Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Buffalo]

Your post is definitely a copyright infringement.

Where is that snitch guy from Seattle when we need him?

Yahoo Bot: 100% substance free since Apr 20, 2010.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Read the Church's statements again -- although they denounce Bott by name, they are carefully drafted NOT to denounce past prophets, seers and revelators.

Not by name, but they quite explicitly reject any past attempts to explain the origins of the ban, as well as any racism within or without the church.

So we agree that the statement was carefully written so as not to disparage past prophets, seers and revelators (although Bott was thrown under the bus).

So what? He's obviously also not that informed about the history of this particular issue, and BYU professors are quite explicitly required to point out that they do not speak for the church or even for BYU. Whether or not he had the dean's approval (another requirement) is unclear.

Actually, Bott's comments seem pretty close to what was taught pre-1978. And the Post article did not hold him out to speak on behalf of the Church.

Again, you fail to see that Bott was NOT speaking to the Church's position for the past 30 years, but the Church's position during the previous 150 years.

Completely untrue. Nowhere does he qualify his comments as representing a position no longer held.

But the article makes clear that his statements relate to pre-1978 reasons for the ban. Bott's comments are within a section entitled "The origins of the policy." In between his quotes (and perhaps this information was given to the reporter by Bott, but it's not clear), a brief history of the ban pre-1978 is given. And Bott appears to have qualified (this is not part of an actual quote) his horrid "child asking for the keys to the car" comparison to blacks and the priesthood with the phrase "similarly until 1978." His other quotes clearly relate to the time blacks did not have the priesthood -- ergo, pre-1978. I sincerely hope you 'get it' this time, but I'll continue to be patient with you.

Again, let me try to be as simple as I can for you -- Bott was speaking of the historical reasons posited by Church leaders for 150 years for the priesthood ban -- he was NOT speaking of the Church's position during the most recent 30 years.

Prove it. Show me where Bott states that he's describing only the position prior to 1978.

See my quotes from the article above.

[_harmony]

Yet Mormons around the country—including Bott’s own colleagues and BYU students—are working to make this moment a turning point in Mormonism’s history of race relations. Around water coolers, in classrooms, in blog posts and op-eds, a growing number of Mormons who find Bott’s beliefs in direct conflict with the main tenets of their gospel are not waiting for church leaders to speak. Darius Gray, one of the black Mormons featured in the Post article, told me that he expects Bott’s comments to force Mormons both at a grassroots level and at church headquarters to begin the process of “healing wounds not creating them.” His belief was echoed by his longtime writing partner, BYU professor Margaret Young. “This is the beginning of our Truth and Reconciliation,” she told me. “This will help us deal with the history of apartheid in our own Church.”[/quote][/quote]

This is not going to happen. Why? Because most TBMs are like my DH: totally clueless about anything that happens outside their own little bubble. He's never heard of Bott, never reads the local newspaper let alone a national newspaper, listens to the local tv news (and Bott didn't make it). He's not concerned about any of this, and I'd be very surprised to find out anyone we know even knows about this.

[_Fence Sitter]

Yet Mormons around the country—including Bott’s own colleagues and BYU students—are working to make this moment a turning point in Mormonism’s history of race relations. Around water coolers, in classrooms, in blog posts and op-eds, a growing number of Mormons who find Bott’s beliefs in direct conflict with the main tenets of their gospel are not waiting for church leaders to speak. Darius Gray, one of the black Mormons featured in the Post article, told me that he expects Bott’s comments to force Mormons both at a grassroots level and at church headquarters to begin the process of “healing wounds not creating them.” His belief was echoed by his longtime writing partner, BYU professor Margaret Young. “This is the beginning of our Truth and Reconciliation,” she told me. “This will help us deal with the history of apartheid in our own Church.”

This is not going to happen. Why? Because most TBMs are like my DH: totally clueless about anything that happens outside their own little bubble. He's never heard of Bott, never reads the local newspaper let alone a national newspaper, listens to the local tv news (and Bott didn't make it). He's not concerned about any of this, and I'd be very surprised to find out anyone we know even knows about this.

Harmony,

Perhaps for our generation, but the younger generation is a lot more conscious of how to use the social media (see for example the coed who received that ignorant note about her attire) and are a lot more willing to use it. It is much easier for BYU students of today to publicly protest, via a Facebook, a blog, a discussion board and a Twitter post, then it was before these means of communication existed. The Church has admitted they are behind the times when it comes to responding to this kind media and it is a perfect medium for people in the Church, who do not agree with how the Church is handling this issue, to let their voices be known, especially since much of it can be done anonymously. A small manifestation of this is the poll on MAD which is clearly showing the largest percent of responder considering the ban as racist.

[_harmony]

Harmony,

Perhaps for our generation, but the younger generation is a lot more conscious of how to use the social media (see for example the coed who received that ignorant note about her attire) and are a lot more willing to use it. It is much easier for BYU students of today to publicly protest, via a Facebook, a blog, a discussion board and a Twitter post, then it was before these means of communication existed. The Church has admitted they are behind the times when it comes to responding to this kind media and it is a perfect medium for people in the Church, who do not agree with how the Church is handling this issue, to let their voices be known, especially since much of it can be done anonymously. A small manifestation of this is the poll on MAD which is clearly showing the largest percent of responder considering the ban as racist.

I agree, for the younger generation. But for the majority of full tithe paying members, the ones who attend the temple and live contentedly in their little bubble never questioning because ... really... there is something to question? For those, and there are a lot of them... this isn't even a blip. It simply doesn't register. I could randomly call a dozen people in my stake right now, including the SP, and ask what they think about this, and I'd bet my next paycheck that over 90% haven't heard anything about it.

[_Equality]

Harmony,

Perhaps for our generation, but the younger generation is a lot more conscious of how to use the social media (see for example the coed who received that ignorant note about her attire) and are a lot more willing to use it. It is much easier for BYU students of today to publicly protest, via a Facebook, a blog, a discussion board and a Twitter post, then it was before these means of communication existed. The Church has admitted they are behind the times when it comes to responding to this kind media and it is a perfect medium for people in the Church, who do not agree with how the Church is handling this issue, to let their voices be known, especially since much of it can be done anonymously. A small manifestation of this is the poll on MAD which is clearly showing the largest percent of responder considering the ban as racist.

I agree, for the younger generation. But for the majority of full tithe paying members, the ones who attend the temple and live contentedly in their little bubble never questioning because ... really... there is something to question? For those, and there are a lot of them... this isn't even a blip. It simply doesn't register. I could randomly call a dozen people in my stake right now, including the SP, and ask what they think about this, and I'd bet my next paycheck that over 90% haven't heard anything about it.

I suspect harmony is right. One of the things I find interesting about this whole Bott kerfuffle is that I had several Facebook friends with no connection to Mormonism at all post the link to the Washington Post article. There's sort of a strange phenomenon occurring where non-Mormons are becoming more knowledgeable about Mormon controversies than your typical Chapel Mormon. If anything will force its way into the Bubble Mormons' consciousness, it will be their non-member friends and colleagues talking about stuff that the Bubble Mormons are clueless about.

[_Kevin Graham]

Does anyone still want to defend the claim that Bott is unjustly being thrown under the bus by the church just for sharing, in his capacity as an expert in church doctrine, a belief that he may have been raised with but that the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years?

Yes I'll make that argument because it is what the evidence supports.

The only reason he is being attacked is because he had the audacity to be honest when interviewed. And nothing the Church has said, even in its recent press release, denounces Bott's explanation as false. All it says is that it isn't the official position, which is simply " we don't know."

Bott isn't contradicting the Church. In fact, the irony here is that the Church is contradicting the Church, further making a mockery of its own institution. This was taught as official doctrine for decades ever since Brigham Young, who referred to it as the "Law of God."

So you're going to tell me the Prophet was wrong in describing the Law of God? Then what kind of prophet is he? And you're going to tell me the one true Church of God was wrong when it went on record describing mere "speculative folklore" as doctrine of God? Your argument is just bad on so many levels and insults the intelligence of those who know something about this subject.

The apologists are hanging their entire argument on a technicality because no one can seem to identify the precise "revelation" that explains all the "details."

SO WHAT?

The Church taught it as a commandment. Disobeying it would lead to excommunication. Baptisms were nullified over it. It wasn't just folklore!

[_consiglieri]

For the record, one other thing I find offensive in all this "kerfuffle":

Why doesn't President Monson step up to the microphone and say something rather than the (to me) lame exercise of having a press release issued?

If I were a cynic, I would guess the LDS Church issued a press release because: (1) The press release cannot be asked any questions by the press; and, (2) A press release is not "doctrine" and can later be amended or corrected if seen fit.

Aren't press releases more what we expect from government entities rather than a Church claiming living prophets and apostles?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. The LDS Church issuing a press release saying "we're not racist" reminds me of Nixon saying, "I'm not a crook."

The "we're not racist" part is empty without at least an acknowledgement of past racism.

It may boil down to the fact that saying we're not racist without acknowledging and apologizing for past racism is itself racist.

And insulting.

[_angsty]

For the record, one other thing I find offensive in all this "kerfuffle":

Why doesn't President Monson step up to the microphone and say something rather than the (to me) lame exercise of having a press release issued?

If I were a cynic, I would guess the LDS Church issued a press release because: (1) The press release cannot be asked any questions by the press; and, (2) A press release is not "doctrine" and can later be amended or corrected if seen fit.

I am a cynic, so I suspect both your points are probable. I can't help but also suspect that being thoroughly white and delightsome themselves, and of a certain generation, socio-economic status, and immersed in the culture of Mormonism, TPTB wrongly think that this will just blow over and be forgotten. I'm not saying the brethren are all racist, but I do suspect that they are probably ignorant of the degree to which they have, in their lives, accepted racist ideas and/or minimized their gravity. There seems to be a disconnect between the seriousness with which they take these issues and the seriousness with which outsiders take them and expect them to be taken.

[_harmony]

I am a cynic, so I suspect both your points are probable. I can't help but also suspect that being thoroughly white and delightsome themselves, and of a certain generation, socio-economic status, and immersed in the culture of Mormonism, TPTB wrongly think that this will just blow over and be forgotten. I'm not saying the brethren are all racist, but I do suspect that they are probably ignorant of the degree to which they have, in their lives, accepted racist ideas and/or minimized their gravity. There seems to be a disconnect between the seriousness with which they take these issues and the seriousness with which outsiders take them and expect them to be taken.

The more our young people are subjected to this sort of thing, the more I have hopes for our next generation of leaders. The next generation certainly can't do as poorly as this generation has, and with any luck, they'll do much better.