Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Jason Bourne]

[quote="maklelan"


There was a 1949 statement that quotes Brigham Young saying "It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God," but this has nothing to do with the pre-existence. It has to do with Cain's own sin during mortality.[/quote]

No you are incorrect. The statement does reference the pre existence.

[_Willy Law]

Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?

I imagine they were attributing personal feelings to divine inspiration.

Hey mak, you ever consider that if a prophet of god like Brigham Young (and all prophets from Brigham to TSM for that matter) cannot tell the difference between personal feelings and divine inspiration that maybe neither can you?

[_Themis]

How big can a mistake be, and how long can it go on, before it becomes an issue that God would not simply allow to run its course? Please be specific.

Obviously a big one, since it causes the church no end of trouble, especially for black people. This was certainly an issue for most black people who knew about it on my mission. It didn't sit well with them, and it shouldn't. I just doesn't support the idea God is leading the church. Not allowing it to become a problem would have been extremely simple enough, yet since it didn't, apologists have to come up with a kinds of excuses. I don't need to anymore. :)

What do you mean by "church"? Do you mean sect, denomination, congregation, religion, or what?

I know as part of your apologetic role you think you need to keep playing games to avoid the issues. I said true church, which you would know what that means from an LDS perspective. Most other churches do not have this claim, so their leaders making mistakes is not much of an issue.

Now it's "most other Christian church's [sic]."

It would be appreciated if you would be honest here. You know full well I said most from the beginning.

That the church has more pressing matters than whether or not their treatment of decades old ideologies is satisfactory for critics of the church? Yes, I really believe that that is true, and I hardly consider it a delusion.

This one is still important, and one that will not go away. I understand why they say what they do, and it has much mrowe to do with believing members then it does critics. :)

So you can make determinations about exactly how God should and would respond to certain situations?

To some extent, yes. You can use this excuse for anything, so it might be better not to try and sell it to others, or even yourself.

[_Themis]

God is interested enough in Joseph's sex life to send an angel with a flaming sword, but won't do the same to correct a policy that denied a whole race the blessings of the priesthood? Not that I claim to know the mind of god, but that is beyond inconsistent.

The Old Testament v. the New Testament is beyond inconsistent as well. Let's at least be consistent ourselves with our criticisms.

I suspect he is being consistent with them all. :)

[_Themis]

[
I agree with maklelan. It's possible that Brigham Young mistakenly adopted the racist priesthood ban because he was a racist and he lied or was deluded when he said the doctrine came from God. It's possible that God was communicating with His Prophet Brigham Young but never corrected him or disabused him of his racist ideas when giving him the revelation needed to lead and guide the one true church on the face of the earth that God had restored a few years before after a millennium-and-a-half-long apostasy in preparation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ.

It's also possible that over the next more-than-a-century, God led the church by revelation to multiple prophets and apostles speaking to them regularly and consistently, and even when they questioned and raised concerns about the priesthood ban in their councils and then published official pronouncements stating that the priesthood ban was doctrinal and from God and not just a policy (in which they offered reasons for the ban), God sat silently by and let His appointed and anointed representatives on earth speak falsely on His behalf (even though the hour was getting late). Until 1978, when God finally decided to let His real opinion be known to His prophets--more than a hundred years after the Civil War and a quarter century after school desegregation in the United States. Yes, it's possible God was there all along leading, guiding, walking beside Brigham Young, then John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee, but God was unwilling to correct this little "policy" misadventure or the "folk doctrine" speculation that supported it.

If that's the case, then it only lends credence to my assertion that the Mormon God, if He exists, is, umm, kind of a dick.

Which is why it lends support to the idea that God is not leading the church. Nicely put though.

[_Themis]

So here we have an FP statement the references the idea that blacks may have been less valient in the pre earth life.

So for 140 years we have leaders teaching things like this that is suddenly folklore and we are told to just forget about it. And now the Church wants to pretend such things were an aberration? Oh please!

We see to much of this kind of this dishonest apologetic.

[_3sheets2thewind]

so now with the current statement from the Church the mopologist are hard at work misrepresenting the position of the Church.

DCP, Juliann, and Maklelan all claim in essence "we do not know why", this is not the position of the LDS Church. I believe juliann went as far to say the Church dropped "God said" reason.

it is laughable that these "defenders" will not correct represent the position of the LDS Church. The Official Declaration that ended the ban states that past prophets spoke of the day when the ban would be lifted, and that day was in the due time of God.

What did the Church say, the Church said "we do not know precisely why". The Church did not claim it was not inspired, the Church did not state that all reasons offered were just personal opinions. The Church was very careful to not address specific reasons.

Perhaps DCP, Maklelan or Juliann will end their smoke and mirror dance and begin to truthfully address the position of the Church. For the name calling and insults that antis recieve for not presenting every jot and tittle of a quote 100% accurately, It is the height of hypocrisy for LDS defenders to misrepresent the position of the Church.

[_maklelan]

This is simply not true. You have statements, teachings, etc made from the pulpit and other LDS materials that all put the prior ideas about the ban more than simple folklore.

I'm well aware of that, but my statement was that even before the 1978 revelation there was movement away from that doctrinal surety.

So here we have an FP statement the references the idea that blacks may have been less valient in the pre earth life.

It's a pretty vague suggestion that it may have something to do with it.

So for 140 years we have leaders teaching things like this that is suddenly folklore and we are told to just forget about it. And now the Church wants to pretend such things were an aberration? Oh please!

So you think the tradition's pedigree means the church today is not allowed to reject it?

[_maklelan]

Hey mak, you ever consider that if a prophet of god like Brigham Young (and all prophets from Brigham to TSM for that matter) cannot tell the difference between personal feelings and divine inspiration that maybe neither can you?

Of course I have.

[_maklelan]

No you are incorrect. The statement does reference the pre existence.

You're correct. The version of the statement I was looking at did not contain the entire thing. I was referencing the comments from Brigham Young.