Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[Sleeping in EQ]

Rhetorically, our inability to take responsibility for our wrongs and our insistence on holding open the door for the idea that "God might be racist" reeks of pride.

Stinking, self-serving, controlling, delusional, poisoning pride.

These wrongs need to be ripped out at the root, not tinkered with around the edges.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Armand Mauss weighs in:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/29/from-armand-mauss/

[The Rambam]

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

Thus saith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank God for the last clause--I wonder how many of us would defend the Church if the policy was still in place. Some certainly would because they believe that whatever the Church does is right. Period. McConkie taught this often saying "the practice of the Church constitutes the Doctrine of the Church."

They just cannot bring themselves to admit that they are so far removed from real revelation and basic human decency that they persisted in an unnecessary and blatant racist policy for about 100 years. If they were to admit this, it would blow the myth of infailability out of the water ("whether it be from my own mouth or from the mouth of my servant it is the same"). And if that myth is gone, then how to control the flock and keep them from voting their conscience on gay marriage initiatives and so forth.

This pride refuses to allow them to say they are sorry and were wrong and is ultimately about control and power. They would say they want this power to effectuate good and salvation. I can't help but think of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

[...]

The rumor floating around campus right now is Bott will be "retiring" at the end of the semester.

[old_gregg]

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

Thus saith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank God for the last clause--I wonder how many of us would defend the Church if the policy was still in place. Some certainly would because they believe that whatever the Church does is right. Period. McConkie taught this often saying "the practice of the Church constitutes the Doctrine of the Church."

They just cannot bring themselves to admit that they are so far removed from real revelation and basic human decency that they persisted in an unnecessary and blatant racist policy for about 100 years. If they were to admit this, it would blow the myth of infailability out of the water ("whether it be from my own mouth or from the mouth of my servant it is the same"). And if that myth is gone, then how to control the flock and keep them from voting their conscience on gay marriage initiatives and so forth.

This pride refuses to allow them to say they are sorry and were wrong and is ultimately about control and power. They would say they want this power to effectuate good and salvation. I can't help but think of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor.

who is this rambam? why do i always agree with him?

[Ma'ake]

Armand Mauss weighs in:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/2...-armand-mauss/

With all due respect to Armand Mauss, nobody has any answer for how the practice could have persisted so long, if it was erroneous.

How could the antennae be turned off for so long?

It almost supports the view of a FLDS wife I heard on the radio who insisted the keys to the kingdom left the earth when Woodruff came out with the manifesto, hence a dearth of modern revelation & prophecy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

Leaving aside the issue of "why" for a moment, it is pretty remarkable that they would claim ignorance on the "how" and "when". The historical record is fairly clear about how and when it started.

[SeattleUte]

You progressive Mormons don't get it. Bott is real Mormonism. Nobody cares what you think.

[Pheidippides]

Leaving aside the issue of "why" for a moment, it is pretty remarkable that they would claim ignorance on the "how" and "when". The historical record is fairly clear about how and when it started.

Wikipedia supplies a plausible why.

I think the last bit of the statement implicitly condemns Brigham Young, among others. So why not go all the way and just say it: we were racist and it was wrong, and institutional bureaucracy held up the reversal. Not that that is an excuse, and we're sorry. And all you members with racist theories: stop. You are wrong too.

Give it two months. It will never be an issue again. Until, perhaps, women get the priesthood, or similar.

[Ma'ake]

Wikipedia supplies a plausible why.

I think the last bit of the statement implicitly condemns Brigham Young, among others. So why not go all the way and just say it: we were racist and it was wrong, and institutional bureaucracy held up the reversal. Not that that is an excuse, and we're sorry. And all you members with racist theories: stop. You are wrong too.

Give it two months. It will never be an issue again. Until, perhaps, women get the priesthood, or similar.

Institutional bureaucracy held up the reversal for 100 years? What about the long line of toxic, racist utterings of Prophets, Seers & Revelators (Apostles) up into the 70s? (Mark E. Petersen, Delbert Stapley, et al)

[creekster]

I wonder if Romney's candidacy is affecting this. Even if some were inclined to issue a full apology and implicitly or expressly condemn BY, and even if the tumult only lasts two months once they do so, maybe they are reluctant to have that two months be immediately prior to the November election (or the inauguration, just in case)

BY is going to be mentioned a lot in the next 6 months or so; the church might want to avoid having the standard lead include a sentence saying "BY, who the LDS church now admits was a racist, said . . ."

[scottie]

The comments on the Washington Post's FB page RE: that article are interesting: http://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost

[LA Ute]

Institutional bureaucracy held up the reversal for 100 years?

It becomes easier to imagine when you figure that a unanimous vote of the Twelve is required for any major policy change.

[Pheidippides]

Institutional bureaucracy held up the reversal for 100 years? What about the long line of toxic, racist utterings of Prophets, Seers & Revelators (Apostles) up into the 70s? (Mark E. Petersen, Delbert Stapley, et al)

I include them in the more benign term. Misguided and racist men trying to explain and defend something should never have been.

If you want the church to mention every specific you'll have a hell of a long statement. I'll be content with "we were wrong".

[Paperback Writer]

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."

Or we should have asked God's blessing on changing this policy long before 1978 or should not have allowed it in the first place. I think the onus needs to be placed on men (us/church leadership) and not on God.