What I found interesting was that Juliann responded to my post with a well reasoned response, but she seems to be unaware that i'm unable to respond to her. Here is post #1:
So much for freedom to think for yourself. All this guy did was produce a rational explanation for the Priesthood ban, based on decades of Mormon upbringing, inferences from authoritative teachings, apologetic arguments about how God discriminates, etc. Now he is being dragged under the bus just to so the Church can save face; his crime was to make an embarrassing Mormon doctrine public again, and this time during election year.
The Church's position recently is that there is no official position as to why the ban occurred and why it was enforced for more than a century. All it is willing to say on that issue is that no one really knows the reason it happened, which leaves critically thinking people in the dark. On that basis alone, the Church has not specifically rejected Bott's explanation as false. It just gives some vague denunciation of "racism" while refusing to address the many racist statements condoned by the Church over the years. But I've seen apologists argue that the God of the Bible does in fact discriminate (i.e. e withheld the Levitical priesthood, he had his own "chosen people," etc).
Apparently, Professor Bott doesn't have much freedom to come up with his own explanations that appear perfectly sound. Again, his was one of the most charitable explanations I've heard. He referred to it as a blessing as opposed to the way in which past LDS leaders had traditionally taught: a CURSE! But I guess a former Mission President, Bishop and current educator for the Church on matters of doctrine and history, puts him in a bad position to speak as someone who has a clue.
Ecclesiastical repercussions for having an opinion are already understood by the number of Facebook and Twitter comments I've seen from Mormons. Comments saying we should expect he will be fired or that he will be stuck on the career ladder. All for what? For having an opinion that is perfectly consistent with LDS teachings. There isn't a single thing he said that ran contrary to official LDS doctrine. Nothing.
Post #2:
Repentance from what? What was his great sin here?
Allowing years of Mormon teaching influence his thinking?
Post #3:
Nothing he said in his interview was out of the norm. DCP never wrote internet pieces condemning his colleague's racist views. He is only being attacked now by his own because the Church's image must come first at all costs. It is more of the same deception campaign where some members of the Church believe that honesty is a nuisance. Being fully upfront about your beliefs is not necessarily a good thing and the people attacking Bott are sending a loud message, not against racism, but against freedom of expression and opinion. As if to say, shut up Bott, "if we want your opinion we'll give it to you."
In another thread I responded to Dan Peterson's remarks:
Dan said:
We don't know the reason for the ban.
Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.
If it wasn't a mistake, we still don't know the reason for it.
Hinckley said it wasn't a mistake. Logic dictates that if it wasn't a mistake, then it was right. If it was right, then it came from God.
According to Brigham Young, racist doctrine about Negroes is the "Law of God" and the Priesthood ban was of "divine institution." That hardly strikes me as indicative of someone who doesn't believe he knows why the ban is instituted. But the Church would never say this in today's race-conscious society, especially with one of their own running for President. Political correctness must prevail over truth. Can you tell me why I should reject Brigham Young's doctrine on this, and accept some PR press release - written by God knows who - about how the Church rejects racism? The 1949 proclamation on the subject was equally clear that this doctrine was really a doctrine.
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."
The Church now claims it doesn't know why the ban took place, but all this proves is that it is the Church (not Bott) contradicting the Church. No wonder Bruce R/ McConkie told Mormons to just ignore everything that was said on the matter before 1978. The Church has not called this a mistake for the same reasons most billion dollar corporations often concede court battles, pay outrageous fines for wrongdoing, but never officially admit having done anything wrong. To admit a mistake would open up a whole new can of problematic worms for the Church. Such as why would God's Church be making mistakes like this while creating an institution of racism that prospers for more than a century? It was clearly taught as coming from God, so if the Church can make a mistake about this, then everything else it says coming from God could be wrong too. It all depends how the Church wants to change with the times, and it seems clear to me that society is shaping future LDS "revelations" more than anything else.
The Church is dancing around this problem well, allowing the folks in the PR dept take the lead. Hardly something one would expect from God's true Church. To most of us on the outside, the Church's reactions are precisely as one would expect from a corporation. It was careful not to specifically condemn Bott's remarks. All it did was just denounce "racism" which it never defined, and said Bott's opinion wasn't official doctrine