Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_maklelan]

What does it say about the process, and the bias of men when it takes the omnipotent "God" 30 years to convey the same idea to the 15 of his special witnesses?

I'd first have to determine when God started trying to convey the idea, and I don't think there's enough information available to do that.

I will unilaterally assume that it means that either god is fairly impotent, or that some men are too cowardly to overcome their own bias. Yes, I will own that statement.

If you don't want to believe they're guided by revelation then that's fine, but when you argue from that etic framework, you can hardly insist that their positions are inconsonant with their own worldviews.

[Guest]

I can argue it as well as you can argue that there was no cowardice involved........ As self belief is not an indicator of courage nor cowardice.

The book by Spencer W. Kimball's son (I forget his name and the book's name and am being too lazy to google it) provides a pretty good timeline of the topic. It is a very interesting read.

[_Chap]

I am really impressed by the wonderful and reliable guidance from their deity that LDS are privileged to receive through living prophets in these latter days.

Without such guidance, we would just be left to make up our own minds what to believe. Whereas ...

[_Doctor Scratch]

You've already highlighted some of them, but there are a lot more local authorities who are not mentioned in this article.

Uh, no. I did not. The passages I cited show the Brethren being confused and hesitant about what to do. The article portrays top Church leaders as being concerned about the racist priesthood ban. There is evidence that they debated it and talked about it, but "campaigned" is a stretch, Mak.

You write:

The text later explains he convinced most of the twelve apostles to back him, but that Lee shot him down. Elder Hanks was another GA who worked to convince other leaders the ban could be dropped. I consider that to be campaigning, irrespective of the outcome. Do you disagree?

I'm not sure that the outcome matters, given that there are conflicting accounts as to whether or not Elder Brown did what you claim he did. It seems to me that your glossing over this:

The policy change was thwarted primarily because of Harold B. Lee’s
strong opposition. President Brown’s grandson says that when Elder Lee was away
President Brown had persuaded the Twelve to his point of view. But Elder Lee,
on his return, obtained reconsideration of and withdrawal from such agreement.
Firmage, “Hugh B. Brown in His Final Years,” 8; Firmage, Abundant Life, 142–43.
However, L. Brent Goates, biographer of President Lee, expressed doubt that any
such agreement was reached.

(emphasis mine)

...is a rather glaring omission. Do you have a better example of what you mean by "campaigning"? Preferably multiple examples, since your post to Just Me suggested that this was a widespread sort of thing? And this time, would you please be so kind as to quote some text?

As to this:

I consider that to be campaigning, irrespective of the outcome. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. The private musings and conversations of the Brethren, in my book, do not constitute the kind of "campaign" that your earlier post described. Brown's activities--which are in doubt--is the closest thing you've got. The other bits you adduced constitute searching, wondering, and trying to find an "out." And given that all of this was taking place behind the scenes--with rank-and-file members getting ex'ed for actually campaigning--I think you need to find better evidence.

[_moksha]

You don't seem to take seriously their conviction that they are responsible to seek and implement the will of God.

I take seriously that God never would have been the the author of such a racially exclusionary policy. The wrongness of the ban should have triggered an alarm for those who bear the mantle of religious leaders. If the precise history of the ban was there for Darius Gray and Margaret Young to discover then what does this say to their diligence of office?

[_maklelan]

I take seriously that God never would have been the the author of such a racially exclusionary policy.

Me too, but that's irrelevant.

The wrongness of the ban should have triggered an alarm for those who bear the mantle of religious leaders.

It did, right about the time the rest of the country was coming around to recognize the wrongness of racism. It just took a few more years for the concerns to grow beyond the gravitational pull of tradition and precedent.

If the precise history of the ban was there for Darius Gray and Margaret Young to discover then what does this say to their diligence of office?

That they believed a little too firmly their predecessors were guided by God in all their administrative decisions.

[_maklelan]

Yes, I disagree. The private musings and conversations of the Brethren, in my book, do not constitute the kind of "campaign" that your earlier post described.

What "kind" of campaign did I describe earlier? Please be specific.

[_Drifting]

The wrongness of the ban should have triggered an alarm for those who bear the mantle of religious leaders.

It did, right about the time the rest of the country was coming around to recognize the wrongness of racism. It just took a few more years for the concerns to grow beyond the gravitational pull of tradition and precedent.

So the hymn "Follow the Prophet" should be changed to "Follow the Social Norm"?

[_Chap]

The wrongness of the ban should have triggered an alarm for those who bear the mantle of religious leaders.

It did, right about the time the rest of the country was coming around to recognize the wrongness of racism. It just took a few more years for the concerns to grow beyond the gravitational pull of tradition and precedent.

So the hymn "Follow the Prophet" should be changed to "Follow the Social Norm"?

What do you get from a Prophet in these latter days?

Apparently, you just get someone who specializes in judging when external social and political pressures on the church are great enough to justify discounting the weight of tradition and precedent within the church. He may get that right, or he may get that wrong. There seems to be no evidence of special divine guidance here at all.

Other prophets in the past have spoken with more confidence, though perhaps with less skill in public relations and corporate governance:

Amos 5

18 Woe to you who long
for the day of the LORD!
Why do you long for the day of the LORD?
That day will be darkness, not light.
19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion
only to meet a bear,
as though he entered his house
and rested his hand on the wall
only to have a snake bite him.
20 Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light—
pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness?

21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

25 “Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?
26 You have lifted up the shrine of your king,
the pedestal of your idols,
the star of your god[b]—
which you made for yourselves.
27 Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,”
says the LORD, whose name is God Almighty.

[_SteelHead]

My 3 year old son is dragging around his rolling carry on luggage this morning. I asked him where he is going and he said: "Brazil. It's Brazil time."

My two boys are 1/2 Brazilian. The priesthood ban became very real for me one day. I was contemplating the ramifications of the ban and realized that were it still in place my sons may, or may not be able to hold the priesthood. It is hard to know which. My wife is unsure of her genealogy. On straight appearance and characteristics they would pass, but who really knows? And why should such: "race/lineage" be an issue?

The mess of lineage in Brazil was as big a catalyst for change on this policy as anything. People were being ordained, and then it was discovered that they had the forbidden blood and so they were essentially "un-ordained". My family, or better; my sons are now directly a part of that question of genealogy.

There are too many scriptures where all people of all races, creeds, tongues are told to come to Jesus. And there is no producible revelation or scripture to the contrary, outside of BY's extremely racist pronouncements.

As I studied the history of the ban, it became more apparent that there is little of substance supporting it doctrinally, especially today where the past justifications have been dismissed. It seems to me to be little more than the institutionalized manifestation of Brigham Young's racism. It flies in the face of Joseph Smith ordaining black men.

That is the kicker. Joseph Smith ordained black men. There are no doubts about it. Combine that with McConkie's admonition to forget everything anyone taught on the subject in the past; and you make god a joker. Mormons.... our god is a Loki or perhaps Exu. When the prophet of the restoration ordains black men to the priesthood, then we deny that such occured for a 130 years; and then we drop the ban, say we know of no doctrinal reason for it, but it was still of god. Well it makes you wonder what is revelation and what is personal bias.

As the bias is now very personal....

in my opinion the ban makes god a racist........ well, I no longer accept a racist god. Failing that, it makes the prophets so unreliable that all of their pronouncements are suspect. Throw in the other doctrinal and historical messes and a paradigm for discovering truth that relies on unverifiable, unrepeatable witnesses, a process that prepossesses its basis and begs the question..........

Well for me the cognitive dissonance was too large. The mental gymnastics required to believe too convoluted, and the "shelves" of historical and doctrinal doubts came crashing down.

It boggles my mind that any self respecting person of "African descent" upon learning of the ban (be it before or after their baptism) converts/stays in the church. It is an witness of the power of the incentive that the church offers and the gullibility of people. (See my previous reference to Nigerian scammers.)

There is no good way to explain this mess away.