George P. Lee, First Lamanite 70, Dies

By July 30, 2010

I feel like I’m the bearer of bad news lately. It has come to my attention that George P. Lee, the most famous product of the great surge of LDS interest in Native Americans that defined much of the post-World War II era, died this week in Provo. Lee was a Navajo who excelled in the church’s placement, seminary, and university programs designed for Lamanites, and served as a mission president and a 70 in the 1980s. He was excommunicated in 1989, partly due to his public criticisms of the declining support for Lamanite programs in the post Kimball era. He also later admitted to attempted child sex abuse, which often has clouded his legacy. After his church service, Lee returned to the Navajo Nation and participated in local politics (as I understand it, over 20% of Navajos are on the church’s rolls). This SL Tribune article by Peggy Fletcher Stack has some great quotes by Armand Mauss:

?George P. Lee is one of the truly tragic figures in modern Mormon history,? Armand Mauss, an LDS sociologist in Irvine, Calif., said Thursday. He was ?both created and destroyed? by changing Mormon teachings and policies regarding native peoples.


?It was Elder Lee?s resistance to this change,? Mauss wrote in an e-mail, ?and his continuing claim to special leadership responsibilities for himself and his people, that brought him into increasing conflict with his colleagues among the general authorities.?

Although many people from my generation have never heard of Lee or that there was a Navajo 70, my father, who served an Indian mission in the late 1960s, spoke of Lee fondly when I was growing up. He was seen as a harbinger of the Lamanites blossoming as a rose. He’s now seen as an outspoken casualty in a quiet yet dramatic change in church priorities.

[Note: I’ve referred to Lee as a Lamanite, not necessarily because I think he was genetically descended from Book of Mormon peoples, but because he himself would have identified in that way.]

Article filed under Announcements and Events Current Events Race


  1. And he sexually molested children. Lest we forget.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 30, 2010 @ 10:59 am

  2. No one is forgetting that, Matt. It’s in the post and in the Tribune article. But thanks for bringing it up yet again…

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 11:02 am

  3. Indeed a tragic figure. In the last couple of years before his excommunication, you could almost feel the divide widening between him and the church he had embraced with so much enthusiasm. I remember him as an energetic and dynamic speaker in general conference sessions. It was sad to see him excommunicated, and sad to note his passing.

    Comment by kevinf — July 30, 2010 @ 11:07 am

  4. I suspect Matt’s comment was in shared reaction with me to the claim that Bro. Lee’s downfall was due to the changing church rather than to his own actions. Still, in a memorial post, we want to remember the best. I remember when he was called as a general authority — there was much of the same feeling of excitement, even exhilaration, as when Helvetico Martins or Joseph W. Sitati were called. Besides, he was good looking, and a good speaker, and so young that he made a very pleasant contrast during General Conferences.

    All the best to him, now and forever.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 30, 2010 @ 11:39 am

  5. David, thanks for posting on this. It’s bears mentioning as Orwell does over at Mormon Mentality that the Deseret News report failed to mention his break with the Church and subsequent troubles.

    Such a tragic tale.

    PS: Was it one child or children? No need to exaggerate someone’s faults.

    It’s also worth noting that George P. Lee published an autobiography a few years before being excommunicated.

    George P. Lee, Silent Courage : An Indian Story : The Autobiography of George P. Lee, a Navajo, Deseret Book: Salt Lake City (1987).

    Comment by Jared T. — July 30, 2010 @ 11:40 am

  6. My interest here, as I assume is the case with most of the JI’s readership, is in Lee’s place in Mormon history, especially in regards to the church’s 20th century Lamanite policies and the experiences of Native American Latter-day Saints in the church. I honestly don’t know the details surrounding the molestation(s), and I doubt anyone here does either. Speculating whether the molestation(s) or the public criticisms of changing church policies played a larger role in his excommunication seems pointless, and bit tasteless, in this context. We know much more about his public criticisms of the church than we do his private sins, or, for that matter, what went on in his disciplinary council, so I’m not sure why we need to overemphasize what we know little about.

    Thanks Kevin, Ardis, and Jared for your comments.

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

  7. Thanks for posting this, David.

    Matt W., when you die, remind me to broadcast all of your sins and shortcomings in a cold, snippy manner, okay? Jackass.

    Comment by Christopher — July 30, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

  8. I distinctly recall listening to his October 1985 General Conference talk, “Can There Any Good Thing Come Out of Nazareth?” In my mind, his first Conference address, “My Heritage is Choice,” is also notable, in particular the introduction. As Kevinf notes, he was an energetic and dynamic speaker.

    Comment by Justin — July 30, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

  9. Back to the original point of the post: My mom’s in town helping me move today and we’ve been discussing Lee on and off all morning. Her own memories mirror those of your father, David. She remembers the excitement of hearing him speak as a visiting authority as a Stake Conference. We both agreed that “tragedy” is probably the best way to describe the man’s life.

    Comment by Christopher — July 30, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

  10. Thanks, Justin and Chris.

    Justin (or anyone who remembers the “My Heritage is Choice” talk), do you know what he meant by “Brothers and sisters, I finally realized how General Custer must have felt. ?”? The context as provided in the transcript seems ambiguous, but maybe I’m just missing something.

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

  11. I remember him saying that, and how we laughed! It was humor at the reversal of situation: Custer was a white man facing a sea of Indian faces, and Lee was an Indian facing a sea of white faces, and Lee wasn’t quite sure whether he was going to face the same fate as Custer.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 30, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

  12. David & Ardis: Sounds like a brilliant opening for a talk.

    Thanks for this memorial, David.

    Comment by Ben — July 30, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  13. Ah, ok. Thanks Ardis. Makes sense. Did he say more that has subsequently been deleted (and hence the ellipses)? Or does that just mean, “Pause for laughter”?

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

  14. Yeah, love that Custer remark.

    Comment by Orwell — July 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

  15. It’s funny, David G., but that’s the exact quote that I highlighted from the Tribune story in the post Jared T. mentioned (minus the second half). “Truly tragic,” indeed.

    Comment by Orwell — July 30, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

  16. David, as I remember, that was all there was to it. Just an ice breaker before he began his talk proper.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 30, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

  17. Christopher, fair enough. I can take that. I guess I just think it is in poor taste for Armand Mauss to throw out such a statement in such a “cold, snippy manner” (toward the LDS church). I was so surprised by it that I committed the error of not reading closely enough the rest of the post. Maybe I prefer the Deseret News version after all, if you are trying to keep things “in good taste”, after all, whatever Lee did wrong to be excommunicated, he is still having his funeral in an LDS Stake Center, so in many ways, he is coming home to the LDS church.

    When I die, I’ll see if I can get you to speak at my funeral, if you like. And please feel free to delete my discourteous comment #1 and this one as well. This is all in poor taste, and I’ve no cause to be so callow.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 30, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

  18. His obituary is here.

    Comment by Justin — July 30, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  19. “George P. Lee, First Lamanite 70, Dies”

    Question: Are all Native Americans Lamanites? Latin Americans? South Americans?

    Comment by larry — July 30, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

  20. I think it’s fair to call him the “First Lamanite 70” since he himself would likely have self-identified as such.

    Comment by Orwell — July 30, 2010 @ 3:07 pm

  21. Thanks, Justin.

    Larry, Orwell explains well why I chose to title the post such. I generally try to call people what they would want to be called, rather than applying other labels to them. As to the rest of your question, of course not. The church itself has backed away from identifying all indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere Lamanites. But let’s not let this turn into a threadjack, distracting from the original post’s intent.

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

  22. Matt W., don’t blame us for your lack of reading comprehension skills.

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

  23. I am curious regarding whether people think that Elder Lee was both ‘created and destroyed’ by the Church in a unique way. If his story is not unique, does that make it less tragic? I raise these questions because I sense that it is possible to trace that sort of narrative in the lives of many who have struggled in the Church, and perhaps been excommunicated.

    Comment by Aaron R. — July 30, 2010 @ 3:49 pm

  24. A pretty good roundup of the 1989 situation and the text of Lee’s letters on the subject are available in a back issue of Sunstone, starting on page 47.

    Comment by Jared T. — July 30, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

  25. I’ve been thinking about George P. Lee since I read of his death yesterday, and have talked with my co-author (who is African American) about it at length. I surprised myself–to my shame–by entertaining the thought when I first saw Brother Lee’s “after” photo, “I wonder if the death was alcohol-related.” Then I felt like I had to confess such a jump to judgment and a cultural bias which managed to survive the past twelve years of my life, which (I hope) have been devoted to erasing just such prejudiced leaps.
    I regret that the first comment in this post reminded us of the sex abuse charges, which were NOT a part of his excommunication. Subsequently, when the charges were made, people felt that his sexual misconduct was the REAL reason for his excommunication. Not so. He was passionate about his cause (treatment of “Lamanites”), and some found him offensively passionate. He could be extremely pointed at stake conferences. He was also the “poster child” for the Indian Placement Program, which had all sorts of good intentions but ended up a failure (imho).
    As a general authority, George P. Lee had the unmitigated loyalty of Pres. Kimball. That ended when Pres. Kimball died. I have to wonder how things would’ve gone had Pres. Kimball lived longer.
    I remember hearing a ward member, who had hosted a child in the Placement program, say of George P. Lee, “Well, I’m not surprised. Those people are like that. We had one.”
    So many questions should be asked. I’d love to see JI ask some of them.

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — July 30, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

  26. “He also later admitted to attempted child sex abuse, which often has clouded his legacy.”

    Gee, ya think?

    If President Kimball had lived longer, I wonder if there would have been more victims? Whether it was part of his excommunication or not, don’t you think that is reason enough not to have a commemoration? Or are you taking the position that the charges were trumped up?

    This has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Native American – he is a child molester! Yuck!

    Comment by Jordan F. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

  27. Assuming that there were ever any Lamanites in the Western Hemisphere, and they did not get entirely wiped out, it seems pretty likely that almost every living native American has some Lamanite ancestry somewhere.

    Comment by Mark D. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:32 pm

  28. Also, I do wonder if he would still be considered a “lamanite” today! Times, they are a’changing!

    But he could give a darn good conference talk. I too remember the “can any good thing come out of Nazareth”. It was very good.

    Comment by Jordan F. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

  29. ?Well, I?m not surprised. Those people are like that. We had one.?

    Despite my child molester comment, I would not say that. He was a child molester – that means nothing about other human beings.

    Comment by Jordan F. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

  30. I am absolutely certain that when George P. Lee passed into the next life, he was not greeted with “He is a child molester–yuck!” I would guess that he was greeted by One who refused to reduce him to his sins or hold him hostage to the bad moments of his life. In other words, I utterly believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
    There is much more to George P. Lee’s story than one headline.

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — July 30, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

  31. So, you don’t really believe in the whole millstone around the neck theory, then. That’s fine. I don’t really either. I am sure he was very mercifully received. That’s why I am grateful the Savior is there instead of me, who tends to get incensed too easily by crimes against children.

    Comment by Jordan F. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

  32. I regret that the first comment in this post reminded us of the sex abuse charges, which were NOT a part of his excommunication. Subsequently, when the charges were made, people felt that his sexual misconduct was the REAL reason for his excommunication. Not so. He was passionate about his cause (treatment of ?Lamanites?), and some found him offensively passionate.

    As far as I know, you’re right about the sex charges having nothing to do with his excommunication, Margaret — but I am not sure what difference it makes in the end.

    If the charges are true as we understand them, then the sexual misconduct was going on when he was a general authority. As tragic as I think so many other aspects of his story are, I cannot get over this abuse of his special position of trust. This doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the atonement / forgiveness / remembering the best in others, but I think it’s a likely insurmountable obstacle to rehabilitating his image.

    If he hadn’t been excommunicated when he was, he certainly would have been when the charges surfaced (assuming things played out in a similar way with the confession and plea bargain, etc.). Now, I’m not saying that this makes how his excommunication went down right… but, it’s harder to wish that things had gone differently knowing what was to come a few short years later.

    Comment by Orwell — July 30, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

  33. Anyone who wants to understand why he was excommunicated need only actually read the Sunstone material linked above. I recall reading it when it was first published, and my recollection (without refreshing it) is that the content of those letters answers makes it pretty clear.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — July 30, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

  34. are you taking the position that the charges were trumped up?

    Jordan, to be clear, no, I don’t think the charges were trumped up. Whatever happened between him and the minor(s), it was unacceptable and I’m not going to defend it.

    In spite of his most egregious sins, however, he remains terribly important historically due to his participation in the church’s Lamanite programs during President Kimball’s tenure. That’s a fairly uncontroversial position to take, and Mauss’s comments (and my post) are meant to highlight that significance, not deny the horrendousness of the sex abuse charges.

    Comment by David G. — July 30, 2010 @ 10:24 pm

  35. Margaret, as I understand it, the molestation charges were pending when he was exed. Although I certainly wasn’t there for the court, I would be surprised if they didn’t have something to do with it. Thus the “conduct unbecoming a church member” in his excommunication statement.

    I served a portion of my mission on the Navajo reservation and I know many people who knew George (That is how he was almost universally referenced, as “George”). In the end I was struck when I heard a man (now a Bishop) who had been one of George’s close friends say that he knew he could not stay near George because that was the path out of the church.

    George, to this day commands a lot of respect from the Navajo people and his name often elicits nostalgia. It was during his era that the church in the Navajo nation grew to its greatest strength, and then it was following his fall that it fell into its current weakness. He took a lot of people with him when he left. As I understand it he eventually started his own church.

    His apostasy was truly tragic. May he be met in the spirit world by Him who is the answer to all tragedy.

    Hágoónee’ George.

    Comment by TrevorM — July 31, 2010 @ 5:23 am

  36. Where are people getting that molestation charges were pending when he was ex’ed and were a part of the excommunication? What is the source for that proposition? Because my recollection is that the molestation happened later when he was seeking tribal leadership. The Sunstone material is the most detailed account available, and there is no hint there of any molestation charge. (“Conduct unbecoming a member” is boilerplate; it’s not possible to read specific conduct into that phrase.) If someone has actual evidence (news reports, for instance), I would be interested in seeing it. Until then, I believe the Sunstone report is more than sufficient to explain the excommunication.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — July 31, 2010 @ 8:01 am

  37. OK, I looked myself, and see what I was remembering. The Salt Lake Tribune reported the sexual molestation charges in 1993, four years after the excommunication in 1989. But molestation had been occurring in 1989. The Church gave a statement that it didn’t know about molestation and that that was not a part of the excommunication, but there is understandably some skepticism about such a blanket statemet.

    So I guess I answered my own question.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — July 31, 2010 @ 8:16 am

  38. There is a fine essay in Bradford’s _Personal Voices_ called “To Be Mormon and Lamanite,” by Lanee Harris (if I’m recalling the author’s name correctly). It explores the cultural conflicts those who considered themselves “Lamanites” (some insisting that they were NOT Lamanites, since Lamanites were a wicked people) felt or feel in Mormonism.
    Harris talks about his own father who was loyally LDS for years, but who ultimately left the faith and returned to the “old ways.” These are important issues. TrevorM’s comment makes me wonder what we’re doing to reclaim or re-invite those we lost when many of the “Lamanite” programs ended. It would be wonderful if we had another Navajo Seventy (or one of any Native American tribe). I think it’s too easy to dismiss George P. Lee as a sex offender and then refuse to examine his claim that Mormons were not fulfilling the BoM prophecies as they should insofar as his people were concerned.

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — July 31, 2010 @ 9:36 am

  39. Thanks for bringing the Harris article to my attention.

    It can be found here:

    To Be Native American – and Mormon. Lacee A. Harris.

    Comment by Sanford — July 31, 2010 @ 10:45 am

  40. Kevin Barney:

    You mean Sunstone may have presented some lopsided reporting on this one? There’s a shocker.

    Margaret Young:

    Part of the problem there is Navajos aren’t Lamanites, per most modern LDS notions of the limited geography of the Book of Mormon, so if we are doing any work on fulfilling the BoM Prophecies, it would be farther south in places like Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc.

    So it’s hard to take his claims seriously, without having to jump through a lot of intellectual hoops to get there. (What to laminate mean in the early 80s, why was George P. Lee being so over the top about the situation, why was the Indian Placement Program falling apart etc. etc.) And I’m no personally interested in digging that deep.

    So I think it is better, if we are to look at the issues of Mormonism’s interaction with the native american people, to leave George P. Lee out of it. He made things worse not better.

    1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. As part of the 16% of men who didn’t get out unharmed, my heart reaches out to George’s victims. And I say victims because even if the sexual abuse was only one person (statistically improbable) the repercussions across his family, his religion, and his ethnic group were much greater.

    Anyway, I hope George has repented, and I hope when Christ comes to him with open arms, he can forgive himself and not shrink away. At this point, that’s the best I can say.

    So yeah, Christopher was probably right about me.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

  41. I remember reading a photographic copy of his handwritten press release and feeling so sad for him. It reminded me so of mental illness patients and their writing when I did court appointed work for them.

    It is still on-line:

    Matt W., bless your heart.

    Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 31, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

  42. Matt W., please read my comment in the best possible spirit since I am genuinely interested in the work your wife is doing on San Antonio and I hope we can be in touch on that.

    First, I didn’t catch which part of the Sunstone reporting was lopsided. It seems that you’re trying to say that they didn’t report the molestation in ’89, but of course, they couldn’t have because the story didn’t come out until ’93. That’s hardly lopsided reporting. But if there was something else, do tell.

    Also, I’m not sure the most useful way of trying to understand Mormon-Indian relations is to use some geography theory that has only recently been en vogue and probably still little known by the English-speaking Church writ large. Instead, it would be to do exactly what you don’t want to do, which is understand the context of Mormon views about what Lamanites were in the 80s, why the Placement program was discontinued, etc. Though it is true that one person’s experience is not necessarily representative of the whole, given his prominence in the community and the impact his rise and fall reportedly had in the community, it would seem fairly irresponsible to cavalierly cut him out of the picture as you want to do.

    I’m sure we all grieve with you over the abuses committed against children, and your point is fair enough about the widespread effects of abuse, but it seems your visceral reaction to this one aspect of Lee has clouded your ability to see anything else, which is unfortunate.

    If you change your mind and become interested in the issues you wrote off but which the OP is more concerned with, please contribute more of your thoughts.

    Otherwise, Since the OP is more concerned with the issues you say you are not interested in and since you have said your peace about Lee and molestation, you should consider bowing out of this conversation.

    #41, Thanks for the reminder Stephen, just FYI, I did link to that back at #24, but its an important record and report and bears repeating.

    Comment by Jared T — July 31, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

  43. “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”.
    William Shakespeare
    A sad story__thanks for sharing the Good and the Bad.

    Comment by Bob — July 31, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

  44. Jared T- I wrote a huge long response, but deciding I was sounding like a nut job, have decided to just bow out with this link which has several references I feel are pertinent. I think the issue is I just believe Lee was excommunicated for child abuse, based on the evidence I have at hand.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

  45. For me, the questions George P. Lee’s death evoke have to do with how we’re helping the disenfranchised or abused–and I don’t mean just the sexually abused; I refer to abuse in all its forms, including lack of access to good education, lack of respect, any silencing without some kind of due process. George P. Lee took part in the Placement Program and was a great advocate for it. But can we really take a child and plant him/her in another culture where the opportunities are greater without reinforcing some kind of cultural self-loathing? (Some Native Americans who did NOT participate accused some who did of becoming “apples”–red on the outside; white on the inside.)
    I grew up with Navajo children on the placement program, and my grandparents participated in it. One of my Navajo friends died recently. For years, he seemed to be living out the dream of the whole program–served a mission, was married in the temple. But he faced alcoholism later in life and died just a couple of years ago in his early fifties, though he was trying to reclaim some of his lost luster by then.
    I am genuinely curious about how we as Latter-day Saints are providing for anyone in a culture which is challenged by poverty and the abuses which almost always come with it. Regardless of how we define “Lamanite” (and I guarantee, a group of Mormons would provide a group of definitions), President Kimball saw Native Americans as the people of the Book of Mormon and gave strong sermons about our responsibily to them, and gave one of the strongest talks ever delivered at General COnference about the evils of prejudice–specifically against Native Americans. He felt the prophecy that the Lamanites would “blossom as a rose” was being fulfilled. How are we doing on that? What do the life and death of George P. Lee tell us about any of these questions?

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — July 31, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

  46. Oh, I just looked at the link Matt W supplied. Not the kind of thing JI is interested in, I’m afraid. Those of us who appreciate JI don’t care much for the DAMU pages, I’m afraid.
    The issues are real, and sexual abuse is a huge issue and should be discussed in a different setting, but the kind of vitriol the DAMU sites give are not consistent with the spirit of JI.

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — July 31, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

  47. Sorry for the DAMU link, It was the only source I could fnd that had all the pertinent Salt Lake Tribune Articles together in one location.

    Margaret, I found your #45 inspiring. You are classy, and I will try to be more classy going forward.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

  48. Thanks Margaret for all of your moving comments on this thread. I agree with you that Lee’s life raises so many important questions, not just historically but also for contemporary Saints. Over on the Mormon Mentality thread, someone asked if a biography had been written on him, and if I remember right it was quickly pointed out how difficult such a project would be, due to the powerful emotions that still linger about his Native American/”Lamanite” activism, the excommunication, and the sex abuse. He’s an important figure, one who deserves more attention, but I agree that it would be a difficult project to tackle.

    Comment by David G. — July 31, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

  49. My memory is sketchy, yet I remember hearing a talk or something by Elder Lee and thinking that it just didn’t seem right. I’m not exactly sure how to describe it, I had heard other wonderful talks he had given, then suddenly he seemed — ummm — to be over the top.

    Later he was excommunicated. Then the allegations of sexual abuse were announced. I thought to myself that maybe because he was involved in abuse, he was no longer being inspired and that was why he had chosen the path that lead to his outspokeness and excommunication.

    Comment by mkbg — August 1, 2010 @ 1:36 am

  50. “Part of the problem there is Navajos aren?t Lamanites, per most modern LDS notions of the limited geography of the Book of Mormon, so if we are doing any work on fulfilling the BoM Prophecies, it would be farther south in places like Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc.”

    Since when is being a Lamanite a geographical classification? Or rather, is there any reasonable basis for the conclusion that someone who arrived somewhere in the Americas isn’t likely to have descendants far to the north and to the south 2500 years later?

    Descendancy aside, I am inclined to think that any group who adopts the culture and history of another as their own has a good as claim to be the heirs of that group as anyone else, and more especially if no one else does.

    Does it really matter all that much whether someone is a literal descendant of Jacob if that person adopts the teachings, culture, religion etc of those that are or claim to be?

    Comment by Mark D. — August 1, 2010 @ 2:46 am

  51. #50: Up late tonight Mark? _ me too.
    “Does it matter”. Maybe it shouldn’t, but in men’s minds, it does.
    Lincoln asked if he called dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would it have?___ Still four.
    I think, for Mormons, the question of who is a Lamanite is just beginning.

    Comment by Bob — August 1, 2010 @ 5:25 am

  52. He didn’t molest children, he molested a child. The circumstances were never really clear. I’m not defending him but I was never able to figure out what really did or didn’t happen and I don’t remember specifics. And to my knowledge it never happened again. What would make a person do something like that out of the blue? Was he drunk?

    He was excommunicated BEFORE it happened, for apostacy, I think.

    The obituaries in the paper would be paid for by his family. They must want people to remember his activity. There’s a level of heartbreak in that alone.

    Comment by annegb — August 1, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

  53. I could be all wrong, but I thought it was one incident with one child. The trial was here, in southern Utah, I think. As a person who was molested (putting in the mildest term) I can get pretty over the top about this stuff but there are levels of abusers. I suspect many men are abusers in their mind, if you count an improper thought about a beautiful young girl. They don’t act on the thought and maybe feel really crappy for feeling it. If my memory is right and it happened one time, with one girl, it’s a reasonable assumption that his judgement was impaired and he acted badly.

    Margaret, I love how you put things.

    Comment by annegb — August 1, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

  54. “The girl, 17 at the time of the trial, said Lee exploited the religious respect she had for him to fondle to her breasts, buttocks and genitals. She said the abuse began when she was 9 years old and lasted for three years.” Guess I was wrong. I really hoped it wasn’t true. Dang.

    Comment by annegb — August 1, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

  55. what I was trying to say that for whatever reason he molested the child and perhaps that led him to apostacy …

    I would guess that if a man were involved in such a thing he would begin to lean on his own understanding, not that of the Lord’s.

    It is so sad that even the elect can be deceived

    Comment by mkbg — August 1, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  56. Margaret,

    Thank you for your thoughtful take on this. The questions you raise are important.

    When I was on my mission I went on exchanges with the elders in Cedar City and I went with one to visit a reservation in the area. Apparently in the very recent past the Church had decided to break up Native American Branches and integrate Indians with English congregations. We found wherever we went that the mood was negative and the elder told me that many had gone inactive. We visited one man who it was said was the oldest of the tribe. He said he had been a high priest in the Church, but did not go any more. He preceded to talk about his activity in the Native American Church and how he could change himself into a bear or some other animal at night. I was unsure at the time whether he was being serious or if he had had just made me as an easy mark.

    Either way, I remember feeling that an injustice had been done in breaking up those branches, which feelings were probably informed by my own experience in South Texas where sometimes tense and divisive battles were fought behind the closed doors of the high council room as to whether or not to have Spanish wards or to integrate into English wards with translation.

    Does anyone know if there are dedicated Native American Branches today?

    Comment by Jared T — August 1, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

  57. I went to, stake and ward websites, and searched for wards with “Indian,” “Native,” and “Lamanite” as part of the ward name. Except for some geographic names including the word “Indian,” nothing turned up.

    There were three hits with “Navajo” in parentheses — “Coconino (Navajo) Branch,” for example — which I think is a language designator (“Spanish” or “Deaf” in parentheses shows up a lot and seems to be a language designator). None of the other Native tribal names that I searched turned up anything.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — August 1, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

  58. Jared T.- I just asked a friend who recently returned from a Provo mission and she said that currently the reservations are the assignment of senior couples from her mission, so she doesn’t know.

    Comment by Matt W. — August 1, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

  59. Using Google Maps on to look at the Navajo Tribal Park, there are no indications of Navajo Specific wards in that area.

    Comment by Matt W. — August 1, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

  60. We had a “Lamanite” ward in our stake until a few years ago. Many broken hearts when it was dissolved. Leadership was mostly Native American.

    Of course, I am very familiar with the English/Spanish debate. Yesterday in the Provo Temple, we had to add an extra Spanish session because we could not accommodate all Spanish speakers. (The Temple has been closed for a couple of months.) In our stake, we have one Spanish unit. Stake baptism reports, in the past, would use one page for the Latino unit and one page for all other wards. The Spanish ward baptized three or four times as many as any other. Leadership in our Spanish unit included some wonderful Gringos, but is now mostly Hispanic. Our High Council includes at least one Latino. Our SP is fluent in Spanish, but sometimes we have had nobody in the stake presidency who is 100% fluent. Notably, there are very large Church events for Hispanic members held annually in the Conference Center. The Latino LDS population DOES get some nice attention, and has at least some representation in the Seventy, and at least one apostle (Richard G. Scott) who is fluent in Spanish.

    Soon, I’ll head to the monthly Genesis meeting, for African American Latter-day Saints “and their friends.” We don’t have time to go very often, but will get there tonight to hear Jericho Road. (6710 S. 1300 E- SLC at 7:00). Predictably, many have brought up the question of why we would need a group specifically for African American members. (It is NOT a ward but more a monthly gathering/fireside.) I understand exactly why we need it, but won’t do a defense here. I will say that the Genesis presidency is now and has always been African American, though our presiding authority is white. I’m simply noting this; it’s not a huge issue for anyone at Genesis.

    As members of any culture see others of the same culture in leadership postions within the church, it does send a message. I have said for years that the LDS hierarchy will reflect the global nature of the Church before long. It simply must. That’s one reason that the fall of George P. Lee was so tragic. He was never replaced by another Native American. And in Mormon literature, we have no Native American authors that I know of (please tell me if I’m wrong), though Michael Fillerup does lovely stories set on reservations.

    We have come so far, but there’s a good distance to go. Lee’s obituary should bring us to new questions and more Christ-centered answers.

    Comment by Margaret Blair Young — August 1, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

  61. I really don’t care what color skin the Bretheren have or what ethnicity they claim.

    The First Presidency and Quorum of The 12 Apostles have been chosen by God to fill those positions. That’s the only thing that really matters.

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 2, 2010 @ 12:49 am

  62. 70’s included 😉

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 2, 2010 @ 12:51 am

  63. Ardis and Matt, thanks for looking into that. I would find it interesting if there were Navajo language congregations.

    Margaret, I’m interested to see what the dynamic is like in El Paso. I already know there are multiple Spanish wards in the stake we’ll be in. There seem to be a lot of forces acting, sometimes unevenly and other times in contradiction. One the one hand, there are efforts to minimize cultural differences while trying to push a unified “gospel culture.” These efforts can certainly go too far. On the other hand, there are efforts to allow culture to act as a facilitator for religious expression. I see the latter in the Spanish ward we’ve been attending recently, and I think the former in efforts to eliminate Spanish or Native American units.

    Pedro, kudos to you. For others, matters are a little more complex. And that is not at all a negative reflection on their faith or conviction.

    Comment by Jared T — August 2, 2010 @ 1:28 am

  64. re: Native American congregations. I served in Arizona and spent some time on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. The members there had their own branch. There were at the time close to 1000 LDS listed on the membership list but they averaged only 8 or 9 in sacrament meeting attendance. All leadership was white members from other units in the stake and/or full-time missionaries. Which is all more evidence IMO that Margaret is right on in her call for cultural sensitivity in taking on the difficult questions that exist in dealing with the issues being discussed.

    Comment by Christopher — August 2, 2010 @ 8:20 am

  65. I would find it interesting if there were Navajo language congregations.

    Several of the smaller units on the reservation use Navajo for probably 90% of the meetings. These include branches such as Echo Cliffs, for instance. I’m not sure if Navajo is the official language designated for use in these branches, but everyone that attends (with the exception of visitors) speaks Navajo and many of the older generation don’t speak English.

    I haven’t listened to this presentation: but it’s supposed to be about Native American wards where English is the language of communication.

    Comment by smallaxe — August 2, 2010 @ 8:52 am

  66. As a Counter Example, we’ve been asked in our English speaking ward (we do have 2 Spanish wards in our stake, but they are at some distance) to begin having talks in Spanish for the 10-20% or so of our congregation that speaks Spanish. We have some few members that are very opposed to this. (Oddly, all our South Africans. They state that South Africa has hundreds of languages, but they all agree on English, so why can’t we?). We do already have Spanish Sunday School and Spanish Relief Society, but no Spanish priesthood, due to lack of quantity of men.

    Comment by Matt W. — August 2, 2010 @ 9:13 am

  67. I had drafted a longer response, but just to be brief, my own experience with two adopted Navajo cousins growing up and a year as foster parents to a Navajo girl in the last gasps of the Indian Placement program only underscore the issues Margaret brings up. Poverty and cultural dislocation are real issues for many of these converts and even second or third generation Native American LDS members. One could look at the status of our Native American members, and have serious questions about whether or not we’ve had much, if any success at all.

    Comment by kevinf — August 2, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

  68. @Jared T

    Well, when you have 3 Mormons together you get 5 opinions and I wouldn’t have it any other way:)

    But I really think these “race and the church” issues really are that simple.

    Are the members of the Quorum of the 12 and the 1st Presidency really prophets, seers and revelators? Yes, they are. So, why should we care about what color skin they have? The same goes for the 70’s when it comes to their callings and authority.

    If the Savior had done his mortal ministry 2000 years later, would it bother us if all the General Authorities had surnames like Silverman, Goldberg and Morkawitz?

    I’m more concerned about what the GA’s have to say about the world we live in and the challenges we face in our quests to be more like Christ and to make the world a better place.

    I think the whole concept of race is a sham and should be abandoned. The 60’s are over.

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 2, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

  69. Sorta related to David’s intentions in posting this:

    I’ve just finished going through the Church News for 1948. I don’t think that an issue has gone by that doesn’t include some article by or about SWKimball’s outreach to NAs, or the story of a convert from this, that or the other tribe, or a chapel being built on this or that reservation, or some other closely related topic. Church attention to Native Americans seems to have exploded right about then, and anybody interested in exploring the modern history of the Church and the Lamanites would find some specific examples for study in this source.

    Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — August 2, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

  70. Thanks, Ardis. That does relate.

    Comment by David G. — August 2, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

  71. Pedro, again, kudos if it is as (ahem) black and white for you. The issue is that for some it is not quite so. I have certainly had experiences where I’ve seen the Lord act in spite of the human limitations present, but sometimes those human views whether they be about race or culture, etc., play a larger role than perhaps they need to. Being an inspired person, to me, does not put the magic stamp of omniscience on everything that is said and done by that person. So, where these human issues exist, rather than dismissing them, they ought to be talked through and engaged. By doing so, we become, I believe, better instruments in the Lord’s hands.

    And even taking a view such as your own, which is fine, wouldn’t it be a better, more Christian course to better try and understand and discuss these issues which your fellow brothers and sisters may find relevant to their spiritual and temporal lives rather than just dismissing them and telling them (in effect) that ‘if they only had more faith, they’d just get it like me.’ ?

    Comment by Jared T — August 2, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

  72. As far as my experience. Native (“lamanite”) wards have been disbanded except by congregational boundaries on the reservation where geography makes native wards out of necessity. Even then, there is usually a stray bilagaana (white person) in attendance. In my experience classes are taught in English because until you get deep into the reservation English is spoken better by more people than Navajo is. In Shiprock which is a town that has one of the few full-fledged reservation wards, they have an english GD class and a Navajo one. 90% of the sacrament speakers are in English and perhaps 1 a month is in Navajo. In my experience announcements were usually given in both lanuguages.

    Comment by TrevorM — August 2, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

  73. Nice column on Lee from Utah local, Bob Lonsberry, and some interesting follow-up comments. Comment #21 has some revealing insight.

    Comment by Bret — August 3, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

  74. @Jared

    Well, our appraoches aren’t mutually exclusive. Perhaps they represent what might be a two-pronged appraoch to addressing these issues.

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 3, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

  75. “I think the whole concept of race is a sham and should be abandoned.”

    The powerful would agree. Fight the power.

    Comment by Chris H. — August 3, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

  76. “Perhaps they represent what might be a two-pronged appraoch to addressing these issues.”

    Approach 1 (Jared): Address the issue.

    Approach 2 (Pedro): Pretend the issue does not exist.

    Comment by Chris H. — August 3, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

  77. I am reading many of your comments and I am thinking to myself that these people truly don’t comprehend what its like to be a full blooded Native American Indian who have been born and raised on an Indian reservation and suddenly become a part of the LDS church. On one hand we are experiencing a remarkable spiritual experience and awaking, but on the other we are silently battling an internal conflict against the dominant white imperilistic attitude exemplified by many within the church that their way is much to prized and followed. I am not saying that this typical attitude is exhibited overtly but behind their supposedly peaceful spiritual gaze is their unwavering belief that minorities especially native american indians are no class at all. Many Native Americans have felt this internalized oppression within the church especially in churches where white members predominate. George P. Lee has to be commended for lasting as long as he did as a church member and in the heirachy of the church – he has fought an excellent battle – battling his overt and covert oppressions – his death happened long ago and yet persisted until his body gave way.

    Comment by John — August 4, 2010 @ 10:03 am

  78. Would it be out of line for me to ask everyone to lighten up when it comes to these racial/cultural issues? Life is just too short.

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 4, 2010 @ 10:17 am

  79. Pedro,

    If you lighten up when it comes to religion…it is a deal. After all, life is too short.

    Comment by Chris H. — August 4, 2010 @ 10:21 am

  80. Okay I will lay down the ax – I was trying to chop down the tree of racial inequality within the LDS church.

    Comment by John — August 4, 2010 @ 10:24 am

  81. Keep swinging.

    Comment by Chris H. — August 4, 2010 @ 10:29 am

  82. John, what Chris said.

    Pedro, Yes it is out of line to ask that we lighten up. This clearly isn’t an issue for you, but to many it is. Asking people to lighten up is just another way of dismissing the concerns of your fellow LDS. You’ve made your point clear, but this is a forum for discussing these issues, so please take your dismissals elsewhere.

    Comment by Jared T — August 4, 2010 @ 11:47 am

  83. Any recommendations for a non-scholar aficionado on a source that addresses the doctrinal shift of the Church of applying the term “Lamanites” and subsequent efforts to “restore them” from Native Americans to Latin Americans?

    What is the perception of Historians that the Church’s approach to this term is today? Does the Church in general think both groups are linked by lineage to the Lamanites of the BoM or is there a new approach to the issue?


    Dismissing racial issues in history is dismissing one of the most important elements of the study of history that is interwoven in history and cannot be isolated or lessened.

    You are dismissing a field that is interwoven tightly throughout all history and that provides vital and essential answers to understanding who we are, where we come from, why were things the way they were, why are things the way they are today, and why most of our current socio-cultural settings and their corresponding effects inside and outside the Church exist.

    As a Mexican, I think I get the attempted positive side of your approach: can’t we all get along and forget about race or put it in the back burner at least.

    It is not that simple though. Although it sounds utopian, that approach can be very dangerous because it would allow for all sorts of precedents that answer and/or explain many issues past and current to fade away in very convenient ways for some and very disadvantageous ways for others.

    Therefore, no. Race issues cannot go away and cannot be taken “lightly.”

    George P Lee’s life brings some of these issues to the spot-light in what some would consider a crucial time doctrinally for the Church.

    Comment by Manuel — August 4, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

  84. Part of the problem there is Navajos aren?t Lamanites, per most modern LDS notions of the limited geography of the Book of Mormon..

    Huh? That’s like saying Americans aren’t European since there is that big body of water between them.

    Comment by Clark — August 4, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

  85. I would say Navajos are laminites. Why? Because our ceremonies and traditional teachings are loaded with Biblical like doctrines and teachings and its ceremonial practices is much in align with the LDS temple ceremonies and worship – you would be astounded to see how closely the practices and procedures resembling one another in certain parts of the Navajo ceremonies – you would also be astounded how closely the words expressed in the Navajo ceremonies matches with the words expressed in the Temple ceremonies – the only difference is there are less formalities in the Navajo ceremonies, and the language used is Navajo instead of English.

    Comment by John — August 4, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

  86. Hey John,

    Not trying to get into temple content or anything. But how closely do Navajo rituals and traditional religion relate to the Hopi?
    I only ask because Hugh Nibley wrote some stuff on it.

    Comment by Pedro A. Olavarria — August 4, 2010 @ 8:09 pm

  87. they are completely different except the time of the year certain ceremonies can be performed such as the fall equinox has a special ceremony for that period and the spring equinox and summer equinox have their special respective ceremonies as well – and I believe the hopi have as well and so do the orthodox Jews.

    Comment by john — August 4, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

  88. On the day of George P. Lee’s funeral which is today (i think it is today) the Navajo Reservation is experiencing tornadic activities never the like in the history of the Navajo Nation – When Ezra Bensen past away their were tornadic activities in Provo or strong gusts of winds that knocked down trees.

    Comment by john — August 4, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

  89. On the day Ezra Taft Benson died the AC went out on our families Ford Tempo. I always thought it was the foretelling of the reaction I would have toward ETB’s teachings in the future (at the time I often approvingly quoted his political writings).

    Comment by Chris H. — August 4, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

  90. Margaret, the tone in your posts are unsavory. You imply that Native Americans are unable to provide or take responsibility for themselves, simply because of their race and skin color. They aren’t puppy dogs…why would the church be “responsible” for them over any other person, white, black, or whatever? We’re responsible for bringing all mankind unto Christ.

    Not that it changes my original point, but there are already plenty of programs in place through the gov’t for Native Americans to take advantage of, I’m not sure why the Church would be responsible for more? Its prejudice and insulting IMO. Just like calling them “Lamanites” is. (I realize for a time it was socially appropriate, but as our church leaders have made it clear, it is no longer)

    Comment by Olive — August 5, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

  91. Olive, I’m not sure if you know who Margaret is, or even if you really bothered to read her comments, but her tone is hardly “unsavory,” and neither in a million years would I imagine someone would characterize her statements as “prejudice [sic] and insulting.” She’s done as much to fight against racism as anyone I know. Her comments are simply reflecting the long-time positions of President Kimball, so they’re not that controversial, even if the church has largely been silent on them since his death.

    Comment by David G. — August 5, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

  92. Thanks, David, for posting this. You are right on in thinking that George P. Lee is a major key to understanding the recent history of Mormons and Native Americans. His life was truly tragic. He was raised to believe that Lamanites were truly God’s chosen people. And all of those visions came crashing down in the late 1980s.

    Comment by Sterling Fluharty — August 6, 2010 @ 12:03 am

  93. Thanks, Sterling. You have as much expertise as anyone in post-WW II Native Americans (and Mormons). Any interest in doing something on GPL?

    Comment by David G. — August 6, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

  94. The fall of Elder Lee was as a sad moment in a lot of people’s lives, mine included.

    I can recall, while on my mission in 1982, listening to a General Conference tape of a talk that he gave, well, it was more of a testimony than a prepared talk. It was powerful. The words and the Spirit of God merged together and affected me in a way that only a few other sermons/talks have.

    Reading both of the letters he wrote saddend me on a whole series of levels, not the least of which was an apparent refusal to back down and acknowledge that the right to steady the ark has never been deligated.

    His concerns may have had some validity, but at the end of the day, those men who hold the proper keys, will be responsible for the way with which they were used.

    Seeing a recent picture of Elder Lee, hair long and all over the place, just under a picture of him in is G.A. days reminded me somewhat of the description that Brigham Young gave of Thomas March, when Marsh made his way back to the Church and gave a talk.

    Elder Lee will be accountable for the harm he did to that child. But that accountablity won’t be to any of us here.

    Let the family remember him as they wish.

    I would suggest following the request of J. Reuben Clark Jr. who, when discussing his own funeral arrangements, did not want his vices made into his virtues.

    Comment by Reuben — August 27, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

  95. Many of the remarks submitted here show extreme ignorance of the Book of Mormon teachings regarding the church in these last days. Allow me to instruct you accordingly!!!

    The church today (Mormon 8):
    [35] Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.
    [36] And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.
    [37] For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.
    [38] O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies — because of the praise of the world?
    [39] Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?
    [40] Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?
    [41] Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.

    The white (Gentile) culture members of today (3 Nephi 16:10):
    [10] And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

    The so called ?lamanites? of today (properly called ?Remnant of Jacob?)(3 Nephi 16:11-12):
    [11] And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.
    [12] And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

    The destiny of the so called ?lamanite? – ?Remnant of Jacob?)(3 Nephi 20):
    [13] And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them.
    [14] And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.
    [15] And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people —
    [16] Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

    The final relationship between the Gentile culture and the mighty Remnant of Jacob (3 Nephi 21):
    [22] But if they (the white culture Gentiles) will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance;
    [23] And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.
    [24] And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

    Notice that the culture of the Remnant of Jacob is spiritually superior to the culture of the white Gentiles (Babylon). That is why they will be give the fullness of the Gospel that the modern Gentile church has already rejected. That is why they are the future leader of the Church.

    So you see, culture does matter!!!

    Comment by Prince — November 2, 2010 @ 3:23 pm


Recent Comments

J Stuart on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “Armand, your response made me unexpectedly emotional. Your work has shaped me as a scholar in many important ways, but your legendary willingness to engage…”

Ardis E. Parshall on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “I've enjoyed these three discussions -- crowned by this response by Armand Mauss himself. It is so representative of his ability and willingness to interact…”

Armand Mauss on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “I am pleasantly surprised and deeply grateful for the three assessments offered in this space this week by Gary Shepherd, Jana Riess, and Matt Bowman.…”

Roger T on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “Since I work in Mormon studies, I tend to read a lot. It's impossible to keep up with everything being published, but over the past…”

Jeff T on Q&A with Taylor Petrey,: “Thanks, Taylor!”

Jeff T on The Mechanics of Applying: “Thanks, J!”