Contents

Latino-Americans are the fastest growing minority in the United States. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 19.5 million people of Hispanic origin live in the United States; 61.2 percent are of Mexican origin. Seventeen million speak Spanish at home. Many Latino-American scholars point out that figure is probably low. Language difficulties and not wanting to report illegal status in the U.S. are some of the reasons that Hispanics are often underestimated in the census. Scholars estimate that by 2010 there will be more Latinos than African-Americans.1

Unlike many northern European-American groups who came to the United States in the nineteenth century, Latinos have not abandoned their culture and language. Many continue to speak Spanish. As a result, the U.S., state and local governments, businesses, and schools cannot assume that immigrants will follow the myth that newcomers would learn English, Americanize, and blend into the "melting pot."

English-speaking Americans have reacted to the increasing Spanish-speaking minority both positively and negatively. Some have demanded that the U.S. Congress pass laws making English the official language, thus avoiding the need to provide resources in other languages, especially Spanish. California passed a law in 1994 denying government assistance to illegal immigrants. Many English-speaking residents of that state felt that Spanish-speaking newcomers were taking over. As Latinos have moved into some California neighborhoods, European Americans have moved out. Americans with these attitudes hold the traditional view, popular since the nineteenth century, that all newcomers should assimilate.

In contrast, some Americans have realized that Latinos are here to stay and that newcomers' needs, including Spanish-language assistance, must be met. Government agencies employ people who speak both Spanish and English. Some fast food restaurants in southern California hire only bilingual employees. Schools pay teaching assistants who can help Spanish-speaking students and give more attention to multiculturalism. In history classes, for example, teachers talk about the Hispanic tradition in the United States, not just the Anglo-American founding fathers.

While English-speaking Americans have focused on these various ways to deal with the Spanish-speaking citizens and aliens, Latinos have resented being lumped together. They may all speak Spanish, but that is often the only similarity. For example, many Argentinean ancestors came from Europe, and Argentinean-Americans have kept European traditions. Some Peruvian-Americans also have mainly European roots, lived in large modern cities, and are offended when asked if they had cars and running water in their home country. The converse is also true: Some Peruvian-Americans came from rural mountain villages with Indian rather than Spanish traditions; they sometimes lack modern conveniences. Others are blends of European, native, and African backgrounds. Latino scholars believe northern European-Americans need to recognize these long-standing cultural and ethnic differences rather than consider all Spanish-speaking people as the same.

These concerns have also impacted American churches. Traditionally most Latinos have been Catholics. A 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification reported that 65.8 percent of 22 million Hispanic-Americans (the number it identified) said they were Catholics. About one-quarter (24.6 percent) were Protestant. Among the other religions listed .8 percent were Mormon. (Another .8 percent refused to answer.)2

All these churches face the same dilemmas that governments, schools, and businesses have had to deal with in the United States. How do the religious organizations attract Latinos to their churches? Then how can they best meet the needs of the Spanish-speaking members? Do they encourage the non-English speaking members to attend English services so that they can assimilate into the mainstream? Or do they provide separate congregations with Spanish-language services? And how do they deal with the various cultures represented? Do they put everyone who speaks Spanish together despite their different cultural and ethnic backgrounds?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has struggled with these questions and not found an easy solution. This monograph will examine the various approaches the Mormon church has tried in dealing with Latino-Americans and analyze its successes and failures. It will focus on the missions and congregations that the church has established for Spanish-speaking people in the United States. The topic is timely in Mormon circles as general and local church leaders and all Latter-day Saints meet more Latino-American Mormons at church. It can also provide a case study for those interested in how Latinos can fit into American society, especially American-based churches.

I could use many terms to describe the Mormon church, Spanish-speaking Americans, and English-speaking Americans. Terms that were acceptable in the past are often frowned on now. While the LDS church has been referred to as the "Mormon Church" for years, leaders have recently discouraged that term because it eliminates the mention of Christ. Yet the complete name of the church is too long for ease in reading. I use "LDS" and "Mormon."

The preferred name for Spanish-speaking Americans has also changed. In the 1960s the popular term was "Chicano." Later some used "Hispanic Americans." Now "Latino" or "Latino-American" is used more often. I will use "Latino," "Latin-American," and "Hispanic-American," all referring to the same group. Spanish-speaking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are referred to as "Hispanic-American Mormons," "LDS Latino-Americans," etc. Again, these terms refer to the same group of people. When the person is an immigrant or I know the origin of the person's ancestors, I will refer to him/her as Mexican-American, Argentinean-American, etc.

Identifying non-Spanish-speaking Americans is equally as difficult. In the past they have been referred to as Anglos or Anglo-Americans. Yet they represent the descendants of a wide blend of people other than just English. A common term used in the 1990s is European-Americans, yet the Iberian Peninsula is also in Europe. Depending on the situation, I will use the terms European-American, Anglo-American, or English-speaking American. In this monograph they all mean the non-Spanish-speaking population of the United States.

To learn more about how the LDS church is responding to its Latino-American members, the first chapter will look at the sources available on the subject. Chapter two looks at mission work among Latinos in the United States. Chapter three examines the branches created for Spanish-speaking members in the U.S. Chapter four explores the elimination of separate missions during the 1970s and the changing policies toward language branches from 1970 to 1997. Chapter five describes the BYU Charles Redd Center's LDS Hispanic-American Oral History Project. Chapters six, seven, and eight report how the Redd Center interviewees feel about ethnic wards and branches. The final chapter presents some of my feelings about language congregations.

_______________

NOTES:

1. Cheryl Ann White, "Factors in the Lives of LDS Church Members that Promote and Inhibit the Acquisition of English as a Second Language" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1995), 2; Allan Englekirk and Marguerite Mann, "Mexican Americans," Gale Encyclopedia of Multicultural America, Rudolph J. Vecoli, ed. (New York: Gale Research Inc., 1995), 908; William A. Henry III, "Beyond the Melting Pot," Time, 9 April 1990, 28-31.
2. Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), 2, 15, 137.

Mission Policies

Maintaining non-English language missions and branches was always a struggle because some General Authorities preferred integration. But Apostle Spencer W. Kimball strongly supported keeping them open. In 1964 after visiting Grant M. Burbidge, president of the West Spanish-American Mission, Kimball wrote, "I was glad to know that he felt very strongly that we should keep our Spanish-speaking branches intact, feeling that certainly they would go to pieces if they were required to go to the Anglo wards and branches. And as for the mission, he felt positively that it would practically terminate the conversions, at least they would be greatly reduced, and that is nearly unthinkable that we would give up the mission or integrate by requirement the Anglo and Spanish-speaking branches."1

However, some members of Spencer W. Kimball's Indian and Minority Group Committee, composed of other apostles and some church members, felt that separate branches encouraged segregation. They argued people from different cultures needed to meet and know each other as individuals.2 Following established procedure, Kimball rarely mentioned what happened in Council of Twelve meetings in his journal. However, he broke the tradition on February 3, 1966, because he was concerned about attempts to eliminate the ethnic branches and the language missions. He wrote: "Among others was the matter of the possible integration of the minority group branches with the Anglo branches and the possible combination . . . of the missions, doing away with the Spanish-speaking missions in the United States. . . . I vigorously protested and while several of the brethren seemed to feel the other way would be better, I was so vigorous in my protestation that the President did not take a vote on it but asked us to return with the matter next week." He continued, "While it would be easier, more adaptable to administration, I feel sure we would lose ground and many of our members and cease to grow as fast as we have done."3

Despite Kimball's concerns, the administrative changes eventually came. In 1967 the church leaders reorganized the Spanish-American Mission. Dean L. Larsen, then president, led the Texas South Mission. The focus of the new mission was still to work with the Spanish-speaking people in south Texas. Other parts of the former Spanish-American Mission became part of the Texas and Western States missions.4

This arrangement did not last long. In 1970 the church ended all separate Spanish-speaking missions, likely in an effort to provide administrative clarity about jurisdiction. California elders and sisters assigned to English-speaking missions were teaching Hispanic investigators with few English skills rather than referring them to their Spanish-speaking counterparts. John K. Edmunds, who became president of the California Mission in 1969, talked about the competition between the missionaries. There were many mixed marriages where one partner was Anglo-American and the other was Latino-American. The two missions agreed that the nationality of the father would determine who should teach the investigators. This plan worked in theory, but Spanish-speaking elders did not usually turn over "golden investigators" to the English-speaking elders nor the reverse. "There was a little jealousy and rivalry between them, but it was just human nature."5

Former presidents of the Spanish-American and West Spanish-American missions disagreed about the decision to eliminate the missions. Burbidge simply said that it was right if the Brethren did it but added that he hoped the Spanish-speaking people could take part in the church activities and not become only "listening people."6 Leland Perry, the first president of the West Spanish-American Mission, agreed but saw more potential problems. He recommended that a mission counselor work with just the Spanish-speaking missionaries. He continued, "I'm sure the Brethren know what they're doing. I don't mean to criticize that. I just see some problems there and I think we'll always have them."7 Harold Bowman, a past president of the Spanish-American Mission, however, said, "I thoroughly feel that it's a mistake. I don't mean to criticize, but I feel that and I've had some of the members tell me since. They go to these meetings and they invite them, . . . but they sit back. They don't take the interest that they would before."8

Other ethnic missions were also eliminated. Since the ethnic congregations in Salt Lake City were active members of stakes and stake missionaries could talk to nonmembers, the Salt Lake Regional Mission was closed in 1967. In 1972 the First Presidency—Harold B. Lee, president—also dissolved the Southwest Indian Mission and created new missions with geographical boundaries. The First Presidency stressed, though, "Proselyting languages other than English are not to be neglected."9

The elimination of ethnic missions did not, of course, eliminate proselyting efforts with these groups in the United States. Geographical missions had developed ways of working with non-English speaking minorities in the 1960s, and these efforts sometimes increased when the church leaders closed the language missions in 1970 and 1972. As one example, John K. Edmunds, president of the California Mission, appointed David G. Clark, a former mission president of the Guatemala-El Salvador Mission, as his counselor. Clark worked with the Spanish-speaking missionaries and laid the foundation for joint missionary work among the English-speaking Americans and Hispanic people in the area.10

Daniel Robins, who served in the California North Mission from 1971 to 1973, started out teaching English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people, but later worked only with Latinos. He estimated that Sacramento had between 75,000 and 80,000 people with Spanish surnames. Smaller towns had Latino populations between 75 and 2,000 in his mission. Most were Mexicans, but there were also people from Chile, Central American countries, and Peru. Robins saw both advantages and disadvantages in each of the two mission systems. While he was not sure it was good to have a mission within a mission, he felt having a separate organization would have made it easier for him to contact Latin people. He was "always jealous" of those missionaries who had served in a Spanish-speaking mission.11

In 1972 Michael Landon served in a Spanish-speaking area of Los Angeles while waiting for his Brazilian visa. Though all the missionaries were part of the same mission, he found a division between the "Anglo" and the "Sp Am" missionaries. The Spanish-speaking elders sometimes took a superior attitude because they had learned a language. As with the separate missions, the elders spent all of their time contacting people with Hispanic surnames. On rainy days they went to the library and checked directories arranged by address to find where Hispanics lived since it was sometimes an advantage to go to a door already knowing the person's name. The elders talked only to Latinos. One elder handed out cards with the address of the nearest church when he knocked on the door of non-Spanish speaking people.12

Before 1969 missionaries learned the language "on the job." The language training missions created that year for all elders and sisters who taught in a language other than their native tongue improved teaching efforts with non-English speaking groups. By 1983 more than six hundred full-time missionaries were working with minorities in the United States.13

Changing Policies on Ethnic Branches

In October 1972 the First Presidency, under the direction of President Harold B. Lee, issued a circular letter asking all stake, ward, and branch leaders to be conscious of "racial, language, or cultural groups," authorizing stakes and wards to organize special classes where language barriers existed. If there were a greater need, a stake could ask the Quorum of Twelve to organize a branch. Stakes reacted differently to this 1972 letter. Some, like Oakland, dissolved their special units, including a Spanish branch. Others, like the Los Angeles Stake, requested permission to form a language branch, but the General Authorities denied their request. Church leaders also dissolved several branches in the Salt Lake valley including the Cumorah Branch in 1974. Church translator Eduardo Balderas added that the General Authorities wanted the members to "become incorporated and affiliated with their wards" after they learned English.14

Golden Buchanan reacted negatively to these changes, believing that the General Authorities were eliminating all non-English programs in the United States. In an oral history interview in 1975, he referred to a "new handbook [that] says that we should integrate." With this shift in policy, he felt, "there should be a fellowshipping program set up, and if there's a group of people that are not feeling comfortable, they should have special attention, maybe special classes and so on."15

A rare exception, although not the only one, was in Provo. Enoc Q. Flores, who had grown up in the Mormon colonies in Mexico, remembered that the 1972 order to end language branches came as "a complete opposite of what they had done ten years before." He was a member of the branch presidency of a Spanish-speaking unit in Provo when the 1972 circular letter arrived. He and the other members of the branch presidency wrote to the General Authorities, describing the reasons for the branch. Flores explained in an oral history that he felt the letter convinced church leaders to leave the branch open.16

Apparently Sunday School classes in an ethnic language were not enough. Buchanan asserted—and others probably shared his views—that the church did not do a good job of taking care of minorities and immigrants during that time. Anglo-American Stewart Durrant, who worked with the church's Lamanite and Minority Members Committee, said that many members stopped attending when there weren't any ethnic branches.17

This policy was reversed in 1977 when the church announced a Basic Unit Plan. The new program outlined a simplified branch organization which included only essential positions and programs. It was designed so that a very small group of members could have a congregation that met their basic spiritual needs. Though the program was initially set up for Native Americans, especially those on reservations, committee member Stewart Durrant saw it as a blessing to all people who did not have enough people to have a fully developed church program. Spencer W. Kimball, by then church president, acknowledged in the Regional Representatives seminar in 1980, "Many challenges face all of us as we fellowship and teach the gospel to the cultural and minority groups living in our midst. . . .When special attention of some kind is not provided for these people, we lose them."18

Three years later Kimball declared the programs a success. He wrote to regional representatives and stake and mission presidents, "Where this program has been used we have met with very encouraging success particularly among the minority groups. Where before many were not enjoying full activity in the Church, we now have many smaller branches led by local leaders with increased participation."19

Although many people no doubt felt that the policy was meeting a long-standing need, Enoc Flores, whose Spanish branch in Provo had survived the general shut down, now felt that the revival of ethnic branches "went a little overboard. They wanted everybody that was from a different culture to have the gospel taught in their own language. Then we saw a whole bunch of Vietnamese, Hmong, Korean, Japanese, and all of the Asian branches that filled the valley up in Salt Lake and even here in Provo in our stake and in other stakes." He did not explain why he felt this was going "overboard."20

Future Policies

In 1992 there were at least 405 foreign-language wards and branches in the United States and over half were Spanish-speaking. [Map shown in book, but not included here.] That number had grown to at least 533 by 1997, and at least two-thirds were Spanish-speaking. In several places there were also foreign-language stakes including, among others, the Spanish-speaking stakes in the Los Angeles area, a Tongan-speaking stake in Salt Lake City, and a largely Navajo stake in Chinle, Arizona.

In 1997 there was talk, though, of changing the policy again and eliminating these special units. Bishops of Spanish-speaking units in Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah, were told that although there were enough wards, there would not be a Spanish-speaking stake in those areas. DeAnna Morgan, the wife of the Spanish-speaking branch president in Buhl, Idaho, explained, "The grapevine tells us that non-English speaking branches and wards are being phased out."21 As I have talked about my research, I have also heard this rumor. Unfortunately, until the General Authorities act, no one will know if these rumors are true or not. And even then the sources will not be available to understand why the LDS church leaders made the change.

In the meantime, language wards and branches continue in the United States. How the Redd Center interviewees responded to these branches is the subject of the next chapters.

_______________

NOTES:

1. Spencer W. Kimball Journal, July 29, 1964, in private possession. Used by permission of the family.
2. Golden Buchanan, Oral History, interviewed by William G. Hartley, 1975, 5:24, LDS Church Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah (hereinafter cited as LDS Church Archives).
3. Kimball Journal, February 3, 1966.
4. "Texas Mission Divided," Church News, December 16, 1967, 13.
5. Chad M. Orton, More Faith than Fear: The Los Angeles Stake Story (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987), 288-289; John K. Edmunds, Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1980, 82, 87, 137, LDS Church Archives.
6. Grant M. Burbidge, Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1973, 58, LDS Church Archives.
7. Leland and McNone Perry, Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1972, 71, LDS Church Archives.
8. Harold Israel Bowman, Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1973, 76-77, LDS Church Archives.
9. "Boundaries of Three Missions in Southwestern U.S. Realigned," Church News, November 11, 1972, 4.
10. Orton, 289.
11. Daniel K. Robins, Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1973, 12-13, 66, LDS Church Archives.
12. Conversation with Michael Landon by author, May 30, 1996.
13. Richard L. Jensen, "Mother Tongue: Use of Non-English Languages in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States, 1850-1983," New Views of Mormon History: A Collection of Essays in Honor of Leonard, Arrington, Davis Bitton and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, eds. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987), 293.
14. Jessie L. Embry, "Ethnic Groups and the LDS Church," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 25 (Winter 1992): 83-84; Buchanan, Oral History, 1975, 5, 11, 13; Eduardo Balderas Oral History, interviewed by Gordon Irving, 1973, 75, LDS Church Archives.
15. Buchanan, Oral History, 1975, 5, 11, 13.
16. Enoc Q. Flores, Oral History, interviewed by Emeralda Meraz, 1991, 6-7, LDS Hispanic Oral History Project, Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Manuscript Division, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
17. Buchanan, Oral History, 1975, 5:140; Stewart Durrant, Oral History, interviewed by Richard Jensen, 1973, 19, LDS Church Archives.
18. Durrant, Oral History, 5-6; "Aid Minorities, President Kimball Asks Leaders," Church News, October 11, 1980, 4.
19. Durrant, Oral History, 34-35.
20. Flores, Oral History, 7.
21. DeAnna Morgan, letter to author, February 19, 1997.