Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_maklelan]

I am interested in the "numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s. Do you have names or something I can read about them?
All I know of is a couple guys that got ex'd over it. And I can't remember their names.

TIA

Kimball's son wrote a good article on the issue in BYU studies (here).

[_maklelan]

My point is that you would hold that view. And I was right.

Marvelous work, Scratch. Now, can you show that I'm wrong?

Your posts on this thread have been pretty predictable, Mak. On the one hand, you'll say that you think the Church should apologize. This makes it seems as if you disapprove of the Church's historical, institutional racism. The catch here is that you also believe that there is "no productive way" to insist that the Church apologize.

There's no productive way to twist its arm. That's not to say there's no productive way to influence it.

So, in actuality, you either don't care that the Church has a racist past, or you do but you're too lazy or afraid to do anything proactive about it.

Neither is true, you're just unable to approach this question rationally.

[_just me]

I am interested in the "numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s. Do you have names or something I can read about them?
All I know of is a couple guys that got ex'd over it. And I can't remember their names.

TIA

Kimball's son wrote a good article on the issue in BYU studies (here).

Thanks :)

(Scratch, plz reload your avatar)

[_Doctor Scratch]

My point is that you would hold that view. And I was right.

Marvelous work, Scratch. Now, can you show that I'm wrong?

What are you talking about? Of course there's no "productive" way to oppose the Church or urge an official apology if nobody does anything... Or if you believe that there is no productive way.

Your posts on this thread have been pretty predictable, Mak. On the one hand, you'll say that you think the Church should apologize. This makes it seems as if you disapprove of the Church's historical, institutional racism. The catch here is that you also believe that there is "no productive way" to insist that the Church apologize.

There's no productive way to twist its arm. That's not to say there's no productive way to influence it.

All right, then. Lay out your proposal. How do you suggest that people go about influencing the Church to apologize? You can't exactly fault me for relying on your own terminology--it was you who first said "twist the church's [sic] arm." If you really just meant "influence," then you should have said so.

But this is just Mopologetic Semantics 101. If you have a "productive" method, then let's hear it.

[_maklelan]

What are you talking about?

You're trying to be condescending, but if you don't hold the opposite position, your rhetoric doesn't even get off the ground.

Of course there's no "productive" way to oppose the Church or urge an official apology if nobody does anything... Or if you believe that there is no productive way.

So you believe there is a productive way to twist the church's arm.

All right, then. Lay out your proposal. How do you suggest that people go about influencing the Church to apologize?

Engage church leadership in public and private spheres in a respectful and informed manner.

You can't exactly fault me for relying on your own terminology

I can fault you for misreading my own terminology, though. That's the only way you work.

--it was you who first said "twist the church's [sic] arm."

Why the "[sic]"?

If you really just meant "influence," then you should have said so.

No, I meant what I said.

But this is just Mopologetic Semantics 101. If you have a "productive" method, then let's hear it.

I've been pretty clear already, Scratch. I don't see a reason to keep playing this silly little rhetorical game of yours.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I am interested in the "numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s. Do you have names or something I can read about them?
All I know of is a couple guys that got ex'd over it. And I can't remember their names.

TIA

Kimball's son wrote a good article on the issue in BYU studies (here).

Where exactly are the passages in this article that show "'numerous church [sic] leaders' who campaigned"? There is nothing like that in the piece. The word "campaign" suggests that these "church leaders" (and who are we talking about here? The Brethren? Bishops? Minnesota sociologists?) were actively and openly and aggressively lobbying for policy and/or doctrine change, and your article describes nothing of the sort. It shows the Brethren being indecisive and unclear on how to interpret the doctrine/policy. But "campaigning"? I think not.

The materials I've read all suggest that Elder Hugh B. Brown was the foremost opponent of the policy, but this article essentially says that his suggestions were pooh-poohed away. From pg. 21:

Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay from 1961 to 1970,
appears to have been the leader most open to change. He urged that the
priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administra-
tive policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the
restriction had not come by revelation,33 it could be vacated without revela-
tion. But despite his strongly held views and powerful influence, President
Brown’s position did not then prevail.34

(emphasis mine)

Later, the piece describes academic-types who scoured old documents, trying to find some doctrinal "out," but again, I would hardly describe this as campaigning, especially given a passage like this, from pg. 28:

But others thought it presumptuous for members to do anything
but wait patiently and faithfully defend the Church’s position. Spencer
Kimball, to whom loyalty was an article of faith, placed himself in this
latter group.

So, where exactly are the passages showing ""numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s."?

[_Equality]

but the presidency was long reluctant to flatly overturn the policy.

If true, they were cowards, not worthy of leading anything, let alone a church that claims to be the one true church of Jesus Christ on earth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, Dr. Scratch, your old friend DCP seems to have his hands full with a few less-than-PC faithful that crawled out of the woodwork to comment on this issue. Here is an example.

ilyan, on 29 February 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics.

Dan is sort of just sputtering "Oh my", "Oh my", and trying to slow the guy down. Apparently to no avail, as he continues:

ilyan, on 29 February 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks. Most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. Imagine that cultural mentality being given priesthood authority prematurely, just to be politically correct and placate someone's fear of being labeled a racist. Imagine prematurely handing the authority of God to a culture prone to the despotic exercise of even the authority of man. Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

Problem for the LDS Church is that a lot of us know a lot of Mormons who, in private, would say exactly the same kind of thing.

The thing is, DCP admitted, right there on FAIR/MDD, that he does--in private--advise interracial couples about all the problems they're likely to face if they get married. I may have to dig around to see if I can find the exact quote. When I indicated that I found this problematic, he sat there and repeated over and over again, "Am I a racist, Scratch? Am I a racist, Scratch? C'mon, don't be shy. Am I a racist, Scratch?" This eventually ended up with me getting suspended. At the time, my reaction was the same "Oh my," "Oh my" that poor Dan is now exhibiting with this yokel.

Now, however, all the folks are busy high-fiving each other for condemning ilyan as a racist. Back when DCP was saying this stuff about the perils of interracial marriage, a lot of the TBMs came lumbering in to tell him how great he was for dispensing good advice. "It's just common sense," they said. Who wants to bet that they wouldn't be singing the same tune today?

[_SteelHead]

Ilyan is just parroting what was taught..... 15 years ago most members wouldn't have blinked at what he said.

[_Dr. Shades]

He represents the thinking of the majority of the church pre ban, and just can't grok the real underpinnings of his ramblings.

Steelhead:

What does "grok" mean?