A secret church committee that controls Utah politics?

Summary

Connor Boyack delves into the intriguing topic of whether a secretive church committee has historically controlled Utah's political landscape, focusing on allegations from the late 1800s. He explores the historical context, involving the Mormon Church's political manifesto of 1896, and reveals findings from his research at the Utah Historical Society. Through a deep analysis of historical records, Boyack brings to light potential connections between church leaders and legislative affairs, raising questions about influence and control that continue to echo in modern times.

Highlights

• Dive into a fascinating musing on Utah politics possibly steered by a secret church committee! 🤔
• Explore the 1896 political manifesto as a tool to pacify concerns over church influence. 🏴‍☠️
• Penrose's journal reveals clandestine meetings, suggesting deeper church-state entanglements than admitted! 🔍
• Representative Critchlow drops a bombshell, sparking a whirlwind of media frenzy and denials! 🚀
• Connor's investigation takes him on a path of dusty archives and forgotten journals! 📜

Key Takeaways

• Uncover the hidden tales of Utah's alleged church committee controlling politics back in the 1800s. 🕵️‍♂️
• Discover how a political manifesto in 1896 aimed to diminish suspicions about the church's influence. 📜
• Charles Penrose's journal entries, unearthed by Connor, suggest more involvement than publicly acknowledged. 📖
• The tensions between church and state were real, with figures like Representative Critchlow and Governor Wells at play. 🏛️
• Connor Boyack's sleuthing uncovers a riveting blend of history, politics, and journalism. 📚

Overview

Ever wondered if there's more to Utah's political history than meets the eye? Connor Boyack dives into a mystery that harks back to the late 1800s, revolving around a supposed secret church committee that some allege controlled the political scene of Salt Lake City. In this thrilling exploration, Connor unpacks the drama, conspiracies, and historical nuances of a bygone era, revealing interesting discoveries that are sure to pique the interest of any history buff!

The 1896 political manifesto was a statement from Mormon leaders to dampen suspicions of church influence in government matters. However, probing into past narratives, Connor unearths diary entries from Charles Penrose, suggesting that behind closed doors, the church's involvement in politics was more intricate and provocative than publicly acknowledged. These entries shed light on the delicate dance between ecclesiastical power and legislative affairs, echoing concerns that have rippled throughout time.

Piecing together threads of old news articles, op-eds, and journals, Connor paints a vivid picture of how the church's perceived control was both a subject of intense scrutiny and a symbol of broader struggles between church and state. Addressing names, dates, and the secretive meetings held in church offices, Connor’s analysis invites us to rethink the narratives of the past while pondering their implications today. Who knew history could be this gripping and controversial?

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The chapter 'Introduction' opens with the speaker greeting the audience on a Sunday, setting an intriguing tone by introducing the topic of a potentially secretive church committee that influences politics in Utah. The speaker clarifies that the foundation for this discussion isn't based on recent events, instead drawing from personal experiences working in Utah's political scene and interactions with the church. The speaker hints at revisiting these experiences in more detail to provide context to the discussion.
• 00:30 - 01:00: Purpose of the Discussion The chapter delves into a historical exploration rather than current secret committees. It reveals an alleged committee from the late 1800s, presenting new findings from research at the Utah Historical Society, offering a fresh perspective on previously undisclosed information.
• 01:00 - 01:30: Historical Context of Utah Politics in 1896 In 1896, Utah was striving to transition from a territory to a state. This period was marked by significant political and social efforts aimed at achieving statehood. During the April General Conference of that year, prominent church leaders like Woodruff, George Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith played critical roles in these efforts, culminating in notable declarations intended to influence the state's political landscape.
• 01:30 - 02:30: The Church's 1890 and 1896 Political Manifestos The chapter discusses two key political manifestos issued by the church in 1890 and 1896. These documents were part of the church's response to longstanding conflicts with the federal government regarding polygamy. The 1890 manifesto, initially a public relations statement, became canonized scripture and marked a significant shift in the church's political stance. These events were catalyzed by federal legislation criminalizing plural marriage and dismantling the church's legal organizational structure.
• 02:30 - 03:30: Allegations of Church Control in Politics The chapter discusses allegations of church control in politics, focusing on historical events related to the church's efforts to navigate political pressures. It highlights the 1890 manifesto issued by President Woodruff, which addressed polygamy as a response to government threats of seizing church assets. This move was seen as pragmatic to ensure the church's survival and smooth the path towards statehood, amidst Congressional, particularly Republican Party, concerns on moral issues akin to fighting slavery.
• 03:30 - 04:30: Representative Critchlow’s Op-ed and Allegations The chapter discusses the conflict between the church leaders in Utah and the federal government over the practice of polygamy, which was a significant issue in the 1890s. The 1890 manifesto specifically addressed polygamy, but did not tackle the political influence of the church in Utah, which was also a contentious topic as Utah was seeking statehood.
• 04:30 - 05:30: Reactions to Critchlow's Allegations The People's Party, which was supported by church leaders and members, was dissolved in 1891 as a shift towards supporting the national Democratic and Republican Parties began. This transition led to the 1896 manifesto, aiming to align more with these national parties.
• 05:30 - 06:30: Analysis of Charles Penrose's Journal This chapter delves into Charles Penrose's journal, shedding light on pivotal moments in Mormon history, specifically the church's stance on political influence and polygamy. It discusses the issuance of the 1890 manifesto, which was intended as a public relations effort to quell opposition to polygamy, although it was not fully effective, necessitating a subsequent manifesto. By 1896, a political manifesto was released to further assert that the church did not control Utah's political landscape.
• 06:30 - 07:30: Insights from Penrose's Journal The chapter 'Insights from Penrose's Journal' discusses the church's influence on Utah's government and the restrictions placed on church leaders running for office. It highlights a specific rule that required leaders to seek permission from the church's first presidency before entering political races. The restriction aimed to dispel the perception that the church had control over the state's government. The narrative features Moses Thatcher, an apostle, who opposed the rule, arguing it infringed on personal freedom. Despite the rule, Thatcher pursued political office by running for Congress as a Democrat, illustrating his resistance to the church's directive.
• 07:30 - 08:30: Modern Implications and Comparisons The chapter discusses the modern implications and historical comparisons surrounding the 1896 manifesto in the context of the Quorum of the Twelve and B.H. Roberts. The manifesto aimed to publicly distance religious influence from politics in Utah. Initially resistant, B.H. Roberts, a 70, ultimately agreed to the manifesto under threat of losing his position, indicating the pressure to conform to the new public relation strategy of the group. The chapter highlights the need for religious organizations to strategically manage their political influence.
• 08:30 - 09:00: Conclusion The chapter discusses the heightened paranoia among non-members of the church, Congress, and reporters regarding the influence of church leaders on Utah politics. The narrative references an April general conference and an op-ed published by Representative Critchlow, illustrating the ongoing scrutiny and concern over the potential control exerted by church leaders over local political affairs.

A secret church committee that controls Utah politics? Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Happy Sunday, everybody. Today is a tantalizing topic, talking about whether there exists or existed a secretive church committee that controls politics in Utah. Now, the basis for today's musing is not recent developments. I've shared in past musings my own experience in working in Utah politics and having to, shall we say, tangle with the church and seeing how it involves itself in political affairs. I'll touch on that a little bit by way of refresher later on in this musing.
• 00:30 - 01:00 But the focus of this musing is not a secret committee that now exists, though that may exist, but rather one that was alleged to have existed in the late 1800s. So we're going to do a little bit of a history lesson and a new revelation that is not yet before been made public, resulting from a little research expedition I went on at the Utah Historical Society to dig up some interesting
• 01:00 - 01:30 insights. We're talking at first about 1896. The context of what was happening at this time was Utah was, you know, in the years prior, trying to become a state rather than just a territory. And in 1896, specifically at the April General Conference, the leaders of the church, Woodruff leading the church, and then George Cannon, and then Joseph F. Smith, released what they called the
• 01:30 - 02:00 political rule of the church. This was a political manifesto. Building off of the other political manifesto six years prior, dealing with polygamy, which was a PR statement, press release turned into a canonized part of scripture. This political rule of the church is the result of decades of conflict with the federal government. Of course, there were multiple pieces of legislation by Congress that were criminalizing plural marriage, disenfranchising, polygamists dissolving the church's legal corporation,
• 02:00 - 02:30 seizing its assets, etc. That, of course, prompted the 1890 manifesto by Woodruff on polygamy. Now, you know, that manifesto was kind of a pragmatic move on the part of church leaders to, specifically President Woodruff, to ensure the church's corporate survival, and then paved the way for statehood. Because again, Congress was really animated, specifically the members of the Republican Party, which had been formed a few decades prior, to fight the twin barbarisms of slavery and
• 02:30 - 03:00 polygamy. So this was a focus for a lot of people and a sore spot of conflict between the leaders of the church and the territory in Utah and the federal government. So the 1890 manifesto not only addressed polygamy, but also, sorry, it only addressed polygamy. It did not address the political influence of the church in Utah, which had been another point of contention. So as Utah is fighting for statehood,
• 03:00 - 03:30 they dissolved the People's Party in 1891, which was what church leaders and members were primarily involved in and supportive of, shifting more towards the national Democratic and Republican Party lines. And so that ultimately prompted an 1896 manifesto trying to signal increasingly to the
• 03:30 - 04:00 feds, to the nation, that the church was not influencing or controlling Utah politics. So hey, we gave up polygamy, even though we didn't, because the 1890 manifesto didn't work, and they had to issue another manifesto years later to say, we really mean it this time, right? So the 1890 manifesto was like this press release designed to mollify opponents about polygamy. And then 1896, this political manifesto was designed to say, we don't control Utah politics. And specifically what it said is that
• 04:00 - 04:30 leaders of the church could not run for office without express permission of the first presidency. And it was aimed to reduce the perception that the church controlled Utah's government. It didn't say that no leaders of the church would run for office. It just said they needed the blessing of the first presidency. One of the apostles, Moses Thatcher, rejected it. He, I think later, shortly after this, ran for Congress as a Democrat. He argued that it restricted personal freedom. He wouldn't go along
• 04:30 - 05:00 with his 1896 manifesto. So they booted him from the Quorum of the Twelve. B.H. Roberts, who was a 70, he resisted the manifesto at first, but agreed to it in 1896, apparently under the threat of being removed from his position. So very much, it was this effort to say, you got to toe the line on this. We need to signal publicly that we are not influencing or controlling politics in Utah. We need to mitigate
• 05:00 - 05:30 that perception. That's the context. That's the context. That's what we're dealing with here. Heightened paranoia from non-members of the church and Congress and reporters across the country keying in on this question of whether church leaders control, quote unquote, Utah politics. So that was an April general conference. Just days later, there was an op-ed that was published in one of the local papers by Representative Critchlow,
• 05:30 - 06:00 member of the Utah legislature, who was not a member of the church. And in this op-ed, in this article, he's talking about, you know, hey, look, I have no problem with with members of the church, with Mormons generally. These are upstanding people. I take them at their word that they're good citizens and members of society. And he says, my concern is with the leaders of the church and their interference. Keep in mind, this is just days after the political manifesto was issued.
• 06:00 - 06:30 And then he says, and I quote, the interference to which I refer is the attempt by advice and counsel directly and immediately from the leaders of the church to control legislative action. And at least five, several and distinct cases was such attempt made during the session of the legislature just closed. Nor do I refer to such advice and counsel as might properly be given by individuals as such enforced by arguments and reasons.
• 06:30 - 07:00 But to that kind of advice and counsel, which is enforced by threats of church discipline, entailing the obedience due to a spiritual superior. So in this article, Representative Critchlow alleged that there was a committee of individuals in the church who were overseeing and involved in legislative matters, that they were the ones giving, you know, the blessing to or opposition to particular policies, that as he says here, they were giving advice and counsel,
• 07:00 - 07:30 but wrapping it with a threat of church discipline or demanding obedience to a spiritual superior. And he specifically, like he called it a committee, he called it a quote, committee or junta. Junta comes from the Spanish word junta together. It's primarily used in the context of like a military coup and having this junta of like this, this, you know, group of military leaders that are secretly like controlling the government.
• 07:30 - 08:00 But here in this use case, Representative Critchlow is calling this junta of like this secretive group of people who are, who have outsized control and secretive control and influence beyond, you know, what people would suspect. He goes so far as to name five individuals as being part of this junta. One was Charles Penrose, who was the assistant church historian. He was the former editor in chief of the Deseret News and a former legislator.
• 08:00 - 08:30 Penrose comes into play at the end of this musing. James Sharp was named as an individual on this committee. He was a former speaker of the House in Utah. William King, who was an associate justice for the Utah Supreme Court. William Ryder, who was an influential businessman and former speaker of the House of two former speakers. And then F.S. Richards, who was at the time general counsel for the church.
• 08:30 - 09:00 So this is who Representative Critchlow names and says, these are the people on this committee or this junta who are all up in this legislative business and and trying to, you know, from the church's perspective and purview, come and influence what we're doing here. He, of course, is a non-member of the church. So he's particularly sensitive, sensitive to this, that his own perhaps legislative efforts are being curtailed by, you know, the church coming in and telling its members in the legislature what to do or what not to do.
• 09:00 - 09:30 So one could reasonably suspect that someone in that position would have a concern. He aired his concern publicly just days after the political manifesto of 1896 was given. Okay. This kicked up a whatever you would call it, a dust storm, a firestorm of response in the local newspapers. I had fun going down the rabbit hole and reading a lot of these old articles. The following day after this claim has made, by the way, part of the claim was that the governor, who is a member of the church, was in on it and talking to church leaders.
• 09:30 - 10:00 The governor, the following day in the Salt Lake Tribune, flatly denies any involvement. He said, and I quote, You may say that the statement from Critchlow is unqualifiedly false, that I either sought, listened to, or accepted advice or counsel from any committee, junta, kitchen cabinet, or whatnot appointed by the Mormon church, and that I knew nothing of the existence of any such an affair.
• 10:00 - 10:30 You may say that I not only expressly deny the statements with respect to myself, but I distinctly disavow that the church to which I belong has sought to dictate, counsel, advise, cajole, threaten, urge, influence, or interfere in any manner whatsoever with any official act of mine since my election or before, or of any official act of the legislature of which I have any knowledge. I'm totally at a loss to understand the purpose of Mr. Critchlow in giving publicity to such a letter.
• 10:30 - 11:00 Okay, so that's the governor, member of the church at the time, saying, I'm not involved in this, and I know nothing about it, and the church has never tried to advise or counsel me or influence or interfere in any manner or whatever, and then neither have they done so in any legislative matter of which I have any knowledge. So, of course, he's not necessarily saying it doesn't happen. He's just saying, that's the legislative branch. I don't know what all they're doing over there, but I know nothing about it. Governor's washing his hands. Same day, in the Salt Lake Herald, they wrote, the paper's editors, that reporters were sent out yesterday to interview the gentleman said to constitute the alleged committee,
• 11:00 - 11:30 with what result may be seen by reference to our local columns. It will be observed that the gentleman said to have constituted the committee deny the character attributed to it by Mr. Critchlow. Mr. Monson, however, affirms that he was informed by a Republican member of the House of the existence of such a committee. Mr. Monson comes into play later. So this guy is saying, oh, a Republican member of the House told me that this committee exists.
• 11:30 - 12:00 The Herald's saying, hey, as soon as this allegation was made by Critchlow, we sent reporters out to go hunt these people down. And they did. And they were able to get on record responses from a bunch of these individuals. I'll share the one from Charles Penrose, because, again, he comes into play in just a moment. This is the same day, still in the Salt Lake Herald. They write, Charles Penrose of the presidency of the Salt Lake Steak was found at the third ward meeting last night after he had addressed the ward conference.
• 12:00 - 12:30 The gentleman's attention was called to the sentiment of Mr. Critchlow to the effect that the church had had a steering committee and was asked what he knew about it. Quote from Penrose. There was no committee appointed by the church that I know of. I am somewhat familiar with legislative matters, and members of the legislature occasionally asked me for my judgment. I met with F.S. Richards, and we called in a few other gentlemen, some Democrats and some Republicans. Members of the legislature asked us what we thought of certain measures.
• 12:30 - 13:00 That was all there was to it. In some instances, our recommendations were not carried out. We had no authority from anybody and made no attempt, whatever, to control the legislature. As for the governor, I never spoke to him, but twice on legislation. In one instance, he had already made up his mind, and in the other, he took an entirely different view from the one I held, and, of course, carried out his own ideas. So here's Penrose saying, look, members of the legislature asked us, the us being F.S. Richards, who was named by Critchlow as being on this committee,
• 13:00 - 13:30 as well as other gentlemen, some Democrats and Republicans. But he says, look, members of the legislature asked us what we thought. That was all there was to it. There's no authority, right? He's saying the information flows coming from, or the requests are coming from the legislature or particular legislators to this group of F.S. Richards and Charles Penrose and some of these other guys.
• 13:30 - 14:00 That's all there was to it. It was them asking us what we thought of certain measures, asking our opinion. That's it. Penrose is saying, there's no committee that I know of. I've had some private meetings with people because legislators asked us our private opinions. That's all. No authority. Again, that's all. Okay. Next day, still in the Salt Lake Herald, now the reporters walked into the church office building to talk to the first presidency.
• 14:00 - 14:30 President Woodruff was out, president of the church, but his two counselors were there and received the impromptu reporter visit and interviewed with this reporter. It was published in the Salt Lake Herald, kind of a summary of their remarks. Again, this is George Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, who are counselors in the first presidency. And the Salt Lake Herald says, they stated that at various and numerous times during the session of the legislature, from beginning to end, people had come to them.
• 14:30 - 15:00 Not only Mormons, but so-called Gentiles, urging that steps be taken to prevent unwholesome or to secure desirable legislation. To these repeated requests and suggestions, only one of which, by the way, had come from a member of the legislature, the presidency had replied that they were not informed as to the legislation in question and had no time in the multiplicity of their duties to investigate it, recommending that it would be well to consult some of those residents of the city who were experienced in legislative matters, such as James Sharp, William Ryder, F.S. Richards, and others.
• 15:00 - 15:30 Of course, those are all people named by Critchlow. They disclaimed, having any thought or desire, that the gentlemen thus referred to should act as a committee, with authority to decide for or represent the views of the first presidency, but were actuated simply by the thought that these gentlemen might be consulted, one or all, to ascertain their personal views upon, or requested to use their influence for,
• 15:30 - 16:00 such laws as they themselves might deem needful, and against such other laws as they might deem to be injurious. The reporter continues,
• 16:00 - 16:30 So far, as their intercourse with the alleged committee is concerned,
• 16:30 - 17:00 And they stated that the members thereof had never been around to consult them, except in two or three instances, and then not all of the alleged members, but only one or two, such, for instance, as in the case of the so-called college bill, which was thought to affect the church schools, and upon which the presidency were consulted, not only by President Kerr of the Brigham Young College at Logan, the author of the bill, but by Monsiers Penrose and Sharp, both of whom are connected with the church schools.
• 17:00 - 17:30 Even in this instance, they had expressed no desire to control legislation. They had even entertained varying views on the merits of the bill. Monsiers Penrose and Sharp had consulted President Smith only. The other members of the presidency seemed not having been present when they called. Finally, the gentleman stated that they had not conveyed any message to any member of the legislature that a committee for consultation had been appointed, that they did not know how frequently the proposed gentleman had been consulted, if at all, nor to what extent, nor on what measures they had consulted members of the legislature.
• 17:30 - 18:00 Okay, there are some things in here that I believe, based on the research that I dug up, to not really be accurate, to be stretching the truth, perhaps. We'll see that in just a moment when I go over what I found. First, before then, same day, an editorial in the Salt Lake Herald. Again, this is the paper that has sent out all these reporters to go hunt down the alleged members of this committee,
• 18:00 - 18:30 sent a reporter to talk to the first presidency. Then they published this editorial, same day, April 14th. It appears in view of all the information that can be obtained on the subject of the church junta affair, that Mr. Critchlow discovered a veritable mayor's nest, a phrase that implies that he thought he had uncovered something scandalous, but in reality it turned out to be insignificant based on a misunderstanding, right? So that's a mayor's nest. The interviews, secured with the members of the alleged junta and published in yesterday's Herald,
• 18:30 - 19:00 together with the interviews that appear in our local columns today with Monsiers George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith and Governor Wells, settles the matter beyond question that no such junta was appointed by the church authorities, even the Salt Lake Tribune. After the flat denial of the governor of the existence of the junta and the failure of Mr. Critchlow, when applied to by a tribune representative to give the necessary proofs of his charters, says editorially, quote,
• 19:00 - 19:30 putting the two together, if Mr. Critchlow has nothing further to offer, the verdict will be that Mr. Critchlow, after all, had little more than a suspicion behind him and that up to date, young Utah has the best of the situation. All right. So there's a little more chatter happening in the papers, but that is like the core of what's happening. There's an allegation from Critchlow. Reporters get in, you know, all buzzed about it. They go out to get responses. Everyone's denying it, saying it's this benign thing. It's a mare's nest, right?
• 19:30 - 20:00 Nothing to see. And then the papers, including the adversarial Salt Lake Tribune, are like, hey, look, we think Critchlow's up in the night. This is an unsubstantiated claim. And so we think he's in the wrong. I may have substantiated the claim. So I went and dug up Charles Penrose's journal. Again, at the time, he was assistant church historian. And he would later become an apostle and a counselor to two presidents of the church. But at the time, he's the assistant church historian.
• 20:00 - 20:30 He's working with this F.S. Richards, general counsel of the church. His journal is in possession of not the first presidency vault or not any of this stuff. His journal is in possession of the Utah Historical Society, which is like half an hour away from where I live. So it's not online. It's not any of that. But I made an appointment. I went up there into this crappy old government rundown building. And they pulled it out of the vault. This is old school journal as well as a typescript of the journal.
• 20:30 - 21:00 So I'm going to share now portions of the journal from Charles Penrose. He is one of the alleged members of this committee, alleged by Representative Critchlow. He is named as an individual. He's named by the first presidency saying, yeah, we talked to him once and about this college bill and so forth. And so he's alleged to be at the center or near the center of this whole so-called junta affair.
• 21:00 - 21:30 Let's rewind two weeks. So again, it was April 12th that Representative Critchlow made the allegation. It was April 6th-ish around there that the political manifesto was given in general conference. And in the days following April 12th is when all the responses and all the reactions from named parties are published in the paper. But let's go back two weeks. We're going to start with March 30th. Again, this is 1896.
• 21:30 - 22:00 Penrose writes in his journal, brother Kerr, again, this is president of the Brigham Young College. Brother Kerr of Logan called on me while at breakfast in reference to a bill for the incorporation of colleges, which the governor had related. So this is saying the governor had called Penrose and others and which he was working to have passed over the veto. We went to F.S. Richards and talked over the matter. Subsequently, I went to see the presidency about it. James Sharp also called at the same time. We learned that the presidency had not endorsed the bill except in a negative way, condition on its being as represented by brother Kerr.
• 22:00 - 22:30 I went to F.S. Richards office an evening and met with the committee and listened to a long argument from brother Kerr. We all agreed, we the committee, agreed the bill was bad as well as unnecessary. But he informed us he would work for its passage over the veto nevertheless and had most of the House pledged to its passage. Okay.
• 22:30 - 23:00 So, again, this shows the governor was in communication. He did concede, oh, once or twice, you know, and I was involved in talking to people. Penrose is saying that he was meeting with F.S. Richards, another named individual. James Sharp also called, meaning I presume to mean that he came at the same time when you call upon someone. I don't know that this was a, you know, phone call way back in 1896. So I'm assuming that means James Sharp shows up.
• 23:00 - 23:30 They learned that the presidency has taken a position of opposition to this bill, conditioned on the bill being as was described by brother Kerr. This is consistent with what Cannon and Smith claimed to the reporter, that we had, you know, taken a position or we had, let's see if I can find it. Let's see. We had gone no further than, this is from Cannon and Smith, than to agree on not more than two or three occasions with people urging the demerits or merits of a bill that if the bill was as undesirable or as desirable as was represented, it ought respectively to fail or pass.
• 23:30 - 24:00 So they're saying there were a couple of times when someone talked to us about a bill and based on their representations, their warrant of what this bill was, we had feelings for or against. So that appears to be consistent. And then, okay, so that's March 30th. Again, we're about two weeks before things blow up. Let's go to the next day, March 31st. Again, Penrose's journal. Met with James Sharp, F.S. Richards, both of who are named by Critchlow, F.M. Lyman and J.H. Smith on Kerr's college bill.
• 24:00 - 24:30 And we agreed to work for its suppression. The presidency had gone to Ogden on business. I went to the legislature and talked to Representatives Monson. Again, that's one of the named people in Critchlow's stuff. Monson, Egan, Stevens, Murdoch, Lewis, and Mansfield about the bill. It went over till the afternoon. I also conversed with Senators Cannon, Evans, Snow, Chambers, Warner, and Canlin on the bill.
• 24:30 - 25:00 Then went to F.S. Richards' office on legislative matters. Learned that the House had passed the college's bill over the governor's veto. Monson, Lewis, Murdoch, and Mansfield voting for it, notwithstanding what was said to them. Senator Abel J. Evans was present and agreed to do all in his power to stop the passage of the bill in the Senate. We advised him also to try and kill the county's bill, a needless measure. We considered several other bills. We, we, we, right? He's talking about, at a minimum, him and F.S. Richards. But, you know, he says he met with James Sharp as well.
• 25:00 - 25:30 F.S. Richards, Lyman, Smith. The, the we is, is by his own admission, the day prior in his journal, a committee. He said the day prior, I went to F.S. Richards' office in the evening and met with the committee. Right? Clearly, this is like a thing. He's calling it the committee. Exactly what was alleged two weeks later. Right? Okay. So, Monson, by the way, told, you know, two weeks later, it was April 13th, that he told the Salt Lake Herald that he knew of the existence of this committee.
• 25:30 - 26:00 And here, in his journal, Penrose is saying he went and lobbied Representative Monson, or Senator, no, Representative Monson. He went and lobbied him to vote against it, and then said that Monson and a few others voted for it, notwithstanding what was said to them. Now, that could be very benign and just, hey, I tried to make, you know, a rational argument against it, and so notwithstanding my arguments, they voted for it. Or that could be a more, shall we say, significant statement about what was said to them, communicating with these members of the church in the legislature, an expectation of, you know, the way they should vote.
• 26:00 - 26:30 And they voted for it, notwithstanding what was said to them. Then they get this Senator Evans guy who agrees to do all in his power to stop the passage of the bill. When you agree to something, that, I think, implies that you are asked or requested or told to do something, and then the person agrees. It doesn't really convey that Senator Evans just voluntarily on his own said he's going to do it.
• 26:30 - 27:00 It was clear that, you know, he agreed to do all in his power to stop the passage of the bill in the Senate. They're meeting this committee with Senator Evans saying, hey, man, you got to shut this down. You got to do us a solid. We. We advised him. We considered several other bills. They're meeting, by the way, in F.S. Richard's office. This is a church office. He's the general counsel of the church. It's significant for reasons I'll expound on in a moment.
• 27:00 - 27:30 Let's continue. The next day, April 1st, again from Penrose's Journal, conversed with presidents George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith on the college's bill. They wished it killed. Got Brother Nicholson to go to the Senate to converse with members against it. At F.S. Richards evening on committee work. Finally, quickly, the next day in his journal, April 2nd, he simply writes, no committee meeting. Like he's not saying, oh, I didn't see F.S.
• 27:30 - 28:00 Richards today or we didn't. Like he's saying committee meeting. And on April 1st at F.S. Richards in the evening on committee work. Not this ragtag band of upstanding citizens with legislative experience who are using their own personal interests to take positions for against. He's calling this committee work. He's calling it a committee. He's saying no committee meeting on April 2nd. Again and again, he's saying we are a committee. We advised him to kill the county's bill. We considered several other bills.
• 28:00 - 28:30 We met with the first presidency. We agreed to work for the bill's suppression. Interestingly here, the, again, first presidency had claimed that Monsiers Penrose and Sharp had consulted President Smith, only the other members of the presidency not having been present when they called. That was the claim that the reporter wrote that Smith and Cannon had told him. Oh, they only talked to President Smith. Cannon was not there. Here in Penrose's journal two weeks prior, he's revealing that he talked to Cannon and Smith on the college's bill.
• 28:30 - 29:00 That appears to be an incongruity between what was claimed publicly and what was revealed privately. And the first presidency wished it killed. Cannon and Smith had told the reporter that they expressed no desire to influence legislation. And yet here, privately, Penrose is revealing that when he met with these same two individuals they wanted, it killed. They didn't have just a benign expression of dissatisfaction with the bill or, oh, if it's as President Kerr said, then, you know, we have a negative opinion of it, as it said before, right?
• 29:00 - 29:30 Now, it's very clear. They wished it killed. That was their desire. So they told the reporter publicly they expressed no desire. And here they are. Penrose is revealing they privately expressed a desire. They wished it killed. No, we don't like that bill. It's go kill it.
• 29:30 - 30:00 We want this thing dead. And so what does Penrose say immediately after that in his journal, after they expressed that desire that the bill be killed? Got Penrose went and on presumably, I think very fairly, presumably on behalf of the directive from the first presidency, got this Brother Nicholson guy to go to the Senate to talk to members of the church about it. And then he was on committee work later that evening with F.S. Richards. Okay. Let's fast forward 10 days.
• 30:00 - 30:30 We're going from April 2nd to April 12th in the journal. This is the day that Critchlow blows things up. And Penrose in his journal records, In the evening, I attended a third ward conference, read the manifesto. This is the political manifesto. Spoke on it at length. People voted for it and for church and ward officers. One or two did not vote, but no opposition. At close, Ed C. Ivins of the Salt Lake Herald and a reporter came to me, said they had reported my discourse,
• 30:30 - 31:00 and wanted to know about the junta or committee to control legislation reported by lawyer Critchlow in that day's Tribune, of which it was said I was a member. I told them the facts as far as I thought proper and decried Critchlow's falsehoods. Later in the 11th ward, Brother William Ryder came to see me in relation to the same matter. William Ryder, again, was one of the other named individuals by Critchlow as being part of this, was also named by Cannon and Smith saying, yeah, we've talked to Ryder and he's got this relevant experience.
• 31:00 - 31:30 But I find it interesting here. Penrose is saying that he told the reporter from the Salt Lake Herald the facts as far as I thought proper. Hmm. That's an interesting way of saying that you just told someone the facts. As far as I thought proper. Meaning that there were certain facts that were improper to share publicly with a reporter? Right?
• 31:30 - 32:00 I told them the facts as far as I thought proper. Withholding something. And then decried Critchlow's falsehood. Look, maybe Critchlow got it slightly wrong. Maybe there wasn't overt threats of church discipline. So maybe that's what Penrose is latching onto. Oh, these falsehoods. He claims it's this formal committee. No, it's just an informal committee. And he claims that we're, you know, threatening members with church discipline. No, we're not doing that. We're just letting that be implied by the fact that this is coming at the directive of first presidency members who wished the bill killed.
• 32:00 - 32:30 Right? So here he's denying these falsehoods. It seems to me that he's straining at a gnat. Right? That he's only telling the reporter facts as far as I thought proper. Hmm. Okay. Let's go to the next day. Again, the following day is when the public is now reading what's, well, it came out in the paper, I think, earlier in the day on the 12th. So the 13th is now when you get some of the blowback and the fallout. Penrose writes in his journal that the Salt Lake Herald contained an extended report of my remarks of Sunday evening.
• 32:30 - 33:00 Also, my denial of Critchlow's statements and interviews with F.S. Richards, James Sharp, W.W. Reiter, W.H. King, and J.M. Tanner on the same matter. I talked with the presidency on the subject. Considerable excitement over the Critchlow letter. The presidency was interviewed by Herald and Tribune reporters. So here when Penrose says that he talked to the presidency, this is the same day that the reporter shows up, as Penrose just said.
• 33:00 - 33:30 So presumably by presidency, he's referring to just Cannon and Smith because Woodrow apparently was out that day. So he talked to Cannon and Smith. The reporter talked to Cannon and Smith. They had considerable excitement over the Critchlow letter. Oh, this allegation has been made. We got to tamp this down. Why? Because of the context. Because they had just released this political manifesto one week prior. Penrose, as a member of the stake presidency, is at Ward Conference reading the manifesto, asking for a vote of common consent.
• 33:30 - 34:00 Presumably, therefore, other leaders of the church, local, spread throughout Utah, are doing the same. So following the general conference, there's this effort to spread the political manifesto, trying to raise awareness that, no, no, we're not influencing church politics. And here's what we're going to do about it. We're going to restrain leaders of the church from running for office without permission of the first presidency. But the intent of the manifesto is to try and quell this broader concern about legislative and political involvement.
• 34:00 - 34:30 Combination of church and state or whatever, right? And so that's the context. And so this is a tinderbox. And no wonder, just days later, when Critchlow's allegation, or you might say revelation, comes out, Penrose reports that there is considerable excitement over the Critchlow letter, because this is a very sensitive topic for the time in which it's all happening.
• 34:30 - 35:00 Two days later, in his journal, final part of Penrose's journal that I'll share very briefly, he just says, the fuss is still going on about the junta. So they're still feeling the effects. There's lots of chatter in the newspapers and in the community, and they're, you know, still dealing with it. Okay, so a few things to sum up. Penrose acknowledges the existence of a committee in his journal two weeks prior to Critchlow publishing the letter. He calls it a committee several times.
• 35:00 - 35:30 We, we, we, we as a group, right? We're doing this. We're a committee. Meeting with the committee. We're doing committee work. Cannon and Smith, basically the first presidency, expressing no desire to control legislation, claiming that Penrose and F.S. Richards only met with President Smith. Penrose revealing that's not true, that he met with Smith and Cannon, apparently. And that while they expressed no desire to control legislation, or that's what they stated publicly, privately Penrose is revealing that they wished it killed.
• 35:30 - 36:00 They gave a directive, and then immediately after that directive, Penrose, as a committee member, goes to work, deploys this Nicholson guy to go to the Senate, talk to church members against it, no doubt conveying that, hey, the first presidency wants this kill. The gentleman stated that they had not conveyed any message to any, okay, this is from the first presidency, or from Smith and Cannon, when they're talking to the reporter, right? The reporter is saying that these gentlemen stated they had not conveyed any message to any member of the legislature that a committee for consultation had been appointed.
• 36:00 - 36:30 That they didn't know how frequently the proposed gentlemen had been consulted, if at all, nor to what extent, nor on what measures they had consulted members of the legislature. To me, this feels like an act of plausible deniability, right? First of all, saying that we had not conveyed any message to any member of the legislature that a committee had been appointed, right? So all they're saying here is we didn't announce that this committee exists.
• 36:30 - 37:00 We didn't shout from the rooftops to legislators that we'd formed this committee. Well, you know, of course not, right? You wouldn't do that. You would just kind of privately do this. I remember when we were first tangling with the church on the cannabis issue in 2016, I believe, and when the so-called home teachers showed up to Senator Madsen's office, grandson of Ezra Tapp Benson. He was a senator, Mark Madsen. And we're in his office. It's the senator, his intern, myself, and the two home teachers coming to convey that they wished it killed.
• 37:00 - 37:30 Same thing. And when we asked, who is they, all they would reveal to us was, this comes from the top. This comes from the highest levels. Those were the words they would use. They would not state the name of any particular committee. They would not state if it was the first presidency or the president of the church. They would just use these like vague vagaries to obfuscate. So when Smith and Cannon here are saying, oh, we didn't tell anyone about a committee.
• 37:30 - 38:00 Well, of course not, right? Like that's not the way this works. And then they say, we don't know how frequently these guys were consulted or how often or what. You know, that to me seems like there's a very classic business strategy, right? Delegate, deflect, and disavow. The more you can separate yourself from the action, you've already signaled what you want. You've made clear that I want this outcome. But you kind of let the underlings take care of it and you separate yourself, right? You delegate it, then you deflect, and ultimately you can disavow and tie things off without being affected yourself if things go awry.
• 38:00 - 38:30 This has a feeling like that, right? We don't know how often they met. We don't know when they were consulted or to what extent or things like that, right? Except they're meeting with members of the committee and they're wishing things killed. And that action is immediately taking place on their behalf. You know, and they didn't need to know how often that these committee members were being consulted, right? Because these members understood what the church wanted and then went about doing it.
• 38:30 - 39:00 The message had been given. We want this killed. You go and do it. I will disavow any knowledge of this, right? Okay. So, you know, the college bill that's being referenced was opposed by the first presidency who endorsed it in a negative way. Penrose directly goes to them to solicit their views. That evening, he said he met with the committee to discuss things with this guy, Kerr. The committee meetings are in Richard's office.
• 39:00 - 39:30 Again, as I mentioned, this is church property. I believe that this is a strong suggestion that this was not personal as was claimed by Smith and Cannon. Remember that their contention was that, oh, these are just patriotic, upstanding members of society who have some legislative experience. And anytime people are coming to us as members of the first presidency asking our views, we're just too busy. So we just tell them, you can go talk to these guys. Perhaps they can help you of their own volition, whether they like the bill or not. It's up to them personally in their own personal capacity.
• 39:30 - 40:00 That's how, again, delegate, disavow, deflect. So that's what the first presidency, at least Smith and Cannon, are doing here, claiming that these members of this supposed committee are acting entirely on their own, that it's their own personal opinions. And yet Penrose is revealing we're meeting with the first presidency. We're soliciting their views. We're meeting in Richard's office as a committee, which is in the church.
• 40:00 - 40:30 He's the general counsel of the church. This is not meeting at his home or meeting at a social club, you know, or anything like that. Like if they're meeting at the church with church top leaders, including members of the first presidency who are wishing the bill killed, they're taking action directly on it. This all suggests to me that this is an institutional, not an ad hoc effort. Therefore, what Smith and Cannon told the reporter, I think, is stretching the truth significantly based on how I'm reading the text.
• 40:30 - 41:00 Okay. And, you know, there's no evidence of any threat. So when Penrose says, I, you know, how did you say this here? I, blah, blah, blah. Okay. I decried Critchlow's falsehoods. That's what he says. Right. I decried the falsehoods, including this idea that there are any threats that were threatening church discipline. But, you know, it was certainly implied at the time and has been since that when the prophet speaks, you listen.
• 41:00 - 41:30 That, you know, when, when this happens, when the first presidency conveys what they want, they're conveying that on behalf of God. Therefore, it's already implied that if you as a member of the church go against the prophet, if you go against the top leaders of the church, that there are potential ramifications for that. It's not that Penrose or this Nicholson guy or others, when they're meeting with legislators, need to be so on the nose and say that outright. It's implied, it's understood, it's felt, it's perceived. Right. So that might allow Penrose to be, oh, I decried these falsehoods that were threatening anyone with church discipline, you know, or whatever.
• 41:30 - 42:00 But I think it's implied. And so, you know, even though the 1896 manifesto pledged some level of neutrality-ish, I think Penrose's journal suggests that that was more of a tactical reorientation rather than a full withdrawal from influence. And it happens today, too. As I teased earlier, as I've shared in past musings, right, there are most of the Utah legislature is Mormon.
• 42:00 - 42:30 And, you know, you'll, you, when these claims bubble up in the press, you'll get a reporter going to a low level, like normal member of the legislature. And they'll be like, I've never heard from the church. You know, this doesn't happen at all. My church doesn't influence politics. Well, look, you know, the current head of lobbying for political affairs for the church is the former Speaker of the House, maintaining the same pattern of what they were doing 130 years ago with these two former Speakers of the House and former legislators. And so he oversees the lobbying, both in Utah and nationally.
• 42:30 - 43:00 And, you know, he's a strategic guy. He's a very smart individual. I like him. We get along well. We talk. And sometimes we tangle and because of the nature of things. And, but he's strategic. He's smart. He knows how the sausage is ground. He knows how it works. You don't have to go out and meet with individual members of the legislature and all these Mormons. You just go straight to the top. You call your friend in power, whether it's the president of the Senate or the Speaker of the House or whatever, and you just say, hey, here's what we want.
• 43:00 - 43:30 And what they want happens. That's how our bill back in 2016 got shut down. They called the president of the Senate and said, we don't like this bill. And the bill was dead. Not because it was voted down. Not because they went and talked to all these different members of the church or the legislature who are members of the church. No, they just went to the top. They leveraged the process where the president or the Speaker have significant power, where the lay members of the legislature don't want to go against the leader because then there's punitive ramifications.
• 43:30 - 44:00 If you're fighting the leadership of the legislature, you can get pulled off of committee. You can, you know, there's other ways to punish you, to shut down your bills, to basically you get no success at all. So it's understood there that if the president of the Senate or the Speaker of the House wants something done a certain way, that that's how it's going to be done with minor exceptions, if there's a lot of pushback or resistance. But generally speaking, it's like, oh, okay, the president of the Senate said that this bill's dead.
• 44:00 - 44:30 So it's dead. And that's it. And the church knows that. The former Speaker of the House who lobbies for the church knows that. And so when they want to kill a bill, they place a call. They don't even need to go to the Capitol where people might see them. And I mean, sometimes they do. Mostly these are private meetings. They're private phone calls. A directive is given. And then the leadership or members of the legislature who learned about the church's position have this presumption of, oh, this is from God. Therefore, I'm going to do it because that's where my loyalties lie.
• 44:30 - 45:00 Not to my constituency or the constitution or my conscience, but just this is what the church wants. So this is what we're going to do. So whether there's a committee or not today, I mean, there are committees up the wazoo in a highly bureaucratic corporate institution that we now have. There are committees. I don't know the names, but these guys have the public affairs committee. And then they meet with an apostle, whoever sees public affairs, and they have these discussions. And there's committees up the wazoo. There was 130 years ago, as Penrose reveals. There is today. There is significant influence.
• 45:00 - 45:30 I don't know that you can call it control, although actually you can on the select issues where the church wants to weigh in. They basically control the outcome. You know, with limited exceptions, it's very difficult to get what you want when it's against what the church wants. I mean, we had to go do a ballot initiative and rally all the people and build a ton of pressure to push back against that because the legislative path was closed to us because the church controls the legislative outcomes on issues that it wants. It's very difficult to, especially because what the church wants, the leadership does.
• 45:30 - 46:00 And it's very difficult to rally a bunch of legislators to fight leadership and their own church. So that's why we had to go do a ballot initiative was to circumvent that process of control. So I think in question, an answer to my question of does a secret church committee control Utah politics, depending on how you want to define control or secret. I think the answer is yes. There are church committees then and now that discuss politics with influential people from the community and they draw them in and they take positions.
• 46:00 - 46:30 And the first presidency weighs in as President Nelson did on our cannabis issue when they took a position of opposition to our ballot initiative. President Nelson himself was involved directly in that. As the former president of the Utah Medical Association, he was and former physician like he was directly involved. So, so, so yes, these secret meetings happen private. I'll call them instead. And they on select issues, I think, do control the outcome in Utah politics.
• 46:30 - 47:00 That doesn't mean that every issue is going through church approval or not, because the church has its core few issues. Right. That they care about. And on those issues, the church rules the day. It's widely understood that that's the case. I don't think anyone's shocked by that. What was surprising to me was reading this from 130 years ago. Now, obviously, back then you did have more of a theological tinge coming out of the territory of Utah and Brigham Young being the governor and everything. So it's clear that in the past this was much more of an issue.
• 47:00 - 47:30 But it was surprising to me to see just on the heels of this political manifesto, this claim, this dust up, this debunking of the claim publicly. The Salt Lake Tribune and Herald saying nothing to see here. And yet Penrose's journals here revealed for the first time publicly reveal that privately there was an acknowledgement that the committee did exist, that they were meeting with the first presidency, not just President Smith. President Cannon as well, that, yes, they did desire certain outcomes.
• 47:30 - 48:00 They wished the bill killed. They basically deputized, you know, this committee on their behalf to give them some plausible deniability, to delegate, to disavow. But Penrose, I think, reveals that what was claimed publicly was not quite true. And perhaps for that reason in his journal, when he says that he was talking to the reporter, he told them the facts as far as I thought proper. Because to reveal publicly that the committee and the first presidency and others were doing all of this on the heels of the political manifesto would be a horrible PR nightmare.
• 48:00 - 48:30 And so Penrose is admitting privately that he only told the facts as far as I thought proper. Interesting. So curious to know your reaction to this. This was a fun little adventure to go on. The last time I did this was the 1941 first presidency letter to the Treasury about the war bonds that I published on my website. I think that's conorboyack.com slash 1941. And you can go read that post that I did from like 13, 15 years ago, whatever that was.
• 48:30 - 49:00 That was the last time I did any of this like sleuthing and trying to find stuff. This was rather interesting, very enlightening. Curious to get your reaction. I'll see you in the comments and I'll see you next week.