I am continually disturbed and annoyed by this need for consensus. What's the point of a Prophet of God if his revelation is constantly and consistently at the mercy of a COMMITTEE???
@joyce7892 If someone is ,actually receiving Divine information. It would not be up for Debate....right??? It would be passing information from GOD, that would preclude discussion. To open that up for Debate,would be to invalidate a Direct Commandment. If you talked with God you would follow God's exhortation,without hesitation or complaint. Or you would be in direct Disobedience.
@jerrirogers3290 See, that's what I think too. Obviously there is a place for counciling together and discussion. But if the Lord sends a revelation, you DO IT.
Everything...everything...in the church is based on labeling fallacies. It's all deceptive marketing. The "prophet" is obviously not a prophet. He's a corporate CEO. But they slap the "prophet" label on him because they're selling religious merch ("church merch") and services. The "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" is just a corporate board of directors. Their "revelations" are obviously not revelations. They're just corporate decisions. But again they slap a religious-sounding "revelation" label on their corporate decisions because they're selling religious merch and services. Corporate secrets are labeled as "sacred". Weird underwear is just weird underwear...but slap a "holy garment" label on some weird underwear and...voila!...your corporation gets an underwear monopoly for a certain segment of the population.....
@@jerrirogers3290 All the confusion goes away as soon as correct labels are applied. Everything in the LDS Church is incorrectly labeled (intentionally mislabeled). The CEO is just a corporate CEO. But they confuse people by calling him a "prophet". Corporate decisions are just corporate decisions, but they confuse people by calling them "revelations". The board of directors is just that, but they label it as the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles". The weird underwear is just that, but they call that line of church merch "holy garments".
Thank you for your scholarly work Dr. Harris, and thank you Mormon Stories Podcast for providing the platform. I was a history major at BYU in the 90’s. It’s SO refreshing to get honest, unflinching, true scholarly research on this subject.
As a former Mormon married to tri-racial Brazilian women, this is extremely telling and important to me in my journey. So glad my kids are outside the religious tradition of Mormonism.
I am really enjoying this series! I was pleasantly surprised when you mentioned Chad Flake. Chad Flake was my great uncle. He usually spent Christmas Eve with my family. He was definitely a character. He also left a great legacy with his work at the BYU library.
When I was a student at BYU, both for my BA and MA, I had numerous opportunities to work with Flake. I thought he was an interesting guy--eccentric and funny. You are absolutely right--he left a great legacy at the BYU library. Glad you're enjoying the series!
I’m a bit behind in this series (just finished this episode today) but so grateful to Dr. Harris for taking the time to research and write about this topic. I grew up in SL County and married a black man in the ‘90s in the SL temple. We were active church members until recently. This issue was unresolved for me for so long, but I’m now getting some resolution. The harmful fallout is real. Looking forward to the remaining episodes! Thanks again to all those involved in bringing this information to light!
I wrote my dissertation about the Priesthood Ban, albeit through a Weberian lens. I think there is something to be said about the routinization of authority in the church which Julia and John sort of referred to when they pressed Matt on his defense of the bureaucratic nonsense as revelation. The meaning of revelation has changed over time to prevent charismatic authority from rising up.
That is absolutely right. As I've noted on many podcasts over the years, the meaning of revelation has changed from the 19th c. 'til now. The reason was to put more checks and balances on the church president declaring revelation. They wanted to keep out fringy doctrines like Adam-God and Blood Atonement, and with the FP and the Q12 having to sign off, it was a way to prevent charismatic leaders like B. Young from moving too far away from the center.
Although extremely difficult to watch at times, one of the best series. The most telling thing is the timeline. The truth moving like a garden slug on Ambient among men who self denominate "prophets and seers," yet the secular world moving much faster to the truth than them.
As someone who went to Genesis Group a lot in my youth (I have black family), I am happy to see its origins mentioned and discussed. Much like many other things in the church, the prevalent cultural narrative with those who participated about why it existed (at least when I was going in the early 2010s) was tinted differently than reality.
The "genesis" of the Genesis Group hasn't been told very well, in my opinion. I go into great detail in Second-Class Saints about how the group emerged, how the apostles felt about it, and, most importantly, how the Genesis leadership was divided about whether or not to lobby to end the ban.
This has been my favorite series so far. I have learned so much, and I am so impressed with Mr. Harris and his depth of research and scholarship. Will be purchasing the book, for sure, but i love hearing Matt. He makes it interesting and his sense of humor is great!
I love love your work! I don’t know that I would have been able to get through this without it. I wish I could donate, but you see I am a stay at home mom and my husband is a devout Mormon. I don’t have access to the funds and even if I did, he would probably divorce if he knew I listened/donated. It’s unfortunate because I would love to tell him that 500$ of tithing should be half mine. 😢 it’s a really hard place to be in. What makes it worse is that we really do agree on everything accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints. That’s a mouthful every time I say. But please keep up the work.
Excellent series! I completely agree with John and Julia that the leaders purposely use the word "revelation," to misdirect members about how the corporation really makes decisions. There is more power, control, awe, excitement, and authority by doing it that way. It's been enlightening, and shocking, to learn how the sausage is really made.
That is my problem with characterizing what actually happened as revelation in any meaningful sense of the word. To me the process proves the lie. The entire point of being a real, actual, not false prophet is that you are the mouthpiece of God. The true prophet receives God's command and shares God's will with the people. This whole "I don't like the ban so eventually I'm going to get all my colleagues on board with getting rid of it" is nothing but what every person and organization does all the time - have a thought, an idea, a preference, and try to see it through to make it happen. IMHO, it boils down to another example of what Bill Reel says, "The problem with Mormon truth is that it is indistinguishable from fraud". Especially in a case like this in which one could fairly expect God to be out in front of the issue (like never letting BY start the ban in the first place, maybe?????) and not decades behind, and then only sending a "revelation" when the ban is becoming too problematic in too many ways.
Of course the perception of divine power and authority translates directly to the leaders having that much more power and dominion over the people. Of course it is why the typical member is given to understand, not by accident, that changes like this occur as a result of extraordinary, supernatural, divine Revelation rather than as a result of a "Corporate" process which it undoubtedly did.
Just got to the Eldred G Smith portion. No wonder my mom felt an overwhelming sense of Satan in the room when she went to get her patriarchal blessing from him. She came from the mission field in Texas. The Missionaries would not teach her best friend who was black. No wonder.
Also, on a different but related note, you absolutely CAN engage in faith-affirming transparency on an institutional level. What they are talking about is the internal struggle that is often associated with receiving personal revelation. It is in that struggle that we align ourselves with the Divine will, and eventually come to a place where our own wants and needs are less important to us than just KNOWING. To me anyway. There are often times when I've been struggling over a revelation, sometimes for years, and eventually I just say "Omgosh I don't even care what the answer is! I'll do whatever it is, I just want to KNOW already!". Often revelation requires some amount of struggle. And I believe it would behoove everyone to know that. But when it comes to the Prophet of the Lord I am offended by why the 12 seem to approach a revelation through THEIR PROPHET with so much pride they think they have a right to say no?? Does he or doesn't he speak for the Lord? If he does, then they are telling the LORD no. And that is a PROBLEM. Why isn't their attitude "I need to struggle with this more so I can align myself with the Lord more" ???
To quote John 'beautiful'. This was at the time i was an investigator spring 1978 in the UK. At my first meeting with missionaries i had already read all the BOM. I gave them one question to answer' why are blacks not allowed celestial marriage in the temple?'. I obviously already knew a lot about the church. The answer was complex about priesthood, which i knew nothing about. But i receive the message that it would change at some time. I spent the next month praying desperately that the time had come. A month in i went to a stake meeting about the change!! I have no idea what i would have done if it didnt change. But i do feel bad that i just accepted the narrative that i was taught as a TBM about the pre-existence .....and so glad that i found my way out. My book is on order!
@MillaJ100 When an individual who happens to be mormon does "good", the church DONS don the laurels. When a "notable" individual who happens to be mormon is proven - or proves himself to be - a thoroughgoing scoundrel, the DONS never heard tell of him; it is never permissible for press to question THEM, nor ever even acknowledged by them that anything at all has occurred. [Consider Ballard-salad-ballad]
Anyone think Oaks would ever worry about someone’s hard work and “agency” when asking someone not to publish…or do anything he doesn’t like???? 😂 how funny
I have to push back a little on the comment that Brigham Young was brought up in an atmosphere of antebellum racism. Yes, he was brought up pre-civil war, but he was born in Vermont and raised in upstate NY. It's not like he was in the south, or even one of the northern/border slave states like Kentucky or Missouri. I don't pretend to know everything about upstate NY culture at that time, but he was very much in the north, where were found the vast majority of abolitionists. In fact, that's one of the reasons I don't buy the excuse that he was a man of his times. In his times many religious leaders were visibly out in front of the abolitionist movement, especially those from the north.
Appreciate your thoughts here and I'll say a quick word: While the slaveholding South clearly won the racism sweepstakes in the 19th c. Northerners held racist sentiments too. Abolitionists were only a small fraction in the North, and their main audience when they wrote tracts and pamphlets was their fellow Northerners who didn't see a need for action to address slavery. Even the great Abraham Lincoln held racist views that would make us wince today. So, I would just caution about framing the South as racist (which they clearly were!) and the North as racially progressive (which they were clearly not). Brother Brigham clearly held racist views, most of which derived from his Northern upbringing.
2:28:30 - missions and endowments…all native missionaries in my mission had never gone to the temple before their missions. It never occurred to me that it was an issues. And wouldn’t you know …in April 1990 the policy changed and they were all sent to Manila to go through the temple. I wonder why????
@suthatheplee2777. Those dear children would probably have lost their minds going through temple or refused to mission thereafter. Even so, their being disallowed - especially as it was preparatory to mission - was, AND REMAINS, simply ABOMINABLE.
@ FWIW it was not disallowed. There was no temple to go to without significant cost. And when they were all sent to Manila it was paid for entirely by the church, as was their mission expenses. In my view now, the church was indeed paying these locals to serve missions and many saved some money to send home each month.
Why weren’t the firsthand descriptions of those attending the 1 June 1978 temple meeting given any attention? I don’t deny everything said about counseling together, consensus building, “studying it out in your mind”, and so on-all part of a long process involving many people and their human realities. But my sense from the firsthand accounts is that they also jointly experienced a discrete spiritual manifestation-a revelation-in a particular moment in that particular meeting. So to me it looks like the account presented here is at least incomplete, if not defective.
I really appreciate this series. I have to say, however, that when Matt called these men "good guys" for recognizing that the ban was wrong...no, Matt. That's the bare minimum of decency and doesn't make them "good" by any stretch of the imagination.
Question for Matt: If I heard correctly, you mentioned a written revelation by President Kimball in spring 1978 (May or March)? What does it say? What became of it? Why didn’t they use it in the Doctrine and Covenants instead of a separate official declaration?
Great question--and I'm glad you asked. I looked for this in the Kimball papers, but alas, I didn't find it. I also asked SWK's son Ed about it and he couldn't find it either. I suspect that it's in the First Presidency's vault.
@@ccardall Ed Kimball mentions the "May Revelation" in his bio of his father, but when I asked Ed where it was he couldn't locate it. So in Second-Class Saints, I cite Ed's bio that it existed--but I didn't have the luxury of reviewing its contents. It's likely that when Ed donated his father's papers to the Church History Library the archivists saw the May Revelation and put it into the FP's vaults. That's just speculation on my part.
@@matthewharris7151 With respect, New revelation retracted that one and advised destruction. Prior doings support this as "evidence". No theory necessary. [I'm a nerd of nerds, and not shy to be so.🐵]
Would Carter EVER have admitted that he put pressure on the Church? Is there any way the Church would NOT have entreated Carter to keep it on the "low down," what with the Church's preoccupation with Saving Face?
Jimmy Carter wasn't "president of Wisconsin" so the whole ask Carter thing seems like a bit of a non-sequitur anyway. I find the whole, they lifted the ban before the law went into effect argument to be more worthy of an apologist, waiting until the law went into effect would be a financial and PR disaster. It's sad because I there's no need to say anything more than, everything has lots of causes, we have lots of archival data for x,y and z and a rumor without concrete receipts for the tax exempt status. I have no reason to doubt his conclusion (though I'd love to hear Sandra Tanner's commentary on this in her own words) but he's arguing evidence of absence from absence of evidence.
@charleswidor7066 Mr. Carter was a brilliant and honourable man. Amid those who are "wise to do evil", it's possible he was too "good" for his own good, but he would not have groveled to momos. Being the serpents they have HISTORICALLY. PROVEN. THEMSELVES . TO. BE., it can only be a "given" that their dealings with him - or any other true authority - would be exactly the same as we have seen them in last two years with their temple- mongering tactics. Really, all others who behave as they do are unequivocally accounted hoodlums. .
The wards in the benches, like Kaysville, are OK with having one or two blacks around, but no more than that. Just enough, so they don't feel racist. Blacks are supposed to be on the valley floor, like in West Valley. And oversees, so they can do a tribal dance during conference. Blacks pay tithing too, and the needs are always greater than the resources.
What makes the proximity of an apostle in Ecuador, unable to be part of the consensus?? Peterson got a call right after saying there was consensus... why not call him before hand, asking the brethren all at once for consensus to lift the ban... Was Peterson not close enough in proximity to cast a vote, or be on a call, in a nearby temple as they prayed? The fact that consensus is overlooked in matters of doctrine, if a member of the 12 is absent... Why not have a 12th man from the Qo70 stand in Peterson's place?? The whole idea is arbitrary!!
I find it odd that a scholar would be the one to tell the world about how the prophet received revelation!!! The only way in was taught was that Jesus visited the prophet and told him. Not a board meeting.
Harold B Lee's diet probably led to his early demise - he reportedly had cheese and ice cream with every meal so his cholesterol probably was off the chart.
I would like to tell you a story about a Woman named Katherine Warren , cause her story will bring a little Insight to this topic you are speaking about not many people know this, She was my Aunt a very Spiritual lady in fact she was the main one in our Family that was really into studying the Bible, well she was working as a Maid in Hartford Connecticut, and she found the Book of Mormon which the family had thrown away and she took it home and started to read it, and she thought to herself oh this is just something people took out of the Bible ands she put the Book on her Bed side table and proceeded to go to sleep and she said all of the sudden her ceiling just opened up and I'm not sure if it was Jesus or a Messenger / Angel but they told her to Believe all Things, and this repeated for three time so from that point on she believed the Book, as she studied and she contacted the Missionaries and Joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to make a long story short it was revealed to her through the scriptures about a Branch that had been broken from the tree and in the last days that branch would be Grafted back into the Tree and she understood that that Branch was the Black people which were the lost tribe of Israel and she wrote a letter to Spencer W. Kimball and from there the Prophet latter came forth and revealed that the Lord had revealed to him that it was time for the Black Man to receive the Priesthood, Katherine Moved back to Baton Rouge and started a Bible study with our Family and we all learn of the Prophecy of the Coming forth of the Book of Mormon which can be found in the Bible in Isaiah and also in the book of Ezekiel, and My cousins Husband became the first Black Man in the Church to become a Bishop, there is much more to this story this is just a little bit to bring some light to this Topic, it was by Divine Revelation and God Almighty had his hand on this thing now those other factor you are speaking on may have had some effects well God works in Mysterious Ways but the point is it Came to pass.
Thanks for sharing a little of Katherine Warren's story. I'm not a believer in many LDS claims, but I imagine your aunt's voice, along with others, helped end the priesthood and temple ban.
@@patriciafinn5717 God gave his Only Begotten Son To die for us All, all the Races, We are The Racist. Racism is Stupidity, God Loves All of us, we have a Choice To Make, he already done Right By us, We Do each other wrong That's Not On God, We are the Fools. if we don't seek to Know The Truth while we have the chance.
@@patriciafinn5717 I don't think we can Blame God for making us all different Just because we are different does not mean we have to Hate each other we do this to ourselves them try to say God had something to do with it some of us are simply evil it is not determined by you skin color, but we are all here on this earth together and we all have our own history and stories.
There are 12 tribes of Israel! No man or woman knows where they are. Only God knows! Only God will call them back but first the fullness of the Gentiles must be fulfilled. No man will call them back. Only God will. Again there are 12 tribes of Israel!
So it seems like by necessitating a consensus, you are creating an imbalance of power, where the dissenters are really holding more power in the process than the majority. Ie, the ban would not have been lifted if Stapley and Peterson were present) so two men’s opinions carry more weight than the other 13.
I find it odd that a scholar would be the one to tell the world about how the prophet received revelation!!! The only way in was taught was that Jesus visited the prophet and told him. Not a board meeting.
My definition of revelation derives from Hugh Brown, a member of the First Presidency. He's a pretty good source. See Second-Class Saints, preface, for the exact quote.
Julia’s questions are fantastic and I hope she’ll come back for more episodes in this series.
Thank you for your work. Everyone needs to hear this.
Thank you for supporting this series! We appreciate your support.
I am continually disturbed and annoyed by this need for consensus. What's the point of a Prophet of God if his revelation is constantly and consistently at the mercy of a COMMITTEE???
Good point. Did any prophets of the past have to meet with others first?
@joyce7892 If someone is ,actually receiving Divine information. It would not be up for Debate....right??? It would be passing information from GOD, that would preclude discussion. To open that up for Debate,would be to invalidate a Direct Commandment. If you talked with God you would follow God's exhortation,without hesitation or complaint. Or you would be in direct Disobedience.
@jerrirogers3290 See, that's what I think too. Obviously there is a place for counciling together and discussion. But if the Lord sends a revelation, you DO IT.
Everything...everything...in the church is based on labeling fallacies. It's all deceptive marketing. The "prophet" is obviously not a prophet. He's a corporate CEO. But they slap the "prophet" label on him because they're selling religious merch ("church merch") and services. The "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" is just a corporate board of directors. Their "revelations" are obviously not revelations. They're just corporate decisions. But again they slap a religious-sounding "revelation" label on their corporate decisions because they're selling religious merch and services. Corporate secrets are labeled as "sacred". Weird underwear is just weird underwear...but slap a "holy garment" label on some weird underwear and...voila!...your corporation gets an underwear monopoly for a certain segment of the population.....
@@jerrirogers3290 All the confusion goes away as soon as correct labels are applied. Everything in the LDS Church is incorrectly labeled (intentionally mislabeled). The CEO is just a corporate CEO. But they confuse people by calling him a "prophet". Corporate decisions are just corporate decisions, but they confuse people by calling them "revelations". The board of directors is just that, but they label it as the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles". The weird underwear is just that, but they call that line of church merch "holy garments".
Thank you for your scholarly work Dr. Harris, and thank you Mormon Stories Podcast for providing the platform. I was a history major at BYU in the 90’s. It’s SO refreshing to get honest, unflinching, true scholarly research on this subject.
This serie is fantastic. Not only according any special church but how western society has been. Thank you from sweden
As a former Mormon married to tri-racial Brazilian women, this is extremely telling and important to me in my journey.
So glad my kids are outside the religious tradition of Mormonism.
I am really enjoying this series! I was pleasantly surprised when you mentioned Chad Flake. Chad Flake was my great uncle. He usually spent Christmas Eve with my family. He was definitely a character. He also left a great legacy with his work at the BYU library.
When I was a student at BYU, both for my BA and MA, I had numerous opportunities to work with Flake. I thought he was an interesting guy--eccentric and funny. You are absolutely right--he left a great legacy at the BYU library. Glad you're enjoying the series!
I’m a bit behind in this series (just finished this episode today) but so grateful to Dr. Harris for taking the time to research and write about this topic. I grew up in SL County and married a black man in the ‘90s in the SL temple. We were active church members until recently. This issue was unresolved for me for so long, but I’m now getting some resolution. The harmful fallout is real. Looking forward to the remaining episodes! Thanks again to all those involved in bringing this information to light!
Thanks for your work on thelis valuable series.
Thanks for your support of the series. We appreciate it very much.
There needs to be another book. “Third class saints, woman in the church”
We need to actually have them deal with women and gender equality first. 20-30 years, minimum.
And after that, 4th class for LGBTQ members.
Thanks!
Thanks for your support of this series!
@@matthewharris7151
If we could have done more, assuredly would have.
But, many thanks for own generosity. 🌹
I wrote my dissertation about the Priesthood Ban, albeit through a Weberian lens. I think there is something to be said about the routinization of authority in the church which Julia and John sort of referred to when they pressed Matt on his defense of the bureaucratic nonsense as revelation. The meaning of revelation has changed over time to prevent charismatic authority from rising up.
That is absolutely right. As I've noted on many podcasts over the years, the meaning of revelation has changed from the 19th c. 'til now. The reason was to put more checks and balances on the church president declaring revelation. They wanted to keep out fringy doctrines like Adam-God and Blood Atonement, and with the FP and the Q12 having to sign off, it was a way to prevent charismatic leaders like B. Young from moving too far away from the center.
Although extremely difficult to watch at times, one of the best series. The most telling thing is the timeline. The truth moving like a garden slug on Ambient among men who self denominate "prophets and seers," yet the secular world moving much faster to the truth than them.
Thank goodness there’s another episode!
Again these episodes are groundbreaking and factual. I absolutely love this entire series
I'm glad you're enjoying the series!
Matt Harris is a phenomenal scholar. Thank you, John, for shining a light on him and his work. 🙏🏼
As someone who went to Genesis Group a lot in my youth (I have black family), I am happy to see its origins mentioned and discussed. Much like many other things in the church, the prevalent cultural narrative with those who participated about why it existed (at least when I was going in the early 2010s) was tinted differently than reality.
The "genesis" of the Genesis Group hasn't been told very well, in my opinion. I go into great detail in Second-Class Saints about how the group emerged, how the apostles felt about it, and, most importantly, how the Genesis leadership was divided about whether or not to lobby to end the ban.
@@matthewharris7151 Happy you are exploring that story. It means a lot to me!
I love this series! Donated as well. I will try donating more frequently ❤ Thanks JD
I’d love to donate. I’m just broke lol. It’s probably why most people don’t
This has been my favorite series so far. I have learned so much, and I am so impressed with Mr. Harris and his depth of research and scholarship. Will be purchasing the book, for sure, but i love hearing Matt. He makes it interesting and his sense of humor is great!
I appreciate your support! Thanks for your kind words!
I love love your work! I don’t know that I would have been able to get through this without it. I wish I could donate, but you see I am a stay at home mom and my husband is a devout Mormon. I don’t have access to the funds and even if I did, he would probably divorce if he knew I listened/donated. It’s unfortunate because I would love to tell him that 500$ of tithing should be half mine. 😢 it’s a really hard place to be in. What makes it worse is that we really do agree on everything accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints. That’s a mouthful every time I say. But please keep up the work.
Thank you for saying it. “It’s just a corporation “
Excellent series! I completely agree with John and Julia that the leaders purposely use the word "revelation," to misdirect members about how the corporation really makes decisions. There is more power, control, awe, excitement, and authority by doing it that way. It's been enlightening, and shocking, to learn how the sausage is really made.
Taking away the image of actual revelation would totally hurt the church. The illusion of inspiration is what keeps people’s faith.
That is my problem with characterizing what actually happened as revelation in any meaningful sense of the word. To me the process proves the lie. The entire point of being a real, actual, not false prophet is that you are the mouthpiece of God. The true prophet receives God's command and shares God's will with the people. This whole "I don't like the ban so eventually I'm going to get all my colleagues on board with getting rid of it" is nothing but what every person and organization does all the time - have a thought, an idea, a preference, and try to see it through to make it happen.
IMHO, it boils down to another example of what Bill Reel says, "The problem with Mormon truth is that it is indistinguishable from fraud". Especially in a case like this in which one could fairly expect God to be out in front of the issue (like never letting BY start the ban in the first place, maybe?????) and not decades behind, and then only sending a "revelation" when the ban is becoming too problematic in too many ways.
@@Fatfinger4378
X 265. Billion.
And to B. Reel's inimitable
observation. 🐙🐙
Excellent series!
Thanks
Thanks for your support of the series. We appreciate it very much.
Of course the perception of divine power and authority translates directly to the leaders having that much more power and dominion over the people. Of course it is why the typical member is given to understand, not by accident, that changes like this occur as a result of extraordinary, supernatural, divine Revelation rather than as a result of a "Corporate" process which it undoubtedly did.
@crw3736. And the perception of divine powers and (ridiculous, impossible) "AUTHORITY" translates directly to $$$$$$$
This has been excellent! Learned new things. I'll be buying the book!
Thanks for your interest in my work--and this series!
I devoured the book after I bought it! It's so well researched and well-written.
(Fellow history nerd here!)
I'm so pleased you enjoyed the book! Thanks for the kind words.
Just got to the Eldred G Smith portion. No wonder my mom felt an overwhelming sense of Satan in the room when she went to get her patriarchal blessing from him. She came from the mission field in Texas. The Missionaries would not teach her best friend who was black. No wonder.
Also, on a different but related note, you absolutely CAN engage in faith-affirming transparency on an institutional level. What they are talking about is the internal struggle that is often associated with receiving personal revelation. It is in that struggle that we align ourselves with the Divine will, and eventually come to a place where our own wants and needs are less important to us than just KNOWING. To me anyway. There are often times when I've been struggling over a revelation, sometimes for years, and eventually I just say "Omgosh I don't even care what the answer is! I'll do whatever it is, I just want to KNOW already!". Often revelation requires some amount of struggle. And I believe it would behoove everyone to know that. But when it comes to the Prophet of the Lord I am offended by why the 12 seem to approach a revelation through THEIR PROPHET with so much pride they think they have a right to say no?? Does he or doesn't he speak for the Lord? If he does, then they are telling the LORD no. And that is a PROBLEM. Why isn't their attitude "I need to struggle with this more so I can align myself with the Lord more" ???
To quote John 'beautiful'.
This was at the time i was an investigator spring 1978 in the UK. At my first meeting with missionaries i had already read all the BOM. I gave them one question to answer' why are blacks not allowed celestial marriage in the temple?'. I obviously already knew a lot about the church.
The answer was complex about priesthood, which i knew nothing about. But i receive the message that it would change at some time.
I spent the next month praying desperately that the time had come. A month in i went to a stake meeting about the change!!
I have no idea what i would have done if it didnt change. But i do feel bad that i just accepted the narrative that i was taught as a TBM about the pre-existence .....and so glad that i found my way out.
My book is on order!
This is such an interesting insight in to how man comes up with religion doctrine.
When the church does Good, it’s the whole. When the church does wrong, it’s down to the parts or individuals. Frustrating
@MillaJ100
When an individual who happens to be mormon does "good", the church DONS don the laurels.
When a "notable" individual who happens to be mormon is proven - or proves himself
to be -
a thoroughgoing scoundrel,
the DONS never heard tell
of him;
it is never permissible for press to question THEM,
nor ever even acknowledged by them that anything at all has occurred.
[Consider Ballard-salad-ballad]
Anyone think Oaks would ever worry about someone’s hard work and “agency” when asking someone not to publish…or do anything he doesn’t like???? 😂 how funny
I have to push back a little on the comment that Brigham Young was brought up in an atmosphere of antebellum racism. Yes, he was brought up pre-civil war, but he was born in Vermont and raised in upstate NY. It's not like he was in the south, or even one of the northern/border slave states like Kentucky or Missouri. I don't pretend to know everything about upstate NY culture at that time, but he was very much in the north, where were found the vast majority of abolitionists. In fact, that's one of the reasons I don't buy the excuse that he was a man of his times. In his times many religious leaders were visibly out in front of the abolitionist movement, especially those from the north.
Appreciate your thoughts here and I'll say a quick word: While the slaveholding South clearly won the racism sweepstakes in the 19th c. Northerners held racist sentiments too. Abolitionists were only a small fraction in the North, and their main audience when they wrote tracts and pamphlets was their fellow Northerners who didn't see a need for action to address slavery. Even the great Abraham Lincoln held racist views that would make us wince today. So, I would just caution about framing the South as racist (which they clearly were!) and the North as racially progressive (which they were clearly not). Brother Brigham clearly held racist views, most of which derived from his Northern upbringing.
This discussion has me now wondering what those meeting minutes have to say about plural marriage.
2:28:30 - missions and endowments…all native missionaries in my mission had never gone to the temple before their missions. It never occurred to me that it was an issues. And wouldn’t you know …in April 1990 the policy changed and they were all sent to Manila to go through the temple. I wonder why????
@suthatheplee2777.
Those dear children would probably have lost their minds going through temple or refused to mission thereafter.
Even so, their being disallowed - especially as it was preparatory to mission - was, AND REMAINS,
simply ABOMINABLE.
@ FWIW it was not disallowed. There was no temple to go to without significant cost. And when they were all sent to Manila it was paid for entirely by the church, as was their mission expenses. In my view now, the church was indeed paying these locals to serve missions and many saved some money to send home each month.
Why weren’t the firsthand descriptions of those attending the 1 June 1978 temple meeting given any attention? I don’t deny everything said about counseling together, consensus building, “studying it out in your mind”, and so on-all part of a long process involving many people and their human realities. But my sense from the firsthand accounts is that they also jointly experienced a discrete spiritual manifestation-a revelation-in a particular moment in that particular meeting. So to me it looks like the account presented here is at least incomplete, if not defective.
I really appreciate this series. I have to say, however, that when Matt called these men "good guys" for recognizing that the ban was wrong...no, Matt. That's the bare minimum of decency and doesn't make them "good" by any stretch of the imagination.
@sallygreenfield6991
X 93 million
Top notch episode
I had heard about “adoption” into the house of Israel, but I had no idea it had roots in racism!
@rachelhansen2417
Z. I. N. N . G.
Nepotism - nephew was Henry B Eyering, huh?
God is in this doctrine process to the same level he is when the church buys $300 million ranch in Australia.
@TheSaintellas
ZING-A-DING-DING 🎶
Question for Matt: If I heard correctly, you mentioned a written revelation by President Kimball in spring 1978 (May or March)? What does it say? What became of it? Why didn’t they use it in the Doctrine and Covenants instead of a separate official declaration?
Great question--and I'm glad you asked. I looked for this in the Kimball papers, but alas, I didn't find it. I also asked SWK's son Ed about it and he couldn't find it either. I suspect that it's in the First Presidency's vault.
@@matthewharris7151 Super interesting! What is the source that there was a written revelation?
@@ccardall Ed Kimball mentions the "May Revelation" in his bio of his father, but when I asked Ed where it was he couldn't locate it. So in Second-Class Saints, I cite Ed's bio that it existed--but I didn't have the luxury of reviewing its contents. It's likely that when Ed donated his father's papers to the Church History Library the archivists saw the May Revelation and put it into the FP's vaults. That's just speculation on my part.
@@matthewharris7151
With respect, New revelation retracted that one and advised destruction.
Prior doings support this as "evidence".
No theory necessary.
[I'm a nerd of nerds, and not shy to be so.🐵]
Would Carter EVER have admitted that he put pressure on the Church? Is there any way the Church would NOT have entreated Carter to keep it on the "low down," what with the Church's preoccupation with Saving Face?
Jimmy Carter wasn't "president of Wisconsin" so the whole ask Carter thing seems like a bit of a non-sequitur anyway. I find the whole, they lifted the ban before the law went into effect argument to be more worthy of an apologist, waiting until the law went into effect would be a financial and PR disaster. It's sad because I there's no need to say anything more than, everything has lots of causes, we have lots of archival data for x,y and z and a rumor without concrete receipts for the tax exempt status. I have no reason to doubt his conclusion (though I'd love to hear Sandra Tanner's commentary on this in her own words) but he's arguing evidence of absence from absence of evidence.
@charleswidor7066
Mr. Carter was a brilliant and honourable man. Amid those who are "wise to do evil", it's possible he was too "good" for his own good, but he would not have groveled to momos.
Being the serpents they have HISTORICALLY. PROVEN.
THEMSELVES . TO. BE.,
it can only be a "given" that their dealings with him - or any
other true authority -
would be exactly the same as we have seen them in last two years with their temple- mongering tactics.
Really, all others who behave as they do are unequivocally accounted hoodlums.
.
The wards in the benches, like Kaysville, are OK with having one or two blacks around, but no more than that. Just enough, so they don't feel racist.
Blacks are supposed to be on the valley floor, like in West Valley. And oversees, so they can do a tribal dance during conference. Blacks pay tithing too, and the needs are always greater than the resources.
Rob Fotheringham's explaination is the best researched that I've heard.
What makes the proximity of an apostle in Ecuador, unable to be part of the consensus?? Peterson got a call right after saying there was consensus... why not call him before hand, asking the brethren all at once for consensus to lift the ban... Was Peterson not close enough in proximity to cast a vote, or be on a call, in a nearby temple as they prayed? The fact that consensus is overlooked in matters of doctrine, if a member of the 12 is absent... Why not have a 12th man from the Qo70 stand in Peterson's place?? The whole idea is arbitrary!!
It was Richard R Lyman who was excommunicated not Francis Lyman.
Correct.
You are correct. Thanks for the correction!
Where does one donate?
@conniestrong5260 - mormonstories.org/donate
I find it odd that a scholar would be the one to tell the world about how the prophet received revelation!!! The only way in was taught was that Jesus visited the prophet and told him. Not a board meeting.
does revelation come quickly when there is money is involved.
@TerenceSmith-w9c
Self-creating.
Like when lead turns itself to gold.
1:46:35. Exhausted. Exhausting. I’m out
Harold B Lee's diet probably led to his early demise - he reportedly had cheese and ice cream with every meal so his cholesterol probably was off the chart.
Jesus didn't want him leading the church anymore.
It’s HelveSio (pronounced in portuguese, not italian)…good show btw.
Thank you!
@@matthewharris7151 loved the whole episode!
I would like to tell you a story about a Woman named Katherine Warren , cause her story will bring a little Insight to this topic you are speaking about not many people know this, She was my Aunt a very Spiritual lady in fact she was the main one in our Family that was really into studying the Bible, well she was working as a Maid in Hartford Connecticut, and she found the Book of Mormon which the family had thrown away and she took it home and started to read it, and she thought to herself oh this is just something people took out of the Bible ands she put the Book on her Bed side table and proceeded to go to sleep and she said all of the sudden her ceiling just opened up and I'm not sure if it was Jesus or a Messenger / Angel but they told her to Believe all Things, and this repeated for three time so from that point on she believed the Book, as she studied and she contacted the Missionaries and Joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to make a long story short it was revealed to her through the scriptures about a Branch that had been broken from the tree and in the last days that branch would be Grafted back into the Tree and she understood that that Branch was the Black people which were the lost tribe of Israel and she wrote a letter to Spencer W. Kimball and from there the Prophet latter came forth and revealed that the Lord had revealed to him that it was time for the Black Man to receive the Priesthood, Katherine Moved back to Baton Rouge and started a Bible study with our Family and we all learn of the Prophecy of the Coming forth of the Book of Mormon which can be found in the Bible in Isaiah and also in the book of Ezekiel, and My cousins Husband became the first Black Man in the Church to become a Bishop, there is much more to this story this is just a little bit to bring some light to this Topic, it was by Divine Revelation and God Almighty had his hand on this thing now those other factor you are speaking on may have had some effects well God works in Mysterious Ways but the point is it Came to pass.
SO WAS GOD A RACIST?? SHAMEFUL
Thanks for sharing a little of Katherine Warren's story. I'm not a believer in many LDS claims, but I imagine your aunt's voice, along with others, helped end the priesthood and temple ban.
@@patriciafinn5717 God gave his Only Begotten Son To die for us All, all the Races, We are The Racist. Racism is Stupidity, God Loves All of us, we have a Choice To Make, he already done Right By us, We Do each other wrong That's Not On God, We are the Fools. if we don't seek to Know The Truth while we have the chance.
@@patriciafinn5717 I don't think we can Blame God for making us all different Just because we are different does not mean we have to Hate each other we do this to ourselves them try to say God had something to do with it some of us are simply evil it is not determined by you skin color, but we are all here on this earth together and we all have our own history and stories.
There are 12 tribes of Israel! No man or woman knows where they are. Only God knows! Only God will call them back but first the fullness of the Gentiles must be fulfilled. No man will call them back. Only God will. Again there are 12 tribes of Israel!
There was a Church prescence in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) because of the white population.
So it seems like by necessitating a consensus, you are creating an imbalance of power, where the dissenters are really holding more power in the process than the majority. Ie, the ban would not have been lifted if Stapley and Peterson were present) so two men’s opinions carry more weight than the other 13.
Trying to shame your viewers into donating is not a good look! If money bothers you that much, put your content behind a pay wall.
Mormonism: racists since 1830 and beyond
Thanks!
Thanks for your support of this series!
I find it odd that a scholar would be the one to tell the world about how the prophet received revelation!!! The only way in was taught was that Jesus visited the prophet and told him. Not a board meeting.
My definition of revelation derives from Hugh Brown, a member of the First Presidency. He's a pretty good source. See Second-Class Saints, preface, for the exact quote.
Thanks!
Thank you for your support!
Thanks!
Thank you for your support!
Thanks!
Thanks!