Another Visit with Walter Murray Gibson

Utah Historical Quarterly

Vol. 46, 1978, No. 1

Another Visit with Walter Murray Gibson

BY R. LANIER BRITSCH

THE BRIEF, SPECTACULAR MORMON CAREER of Walter Murray Gibson has been discussed by a number of authors. Gibson affiliated himself with the Latter-day Saints in 1860. Then, after filling a brief mission for the church in the eastern states, he was assigned to fill a mission in Asia. He made his way instead to Hawaii where he became the supreme leader of the Mormons there. For misusing his office in the church he was excommunicated in April 1864. After he was cut off from the church he maintained the deeds to a large piece of property on the island of Lanai that he had purchased with money donated by the Hawaiian Latter-day Saints. Because of his actions his reputation has suffered from numerous assaults against it.

For many years there was almost unanimous agreement that Walter Murray Gibson was a rascal, an opportunist, an adventurer, and a dishonest man who defrauded the Mormons of Hawaii and "stole the island of Lanai." Not until 1972 did a scholar defend him and attempt to persuade the public that Gibson had been misrepresented or misunderstood.

Because Gwynn Barrett has revised the earlier conclusions concerning Gibson, it is appropriate to assess him once again in the light of historical evidence. It is also proper to evaluate Barrett's "revisit." Since his article dealt primarily with the Mormon period of Gibson's career, this article will also be confined to that period, from 1859 to 1864.

The central issue concerning Captain Gibson is whether he was an honest man. As Professor Barrett asserts, it would be inaccurate to conclude that Gibson was "simply an intriguer or an opportunist." An assessment of Gibson's goals and motivations, his personal desires and hopes for humanity, is difficult to achieve. Yet, this is the most important question to raise concerning him. This writer believes that Gibson had some good qualities of character and that he may have honestly desired the welfare of the Hawaiian people, as Barrett implies in his "revisit." However, even though some altruistic goal may have motivated Gibson's actions, he, in fact, lived according to his own set of values which were pragmatic, expedient, and opportunistic. The most serious difficulty with Gibson arises when a scholar must weigh the evidence and decide whether Gibson was primarily a rascal or whether his motivations were actually altruistic but unfortunately overshadowed by his unethical behavior.

One of the most important questions raised concerning Gibson is how he acquired a reputation for dishonesty. For a revisionist thesis to stand the test of time and scholarly scrutiny, it is usually necessary to discredit the original sources of information. According to Barrett, the origin of Gibson's bad name should be attributed to the writings of Thomas G. Thrum and Andrew Jenson. After Gibson's excommunication from the Mormon church in April 1864 a "tradition developed that Gibson had cheated the Mormons—that he had stolen lands owned by the church while attempting to build an island kingdom over which he, the 'Shepherd Saint,' would preside." The inference is that Thrum crystallized these traditions in a "political tract" titled The Shepherd Saint of Lanai. . . , his objective being to discredit Gibson as an "opportunist."

Thrum's motivations unquestionably colored his choice of information to print concerning Gibson. But of equal importance is the question of whether the assertions made by Thrum can be impugned. It would have helped verify the thesis of the "revisit" if some space had been devoted to proving that Thrum's Shepherd Saint is an invalid document. However, Barrett simply states that after Gibson became "prominent in politics, Thrum objected to Gibson's nativism. Aligning himself with the white oligarchy, Thrum railed against Gibson. . . ." This brief statement is intended to convince the reader that the basic old source is the perpetuator of an incorrect tradition. However, no evidence is produced to show that the letters, receipts, and other writings contained in the Shepherd Saint were forged documents or that they had been falsely passed off upon Thrum by some Mormon zealot who was trying to harm Gibson's political cause.

Andrew Jenson is the second writer criticized in the "revisit." His "History of the Hawaiian Mission" and an article titled "Walter Murray Gibson," which appeared in 1900, are mentioned. But Jenson's works are dismissed with these words: "In both his 'History' and in his article, Jenson used Thrum's Shepherd Saint as one of his primary sources" and "But, most Gibson accounts have relied on Andrew Jenson's views, and, in turn, Thomas G. Thrum's Shepherd Saint of Lanai" 5 The objective here is to discredit Jenson because he used Thrum as a primary source. But, nothing is said to prove the invalidity of either Thrum or Jenson.

According to the "revisit," Jenson's article appears to be based primarily on one source, Thrum. Such is not the case. Jenson, who lists his sources in a footnote on the first page, used church documents, U.S. government records (probably those used by Thrum), Biography and Family Records of Lorenzo Snow by his sister Eliza R. Snow Smith, The Shepherd Saint of Lanai by Thomas G. Thrum, Honolulu and San Francisco newspapers, and his own notes taken in interviews in Hawaii in 1895.

Obviously, Jenson's article on Gibson depends on many sources. His "History of the Hawaiian Mission" provides researchers with all of the information listed above, plus much more. Jenson quotes at great length from letters dated 1864 and 1865; from newspaper accounts of Gibson's actions and movements prior to his expulsion from the LDS church, as well as contemporary newspaper reports concerning the actual process of excommunication, the nature of the trial, the charges, and so on; and from W. W. Cluff, Joseph F. Smith, Alma L. Smith, and Ezra T. Benson, who were involved in the excommunication proceedings in Hawaii. Jenson also had access to the "Manuscript History of Brigham Young" which contains some important information on the Gibson period.

The evidence found in the "History of the Hawaiian Mission" is sufficient to prove that the traditional view of Gibson as a man who stole Lanai from the LDS church was fully established from the day Gibson was excommunicated. Jenson wrote his works more than thirty years after the actual events had transpired, but the information he used was contemporary to the event.

In addition to the requirement of destroying the standard sources, it is helpful to uncover new sources of information that demand revision of the existing conclusions. It is asserted in the "revisit" that

Diaries, letters, and journals heretofore not readily available to scholars do not substantiate the Thrum-Jenson interpretation of Gibson's missionary activities in the islands and cast some doubt upon the traditional view of his premiership. In the pages that follow, Gibson's Hawaiian activities— particularly those relating to the Mormon Church—will be considered in the light of this new information.

Three classes of new information are pointed out by Barrett: diaries, letters, and journals. Perhaps the statement above is made only as a generalization, for a review of the sources used reveals the following: diaries: one cited, Gibson's of 1886-88, has nothing to add in revising prior opinions about his Mormon years; letters: many citations, almost all are found in the archives of the LDS church where they have been available to researchers for many years; journals: one is cited, the "Journal of President Brigham Young's Office." Also cited are eighteen books, two masters' theses, seven articles, eight different newspapers, the "Manuscript History of the Hawaiian Mission" by Jenson, and the papers of Joseph F. Smith. Most of the early materials have been available to scholars for many years. In fact, these are the same sources that previous scholars have used in arriving at their unfriendly conclusions concerning Gibson.

The major questions relating to Gibson and the Latter-day Saints can be conveniently approached in this order: How and why did Gibson become involved with the Latter-day Saints? Was Gibson ever a devout, believing member of the church? When he was called on a mission to the islands, what authority did he carry with him to direct the church in those parts? Did he actually cheat the Hawaiian Latter-day Saints and steal the island of Lanai from them? What finally brought an end to Gibson's supremacy as leader of the Saints in Hawaii?

Gibson's initial involvement with the Mormons relates closely to his previous experiences. Almost a decade before, while in Indonesia, he developed the idea that it might be possible for him to take control of an island and establish a kingdom or an empire in the Pacific. In 1856, prior to his joining the Mormon church, he combined this dream with his proposed solution to the "Mormon problem." In a letter to John M. Bernhisel, Utah's delegate to Congress, Gibson suggested that the entire Utah-based colony of Latter-day Saints be moved to Papua, New Guinea. The plan was presented to the Buchanan administration, but it was deemed too expensive and impractical.

Gibson was not easily defeated. He decided to visit Utah and convert the church leaders to his scheme. He wrote to Brigham Young:

I have spent many years among the "isles that wait" for the Lord; and while I lay in a dungeon in the island of Java, a voice said to me; "you shall show the way to a people, who shall build up a kingdom in these isles, whose lines of power shall run around the earth." My purposes of life were changed from that hour. ... I have thought again and again, that your people were the people; and yet as often rejected the idea;-—but now I have resolved to come into your midst, and declare the burden of my spirit.

In the fall of 1859 Gibson journeyed to Salt Lake City. On the day of his arrival the Deseret News said:

Captain Gibson's object in visiting Utah is to use his influence with President Young to get the Saints to move to New Guinea or Papua. . . . Mr. Gibson says that the only object he has in view in wishing to induce the Mormons to go to New Guinea is in wishing to do good to the natives of the islands, as he believes them to be descendants of the house of Israel. . . . President Young told him to investigate the Latter Day work, and if he found it to be true, and if he would be baptized, he would ordain him an Elder and send him and a few Elders to that people, and he could then do them more good that way than any other way he knew of.

Gibson and his daughter stayed in Salt Lake City for the winter and in January 1860 were baptized. It can be suggested that Gibson joined the church in an effort to gain Young's support for his emigration plans. This seems to fit with his later actions. But another suggestion is also tenable, that Gibson was truly impressed with the political and economic ideas of the Saints. Perhaps he was not hypocritical in joining the church because he could see much good in the total system. He later denied any belief in the doctrines of Mormonism, but he was consistent in his praise of the church's "system of social polity," as he termed it.

In the spring of 1860 Gibson was sent on a mission to the eastern states. He returned on November 4. Three weeks later President Young called Gibson on a mission to Japan and Malaysia, saying that "Gibson was going forth fully authorized to negotiate with all the nations of this world who would obey the gospel of Christ. . . ."

Gibson left Salt Lake City an ordained high priest, one who had received his endowments or highest ordinations; but according to Joseph Musser, when Gibson arrived at San Francisco on the way to his mission field he "disclaimed membership in the Mormon Church and delivered a series of lectures on 'Malaysia.' " At the same time, he reported the success of his lectures in letters to Brigham Young. In these letters he claimed to be known as a Mormon. It appears that Gibson did associate with Latter-day Saints in California, but he was not open with nonmembers about his new religion.

Gibson also had reason, as a missionary, to make his church affiliation known when he arrived in Honolulu, but he did not do so publicly. He arrived in Hawaii on July 4, 1861, identifying himself as a traveler and lecturer. After a two-month stay in Honolulu, he sailed to Lahaina, Maui, where he was found a month later presiding over the regular October conference of the Hawaiian Saints. His presence there was soon noticed by reporters from the Pacific Commercial Advertiser. They asked him many direct questions, among them whether he was a Mormon.

He answered that he had come here as the friend of the poor and despised class of our population, that his sympathies were with them. . . . We stated . . . that we were surprised that he did not, during his stay ... in Honolulu, divulge the fact that he was a Mormon. . . . He replied that he had not purposely made any concealments, that there were gentlemen in Honolulu who knew the fact. . .

In a second interview in the Advertiser Gibson said that "he believed in no creed or sect whatever." When asked if he was converted to the doctrines of Mormonism, "he replied that he had not studied their doctrines or books, but had become convinced that the system of social polity practiced by them was the best to be found on the globe." A week later on October 24, 1861, another article appeared in the Advertiser in which Gibson was quoted as saying: "I care for no creed but for humanity, and love to work for those that are despised and have no friends." These statements are at odds with Barrett's assertion that when Gibson reached Hawaii "he began immediately to proselyte."

The general public did not know Gibson was a Mormon, but during this time Brigham Young received letters from Gibson, telling of his good works. To read them without the benefit of concurrent sources such as the reports of the Advertiser, one would think that Gibson was working full-time for the benefit of the Hawaiian Saints. For example, Gibson's first letter to Young from Hawaii written six days after his arrival reported on his meeting several haole ("white") brethren, the resolution of some problems in the church, his intention to send twenty native elders on missions, his studying the native language, the gathering place in Lanai and how much it would cost to purchase, the estimated number of Saints in the islands, and so forth. Obviously, he had been very busy doing some checking, but Gibson had not immediately informed the Hawaiian Mormons that he was a member.

In 1895 Andrew Jenson interviewed Kapo Kou, widow of J. W. H. Kou, whom Gibson had ordained an apostle. She reported that "for some time after Gibson's arrival, he visited among the whites at Honolulu and lectured, but did not tell at first that he was a 'Mormon.' On one occasion, however, he met with a select few . . . but they were [told] not to tell anybody about it for the time being."

Two other items give perspective to the question of Gibson's motivations in connecting himself with the Latter-day Saints. Both of these, quoted in The Shepherd Saint, are extracted from the newspaper, Nuhou, which Gibson later founded. As editor he wrote:

Our temporary connection with the Mormon Community for a political object ... is well known, and was never denied. We came here to carry out a scheme of emigration. . . .

A few days later he wrote:

When our shepherd had established himself merely as a squatter upon the island of Lanai, and in the valley of Palawai, in December 1861, he had gathered around a company of native people, who designed to form, under his direction, an industrial organization. He proposed to establish a joint stock farm, a combination of labor and skill without one dollar of capital. . . .

His objectives were unusual for a Latter-day Saint missionary. But Gibson was a very unusual man. Is it fair to impugn his motives simply because he did not follow the typical life-style of a Mormon missionary? I believe that it is proper to argue that because Gibson was an experienced, full-time, ordained missionary, and because he had accepted a call to represent an organization that had established practices, he was under obligation to represent that organization honestly and openly.

In time Captain Gibson did make himself known as a Mormon. More importantly, he became the leader of all Mormons in the islands. Brigham Young had given him broad powers to "negotiate" with all the nations of the world. However, to negotiate is not to take over, direct, appoint, own, and collect in the name of the church. He was a high priest, set apart by church authorities to be a missionary, and given a certificate stating that was the case. But, he did not have authority from the LDS church to act as "Chief President of the Islands of the Sea and of the Hawaiian Islands, for the Church of the Latter Day Saints."

Considering that Gibson had wanted to go to Japan and Southeast Asia to do his mission work, how did he end up in Hawaii? The "revisit" states that Brigham Young "instructed" Gibson to go to Hawaii. "Instructed" is too strong a word. Actually, Young suggested to Gibson that he might "call at the Sandwich Islands, the Society Islands if you can make it convenient for there are many native brethren on those islands." No special authority was given to Gibson by Brigham Young in any of the letters that subsequently passed between them. Later, Gibson was sustained by the Hawaiian Saints in the offices he claimed, but he had taken offices to himself without authorization from leaders in Salt Lake City.

Gibson sent very lengthy letters to Young on a number of occasions. He did not always report the full facts or the significance of what he was doing, but he did report.

I am now settled down on . . . this poor and remote stake of Zion. I have thought it best to ordain some Seventies; and some Aaronic priests attend to the duties of bishops; and the title loving natives have not been backward in giving them the new appelation. As this Oceanican branch; as I desire to term it, is totally unqualified for gathering to the center stake in America, it will I trust meet your approval, that they should enjoy an organization after the pattern of the main body of the Church. Hence there has been established a First Presidency. . . .

Brigham Young did not mention this letter in later correspondence with Gibson. He may have been too occupied with other matters to pay much attention to Gibson's moves. It is regrettable that Young missed the rather obvious hints that something was amiss. Around April 1862 Gibson organized a quorum of twelve apostles. He did not report this to Young, nor did he mention the creation of a new office, that of archbishop.

Another very serious action that Gibson did not report was simony, the sale of church offices. Apparently Gibson got into this business very early in his Hawaiian ecclesiastical career. According to the Advertiser:

On the table was a considerable amount of silver coin, which, as we learned from the natives, was obtained by selling to them some blanks which also lay on the table. . . . These blanks are filled out to constitute Elders or other offices or members of the Mormon Church.

This selling of office became a standard practice in the mission. Thrum cites evidence that the practice continued, and Gibson's own letters admit the fact. In March 1862, the captain informed Hawaiian Foreign Minister Robert C. Wyllie that the accusations against him were true. He had received up to that time $65.50 for the issuance of certificates that entitled some Mormons to hold "petty offices" in the church. (Only Gibson could consider the office of apostle to be "petty.") The practice continued until he was excommunicated."

Were Gibson's motives altruistic? His diary makes it abundantly clear that he was not interested in establishing a benevolent kingdom subject to the will of the people, but rather he wanted a kingdom to glorify himself:

I could make a glorious little kingdom out of this, or any such chance, with such people; so loving and obedient. ... I would fill this lovely crater with corn and wine and oil and babies and love and health and brotherly rejoicing and sisters kisses and the memory of me for evermore. I view him [the Hawaiian] and treat him as an interesting yet feeble younger brother, a subject of an oceanic empire. . . . Who or what shall I fear where I am King—and I shall keep within my Kingdom. . . . I am King; not of oceanica, not of Malaysia, not of Hawaii nei, not of Lanai, but of Palawai on this day of grace. But this is but the baby of my Kingdom. Oh smiling Palawai, thou infant hope of my glorious kingdom.

The major question relating to Walter Murray Gibson is whether or not he "cheated the Mormons." Is the tradition that Gibson stole lands owned by the church true? A civil case against him would be fairly easy to establish. As de facto trustee for the LDS church, Gibson collected money from the Hawaiian Saints for the express purpose of using it to buy portions of the island of Lanai as a gathering place for the Hawaiian members of the church. He repeatedly told the Saints that this was the purpose of their contributions and sacrifices. But Gibson was guilty of using the collected funds for his own aggrandizement, thus laying himself open to judgment in a civil court. Barrett takes an entirely different view of this matter:

In his efforts to acquire land for church purposes, Gibson soon learned that the members were too poor and too factious to be able to rally behind a land program. Therefore, he personally assumed the responsibility for the accumulation of property and in so doing he allowed the Saints to use his land as their own as long as he remained in the church.

There is no evidence in the sources to justify this assertion.

By any normal standard, the Saints were too poor to buy the land. But they still contributed the funds that Gibson used to purchase the property. Even if one refuses to use Thrum's pamphlet—which contains numerous documents verifying the fact that the Saints gave much to purchase the land—there is ample evidence from Gibson's own pen to prove that, in fact, it was the Saints' money that purchased the land:

As you know that the Church has but small means to commence any kind of establishment. I expect that some effort should be made to bring in some contributions at the next conferences. Do you send word to the different branches about the time . . . and also to prepare their contributions of money, mats, and other articles to bring with them. I have received contributions from the natives ... to the sum of $353.00 for the purchase of land on this island or boats or the things for their use and I have distributed $360.00 for land, boat, payment of taxes, and so forth.

During the summer of 1862 Gibson continued to implement his plans to obtain land. He was eventually successful in getting title to the lands owned by Chief Haalelea, and he was also able to arrange a lease for many thousands of acres of government land. (He did not own all of Lanai as is sometimes said by present-day Latter-day Saints of Hawaii.) In a letter to George A. Smith in March 1864, Gibson said: "We have built a permanent stake and home for the saints in this island. I have bought 6,000 acres of land and leased about 20,000." Barrett concludes, in view of the fact that other church leaders were purchasing property in their own names, that Gibson had every right to do so. The key issue, however, is not whether Gibson bought the property in his own name but whether his actions, then and later, demonstrate his supposedly altruistic motives.

Late in 1863 letters arrived in Utah from a number of disgruntled Hawaiian elders who had left Lanai and who questioned the actions of Gibson. These letters were brought to the attention of the First Presidency, and on January 24, 1864, Brigham Young appointed Apostles Ezra T. Benson and Lorenzo Snow to go to Hawaii to investigate. Three former missionaries were to go with them as interpreters: William W. Cluff, Alma L. Smith, and Joseph F. Smith, who was to remain as mission president. These men arrived on Lanai on April 2 and began holding meetings with Gibson the next morning. The two apostles spent their time talking with him, while the others toured the island to inspect the changes that had been made. When it became apparent that the charges against Gibson were true, a meeting of the priesthood was held on April 7, 1864, at which it was proposed that Gibson be excommunicated. Only one Hawaiian elder voted for this proposition; evidently those who had remained in Lanai were still subject to his influence. The official excommunication took place a day later, at Lahaina, Maui.

That only one Hawaiian voted to excommunicate Gibson is significant. It could be argued that the people loved and respected Gibson. After all they were not bonded slaves, nor were they forced to stay on Lanai. It is obvious that Gibson was respected. He had directed their lives for almost three years. A large percentage of the members of the church in Hawaii at that time had been converted during the years Gibson was in charge. It is not surprising that these people would question the authority and motives of strangers. Nevertheless, most of the Saints left Lanai within two months of learning of Gibson's excommunication. They now had alternative leaders (Joseph F. Smith, et al.) whom the older Hawaiians remembered, appreciated, and respected. It is also likely that they were relieved to be free from the obligation to gather at Lanai, a difficult place to live at best.

The first report of the Lanai events was written by Apostle Ezra T. Benson on April 12, 1864, four days after Gibson was excommunicated.

We found that in the district of Palawai 6,000 acres of land had been bought by the Church. . . . The Saints had been constrained to turn over all their substance, horses, sheep, goats, poultry, houses and lands to the Church to gather up to Lanai. . . .

About a month later, on May 4, 1864, Joseph F. Smith wrote a letter to George Q. Cannon adding some details:

We found that he had ordained twelve apostles. High priests, seventys, elders, bishops, and "priestesses of temples," all of whom had' to pay a certain sum corresponding to the various degrees of honor bestowed upon them. Gibson had bought the district of Palawai (6,000 acres) by the donation of the Saints, assuring them he was doing it all for them for the Church. He persuaded them to give all they had to the Church and made it a test of fellowship. A [any could not bear it and were excommunicated. . . .

Brothers Benson and Snow required him to sign the land over to the Church as it was deeded to him and his heirs. This he flatly refused to do informing them he should take his own course, that he was not sent here by the Church, had received no counsel from Brigham Young, had acted upon his own responsibility in what he had done, and he was not beholding to the Church.

On April 29, 1864, Alma L. Smith wrote from Lahaina, Maui, adding still another dimension to the reports that, in sum, were damning to Gibson's character and behavior. After holding eight meetings with the Saints at various locations on Maui, he found

the Saints in a very low and sunken condition, both spiritually and temporally. There were no meetings held on the island, no family prayers attended to. They said the reason for this was that Gibson had not only instructed, but actually forbid them to hold meetings, preach the gospel, read the scriptures, or attend to family prayers. ... He told them that there had been enough of those spiritual things. . . . Almost everything they had in shape of property, such as horses, oxen, sheep, goats, hogs, fowls, houses, lands, farming utensils ... he had prevailed upon them to turn over to him in behalf of the Church, promising them to buy a tract of land for the Saints upon these islands to gather upon.

The observations of Elders Snow and Benson concerning their missions and actions while in Hawaii were published in the Deseret News. After their report President Young "stated briefly that the charge against Walter Murray Gibson was not for owning property nor for claiming it, for no one cared how much he had if he only did good with it to the poor who had given it," but the charge was his persistent refusal to be dictated by the priesthood. . . ."

Later sources that are significant are another letter from Joseph F. Smith, dated July 5, 1864, that tells how the people were mourning their losses of land, chapels, and other property; and a conference report by John R. Young in October 1864 that discussed the "scattered," "brokenup," "disorganized state of the Church" at the time of the elders' arrival the previous April.

Probably the most quoted and most detailed LDS source concerning Gibson and the Mormons are the writings of W. W. Cluff who had accompanied the apostles when they visited Gibson on Lanai. duff's sixteen-page account of the entire Gibson affair from an eyewitness point of view appeared in print in 1882 as My Last Mission to the Sandwich Islands.™ This source was quoted almost verbatim by Eliza R. Snow Smith in her book, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, published in 1884, and hence Lorenzo Snow is frequently but mistakenly cited as the source of this narration. iT Andrew Jenson also used Cluff as a major source. Cluff's account agrees with that of Joseph F. Smith and John R. Young in 1864 as mentioned above.

The point of all this is obvious. The historical sources relating to Gibson and the Mormons are too abundant and too unified to support the thesis that a new, more sympathetic appraisal of Gibson is in order. The sources also prove that the "tradition" of Gibson's stealing Lanai developed immediately after the event and not some years later as Barrett asserts. Thrum was not the person who established this "tradition" nor was Andrew Jenson.

For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.