How Spencer Kimball won over apostle Bruce McConkie, other LDS titans to end Black priesthood ban

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
  • Forty-six years ago this month, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under then-President Spencer W. Kimball, lifted its prohibition preventing Black men from entering the all-male priesthood and Black women and men from participating in temple rites.
    This historic shift, the most significant since the faith stopped practicing polygamy, abruptly ended this racist ban, but it hardly ended racism within the church. After all, 126 years of theological justifications for the ban remained, including influential works such as “Mormon Doctrine” by apostle Bruce R. McConkie.
    Cleanup still needed - and needs - to be done.
    Building on President Gordon B. Hinckley’s outreach efforts, current church leader Russell M. Nelson has called on members to lead out against racism and has cemented ties with the NAACP.
    Matthew Harris’ new book, “Second-Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality,” explores the history of the priesthood/temple ban, from its racist roots under Brigham Young to its removal and its aftermath, with an eye especially on its effects on Black Latter-day Saints.
    With unprecedented access to the papers of Kimball, McConkie, Hugh B. Brown and Joseph Fielding Smith, Harris offers an insider view of the decision-making process among the church hierarchy regarding issues of race and this momentous move. Join us for this conversation.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 9

  • @happiness9752
    @happiness9752 22 дні тому +1

    They still sell Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation in Deseret Industries... It has the same content

    • @giuliom3564
      @giuliom3564 10 днів тому

      But that book is huge (3 volumes) and talk about each topic. I have that home. It's not only about blacks that it's flawed.

  • @krismurphy7711
    @krismurphy7711 24 дні тому +4

    PRE 1978, The LDS Church & The KKK were close in philosophy.

  • @krismurphy7711
    @krismurphy7711 24 дні тому +3

    29:15 "EMBELLISH"????!!!! YOU MEAN LIE!!!!! Lying for The Lord?

  • @MrBillmechanic
    @MrBillmechanic 25 днів тому +2

    hypocrites !!!

  • @jeffreyelliottcruz8095
    @jeffreyelliottcruz8095 24 дні тому

    I grew up in the church in the early 70s and left on a mission in 1978.
    During this period, regardless, of what you may have read in your history books most members were against the ban on blacks and the priesthood .
    With all due respect Elder McConkie was a brilliant doctrine and so was his father in law Joseph Fielding Smith. No one, is perfect , including , McConkie and Smith. Elder McConkie was very standup and publicly admitted that he was wrong re his early position on blacks and the priesthood.
    The problem I have with your lecturer is his arrogance and his belief in the infallacy of his clearly flawed research. It may have been an impression upon the countenance of President Kimball, but it may have been an audible voice to Elder McConkie, because he had more steps to go.
    Yes, are you really that foolish, the majority of members certainly knew the ban was lifted and happy . We repudiated the prejudice against blacks. Wait foolish man, there are many good things in Mormon doctrine, despite the failings regarding blacks and the priesthood.
    I stood up against the idea of valiancy of blacks and priesthood. Also, I have equally stood up against the exact opposite view of critical race theory. The ban occured because many whites were persecuting the church because the early Church ordained black. That theory was later after the prophet Joseph and Elijah Abel. The notion which arose later and re valiance theory . I will have to agree the church did foster racism . There is no question re the issue. I am not a racist but I am not in support of black or white that adhers to racial superiority on either side. My position hasn't changed.
    But I am happy the membership of the church are changing.

    • @giuliom3564
      @giuliom3564 10 днів тому

      It's also there is your arrogance in attacking a scholar. His research is not perfect but it's made to understand what happened.