MsJack wrote:Now he'll always be remembered for this, instead of decades of loving and kind service to thousands of students. All because he said some things to the press that were either in the manual for one of the courses he teaches (the Ham stuff) or very common sentiments in LDS thought (the infantilizing stuff).
Very, very sad.
What is very sad is the hay the Church made of it. Not to mention the petition campaign that some BYU students began. What he said in the press would not have mattered if the bad publicity did not exist. Also, BYU professors should know better than to speak for the LDS church.
Edited for accuracy.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
why me wrote:What is very sad is the hay antimormons made of it. Not to mention the petition campaign that some BYU students began. What he said in the press would not have mattered if the bad publicity did not exist. Also, BYU professors should know better than to speak for the LDS church.
Yes. The problem is that people made a big deal out of comparing african americans to children. If everyone just took comments like that in stride, everything would be fine.
consiglieri wrote:He didn't speak for the LDS church.
Tell that to the washington post. People who read the article did not separate the two.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Stormy Waters wrote: Yes. The problem is that people made a big deal out of comparing african americans to children. If everyone just took comments like that in stride, everything would be fine.
No church can operate well if professors become spokespeople for their church. Catholic professors who work at catholic universities know the deal too. If any go to the press making comments about catholic doctrine and papers pick up on it as if they are speaking for the catholic church, a problem will come. Or if they give an interview as if they are speaking for church doctrine, a problem will come. There must be a clarification that they are giving their own opinions and are not representing the church. Did the washington post article make that clarification? I don't know.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
consiglieri wrote:He didn't speak for the LDS church.
Tell that to the washington post. People who read the article did not separate the two.
I agree that what Bott said was incredibly stupid and most people in the country would not distinguish between what he said and what the Church believes. However, I don't think Bott is the only one they could have found to take a position like this. I've seen Mormons on this board express the same types of views.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Stormy Waters wrote: Yes. The problem is that people made a big deal out of comparing african americans to children. If everyone just took comments like that in stride, everything would be fine.
No church can operate well if professors become spokespeople for their church. Catholic professors who work at catholic universities know the deal too. If any go to the press making comments about catholic doctrine and papers pick up on it as if they are speaking for the catholic church, a problem will come. Or if they give an interview as if they are speaking for church doctrine, a problem will come. There must be a clarification that they are giving their own opinions and are not representing the church. Did the washington post article make that clarification? I don't know.
True. From the article:
More than three decades later, the church says it still doesn’t know where the ban came from.
“Though the origins of the priesthood restriction are unclear, it was understood that a change would require revelation,” said church spokesman Michael Purdy, who called the lifting of the ban “a day of great rejoicing” that led to “robust growth in Africa and racially diverse areas of the United States and Latin America.”
But the church will not say whether the revelation was necessary to lift the ban or to give the policy reversal the force of absolute authority.
When "the church" refuses to answer basic questions, the press goes to professors of doctrine who teach at a church university. Why wouldn't they? And then the church complains that it wasn't given a chance to give its side. Total BS! Purdy was quoted in the article. If Monson wanted to refute, on the record, anything Bott was saying--or better yet, simply speak on the issue so the media wouldn't go to someone like Bott--he could do so. It's Monson's fault that Bott was interviewed and quoted. And it's Monson's abdication of his responsibility that led to Bott getting his tit in a ringer. And, as has been pointed out numerous times, Bott didn't say anything that wasn't true in describing what many Mormons believed (because the prophets explained it to them that way) was the reason for the ban.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
consiglieri wrote:He didn't speak for the LDS church.
Tell that to the washington post. People who read the article did not separate the two.
Only simpletons reading that article would think Bott was speaking for the church. The article also quoted from a number of other members, including from faithful African-American members and church spokesperson Michael Purdy. The idea that this was some sort of hatchet job is completely absurd. It was a balanced article that could have been way, way harder on the church and on Romney. That the overly sensitive PR dept. went ballistic on Bott is outrageous, and the blame for the PR fiasco that ensued lies squarely on the shoulders of President Newsroom.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:Only simpletons reading that article would think Bott was speaking for the church. The article also quoted from a number of other members, including from faithful African-American members and church spokesperson Michael Purdy. The idea that this was some sort of hatchet job is completely absurd. It was a balanced article that could have been way, way harder on the church and on Romney. That the overly sensitive PR dept. went ballistic on Bott is outrageous, and the blame for the PR fiasco that ensued lies squarely on the shoulders of President Newsroom.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." - Homer Simpson
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom