Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Morley]

Decoding the LDS Church statement.

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church.

BYU professors don’t speak for the Church: having church employment and expertise in doctrine and history does not mean you know what you’re talking about. Bishops and Stake Presidents don’t speak for the Church: holding an ecclesiastical position does not give you license to disclose what the Church Handbook or the Holy Ghost has revealed to you. General Authorities don’t speak for the church: hell, we have to correct their pre-screened conference talks, all the time. Past Prophets don’t necessarily speak for the Church: they were often just working with limited understanding or speaking as men. Even the current Prophet doesn’t speak for the church: he’s deathly afraid to say anything even remotely prescient. So really, no one speaks for the Church.


It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

It’s unfortunate that we were not given a chance to “not speak” for the Church.


The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

We’re not racist.


For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent.

Okay, so you googled us and found out some things. If we say “male members of African descent” maybe you won’t realize our ban was also on female “members of African descent” going through the temple and being sealed in marriage.


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.

We do know why “this restriction began,” but we’re not going to talk about that. The ban ended decades ago--when the f*** are you going stop talking about this?


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.

Hell, the Church is not bound by anything. Not doctrine. Not science. Not history. Not ethics. Nothing.


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

We’re not racist. Besides, some other people are racist, too.

[_just me]

Decoding the LDS Church statement.

*fantasticness was here*

All the awards.

[_just me]

Bott's head has to be spinning this morning. He has to be wondering A. When did proclaiming the gospel become so offensive? and B. When did I become a dinosaur?

Here is a blog post about blacks and the priesthood he wrote in 2008. Not quite as racist, but still pretty condescending. The guy is sure full of himself, seems to be a common trait amongst BYU professors.

http://ldskyr.blogspot.com/2008/04/blacks-and-priesthood.html

Haha! I still have this open in a window on my 'puter.

[_SteelHead]

Cut and paste it for posterity.

[_DarkHelmet]

Here is an excerpt from his online BYU resume (emphasis mine):

Areas of Expertise: Doctrine of the Church, missionary preparation, application of doctrine to life; Joseph Smith's writings.

Areas of Research: Scriptural application; Interdisciplinary healing of the whole man; Doctrines of the Gospel.

So here we have BYU publicly holding the guy out as an "expert" on "doctrines of the Church/Gospel"!

Here is how the official statement from the church begins:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Poor guy. He puts "Doctrine of the Church" on his resume as one of his areas of expertise, and his employer issues an official statement to tell the word that his positions do not represent the church's doctrine. That has to sting a bit. At least it's better than it used to be. If Joseph Smith was in charge, that embarassing statement would have made it into the D&C, and included his name, to be engraven in scripture forever.

[_MsJack]

This may have already been mentioned, but Randy Bott's blog has now been taken down (probably because it contained a post with a rationale for the priesthood ban that was very similar to what he expressed to the Post). The Church is really hopping on the damage control.

But the Google cache lives on.

by the way, in the interest of shameless self-promotion, here is my own blog post on the matter.

[_consiglieri]

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

But the Church was bound by this particular speculation for over a century.

The truthfulness of this statement depends entirely on what the definition of "is" is.

So what do the LDS Church and Bill Clinton have in common?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

by the way, in the interest of shameless self-promotion, here is my own blog post on the matter.

In the interest of shameless kudos, well said, Ms. Jack!

[_Morley]

by the way, in the interest of shameless self-promotion, here is my own blog post on the matter.

Well done.

[_DrW]

by the way, in the interest of shameless self-promotion, here is my own blog post on the matter.

Well done.

Yes, well done, indeed.

(Great hook, by the way.)