Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Drifting]

The church has issued a statement:

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.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

So when bcspace tells us the ban was nothing to do with race he's talking out of his ass because the Church cannot say it wasn't racist in nature and purpose - and that's official!

[_Drifting]

This has been an embarrassment to the Church for decades and they still have no idea why, when and for what purpose it was introduced.
When Monson gets on his knees as the Prophet on behalf of the Church and asks why, when and for what purpose; why doesn't God give him an answer? Does God not know the answer either?

[_Stormy Waters]

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.

So people were denied ordinances needed for salvation, but you don't know why? You don't know how? You don't know when? If it was a mistake then apologize already. If it wasn't a mistake, at least have the integrity to own up to it. What a cowardly cop out.

[_DrW]

As one might have expected, DCP has arrived on the scene to manage damage control among the faithful.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57105-an-unfortunate-attempt-to-explain-the-pre-1978-restriction-on-priesthood/

Good luck, Dan. This one is a real stinker, and from a learned colleague at BYU, no less.

[_SteelHead]

Could it have been because BY was a racist to his core? Nah, couldn't be that.......

[Guest]

Do you know what?

I've thought about this and I am beginning to feel sorry for Randy Bott.

All he's done is regurgitate that which he has been taught his whole Mormon life. The fact that it is embarrassing and hurtful and discriminatory is not his fault.

The Church should apologise to him for teaching him things that have no moral, doctrinal, or rational basis whatsoever, other than some racist was appointed as Prophet and no subsequent Prophet had the balls to correct it until long after MLK was dead.

He is going to be scapegoated and hung out to dry by the Church for saying things less inflammatory than Brigham Young did when speaking as the Prophet.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Is it just me, or are they crawling, millimeter by pained millimeter, toward an actual apology?

This language in the statement, if truly believed by the Brethren, means an official apology is very possible:

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.

The Brethren seem to be saying now that no one has any idea how the "restriction" came about. In other words, NO evidence of a revelation or other express commandment of God. This being the case, ISSUE an official apology already!!!! There simply is no reason to continue to hold on to this racist past!

[_SteelHead]

You can't make this stuff up.

From the DCP madhouse thread.

Freedom:

Valid or not, it is clear that the ban on the priesthood continued for many decades without the lord stepping in to change it. If we assume that the ban was not inspired and counter to doctrine then we must also assume the same thing for the ban on women receiving the priesthood. I see a double standard here. It appears that we are more concerned about the African American male then women of all nationalities. If a proclamation is given declaring that all women must receive the priesthood, will we then be preaching that the past ban was based on ingrained sexism? Not all revelation is published, so to assume that there was no revelation on the matter is based on ignorance. The prophet receives, by his own admission, revelation on a daily basis. So, for this post, I have the following hypothesis as a few possible reasons why the ban was allowed to continue, if not required by God (I do not reject patent racism as a reason, but I am of the opinion that we just don’t know):

1) Ingrained bigotry among the white members would have caused a schism in the church and it may not have survived. 2) The Africa Americans were, due to circumstances largely outside of their control, uneducated and poorly conditioned. Had they been embraced and allowed to join in great numbers, the church would have suffered from the challenges it had at the start: too many uneducated and socially backward people causing too many problems. I do not want to suggest that the African Americans were or are socially backward but, coming from a culture of slavery and oppression, it would have been a lot of baggage to overcome for a church that was already struggling to gain a foot hold. So I am not making a comparison with the uncouth nature of the early members with the nature of the African Americans other than to say that the latter did have some challenges that the Church was not equipped to address. 3) Had the blacks been fully incorporated into the church, it is possible that their numbers would have outstripped those of European descent. I hate to think of how history would have played out if the army was not just coming to deal with the Mormon problem in Utah, but if the Mormon problem was 75% blacks. There would have been genocide. If fact, they would have been slaughtered before they even made it to the mountains. I cannot see the 19 th century American government allowing a mass exodus of blacks to create their own society in the mountains. 4) The church in African is already growing faster than the Church can handle. There are baptism quotas limiting the number of people who can join. Three years ago ( I think) the policy was that a man had to be a member for at least 1 year before he could be called to be a Bishop, and 3 years to be a stake president. The church, it could be argued, did not have the resources, infrastructure and administrative expertise to deal with this growth until correlation came about in the mid 1970s. What about Central America? They are a chosen people and were, rightfully so, to be the first focus of the restoration but we need to remember that even before heading to Mexico, missionaries first went to Europe to convert educated and sophisticated members because they were not finding them America.

So, my hypothesis is not that the blacks were not ready for the church or that the brethren were too bigoted to accept them, but that the church was not ready for them yet.

I apologize for anyone of African descent if anything I have posted is offensive. I reject the notion that the blacks are inferior to any other people on the earth and I highly doubt they were cursed from Cain, however I do recognize that a culture, race or any other group of people can be set back by circumstances. I see it with the natives in Canada who are isolated on reserves and now have the highest suicide and substance abuse rates in the country. A victim by any other color would be so handicapped. In simple terms, the Lord had to strengthen the core and bide His time until he could take his temple blessings to all his children. I foresee and look forward to a time in the not too distant future when the benches behind the pulpit at general conference will be filled with Hispanic, black and south Asian saints.

Wheeeeeee.

[_Kishkumen]

This is another fine example of how ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, and critics will criticize the LDS Church of yesterday in order to hurt the LDS Church of today. This is obviously a tough issue, like polygamy, for which there are no easy answers. Religions are filled with these problems. If you don't want to believe, that's one thing, but the Schadenfreude that erupts whenever these things come up gets really old after a while. Yeah, I get it: there is racism, and it used to be a more fundamental part of Mormonism. I am ready to move on now.

And that should be the point, right? Seeing that the racism does not regain strength in Mormonism so that Mormons can be better, happier Mormons. Not rubbing it in Mormons' faces because you don't think such a thing as Mormonism should exist, right?

[_Buffalo]

Does this look like an apology?

The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

No, but now they're not claiming the ban was from God. They're saying they don't know why the ban came about.