maklelan wrote:He wasn't asked about outdated ideology, nor does he frame his response as limited to positions no longer held.
He was simply speaking to reasons given for the ban during the time the ban was in place. Geesh, you're dense.
You continue to be dishonest in the interest of propping up your argument. I can assure you that it's not fooling anyone.
The only one being dishonest here is you. Simply saying "we don't know" today does NOT in any way get rid of past official (and unofficial) pronouncements concerning the ban.
Actually those bios are written by the professors themselves.
Perhaps, but they must be approved by BYU, and, moreover, they are placed on BYU's own website. Enough said.
It got rid of support for the speculation.
"We don't know" got rid of nothing. And it was not "speculation," but official pronouncements from the First Presidency and other of the Brethren, whom you seem to brand as false prophets.
Only if they never actually read the church's statements.
Do you include the 1949 FP statement in this?
Numerous general authorities have repeated stated in church and non-church publications and settings that we shouldn't speculate on why. I've already pointed to several of them, but they've been swept under the rug in the zeal to make this about getting the church on its knees.
But Bott was speaking to what GA's said when the ban was in place. It's time for the Church to come clean.
Why would it require it? Please be specific and avoid false inferences and naked assertions.
To denounce all pre-1978 reasons for the ban would be to admit past institutional racism of the Church institution -- by conceding this, why wouldn't the Church apologize? That's what we generally do when we commit a significant error (particularly in this case, where black folks were harmed for nearly 150 years).
Rollo Tomasi wrote:This is not about bringing the Church “to its knees,” but the Church simply doing the right thing.
That's quite obviously a lie.
Only to you, my deluded friend.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:In other words, “standing for something.” How could anyone object to that?
Such sincere concern. It never ceases to amaze me that such dogmatic and hateful critics think they're fooling anyone with these impassioned pleas for doing the right thing.
How is it "dogmatic" or "hateful" to want to correct and apologize for over a century of institutional racism?
Oh, you think there would be no issue if the church apologized and a BYU professor said something like this afterward? Another lie.
I think the Church would be in a much better place dealing with a Bott-wannabe some day if the Church were to have already denounced all pre-1978 justifications for the ban and apologized for that institutional racism. The reason the Church so quickly jumped into damage control in Bott's case is because Bott wasn't inconsistent with what Church leaders said pre-1978, but which the Church has yet to denounce and repudiate.
People like Bott are not going to have their worldviews changed by an admission of error and an apology, although I'd like to see both as well.
I think Bott, and others of his ilk, would certainly change their "worldviews" if men they view as prophets, seers and revelators came out and officially denounced all pre-1978 reasons supporting the ban, and also apologized for the Church's pre-1978 institutional racism. It sure couldn't hurt.