Oral History Program Richard Roberts Interviewed by Sydnee Gale 05 March 1971 i Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Richard Roberts Interviewed by Sydnee Gale 05 March 1971 Copyright © 2014 by Weber State University, Stewart Library ii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in University Archives. The Stewart Library also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber State College/University Student Projects have been created by students working with several different professors on the Weber State campus. The topics are varied and based on the student's interest or task for a specific assignment. These oral history assignments were created to help Weber State students learn the value and importance of recording public history and to benefit the expansion of the Weber State oral history collections. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Roberts, Richard, an oral history by Sydnee Gale, 05 March 1971, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. iii Abstract: The following is an oral history interview with Richard Roberts. The interview was conducted on March 5, 1971, by Sydnee Gale. Mr. Roberts discusses his knowledge of B.H. Roberts and the history and influence he had on the LDS Church, as well as his knowledge of polygamy during the time. SG: Mr. Roberts, could you please tell me something of B.H. Roberts' background? RR: B. H. Roberts is my grandfather. He was the son of Benjamin and Ann Everington Roberts, who were in England and converted to the Mormon Church, at least his mother did. She came to Utah ahead of the rest of the family—most of the family. She brought with her two children and left two children in England. B. H. was one left behind in England and then came somewhat later in 1859 across the plains and into Utah. My father is the oldest son of the second wife of B. H. Roberts. This was a polygamous family. B. H. Roberts, his full name is Brigham Henry Roberts, had three wives-and my father is the oldest son of the second family. Brigham Roberts, in background, was pretty much a self-educated man. In fact his formal schooling began only at the age of sixteen and concentrated for the next five years in some general study taken from teachers in Bountiful. Hannah Holbrook is one of the women who gave him his early schooling and taught him to read and write. He also had some education at the University of Deseret, as it was known at that time in Salt Lake City. About two years there is the extent of his formal schooling. He learned a great deal from his own effort. In fact, Dr. Truman Madsen in speaking of B. H. Roberts said that he did as much as a Ph.D candidate in our day would do in pursuing a degree in philosophy, religion, and history, that he had read between the years of 16 and 21 as many books as a candidate 1 in our present system would probably read for a degree in each of those subjects. So once he undertook his education he pursued it very diligently and with great fervor and ended up then with quite a bit of background from his own reading. So, in terms of formal education, it was rather scant, but in terms of his own preparational background, he prepared himself very much. SG: What preparation did he make to become an historian? RR: I think his preparation as historian was very limited. He really didn't receive the formal training that a historian of our day receives. His preparation was mainly what he had done from his personal reading. It's interesting to look at his library, which is presently in the LDS Church Historian's office. This was one of the stipulations that the family made in turning over the books of B. H. Roberts to the church is that it would be kept as a unit, that it might be used and be of help to others who might be pursuing historical topics. It's interesting to go through those books to see how much he read and in the margins of these books are notes or comments that he might have on a particular idea that is being expressed by the historian or writer of that book. So, in terms of his background he really did not have the training in any of the fine schools of history. Although he's not much out of line with many of the people of that time, education was a thing done by only really a few of the period, but for him there was no opportunity really to go ahead and have the historical training of the time. So what he did, in the way of preparation as a historian was essentially his own preparation in that area. As a historian, I think, there is no doubt about it that he had a bias. In fact, in some of his writings he even mentions that he was writing a history that was favorable to the church. In the beginning of his Comprehensive History of the Church he makes a statement as such, indicating that he 2 was presenting a pro-church position. So, I think it would have to be admitted then, that he did write with a bias or have a certain intention or purpose to accomplish in writing his history. Now, that isn't so far out of line. It's easy for us at our day to look back and say what he should have done or the way things should have gone. But, it's in line with the type of thing that was done in his day. Historians writing in the 19th century wrote with purpose or with objective. VonRanke and other historians of that time saw history as an unfolding of an objective and finally reaching a purpose. So, he was probably not far out of line with what was being done in those days. The critics today look back on him and say, "Well, he should have done this," and "He might have been biased," which he admitted. I think the thing that makes him important as a historian is that he did, at least, admit that history was a subjective thing and that he was writing a point of view in his history. But, he didn't completely submerge or subject the history to his own point of view. He at least considered topics that were debatable and could have expressions of point of view on them. He recognized that some topics in his history were a little difficult to deal with. He talks of the Mountain Meadows Massacre with some indication that it was a bad point in Mormon history and had to be dealt with some caution. He was certainly writing with some protection of church leadership. He was a church leader himself, so he couldn't be completely unbiased in it. But, he did present points of view and attitudes which would be protective of a church position. But, I think, after some consideration, he was drawing conclusions. He was not afraid, also, to indicate that maybe bad judgment had been made on the part of some people or some position. I think we have to give him at least that much credit, indicating that he is willing to recognize that there are opposite points of view. One recent article on a critique of B. H. 3 Roberts as historian has said that in regards, for instance to his Mountain Meadow Massacre, that he had perhaps been too harsh on John D. Lee, one of the important figures in that matter. But, recently, in talking with some people who have worked in this field, seem to indicate that maybe the B. H. Roberts position wasn't so far off. Dr. Don Moorman of Weber State College staff and Dr. Leonard Arrington, who is presently writing a one volume history of the church seemed to indicate that maybe John D. Lee was a little more implicated than some of the more recent writings about John D. Lee would indicate. For instance, Juanita Brooks has given a position which is quite protective of the John D. Lee attitude or place in that massacre. So, sometimes it's hard to tell on these matters who has the correct position. But there seems to be some defense, at least, of B. H. Robert's position on this matter. So, that's something to consider. SG: Was there one specific subject concerning Utah history about which he was very outspoken? RR: Well, there are two topics at least that seem to be a matter of concern for him. There's the position that he held toward polygamy which is very closely tied with his personal life, and seems to find expression in many of his works. Polygamy for B. H. Roberts was a rather difficult affair. Personally, you might even say he suffered from it. It caused him difficulty in the church doctrine also. In fact, he was one of the men of the church who held out for some time against the position of the Manifesto of 1890. As late as 1895 and 1896 B. H. Roberts, along with others like Moses Thatcher, were still holding that polygamy was a fundamental doctrine of the church and was not in favor of changing and go away from the practice of polygamy. He thought it was a divine manifestation or 4 divine doctrine and wanted to maintain it. There's an interesting story that I've found in Tribune accounts, other diary accounts, and in talking with Truman Madsen and others. The Tribune account tells of a conference that was held, as I remember, in Logan or Cache Valley. It was more or less a conference to try to bring these recalcitrant brethren back to the church position. So, it was pretty much presented in a way that if they did not accept the abolishment of polygamy within the church then they would be excommunicated or forced of the church. The Tribune account says that B. H. Roberts was told at this meeting that unless he changed his mind, and by the next day could report that he accepted the church position, that he would be thrown out of the church. The story was told that he walked the streets all night trying to search his soul to determine what position he should take. He returned in the early morning to the church presidency who were awaiting his answer and said that he had changed and had made a complete turnabout from his position. The story says that he said that he had received a visitation from one of his ancestors who had told him that he had a special work to do in the church, and that he Roberts would now be willing to accept the church position. So, in walking the streets that night he had apparently had some impression or some feeling that to change positions was what he had to do. The personal story is said that he fell into the arms of Joseph F. Smith, and in a brotherly embrace confessed his waywardness and his willingness to come back to the church position on polygamy. Polygamy also cost him a seat in the House of Representatives. He was elected as a Representative in 1898, went to take his seat in the House of Representatives in Washington D. C., but was refused a seat, the reason being that the Congress had the right to determine the qualifications of their members, and they decided that polygamy 5 was an unsavory affair and didn't want polygamous members of Congress. So, he went back to Washington but was refused his seat in the Congress. So, polygamy had caused him political difficulties also. He also spoke out against the woman suffrage in the Utah State Constitutional Convention and made it very clear that he thought that women should not be allowed to have the same position as men in voting, and so forth and he was quite adamant in this position. Many people, of course, have been critical of him for the position he took. But I think much of it was tied up with polygamy and with the feeling he had about the woman's role in the family and in the state. So, I would say polygamy is one of the main things that was on his mind and he would probably speak in very strong terms concerning this matter. SG: Today, what are the attitudes of his family toward polygamy? RR: Well, I would generally say that there was bad feeling about the polygamous situation. The first family was very much opposed to the matter except that the wife had given the consent to live under polygamy. But, a certain amount of bitterness had crept in and I think it would only be unrealistic to say that everything was smooth under the Mormon polygamous situation. These were people with emotions and feelings and jealousies and pettiness sometimes that would cause problems. It happened in this family, and I think it is something that has to be realized. The separation of families became quite distinct. The three different families--in the third family there were no children so that didn't involve the feeling of children towards their half brothers and sisters and so forth. But between the first and second families there were certainly some hard feelings. I can personally say about my father that he felt that his mother, who was never recognized as a civil wife, was very bitter and he had become obsessive in his attitude about his 6 father and the polygamous situation. You see, there was a civil marriage as well as a temple marriage involved in the polygamous situation. The first wife had been married civilly and in the temple. The second wife was married in a temple marriage only. Then the third wife was married in the temple. Later on, when the first wife died, B. H. Roberts married the third wife civilly so that my father's mother was kind of skipped over in the civil marriage. I didn't realize until talking with my father recently and saw the bitterness, or the feeling of being somewhat shunned or overlooked in the civil marriage, how deeply he felt about it. So, it has problems and polygamy really had an imprint upon the families and some families perhaps did better than others. But, I can say that in the B. H. Roberts family that it caused some difficulties. SG: In your view, how did he rate as an historian and are you biased toward the way you rate him? RR: Well, I certainly have a bias. I think you don't kick against your family particularly, but I think there are some good and bad qualities in his presentation as historian. There are many people who maybe rate him down. The general reader, of course, gives great credit to him. I've read a lot of letters, a lot of commentary, but you've got to remember that B. H. Roberts was more than historian. He was a man of many positions or many abilities. He was spokesman for the church for many years, considered one of the greatest of orators. He was a writer of philosophy for the church, writing on religious topics and defending the Mormon position against attacks from outsiders and others who wanted to contest its doctrine. So, he's more than historian. One of the problems, I guess, is that he didn't have time to be all of these things. One of the criticisms that is made of his Comprehensive History of the Church is that he did not delve into all of the 7 details and pursue them to their exact details or exact accuracy. So, that was one of the problems. I think you've got to say that B. H. Roberts was a pioneer on the ground of Mormon history. There's no one who took the full scope that he did. Trying to cover the history of the church from the beginning up through the 1930 period, at least. Some of it is better than others, of course, some areas are better developed. But, it was a pioneer work, a beginning work and I don't know of anyone in the period of time who could have done better with it or who even attempted to cover the whole scope as he did. In our day it's easy to go back and rework the ground. Once the ground has been plowed up, it's easy to go back and refine it and I think that's what present day historians are doing is going to refine them. So, I think his contribution as a historian is that he went as a beginner into areas that hadn't been brought forward prior to that. He presented that as a beginning place. So, I think that's one of his important contributions. Leonard Arrington has told me that he has sent circulars out asking prominent people and different scholars of the church what man stands out as the most important, I think his term was philosopher or important spokesman of the church, and B. H. Roberts in almost all the cases was listed as one of the top three. And, he's the one that is listed ahead of most of them as the top man in Utah on Mormon philosophy and doctrine. So, certainly to some of the more educated—readers he has found a place. Not all of his writing, of course, is history. His other works of Mormon doctrine, and so forth, are apart from his historical writing. So as a historian, I would again say that he is the one who did the initial work and it needs to be refined. There are more sources now than there ever were. He was writing at a period of time when the point of view of history was touched 8 by 19th century concepts. Today we have a better view, maybe, and more material to work with, and can better develop things than he did. But, he did make his contribution. SG: Thank you very much. 9