Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctrine doesn't just vanish because the Brethren stop talking about it. You're trying to argue here that mere silence, or declarations of "We don't know" are enough to undo doctrine that was preached from the pulpit in General Conference, and that was put into practice in the form of actual Church policy.

I think that in some ways this is similar to what happened in the wake of the Manifesto. Publicly, the Church told everyone that polygamy had ceased, though of course, as we know, it was still going on behind the scenes, and gradually the FP began punishing people and forcing them to stop it. Perhaps something similar will happen with this current issue? Maybe the Powers-that-Be will continue to excoriate and browbeat the people who still believe the old doctrine until it finally goes away.

Even if that happens, it's unclear how or why you think silence or declarations of "we don't know" work to undo old doctrine--doctrine which was significantly grounded in scripture and prophetic authority to be preached from the pulpit of General Conference.

[_harmony]

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?

My point, obscure though it was, is clear: Prof Bott is a full professor of religion at BYU. He teaches this stuff every day. He passes his annual reviews. He is in good standing. The Brethren authorize him to teach RELIGION. Thus, it's not outside the realm of logic that HE KNOWS what the Brethren want him to teach. And he told the press what he KNOWS.

Unless you're saying the Brethren pay no attention to what BYU Religion professors teach?

[_harmony]

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.

It's called "repentence". Being "on it's knees" is part of the process. Surely you don't want the church/Brethren to remain condemned, do you?

[_Drifting]

What specifically did Bott say that hasn't been publicly proclaimed by LDS General Authorities?

[_Chap]

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.

I wonder why the church has not apologized (and, to judge from their current statements, never will) for having wrongly excluded black men and their families from the blessings of the priesthood in this life for so long? It does seems a strange way for a Christian organization to behave, doesn't it?

I think the point that posters on this board are making is not so much that they are anxious to see church leaders saying 'sorry' - it is obvious that they won't - but to make the point that their refusal to do so tells us is evidence that, for many reasonable people, tends to count against their claim to unique access to guidance from Jesus Christ.

[_Drifting]

I wonder why the church has not apologized (and, to judge from their current statements, never will) for having wrongly excluded black men and their families from the blessings of the priesthood in this life for so long? It does seems a strange way for a Christian organization to behave, doesn't it?

They are between a rock and a hard place.
If the Church acknowledges it was a wrong practice then they are, by implication, confirming that all the Prophets between Brigham Youn and SWK were racist and uninspired. On the basis that God would have informed them that they were abusing His people and leading the Church astray.

If the Church acknowledges it was a correct practice then they are, by implication, confirming that God discriminates between His people and has used skin colour/race/lineage as a means of punishment and identification of the offenders and their ancestors. In other words they would have to confirm that God was prepared to be racist and non compliant to the stated Articles of Faith.

So the Church is, quite literally, between the rock and the hard place by taking the GBH gambit of pleading ignorance on the subject.

[_Chap]

I wonder why the church has not apologized (and, to judge from their current statements, never will) for having wrongly excluded black men and their families from the blessings of the priesthood in this life for so long? It does seems a strange way for a Christian organization to behave, doesn't it?

I think the point that posters on this board are making is not so much that they are anxious to see church leaders saying 'sorry' - it is obvious that they won't - but to make the point that their refusal to do so tells us is evidence that, for many reasonable people, tends to count against their claim to unique access to guidance from Jesus Christ.

They are between a rock and a hard place.
If the Church acknowledges it was a wrong practice then they are, by implication, confirming that all the Prophets between Brigham Youn and SWK were racist and uninspired. On the basis that God would have informed them that they were abusing His people and leading the Church astray.

If the Church acknowledges it was a correct practice then they are, by implication, confirming that God discriminates between His people and has used skin colour/race/lineage as a means of punishment and identification of the offenders and their ancestors. In other words they would have to confirm that God was prepared to be racist and non compliant to the stated Articles of Faith.

So the Church is, quite literally, between the rock and the hard place by taking the GBH gambit of pleading ignorance on the subject.

Like I said - "their refusal to [apologize] is evidence that, for many reasonable people, tends to count against their claim to unique access to guidance from Jesus Christ."

You know, on this board I once drafted a possible church expression of apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre to which even DCP could find no major objection (I agreed that I could lose one expression that suggested that one might repent on behalf of someone else). I am sure I could imagine a document that would express fulsome regret for the priesthood ban in a way that did not give too many hostages to fortune, but still sounded really sincere and direct, and drew a firm line under it that even non-members would see as definitive, without throwing the claim to prophetic guidance under the bus.

But that would, of course, be ark-steadying, and in any case the Church has highly paid public relations people who could do that any time the First Presidency asked them to do. Unfortunately, the old men at the top just don't seem to have the prophetic courage to choose the right.

I am glad I am not a member of such a poorly led organization.

[_DrW]

Meanwhile, over on the MADBoard, the mods have closed the two threads related to this latest flare-up of the race issue, including the one started by DCP.

More significantly, they have stated that they will no longer allow what they term "race baiting" threads, and state that they will be re-writing the board guidelines so as not to allow "race baiting" (i.e. any negative comments or discussion regarding the position of the Mormon Church on race).

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57124-race-baiting/
_________________

ETA: Just saw that bcspace started a thread overnight regarding this race baiting ban over on MDD and that LDST has asked the mods for a definition. Will leave this post up anyway. Hope that bcspace and LDST do not mind.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57126-please-clarify-race-baiting/

[Guest]

The "we are not racist cuz we say we aren't racist, look at our scriptures and ignore 130 years of racist history" statements just make my head spin.

Oh, and ignore the race based missives on who to date in our latest manuals........... please.

[_Drifting]

It's good to know that this isn't racist...

We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally (official Church counsel on how to choose a marriage partner)