From a South African person, when the ban was lifted and the African Brethren could now get the Priesthood, there was a great rejoicing amongst us, but some of the South African people left the church because of that, I think it was part of the history of the country. Personally I was really happy and some of the African Brethren who had been members for a while were also overjoyed. A few years ago I was serving in the Temple under an African Temple Presidency, except for one councilor. I know some awesome Brethren and have loved being in the church with them. I really enjoyed this interview. thank you.
It's totally astounding about what happened. I've been a life long member (73 years old) and now i know the rest is the story as to how the priesthood was restored to the blacks. I rejoiced when that was done!
At age 20 I met two wonderful humble missionaries who taught me the message of the restoration and the visions of Joseph Smith. I accepted the position of the Church on the priesthood ban on faith with the understanding that BY prophesied someday the ban would be lifted. This was a test of my faith. I rejoiced 7 years later with news! Because of my humble acceptance I progressed from baptism, a two year mission, temple marriage, BA in history, and two years of law school, plus 2 bouncing boys. I rejoice in the gospel pouring blessings on the children of Ham just as when the gospel went to the Gentiles (Acts 10))
This is so good. I firmly believe that stories like this should engender more humility in our religious approaches. It's my opinion that these hardliners were so certain about what they thought was truth, that they were completely blind to the damage they were perpetuating. I agree with Matt that conversation has to start before revelation. I just wonder what they are afraid of happening if the conversation starts in say, women and the priesthood. It does seem like that topic is heating up again recently.
I’ve been a member for 50 years, joined when I was in the Army. I find it harder and harder to find any relevance coming from church leadership regarding my spiritual journey. The politics, the petty meanness, the greed and arrogance, is so un-Christlike. What are we even trying to accomplish anymore?
@bethsyoung641 I think if you want to find relevance from the examples of church leadership in your spiritual journey, it may perhaps be in recognizing that it is indeed a journey. Both for you and the brethren. I have been taught my entire life that this mortal journey is like a refiners fire. We cannot become like Heavenly Father without the agonizing bendings, moldings, and poundings experienced in the journey. The church and its leadership are no different. We learn line upon line, and revelation for the church also comes as a result of intense opposition and trial. Church leadership are also working out their own exaltation the same way we are. And they're learning personal lessons from lessons given to them in service to the Savior in his church. It is my testimony that church leadership is 100% called of and by God. They were fore ordained to fill these positions here in mortality. And I know they speak the will of God. But the will of agod is not simply given to them. Revelation requires effort. Interestingly, it also requires hard lessons to be learned in the refiners' fire 🔥.
@@bethsyoung641 I remember hearing something about the early Christian Church with original Apostles. It seems that they had serious differences of opinions about different things that Jesus said and did before he was crucified. Peter, James, and John were known as the Sons of Thunder. I suspect that means that they had short tempers. Peter cut off the ear of one of the temple guards who accompanied Judas Iscariot to the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Jesus. Then later when asked if he was part of Jesus’s disciples. He ended up denying Jesus three times. I think (but not positive) that James and John also had bad tempers. After all, being called the Sons of Thunder is indicative of that. I don’t have any evidence of that except for their nickname. Then there’s Jesus’s own family. Not all of them accepted him as the Messiah. His brother, James, did accept him but how long did that take. Judas Iscariot was the treasurer but he turned Jesus in to the Jewish leaders. And now we come to Saul , who persecuted the saints but who had the vision of Jesus and converted. Afterwards he seemed to have difficulty finding mission companions to stay with him. He and Peter had some trouble getting along with the question of “what do we do with the gentiles”.Peter, James and John represented the church as the First Presidency. And Paul had to convince them over the gentiles and circumcision. They look like they had some of the same grievances with each other as the prophet and apostles did back in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s. If not the same thing then their own set of problems, prejudices, arrogance, etc. Let’s not forget the trials that the church endured in Kirkland, and every place that the church has settled down in since then. We can go on and on about how human the leaders are. It’s easy to find reasons to think badly about them and the church and each other. But that doesn’t get us where we should be. This is the Lord’s Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We need to be cultivating characteristics emulating the Savior. I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because I believe that Jesus Christ really is the head of the church. I believe that we have latter day scriptures: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price? I believe that Russell M. Nelson is the Lord’s mouthpiece and prophet today, and that the other General Authorities are als
Oops, wrong button. I believe that the Twelve Apostles are called of God. I love the Church with all my heart. For all the human flaws there are, you can see that there is much, much more to be learned in this church. I’m grateful for my membership and thank you for putting up with this ranting.
You will have to reject Christianity altogether since this kind of thing has been going on since the time of the original Apostles. Disputations, pridefulness, racial prejudice, etc. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Great info and insight. I'm white but the ban against black people was the first issue that led me in the direction of leaving the church. It was basic math to me. MLK Jr. was assassinated one decade prior. The church that was sold to me was led by prophets who were supposedly communicating regularly with God - there wasn't ever any gray area. I saw people like MLK Jr as the real pioneers and visionaries and I saw the church stroll in late - when it was safe - to lay down their "prophetic" decrees. I am Gen X so as a youth - Bruce McConkie and Paul Dunn were rock stars and "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by Spencer Kimball was divine law. The church is now distancing itself from those voices. All this to say - the banter and disagreement between "apostles" described in this video is refreshing - WAY MORE TRUTHFUL than the messages and facade that were fed to me. If the church was this honest with its members when I was in the church I might have stayed.
The interesting thing about history and its information is what to do with it once we have it. I find it intriguing how we can all still come up to different conclusions And then know the best way to act and use, and support and go forward with the knowledge we now have. Church history is an interesting one.
24:30 Women do the hold the priesthood. They do not hold priesthood offices. Women when they go through their endowments are pronounced clean, whereas men are pronounced clean through their faithfulness. Hence, the reason that women are not called to priesthood offices because priesthood offices are used to help men become "clean from the blood and sins of this generation". Equating a black priesthood ban and women priesthood ban is clear doctrinal misunderstanding.
@@GospelTangents "Where in the scriptures does it say it is a doctrine that women can't hold priesthood? I'll' wait...." You really present yourself poorly. Negative, argumentative and in this case engaging in logical fallacy. What you have done is called "Shifting the Burden of Proof" and in particular It's logically problematic to require someone to prove a negative (e.g., "Prove that this group is excluded") when the positive limitation has already been demonstrated. It is also Argument from Ignorance: This occurs when someone assumes that because there’s no explicit statement forbidding something, it must be allowed. Lack of evidence for exclusion is not proof of inclusion. Without evidence affirming group Y's participation, the assumption that they are included is unwarranted, particularly in the face of contrary evidence. What is this evidence? 1. No women has ever been called to any office the Priesthood either in the Old Testament or the New Testament (and yes this applies to the women labeled in Greek as apostles or deaconesses). 2. All 12 of the Apostles and all of the other offices called by Christ were men. 3. Leviticus 21 defines the Priests in the Old Testament. They were to be "sons of Aaron" and repeatedly uses masculine pronouns or possessive indicators in the text for the Priests. It defines who HE must marry - a WOMAN -- who is a virgin. AND HE must have intact TESTICLES. 4. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood describes the transmission of the Priesthood from Father to Son back to Adam. Not to daughters. And it describes them as becoming the SONS OF MOSES AND OF AARON. Not the children. Not the daughters. Not the Sons and Daughters. Just the Sons. 5. The women have a complementary organization and structure which was not merely approved of by the Prophet Joseph Smith, but indeed, after he had fully organized the priesthood -- with ONLY men in its ranks, he organized the Relief society and only then did he say ""The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized." With that it was perfectly organized, and that perfectly organized state did not include women holding the priesthood. Now, with ALL of that, I have a revelation that there is nevertheless nothing intrinsic about women that prevents them from holding offices in the priesthood but that it is a bad idea. But without that revelation, I would say that the burden of proof is on anyone declaring it to be MERELY a policy when it is attested to with absolute consistency from the Pearl of Great Price to the Old Testament to the New Testament to the Book of Mormon, to the D&C and to the Organization of the Church.
Such a great episode. Not gonna lie, the bit about the quintessential old guy popping off at the wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) made me laugh out loud. So funny!
This is all so incredibly interesting. Learning about the General Authorities of the Church and how they work together is very humbling. I had been thinking and praying 🙏 for the ban to be lifted for a long time. I remember that I was in the kitchen kneading bread when I heard it over the radio. I stopped right away and started dancing around the house laughing and crying and singing all at the same time. I was so happy. We lived on Main Street in Rome,NY and I wanted to do cartwheels down the street in front of a marching band, like in the musical The Music Man. I could envision myself cartwheeling down the street in front of Robert Preston and those Seventy-six Trombones. That’s how elated I felt.🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Interesting conversation. My reply is only about the women receiving the priesthood. As I understand what Joseph was trying to teach, is that the priesthood is given to women in the second anointing. I do not believe that this ordinance is given in the church today. Man is not without woman or woman without man in the eternal world. The first anointing is not a sealing, it is only a promise to be sealed. Hyrum Smith's wife, Mary Fielding, had this priesthood when she was crossing the plains and healed her oxen with the laying on of hands. This does not mean that we are incapable of giving our children and others a blessing and receiving revelation for ourselves.
@@gwenwilliams8117 I have given my children blessings by the laying on of hands after I became a single mom. However, I always stated that it was not a priesthood blessing when I gave it. As far as women holding the priesthood, maybe that is one of the things that President Nelson mentioned in his talk about more revelations to come in the future. He said that the Restoration is not complete, that there is much more to come. I’m not saying that it will definitely happen, but we don’t know what the Restoration involves. There is so very much that we don’t know or understand. We just have to watch and wait for the Lord to reveal the things he feels we are ready to learn. Well, that ends my “Sunday School “ impromptu and completely speculative lesson for today. I’m going to go to bed and try to sleep. Good luck with your searching the scriptures, or whatever you call it. I’m not trying to be a smart elect . I’m just tired and rambling. Good night 🌙
15:50 I was a teen at the time and "negro" had certainly fallen out of favor in popular culture but I knew older (well-meaning liberal) adults then who were still uncertain about the transition to "black". "Negro" and "colored" had been the polite terms since forever and they were no more comfortable saying "black" than they were saying "groovy" or "fuzz" or "hang loose". When they did say "black" you could hear the quotes around it to signal that this was a foreign modernism to them, even into the 1980s and 90s. It is completely plausible that the memo on "Black is Beautiful" had not made it to the upper reaches of the LDS.
“What about the women?” Indeed. Over a hundred years after the thirteenth amendment, the first priesthood ban was lifted. Maybe soon, over a hundred years after the nineteenth, we shall witness the full priesthood open to all saints.
@Rick: Regarding women and priesthood: 1) "All are alike unto God" 2) Jesus is the Great High Priest for MAN, male AND female. He is the Exemplar to MAN, male AND female. He is exemplary of what we should do, and of what we will become if we follow Him. Surely, He is the example of what we may hope for as we honor and magnify the priesthood.
I vaguely recall that at some point Harold B Lee stated the blacks would get the priesthood over his dead body. Well, sure enough. I have also read that David O. McKay also stated that he inquired of the Lord about it and his response was something along the lines of not yet. Regarding women and the priesthood, was there ever a time in eternal history when women were ordained to the priesthood?
No, that was clearly not Harold B Lee. You may be referring to Brigham Young as saying that Cain's descendants would not receive the priesthood until all the rest of Adam's descendants received the priesthood. (Which really means never, but some have interpreted it to mean that Young held out some hope somehow.) Yes McKay did pray about it and it is mentioned in my Greg Prince interview. It's also in his biography of McKay. ruclips.net/video/KaV-3xC0TbY/видео.html Regarding women holding priesthood, I need to get Bridget Jack Jeffries on. She refers to women deaconnesses who baptized women, which is a current priesthood function. It's a little anachornistic, but shows that ancient biblical women held what would today be considered jobs done by priesthood men. She is coming out with some info on the female apostle Junia, and of course Mary Magdalene is known as the "apostle of the apostles" for her witness of Christ's resurrection before the men. Here is an interesting article: mormonheretic.org/2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/
There has never been a time when we can observe women having the priesthood. Ever. Some people think that Deaconess and Apostle (roles filled by women they think) means that they had the priesthood, but this is a misunderstanding of words. So no, women have never been reported as having been ordained to an office of the Priesthood.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 One other thing, check out this link. It discusses women "in the New Testament period and onward, there is evidence for Women as apostles, bishops, elders, priests and deacons Women performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist." She references Junia, Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Lydia (Acts 16:14-15; 40), Nympha (Col. 4:15), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-16), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5), and possibly the “elect lady” and her “chosen sister” in 2 John. Euodia & Synteche are mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 - 428) read this as a struggle between the two women for leadership. RUclips takes out links, so remove the spaces and check out this post: mormonheretic . org /2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/
Doctrine and Covenants 85:6-8, Hartman Rector Jr., who was my mission president and member of Seven Presidents of Seventy said this scripture had reference to President Kimball and President Lee in conjunction to the situation of the priesthood given to all worthy male members. Is there anything to that scripture and its validity?
The context of D&C 85 is this: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, November 27, 1832. This section is an extract from a letter of the Prophet to William W. Phelps, who was living in Independence, Missouri. It answers questions about those Saints who had moved to Zion but who had not followed the commandment to consecrate their properties and had thus not received their inheritances according to the established order in the Church." The verses you mention reference the "one mighty and strong." This is an oft-used scripture when a new fundamentalist Mormon prophet proclaims himself "the one mighty and strong." Now, should we try to be like Nephi, and liken the scriptures unto ourselves? I suppose. But to do so is to take it out of context (which I'm guessing you would agree that the fundy Mormon prophets are doing.) I suppose I can see some parallels with Kimball and Lee, but if you're trying to imply that Lee "shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." And Kimball is "one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand," well, that's pretty dang harsh towards Lee. I wouldn't want to make that judgment. I've heard others make the comparison. Perhaps that is what Rector is saying. (I don't know. I wasn't there. I only know what you told me.) But I think so suggest that about Lee might make oneself "smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." I'm not sure that's something I would want to say in Church, that's for sure. I would expect pushback from the Lee family for sure, as well as a lot of other Church members. Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what you were saying too.
@@GospelTangents I believe what Rector was saying that President Lee was much younger than Kimball and was thought to have outlive Kimball but his days were shortened so Kimball could proceed unabated with the priesthood change.
Why is Joseph’s Smith, Jr.’s church regarded as Christian when “The personage” that spoke to him in his “vision (dream)” as he wrote in his personal history, told him that Christian creeds were “an abomination”? The person want “Jesus” nor Jehovah. The personage is unnamed… several times. Moreover, the Book of Mormon clearly states that it’s in the learning of the pre-Babylonian captivity Jews in the language of the 18th dynasty Egyptians? It seems very playable if not actual, that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not Christian. He was a Jewish Egyptian believer. To fail to take this factually substantiated position seriously seems to be a blatant misreading of Joseph. Your thoughts?
@ there is a general supposition that Joseph established a Christian church. There is substantial evidence that this general supposition, including the prophets who head the corporation of the president of the church can or do receive revelation from Jesus, is historically and factually inaccurate. This incwould make the issue of denying th
@ Apologies. I mistakenly sent my response to you reply before completing it. The issue of your interview, (which I enjoyed very much!) is that revelation from Jesus was necessary to change the overtly racist “policy” of denying the blacks the priesthood. I enjoyed time at BYU as a student with prof. Eugene England. The church’s history, on my reading, strongly evidences Brigham Young’s (and other leaders) racist and eugenic beliefs and world views. These were not positions Joseph Smith, Jr. held, according to source documents. Yet, the stories persist. I find it quite fascinating. Moreover, there is the fact that Christianity is an irrefutable historical artifact of human creation by Constantine. And so is Mormonism post Joseph Smith, Jr. There was no Christianity in the Roman era until Constantine created it ex nihilo. Hence, the personage who Joseph saw “in a vision” (dream) told him the creeds of Christianity are abominable. Those creeds, to which the Brigham Young Church subscribes, if abominable, make Brigham Young’s church abominable. Quite logical.
@@stanfordgraham2683 This seems REALLY off topic here. If you want to talk about unorthodox interpretations, please watch my Val Larsen interviews. Val is a believer and makes the case that Israelite polytheism is completely compatible with modern LDS (Christian) beliefs. See and comment on this set of videos: ruclips.net/video/qma8ZZ8vQSQ/видео.html
Though this video is interesting, it pretends to know what happened in a room in 1978. How do we really know when it’s hard to know the truth what happened a week ago on the news. It’s been shown that people who witnessed an accident often give different perspectives of what happened. I find the video interesting but I take it with a grain of salt as to its accuracy. Just saying.
It's not hard to know the truth if you have access to the best sources: diaries, meeting minutes, letters, etc. Because I had access to the Spencer W. Kimball Papers and other sources, I was able to construct a rich narrative about what happened in the room on June 1 and June 8. I would encourage you to get my book. One of the limitations of a podcast is that listeners can't see the sources I use. But in the book it's different. I have hundreds and hundreds of end notes, so you can see exactly where I glean my material. Read my book and I think you'll have a different view about what I've presented in the podcast.
I was going to say the same thing! Marion Hanks was in the room and details what was said when he heard about the revelation. So we get to find out what Hanks wrote, and he was in the room.
Listening to this reminded me of my days sitting in rooms with multiple PHD's discussing various topics while watching them go at it over all kinds of things. This reminded me of that, not because their was any contention or rancor, but because the Scholar giving the interview clearly colors his conclusions with his own feelings and emotions. In fact, I've never seen scholarship or research that wasn't biased, colored or interpreted by scholars or researchers. While earning my masters degree in biology and then my doctorate, my skepticism increased dramatically.
Women already have priesthood power they just aren’t ordained to priesthood offices. They are able to enter the temple and participate in priesthood ordinances, so it isn’t exactly the same as the race issue
Interesting interview. I think it is unfortunate that the women and priesthood issue always gets raised as it de-focuses the conversation. It was awkward back in the day when we as members had to defend a position we frequently did NOT agree with spiritually (speaking for myself and others I was aware of). Also, the Community of Christ and its evolution toward women and its priesthood also takes away from the topic since the differences between the two churches have expanded exponentially in the last 30 years and makes the comparison on THIS topic moot.
@@GospelTangents That is not what I said. My point is that it is better to deal with them separately and spend more time on each. They are separate issues, one based on Brigham Young's interpretation and politically motivated views on priesthood and the other based on biology and roles related to family and the roles of men and women traditionally. Taken together muddies the water, IMHO. I was a student at BYU when the PH revelation came and corrected a practice that needed to be changed. Women and PH does not fit into that category of a practice that needs to be corrected because it was not a mistake. What is asked for in this case is a re-definition of what PH is and the fundamental differences of the sexes in familial roles.
Very interesting. Only comment I have is that it was odd to hear these well spoken, educated guys say that there is no difference to them between men of certain blood lines not holding the priesthood vs the opposite gender not holding the priesthood. Cleary there is a massive, massive, obvious difference. Very strange they would say that. I'll assume I misunderstood as I'm sure they realize that makes no sense.
I have a different take about women and the priesthood. I'd like to see it flipped for the next 200 years, so just the women have the priesthood. I think that's the least likely option, but it's interesting to think about.
I’ve considered this as well. Here’s some insights for the switch from a mother’s perspective. Of course, men would have to really step up to domestic duties, more fatherhood hours while mother is away at church meetings and assignments, getting the kids fed and ready for bed on their own, getting them ready for church by themselves, sitting at church with them if mother is in the bishopric, getting used to being called the Stake President’s husband, the Mission President’s companion, the Temple President and whatever the male counterpart of Matron is, not having time for coaching the kids or going golfing as often…other hobbies. He’d be a “church widower.” He’d have to just about lose his ego. I think a lot of guys would love it, thinking they could veg out watching sports or playing video games. But homework has to be supervised, dinner stuff cleaned up, walk a crying baby, projects helped with, backpacks to get ready, diapers changed, lunches premade, baths and showers completed without flooding the bathroom, referee umpteen squabbles and the occasional bloody fist fight, clean up vomit and/or diarrhea from the car or floors, take the dog for a walk, say prayers, read scriptures, have bedtime talks for individual child anxieties and concerns, and likely do at least one load of laundry. Oh, and don’t forget to pick up the kids at a friend’s house. Oh, Oh, and it’s your turn to provide three dozen cookies-preferably homemade-for the school party tomorrow (you just found out at 9:00), while also providing team snacks at another child’s soccer game tomorrow evening. Btw, did I forget to mention all the practices and orthodontic appointments the kids have to get to before dinner? And what’s for dinner? Your priesthood blessed wife will be starving when she gets home and only has time for a quick bite before her evening duties at church. Headaches, sore backs, being sick, and utterly fatigued must be totally ignored and overcome without slowing down or the household and you will pay dearly if you do. But!….at least you’ll never have cramps or morning sickness to deal with during all this! And don’t forget to exercise and keep dieting because you still have 50 lbs. to lose from the last two cabbies and you don’t want your wife to get a wandering eye. Be sure you are dressed spiffy with neatly trimmed beard and hair when you appear at church and school functions so your wife and kids won’t be embarrassed. (Hint: cargo shorts and a t-shirt won’t cut it.) And you have to memorize that this is your priesthood. It’s fun. It’s rewarding. It’s essential. It’s your role. Isn’t it great?! Hope you don’t get bored or depressed. Hope you don’t become so tired you lose your libido. Hope you don’t feel unappreciated or invisible. Hope you don’t feel hopeless at times. And I especially hope you don’t feel lonely… But honestly, it’s all part of the incredible challenges of being the parent at home. After all, it’s your role and should be fulfilling and all you could ever want to do in your adult life. (PS: it’s 24/7/365/50-70 years. It all goes on vacation with you too.)
I like the joke if women have the priesthood the men would have nothing to do. LoL 😂 Like all jokes there’s a kernel of truth to that. In the temple, we do see the priesthood in a fuller display of things to come. Having said that there is a difference between men and women like there should be. Being equal is not being the same. The saddest thing today is how many members downplay the role and power that women play in bringing life into this world. They are influenced by the spacious building of neo- feminist. Yes, there are some women who can’t have children but the promise is there that someday they will. We live by the rule not the exception. Just like we don’t quit wearing seatbelts because someone survived when they weren’t wearing it. It is important for men to play the role and responsibility of leading the family. There is a great misandrists attitude happening in the world today. It is part of the goal of destroying the basic family unit and replacing it with a central world power.
Conflating priesthood with motherhood is a silly trope that I get tired of addressing. Motherhood is similar to fatherhood. FULL STOP. Priesthood is the power to act in the name of God and has nothing to do with motherhood.
With all due respect to your well written comment, I believe fathers and mothers are parents…..Parenthood comes to the vast majority of humankind, but only about 1/10 of 1% are members of the church, so about half that 1/10 hold the priesthood. It seems kind of irrational/illogical equating motherhood as the female equivalent to the priesthood and fatherhood as priesthood, and then cloaking that paradigm as divine gender roles. 99.9 percent of the fathers on this planet and throughout history have had zero priesthood power, but they’re still fathers without it just as mothers are mothers without it. But both parental roles are essential to raising children. I do believe men and women are happily, but challengingly different. Further, priesthood is not male only, for we know women are to become priestesses. The question is when? I’m old. I’m grateful to have been a mother, but have mourned with the many single women and infertile wives who have lived long lives childless. Promising them motherhood in the next life falls flat because all worthy single men and infertile husbands can hold priesthood power…..in this life. They do not have to wait for the next. I cannot express enough how much I would have loved to have joined my husband in being able to administer to a child at two in the morning. Those blessings never happened because my husband was considerate did not want to get another priesthood holder out of bed. That was sad for our children. I would have loved to have laid my hands on our children’s heads when Dad gave father’s blessings on the eve of a new school year and other important occasions…we could have given parent’s blessings. I would have loved to have given blessings to those I was a visiting teacher to when they had health issues not thought proper to tell men about in my day. So they just went without. Please, I hope you can discern that righteous feminism is born of women who desire equal rights and equal opportunities, and to have our dreams deemed as valuable, worthy, supported, and sacrificed for as we have our husbands.’ When I was a child, women were to obey and follow their husbands because they were actually deemed smarter, less emotional-as if emotions are negative and make a person weaker or less than. Women were deemed as too illogical and irrational to make important decisions at home or in society. Righteous feminism is seeking to make the world a better place for half the population. It is not about devaluing motherhood, or hating men, or trying to become men. It’s not even about becoming..like..men. We honor womanhood. Full stop. We want men to understand such righteous and holy desires of the daughters of God. Of course, the world’s view of feminism has been infiltrated with the adversary’s predictable evil influences and corrupted twists. He did this with the many historical endeavors in a male dominated world of allowing women to inherit, to own property, to vote, to serve on a jury, to be witnesses in court, to go to college, to choose their own spouse, the civil rights issues, racial issues in the church, having a career, being protected from domestic violence, sexual assault, and marital rape. It has been less than two hundred years of the six thousand total time to overcome the adversary’s twisted paradigms that all these rights, privileges, and blessings were going to ruin women and destroy families. Women have been disempowered for millennia. Many still are catastrophically in the world today. There is much work to be done still. Consider that we even stigmatized women in my day in church culture for not wanting 8-10 children, for using birth control when they were mentally and physically maxed out, for wanting college degrees, for divorcing, for having a career, or for even working a part-time job outside the home. We socially and spiritually “stoned” them if they dared say aloud that they’d like to hold the priesthood someday. Such were on the road to apostasy and damnation and must be quieted at all costs. Then, they began having sisters with post grad degrees and careers speak at BYU Women’s Conference in the 90’s! These women did not heed the counsel of the living prophets and were there in front of thousands on the covenant path being introduced with all their accomplishments and accolades outside of the home and motherhood! We celebrated, even as we wept because we did heed the counsel and gave up on our promptings and our dreams, for these were surely of the devil. Women in the church were only to dream of being wives and mothers. Because, you know, “motherhood is your priesthood.” When I asked, “then what is fatherhood?” no one could answer except to say it’s being a parent and the head of the household. Just like it is for the 99%. So, if you’re still reading, I send this message in love and with an earnest plea to please consider a paradigm shift. Even a small bit of considering and understanding some of these points may help bring more light into the world. I’m truly not intending to talk down to you, but to reach across the table of opinions and ask that you hear mine with an open heart. I’ve heard yours and honor your right to have it and hold it close to your heart. I know you mean no ill will at all. Neither do I. May God bless us to keep growing and learning, improving and reaching upward to him.
@lemjwp1756 I have long found it amusing the formality with which church members "enforce" a leadership "name protocol". Even using "James Faust" instead of "James E. Faust" might get you puzzled looks or mild pushback.
I see it as a sign of respect for the office they hold. Being too casually familiar with those you don't personally know is odd. Exmos like to call Pres. Nelson "Rusty" in a form of derision. The New Testament also says those in leadership are worthy of "double honor." 1 Tim 5:17
@@lemjwp1756 I mean no disrespect, so forgive me. Ninety-nine percent of the time I used proper titles. You caught me on the 1 percent. Why did I use Tom and Jim? Simply put, it's because I've read dozens of letters of theirs in which their friends called them Tom and Jim. It's just ingrained in my head. Again, no disrespect intended.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
From a South African person, when the ban was lifted and the African Brethren could now get the Priesthood, there was a great rejoicing amongst us, but some of the South African people left the church because of that, I think it was part of the history of the country. Personally I was really happy and some of the African Brethren who had been members for a while were also overjoyed. A few years ago I was serving in the Temple under an African Temple Presidency, except for one councilor. I know some awesome Brethren and have loved being in the church with them. I really enjoyed this interview. thank you.
Thanks for your comment. That's very interesting.
It's totally astounding about what happened. I've been a life long member (73 years old) and now i know the rest is the story as to how the priesthood was restored to the blacks. I rejoiced when that was done!
At age 20 I met two wonderful humble missionaries who taught me the message of the restoration and the visions of Joseph Smith. I accepted the position of the Church on the priesthood ban on faith with the understanding that BY prophesied someday the ban would be lifted. This was a test of my faith. I rejoiced 7 years later with news! Because of my humble acceptance I progressed from baptism, a two year mission, temple marriage, BA in history, and two years of law school, plus 2 bouncing boys. I rejoice in the gospel pouring blessings on the children of Ham just as when the gospel went to the Gentiles (Acts 10))
It was a test for me but I figured that if it is God's Priesthood -- God is to take care of it, not me.
This is so good. I firmly believe that stories like this should engender more humility in our religious approaches. It's my opinion that these hardliners were so certain about what they thought was truth, that they were completely blind to the damage they were perpetuating. I agree with Matt that conversation has to start before revelation. I just wonder what they are afraid of happening if the conversation starts in say, women and the priesthood. It does seem like that topic is heating up again recently.
I’ve been a member for 50 years, joined when I was in the Army. I find it harder and harder to find any relevance coming from church leadership regarding my spiritual journey. The politics, the petty meanness, the greed and arrogance, is so un-Christlike. What are we even trying to accomplish anymore?
@bethsyoung641 I think if you want to find relevance from the examples of church leadership in your spiritual journey, it may perhaps be in recognizing that it is indeed a journey. Both for you and the brethren. I have been taught my entire life that this mortal journey is like a refiners fire. We cannot become like Heavenly Father without the agonizing bendings, moldings, and poundings experienced in the journey. The church and its leadership are no different. We learn line upon line, and revelation for the church also comes as a result of intense opposition and trial. Church leadership are also working out their own exaltation the same way we are. And they're learning personal lessons from lessons given to them in service to the Savior in his church.
It is my testimony that church leadership is 100% called of and by God. They were fore ordained to fill these positions here in mortality. And I know they speak the will of God. But the will of agod is not simply given to them. Revelation requires effort. Interestingly, it also requires hard lessons to be learned in the refiners' fire 🔥.
@@bethsyoung641 I remember hearing something about the early Christian Church with original Apostles. It seems that they had serious differences of opinions about different things that Jesus said and did before he was crucified. Peter, James, and John were known as the Sons of Thunder. I suspect that means that they had short tempers. Peter cut off the ear of one of the temple guards who accompanied Judas Iscariot to the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Jesus. Then later when asked if he was part of Jesus’s disciples. He ended up denying Jesus three times.
I think (but not positive) that James and John also had bad tempers. After all, being called the Sons of Thunder is indicative of that. I don’t have any evidence of that except for their nickname.
Then there’s Jesus’s own family. Not all of them accepted him as the Messiah. His brother, James, did accept him but how long did that take.
Judas Iscariot was the treasurer but he turned Jesus in to the Jewish leaders.
And now we come to Saul , who persecuted the saints but who had the vision of Jesus and converted. Afterwards he seemed to have difficulty finding mission companions to stay with him. He and Peter had some trouble getting along with the question of “what do we do with the gentiles”.Peter, James and John represented the church as the First Presidency. And Paul had to convince them over the gentiles and circumcision. They look like they had some of the same grievances with each other as the prophet and apostles did back in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s. If not the same thing then their own set of problems, prejudices, arrogance, etc.
Let’s not forget the trials that the church endured in Kirkland, and every place that the church has settled down in since then.
We can go on and on about how human the leaders are. It’s easy to find reasons to think badly about them and the church and each other.
But that doesn’t get us where we should be. This is the Lord’s Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We need to be cultivating characteristics emulating the Savior. I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because I believe that Jesus Christ really
is the head of the church. I believe that we have latter day scriptures: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price? I believe that Russell M. Nelson is the Lord’s mouthpiece and prophet today, and that the other General Authorities are als
Oops, wrong button. I believe that the Twelve Apostles are called of God. I love the Church with all my heart. For all the human flaws there are, you can see that there is much, much more to be learned in this church. I’m grateful for my membership and thank you for putting up with this ranting.
How long we were deceived.
You will have to reject Christianity altogether since this kind of thing has been going on since the time of the original Apostles. Disputations, pridefulness, racial prejudice, etc.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Great info and insight. I'm white but the ban against black people was the first issue that led me in the direction of leaving the church. It was basic math to me. MLK Jr. was assassinated one decade prior. The church that was sold to me was led by prophets who were supposedly communicating regularly with God - there wasn't ever any gray area. I saw people like MLK Jr as the real pioneers and visionaries and I saw the church stroll in late - when it was safe - to lay down their "prophetic" decrees. I am Gen X so as a youth - Bruce McConkie and Paul Dunn were rock stars and "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by Spencer Kimball was divine law. The church is now distancing itself from those voices.
All this to say - the banter and disagreement between "apostles" described in this video is refreshing - WAY MORE TRUTHFUL than the messages and facade that were fed to me. If the church was this honest with its members when I was in the church I might have stayed.
That was awesome. I truly enjoyed it.
The interesting thing about history and its information is what to do with it once we have it. I find it intriguing how we can all still come up to different conclusions And then know the best way to act and use, and support and go forward with the knowledge we now have. Church history is an interesting one.
24:30 Women do the hold the priesthood. They do not hold priesthood offices. Women when they go through their endowments are pronounced clean, whereas men are pronounced clean through their faithfulness.
Hence, the reason that women are not called to priesthood offices because priesthood offices are used to help men become "clean from the blood and sins of this generation".
Equating a black priesthood ban and women priesthood ban is clear doctrinal misunderstanding.
Your explanation is a clear doctrinal misunderstanding. It's a policy, not a doctrine.
@@GospelTangents Where in the scriptures does God call women to offices in the priesthood? I"ll wait...
@@Freedom0rBust Where in the scriptures does it say it is a doctrine that women can't hold priesthood? I'll' wait....
@@GospelTangents "Where in the scriptures does it say it is a doctrine that women can't hold priesthood? I'll' wait...."
You really present yourself poorly. Negative, argumentative and in this case engaging in logical fallacy.
What you have done is called "Shifting the Burden of Proof" and in particular It's logically problematic to require someone to prove a negative (e.g., "Prove that this group is excluded") when the positive limitation has already been demonstrated.
It is also Argument from Ignorance: This occurs when someone assumes that because there’s no explicit statement forbidding something, it must be allowed. Lack of evidence for exclusion is not proof of inclusion. Without evidence affirming group Y's participation, the assumption that they are included is unwarranted, particularly in the face of contrary evidence.
What is this evidence?
1. No women has ever been called to any office the Priesthood either in the Old Testament or the New Testament (and yes this applies to the women labeled in Greek as apostles or deaconesses).
2. All 12 of the Apostles and all of the other offices called by Christ were men.
3. Leviticus 21 defines the Priests in the Old Testament. They were to be "sons of Aaron" and repeatedly uses masculine pronouns or possessive indicators in the text for the Priests. It defines who HE must marry - a WOMAN -- who is a virgin. AND HE must have intact TESTICLES.
4. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood describes the transmission of the Priesthood from Father to Son back to Adam. Not to daughters. And it describes them as becoming the SONS OF MOSES AND OF AARON. Not the children. Not the daughters. Not the Sons and Daughters. Just the Sons.
5. The women have a complementary organization and structure which was not merely approved of by the Prophet Joseph Smith, but indeed, after he had fully organized the priesthood -- with ONLY men in its ranks, he organized the Relief society and only then did he say ""The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized." With that it was perfectly organized, and that perfectly organized state did not include women holding the priesthood.
Now, with ALL of that, I have a revelation that there is nevertheless nothing intrinsic about women that prevents them from holding offices in the priesthood but that it is a bad idea.
But without that revelation, I would say that the burden of proof is on anyone declaring it to be MERELY a policy when it is attested to with absolute consistency from the Pearl of Great Price to the Old Testament to the New Testament to the Book of Mormon, to the D&C and to the Organization of the Church.
Such a great episode. Not gonna lie, the bit about the quintessential old guy popping off at the wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) made me laugh out loud. So funny!
Me too. That is such a funny, interesting story!
I have to confess that this is one of the most interesting things I found in my research!
well spoken
This is all so incredibly interesting. Learning about the General Authorities of the Church and how they work together is very humbling. I had been thinking and praying 🙏 for the ban to be lifted for a long time. I remember that I was in the kitchen kneading bread when I heard it over the radio. I stopped right away and started dancing around the house laughing and crying and singing all at the same time. I was so happy. We lived on Main Street in Rome,NY and I wanted to do cartwheels down the street in front of a marching band, like in the musical The Music Man. I could envision myself cartwheeling down the street in front of Robert Preston and those Seventy-six Trombones. That’s how elated I felt.🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Interesting conversation. My reply is only about the women receiving the priesthood. As I understand what Joseph was trying to teach, is that the priesthood is given to women in the second anointing. I do not believe that this ordinance is given in the church today. Man is not without woman or woman without man in the eternal world. The first anointing is not a sealing, it is only a promise to be sealed. Hyrum Smith's wife, Mary Fielding, had this priesthood when she was crossing the plains and healed her oxen with the laying on of hands. This does not mean that we are incapable of giving our children and others a blessing and receiving revelation for ourselves.
@@gwenwilliams8117 I have given my children blessings by the laying on of hands after I became a single mom. However, I always stated that it was not a priesthood blessing when I gave it. As far as women holding the priesthood, maybe that is one of the things that President Nelson mentioned in his talk about more revelations to come in the future. He said that the Restoration is not complete, that there is much more to come. I’m not saying that it will definitely happen, but we don’t know what the Restoration involves. There is so very much that we don’t know or understand. We just have to watch and wait for the Lord to reveal the things he feels we are ready to learn. Well, that ends my “Sunday School “ impromptu and completely speculative lesson for today. I’m going to go to bed and try to sleep. Good luck with your searching the scriptures, or whatever you call it. I’m not trying to be a smart elect . I’m just tired and rambling. Good night 🌙
15:50 I was a teen at the time and "negro" had certainly fallen out of favor in popular culture but I knew older (well-meaning liberal) adults then who were still uncertain about the transition to "black". "Negro" and "colored" had been the polite terms since forever and they were no more comfortable saying "black" than they were saying "groovy" or "fuzz" or "hang loose".
When they did say "black" you could hear the quotes around it to signal that this was a foreign modernism to them, even into the 1980s and 90s.
It is completely plausible that the memo on "Black is Beautiful" had not made it to the upper reaches of the LDS.
Negro means black. Que no?
Marion Hanks Has a great sense of humor 😊
Love this
What was it like when the first presidency discussed this with the 12?
“What about the women?” Indeed. Over a hundred years after the thirteenth amendment, the first priesthood ban was lifted. Maybe soon, over a hundred years after the nineteenth, we shall witness the full priesthood open to all saints.
Very fun and deep!
Interesting interview.
When Matt says "consensus is revelation" what does he mean. Is he saying that when the Brethren reach consensus that is considered revelation?
I thought it was pretty self explanatory.
More like -- they will not announce a revelation until they have consensus. So it is not the same thing, but it is connected to announcement.
@Rick: Regarding women and priesthood:
1) "All are alike unto God"
2) Jesus is the Great High Priest for MAN, male AND female. He is the Exemplar to MAN, male AND female. He is exemplary of what we should do, and of what we will become if we follow Him. Surely, He is the example of what we may hope for as we honor and magnify the priesthood.
I vaguely recall that at some point Harold B Lee stated the blacks would get the priesthood over his dead body. Well, sure enough. I have also read that David O. McKay also stated that he inquired of the Lord about it and his response was something along the lines of not yet. Regarding women and the priesthood, was there ever a time in eternal history when women were ordained to the priesthood?
No, that was clearly not Harold B Lee. You may be referring to Brigham Young as saying that Cain's descendants would not receive the priesthood until all the rest of Adam's descendants received the priesthood. (Which really means never, but some have interpreted it to mean that Young held out some hope somehow.)
Yes McKay did pray about it and it is mentioned in my Greg Prince interview. It's also in his biography of McKay. ruclips.net/video/KaV-3xC0TbY/видео.html
Regarding women holding priesthood, I need to get Bridget Jack Jeffries on. She refers to women deaconnesses who baptized women, which is a current priesthood function. It's a little anachornistic, but shows that ancient biblical women held what would today be considered jobs done by priesthood men. She is coming out with some info on the female apostle Junia, and of course Mary Magdalene is known as the "apostle of the apostles" for her witness of Christ's resurrection before the men. Here is an interesting article: mormonheretic.org/2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/
There has never been a time when we can observe women having the priesthood. Ever. Some people think that Deaconess and Apostle (roles filled by women they think) means that they had the priesthood, but this is a misunderstanding of words. So no, women have never been reported as having been ordained to an office of the Priesthood.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 One other thing, check out this link. It discusses women "in the New Testament period and onward, there is evidence for
Women as apostles, bishops, elders, priests and deacons
Women performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist."
She references Junia, Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae.
Lydia (Acts 16:14-15; 40),
Nympha (Col. 4:15),
Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11),
Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-16),
Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5),
and possibly the “elect lady” and her “chosen sister” in 2 John.
Euodia & Synteche are mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 - 428) read this as a struggle between the two women for leadership.
RUclips takes out links, so remove the spaces and check out this post: mormonheretic . org /2010/10/19/women-with-the-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/
Doctrine and Covenants 85:6-8, Hartman Rector Jr., who was my mission president and member of Seven Presidents of Seventy said this scripture had reference to President Kimball and President Lee in conjunction to the situation of the priesthood given to all worthy male members. Is there anything to that scripture and its validity?
The context of D&C 85 is this:
"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, November 27, 1832. This section is an extract from a letter of the Prophet to William W. Phelps, who was living in Independence, Missouri. It answers questions about those Saints who had moved to Zion but who had not followed the commandment to consecrate their properties and had thus not received their inheritances according to the established order in the Church."
The verses you mention reference the "one mighty and strong." This is an oft-used scripture when a new fundamentalist Mormon prophet proclaims himself "the one mighty and strong."
Now, should we try to be like Nephi, and liken the scriptures unto ourselves? I suppose. But to do so is to take it out of context (which I'm guessing you would agree that the fundy Mormon prophets are doing.) I suppose I can see some parallels with Kimball and Lee, but if you're trying to imply that Lee "shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." And Kimball is "one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand," well, that's pretty dang harsh towards Lee. I wouldn't want to make that judgment.
I've heard others make the comparison. Perhaps that is what Rector is saying. (I don't know. I wasn't there. I only know what you told me.) But I think so suggest that about Lee might make oneself "smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." I'm not sure that's something I would want to say in Church, that's for sure. I would expect pushback from the Lee family for sure, as well as a lot of other Church members.
Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what you were saying too.
@@GospelTangents thank you for your comment.
@@GospelTangents I believe what Rector was saying that President Lee was much younger than Kimball and was thought to have outlive Kimball but his days were shortened so Kimball could proceed unabated with the priesthood change.
So, you were in the San Diego Mission. Me too, but probably before you.
Why was Hugh B Brown dropped?
We answered that in a couple of videos. Check these out: ruclips.net/video/023tWoriAqA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/G9C2No5bfVY/видео.html
I just want to say I believe that God band the priesthood to the blacks and the atonement of Christ removed that band
I believe God had nothing to do with the ban and Matt's book proves that.
Why is Joseph’s Smith, Jr.’s church regarded as Christian when “The personage” that spoke to him in his “vision (dream)” as he wrote in his personal history, told him that Christian creeds were “an abomination”? The person want “Jesus” nor Jehovah. The personage is unnamed… several times. Moreover, the Book of Mormon clearly states that it’s in the learning of the pre-Babylonian captivity Jews in the language of the 18th dynasty Egyptians? It seems very playable if not actual, that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not Christian. He was a Jewish Egyptian believer. To fail to take this factually substantiated position seriously seems to be a blatant misreading of Joseph. Your thoughts?
I have no idea how any of your questions relate to the video, nor why any of your questions make a vision of Jesus a non-Christian vision.
@ there is a general supposition that Joseph established a Christian church. There is substantial evidence that this general supposition, including the prophets who head the corporation of the president of the church can or do receive revelation from Jesus, is historically and factually inaccurate. This incwould make the issue of denying th
@ Apologies. I mistakenly sent my response to you reply before completing it. The issue of your interview, (which I enjoyed very much!) is that revelation from Jesus was necessary to change the overtly racist “policy” of denying the blacks the priesthood. I enjoyed time at BYU as a student with prof. Eugene England. The church’s history, on my reading, strongly evidences Brigham Young’s (and other leaders) racist and eugenic beliefs and world views. These were not positions Joseph Smith, Jr. held, according to source documents. Yet, the stories persist. I find it quite fascinating. Moreover, there is the fact that Christianity is an irrefutable historical artifact of human creation by Constantine. And so is Mormonism post Joseph Smith, Jr. There was no Christianity in the Roman era until Constantine created it ex nihilo. Hence, the personage who Joseph saw “in a vision” (dream) told him the creeds of Christianity are abominable. Those creeds, to which the Brigham Young Church subscribes, if abominable, make Brigham Young’s church abominable. Quite logical.
@@stanfordgraham2683 This seems REALLY off topic here. If you want to talk about unorthodox interpretations, please watch my Val Larsen interviews. Val is a believer and makes the case that Israelite polytheism is completely compatible with modern LDS (Christian) beliefs. See and comment on this set of videos: ruclips.net/video/qma8ZZ8vQSQ/видео.html
this talk is because they did not know truths, I wS TAUGHT EVEN IN THE 1960 THAT BLACK PEOPLE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD SOME DAY.
Though this video is interesting, it pretends to know what happened in a room in 1978.
How do we really know when it’s hard to know the truth what happened a week ago on the news.
It’s been shown that people who witnessed an accident often give different perspectives of what happened.
I find the video interesting but I take it with a grain of salt as to its accuracy. Just saying.
It's not hard to know the truth if you have access to the best sources: diaries, meeting minutes, letters, etc. Because I had access to the Spencer W. Kimball Papers and other sources, I was able to construct a rich narrative about what happened in the room on June 1 and June 8. I would encourage you to get my book. One of the limitations of a podcast is that listeners can't see the sources I use. But in the book it's different. I have hundreds and hundreds of end notes, so you can see exactly where I glean my material. Read my book and I think you'll have a different view about what I've presented in the podcast.
I was going to say the same thing! Marion Hanks was in the room and details what was said when he heard about the revelation. So we get to find out what Hanks wrote, and he was in the room.
Listening to this reminded me of my days sitting in rooms with multiple PHD's discussing various topics while watching them go at it over all kinds of things. This reminded me of that, not because their was any contention or rancor, but because the Scholar giving the interview clearly colors his conclusions with his own feelings and emotions. In fact, I've never seen scholarship or research that wasn't biased, colored or interpreted by scholars or researchers. While earning my masters degree in biology and then my doctorate, my skepticism increased dramatically.
Are you a vulcan with no emotions? Do you prefer the teacher in Ferris Beuhler's Day off? "Buehler, Buehler, Buehler."
Women already have priesthood power they just aren’t ordained to priesthood offices. They are able to enter the temple and participate in priesthood ordinances, so it isn’t exactly the same as the race issue
In Spanish "negro" is the word for "black". Is that an issue?
It isn't for English speakers. I don't know about Spanish speakers.
Interesting interview. I think it is unfortunate that the women and priesthood issue always gets raised as it de-focuses the conversation. It was awkward back in the day when we as members had to defend a position we frequently did NOT agree with spiritually (speaking for myself and others I was aware of). Also, the Community of Christ and its evolution toward women and its priesthood also takes away from the topic since the differences between the two churches have expanded exponentially in the last 30 years and makes the comparison on THIS topic moot.
I don't understand why you say women de-focus the issue.
@@GospelTangents That is not what I said. My point is that it is better to deal with them separately and spend more time on each. They are separate issues, one based on Brigham Young's interpretation and politically motivated views on priesthood and the other based on biology and roles related to family and the roles of men and women traditionally. Taken together muddies the water, IMHO. I was a student at BYU when the PH revelation came and corrected a practice that needed to be changed. Women and PH does not fit into that category of a practice that needs to be corrected because it was not a mistake. What is asked for in this case is a re-definition of what PH is and the fundamental differences of the sexes in familial roles.
Very interesting. Only comment I have is that it was odd to hear these well spoken, educated guys say that there is no difference to them between men of certain blood lines not holding the priesthood vs the opposite gender not holding the priesthood. Cleary there is a massive, massive, obvious difference. Very strange they would say that. I'll assume I misunderstood as I'm sure they realize that makes no sense.
I think these 2 educated guys assume you are more comfortable with sexism and racism than these 2 educated guys.
I agree... but they are a bit blinded by ideology.
I have a different take about women and the priesthood. I'd like to see it flipped for the next 200 years, so just the women have the priesthood. I think that's the least likely option, but it's interesting to think about.
I’ve considered this as well. Here’s some insights for the switch from a mother’s perspective. Of course, men would have to really step up to domestic duties, more fatherhood hours while mother is away at church meetings and assignments, getting the kids fed and ready for bed on their own, getting them ready for church by themselves, sitting at church with them if mother is in the bishopric, getting used to being called the Stake President’s husband, the Mission President’s companion, the Temple President and whatever the male counterpart of Matron is, not having time for coaching the kids or going golfing as often…other hobbies. He’d be a “church widower.” He’d have to just about lose his ego.
I think a lot of guys would love it, thinking they could veg out watching sports or playing video games. But homework has to be supervised, dinner stuff cleaned up, walk a crying baby, projects helped with, backpacks to get ready, diapers changed, lunches premade, baths and showers completed without flooding the bathroom, referee umpteen squabbles and the occasional bloody fist fight, clean up vomit and/or diarrhea from the car or floors, take the dog for a walk, say prayers, read scriptures, have bedtime talks for individual child anxieties and concerns, and likely do at least one load of laundry. Oh, and don’t forget to pick up the kids at a friend’s house. Oh, Oh, and it’s your turn to provide three dozen cookies-preferably homemade-for the school party tomorrow (you just found out at 9:00), while also providing team snacks at another child’s soccer game tomorrow evening. Btw, did I forget to mention all the practices and orthodontic appointments the kids have to get to before dinner? And what’s for dinner? Your priesthood blessed wife will be starving when she gets home and only has time for a quick bite before her evening duties at church. Headaches, sore backs, being sick, and utterly fatigued must be totally ignored and overcome without slowing down or the household and you will pay dearly if you do. But!….at least you’ll never have cramps or morning sickness to deal with during all this! And don’t forget to exercise and keep dieting because you still have 50 lbs. to lose from the last two cabbies and you don’t want your wife to get a wandering eye. Be sure you are dressed spiffy with neatly trimmed beard and hair when you appear at church and school functions so your wife and kids won’t be embarrassed. (Hint: cargo shorts and a t-shirt won’t cut it.) And you have to memorize that this is your priesthood. It’s fun. It’s rewarding. It’s essential. It’s your role. Isn’t it great?! Hope you don’t get bored or depressed. Hope you don’t become so tired you lose your libido. Hope you don’t feel unappreciated or invisible. Hope you don’t feel hopeless at times.
And I especially hope you don’t feel lonely…
But honestly, it’s all part of the incredible challenges of being the parent at home. After all, it’s your role and should be fulfilling and all you could ever want to do in your adult life. (PS: it’s 24/7/365/50-70 years. It all goes on vacation with you too.)
@@ggrace1133 Indeed. Life is often grueling. And I think both sides would be shocked if they believe the grass is greener on the other side.
@@WalterReade totally agree.
I have had a revelation on this for myself. Women would do a better job but it would destroy the Church anyway. Its a bad idea.
I like the joke if women have the priesthood the men would have nothing to do. LoL 😂
Like all jokes there’s a kernel of truth to that.
In the temple, we do see the priesthood in a fuller display of things to come.
Having said that there is a difference between men and women like there should be.
Being equal is not being the same.
The saddest thing today is how many members downplay the role and power that women play in bringing life into this world.
They are influenced by the spacious building of neo- feminist.
Yes, there are some women who can’t have children but the promise is there that someday they will. We live by the rule not the exception. Just like we don’t quit wearing seatbelts because someone survived when they weren’t wearing it.
It is important for men to play the role and responsibility of leading the family. There is a great misandrists attitude happening in the world today.
It is part of the goal of destroying the basic family unit and replacing it with a central world power.
Conflating priesthood with motherhood is a silly trope that I get tired of addressing. Motherhood is similar to fatherhood. FULL STOP. Priesthood is the power to act in the name of God and has nothing to do with motherhood.
With all due respect to your well written comment, I believe fathers and mothers are parents…..Parenthood comes to the vast majority of humankind, but only about 1/10 of 1% are members of the church, so about half that 1/10 hold the priesthood. It seems kind of irrational/illogical equating motherhood as the female equivalent to the priesthood and fatherhood as priesthood, and then cloaking that paradigm as divine gender roles. 99.9 percent of the fathers on this planet and throughout history have had zero priesthood power, but they’re still fathers without it just as mothers are mothers without it. But both parental roles are essential to raising children.
I do believe men and women are happily, but challengingly different. Further, priesthood is not male only, for we know women are to become priestesses. The question is when?
I’m old. I’m grateful to have been a mother, but have mourned with the many single women and infertile wives who have lived long lives childless. Promising them motherhood in the next life falls flat because all worthy single men and infertile husbands can hold priesthood power…..in this life. They do not have to wait for the next.
I cannot express enough how much I would have loved to have joined my husband in being able to administer to a child at two in the morning. Those blessings never happened because my husband was considerate did not want to get another priesthood holder out of bed. That was sad for our children. I would have loved to have laid my hands on our children’s heads when Dad gave father’s blessings on the eve of a new school year and other important occasions…we could have given parent’s blessings. I would have loved to have given blessings to those I was a visiting teacher to when they had health issues not thought proper to tell men about in my day. So they just went without.
Please, I hope you can discern that righteous feminism is born of women who desire equal rights and equal opportunities, and to have our dreams deemed as valuable, worthy, supported, and sacrificed for as we have our husbands.’ When I was a child, women were to obey and follow their husbands because they were actually deemed smarter, less emotional-as if emotions are negative and make a person weaker or less than. Women were deemed as too illogical and irrational to make important decisions at home or in society. Righteous feminism is seeking to make the world a better place for half the population. It is not about devaluing motherhood, or hating men, or trying to become men. It’s not even about becoming..like..men. We honor womanhood. Full stop. We want men to understand such righteous and holy desires of the daughters of God.
Of course, the world’s view of feminism has been infiltrated with the adversary’s predictable evil influences and corrupted twists. He did this with the many historical endeavors in a male dominated world of allowing women to inherit, to own property, to vote, to serve on a jury, to be witnesses in court, to go to college, to choose their own spouse, the civil rights issues, racial issues in the church, having a career, being protected from domestic violence, sexual assault, and marital rape. It has been less than two hundred years of the six thousand total time to overcome the adversary’s twisted paradigms that all these rights, privileges, and blessings were going to ruin women and destroy families.
Women have been disempowered for millennia. Many still are catastrophically in the world today. There is much work to be done still. Consider that we even stigmatized women in my day in church culture for not wanting 8-10 children, for using birth control when they were mentally and physically maxed out, for wanting college degrees, for divorcing, for having a career, or for even working a part-time job outside the home. We socially and spiritually “stoned” them if they dared say aloud that they’d like to hold the priesthood someday. Such were on the road to apostasy and damnation and must be quieted at all costs. Then, they began having sisters with post grad degrees and careers speak at BYU Women’s Conference in the 90’s! These women did not heed the counsel of the living prophets and were there in front of thousands on the covenant path being introduced with all their accomplishments and accolades outside of the home and motherhood! We celebrated, even as we wept because we did heed the counsel and gave up on our promptings and our dreams, for these were surely of the devil. Women in the church were only to dream of being wives and mothers. Because, you know, “motherhood is your priesthood.” When I asked, “then what is fatherhood?” no one could answer except to say it’s being a parent and the head of the household. Just like it is for the 99%.
So, if you’re still reading, I send this message in love and with an earnest plea to please consider a paradigm shift. Even a small bit of considering and understanding some of these points may help bring more light into the world. I’m truly not intending to talk down to you, but to reach across the table of opinions and ask that you hear mine with an open heart. I’ve heard yours and honor your right to have it and hold it close to your heart. I know you mean no ill will at all. Neither do I. May God bless us to keep growing and learning, improving and reaching upward to him.
When women are ordained to the Priesthood there will no longer be a need for men in the Church. We'll just let the women do it.
You mean like ancient Christianity and the Community of Christ, and other mainline denominations?
"Tom" Monson and "Jim" Faust? lol
@lemjwp1756 I have long found it amusing the formality with which church members "enforce" a leadership "name protocol". Even using "James Faust" instead of "James E. Faust" might get you puzzled looks or mild pushback.
I see it as a sign of respect for the office they hold. Being too casually familiar with those you don't personally know is odd. Exmos like to call Pres. Nelson "Rusty" in a form of derision. The New Testament also says those in leadership are worthy of "double honor." 1 Tim 5:17
@@lemjwp1756 I mean no disrespect, so forgive me. Ninety-nine percent of the time I used proper titles. You caught me on the 1 percent. Why did I use Tom and Jim? Simply put, it's because I've read dozens of letters of theirs in which their friends called them Tom and Jim. It's just ingrained in my head. Again, no disrespect intended.
No offense taken!
You are being lied to......Coffee is good!!!!
Only if you ouyt a lot of sugar and other flavors in it.