ABSTRACT EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORMON WELFARE FARMS BY M. Randall Rathjen There have been few studies of the Mormon welfare program. The preponderance of literature is in booklet or tract form, all of which comes from church sources, describing the theory and organization of the program or exhorting members to participate more actively. The other source of written material is in the form of theses and disserta- tions, most of which describe the organizational structure of the welfare program. Consequently the opportunity to investigate selected welfare farms provided an opportunity to relate new information. The writer was interested in the origins of the program and met with limited success in establishing the early beginnings in Pioneer Stake. After the establishment of the church-wide program in 1936 it grew rapidly, and the writer sought to detail the expansion in relation to land use on the welfare farms, hoping to detect the differences in this regard between welfare farms and privately owned farms in the same locale. Major differences were not established. Changes within the welfare program were studied by comparing land use patterns on welfare farms in 1945 with those of 1955, but because of the difficulties in correlating the information received by the writer, it could only be concluded that the land use had become more standardized, M. Randall Rathjen making the production of goods more predictable and less dependent on specialties--the production of items only consumed locally. The pro- gram did not expand as rapidly between 1936 and 1945 as it did after the end of World War II. Consequently, there may not have been as much need for standardization before that time. Differences between welfare farms and privately owned farms can best be correlated with organizational units owning the property, rather than crop production or agricultural practices. with organizational units within the Mormon church hierarchy owning title to the land, and overseeing its production, it is inevitable that basic differences emerge, not only between the units, but also between them and private farms. In the former the difference is the land tenure; in the latter, circula- tion of goods. Differences are most noticeable on ward farms, the smallest unit holding title to land, normally smaller than neighboring farms. While the church encouraged wards to purchase and operate farms during the first years of the program, it became infeasible to continue the policy. The main reason was that larger units could better afford the capital for larger farms, machinery, and resident managers, which the small ward could not afford. Consequently the inefficiency of the ward farms was the final reason for the emphasis changing to larger church units and their larger farms. Nevertheless, hundreds of the small ward farms remain, and probably will continue to function, but few new ones are being purchased and old ones are being sold as consqli- dation into stake and regional projects is becoming more prevalent. The distribution of goods to the needy LDS is confidential infor- mation, yet general patterns can be shown. It is interesting that one M. Randall Rathjen of the two nodes of welfare recipients is in the same area where the program began in 1932. The other center of major distribution is southern California, which has a large Mormon population. It would seem, with the continued emphasis of the church on partial commitment of time and money, that the welfare program will continue to expand, as the church membership grows, and as the regions and stakes which currently do not have a welfare project accept the reSponsibility. This policy is in contradistinction with the one attempted under the Law of Stewardship and the United Order, both during the 19th century. Current indications are that the program will meet with continued success. EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORMON WELFARE FARMS BY M. Randall Rathjen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express appreciation to the many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who aided in the gathering and compiling of information necessary for this thesis. The author is especially grateful to Irvin Nydegger, pro- duction manager of the welfare program, who helped coordinate the writer's first-hand observation of selected welfare projects, and to farm managers, regional coordinators, and others involved in the welfare program. Dr. Daniel Jacobson, who served as committee chairman, guided, directed, and encouraged the writer through the many difficulties which arose. Dr. George Borgstrom provided insights which made the study more meaningful. Dr. Paul C. Morrison offered many helpful suggestions during the course of the writing. My appreciation and thanks go also to my family-—to my wife: Joanne, who spent many hours at the typewriter, and whose encourage- ment and support have made possible the years of graduate school-- and to my children, Timmy, Debbie, and Brenda, who rendered many un- timely, but always challenging interludes from a demanding schedule. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM Importance of the Problem Limitation of the Problem ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION I. II. III. ANTECEDENTS OF THE WELFARE PROGRAM Law of Consecration and Stewardships, 1831—1834 The United Order, 1874-1885 Demise of the United Order 1885-1932 1932-1936 Organization of the Pioneer Stake Welfare Program ORGANIZATION OF THE MORMON WELFARE PROGRAM Care for the Poor Comparison with the Law of Stewardships Organization of the Welfare Program Ward Stake Region General Church Welfare Committee General Authorities WELFARE FARM LAND USE Colonialization Developing Land Foreign Projects Financing Projects Independence Land Use on Budget Production Properties Dairy Cattle Hogs Poultry All Purpose Farms Small Grain and Dry Cropland iii PAGE vi mbbwt—J 13 15 l5 17 22 29 29 32 33 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 43 45 46 47 49 52 55 57 59 61 63 IV. iv Alfalfa and Hay Fruit and Nut Vegetables Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Processing Conclusion WELFARE OPERATING UNITS Ward Farms Vernal 2nd Ward - Region 64 Vernal 4th Ward - Region 64 Warren Ward - Region 66 Farr West Ward - Region 39 Lake Point Ward - Region 41 Blackfoot First Ward - Region 45 Multi-Ward Farms West Sharon Stake - Region 46 Wasatch Stake - Region 61 Cache Stake Farm - Region 4 Palo Alto Stake - Region 57 Multi-Stake Welfare Projects South Salt Lake & Granite Park Stakes — Region 17 Cannon & Pioneer Stakes - Region 44 Phoenix & Scottsdale Stakes - Region 43 Regional Welfare Projects Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm — Region 23 San Fernando Region Welfare Project - Region 56 Multi-Regional Welfare Projects Welfare Square - Region 54 Jordan Valley Dairy Project — Region 21 Logan Cheese Plant - Region 4 General Welfare Committee Properties Deseret Mills and Elevator - Region 70 Bishops' Storehouses CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX DOW?>I I APPENDIX F1 I APPENDIX F - DEFINITION OF TERMS MORMON CONCEPT OF ZION BISHOPS' STOREHOUSE STOCK LIST TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM LAND USE FOR 1945 & 1955 TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM DISTRIBUTION FOR 1945, 1950 & 1955 PROJECTS AUTHORIZED FOR STUDY PAGE 66 66 70 7O 72 75 77 79 82 84 85 87 88 89 91 94 97 98 102 103 105 105 107 108 110 112 112 112 114 115 115 115 117 124 128 131 133 135 137 145 151 TABLE Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table LIST OF TABLES Welfare Farm Land Use for 1945 Welfare Farm Land Use for 1955 Ward Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Multi-Ward Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Stake Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Multi-Stake Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Regional Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Multi-Regional Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Miscellaneous Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 PAGE 137 140 145 146 147 148 149 150 150 FIGURE Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. LIST OF FIGURES Early Mormon Sites Mormon Communities to 1877 Pioneer Welfare LDS Church Organization LDS Church Welfare Organization LDS Welfare Regions Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent of of of of of of of of of of of of Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land in in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Use in Dairy Production Cattle Production Hog Production Poultry Production All Purpose Production Small Grain Dry Cropland Alfalfa and Hay Fruit and Nut Production Vegetable Production Miscellaneous Production Manufacturing and Processing Ward Welfare Project Distribution Ward Budget Production Property Multi-Ward Budget Production Property Multi-Ward Welfare Project Distribution vi PAGE 12 2O 34 34 50 53 56 58 6O 62 64 65 67 69 71 73 74 8O 81 92 93 FIGURE Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. vii Stake Welfare Project Distribution Stake Budget Production Property Multi—Stake Welfare Project Distribution Multi-Stake Budget Production Property South Salt Lake and Granite Park Stake Welfare Farm Annual Transportation of the Crop to the Kaysville Mill Region Budget Production Property Regional Welfare Project Distribution Portion of the Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm Dairy Herd on Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm MultieRegion Budget Production Property Bishops' Storehouses - 1966 Assistance Rendered Through Bishops' Storehouses Entrance to the Bishops' Central Storehouse Part of the Central Bishops' Storehouse Bishops' Storehouse at Murray, Utah BishOps' Storehouse at Sacramento PAGE 93 95 103 104 106 106 109 110 111 111 113 119 120 122 122 123 123 INTRODUCTION There are few elements in the culture of man that have been more exhaustively studied than religion. The many facets of theology have been the debators' forte; the practical applications have been both beneficial and detrimental, depending on one's point of reference. While consensus has never been reached, many would agree that those agencies of institutionalized religion that concern themselves with the care of the poor and needy are the most beneficial and appreciated avenues of denominational expression. Cultural geographers have attempted to explain some of the per- plexing ambiguities of religion, but what is the theoretical framework upon which they must justify their academic investigations? The geog- rapher investigates many topics, all of which lead to the comprehension and understanding of place. The topics cover the spectrum of a college catalog. Depending upon his background, the geographer brings to bear training from other disciplines to discover the relationships which aid in the understanding of place. Cultural geography may be defined as studying one or more specific cultural expressions;l both the material and non-material aspects of culture can be included. The cultural geographer is therefore primarily concerned with man and his works, or his technologies and cultural 1Jan 0. M. Broek, Geography, Its Scope and Spirit (Columbus: Charles G. Merril Books, Inc.), p. 26. 1 practices.2 Present-day cultural landscapes can be seen, described, and ana- lyzed. But the analysis invariably involves process. Some investiga- tors stress the present, others emphasize the process(es) involved in creating the present-day scene.3 The two (present vs. process) could be conceptualized as a continuum, and the investigator could justifiably emphasize either, or a combination of the two. Consequently the cultural geographer may, and properly so, emphasize the material or non-material aspects of culture, the present or historical dimension of landscape, or any of the possible combinations depending upon the problem, information available, training of the investigator, and his personal preference. Culture has numerous components, one of which can be called the religious component. Religious beliefs have long influenced the be- havior of man and have consequently had influences on how he occupies and uses the land. The purpose of the geography of religion is to study how religious beliefs affect the landscape through the vehicle of man. Because the geography of religion is a branch of cultural geography, its theories and approaches are used to study religious influences upon the landscape. Religious use of the land may take the form of being totally com- mitted to and controlled by religious motivations and persuasions, such as churches and temples. But there may be a system of land utilization guided by religious beliefs, yet not clearly recognizable as being directly regulated by religious concepts. This may be the most wide- 2J. E. Spencer and William L. Thomas, Jr., Cultural Geography (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 2. 3Broek, 0p. cit., pp. 27-30. 3 spread use of the land that could be relegated to the study under the general topic of geography of religion. At the outset, it is suggested that the Mormon welfare system contains both a concern for the welfare of its people and a religious motivation and direction regarding the provision of the needs for those on relief. This religious belief system is responsible for the presence of the welfare farms. Concern for the underprivileged and needy has drawn the attention of the various agencies in government-~federal, state and local. Private foundations and religious organizations have offered ideas and suggestions for the solution of these perplexing problems. It is paradoxical that the Mormon church has been working to solve this same welfare dilemma for over thirty years--with no thought of attracting attention. In fact, the church has taken deliberate steps to insure the anonymity of its welfare activities. This reluctant attitude has recently been altered. It was, therefore, possible to investigate particular aspects of the Mormon welfare system. I . THE PROBLEM Initially, the problem was to determine how and when the welfare program began. Thereafter the writer used information available to describe and catagorize the land use on Mormon welfare farms and sought to deduce differences between them and privately owned farms in the same locale, hypothesizing that, because of the religious principles upon which the program was built and directed there would be differences in land use directly attributable to religious beliefs. In addition, attention was given to specific welfare farms. Individual farms were 4 briefly described and the characteristics were related to church-wide practices and problems on welfare farms. This was done to determine general characteristics about the farms other than land use. Then a limited description of the movement of goods produced on the farms was included—-a circulation of goods not only to cooperating welfare projects but also to the welfare recipients. Importance of the Problem Most Mormons cite the 1936 pronouncement by the president of the Mormon church, Heber J. Grant, as the beginning of the welfare plan. However, today only a handful of elderly people, then directly concerned with the plan's inception, are aware of the program in its embryonic stages. Nearly all Mormons can describe the particular welfare project their local body of believers supports, but only a few administrators in Salt Lake City, overseeing the program, have knowledge of the magni- tude of its operation. The amount of cooperation among members on welfare farms is seldom present in other Christian denominations. It is evident both on inter—personal and inter-farm levels. This cooperation goes beyond economic considerations and can, in some instances, be attributed only to religious persuasion. With the lack of direct religious impact on the land, the circulation of goods, based on the same religious prin- ciples as those leading to the establishment of the farms, became even more noticeable. Limitation of the Problem Out of respect for the wishes of those who have aided this re- search, there is a minimum of specific informatién regarding the operation of any one, or collection of welfare farms. While minute in- formation is necessary for accurate generalizations, a vigorous attempt will be made to omit specific references; this policy is reflected in the organization and collation of available material. It is anticipated that this approach will do injury neither to the desires of those directly responsible for the operation of the welfare program, its employees, church members, nor to scholarly inquiry. II. ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION In the first chapter the antecedents of the current welfare program will be briefly summarized to aid in an understanding of the dual purpose of the welfare plan: (1) aiding the needy; and (2) pre- paring for the millenium. Then the period from 1932 to 1936 will be discussed. During this time the program had its origins and initial development, enabling the president to announce the program as a church-wide practice in April, 1936. Chapter II contains pertinent information regarding the organ- ization and policy of the welfare program. In Chapter III information about land use on welfare budget production properties (primarily welfare farms) is given, and in Chapter IV the organizational units owning and directly responsible for the production properties are examined; in addition, examples are given to illustrate certain basic characteristics. The study is concluded with a brief discussion of the distribution of welfare commodities. 5 operation of any one, or collection of welfare farms. While minute in- formation is necessary for accurate generalizations, a vigorous attempt will be made to omit specific references; this policy is reflected in the organization and collation of available material. It is anticipated that this approach will do injury neither to the desires of those directly responsible for the operation of the welfare program, its employees, church members, nor to scholarly inquiry. II. ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION In the first chapter the antecedents of the current welfare program will be briefly summarized to aid in an understanding of the dual purpose of the welfare plan: (1) aiding the needy; and (2) pre- paring for the millenium. Then the period from 1932 to 1936 will be discussed. During this time the program had its origins and initial development, enabling the president to announce the program as a church-wide practice in April, 1936. Chapter II contains pertinent information regarding the organ- ization and policy of the welfare program. In Chapter III information about land use on welfare budget production properties (primarily welfare farms) is given, and in Chapter IV the organizational units owning and directly responsible for the production properties are examined; in addition, examples are given to illustrate certain basic characteristics. The study is concluded with a brief discussion of the distribution of welfare commodities. CHAPTER I ANTECEDENTS OF THE WELFARE PROGRAM The Mormon welfare plan attempts to fulfill unique LDS theological injunctions. Its uniqueness lies not only in the reasons for its existence but also in the location and organization of production pro- jects. Why and how have the Mormon people developed this extensive and apparently well integrated system? Where are items produced? Where and how are they distributed? What are the characteristics of welfare farms and how do they differ from other farms? This is not an attempt to evaluate the entire welfare plan, only that portion of it which produces the majority of goods distributed-- the welfare farms. However, to understand the role played by the pro- duction of commodities, it is imperative to know a minimum of the history predating the inauguration of the program in 1936. This chap- ter will present that background. In April, 1930, in Fayette, Seneca County, New York (Figure 1), Joseph Smith organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1 The church was inaugurated through divine revelation. A cursory survey of Joseph Smith's revelations supports the idea of a dual purpose for 1The writer makes no judgment regarding the religious beliefs or mode of expression of the Mormons. Their beliefs will be presented from the Mormon point of view. .H ousmfim 3...: ill OO- 00 O £82.20... 0 832.... o 2.22.20 2.2.5. 0 .fl 0.320 Cocoaou o guyuafl 935.91 a ‘ 32m 35.22 3.3 .30.. .3 5.300 .3932. ..... oocoucocoucw :0 2.2.8. .H mwsmfim .!:I lihlll 00. 00 O b 23.2... o 2.22.20 2.2%.... o 0:02; o 20:30 3.1.2. o ‘ 3.3 56.22 2.3. 3.32.22: 0 3.52. :2... .3 2.300 .3232. ..... cocoon-acne» :6 002.3. # 8 the Law of Consecration and Stewardships-~care of the poor, and a necessary program toward establishing the millenium. The Mormon view- point is that all things have a spiritual meaning, including the temporal needs of people, which does not detract from the concept of a dual emphasis. Law of Consecration and Stewardships, 1831—1834 In January, 1831, Joseph Smith reported a revelation which stressed care of the poor.2 At the same time the Mormons were told to move to Kirtland, Ohio (Figure 1), where in February, 1831, the Order of Stewardships, 'new law', was revealed.3 Yet the plan was practiced only briefly in Ohio and was to become more successful in a state further west-—Missouri. Jackson County, Missouri, including present-day Kansas City, was thought to have special significance. In July, 1831, Joseph Smith designated the area as Zion, where the faithful would gather, live harmoniously, and prepare for the millenium. A variation of the Order of Stewardships was put into operation. Because of various reasons the plan was discontinued in Missouri. Later, neighboring non-Mormons forced them to leave the state. Consequently, when the LDS were 2The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1951), 38:24-27. The Doctrine and Covenants is one of the four books held sacred by the LDS. The others are the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price. 3Ibid., 42:30—36. It was thought this plan would emulate the Order of Enoch supposedly established by the Old Testament prophet, Enoch. Because of the outstanding personal and public mode of ethics followed under the order, the participants were taken to heaven, and the order ceased existence on earth. 9 forced to evacuate the area, hope of the imminent Second Advent was postponed and so was the Order of Stewardships. While there was an areal alteration in the location of concen- tration by the Mormons, there was also a change in basic operational procedure and emphasis. The philosophy of the Law of Consecration and Stewardships was developed through a series of revelations given during the winter and spring of 1831.4 There seemed to be a two-pronged pur- pose: first, care for the poor; and second, preparation for millenial life through participation in the new system. To Mormons this affords no contradiction, for it is viewed as a spiritual emphasis upon the total way of living, which includes caring for the poor. Members transmitted their property, real and personal, in fee 5 to the church. The Order of Stewardships was not intended to simple do away with private property, for after one had deeded all his goods to the church, he immediately had deeded back to him, in fee simple, real and personal property sufficient to support his family, depending upon his circumstances.6 Any surplus from individual production was turned over to the bishops' storehouses and was used in caring for the poor and purchasing lands on which to erect new churches. If a person left the church, he had ownership of those properties which had been deeded back to him by the church upon entrance into the program, and he could dispose of the property as he saw fit. In Independence, Missouri, the plan involved a leasing arrangement. 41bid., Sec. 42. 5Complete and unlimited possession held by the owner. 6Doctrine and Covenants, op. cit., 51:3. 10 The stewardship reached by the participant was in the form of a lease, not fee simple. In the event both parents had expired, the property was cared for by the family until the last of the children reached twenty—one; then the property reverted to the church. And if the family left the church, the property remained with the church. The dissension arising from the alteration of the program may have been instrumental in its being discontinued. Other problems have been sug- gested as contributing to the demise of the plan. One goal of the pro- gram was to create and maintain a spiritual and temporal equality (brotherhood) among the participants,7 but the problem of self-motivation in production arose. Temporal incentives to the program would not be needed if the belief of divine inspiration was accepted by the members of the order. Consequently incentive had to come from two sources: (1) civic pride; and (2) spiritual motivation.8 While the necessary motivation may have been lacking in some, an allied problem may be more explanatory. The people were not sufficiently instructed in the concepts and practices of the program prior to their joining. Church leaders later pronounced, because of the many controversies arising out of the 7But the interpretation of 'equality' seems to vary. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency, had this to say at the 113th Annual Conference on October 3, 1942: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: there is con- tinuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revela- tion (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3) affirms that every man is to be 'equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs. . . .' Obviously, this is not a case of 'dead level' equality. It is 'equality' that will vary as much as the man's circum- stances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary." 8Doctrine and Covenants, op. cit., 72:3,4. One had to apply himself in this life by using his time and talents wisely in order to qualify for the rewards God had available for him. 10 The stewardship reached by the participant was in the form of a lease, not fee simple. In the event both parents had expired, the property was cared for by the family until the last of the children reached twenty-one; then the property reverted to the church. And if the family left the church, the property remained with the church. The dissension arising from the alteration of the program may have been instrumental in its being discontinued. Other problems have been sug- gested as contributing to the demise of the plan. One goal of the pro- gram was to create and maintain a spiritual and temporal equality (brotherhood) among the participants,7 but the problem of self-motivation in production arose. Temporal incentives to the program would not be needed if the belief of divine inspiration was accepted by the members of the order. Consequently incentive had to come from two sources: (1) civic pride; and (2) spiritual motivation.8 While the necessary motivation may have been lacking in some, an allied problem may be more explanatory. The people were not sufficiently instructed in the concepts and practices of the program prior to their joining. Church leaders later pronounced, because of the many controversies arising out of the 7But the interpretation of 'equality' seems to vary. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency, had this to say at the 113th Annual Conference on October 3, 1942: "One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: there is con- tinuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revela- tion (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3) affirms that every man is to be 'equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs. . . .' Obviously, this is not a case of 'dead level' equality. It is 'equality' that will vary as much as the man's circum- stances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary." 8Doctrine and Covenants, op. cit., 72:3,4. One had to apply himself in this life by using his time and talents wisely in order to qualify for the rewards God had available for him. 11 program, that the people were not ready to live by this new order or higher law. Another problem this program faced was the many poor people who joined the program with very little to consecrate, who received prOperty in return. And until they could join the program they had to be cared for; thus, they added to the already existing problems. Dissension also arose among those who owned considerable property, for apparently the rich balked at joining this type of organization.9 Regardless of the exact proportional importance of the causes for its cessation, the Law of Consecration and Stewardships was discontinued on April 10, 1834. In 1838 another divine law was given--the Law of Tithing.lo Instead of consecrating all property, as under the Law of Consecration, only one—tenth was now consecrated. In July, 1847, the first Mormon emigrants arrived in the Great Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Because Brigham Young desired to keep the LDS independent, he established many agricultural communities on the arable land along the Wasatch Front and in the mountain valleys of Utah before his death in 1877 (Figure 2). He continued his stress on the non-precious minerals and agriculture even after the discovery of deposits of precious minerals at several locations in Utah. The non-Mormon segment of the 9Charles Henry Bradford, "The Mormon Welfare Program" (Master's thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1953), p. 12. Helen Mae Andrus, "A Study of Joseph Smith's Teachings and Practices as They Influence Welfare in the LDS Church" (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1952), p. 26. This gives a good survey of the problems involved with many poor joining the program; after the program stopped, the care of the poor continued, but in a limited manner. 10Doctrines and Covenants, op. cit., 119:4. 12 MORMON COMMUNITIES T0 |877 . . . . oooooooo I. n . u . . . . . . n o a n n . . u n u o c o c u n . --." ........... d . g o c u u . ".0 Lolita! I o u n o u . . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (OIOIIOOUI. . . . . . c a Q g o o - o . c c . . o c n . . . o .. . . o o o n c . . o . o . Q- .' -I.--‘ u c '- ‘4'- - -- ‘ ' . o o . P OOOOOOOO a o I . ‘-"l’0 '"‘-..- 000’ a n . .f 3? . . a .0." 00" o o . u I? H... 00‘.- I o . o u .0 OIOr’DI‘ o u o o . I s o. I” 000’“... '0 o “I. OOOOOOO "ofl ..... .. :oooauouoo. .. '0 Q ...... Il'l"... a. '00 all .I ‘00 I!“ c. \U "0' Q 0 ""'.o . . . . \\ . .. . \s . . o . c \ n \ “'0"--- ‘ :0”? MILK! 000 50 Figure 2. 13 population grew and was primarily sustained by railroad and mining activities. This early dichotomy helped lead to the next attempt at instituting a religiously induced system of living which had many similarities to the Law of Consecration and Stewardships. Because of the encroaching Gentile population in Utah,11 Brig- ham Young, the second president of the Mormon church, began organizing cooperative economic enterprises. He was convinced these were necessary for the temporal supremacy of the church in Utah. Thus there seemed to be dual reasons for the renewal of a cooperative program-—the growing number of non-Mormons, and the attempt to live by a higher or more spiritual code of ethics. These efforts were designed as an introduction to the establishment of the United Order which was the next full-scale program of Mormon economic cooperation.12 The United Order, 1874-1885 Brigham Young made the first announcement and organized the first twenty communal efforts under the United Order, not in Salt Lake City, nor in what Meinig has referred to as the core of the current Mormon culture region,13 but rather in the southwest portion of the state. On his return trip to Salt Lake City in the spring of 1874, he established some thirty similar cooperatives; yet, there was no e 11Leonard J. Arrington, "An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900," Great Basin Kingdom (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1958). 12Andrus, 0p. cit., pp. 30—38. 13D. W. Meinig, "The Mormon Culture Region: Strategies and Pat- terns in the Geography of the American West, 1847-1964," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 55 (Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press, Inc., June, 1965). This article also gives a good discussion of the Mormon movement to Utah and the early Gentile-Mormon conflict. l4 uniformity of organization and eadh town established the type of order it desired. Apparently there was no attempt at securing a unified plan. Four types of orders have been identified: (1) communal, in which there was no private property; (2) communities in which people had stock in the organization, which communities had been previously organized under the cooperative agreements, similar to the United Order, making the transition to the United Order arrangement relatively easy; (3) people giving only such property and labor to the order as they deemed necessary, a practice far removed from the ideas of Brigham Young; and (4) full institution of the concepts underlying the Law of Consecration and Stewardships.l4 The variations may be due to the type of local leadership and to the attitudes of the people. Among most of the communities there was variation between the Law of Consecration and Stewardships as prac- ticed in Ohio and Missouri and the United Order as practiced in Utah. Perhaps the best known example was the one at Orderville, Utah, located in the south central part of the state. Here the members received no property but lived as a communal family. Each person was assigned tasks by the chosen leaders. When the orders disbanded, the goods and property were divided according to the amount of individual effort expended during the actual operation of the order. l4Bradford, op. cit., pp. 40-45. Reed Cott Richardson, "Economic Security Among the Mormons," (Master's thesis, Department of Economics, University of California, 1947), Pp- 11‘24. Edward J. Allen, The Second United Order Among the Mormons (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), pp. 83-93. 15 Demise of the United Order Most of the joint efforts lasted less than a year, although the one at Orderville, Utah lasted for ten years, 1875-1885. One of the reasons for the demise of the United Order was the less than whole- hearted support given it by church leaders.15 It would also seem that the lack of central control and lack of uniformity among the various orders contributed to its collapse. Some people may have felt the plan was forced upon them, and a program like the United Order needed voluntary support. Church leaders assigned the same reason for the decline of the United Order as the first p1an——namely, the people were too selfish to live by a higher economic and social plan of life. Yet this did not negate the hope of the reestablishment of a program based upon the principles enumerated under the Law of Stewardships. 1885-1932 The emphasis during the forty-seven years following the expira- tion of the United Order was upon the care of the poor and needy, with no semblance of a communal effort. The care of the needy was met from . 16 . . .- . . . . . 17 fast offerings, tithing contributions, priesthood quorum actiVities, and neighborly aid. The Relief Society, a women's organization, also was one of the main avenues for caring for the needy and today still plays an important role in the welfare program. During the 1920's and 1930's local bishops were to anticipate 15Bradford, op. cit., p. 48. 16Members fasting two meals the first Sunday of each month and donating the value of the meals to the fast offering fund. 17Groups of men who have as one of their informal responsibili- ties the aid of fellow members in need. 16 three months in advance the welfare needs of the people in their ward. Under a separate system of requests, known as the 'H Orders', they made application to the presiding bishopric for the designated amount needed to provide for the welfare needs of the people under their jurisdiction. Thereafter this same amount could be subtracted from the fast offerings and tithes received in the ward. However, collec- tions during the 1930's were minimal. Consequently there were few funds available to meet the economic conditions that prevailed in some of the wards during the early 1930's when the effects of the depression were most keenly felt. This financial crisis was most deeply felt by those who worked 19 With these for wages and were dependent upon industry for a job. members unemployed local ward funds diminished rapidly. Regardless of how much money was requisitioned under the H Orders during a quar- ter, there was not even enough tithing available to meet welfare needs. Yet, there were no other sources, either within the church or without, that could help alleviate the situation. Because of economic circum- stances some of the members began self-help organizations, in the Salt Lake area and elsewhere, to alleviate their plight. Perhaps the most prominent movement was organized in 1931 by a Mormon, Benjamin Stringham, who called his organization the Natural Development Association (NDA). It was said of him, "He was a faithful Latter-day saint with high ideals and a gentle compassionate l8William Pershon, "The Beginning of the Pioneer Stake Welfare Plan" (Mimeographed paper, 1965), pp. 2,3. 19Elder Harold B. Lee, Remarks made at the Pioneer Regional Bi- monthly Welfare meeting, March 17, 1959, Salt Lake City, Utah. 17 disposition."20 Rallies and public meetings were held to encourage people to join the organization. The goal was to establish a program similar to those instituted during the pioneer days when there was no money, and the people had to live by the products of their own work. A system of trade and barter was developed, and a type of script used for payment was soon printed. The NDA plan called for adults to go into the fields in surround- ing areas picking fruit and harvesting crops. Normally one-tenth of the harvest was claimed by the laborers. Skilled laborers were used in their appropriate trades as much as possible. Reconditioned appli- ances and other items were sold to buy materials needed for further repairs and to provide the cash necessary to purchase needed items.21 The NDA would attempt to provide for the physical needs of the people belonging to the movement. Even a few prominent LDS people were recruited by the NDA. Bishops and stake presidents became aware of the NDA's increasingly large influence because the number of Mormons who joined the movement grew so large that certain ward activities were affected. Apparently it was only a short time after the NDA began that the first presidency became aware of it. 1932—1936 One of the members of the NDA, Owen Woodruff, a nephew of Pres- ident Grant, was a firm backer of the organization. He personally 20Alfons J. Finck, "The Early Days of the Welfare Plan Pioneer Stake" (Mimeographed paper, 1966). 21Pershon, op. cit., p. 3. l7 disposition."20 Rallies and public meetings were held to encourage people to join the organization. The goal was to establish a program similar to those instituted during the pioneer days when there was no money, and the people had to live by the products of their own work. A system of trade and barter was developed, and a type of script used for payment was soon printed. The NDA plan called for adults to go into the fields in surround- ing areas picking fruit and harvesting crops. Normally one-tenth of the harvest was claimed by the laborers. Skilled laborers were used in their appropriate trades as much as possible. Reconditioned appli- ances and other items were sold to buy materials needed for further repairs and to provide the cash necessary to purchase needed items.21 The NDA would attempt to provide for the physical needs of the people belonging to the movement. Even a few prominent LDS people were recruited by the NDA. Bishops and stake presidents became aware of the NDA's increasingly large influence because the number of Mormons who joined the movement grew so large that certain ward activities were affected. Apparently it was only a short time after the NDA began that the first presidency became aware of it. 1932-1936 One of the members of the NDA, Owen Woodruff, a nephew of Pres- ident Grant, was a firm backer of the organization. He personally 20Alfons J. Finck, "The Early Days of the Welfare Plan Pioneer ' Stake" (Mimeographed paper, 1966). 21Pershon, op. cit., p. 3. l8 attempted to gain the support of his uncle but failed. Some time later, during the spring of 1932, President Grant notified the stakes that 22 Some of the members were the Natural Development (NDA) was radical. advised that if they continued their participation in the NDA, it would endanger their temple recommends.23 No doubt some people were adversely affected by President Grant's decision, since the church had no substitute to care for the temporal needs of its members. In regular session on May 29, 1932, the stake president, Harold B. Lee, addressed the stake council. He described the economic condi- tions extant and their influence upon the church. He then took up discussion of the Natural Development League (NDA). The Pioneer Stake presidency had received a letter from the first presidency which stated that, . . - the movement was revolutionary and socialistic in character and that therefore members of the church should not identify themselves with it without the knowledge and consent of their presiding officers and the church. The organization sought to reestablish the United Order, where a system akin thereto, a matter which the first presidency declared would be given attention when the Lord directed His servants so to act. Consequently the people present were advised by President Lee to remain outside such organizations. There were other group attempts to provide basic foodstuffs. In Idaho, community-type gardens were established which lasted for several 22Finck, 0p. cit., p. 1 23Ibid. A temple recommend is needed before entrance to a temple is possible. Inside, certain religious functions are performed. 24Alexander Buchanan, Jr., "Historical Record of the Pioneer Stake from June 6, 1930 to December 31, 1939" (Minutes of the High Council meetings of Pioneer Stake), p. 150. 19 years. In Salt Lake Valley several stakes formulated similar type pro- grams for the purpose of providing employment and food. From June to September, 1932, the following stakes, all in Salt Lake Valley, organized new welfare efforts: Mount Jordan, West Jordan, Murray, Cottonwood, Sugar House, and Liberty Stake. None of the programs lasted long. In 1934 Sugar House Stake took over the storehouse originally begun by the Cottonwood Stake, and thereafter, like all the others, it too ceased Operation.26 Thus the well-intentioned efforts soon ended, although they attempted and provided some temporal relief. However there was one group which embarked on the same communal effort route which deserves special attention--the Pioneer Stake. The following description of welfare efforts in the Pioneer Stake is not complete, for the writer was unable to gain access to most official sources. No written publication detailing the background and events of the welfare program, either by the church or by any person interested in either Mormon or Utah history, has been published. Nevertheless firsthand accounts, memoirs, and the minutes of the first few Pioneer Stake welfare meetings lend themselves to the reconstruction of certain important events. While the following description does not attempt to integrate all of the factual material, it nevertheless is an attempt at a rational understanding of the beginnings of the welfare program. In the first part of May, 1932, Bishop Jessie Drury, of the Salt Lake City 5th Ward, began looking for a way to provide foodstuffs and jobs for the people under his jurisdiction (Figure 3). Apparently he, 25Finck, op. cit. 26Jessie Drury, personal interview, October 25, 1968. 20 «a Ward 40 an: were I am Lane on, 30"! H0" / First Welfare Garden in Pioneer Stake . Draper Lehl PIONEER WELFARE Anerlean Fart Provo Spanish Fork ICON O 6 IO I _ 1 I nIIee Figure 3. 21 independent of any other influence, realized that the people would have to be put to work on projects of some kind. After studying the local situation he obtained permission to use a vacant lot, approxi— mately fifteen acres, south of the ward boundaries. The property was made available to the local ward with the understanding that the taxes would be paid by the ward.27 The county gave the project free irriga- tion water.28 It also allowed them to tap a local fire hydrant, if need be, to irrigate the field. Cash was needed for seeds, minor pieces of equipment, and trans- portation expenses, but there was no money available. The county com- missioner in charge of county welfare, Barney Quinn, helped in supply— ing the necessary seeds. Toward the middle of May, 1932, Drury decided to invite two other wards (4th and 20th) to join in the garden project 29 The (Figure 3) if they would first contribute sixty dollars each. cash would pay for the plowing of the ground, buying additional seed, and tilling the land.30 Not only were they to help in financing the project, but they were to assist in the necessary manual labor. The invitation was accepted. The program now encompassed three wards instead of one, having a larger resource base but at the same time having more people for which to care. Shortly thereafter Drury and two other men made a trip to 27However the taxes were abated by the county. 28The irrigation water came from a main canal, called the 13th south canal. 29It is not clear whether Drury or the stake presidency asked them. 30Pershon, op. cit., p. 5. 22 Payson, Utah, fifty miles to the south, hoping to convince others to aid in the program. They needed to obtain potato seed and other items to be used in the project. The group presented their needs to the bishop of the ward; his initial response was negative. After contacting the bishop of another ward, Spring Lake Ward, Drury finally got his re- quirements. Later the bishop first contacted also extended some aid. This experience would indicate that people unfamiliar with the program were at first reluctant to aid or encourage participation in it. Upon returning to their Salt Lake wards, they were able to acquire the necessary horses and machinery to plow and cultivate the land. This was donated from local members of the wards. However, it should be noted that most of the members in the wards living in the near west side of Salt Lake City were laborers rather than farmers and those that had machinery were certainly in the minority. The unem- ployed were also in charge of irrigating the fields, which they handled 31 successfully. The salient feature is that the initial propagation of the garden plot effort was due to the attempts of bishop Drury. Organization of the Pioneer Stake Welfare Program On Monday evening, June 13, 1932, a month and a half after Drury started the garden project, a special meeting was called by Paul C. Child, a member of the Pioneer Stake presidency. After explaining the economic conditions in the local area and expressing a desire that something different be done to meet the increasing necessities, 31In later years, and it continues to be a problem today on some farms, the training and willingness of those needed for similar purposes has been less than satisfactory. 23 . . . he further explained how considerations of the stake presidency concerning this problem, extending over a number of months, together with other developments pushed this project of creating an organization in Pioneer Stake that would be in harmony with the church authorities and lift relief work out of the realm of charity, and that could take care of the loyal membership of the stake.32 Fred J. Heath had been appointed at an earlier date to study the relief work that was carried on in the Granite Stake and had reported back with a number of definite suggestions. President Child indicated that in a meeting held previously, the problem of providing employment had been discussed with the presiding bishopric (of the church), who had authorized the stake to devise what— ever plan it thought best to meet the present economic situation and submit the same to them for approval. The speaker said he had been named by the stake presidenty ". . . to direct this work, and he hoped with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and the assistance of his brethren, to work out a plan which would be acceptable to the entire church."33 In the second of a series of special meetings, held June 20,, 1932, consisting of the stake presidency and the bishoprics, President Child said that the minutes of the first meeting along with the recom— mendations of the committee, in addition to other suggestions made by the stake presidency, had been presented to President Heber J. Grant in a personal conference with stake President Harold B. Lee, and that another conference had been held just prior to the present meeting. Child also indicated that the church, presumably meaning the first 32Minutes of the special m—etings, June 13, 1932, recorded by Alfons Finck, Secretary. 33Buchanan, op. cit., p. 150. 24 presidency, . . . has some plan which however will take more time to develop than our own intentions, but the stake presidency now has sufficient authority to go ahead and the general authorities, including the presiding bishopric both are willing and ready to cooperate.34 Several inferences might be drawn from this incomplete record. First, even though attempts at meeting temporal needs were initiated by different groups of people, not only in the Salt Lake Valley but in other places as well, the one that drew the most attention was that of the Pioneer Stake. It might be assumed that the people in the Pioneer Stake began the program with little outside direction, at least in the case of Bishop Drury. This does not preclude the possibility that others, such as the NDA, or some in the upper eschalons of the church hierarchy, had not thought of similar ideas--it only serves to indicate that Drury acted independently. At the June 20th meeting, President Child stated that the pro- gram had to be developed as soon as possible. President Lee, at the same meeting, read a request from the first presidency: . . . asking for an immediate survey of the membership of the church which would furnish comprehensive information upon which the relief work of the church could be organized, and upon which might depend the extegg to which federal and state relief funds could be secured. Obviously there was some thought given to the possibility of using federal and state relief funds in the welfare program. While some county aid was accepted, policy was later changed. 34Minutes of the special meetings, June 20, 1932, recorded by Alfons Finck, Secretary. 35Ibid. The 4th Ward bishop had at one time a debt of fifteen hundred dollars accrued because of the needs of his people. Other bishops had similar problems and the perplexing problem of economic welfare was facing the local LDS leaders who felt themselves responsible for meeting the need. 25 On November 6, 1932, it was announced that members of the church would be able to receive payments from the county storehouse ". . . in addition to what benefits might continue to be derived from the stake "36 storehouse. President Lee said that ". . .this relieved a very embarrassing situation, which for a time appeared to be almost over- whelming."37 On the same date President Child indicated that there was an emergency facing the stake storehouse in that the tithes paid were insufficient to meet the demands, resulting in most wards being in 38 President Lee explained the importance of arrears to the storehouse. relief work being carried on through the stake storehouse and indicated that he hoped the work would continue even though the storehouse con- ducted by the county was about to be closed. Consequently, it might be assumed that without government aid of one kind or another the program might have faltered and perhaps been discontinued. In the latter part of April, 1933, the difficulties continued to mount as funds from the presiding bishop's office were withdranw, yet the storehouse continued and farmers and others were encouraged to participate. It was not until the first part of July that a letter was received indicating that the Pioneer Stake would receive three thousand dollars from the presiding bishopric for the month of July. It is apparent that the winter and spring of 1933 was a very difficult time for the welfare program in the Pioneer Stake. Yet by the time the program was announced by the first presidency of the church in April, 36Buchanan, op. cit., p. 172. 37Ibid. 38 Ibid. 26 1936, the Pioneer Stake had accumulated equipment and land, the value of which may have approached one hundred thousand dollars.39 The question arises as to whether or not the welfare program would have begun had not the depression struck. Perhaps not.40 Many people in the Pioneer Stake were unemployed and had no means of acquir- ing the necessaries of life. Consequently they felt the need for a program to meet their needs. It might be assumed there was an attempt at reviving certain church teachings.41 The leaders in the local wards and Pioneer Stake presidency felt that the program was necessary to the church and to the people and therefore acted upon it. After the program was initiated the first presidency was con— sulted. No major decision was afterward reached without its approval. The Pioneer Stake presidency presented the problems and suggestions to the first presidency, who then acted according to its own direction. At one of the meetings, President Grant was reported to have said, "Brethren, take care of your people, we will support you, and if nec— essary close the church schools, . . ."42 thus indicating support of the Pioneer Stake plans. The origin of the welfare program is still in question. Some of the ideas used in the NDA movement were similar to those incorporated 39Drury, interview, loc. cit. 4OAlfons J. Finck, personal interview, October 24, 1968. 41If so, then it would not be dependent on the NDA as one of the sources of the program. 42Minutes, loc. cit. 27 into the local welfare plan.43 Yet some who were engaged in the early program sustained the notion that none of the ideas were taken from the NDA. 44 Some Mormons may ask whether the plan was revealed by divine revelation (to non-Mormons this poses no problem). It appears that individuals who gave initial and sustained support to the program, such as Child, Drury, Lee, Clark and others, do not want personal acclaim for the role they played in the inauguration of the program.45 Thus the innate fear of provoking jealousy prohibits the credit being given to the person(s) responsible. Instead, credit is given to the Lord.46 What have church officials said about the matter of revelation? J. Reuben Clark makes the most definitive statement concerning President Grant's 43William Pershon, personal interview, October 29, 1968. This man served eighteen years, first as bishop of the 4th Ward and later as a member of the Pioneer Stake presidency. 44Drury, interview, loc. cit. 45Buchanan, op. cit., p. 359. "Elder Alfons J. Finck expressed pleasure with the trend of events in the church during the past few weeks. He had felt that such a time would come but did not expect it quite so soon. The matter of relief for those in need was all important and he was glad to see the church taking its place among the agencies seeking the material welfare of its adherents. The position occupied by Pioneer Stake in this emergency was a proud one and the recognition [of its] own President Lee in being made a member of the Church Gen- eral Committee was a high compliment to him and to the stake. He looked upon this movement as a forerunner of the coming of the United Order. . . . President Paul C. Child cautioned against boastfulness in the part taken by this stake in the work of relief. He felt there was danger in such an attitude, which might beget jealousy and be a hindrance rather than a help to the general plan. What had already been done in this stake would lead to other things quite as important and beneficial. He said it was a joy to know that leaders of the church were responsive to the efforts launched in Pioneer Stake for the good and benefit of the people." 46Elder Harold B. Lee, Remarks made at the Pioneer Regional Bi- monthly Welfare meeting, March 17, 1959, Salt Lake City, Utah. 28 divine direction. According to Clark, Grant heard no direct voice, but knew after he had acted that this was God's will.47 The bishop of the 5th Ward in 193248 mentions the fact that there was much opposition to the local welfare efforts. It has been suggested that one reason for the hesitancy to publish histories of the welfare program is because a majority of the council of the twelve were against a welfare plan when it began in the Pioneer Stake.49 Regardless of any former hesitancy, the welfare program was announced at the Semi-annual Church Conference, April, 1936,'in Salt Lake City. From that time to the present the program has expanded greatly and met with much success. 47J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Testimony of Divine Origin of the Wel- fare Plan," Mimeographed address delivered at a meeting of the Central Utah Welfare Region, August 3, 1951. He was in the first presidency from 1933 until his death in 1961. 48Drury, interview, loc. cit. 49Pershon, interview, loc. cit. CHAPTER II ORGANIZATION OF THE MORMON WELFARE PROGRAM The Mormon welfare plan was announced as a church-wide practice in April, 1936. Since that time it has undergone a number of changes. While the organizational structure has been altered, the stated phil- osophy remains basically the same. This chapter will present the sig- nificant religious concepts and the organizational structure which distinguish the Mormon welfare program and lay a background for the body of this dissertation, the welfare farms. Care for the Poor The concept of care for the needy permeates the extant program and is one of the basic reasons for its existence.1 President Grant's statement concerning the establishment of the welfare system contains no mention of preparing church members for the establishment of Zion. Emphasis is directed entirely to providing the temporal necessities of the needy and a change in attitude toward work, individually and lPresident Heber J. Grant, "Conference Report - October, 1936" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1936), p. 3. "Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thirst and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be reenthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our people." 29 3O collectively. In the system of providing for one's sustenance, according to the Mormon viewpoint, the person is expected to work to the full extent of his capability. If he is unable to meet his needs his relatives are expected to help. As a last resort, aid will be extended by the church.2 What kind of aid is given? Attempts are made to find employ- ment for those able to work. If no job can be found, then some kind of meaningful service is made available to enable the recipient to feel as though he is contributing to his own support. Nevertheless those unable to work are not restricted from receiving aid. In the West, and Alberta, Canada, where the bishops' storehouses are located,3 the distribution of commodities is possible and financial aid is extended when needed.4 In the rest of the United States aid is rendered in the form of cash, given to people who in turn purchase needed commod- ities through a retail outlet. The generalization concerning distribution of commodities is based upon the practice of organizing welfare operations only in stakes and not in missions.5 The reason for this arrangement is that usually the Mormon constituency in missions is made up of relatively new mem- bers who consequently do not fully understand operational procedures 2The General Church Welfare Committee, Welfare Plan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook of Instructions, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City, Utah: The General Church Welfare Committee, 1952), pp. 1-4e 3 The site of the storehouse farthest east is Denver, Colorado. 4Such as for mortgage or rent payments. 5Those areas in which there is a low density of members; conse- quently stakes are not organized. 31 and the significance of the welfare concept in Mormon theology. And of course missions may not have as dense a membership as stakes; large numbers would be necessary to provide the voluntary labor needed for certain types of projects. In the early years of the program this aspect was quite impor- tant because church leaders encouraged each ward to have its own welfare project. As could be expected, these were primarily small farms. How- ever today the trend is toward larger farms, with a resident manager and operator, so that generally it would appear that the need for volunteer labor may not be as significant now as it was in 1945. Therefore the emphasis upon a concentration of members in an area prior to initiating a welfare project would seem less a need today than previously. Consequently the instruction of new members in Mormon belief and practice, while an area is still a mission, seems of greater concern than having a compact membership to provide labor for a local farm. The necessity for this period of theological indoctrination is all the more noticeable when compared with the practice of putting new converts into the Law of Stewardships in Ohio and Missouri, and even the United Order in Utah without sufficient instruction, and the sub- sequent demise of both programs. The practice of unhesitantly accepting new members with little doctrinal instruction has been suggested as one specific reason for the failure of the United Order.6 6Leonard J. Arrington, "An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900," Great Basin Kingdom (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1958). 32 Comparison with the Law of Stewardships While the Law of Stewardships placed emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ, another recurrent escatological theme seemed to be emphasized during the last half of the 1930's. Before the dawn of the millenium a dire fate awaited mankind. In 1936, a member of the first presidency predicted another depression of far greater magnitude than the one then being experienced.7 The same concern and prediction was voiced repeatedly during this period, and has continued.8 Thus an additional motivation for the continuation of the welfare program--to be prepared for natural and economic disasters that are prescribed for mankind in these last days--according to the Mormon escatology. The welfare work was brought under a central administration in Salt Lake City, known as the general welfare committee. During the previous fifty years welfare had been accomplished by individual wards or stakes; however, now there was to be a coordinated effort by members, wards, and stakes organized into welfare regions with an increasing amount of direction given by the general welfare committee. The welfare program was adapted to modern problems, conditions, and a larger church membership than existed when the earlier two security programs were in existence. The Mormon people had become accustomed to the idea of 7Church Conference, April, 1936. The same sentiment was shared by many of the church leaders. Sources from the Holy Writ were cited for evidence, one example being, "For in those days shall be affliction such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." (Mark 13:19, King James Version). 8Elder Henry D. Mayle of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Mimeographed address delivered before the seminary and institute in- structors of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, June 23, 1958, at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 33 partial consecration through tithing rather than the complete conse- cration of the previous plans. Consequently the initiation of the welfare program in 1936 was not a drastic difference from what people had become accustomed to. Church leaders realized that a plan of full consecration would have to be postponed. There were, however, similarities between the welfare plan and the two previous programs. Consecration was still an operative con- cept, but differed in degree. The storehouses were still used, but the origin of the products differed. They were now produced under a system of annual assignments assigned to regions, stakes and wards. Individual effort and work were still stressed for under the current program recipients of welfare are expected to work for the aid if able. The Order of Stewardships and the United Order had dual func- tions; not only the care of the poor, but also providing a social and economic life for the members of the orders. In comparison, the wel— fare plan's chief purpose has been the care of the poor; there is no attempt to provide or regulate the social or economic life of the Mormon people. The welfare plan apparently has been a successful program, having been in existence more than twice as long as the two previous attempts combined; yet, its leaders anticipate the time when the church will again live under the Order of Enoch.9 Organization of the Welfare Program The organizational structure of the welfare operation is similar to the church organization (Figure 4). This correlation is more than 9This is the supposed Old Testament example, where people lived in perfect harmony for over three hundred years, and they were taken to heaven intact, to avoid the Flood. 34 General Church ////// Offices .\\\\\ Mission Stake District Ward ////// Independent Dependent Branch Branch Branch Branch Figure 4. LDS Church Organization General Church Offices \\\\\\ Stake Region (Outside Region) Stake Independent Independent Ward Branch Branch Ward Figure 5. LDS Church Welfare Organization 35 coincidental, for the success of the welfare plan depends upon active participation and devotion of members working through church channels. Not only this but individual attitude, referred to as spirituality, is thought of as being an important determinant in the program's success.lo Therefore the actively interested Mormon is also active in the welfare program. There is one major difference between the welfare organization and the church pattern; that is the addition of welfare regions above the stake level. Wagd, -The smallest organizational unit is the ward. The bishop, who presides over the ward, is charged with the care of his people, which includes early detection of a needy person or family and securing adequate means for the problem. The ward welfare committee comprised of various ward officers aids the bishop in the various jobs that must be done. The home teachers11 or the relief society mem- bers are often those who, through their regular contact with the local constituency, first notice any welfare cases. They notify the bishop, and if the family needs and is willing to accept aid, a woman from the relief society may discuss the needs with the woman of the house and submit a list of needs to the bishop who must sign the form permitting the person to acquire foodstuffs from the bishops' storehouse. If a person is unable to travel to the distribution center, 10Spirituality may be defined as a high degree of personal faith and practice of Mormon tenets. 11Men who in pairs visit homes and give religious lessons to families. 36 unmarked vans carry food to the home. Some storehouses do not allow entrance in the morning hours since the workers are busy at that time collecting food to be taken by truck to invalid, blind, elderly, and others unable to pick up the items themselves. There is an unusual but inherent problem in the distribution of commodities. A11 bishops serve on a voluntary basis meaning that they must perform their duties, which may be as time-consuming as those of a pastor in a denominational church, while working full-time to support their family. Consequently either because of lack of time or training (there usually is a turnover every few years), the bishop may not take adequate time to review welfare cases.12 Yet if handled as originally intended, the system operates with a minimum of waste and avoids all the expense of salaried employees who would otherwise be needed to operate the system. There are certain duties which are normally handled by members of the ward welfare committee. If a person is unemployed, the priest- hood group of which he is a member will try to find him a job and offer any religious instruction deemed appropriate. But there is also a ward employment counselor whose duties emphasize the temporal; finding jobs for those capable of handling them.13 The ward work director is responsible for supplying the necessary number of people needed to fulfill some work requirement on the budget production property (welfare 12One example is that of 'open orders' with no list of items needed, and the individual merely picks out the things desired. 1'30ne of the three divisions of the welfare program is employ— ment, which acts as a clearing house or employment bureau for LDS in need of jobs. 37 farm). He is also partially responsible for putting welfare recipients to work and either supervise or delegate the responsibility for those working on the budget production facilities. If everybody has a sense of responsibility and concern for the welfare plan, duties and respon- sibilities will be discharged with maximum efficiency. In conjunction with the ward welfare committee, the bishopric discusses the initial acquisition and maintenance of any permanent welfare production projects. One general church-wide guideline is that the projects be suited to diversified production.14 The stake bishop's council is comprised of all bishops in a stake; they are to consult each other on certain matters. It is in this group, meeting bi-monthly, that matters demanding consistency among the bishops are settled. Multiple ward projects are occasionally established and operated jointly by the two or more wards in the same stake. These projects are run by a council of the bishops whose wards are joined in the mutual undertaking. And if all wards are cooperating, the chairman is the same as the chairman of the stake bishop's council. Spgkg. The stake presidency oversees the stake welfare committee. Generally the same kind of stake offices exist as on the ward level. The stake duties consist mainly of coordinating and training those re- sponsible for the welfare Operations at the ward level. The stake com- mittee is responsible for the stake welfare budget production projects, but before any are established the appropriate welfare regional committee must be consulted and the projects approved. l4Welfare Plan, 0p. cit., p. 34. 38 Region. The region in LDS organization is peculiar to the wel- fare program. It is composed of stake presidents who determine annual welfare needs based on stake and ward anticipation, and allocate the budget received by the general church welfare committee.15 The regional budget is divided among the stakes, which in turn divide their budgets among the wards. The distribution of the commodities produced through- out the welfare program is on a regional basis through the bishops' storehouses. A regional coordinator is appointed who not only reviews the storehouse records but also the production on welfare projects in the region. In general, the regional officers aid in the delegation of duties and offer encouragement to those more directly involved in the actual operation of welfare projects. General Church Welfare Committee. At the apex of the organiza- tional structure is the general church welfare committee. With offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, it is able to handle many of the problems requiring a centralized coordinating office. Relative to the welfare farms, the committee decides proposed production and sends notice through the previously described hierarchy. Some real estate is owned by the general welfare committee. In addition, the fleet of trucks used to transport welfare products is owned by a subsidiary, the Co-operative 16 While the general church welfare committee Security Corporation. handles the operation of the program, they do not initiate any altera- tion of existing philosophy, for while the committee may make suggestions 15Compiled under the direction of Irvin Nydegger. l6A Utah non-profit corporation. 39 on these matters their chief function is the operation of the program. General Authorities.' Before any new policy is announced to the membership of the church, the general authorities must be consulted and approval given. This group, or their representatives meeting weekly, discuss and take action on such matters as the types of foods which will be raised, processed, and distributed. However, while suggestions may be made by others, it is only the general authorites who make policy decisions. This brief organizational sketch of the welfare program acquaints the reader with the organizational structure. Thus far, only the more formal aspect of welfare has been mentioned. There is, however, an unstructured pattern of aid. The decision to help those in need may be made informally by neighbors, friends, quorums, or other church units. It is not uncommon to find this type of unstructured assistance rendered within a community. While this is outside the welfare program, members may be encouraged to demonstrate their Christian character in this manner. The welfare program distributes the goods primarily to needy LDS. Nevertheless others are helped; families, only a part of which may be members, also qualify for aid as do inactive families who are willing to work in the program. Normally non-Mormon families are not offered aid, but if non-Mormons working on welfare projects are in- jured, they will receive assistance. The bishop has the responsibility to exercise his judgment and thus others may also be helped.17 17when the writer was a boy, he actively participated and held positions in the Boy Scout program held in the local ward (East Mid- vale 2nd). When his father was injured and out of work for several months, the Mormon church offered assistance, even though his family was baptized in and attended a Baptist church regularly. 40 This discussion is not to suggest that all the problems in the program are solved. Many remain. There seems to be some question as to the direction the program will take in the future in terms of ex- pansion and encompassing more of the members' time and activities. This concept is especially important when one considers the previous church programs. CHAPTER III WELFARE FARM LAND USE Colonialization When the Church Security Planl began in 1936, there were some who looked to the day when colonies would again be established. He [President Harold B. Lee] said the plan [Welfare Plan] contemplated, in addition to what had already been published, a scheme of colonization to place men familiar with growing of crops. He said there was much opposition and criticism of the plan, but it was hoped this could be overcome by an intelligent and humble appeal to business interests, and others at present not altogether agreeable. He said the plan was wholly unselfish and to make it suc- ceed men would have to relegate selfish interest for the benefit of the whole people.2 Thus the church leaders appear to have been considering an increase in the amount of personal commitment and cooperation in the church welfare program than was initially intended under the announced 3 security plan. However, the passing of thirty-three years since the formal announcement of the program, with no established colonies, may 1The name was later changed to the Welfare Program; it was felt the word security implied more than the program was designed to provide. 2Alexander Buchanan, Jr., "Historical Record of the Pioneer Stake from June 6, 1930 to December 31, 1939" (Minutes of the High Council meetings of Pioneer Stake), p. 361. 3Ibid., p. 388. "President Paul C. Child discussed the Church Security Plan which, he said, had not been fully revealed, hence was not fully understood. . . ." 41 42 only mean the concept of establishing colonies is postponed-—not 4 forgotten. All hope for reinstituting the United Order is based upon the attitude of the members changing (Appendix B). The people, according to one view,5 were being tested to see if a higher law could be suc- cessful. The reason for the emphasis on an agricultural economy is . . . 6 . . that it affords economic independence. Whereas factories and industry 4The General Church Welfare Committee. Welfare Plan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook of Instructions, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: The General Church Welfare Committee, 1952), p. 25. "The Church has not committed itself to the practice of sponsoring church- wide rehabilitation and colonization projects. The General Church Wel- fare Committee does, however, maintain an agricultural department in its office. This department gathers and catalogues information concerning agricultural opportunities and resources throughout the areas in which church members are living. Through this department the General Committee is anxious to serve all regions and stakes outside of regions." 5President Heber J. Grant, "Conference Report - April, 1941," (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), p. 111. Referring to the welfare plan, "No, it is not the beginning of the United Order, but it may be that in this movement the Lord may be giving this people an examination to see how far they have come towards a condition where they might live as one. . . . I have had difficulty understanding how a people who are not able to sacrifice to a point where they can pay a tenth of their interest [income] annually and abstain from two meals on the first Sunday of the month and pay that as an offering for the care of the needy--I have difficulty in understanding how we can be- lieve that many of our people are more than ten percent ready for the United Order." 6President J. Reuben Clark, Editorial in the Deseret [Salt Lake City] News, August 8, 1951, p. 15. "The Lord tried to give us what I suppose is the perfect economic system, the United Order. We could not live it. He took it away. A few years thereafter he gave us tithing. But we are not too far away from the United Order in this Welfare Plan. Our surpluses, taken from individuals either in the form of work or per- manent projects or with cash, go into the storehouses. From the store- houses, to which every needy person has access, the necessities are provided. The storehouse is the common property of the church even as was the storehouse under the United Order. . . . I say we are not far away from that Order. We have our individual family units just as they had under the United Order. The only thing we need to do is to exercise some brotherly love, and in one way and another, provide the things which those who are in need must have." 43 are affected by extant economic conditions and may decrease production and hence employment, an integrated closed economy, as envisioned by LDS, based primarily on agriculture, would be more self-sustaining; it would not be as subject to general economic conditions as the present economy. Developing Land The development of land into cultivated cropland under the aegis of the welfare system was investigated by the writer. Some land has been put into crop production that was previously sageland, primarily in Utah County in central Utah. But there has been no concentrated effort to purchase undeveloped property and transform it into cropland.7 Before property is purchased for use as a welfare farm a soil analysis is made and past farm records examined to insure the purchasing church unit(s) that the farm is a good value for the cost involved, and that it will be able to produce those crops that are deemed necessary in the welfare program. However, there have been acreages coverted from virtual wasteland into cropland. One of the more outstanding examples is the Ridgeland project west of Salt Lake City (discussed under stake projects). Another example is the land west of Utah Lake which has been develOped. While a deficit was incurred for the first several years in developing the land, and less than satisfactory irrigation procedures were followed, the land continues to be owned and operated by the church in the event welfare farms may some day be located there. Local units, it is felt, will some day purchase the property from the church and operate it as a 7Irvin Nydegger, personal interview, July 1, 1968. 44 welfare project. The general church welfare committee considers each farm before it is purchased by local church units. This affords another check on the quality of farmland used as welfare farms. Thought is given to projects already established in an area in which a farm is under con- sideration for purchase. One self-imposed goal is for each area (unde— fined) to be self-sustaining in terms of production. Not only does the self-sustaining area have the advantage of curtailing transportation of items from other locations, but could also survive in the event trans- portation became impossible such as in a national emergency (Appendix B). Some land has been developed and put into cropland in Idaho, but the most extensive crop development of which the writer is cognizant, is the project in southern California, near Riverside. Over eight hun- dred acres of gently rolling hill land, formerly non-productive, has been planted in orange trees. No welfare farm owned by a ward or jointly by several wards has engaged in developing land. All such development has been done on stake or multi-stake, regional or multi— regional farms. There have been attempts to encourage ward projects, and keep the welfare farm close to the people in distance and interest. Today the real estate department of the Mormon church holds title to all new projects, and wards owning property may continue to do so but are re- quested to transfer title of the land to the church. One reason is that a ward operating land independently may declare one year's produce to be put into welfare and the next year sell the produce and use the funds for other purposes. Once a farm has been declared a welfare project there are certain limitations placed upon the operating unit 45 such as the crOp and its disposition. Foreign Projects The welfare production projects are limited primarily to the western part of the United States. The operation in Juarez, Mexico markets its own crOps and receives no food from the United States; however, goods are shipped from the United States to Alberta, Canada, where all Canadian welfare production is carried on. There has been a project in Hawaii for many years, and there are a few small parcels of land in Europe owned by LDS church groups; however, the stakes in Europe are not large enough to support incorporation of the welfare plan into local ecclesiastical practices. There is another consider- ation; in some European countries there is a high degree of socialism, and because the Mormon attitude is not to do anything for a person that he can do for himself church doctrine conflicts with government policy and possibly with members' attitudes. There are many stakes organized in the Midwest and Eastern United States which as yet have no welfare project. Why? "Primarily a lack of leadership and organization. . . ."9 Many of the stakes organ- ized east of the Rocky Mountains were established after 1955. These stakes were created out of mission areas.lO Consequently they are young stakes with relatively smaller numbers of male members possessing leadership ability than in older stakes. It takes a transition period to become accustomed to stake functions. The matter of financing the 8Irvin Nydegger, personal interview, November 15, 1968. 91bid. 10A designation given a large area with limited membership. 46 projects is another hindrance in the establishment of projects, for recently organized stakes generally do not have reserves of cash to invest in welfare projects. Financing Projects There are two types of welfare production projects when fi- nancing is considered: those that can sell items (primarily to commercial markets) and those than cannot. Farms which sell a portion or all of the crops have capital which can be used to meet the ex- penses such as irrigation, electricity, and taxes. If the productivity of the farm is not good enough to meet the welfare assignment and pay other expenses, then the local members are asked to donate the neces- sary cash. On some projects the total crop or produce is incorporated into the welfare system. It is impractical to set a hard and fast rule as to the amounts required because each year the estimated total welfare requirement varies as does the membership. The total amount is pro-rated on an individual basis, and therefore may amount to $2.16 per person for a year (as in 1968); consequently a ward may be expected to contribute $800.00 to $1,000.00 in goods or cash, based on the membership. If the welfare project raises an item that is in short supply, the amount produced above the assessment may be purchased by the general church welfare committee. Consequently cash is made avail- able to pay operating expenses, but in this case, not from selling items on the open market. Production projects must be paid for by the local Mormon group(s) involved. They must have the cash to pay twenty-five percent of the III! Illluillfcif I 47 purchase price, and may borrow seventy—five percent of the price from the general welfare committee. The loan is expected to be repaid in five years; if not paid, interest may be charged after the fifth year. Some production projects, such as canneries, cannot sell their product on the commercial market, therefore they have no earning capacity. How- ever canneries are owned and operated by units within the church structure even though, because of the machinery involved, they may be more expensive to buy than a farm. Consequently in such cases the general welfare committee makes a grant of fifty percent of the cost in estab- lishing a cannery. Independence Spiritual motivation to become and remain independent is exemp- lified in the welfare program, and the concept of independence has had several effects. An attempt is made to produce as wide a variety of commodities as is deemed necessary and practical. Some items cannot be produced economically because of the low volume, but as economics dictate,ll there will be a move to produce such things as razor blades. The concept of independence is applied to rejecting government payments for which the individual has not in some form paid money.12 llIrvin Nydegger, personal interview, October 30, 1968. 12Welfare Plan, op. cit., p. 48. "Church members are to be counseled against the evils that follow accepting public assistance in the form of direct relief. . . . To seek and accept direct public relief all too often invites the curse of idleness and fosters the other evils of dole. It destroys one's independence, industry, thrift and self-respect. . . . A brief description of the differences between programs under the two divisions, 'direct relief' and 'earned benefits' is presented . . . for information only. It is not to be relied upon for action." The old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to adult blind, general relief, are put in the direct relief category, while unemployment compensation or insuran e, and federal old-age and survivor insurance benefits are under earned benefits. 48 This idea is applied to participation in government agricultural prac- tices in which the welfare farm has not in some way contributed. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) may be characterized as primarily an advisory service; they make soil surveys and advise the farmer of bene- ficial practices, give engineering advice for the installation of such things as irrigation ditches and weirs. However, the SCS personnel does not perform the work nor reimburse the proprietor for having it done. Consequently SCS aid is accepted, but church officials advise units operating welfare farms against accepting most payments offered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, generally referred to as ASC. After proper performance of a recommended improvement, such as tiling a field, the ASC office will reimburse the farmer for part of the cost. Farmers can receive about fifty percent of the cost by par— ticipating in the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), administered by the ASC. The price support program is also administered by the ASC office; payments are made to the farmer when certain crops are raised. The general church welfare committee and other church leaders advise against accepting payments from the ASC for any of the programs except sugar beet payments.l3 There is an exception to excluding participation in ACP programs. If a group of farmers is, as a group, undertaking a project such as a canal renovation, there is a more lenient attitude toward the ACP pro- gram. A non-participating welfare project could nullify the entire project, thereby creating a detriment to private owners. However, while 13These payments are made from a tax imposed on the sugar process- ors, consequently not a direct subsidy from the federal government. 49 official church policy is to accept no funds from the ASC office, except for sugar beet production, many welfare farms do receive payments for various practices and crop production. A partial survey of the county ASC offices in Utah and Idaho, the area of welfare farm concentration, indicates an increase in the acceptance of ASC payments since 1965. There is no single answer for this trend. Nearly all personnel in the ASC offices contacted were LDS and in most cases they were not opposed to payments being accepted by local welfare farms. In some instances ASC people actively encouraged the ward of stake in which they were members to participate in ASC or ACP programs, thus breaking with the tradition that had been established. It is not possible to explain the increase; perhaps it is related to property taxes levied on the welfare farms. Welfare farms have no property tax levied on them in Utah; however in Idaho they do. With the increased cost of operating a farm, because of the property tax, some members feel less encouraged to follow the church direction--that of avoiding participation in ACS and ACP programs. Thus while a limited amount of county assistance was essential to the initial program in Pioneer Stake, church policy subsequently changed. No aid was supposed to be accepted from government agencies in the form of commodities or money by any unit within the welfare program. Land Use on Budget Production Properties The general welfare committee sends the welfare assignment to each region (Figure 6), usually during the first part of December. The assignment includes kinds and amounts of commodities to be produced. The welfare budget production properties are comprised primarily of welfare farms. However, there are other types such as canneries. In addition, OKOCDQOUIbWNH 1 Atlanta Bear Lake Boise Cache Canadian Central Idaho Central Utah Chicago Cincinnati Cottonwood Denver Detroit East Los Angeles El Paso Florida Grand Coulee Granite Green River Hawaii Idaho Falls Jordan Juab-San Pete Las Vegas Los Angeles Louisiana 51 LIST OF REGIONS 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Manchester Mill Creek Idaho Student Montana Mt. Timpanogas New York New Zealand Niagara Falls No. California Northern Utah No. Utah Student Northwest Oakland Ogden Oklahoma Oquirrh Philadelphia Phoenix Pioneer Pocatello Provo Raleigh Redding Reno Rexburg 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O Richfield St. Johns St. Louis Salt Lake San Diego San Fernando San Francisco Santa Barbara 80. California Spokane Sugar House Texas Tucson Uintah Virgin Weber West Oregon Winter Quarters Wyoming Wyuta 52 there are production properties which are unique within the welfare program, such as the broom factory in St. George, Utah, or the bakery operated by the Granite Stake in Salt Lake City. Nevertheless the remainder of this chapter is concerned primarily with a description and comparison of land use on the welfare farms. The general welfare committee began issuing annual reports in 1943. The system of reporting the information has varied, however. Consequently it was practical to show general patterns of land use on welfare projects only for 1945 and 1955. The writer organized the available data into a system of twelve land use categories: dairy, cattle, hog, poultry, all purpose, small grain, dry cropland, alfalfa and hay, fruit and nut, vegetables, miscellaneous, and manu- facturing and processing. This organization is based on the system used in the annual welfare reports and is an attempt to correlate data for the two years under consideration.14 . . . 15 Dairy. The first type of land use to be studied is dairying. In 1945 there was but one dairy in the welfare system, and it was in 16 By 1955 there were several dairies, most of the Phoenix region. which were located in Utah, Idaho, and Washington, with one in Nevada, South Carolina and the Chicago region (Figure 7). But because the only 14Information presented on the maps in Chapters III and IV is detailed in Appendix D. More specific information was unavailable or could not be secured. 15The percent of land used for a particular purpose in each re- gion for 1955 is shown by a system of patterns. If there were any acres similarly used in 1945, that percentage is given immediately below the region number. 16Chandler, Arizona. While the 1955 annual report does not show a dairy, a large one exists at present. 53 Percent of Land Use in Dairy Production Figure 7. 54 milk processing plant in the welfare system is located in Salt Lake City, all dairies which cannot ship their milk to this plant must sell their milk to commercial processors. Several dairies are currently operating which are not indicated in the 1955 statistics, such as the dairy in the Cache region which processes its milk in the local cheese plant in Logan, Utah. The dairy indicated in the Chicago region is no longer in existence. In comparison to other goods in the welfare program, small—volume, high—value goods are presently supplied by the Chicago region. These are toothpaste and shaving cream. The dairy farm in the Uinta region (64) has been discontinued because it was uneconomical to continue oper- ation. The dairy in South Carolina still exists and channels its milk commercially. Thus the distribution of dairies, while expanding since the time of the inception of the program, nevertheless, shows a concentration in northern Utah. Nearly all welfare budget production properties are located in or near the organizational unit(s) responsible for their care (such as a stake), as indicated by the writer's field research and by the many county ASC office managers interviewed. In only a few cases is a welfare farm in another county, the two most notable examples being southern California and Salt Lake County, Utah. Not all the dairies owned by units in the Salt Lake area are actually within the boundaries of the region so designated; two are approximately thirty miles distant. It is hoped that with the conglomeration of members,other dairy processing plants will be established, but they can not until the den- sity of members and necessity of welfare distribution of dairy products warrants such an outlay. In the meantime those dairies which must sell 55 their milk to commercial dairies maintain an arrangement whereby, if a person needs milk, the bishop can instruct that dairy to begin delivery of a specified amount to the needy person. In this way it is viewed as a trade of milk rather than a commercial sale to the delivering dairy.l7 In regions with a high percentage of the land use in dairy oper- ation, it can be assumed there were few other welfare farms. It should be remembered that the land used for a dairy usually includes hay and small grain production as well. Thus a problem is introduced that appeared constantly--how to interpret the reporting of the land use on welfare farms. Cattle. In calculating the land used in cattle production, acreage in pasture was added to that reportedly used for cattle. The reason is that many ward welfare projects have a small acreage in pas- ture and raise a few head of cattle as part or whole of their welfare budget assignment. This may help explain why the distribution of wel- fare projects used in the production of cattle is much more widespread than that of dairying. Cattle production acreage is widespread throughout the Inter- mountain West, with little east of the Rockies, except in the South (Figure 8). Several regions indicate less than one percent of the land in cattle production. The phenomenon of widespread cattle production is in part explained by the goal of producing food to be locally con- sumed, and to have the several areas (undefined by the church) as inde- pendent as possible of foodstuffs raised in other areas. In southeastern 17This arrangement is held with the Carnation Dairy in Los Angeles, California. .m ousmflm 56 .3558... .3. cozoauoi 2.80 S cm... 2.6.. .0 2.8.9... 57 United States, the farm in Florida is no longer used for welfare pur- poses and is presently leased out. The Atlanta region (1), with a small cattle production, may have raised calves which came from the dairy herd. In other regions cattle production is connected with local dairy operations, such as the Las Vegas region, where bull calves are raised, processed, and then distributed through the Las Vegas bishops' storehouse. Other regions indicate a somewhat stable land use pattern in percentages in cattle production between 1945 and 1955, such as the Uintah (64) and St. Johns (52) regions. In 1945 many welfare farms had not yet been established, and in the decade between 1945 and 1955 many types of production increased noticeably. Cattle production is an example as evidenced by the following regions: Reno (49), Wyuta (70), Canadian (5), and Northwest (37). In some regions cattle production may have remained somewhat stable, but with the purchase of farms causing total acreage to increase, it affected a decrease in the percent of land use in cattle production. This phenomenon also characterizes other land use patterns in this study. Hog_. The only noticeable land use used in the production of hogs in 1945 was in the Salt Lake (54) region (Figure 9), on the Ridge- land farm west of Salt Lake City. In the interim, to 1955, a few other regions had undertaken hog production, but acreage in no instance exceeds two percent of a region's total. Hogs are normally raised on farms raising livestock with acreage used in growing various crops. Consequently land use in the production of hogs is not too noticeable because it is combined with other uses and may be reported as an all purpose farm. Pork is more difficult to store than beef, and the primary use of 59 pork seems to be to supply variety in the meat offered welfare recip- ients (cattle provide the bulk of meat distributed). Poultry produc- tion is primarily for eggs, and very few fryers are raised and dis- tributed. The writer knows of no other fowl production, and with the exception of tuna and possibly slamon, no other meat is produced in the welfare program. Poultry. In 1945 the entire production of eggs was limited to the Wasatch Front in central and northern Utah, and as in the case of hogs, the percentages of regional totals in poultry production were quite small, in no case exceeding twelve percent (Figure 10). In 1955 there were several regions in which less than one percent of the land is in poultry production, but again, as in the case of pork, only a small land area is needed for the chicken coops. In some cases chicken feed is obtained through the welfare mill at Kaysville, Utah, thus resulting in virtually no acreage necessary for egg production. Accurate acreages are difficult to determine because the grain raised to supply feed for chickens may have been recorded under another classification such as small grains or all purpose. However, while the percentages of land use in poultry production are minimal and unimpressive, yet the production is sufficient to care for the local needs of welfare recipients. The eggs produced are taken to the local bishops' storehouse where they are candled and processed. In some cases, as on the Ridge- land farm, the candling is done on the farm itself. Here people who otherwise could not hold a job in private industry are given Opportun- ity to candle eggs and do other menial tasks involved in the final egg processing. Some of these people are mentally incapacitated and others have extreme arthritic conditions. The theory behind the program, that c .9 8 :I 'o o (I g .5 3 D 'u c: 3 '6 E 3 61 a person work for what he receives and thus establish respect for him- self, is put into action. All Purpose Farms. In 1945 nearly the entire amount of all purpose farms were found in Utah and Idaho (Figure 11). By 1955 this pattern showed a marked change. One reason for the increase between 1945 and 1955 is the method of recording used; apparently there was a more extensive use of this category in reporting land use. However, this is not a complete answer for there had also been a large increase in the number of farms. Many farms have a multi-purpose use of the land, such as raising sugar beets, certain kinds of vegetables, and crops that for one reason or another have not been recorded as vege- tables or put into other categories used in this study. A problem encountered in designating the use of the land is the rotating of crops. Alfalfa may be grown one year, small grain the next. This helps account for the general use of the all purpose designation in recording the welfare projects. In 1955 there were three all purpose farms in the eastern United States; two of these are no longer in that category. The New York region has sold the farm which once had been a local dairy, and the two percent land acreage previously listed as all purpose in the Atlanta region (1) should probably be considered part of the dairy. It is unfortunate that sugar beet acreage is not known, for this crop apparently accounts for a majority of the capital income for some welfare farms. It was reported to the writer many times by various welfare farm operators and others, that the beets raised on a particular farm were processed through a commercial sugar beet plant, but the refined sugar was put into the welfare system. It is the opinion of 62 E actuated 38.3. =4 5 mm: 2.6.. .o 23.2. 63 the writer that it would be impossible for LDS welfare recipients to consume all the sugar processed from sugar beets raised on welfare farms. It should be remembered that one goal of the welfare system is to acquire land which could be used to produce a variety of crops, not necessarily those grown presently. This practice is based on revela- tions predicting the impending doom and devastation to be meted out on the United States. Under the conditions of these large—scale national reverses, the LDS will be able to sustain themselves through the pro- duction of a variety of commodities. An example of this concept as a guiding force is the very existence of the Detroit stake welfare farm located west of Saginaw, Michigan. On this farm 230 acres are planted in sugar beets which are sold to a local sugar company, and 400 acres are in corn which is used in fattening out beef which are bought and sold commercially. The writer was told that the land could be put into producing many kinds of vegetables and other staples, presumably to be consumed in the event of a national emergency. Small Grain and Dry Cropland. The land use in production of small grains in 1945 is concentrated in Utah and southern Idaho, yet in 1955 small grain production was shown only in the Northwest (37) region (Figure 12). Obviously this alteration is due largely to the method of reporting used. In the regions reporting small grain production in 1945, yet none in 1955, the same land undoubtedly is reported as dry cropland (Figure 13). This may be true since much of the small grain production in Idaho and parts of Utah is not irrigated and could easily be listed under either category. Much of the small grain is shipped by truck to the Kaysville 65 Percent of Land Use in Dry Cropland Figure 13. 66 mill where it is processed. There is a fleet of trucks used in the shipment of goods throughout the West which are owned by the welfare system under the name Cooperative Security Corporation. The predominance of dry cropland in the Uuab+San Pete (22) region is due to the large wheat acreage, true also of the regions in southern and eastern Idaho. It is a mistake to think of land in South Carolina, Florida and Michigan as the same kind of dry cropland as that in the Intermountain West. Obviously the system of reporting is a classification developed in the West, for one would not normally refer to farmland in the South as dry cropland. Alfalfa and Hay. The reporting of land used in the production of alfalfa and hay for 1945 indicates only two regions and the same is true for 1955, albeit, different regions (Figure 14). However, many all purpose farms are growing some alfalfa and hay. From the information available to the writer, it appears the primary producers of alfalfa and hay are associated with dairies or cattle. This may seem to be an obvious conclusion; however there are private farms on which hay is raised and then sold either through commercial channels or directly to other farms. On welfare farms this practice does not appear to be significant. However, some welfare projects classified as all purpose farms have acreages in alfalfa due to rotating crops, and some of these farms sell hay to farmers, often members of the local ward. No doubt the reason for the scarcity of the land used in producing alfalfa is explained by the reporting of the land either as dairy, cattle, or all purpose. Fruit and Nut. In 1945 the production of fruit was primarily in Ill |ll|ll I‘ll ll" III! In IIIIII II III. I ll. ail! ll. 68 California, Arizona, and Utah. By 1955 this pattern had increased to a greater production in Utah (Figure 15). There are presently no fruit production properties in the Salt Lake Valley. Most is grown in the Provo (46) region. In the northern California region walnuts are grown near Sacra- mento, where the church also has a large walnut farm. However, the larger farm is a private investment of the church and only a small amount of equipment from the larger unit is used on the nearby welfare farm. In 1968 in southern California several citrus production prop- erties were operated which still make up the largest percentage of land use in the area. Several southern California regions jointly own and operate a large citrus operation (near Riverside, California), making it one of the few multi-regional projects in the church welfare system today. Various types of orcahrd production are found in Utah including apples, peaches, pears, apricots, and cherries. However, the latter is not put into the welfare system and cherry production is used only for the capital necessary for the upkeep of the orchards that produce fruit used in welfare distribution. Nevertheless, in the current production of fruit and nuts the percentage of land use in such commodities is limited, except in southern California where the production of oranges has taken a major role in welfare production. An important factor in the production of fruit is to have members living close enough to the orchards to do the picking and handling of the fruit. However, as in the case of the San Fernando project (southern California), Mormons in Utah county (46) have been willing to drive half an hour in order to reach the orchard and 70 take care of various duties involved. This has enabled the purchase of orchards and the planting of others from twenty-five to thirty miles from the center of membership. Among the different kinds of welfare projects, orchards have one of the greatest needs for an abundant supply of hand labor, and this in a relatively short period of time, especially when the fruit is ripe and needs picking. Vegetables. In 1945 only three regions reported any production of vegetables, the Las Vegas (23) region having the highest percentage (Figure 16). However, today this region has a dairy. In general, land use in vegetables, like some other commodities, obviously has been included in many instances under the heading of all purpose farms. This may have been done because acreage used to raise these commodities such as beans, peas and corn, is small, and the major land use on the farm is another crop such as alfalfa or small grain. While the percentages are small, the value of the vegetable production is much more valuable than other crops. Some of the welfare farms raise vegetables for commercial canneries though this apparently has been on the decline, primarily because the commercial canneries cannot get enough other farmers to produce the needed crops to keep local canneries operating. Miscellaneous. In 1945 the regions reporting miscellaneous or unclassified projects were widely scattered, partly due to the various projects which had been initiated during the early years of the program, such as ponding of fish, raising of rabbits, and other kinds of non-integrative types of production. These types of li’llII-‘ill III III- lllllul I I ill I I III I I III II I] III I Ill [III II ||||nlllil "dlllll‘l 72 commodities may be useful and convenient to a ward project and local consumption, but do not fit well into a standardized system of produc- tion and distribution that must have some degree of similarity among the welfare production properties. The most noticeable feature about the pattern of miscellaneous projects between the two years is the little use of the category in 1955 (Figure 17). Between 1945 and 1955 there was a period of con- solidating the welfare projects and incorporating them into a unified system. Manufacturing and Processing. In 1945 the production of manu- facturing and processing projects was limited to Utah, primarily in the Salt Lake area. However by 1955 this production had been extended to a much wider area. Yet total acreage is minimal and in all instances in 1955, amounted to less than one percent of total land use in any of the respective regions (Figure 18). While the acreage is small, the value per acre probably ranks among the highest in the welfare projects. But because these kinds of projects do not fall within the vale of welfare farms, they have not been included in the present study. In visiting the welfare farms throughout the western United States, the writer was made aware of the nearly unanimous presence of welfare farm managers who grew up either in southern Idaho or northern Utah. This was true, not only throughout the states of Utah and Idaho, but also in Arizona, Nevada and California. Only on small ward projects, where a resident manager was not needed, could one expect people who might have been reared locally to have charge of the welfare project. The presence of managers who grew up out-of-state is strongly evidenced by the decrease in rice production on lands in California that had once 75 been producing rice. After certain farms had been put into the welfare system, the production of rice was found uneconomical, partly due to the managers' lack of knowledge in rice farming techniques. Consequently the rice credits, owned by previous owners and transferred to the wel- fare farms, were rented out to local farmers who use them for their own private production. This may be explained as a cultural expression of farming garnered in the Intermountain West and extended to the rice lands of California. Conclusion While one of the initial considerations in 1936 may have been to implement some kind of colonialization under the auspices of the welfare plan, this has never been accomplished. The majority of property used in the welfare system is located in the United States, with some acreage in Canada and Mexico. Some land is cropped in Europe, but is not in- corporated into the church welfare plan. The kind of land use to which the property is put does not seem to vary a great deal from that of local privately owned farms. This assumption is based on the interviews the writer had with numerous ASC office managers in Utah and Idaho, as well as the opinions of farmers and others aware of local welfare operations. The one exception to this general rule seems to be the discontinuance of rice farming on what had previously been rice farms in California. However, some land has been recently put back into rice and local LDS plan to add more rice acreage. Normally crops which are raised in a given area will be the same kind produced on the welfare farm. Out of a total of 135 food items distributed in the welfare program, about 100 are produced on production properties (Appendix C contains a list of the items). However this 76 includes some items not produced on welfare farms, hence not of con- cern to this research, such as coal, shoe laces and shaving cream. Crops and land use practices are not based upon any religious teach- ings. Production, however, is sanctioned by LDS leaders who are con- cerned with providing only what they consider the basic or essential foods. While there may be few visible differences in terms of crops raised, the manner of land ownership and circulation of products is quite different from the traditions of our economy and cultural values, discussed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV WELFARE OPERATING UNITS Welfare budget production properties are owned by various or- ganizational units within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All decisions as to initiation and Operation of a project are made within the church organizational structure. This is not to imply all use of the land is directed by a religious motivation, even though nearly all land use is sanctioned by the general welfare com- mittee in Salt Lake City. Agricultural practices are consistent with modern technology and the welfare farms must meet, and in some cases compete with, existing agricultural policies and prices. Nevertheless some farms still use uneconomical practices which are consistent with spiritual injunctions. An example is the use of hand labor where mechnaized operations would be more efficient; however, none of these practices are used in the production of crops--only in the processing of certain items, as in the candling of eggs. This chapter contains information pertinent to the organizations which own and operate the welfare budget production projects and gives examples of each based upon the writer's field investigations. This approach, it was felt, could demonstrate best the differences between the organization of welfare farms and privately owned farms. The approach was a fortunate one because the differences in organization 77 78 and circulation of goods proved more significant than the land utiliza- tion as originally hypothesized. The type of welfare projects operated by units varies, but regardless of the crop, the welfare assessment per individual remains constant. Therefore, if a ward has a beef project, the ward must con- tribute beef equivalent to $2.20 (1967) per member. If the farm does not produce enough then the members pay the difference. Within the organizational structure of the Mormon church there are six units which own and operate production properties: ward, multi-ward, stake, multi-stake, region, and multi-region. The quorum groups in the wards may own property, the proceeds going toward whatever goal the group decides on for a particular year. During the first years of the welfare program, these properties were occasionally used to produce welfare assessments, but this practice is no longer continued. Some wards own property not designated as budget production property for welfare purposes. In some cases property has been pur- chased for future expansion of the ward, and consists of only a few acres. In other instances there may be larger acreages used strictly for income purposes, with funds going to improve the chapel or any other use decided by the members. These properties are properly desig- nated as ward projects. Like the quorum property, ward projects have also been used to produce the welfare assessment, but under encourage- ment and direction of the general welfare committee this practice has greatly subsided. Once a property is declared a welfare project it can not be used for other purposes. Thus, crop and product prediction can be made, 79 leading to a greater degree of stability to the welfare system. After the trial operation of the Pioneer Stake welfare program and the announcement of the welfare plan in 1936 by Heber J. Grant, each ward was encouraged to purchase and operate a farm. These were to be purchased by members, in addition to their regular ecclesiastical monetary obligations. As a result of this early emphasis the number of ward welfare projects increased, but as a practical matter, during the first decade, it was necessary to use a high proportion of rented or donated land which could be worked by local LDS who used their own machinery. It was not an uncommon practice for farmers to donate the produce from an acre or two of their own land and care for it them- selves. Yet the form of farm with earliest official emphasis and most numerous, was the ward farm. Ward Farms It was impossible to acquire information about all the farms that had been owned, though in many cases once a ward bought a farm it retained ownership. Yet other wards had rented several different farms or had different properties donated. The available information is presented on a regional basis,1 covering five—year intervals, 1945, 1950, and 1955. Consequently general trends are shown and the variances of each ward's welfare activities omitted. It was impossible for the writer to compare the 1968 distribution of ward farms with that of 1955,2 lRegions as designated in the Directory_of The General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1962 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1967). 2The last year such information was avilable was 1955; the data was taken from the annual welfare reports. (Appendix E). 80 but in some regions (Figure 20), it appeared to be quite similar, such as Rexburg (50) and Pocatello (45) in Idaho and the Richfield (51) region in Utah. The number of ward welfare projects had shown a marked increase between 1950 and 1955 in nearly every region, and 1968 infor- mation tends to collaborate the notion that rural areas maintained dominance of ward welfare projects. Increase in the number of ward welfare projects between 1945 and 1955 (Figure 19) is mute evidence to early emphasis on ward projects. 600 541 500 400 Ward 300 Projects 200 100 —':L 444. 41, _____ Average 0 Lfi’=:" ffij Acreage 1936 1945 1950 1955 1966 Figure 19. Ward Welfare Project Distribution The overwhelming increase between the end of World War II and 1955 was phenomenal in nearly every region; however the bulk of the projects are in the Intermountain West, especially Utah and southern Idaho. However, by 1966 the number of ward welfare farms had decreased nearly to the 1950 level. This is primarily due to economic factors involved with modern farming, making small farms uneconomical to Operate. The average acreage per ward farm stayed somewhat even through- out the ten-year period; the writer would anticipate the average to have 81 .ON whamflm .Too-OOO. Cummaoma 20....03001a .5095 0143 82 increased after 1955 because of the practice of selling smaller farms. It is expedient to relate a description of several typical examples of each operating unit. Each description is based upon per- sonal inspection of the projects and information obtained from workers on the welfare projects.3 Vernal 2nd Ward - Region 64. In 1948 the Vernal, Utah, 2nd Ward purchased a fifty-two acre farm. In 1963, when the enlarged mem- bership warranted, two wards were formed, and the Vernal 4th Ward was established. Most of the farm was transferred to the ownership of the 4th Ward, and consequently the 2nd Ward needed to obtain a welfare farm even though thirteen acres of the original farm remained under its jurisdiction. The problem of disposition of welfare property occurs wherever there is a division due to increased membership. When- ever a new ward or stake is created, the disposition of welfare projects must be decided. The Vernal 2nd Ward purchased a farm in 1963 for $20,400.4 Some of the money used to pay for the farm came from the sale of the regional farm near Roosevelt, Utah. The regional farm had been an unprofitable dairy and consequently was sold. The money from the sale of the milk base, machinery, real estate, milk cows, and other livestock was divided among the various stakes and wards represented in the regional project. Thereafter each local unit was encouraged to begin some kind of welfare project. Consequently a large dairy farm was sold, and smaller welfare 3Appendix F indicates projects sanctioned for the writer's in- vestigation. 4Bishop E. Joseph Winder, personal interview, August 1, 1968. " ‘I'I‘ I! II... . 83 farms begun, while the general trend certainly is in the other direction. Irrigation is a constant concern to most farmers in the Inter- mountain West, and no less a concern on welfare farms. Each farmer has a predetermined schedule of water turns, or irrigation turns when he may appropriate water from the proper canals and irrigate his land. There can be no failure in appropriating the water and using it properly or the damage to the crop can be irreparable. While the process of irriga- ting is not necessarily strenuous, it requires a knowledge of the particular field, acquired through experience and patience. Therefore, if the help of individuals can not be enlisted, the farm manager must do it himself. On small ward farms this often happens. Irrigation remains one of the more frequent problems on welfare farms. The other major source of labor-demanding attention on the 2nd Ward farm, as on other ward farms, is the cutting, baling and hauling of hay. There has been no difficulty in getting enough help for this work, which seems typical of other welfare farms. The work provides an opportunity for social interaction and the job is less time consuming than irrigating, which may in part explain the availability of volunteers for the handling of hay. In 1967 the ward was assessed 1,275 pounds of live beef and 1,500 pounds of dressed beef, worth approximately one thousand dollars. This assessment was met but the ward was requested by the stake presi- dent to sell the white face stock on the local market and send the money, in lieu of the beef, to the general welfare committee in Salt Lake City. The herd is large enough to meet all other expenses, such as the $220 water bill for irrigation. Because the farm has sufficient income local members need not raise additional money to meet their 84 welfare assessment. Other wards are not as fortunate. Vernal 4th Ward - Region 64. Like the Vernal 2nd Ward, the Vernal 4th Ward raises hay and a few head of cattle. During warm weather months the sixteen cows and calves require very little attention and hauling the hay is accomplished with little difficulty. On this farm the president of the elder's quorum coordinates help for irrigation duty. Again, finding willing and qualified help for irrigating is the biggest problem, which might help explain why the welfare farms may be slightly below average in terms of production.5 Because no property taxes are paid by the welfare farms in Utah, there has been some antagonism among private farmers because of the disposition of goods raised on welfare farms. It is felt that crops raised on welfare farms are unfair competition if sold on the open mar- ket. Consequently the bishop of the 4th Ward has given directions that no hay raised on the farm be sold, resulting in year—old hay remaining stacked in the barnyard. The Vernal 6th Ward was created recently (ca. 1968) and has no farm project. Nevertheless their welfare assessment is about one thousand dollars in beef. The ward could assess the membership the money or try to procure the money by other means. The members have done some catering in addition to serving a public breakfast on July 24th in order to acquire the necessary funds.6 Another of the Vernal 5Uintah County ASC office manager, personal interview. It was his opinion that the welfare farms in Uintah County, Utah (part of Region 64) were below average production, except in the crops of hay and pasture. There was difficulty in getting enough volunteer labor. 6A day which commemorates the arrival of the first Mormon pioneers in the (Great) Salt Lake Valley. July 24th is a festive occasion in all Mormon communities in the West. 85 wards cuts and sells timber to raise funds to meet its assessment, and one of the wards in Blackfoot, Idaho caters at weddings which has been a profitable method of raising the welfare assessment. Thus while established wards have their farms and their production is standardized, albeit with local peculiarities, a new ward must also find means of meeting its welfare assessment. Warren Ward - Region 66. The writer visited Region 66 which has a small number of ward farms. Within the region is the Warren Ward farm located ten miles northwest of Ogden, Utah. The farm was leased from a member of the ward from 1947 until his death in 1966, at which time the farm was purchased.7 The bishop and the men in charge of the farm, the second counselor in the ward bishopric and president of the elder's quorum, are full-time farmers. Consequently there has been no problem in acquiring use of machinery to perform the necessary tasks on the welfare farm. In addition there are about seven other full-time farmers in the ward which have in the past and are presently making the necessary machinery available to the welfare farm. In the past the welfare assessment has been met by renting land from other ward members in addition to their eleven-acre farm. The ward farm is average or better in production,8 yielding twenty-six to twenty-eight ton per acre in sugar beets. Like other farms which depend on donated labor and machinery, the men and machinery must be available when needed or the yield of the crop decreases. 7Bishop Junior F. Steward, project supervisor, personal interview, July 31, 1968. Opinion of Bishop Steward. Kl. I'll! I! Illu‘ll. It ‘ all.) 86 The beets raised are sold to the local sugar factory--the corn and small grain are sold to local LDS farmers, often members of the ward. When beets are grown, they produce twice the yearly assessment, so the money is saved for use when a cover crop is planted which is less profitable than sugar beets. When the Vernal 2nd Ward property was purchased there was a house on it which, along with two acres, was sold to a private indi- vidual for $10,555. A similar thing was done by the Warren Ward farm to help pay for their property. As on other farms, the chief problem of the Warren Ward farm is irrigation. On this farm the quorum of seventy, the elders, and the high priests each handle the irrigation for a month; thus ward male organizations are responsible for watering the crops. The welfare farm receives no aid from the government except in the matters of technical advice. The ASC payments are accepted for sugar beets, a practice common to all welfare farms raising beets. However nobody under fourteen years of age can help on the farms that are accepting ASC payments; thus government regulations influence the use of voluntary help on certain farms. The church leaders of the welfare program have advised all wel- fare farms not to participate in government programs. However the Warren Ward farm participated to the extent that the land was surveyed by the SCS for land-leveling, and irrigation ditch lining was paid for by the ASC office. The decision is left to the bishops or other local leaders as to whether or not the farm participates in the ACP or ASC programs. The decision regarding crops to be raised is made in a bishop's meeting. Because of the rotation practices being followed it is not 87 practical for someone in the Salt Lake City welfare headquarters to decide for them. Farr West Ward - Region 39. A peculiar problem was experienced on a nearby farm owned by the Farr West Ward. Their ten-acre farm, purchased in 1946, was operated as a ward farm until 1963.9 Until then the farm was adequate to meet the welfare assessment; individuals were assigned to bring their machinery in order to take care of the farm since the farm owned none of its own equipment. This well-operated ward welfare project was the only one in the stake since the stake farm was nearby and all other wards in the stake participated in it. But when the interstate highway system was implemented, the new high- way divided the ward farm and it became impractical to farm the two portions. The Farr West Ward then sold one of the remaining parcels to a private farmer and transferred the other to the Farr West Stake. Thereafter the ward took part in the stake farm, using it to meet the ward's welfare assessment. The stake farm is nearly self-sufficient, raising hay, grain, and corn- Corn is made into silage to feed the cattle which is their welfare assignment. Previously on the ward farm beans had been hand- picked and canned, hay, grain and potatoes raised and sold, and tomatoes raised and sold to another ward whose members processed them in the church welfare cannery in Ogden, Utah. But because there has been very little growth in the stake the stake farm should be large enough to meet the welfare assessment for the foreseeable future with no need to 9Bishop Brian L. Taylor, personal interview, July 31, 1968. 88 acquire additional farm property. Consequently a transition in member- ship welfare activity in this situation seems to exemplify that of other instances where ward welfare farms have been sold. Whereas the ward membership had to engage quite actively in the production of crops, including preparing the land for cultivation, planting, weeding, irrigation, picking, hauling, and sometimes processing, all requiring many man-hours, the participation of members on the stake farm is re- duced. Typically, stake farms have the men and machinery to handle most of the agricultural requirements, and typically, the Farr West Ward member participation has dropped accordingly. Lake Point Ward - Region 41. The fifty-eight acre Lake Point Ward farm located northeast of Tooele, Utah, was purchased in 1958.10 Prior to 1958 some land was leased by the ward and wheat raised, but members paid cash for their welfare assessment. Presently the Lake Point Ward farm is the only farm in the Grantsville Stake which is pay- ing all the expenses and meeting its assessment from crops produced on the farm. An original loan of six thousand dollars, along with seven hundred dollars raised from the local membership, purchased the farm. The farm does not have enough irrigation water to take care of the entire acreage which is larger than most ward farms. Yet the problem that is encountered in some projects, that of getting necessary help for irrigation, is not a problem. Some of the wheat raised is sold to the Salt Lake Flour Mill. The hay may be sold or, if the market for alfalfa seed is good, alfalfa seed may be produced. The ward farm owns nearly all its own equipment lOAllan Jordan, personal interview, August 2, 1968. 89 which is rather unique. Most ward farms depend upon local membership to provide both machinery and labor, yet this farm has the machinery as well as some of the housing necessary in which to keep the equipment. The only expense the farm incurs besides the incidental irrigation bills is the harvesting of the grain, although some ward members donate the machinery and charge only for the gas. The membership of the Lake Point Ward is about three hundred; therefore they need to raise seven to eight hundred dollars for their welfare assessment. The welfare assessment for the ward has been cash in lieu of a specific crop. The farm raises hay and grain, and the local leadership of the ward has appealed to no avail to the general welfare committee to change their assessment from cash to the hay crop they raise. One reason for the attempt to change the assessment is because the price of hay has gone down in the past few years. However, the general committee reaches its decision based upon production of various farms and the consumptive needs of the welfare recipients. The general church authorities encourage the wards and membership to be self-sustaining. Thus, by members having a supply of food on hand, they can withstand any short-range emergency which might arise. In 1968 a few acres of potatoes were grown on the farm, then purchased and stored by various members in the storage program encouraged by the church. During years of a good wheat crop some wheat will be stored in this same storage program. Blackfoot First Ward - Region 45. The final description Of a ward welfare farm is the Blackfoot First Ward welfare farm, purchased about 1963. It is a two-acre farm located on the edge of town near 90 the chapel, close to the center Of ward membership. The stake farm which produces cattle presents a problem for this city ward because the stake farm is located too far from the membership for active par- ticipation in the Operations, which is an Opportunity the ward farm presents. This ward farm is in the process of being converted into raspberry production, but the major part of the land is producing corn. Before being purchased it was only in pasture. After being put into full production the farm will supply the welfare assessment; meanwhile the local members are assessed cash.11 The need for a larger farm is not considered, for the one they now own will adequately supply their welfare assessment as soon as it is converted to raspberry production. However, the small farm Of only two and a half acres will be larger than any other raspberry production in the area. The cost Of operating this farm is minimal. The relief society Of the local ward picks the raspberries on a share basis--one-half, or one—third Of the crop. Two Older men have volunteered to irrigate the farm; consequently there has been very little problem with the Operation Of this small welfare farm. A net profit Of approximately two to three thousand dollars is anticipated when in total production of raspberries. The raspberries are and will be sold to local grocery stores whose managers and owners are LDS and in sympathy with the welfare program, and consequently provide a ready outlet for the raspberries. The corn raised on the farm is sold to members who either consume it or can it for the home storage program and the remainder is sold to the local stores. llBishop Raymond A. Wixom, personal interview, July 23, 1968. 91 Typical Of welfare Operations is the raising and production Of crops common to a local area. Thus it is interesting that this farm, located in eastern Idaho, is attempting to get into raspberry production for there are no other likeeproducers in the surrounding area. This represents a unique use of the land; however it is perpetuated in part upon the hope and virtual promise that a ready market will be available, not only through the local membership, but primarily through local stores. Thus it is seen in this instance that the membership cooperates not only in the Operation of the farm but also through the supplying Of an outlet for the goods raised on the welfare farms. Multi-Ward Farms A welfare farm Operated by two or more wards is called a multi- ward welfare project. These farms are dispersed throughout the West with no significant concentrations (Figure 21). In some cases wards will join with one or more others within their stake to Operate a welfare farm jointly. More common is the situation where a ward adds enough members that it divides, two wards being formed in the place of the original. When this division occurs the two wards may prefer to maintain the previous project, assuming it can provide the welfare assessment for the two wards and their projected growth. Numbers Of multi-ward projects are few in comparison with ward projects (Figure 22). The number Of multi-ward farms has increased slightly since 1955. The writer was unable to visit any multi-ward farms, hence the absence Of any multi-ward farm descriptions. 93 Average Acreage Multi—Ward Farms 200 184 150 100 '29 ‘‘‘‘‘ so 4 ,/’/3 21 31 —3—8 0 _,,- 1936 1945 1950 1955 1966 Figure 22. Multi-Ward Welfare Project Distribution Stake Welfare Projects Stake welfare budget production properties have proven convenient for several types of production necessary in the welfare program. Some projects are tOO expensive or tOO large for a ward to handle, such as a dairy or cannery. Because a stake has a membership eight to twelve times that of a ward, stake projects could be expected to have a larger acreage and in all instances a higher value. More stake projects could be expec- ted to be located in areas where membership is denser, such as towns and cities. This would enable them to drive to the farm, but in an agricul- tural area with a widely dispersed membership pattern this might not be feasible. Growth in the number Of stake farms (Figure 23), was noticeable 500 400 403 ----- 300 200 205 130 100 2, 31 0 :;:-J 21 1936 1945 1950 1955 1966 Figure 23. Stake Welfare Project Distribution Average Acreage Stake Projects 94 between 1945 and 1950 and by 1955 had increased by ten. The increase in size of stake farms is very pronounced, doubling between 1945 and 1950, and again by 1955. Eleven years later the number was 130, an incredible growth when compared to the previous pattern. This is mute evidence Of the trend toward larger farms, most of which have a resident manager who makes it possible for the farm to be farther from the members who then do not have to take care Of the many details requiring attention, as on ward farms. Most stake farms are in Utah and many are owned by stakes along the Wasatch Front (Figure 24). However the farms are not located in Salt Lake County which includes regions 54, 44, 27, 10, and 21, but along the west side Of Utah Lake in Utah County, regions 30 and 7. The owner- ship Of farm land in Utah County by church units located in Salt Lake County has aroused emotions. Some people in Utah County, including LDS, dislike the arrangement for it is felt the tax base is reduced. They would rather the Mormons living in Salt Lake County also purchase their welfare farms in Salt Lake County. West Sharon Stake - Region 46. The West Sharon Stake located at Provo, Utah was created in the early 1950's when the membership in the Sharon Stake grew large enough for two stakes. When the division oc- curred, the jurisdiction Of the seventy acre fruit orchard was divided between the two. In 1960 West Sharon Stake purchased eighty acres twenty-five miles southwest Of Provo on West Mountain, Payson, Utah, where other orchard owners had also transferred Operations. Seedlings were planted and today the orchard is growing into full production. West Sharon Stake sold their former orchard while Sharon Stake continues to Operate theirs. Thus local initiative is seen in two stakes with 96 similar resource base and assessment, yet deciding to meet their Obligation differently. In the new location, with the increased acreage, the farm will be able tO handle the welfare assessment Of the four stakes in about ten years if this anticipated growth in the West Sharon Stake is realized. Local leaders everywhere find it ex- pedient to plan for the future in order to minimize shifting to new projects or enlarging Old ones. The stake president is one Of the principal fruit farmers in the area and consequently able to guide activities on the new project. One problem is pruning the trees. Some orchards in the welfare system have had to rely on professional pruning, but the stake president has given the farm manager, who had no former fruit experience, training in how to prune and handle the trees and consequently there will be little need for any professional pruning. Most Of the irrigation is done by sprinklers (similar to other nearby farms), the water coming from a well on the property. However irrigation rights have been maintained on local irrigation water in case it is needed. In this orchard apples, cherries, and peaches are raised. The cherry trees (sour cherries) have been picked mechanically since 1966, decreasing the amount of labor needed. Cherries are the cash crop, since no cherries are put into the welfare system. They are sold on the commercial market tO pay for the expenses incurred on the farm. The apples and peaches are canned and used to meet the welfare assessment. The only necessity for hired help is for the two weeks when the fruit needs picking. The ward members in the stake participate very actively in this welfare project picking the fruit, hoeing weeds, painting 97 sheds, and other jobs that need to be done. On the Sharon Stake the members do all irrigating, fertilizing, fencing, and picking Of the sweet cherries, which amounted to approxi- mately seventy thousand pounds in the summer of 1968. However, the majority Of the farm is in peaches and pears. The expenses include spraying and pruning the trees and a little help with picking. On this farm there is no farm manager to take care Of the pruning so the people do most Of the work themselves; whereas the West Sharon Stake farm, located thirty miles distant, Of necessity needs a full-time man taking care Of the farm. Wasatch Stake - Region 61. In the Wasatch Stake there are nine ward farms and one stake farm.12 All ward projects raise hay which members cut and haul to the stake farm where it is fed to the dairy herd. Most of the small ward farms have been in existence for twenty to twenty-five years, yet none Of the welfare farms produce as well as nearby farms growing hay.l3 In the Opinion Of the two full—time employ- ees on the stake farm, the hay from the small ward farms is below average quality and they hesitate to feed it to the dairy herd. However, a good deal Of hay is raised on the stake farm itself and the low quality hay can be fed to dry stock or to the calves. Apparently the stake farm manager and hired help feel more directly responsible for the pro- ductivity Of the land and produce Of the stake farm than the volunteer workers do for their respective ward farms.l4 12Stake President Harold Call, personal interview, August 8, 1968. l3Ibid. 14Ibid. 98 The Wasatch Stake Dairy at Hailstone, Utah, has a milking herd Of sixty cows, requiring two full-time employees. A11 milk is processed through the church-owned and Operated plant in Salt Lake City. All feed is purchased from the Deseret Industries mill located in Kaysville, Utah, which receives the grain as a welfare assessment from welfare farms and consequently without cost. The only expense is milling and storage costs as well as the transportation to the welfare farms needing the processed feed. The stake president prefers that they cooperate with the Kaysville mill because it is another church organization which they can support in the welfare program; consequently he will not allow any purchasing of feed from Intermountain Farmers Cooperative or any other feed mill. The feed that comes from the Deseret Industries costs the Wasatch Dairy $2.94 cwt as compared to $2.90 cwt from Intermountain Farmers Cooperative, making the price slightly higher than that Of private industry. In addition, the stake farm at Hailstone must pay the .l6¢ delivery charge, meaning a total of $3.10 cwt or .20¢ more than they would have to pay if they purchased the feed from the Intermountain Farmers Cooperative with free delivery. This attempt at maintaining an independence, relying on other components Of the welfare program, is typical of the attitude and practice on welfare farms. Cache Stake Farm - Region 4. Operating capital on the Cache Stake farm comes from the sale Of beef cattle with the welfare assess- ment met by milking approximately sixty cows. The milk from this herd goes to the cheese plant in Logan. Only enough milk to provide the needed cheese is produced; however, more milk could be produced and 99 the cheese plant production increased depending on future needs. Originally the regional project in the Cache area was to construct and Operate a knitting factory--in fact machines had been purchased and some were on location. After World War II it was decided that a cheese plant would be needed and the Cache Valley seemed an ideal site for it. There had been some speculation as to how to acquire the cheese for the welfare system. Cache Valley Dairy Offered to sell their cheese at a set price. The Seagull Company would have leased a building in Hyrum without charge, but it was felt better to proceed with the construction and Operation Of their own cheese plant in order to eliminate any future complications with private industry holding and owning the plants. When the welfare program originally began in this area each ward was encouraged to purchase a farm, and six small ward farms were soon in production. By 1968 two of the ward farms had been sold, leaving four which are presently for sale. Before the cheese plant was put into Operation many of the farms raised corn and beans; but the emphasis has been changed with the installation Of the cheese plant. Currently each Of the ward farms in the Cache Stake raises hay and trucks it to the Cache Stake Dairy. This supply system is similar to the one on the Wasatch Stake Dairy, and in both instances there is dissatisfaction with the arrangement. Many Of the farms in southeastern Idaho and adjacent areas Of western Wyoming are owned by wards. Most are similar in size to 15Blaine W. Hancey, Counselor in the stake presidency, personal interview, July 29, 1968. 100 ward farms. However there are others much larger, ranging up to 160 and even 300 acres in size, most being dry—land farms raising wheat and barley. Some are leased out to private individuals, eliminating all need for private voluntary help on the part Of the local member- ship, and the profits from the lease are used for the welfare assessment. Consequently, in a leased-farm Operation, there is little or no participation Of voluntary help. In spite Of their relative size to other ward farms, most are much smaller than privately owned farms nearby. Nearly all Of the private farms are over three hundred acres--most have between two and three thousand acres. It is doubtful that there will be a move toward consolidation because the members in this area are scattered over too great a distance: Consequently it is the Opinion Of the local regional coordinator that there will be no move to collaborate their welfare efforts into larger stake Operations, typical Of the more urban areas in other parts Of the West. In the Cache Stake certain changes have taken place. Due to early emphasis upon each ward having its own farm, the farms were dispersed over much Of Cache Valley, making it difficult for an ex- change Of machinery among wards. A new goal was to centralize land holdings for better use of machines and manpower and also to assist members to better understand the principles Of consecration and the United Order. This is important to consider since local leaders are guided by eschatological considerations. To accomplish these goals ward farms were deeded to the stake, and wards having no farms turned their farm purchasing funds over to the stake. Outlying farms were sold and land was purchased in a central 101 location. This land was then divided into parcels and assigned to the wards for Operation. Each ward bishop was responsible for the land assigned to his ward, and the bishop's council was responsible for the over-all welfare production program. A stake agricultural committee was organized with specialists in soils, irrigation, cattle, and machinery. A high counselor was appointed as the stake agricultural representative and also acted as chairman Of the stake agricultural committee. Thus in Cache Stake a different organization was established in an attempt to increase members' devotion to concepts underlying the welfare program. Each ward was responsible to produce as much as they could on the land given them. Specific crops were not named since crop rotation was practiced, but the stake agricultural committee suggested crOps best suited tO the land for a particular year; however each individual bishop could make the final decision concerning his ward. Production costs, including supplies, are charged to each bishop's private account and are later turned over tO the bishop's council for payment approval. If approved, they are paid out Of the central farm fund. If not ap- proved, the ward pays the Obligation incurred. The required number Of hours of voluntary labor was met by bishops assigning production responsibilities to priesthood quorums rather than specific work assignments to quorum leaders. "Thus when priesthood members respond, they are responding as quorum members tO a call from their quorum leadership to assist in a quorum project."l6 16Paper regarding the evolution Of Cache Stake welfare program, supplied by Blaine Hancey, Counselor in the stake presidency. 102 The result of the program was greater participation and activity of members. The labor force became more useful because it could be utilized through the call of the bishop's council in ward stewardship areas. The idea of working together, even between wards, produced a feeling Of unity not apparent before. Through the initiation Of this program, though only in one stake, the movement toward priesthood di- rection and control is evident; when related with the priesthood correlation program, the eschatological implications come more to focus as the peoples' actions are influenced. "Priesthood members worked as quorum members, supporting the bishop, and their priesthood leadership." Palo Alto Stake - Region 57. The high concentration Of people in the San Francisco area has left little or no agricultural land avail- able; consequently adaptations have been made tO this situation by the LDS. The San Francisco stake makes work pants, and the Palo Alto Stake in Redwood City has charge of a cannery. Because they do not have an orchard, apricots and pears are purchased for canning. The 1967 assignment was 76,769 cans Of apricots and 82,000 cans 18 There are ten wards in the Palo Alto Stake and each has of pears. an assignment to work in the cannery, five on the early sift, from six to eight-thirty in the evening, and five on the late shift, from eight- thirty to eleven. The elder's quorum president in each ward is in charge of signing up a sufficient number of volunteers, and he is re- sponsible to see that these are at the cannery at the appointed time. l7Ibid. 18Each can contains about two pints. 17 103 In all, about 450 people work each evening during the canning season. Consequently the annual assignment can be met in five weeks of production even though operation is only during evening hours.19 In this urbanized area an example is seen Of how a welfare project has adjusted to meet local factors such as land value and non—agricul- tural membership by establishing a cannery. Multi-Stake Welfare Projects In comparison with stake projects, multi-stake projects are Of much less importance. With only nine in 1955 (Figure 25), this amounts 400 3 ____.__‘ Average 300 Acreage 200 14 100 3 9 y_§? NO. Of 0 ———— Projects 1936 1945 1950 1955 1966 Figure 25. Multi-Stake Welfare Project Distribution to about nine percent Of the number of stake projects. But the increase to thirty-nine in 1966 is similar to the growth Of stake farms. The creation Of multi-stake welfare projects occurs much the same way as multi-ward projects--through growth in membership, thus dividing the stake but maintaining the same project for both organizational units. Nearly all multi-stake welfare projects are in Utah and Idaho (Figure 26). 19Boyd Israelsen, personal interview, July 17, 1968. —_—— MULTl-STAKE BUDGET PRODUCTION PROPERTY 105 South Salt Lake & Granite Park Stakes - Region 17. The South Salt Lake and Granite Park Stakes own a multi-stake farm purchased in 1960 in Utah County, about thirty miles southwest Of the stakes' loca- tion in Salt Lake City. Approximately seven hundred Of the eight hundred acres are presently under cultivation, most in small grain. The wheat and barley is sent to the Kaysville Mill and processed there (Figures 27 & 28). Normally seventy-five acres Of sugar beets are raised on the farm. In addition there are thirty acres in alfalfa which is sold to the nearby Holliday beef project (another welfare farm), which not only brings in some needed capital to the farm itself, but also aids in replenishing the soil in the crop rotation practiced. The farm manager has attempted to reclaim portions of the land which heretofore have not been under cultivation, but this is on his own initiative and not part Of a general program. As on other welfare farms, the manager handles all farm machinery and volunteer workers do the irrigating, thinning Of beets, and other hand work. Cannon & Pioneer Stakes - Region 44. One Of the more interesting multi-stake projects is that owned by the Cannon and Pioneer Stakes in Salt Lake City, the Ridgeland Farm. This farm produces several items. In addition to the poultry project which employs three men full-time and several mentally or physically incapacitated people to candle eggs and do other menial tasks, there is also cropland. All the feed for the poultry and dairy herd is raised on the farm and the milk from the dairy is processed in the welfare square dairy plant in Salt Lake City. The productivity Of the Ridgeland farm has increased markedly since it was purchased. A sanitary land-fill project began in 1965. Members purchase the pipe and the county digs trenches for it. The 106 Figure 27. South Salt Lake and Granite Park Stake Welfare Farm 4. ’ . ‘ ~ , rs “V’ ‘J -.4-- ‘n.‘_ - '- ‘ (A _ s‘ ‘8‘ I"- Kim-3‘9; ._'._~ 3.". .0- w: Figure 28. Annual Transportation of the Crop to the Kaysville Mill 107 pipe is then covered with trash and soil to raise the level Of the land two feet. Thus the lard pan is broken and drainage improved. Previously only tall wheat grass was grown on the farm, but because of the sanitary land-fill, other crops can now be produced. An example Of the cooperation Of members is the elder's quorum in each ward in the two stakes purchasing eggs from the farm and selling them to ward members, enabling the membership to receive eggs at a lower price than would be paid at commercial outlets, yet enabling the quorums to realize a profit from their project. The Salt Lake (54) and Wyuta (70) regions also buy eggs from the Ridgeland Farm project and sell them to local members. Phoenix & Scottsdale Stakes - Region 43. The writer visited two multi-stake farms in the Phoenix, Arizona area. The first, Operated by the Phoenix and Scottsdale Stakes, is located west Of Phoenix. The farm was purchased in December, 1950, and at that time the Phoenix Stake included all the membership in the area.20 Today, because Of membership growth, there are four Phoenix Stakes, plus the Scottsdale Stake, which have interest in the farm. Whereas there were 180 acres on January 1, 1951, there are 525 acres today plus 115 more which are leased to private individuals, making a total of 640 acres. The budget assessment Of nearly sixty thousand dollars is expected to be produced on the farm; in years Of high crop yield it can be accomplished, other- wise the membership is asked tO contribute a small cash assessment. Apparently this farm produces crops similar in quality to other farms. The crops raised have not varied from those raised before the farm was purchased--alfalfa, grain, and cotton. The problem with the 20Arnold Morris, personal interview, July 15, 1968. 108 boll weevil in the past two years has been acute and cotton production has diminished. The two hired men are non-LDS, indicative of a local membership without sufficient agricultural interest and knowledge to capably fill a full-time position. Wherever needed, non-LDS are hired but the farm manager always is a member Of the church. The Salt River Welfare Farm, located southwest Of Phoenix, in Chandler, Arizona, is managed by a man who has previously managed two other welfare farms in northern Utah. Like the other multi—stake farm near Phoenix, this farm also has hired non-LDS to maintain it, but only because there are no LDS available. The main Objection Mormons have toward non-LDS employees is their use Of tobacco, a practice dis- couraged among the employees. The modern facilities make donated labor on the farm unnecessary, as is usually the case on all dairy farms. It is Observed that it is more expensive to have city people running machinery than having trained personnel do the job.21 This Opinion was Offered to the writer by many individuals throughout the West. Regional Welfare Projects Regional welfare projects are concentrated in the Intermountain West, primarily from Salt Lake City north to Logan, Utah (Figure 29). The total number Of regional projects dropped between 1950 and 1955 (Figure 30). This might be explained by the growing membership requiring that a region project be changed into a multi-region project. Two regional projects Of which the writer is aware have been discontinued 21DeVar Smith, farm manager, personal interview, July 15, 1968. 110 100 75 6 50 44/\4§ -— ~¢ Average ,/' Acreage 25 // ,x W No. of 0 IE“ "' " Projects 1936 1945 1950 1955 1966 Figure 30. Regional Welfare Project Distribution since 1955--the Perris Ranch in southern California and the Roosevelt regional dairy near Roosevelt, Utah. Both were uneconomical Operations under existing conditions. Regional projects are begun initially be- cause a large capital investment is required and usually because there are many members and little agricultural land available. Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm - Region 23. This farm, located near Las Vegas, Nevada, was purchased about 1961, and consists Of a sec- tion Of land on which there is a dairy and crops necessary tO support the dairy cattle. At the time Of purchase the land consisted Of sandy soil covered with mesquite and sagebrush (Figure 31). Because there was no farmland available near Las Vegas, the Sunrise MOuntain Welfare Farm was purchased and developed. Today alfalfa yielding eight to ten cuttings per year, barley, silage, sorghum, and pasture land are in production. In addition to the thirty-five to forty head of beef raised for the local storehouse, there is a dairy herd (Figure 32). The milk is sold locally since the church has no nearby facilities in which to process it. Volunteer laborers do a few menial tasks, but because most members live in urban areas some distance from the farm little voluntary 111 Figure 31. Portion Of the Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm “Tc;— ,!..- w' r"" V . 7 l -. r' ' . l Figure 32. Dairy Herd on Sunrise Mountain Welfare Farm 112 help is used on the farm. Most Of the work is done by hired hands living on the farm; in the fall additional laborers are hired to plant the sorghum, a job requiring skilled labor. San Fernando Region Welfare Project - Region 56. The San Fernando Region Welfare Project, purchased in 1952, originally consisted Of ten acres but in 1961 additional acreage was added. The prOperty is a peach and pear orchard. Although most ward members live some fifty miles from the orchard in the San Fernando and Burbank area, they drive the distance to do the picking and manual labor required on the farm. The biggest problem in relation to voluntary help is training workers to pick and pack the fruit correctly. Because the wards rotate the labor daily, the volunteers must be given instructions on how tO handle the fruit each day. In spite Of this Obvious handicap, the crop is picked successfully. Multi-Regional Welfare Projects The only two areas of multi-regional welfare projects are northern Utah and southern California (Figure 33). There were none of these projects reported for either 1945 or 1950. In 1955 there were three, with an average acreage Of 240 acres. Welfare Square — Region 54. The main distribution center Of the welfare system is in Salt Lake City. Over one million dollars worth of goods are distributed annually through the storehouse.22 Goods are distributed to the Utah line on the west, and as far east as Evanston, 22Mr. Sharp, personal interview, August 6, 1968. ‘llllll '{l‘f III i‘lll 113 .mm musmflm tamaoma 29.530011 hwoonm 20.0mm1532 114 Wyoming. Welfare Square, located at 8th West and 6th South, is not only a distribution center, but also has a large grain elevator complex and milk processing plant in which powdered milk, whole milk, canned milk and cottage cheese are made. Certain goods, such as milk and perishables, cannot be transported great distances, although the fresh milk, cottage cheese, and butter are taken as far as Provo on the south and Ogden on the north. The canned milk, powdered milk, and chocolate mix receive church—wide distribution insofar as possible through bishops' storehouses. Church-owned milk trucks transport raw milk from nine welfare dairies to the processing plant at Salt Lake City. If help were available and the need arose, production at the plant could be doubled. Some practices could be eliminated if the plant were run on the most economical basis. Presently the butter is broken into blocks and hand-wrapped. In addition, cans are hand-labeled to give jobs to those who are physically and mentally incapacitated, insofar as they could not be employed in private industry. Jordan Valley Dairy Project - Region 21. There is another multi- region dairy project in Salt Lake Valley, the Jordan Valley dairy pro- ject.23 This farm, purchased in 1937, began as a stake farm, but because Of membership growth, today has five regions involved with its Operation. In 1937 there was a thirteen-cow dairy, but today it has expanded to ninety cows milked dairy. In 1966 the dairy began raising its own re- placement stock. Previously they purchased stock from another welfare 23Willard Olsen, regional coordinator, personal interview, August 6, 1968. 115 farm thirty miles tO the east, but because Of production and quality control, it was deemed necessary to raise their own. The dairy en— compasses only twenty-three acres; however adjacent land is owned by local stakes which produce hay for the dairy, an arrangement similar to the wards providing hay for the Wasatch Dairy. Logan Cheese Plant - Region 4. Another multi-regional project is the Logan cheese plant located in Logan, Utah. The first cheddar cheese was produced in December, 1953.24 Since then all cheddar cheese produced has gone into the welfare program, the annual assessment being three hundred thousand pounds. Because this particular welfare project is highly mechanized, there is no donated labor and the three employees do nearly all the work. The production Of the plant could be twice its present amount, and the building was constructed so that additional equipment could be installed with little difficulty. The milk that is used comes from welfare dairies in nearby areas. General Welfare Committee Properties Deseret Mills and Elevator - Region 70. There are several properties owned by the general welfare committee, one being the Deseret Mills and Elevator, located at Kaysville, Utah, approximately fifteen miles north of Salt Lake City. This mill was purchased January 1, 1943, and many additions and improvements have been made. TO date this is the only flour mill in the welfare program and its direction remains under the general welfare committee. Welfare farms in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming supply the mill with grain into which flour, feed grains and other 24Mr. Herd, personal interview, July 24, 1968. 116 items are made. Most Of the flour goes to the central bishops' storehouse, from where it is distributed to other storehouses in the welfare Operation. Other items produced at the mill are macaroni flour, pancake flour, whole wheat flour, white enriched flour, white enriched baker's flour, germade cereal, cracked wheat cereal, and various mix- tures of feed which are sold to area welfare farms, such as laying mash for local poultry productions, and cattle and dairy feeds to various welfare farms. Deliveries are made in bulk by two trucks at a dis- tance up to sixty miles. There were nine farms in the welfare data for 1945 and 1950, owned by priesthood quorums, yet whose products were used for welfare. This demonstrates the time lag in transferring quorum prOperty to wel- fare production alone. Four Of the nine were in the Uintah Basin in eastern Utah, two Of which were subsequently visited by the author (see ward discussion). TO the writer's knowledge, none of the farms are currently in Operation for welfare purposes. With the expanded welfare services and the necessity Of determining welfare production, it is important to have welfare farms from which certain types of production can be predicted. Food items produced on welfare farms remain somewhat constant, regardless Of the organizational unit(s) producing them. Region and multi-regions are exceptions, for with these large membership-based units, it is possible to organize large processing plants such as milk and cheese, large expensive farms, or orchards. Most projects are located near the organizational units, especially is this true Of ward farms; however some stake farms and larger units have been found to be located thirty miles or more distant. 117 Welfare farms are run as economically as possible, within the confines Of Mormon doctrine and practice, which in some cases includes perpetuating menial tasks for the unemployable. Welfare farms do not provide lodging for members, except workers' quarters on the larger farms. The circulation of crOps and products among the welfare projects is quite different from the system used in private agriculture. In some instances the crops are donated to another welfare farm. Other farms ship their crOps to the mill at Kaysville, Utah, where feed and other products are made. Nearby welfare farms which need certain feed supplies are encouraged to purchase these from the church Operated mill because the mill is a part of the welfare system. Supplies are pur- chased even at an economic disadvantage. In 1966 there were 561 permanent projects covering 91,739 acres. The total assets Of the welfare production projects were put at over $38 million, up $5 million from 1964. The net worth was over $24 mil- lion in 1966.25 In 1967 nearly $7.5 million was rendered in welfare assistance, with approximately ninety-two percent Of the commodities being produced on welfare farms. Bishops' Storehouses Thus far the origins, motivations, organization, general crops, and examples of organizational units' Operations have been discussed. One further topic deserves mention--the distribution Of goods. This is confidential information, therefore only general patterns can be 25"Annual Report Of the LDS Church Welfare Plan, 1966," (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1966). 118 delimited. The location of bishops' storehouses, from which welfare goods are distributed, immediately reminds one of the pattern Of early Mormon communities established before 1877 (Figure 34). Nearly forty- five percent are in towns organized by Brigham Young. The pattern Of distribution is Obviously influenced by the early and prolonged residence Of LDS in the Intermountain West. After Young's death in 1877 Mormons began settling in southern Idaho where many still reside today. The scattered storehouses in Arizona reflect areas where Mormons settled in the 19th century as well. Those in Canada reflect the movement Of Mormons to Alberta to escape the persecution during the 1880's due to their practice Of polygamy. The distribution of goods shows a concentration, on a per capita basis, in two areas--north central Utah and southern California (Figure 35). The four regions in Utah which account for the densest distribution Of goods on a per capita basis are all located near each other. These regions have a concentration Of membership on the west side Of Salt Lake City, which is a general area Of low income families and helps explain this center of welfare distribution. The second major area of distribution, southern California (Figure 39), is an urbanized area with a full cross-section of people being members of the church, and consequently including many low income families. Throughout the church system there are certain regions which re- flect local economic conditions, such as natural catastrophe or a strike resulting in people requiring welfare assistance. Some regions occupy a large area, have a high distribution Of goods, yet that distribution is concentrated in a local area. An example is region 12, where the densest concentration Of members is in or near Detroit. Some regions 119 BISHOPS' STOREHOUSES - l966 " (Alberta) 0 Canary \ I a I .“.'. 0.”... I v o In“ m. Carl-Cu ' O 0 Latitude. Icy-0nd l a I o I c o D I I I I o I a o I 0 I D I 3, ° limo-I I \ I’OHIOQQ . ..,- - - - - )0 Lodflon N - .- I I I ° Lo Ira-,0 ,' '1 0" I- . ‘ Onooucouo.-0-O< ’ I...” ,o 0 Sol-on ' I “ ._ _ - _ _ : £000.". \.-__,.a ---"‘------.1 I . ' I u. ' 'Ioiu ' 7". gloom .,' M". : ~-_- ~ ,' 0Com, 0 cocoa : s - I ~.~ - _ MI! Pocatello t '0 '---.-o'.. h" 212':'.' «0.00. bun. r------------ ' °"- .. 0 lonelier ' ; gum cm 3. :4...» i : , Oahu. .ugu : I .m CD'- I ‘ .L'... . .' .I“. .' .0 “°.£VIIIIOO : 0 ‘ t on _ .cy|¢|.,: o ”’"mtloflLlo 1“-----___-- : o Spun . ”n.’ x"... - - - - - _ -; I O "\ '8”an In! 0. . Roman . . m...” 0 load . Inn "on.” ' uuuu ‘ '0' 0 ° Wu“ F - - ..... ‘ . . ‘\ ”Mun... 0.93:! m . Donor : o u 01 a con-u ‘. '0 ":::3.-,,“.”.," : ' Gnu Jloefloo : ‘ In": \\ “an." . . Lynn : i \ Cue! CH1 . .fiogultch . ' o I o \‘ 301;:0.” . .omnm. .M halo : “ MO... . Mm-----_- : | \ ' -I- - - - '. O O - - . . u . ‘ .LIOV'O.CI . --...n...2.0--r..I.------d ‘ 'O- . I \ I I ' ‘ I . I---------'I \ g . g I am. urban \ . ' 3 I I o In Found. a : : : Lu Angelo. 0 can. “ : i . L001 In» I, “um". 0.39.40». : :. o : : 1 In I”... :1 In. 0 g. : ’ nu. : O I ' ION.“ 3 o 0 Moon : 3 O a . 00.00;“ ' - E . ' - ° - 0 - O n - Honoluio ?b IIILES fl'." 0 o :00 fi 50 Figure 34. .mm musmfim 120 $32206 can nxu On «L < p 4 can con .uO. lid. .3055 3:95... umtmucom 8:68.34» +8 In. 0.- In. an. ago: 238 8.. 20:3 121 may have experienced a temporary economic slump such as parts of eastern Idaho where distribution is Of secondary importance when compared tO the southern California and northern Utah areas. Region 41, which extends to the western Utah border, is in- fluenced by a concentration Of members living on the near west side of Salt Lake City, an area Of low income families. The region, though sparsely populated, appears as an area Of large distribution. Thus while the concentration Of budget production properties, primarily welfare farms, is in Utah and Idaho, the main distribution center is not only from the central storehouse in Salt Lake City (Figures 36 & 37) to other storehouses, but also from bishops' storehouses in the Salt Lake area (Figure 38) to individuals. . A -,._—_._._ 122 l d H ‘ BISHOPS CENTRAL Smfifiupux IGOO so wmxt RD lI VT Figure 36. Entrance to the Bishops' Central Storehouse I . . - . ..'; azima {THEME-1: -..‘ " ‘ - R'- E-Ix 1 ' m "“4“" " ' “‘4 tr '. ‘ 7! Figure 37. Part of the Central Bishops' Storehouse 123 Figure 38. Bishops' Storehouse at Murray, Utah Figure 39. Bishops' Storehouse at Sacramento CONCLUS IONS The Origins of the welfare plan are not fully known; neither is the time Of the initial concern of the first presidency nor their role in the Pioneer Stake efforts. The extent Of similarity between the NDA and the program in Pioneer Stake is not established, nor the ‘ I" _ -£.'~2r-— degree to which there was borrowing of ideas from the NDA, if indeed r-. 4.42 there was any. Welfare farms are generally Operated as efficiently as possible. The produce Of the farms must meet the welfare budget assessment in addition to normal Operating expenses. All or part of the crops raised on welfare farms are sold commercially. Those farms that do not sell their crops on the Open market may in some cases sell them to the gen- eral welfare committee at prices similar to average market values. Because welfare farms must be competitive with privately owned farms, similar crops are grown on both. Consequently, in the actual use Of the land, it was impossible for the writer to detect any land use that could be directly linked to religious injunctions; only indirectly, through the establishment and propagation Of the welfare program, which is the reason for the farms' existence. The difference in productivity between welfare farms and pri- vately owned farms seems to be related to the organizational unit Oper- ating the welfare farm. Because wards normally lack the capital, ward farms usually are smaller than neighboring farms. Most ward farms do not own their own machinery and their size does not warrant a full-time 124 125 manager. Consequently the farm is dependent upon labor and machinery donated by ward members; a problem on many ward farms has been avail- ability Of volunteers willing to do the irrigating. The Mormon farmer may be expected to care for his own land and crops before donating his time and machinery tO the welfare farm, even though the crOps on both farms need attention simultaneously. There have been instances where neither the necessary labor nor machinery were available to care for the ward welfare farm, and the crop productivity decreased accordingly. The most obvious difference between welfare farms and privately owned agricultural land is the ownership of the land. Property utilized in the welfare system is owned and operated by units within the LDS church. The six units are ward, multi-ward, stake, multi-stake, region, and multi- region. These are basic divisions within the church hierarchy, except for the last two which are uniquely welfare units. While wards were formerly encouraged to purchase and Operate farms, there has been a tendency to co- operate in stake or larger units' projects. The larger farms Often own their own equipment, have managers, and take on the appearance Of a family run farm except for times when volunteer workers may be present. Church Officials, such as the presiding bishop and Officials on the general welfare committee, have admonished local bishops and others concerned not tO participate in ACP programs and not to accept ASC money except for sugar beet payments. The church wishes to be inde- pendent and it is felt that accepting government subsidy is not in keeping with that policy; in addition it is feared after accepting aid the government will attempt to direct crop production on welfare farms. Apparently the policy has been altered slightly to allow pooling (group) agreements, thus not penalizing other farmers where total par- ticipation is required. But in some Idaho and Utah counties there has fiu‘_ __ __ -—. __.AI 126 been a trend since about 1965 to accept ASC payments for different ACP practices as well as wheat certificate payments. Not all budget production properties are welfare farms. In 1966, out Of 561 properties, there were fifteen canneries in which food, previously produced on welfare farms, was processed and canned. The facilities are not available for processing all crops raised on welfare farms, such as sugar beets, citrus crops, or even milk produced on farms too far distant from the plants at Salt Lake City or Logan, Utah. In some cases the goods are processed commercially and credit given. During the year various amounts are then channeled back to welfare recipients. By this accounting procedure the appearance Of a sale is avoided, which is crucial when a state is deciding whether or not property taxes should be levied. The distribution Of goods to those for whom they were intended, needy LDS, is concentrated in two areas, northern Utah and southern California. The area in which the program began, the near west side Of Salt Lake City, still has one Of the highest distribution rates in the church. It seems fair to conclude that total commitment of possessions to church security programs met with limited success, several reasons having been given for the demise Of the early programs. The current welfare program has been much more successful for it has permeated the entire church structure and now holds a firm place in its organiza- tion. The production Of goods is sufficient to meet current demands of needy Mormons who apply for assistance, their number comprising from two to three percent Of the total church membership. It may be 127 premature to judge, however it appears that limited commitment Of time, energy, and money is more acceptable to the membership than the total consignment to a church program, such as demanded under the United Order. In perspective it seems that as long as the policy Of partial commitment continues, the welfare program will continue to expand in keeping with membership increases, extending to regions and stakes which currently have no welfare projects. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Allen, Edward J. The Second United Order Among the Mormons. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. Broek, Jan 0. M. Geography, Its Scope and Spirit. Columbus: Charles G. Merril Books, Inc., 1965. Directory Of The General Authorities Of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1967. Salt Lake City: The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1967. Sopher, David E. Geography Of Religions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Spencer, J. E. and Thomas, William L. Jr. Cultural Geography. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter—day Saints. Doctrine and Cove— nants Commentary. rev. ed. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1951. The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter—day Saints. The Pearl Of Great Price. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1958. The General Church Welfare Committee. Welfare Plan Of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, Handbook of Instructions. rev. ed. Salt Lake City: The General Church Welfare Committee, 1952. B. PERIODICALS AND ARTICLES Arrington, Leonard J. "An Economic History Of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900," Great Basin Kingdom. Lincoln, Nebraska: University Of Nebraska Press, 1958. Clark, President J. Reuben. Editorial in the Deseret [Salt Lake City] News, August 8, 1951. Meinig, D. W. "The Mormon Culture Region: Strategies and Patterns in the Geography of the American West, 1847-1964," Annals of the Association Of American Geographers. vol. 55. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press, Inc., June, 1965. 128 129 C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Andrus, Helen Mae. "A Study Of Joseph Smith's Teachings and Practices as They Influence Welfare in the LDS Church." Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1952. "Annual Report of the LDS Church Welfare Plan, 1945." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1945. "Annual Report of the LDS Church Welfare Plan, 1950." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1950. "Annual Report of the LDS Church Welfare Plan, 1955." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1955. "Annual Report Of the LDS Church Welfare Plan, 1966." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints, 1966. Bradford, Charles Henry. "The Mormon Welfare Program." Master's thesis, University Of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1953. Buchanan, Alexander, Jr. "Historical Record Of the Pioneer Stake from June 6, 1930 to December 31, 1939." Recorded minutes. Clark, J. Reuben, Jr. "Testimony Of Divine Origin Of the Welfare Plan." Address delivered at a meeting Of the Central Utah Welfare Region, August 3, 1951. Mimeographed. Finck, Alfons J. "The Early Days Of the Welfare Plan Pioneer Stake." Mimeographed. 1966. Grant, President Heber J. "Conference Report — October, 1936." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. 1936. Grant, President Heber J. "Conference Report - April, 1941." Mimeographed. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. 1941. Mayle, Elder Henry D. Address delivered before the seminary and insti- tute instructors of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, June 23, 1958, at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Mimeographed. Mouritsen, Dale G. "The Relationship of the Priesthood Correlation Pro- gram to the Latter-day Saint Concept Of Zion." Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1968. Pershon, William. "The Beginning Of the Pioneer Stake Welfare Plan." Mimeographed. 1965. ll 130 D. GENERAL REFERENCES Ballif, Ariel Smith. "A Study Of Social Planning and Organization in the Mormon Church." Master's thesis, The University Of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1937. Bearnson, Julius Benedict. "Private and Public Relief in Utah with Special Reference to the Mormon Church Welfare Plan." Ph.D. dis— sertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1947. Davies, Joseph Kenneth. "A Study Of the Labor Philosophy Developed Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Ph.D. dissertation, The University Of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1960. Dickson, Naida Richardson. "Relief Supplementation by Public and LDS Church Selected Wards Of Logan and Cache Stakes, Cache County, Utah, 1940." Master's thesis, Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, 1944. Dunn, Frank Kuehle. "A Description and Evaluation Of the Welfare Plan of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Master's thesis, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, 1948. Earnshaw, William Arnold. "The Employment Placement Program Of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints." Master's thesis, The Univer- sity Of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1952. Janosik, Edward. "The Political Theory Of the Mormon Church." Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1950. McBride, Vearl Gordon. "The Welfare Program in the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1936-1946." Master's thesis, Arizona State College, Tempe, 1948. Miltenberger, MayOla. "Some Aspects of the Welfare Activities Of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Master's thesis, Tulane University, New Orleans, 1958. Pace, Ronald Thornton. "Analysis and Design Of Dairy Herd Records Adaptable to the LDS Welfare Farm Program." Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1958. Washburn, Don Elden. "The Latter-day Saint Church Welfare Plan." Master's thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, 1941. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF TERMS APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF TERMS For the reader unfamiliar with Mormon ecclesiastical terms, a short description Of common terms used by the Mormon church is given: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church organization founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, with headquarters presently in Salt Lake City, Utah. The majority Of its members reside in the western United States. An abbreviation for the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints is LDS. This abbreviation may be used in reference to either the church or its members, and the term Mormon may also be used both ways. The president of the church, with his two to five counselors, is called the First Presidency. It is held that all revelations per- taining to the church must come via the president, who with his counsel- ors supervises matters concerning the church. The Council of Twelve Apostles, (council Of twelve or quorum of twelve) assists the first presidency and participates in certain decision-making processes. The remaining terms relate to areal units and their administration: A ward is a group of 400-750 members, children included. When the number Of members reaches about 800, two wards are created, each with boundaries of its own; a member living within the boundaries of one ward does not attend services or support functions of another. Priesthood Quorums are composed of worthy males who share in the work Of the ward. 131 132 A Bishop is the leader Of the ward, and his duties are in addition to his regular occupation, since bishops are unsalaried. The Bishopric consists of the bishop and his two counselors, who together lead the ward. A Stake is an area encompassing six to nine wards. This admin— istrative unit is supervised by a stake president who, like the bishop, donates his time. The Stake Presidency is composed of the stake presi- dent and two counselors. For welfare purposes, stakes are conglomerated into units known as Regions, but regions have no administrative positions in the sense that wards and stakes do. APPENDIX B MORMON CONCEPT OF ZION APPENDIX B MORMON CONCEPT OF ZION By way Of definition, Zion is thought to be those who are pure 1 who live a completely righteous life, which includes a in heart, proper execution Of economic, social, and religious concepts. This earthly way of life is only a reflection Of the celestial law estab- lished by God. Zion must be established before Christ's Second Advent and the millenium.2 Whereas many Christians are familiar with the Biblical passage of Matthew 26:11 which states, "The poor ye have always among you. . . Mormons hear, . . . because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."3 But only by becoming pure in heart can they become of one heart and mind. Ac- cording to Mormon doctrine, the only people to have accomplished this 1The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1951), 97:21. 2Dale C. Mouritsen, "The Relationship Of the Priesthood Correla- tion Program to the Latter-Day Saint Concept Of Zion," (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1968). Mormons believe in the following eight definitions of Zion: (1) the Old city of Jerusalem; (2) the Saints in the Rocky Mountains who built the Lord's house; (3) the Celestial King- dom; (4) North and South America; (5) all the earth; (6) the pure in heart; (7) the city Of Enoch; and (8) the New Jerusalem to be built in Jackson County, Missouri. 3The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, The Pearl Of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints, 1958), Moses 7:18. 133 134 feat were those living in the city Of Enoch. One Of the necessary steps predating the second advent is the establishment Of Zion. This can only be done if the priesthood Of the church is in charge Of all aspects of life, and all individuals have the correct religious attitude. The priesthood correlation program Of the LDS Church was inaugurated March 24, 1960, in order to increase the influence Of the priesthood principles in the lives of the people, and to avoid duplication Of programming among the various organizations Of the church. On April 6, 1963, four committees were organized to direct genealogy, home teaching, missionary, and welfare work, thus bringing all major activities Of the church under the supervision of the priesthood. Another goal is to provide a stronger organization through which individual commitment may increase to face the anarchy and war expected before the millenium.4 At the present time the work Of individual labor on local wel- fare farms serves multiple purposes. First, to provide the necessary labor needed to grow food for distribution to the poor; and second, to give the workers a chance for a common goal - to reduce social differ- ences between members as they work with each other in labor capacities. In the days Of anarchy and accompanying failing food production, the priesthood will direct the safety Of faithful members, many Of whom will go to Jackson County, Missouri to erect a magnificent temple. Out Of a ruined and destroyed nation, the Mormon system will shine as an example to be followed.5 The LDS have been told that the Rocky Mountains is the safest area in which to reside when this time of affliction arises. 4Mouritsen, Op. cit., p. 111. Citing Journal of Discourses, vol. 20. 5Mouritsen, Op. cit., pp. 110-123. BISHOPS' APPENDIX C STOREHOUSE STOCK LIST lfi L BISHOPS' ITEM Cereals - Flour Products Cracked Wheat Germade Flour (white) Flour (white) Flour (whole wheat) Pancake & Waffle Flour Egg Noodles Macaroni Spaghetti Rice Beans, Dry Sugar (not for canning) Brown Granulated Powdered Honey, Jam, Etc. Honey Jam Maple Syrup Vegetables, Canned Corn Peas Pork & Beans Tomatoes Tomato Soup Vegetable Soup Fruits, Canned Apple Sauce Apricots Peaches Pears Pear Sauce Juices, Canned Grapefruit Orange Tomato *These are not produced. APPENDIX C STOREHOUSE STOCK LIST UNIT PRICE 4 1b .24 2 1b .18 10 1b .84 25 1b 1.78 10 1b .81 4 1b .41 1b .20 lb .14 1b .14 1b .11 lb .09 1b .13 1b .10 1b .13 can .24 can .32 can .36 can .13 can .13 can .14 can .17 can .11 can .13 can .12 can .21 can .22 can .23 can .12 can .13 can .17 can .14 135 ITEM Vegetables, Fresh Potatoes Other Fruits, Fresh Grapefruit Oranges Other Fruits, Dried Prunes Raisins Dairy Prod. & Eggs Butter Butter Substitute Buttermilk Cheese Cottage Cheese Canned Milk Chocolate Mix Fresh Milk Powdered Milk Eggs Meat Beef, Dressed Chicken, Dressed Mutton, Dressed Pork, Dressed Beef Canned *Potted Meat Tuna Fish *Lard & Shortening Miscellaneous Foods *Baking Powder *Baking Soda Gelatin Dessert Peanut Butter *Salad Dressing *Salt, Table UNIT PRICE 1b .025 lb Mkt lb .05 lb .07 lb Mkt lb .23 1b .20 lb .64 lb .20 qt .21 1b .45 lb .22 can .11 5 lb 1.00 qt .22 2 lb .20 doz .40 1b .39 lb .30 1b .20 1b .36 can .56 can .08 can .25 lb .20 can .22 lb .11 3 oz .07 can .48 pt .21 26 oz .08 ITEM *Yeast Household Supplies *Bleach Bowl Cleaner Brooms Cleanser Dishwash Detergent Laundry Detergent Laundry Starch *Light Globes *Matches *Needles *Pins *Razor Blades (5) *Sanitary Pads (12) Shaving Cream Shoe Laces Shoe Polish (can) Soap, Toilet *Thread *Toilet Tissue Tooth Paste *Towels, Bath Towels, Dish Water Softener *Wax Paper Coal Grains and Feeds UNIT pkg 16 oz 22 oz ea 16 oz 18 oz 1b ea box pkg pkg pkg box tube pr bar spool roll tube ea ea 16 oz roll ton Alfalfa Hay, baled 100 1b Dairy Feed 100 1b Feed Wheat 100 1b Hog Feed 100 1b Complete Laying Mash 100 lb *These are not produced. Most of the other items are clothing or household items, such as sheets, mattresses, etc. 136 PRICE .05 .33 .20 1.05 .13 .35 .50 .14 .15 .08 .14 .10 .20 .24 .25 .04 .14 .08 .08 .09 .23 .48 .25 .18 .16 mkt mkt 3.30 2.76 3.11 3.61 U... .m‘...__- m-..—.-. _... .- APPENDIX D TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM LAND USE FOR 1945 & 1955 .‘fl‘ v—.. a“, APPENDIX D TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM LAND USE FOR 1945 & 1955 Table l. Welfare Farm Land Use for 1945 Total Land Use NO. Of Acres Per Regional Percentage ion Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 2 Small grain 2 100 3 All purpose 1 170 190 90 Vegetable 1 10 5 Miscellaneous l 10 5 4 All purpose 1 27 36 75 Miscellaneous 1 9 25 5 Miscellaneous 3 332 332 100 6 Miscellaneous 9 250 250 100 7 Cattle l 22 105 21 All purpose 6 71 67 Poultry 1 2 2 Small grain 1 10 10 10 Dairy 1 60 66 91 Fruit & Nut 1 6 9 18 Cattle l 270 270 100 20 Miscellaneous 1 60 60 100 21 Dry farm 2 164 168 98 Poultry 1 4 2 22 Dry farm 2 204 299 68 Small grain 1 55 18 All purpose 1 20 7 Miscellaneous 2 21 7 23 Vegetable 1 30 30 100 137 138 Table l (cont'd.) Total Land Use NO. Of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land_§§§_ Agreggg Per Region 24 Miscellaneous 1 7 7 100 30 Small grain 2 50 96 52 Vegetable 1 4 5 Miscellaneous 1 41 43 34 Fruit & Nut 1 10 10 100 35 Small grain 1 20 28 71 Fruit & Nut 2 8 29 38 Fruit & Nut 1 9 9 100 39 Hay — Alfalfa 1 25 42 6O Poultry 1 3 7 Miscellaneous 1 14 33 41 Small grain l 234 335 70 Dry farm 1 81 24 Miscellaneous 1 20 6 43 Hay - Alfalfa 1 40 ' 111 36 Dairy 1 50 45 Fruit & Nut 1 5 5 Miscellaneous 3 16 14 44 All purpose 1 33 34 97 Mfg. & Process. 1 1 ‘ 3 45 All purpose 1 10 10 100 46 Miscellaneous 1 ll 11 100 50 Cattle l 40 170 24 Small grain 1 80 47 Miscellaneous 1 50 29 51 Cattle 2 221 221 100 52 Cattle l ' 1,270 1,270 100 54 All purpose 1 20 224 9 Mfg. & Process. 2 0 0 Cattle l 104 47 Hog l 10 4 Poultry 1 10 4 Miscellaneous 1 80 36 Table 1 (cont'd.) Region Land Use 59 Fruit & Nut 61 All purpose 63 Miscellaneous 64 Small grain A11 purpose Cattle Miscellaneous 65 Dry crOp All purpose Mfg. & Process. Dairy Miscellaneous 66 Small grain 70 Cattle 139 NO. Of Projects thtatnro t‘hah‘h‘ H H Acres Per Land Use 9 133 25 50 62 75 303 26 400 Total Regional Acreage 9 133 212 729 Land Use Percentage Per Region 100 100 100 12 24 29 35 100 100 140 Table 2. Welfare Farm Land Use for 1955 Total Land Use NO. of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 1 Dry crop 2 58 1,014 6 Cattle l 65 6 Dairy 1 868 86 All purpose 1 23 2 2 Dry crop 21 1,972 2,838 69 All purpose 7 866 31 Cattle 4 0 0 Hogs l 0 0 3 Dairy 1 80 865 9 All purpose 9 785 91 Cattle l O O 4 Poultry 2 3 1,893 0 Dry crop 6 265 14 Fruit & Nut 1 1 0 All purpose 27 1,623 86 Mfg. & Process. 1 l 0 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 5 All purpose 11 856 4,932 18 Dry crop 13 1,996 40 Cattle 4 2,080 42 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 6 All purpose 26 2,088 2,530 83 Cattle 6 442 17 Miscellaneous 2 O O 7 Dairy 1 43 y 750 6 All purpose 26 707 94 Cattle l 0 0 8 Dairy 1 180 180 100 10 All purpose 7 899 901 100 Fruit & Nut 1 2 0 11 All purpose 4 312 312 100 12 Dry crop 2 1 1,242 0 All purpose 2 1,241 100 14 All purpose 3 7 8 88 Dry crop 1 1 12 141 Table 2 (cont'd.) Total Land Use NO. of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 15 Dry crop l 1 41 2 Cattle 1 40 98 16 Dairy 2 33 38 87 Cattle 3 5 l3 Hog 1 0 0 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 17 All purpose 2 94 94 100 18 All purpose 5 749 957 78 Dry Crop 5 208 22 19 All purpose 2 7 8 88 Hogs 2 0 0 Poultry 1 l 12 20 All purpose 17 865 1,045 83 Dry crop 1 40 4 Cattle l 140 13 21 All purpose 4 394 415 95 Cattle 2 21 5 22 All purpose 29 742 7,350 10 Dry crop " 6,407 87 Cattle l 80 1 Miscellaneous 1 121 2 23 Dairy 1 130 214 61 All purpose 3 57 27 Cattle 2 27 12 24 Fruit & Nut 1 l 1 100 27 A11 purpose 4 697 697 100 30 All purpose 5 202 802 25 Dry crOp l 600 75 31 All purpose 1 230 230 100 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 O 34 All purpose 2 351 462 77 Dry crop l 25 5 Fruit & Nut 3 76 16 Cattle 4 10 2 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 : "'1'" it.” §_._ ‘iipmé 142 Table 2 (cont'd.) Total Land Use NO. Of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 35 Dairy 1 115 1,071 10 All purpose 13 265 25 Dry crop 7 691 65 37 Dry crop l 31 181 17 Cattle 2 43 24 Samll grain l 86 47 Fruit & Nut 2 21 12 38 All purpose 4 439 502 88 Dry crop l 1 0 Hay — Alfalfa l 10 2 Fruit & Nut 2 52 10 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 Cattle l O 0 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 39 Fruit & Nut 3 22 924 2 A11 purpose 6 762 83 Mfg. & Process. 2 0 0 Cattle 1 0 0 Miscellaneous 1 140 15 41 Cattle 1 370 2,329 16 All purpose 14 405 17 Poultry 1 121 5 Dairy 1 1,210 52 Dry crop 3 223 10 43 All purpose 4 1,148 1,163 99 Mfg. & Process. 2 0 0 Fruit & Nut 1 15 1 Miscellaneous 1 0 O 44 Dairy 1 600 640 93 Hogs 2 10 2 All purpose 1 30 5 Poultry 1 O 0 Mfg. & Process. 3 0 0 45 All purpose 20 1,067 1,467 73 Dry crop 4 381 26 Cattle l 19 l 46 All purpose 1 309 412 75 Fruit & Nut 1 30 7 Miscellaneous 1 73 18 143 Table 2 (cont'd.) Total Land Use NO. Of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 48 All purpose 1 93 201 46 Dry crop 2 104 52 Hog l 4 2 Mfg. & Process. 3 0 0 Cattle 1 0 0 49 All purpose 3 402 637 66 Cattle 2 235 34 50 Dairy 1 98 3,718 3 All purpose 23 1,175 32 Dry crop 11 2,382 64 Cattle 2 63 1 51 A11 purpose 11 1,117 1,202 93 Cattle 3 85 7 52 All purpose 11 1,096 8,459 13 Dry crop 2 360 4 Cattle 3 6,998 83 Miscellaneous 3 5 0 54 Poultry 1 0 537 0 All purpose 5 316 59 Fruit & Nut 1 3 0 Dry crop 1 43 8 Cattle l 49 9 Dairy 1 126 24 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 56 All purpose 2 583 623 94 Fruit & Nut 2 20 6 57 All purpose 1 49 49 100 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 58 All purpose 1 30 30 100 59 All purpose 2 3 38 8 Fruit & Nut 6 35 92 Miscellaneous 1 0 0 60 Dairy 1 5 5 100 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 'LT‘H' o ‘0’ Q 144 Table 2 (cont'd.) Total Land Use No. Of Acres Per Regional Percentage Region Land Use Projects Land Use Acreage Per Region 61 All purpose 12 745 6,132 12 Cattle 5 5,067 83 Dairy 1 320 5 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 62 Dry crop 5 22 25 88 Cattle 1 3 12 63 All purpose 12 648 648 100 64 Cattle 7 306 1,616 19 All purpose 23 1,117 69 Hay - Alfalfa l 33 2 Dairy 1 160 10 Miscellaneous 3 0 0 65 All purpose 26 1,762 5,522 32 Cry crop 2 80 l Cattle 4 3,670 67 Poultry 1 0 0 Fruit & Nut 4 10 0 66 All purpose 8 75 78 96 Fruit & Nut 1 3 4 67 All purpose 4 409 409 100 Mfg. & Process. 1 0 0 Poultry 1 0 0 69 All purpose 7 233 233 100 70 A11 purpose 7 373 2,738 14 Dry crop 2 30 1 Cattle 5 2,335 85 APPENDIX E TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM DISTRIBUTION FOR 1945, 1950 & 1955 ' .Jfitlflflnil'g TABLES REPRESENTING WELFARE FARM DISTRIBUTION TafleB. Region 1945 l O 2 0 3 O 4 1 5 3 6 5 7 7 8 0 9 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 l3 0 l4 0 15 0 16 0 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 4 23 O 24 O 25 0 26 0 27 O 28 0 29 0 3O 4 31 0 32 O 33 O 34 O 35 3 APPENDIX E FOR 1945, 1950 & 1955 1950 1 24 6 20 20 20 \l [-4 N (pf-‘00HWOOOOONNHHOOOI—‘OOHNONNOO N 1955 4 31 6 31 27 27 N U1 H b) \DQOONNOOOOOI—‘U‘IQN:bU'IQOfll-‘obONl-‘UIOO H Region 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 145 1945 .5 Ward Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 1950 1955 O 0 2 2 1 9 5 6 O O 5 13 O O O 4 8 O 5 22 3 O O O O 7 2 2 21' 35 8 10 5 15 0 O 4 6 0 O O 1 l 2 0 O 5 8 O 2 2 13 O 6 4 10 10 34 21 33 6 9 l 4 0 O 3 5 ___2_1_1 309 541 146 Multi-Ward Farm Distribution Tafle4. 1950 & 1955 for 1945, 1950 1955 1945 Re ion 1950 1955 1945 Re ion 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 10 11 12 53 13 54 55 14 15 56 57 16 17 58 59 6O 18 19 20 21 22 61 62 63 23 24 25 64 65 66 67 26 27 68 69 28 29 3O 7O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 O O O 0000 O O l 147 Stake Farm Distribution Table 5. for 1945, 1950 & 1955 1950 1955 1945 1950 1955 1945 Re ion Region 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 10 11 12 53 54 13 14 55 56 57 15 16 17 58 59 6O 18 19 20 21 22 23 61 62 63 64 24 65 25 26 27 66 67 68 28 29 3O 31 32 69 7O 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 148 Table 6. Multi-Stake Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Region 1945 l§§2_ 1955 0 2 1 0 10 12 13 34 46 54 61 o o o o o o 44 1 o 1 o o o 67 __g l 149 Table 7. Regional Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 _g__Re ion. 1242. l_9§9_ w 4 O l 10 1 2 39 0 0 44 0 2 54 3 2 64 O l 66 0 1 1 o l 1 l 59 o 1 1 l 0 7o 0 2 __g 6 150 Table 8. Multi-Regional Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Region 1245- .1950 ‘1955 21 0 0 l 39 0 0 1 56 _9. __9 __1_ O 0 3 Table 9. Miscellaneous Farm Distribution for 1945, 1950 & 1955 Region 1945 1950 1955 18 O 3 24 l O 34 O 1 61 O 1 63 1 l 64 4 4 o o o o 43 2 1 o o o o 65 l l __g o APPENDIX F PROJECTS AUTHORIZED FOR STUDY APPENDIX F PROJECTS AUTHORIZED FOR STUDY TO: Randall Rathjen July 3, 1968 FROM: Irvin B. Nydegger Re: Cross Section Of Welfare Projects Which May be Visited For Research Material Following is a list Of diversified welfare projects which have been selected for your consideration in making your research for a doc— tor's dissertation. We have selected these projects specifically for three prime reasons: (1) their very geographical location; (2) diversification of products; and (3) economic affluence of various communities. MULTIPLE-REGIONAL PROJECTS Woodcrest Citrus Grove Riverside, California Milk Processing Plant - Welfare Square Salt Lake City, Utah Cheddar Cheese Plant Logan, Utah Cannery - Jordan Valley Region 4400 South Main Street Murray, Utah Jordan Valley Dairy Project 6200 South 6th West Murray, Utah REGIONAL PROJECTS San Fernando Region Little Rock Fruit Orchard (pears and peaches) 151 152 TO: Randall Rathjen FROM: Irvin B. Nydegger REGIONAL PROJECTS (Continued) Las Vegas Dairy and Beef Project Sunrise Mountain Las Vegas, Nevada Los Angeles Region Cannery Los Angeles, California MULTIPLE STAKE PROJECTS Springville and KolOb Stakes Poultry and Beef Project Cannon and Pioneer Stakes Poultry, Dairy, and Farm Project South Salt Lake and Granite Stakes Dry and Irrigated Farm Project Phoenix Stakes Diversified Farm (cotton, hay, grain) Buckeye, Arizona STAKE PROJECTS West Sharon Stake Fruit Orchard Provo, Utah Palo Alto Stake Cannery Redwood City, California Wasatch Stake Dairy Project (Ward Farms Produce Feed) Hailstone, Utah Idaho Falls Stake Diversified Irrigated Farm Idaho Falls, Idaho Yellowstone Stake Farm (Irrigated) Ashton, Idaho Rexburg Stake Dry Farm Rexburg, Idaho July 3, 1968 Page 2 9' r ” ‘ 5.5 153 TO: Randall Rathjen July 3, 1968 FROM: Irvin B. Nydegger Page 3 STAKE PROJECTS (Continued) Juab Stake Dry Farm Nephi, Utah Holladay Stake Beef Feeding Project (Cooperates with Wilford Stake) Minidoka Stake Farm Rupert, Idaho Cache Stake Farm Logan, Utah Columbia River Stake Farm Portland, Oregon WARD FARMS Vernal 2nd and Vernal 4th Ward Farms Vernal, Utah Bridgeland Ward Duchesne, Utah Blackfoot lst Ward 2-acre Berry Farm Blackfoot, Idaho Farr West Ward Vegetable Farm Ogden, Utah Lake Point Ward Farm Grantsville, Utah West Warren Ward 10-acre Farm (10 miles west of Ogden, Utah) Irvin B. Nydegger, Administrator Production Division IBNznd 73:“