Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_harmony]

So for 140 years we have leaders teaching things like this that is suddenly folklore and we are told to just forget about it. And now the Church wants to pretend such things were an aberration? Oh please!

So you think the tradition's pedigree means the church today is not allowed to reject it?

No, the point is... the tradition wasn't/isn't an aberration, even though the Church is pretending that is was/is.

Taking responsibility for mistakes is something expected of church members, but not of church leaders. And unless there is confession, retribution, acceptance of responsibility, there can be no repentence. Rejection is not even on the horizon. Repentence needs to be done first.

[_Willy Law]

Hey mak, you ever consider that if a prophet of god like Brigham Young (and all prophets from Brigham to TSM for that matter) cannot tell the difference between personal feelings and divine inspiration that maybe neither can you?

Of course I have.

And you decided that you would rather be safe than sorry and assume your personal feelings are divine?

[_maklelan]

I'm getting bogged down by a lot of comments that are only peripheral to the topic of this thread, and I've mixed up some respondents because I'm not paying close enough attention. I apologize for that, and I'm going to simplify things a bit:

I've made my argument regarding Bott's role in the issue. Does anyone still want to defend the claim that Bott is unjustly being thrown under the bus by the church just for sharing, in his capacity as an expert in church doctrine, a belief that he may have been raised with but that the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years?

[_moksha]

It's been nearly 34 years since the ban ended, and the Church STILL has NO clue how to handle it. Issue an apology and be done with it!

An apology would have prevented this headache and would spare us future headaches. Doing the right thing is always the best policy.

[_consiglieri]

An apology would have prevented this headache and would spare us future headaches. Doing the right thing is always the best policy.

I agree with you, Mok.

The problem with an apology about Priesthood is not principle, but that it would pry open a Pandora's Box from which the Church fears it would never recover.

(If I get enough "p" alliteration in there, my GA-hood is assured.)

I mean, you only apologize if you make a mistake. And because the LDS Church is headed by prophets and apostles, it can never make a mistake. Hence no apologies will ever be forthcoming.

This isn't something Church leadership can distance itself from, as with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where it is okay for the Church to apologize for what "some misguided church members" did.

This would entrail an admission of wrong-doing by the leadership itself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_moksha]

This would entail an admission of wrong-doing by the leadership itself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

A policy based on the resentment of William McCary poaching some potential nubile brides at Winter Quarters was not wrong-doing so much as it was jealousy. However, the decision to eliminate the competition through white-balling was definitely a comedy of errors.

[_harmony]

I'm getting bogged down by a lot of comments that are only peripheral to the topic of this thread, and I've mixed up some respondents because I'm not paying close enough attention. I apologize for that, and I'm going to simplify things a bit:

I've made my argument regarding Bott's role in the issue. Does anyone still want to defend the claim that Bott is unjustly being thrown under the bus by the church just for sharing, in his capacity as an expert in church doctrine, a belief that he may have been raised with but that the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years?

The church as in... the Brethren? or the members?

The scholars as in... FARMS? FAIR? or Prof Bott?

Please link to the church's official apology, signed by all 15 of the Brethren.

Thanks in advance.

Seriously though (since we all know there is no apology)... if Prof Bott is a professor in good standing at BYU, don't you think he would have been aware of this change, since he teaches religion? Or are we supposed to think he's had his head in the sand for the last 30 years? Or that he's stupid? Or that he's clueless?

Or maybe we supposed to think that Prof Bott has been teaching incorrect doctrine for the last 30 years, with the blessing of the Brethren?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've made my argument regarding Bott's role in the issue. Does anyone still want to defend the claim that Bott is unjustly being thrown under the bus by the church just for sharing, in his capacity as an expert in church doctrine, a belief that he may have been raised with but that the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years?

Harmony's right. You really have to have the full force of doctrine--meaning a document signed by the top 15, and delivered over the pulpit in General Conference--to be able to say that "the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years."

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm well aware of that, but my statement was that even before the 1978 revelation there was movement away from that doctrinal surety.

So do you admit that the body of commentary, including an FP statement raises the teachings about this above the level of simply folklore?

So here we have an FP statement the references the idea that blacks may have been less valient in the pre earth life.

It's a pretty vague suggestion that it may have something to do with it.

First you say the FP statement said nothing about the pre-existence. now you propose it is vague when you are shown that indeed the FP statement does indeed refer the pre earth live? Please. But it is not vague at all. It specifically says our pre earth life has bearing on what situations we are born into and a spirit child of God would so want a body and all that comes with it that they would be happy to be born even if they were barred from the priesthood. This is hardly vague. And since it is in an FP statement it raises it to doctrinal.

So for 140 years we have leaders teaching things like this that is suddenly folklore and we are told to just forget about it. And now the Church wants to pretend such things were an aberration? Oh please!

So you think the tradition's pedigree means the church today is not allowed to reject it?

The church certainly can reject it. But it should stop being disingenuous about the prior teachings all being simply folklore. It should own up to what it taught, admit it was wrong if they think it was and apologize for it if they think it was a mistake.

[_Fence Sitter]

I'm getting bogged down by a lot of comments that are only peripheral to the topic of this thread, and I've mixed up some respondents because I'm not paying close enough attention. I apologize for that, and I'm going to simplify things a bit:

I've made my argument regarding Bott's role in the issue. Does anyone still want to defend the claim that Bott is unjustly being thrown under the bus by the church just for sharing, in his capacity as an expert in church doctrine, a belief that he may have been raised with but that the church and its scholars have consistently and unilaterally rejected for the last 30+ years?

Since the Church openly admits they do not know why the ban occurred, and offers no official explanation, how do we know Bott's theories, however offensive, are not correct? Unless the Church has officially said why it occurred, then Bott is being thrown under the bus unjustly.