Who has read Matthew Harris’s work and how much should we believe?

[grapevine]

Historians have there biases.  There are some people feel American Civil war was not Civil.  South wasn’t trying to take over central government.  Tariffs and states rights caused war not slavery.  People were citizens of states first.  People with libertarian economic ideas usually.  Sympathizers on every side of history.

 

There are historians with liberal and conservative biases too.  Even in the church.  One is Matthew Harris.  Has been discussed before on priesthood revelations.  Harris has liberal biases anyway and wishes members of the church would share them.   You can use gospel principles to justify any political philosophy you already espouse.

 

On blacks and priesthood wrote books calling them second class saints.  God not man made the rules.  Could of ended sooner if not for some apostles that opposed it.  Doesn’t God call those he knows will listen to him?  Can’t he remove them.

 

Spencer Kimball wanted to end ban.  Had to win over all the apostles.  As apostle he defended ban and in press conference said could had to be revelation.  He received it.  Sent Mark E Petersen on assignment to get unamity?  President of twelve makes assignments months in advance. Delbert Stapley in hospital.  They would of opposed it in temple meeting?  He could read there mind?

Twists book on priesthood to criticize brethren and talks about problems they still had do to ban.  He had inside info others didn’t.  We’re did he get it.  Most people are glad that all of Gods children can receive priesthood and temple blessings now.  He just twists things around to degenerate some leaders.  Was Hugh B. Brown not retained in 1st Presidency do to his disagreements?

 

Another attack is books he wrote on Ezra Taft Benson.  Everyone of decency hated communism. He may of been more vocal.  Criticizing him for that.  Did Benson cause people to go to extremes in government?  Berlin Wall fell during his presidency.  Prophets asked us to pray for nations to open and he spoke against governments that did not allow freedom of worship and murdered many people.  Did he slow down work in communist countries?  Ed Kimball's lengthen your stride had some information there.

On fourteen fundamentals talk did he have to apologize to brethren?  Talk quoted in conference.  Church has it up still.  Church has spoken on civic matters such as prohibition, same gender marriage, equal rights a,end,ent, gambling and the like.  Prophets wife told brother in law he didn’t like talk.  Even in Kimball's bio he said only meant to underscore President Kimball’s call and Camilla felt if someone else gave talk would not of been as much controversy.  M. Russell Ballard gave similar talk at byu and byu Hawaii ensign published.

 

We are repeatedly taught to follow the prophets.  Etb and SWK both said it is more important to follow living prophet than dead one since dead ones no longer around to declare word.  There was lots of agreement between what they said there.

 

I will not pay to read sal lake trib online.  Has many articles there.  Cease not to counsel God is in scriptures.  And the work of God is not frustrated what Joseph Smith was told.  So man could not delay or speed up Gods timing.  He is critical of several brethren says what church should do on several issues.  Who called and ordained him?  He gets much of his information from same source as Michael Quinn  was excommunicated.

 

I read books he wrote available online won’t buy them.  He wants to publish more.  How does he find information other people didn’t get?  How much is true and how much is his own bias?  
 

If we believe prophets are called of God will faithfully follow them and not historians who have different ideas or know things the brethren don’t.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2024 by grapevine

[Rain]

Do you feel there is a reason not to believe what he has written?

[Dario_M]

I haven't read Matthew Harri's work yet. Is he from the LDS church if i may be so free to ask? 

[grapevine]

8 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I haven't read Matthew Harri's work yet. Is he from the LDS church if i may be so free to ask? 

He is a member who takes an interest in history.  No way the church itself would hire him. Has articles critical of some church leaders.

[Dario_M]

43 minutes ago, grapevine said:

He is a member who takes an interest in history.  No way the church itself would hire him. Has articles critical of some church leaders.

How interesting. I'm also interested in history myself you know. The Netherlands has a long history that goes back all the way till the 1000s. The middle ages.

To bad that the church wouldn't hire him. It can be a good thing for him to express some critical note against some of the church leaders we have right now.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Dario_M

[Nevo]

I've read Matthew Harris's book, Second-Class Saints, and I thought it was excellent. Yes, Harris has "liberal biases"—he doesn't give the impression anywhere that he thought the Church's treatment of black people from 1852–1978 was justified. But he tells the story in a fair, responsible way and documents everything. It's not an apologetic work, so anyone looking for that will be disappointed. As he says in the preface, "some readers might take offense at the book's unvarnished account of the LDS church's history with antiblack racism, but in my defense, I believe that readers will appreciate the story more if all the artificial preservatives and sweeteners are left out" (xv).

Personally, I found his account of the lifting of the ban to be very moving. The leaders come across as good men doing their best. I gained a new appreciation for Bruce R. McConkie and Boyd K. Packer from reading the book.

 

 

 

[Ragerunner]

His research on the priesthood and temple ban is very well done and worth the read.

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I've read Matthew Harris's book, Second-Class Saints, and I thought it was excellent. Yes, Harris has "liberal biases"—he doesn't give the impression anywhere that he thought the Church's treatment of black people from 1852–1978 was justified. But he tells the story in a fair, responsible way and documents everything. It's not an apologetic work, so anyone looking for that will be disappointed. As he says in the preface, "some readers might take offense at the book's unvarnished account of the LDS church's history with antiblack racism, but in my defense, I believe that readers will appreciate the story more if all the artificial preservatives and sweeteners are left out" (xv).

Personally, I found his account of the lifting of the ban to be very moving. The leaders come across as good men doing their best. I gained a new appreciation for Bruce R. McConkie and Boyd K. Packer from reading the book.

 

 

 

I'm about 15% of the way through it so far.  At the moment it just makes me sick.  

[Dario_M]

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm about 15% of the way through it so far.  At the moment it just makes me sick.  

The book makes you sick? Is it so bad?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

The book makes you sick? Is it so bad?

The way some church leaders thought of blacks makes me sick.  I was only 10 when the ban was discontinued - what i did believe and my fear of how much I might have believed had I been old enough also makes me sick. 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rain

[Dario_M]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

The way some church leaders thought of blacks makes me sick.  I was only 10 when the ban was discontinued - what i did believe and my fear of how much I might have believed had I been old enough makes me sick. 

Yeah i can understand that. The discrimination against people of color was just disgusting. Strange enough...the church i went to in Portugal was full of people of color. And they looked really happy to be there and being a part of the LDS community. So things are improving. 💪

Edited October 5, 2024 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

Historians have there biases.  There are some people feel American Civil war was not Civil.  South wasn’t trying to take over central government.  Tariffs and states rights caused war not slavery.  People were citizens of states first.  People with libertarian economic ideas usually.  Sympathizers on every side of history.

And many of those people are not biased. They are just wrong. Slavery caused the civil war. The rest is ‘lost cause’ lies.

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

There are historians with liberal and conservative biases too.  Even in the church.  One is Matthew Harris.  Has been discussed before on priesthood revelations.  Harris has liberal biases anyway and wishes members of the church would share them.   You can use gospel principles to justify any political philosophy you already espouse.

 

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

On blacks and priesthood wrote books calling them second class saints.  God not man made the rules.  Could of ended sooner if not for some apostles that opposed it.  Doesn’t God call those he knows will listen to him?  Can’t he remove them.

They were second class saints.

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

Spencer Kimball wanted to end ban.  Had to win over all the apostles.  As apostle he defended ban and in press conference said could had to be revelation.  He received it.  Sent Mark E Petersen on assignment to get unamity?  President of twelve makes assignments months in advance. Delbert Stapley in hospital.  They would of opposed it in temple meeting?  He could read there mind?

President Kimball knew the views of the apostles on a lot of things.

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

Twists book on priesthood to criticize brethren and talks about problems they still had do to ban.  He had inside info others didn’t.  We’re did he get it.  Most people are glad that all of Gods children can receive priesthood and temple blessings now.  He just twists things around to degenerate some leaders.  Was Hugh B. Brown not retained in 1st Presidency do to his disagreements?

Racism is bad. You don’t have to twist things to make that work.

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

Another attack is books he wrote on Ezra Taft Benson.  Everyone of decency hated communism. He may of been more vocal.  Criticizing him for that.  Did Benson cause people to go to extremes in government?  Berlin Wall fell during his presidency.  Prophets asked us to pray for nations to open and he spoke against governments that did not allow freedom of worship and murdered many people.  Did he slow down work in communist countries?  Ed Kimball's lengthen your stride had some information there.

Ezra Taft Benson targeted non-communists in his anti-communist crusade and bought into ridiculous conspiracy theories about how communism worked. This hurt people who had done nothing wrong.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, grapevine said:

God not man made the rules.

I assume here you mean the ban.  How do you know this? 

[rpn]

I've read Matthew Harris "Second Class Saints".   His assertion that the priesthood ban was racism from its beginning I'm not persuaded is true.   But I do think that racism and the way others in the world did and said that was racist did have an effect after the second time (in the early 1900's) when church leaders were inspired to look into the priesthood ban AND DID SO without changing it.

Brigham Young learned of two things within a mere six week period:  1) That a black member had started his own church outside winter quarters and required white women to stay overnight to join AND HAD TAKERS.  2) As a result of BY's request to find out how blacks were managing in the NE, learning that the son of the most prominent black church member (who himself had been ordained to the priesthood) in the NE had married a white woman shortly after his state became the first in the Nation to allow interracial marriage.  (Interracial marriage did not become legal nation wide until 1967, and that wasn't by 50 state statutes, by state initiatives from voters,  by government agreeing it should stop, by legislation, but rather ONLY BECAUSE the Supreme Court held in Loving v. VA that the interracial ban was unconstitutional.  IOW this interracial marriage remained a problem in a significant form in a third of the US a mere fifty years ago.

I am inclined to believe that BY didn't believe the church could simultaneously survive the backlash from polygamy and interracial marriage at that time in history AND I think BY figured out that the priesthood ban was the only thing  that would discourage white women from marrying black men.  (It absolutely would stop any righteous woman from doing it.)   And I think it is possible that our Heavenly Father when it was instituted, was not opposed to that.

Couple other facts that informs this interpretation:   A stake president whose slave gave birth to a mulatto child being excommunicated in the 1840's.   We also have a letter from BY in response to a request from a member who with her dh had given BY a slave for a driver on the trek west (maybe as tithing?) to return her slave because her dh had died and she needed him.  BY wrote that he couldn't return him because he didn't know where he was.  (Like BY in Utah couldn't have found any dang person he wanted to.)  Brigham Young knew that there was a black man who held the priesthood at Joseph Smith's direction, because we know that BY observed Elijah Abel (who had been called as a Seventy and sent on a mission)  acting as bishop in an OHIO biracial ward  and BY told him he couldn't do that any more (unclear whether his objection was being bishop of white people too or just a black man leading any church congregation), when BY visited that congregation enroute back to Nauvoo after Joseph Smith's death.   

Facts about the 1880's investigation that informs this interpretation.   Two people who had actual knowledge of Joseph Smith's directing that Elijah Able had been ordained to the priesthood flat out lied and denied that JS ever had done that.   Zebedee Coltrin was even there when Elijah Abel was ordained.  Abraham Smoot said he'd asked Joseph Smith when he was serving in the SE States Mission if he should ordain black slaves, and Joseph Smith told him not to do that.   Smoot made it sound like he said that for all black men or that what was appropriate in 1940 in the slave south applied because of skin color, not slavehood.  (This is why I think BYU should rename the Smoot building.) 

If God had not in 1880's and early 1900's prompted people to come foreword --- Jane Manning James kept up the request until she died in 1908, eventually getting her temple ordinances, but done by proxy and not her husband's or sealing to him --- , and two different prophets to investigate the racial ban issue,  I guess racism could have explained it.    But what we know about what actually happened, doesn't support the always a racist perspective.   If I'd been Church President 10 years BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR called to have polygamy  I'd have thought the priesthood ban was the only way the church could survive the opposition to interracial marriage AND that a priesthood ban would be the ONLY thing that would discourage women from marrying black men, too.    (Utah became a part of the United States only by agreeing to be a slave state, after all.   

I CAN tell you racism existed in SLC in 1978 because I married a black man the year before and experienced with him shocking things that I'd never seen growing up, including my own parents who'd welcomed countless people of different nationality and and skin colors into our home over the years) try to have me committed to a mental institution when they learned I had done so, people loved his work, terminated contracts upon learning he owned the company,  I saw store people follow him around when he was shopping and they'd tell me when I asked that they were making sure he didn't steal anything.   And they treated him like he was less than.   So the 1950's stuff Matthew Harris documents in his book is unsurprising.  Can't help wondering how things would have been if  those two hadn't lied outright.  They have a lot to answer for.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, rpn said:

(Utah became a part of the United States only by agreeing to be a slave state, after all.   

I am dubious about just about all of the history you present here. This statement though is quite shocking. Utah became a state more than 30 years after the civil war. How could it be a slave state?

[MrShorty]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am dubious about just about all of the history you present here. This statement though is quite shocking. Utah became a state more than 30 years after the civil war. How could it be a slave state?

It could not be a slave "state," but it could be a US territory that legalized slavery. As I understand it, that was one of the big questions of the 1852 territorial legislative session when many of the most well known quotes from Brigham Young and others were stated, and the final vote was to legalize slavery in the territory of Utah. As far as I know, slavery remained legal in Utah until the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, rpn said:

f God had not in 1880's and early 1900's prompted people to come foreword --- Jane Manning James kept up the request until she died in 1908, eventually getting her temple ordinances, but done by proxy and not her husband's or sealing to him --- , and two different prophets to investigate the racial ban issue,  I guess racism could have explained

Why would God inspire pushing against it by black members and for it to be investigated if he was supportive of the ban?

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, rpn said:

Can't help wondering how things would have been if  those two hadn't lied outright.  They have a lot to answer for.

Amen. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Utah became a part of the United States only by agreeing to be a slave state, after all

CFR please. No time to search outside of a quick one, which only led to state requirements, not territorial.  My understanding was the Compromise of 1850 allowed territories to decide for themselves.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Calm

[rpn]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am dubious about just about all of the history you present here. This statement though is quite shocking. Utah became a state more than 30 years after the civil war. How could it be a slave state?

Yes I wrote that wrong.  It legalized slavery in 1852 as part of the Compromise of 1850.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah#:~:text=After the Mexican–American War,slavery in all US territories.

[rpn]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would God inspire pushing against it by black members and for it to be investigated if he was supportive of the ban?

That's my point.  Whether or not God was okay in 1850 with BY's solution, it seems persuasive that He wasn't when He prompted the leaders to investigate it.

Edited October 6, 2024 by rpn

[rpn]

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/race-and-election-law

[rpn]

deleted

[CV75]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:03 AM, grapevine said:

Historians have there biases.  There are some people feel American Civil war was not Civil.  South wasn’t trying to take over central government.  Tariffs and states rights caused war not slavery.  People were citizens of states first.  People with libertarian economic ideas usually.  Sympathizers on every side of history.

 

There are historians with liberal and conservative biases too.  Even in the church.  One is Matthew Harris.  Has been discussed before on priesthood revelations.  Harris has liberal biases anyway and wishes members of the church would share them.   You can use gospel principles to justify any political philosophy you already espouse.

 

On blacks and priesthood wrote books calling them second class saints.  God not man made the rules.  Could of ended sooner if not for some apostles that opposed it.  Doesn’t God call those he knows will listen to him?  Can’t he remove them.

 

Spencer Kimball wanted to end ban.  Had to win over all the apostles.  As apostle he defended ban and in press conference said could had to be revelation.  He received it.  Sent Mark E Petersen on assignment to get unamity?  President of twelve makes assignments months in advance. Delbert Stapley in hospital.  They would of opposed it in temple meeting?  He could read there mind?

Twists book on priesthood to criticize brethren and talks about problems they still had do to ban.  He had inside info others didn’t.  We’re did he get it.  Most people are glad that all of Gods children can receive priesthood and temple blessings now.  He just twists things around to degenerate some leaders.  Was Hugh B. Brown not retained in 1st Presidency do to his disagreements?

 

Another attack is books he wrote on Ezra Taft Benson.  Everyone of decency hated communism. He may of been more vocal.  Criticizing him for that.  Did Benson cause people to go to extremes in government?  Berlin Wall fell during his presidency.  Prophets asked us to pray for nations to open and he spoke against governments that did not allow freedom of worship and murdered many people.  Did he slow down work in communist countries?  Ed Kimball's lengthen your stride had some information there.

On fourteen fundamentals talk did he have to apologize to brethren?  Talk quoted in conference.  Church has it up still.  Church has spoken on civic matters such as prohibition, same gender marriage, equal rights a,end,ent, gambling and the like.  Prophets wife told brother in law he didn’t like talk.  Even in Kimball's bio he said only meant to underscore President Kimball’s call and Camilla felt if someone else gave talk would not of been as much controversy.  M. Russell Ballard gave similar talk at byu and byu Hawaii ensign published.

 

We are repeatedly taught to follow the prophets.  Etb and SWK both said it is more important to follow living prophet than dead one since dead ones no longer around to declare word.  There was lots of agreement between what they said there.

 

I will not pay to read sal lake trib online.  Has many articles there.  Cease not to counsel God is in scriptures.  And the work of God is not frustrated what Joseph Smith was told.  So man could not delay or speed up Gods timing.  He is critical of several brethren says what church should do on several issues.  Who called and ordained him?  He gets much of his information from same source as Michael Quinn  was excommunicated.

 

I read books he wrote available online won’t buy them.  He wants to publish more.  How does he find information other people didn’t get?  How much is true and how much is his own bias?  
 

If we believe prophets are called of God will faithfully follow them and not historians who have different ideas or know things the brethren don’t.

 

 

I think I would be great if a covenant-keeping historian, while being open about the facts as he sees them, would publish a companion essay that describes how the Lord helps Him manage those facts in a way that resolves offenses and wounds that might be provoked by their introduction. Not so much by way of offering secular solutions to resolve the identified offenses and problems, and especially not by way of apologetics, but by way of offering a Christ-supported spiritual perspective of what others do or fail to do, of our own perceptions and conclusions in the first place, and of viewing everyone and the circumstances involved as the Lord does. This puts a lot of responsibility on the author to be open about his personal conversion and discipleship, but I think it would be helpful as an opportunity to witness of Christ.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, rpn said:

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/race-and-election-law

I really wish Brigham Young hadn’t revised quorum seniority to knock down those apostles who had left for a time. If he had not Orson Pratt would have succeeded him instead of John Taylor and the whole Priesthood Ban thing might have died with Brigham Young