Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[LA Ute]

Well there goes the foyer.

[mUUser]

I don't think God ever intended to have a priesthood ban. What I suggested was that church leaders and members were so inherently racist that God couldn't reverse the ban because there would have been mutiny....

So what??? You do the right thing, and in the worst case scenerio, start from scratch again. There's no excuse to not do what's right.....Do what is right let the consequence follow. Battle for freedom in spirit and might. And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow. God will protect you then do what is right....remember that little sacrament meeting song?

And what/who are current members trying to protect? It's time to step up and say with clarity that the doctrine was wrong. The policy was wrong. The church was wrong. The leadership was wrong. And, the current attempt to protect those who were -- and are -- part of this disaster is wrong.

[LA Ute]

I appreciate the comments but have to disagree with the conclusion. As I understand position, (and others have taken it too) because the guys who instituted and perpetuated the policy were Prophets, called of God to lead His true restored Church, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that if God didn't inspire the genesis of the Temple/Priesthood ban on Blacks, he gave permission and blessing for it to continue until 1978.

But do you realize that in giving previous Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, you are throwing God under the bus? You are in effect saying that because you believe Young et al were Prophets, God must be a racist. Because he allowed the discrimination, God must be a racist. It is easier for Mormons to say that God was a racist (and don't pretend denying Blacks the Temple rites and priesthood is anything other than blatant open discrimination on the basis of race--racism) than to say that past Prophets screwed it up royally and we are sorry.

And that is a form of modern racism IMHO. I really mean that and don't say it lightly and am not saying it to try to get a rise out of anyone. To prefer to believe that God is the author or enabler of the horrible discrimination meted out by the Mormon church for over 100 years over believing that failable men just got it completely wrong is racist. If you can conceive of a God that would order or enable such a thing, you are a racist--God is just telling you to hold those views in abeyance right now. But you might be commanded or permitted to hold racist view tomorrow, so stay tuned and be ready to reinstitute discrimination. If you give God any of the credit for hour racist history, i believe that you prefer racism to a weakening of the authority and respect of the men who have been called to lead the Church. And that is a racist choice.

Again, that doesn't make anyone holding this view an evil person, but I sincerely invite you to think about what you are saying about God when giving dead Prophets the benefit of the doubt. It is far worse to accuse God of being a racist then to admit that earthly men with mortal weaknesses just got it wrong.

I think speculation is the enemy when this subject is under review, no matter what side of the issue one takes. My own view, which I think is pretty widely shared, is that the church got into a box that it had a terrible time getting out of: The ban was adopted , I suspect mistakenly. Then a combination of factors, including, but not limited to, the widely-shared racism of the day and the institutional nature of the church, kept that policy (or whatever we call it) in place, far longer than it should have been. To me it looks like a historical nightmare that got worse and worse before it finally ended.

That's as far as I feel I can go, in good conscience, without speculating an awful lot about what was in church leaders' minds and hearts during the time the ban was in place. I don't like what happened one bit, and the pain and sadness that resulted from the ban haunt me. My position is that although I have my private doubts and suspicions, I don't know why the ban existed but I am happy beyond expression that it ended in 1978. That's the view I feel is, for me, consistent with what I know and believe.

So that's where I am on this. I do not begrudge you your position, although I disagree with it.

[Viking]

So what??? You do the right thing, and in the worst case scenerio, start from scratch again. There's no excuse to not do what's right.....Do what is right let the consequence follow. Battle for freedom in spirit and might. And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow. God will protect you then do what is right....remember that little sacrament meeting song?

And what/who are current members trying to protect? It's time to step up and say with clarity that the doctrine was wrong. The policy was wrong. The church was wrong. The leadership was wrong. And, the current attempt to protect those who were -- and are -- part of this disaster is wrong.

...

[TripletDaddy]

Yikes. Those pics add nothing.

[RobinFinderson]

Yikes. Those pics add nothing.

Merry effing Christmas to you!

[TripletDaddy]

Merry effing Christmas to you!

I prefer Xmas.

[cowboy]

I appreciate the comments but have to disagree with the conclusion. As I understand position, (and others have taken it too) because the guys who instituted and perpetuated the policy were Prophets, called of God to lead His true restored Church, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that if God didn't inspire the genesis of the Temple/Priesthood ban on Blacks, he gave permission and blessing for it to continue until 1978.

But do you realize that in giving previous Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, you are throwing God under the bus? You are in effect saying that because you believe Young et al were Prophets, God must be a racist. Because he allowed the discrimination, God must be a racist. It is easier for Mormons to say that God was a racist (and don't pretend denying Blacks the Temple rites and priesthood is anything other than blatant open discrimination on the basis of race--racism) than to say that past Prophets screwed it up royally and we are sorry.

And that is a form of modern racism IMHO. I really mean that and don't say it lightly and am not saying it to try to get a rise out of anyone. To prefer to believe that God is the author or enabler of the horrible discrimination meted out by the Mormon church for over 100 years over believing that failable men just got it completely wrong is racist. If you can conceive of a God that would order or enable such a thing, you are a racist--God is just telling you to hold those views in abeyance right now. But you might be commanded or permitted to hold racist view tomorrow, so stay tuned and be ready to reinstitute discrimination. If you give God any of the credit for hour racist history, i believe that you prefer racism to a weakening of the authority and respect of the men who have been called to lead the Church. And that is a racist choice.

Again, that doesn't make anyone holding this view an evil person, but I sincerely invite you to think about what you are saying about God when giving dead Prophets the benefit of the doubt. It is far worse to accuse God of being a racist then to admit that earthly men with mortal weaknesses just got it wrong.

I think you misstated my position a bit. Assuming that the ban could have been allowed by God is not the same as assuming it was. Moreover, recognizing that possibility doesn’t throw God under the bus nearly as much as do the Old Testament or the Book of Abraham, which (mostly) literal believers like me believe to be divinely approved canon.

There are really only three ways that the ban could have come about:

1) It was instituted by God. You and I are in agreement in our opinion that this was not the case. However, from the perspective of any literal believer of the Book of Abraham, this is at least not unprecedented, and the God of the Old Testament sanctioned some even worse stuff. Hence, while it is reprehensible to think this came from God, a literal believer recognizes that it is at least a possibility since God has done stranger things in the past.

2) It wasn’t God’s idea, but he allowed it. This is just another version of #1, and the same explanation as to why this is a possibility applies here.

3) It was a boneheaded move by a bigoted prophet and it took over a century for God to finally get through deeply ingrained, multigenerational racism to get it changed (as excellently parodied by pellegrino).

Because literal believers recognize that God has played favorites in the past, they have to acknowledge that #1 or #2 is possible. Believing that past presidents were prophets makes #1 or #2 a starting point, or default position, for any literal believer trying to understand why the ban was instituted and/or allowed. I think it’s perfectly natural for believer who begins any inquiry to start from the perspective of ‘the prophet is more likely correct than not, so what am I missing?’ But just because that’s the starting point for a (mostly) literal believer like me doesn’t mean my opinion stays there, nor does it preclude #3 from being the most likely explanation for the ban in my own mind - which it is.

While I think you and I have the same opinion as to the origins of the ban, we probably diverge in our certainty. Not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though there is absolutely no doubt in your mind that you are right. On the other hand, as a literal believer I must admit that there is a possibility that I am wrong. I am hopeful that this mess will prompt the First Presidency to press God for an explanation, that the explanation confirms my own opinion, and that the church can apologize and move on. Until then, I can only say that I have an opinion, but I don’t have an answer.

[TexTechCoug]

I took offense at being called a dumbass, now if I am a dumbass for believing in God and leaders that receive revelation I can't argue with that, but I don't think I am being a racist dumbass by imply that church leaders and members were to racist to accept blacks into full fellowship.

Pellegrino asserted the same thing, was certainly more descriptive, and didn't get labeled as a dumbass.

If there is no deity who speaks to religious leaders than who really cares about the priesthood ban, it doesn't really matter what the origin was because the Church is just a really demanding club and nothing more.

I do subscribe to both the existence of a deity and inspired religious leaders, within that framework I do attempt to figure out how they did what they did, and it seems more reasonable that the leaders were racist than the other option. Certainly there is a scriptural pattern of God waiting for His people to come around so He could reveal new truths or extend blessings, I don't think this is radical notion.

[TripletDaddy]

I appreciate the comments but have to disagree with the conclusion. As I understand position, (and others have taken it too) because the guys who instituted and perpetuated the policy were Prophets, called of God to lead His true restored Church, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that if God didn't inspire the genesis of the Temple/Priesthood ban on Blacks, he gave permission and blessing for it to continue until 1978.

But do you realize that in giving previous Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, you are throwing God under the bus? You are in effect saying that because you believe Young et al were Prophets, God must be a racist. Because he allowed the discrimination, God must be a racist. It is easier for Mormons to say that God was a racist (and don't pretend denying Blacks the Temple rites and priesthood is anything other than blatant open discrimination on the basis of race--racism) than to say that past Prophets screwed it up royally and we are sorry.

And that is a form of modern racism IMHO. I really mean that and don't say it lightly and am not saying it to try to get a rise out of anyone. To prefer to believe that God is the author or enabler of the horrible discrimination meted out by the Mormon church for over 100 years over believing that failable men just got it completely wrong is racist. If you can conceive of a God that would order or enable such a thing, you are a racist--God is just telling you to hold those views in abeyance right now. But you might be commanded or permitted to hold racist view tomorrow, so stay tuned and be ready to reinstitute discrimination. If you give God any of the credit for hour racist history, i believe that you prefer racism to a weakening of the authority and respect of the men who have been called to lead the Church. And that is a racist choice.

Again, that doesn't make anyone holding this view an evil person, but I sincerely invite you to think about what you are saying about God when giving dead Prophets the benefit of the doubt. It is far worse to accuse God of being a racist then to admit that earthly men with mortal weaknesses just got it wrong.

I'm not sure that is the real issue or at least the immediate one. This recent "dust up" does not necessarily put God on trial. As has been mentioned before, God lets awful things and good things happen all the time. An apologist can reconcile God's hand or lack of participation in this because we as Christians have always believed that bad stuff happens.

The more immediate issue, at least in my mind, is that it calls into question the Church/leadership. This is the part the apologist cannot really reconcile, at least not with the common held belief in the role of modern Church leadership. Is the Church what it claims to be? Or perhaps, more accurately, is it what we have built it up to be? The events of this week are pretty jarring, frankly. The current First Presidency has not only disavowed a prior, direct statement from a previous First Presidency, it has also admitted to not knowing at all why we believed and practiced a major tenet of our doctrine for over 100 years. As a result, it is at least fair to wonder what else we are currently doing or have done in the past that is....well.....wrong, made-up, mistaken, misguided, or whatever other adjective you want to assign to it.

I can appreciate taking the avenue of giving the Church the benefit of the doubt, but in doing so there IS an acknowledgment of doubt. And that is the real issue. As a result of this doctrinal practice and subsequent recent admission/declaration, now there is doubt even among traditional apologists (not trying to say there is widespread doubt across the broad spectrum of an entire testimony, please dont misunderstand). This is why the Church wants it to go away, this is why apologists aren't really diving into this fray very much when previously they were more than willing to contend back and forth, and probably why we might never see a full repudiation. Admitting you are wrong as an individual is fine because there is no supposition that the individual is right. But the Church/prophets can't admit to being wrong because it shatters a very basic supposition and gives room for more (and not entirely unreasonable) doubt in other areas. Keeping these thoughts private, to oneself, or only with immediate family members doesn't work in the long run. You can put the genie back in the bottle.

[Viking]

I took offense at being called a dumbass, now if I am a dumbass for believing in God and leaders that receive revelation I can't argue with that, but I don't think I am being a racist dumbass by imply that church leaders and members were to racist to accept blacks into full fellowship.

Pellegrino asserted the same thing, was certainly more descriptive, and didn't get labeled as a dumbass.

If there is no deity who speaks to religious leaders than who really cares about the priesthood ban, it doesn't really matter what the origin was because the Church is just a really demanding club and nothing more.

I do subscribe to both the existence of a deity and inspired religious leaders, within that framework I do attempt to figure out how they did what they did, and it seems more reasonable that the leaders were racist than the other option. Certainly there is a scriptural pattern of God waiting for His people to come around so He could reveal new truths or extend blessings, I don't think this is radical notion.

I have a solution: stop being a dumbass

[TripletDaddy]

I took offense at being called a dumbass, now if I am a dumbass for believing in God and leaders that receive revelation I can't argue with that, but I don't think I am being a racist dumbass by imply that church leaders and members were to racist to accept blacks into full fellowship.

Pellegrino asserted the same thing, was certainly more descriptive, and didn't get labeled as a dumbass.

If there is no deity who speaks to religious leaders than who really cares about the priesthood ban, it doesn't really matter what the origin was because the Church is just a really demanding club and nothing more.

I do subscribe to both the existence of a deity and inspired religious leaders, within that framework I do attempt to figure out how they did what they did, and it seems more reasonable that the leaders were racist than the other option. Certainly there is a scriptural pattern of God waiting for His people to come around so He could reveal new truths or extend blessings, I don't think this is radical notion.

I don't think you are a dumba** but I think your theory may have been ill-received because is somewhat pedantic and offensive, in the same spirit as Bott's theories. My suggestion would be to take a cue from the Church and stop trying to explain it. As we have seen over and over, attempts to explain it rarely wind up making sense. And the main theory that does make sense is unpalatable.

Go Cougars, beat Gonzaga!

[Ma'ake]

Going along with the idea that the ban wasn't a commandment from God, but an unfortunate mistake perpetuated by the 2nd modern prophet - finally reversed 125 years later - the obvious question is "how did it go on so long?"

In this scenario, the evidence for a substantial disconnect between deity and His church is compelling, even disturbing.

Is this issue like a smaller, Mormon version of the Nicean Creed? Was this (at least a partial) apostasy? How else to explain such a long term, fundamental error? Is God and/or Jesus leading this church, or not?

The "we don't know" response, throwing the 1949 First Presidency and many, prophets and GAs under the bus seems like "we're not getting a lot of guidance on this issue, we're doing the best we can here".

Seems like a disconnect, to me. Catholics obviously don't think they went into apostasy. Naturally Mormons would reject that accusation, as well, out of hand.

How would anyone know?

[The Rambam]

I think I am about done with my thinking about the Bott incident and I want to thank CougarUteForum for helping me think it through and providing so many thoughtful ideas and positions to consider. This has been a very high level discussion and I am grateful for it. This is why I love this place.

So here's where I come down.

1. Bott exposed a not-uncommon strain of racism in Mormonism. He was not making this racist stuff up; he was channeling many church leaders of days gone past. Yes, he shouldn't believe that crap. No, it isn't his fault for taking seriously the words of men he revers as Prophets of God.

2. So the fault lies with the Church. And still lies with the Church. The current kerfuffle will drive racism deeper underground, making transmission to a new generation less likely. But it won't cure the current racists of their racism and some transmission will occur. A statement by the PR department ("we don't know why") is not going to convince the Botts of the Church that the First Presidency Declaration of 1949 ("direct command of God") was false doctrine.

3. And the current Church position--We don't know why or when--assumes that it is possible that God instituted the racist policy. That assumption makes the position a racist position. As long as you believe that God could possibly originated, condoned, or even chose to allow the ban, you believe in a racist God. And that makes you a racist. It is amazing to me that some would choose to atribute racism to God before they would just admit that Prophets who we admit in theory are imperfect and make mistakes, made a mistake. This is my key insight from these discussions.

4. I feel pain to see the Church in such a terrible spot--having to continue in a racist position or having to denounce the policies and words taken by men who otherwise were so good and even great--who built the Kingdom of God in difficult days. We are demanding they denounce their heros. This must be painful. Additionally, doing so will weaken the members' loyalty to the institution because it will be a huge data point everyone will point to whenever they disagree with Church leaders. Coming clean will mean diminishing their power. Because they mostly use their power for good, this diminution is a bad thing. Between a rock and a hard place. Maybe I would choose to obfuscate in their place too (although I hope not). So I don't judge them too harshly.

5. But the pain I feel for the tough spot Church leaders find themselves in does not trump my empathy for my brothers and sisters with Black skin. One of the girls I taught in early morning seminary in NYC contacted me this week about this Bott mess. She walked 3 miles across from the projects in Queens to get to seminary every morning by 6:30 am. Never missed a day. Amazing girl. Her pain at being told that God is probably a racist is more important to me than the uncomfortable angst of today's old rich white men having to admit publicly that other old rich white men were wrong--even being Prophets. The Church needs to come clean and repent of its past. "We don't know, don't blame us, God is in charge" isn't going to get it done.

[jay santos]

I'm having a hard time with the church's/LA Ute position on this.

1. It's dishonest to say you don't know where the priesthood ban came from. It's obvious where it came. It's right there in our scriptures in Abraham 1. It's repeated in other sermons by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and every other church leader through the 1950's. It's the curse of Cain, inherited through Egyptus to Ham's children who populated Africa.

2. If you deny this, then what is your explanation for the Book of Abraham? Do you reject it completely? What is it? Is it the writings of Abraham translated by Joseph Smith?

3. If you reject the Book of Abraham, how do you explain it? A mistake? A lie? What other revelations or translations do you open up to the possibility they are mistakes or frauds?