Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_maklelan]

Read the Church's statements again -- although they denounce Bott by name, they are carefully drafted NOT to denounce past prophets, seers and revelators.

Not by name, but they quite explicitly reject any past attempts to explain the origins of the ban, as well as any racism within or without the church.

C'mon, BYU puts this long tenured professor

BYU does not have tenure.

out to the public as having "expertise" in Church doctrine. Bott is not some rank-and-file member, and you know it.

So what? He's obviously also not that informed about the history of this particular issue, and BYU professors are quite explicitly required to point out that they do not speak for the church or even for BYU. Whether or not he had the dean's approval (another requirement) is unclear.

Again, you fail to see that Bott was NOT speaking to the Church's position for the past 30 years, but the Church's position during the previous 150 years.

Completely untrue. Nowhere does he qualify his comments as representing a position no longer held.

He was talking history, not present day. And the Church's "we don't know" position of the past 30 years does NOT change the historical positions held by the Church during the previous 150. It's as simple as that, my friend.

If you're going to patronize me, at least don't openly lie while you do it.

Again, let me try to be as simple as I can for you -- Bott was speaking of the historical reasons posited by Church leaders for 150 years for the priesthood ban -- he was NOT speaking of the Church's position during the most recent 30 years.

Prove it. Show me where Bott states that he's describing only the position prior to 1978.

[_maklelan]

In connection with your statement that "the second claim is demonstrably false" (i.e., that the ban began with Joseph Smith), would you agree, then, that the First Presidency led the Church astray when it stated in 1949 (emphasis mine):

I don't believe so. This was just one explanation for one ideology. The "lead the church astray" comment has to do with a lot more than accounting for a policy.

It is clear from this official statement that the priesthood ban was instituted by a direct commandment from God during the "days of [the Church's] organization [i.e., when Joseph was alive]."

Again, it is simply asserting that. It is far from established, and we know from the vast historical record that it is simply false. Even when Elijah Abel asked John Taylor to be allowed to go through the temple Taylor had to form a committee to see if there was a rule against it. The ban was slowly instituted over a long period of time that started well after Smith.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What was the doctrinal basis for the ban, Mak?

[_SteelHead]

The same answer as for the question: how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?


The world may never know.....

[_Yahoo Bot]

What was the doctrinal basis for the ban, Mak?

It was an attempt by Brigham Young to attract more southern votes for Utah statehood as a result of the Missouri compromise. A political, procedural compromise; not a doctrinal one. Since at the time holding priesthood in a reviled church was considered by 99% of Americans to be a curse, it probably seemed to be no big deal at the time. And, given the glacial pace change takes place in a religion governed by very old men, it took a while to unravel that procedure.

Just as Nathan told David it was acceptable for David to build the temple, and the the Lord corrected Nathan, so has there been a correction here.

[_maklelan]

What was the doctrinal basis for the ban, Mak?

I don't believe there was one. I've already pointed this out. In my opinion, it was an ad hoc policy decision that became embedded in the ideology over time and ultimately turned into a de facto doctrine that leaders figured had to have been determined by revelation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What was the doctrinal basis for the ban, Mak?

I don't believe there was one. I've already pointed this out. In my opinion, it was an ad hoc policy decision that became embedded in the ideology over time and ultimately turned into a de facto doctrine that leaders figured had to have been determined by revelation.

Oh, sorry: I wasn't asking what you believe. I was asking you what you think the past Church leaders' thought. Do you really think that they viewed this as nothing more than an "ad hoc policy decision"? I.e., that Brigham Young just pulled this out of thin air? Or did he think that there was a revelatory/scriptural basis for the ban?

[_Yahoo Bot]

[quote="Doctor Scratch"

Oh, sorry: I wasn't asking what you believe. I was asking you what you think the past Church leaders' thought. Do you really think that they viewed this as nothing more than an "ad hoc policy decision"? I.e., that Brigham Young just pulled this out of thin air? Or did he think that there was a revelatory/scriptural basis for the ban?[/quote]

Depends on who you asked. As one can tell from Eddie Kimball's biography of his father, some general authorities thought it doctrine and some thought it not. The reason there was confusion is that it was never hardened into a doctrinal statement, yet as we all know, Mormons are free to argue what is doctrine and what is not from the "inspired" utterances of the Brethren. Yet their inspiration is often clouded with opinion; one only need see that from Acts and the writings of Paul.

[_maklelan]

Oh, sorry: I wasn't asking what you believe. I was asking you what you think the past Church leaders' thought.

No you weren't. Your question was "What was the doctrinal basis for the ban, Mak?" You then state that you want to know "what you think the past leader's thought." I gave you both my thoughts on the ban and my thoughts on what the leaders thought. Move the goal posts some more, Scratch. It sure makes you seem more informed and objective.

Do you really think that they viewed this as nothing more than an "ad hoc policy decision"?

I already explained that I think they saw it as a doctrine that must have had a revelatory provenance. This is why that assumption is expressed in the 1949 statement. I've gone over this a number of times.

I.e., that Brigham Young just pulled this out of thin air? Or did he think that there was a revelatory/scriptural basis for the ban?

As I've also pointed out, it's not clear that it began with Brigham Young. John Taylor (he was president of the church after Brigham Young, by the way) had to form an exploratory committee to find out what they should do about Abel's request to go through the temple. I personally don't see any indication that Brigham Young felt there was a revelatory or scriptural basis for it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

And what did they believe the "revelatory provenance" was?