BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

PROVO, UTAH

ERNEST L. WILKINSON, PRESIDENT

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

March 9, 1960

Dr. Sterling McMurrin

University of Utah

Salt Lake City

Utah

Dear Sir:

As I did not have the chance Monday to meet you after your talk to the NAACP, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a splendid presentation. While there may be a few minor points on which I would differ slightly, I can agree about one hundred per cent with all you said. I congratulate you on saying it with vigor and strength.

A couple of my observations might be helpful by say of supplement. One of these concerns the influence of doctrine on practice. you made the point, very well, that the Mormon doctrine on the Negro probably has little effect on practical situations involving discrimination. In support of this I think it can be pointed out that the "positive doctrine" regarding the favored situation of Indians and Polynesians and Polynesians does not protect them from discrimination. In Cedar City a special chapel is being built for Indians. The announced reason is that "will feel more comfortable in their own Ward," as I recall it. In Salt Lake City, Spanish-Americans and Japanese-Americans meet separately and this is not merely a matter of linguistic difficulties. I know from experience also that in Auckland, New Zealand, the white Latter-day Saints stayed away when the Maori came until it became necessary to form separate branches. It is obvious then that neither negative nor positive doctrines very significantly determine actual behavior for Mormons in mixed racial situations.

Another point which needs making is that much too much too much can be expected of leaders. It is convenient, of course, to have a scapegoat such as the First Presidency to blame problems on but so few realize the degree to which leaders must in turn be followers of the masses. My own impression is that the General Authorities have been burned so badly in their efforts at leadership in the past four generations that they are now very hesitant to speak out, perhaps for fear that the members will not follow them. The most dramatic incident of this kind was the 1933 Prohibition question when the leadership was completely repudiated. Likewise the case of the Church's stand on public welfare and on getting into debt met the same problem, not to mention earlier instances such as the failure of Brigham Young's United Order plan to be accepted. This is, of course, not to whitewash the leadership for I sincerely believe there is a good deal of unfortunate footdragging on the discrimination issue. Let me repeat my thanks to you for such a well thought-out statement that covered most of the essential points. I just wish more people in the Church could and would hear the same sort of discussion.

With the instigating of a curriculum in anthropology at this school, I hope to be able to change some opinions by an objective approach to these matters. I am sure you realize what a tight-rope situation this is but despite those difficulties I have so far found it possible to be rather frank without compromising what I know to be fact. I hope this is a genuine harbinger of an intellectual spring in the Church and not just another robin.

Should you at any time put your observations in print, I would be most happy to receive a copy.

Sincerely,

[Signature]

John L. Sorenson

Assistant Professor of Anthropology

JLS/sh