What Was the Third Convention?

The Third Convention was a decade-long schism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beginning in 1936, in which nearly a third of Mexican Latter-day Saints rejected American authority to demand an indigenous mission president. Rather than a theological rebellion, this split stemmed from growing national identity and local leadership missteps. Remarkably, the separated Saints remained fiercely loyal to core Church doctrines until a historic 1946 visit by President George Albert Smith healed the rift through careful cultural diplomacy. This provided a learning experience for Church leaders during the development of Global Mormonism. In this interview, Aidan Caplan and Tristan Caplan draw on newly translated documents to explore the origins and legacy of this movement.

Don’t miss new insights on topics such as Saints, Volume 2 and the History of the Church in Mexico. Sign up to get them straight to your inbox.

The Origins of the Third Convention in Mexico

— Newly translated documents reveal how Mexican government policies and leadership disputes sparked this 1936 Mormon schism.

What was the Third Convention?

The Third Convention was a schismatic movement within the Mexican mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that arose from a desire for a native Mexican mission president.

Beginning in 1936, about one-third (800-1500) of Mexican Saints rejected the authority of their American mission presidents. Despite establishing their own priesthood hierarchy with native Mexicans at the helm, Third Conventionists generally considered themselves faithful adherents of standard Church doctrine.

In 1946, most Third Conventionists reconciled with the Church following a historic visit by Church President George Albert Smith.

What unique primary sources did you use to explore this schism within the Mexican Latter-day Saint community?

Our paper relied heavily on the Informe General, a compilation of documents which Third Conventionists sent to or received from Church authorities. While earlier scholarship drew on some of these materials, we integrated previously neglected documents into our analysis to provide a more complete account of both the origins of the Third Convention and the 1946 reconciliation. We also drew on oral histories with former Third Conventionists, some of which we translated from Spanish into English for the first time in a scholarly work. While these oral histories took place many decades after the events of the Third Convention, they offer unique personal perspectives that more formal contemporary correspondence did not convey.

We integrated previously neglected documents into our analysis.

How did the anticlerical policies of the Mexican government under President Plutarco Elías Calles inadvertently set the stage for local leadership demands?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an incidental victim of the Calles government’s anticlerical policies, which were directed primarily against the Catholic Church. Calles’ strict enforcement of the 1917 Constitution’s ban on foreign ministers was particularly consequential, since Mexican mission president Rey Pratt was legally prohibited from operating in any official religious capacity in Mexico. Pratt decided to delegate important leadership positions to indigenous Mexicans, including Isaías Juárez and Abel Páez, to circumvent legal problems.

In 1934, the First Presidency appointed Harold W. Pratt to serve as mission president. While Pratt was nominally a Mexican citizen, he was not of Mexican descent, and his efforts to exercise greater control over the mission than his predecessors led to resentment among some Saints who had grown accustomed to greater autonomy and felt Pratt’s appointment was contrary to the spirit of Mexican law.

Systemic Tension and Nativist Claims

— Failed leadership mediation and Margarito Bautista’s nationalistic Book of Mormon theology cemented the Mexican Latter-day Saint divide.

What occurred during the First and Second Conventions in 1932, and how did Church leaders in Salt Lake City initially respond to the petitions for a native mission president?

The First and Second Conventions were held soon after the sudden death of Mexican mission president Rey L. Pratt. Pratt died in April 1931, and the conventions were held on January 5 and April 3, 1932, respectively. The primary purpose of the First Convention was to petition LDS Church authorities to replace Antoine R. Ivins with a native Mexican mission president, though the assembled Saints also discussed more mundane topics such as the lack of missionaries, chapels, and Spanish-language church literature in the Mexican mission.

Receiving no satisfactory answer to their petition, the attendees convened a Second Convention to renew their request. Although higher Church authorities seem not to have responded to this petition either, Ivins travelled to Mexico upon learning of this second challenge to his authority. He rebuked the leaders of the two conventions, informing them that their request was inappropriate. Yet Ivins imposed no formal disciplinary action, and departed Mexico almost as abruptly as he had arrived. He never returned during his tenure as Mexican mission president.

Does the publication of the minutes of what Fernando Gómez believes to be the First and Second Conventions change how you view the events leading up to the Third Convention?

Yes, although they challenge rather than supersede our original interpretation of the First and Second Conventions. Both the minutes published by Fernando Gómez and oral histories produced by former Third Conventionists decades afterwards support the conclusion that the First and Second Conventions discussed mundane problems faced by the Mexican Mission, including the shortage of missionaries and chapels. Yet notably, the surviving minutes contain no mention of seeking a Mexican mission president, despite strong contemporary evidence to the contrary.

In a letter to President Heber J. Grant dated May 21, 1936, prominent Third Conventionist leader Abel Páez made clear that the Third Convention was undertaken to “renew the works of two conventions held when Brother Antoine Ivins Jr. was President of the Mission” and that “the true objective of said conventions was to…petition the First Presidency of the Church, so that it would concede us the grace of naming a President clearly of Mexican race.” Writing only a few years after the First and Second Conventions, Páez evidently believed their primary purpose was to petition for a native Mexican mission president.

It is possible that Páez reinterpreted the purpose of the First and Second Conventions in light of the Third Convention, framing a secondary aspiration of the earlier meetings as their “true objective.” Nevertheless, the complete silence of the minutes on the desire for a Mexican Mission President makes it difficult to maintain that this issue was merely a secondary topic of discussion.

The dating of the Second Convention minutes is also difficult to reconcile with the published minutes of the Third Convention. The Informe General states multiple times that the First and Second Conventions happened four years prior to the Third Convention, and even offers exact dates (January 5, 1932 and April 3, 1932). In his new book that included the published minutes of the Second Convention, Gómez states that the Second Convention took place on February 11, 1934.

There is consequently a real discrepancy.

There is consequently a real discrepancy between Third Conventionist accounts of the First and Second Conventions and the minutes. This discrepancy could be due to incomplete minutes, a relevant discussion that happened outside of the formal session, or even deliberate omission of the sensitive topic. The published minutes presented by Gómez may even relate to a separate meeting altogether. We still believe that obtaining a Mexican mission president was an important, and probably central, goal of the First and Second Conventions.

While past scholarship emphasizes the actions of the First Presidency, you argue that local leaders like Harold W. Pratt and Isaías Juárez played an extensive role in precipitating the schism. What went wrong in their interactions with the Third Conventionists?

A week after the Third Convention, Mexican Mission president Harold W. Pratt, Third Convention leader Abel Páez, and prominent Mexican Saints Isaías Juárez and Bernabé Parra agreed on a plan to resolve the dispute over leadership of the mission. Pratt, Juárez, and Parra would each send an unbiased report relating the events of the Third Convention to the First Presidency, and journey together with Páez to Salt Lake City to communicate Third Conventionist aspirations to general authorities.

Yet before this could happen, Pratt and Juárez began preaching against Third Conventionists, warning the community of “apostate brothers” and “false prophets.” Whether the two were trying to uphold church authority or had indeed reneged on their earlier conciliatory approach, Páez and other Third Conventionists felt betrayed. Juárez in particular had been a prominent leader of the First and Second Conventions, and his apparent defection to Pratt’s side was a harsh blow, reinforcing Conventionist belief that the agreement would not be honored.

How did Margarito Bautista’s book, La evolución de México, fuel a nationalistic, Book of Mormon-based identity among indigenous Mexican Saints?

Margarito Bautista’s heretical magnum opus La evolución de México claimed that indigenous Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, were the descendants of Nephites and Lamanites and destined to reclaim their place in the House of Israel by accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a prophet.

These views were quite appealing to many Mexican Saints, as they offered a sense of “chosenness” based around Mexican identity at a time of growing Mexican nationalism. Bautista printed over 7,000 copies, more than twice the total number of Mexican Saints at the time. Despite Pratt’s efforts to suppress its publication and distribution, La evolución circulated widely enough that most Mexican Saints received at least secondhand exposure to its ideas.

Mexican Latter-day Saint Margarito Bautista, circa 1920. — Margarito Bautista, a leading force in the schism known as the Third Convention.

To summarize, what would you say were the causes of the schism?

The schism owed to two chief factors: a growing desire for autonomy among Mexican Saints, coupled with the mishandling of the dispute by local mission leadership. While Mexican Saints were eager to receive leadership roles in the church, they were hardly rebellious, and Pratt might have averted a schism by dealing unambiguously and constructively with Third Conventionist leaders and activities.

Conversely, it is also unlikely the schism would have taken place without Mexican Saints’ desire for autonomy. While this desire stemmed from many places, including a history of absenteeism by Mexican mission presidents, Bautista’s La evolución de México, and nascent Mexican nationalism, it was nevertheless necessary for the schism to occur.

The 1946 Mexico City Conference and Reconciliation

— Church President George Albert Smith helped end the schism in 1946 by honoring Mexican cultural dignity.

In 1946, nearly a decade after the excommunications, the Third Convention dissolved, and many of its members returned to the Church. Why were these dissenters receptive to a reconciliation?

Third Conventionists were receptive to reconciliation for two main reasons.

First, the dogmatic gap between the LDS Church and the Third Convention was minimal. Third Conventionists consistently maintained that they were in harmony with the LDS Church, and even expelled prominent members such as Margarito Bautista and Daniel Mejía over their support for polygamy. Moreover, correspondence sent from Third Conventionist leadership to President Heber J. Grant made clear that they still regarded the LDS church president as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Heber J. Grant Quotes for Latter-day Saints

Second, the diplomacy of Mexican mission president Arwell L. Pierce was also critical. Pierce treated Third Conventionists with dignity and respect, and his longstanding personal relationship with Abel Páez facilitated dialogue between the splintered communities.

How did newly sustained Church President George Albert Smith and mission president Arwell L. Pierce strategically navigate the dignidad of the Mexican leaders to facilitate the reunion?

Dignidad – dignity in Spanish – is an important concept in Mexican culture. Preserving the dignidad of Third Conventionist leaders, who had been excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1937, was vital to a successful reconciliation.

Arwell L. Pierce carefully preserved the dignidad of Third Conventionist leaders in his overtures to them, treating them as equals and drawing on his longstanding friendship with some, such as Abel Páez.

Yet the most tangible face-saving measures owed to George Albert Smith. Smith commuted the sentences of the excommunicated Third Conventionist leaders from excommunication to disfellowshipment, a lesser sentence which did not require rebaptism. Moreover, he fulfilled a longstanding Third Conventionist desire to voice their views to the Prophet in person by journeying to Mexico in May 1946 and meeting with them.

You argue that George Albert Smith’s personal visit to Mexico City was of greater relative importance to the reconciliation than Arwell L. Pierce’s diplomacy. Why was the prophet’s presence so decisive?

Third Conventionists had always been eager to make their voices heard to the Prophet in person. They believed that local mission leaders had deliberately misrepresented their views, manipulating President Heber J. Grant into excommunicating them. As early as 1939, Third Convention leaders wrote to the First Presidency expressing their fervent desire for Church president Heber J. Grant to visit them personally and hear their case.

Smith’s visit thus fulfilled one of the Conventionists’ fondest dreams, and his rhetoric of forgiveness seemingly vindicated their longstanding belief that reconciliation would follow if the Prophet heard them directly.

What Is the History of the Church in Mexico?

The Exile of Margarito Bautista and the Legacy of the Schism

— Margarito Bautista’s exile over polygamy eased reconciliation, while the broader schism taught the global LDS Church to empower native leadership.

Margarito Bautista was expelled from the Third Convention before 1946. How did his absence and his controversial defense of polygamy indirectly contribute to the reconciliation?

Margarito Bautista was an important leader of the Third Convention in its early days. Third Conventionists had initially proposed him as a candidate to replace Pratt as mission president, but he declined the nomination in favor of Abel Páez, who remained at the apex of the Conventionist priesthood hierarchy until the reconciliation.

Yet early in the Third Convention’s history, Bautista’s sudden open defence of polygamy and romantic pursuit of several young Mexican Mormon women ostracized him from the movement. Some Third Conventionists followed him, and Bautista founded a polygamist utopian colony where he spent the rest of his life preaching heretical beliefs.

Consequently, reconciliation would likely have proved more difficult had Bautista remained a leading figure in the Third Convention. His expulsion both established that the Third Convention largely adhered to orthodox LDS doctrine and removed a potentially important source of doctrinal discord.

Who Was Joseph W. Musser?

What happened to Bautista after his expulsion?

In the wake of his expulsion, Bautista founded a polygamist utopian colony, Colonia Industrial de la Nueva Jerusalén, comprising an initial seventy-seven adherents. Bautista persisted in his heretical beliefs until his death, preaching to his followers and attempting to win over new converts. In his 1952 pamphlet Wilt Thou Restore the Kingdom to Israel?, he continued to defend polygamy against Arwell L. Pierce’s recent condemnation of the practice among Mormons.

Ultimately, how did the resolution of the Third Convention change the way the global Church approached native leadership and non-European cultures in the latter half of the twentieth century?

In 1946, despite its long history of foreign missionary work, the Church’s membership remained overwhelmingly American and had not assumed its modern global character. The Third Convention demonstrated the importance of cultivating native leadership and treating local Saints as partners rather than as subordinates in evangelization efforts.

Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!

Get new interviews and articles from leading scholars delivered straight to your inbox.

About the Scholars

Aidan Caplan is a doctoral student and researcher in the Department of Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His academic expertise encompasses both quantitative labor market dynamics and the historical development of religious movements. In addition to his interdisciplinary historical research published in the Journal of Mormon History, he has co-authored notable economic studies on remote work trends for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Caplan holds an undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University, bringing rigorous analytical methodologies and archival research skills to his diverse academic endeavors. This methodical, data-driven approach uniquely informs his exploration of the sociological and institutional tensions that fueled the Third Convention in Mexico.

Tristan Caplan is a researcher and Ph.D. student in the Department of Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His core research interests bridge contemporary labor economics with the historical sociology of Latter-day Saint communities in Latin America. Alongside his widely cited contributions analyzing post-pandemic work models for institutions like the Centre for Economic Policy Research, he has published rigorously researched archival studies in the Journal of Mormon History. Earning his foundational degree in economics from Vanderbilt University, he combines advanced analytical training with a meticulous eye for primary source translation. Caplan utilizes this interdisciplinary lens to provide fresh, evidence-based insights into the complex leadership disputes and cultural dynamics underlying the Third Convention schism.