Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Blixa]

You should go see his blog. I started to muddle through one of his books...................

I made that mistake.

The anti-Obama bumper sticker? Straight up racist.

Unbelievable.

[_just me]

You should go see his blog. I started to muddle through one of his books...................

I made that mistake.

The anti-Obama bumper sticker? Straight up racist.

Unbelievable.

Like what....does the bumper sticker look like?

[_maklelan]

Where exactly are the passages in this article that show "'numerous church [sic] leaders' who campaigned"?

Again with the "[sic]." Why?

There is nothing like that in the piece. The word "campaign" suggests that these "church leaders" (and who are we talking about here? The Brethren? Bishops? Minnesota sociologists?) were actively and openly and aggressively lobbying for policy and/or doctrine change, and your article describes nothing of the sort. It shows the Brethren being indecisive and unclear on how to interpret the doctrine/policy. But "campaigning"? I think not.

The materials I've read all suggest that Elder Hugh B. Brown was the foremost opponent of the policy, but this article essentially says that his suggestions were pooh-poohed away. From pg. 21:

Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay from 1961 to 1970,
appears to have been the leader most open to change. He urged that the
priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administra-
tive policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the
restriction had not come by revelation,33 it could be vacated without revela-
tion. But despite his strongly held views and powerful influence, President
Brown’s position did not then prevail.34

(emphasis mine)

The text later explains he convinced most of the twelve apostles to back him, but that Lee shot him down. Elder Hanks was another GA who worked to convince other leaders the ban could be dropped. I consider that to be campaigning, irrespective of the outcome. Do you disagree? The text also states that David O. McKay formed a committee to track down the source of the ban and began making changes to the policy once it was determined there was no scriptural basis for it. Several patriarchal blessings are described which promised the priesthood to black members. There are other local authorities who did even more campaigning who aren't discussed in this particular article.

Later, the piece describes academic-types who scoured old documents, trying to find some doctrinal "out," but again, I would hardly describe this as campaigning, especially given a passage like this, from pg. 28:

But others thought it presumptuous for members to do anything
but wait patiently and faithfully defend the Church’s position. Spencer
Kimball, to whom loyalty was an article of faith, placed himself in this
latter group.

What do the opinions of other members have to do with whether or not the active efforts of other leaders and academics constitutes campaigning?

So, where exactly are the passages showing ""numerous church leaders" who campaigned for the ban to be lifted in the 60s and 70s."?

You've already highlighted some of them, but there are a lot more local authorities who are not mentioned in this article.

[_maklelan]

I like how you "qualified" the prophets and apostles. Not a definitive statement of personal belief in them as prophet seers and revelators, but that they believed themselves as such.

Since I am addressing the claim that they are cowards, I am pointing to their personal beliefs. Cowardice is a personal issue, not a question of sustaining. It has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs concerning their office. You're working way to hard to read your own prejudices into my comments.

[_Chap]

Like what....does the bumper sticker look like?

You don't want to go there. The man who posted it is a very nasty piece of work.

[_Blixa]

Like what....does the bumper sticker look like?

The slogan is: "Sorry I'm late I had to drop Obama off at the oval office."

It is accompanied by a cartoon of a black toilet with a black figure in it.

The post ends with this garbled comment: "You can put a fece in the oval office, but it's still a fece."

[_maklelan]

My statement was in response to the argument that the Brethren really wanted to change the policy but didn't because there was opposition in the South to reversing the priesthood ban.

Who made that claim? I certainly didn't. The leadership was reluctant because they believed it was divinely inspired and thus required a revelation to overturn. The fact that the common support of the ban was concentrated in the southern states has nothing to do with the leadership's reluctance.

If that was the case, yes, they were cowards. If there really was no revelation and God had nothing to do with the ban, and it was based only on the "speculations" of racist individuals (as, apparently, the church is now claiming through its newsroom today), then the so-called leaders of the church of Jesus Christ were cowards. If they had been brave, they would have said "hey, the Jesus we all know and love and worship couldn't possibly support this crazy priesthood ban based on race. Let's change it. If we are wrong, God will understand, or He can give us a revelation and explain why we should keep it in place." Pretty simple, really. If the people leading the church today weren't cowards and bigots, they could do the same with respect to marriage equality. Instead, they advance their own prejudices and pretend it is God's will (without ever citing any specific revelation so they can maintain plausible deniability).

You don't seem to take seriously their conviction that they are responsible to seek and implement the will of God.

[_SteelHead]

While cowardice is a personal issue, how does it then relate to their believing themselves as prophets?

A man may believe himself many things but still demonstrate cowardice in deed. It took the better part of 30 years for the 15 to become unanimous on this topic. Does that not indicate that many of them were too cowardly to really examine the roots of their personal bias and seek true communion with god? Why can some of them come to the revelatory conclusion that the practice needed to be abandoned, but the implementation of such waited on the death of the hold outs? Can god not give the same revelation to the 15 at the same time?

Belief does not always translate into action, especially when such action would be viewed "unpopular" by many. Strong conviction does not necessarily signify courage.

[_maklelan]

While cowardice is a personal issue, how does it then relate to their believing themselves as prophets?

A man may believe himself many things but still demonstrate cowardice in deed. It took the better part of 30 years for the 15 to become unanimous on this topic. Does that not indicate that many of them were too cowardly to really examine the roots of their personal bias and seek true communion with god? Why can some of them come to the revelatory conclusion that the practice needed to be abandoned, but the implementation of such waited on the death of the hold outs?

They had different personal opinions about the origins and nature of the ban.

Can god not give the same revelation to the 15 at the same time?

Yes, and he did in 1978.

Belief does not always translate into action, especially when such action would be viewed "unpopular" by many. Strong conviction does not necessarily signify courage.

So you're just unilaterally making assumptions about their motivations now?

[_SteelHead]

What does it say about the process, and the bias of men when it takes the omnipotent "God" 30 years to convey the same idea to the 15 of his special witnesses?

I will unilaterally assume that it means that either god is fairly impotent, or that some men are too cowardly to overcome their own bias. Yes, I will own that statement.