Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

[_Infymus]

It doesn't even phase me anymore when the cult posts things like this on their official website:

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/r ... st-article

All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth.

The cult is dishonest about their history, dishonest about their necro baptisms and dishonest in their dealings with the public and their members.

I can see why so many members are leaving. There is so much good information out there now easily searched - and so many sites saying exactly the same thing over and over. The apologists can do nothing but sit back on their website - wave their degrees around hoping it will be attractive bait for unsuspecting new tithe payers.

Just watch the next 5-10 years, it will get far worse for them.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think the recent statement by the church does exactly that, unless by "put this to bed" you mean "apologize." If so, you're not talking about inconsistency.

The inconsistent positions of the Brethren on this issue leads to ridiculous statements such as we've heard from Bott. The most recent official statement basically says "we don't know anything," whereas previous statements said just the opposite. The only thing that will forever get rid of the prior (and, in my opinion, racist) statements will be to officially renounce them and apologize for the institution's past racism. Otherwise, the Church will never be able to move 'past' its past, and Bott-like debacles will continue to occur.

It is time for the Church to issue a formal apology, admit to past institutional racism, and move forward.

So it's not about consistency or doctrinal clarity.

Actually, it is. By finally taking a 'stand on something,' the Church will put the issue to rest.

[_just me]

The SCRIPTURES contain racist thought and racial discrimination.

Uh...how does the church get past that?

To pretend that all of that goes away by saying "we condemn racism" in naïve and deluded.

They can pay lip service to racial equality all they want. Until they start actually preaching it they are going to continue to have these problems. There is no magical incantation to take this away.

[_maklelan]

The inconsistent positions of the Brethren on this issue leads to ridiculous statements such as we've heard from Bott.

The brethren have been perfectly consistent for the last 30+ years. How on earth can you say Bott, a self-proclaimed expert on doctrine, got confused because more than 30 years ago they used to say something different? Listen to yourself, man.

The most recent official statement basically says "we don't know anything," whereas previous statements said just the opposite. The only thing that will forever get rid of the prior (and, in my opinion, racist) statements will be to officially renounce them and apologize for the institution's past racism.

Get rid of them in what sense? The church's position over the last 30+ years has doctrinally gotten rid of them. They're no longer taught or supported. You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. You know as well as everyone else here that that's all you care about. Don't lie to me and pretend it has to do with being consistent.

Otherwise, the Church will never be able to move 'past' its past, and Bott-like debacles will continue to occur.

Similar events will occur no matter what the church does. That's the nature of having millions of imperfect members as a part of it.

Actually, it is. By finally taking a 'stand on something,' the Church will put the issue to rest.

Put it to rest in the mind of critics, not in the mind of members. You're concerned for the church satisfying your own ethical standards, not for administrative consistency. This has nothing to do with whether or not Bott got his story straight, it has to do only with you wanting to see the church admit error. You gonna try to lie some more about what you really mean?

[_bcspace]

Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Not really. They did not know why that lineage would be singled out and not others who rejected God similarly. There was no priesthood ban on the Lamanites for example. Speculation could be that the Lamanites were considered part of the house of Israel and therefore eligible for the spiritual consequences of rejecting the priesthood. But that is just speculation.

[_Drifting]

Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Not really. They did not know why that lineage would be singled out and not others who rejected God similarly. There was no priesthood ban on the Lamanites for example. Speculation could be that the Lamanites were considered part of the house of Israel and therefore eligible for the spiritual consequences of rejecting the priesthood. But that is just speculation.

Bc, you seem to be spending an awful lot of energy on fixing the stable door...

[_bcspace]

Bc, you seem to be spending an awful lot of energy on fixing the stable door...

There's nothing to fix. By staying on course, I have countered all attempts to deviate from it both here and at the MDD. Why, I even have people claiming to be active, believing, TR holders saying the ban was a mistake in the face contrary evidence published by the Church. It's a very comfortable position for me to be in debate-wise because in order to argue against me, one has to deny the Church and that causes them to re-think their position which is the goal.

From the anti Mormon perspective, one has to lie in order to counter me or the Church, such as claiming or implying the ban has basis in race or ethnicity; again, a very comfortable position for me to be in.

[_Infymus]

The brethren have been perfectly consistent for the last 30+ years. How on earth can you say Bott, a self-proclaimed expert on doctrine, got confused because more than 30 years ago they used to say something different? Listen to yourself, man.

So now Bott is only self-proclaimed? If you can't discredit the cult, discredit the member.

This poor SOB professor. He should have walked over to DCP's office and got some lessons on edicate... Oops..

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The brethren have been perfectly consistent for the last 30+ years.

Bott’s comments did NOT go to the Brethren’s position for the past 30+ years, but to the Church’s reasons for the priesthood ban given during the 150-odd years prior to 1978.

How on earth can you say Bott, a self-proclaimed expert on doctrine, got confused because more than 30 years ago they used to say something different?

Bott is not merely a “self-proclaimed” expert on doctrine; rather, BYU’s own website promotes Bott as having "expertise” in “doctrine of the Church.”

Get rid of them in what sense? The church's position over the last 30+ years has doctrinally gotten rid of them. They're no longer taught or supported.

The Church’s wishy-washy “We don’t know” position of the last 30 years doesn’t get rid of anything. By not taking a stand one way or the other on the reasons for the priesthood ban during the first 150 years or so of Church history, the Brethren have allowed members (such as Bott) to continue to believe in the correctness of the reasons given for the ban pre-1978 (with all their racial ramifications).

You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. You know as well as everyone else here that that's all you care about. Don't lie to me and pretend it has to do with being consistent.

The only way to solve continuing problems like those caused by Bott, is to renounce the past reasons given for the ban and admit the ban was not divinely appointed (but man-made), which, I think, would also require an apology for the racist beliefs and actions of Church leaders pre-1978. This is not about bringing the Church “to its knees,” but the Church simply doing the right thing. In other words, “standing for something.” How could anyone object to that?

Similar events will occur no matter what the church does. That's the nature of having millions of imperfect members as a part of it.

Disagree. If the Church really took a stand on this, the problems caused by a few rogue members would not have nearly the same 'splash' like we've seen this week with Bott.

Put it to rest in the mind of critics, not in the mind of members.

You're naïve if you think this Bott debacle has not bothered a lot of faithful members.

You're concerned for the church satisfying your own ethical standards, not for administrative consistency. This has nothing to do with whether or not Bott got his story straight, it has to do only with you wanting to see the church admit error.

I think the Church can do the right thing and establish consistency once and for all on this issue, at the same time. I believe the Church did commit "error" pre-1978 on this issue, and I would like to see it fixed. The Bott fiasco this week only serves to remind me and others that the Church still has not fixed the underlying problem.

You gonna try to lie some more about what you really mean?

I have not lied at all about this issue, and for you to suggest otherwise exposes you for the fool that you are.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Not really. They did not know why that lineage would be singled out and not others who rejected God similarly. There was no priesthood ban on the Lamanites for example. Speculation could be that the Lamanites were considered part of the house of Israel and therefore eligible for the spiritual consequences of rejecting the priesthood. But that is just speculation.

Read again the quotes in the OP of this thread -- the FP in the 1940s was extremely confident as to why the ban was in place -- a "commandment" of God and "doctrine" of the Church.