Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_maklelan]

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

The brethren.

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

The people who have published actual scholarship on the topic.

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

I didn't say anything about an apology.

Thanks in advance.

Has snarkiness ever worked for you in a debate?

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?

You would think.

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?

I think he's just not done much actual research on this topic and was just speaking from his own assumptions.

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?

So you're concluding that there's some kind of conspiracy going on? This is more likely to you than that Bott was just drawing from his own personal assumptions?

[_maklelan]

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."

That's a ludicrous notion. All you have to have is the unilateral and consistent rejection of the principle for the last 30 years, and we have that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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."

That's a ludicrous notion. All you have to have is the unilateral and consistent rejection of the principle for the last 30 years, and we have that.

Cite text, Mak.

[_maklelan]

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?

Because the church official denounces them and has unilaterally done so for the last 30 years. Also, you don't believe they're correct, you're just playing off of a rather stupid anti-Mormon ideological construct.

Unless the Church has officially said why it occurred, then Bott is being thrown under the bus unjustly.

Is this a parody of a critic's argument? I find this line of argumentation difficult to take seriously. Officially saying that speculating on the reasons is wrong isn't enough? You demand that they provide reasons of their own or else any speculation on the reasons is valid? Do you all even listen to yourselves?

[_maklelan]

Cite text, Mak.

Well, I've already provided plenty of comments from church leaders dating back to the 70s that reject any and all speculation on the reasons for the ban. I'll go the other way and provide all comments from church leaders since the 70s that promote specific explanations of why the ban was put in place:

. . .

[_MCB]

BY did it. They won't admit it, because that would open up a whole huge can of worms.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Cite text, Mak.

Well, I've already provided plenty of comments from church leaders dating back to the 70s that reject any and all speculation on the reasons for the ban.

Actually, they show a *lot* of speculation on all kinds of things related to the ban.

I'll go the other way and provide all comments from church leaders since the 70s that promote specific explanations of why the ban was put in place:

. . .

Yup. Have fun trolling.

[_maklelan]

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

No, it's obviously folklore. It's why the 1949 statement just obliquely refers to some mystery commandment somewhere that they never specify, and why they just vaguely suggest that some unknown events from the preexistence might be responsible for the ban.

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.

It is quite vague. It just broadly suggests something unknown might have taken place. It doesn't specify any kind of lack of valiance or anything.

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.

It does acknowledge that church leaders incorrectly speculated on the reasons for the ban. The only thing you want that it hasn't done is apologize, which is what this whole issue is really all about for this board. These guys really only want to be able to revel in seeing the church on its knees. Bott is just a means to an end in that regard.

[_maklelan]

Actually, they show a *lot* of speculation on all kinds of things related to the ban.

Can you show the church promoting any specific speculation on why the ban was instituted? Can you "cite text," Scratch?

Yup. Have fun trolling.

Zing!

[_Fence Sitter]

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?

Because the church official denounces them and has unilaterally done so for the last 30 years. Also, you don't believe they're correct, you're just playing off of a rather stupid anti-Mormon ideological construct.

Unless the Church has officially said why it occurred, then Bott is being thrown under the bus unjustly.

Is this a parody of a critic's argument? I find this line of argumentation difficult to take seriously. Officially saying that speculating on the reasons is wrong isn't enough? You demand that they provide reasons of their own or else any speculation on the reasons is valid? Do you all even listen to yourselves?

Mak,


You admit the Church has not offered an official explanation of why the ban has occurred do you not? Do you even listen to yourself? Believing members have been taught that the prophet speaks for God and yet when he is most needed to clear up confusion ,all we get is "we don't know and speculation is not allowed and we condemn it."

He is not being thrown under the bus it is being driven over him intentionally. He is being hung out to dry, he is the fall guy, he is left holding the bag.