Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[Guest]

He (DCP) should probably sit on the bench for this one. It was DCP, after all, who once admitted that he has personally warned interracial LDS couples about all the "problems" they'll face on account of "cultural differences" and what have you if they decide to get married. It was my taking issue with that kind of advice-giving that first got me disciplined on the old FAIR board.

Well, Dr. Scratch, your old friend DCP seems to have his hands full with a few less-than-PC faithful that crawled out of the woodwork to comment on this issue. Here is an example.

ilyan, on 29 February 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics.

Dan is sort of just sputtering "Oh my", "Oh my", and trying to slow the guy down. Apparently to no avail, as he continues:

ilyan, on 29 February 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks. Most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. Imagine that cultural mentality being given priesthood authority prematurely, just to be politically correct and placate someone's fear of being labeled a racist. Imagine prematurely handing the authority of God to a culture prone to the despotic exercise of even the authority of man. Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

Problem for the LDS Church is that a lot of us know a lot of Mormons who, in private, would say exactly the same kind of thing.

[_Madison54]

Even before 1978 the church claimed that the exact rationale for the ban was unknown. From a 1969 First Presidency statement:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

maklelan,
Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to at least one black man. Did he change his mind after this or did this ban actually begin with Brigham Young?

[_maklelan]

Exactly my point.

Your point is that there's no productive way to twist the church's arm? Ok.

What is it then? Just mindless fomenting that has nothing to do with Church authority?

I suppose it could be called activism, but why does it need a category? Isn't my description simple enough?

It sure is. You can take it straight to the bank.

Wow, you got me there.

[_SteelHead]

That guy ilyan over at mad is working hard to undo 30 years of proclamations of the contrary. He represents the thinking of the majority of the church pre ban, and just can't grok the real underpinnings of his ramblings.

Fun to watch though....

[_maklelan]

maklelan,
Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to at least one black man. Did he change his mind after this or did this ban actually begin with Brigham Young?

No, the ban began with Brigham Young. The claim in the statement that it began with Joseph Smith is wrong. I thought that would be clear enough, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the reason I quoted it.

[_maklelan]

That guy ilyan over at mad is working hard to undo 30 years of proclamations of the contrary. He represents the thinking of the majority of the church pre ban, and just can't grok the real underpinnings of his ramblings.

Does he represent the thinking of the majority of the church pre-ban? The scholarship has shown that since the 60s the majority of the support for the ban came from the southern states, not from Utah or church leadership. Numerous church leaders campaigned for its removal throughout the 60s and 70s, but the presidency was long reluctant to flatly overturn the policy.

[_DrW]

Just in case it has escaped anyone's notice, DCP's thread over at MDD,

"An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood"

is now carrying the rare and coveted 5 star rating (based on 1 vote).

Anyone care to bet against the chances that the one vote came from DCP?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57105-an-unfortunate-attempt-to-explain-the-pre-1978-restriction-on-priesthood/page__st__140

[_SteelHead]

That guy ilyan over at mad is working hard to undo 30 years of proclamations of the contrary. He represents the thinking of the majority of the church pre ban, and just can't grok the real underpinnings of his ramblings.

Does he represent the thinking of the majority of the church pre-ban? The scholarship has shown that since the 60s the majority of the support for the ban came from the southern states, not from Utah or church leadership. Numerous church leaders campaigned for its removal throughout the 60s and 70s, but the presidency was long reluctant to flatly overturn the policy.

I was still taught the "less valiant in the pre-existence" stuff in the SE Idaho heartland in the 80s and 90s. And saw it while I was in the CES program in the mid 90s. Such thought constituted the "doctrinal/scriptural, as it was mixed with Book of Abraham and scriptures about Ham, justification" for the ban.

[_just me]

That guy ilyan over at mad is working hard to undo 30 years of proclamations of the contrary. He represents the thinking of the majority of the church pre ban, and just can't grok the real underpinnings of his ramblings.

Does he represent the thinking of the majority of the church pre-ban? The scholarship has shown that since the 60s the majority of the support for the ban came from the southern states, not from Utah or church leadership. Numerous church leaders campaigned for its removal throughout the 60s and 70s, but the presidency was long reluctant to flatly overturn the policy.

I am interested in the "numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s. Do you have names or something I can read about them?
All I know of is a couple guys that got ex'd over it. And I can't remember their names.

TIA

[_Doctor Scratch]

Exactly my point.

Your point is that there's no productive way to twist the church's arm? Ok.

My point is that you would hold that view. And I was right.

Your posts on this thread have been pretty predictable, Mak. On the one hand, you'll say that you think the Church should apologize. This makes it seems as if you disapprove of the Church's historical, institutional racism. The catch here is that you also believe that there is "no productive way" to insist that the Church apologize. So, in actuality, you either don't care that the Church has a racist past, or you do but you're too lazy or afraid to do anything proactive about it.