Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[Solon]

Sure, but this is part of the point I am making. Look at the entire text of the 1949 statement that The Rambam quoted:

Quote:
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
(my emphasis)

Each of the things that I have bolded have been specifically repudiated by the modern church as folklore. How on earth can the Church continue to imply that it was doctrinal (divine origin)?

1949 really isn't that long ago. I'm surprised that the recent statement seems so ignorant of 1949's contents.

[UtahDan]

Yup. So sue me. Everybody thinks their opinion is right; that's why it is their opinion. However, in this case you should note that just about everybody on all sides of things is aligning in pretty much the same place.



I'm happy to add you to the list too. But racist people and/or people who permit racism to continue unabated when they can do something about it deserve condemnation, and I don't care who they are.



Right again. If you weren't ashamed to be associated with the Church after that article came out, then I question you. With appropriate condemnation and enlightened perspective, of course!



It stifles the gag reflex. You should try it.

[pellegrino]

Um because the exact point/framework of the transition from Joseph Smith and other early leaders giving the priesthood to black men to 1850s leadership ending that practice to it morphing into a Church-wide practice is unclear.

Actually, I think it's pretty clear, and I think SU detailed it fairly well earlier in the thread.

[Viking]

Um because the exact point/framework of the transition from Joseph Smith and other early leaders giving the priesthood to black men to 1850s leadership ending that practice to it morphing into a Church-wide practice is unclear.

it was reiterated over and over again for years.

did SLC hire Bill Clinton to write the press release?

man, i gotta say: the Thomas S. Monson LDS Church is not the GBH Church and that's a sad thing.

[pellegrino]

it was reiterated over and over again for years.

did SLC hire Bill Clinton to write the press release?

man, i gotta say: the Thomas S. Monson LDS Church is not the GBH Church and that's a sad thing.

Unfortunately, GBH is the origin of the claim to ignorance. He said it quite a while ago.

[Viking]

Unfortunately, GBH is the origin of the claim to ignorance. He said it quite a while ago.

Oh, snap!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder if it really is that unclear. The Church has remarkable historical records in its archives; I would not be surprised in the least if there's evidence there explaining the origin.

Correct. The historical record is quite clear. There is a good analysis here:

Amazon.com: Black and Mormon (9780252073564): Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron T. Smith: Books

and here:

Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

After the saints moved to Utah, some of the saints had slaves who joined the church. The thought of them attending priesthood and holding positions of leadership in the church was problematic (to say the least) to their masters. About that time, BY said something to the effect of: "I don't care what has been said before, I hereby declare that blacks are banned from the priesthood." (paraphrasing from memory - don't quote me). I think this was in 1948.

From wikipedia:

Brigham Young is generally credited with having been responsible for revoking the priesthood and temple blessings from black members of the LDS Church, who had been treated equally in this respect under Joseph Smith's presidency.[17] In 1863, Young reported that he said, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).[18] After settling in Utah in 1848, Brigham Young announced a priesthood ban which prohibited all men of black African descent from holding the priesthood.[17] In connection, Mormons of African descent could not participate in Mormon temple rites such as the Endowment or sealing. These racial restrictions remained in place until 1978, when the policy was rescinded by President of the Church Spencer W. Kimball.[19]

[TripletDaddy]

Anyone else find some small humor in a guy named "Bott" actively and repetitively going about his business of promulgating this information? I think there are a lot of MoBots out there disseminating folklore in the name of the borg, thinking they are doing the right thing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

On this point we'll have to disagree. I don't think divine origin was implied even in the slightest as I read that portion of the response. In fact, the way I read it - and perhaps I'm being apologetic or even hopeful - it was in a way, a denial that God was involved in the decision.

SMR, you are a great guy and I respect your opinion. I will agree that given the context of previous statements by the church, this statement can fairly be viewed as progress and I am happy that the church has responded quickly. But I will disagree that that statement does not imply a divine origin. I can't think of any other reason that they would say "we don't know how, when, or why". Furthermore, I can point you to several recent statements by church leaders that use similar language but which is crystal clear in terms of "we don't know why God did this".

[pellegrino]

Oh, snap!

remember, he was in charge of church public relations for years, even worked in a similar department before he was an apostle.

[CardiacCoug]

I am also puzzled with the rationale that these leaders were racist, but so was everyone else so it puts things in context. Puts what in context? Aren't these guys supposed to be moral and spiritual leaders? What sort of repugnant behavior would you find "understandable" in the "context" of today's immoral climate? The prophet looks at porn but so do most other men, so it helps put it in context. wtf??

Uhh... Homophobia? Sexism? The answer to that is a little bit too obvious.

[pellegrino]

Uhh... Homophobia? Sexism? The answer to that is a little bit too obvious.

let's not forget adultery.

[Levin]

The problem with the Church's current "don't know how, when, or why" position is that it's a forced and artificial ignorance. Come on: the Church's racist history is in the top 3 of any list of major matters facing the Church, and the Church is not going to do everything in its power to answer those questions? Send a swat team of historians through the archives and create the most complete picture possible, and then interpret it and analyze it. Get answers. This is a top 3 issue, brethren.

Let's say $1 billion dollars went missing from Church accounts. Would the Church take a "don't know how, when, or why" position and just let the questions go unanswered? Hell no; a swat team of accountants would be on that faster than you can say amen.

But here we're talking about a gaping spiritual wound, one that has caused and continues to cause deep pain for many people. Worse than a missing $1 billion? Absolutely. Great is the worth of souls. And while it has not proven to be a mortal wound to the Church (it would have had the Church not changed), it is still a source of organizational trauma. So my question: Why the passivity? Why the forced ignorance? (These questions, as a matter of fact, have been answered in this thread.)

Form a Blacks and the Priesthood Commission, give them subpoena power, and have a report on my desk 12 months from today! Let's get to the bottom of this.

[SeattleUte]

My expectation has been that if you got the kind of straightforward, candid and lucid statement of responsibility (none of this mealymouthed prolix windbaggery we see in the typical release) from the LDS Church that we've been wanting--1) recognizing that priesthood ban was wrong, 2) acknowledging that it was racist, 3) acknowleding that it was not divine, 4) apologinzing and 5) fully and adamnetly repudiating it--you would see a profound change in the LDS church. The cult of GA infaliblity would be shattered. What happens then?

Is it wrong of them to not want to do it if they have a real and rational fear that it could blow up the LDS church? Which is the higher good? Preserving the institution or being true, authentic and just? They must believe that the institution does a lot of good.

None of us who pontificate here bears that agonizing dilema.

[pellegrino]

My expectation has been that if you got the kind of straightforward, candid and lucid statement of responsibility (none of this mealymouthed prolix windbaggery we see in the typical release) from the LDS Church that we've been wanting--1) recognizing that priesthood ban was wrong, 2) acknowledging that it was racist, 3) acknowleding that it was not divine, 4) apologinzing 5) fully and adamnetly repudiating it--you would see a profound change in the LDS church. The cult of GA infaliblity would be shattered. What happens then?

Is it wrong of them to not want to do it if they have a real and rational fear that it could blow up the LDS church? Which is the higher good? Preserving the institution or being true, authentic and just? They must believe that the institution does a lot of good.

None of us who pontificate here bears that agonizing dilema.

no, and I don't think it's an easy choice for them. I'd like to think that they could frame it in a way that wouldn't turn the average Mormon's faith upside down, but in the end they do risk completely changing the church, like you said. Even if that were to happen, I don't know that it would be a bad change.