Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[DrumNFeather]

We can only hope he was horribly misquoted.

I thought Brooks' piece was very good.

I agree...it was very well done.

[Solon]

2. As others have pointed out, the church bears a lot of responsibility here by not effectively dealing with this and just saying WE WERE WRONG. Add a bit about Jeremiah also having trouble receiving and releasing revelations, fine, but the church leadership must think the average member has a testimony built on sand and any flaw found in the leadership structure will sink their testimonies. If there's no room for this kind of rationalization/loopiness then this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

As usual for CMBF, this is an interesting and thoughtful point. The Church is infantilizing its membership to some degree, although I have to think about it more before I venture any of my own thoughts.

This is a good opportunity for the byu to take action. While I don't think Bott should get fired for voicing his opinion on a doctrinal matter (after all, it's in his purview as a religion professor), there are other ways for the school to act.

For instance, the way the school distanced itself from Steven Jones for his 9-11 theories (IIRC, the school justified its intervention because his theories were too speculative and needed peer-review) could be a useful precedent. Such a procedure would work in this case, I think, without infringing on Bott's academic freedom.

[The Rambam]

McConkie’s explanation of the policy forbidding full membership to Blacks, to wit, that “we spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world” is an amazing statement. And raises some interesting questions:

1, Why were WE some of the last people on earth to receive this light and knowledge?
2. What does that say about other Church positions that seem so out of harmony with God (i.e. being opposed to gay marriage)?
3. What about the creeping (and wrong) doctrine of the infallibility of the Prophet?

For a guy who delivered the doctrinally bankrupt Seven Heresies speech, McConkie spoke more truth on this subject than he knew.

[LA Ute]

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.

I disagree. Regardless of anything CHQ has said or not said, Bott had no business saying what he said to anyone outside close friends and immediate family, much less to a Washington Post reporter (who, by the way, I think was trying to be fair). I am sure Bott's well aware of what Jeffrey Holland and BRM have said, which, whether one agrees with it or not, should have at least clued Bott in to the need to avoid speculating. His comments were absolutely bone-headed.

I felt ill after I read Bott's comments. It was as if I were in a time warp to the mid-60's and reading something Alvin Dyer might say. I was astonished and disheartened.

[old_gregg]

i feel like this episode, coupled with many of boyd k's remarks over the years, is a pretty damning indict of ces as currently constituted.

[The Rambam]

The whole "We don't know why God didn't let Blacks have Temple blessings and rights of Priesthood" is even more arrogant IMHO than giving folkloric answers.

Because it assumes God was a racist God until he changed his mind in 1978. And there is no evidence of any revelation setting in place the discrimination against Black members prior to 1978.

If you are going to take the position that God refused Black people the blessings of the washing and anointing and endowment and sealing--if you are going to take the position that God was barring Blacks entry into the fullness of heaven, you bear the burden of showing where God said this outrage and set up this horror.

To simply claim "We can't say where the eternally damning decree was made and we don't know why God damned them so" is indefensible.

This will never rest until the Church admits they clung to a racist policy without justification and without command and they institutionally apologize forevermore.

[LA Ute]

Just read Brooks' piece. I like her stuff a lot but disagree with this statement:

But Professor Bott is no outlier. Especially among older Mormons, racist rationale for the priesthood ban—linking it to Old Testament pretexts, or to moral infirmity in a pre-earthly life by the souls of Africans and African-Americans, and other racist apologetic mental gymnastics exemplified in Bott’s statement to the Post—persist and circulate, generally unquestioned and unchallenged.

That just hasn't been my experience at all.

[Pheidippides]

I disagree. Regardless of anything CHQ has said or not said, Bott had no business saying what he said to anyone outside close friends and immediate family, much less to a Washington Post reporter (who, by the way, I think was trying to be fair). I am sure Bott's well aware of what Jeffrey Holland and BRM have said, which, whether one agrees with it or not, should have at least clued Bott in to the need to avoid speculating. His comments were absolutely bone-headed.

I felt ill after I read Bott's comments. It was as if I were in a time warp to the mid-60's and reading something Alvin Dyer might say. I was astonished and disheartened.

While you're exactly right that Bott was way out of bounds, I don't think the CHQ can be silent anymore. Not after that. I know they have made statements in GC (forgetting who and when) specifically repudiating the Dyer less valiant in the premortal life crap, but it was so obscure I can't even remember the details.

Regardless of whether or not the initial blame for this kind of thing is at the feet of CHQ, their loyal hound has just dropped the rotting carcass at their feet for them to deal with. I am half tempted to use a phrase that rhymes with "star maybe" to describe what CHQ has precisely because of the racial overtones that phrase suggests.

[Pheidippides]

Just read Brooks' piece. I like her stuff a lot but disagree with this statement:



That just hasn't been my experience at all.

It has been mine in some areas of the country. Utah in particular, with a strong correlation to age. My mother jumps to mind.

[LA Ute]

It has been mine in some areas of the country. Utah in particular, with a strong correlation to age. My mother jumps to mind.

No doubt. Brooks lives in San Diego, which may be informing her opinion. I hear reports like yours and am once again grateful for my ward and stake. The racial diversity is great.

[LA Ute]

This just out:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

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.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

[SteelBlue]

Just read Brooks' piece. I like her stuff a lot but disagree with this statement:



That just hasn't been my experience at all.

Speaking solely from my own experience, I think her statement is quite accurate. It doesn't come over the pulpit, but one might hear it in classes (not often, but probably at least yearly), in conversations etc... I don't think it's limited to people of High Priest age though. There are a great many people who believe the priesthood ban was of God, and naturally look for explanations. The newer explanations tend to be more patronizing.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Just read Brooks' piece. I like her stuff a lot but disagree with this statement:



That just hasn't been my experience at all.

I will partially agree with you in that I disagree with her claim that such remarks go 'generally unchallenged', but unfortunately admit the underlying thought patterns still remain.

Also, LA, you have lived in LA for 26+ years. You live in a racially diverse area and among generally more liberal people. The same can't be said of all church members.

Is it fundamentally insular to explain away and continue to validate an inescapable and highly embarrassing past through mental gymnastics?

Also, I think Elder Joseph Sitati (1Q Seventy) should be on the committee to write an official statement for the church. He holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering AND accounting, so he would get the nod of approval from most of CUF: http://www.blacklds.org/251/elder-jo...of-the-seventy

[oxcoug]

This just out:

That is Church HQ for "Randy Bott STFU."

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maybe throw in this quote from Joseph Smith:

...the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought “into a free country and set …free– Educate them and give them equal rights.” [30 Dec. 1842 Joseph Smith Journal as quoted in Neither White Nor Black, Bush and Mauss (Signature Books, 1984), p. 62]