Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_maklelan]

Can anyone answer a couple of questions?

We know that blacks had the priesthood initially in the church....then at some point, that changed. So, something happened to put this ban in place. Therefore, how can the church now state that "we don't know why"?

Because there's no explanation. In my opinion, it was just an ad hoc policy decision Brigham Young made that became conventionalized and ultimately became a de facto doctrine. "We don't know" expresses faith in Brigham Young's divine guidance, but acknowledges that there are no reasons apparent. As I've already stated, I don't buy it.

Also...all the apologists keep harping that this is not racial but is a matter of lineage.

Who has been saying that?

So, when those members were denied the priesthood prior to 1978, was their lineage checked (ie. their genealogy, etc.) or did they just go by the color of their skin when denying them?

Their lineage was checked, and the color of their skin was not the deciding factor. White Latter-day Saints who had African ancestors have been denied the priesthood in the past.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Below is a link to an article in BYU's Daily Universe concerning Bott:

http://universe.BYU.edu/index.php/2012/ ... gton-post/

Apparently Bott is now claiming that the Post reporter either misquoted him or took his words out of context; however, sadly for him, his 2008 post about the priesthood ban (taken down, but not before it was cached by folks here) suggests he was quoted correctly.

[_Willy Law]

Because there's no explanation. In my opinion, it was just an ad hoc policy decision Brigham Young made that became conventionalized and ultimately became a de facto doctrine

What does that say about Brigham and other prophets and apostles who called it a commandment from directly from the Lord, doctrine, etc. Were they intentionally misleading the rank and file? Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?
Your point of view sure does not bode well for "following the prophet."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What does that say about Brigham and other prophets and apostles who called it a commandment from directly from the Lord, doctrine, etc. Were they intentionally misleading the rank and file? Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?
Your point of view sure does not bode well for "following the prophet."

I think the real reason the Church has not yet issued a formal apology for the priesthood ban (and probably never will) is because to do so would severely undercut the oft-repeated mantra "the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the Church astray." I think it is clear that, indeed, for nearly 150 years the prophets DID lead the Church astray in the form of the priesthood ban.

[_maklelan]

What does that say about Brigham and other prophets and apostles who called it a commandment from directly from the Lord, doctrine, etc.

That they're human products of their times.

Were they intentionally misleading the rank and file?

No idea, but I doubt it.

Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?

I imagine they were attributing personal feelings to divine inspiration.

Your point of view sure does not bode well for "following the prophet."

Only for those who are already critical of it.

[_DarkHelmet]

[

Also...all the apologists keep harping that this is not racial but is a matter of lineage.

Who has been saying that?

Your boyfriend, BC Space.

[_Willy Law]

Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?

I imagine they were attributing personal feelings to divine inspiration.

I agree 100%

[_DarkHelmet]

I imagine they were attributing personal feelings to divine inspiration.

I agree 100%

Me too.

[_Tobin]

What does that say about Brigham and other prophets and apostles who called it a commandment from directly from the Lord, doctrine, etc. Were they intentionally misleading the rank and file? Were they expressing knowledge that they did not have?
Your point of view sure does not bode well for "following the prophet."

I think the real reason the Church has not yet issued a formal apology for the priesthood ban (and probably never will) is because to do so would severely undercut the oft-repeated mantra "the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead the Church astray." I think it is clear that, indeed, for nearly 150 years the prophets DID lead the Church astray in the form of the priesthood ban.

It is time they got rid of that idiotic manta and replaced it with "the Lord will never lead us astray". Blindly following men that cannot see who and what they are is a recipe for disaster.

[_Themis]

Because there's no explanation. In my opinion, it was just an ad hoc policy decision Brigham Young made that became conventionalized and ultimately became a de facto doctrine.

I think this is probably what happened. The problem here is that this does not support the LDS church being God's one true church, lead by God. As such, the church cannot bring itself to apologize and admit it made a mistake. Most other religions can since they don't claim to be the one true church. This is the dilemma the church finds itself in. How can it be a mistake and God not fix this mistake when it happened. This is such an important issue, that if God is not involved, then what would he be involved in, or is he not really guiding anyone including the founder. Admitting mistakes brings up all these other issues I don't think the church wants to open up.