, November 17, 1985, a year and a half after the conference made the decision, when they ratified by 80 to 20% vote W. Wallace B. Smith's section 156. And then they took a year and a half to kind of get ready for that, and they decided nobody will be ordained before November 17, 1985. So there wouldn't be a rush to be the first woman ordained in the church. And plus they prepared some guidelines and so forth. MEL yeah, yeah. See, in some ways we were advantaged by we didn't have a byu. We had an undergraduate program in religion at Graceland, which I majored in religion, but my major professor was Roy Chaville, you know, who graduated from the University of Chicago and studied under people like Shaler, Matthews and Schaville worked out a very nice accommodation of traditional Protestant liberalism with I mean, with Matthews, liberalism, modernism, what do you want to call it?

Guest [00:51:20] With traditional rlds thought. And so Cheville, you know, prior to this 60s controversy, for a long time had been kind of preparing the way by educating a lot of us in religion at an undergraduate level, but we had no graduate programs in religion. And then then from a liberal perspective, the providential act of the Methodist Church's decision to locate a seminary 18 minutes from the auditorium. And so it was easy for us just to slip over and take course. I would take classes at 8:00 in the morning, then get in the office by 9:15. And people thought, well, Russell's just a little late getting to work.

Guest [00:51:55] You know, I'd snuck over to the seminary and taking the class. So we saw the developing leadership elite at the including a lot of the general authorities in the 70s especially, but beginning in 59 through the 60s and then accelerating in the 70s, many of them were going to St. Paul because it was close to church headquarters. And so that had a tremendous effect on the bureaucracy and independence like the Department of Religious Ed. But it also had an effect on what was published in the Herald both in terms of articles and in books and so forth forth. So recently I attended theology colloquy at Graceland four, five, six years ago.

Guest [00:52:34] I was amazed at the number of people all around the church who were getting master's degrees in religion from a lot of seminaries around the country, including a decent number that were going to Catholic seminaries. I was really pleased because one weakness I thought was my era, we all went to Protestant seminaries and most of us went to St. Paul because of geography.

Guest [00:52:54] So in the back I've been kind of favoring people in the front. Well, it happened. Yeah, yeah. I mean that I think, and I think again I would be a critique I would have of the leadership elite was first of all those issues I mentioned those events, they were secretive about them. You know, I didn't tell them those Methodists, these Methodist professors were teaching them and didn't tell about polygamy for a couple of years.

Guest [00:53:34] And then I think Wallace B. Smith, who I credit for ordaining women, for setting the goal, the purpose of the new temple to be the pursuit of peace and for breaking lineage in the presence of and appointing Grant McMurray. And then under his watch, open communion became our policy. You know, four major changes which Wallace has to be given a lot of credit for. But I think he did not prepare lay the groundwork for section 156. He should have been educating the church on a women's ordination a little bit was done, but very little was done. Grant, I think, is handling much better right now.

Guest [00:54:09] We have major issue over the acceptance of homosexuals in the church. Should they be allowed in the priesthood if they're practicing homosexuals and committed relationships and so forth? And should we allow people who've been baptized in other denominations full membership in the church without rebaptism? Two big issues. And Grant is saying we need a dialogue in the church about this for a while. In a world conference this year, we divided up.

Guest [00:54:37] We had a Mennonite come in who's an extra expert on conflict resolution. And the delegates just divided up from far left to far right and what you think about this. And then we sent representatives up and had a dialogue on the stage and stuff, and just preparing the way for the church to think through as a church whether or not this is something we should be doing. And Grant says his first statement practically as president was let's don't think so much of being a church with a prophet as think about being a prophetic church. Well, if God can guide Gordon B. Hinckley or Grant McMurray, Wallace Smith or whoever, he certainly can guide the people to coming to a consensus on an issue.

Guest [00:55:11] And if it's done that way, then you've really got the people on board on the issue. And meanwhile, we have a temple school course on homosexuality in the church. Grant's hoping that over a few years that will cause the people to have really thought deeply about the issue and make a reasonable decision rather than the decision just made based on bigotry.

Guest [00:55:32] Nadine? More cautious? I'm not sure I'd say more cautious. I'd probably say more cautious. And certainly my view that the fundamentals were not treated with respect they should have been treated with. And so I think he's more in that view. One final question, then. Our time is up.

Guest [00:55:50] Yes, Well, I am. I don't know about the membership, but. Yeah, well, I mean, I guess I'd have to have some insight from God that that's not the way to go. I mean, I'm on the issues of homosexuality. I mean, that's like civil rights for blacks and so forth in the 60s. To me, that's not a negotiable issue. And so if somebody said God reaffirms Leviticus 18:22, I say B.S. you know, that's not, you know, I have fairly commitment, strong personal views there. So, yeah, God's probably incapable of converting me to the traditional view on that issue. So I would no doubt be lost?

Guest [00:56:43] I don't know. How would anybody know? Yeah. Well, I think Grant conceives that as a model that God can move among the people. And on issues such as this, rebaptism, homosexuality, people really haven't thought an awful lot about it. On the issue of rebaptism. If we think through the changes we've already made, now again, we could decide, reverse those changes and go back and stay with only recognizing our own baptism. But once you've recognized the value of these other religious traditions, the other Christian traditions at least, then it makes sense to go ahead and accept baptism.

Guest [00:57:26] But we need to think these things through because most of these things have logically followed from the other. But certainly the church wouldn't have in 1970 for W. Wallace Smith said, hey, let's have open communion and accept that Methodist ministers have just as much authority as we do, or whatever. People would have revolted. And the leadership elite at that time probably hadn't thought through these issues either. So we've just evolved. I reject the fundamentalist notion that it's been a big conspiracy.

Guest [00:57:55] Educated. The educated elite, you know, once they've gone to seminary and so forth, you know, they proceeded to write what they. What were their conclusions about these issues. And the church sort of, for the most part, has adopted much of what they concluded. I don't know if that makes any sense or not. At what age did the rdl.

Guest [00:58:15] We've traditionally had a more traditional Protestant trinitarian. We haven't always agreed exactly what that meant, but we don't focus on an anthropomorphic God. Well, God created the universe and all that and revealed himself to humankind and the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and fairly traditional Protestant theologies about as far as we go. Well, our time is more than up and enjoyed it very much.

John Dehlin [00:58:47] I want to thank William and thank you for coming to Sunstone 2000. See you again.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.