Reviews – Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890-1921

Danish ApostleUtah Historical Quarterly, Davis Bitton
Diaries attract our interest on the basis of the articulateness of the writer and his or her social roles. Although the humdrum of daily living has its importance for exhuming the social history of the past, it is usually the placement of the person that invites the attention of readers outside of the family. Was he or she in a position to observe significant persons and events?

A Danish convert to Mormonism, Anthon H. Lund became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in October 1889. He became president of the Manti temple, president of the European Mission, Church Historian, president of the Utah Genealogical Society, president of the Salt Lake Temple, and from 1901 to his death in 1921 counselor in the First Presidency.

In business, Lund was president of Utah National Bank, Nevada Land and Stock Company, Amalgamated Sugar Company, Consolidated Salt Company, and Utah Savings and Trust Company. He was vice president of Utah Sulfur Company and Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI). He served on the board of directors of Knitting Works Company, Knight Sugar Company, Inland Crystal Salt Company, Saltair Beach Company, Utah Light and Railway Company, and Hotel Utah. Such participation of church general authorities in business enterprises continued until January 1996 when President Gordon B. Hinckley announced they would no longer be authorized to sit on boards of directors of companies.

In education, Lund was superintendent of Church Education, president of Snow Academy, board member and president of LDS University, and member of the University of Utah Board of Regents. To appreciate Lund’s importance, readers may wish to peruse, in addition to Hatch’s useful introductory essay, Jennifer L. Lund, “Out of the Swan’s Nest: The Ministry of Anthon H. Lund, Scandinavian Apostle,” Journal of Mormon History 29 (Fall 2003): 77-105.

With all his responsibilities, Lund naturally attended many meetings. How detailed are the entries about these meetings? Often we long for more, some indication of the give-and-take. Yet he fully describes the Twelve Apostles’ meetings on April 16-20, 1893, March 30-31, 1897, January 9-10, 1900, January 8-10, 1901, April 3-4, 1901, July 10-11, 1901, and October 1, 1901. For these and other meetings Lund’s diary becomes an unofficial minute book, preserving much information. For certain events his is the sole record available.

The complete diaries, housed in the LDS Church Archives, are not published here. “Most entries detailing Anthon’s private and family life,” the editor explains, “have not been included; with a handful of exceptions, entries recorded while traveling as a missionary or on business were excluded for the sake of space” (xxxvii).

The diary entries here published recall concerns of the time. Richard T. Ely, noted economist, calls (Sept. 16, 1902). President Theodore Roosevelt visits Utah (May 29, 1903). An explosion rocks the Hotel Utah (Apr. 18, 1910). Evan Stephens is released as director of the Tabernacle Choir (July 20, 24, 1916). B. H. Roberts declines the opportunity to serve as Utah’s official state historian (Feb. 5, 1919). “It is very important,” Lund writes, “that we get one of our Church to occupy that place” (729).

In June 1913, we follow Lund into meetings of the Capitol Commission discussing the choice of stone and the heating system for the magnificent new building. A meeting of church leaders takes up the cost of supporting missionaries. “The expenses of the missions were discussed. It was thought they should be more equalized” (July 3, 1913).

From time to time, morals infractions are mentioned, including one involving Lund’s brother-in-law. This is the kind of subject matter that, in the view of some, requires diaries to be regarded as private or at least that, when published, the names be shielded on grounds that the writer probably had no desire to broadcast sensitive information to the world, and children and grandchildren are grieved by now “going public.” Disciplinary actions of church councils have been likened to the files of doctors and lawyers whose professional code forbids divulging privileged personal information of patients or clients. Editor Hatch publishes the specifics as Lund recorded them, letting the chips fall where they may.

At a few points I found myself wondering about the selectivity of the footnote references. On Oliver Cowdery as a “rodsman” in Vermont (131), the editor refers the reader to the work of Michael Quinn but not to the focused study by Larry E. Morris. When the Book of Abraham facsimiles are mentioned (497), footnote mention should be made, it seems to me, of studies by Egyptologists John Gee and Michael Rhodes, who understand the language and the textual issues better than anyone writing at the beginning of the twentieth century.

But such nitpicking should not obscure the overall achievement. Because of Anthon H. Lund’s participation as an important decision-maker, his record is of more than usual interest. Editor John Hatch and the publisher have done a workmanlike job in making these diaries available. The work will be mined by historians for many years to come.

John Whitmer Historical Journal, Richard L. Jensen
When eighteen-year-old Anthon H. Lund left his native Denmark for Utah in 1862, he had already served a as missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for more than four years, proselytizing, giving English language instruction to prospective emigrants, and presiding over a number of church congregations. Eventually he became an apostle and a member of the First Presidency of his church—the only person before 2008 to serve in either position whose native language was not English. He also kept forty-one volumes of journals. The work here reviewed was compiled from journals he kept from May 1890 to February 1921, two weeks before he died.

Lund’s thirty-one-year apostleship, 1889-1921, including nineteen years in the First Presidency, spanned an era of major transitions in his church. Lund’s journals, and those of several of his colleagues in church leadership during that period, have been mined by editors for material that provides insight into the inner workings of the LDS Church. The focus is largely on reports of meetings. The resulting publications provide a rich montage of details regarding headquarters deliberations, involvements, and operations—of challenges, human frailties, and accomplishments. They also provide fascinating glimpses of the personalities who were involved, although the original sources from which they were compiled provide fuller biographical insights. Overlapping and supplementing each other, they constitute a valuable resource, and Signature Books and the Smith-Pettit Foundation have performed a leading role in making personal writings from that era accessible through publication.

Lund’s journal entries are relatively succinct, often with pithy one-sentence summaries of decisions and of his own statements and opinions. Editor John Hatch provides thrifty annotation, with relatively few footnotes, completing the names of individuals and the location of places with the use of brackets within the featured text. Where Lund used shorthand or any of several non-English languages to record snippets of potentially sensitive information, translations have been provided.

The journals appear to be relatively candid, with some exceptions. Hatch has identified a few instances in which Lund omitted information about his own performance of plural marriages in the late 1890s. Lund was a member of the First Presidency by the time the members of the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously agreed in 1904 “that the brethren should not write in their journals that which took place in the Council meetings.” (7). Lund’s journals include detailed notes from a few of the council meetings before the 1904 agreement. For some such meetings before and after 1904, Lund’s journals note only that the council met; his concise summaries for others focus on topics covered and decisions rendered more than on deliberations. Still, Lund provides numerous glimpses of many developments including the frustration of church leaders for a decade and a half after Joseph F. Smith’s 1904 Second Manifesto as plural marriage took on a life of its own largely beyond their knowledge or control.

A man of relatively few words, Lund appears to have been astute and straightforward in expressing his opinions and recommendations. He noted that Church President Joseph F. Smith “was ever ready to hear his counselors’ opinion, and if better than what he had advanced he was ready to accept it” (716). The recommendations Lund made were followed more often than not.

Lund brought to church leadership a more cosmopolitan perspective than many of his peers. Both devout and pragmatic, he recommended the production of a separate series of proselytizing materials for the non-Christian Japanese and the acceptance of cremation where appropriate. His discourses benefited form his knowledge of Greek and other languages and he translated correspondence in several languages to church headquarters.

Because of the numerous and widely varied administrative responsibilities Lund occupied, the journals illuminate many facets of the inner workings of educational institutions and businesses in which his church held an interest. As a member of the board of regents of the University of Utah, he sought to help the institution find its way through clashes between its president and faculty and students. Lund served a president of Salt lake City’s Latter-day Saint University in 1901 and the church’s Sanpete Stake Academy. He sought—unsuccessfully—to prevent the Utah Agricultural College in Logan, which as a state legislator he had earlier helped to found—from offering a “normal school” curriculum. And as one of those most involved in education in his church, he dealt with a variety of opinions, like that of Joseph F. smith who once complained to Lund that Utah was overemphasizing education. Meanwhile Lund served for many years as superintendent of his church’s “religion classes,” for children in primary schools.

After Church President Lorenzo Snow led a revitalization of tithe paying in the church, Lund noted substantial increases in its revenues that enabled the church to respond favorably to requests for assistance with buildings, roads, dams, and other projects in various localities, many of which are noted in the journals. Lund, in behalf of the church, played a role in many businesses. With his leading role in sugar companies in which the church was involved—eventually as president of Amalgamated Sugar Company—his journal provides much information about the machinations of various sugar interests in the Intermountain West, some of which embroiled the church and its leaders in legal controversy. His journals chronicle the waxing and waning of the church’s involvements in banking, salt manufacturing, the production of electrical power, and entertainment and hospitality enterprises, primarily Saltair resort at the Great Salt Lake. Lund’s membership on the boards of numerous other enterprises also provided material for insights in journal entries.

Lund’s enthusiasm for politics is evident in his journals, especially on election days. He provided counsel to would-be candidates, successfully resisted attempts to enlist himself as a major political candidate, and played a role in church political influence that extended beyond Utah to Idaho. In the latter case, he noted the need to avoid making the influence obvious. Of U.S. Senator Reed Smoot, the apostle who became a lightning rod for widespread attacks on his church before he was finally seated in 1907, Lund wished that the senator “would quit using his put[-]on twang in speaking” (485).

The Smoot hearings at the national level and the rise of the anti-Mormon American Party locally posed major quandaries for Latter-day Saint leaders. Lund’s counsel on these matters seems likely to have been a significant factor in formulating their strategies as they worked their way through what Lund called “the dense fog around us.” But while the journals reveal the landscape of the problems, they disclose little about the discussions in which Lund was involved. In September 1906, Lund acknowledged pessimistically the hazards of church political influence: “I, myself, am convinced we are in a very serious dilemma and by doing nothing we will get the American party into power and by doing something we will have half our people opposed to us” (342). At a critical juncture in January 1906, both Smoot and church president Joseph F. Smith urged Lund to go to Washington, D.C., to assist Smoot. Lund does not explain why Apostle John Henry Smith and later Church Attorney Franklin S. Richards went instead, without Lund, while the latter continued to work behind the scenes, providing Richards with necessary documents.

As church historian from 1900 to his death, Lund presided over a handful of able assistant historians and provided careful review of much of their work, including Brigham H. Roberts’s edition of Joseph Smith’s church history. The journals mention long discussions with assertive Assistant Historian Andrew Jenson, whose interaction with others at the historian’s office Lund mediated.

Lund’s journal records a few encounters with officials of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now known as the Community of Christ) and of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), or Hedrickites. In February 1900, Lorenzo Snow in Salt Lake City responded negatively to a proposal from a Hedrickite delegation that the three denominations join efforts to construct a temple in Independence.

Hatch provides helpful context and excellent biographical material in his introduction to the volume. This compensates to a degree for the fact that Lund’s journals as a missionary and as president of the Scandinavian mission and the European mission fall outside the scope of this volume, as does most information in the journals about his personal and family affairs.

A few of the editor’s identifications are incorrect. He confuses Brigham Young College in Logan, Utah, with Brigham Young Academy in Provo, Utah [after 1903, Brigham Young University] (127). The Benson Stake in northern Utah is incorrectly placed in Arizona (130) and the Bingham Stake in Idaho is misidentified as the “Brigham Stake” in Utah (265).

Lund seems a likely candidate for a biography.

Journal of Mormon History, Richard D. Ouellette
Danish Apostle is the tenth volume in the Signature Books ongoing Significant Mormon Diaries Series. This invaluable series has provided researchers with published editions of some of the most important primary sources in Mormon, Utah, and Western history. A majority of the volumes issued thus far have focused on those critical transitional decades between 1890 and 1920 when the U.S. government forced the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to abandon polygamy and theocratic politics. To date, the series includes such pertinent records from that period as the journals or memoirs of Reed Smoot, B. H. Roberts, Rudger Clawson, John Henry Smith, and James Henry Moyle. To this impressive lineup, John P. Hatch now adds the diaries of Anthon H. Lund, one of the era’s most valuable records.

Anthon H. Lund has been largely forgotten. Little has been written about the man. He published few works, never founded a settlement, never served as church president, never held a prominent political office, and rarely, if ever, stirred controversy. Yet Lund served in the First Presidency for almost two decades. He was something of a pioneer for international Mormonism, particularly Scandinavian Mormons. He worked behind the scenes to shape some of the church’s most lasting historical and theological works. He wielded substantial clout as a political, financial, and educational power broker. And he worked tirelessly to dampen fires of controversy that engulfed those around him.1

Lund was born in Denmark in 1844, only weeks before the murder of Joseph Smith. He was raised by his grandmother after the untimely death of his young mother. Following the example of his uncle, Lund joined the LDS Church on his twelfth birthday. He was a precocious young man with a gift for languages and a reading ability far beyond that of his peers. While still in his mid-teens, he served a proselytizing mission in which, among other responsibilities, he read English to Danish members and presided over the Aalborg Branch. In 1862 he emigrated with his grandmother to the United States and settled in Sanpete County, Utah, a stronghold of Scandinavian Saints. He was just eighteen.

Over the next quarter-century, Lund taught school, married Sarah Ann (“Sanie”) Peterson, acquired U.S. citizenship, raised a large family, served in the Utah Territorial Legislature, completed several missions, and served as president of the Scandinavian Mission. In 1889, to the surprise of virtually everyone, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles selected the relatively unknown Lund to replace the late Erastus Snow, the apostle who opened the Scandinavian Mission in 1850. As a new apostle, Lund became Church Historian, superintendent of the LDS Board of Education, and president of the Manti Temple, the European Mission, and the Utah Genealogical Society. In 1901, Joseph F. Smith, the new church president, selected Lund as his second counselor. Lund subsequently became a leading figure in many of the church’s financial and educational institutions—ZCMI, LDS University, Zion’s Savings Bank, Utah National Bank, Knight Sugar, and the Hotel Utah. In 1910, Lund became Smith’s first counselor, replacing the late John R. Winder. While retaining many of his previous responsibilities, Lund now became president of the Salt Lake Temple, the State Historical Society, Amalgamated Sugar, and Consolidated Salt, and a member of the commission overseeing the construction of the state capitol.

During his decades of service, Lund also served as an editorial sounding-board for the church’s best historians and theologians: Andrew Jenson, B. H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, Charles W. Penrose, and John A. Widtsoe. Their collaboration resulted in such lasting works as The History of the Church, The Articles of Faith, and Jesus the Christ. Recognizing Lund’s exemplary seventeen years of service to Joseph F. Smith, in 1918 the new LDS president, Heber J. Grant, retained Lund as first counselor. As the longest-serving member of the Twelve behind Grant, Lund stood next in line to become church president. But he died in March 1921 from complications associated with a duodenal ulcer.

Among his apostolic brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, Anthon H. Lund was something of an anomaly. At the time of his ordination in 1889, his colleagues were all native English speakers from England, Canada, and the United States. Few could speak other languages. Those who hadn’t been reared as Mormons came from Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist backgrounds. Without exception, all were practicing polygamists. And aside from George Teasdale, all were related to one another through blood or marriage.2 In contrast, Lund came from Denmark, a non-English-speaking country. He knew several European languages. He came from a Lutheran background, was a lifelong monogamist, and had no kin among the apostles. Rather than speculate on millennial or doctrinal matters like some of his apostolic predecessors, moreover, Lund preferred to focus on the temporal programs and progress of the church. And while some of his colleagues were regularly embroiled in personal, religious, and political conflicts, Lund was considered a peacemaker who, despite his unwavering commitment to the Mormon Church and the Republican Party, fostered comity among adversaries. Lund, in effect, embodied Mormonism’s transition from the combative, tribal, polygamist, and millenarian ideals of the Great Basin Kingdom to the assimilated, international religion of the twentieth century. He was, in a sense, a pioneer of modern Mormonism.

As Hatch explains in the introduction to Danish Apostle, the diaries of Anthon H. Lund number forty-one volumes and span some six decades from 1860 to 1921. Lund wrote sporadically during the first three decades but became a somewhat regular, if terse, diarist in 1890. Following his 1898 mission to Palestine, however, his entries improved dramatically in both detail and regularity. Over the remaining twenty-three years of his life, Lund produced one of the great Mormon diaries. In the 1970s, five decades after his father’s death, George Cannon Lund donated the diaries to the LDS Archives with the stipulation that they must be open for research. They quickly became a pivotal source. D. Michael Quinn cited Lund repeatedly in “The Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-1932: An American Elite” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976). And the diaries proved indispensable to Thomas G. Alexander’s seminal Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930.

Anthon H. Lund stood at the epicenter of religion, politics, finance, education, and historical scholarship in Utah. And because he was an intelligent, pastoral, and conciliatory man, individuals of all stripes came to him with their interests and concerns. Readers will therefore find a bonanza of information and anecdotes in Danish Apostle—some moving, some funny, many fascinating. I’ll list but a few: George and Abraham Cannon’s visceral reaction to the death of their son and brother (8-9); the stripping of Moses Thatcher’s priesthood and apostleship (24); Apostle Franklin D. Richards’s evidence for an 1830 rather than 1829 dating of the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration (28); Lorenzo Snow’s explanation for the origins of his couplet, “As God was—so man is. As God is so man may be” (931); Lund’s loss for words over the Scofield mining disaster (83); the discovery of Joseph Smith’s earliest journal (89); the clash between President Joseph F. Smith and Lorenzo Snow’s heirs (162-63); foot races between Lund, his brethren, and their wives (242-43); the debate over a second manifesto on plural marriage (271); Lund’s vigorous defense of women’s suffrage (411-12); Lund’s refusal to allow deposed apostle Matthias Cowley to bless his son (413); the embarrassing applause Joseph F. Smith and company received at a wrestling match (454); Governor William Spry’s and Bishop Charles W. Nibley’s efforts to get LDS leaders to withdraw their support for a prohibition bill (569); LDS leaders’ reaction to Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the spirit world (710, 713); and Patriarch Hyrum G. Smith’s effort to have his office sustained before that of the presidency (723). Suffice it to say, there is a plethora of stories and information here.

Hatch suggest that Lund wrote his diaries “as if he were speaking to a close friend” (xxxvi). The diaries served as an outlet for gossip, criticisms, and observations that the diplomatic Lund would have shared with few others. In 1901, for example, shortly after Joseph F. Smith succeeded Lorenzo Snow as LDS president, Lund had this to say about one of Brigham Young’s more colorful sons:

John W. Young was in the office. He told me about how much money he spent in Washington [D.C.] in order to influence opinion in our favor. I have my doubts on this matter. I have heard that large sums we[re] placed in his hands and there had been no accounting. As he has no idea how he spends money, and he spent a fortune[,] he has an idea he spent it for the Church. I have an idea that he thought Brigham [Young Jr.] was the rightful successor to Prest. [Lorenzo] Snow and that he came expecting to manipulate his brother in financial matters. (157)

Lund commented on an exhibit at the state fair: “We saw Bro. C. C. A. Christensen’s picture. We could tell it was his as soon as we saw it for he has little versatility while his idea is good” (92). He wrote of Apostle-Senator Reed Smoot: “I wish he would quit using his put on twang in speaking” (485). And of Apostle Heber J. Grant’s business acumen he remarked: “How many schemes revolve in his head!” (99).

Though candid, Lund was also a prudent diarist. He recorded the most sensitive information in shorthand or foreign languages. In October 1896, for instance, Apostle Lund wrote: “I was appointed a mission to go and see the Sevier and Panguitch [Utah] Stake and work with the leading men for {electing Pres Geo. Q [Cannon] as our Senator [Danish]}” (23). In 1908, during the LDS leadership’s belated crackdown on new plural marriages, Lund noted: “A man from Idaho asked {if his daughter could go in as a second wife. The president said anyone whom she took will be cut off from the Church. [shorthand]} (375). Lund apparently deemed some matters too controversial to record at all, even in a foreign language. Circumstantial evidence indicates that in 1897-98, several years after Woodruff’s 1890 Manifesto withdrawing official support for new plural marriages, the loyal Lund solemnized two clandestine plural marriages at Woodruff’s request. Lund mentioned neither event in his diary. His pen fell completely and conspicuously silent during the trip to southern California to perform the first sealing.3

Signature Books obviously could not publish all 8,720 pages of the Lund diaries. John P. Hatch had to decide what to include and exclude and therefore focused exclusively on the three decades Lund served as a General Authority. Readers interested in the first thirty years of Lund’s diaries will still need to consult the holograph. Hatch further limits the parameters by concentrating on “entries focused on meetings with other LDS leaders or prominent Utahns” (6). As a result, readers will find little here about Lund’s marriage, family, and the sundry trips and missions he took as a General Authority—the 1891-93 Manti Temple presidency, his 1893-96 European Mission presidency, the 1898 trip to Palestine, the 1903 excursion to Canada, the 1909 trip to Europe, or the 1919 dedication of the Hawaii Temple. Given that Lund spent much of his early apostleship away on missions and didn’t write many detailed entries at the time, Hatch devotes just thirty-five pages to the diary entries dated between 1890 and mid-1898. All in all, then, Danish Apostle has a definite thematic and chronological concentration: It focuses on Lund’s meetings with prominent religious, financial, political, and educational figures in Utah during his decades as an apostle and counselor, particularly the years 1898-1921.

Hatch’s parameters seem reasonable. Without excluding much of Lund’s life and ministry, the size of the book would have been prohibitive. Given the clarity of Hatch’s parameters, moreover, a publisher could easily supplement Danish Apostle with Lund’s mission diaries or Lund’s pre-apostolic diaries. Having said that, I must say that I (and probably Hatch as well) wished that Lund’s mission and travel entries could have been retained. Hatch includes three intriguing entries from Lund’s Palestinian mission that left me wanting more (41-42). And given that Apostle Matthias Cowley solemnized a clandestine plural marriage in Big Horn, Wyoming, during Lund’s brief stopover with Joseph F. Smith, I would like to have known what Lund wrote during that visit.4 But again, these events are left for another book (hopefully).

Within the parameters that Hatch has set, I am not fully qualified to assess his selection of entries, for I have not read Lund’s unabridged diaries. What I can say, however, is that his selection process seems consistent throughout. Many of the same subjects appear again and again—plural marriage, council meetings, election days, prohibition, the Utah State Capitol Commission, and so on. There weren’t many entries that didn’t broach a subject discussed in an earlier or subsequent entry. Given this topical continuity, I was generally, if not always, capable of following Lund’s reporting of events.

To provide a less subjective assessment of Hatch’s selections, however, I’ve compared Danish Apostle with some of the secondary scholarship on Lund’s era to determine if the book includes diary entries that scholars have found useful. What I’ve found is that Hatch provides an impressive number of such entries on a wide range of subjects. He includes Lund’s ironic 1901 observation concerning LDS leaders’ political preference: “In regard to a senator[, Thomas] Kearns is thought to be the man who can do us the most good; but what a man to send east! It will be a bitter pill for many to swallow” (101).5 He includes Lund’s displeasure at the 1903 decision to upgrade the name of diminutive Brigham Young Academy to Brigham Young University: “I hope their head will grow big enough for the hat” (248).6 He includes Lund’s 1903 response to the warning that a sugar factory proposed for Cache County would compete with the church-affiliated sugar trust: “I was afraid greater harm would be done if the people should get an idea that Pres. Smith would hinder our people from starting industries for fear of the Trust” (237).7 He includes President Joseph F. Smith’s 1910 instructions to the Twelve concerning a prohibition bill: “He said: ‘Yes, I want the brethren to say nothing of State wide prohibition. We may get local option and I think that is the best we can do.’ I brought the Council his message, and quite a discussion arose. {Three apostles were very chagrined [French]}” (438).8 Given Danish Apostle’s inclusion of many of the references scholars have found noteworthy, I would conclude—again, speaking as someone who has not examined the original diaries—that Hatch has admirably performed the onerous task of paring down forty-one journal volumes to a single book.

Nonetheless, I found some citations that Hatch didn’t, but perhaps should have, included. I’ll cite one example. On December 1, 1897, as Lund prepared for his mission to Palestine, he recorded: “President Woodruff took me to one side and spoke to me concerning Mrs. Mountfert. I was rather astonished.” On the basis of this and other pieces of evidence, D. Michael Quinn and B. Carmon Hardy suspect that Wilford Woodruff informed Lund he had been sealed to Madam Lydia Mountford the previous September in a clandestine plural marriage.9 However, Woodruff’s biographer, Thomas G. Alexander, thinks Mountford and the LDS leader were good friends rather than partners in plural marriage. He interprets Lund’s astonishment as a sense of surprise that Mountford, a Palestinian Christian, would accompany him and his companion to Palestine.10 Unfortunately, while Hatch retained an earlier foreshadowing of the Woodruff-Lund conversation dated November 18, 1897 (41), he didn’t include the December 1 entry. Whatever the truth of the matter, I think the debate over this passage renders it important enough to include in Danish Apostle. Hatch mentions the Mountford controversy and actually quotes part of Lund’s December 1 entry in the introduction, but I think it should have been included in its entirety in the main body of the work. 11

Hatch provides a sturdy scholarly scaffolding for Danish Apostle. The introductory essay is outstanding; it gives the reader a firm grasp of Anthon H. Lund’s life, family, and contributions, as well as a sense of what to expect from the diaries. My one criticism here is that Hatch doesn’t say enough about his own labors with the diaries. Did he work with the original Lund diaries at the LDS Church Archives, with D. Michael Quinn’s transcription at Yale’s Beinecke Library, or with a private copy provided by the Lund family? If he completed the bulk of his labors at the LDS Church Archives, did he work with the original diaries, the microfilm copy, or the typescript? Who translated the shorthand and foreign language entries? And from whom did he obtain permission to publish the diaries? Besides the introduction, Hatch also provides a chronology of Lund’s life and biographical sketches of prominent figures mentioned in the diaries, both of which are quite helpful, though the latter could have been more detailed. The index, while generally adequate, has more than a few oversights. I found references to John M. Cannon on some pages (224, 243, 344) unlisted in the index. Finally, Hatch supplies first-rate explanatory footnotes to help the reader understand certain diary entries. He renders complicated subjects comprehensible and addresses historiographical questions with skill. I found the footnotes so useful I wished there were more. On average of about twice per chapter I found myself wishing for a footnote to help me better understand Lund’s comments.

The presentation of the diaries is impressive. We’ve grown accustomed to Ray Morales’s handsome design for the Significant Mormon Diaries Series. Connie Disney’s Baskerville font is a pleasure to read. I sat with the book for long periods at a time and never experienced eye-strain. The collection of photographs, not a standard feature of the series, is a wonderful addition. They enable us to visualize Lund, his family, and the First Presidency as we read along, although I think photographs of the Quorum of the Twelve certainly, and perhaps Lund’s most important political and business associates as well, should have been included. Finally, I found remarkably few typographical errors for a book of this size and a text of this complexity.

John P. Hatch, Signature Books, and the Smith-Pettit Foundation are to be commended for this work. Short of reading Anthon Lund’s unabridged diaries in the LDS Archives, anyone studying the end of pioneer Utah and the beginnings of modern Mormonism should read Danish Apostle.

1For recent biographical; essays, see Jennifer L. Lund, “Out of the Swan’s Nest: The Ministry of Anthon H. Lund, Scandinavian Apostle,” Journal of Mormon History 29 (Fall 2003): 77-105, and “Anthon H. Lund: Counselor to Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant (1901-21),” in Michael K. Winder, ed., Counselor to the Prophets (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2001), 250-73; Bruce A. Van Orden, “Anthon H. Lund: Gentle Danish Apostle,” in Pioneers in Every Land, ed. Bruce A. VanOrden, D. Brent Smith, and Everett Smith Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 163-82. For biographical details of Lund’s life, see D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 1997), 666-67.
2Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), tables 1-2, 311-12; Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, appendix 2, 641-725.
3B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 223-25.
4D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring 1985):94. Lund later wrote about the matter on December 1, 1910, an entry that Hatch provides (p. 445).
5Qtd. in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 17, and Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, 354-55.
6Qtd. in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 166, and Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 13.
7Qtd. in Alexander, Mormonism in Transition.
8Qtd. in Brent G. Thompson, “‘Standing between Two Fires’: Mormons and Prohibition, 1908-1917,” Journal of Mormon History 10 (1983): 42.
9Qtd. in Quinn, “New Plural Marriages,” 62-65; Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 227-32.
10Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 324-29, 431-32n85.
11Quinn, “New Plural Marriages,” 90n323, 92n328, cites two other Lund entries that, I would argue, should also have been included in Danish Apostle. Hatch alludes to one (113n6) but doesn’t include it in the main text.