Byu Universe - Bott And The Washington Post

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah. Right. The problem that the Church and others have had with the statement ascribed to Professor Bott is that he was "completely honest and accurate." Folks like me, who have never ever been out of Utah -- though I did once see a map of Nevada -- despise anybody who is "honest and forthright."

I posted two blog posts during this past week (they're now on my blog's second page) denouncing him and, as I really love to do whenever I can, throwing him under the bus for his honest and accurate forthrightness:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/

[Duncan]

wasn't there a 1949 statement by the First Pres. about Blacks as I recall?

[Loran Blood]

I can't imagine what Bro. Bott must be going through. Given the number of people I'm seeing online who say pretty much the same things, I think he is being scapegoated. But I don't think he is helping himself by continuing to blame the reporter. I read his blog before it was taken down ( and I know of two people who were clever enough to get snapshots). There was enough on it to make it clear that he wasn't being that misquoted. I think it very likely that the reporter did shop for the most salacious interview but that still doesn't excuse Bott. He should be in hot water for his blog alone. At the very least he should admit it.

At best, he is in a position to do some public repentence that could provide a good model for those that harbor the same racism.

I see. Racism is the sins of all sins that requires not only private, but public penance. Which is the more egregious, adultery or the attitude of racism and its associated beliefs? should we require public penance for adultery? How about homosexuality? How about premarital sex? How about pornography addiction?

What would you think appropriate for harboring the attitudes and beliefs of the racist? How also, would you apply it to, say, Spike Lee or Derrick Bell?

[frankenstein]

wasn't there a 1949 statement by the First Pres. about Blacks as I recall?

Yes, there was. There was also a 1969 statement

Each statement claims that the ban is doctrine or rather has it beginnings with God. Neither statement refers to fence sitters or similar references. The 1949 statement does refer to premortal life and that coming to earth knowing one would not receive the priesthood was a condition accepted.

There is NO evidence that the recent press releases of the LDS Church rescinded the 1949 or 1969 First Presidency statements. Rather the evidence suggests that those First Presidency Statements (which many consider Doctrine) remain as the Official recent release states that it is not "known precisely" concern the ban. Not having a "precise" knowledge indicates some knowledge. Also one of the recent press release referred to "some" explanations and marked those as "personal opinions".

The recent press releases renounced racism.

President McKay is quoted in the 1969 letter as such:

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

That at some time a Apostle who later became Prophet claim the ban may have been a mistake is simple a personal opinion to which the Church is not bound. A random statement by an Apostle does not establish the Official position of the LDS Church, but rather represents that individuals personal opinion

Additionally, Bruce R McConkie speaking at symposium also does not establish the position of the Church. Those who attempt to dismiss the 1949 and 1969 statements with BRM personal opinion are intentionally using smoke and mirrors.

Edited March 4, 2012 by frankenstein

[cinepro]

Are there Official statements from the Church or statements from First Presidentcies from which Bott could have formed some of his opinion.

The Church did not renounce ALL explanations offered for the ban, the only SOME of the explanations particularly the racist explanations and those explanations which are the givers personal opinion.

The Washington Post article was the first time in my life I have ever heard anyone theorize that particular reason for the Priesthood Ban. I don't know where it came from, but it may be a wholly original idea to Brother Bott (based on his reading of Alma 29:8?)

[frankenstein]

The Washington Post article was the first time in my life I have ever heard anyone theorize that particular reason for the Priesthood Ban. I don't know where it came from, but it may be a wholly original idea to Brother Bott (based on his reading of Alma 29:8?)

I believe he thought he was shedding a positive light on the issue, his theory is unfortunate. Neither the 1949 or 1969 statement, in my opinion, could lead to a theory such as he set forth.

[Bob Oliverio]

Yeah. Right. The problem that the Church and others have had with the statement ascribed to Professor Bott is that he was "completely honest and accurate." Folks like me, who have never ever been out of Utah -- though I did once see a map of Nevada -- despise anybody who is "honest and forthright."

I posted two blog posts during this past week (they're now on my blog's second page) denouncing him and, as I really love to do whenever I can, throwing him under the bus for his honest and accurate forthrightness

Mr Peterson,

I'm not sure I understand your response but be assured I was not speaking to anyone specific with my last response other than our Church leaders in general, past and present.  And I would have no idea about your blog articles and what, if any, impact they may or may not have had on this whole issue about Prof. Bott.  I've simply not seen them referred to in any press we get here in Atlanta nor on the web.  I suspect they are very well written and recognized in whatever markets they may be received or recognized.  

And I do not want to infer that EVERYONE in Utah is naive to the African American culture.  But I do suspect most are, particularly places like Provo where the only exposure to the black culture is through the BYU athletic teams.  Fair?

But do you believe that anything Prof Bott said in his article is without factual support?  And do you believe the Church's response was to Bott and his article was to distance itself from truthful statements about it's past?  I certainly do and it's embarrassing for me.

[frankenstein]

Bob I suggested you read the Official statements from 1949, 1969, and 1978. Those statements establish the Official position of the LDS Church. Bott's theory is not factually supported by the Official position of the Church.

Yes lds authorities made comments, but those comments did not reflect the Official position of the Lds Church. Bott has a seemingly feel good theory and that is all it is.

What the LDS do know from the Official Statements is that restriction/ban has its origins from God, and the Church has not stepped away from that position.

The church has said it does not know. Do not misrepresent that if you want to stay on this board.

[Calm]

places like Provo where the only exposure to the black culture is through the BYU athletic teams.

You seriously think the only "black culture" that exists in Provo is due to the presence of blacks on the BYU teams?

[frankenstein]

The church has said it does not know. Do not misrepresent that if you want to stay on this board.

It is a good thing then that I have not misrepresented the Church position. So I take that the warning applies to all, but as I have not misrepresented the Church, I will do my best to ensure others do not misrepresent the Church.

" It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended." (emphasis added)

Question: not known? or not known precisely? which is the misrepresentation or do both mean the same thing?

And

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations [not all explanations only 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 [some explanations mentioned in the previous sentence] previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.” (emphasis added)

Question:

What explanations do represent Church doctrine?

What affect does the recent Church statement have on the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency letters?

The 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement, taken from en.fairmormon.org

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ...

The 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency. Also taken from en.fairmormon.org?

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

Has the Church leadership renounced these First Presidency statements?

If the Church has renounced the First Presidency statements from 1949 and 1969, I was not aware of such a renouncing. I am only aware that the Church has renounce or has stated that personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.

I will not misrepresent the position of the Church.

Edited March 4, 2012 by frankenstein

[thesometimesaint]

is the 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Is the 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Has the Church leadership renounced those statements? Why should the Church renounce the personal statements of something it doesn't believe?

[frankenstein]

is the 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Is the 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Has the Church leadership renounced those statements? Why should the Church renounce the personal statements of something it doesn't believe?

CFR.

What makes the First Presidency statement personal statements? And does this mean ALL First Presidency statements are personal statement which do not represent Church doctrine; further which the membership of the Church can ignore as statements of men and not of Prophets?

Also, the Church only renounced "SOME" explanations and not ALL explanations, unless now "some" means "all".

Edited March 4, 2012 by frankenstein

[thesometimesaint]

frnakenstein:

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel TOGETHER to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

Edited March 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[frankenstein]

frnakenstein:

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel TOGETHER to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

Ok so any letter or statement from the First Presidency which does not contain the signatures of the 12 Apostles is a personal statement? Am I understanding you correctly?

By way of reference is the letter from the First Presidency Letter: Strengthening Families a personal statement and devoid of Doctrine because there is no indication that the 12 Apostle signed off on the letter. As your emphasis is that non-personal statements which represent Church doctrine, MUST have both the FP and 12 Apostles approval. Perhaps we should discuss this in the "Doctrine" thread

[frankenstein]

Tss please see my response in the "What is considered "Official" Doctrine" thread.

Edited March 4, 2012 by frankenstein

[Analytics]

frnakenstein:

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel TOGETHER to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Emphasis mine.

is the 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Is the 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency a personal statement? Yes

Has the Church leadership renounced those statements? Why should the Church renounce the personal statements of something it doesn't believe?

With all due respect, you are seriously reaching here.

You took the Newsroom statement on official doctrine out of context. The full context is:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Bold added for emphasis).

The 1969 statement begins with the following:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church....

Why don't you think the 1969 statement constitutes official doctrine? The first presidency and the twelve counseled together. An official declaration was issued.

[Buzzard]

I know this is not a popular position on this board, but I think that Elder McKoncies statement that:

"And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." Kind of settles things.

If the 1949 or 1969 statements were official church doctrine, so what? A "new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject" has come forth, and since it is in the Standard Works, we sure know the 1978 statement is absolutly official doctrine.

[Bill Hamblin]

Word is that Randy Bott's wife has been called to be the Mission President of the Congo.

[Avatar4321]

Poor Brother Bott. It's a shame to see such a great teacher going through this.

[Bob Crockett]

It seems to me that the good brother Bott is just a product of the Religion Department. As much as I loved BYU and some of the religion teachers there, I thought that many of the religion teachers there were just undisciplined yokels with no particular credentials to be teaching at the university level. My pre-missionary Book of Mormon class was taught by a recently released mission president (those were his credentials) who really had no business teaching in a university. I learned nothing and had no interest in the Book of Mormon before I left and he was a reason. He taught sitting at his desk reading from the manual.

On the other hand, Monte Nyman, Keith Perkins, Eldin Ricks were so wonderful. I get the impression there isn't a lot of peer oversight, since it really isn't a real department. If I had my recommendations, it would be that you'd have to have a doctorate (or, as in the case of other universities, doctoral candidates) to teach in the department or BYU should use PhDs from other disciplines in the university, such as the math professor teaching an obligatory once-a-year religion class.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

I know this is not a popular position on this board, but I think that Elder McKoncies statement that:

"And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." Kind of settles things.

If the 1949 or 1969 statements were official church doctrine, so what? A "new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject" has come forth, and since it is in the Standard Works, we sure know the 1978 statement is absolutly official doctrine.

As I have to point out every time McConkie's statement is brought up, he only asked us to forget those things that were contradictory to Official Declaration 2. Since OD2 doesn't mention anything having to do with the reasoning for the ban, none of those teachings, including Brother Bott's, "contradict" the revelation and therefore don't fall under Elder McConkie's dismissal.

It would have been much better if OD2 had addressed the theories about the cause for the ban, or Elder McConkie had broadened the scope of his comment. But neither did.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

For some odd reason I just don't find the 1949 and 1969 declarations in my D&C. Will you point them out to me where I can find them there?

[frankenstein]

Analytics:

For some odd reason I just don't find the 1949 and 1969 declarations in my D&C. Will you point them out to me where I can find them there?

Presumably, in making you claim that the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency letters are personal statements, you are relying on the recent press release that the Church is not bound to personal statements? Is this correct? Based on your reasoning, given that the press release is not found in the Doctrine and Covenants, no one, not even the Church is bound by the press release.

[KevinG]

Presumably, in making you claim that the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency letters are personal statements, you are relying on the recent press release that the Church is not bound to personal statements? Is this correct? Based on your reasoning, given that the press release is not found in the Doctrine and Covenants, no one, not even the Church is bound by the press release.

I am bound by my honor and my sense of decency towards my fellow human beings. My soul rejoices in the maturing the church has gone through since 1978 and the clarification the Apostles and Prophets have made in 2012 due to recent events.

I don't need to be bound by particular chery picked historical statements to follow the Holy Ghost and the instructions of the living brethren.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

For some odd reason I just don't find the 1949 and 1969 declarations in my D&C. Will you point them out to me where I can find them there?

You really believe that in the entire history of the church, there have only been two official declarations or proclamations? That every official declaration or proclamation the church makes is canonized in the D&C? That the Newsroom was being redundant when it said official doctrine is found in the D&C and in official declarations and proclamations?