Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[Indy Coug]

Unanimity is a practice, not a doctrine.

[Pheidippides]

No, I'm aware of DOM working a long time with the 12. But I've also read that it took a couple of years for SWK to get unanimity. I'll have to look for a reference.

If the requirement for unanimity originated with Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff certainly let it slide in 1890. He didn't have everyone on board when he presented it to the general membership. I think that's pretty clear, given the problem with Cowley and Young Jr. years later.

It also wasnt in the Quinn I read. JS did a lot of what he wanted and excommunicated people who didn't follow (directly or indirectly).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Michael Quinn wrote extensively about that episode. I don't recall which book.

Pretty sure Jacob was being sarcastic.

[TripletDaddy]

Your last statement implies perfection and therefore infallibility, making your entire argument somewhat circular. But I'm with you up to that point. After that, I'm fully able to concede them as men with flaws, tainted by their own human existence, shaped by their time.

Not perfection, nor infallibility. But definitely a higher standard and greater enlightenment. One that would preclude racism, even during the age of slavery.

Quick to anger, pride, given to some light mindedness....those are flaws.

Racism towards blacks....that seems like more than a "flaw" for someone that is in contact with Deity.

Just my opinion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Rambam put the following in quotes and you agreed...I'm late to the game, but did either of you read the church's statement?


I may need to read it again, but they didn't mention God or blame God in the statement and that seems to be the main part of it you both are taking issue with. Are you just looking for things to be pissed off about at this point? Even things that aren't there?

SMR, let me clarify that I am very happy that the church responded so rapidly to discredit what Bott said. Hopefully, BYU and/or the religion dept. will issue a similar statement.

But the problem is, as long as the church continues to imply (or refuse to deny) that there was a divine origin to the ban and continue with the "we don't know" strategy, these types of incidents will never end.

[Jacob]

It also wasnt in the Quinn I read. JS did a lot of what he wanted and excommunicated people who didn't follow (directly or indirectly).

I'll look it up. I may be wrong. But I thought that the quorum of 50 had to be unanimous. But Joseph alone could appoint and remove people from the quorum, so...

[myboynoah]

The DesNews weighs in

Blessedly, the black Mormons I know are members of a church that has decisively abandoned its policy of racial exclusion. We are long past the day when any Latter-day Saint, especially one like Bott, who occupies a position of cultural influence in the community, should perpetuate a speculative and abandoned theology that supported racial exclusion.

The Mormon moment has focused on Mitt Romney. As it happens, however, he is not the only Mormon running for president. He may not even be the Mormon most likely to win in the general election. That prize could go to Yeah Samake, the successful mayor of Ouéléssébougou in Mali, who is running for president of that country. Like Romney, he is a graduate of BYU. Like Romney, he holds the priesthood within Mormonism's lay clergy. Unlike Romney, he is black.

[The Rambam]

As to you second paragraph. Really? This is shocking news. Perhaps I could read about it somewhere!?

The Kimball Bio, the cd in the back of the book version particularly, is the go-to source for this stuff. Deseret Book would only publish the sanitized version that is now in print (and it is still pretty good) so the son said he'd take the book elsewhere. They compromised on including the full text on a CD inside the back cover. It is clear that Kimball went through a major political process to get the ban lifted. That process took years and was deliberate.

I seem to remember that when the ban was rescinded, one apostle (known to be a holdout) was out of the country). But I need to confirm that.the prophet, and not have to wait for holdouts to get His message through.

Not only was Mark E. Peterson out of the country but Delbert Stapley (of the famous death-threat racist letter to Geo. Romney) was in the hospital on his death bed. Stapley would never have gone along with it (people who research the issue say).

This is truth. Progressive Mormons are the outliers. Bott is a Professor of Religion.

They can assuage their consciences as much as they like with sugarplum visions that their tithes and offerings and efforts are helping hungry kids in Africa, but eventually they have to confront the fact that they are sustaining and supporting this.

And this truth is very painful for me to admit. Very painful. But true nonetheless.

[myboynoah]

Frankly, I'm guardedly happy with how this is turning out. Even CB is up in arms. The membership is taking note and a new way of thinking is emerging and, if by nothing more than peer pressure, those offensvie theories of the past will become forbidden. Can a sincere apology be that far behind?

[Jeff Lebowski]

One more thought on this: The church seems increasingly inclined to imply that the ban was policy, not doctrine. Note how this statement was worded:

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

It is a clever bit of wording, but they are essentially disavowing their own explanations. The "attempts" in question were largely made by church leaders while the ban was in place. There was no equivocation by Brigham Young and others. So they are clearly refuting this prior doctrine as non-doctrinal.

Furthermore, here is the quote I provided earlier today in a different thread:

Elder Child said he doesn't recall that his missionaries encountered "any problem with someone asking" about why the priesthood ban existed or the folklore that was used to explain why it endured for almost 150 years within the church.

"When you think about it, that's just what it is — folklore. It's never really been official doctrine. I know there have been some misconceptions and some statements made by people in the past, but as Elder (Bruce R.) McConkie said, we've received new and additional light and knowledge through revelation, and even the folklore is obsolete now because of the fact that we have the revelation."

He said he doesn't know of specific efforts to remove erroneous material from LDS publications. Church spokesman Mark Tuttle said the church "can't remove it from our history books, and that's mostly where it is."

"We have to keep in mind that it's folklore and not doctrine," Elder Child said. "It's never been recorded as such. Many opinions, personal opinions, were spoken. I'm just so grateful for this revelation," he said, adding he can recall exactly where he was and what he was doing when he heard the news 30 years ago.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...milestone.html

Here is what I find puzzling: if the ban was of divine origin, how on earth was it not doctrinal? I don't see how they can defend this "we don't know" approach in the long term. It doesn't make sense.

[NorthwestUteFan]

We should remember the ban extended far beyond the Priesthood. Blacks were not allowed to pray in Sacrament Meeting and otherwise worthy black women were not allowed to be sealed in the temple, without regard to the racial background of her husband. Also no black member, male or female, could do baptisms for the dead.

Joseph Smith came from a strong Universalist background. I will assume his desire for equal rights for all races, even though he suggested segregation,with equality, stemmed from his maternal grandfather who was a fairly well known Universalist preacher. UU preachers had a long and solid history of supporting equal rights for all, and a number of UU pastors were murdered for it.

[The Rambam]

From the First Presidency: August 17, 1949

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."

Edit: Emphasis added.

[Northwestcoug]

The Kimball Bio, the cd in the back of the book version particularly, is the go-to source for this stuff. Deseret Book would only publish the sanitized version that is now in print (and it is still pretty good) so the son said he'd take the book elsewhere. They compromised on including the full text on a CD inside the back cover. It is clear that Kimball went through a major political process to get the ban lifted. That process took years and was deliberate.

Not only was Mark E. Peterson out of the country but Delbert Stapley (of the famous death-threat racist letter to Geo. Romney) was in the hospital on his death bed. Stapley would never have gone along with it (people who research the issue say).

That is the reference I remember. Thanks.

[UtahDan]

Here is what I find puzzling: if the ban was of divine origin, how on earth was it not doctrinal? I don't see how they can defend this "we don't know" approach in the long term. It doesn't make sense.

You also have the small problem of the First Presidency calling it a doctrine several times in official statements, one of which stated emphatically that it is not a policy.

[Indy Coug]

Maybe Bott's comments were all part of a master plan to force the Church's hand.