Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[Topper]

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpre...priesthood.pdf

Professor Bott's full take on Blacks and the Priesthood from his blog. The blog has since disappeared but this screen shot was saved by BCC.

The core root of the problem with Bott's analysis is three-fold, as I see it:

1. He assumes people don't want responsibility because they don't want the chance to be punished for failing in the responsibility. This is asinine. People want to be given responsibility and the opportunity for advancement and they accept the risk of failure every day in millions of settings. To say Black people (and women) should be grateful they don't have the chance to be Sons of Perdition because they don't have the Priesthood seems very condescending. Shouldn't they make that choice for themselves instead of the choice being made for them on the bases of their skin or gender?

2. He limits the issue to one of Priesthood when the far greater issue is that of Temple ordinances. Most Mormons believe that the covenants, signs, tokens, and grips made and bestowed in the Temple matter--that they are even salvational. Without a Temple sealing, a couple cannot make it into the highest degree of heaven. So it is not an issue of just denying a Black person the right to bless the sacrament or perform a baptism or be a Bishop, but it means they can't receive all that their father hath. This is where the analogy to women breaks down--white women could enjoy all the Temple blessings and go to the highest heaven while black people could not. This difference destroys the analogy.

3. He claims that it is God's Priesthood and so God can give it to anyone he wants and not give it to anyone he wants and it is not our place to complain. He cites the Levites as exhibit. But in Mormon doctrine we understand that the Melchizedek Priesthood had no such restriction and that men of other tribes held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught in TPJS that all old testament prophets had the MP. And in these last days there is absolutely no revelation similar to the one in the OT limiting the priesthood to a certain group. The Church's statements this week make clear that the 1949 Declaration on the Status of the Negro was garbage--there was no direct command from God or it would be recorded somewhere. So to claim, as Bott does, that God choose to discriminate falls apart when you cannot point to where God commanded the discrimination.

All in all, I am ashamed that this man was a mission president, horrified that he has been teaching at BYU for many years, and place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Church for refusing to make a clean and clear break from the past. Even now, countering former First Presidency Declarations with PR statements from w-2 employees no one has ever heard of seems cowardly and ineffective. Is it better than nothing? Sure. But it is a long way from what is needed to put the issue to bed for good.

BYU should be ashamed of Bottom's up Bott. But that is the result of having a Sunday school religion department instead of a legitimate religious studies department. BYU reaps what it sows.

[jay santos]

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpre...priesthood.pdf

Professor Bott's full take on Blacks and the Priesthood from his blog. The blog has since disappeared but this screen shot was saved by BCC.

The core root of the problem with Bott's analysis is three-fold, as I see it:

1. He assumes people don't want responsibility because they don't want the chance to be punished for failing in the responsibility. This is asinine. People want to be given responsibility and the opportunity for advancement and they accept the risk of failure every day in millions of settings. To say Black people (and women) should be grateful they don't have the chance to be Sons of Perdition because they don't have the Priesthood seems very condescending. Shouldn't they make that choice for themselves instead of the choice being made for them on the bases of their skin or gender?

2. He limits the issue to one of Priesthood when the far greater issue is that of Temple ordinances. Most Mormons believe that the covenants, signs, tokens, and grips made and bestowed in the Temple matter--that they are even salvational. Without a Temple sealing, a couple cannot make it into the highest degree of heaven. So it is not an issue of just denying a Black person the right to bless the sacrament or perform a baptism or be a Bishop, but it means they can't receive all that their father hath. This is where the analogy to women breaks down--white women could enjoy all the Temple blessings and go to the highest heaven while black people could not. This difference destroys the analogy.

3. He claims that it is God's Priesthood and so God can give it to anyone he wants and not give it to anyone he wants and it is not our place to complain. He cites the Levites as exhibit. But in Mormon doctrine we understand that the Melchizedek Priesthood had no such restriction and that men of other tribes held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught in TPJS that all old testament prophets had the MP. And in these last days there is absolutely no revelation similar to the one in the OT limiting the priesthood to a certain group. The Church's statements this week make clear that the 1949 Declaration on the Status of the Negro was garbage--there was no direct command from God or it would be recorded somewhere. So to claim, as Bott does, that God choose to discriminate falls apart when you cannot point to where God commanded the discrimination.

All in all, I am ashamed that this man was a mission president, horrified that he has been teaching at BYU for many years, and place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Church for refusing to make a clean and clear break from the past. Even now, countering former First Presidency Declarations with PR statements from w-2 employees no one has ever heard of seems cowardly and ineffective. Is it better than nothing? Sure. But it is a long way from what is needed to put the issue to bed for good.

This guy comes across as a condescending prick. I really hope he wouldn't engage an educated black person in this way. And I highly doubt the other person would respond the way he writes up the story in this blog.

[Blueintheface]

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpre...priesthood.pdf

Professor Bott's full take on Blacks and the Priesthood from his blog. The blog has since disappeared but this screen shot was saved by BCC.

The core root of the problem with Bott's analysis is three-fold, as I see it:

1. He assumes people don't want responsibility because they don't want the chance to be punished for failing in the responsibility. This is asinine. People want to be given responsibility and the opportunity for advancement and they accept the risk of failure every day in millions of settings. To say Black people (and women) should be grateful they don't have the chance to be Sons of Perdition because they don't have the Priesthood seems condescending. Shouldn't they make that choice for themselves instead of the choice being made for them on the bases of their skin or gender?

2. He limits the issue to one of Priesthood when the far greater issue is that of Temple ordinances. Most Mormons believe that the covenants, signs, tokens, and grips made and bestowed in the Temple matter--that they are even salvational. Without a Temple sealing, a couple cannot make it into the highest degree of heaven. So it is not an issue of just denying a Black person the right to bless the sacrament or perform a baptism or be a Bishop, but it means they can't receive all that their father hath. This is where the analogy to women breaks down--white women could enjoy all the Temple blessings and go to the highest heaven while black people could not. This difference destroys the analogy.

3. He claims that it is God's Priesthood and so God can give it to anyone he wants and not give it to anyone he wants and it is not our place to complain. He cites the Levites as exhibit. But in Mormon doctrine we understand that the Melchizedek Priesthood had no such restriction and that men of other tribes held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught in TPJS that all old testament prophets had the MP. And in these last days there is absolutely no revelation similar to the one in the OT limiting the priesthood to a certain group. The Church's statements this week make clear that the 1949 Declaration on the Status of the Negro was garbage--there was no direct command from God or it would be recorded somewhere. So to claim, as Bott does, that God choose to discriminate falls apart when you cannot point to where God commanded the discrimination.

All in all, I am ashamed that this man was a mission president, horrified that he has been teaching at BYU for many years, and place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Church for refusing to make a clean and clear break from the past. Even now, countering former First Presidency Declarations with PR statements from w-2 employees no one has ever heard of seems cowardly and ineffective. Is it better than nothing? Sure. But it is a long way from what is needed to put the issue to bed for good.

I can't speak to his true intentions but after reading that I agree whole-heartedly with how you've interpreted his words. He appears to me to be both condescending and evasive, even absurd. BYU and the church would do well to distance themselves from this ridiculous culture of "clarification" on the subject. A sincere and meaningful apology is long overdue IMO. This sort of deflection only serves to distance those of us within the church that would prefer the subject be handled head on and with clarity.

[SeattleUte]

lol yes, all people of a certain generation or generations were racist. Lincoln for most of his political career was not an abolitionist. He rendered the emancipation proclamation when it suited him politically, and served the end of saving the Union. Our founding fathers enshrined slavery in the Constitution. I still have vivid memories of people I loved as a child saying racist things. We all do. SO WHAT. That's a singularly uninteresting and irrelevant point.

If that's what this was all about I doubt this thread would have gone very far.

Of all the people here I'm probably in the best position to excuse the past racism because I don't think these old old men who have led the LDS church are anything special. I have no illusions about what they are and have been.

[Jacob]

I know this is long past forgotten, but earlier in the thread I said I'd get back to Niku and Northwest about unanimity originating in Joseph Smith's day.

A few citations from Mormon Hierarchy:

p86

IN his doctrinal revelations of the 1830s the voice of God commanded Mormons to be one in all things and to make their decisions unanimously (D&C 101:50; 102:3; 104:21). The Mormons were supposed to view any factionalism in spiritual or temporal matters as contrary to God's will.

p 131

...the minutes reveal significant limits on the Fifty's decisions. First, the Fifty needed a quorum...Second, decisions required a unanimous vote. Third, the Fifty followed a voting procedure in which the standing chairman announced his vote, followed individually by each council member in order from oldest to youngest, which encouraged a snowball effect in voting. Fourt, any dissenting voices were required to change their vote to accept the nearly unanimous opinion of the rest of the Fifty.

[TripletDaddy]

lol yes, all people of a certain generation or generations were racist. Lincoln for most of his political career was not an abolitionist. He rendered the emancipation proclamation when it suited him politically, and served the end of saving the Union. Our founding fathers enshrined slavery in the Constitution. I still have vivid memories of people I loved as a child saying racist things. We all do. SO WHAT. That's a singularly uninteresting and irrelevant point.

But it helps put prior racism in context, at least.

[The Rambam]

Bott Speaks!

http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/03/byu-professor-randy-bott-responds-to.html

Sort of--well his son is speaking.

Not that the Bott blog post captured by BCC I linked to above says the same thing the Washington Post reporter is alleged to have made up (Bott's son is making the accusation).

Don't they know that reporters record the conversations these days? I'm certain the WaPo reporter did. Denying it happened is going to backfire for sure. Amateur hour at BYU.

[TripletDaddy]

Bott Speaks!

http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/03/byu-professor-randy-bott-responds-to.html

Sort of--well his son is speaking.

Not that the Bott blog post captured by BCC I linked to above says the same thing the Washington Post reporter is alleged to have made up (Bott's son is making the accusation).

Don't they know that reporters record the conversations these days? I'm certain the WaPo reporter did. Denying it happened is going to backfire for sure. Amateur hour at BYU.

The fact that Horowitz did not contact the Communications office has triggered speculation that he was hoping to portray the LDS Church as racist by entrapping BYU people into giving unfiltered statements.

lol. One way to make sure that you aren't entrapped into giving an unfiltered racist statement is to not make the racist statement in the first place.

The Botts are making a huge mess of things.....much like a young child that prematurely takes the keys to their father's car and then crashes the car.

[LA Ute]

I'm going to go with the not even that answer. You're going to bore all the lurkers/CB visitors away! We need to turn this thread back to what we do best: pontificating on the fallibility of the church from our self-constructed ivory tower while dripping disdain on any who would disagree with us.

How long has that been going on here? Why wasn't I informed about it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know this is long past forgotten, but earlier in the thread I said I'd get back to Niku and Northwest about unanimity originating in Joseph Smith's day.

A few citations from Mormon Hierarchy:

Fourt, any dissenting voices were required to change their vote to accept the nearly unanimous opinion of the rest of the Fifty.

That's funny. Coerced unanimity.

[SteelBlue]

Something I'd like to say about this. First of all, my grandmother was a racist; for instance, she used to call us to dinner by saying the last one to the table is a baby N___. She was a product of her generation and circumstances (she was a Utah native, and Mormon pioneer descendant on all lines of her pedigree chart).

Acknowledging that she was racist doesn't mean I'm saying she was a bad person. She was a wonderful person, and I don't think any less of her for her world view.

This, I think is sort of what is causing people to get their hackles up on the issue of church leaders being racist. Now, there are racist people and racist ideologies that are evil (i.e., skinheads, Nazis), but not all people who are racist are or were bad people. I do think that modern adults in our present culture and time who are racist should give us some pause, but speaking for myself, if I say I believe former church leaders were racist, I'm not saying I don't believe they were good people or inspired church leaders.

I think some of the disputes about this issue make the assumption that when we call someone racist, we are calling them bad people. Again, speaking for myself, that's just not the case.

Just as today most people are sexist. They believe that women don't need to be in leadership positions in the Church and the fact that we don't let them handle money is meaningless. This doesn't mean most people today are evil. They are not. They are just sexist good people.

Great posts, thank you.

[SeattleUte]

But it helps put prior racism in context, at least.

I have no trouble contexualizing it. I have said that if there is a god, the main reason he put us here is to overcome racism and bigotry. It has taken so long, and there is still so much more to overcome. I'm not being sentimental. Really, if you believe that history moves in a direction and with a purpose, which belief or intuition seems to be in the DNA of our civilization, you could say that the story of our civilization has been about becoming enlightened about race and gender. And as that has happened, we have prospered materially.

The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Emancipatoin Proclamation, Appomatox, the Bill of Rights, Brown v. Board, the 1964 Act, Dr. King's sermon at the Lincoln memorial. These are the sacred moments in our country's, our civilization's past and maturity, and they are all of the same thread. Talking, writing about these things is what gives me what some Mormons call the spirit, the chills, what chokes me up.

Yes, prior generations have been racist. That is the point of why our culture is great. All over the world racial hatred still abounds, polygmay and slavery still exist, but our national story is ALL ABOUT overcoming these base predilections. In our country, racists are nearly as reviled as child molesters. We do not tolerate racism.

Unfortunately, the LDS Church has been a part of what we have had to overcome. Fourteen years after the Civil Rights Act Kimbal has his "revelation". Worse, Mormonism is still not in the fabric of our nation's proudest achievements, as long as its leaders are blind to history, fail to acknowledge Mormonism's shame. It's disgraceful, it's shameful, and Mormons will dwindle in ignorance until they feel that disgrace, that shame to the soles of their feet.

[TripletDaddy]

I have no trouble contexualizing it. I have said that if there is a god, the main reason he put us here is to overcome racism and bigotry. It has taken so long, and there is still so much more to overcome. I'm not being sentimental. Really, if you believe that history moves in a direction and with a purpose, which belief or intuition seems to be in the DNA of our civilization, you could say that the story of our civilization has been about becoming enlightened about race and gender. And as that has happened, we have prospered materially.

The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Emancipatoin Proclamation, Appomatox, the Bill of Rights, Brown v. Board, the 1964 Act, Dr. King's sermon at the Lincoln memorial. These are the sacred moments in our country's, our civilization's past and maturity, and they are all of the same thread. Talking, writing about these things is what gives me what some Mormons call the spirit, the chills, what chokes me up.

Yes, prior generations have been racist. That is the point of why our culture is great. All over the world racial hatred still abounds, polygmay and slavery still exist, but our national story is ALL ABOUT overcoming these base predilections. In our country, racists are nearly as reviled as child molesters. We do not tolerate racism.

Unfortunately, the LDS Church has been a part of what we have had to overcome. Fourteen years after the Civil Rights Act Kimbal has his "revelation". Worse, Mormonism is still not in the fabric of our nation's proudest achievements, as long as its leaders are blind to history, fail to acknowledge Mormonism's shame. It's disgraceful, it's shameful, and Mormons will dwindle in ignorance until they feel that disgrace, that shame to the soles of their feet.

Thanks for typing all that up. My post wasn't serious. It is a silly thing that has been said to ratinalize specious behavior.

And i dont remember you ever having said that, btw. Please provide a link.

[Jacob]

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpre...priesthood.pdf

Professor Bott's full take on Blacks and the Priesthood from his blog. The blog has since disappeared but this screen shot was saved by BCC.

The core root of the problem with Bott's analysis is three-fold, as I see it:

1. He assumes people don't want responsibility because they don't want the chance to be punished for failing in the responsibility. This is asinine. People want to be given responsibility and the opportunity for advancement and they accept the risk of failure every day in millions of settings. To say Black people (and women) should be grateful they don't have the chance to be Sons of Perdition because they don't have the Priesthood seems very condescending. Shouldn't they make that choice for themselves instead of the choice being made for them on the bases of their skin or gender?

2. He limits the issue to one of Priesthood when the far greater issue is that of Temple ordinances. Most Mormons believe that the covenants, signs, tokens, and grips made and bestowed in the Temple matter--that they are even salvational. Without a Temple sealing, a couple cannot make it into the highest degree of heaven. So it is not an issue of just denying a Black person the right to bless the sacrament or perform a baptism or be a Bishop, but it means they can't receive all that their father hath. This is where the analogy to women breaks down--white women could enjoy all the Temple blessings and go to the highest heaven while black people could not. This difference destroys the analogy.

3. He claims that it is God's Priesthood and so God can give it to anyone he wants and not give it to anyone he wants and it is not our place to complain. He cites the Levites as exhibit. But in Mormon doctrine we understand that the Melchizedek Priesthood had no such restriction and that men of other tribes held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught in TPJS that all old testament prophets had the MP. And in these last days there is absolutely no revelation similar to the one in the OT limiting the priesthood to a certain group. The Church's statements this week make clear that the 1949 Declaration on the Status of the Negro was garbage--there was no direct command from God or it would be recorded somewhere. So to claim, as Bott does, that God choose to discriminate falls apart when you cannot point to where God commanded the discrimination.

All in all, I am ashamed that this man was a mission president, horrified that he has been teaching at BYU for many years, and place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Church for refusing to make a clean and clear break from the past. Even now, countering former First Presidency Declarations with PR statements from w-2 employees no one has ever heard of seems cowardly and ineffective. Is it better than nothing? Sure. But it is a long way from what is needed to put the issue to bed for good.

Well, since I already jump on board the fire-Blott bandwagon, I must say the linked document from Blott is not much to get all hot and bothered about. Your point #2, that he doesn't address the temple, is totally false. He talks about temple an endowment and clearly states his belief that blacks always had full access to salvation and exaltation.

I find his argument re: sons of perdition stupid and a bit condescending, but it is just the workings of a believing mind trying to understand something that cannot easily (if at all) be reasonably explained away. Even if his implication is that blacks were less able than whites to be trusted with preisthood without damning themselves. OK, that's the part where I think he ought to be gone from the university. But other, non-religious people, with doctorate degrees have come up with worse arguments. Also, that I'm betting 80% of his story is exaggerated or the invention of his mind.

But at least he's in favor of women getting the priesthood. I guess he's progressive after all. OK, just kidding about this last part.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for typing all that up. My post wasn't serious. It is a silly thing that has been said to ratinalize specious behavior.

And i dont remember you ever having said that, btw. Please provide a link.

I think you were being serious, you dissembler.

I have said that many times.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=213212&postcount=38