Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[Pheidippides]

This just out:

Not bad. Falls short of "we were wrong" but the "absolutely" in the first paragraph and the "past" in the last paragraph are at least something.

Moral outrage at CHQ is temporarily quelled.

[Pheidippides]

Maybe throw in this quote from Joseph Smith:

Just leave out his views on segregation.

[Ma'ake]

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.

I agree with your position here, but I think this is a nastier Catch-22 for the church than appears for younger LDS folks. The observation that they were working on an apology until GBH tabled it because nobody was bringing it up is telling - GBH was a public relations guy.

What other policies are wrong? Why did it take the brethren so long to recognize this policy was wrong?

What is the real nature of revelation - it doesn't seem like the Lord can initiate a message to His church leaders anymore, like "Wake up!! I've been trying to tell you guys since Brigham Young that this policy was wrong!!! Hello!?!?!?!?"

I remember Ed Firmage the law professor saying 10 years ago he could find no scriptural basis for women being excluded from the priesthood.

An apology leads to more questions, contributing to the suspicions and widespread questioning that have led to what Marlin Jensen calls "the greatest apostacy we've experienced since the Kirtland Bank failure".

Of course GBH decided to table work on an apology. There simply is no good answer on this issue.

[SteelBlue]

Not bad. Falls short of "we were wrong" but the "absolutely" in the first paragraph and the "past" in the last paragraph are at least something.

Moral outrage at CHQ is temporarily quelled.

I'm still uncomfortable with the "it's not known why, where or how" portion of the statement. Vague statements like that misrepresent what is known about the ban and help to keep the speculation flowing. I hope I live to see the day when the church calls it "a racist policy that was corrected in 1978 and for which we are sorry." I think that would do a world of good going forward. If God isn't giving out the reasons, then we might as well be honest about the facts we've got.

[LA Ute]

Just leave out his views on segregation.

True. It's worth remembering, though, that in JS's time there was not a truly multi-racial society anywhere on earth. That doesn't necessarily justify any racist views of the time but it does help put them in context.

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

I for one am hopeful that if nothing else, the events of today will mark the beginning of the end of Randy Bott et al. being assumed by BYU freshmen and 19-year-old missionaries to be the source of all true doctrine just because Deseret Book is willing to publish their tripe.

[cowboy]

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 think I agree with her, but I think it's older people in general, not just Mormons. I’m not excusing Bott’s comments at all, but I think his remarks are much more a reflection of his generation than his religion. Like it or not, we are a nation that is really just starting to emerge from centuries of bigotry and bias that have been handed down from generation to generation. I spent the afternoon in South Carolina a few weeks back with a couple of older gentlemen who were really nice guys. They talked about growing up playing with the black children of their father’s farm workers and said they never were prejudiced, then proceeded to tell me their black maid was never invited to eat with them because “she just wouldn’t have been comfortable eating with us.” They followed that with tales of how much their great-great-great grandfather’s slaves loved him, as evidenced by the fact that they helped hide him from Sherman’s troops during the war.

Oblivious prejudice is quite common among people over 60, particularly in areas and/or cultures where explicit prejudice has prevailed in past generations. To the impartial observer it is reprehensible, but ironically many of these same people consider themselves completely unbiased because they compare themselves to prior generations who were much worse. The church has skeletons of plenty of bigots in its historical closet, so occasionally comments like Botts will be repeated as a remnant of an unfortunate period in time. Fortunately, it happens less and less.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

Actually, the Church is astonishingly bound by "speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

[Pheidippides]

I'm still uncomfortable with the "it's not known why, where or how" portion of the statement. Vague statements like that misrepresent what is known about the ban and help to keep the speculation flowing. I hope I live to see the day when the church calls it "a racist policy that was corrected in 1978 and for which we are sorry." I think that would do a world of good going forward. If God isn't giving out the reasons, then we might as well be honest about the facts we've got.

I wish they'd just come out and say they were wrong. I didn't love that paragraph either, but on the whole it was better than expected. Still, if I - the "god" of my home, at least as far as my kids are concerned - can apologize to my young son when I've made a mistake and spoken harshly, or blamed something on him that wasn't his fault, or otherwise taught him incorrectly, why can't the church do the same. My willingness to apologize - which is difficult for me to do, true - I think makes me a better and more credible dad, and one more worthy of my son's love. I am failing to see the difference.

LA, to your point, everything I've read leads me to think that JS was very forward thinking on race for his time. Selling public lands and buying slaves may not have worked, but it was at least an idea. And as bad as segregation was and is, in a world with legal slavery it's a step forward.

[Moliere]

I'm still uncomfortable with the "it's not known why, where or how" portion of the statement. Vague statements like that misrepresent what is known about the ban and help to keep the speculation flowing. I hope I live to see the day when the church calls it "a racist policy that was corrected in 1978 and for which we are sorry." I think that would do a world of good going forward. If God isn't giving out the reasons, then we might as well be honest about the facts we've got.

I actually think that is a move forward, slowly but surely. There is a subtle difference in this position and previous positions. The church is now basically saying that there was no basis for the ban when previously the church was saying that the ban originated from Joseph Smith and was passed on to BY.

The next step will be to say the ban wasn't inspired and was a mistake and then apologize. That might come in 10-20 years.

[Uncle Ted]

The next step will be to say the ban wasn't inspired and was a mistake and then apologize. That might come in 10-20 years.

I think LA mentioned it takes 150 years until there is no liability (ie. statute of limitations). Therefore, I suspect it will be another 116 years or so.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Could not agree more.

I think we are compounding the error by continuing to blame this all on God, even though we have disavowed all of the reasons previously used to justify the ban. Prior to 1978, we never said "we don't know". We had lots of very specific reasons.

The proper position of the church should be: "We don't know why God allowed us to do this for such a long period of time."

[Moliere]

I think LA mentioned it takes 150 years until there is no liability (ie. statute of limitations). Therefore, I suspect it will be another 116 years or so.

I've never believed a word LA has said so why should I start now?

[LA Ute]

LA, to your point, everything I've read leads me to think that JS was very forward thinking on race for his time. Selling public lands and buying slaves may not have worked, but it was at least an idea. And as bad as segregation was and is, in a world with legal slavery it's a step forward.

I think he deserves a lot of credit in that regard. I think he was a very open-minded and open-hearted man.

[Flystripper]

I had Bott as a freshman at BYU. He taught his WaPo quoted theory in his class. As a naive freshman I ate it up, after all, I had always wanted to know why blacks were denied the priesthood. Later as a missionary I remember trying to resolve a preisthood ban concern with a black man from Jamaica. I began to give Bott's line of reasoning and before I even got about halfway done I realized just how patronizing and racist it all sounded. I stopped and just said I don't know why, but know I wish it wasn't a part of the LDS past. The guy was not interested anymore at that point, and I really can't blame him.