Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Morley]

.... I'd say the church has made a whale of an effort to right past wrongs, perceived or actual.

What has the LDS Church done to "right past wrongs"? Please list the ways, as you see them. Thanks.

[_KimberlyAnn]

What has the LDS Church done to "right past wrongs"? Please list the ways, as you see them. Thanks.

They bought a Cadillac for every black person who joined the Mormon church prior to 1978? Of course they didn't! Helping blacks overcome masturbation is reparation aplenty! What more could they want?

KA

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Joanna Brooks has now weighed in on her blog:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntroversy/

[_Willy Law]

Joanna Brooks has now weighed in on her blog:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntroversy/

Nice first comment:

I'm happy to say that this article is a complete lie. I have Randy Bott as a professor now, and i know that this is false. This writer has changed what Professor Bott said. There are lots of African American people who are in his class right now who said that professor Bott has said nothing like this and what Joanna Brooks has written is a lie and she should be ashamed of trying to smear a good man because she wants her 15 minutes of fame. The only reason she did this is because there is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints running for President of the United States.

[_Fence Sitter]

Is Randy Bott a Democrat?

[_DarkHelmet]

I like this comment on Brooks' blog:

It's Not Just the Folklore that's racist. The LDS Church has claimed and continues to teach that the ban had its source with God.

All the racist folklore imaginable pales in comparison to the racist teaching that God instituted the racial ban. This lays squarely at the feet of the LDS Church and its leaders.

Professor Bott is, indeed, a racist. He was taught his racism by a racist religion that continues to care more for its image than for a full airing of its own racism; current teachings, not past teachings.

So, if you're angry at Bott, you should be even more angry at the LDS Church.

And compare it to DCP's blog:

God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

There is no question that there are many worthy women who could fulfill priesthood callings at least as well as their male counterparts do, if the priesthood were conferred upon them. My wife is certainly one of them; she is my superior in every relevant quality of spirituality, service, and righteousness (and I'm entirely serious about that, not merely engaging in some sentimental but empty gesture of placing her, and womanhood generally, on a pedestal). Yet God has not authorized the conferral of priesthood upon women. Why not? I have no idea. I've heard various hypotheses, but I find none of them convincing. The Lord hasn't explained himself on this one.

So the proper answer, when asked to explain such discrimination -- and it is "discrimination," in the sense that it distinguishes between individuals and groups -- is and should be, simply, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me" (Moses 5:6).

We just don't know.

We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't "ready" for it, or because it "benefited" them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like.

We just don't know.

[_Buffalo]

Joanna Brooks has now weighed in on her blog:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntroversy/

She links to Bott's blog, which she rightly calls apologetic prevarication:

http://ldskyr.blogspot.com/2010/04/did- ... didn't.html

[_DarkHelmet]

Joanna Brooks has now weighed in on her blog:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntroversy/

Nice first comment:

I'm happy to say that this article is a complete lie. I have Randy Bott as a professor now, and i know that this is false. This writer has changed what Professor Bott said. There are lots of African American people who are in his class right now who said that professor Bott has said nothing like this and what Joanna Brooks has written is a lie and she should be ashamed of trying to smear a good man because she wants her 15 minutes of fame. The only reason she did this is because there is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints running for President of the United States.

This is usually the first knee jerk reaction from chapel Mormons.

[_Chap]

Joanna Brooks has now weighed in on her blog:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntroversy/

Nice first comment:

I'm happy to say that this article is a complete lie. I have Randy Bott as a professor now, and i know that this is false. This writer has changed what Professor Bott said. There are lots of African American people who are in his class right now who said that professor Bott has said nothing like this and what Joanna Brooks has written is a lie and she should be ashamed of trying to smear a good man because she wants her 15 minutes of fame. The only reason she did this is because there is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints running for President of the United States.

Let's see. The article said:

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, argues Bott, the BYU theologian. … Bott compares blacks to a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood. … Bott argues that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Bott's 2008 blog said:

...I asked who held the Priesthood during Old Testament times after the Exodus. He rather proudly demonstrated his understanding that it was only the Tribe of Levi. I asked: "Would you show me in the Old Testament where the other 11 tribes, which include Judah—through whom the Savior was to be born, and Joseph—the new chosen, birthright son, picketed up and down in front of the Tabernacle demanding the Priesthood?" He admitted that he couldn't and stated that he had never looked at it quite like that before. I suggested that God has always "discriminated" with regard to who could hold the priesthood.

...


Since you brought it up, let's talk discrimination for a minute. Up until June 8, 1978 a Black could be a member of the Church, have the Holy Ghost, partake of the sacrament, and serve in the Church in whatever capacity that didn't require the Priesthood. They could be administered to, receive blessings, etc. The instant they died they could have their names submitted to the temple for temple work because there was no reference on the form as to race. Therefore, all the blessings of not only Salvation (which come from Baptism and the Holy Ghost) were available to them, but also the blessings of Exaltation (which require Priesthood for the males and temple endowments and sealings), were also available. However, they could not become "sons of perdition" because the unpardonable sin had to be committed before the dissolution of the body." Since I had just been studying it, I knew the reference, so I excused myself and retrieved my copy of the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith where Joseph taught: "A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.
"A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.
"I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.357)
I continued: "So up until June 8, 1978, only a white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the Lord, since 1978, you too can become a son of perdition." I thought he was turning pale white in front of me.

That was altered too?

Pull the other leg - it's got bells on it!

[_Yong Xi]

The priesthood ban is the one issue that has the potential to blow up. The church better get ahead of this one, but it won't. At some point in time, the younger generation is going to demand/need better answers. It could be instigated by protesting BYU students and go viral in minutes with enormous negative ramifications and the church would have no recourse but to back down. How would the church quell such a protest?

An explanation of "we don't know why God did it" will not fly for much longer.