← Back to David O. McKay Diary Excerpts Index

David O. McKay Diaries – “W. Cleon Skousen”

Below you will find diary entries on the topic of “W. Cleon Skousen.” You can view other subjects here.

Search the diary entries below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.

Thurs., 17 Aug. 1961:

“10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The regular meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve convened in the Salt Lake Temple at 10 a.m.  This was the first meeting since we adjourned on Thursday, June 22, 1961.

Following some regular business regarding Stakes and Wards, we discussed the following:

1) Position of the Church with reference to Communism.

Some of the Brethren called attention to the extensive activity of some of our stakes presidents in the Los Angeles area, largely directed by President Hugh C. Smith.  Brother Cleon Skousen is taking an active part in this campaign, and that regularly organized meetings are held in the Los Angeles area, and that this campaigning is being carried into our Sacrament meetings.

Elder Ezra Taft Benson mentioned that Brother Skousen is field director of the American Security Council, which is a national organization set up by businessmen and business corporations primarily, and financed by voluntary contributions; that some very distinguished Americans serve on the Advisory Committee and the Board, and they have headquarters in Chicago.  Their objective is to try to inform the American people on the issues involved in Communism and Socialism.  He said that personally he thought the Communism threat is very real and very dangerous, and that there is need for some organized effort to meet this great threat.

Elder Benson and others of the Brethren indicated that they thought that perhaps Brother Hugh C. Smith has been a little extreme in his efforts to combat this menace.  The Brethren were agreed that we should fight Communism as citizens, but they questioned the wisdom of doing so as the Church, and particularly in our Sacrament meetings.

It was suggested that the First Presidency prepare a carefully worded memorandum on this subject to be handed to the Brethren of the General authorities for their use when visiting quarterly conferences, setting forth the precise feeling of the First Presidency about this matter.  It was suggested that emphasis should be placed on the spiritual nature of our Sacrament meetings.

It became the sentiment of the Brethren that this be done, but I said that in this connection, however, we must be careful about condemning any efforts that are anti-Communistic because Communism is a real danger in our country.  It is a termite movement, the purpose of which is to make the state dominant over the individual.  Our Sacrament meetings should be reserved for spiritual enrichment and spiritual instruction.  (See Diary of August 31, 1961 for further discussion on this matter.)

Fri., 1 Dec. 1961:

All American Society

The Presiding Bishopric called attention to the request of the all American Society for the use of the Assembly Hall on Monday, December 11, 1961 to present Dr. Fred Schwartz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade.  It was explained that Brother Reed Benson, son of Elder Ezra Taft Benson, and Cleon Skousen are taking a very active part in this ‘crusade.’

Bishop Simpson reported having attended one of the meetings in Los Angeles.  He said that Cleon Skousen was extremely ‘right-wing’ to the point that he was recommending that the entire State Department be dismissed and new men put in that Department.

I asked Bishop Simpson if he knew anything about Dr. Fred Schwartz who is to speak in the meeting in the Assembly Hall, and Brother Simpson said that he is an Australian, that he is a gifted speaker.  In this connection the literature regarding the proposed meeting indicates that President David E. Heywood of the Phoenix Stake, President Alonzo F. Hopkins of the Woodruff Stake, President Glenn E. Nielson of the Big Horn Stake, and other prominent people are listed as sponsors of the program, in addition to Elder Ezra Taft Benson of the Twelve.

I said that we cannot refuse the Assembly Hall for the holding of the meeting proposed.  I asked Bishop Vandenberg to watch the service and to make sure that no one makes an attack on the State Department or the Government.

Bishop Vandenberg said he would call Elder Benson and talk with him and tell him that this meeting must be strictly non-political.

Thurs., 21 Dec. 1961:

“8 a.m.

Brother Cleon Skousen, formerly Chief of Salt Lake City Police, called at the office and introduced to me Brother Richard Vetterli who has just published a book entitled ‘Mormonism, Americanism, and Politics.’  Brother Vetterli who is a faithful member of the Church and a nephew of the former Chief of Police of Salt Lake City, Reid Vetterli, with whom I was acquainted, while attending U.C.L.A. in Los Angeles, California, used as the basis of his thesis the Mormon political philosophy and the deep insight of the Prophet Joseph Smith into basic political principles.  This book is a result of his Master’s thesis.  Brother Vetterli left me at autographed copy for my personal library.

We had a pleasant and interesting conversation regarding the evils of communism, etc.

(See notes on Brother Vetterli which follow.)

Sun., 6 Sept. 1959:

“This morning I called Brother Cleon Skousen, Chief of Salt Lake City Police, out of his Priesthood meeting, and made an appointment with him to see me at 9 o’clock.

Upon his arrival at the office, I told him of the experience I have had with one David Linville, a non-member of the Church, who has been visiting our home almost nightly.  A year ago the Church befriended him, finding a job for him, which after a short time he quit, and then finally the Church paid his fare back to his home in Carmichal, California.

Three or four months ago he came back to Salt Lake and called on me at my home.  He has been rather incoherent as to just what he wants me to do.  He has been employed again at Welfare Square, and other jobs have been obtained for him but he seems not to be able to stick to anything.  I have written to his father inquiring about David’s going back to school, but to date I have received no answer from him.

I have had much pity and sympathy with this boy, but it has reached a point where there is not anything I can do for him.  

So I asked Chief Skousen if now, after we have done all we can for David, who is only 19 years of age, the matter should not be his responsibility, and he agreed that it should be, especially since David is in trouble with the law in California.

It was decided that Brother Skousen would take the matter into his hands, and promised that I should not be bothered again.

However, Sunday evening, there stood David at our door again.  He said:  ‘Well, I have my fare back home from my father – had I better go?’  I said, ‘Yes,’ David, you had better go home to your folks.’  He seemed all right about it, and said that he planned to go home the next day.  I thought this was the end of this experience, but Monday morning David arrived at the house again.  As I had left for the office, Sister McKay told him that I was not at home.  I had taken my car to the garage and when I drove up to the parking place in the rear of the Church Office Building, there stood David waiting for me.  I said:  ‘I thought you had gone home.’  He offered no explanation, but just said that he decided not to go.

That evening he called at the home, and when I asked him why he had not left for his home in California, he said he did not have enough money to go home.

We talked for a few moments, and I said that he would have to call on me at my office.  He said:  ‘You are not going to work on your birthday, are you?’  I said ‘Yes, we have a lot to do.’

Tuesday night, my birthday, while the family were gathered at home, David rang the door bell.  I asked my son Llewellyn to meet him and tell him that this evening I was not able to see him.

Later, I asked my son Llewellyn to call Chief Skousen and report to him that David had not returned to his home and for him to see what he could do.  I am really worried about the boy, and do not wish to see him get into any more trouble.  He really needs care and should be with his folks.”

Fri., 8 Apr. 1960:

12:15 to 1:10 p.m.

Chief of Police Cleon Skousen (just recently dismissed by Mayor J. Bracken Lee) called at the office, and gave me some pertinent facts pertaining to the controversy between him and Mayor Lee.

My confidence in Chief Skousen is absolute!”

Mon., 25 Apr. 1960:

“11 to 11:10 a.m.

Mr. Alfred I. Biorge, President of the Controls Engineering & Distributing Company, 1150 East 5th South, City, and Mr. Donn E. Cassity, Attorney at Law, 404 Kearns Building, Salt Lake City, called at the office and wanted to know if the Church would have any objection to former Chief of Police Cleone Skousen running for Governor of the State.

I said that that is a political matter; that every citizen has a right to seek nomination for any office that is available.

They mentioned an aspirant who says that he has $75,000 to spend for the nomination, and I said that that would be folly to let Governor Clyde and Brothers Skousen run for the same office and split the Mormon vote, and let this man come in.  They said that he (this aspirant) is a Democrat, and I said ‘Well, that is a different matter.’  Clyde, one of the county commissioners, and Skousen will be aspirants for the Republican nomination. 

I said that the Church has no objection to Skousen’s running for nomination – that he has a right to come out if he chooses to do so.”

Tues., 21 June 1960:

12:30 to 1:10 p.m.

Conference with Cleon Skousen who called at the office regarding cancellation of his speaking appointments in ward houses on Communism, etc. during his political campaign for Governor of the State.  President Moyle came in at my request regarding the advertising that has been done by Brother Skousen’s campaign manager.  It was agreed that Brother Skousen will tell his manager not to advertise that he (Brother Skousen) will speak in ward buildings whether or not his speeches are non-political.  However, I stated that Brother Skousen will not be denied the privilege of conducting one of the classes with the missionaries at the Mission Home.”

Tues., 9 Jan., 1962:

1:10-1:25 p.m.

Called President Ernest L. Wilkinson at Washington, D.C. in accordance with his request regarding Columnist Drew Pearson and Senator Barry Goldwater; also regarding letter from Professor Richard D. Poll of B.Y.U. with reference to W. Cleon Skousen and his book.

(For complete details, see copy of conversation following.)

“Telephone call to President David 0. McKay from President Ernest L. Wilkinson-President of the Brigham Young University–in Washington, D. C., January 9, 1962, at 12:30 p.m.

Wilkinson: President McKay?

McKay: Yes.

Wilkinson: I made bold to call you today, despite knowing how busy you are, because I knew from Preston Robinson that you were meeting him in the morning — Wednesday morning. You afforded me the privilege of going to an Educational Convention in the East, and I have spent one day here in Washington, and I have some new information on this matter that you will be talking to him about, and I thought that it was my duty to get to you.

First, I find in Washington here that Jack Anderson, who is the assistant to this Drew Pearson–Anderson being a member of our Church–is a very, very close friend and goes around all the time with young David King.

Second, I find also, I learned from two sources when I got here on Sunday, that young David King has been telling prominent Church people here that this attack he made on Benson for Benson’s Los Angeles talk was done after he received information from the General Authorities as to a Thursday Conference they had in the Temple, in which they disapproved of Benson’s talk.

Third, Senator Bennett has been so concerned if the news continued with Pearson that Pearson may do as he has done in five or six other instances just before election — come out with some attack or smear on Bennett at the last moment, which is too late to be mentioned or to repute it. Pearson, of course, has had a reputation for doing that. He has done it five or six different times, and everyone who does not agree with his philosophy — he, of course, is an extreme left-winger — is afraid of him, and so Bennett went to Robinson when he was out in Utah this last year — this last fall, and asked Robinson if there was any attack of that kind on the part of Pearson, if he (Bennett) would have time to answer it in the News, and all that Robinson said was that he would have to wait and see at the time — he couldn’t promise him in advance that he could answer it, they would have to judge it as things come up.

Now, I mention those three things that I have learned since I have been in Washington. I placed my opposition to Pearson, of course, on the grounds which I think were solid — that he was just too undependable to be worthy of the traditional Deseret News published by the Church. But if we should continue, of course, to publish his articles and he should make some type of an attack on Bennett at the last moment, and even if the News did not carry it, other papers who have Pearson’s column would carry it, and then if we did not carry it, of course, the News would then be subject to a lot of criticism upon the grounds that they refused to run Pearson’s article, which he was actually against Bennett.  In other words in addition to Pearson being entirely undependable and unreliable, there is now introduced into the problem the political danger in this situation, which to me is very, very unhealthy from the standpoint of the Church and the News. Now, that is the first subject I wanted to cover with you, and they all have to do with Pearson.

The second subject I wanted to cover with you is that of Goldwater. On the way back here, and I had to take the train because the planes were down for a couple of days, I had a chance to read the news releases of Goldwater for a period of three or four months, and I would like just to have the opportunity to sit down the minute I get back for one day and make a careful memorandum for you on them — not the summary of all of them.

McKay: Well now, of course, their objection there is that he is a presidential candidate. That is the only objection they had.

Wilkinson: That is the only objection. Now Preston Robinson agreed with me again on Friday, or Saturday, that all that Goldwater says is more nearly the Mormon viewpoints than any other writer. He admits that. Well now, why simply because he may be a presidential candidate, should we deny ourselves the writing of someone who writes more constant with our ideals than anyone else. I should say that Preston told me and, of course, he told me about his conference with you. He told us all about it, so I know about it through him. He told me that if, when he had his further conference with you you then directed him to take Pearson out, that he already had a conservative writer that he would put in in his place. And I asked him who the conservative writer was. He gave me his name. I do not now recall the name, but certainly he is a man completely unknown. Now with Goldwater being known as well as he is. . .

McKay: Wasn’t it Littman?

Wilkinson: No, he has got another man now.

McKay: Oh, I haven’t heard.

Wilkinson: Well, he will tell you about it. He has got another man now.

Of course, Littman is a liberal writer and he is not Conservative. But my

point is if as Preston says, Goldwater echoes our traditional Mormon beliefs

more closely than any man in public life, why should our readers be denied

the rights to read him merely because he might be a presidential candidate?

We are printing every day in the week statements of Kennedy. Certainly

Kennedy is going to be another presidential candidate. Why shouldn’t we put

down side by side — if they want Littman, Littman is liberal, print him side against Goldwater. I am in favor of both sides being expressed, but I do not think we should deprive ourselves of the leading political apostle right now of the views that we believe in. Now that’s on Goldwater. In other words, my own deep feeling is that you should not settle for some third or fourth-rate man whom the public do not know at all, and who very few people would ever read. They would read Goldwater, even if they did not believe in him, because he is well known in public life. My final suggestion on that point is that it seems to me that this whole question of whom these feature writers are should be reviewed all at one time, and unless you want to decide it yourself, it would seem to me that either you or the First Presidency should sit down with the Board of Directors of the News and decide all at one time on the writers who they should be. Some of them may be liberal. I would not object to some of them, a man like Littman being liberal, provided at the same time we were able to put in a man like Goldwater, who admitedly represents our views more than anyone else. Now that is all, President McKay, that I need to bother you with. This thing admittedly has troubled me a lot, but I wanted to get that over to you.

McKay: I thank you very much for it.

Wilkinson: Now, finally, just one comment on another matter. A Richard Poll, a professor of Political Science at the BYU, asked permission of me to send you a letter with respect to Skousen. I did not think that I ought to deny him the privilege if he wanted to. I saw the letter. To me it is rather academic. It has been sent to you, you maybe haven’t opened it yet.

McKay: No, I have not seen it yet.

Wilkinson: May I just tell you on that. Brother Poll, and President Brown have been talking about this somewhat. I do not know whether President Brown suggested that he send it to you, but I have seen correspondence between the two, and it may be that there was some such suggestion, but when I get back, I could talk to you about the entire thing too, if I may, and there is no need for you to answer it immediately. It is an attack on Skousen. I think it is trivial. I do not agree with all that Skousen has done. I think Skousen has been a little careless in some of his statements, but certainly his motives and his purposes are good.

McKay: Yes, and he is nearer right than he is wrong.

Wilkinson: He is much nearer right than he is wrong.

McKay: Right.

Wilkinson: And these mathematitions are just altogether too trivial in their harping and their criticisms. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

McKay: That is what I think.

Wilkinson: Well, now, I apologize again for intruding, but I wanted to bring you up to date as far as I knew.

McKay: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Wilkinson: Well, thank you, President McKay.

McKay: All right, Good bye.

Wilkinson: I am grateful for the privilege of telling you.

McKay: Thank you.

Wilkinson: Thank you, good bye.

McKay: Good bye.”

Thur., 1 Feb., 1962:

Utah Chronicle Article_Regarding Cleon Skousen Campaign President Moyle called attention to an article that has come to his desk from the Utah University Chronicle regarding Cleon Skousen and his anti-Communist campaign. No action was taken on this matter.

 Fri., 23 Mar., 1962:

10:30 a. m.

Office consultation with Dr. Ernest L. Wilkinson of the B. Y. U. regarding the publication of a pamphlet by Dr. Richard D. Poll of the B. Y. U., in which he criticizes W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” We discussed also the article which has been published in “The Alumnus” of the University of Utah written by T. Edgar Lyons, instructor at the Institute of Religion there, regarding Richard Vetterli’s book, “Mormonism and Politics.”

Fri., 18 May 1962:

“While I was dictating letters, I had a telephone call from Elder Ezra Taft Benson, who was in Portland, Oregon attending a National Boy Scout meeting, and is appointed to the Seattle Stake Conference.

He asked regarding his accepting the invitation of the National Boy Scout Organization to be chairman of Region Twelve, and his attendance at the Seattle Stake Conference.  He said that he felt that there has been some reflection cast on him in this stake with the President and the High Council, and inasmuch as he always meets with the Stake Presidency, High Council and Bishoprics, he asked that I make a telephone call to the Stake President regarding this matter.  (see notes following for details of conversation)

I then called President F. Arthur Kay of the Seattle Stake, and told him that Elder Ezra Taft Benson will attend the quarterly conference of his stake, and that I wanted him to know that Elder Benson comes up there under no cloud whatsoever, and that I also approve of Brother Cleon Skousen’s book ‘The Naked Communist.’

Friday, May 18, 1962

Telephone call from Elder Ezra Taft Benson of the Council of the Twelve 

Portland, Oregon, to President David O. McKay, May 18, 1962, at 8:10 a.m.

President McKay: Hello.

Brother Benson: Hello, President McKay?

President McKay: Yes.

Brother Benson: This is Brother Benson.  How are you this morning?

President McKay: Very well, thank you!

Brother Benson: I am at Portland, Oregon, attending the Annual Meeting of the Boy Scouts and we finish up tonight, then I will go on to Seattle where tomorrow morning will be Boy Scout Day at the World’s Fair.  Then I attend Stake Conferences of the Seattle and North Seattle Stakes there.

President McKay: Yes.

Brother Benson: I have two questions, President McKay.  You recall my coming to you with letters from the officials of Region Twelve of the Boy Scouts?

President McKay: Yes.

Brother Benson: And you felt probably that we should have the Chairmanship of that Region for at least next year, and suggested that probably I had better take it.  Now, I am to give them an answer today.  I am going into a meeting with Region Twelve this morning, but this has occurred to me since I talked with you — I am not trying to shirk the responsibility — but I find that the person who becomes Chairman of a region — there are twelve regions in the United States — also becomes a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts, and that is where I am serving now.  Now, it occured to me if we could get them to accept someone else with good grace, it would give us two members on the board instead of one.  Now, I don’t know what their attitude would be, and I didn’t have anyone special in mind to suggest, but I do know they want an answer today, and I promised to give them one before the convention ends here — I promised to give them a final answer.

President McKay: They have no objection to your serving in both places?

Brother Benson: They want me to serve in both places, President McKay, but I thought there might be some little advantage to the Church to have someone else as chairman so he would be also a member of the National Executive Board, and I talked to Brother Lou Roberts and Joseph Bentley — they are here — and also Brother Curtis, who was formerly Superintendent of the Young Men, and they seem to think that there would be some advantage.  Just how great that advantage will be, we cannot tell, of course.  But I thought that probably I might broach that subject to them and see what their reaction would be, but before I did so I wanted to check with you to see if you had any suggestions or whether you thought this would be advisable.

President McKay: I think it is all right for you to accept both positions for the present.

Brother Benson: Do you?

President McKay: Yes!

Brother Benson: Well, I will be happy to if that is your feeling, President McKay.

President McKay: They have asked you to do it — I think it would be best for you to do it.

Brother Benson: Then I won’t raise the other question.  It is going to take quite a little time.  We will have several meetings, but I thought that maybe we might be able to serve for one year — that will get us by our celebration.  Next year will be our Fiftieth Anniversary of Scouting in the Church, as you know — that is a pretty important year for us, and to have the chairmanship I think might be helpful to us.  So I will go ahead then, but not make any commitment as to time.  How will that be?

President McKay: That will be all right.

Brother Benson: All right, thank you very much.  Now, the other thing.  You will recall the little difficulty we had with President Kay of the Seattle Stake?

President McKay: Yes.

Brother Benson: Now, I am going into his stake.

President McKay: I am glad you are!

Brother Benson: I have some anxiety, because I fear that there has been some reflection cast on me in this stake with the President and High Council, and I always have a meeting with the Presidency and High Council and Bishoprics, and I don’t know of anything that will clear it up fully unless there could be a communication go from you — a telephone call — because I don’t want to be in a position of trying to question anything that has been given them by a member of the Presidency.

President McKay: I think I had better call Brother Kay.  He is president, isn’t he?

Brother Benson: Yes he is.

President McKay: I shall call him and tell him that Brother Benson is absolutely clear and that if there is any feeling in the stake that there is any fault against Brother Benson’s [Skousen’s] book or against your remarks at General Conference, it should be allayed, because both are supported by the President of the Church.

Brother Benson: I would be very grateful for that, President McKay, if it can be done.

President McKay: Then you go along and conduct the Stake Conference just as usual — as if nothing had happened.

Brother Benson: All right, I will be happy to do so.

President McKay: Then I will call President Kay, in answer to his letter of February some — I don’t remember.

Brother Benson: Yes, it was sometime in February.  Yes, you answer it by telephone then.

President McKay: Yes!

Brother Benson: That will be fine, because I will be with him tomorrow afternoon.  I am going to have him meet me.  There is a special train going up with the Boy-Scout workers to the Fair, and I was planning to have him meet me and join me at the Fair.

President McKay: You go right on just as though nothing had been said by the counselors in The First Presidency on it.

Brother Benson: I will be happy to do it, and now if you will have your secretary get on the telephone, I have his resident’s phone and his office phone.  It might save her a little time.

President McKay: Clare.

Clare Middlemiss: Yes, I am on the phone.

Brother Benson: I didn’t ask President McKay about his good wife.  How is Sister McKay?

President McKay: She is not well.  She had a very bad night last night.

Brother Benson: Oh, that’s too bad.  Well, our faith and prayers will be with her.

Brother Benson to Clare: President McKay is going to call President Kay and simply clear up this whole thing, that there is no question about the books or the Conference talk.  Now I didn’t mention ‘The Naked Communist.’  He may want to mention that also.

Clare Middlemiss: Skousen’s book, yes.

Brother Benson: Yes, because that was more or less condemned.  President Kay’s residence telephone is Pacific 5-2974, and the office phone is AL 5-2944.

Clare Middlemiss: All right, thank you, Brother Benson.

Brother Benson: God bless you all.  Good-bye.

Clare: Good-bye.

Friday, May 18, 1962

Telephone call from President David O. McKay to President F. Arthur Kay of the Seattle Stake at his home PA 5-2974, May 18, 1962, at 8:15 a.m.

(Regarding Elder Ezra Taft Benson)

President McKay: Hello.

President Kay: Hello, President McKay.

President McKay: President Kay, some time ago I received a letter from you regarding Brother Benson’s Conference talk, and ‘The Naked Communist’ by Brother Skousen.

President Kay: Yes.

President McKay: Now, I didn’t answer it, but I have taken it up with the Brethren.  All I wish to say this morning is that I personally approve of ‘The Naked Communist’ and Brother Skousen and his relationship with us right here, but in any organization outside I don’t know whether he receives a salary or not.

President Kay: I have not received any information on that.

President McKay: I haven’t either.

President Kay: I haven’t received anything since the last call with Brother Benson.

President McKay: All I wish to say to you is that Brother Benson is not under any cloud whatever regarding his attitude towards communism.

President Kay: I am very pleased to hear this, President McKay.

President McKay: And neither is Brother Skousen’s book — ‘The Naked Communist.’  There are some men who opposed it — their criticisms are very faulty and very weak.  Brother Skousen is in good standing in the Church, and his attitude towards communism is approved.

President Kay: Well, I greatly appreciate this call.

President McKay: I thought I would let you know, because I understand that Brother Benson is up there to attend a Conference and you are going to meet him.

President Kay: Yes, I will be meeting him tomorrow.

President McKay: Let political parties and anti-communist groups do their own work outside of the Church.  We will attend to our Church duties, and condemn Communism in all its forms, but we shall not make a public issue of it during Conference times.

President Kay: Yes.

President McKay: I thought I would give you that assurance.

President Kay: I appreciate that a great deal.

President McKay: All right, and I appreciate your letter.

President Kay: Well, I hated to be in a position that I was caught in, President McKay, one especially — may I just point this thing out — that would bring any disharmony, and I hope that it has unified rather than anything else.

President McKay: All I know about Brother Benson’s political affairs is that his son, Reed, is out for some political position.  He has been told that that is his individual responsibility and he alone is responsible for it.  The church is not sustaining him any more that we are any other man, but is a political matter to which any citizen is permitted to aspire.

President Kay: Certainly.

President McKay: Otherwise, Brother Benson stands approved fully.

President Kay: I love to hear this, because I have never heard him give a message that I disapproved of in any way.

President McKay: No, sir!  All right.

President Kay: Thank you a great, great deal, President McKay, and this has been a real personal pleasure.

President McKay: Kind wishes to all assembled at your Conference.  Give them my greetings, please.

President Kay: I certainly will, President McKay.

President McKay: All right.

President Kay: Thank you!

President McKay: Thank you!  Good-bye.”

Wed., 6 June 1962:

“8:15 – 8:45 a.m.

Brother Cleon Skousen came in.  Handed me a copy of a letter which is being circulated at the University of California.  It refers to President Brown’s remarks at the Priesthood Meeting in April Conference and discounts Brother Skousen’s work in fighting Communism.  I asked Brother Skousen to see President Brown and ask him about this matter.

Wed., 2 Oct. 1963:

“2:30 p.m.

Returned to the office where I met by appointment Elder Cleon Skousen.  He was accompanied by David Hale, one of the top FBI men.  They submitted evidence of Communist activities, which indicate that Communism is creeping into the Church.”

Mon., 12 Dec. 1966:

“8:00 a.m.

Elder W. Cleon Skousen called on me in the office at the Hotel.  He presented me with a copy of his newest book ‘The Fourth Thousand Years’, and wished me a happy holiday season.

During our conversation, Elder Skousen mentioned that President Ernest L. Wilkinson had asked him if he could once more join the faculty of the Brigham Young University.  Brother Skousen said that he had been giving the matter serious consideration.

I told Brother Skousen that by returning to the BYU his teachings and influence would be extended through the students to a far greater part of the earth than any other way, and that should he find it feasible to return to the teaching field it would have my full approval and blessing.

Note by CM

Following the above interview, Elder Skousen called at the office of Clare Middlemiss, and said that ‘it was a genuine thrill to be in President McKay’s presence again and to partake of his wonderful spirit.'”