Popular BYU Randy Bott Takes Heat for Comments

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

How you can dismiss a FP statement as simply folklore is beyond me. This is why LDS apologetics is so bad. The tactic is simply to dismiss anything that is not comfortable from the past as unofficial, speculation, or folklore. Words mean something. It seems odd that the Church I grew up in that was so proud of having Prophets that speak to God and get his word directly now wants to back peddle and toss these Prophets on the trash pile of speculation, simple opinion and operating with limited light and knowledge. If that is the case what good are Prophets and apostles?


This was statement from the top leadership of the Church. It is a official as it gets. It cannot be classifies and simple opinion, speculation or folklore. And the statement about pre earth life is not vague. It may not spell out details but it does say in relation to the ban that the situations we are born into are a result of choices in the pre earth life. How is that vague.

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.

Hardly vague at all. Lacking some details I agree. But it make the point that choices in the pre earth life could have bearing on someone born into the race subject to the priesthood ban.

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.

But as I have shown it was more than speculation.

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 just want the Church to own up to what its Prophets, Seers and Revelators taught the people.

[_Drifting]

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.

How you can dismiss a FP statement as simply folklore is beyond me. This is why LDS apologetics is so bad. The tactic is simply to dismiss anything that is not comfortable from the past as unofficial, speculation, or folklore. Words mean something. It seems odd that the Church I grew up in that was so proud of having Prophets that speak to God and get his word directly now wants to back peddle and toss these Prophets on the trash pile of speculation, simple opinion and operating with limited light and knowledge. If that is the case what good are Prophets and apostles?


This was statement from the top leadership of the Church. It is a official as it gets. It cannot be classifies and simple opinion, speculation or folklore. And the statement about pre earth life is not vague. It may not spell out details but it does say in relation to the ban that the situations we are born into are a result of choices in the pre earth life. How is that vague.

By mak's standards the contents of today's Ensign Magazine and General Conference talks will end up as folklore once the contents become socially awkward to explain...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

How can the Church denounce Bott's reasons for the priesthood ban pre-1978 without also denouncing the pronouncements of Church leaders pre-1978 to explain the priesthood ban? I do not know of any instance where the Brethren have officially denounced the reasons for the priesthood ban given by a Church leader pre-1978. Why does Bott merit special treatment?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Rollo, let Mak hold his position. It is a terrible one.

If a man claims that god told him something specific and another claims god told him something opposite, and both claims cannot be true, it is easy to see one prophet or the other is lying, and thus not a prophet at all.

If the current set of prophets claim that god never told them any reasons for the ban, post 1978, and before that the set clearly and with detail told why then Mak needs to choose which set are the true prophets.

Official doctrine and consistency are red herrings. Inconsistency merely helps the anti-cause.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Official doctrine and consistency are red herrings. Inconsistency merely helps the anti-cause.

True enough.

[_Chap]

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/

That second thread has been closed too, with this note from Nemesis:

A good way to define it is as using racial topics in a manner to score polemical points and in a way of manipulating race topics for personal/political gain.

Nemesis

A previous poster had cited a dictionary definition of the term, which of course said nothing of the kind, and said it referred to harrassing people because of their race.

The new definition used on the aptly-named MAD board will obviously be applied to forbid any statement or question which calls into question the wisdom or propriety of the past behavior of the CoJCoLDS towards racial minorities.

They have already banned any discussion of the widom or propriety of the past behavior of prominent members of the CoJCoLDS towards women. That's the 'no sex threads' rule.

I wonder why they don't just put in a 'church-baiting' rule, saying that it is forbidden to call into question the wisdom or propriety of any aspect at all of the teachings, pronouncements, actions or non-actions of the CoJCoLDS or any of its leaders or members, in the past or in the present?

That way they would have a perfect board in which TBMs could participate freely and safely.

[_Drifting]

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/

That second thread has been closed too, with this note from Nemesis:

A good way to define it is as using racial topics in a manner to score polemical points and in a way of manipulating race topics for personal/political gain.

Nemesis

A previous poster had cited a dictionary definition of the term, which of course said nothing of the kind, and said it referred to harrassing people because of their race.

The new definition used on the aptly-named MAD board will obviously be applied to forbid any statement or question which calls into question the wisdom or propriety of the past behavior of the CoJCoLDS towards racial minorities.

They have already banned any discussion of the widom or propriety of the past behavior of prominent members of the CoJCoLDS towards women. That's the 'no sex threads' rule.

I wonder why they don't just put in a 'church-baiting' rule, saying that it is forbidden to call into question the wisdom or propriety of any aspect at all of the teachings, pronouncements, actions or non-actions of the CoJCoLDS or any of its leaders or members, in the past or in the present?

That way they would have a perfect board in which TBMs could participate freely and safely.

At current rates of moderation dvelopment, the MDD should be free and clear of all thread topics except for cookie making and homages to Church leaders by around May time.

[_maklelan]

Rollo, let Mak hold his position. It is a terrible one.

No, but your misrepresentation of my position is certainly terrible.

If a man claims that god told him something specific and another claims god told him something opposite, and both claims cannot be true, it is easy to see one prophet or the other is lying, and thus not a prophet at all.

If the current set of prophets claim that god never told them any reasons for the ban, post 1978, and before that the set clearly and with detail told why then Mak needs to choose which set are the true prophets.

Where has a prophet claimed that the reasons for the ban were specifically revealed to them through revelation? Please provide specific references or acknowledge that you're just inventing facts.

Official doctrine and consistency are red herrings. Inconsistency merely helps the anti-cause.

Of course, now we're again avoiding the question of Randy Bott's discussion of the ban so that you can beat the "I hate the church" drum.

[_maklelan]

How can the Church denounce Bott's reasons for the priesthood ban pre-1978 without also denouncing the pronouncements of Church leaders pre-1978 to explain the priesthood ban?

It can't. It very clearly and very explicitly is denouncing the attempts to explain the ban.

I do not know of any instance where the Brethren have officially denounced the reasons for the priesthood ban given by a Church leader pre-1978. Why does Bott merit special treatment?

Special treatment? Are you joking? When you have to extend this idiotic "it has to be official!" standard to the academic study of Mormon doctrine by BYU professors you just make a mockery of any claims to objective or rational thought on the part of critics. As an academic, Bott should very well know what the church has and has not taught over the last 30+ years, as well as what has been published consistently over that time period by BYU professors, other LDS scholars, and non-LDS scholars. It has all been the same thing. To assert the legitimacy of his regression to a position unilaterally denounced for 30+ years on the grounds that nothing "official" has taken place is just stupid. I can think of no other word for it.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Mak, I do hate the church, but that doesn't matter.

Look at the facts. "Prophets" made very specific assertions about the nature of the ban. There was great detail. They asserted, they did not speculate or offer an opinion. Where did their details come from? Well your choices are some kind of god or their own racist brains. I am rooting for their brains, are you rooting for god?