Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[creekster]

Its about as bad as it can get. It sounds even worse than it is. Mormons believe in a discriminatory God; a patronizing, condescending God. Implicitly God did in fact make the races different adn, thus, Mormons align with skinheads on this issue. I can hear the Romney campaign cringing from here.

Of course he thinks he is absolutely correct and, I bet, he thinks he is doing a great service to call this out.

Even so, I assume that all those who decry the lack of academic freedom at BYU would not support his termination?

[pellegrino]

Its about as bad as it can get. It sounds even worse than it is. Mormons believe in a discriminatory God; a patronizing, condescending God. Implicitly God did in fact make the races different adn, thus, Mormons align with skinheads on this issue. I can hear the Romney campaign cringing from here.

Of course he thinks he is absolutely correct and, I bet, he thinks he is doing a great service to call this out.

Even so, I assume that all those who decry the lack of academic freedom at BYU would not support his termination?

It's clear that BYU has a double standard. Bott's comments could be even more damaging than anything Quinn ever wrote, yet he won't likely even get a formal reprimand, much less a church court.

[Uncle Ted]

Same here. In fact, two years ago my daughter was fed a line that went something like this:

Joseph Smith initially ordained blacks to the priesthood. However, this was before he translated the Book of Abraham. When he realized that the seed of Ham was cursed, he stopped ordaining them, and instructed later leaders to stop as well.



So she came home that day, excited that she had heard a 'plausible' explanation for the discrepancy, something that she could hold onto. It was up to me to burst that bubble. Thank you, seminary instructor.

Good hell... Your daughter's seminary instructor needs to check his/her facts:

"Joseph Smith ostensibly translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text in July and a few days in November 1835..."

"[Elijah] Abel was ordained an elder on March 3, 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio by Joseph Smith.[2] In 1839, Abel was made a member of the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum."

Source: wikipedia

[creekster]

It's clear that BYU has a double standard. Bott's comments could be even more damaging than anything Quinn ever wrote, yet he won't likely even get a formal reprimand, much less a church court.

No doubt. But it works both ways. Just pointing out that this is (or would be) the price of such freedom. .

[Jeff Lebowski]

Am I wrong to think that if the Church doesn't publically contradict Bott and officially apologize, it is a serious moral lapse?

No, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

[UtahDan]

Am I wrong to think that if the Church doesn't publically contradict Bott and officially apologize, it is a serious moral lapse?

There are a range of options for how they could do this. Of course, the first one would be to simply ignore it. I don't think they will. I think they have to say something, but what they say will be tricky.

If you apologize, what do you say you are apologizing for? More to the point, does the church ever apologize? Can they make the claim that it is not consistent with the teachings of the church? I don't think they can because I don't think it is. I'm not saying I think tons of people think that way, but what he is saying is not inconsistent with teachings that have never been repudiated. So if you go down that road you get called out for not being honest.

I think you have to nuance it in a way that you say it is not consistent with current teaching or current understanding. Even so, if you do that you are still implying or stating that former teaching and understanding were wrong, which they have never done. It would be a big step to do that.

If you want to go even softer than that, you say something along the lines that Bro. Bott does not speak for BYU and is expressing his own opinion. And then reiterate that the church, today, draws no distinctions between persons based on race. Now that I have thought it through this last option, or some variation, seems most likely to me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Joanna Brooks speaks:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5748/racist_remarks_by_popular_byu_religion_professor_spark_controversy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[The Rambam]

If I had posted last week and said that a significant number of Mormons believed exactly what Bott said, I would have been attacked for making stuff up--that these were not common beliefs and I was being inflammatory. Too many of you want to believe that the Church culture is something other than what it is. Bott is not an outlier--sure he is out of step with the crowd here, but he is representative of the vast majority of High Priests in along the Wasatch Front (the heart and soul and pocketbook of the Church).

I am ashamed of my faith tradition today--yes for what Bott said, but just as much for the silence in response from CHQ and from BYU. They are apparently satisfied to just let those comments stand. Incredible.

[The Rambam]

There are a range of options for how they could do this. Of course, the first one would be to simply ignore it. I don't think they will. I think they have to say something, but what they say will be tricky.

If you apologize, what do you say you are apologizing for? More to the point, does the church ever apologize? Can they make the claim that it is not consistent with the teachings of the church? I don't think they can because I don't think it is. I'm not saying I think tons of people think that way, but what he is saying is not inconsistent with teachings that have never been repudiated. So if you go down that road you get called out for not being honest.

I think you have to nuance it in a way that you say it is not consistent with current teaching or current understanding. Even so, if you do that you are still implying or stating that former teaching and understanding were wrong, which they have never done. It would be a big step to do that.

If you want to go even softer than that, you say something along the lines that Bro. Bott does not speak for BYU and is expressing his own opinion. And then reiterate that the church, today, draws no distinctions between persons based on race. Now that I have thought it through this last option, or some variation, seems most likely to me.

If they just say he doesn't speak for the Church and reiterate the current policy and ignore the substance of his statements, they are in effect agreeing with his statements.

[UtahDan]

If I had posted last week and said that a significant number of Mormons believed exactly what Bott said, I would have been attacked for making stuff up--that these were not common beliefs and I was being inflammatory. Too many of you want to believe that the Church culture is something other than what it is. Bott is not an outlier--sure he is out of step with the crowd here, but he is representative of the vast majority of High Priests in along the Wasatch Front (the heart and soul and pocketbook of the Church).

I am ashamed of my faith tradition today--yes for what Bott said, but just as much for the silence in response from CHQ and from BYU. They are apparently satisfied to just let those comments stand. Incredible.

I agree with you that the frequent refrain of "no on thinks that" or "that is just one person" denies reality. On the other hand, I think that it only denies one part of reality. Another component of that same reality are the faithful people who really disagree with what Bott said. I don't think anyone does justice to "the culture" when they say it is one group or the other. It is both and everyone in between. That is my defense of the Mormon people who I think are mostly good and not racist.

But with that said, I think this can be laid squarely at the feet of a CHQ that has been silent too long on this.

[UtahDan]

If they just say he doesn't speak for the Church and reiterate the current policy and ignore the substance of his statements, they are in effect agreeing with his statements.

Church PR department is like an appellate court. They want to dispose of the issue with the fewest words, on the narrowest grounds and with the least precedential value they can.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Even Dan Peterson is up on his heels:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/02/unfortunate-attempt-to-explain-pre-1978.html

[DrumNFeather]

Joanna Brooks speaks:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...medium=twitter

From the comments entitled "the lies of Joanna Brooks"...

I'm happy to say that this article is a complete lie. I have Randy Bott as a professor now, and i know that this is false. This writer has changed what Professor Bott said. There are lots of African American people who are in his class right now who said that professor Bott has said nothing like this and what Joanna Brooks has written is a lie and she should be ashamed of trying to smear a good man because she wants her 15 minutes of fame. The only reason she did this is because there is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints running for President of the United States.

[RobinFinderson]

Ummm... isn't Bott's explanation about historic priesthood discrimination the TRUTH, vis a vis Levites in ancient times, and women in the present?

I realize that it is his speculation that seems insulting, but at least it is speculation that fits the church's official rationing policy wrt the priesthood.

[creekster]

From the comments entitled "the lies of Joanna Brooks"...

We can only hope he was horribly misquoted.

I thought Brooks' piece was very good.