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

[rpn]

I didn't realize that the priesthood ban happened in the same time frame as the UTAH legislative vote for slavery (of both blacks and also native americans ---the only state with such a law and they called it "service").

Having learned a few things in further research today (see link below), I can no longer see any reasonable doubt that that Brigham Young was racist, whatever the impetus might have been for the priesthood ban:

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/this-abominable-slavery/page/4_2

It would be important to read the entirety of the most accurate recording of Pres. Young's speech that is at that link to understand what BY thought.

And BY seemed most concerned about interracial marriage spreading the curse of Cain.  And the idea that people he saw as inferior to him should participate in governmental affairs by voting.   I also wonder how/why the 1880's and early 1900's investigations didn't consider BY's admission that Joseph Smith had not proclaimed the position BY took about Blacks AND BY's admission in that 1852 speech that God was at some point going to give the Priesthood blessings to blacks.  (Could it have been because BY made that speech as Governor Young to the legislature, rather than as President Young?).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dario_M]

You know what i ask myself. Why is the priesthood ban still a thing in the church? Should it not been better if every LDS community member has the right to recieve the priesthood? Both Aaronic as Melchizedek? Btw..i just realize right now that woman may not even recieve the priesthood at all. 

Edited October 6, 2024 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

You know what i ask myself. Why is the priesthood ban still a thing in the church? Should it not been better if every LDS community member has the right to recieve the priesthood? Both Aaronic as Melchizedek? Btw..i just realize right now that woman may not even recieve the priesthood at all. 

The racial Priesthood Ban was rescinded in 1978.

[Dario_M]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The racial Priesthood Ban was rescinded in 1978.

How interesting. In my opinion i think that the church should ban the Priesthood Ban. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

It would be important to read the entirety of the most accurate recording of Pres. Young's speech

Is this the LaJean Carruth corrected version?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

How interesting. In my opinion i think that the church should ban the Priesthood Ban. 

This is the Church’s current description of the history of the Ban.  They leave open the reason for the Ban, I assume to let people decide for themselves because there isn’t something specifically saying why the Ban got started, as in for example why would God allow a ban if racism was the cause…whether of a person like Brigham Young or others who lied about Joseph saying Blacks shouldn’t have the Priesthood (he didn’t), a community or the country or if there was another cause (some ideas have been speculated over the years which I won’t repeat because they have been disavowed imo by the Church, so are irrelevant to the actual why).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#title1

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Btw..i just realize right now that woman may not even recieve the priesthood at all. 

There is some discussion about women receiving the Priesthood through temple ordinances, but we do not hold any offices nor are ordained to the priesthood like men and boys of the age 12 and older are.

The Church’s essay on women and the priesthood:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng#title5

Edited October 6, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is some discussion about women receiving the Priesthood through temple ordinances, but we do not hold any offices nor are ordained to the priesthood like men and boys of the age 12 and older are.

The Church’s essay on women and the priesthood:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng#title5

Yeah i find that so strange. I can remember that i was super suprised when i heard this for the first time from my stake president in Portugal. I was like..."why can't womans recieve the priesthood?" 🤷‍♀️ And he said "yeah...woman have other responsibilities."  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is some discussion about women receiving the Priesthood through temple ordinances, but we do not hold any offices nor are ordained to the priesthood like men and boys of the age 12 and older are.

The Church’s essay on women and the priesthood:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng#title5

I had a chuckle at that.

Quote

In some respects, the relationship between Latter-day Saint women and priesthood has remained remarkably constant since Joseph Smith’s day. As in the earliest days of the Church, men are ordained to priesthood offices, while both women and men are invited to experience the power and blessings of the priesthood in their lives. Men and women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in temples much as they did in Joseph Smith’s day. Joseph taught that men and women can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory only by entering together into an order of the priesthood through the temple sealing ordinance. That understanding remains with Latter-day Saints today.

Remarkably constant? Ummmm….now how I would describe it.

Quote

The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within. Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood.

And by “sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within” we mean everyone up until a few years ago when we suddenly redefined it. If I had taught before that point in Sunday School what the apostles now teach in General Conference I am pretty sure I would be released or taken aside to make sure I stop teaching apostasy.

Bring on the Priesthood of all Believers!!!!

 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Remarkably constant? Ummmm….now how I would describe it.

In some respects perhaps. Since Joseph Smith didn’t get a chance to go into depth in his vision for women, if he had more that he wanted to teach/share…which it seems to me he did…I am not sure what we have now that was like we had back then was constant with that vision or the traditions of the time.

OTOH, given how the RS has functioned at different times, there has been quite a variety as well.  As I would expect in a faith based on continuing revelation. 

Edited October 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And by “sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within” we mean everyone up until a few years ago when we suddenly redefined it. If I had taught before that point in Sunday School what the apostles now teach in General Conference I am pretty sure I would be released or taken aside to make sure I stop teaching apostasy.

I don’t know why they are nervous or reluctant to be clear about continuing revelation (which I am assuming this is).

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t know why they are nervous or reluctant to be clear about continuing revelation (which I am assuming this is).

I think they are always hesitant to admit a previous teaching or focus was so off base.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

think they are always hesitant to admit a previous teaching or focus was so off base.

Why not just approach it as incomplete?  And still incomplete but filling in some gaps?  

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Why not just approach it as incomplete?  And still incomplete but filling in some gaps?  

I don't know.  It seems like that would be an option.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

It is really not clear from your rambling post above what you are looking to discuss. Harris is a good historian. His books are well researched and well documented. I know nothing of his personal beliefs other than he is LDS. What he believes I have no idea.  But everyone has bias. One hopes a good historian can sat aside such bias as much as is humanly possible. Are you afraid to read his books?

 

By the way you summary about the civil war and what led to it is called the Lost Cause theory for the war.  It is hogwash and an attempt by Confederate apologists to re-write history.

 

[Teancum]

On 10/6/2024 at 11:25 AM, The Nehor said:

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

Yea likely. But I guess God is unable to correct his so called prophets when the err greatly. Should not matter who succeeded Brigham. LDS prophet are fairly worthless.

 

[MrShorty]

On 10/6/2024 at 9:22 AM, CV75 said:

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.

I don't know if it matches the kind of thing you are looking for here, but Paul Reeves in his book about the priesthood and temple ban included a short chapter drawing a parallel between the mistakes he sees in the priesthood and temple ban and the problem of evil. I started a thread on that idea here, noting that I find his appeal to a free will theodicy a bit unsatisfying for me, even though it seems to satisfy Br. Reeves.

 

[Teancum]

On 10/6/2024 at 11:22 AM, CV75 said:

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.

So what you really want is a faith affirming historical narrative rather than more factual approach. You want and apologetic spin as well.😏

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think they are always hesitant to admit a previous teaching or focus was so off base.

Of course they are. They got so much wrong if the admit it they will lose a lot more members.  The so called prophets, seers and revelators have a very poor track record on such things.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So what you really want is a faith affirming historical narrative rather than more factual approach. You want and apologetic spin as well.😏

I wrote just the opposite.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if it matches the kind of thing you are looking for here, but Paul Reeves in his book about the priesthood and temple ban included a short chapter drawing a parallel between the mistakes he sees in the priesthood and temple ban and the problem of evil. I started a thread on that idea here, noting that I find his appeal to a free will theodicy a bit unsatisfying for me, even though it seems to satisfy Br. Reeves.

 

It looks like the part quoted in that link is more of an extension of his conclusions, or an additional explanation or doctrinal response, than a sharing of how the Lord helped him face any provocation, offense or wounding he might have felt in finding his facts and coming up with his conclusions. He may not have had problematic feelings about his discoveries or the need to seek the Lord's help with them, but if he did, it would be great if he could share that aspect of his experience. I can understand why scholars may be discouraged from doing that sort of thing (think global to publish, think local to testify), but I think it would be great nonetheless.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Of course they are. They got so much wrong if the admit it they will lose a lot more members.  The so called prophets, seers and revelators have a very poor track record on such things.

We obviously see all of those things very differently, but I don't think "losing members" is why they don't express change in terms of fixing something that wasn't right yet.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

We obviously see all of those things very differently, but I don't think "losing members" is why they don't express change in terms of fixing something that wasn't right yet.

Yea I understand. I honestly think you and other's have created a Mormonism that really works well for you would be in many ways, unrecognizable to many members as much as it is to me.  But I have been out of the loop for going on ten years for the most part. So maybe this is a top down thing.  It seems to me prophets really just testify of Jesus and teach the extremely watered down correlated version of Mormonism. Leaders used to be more bold in what they taught. Though I think they always have been cautious about throwing prior leaders under the bus and even living leaders that may step out of line at times. McConkie, JFS and Benson come to mind. I think stating a prior prophet was outrightly in error over a major doctrine would cause some members to leave and others it may weaken testimony.  Thus I think the leaders don't like risking that. It can also undermine their own authority. If Brigham Young was so wrong on such a big issues what are the other prophets getting wrong. Why trust them?

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why trust them?

I really liked this article that quotes Sheri Dew, on why it makes sense for someone who has a testimony of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to trust prophets, even though they are fallible and even when they get things wrong.

https://www.ldsliving.com/ever-struggle-to-explain-why-we-should-trust-prophets-sheri-dew-offers-6-answers-to-help/s/11811

Since you don't have a testimony, I don't expect the article to mean much to you, but since you asked me for my answer, it's as good of one as I can give.

[Teancum]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really liked this article that quotes Sheri Dew, on why it makes sense for someone who has a testimony of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to trust prophets, even though they are fallible and even when they get things wrong.

Well first of all I seem to always need to clarify this. I don't expect infallibility.  But I do expect accuracy on major doctrinal issues and well as major policy issues, though the latter is less important to me.  There are a number of major doctrinal issues that I found very problematic and still do from those claiming to be God's mouthpiece on earth. Keep in mind, that Bible has some pretty heavy words for prophets that get things wrong. I don't believe the Bible is any more God's word than anything else but it can be used as a measurement for those who do beieve it to be God's word.

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/ever-struggle-to-explain-why-we-should-trust-prophets-sheri-dew-offers-6-answers-to-help/s/11811

Since you don't have a testimony, I don't expect the article to mean much to you, but since you asked me for my answer, it's as good of one as I can give.

But I had a testimony that was likely as fervent and deep as yours.

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really liked this article that quotes Sheri Dew, on why it makes sense for someone who has a testimony of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to trust prophets, even though they are fallible and even when they get things wrong.

 

I did read the article.  I understand her viewpoint but there are a number of assumptions she makes that one must accept for her approach to work.

A few thoughts.

Quote

 

From Sheri Dew: 

If prophets, seers, and revelators are fallible, just as we are, why then should we trust them to lead us? Because they are the least fallible leaders on earth. In addition to the priesthood keys they hold, the unique organizational structure of the Church protects us as members. When a man is ordained as an Apostle, he receives all of the restored keys of the priesthood that the Lord presently allows to be exercised on the earth. Priesthood keys are what distinguish an Apostle from any other leader, or any other person, on earth. They make it possible for him to see around corners. . .

 

How does she know that the LDS leaders are the least fallible leaders on earth?  This seems like a pretty big leap right out of the box. Who does one determine that they are the least fallible leaders on earth?  If we look at their track record this seems very presumptuous on her part.  She says because they have the priesthood keys, but that is a statement of faith really.  See around corners/  Not really. What corners have they seen around lately. Did they see the pandemic coming?  That would have been a pretty useful thing to see a bit about ahead if time?  What corners do they see around?

Quote

 

Is there anyone you would trust to give you better, more inspired advice—meaning counsel unaffected by personal agenda—than members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

ANSWER: Can you identify any journalist, talk-show host, celebrity, politician, or athlete whose counsel and advice you feel is more sound and informed than that of the fifteen men ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators? How about any entrepreneur, billionaire, professor, scholar, theologian, university president, or think-tank expert? Or the winner of the Nobel Prize, an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, or the Pulitzer Prize? Or any blogger, podcaster, YouTube celebrity, or star of stage, screen, Hulu, or Netflix?

 

Why do I/we need someone to give us "inspired" advice at all?  In my experience we set ourselves up to be very disappointed if we have to have someone tell us what to do. That said, I find a lot of people our there who have great ideas and wisdom on a variety of topics and many seem much more insightful than the LDS leaders.  They just ain't all that special unless one makes them out to be such.

Quote

QUESTION 3: What leaders are more trustworthy than prophets?

I am sure there are plenty of trustworthy leaders. And again, based on the LDS leaders track record and their history of suppressing where they can items that put the historical narrative of the church and question, I do not find them especially trustworthy.

Quote

QUESTION 5: Do you know fifteen smarter men who care about you more and who have purer motives?

I don't know that they are any smarter than other people. I think they all seem to be highly intelligent and successful men both in and out of the church. But so what?

Ah well I could go on but that suffices. I appreciate you sharing the article.