What happened to confidentiality?

"SALT LAKE CITY -- A rare set of documents that are the basis for a new biography of David O. McKay, who led The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the civil rights era, show that the LDS president studied the issue of elevating black men to leadership roles but ultimately balked at doing it.

"The never-before-seen pages are from the personal diaries, discourses and scrapbooks of McKay which were compiled by his secretary of 35 years, the late Clare Middlemiss.

"Middlemiss bequeathed the 130,000 pages to her nephew, Salt Lake City attorney William Robert Wright, who wrote 'David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism' (University of Utah Press) with Gregory A. Prince." ("Religion in the News," washingtonpost.com; see also related stories at msnbd.msn.com and radio.ksl.com.)

I've used the above three paragraphs to lead off this post for reasons that will become apparent near the end.

I wasn't going to buy this book

Three weeks ago, a very good and long-time friend sent me an email asking whether I was aware of a new book he had just purchased. He was in the process of reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and thought I might be interested in "the part where it talks about President McKay's belief in organic evolution and his quoting from Charles Darwin."

I had seen several pre-release book reviews and was uncomfortable with the way Church documents had become available to the authors (to be discussed more fully below).

I answered my friend thus: "Yes, I am aware of the book of which you speak. I am also aware that David O. McKay had every opportunity to state his position publicly and didn't. He can believe what he wishes privately and it doesn't concern me in the least."

Well, things change. And after a recent comment from Julie Smith here and a careful reading of her book review here, I decided that I couldn't ignore the book after all.

Heber J. Grant and Evolution

Unfortunately, what I've now discovered is that Prince and Wright made some foolish errors. For example, on page 45, under the heading "The Evolution Debate," they claim:

"In the first half of the twentieth century, the debate surrounding biological evolution was as heated within Mormonism as in other American Christian churches. It extended into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with three scientists—James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph F. Merrill—supporting evolution, and Joseph Fielding Smith vehemently opposing it. A moratorium that was initially imposed by Church President Heber J. Grant prevailed until the last of the three apostle-scientists died in 1952." (Italics added.)

Those familiar with my web site at ndbf.net (be sure to read both chapters) and my discussion about the BYU Evolution Packet here already know that neither biological evolution, nor organic evolution, nor any other form of evolution was involved in the discussions referred to in the above paragraph. I will state categorically that what Prince and Wright said about Heber J. Grant's so-called moratorium on discussing evolution is completely and utterly false.

The William Lee Stokes letter

I recently read an essay by William Lee Stokes titled "David O. McKay's Position on Evolution." In 1968, it became obvious to Stokes that in spite of what President McKay had said to him in a 1957 letter, other Church authorities were continuing to publish what Stokes thought were contrary views. Therefore, "on 13 October 1968, I again wrote to President McKay and asked for permission to publish the essential statements from his 1957 letter." (Sterling B. Talmage, Can Science Be Faith-Promoting?, ed. Stan Larson, Salt Lake City: Blue Ribbon Books, 2001, xliii).

Stokes relates that five days later, on 18 October, he received a reply "over the signature of Joseph Anderson, secretary to the First Presidency, stating that he had been directed to tell me that there was no objection to my use of the quotation—'on the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position'—in a book I was then writing" (Ibid).

The Stokes essay quoted above was published four years ago. Yet Prince and Wright claim, based on incomplete research, that "in the late 1960s, he [McKay] authorized William Lee Stokes, a geologist on the faculty of the University of Utah, to publish a letter that he had written to Stokes in 1955 that stated,  ' The book, "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church." ' " (page 49; emphasis added.)

First of all, the letter in question was written in 1957, not 1955. More importantly, and according to Stokes himself, permission was granted to publish only one sentence from the letter, and not the one quoted by Prince and Wright.

But the book has bigger problems

In spite of these obvious errors, there are larger issues with this book. A fellow blogger, known to me only as Jed, has said this about the book David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism:

"The book raises important questions transcending Mormonism. The questions are legal and ethical questions about the nature of public and private history and the responsibilities of historians in using records intended for private use. This book would never have been written without a motherload of diaries and minutes falling into the hands of the authors, and there is some question—never confronted in the book—about whether they ever should have had them in the first place."

I think the legal and ethical questions raised by Jed deserve answers, and not merely in the form of blog comments. Furthermore, in my view there are religious and moral issues involved related to confidentiality.

So what did happen to confidentiality?

The word confidentiality is a form of the word confidential which means "1. Done or communicated in confidence; secret. 2. Entrusted with the confidence of another: a confidential secretary. 3. Denoting confidence or intimacy: a confidential tone of voice." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000; italics in the original.) Note that the phrase "a confidential secretary" epitomizes the very meaning of the word confidential.

It has long been the policy of the Church that precautions be taken to ensure that confidential documents are not available to unauthorized persons. In the following paragraph, Elder Dallin H. Oaks—who is eminently qualified to speak on the legal aspect of this subject—addresses records privacy from an ethical, legal, and a moral perspective:

"The laws and ethics of privacy forbid custodians from revealing information that may invade the privacy of living individuals. Examples would include diaries or minutes that discuss the private affairs of living persons. In addition, our belief in life after death causes us to extend this principle to respect the privacy of persons who have left mortality but live beyond the veil. Descendants who expect future reunions with deceased ancestors have a continuing interest in their ancestors' privacy and good name. These same considerations apply to official Church documents, such as the minutes of confidential meetings." (Ensign, Oct. 1987, 65.)

Even at the ward and stake level, in "committee and council meetings, delicate matters often are discussed, requiring strict confidentiality." (M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, May 1994, 25; emphasis added.)

"The Lord’s church is organized with councils at every level, beginning with the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and extending to stake, ward, quorum, auxiliary, and family councils. [And at every level] confidentiality is critical. Council members must hold all matters discussed in council meetings in strict confidence." (M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, Nov. 1993, 78.)

Having served both as stake clerk and assistant ward clerk, and having been employed by the Church as a part-time research assistant, I know from personal experience that the matter of confidentiality extends to those who are assigned to take notes and keep records.

For the above reasons, reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism makes me feel like an intruder—an eavesdropper. Other than that, I'll agree with Dennis Lythgoe of the Deseret News, who said the book "often seems more like a doctoral dissertation than a conventional biography." (deseretnews.com.) Mr. Lythgoe is correct in more ways than one. Prince and Wright, both highly educated and experienced, should have been able to do better than college students.