This is amazing. I didn't know the church could be discussed on a non spiritual pragmatic level without being hateful or condescending. I am a member that believes. But I also know there are others who do not believe in the spiritual aspects of the Church and I appreciate and thank you for being kind. This is true education and mature analytical conversation.
This was a fascinating interview, thanks for conducting and posting it. To me, it seems the reason the ban persisted for so long ultimately came down to two primary factors: 1) first and foremost, fear of mixed-race marriage being allowed in the Church, and 2) fear of antagonizing Church membership in the South if it were to be lifted. That's it. All the talk of pre-mortal actions, Curse of Cain, etc. was contrived to justify the ban and keep these real world ramifications at bay.
What is really interesting is that there are blacks from both sides of my father’s family. One side are members going back to the early days of the Church. In the end, what Hugh Nibley said about the marriage of Joseph and Asenath being the reuniting of the seed of Ham, with the House of Israel, has been shown to be true. We’ve just misinterpreted scripture for too long.
This history professor tells a good story. Definitely puts his spin on events and how he thinks people reacted. Bottom line, he doesn't know how these men actually conveyed their feelings and thoughts.
@@GospelTangents How do you know what I have researched? That is beside the point. I am making an observation based on this and other videos with this professor. I never said he didn't know history. Rather, I said I don't like how he interprets what the subjects thought or felt. How about we stick to history without all the spin?
Ok stick to history without doing spin. You write a peer reviewed book and I'll interview you. Otherwise you're spinning your own uninformed opinion. Let's see your footnotes to back up your assertions like Dr. Harris has done. No spin.
@@GospelTangents OK, man. Take it easy. Let's not lose sleep over my not liking this "professor's" spin on history. All I did was write that I did not agree with his story telling.
@@ZachBrimhall I don't like your spin either. Put up the same kind of effort he did before you criticize. That's all I'm saying. It's really easy to be a blowhard on UA-cam and play armchair qb without putting in 1/100th of the work he did. I have little patience for armchair quarterbacks who criticize without putting anything of substance into their comments.
I find it interesting that they felt a 'collective sense of guilt.' It begs the question, if they felt guilty about something taught by their own previous prophets, who they believe were spoken to by God, weren't they doubting the teachings of their foundational predecessors? They were questioning words of major authority figures who had claimed their words were from God. So if they doubted them, they were thus doubting the Church's claim to be the only Church on Earth led by God. Again. So meanwhile, a tiny voice is destroyed in a Bishop's office somewhere by a Bishop, supposedly receiving top down instructions from THE God, from the men claiming to have Revelations from HIM. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of tiny voices being truly impacted and silenced in a way that breaks them. They aren't heard. And they can't hear what's going on in super secret top rooms, as a salve for their pain, that it's just men, not God condemning them. The Brethren seem to have such a church operational-centric view, it has never been clearer to me why they see no need for an apology. They don't even see the pain. They never did. It's the typical Organizational Narcissism. It's all business as usual. It's, 'What do we do to make this work for us?' Spirituality, and the meaning of 'Only true Church' has a whole different meaning in the rank and file members. This may explain the growing gaping divide that the Brethren seem oblivious how to handle as they really can't even conceptualize what the problem is. Running the church has become very practical at the top. Running a church that claims to be the Only one to be spoken to by God, has a problem if it shape shifts repeatedly until it finally says, one too many times, 'God didn't say that, that's not doctrine' (tho the prophet back then said it was, and everybody thought God said it, and everybody lived it for 50-100 years as if it was doctrine). And when none of the prophets driving at the time, corrected the 'untrue teaching' that was being lived as truth either. That's a problem. That can't be your constant go-to when a doctrine becomes a problem. The Church just can't stay that 'Only True Church of Jesus,' as it becomes more Corporation, more President, and less Prophet, Seer and Revelator. I suspect the members feel a bit like a marriage that has lost its romance. Where's the Revelations? Where's the powerful spiritual stuff it was built on? Why isn't God speaking? Whereas the Ex or non members only see all the signs of a deceptive entity, finally painted into a corner by it's deceptions.
I really enjoy these videos. I am not LDS but have been interested in Mormon history for a very long time and recently discovered Gospel Tangents. Very interesting. I have watched several episodes with Dr.Harris. I know that these are 5 years old or older but this is so interesting to me.
Matt mis-spoke. Jack Carlson was a member of the Ford Administration, and was a republican, not a democrat. Here is his obituary: www.deseretnews.com/article/263355/JACK-W-CARLSON-DIES-AT-59.html
Rick... great job doing this interview with Dr. Harris. Thank you. My father was baptized in the 60's in Brazil and he lived this incredibly period of the Church. I particularly believe all these details show the absolute lack of revelation in the Church history. Just men since Joseph Smith, like Young, Woodruf, McKay, Kimball trying doing personal decisions, what explain so much errors, prejudices and racism. But I completely understand those who see God working on these difficult issues and moments by these imperfect men.
I know people associated with this policy change, and there was a revelation. I acknowledge the _urgency_ of the policy change, but think denying there was a revelation would be a mistake. The day will come when the details of the revelation will be known, and I don't wish to convey the notion that I know the details; however, I do know that _something_ happened in the temple that day. It was a dreadful policy, granted, and one that was morally and historically indefensible; however, there was a revelation that was unusual by way of an event that caused a distinct and palpable reaction amongst those in attendance. The church receives revelation as needed, but this event was distinctly two-steps sideways to how the brethren usually receive it. It would be a mistake to think it was merely a hyped up prayer meeting and nothing more. I don't know whether members of the Twelve not in attendance had the same experience. (That would be a great topic for a future book or article), but the full story has yet to be told, and I don't know why the details are being withheld. With President Nelson's being far more open to the discussion of revelatory matters, they should be known. I don't think church members would have problems with it.
They didn't learn much from all this mess. They turned around and did it again by punishing same sex parents and especially their children by denying them blessings and baptisms. I truly believe that was a sin to the point of being a crime against God's children. He is really big on kids and I can't believe God would give such a revelation.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 indeed. I’m over the leadership worship and fantasies. But I love the Book of Mormon-it has taught me so many simple truths through my life and it brought me close to God when I was young….closer every year since. Had some experiences beyond words with that book. My relationship with the Savior is everything to me. And I love serving at church where others are on their journeys. Most are good people trying to get home again. But then, I’ve so many friends and loved ones in all walks of life, different faiths, no faiths, whatever. Love is everything. Everyone is trying to get home. The gospel is true. The church is just a vehicle to help us along our way. It works for me at the local level. Not a fan of the corporation, but I understand the need for it the way the world is set up. I get revelation I need direct, so yeah, I’m over the leader reverence and the idolatry there. Have been for a long time. I’m old and seen a boatload of good at the ground level. Seen things in history and upper echelons I wished I never knew. I’m happiest when it’s pretty much just me and God. Have a wonderful week icecreamladydriver….stay safe out there and be well…be happy.
Most interesting? That's like asking my favorite ice cream! Here's a playlist of various Mormon groups that I've put together. You tell me which is your favorite! ua-cam.com/play/PLLhI8GMw9sJ5Pll9MpkzOBHtRcB-D-sdV.html
It was always an asinine ban in the first place blacks existed before Adam. There were at least five separate groups of humans that existed before the Advent of Adam. Remember one of Adam's jobs in Eden What's to care for the trees. Trees are analogous to groups of people. The Sumerian Eden is place of judgment. The reason Adam became was to establish the allegory of the fig tree. Time does not start with Adam, the plan of salvation starts with Adam.
The Mormon bishop with black ancestry - why didn't the Holy Ghost reveal to the then Stake Presidency that the man who God had called to be the bishop had black ancestry?
I am sure that br. McKonkie - or any of the other Apostles - wrote the Declaration. That is not a revelation. Does the Lord ever say "to whom it may concern" at any time? And if there is any revelatory thing behind it, why can't we see it? It was an opinion that grew among the brethren and they made up a revelation upon it. That's how it works these days. They jus had to get rid of it. Declaration nr 1 on plural marriage is the same story. That was written Charles Penrose, which he publicly admitted during a priesthood conference in Bristol, England. That is rather widely known. It was a lie, as the brethren said, "to beat the devil at his own game".
Sounds like you're still using the old stereotypes. What makes you say this? As a biostatistician, of course we track race for medical studies to see disparities in health care, but those disparities are more likely do to income/access to health care than race. I don't know anyone who believes genetics plays a role in poorer medical outcomes, for example. To claim that black athletes have better genetics which makes them faster, stronger, etc is just an absolutely wrong (and racist) position, as is the idea that white coaches are "smarter/better" than black coaches.
This guy is a great storyteller. But how does he know what happened behind closed doors? How does he know what was said in totally private conversations? He doesn’t !
He is writing a book on the priesthood ban. President Kimball's son, Edward Kimball, gave Matt access to his father's diaries, giving Matt special insight into deliberations behind the ban and attempts to remove it. The book is due out in 2019 or 2020.
Matt is writing a book on the Priesthood ban since World War 2. He was given special access to President Kimball's diaries by his son Edward Kimball. The book is due out in 2019 or 2020.
I can't speak for the author, however it is possible he was using that term as a reference to George Albert Smith's 1949 declaration "the Negro Race" and the follow up in 1969. you can read both documents on FAIRmormon if you're unfamiliar
This is amazing. I didn't know the church could be discussed on a non spiritual pragmatic level without being hateful or condescending. I am a member that believes. But I also know there are others who do not believe in the spiritual aspects of the Church and I appreciate and thank you for being kind. This is true education and mature analytical conversation.
I could listen to hours of this interview!! Get him back for more. Can't wait to hear the Benson ones!!
This was a fascinating interview, thanks for conducting and posting it. To me, it seems the reason the ban persisted for so long ultimately came down to two primary factors: 1) first and foremost, fear of mixed-race marriage being allowed in the Church, and 2) fear of antagonizing Church membership in the South if it were to be lifted. That's it. All the talk of pre-mortal actions, Curse of Cain, etc. was contrived to justify the ban and keep these real world ramifications at bay.
I can't disagree with anything you said.
What is really interesting is that there are blacks from both sides of my father’s family. One side are members going back to the early days of the Church. In the end, what Hugh Nibley said about the marriage of Joseph and Asenath being the reuniting of the seed of Ham, with the House of Israel, has been shown to be true. We’ve just misinterpreted scripture for too long.
This history professor tells a good story. Definitely puts his spin on events and how he thinks people reacted. Bottom line, he doesn't know how these men actually conveyed their feelings and thoughts.
Bottom line is you haven't researched it like he has and you have your own spin (that is poorly researched.)
@@GospelTangents How do you know what I have researched? That is beside the point. I am making an observation based on this and other videos with this professor. I never said he didn't know history. Rather, I said I don't like how he interprets what the subjects thought or felt. How about we stick to history without all the spin?
Ok stick to history without doing spin. You write a peer reviewed book and I'll interview you. Otherwise you're spinning your own uninformed opinion. Let's see your footnotes to back up your assertions like Dr. Harris has done.
No spin.
@@GospelTangents OK, man. Take it easy. Let's not lose sleep over my not liking this "professor's" spin on history. All I did was write that I did not agree with his story telling.
@@ZachBrimhall I don't like your spin either. Put up the same kind of effort he did before you criticize. That's all I'm saying. It's really easy to be a blowhard on UA-cam and play armchair qb without putting in 1/100th of the work he did. I have little patience for armchair quarterbacks who criticize without putting anything of substance into their comments.
I find it interesting that they felt a 'collective sense of guilt.' It begs the question, if they felt guilty about something taught by their own previous prophets, who they believe were spoken to by God, weren't they doubting the teachings of their foundational predecessors? They were questioning words of major authority figures who had claimed their words were from God. So if they doubted them, they were thus doubting the Church's claim to be the only Church on Earth led by God. Again.
So meanwhile, a tiny voice is destroyed in a Bishop's office somewhere by a Bishop, supposedly receiving top down instructions from THE God, from the men claiming to have Revelations from HIM. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of tiny voices being truly impacted and silenced in a way that breaks them. They aren't heard. And they can't hear what's going on in super secret top rooms, as a salve for their pain, that it's just men, not God condemning them.
The Brethren seem to have such a church operational-centric view, it has never been clearer to me why they see no need for an apology. They don't even see the pain. They never did. It's the typical Organizational Narcissism. It's all business as usual. It's, 'What do we do to make this work for us?'
Spirituality, and the meaning of 'Only true Church' has a whole different meaning in the rank and file members. This may explain the growing gaping divide that the Brethren seem oblivious how to handle as they really can't even conceptualize what the problem is.
Running the church has become very practical at the top. Running a church that claims to be the Only one to be spoken to by God, has a problem if it shape shifts repeatedly until it finally says, one too many times, 'God didn't say that, that's not doctrine' (tho the prophet back then said it was, and everybody thought God said it, and everybody lived it for 50-100 years as if it was doctrine). And when none of the prophets driving at the time, corrected the 'untrue teaching' that was being lived as truth either. That's a problem. That can't be your constant go-to when a doctrine becomes a problem.
The Church just can't stay that 'Only True Church of Jesus,' as it becomes more Corporation, more President, and less Prophet, Seer and Revelator. I suspect the members feel a bit like a marriage that has lost its romance. Where's the Revelations? Where's the powerful spiritual stuff it was built on? Why isn't God speaking?
Whereas the Ex or non members only see all the signs of a deceptive entity, finally painted into a corner by it's deceptions.
I really enjoy these videos.
I am not LDS but have been interested in Mormon history for a very long time and recently discovered Gospel Tangents.
Very interesting.
I have watched several episodes with Dr.Harris.
I know that these are 5 years old or older but this is so interesting to me.
He has a new book coming out this year so I'm hoping to get him on again.
Matt mis-spoke. Jack Carlson was a member of the Ford Administration, and was a republican, not a democrat. Here is his obituary: www.deseretnews.com/article/263355/JACK-W-CARLSON-DIES-AT-59.html
Rick... great job doing this interview with Dr. Harris. Thank you. My father was baptized in the 60's in Brazil and he lived this incredibly period of the Church. I particularly believe all these details show the absolute lack of revelation in the Church history. Just men since Joseph Smith, like Young, Woodruf, McKay, Kimball trying doing personal decisions, what explain so much errors, prejudices and racism. But I completely understand those who see God working on these difficult issues and moments by these imperfect men.
I know people associated with this policy change, and there was a revelation. I acknowledge the _urgency_ of the policy change, but think denying there was a revelation would be a mistake.
The day will come when the details of the revelation will be known, and I don't wish to convey the notion that I know the details; however, I do know that _something_ happened in the temple that day. It was a dreadful policy, granted, and one that was morally and historically indefensible; however, there was a revelation that was unusual by way of an event that caused a distinct and palpable reaction amongst those in attendance. The church receives revelation as needed, but this event was distinctly two-steps sideways to how the brethren usually receive it. It would be a mistake to think it was merely a hyped up prayer meeting and nothing more.
I don't know whether members of the Twelve not in attendance had the same experience. (That would be a great topic for a future book or article), but the full story has yet to be told, and I don't know why the details are being withheld. With President Nelson's being far more open to the discussion of revelatory matters, they should be known. I don't think church members would have problems with it.
They didn't learn much from all this mess. They turned around and did it again by punishing same sex parents and especially their children by denying them blessings and baptisms. I truly believe that was a sin to the point of being a crime against God's children. He is really big on kids and I can't believe God would give such a revelation.
He didn’t.
@@ggrace1133 I recently watched a video and they explained how "revelation" takes place. When they all agree on an issue it constitutes a revelation.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 I saw it too. I hear you.
@@ggrace1133 Pretty sad.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 indeed. I’m over the leadership worship and fantasies. But I love the Book of Mormon-it has taught me so many simple truths through my life and it brought me close to God when I was young….closer every year since. Had some experiences beyond words with that book. My relationship with the Savior is everything to me. And I love serving at church where others are on their journeys. Most are good people trying to get home again. But then, I’ve so many friends and loved ones in all walks of life, different faiths, no faiths, whatever. Love is everything. Everyone is trying to get home. The gospel is true. The church is just a vehicle to help us along our way. It works for me at the local level. Not a fan of the corporation, but I understand the need for it the way the world is set up. I get revelation I need direct, so yeah, I’m over the leader reverence and the idolatry there. Have been for a long time. I’m old and seen a boatload of good at the ground level. Seen things in history and upper echelons I wished I never knew. I’m happiest when it’s pretty much just me and God. Have a wonderful week icecreamladydriver….stay safe out there and be well…be happy.
What’s the most interesting? Discussing the various Latter Day Saint traditions/denominations.
Most interesting? That's like asking my favorite ice cream! Here's a playlist of various Mormon groups that I've put together. You tell me which is your favorite!
ua-cam.com/play/PLLhI8GMw9sJ5Pll9MpkzOBHtRcB-D-sdV.html
It was always an asinine ban in the first place blacks existed before Adam. There were at least five separate groups of humans that existed before the Advent of Adam. Remember one of Adam's jobs in Eden What's to care for the trees. Trees are analogous to groups of people. The Sumerian Eden is place of judgment. The reason Adam became was to establish the allegory of the fig tree. Time does not start with Adam, the plan of salvation starts with Adam.
How can they justify the claim it was changed by divine intervention....why was it a rule in the first place?
You may find this interview enlightening. It is titled, "Why Brigham Changed his Mind on Black Ordination." ua-cam.com/video/60BHIZD8GMU/v-deo.html
Here is a playlist of all of my interview on Black LDS history. ua-cam.com/play/PLLhI8GMw9sJ64AYQWNU3Jm7wHFm816rHT.html
I have a black grandmother and I am pretty white with blue eyes.
If you want to watch all of the episodes with Matt, here is the playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLLhI8GMw9sJ4PLZQ0DkuXiq_ZMfr6_QNy.html
The Mormon bishop with black ancestry - why didn't the Holy Ghost reveal to the then Stake Presidency that the man who God had called to be the bishop had black ancestry?
All this pain and confusion was caused by Brigham Young's racism.
That's right.
I am sure that br. McKonkie - or any of the other Apostles - wrote the Declaration. That is not a revelation. Does the Lord ever say "to whom it may concern" at any time? And if there is any revelatory thing behind it, why can't we see it? It was an opinion that grew among the brethren and they made up a revelation upon it. That's how it works these days. They jus had to get rid of it.
Declaration nr 1 on plural marriage is the same story. That was written Charles Penrose, which he publicly admitted during a priesthood conference in Bristol, England. That is rather widely known. It was a lie, as the brethren said, "to beat the devil at his own game".
In 2022, we now know that race has more to do with genetics than pigmentation.
Sounds like you're still using the old stereotypes. What makes you say this?
As a biostatistician, of course we track race for medical studies to see disparities in health care, but those disparities are more likely do to income/access to health care than race. I don't know anyone who believes genetics plays a role in poorer medical outcomes, for example.
To claim that black athletes have better genetics which makes them faster, stronger, etc is just an absolutely wrong (and racist) position, as is the idea that white coaches are "smarter/better" than black coaches.
"Negro race" I hope you are quoting a historical vernacular!
he is. see below
Revelation?
This guy is a great storyteller. But how does he know what happened behind closed doors? How does he know what was said in totally private conversations? He doesn’t !
He is writing a book on the priesthood ban. President Kimball's son, Edward Kimball, gave Matt access to his father's diaries, giving Matt special insight into deliberations behind the ban and attempts to remove it. The book is due out in 2019 or 2020.
Matt is writing a book on the Priesthood ban since World War 2. He was given special access to President Kimball's diaries by his son Edward Kimball. The book is due out in 2019 or 2020.
Gospel Tangents ok thanks, that explains it. This is pretty explosive stuff.
Is there a reason you never say "black people"? I cringed when you opened this one with "blacks" and "the Negro race".
I can't speak for the author, however it is possible he was using that term as a reference to George Albert Smith's 1949 declaration "the Negro Race" and the follow up in 1969. you can read both documents on FAIRmormon if you're unfamiliar
Try not to take offense where none is intended.