An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood

[cdowis]

Not surprising, Brother Bott fails to offer any scriptural support for this view.

He clearly felt it unnecessary. He was quoting himself which was more than sufficient.

[BCSpace]

Bcspace, your post quoted herein is fantastic! So not only is FAIR not the LDS Church spokes person, FAIR is presenting information that is in direct oppostion to Church Doctrine. Thanks for pointing this out.

FAIR has a lot of good and useful stuff. But buyer beware as official doctrine is defined by the Church as official publication which FAIR is not but lds.org is. There is going to be much opinion at the FAIR site but I think FAIR generally does a good job making those who are familiar with it's site that this is so.

I think it behooves as all to point out when our hypothesis diverge from official doctrine or to note when such is not official doctrine. For example, my own "Evolution squares with official LDS doctrine" hypothesis. It is not doctrine though I argue that it does not conflict with such. Or the fact that I don't accept a global Flood. I freely admit I am going against official LDS doctrine on that matter.

Edited February 29, 2012 by BCSpace

[Buckeye]

...

So, for this post, I have the following hypothesis as a few possible reasons why the ban was allowed to continue, if not required by God (I do not reject patent racism as a reason, but I am of the opinion that we just don’t know):

...

Thank you Freedom for showing once more why the church needs to speak up. Your views are well-intentioned and thought out, though of course not guaranteed to be correct. I feel no need to disect them. The point is that, for you - as for me, Brother Bott, and so many others - "we don't know" is simply not enough.

[frankenstein]

I can't believe I have to explain this, but since we're being charitable ...

The thrust of Brother Bott's view is that priesthood bans (whether racial, sexist, age-related, whatever) are really a blessing to those who are banned because outer darkness requires that one first have priesthood authority - and then of course they must deny the Holy Ghost. By keeping people from the priesthood in this life, we prevent the possibility of their eternal suffering. But since people were so insistent that blacks be allowed the option for outer darkness, God relented and gave them that possibility in 1978.

Not surprising, Brother Bott fails to offer any scriptural support for this view. Perhaps that's because it is essentially the same view Lucifer put forth in the pre-existence. I know that sounds brash, but hear me out. A fundamental, unbreakable principle of the gospel is agency. We are here to be tested and tried. To risk everything, not merely slip through mortality unscathed. Whatever the reason for the priesthood ban, it surely cannot be that God wanted to deny anyone their agency. Under that same logic, it would be foolish for me to ordain my 12-year old son. In fact, I probably should have shot him dead before he turned 8, thereby ensuring his eternal salvation.

The idea that denying someone agency is for their own good is 100% total bunk. We all rejected that view in our first estate. We better continue to reject it here in the second estate as well.

Thank you for the charity, but you loose focus and derail yourself from the purpose of the analogy when you go into the agency discussion.

The SOP analogy, is an attempt to put a positive light on the ban. And it appears from Bolt blog and the experience therein that the analogy did help the investigator see a positive aspect to the ban.

I suspect too many people are going out of there way to conjure offense to Bolts statements.

Edited February 29, 2012 by frankenstein

[David T]

It's difficult for me to accept that some members are far more comfortable with defending the idea that God has been racist throughout the ages than that his prophets throughout the ages were allowed to make understandable human misjudgments not in line with God's actual will.

[David T]

*waits for the "God isn't racist! I just believe He discriminates for an unknown reason based on family lineage which is not the same as race at all!" argument *

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[frankenstein]

what is also interesting about FAIR deliberate contradiction of the the LDS Church regarding the Levites as an example of God restricting some peoples and not others, is that FAIR does not even address the myth they conjured up.

By way of example the restriction placed on all tribes but the Levites demonstrate clearly and undeniably that God does restrict some peoples and not others.

[BCSpace]

The problem with the FAIR Blog article is that it spends all it's time trying to tell us what are bad explainations for the ban and no time telling us what is a good explaination for the ban.

Myth #1 is misstated because it forgets that Abraham 1 refers to the ban as a curse.

Myth #2 is indeed a myth.

Myth #3 is part of the Church's explaination.

The FAIR Blog article does more of a disservice to the Church and is a much more flawed aplogetic than Bott's statements whose greatest flaw seems to be the use of a politically incorrect word and speculation rather than being in direct conflict with the Church.

Edited February 29, 2012 by BCSpace

[David T]

By way of example the restriction placed on all tribes but the Levites demonstrate clearly and undeniably that God does restrict some peoples and not others.

There's a HUGE WORLD OF difference between "One family has responsibility to run the Temple" in the context of a multi-thousand-year-old small, one-US-state-sized Theocracy where everyone else isn't given a responsibility, yet all benefit from it, and "Everybody but black africans can preach the gospel and recieve all that Jesus offered to the world and the things we teach are essential to salvation' in a worldwide Church.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Buckeye]

Thank you for the charity, but you loose focus and derail yourself from the purpose of the analogy when you go into the agency discussion.

The SOP analogy, is an attempt to put a positive light on the ban. And it appears from Bolt blog and the experience therein that the analogy did help the investigator see a positive aspect to the ban.

I suspect too many people are going out of there way to conjure offense to Bolts statements.

Bott was not providing an analogy. He was providing an explanation. And the explanation was that denying priesthood was done for the person's own good because only priesthood holders can abuse priesthood and thereby merit outer darkness (a point, btw, that is also wrong). The fact that Bott spins this doctrine in a "positive light" is the very problem. The doctine is pernicious. It is evil. Denying agency is never the way to salvation.

[BCSpace]

*waits for the "God isn't racist! I just believe He discriminates for an unknown reason based on family lineage which is not the same as race at all!" argument *

Lineage is not skin color. It transcends ethnicity. So.......???????

[David T]

Lineage is not skin color. It transcends ethnicity. So.......???????

RACE ISN'T SKIN COLOR.

RACE = ROOTS/LINEAGE.

Still used, for example, with Spanish for root: "raiz", Spanish for ethnic race: "raiz"

If you are discriminating by lineage, you are discriminating by race. If your lineagist, you're racist.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[frankenstein]

Bott was not providing an analogy. He was providing an explanation. And the explanation was that denying priesthood was done for the person's own good because only priesthood holders can abuse priesthood and thereby merit outer darkness (a point, btw, that is also wrong). The fact that Bott spins this doctrine in a "positive light" is the very problem. The doctine is pernicious. It is evil. Denying agency is never the way to salvation.

yes, I made a misfortunate choice of words, it was an explanation of the benefit of the ban. It is was not offered as a reason for the ban. You still derail yourself and loose focus on the explanation by taking the explanation further than it is intended.

[Darth_Bill]

If it was lineage, then there needed to be a clear and distinct lineage noted. Was any black person asked to trace his lineage back to a particular person that caused this curse or was the fact he had black skin the main criteria? Without asking for genealogy, the lineage kind of falls flat.

[cinepro]

Not surprising, Brother Bott fails to offer any scriptural support for this view.

In case you missed it, Bott does use Alma 29:8 as support that God does do things differently for different people as he "seeth fit":

8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

[LeSellers]

Was any black person asked to trace his lineage back to a particular person that caused this curse or was the fact he had black skin the main criteria?

It wasn't black skin, that's fer shure.

When I attended the California State University at Chico (yeah, I know), the institute director was a white South African (from the Union of South Africa, back then). He was denied the Priesthood as a child (born into an LDS family), he could not trace his lineage out of Africa (to use a nicely turned phrase) and so, white as he was, could not hold the Priesthood. Sometime in the mid-80s, before I got to Chico, he finally located that great-grandmother, a little Dutch girl, whose line, because unknown, had kept him from being a deacon.

As he told the story, the young men would sit with the Elders (missionaries) on the front pew, but sit there without moving while they administered the Sacrament to the congregation. I do not remember if he ever told me/us what happened in 1978, or even if he was still in SA at the time. However, I do recall that he said when he was ordained as an elder in his late twenties, it was as exciting a day as he could have wanted.

Lehi

Edited February 29, 2012 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

If it was lineage, then there needed to be a clear and distinct lineage noted. Was any black person asked to trace his lineage back to a particular person that caused this curse or was the fact he had black skin the main criteria? Without asking for genealogy, the lineage kind of falls flat.

Armand Mauss notes:

First, there was the gradual constriction of the scope of the ban within the Church, a casting of the net less broadly, as it were. Whole categories of people were moved out from under the ban, as in the South Pacific. The burden of proof in the case of dubious lineage was shifted from the questionable family or individual to the priesthood leaders and the Church, not only in North American but also in South Africa and even in the hopelessly mixed countries of Latin America. A certain looseness at the boundaries of the ban was also apparent in the decentralization and delegation of the decision-making about priesthood eligibility, at first partially and then (by February 1978) totally. Another way of seeing this trend would be to say that by the time Spencer W. Kimball became president, there were far more categories and situations among mankind eligible for the priesthood than had been the case when David O. McKay had assumed the presidency.

Then there is this "lineage lesson" that was used by missionaries in Brazil.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cinepro

[juliann]

There's a HUGE WORLD OF difference between "One family has responsibility to run the Temple" in the context of a multi-thousand-year-old small, one-US-state-sized Theocracy where everyone else isn't given a responsibility, yet all benefit from it, and "Everybody but black africans can preach the gospel and recieve all that Jesus offered to the world and the things we teach are essential to salvation' in a worldwide Church.

Not to mention that this happened in a completely different time and circumstance. To make this analogy work at all there would have had to have been a curse placed on the non-Levites...as well as rules they couldn't even enter the temple during their lifetimes. This is such a stretched comparison it strains credulity which is the reason it so incredibly lame. I say that as someone who used this one upon a time.

[David T]

Official Church Statement:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Buckeye]

Interestingly, the Bott blog has been taken down (at least the one linked to in post #3).

[zerinus]

Late last night -- or early this morning -- I posted a hasty little item on the firestorm surrounding a BYU professor's alleged remarks to the Washington Post:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/

I say "alleged" because it seems that he's now explaining that his remarks were taken out of context.

I allowed for that possibility in my blog entry. As I said there, I've had enough experience with media interviews to know that the final article often -- routinely? -- distorts or misrepresents what one has said. In this particular case, the professor's claim may or may not be true; I wasn't there, and have no way of finding out. But I can say from abundant personal experience that it's entirely plausible.

Specifically, I've sometimes found remarks that I made about Subject A transformed in the published version of my interview into remarks about Subject B, something entirely separate. This is, apparently, what this unfortunate BYU professor alleges to have occurred in his case.

Thank you Daniel for drawing attention to that. He appears to be a nice guy who doesn't know how to talk to the press, and probably shouldn't attempt it very often.

I would, however, like to comment on something else you said in your blog: "by the way, there are no 'BYU theologians'; there are essentially no Mormon theologians period ..." I consider myself a theologian, and I am a Mormon! I know of at least one other theologian in the LDS Church apart from myself, and that is Joseph Smith! He wrote a series of lectures which were originally called "lectures on theology," but subsequently changed to Lectures on Faith. In those lectures he actually proceeds to define the meaning of "theology," quoting from a non-LDS theological dictionary. Theology is not incompatible with Mormonism; and any Mormon worthy of the name who takes a genuine interest in the revealed truths, scriptures, and teachings of his Church is also a theologian. That may even include you!

P.S. I just recalled the name of another Mormon theologian: Parley P. Pratt. He wrote a book called Key to the Science of Theology. That makes at least three theologians in Mormonism. If it is true that "by the testimony of two or three witness all things shall be established," then three Mormon theologians definitely make your statement false!

Edited February 29, 2012 by zerinus

[cinepro]

Official Church Statement:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

Wow. I'm glad that Brother Bott is qualified to teach thousands of LDS students each year about the Church, but he isn't qualified to talk to a reporter for five minutes.

Randy Bott:

Courses Taught: Sharing the Gospel, Doctrine and Covenants

Areas of Expertise: Doctrine of the Church, missionary preparation, application of doctrine to life; Joseph Smith's writings

Areas of Research: Scriptural application; Interdisciplinary healing of the whole man; Doctrines of the Gospel.

The next time a newspaper wants to get some information on the doctrine of the LDS Church, I hope they'll think twice before going to a respected professor of religion at the Church's university who teaches courses on the "Doctrine and Covenants" of the Church and who is listed as an expert in the "Doctrine of the Church" and has researched the "Doctrines of the Gospel."

Next time I hope they'll instead go to someone who studied Public Affairs.

In reading the Church's hot-potato press release, the only thing I could think of is that this has to be a very, very bad day for Brother Bott.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cinepro

[juliann]

It is not known precisely why, . . this restriction began

And there we have it. The church is not supporting the dogmatic God did it position.

[David T]

See also: The Church and Race: All Are Alike Unto God

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

-

I LOVE that nowhere does it say, "We don't know why God did it" - it is now we don't know why it happened, period. There is not even any attempt to defend it. This is actually significant progress. Although I still look forward the day where it can be said, "This was probably a mistake", for today, this is fantastic.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

Interestingly, the Bott blog has been taken down (at least the one linked to in post #3).

Presto!