Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[UtahDan]

That it isn't surprising at all. I don't have the book with me at work obviously, but I remember it more as him being unable to get a "yes" versus getting a "not now", not that it matters much. He's the same man who struggled with allowing Ralph Bunche to stay at the hotel Utah eventually deciding on "yes, as long as he takes his meals in his own room". Not shocking to me that he couldn't find a "yes" when it came to the priesthood.

This may affect your credibility, but:

[Jeff Lebowski]

That it isn't surprising at all. I don't have the book with me at work obviously, but I remember it more as him being unable to get a "yes" versus getting a "not now", not that it matters much. He's the same man who struggled with allowing Ralph Bunche to stay at the hotel Utah eventually deciding on "yes, as long as he takes his meals in his own room". Not shocking to me that he couldn't find a "yes" when it came to the priesthood.

Not to mention the fact that is was a second- or third-hand account.

Either way, at the end of his life, DOM had concluded that there was no founding revelation or solid doctrinal basis for the ban, therefore it was a policy that could be reversed without a revelation. Sadly, he came to this conclusion too late in life to build a concensus. Yet if DOM had been told "Not now, stop bothering me", why would he come to such a conclusion? I think this casts serious doubt on that story.

[Pheidippides]

I've been considering this all day, largely in light of "white man's burden" and the other nasties of the day.

I'm curious as to why BY limited it to blacks. I suspect that (for once) SU is right and this is about preexisting Ham folklore. But consider whether BY and company had ever come into contact with other non-white groups. Native Americans, certainly, but they were of course Lamanites and to deny them the priesthood would have been pretty contrary to the BOM. Asians? Not sure. My understanding is that they didn't start coming to CA and the west coast in large numbers until the gold rush (they were horribly treated, btw).

This is not intended as a justification of his racial ignorance at all. It's speculation that things could have been much worse, even as bad as they were. A policy of "whites only" is worse than a policy of "no blacks" although I suppose it's only a matter of degree at that point.

[SeattleUte]

Not to mention the fact that is was a second- or third-hand account.

Either way, at the end of his life, DOM had concluded that there was no founding revelation or solid doctrinal basis for the ban, therefore it was a policy that could be reversed without a revelation. Sadly, he came to this conclusion too late in life to build a concensus. Yet if DOM had been told "Not now, stop bothering me", why would he come to such a conclusion? I think this casts serious doubt on that story.

How convenient, David O. McKay finally seeing the light in the late 60s. I really tire of progressives lionizing and finding solace in David O. McKay over this. You have your sacrifices--McKonkie, Dyer, etc. And your demigods who supposedly vidicate everything--J. Smith, H.B. Brown, McKay.

[Indy Coug]

I'm going to go with the not even that answer. You're going to bore all the lurkers/CB visitors away! We need to turn this thread back to what we do best: pontificating on the fallibility of the church from our self-constructed ivory tower while dripping disdain on any who would disagree with us.

How convenient, David O. McKay finally seeing the light in the late 60s. I really tire of progressives lionizing and finding solace in David O. McKay over this. You have your sacrifices--McKonkie, Dyer, etc. And your demigods who supposedly vidicate everything--J. Smith, H.B. Brown, McKay.

The CUF universe is back in alignment.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How convenient, David O. McKay finally seeing the light in the late 60s. I really tire of progressives lionizing and finding solace in David O. McKay over this. You have your sacrifices--McKonkie, Dyer, etc. And your demigods who supposedly vidicate everything--J. Smith, H.B. Brown, McKay.

That's very funny. SU does his best Tex impersonation.

That wasn't my point at all. In fact, I am pointing out that there is evidence casting doubt on stories about DOM earnestly striving to reverse the ban during his long tenure as prophet.

Even more ironic is the fact that the evidence that DOM had a change in heart late in life was provided by none other than Sterling McMurrin. I.e., YOUR demigod.

[KillerDog]

THIS JUST IN:
MORMONS OF A CERTAIN GENERATION ARE RACISTS AND PROMOTE RACIST BELIEFS FOR THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD!

IN OTHER NEWS:
SOUTHERNERS OF A CERTAIN GENERATION ARE RACISTS AND PROMOTE RACIST BELIEFS FOR THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD!!!

OTHER BREAKING NEWS:
ESCORTS HAVE SEX FOR MONEY.

yawn

[SoCalCoug]

THIS JUST IN:
MORMONS OF A CERTAIN GENERATION ARE RACISTS AND PROMOTE RACIST BELIEFS FOR THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD!

yawn

Something I'd like to say about this. First of all, my grandmother was a racist; for instance, she used to call us to dinner by saying the last one to the table is a baby N___. She was a product of her generation and circumstances (she was a Utah native, and Mormon pioneer descendant on all lines of her pedigree chart).

Acknowledging that she was racist doesn't mean I'm saying she was a bad person. She was a wonderful person, and I don't think any less of her for her world view.

This, I think is sort of what is causing people to get their hackles up on the issue of church leaders being racist. Now, there are racist people and racist ideologies that are evil (i.e., skinheads, Nazis), but not all people who are racist are or were bad people. I do think that modern adults in our present culture and time who are racist should give us some pause, but speaking for myself, if I say I believe former church leaders were racist, I'm not saying I don't believe they were good people or inspired church leaders.

I think some of the disputes about this issue make the assumption that when we call someone racist, we are calling them bad people. Again, speaking for myself, that's just not the case.

[Sleeping in EQ]

That's very funny. SU does his best Tex impersonation.

Those two are more alike than either would care to admit.

[TripletDaddy]

"Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban" is a pretty cool name for a band.

[The Rambam]

Something I'd like to say about this. First of all, my grandmother was a racist; for instance, she used to call us to dinner by saying the last one to the table is a baby N___. She was a product of her generation and circumstances (she was a Utah native, and Mormon pioneer descendant on all lines of her pedigree chart).

Acknowledging that she was racist doesn't mean I'm saying she was a bad person. She was a wonderful person, and I don't think any less of her for her world view.

This, I think is sort of what is causing people to get their hackles up on the issue of church leaders being racist. Now, there are racist people and racist ideologies that are evil (i.e., skinheads, Nazis), but not all people who are racist are or were bad people. I do think that modern adults in our present culture and time who are racist should give us some pause, but speaking for myself, if I say I believe former church leaders were racist, I'm not saying I don't believe they were good people or inspired church leaders.

I think some of the disputes about this issue make the assumption that when we call someone racist, we are calling them bad people. Again, speaking for myself, that's just not the case.

Just as today most people are sexist. They believe that women don't need to be in leadership positions in the Church and the fact that we don't let them handle money is meaningless. This doesn't mean most people today are evil. They are not. They are just sexist good people.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Something I'd like to say about this. First of all, my grandmother was a racist; for instance, she used to call us to dinner by saying the last one to the table is a baby N___. She was a product of her generation and circumstances (she was a Utah native, and Mormon pioneer descendant on all lines of her pedigree chart).

Acknowledging that she was racist doesn't mean I'm saying she was a bad person. She was a wonderful person, and I don't think any less of her for her world view.

This, I think is sort of what is causing people to get their hackles up on the issue of church leaders being racist. Now, there are racist people and racist ideologies that are evil (i.e., skinheads, Nazis), but not all people who are racist are or were bad people. I do think that modern adults in our present culture and time who are racist should give us some pause, but speaking for myself, if I say I believe former church leaders were racist, I'm not saying I don't believe they were good people or inspired church leaders.

I think some of the disputes about this issue make the assumption that when we call someone racist, we are calling them bad people. Again, speaking for myself, that's just not the case.

Best post of the thread. Well said SoCal

[Scorcho]

my grandmother was also the sweetest, nicest, most nurturing racist you’d ever want to meet. Once while traveling, I recall my dad telling me a story about how disgusted she was that a black bell hop had touched her luggage (simply helping her to her room). While I agree inherently the LDS people of that time were not bad people, at some point they were taught some evil, negative, un-Christ like philosophies. You’d think at some point throughout all their gospel teachings, that they might have broken out of that mindset, but clearly many of them never did.

Makes me think what ass backwards mindsets do I have currently that my grandkids will look back on and shake their heads over. I'm sure I have a few.

[Non Sequitur]

my grandmother was also the sweetest, nicest, most nurturing racist you’d ever want to meet. Once while traveling, I recall my dad telling me a story about how disgusted she was that a black bell hop had touched her luggage (simply helping her to her room). While I agree inherently the LDS people of that time were not bad people, at some point they were taught some evil, negative, un-Christ like philosophies. You’d think at some point throughout all their gospel teachings, that they might have broken out of that mindset, but clearly many of them never did.

Makes me think what ass backwards mindsets do I have currently that my grandkids will look back on and shake their heads over. I'm sure I have a few.

Twenty years from now it will be fashionable to bash people who discriminate against people based on intelligence. The grandkids of many on this board will decry their grandparents as rabid smartists.

[The Rambam]

http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/know-your-religion_-blacks-and-the-priesthood.pdf

Professor Bott's full take on Blacks and the Priesthood from his blog. The blog has since disappeared but this screen shot was saved by BCC.

The core root of the problem with Bott's analysis is three-fold, as I see it:

1. He assumes people don't want responsibility because they don't want the chance to be punished for failing in the responsibility. This is asinine. People want to be given responsibility and the opportunity for advancement and they accept the risk of failure every day in millions of settings. To say Black people (and women) should be grateful they don't have the chance to be Sons of Perdition because they don't have the Priesthood seems very condescending. Shouldn't they make that choice for themselves instead of the choice being made for them on the bases of their skin or gender?

2. He limits the issue to one of Priesthood when the far greater issue is that of Temple ordinances. Most Mormons believe that the covenants, signs, tokens, and grips made and bestowed in the Temple matter--that they are even salvational. Without a Temple sealing, a couple cannot make it into the highest degree of heaven. So it is not an issue of just denying a Black person the right to bless the sacrament or perform a baptism or be a Bishop, but it means they can't receive all that their father hath. This is where the analogy to women breaks down--white women could enjoy all the Temple blessings and go to the highest heaven while black people could not. This difference destroys the analogy.

3. He claims that it is God's Priesthood and so God can give it to anyone he wants and not give it to anyone he wants and it is not our place to complain. He cites the Levites as exhibit. But in Mormon doctrine we understand that the Melchizedek Priesthood had no such restriction and that men of other tribes held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith taught in TPJS that all old testament prophets had the MP. And in these last days there is absolutely no revelation similar to the one in the OT limiting the priesthood to a certain group. The Church's statements this week make clear that the 1949 Declaration on the Status of the Negro was garbage--there was no direct command from God or it would be recorded somewhere. So to claim, as Bott does, that God choose to discriminate falls apart when you cannot point to where God commanded the discrimination.

All in all, I am ashamed that this man was a mission president, horrified that he has been teaching at BYU for many years, and place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Church for refusing to make a clean and clear break from the past. Even now, countering former First Presidency Declarations with PR statements from w-2 employees no one has ever heard of seems cowardly and ineffective. Is it better than nothing? Sure. But it is a long way from what is needed to put the issue to bed for good.