Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:55AM

http://trevorantley.com/2012/02/28/byu-professor-randy-botts-allegedly-racist-statements-students-plan-protest/

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/BYU-Professor-makes-controversial-statements/viRppZCGfEyX4U9RI5aYXw.cspx

"the Washington Post reports Bott to have stated the following:

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, argues Bott, the BYU theologian. … Bott compares blacks to a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood. … Bott argues that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: onendagus ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:17PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: amos2 ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:33PM

...and IGNORE that ALL of the LDS "modern scriptures" contain racist verses and themes.

BoM: Black-cursed Lamanites
D&C: Backs up the BoM
PGP: Black curse of Cain/Ham

The church is so FOS they're completely mum except "uhhm, uhhm, uhhm, I dunno, uhhm, oh it was a blessing in disguise?

W...T...F...!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ponti ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:37PM

PURE UNALDULTERATED RACISM under the guise of religion. That's nice Brother Bott's.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: quebec ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:41PM

And to think he was my first Mission Prez...
Yuck!!!
Wait, is Randy Bott and Randy L. Bott the same person?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:01PM by quebec.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tahoe Girl ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:43PM

What a sick, racist A$$%@*&!!!

TG

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: danboyle ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:45PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 12:58PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Surrender Dorothy ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:13PM

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/02/unfortunate-attempt-to-explain-pre-1978.html

Says DCP, "As I say, I'm sure that my BYU colleague is a good and kind man who meant no harm. And I won't condemn him. I hope that this controversy passes quickly, that he is not made 'an offender for a word,' and that no long-term negative consequences befall him for his remarks.

But I want to distance myself -- and my church -- from what was said. I strongly disagree with it, and it doesn't represent Mormonism as I believe and understand Mormonism."


Next, he "explains himself" for being too easy on Bro. Bott:
http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/02/further-thoughts-on-that-byu-professor.html

Says DCP, "I've been misrepresented in the media myself, on more occasions than I can count, and because I'm not sure that he wasn't. He is, apparently, now claiming that his remarks were taken out of context, and I find that plausible." Boo hoo!

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ponti ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:35PM

receptive to the gospel."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Melly ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 01:29PM

I had Randy Bott as a professor for a doctrine and covenants class while at BYU. It coincided with the last whimpers of my faith. During every class period, there would be at least one moment where professor Bott would pull some sort of feel good theology out of his ass and not support it with scripture.

To him, masturbation is "self abuse" that "doesn't speak to our celestial potential" and gay people simply "suffer from same-sex attraction" and can pray away their desires. In either case, denying one's natural urges will lead to a better understanding of "God's plan for us." Where does it say that in the D&C? Who cares!

It doesn't surprise me that he would try to spin this one around. I'm glad it's not working, and that the students aren't buying it this time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Melly ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 01:32PM

Not logged in, so can't edit my post:

Just wanted to add that not all my memories of his course were bad.

I skipped about 1/3 of his classes, but he let us grade ourselves in the end. Needless to say, it was the easiest A I got as an undergrad (and by far my highest grade in a religion course).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 01:46PM

And any other PH "authority" who wants to answer it...

Suppose Chaz Bono decides to convert to the Mormon Church? (Okay, I'm just using Sonny & Cher's kid as an example; no slight or criticism of his life choices is intended. Any other individual in similar circumstances would fit equally well to my strictly hypothetical exploration).

Would he be permitted to hold the priesthood?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: OnceMore ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:58PM

After Chaz Bono dies he will be baptized by well-meaning mormons.

Then God will fix him up, correcting any and all supposed mistakes related to gender and/or sexual identity.

Then Chaz can posthumously join the LDS Church.

Not exactly something to look forward to.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anagrammy ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:00PM

Yes, because "chastity" is right there in his name.

It's the same logic used in claiming that Mormonism is Christian because it says "Jesus Christ" right there in the name.


Anagrammy

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 08:13PM

I don't know the current policy, but in the past the policy concerning transsexuals was that if they are Mormons they get excommunicated WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF REBAPTISM and if they are not Mormons they cannot be baptized.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 01:46PM

Unlike Mike Parker at FAIR, Brother Bott, *at least on this topic*, can answer his Bishop's TR question honestly, that yes he has dealt honestly and fairly with his fellow men.



Mike Parker's "folklore" argument over at FAIR is extremely dishonest, and Mormon's over the age of 40, say, should readily see that.

Mike Parker, if you are reading, have you no shame? Is dishonesty Heavenly Father's way of defending 'the church'? Ask yourself, what is more important, 'the church' or being honest?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: just a thought ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:20PM

Or how about Jeffrey Holland's statement, "We simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

Well of course we know why that policy was in place. You guys put it there. Duh.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kookoo4kokaubeam ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:32PM

of anyone in the Q12, FP or Q70.

B.S. For 130 years the leaders of the church sure felt they knew damn well why that practice, policy and doctrine were in place.

Lying sacks of @#$%&. Holland burn in hell you liar.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: spanner ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:03PM

He says he was misrepresented, but here he is in his own words. (get a copy of this page while you can!):
http://ldskyr.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/blacks-and-priesthood.html

I think he quite fairly represents what I was taught as child about the ban overturn.

And also why women don't get the priesthood as well - this is why there will be lots of spirit wives for the worth priesthood bearers who do make it into heaven. Women can only be exalted as the wife of a priesthood bearer. (As I was taught, although an unmarried man can't marry in the CK, women can be re-assigned to the existing marriage of worthy PH holders - there will be lots spare to go around.)

Taking his analogy with women further - with all women eventually making the celestial kingdom as a plural wife, and Blacks destined to be servants in the CK (he conveniently left that bit out), presumably the multitudes of blacks in the CK will be there as servants for the worthy white males (someone will have to do all the work making planets and so on)

He pulled out the Teachings of JS to come up with this BS - so it should be pointed out that Aunt Sally (JS's black servant) was sealed to JS as a servant in the CK.

The only bit up for debate really, is whether post-1978 blacks are also destined to be servants in the CK like their ancestors. As a child I was told that the last of the pre-mortal fence-sitters must have died out, making the mark of Cain redundant.

At least in my part of the world, no one waved a magic priesthood wand and removed all the racism. People simply rationalized why modern Africans were different to their forebears, and denied they were racist.

Supporting institutional racism, and joining a racist cult, is racism. Teaching it to your kids is just plain sick.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:54PM by spanner.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: No Mo ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:20PM

It is already gone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:30PM

"Blog has been removed

"Sorry, the blog at ldskyr.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

"Did you expect to see your blog here? See: 'I can't find my blog on the Web, where is it?'"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Surrender Dorothy ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:45PM

From the now-removed blog:
http://ldskyr.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/blacks-and-priesthood.html

April 3, 2008
Blacks and the Priesthood

I have been asked the "Black and the Priesthood" question for many years. It wasn't until I was a mission president that the issue became much clearer. Let me begin (up front) by saying that I still don't understand all of the ramifications on “Why God gives Priesthood to some and not to others.” However, I have explicit faith that He knows the reasons and when we eventually see as He sees, we'll be completely satisfied that what He has done has been the wisest thing to do.

Perhaps an example is the fastest way to teach how I handle the question. I was sitting in the Mission Home one Sunday afternoon waiting to leave for another Stake Conference. The telephone rang and the woman on the other end of the line explained that she was a Stake Missionary and had a Black investigator who wanted to talk with me about the "Black and the Priesthood" issue. I invited them over.

The investigator was working on a Master's degree and seemed to be very confident and articulate. After introductions he immediately attacked me with a barrage of questions. "Why are you prejudiced against Blacks?" he asked. "I didn't know I was!" was my reply. He said: "Don't play mind games with me. I understand you have a doctorate degree and I am fairly educated myself, so let's get to the meat of the issue. Until 1978 Mormons withheld the Priesthood from the Blacks and I want to know why?" He was just assertive enough to kindle my combative spirit a little—it wasn't like a bash session but more a spirited exchange.

I said: "You seem to be rather bold in coming into my home and attacking me. Would it be alright if I asked you some questions?" He agreed. I asked him what his definition of the Priesthood was. He replied that it was his understanding that it was "the power of God...." and then he continued on. I stopped him and said, "Can we just agree that the Priesthood is the power of God?" He agreed. I asked him if he thought the priesthood was a real power to which he responded in the negative. Then I followed with a rather incredulous question: "Why, then, are you upset with the Mormons keeping a 'non-real thing' away from your people?" He didn't know what to say.

I continued. "For sake of discussion, let's assume the Priesthood is a real thing. Who then would control it?" He answered: "Well, I guess God would since it is His power." I asked: "Does He have to account to you on why He does what He does?" To which he recoiled and answered: "Certainly not. That would border on blasphemy!" to which I agreed.

Then I asked who held the Priesthood during Old Testament times after the Exodus. He rather proudly demonstrated his understanding that it was only the Tribe of Levi. I asked: "Would you show me in the Old Testament where the other 11 tribes, which include Judah—through whom the Savior was to be born, and Joseph—the new chosen, birthright son, picketed up and down in front of the Tabernacle demanding the Priesthood?" He admitted that he couldn't and stated that he had never looked at it quite like that before. I suggested that God has always "discriminated" with regard to who could hold the priesthood.

Then I decided to help him see discrimination from a different perspective. I said: "Since you brought it up, let's talk discrimination for a minute. Up until June 8, 1978 a Black could be a member of the Church, have the Holy Ghost, partake of the sacrament, and serve in the Church in whatever capacity that didn't require the Priesthood. They could be administered to, receive blessings, etc. The instant they died they could have their names submitted to the temple for temple work because there was no reference on the form as to race. Therefore, all the blessings of not only Salvation (which come from Baptism and the Holy Ghost) were available to them, but also the blessings of Exaltation (which require Priesthood for the males and temple endowments and sealings), were also available. However, they could not become "sons of perdition" because the unpardonable sin had to be committed before the dissolution of the body." Since I had just been studying it, I knew the reference, so I excused myself and retrieved my copy of the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith where Joseph taught: "A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

"A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

"I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.357)

I continued: "So up until June 8, 1978, only a white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the Lord, since 1978, you too can become a son of perdition." I thought he was turning pale white in front of me.

He stammered a little and said: "I had never looked at it that way before!" I assured him that most people hadn't. Then I turned to the Sister Stake Missionary who had brought the Black investigator, and said to her: "Up until this very day, God is still discriminating against 50% of His children in not allowing them to hold the priesthood-- they are women. But (I continued), I vote that women can also hold the priesthood and they too can become sons of perdition!" By this time their entire demeanor had changed.

I concluded by explaining that God's stated objective for not only mankind in general but for each individual son or daughter was to give them immortality and eternal life (see Moses 1:39), and that God assured us in 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." As our belief in and trust of God increases, we are more content to allow Him to be God and us to be His children.

I then explained that mortality (when viewed in God's time, which is that one day with God is equivalent to 1000 years with man—Abraham 3:4) if we lived for 72 years would only constitute a one hour 43 minute and 41 second test away from God. That we had lived with God for countless years before coming here and the God had designed our mortal existence so that, if we would take advantage of it, the time and the condition under which we were born and lived out our lives would enhance our quest for exaltation faster than any other that could possibly be. Therefore, by trying to dictate to God what should happen to us, what powers we should hold, etc. we were actually demonstrating our lack of faith in God's plan for us and placing ourselves in a position of superiority to God—which is blasphemy.

The conversation ended on a very congenial note with the Sister Stake Missionary forcefully declining to accept the responsibility of the priesthood and gratefully being content to enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood—just as the Blacks had before 1978.

You see, it isn't really an issue of the Black and the Priesthood or anything else. The question is, do we trust God to do the very best for us He possibly can without destroying our agency nor giving us too much too fast and thus enabling us to destroy ourselves.

I hope this short explanation will give you some ideas to help all people, no matter what color to understand a little more about how God lovingly works with His children for their salvation and exaltation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 05:04PM

"I [Bott] continued: 'So up until June 8, 1978, only a white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the Lord, since 1978, you too [the Black man to whom Bott said he was speaking] can become a son of perdition.' I thought he was turning pale white in front of me. . . .

"The conversation [with the Black man] ended on a very congenial note with the Sister Stake Missionary forcefully declining to accept the responsibility of the priesthood and gratefully being content to enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood—just as the Blacks had before 1978. . . .

"You see, it isn't really an issue of the Black and the Priesthood or anything else. The question is, do we trust God to do the very best for us He possibly can without destroying our agency nor giving us too much too fast and thus enabling us to destroy ourselves."



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 06:07PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elee ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 08:07PM

Surrender Dorothy Quoted Brother Botts:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I continued: "So up until June 8, 1978, only a
> white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could
> be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the
> Lord, since 1978, you too can become a son of
> perdition." I thought he was turning pale white in
> front of me.
>
> He stammered a little and said: "I had never
> looked at it that way before!" I assured him that
> most people hadn't. Then I turned to the Sister
> Stake Missionary who had brought the Black
> investigator, and said to her: "Up until this very
> day, God is still discriminating against 50% of
> His children in not allowing them to hold the
> priesthood-- they are women. But (I continued), I
> vote that women can also hold the priesthood and
> they too can become sons of perdition!" By this
> time their entire demeanor had changed.
>

Vom-worthy. It's all just so perfect. Like the Mick Jagger On the Plane story. And all of Monson's stories. Idjits.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Stray Mutt ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:14PM

He could just make it up to us in the afterlife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: emanon ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:27PM

To answer your question SM:

'Because anyone born into the church already proved themselves in heaven during the war.'

OR

'God has YET to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of god.'

There's an answer for everything in the LDS church!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:22PM

As the Mormon Church frantically attempted, in the death throes of its racist anti-Black priesthood ban, to justify priesthood denial to those of African descent, it went through some pathetic contortions and issued false prophecies.

--First, Mormon church president David O. McKay falsely predicted a timeline for Blacks receiving the Mormon priesthood.

--Second, A fellow member of McKay's First Presidency, N. Eldon Tanner, defended the Mormon church's anti-Black priesthood ban on the grounds that in the history of Christianity, Blacks had never held the priesthood, as well as claimed that the Mormon church would not change its doctrine against giving Blacks the priesthood.

--Third, the other member of the same First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown, asserted that Blacks were not equipped with the necessary leadership skills to warrant receiving the Mormon priesthood.
_____


--On the first point:

LDS researcher and author Lester E. Bush, Jr. writes that “David O. McKay [then-Mormon church president] at the dedication of the Oakland [CA] Temple made a statement that has become widely quoted. . . . 'The Church and the Negro' [Lund, p. 45], reports: 'President McKay was asked by a news reporter at the dedication of the Oakland Temple, “When will the Negroes receive the Priesthood?' He responded to the question over a national television network saying, 'Not in my lifetime, young man,] nor yours,' . . . 'The Mormon Establishment' [Turner, p, 262] reports: 'The Negro matter came up quickly, and (President McKay) dodged for an answer or so among the underbrush of theological imprecision in the framing of the question. But then the question was asked directly, in the proper words to discover whether the prophet, seer, and chief revelator thought the doctrine on Negroes would be changed to allow them to hold the priesthood. He said: 'Not while you and I are here.'“


--On the second point:

McKay's First Presidency counselor N. Eldon Tanner provided Mormon church justifications for Blacks not receiving the priesthood, as well as asserted that the Mormon church was not going to change is official anti-Black doctrine. Writes Bush: “N. Eldon Tanner [quoted from 'Seattle Magazine,' December 1967, said]: 'The [Mormon] church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro . . . Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's the law of God.'“


--And, finally, on the third point:

Bush also cites an “Associated Press” article, 14 April 1968, from the “Fort Myers (FL) News Press,” in which McKay First Presidency counselor Hugh B. Brown (responding to athletic boycotts of BYU by other universities against the Mormon church's anti-Black priesthood ban) said: “'At the present time we do not give Negroes the priesthood. Priesthood, in our view, is leadership. There is not enough leadership among Negroes to warrant establishing him as a member of leadership,' President Brown said."

(Bush, from compiled research notes on the history of Blacks in the Mormon Church, pp. 282, 292; copy in my possesion)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: DeAnn ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 02:29PM

OMG!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 03:38PM

"Racist Remarks by popular BYU Religion Professor Spark Controversy"

by JOANNA BROOKS

"Racist apologetics by a popular Brigham Young University religion professor are sparking controversy, as election-year scrutiny sheds a revealing light on the persistence of racist belief among LDS Church members.

"On Tuesday, Randy Bott, a BYU professor of religion, told the Washington Post that the LDS Church’s historic prohibition on priesthood ordination for men of African descent was a “blessing” to blacks because they were not 'ready' for priesthood authority.

“'God has always been discriminatory' when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott... Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“'What is discrimination?' Bott asks. 'I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?' Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth—although not in the afterlife—protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. 'You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.'

"Bott was the highest-rated professor in America in 2008, according to RateMyProfessor.com. He teaches large sections of required religion courses, including courses designed to prepare future missionaries, to as many as 3,000 students a year. This semester, more than 800 students are registered in Professor Bott’s classes. (Eleven are registered for BYU’s African-American history course this semester.) Professors at BYU routinely find themselves having to address racist and sexist content taught in Bott’s classes, and many are outraged and embarrassed by his rogue remarks to the Washington Post, say sources at the university. 'Dr. Bott does not speak for BYU or the Church and his views are his own,' one religion faculty member told me.

"But Professor Bott is no outlier. Especially among older Mormons, racist rationale for the priesthood ban—linking it to Old Testament pretexts, or to moral infirmity in a pre-earthly life by the souls of Africans and African-Americans, and other racist apologetic mental gymnastics exemplified in Bott’s statement to the Post—persist and circulate, generally unquestioned and unchallenged.

"For its part, the LDS Church has never authoritatively addressed racist theologies developed in defense of the ban in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Instead, it has attempted to step quietly beyond its racist past, as it has with many other thorny and troubling historical matters.

"African-American men enjoyed full status (including priesthood ordination) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until the 1840s. Historians still debate the reasons why ordination of African-Americans generally halted (with a few exceptions) during the tenure of LDS Church President Brigham Young. By the early twentieth century, restriction of priesthood ordination from African-Americans was considered LDS Church policy, and a host of rationale grew up in its defense—some drawn from American folk theology linking racial blackness to the curse of Cain or Ham, and some particular to Mormon contexts.

"LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball declared the end of the priesthood ban in June 1978, an announcement later canonized as scripture, but he did not address its historic origins or theological rationale. A few months later, in August 1978, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Church’s high-ranking Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, once a leading proponent of racist theological justifications of the ban, told a gathering of LDS educators:

“'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.'

"Still, McConkie’s own book, Mormon Doctrine, which propounded racist legitimations for the priesthood ban, remained for sale in LDS bookstores and on the shelves of LDS homes.

"Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, when questioned about the ban in public, LDS Church leaders continued to sidestep its origins and rationale. Mormons hungry for a more direct approach welcomed LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley’s 2006 address, 'The Need for Greater Kindness,' as a long-awaited denunciation of racism:

“'Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord. Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.'

"But neither Hinckley nor any other Church official used an authoritative Church setting or occasion to formally and specifically renounce racist teachings propounded by earlier Mormon leaders.

"And without open renunciation of racist theologies by LDS Church leaders, Professor Randy Bott (who on his personal blog apologetically prevaricates on facts of Mormon history) and others have continued to espouse and communicate them to a new generation of Mormons.

"As progressive BYU students prepare to protest Bott’s remarks, others await formal statements by Brigham Young University or the LDS Church, hoping—perhaps, this time, in the scrutiny of this election year—that someone will finally articulate the most credible and reasonable explanation for Mormonism’s historic discrimination against black people: we were wrong."

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5748/racist_remarks_by_popular_byu_religion_professor_spark_controversy/

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: sivab1 ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:34PM

Worse than bott is the lying church. Check out what their response to the media. LIARS!!!!

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/LDS-Church-condemns-racism-in-strong-statement/fP_onSzgMkSGxLZMJikYgw.cspx

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Memes circa 2000 ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:50PM

Women are still denied the priesthood and are banned from heaven if they are single. I know that maybe the MOs feel like they can hide under the skirts of the Catholics who still deny women the right to be clergy but come on!

When I realized that women weren't equal in the church is when the whole thing crumbled for me. That was at the age of 7 btw.

Where is the righteous indignation that women are still denied the priesthood?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: badseed ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 04:57PM

But did not flat out say he was wrong. Only really that he doesn't speak for the Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article


What's that sound? Sounds like the spin machine is in high gear.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 06:14PM

badseed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But ['the church']did not flat out say he was wrong. Only really
> that he doesn't speak for the Church.

I like also what spanner said on Provo Girl's thread:

"1. The "restriction" is not called racism, there is no apology for it, it is not considered "wrong". The restriction "ended" - it was not over-turned, or rescinded or acknowledged as wrong at all. Institutional racism was a part of God's plan all along.

"2. While condemning "racism" the church maintains support for its racist doctrine.

Classic double-speak."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,430956,430977#msg-430977



My 70+ year old MIL is an out and out racist of the old Mormon kind. She adamantly maintains that in these "last days" "the church" will have to say one thing in public but that the Mormon faithful should by no means believe that "the church" believes the things that are said to the public. To do so, in fact, is a failure of listening to the spirit. The scriptures and writings of the prophets are there for a reason, she says. She sees nothing wrong or ungodly in the Journal of Discourses or anything else Brigham Young said or wrote. This is how she explains 1978. This is how she explains Hinckley's "I don't think we teach that" 60 Minutes interview. And this is how she'll explain this stuff today.

LDSinc, when read closely, seems to back-up the assumptions of my TBM MIL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tara the Pagan ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 06:00PM

The black cat is out of the bag now. I bet that lots of people who read that Washington Post article (and others like it) will Google and find some of the racist remarks spoken from the pulpit by prophets and apostles over the last 150 years.

At least, I hope they will.

No matter how much TSCC tries to lie and hide its past, they can't control the flow of information any more. Sadly, the folks who need the truth the most will be the ones NOT Googling -- they'll be busy convincing each other that Satan has taken over then Internet and all those racist remarks by JS, BY, and every other prophet down to Kimball are just lies made up by the enemies of the church.

Heck, go to any public library on the Wasatch Front (or any used bookstore) and you can find plenty of proof that it's all true.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: runningyogi ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 07:29PM

Denial cannot last forever. The Truth is setting us free! The Glory of God is ___________!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anon for this one ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 07:56PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Don Bagley ( )
Date: February 29, 2012 08:12PM

"Well, at least they had some value."

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.