David O. McKay and The Modern (?) Church

I enjoyed reading the first 250 pages or so. The last 150 I had to plow through, as the story had become fairly repetitive. If I had to summarize things into a single sentence, it would be: "David O. McKay energetically moved the church forward, although he was occasionally swayed strongly by affinities for specific people to make decisions that probably had some negative consequences." This theme was repeated in connection with blacks and the Priesthood, BYU structure development, KSL, communism, missionary work, and the building program.

As an overall work, I was often frustrated with what I perceived as the authors' personal biases. They seem to have had a particular view, one which impacted their presentation of all the major characters in the book, particularly divisive figures. Consider, for instance, what I would consider the difference with which Sterling McMurrin's political views were presented (quite sympathetically) versus Ezra Taft Benson's political views (quite unsympathetically). I attribute this to a modern perspective on the particular issues, but I would have appreciated a more historical perspective that avoided the normativity. I don't imagine it was a conscious decision, rather it just seeped in from the authors understandable personal feelings and beliefs.

On some of the specific issues Paul raised: I do think the church generally held back the revelation on blacks and the Priesthood. I think the more interesting question is to what degree the feelings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee delayed the revelation. This is, I feel, a much trickier question. How limited are prophets, in their role as prophets, by personal feelings. Harold B. Lee seemed to have very strong feelings about the importance of the policy during McKay's tenure; when he became prophet did those feelings disappear, or was God able to speak through them, or did they (possibly) interfere with his potential to receive the revelation? I don't know.

I've never given the question of whether there is significant debate among members of the Quorum of the Twelve, or the First Presidency, a large amount of thought. I think that what I found more disconcerting from the way the governing organizations of the church were presented in the book was a lack of united front after decisions were made. Often this seemed (from the author's depictions) to arise due to ambiguity in David O. McKay's instructions. However, I question two things: how publicly divided the leadership of the church truly was (on issues like the John Birch Society, for example) and to what degree the Clare Middlemis records (private accounts, by in large) reflect the general public perception at the time. Personally, I imagine the issue of Elder Benson's politicization wasn't nearly as conflictual as it was depicted in the book.

As a final note, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about an important era in church history. While I take most of this record with a grain of salt, I don't find anything in it to shake my testimony. David O. McKay, like his predecessors and successors as President of the Church, was a prophet of God. Despite personal limitations and foibles, when he spoke as Prophet, he spoke the Word of God. And while it's important to always maintain personal perspective, I think doubting what is of man and what is of God should, in the end, be of mostly academic import. Less important than his dicta to the press over communism or priesthood are his words at General Conference. We should probably study those more, and the former less.

[Note: edited for date and time to make the post appear at the top of the blog]

July Book-o-th'-Month: the Decision

So, I've decided to go with The Road as the July book of the month. Hopefully you can all get a copy easily. I'll put an upfront caveat that not only is the book very stark in its depiction of post-apocalyptic America, but there are some graphically violent depicted events. Or maybe not graphic, but certainly disturbing.

Anyway, happy reading!