Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[SeattleUte]

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.

It would be a good change!! My 2 cents.

[Maximus]

Question: What is the response to the part where he says God has selected groups of people to get or not get the priesthood multiple times in the Bible? Is that not true?

[old_gregg]

Question: What is the response to the part where he says God has selected groups of people to get or not get the priesthood multiple times in the Bible? Is that not true?

the bible says a lot of things modern christianity doesn't believe are true

[Maximus]

the bible says a lot of things modern christianity doesn't believe are true

That is true but doesnt really answer the question. It seems to be clear when the priesthood is given in the Bible it isnt given to everyone.

[old_gregg]

that's an indict of the bible, not a defense of blatant racism

[Maximus]

that's an indict of the bible, not a defense of blatant racism

I am not defending racism, just asking if God had discriminated who has received the priesthood in the Bible.

[Solon]

Question: What is the response to the part where he says God has selected groups of people to get or not get the priesthood multiple times in the Bible? Is that not true?

I think there's an argument to be made about priesthood being confined to certain lineages, but I see two problems with the 19th century LDS implementation of this idea.

1. The reversal of exclusivity that Peter received as vision on the rooftop at Cornelius' house as told in Acts 10 and exemplified in Paul's missions to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Christ is open to all. Even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 indicates that the Jews-as-the-exclusive-conduit-to-God model was out. Christians didn't need to convert to Judaism (receive circumcision) before they could receive Jesus. One of Christianity's greatest strengths (just like the Roman Empire in which it was born) was its inclusive nature. This uproots the old order of preferred lineage.

2. Even if we go to an Old Testament "Levites were an exclusive lineage" argument, the modern LDS church with this issue defined lineage racially, not genealogically. While race and genealogy obviously have certain shared characteristics, lineage cannot be determined by skin-color. (Besides the obviousness of the point, consider the example of the Lemba in Africa). Plus, I believe there's a difference in identifying a chosen lineage vs. identifying a cursed lineage (let alone the vileness of identifying an entire cursed race).

I doubt we would have a problem if the LDS church decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith could be high-priests. But we might have a problem if they decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith without freckles could be high-priests.

[myboynoah]

I think there's an argument to be made about priesthood being confined to certain lineages, but I see two problems with the 19th century LDS implementation of this idea.

1. The reversal of exclusivity that Peter received as vision on the rooftop at Cornelius' house as told in Acts 10 and exemplified in Paul's missions to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Christ is open to all. Even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 indicates that the Jews-as-the-exclusive-conduit-to-God model was out. Christians didn't need to convert to Judaism (receive circumcision) before they could receive Jesus. One of Christianity's greatest strengths (just like the Roman Empire in which it was born) was its inclusive nature. This uproots the old order of preferred lineage.

2. Even if we go to an Old Testament "Levites were an exclusive lineage" argument, the modern LDS church with this issue defined lineage racially, not genealogically. While race and genealogy obviously have certain shared characteristics, lineage cannot be determined by skin-color. (Besides the obviousness of the point, consider the example of the Lemba in Africa). Plus, I believe there's a difference in identifying a chosen lineage vs. identifying a cursed lineage (let alone the vileness of identifying an entire cursed race).

I doubt we would have a problem if the LDS church decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith could be high-priests. But we might have a problem if they decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith without freckles could be high-priests.

I would not have a problem with that.

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe Bott's comments were all part of a master plan to force the Church's hand.

Or maybe he was planning to retire, is racist, and is tired of biting his tongue about how he really feels. Or maybe he just hates Mitt Romney and is more of a Santorum guy.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

The internet has become a huge problem for the church and the government, IMO. It is forcing them to be more transparent. It seems the government is trying to figure out a way to be able to shutdown websites under some lame excuse (SOPA, for example). Fortunately, the internet is larger than the long arm of the government.

The church had the luxury of keeping people in the dark. This is no longer the case. Information is being exchanged and questions are being asked. The church might as well just become transparent rather than let speculation run wild, IMO.

[Moliere]

I think there's an argument to be made about priesthood being confined to certain lineages, but I see two problems with the 19th century LDS implementation of this idea.

1. The reversal of exclusivity that Peter received as vision on the rooftop at Cornelius' house as told in Acts 10 and exemplified in Paul's missions to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Christ is open to all. Even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 indicates that the Jews-as-the-exclusive-conduit-to-God model was out. Christians didn't need to convert to Judaism (receive circumcision) before they could receive Jesus. One of Christianity's greatest strengths (just like the Roman Empire in which it was born) was its inclusive nature. This uproots the old order of preferred lineage.

2. Even if we go to an Old Testament "Levites were an exclusive lineage" argument, the modern LDS church with this issue defined lineage racially, not genealogically. While race and genealogy obviously have certain shared characteristics, lineage cannot be determined by skin-color. (Besides the obviousness of the point, consider the example of the Lemba in Africa). Plus, I believe there's a difference in identifying a chosen lineage vs. identifying a cursed lineage (let alone the vileness of identifying an entire cursed race).

I doubt we would have a problem if the LDS church decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith could be high-priests. But we might have a problem if they decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith without freckles could be high-priests.

As usual Solon says it very well.

In my own words, God was discriminatory in the OT, but that does not justify him being discriminatory today. The law of Moses was discriminatory, but that law was fulfilled. Peter's vision annulled that discrimination and rightfully proclaimed that God is no respecter of persons. Peter's vision didn't not scope out Africans, Asians, Egyptians, or any other nationality or race. If the LDS church truly is a restoration of the gospel of Christ as proclaimed in the NT then it should also be a restoration of Peter's vision.

[SeattleUte]

I think there's an argument to be made about priesthood being confined to certain lineages, but I see two problems with the 19th century LDS implementation of this idea.

1. The reversal of exclusivity that Peter received as vision on the rooftop at Cornelius' house as told in Acts 10 and exemplified in Paul's missions to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Christ is open to all. Even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 indicates that the Jews-as-the-exclusive-conduit-to-God model was out. Christians didn't need to convert to Judaism (receive circumcision) before they could receive Jesus. One of Christianity's greatest strengths (just like the Roman Empire in which it was born) was its inclusive nature. This uproots the old order of preferred lineage.

2. Even if we go to an Old Testament "Levites were an exclusive lineage" argument, the modern LDS church with this issue defined lineage racially, not genealogically. While race and genealogy obviously have certain shared characteristics, lineage cannot be determined by skin-color. (Besides the obviousness of the point, consider the example of the Lemba in Africa). Plus, I believe there's a difference in identifying a chosen lineage vs. identifying a cursed lineage (let alone the vileness of identifying an entire cursed race).

I doubt we would have a problem if the LDS church decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith could be high-priests. But we might have a problem if they decided that only descendants of Joseph Smith without freckles could be high-priests.

Good work. When discussing Middle Earth, you need to accept Middle Earth's own rules.

Seriously, though, Christianity's universality was the central notion borrowed from the Greeks, a key to its ultimate spectacular success, and ultimately what really redeems it. Perhaps it makes sense that as they wandered in the wilderness and and the American frontier, and were ostracised, our Mormon forefathers would have felt a greater kinship with an Old Testament view. There is much evidence of that, including polygamy, "bood atonement", and the priesthood ban. But these Old Testament ideas were atavistic, and truly regressed from the Old World Christian outlook. Fortunatlely, it was the early Mormons' lot to be born in the United States, the apotheosis of the Enlightenment, which has precluded a Mormon theocracy or dictatorship, and over the long arc of history gradually turned Mormonism from its evil predilections.

[jay santos]

This issue is a sign of a bigger problem in Mormonism.

There are a lot of problems with the Bible. Myths that ancient people passed around to explain things they didn't have the science or understanding to understand.
Adam and Eve--to explain creation
tower of Babel--to explain dispersion of men, different languages, etc
Noah and the ark
curse of Ham--to explain black skinned Africans (though it's an interpretation of a Bible account)

Then you have the racism, genocide and other horrible/nutty stuff.

There are paths in Christianity that can accept these as myths that came together years after the fact and can easily be rejected or taken as a figurative teaching that might be insightful into nature of man and God.

Progressive Mormons act like they can do the same thing. But it's much more problematic. Tower of Babel is in the Book of Mormon. Joseph taught that Adam-on-di-Ahman was in North America, which means Noah and the ark was literal and Noah went from North America to the Near East in the flood. Joseph revealed that Adam and Eve were real people and identified the exact place they made sacrifices. Joseph translated ancient records which repeated the curse of Ham account, and he and other modern prophets taught it openly. We have modern prophets taking a very direct stand on evolution and Adam and Eve.

I don't know that a progressive Mormon can just dump all this very easily. The progressive Christian just has to dump some scripture that we know wasn't written for thousands of years after the myth was created. Pretty easy. The progressive Mormon has to dump the teachings of modern prophets and modern scripture (it becomes the peeling of an onion--how far can you go with that?). This is dumping the very core of what Mormonism is.

[Mormon Red Death]

One of the reasons the church can't go back and say the ban was a bad policy is that it opens up other policy changes that were/are dumb. Two of these would be:

1) The Woman's blessing/priesthood

"Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick? It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons; and we testify that when administered and received in faith and humility they are accompanied with almighty power."

2) Word of Wisdom - policy changed in the 20s

[Moliere]

This issue is a sign of a bigger problem in Mormonism.

There are a lot of problems with the Bible. Myths that ancient people passed around to explain things they didn't have the science or understanding to understand.
Adam and Eve--to explain creation
tower of Babel--to explain dispersion of men, different languages, etc
Noah and the ark
curse of Ham--to explain black skinned Africans (though it's an interpretation of a Bible account)

Then you have the racism, genocide and other horrible/nutty stuff.

There are paths in Christianity that can accept these as myths that came together years after the fact and can easily be rejected or taken as a figurative teaching that might be insightful into nature of man and God.

Progressive Mormons act like they can do the same thing. But it's much more problematic. Tower of Babel is in the Book of Mormon. Joseph taught that Adam-on-di-Ahman was in North America, which means Noah and the ark was literal and Noah went from North America to the Near East in the flood. Joseph revealed that Adam and Eve were real people and identified the exact place they made sacrifices. Joseph translated ancient records which repeated the curse of Ham account, and he and other modern prophets taught it openly. We have modern prophets taking a very direct stand on evolution and Adam and Eve.

I don't know that a progressive Mormon can just dump all this very easily. The progressive Christian just has to dump some scripture that we know wasn't written for thousands of years after the myth was created. Pretty easy. The progressive Mormon has to dump the teachings of modern prophets and modern scripture (it becomes the peeling of an onion--how far can you go with that?). This is dumping the very core of what Mormonism is.

I'll admit that the prophets words have less meaning for me today than they did 5 years ago, solely because of this. When I discount JS, BY or any other prophets teachings I also discount that of TSM. Sad but true, and I agree that it is sort of a dumping of the very core of Mormonism.