"Mormon Church Disputes BYU Prof's Remarks About Blacks"
by Peggy Fletcher Stack and Kristen Moulton
"Salt Lake Tribune"
29 February 2012

"The LDS Church issued its strongest statement yet, dismissing folk beliefs for why the Utah-based faith banned blacks from its all-male priesthood until 1978.

"The statement was triggered by comments made about the ban by LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University religion professor Randy Bott in Tuesday's Washington Post.

"Bott was described as believing that black skin was 'the curse of Cain,' an allusion to the biblical figure who killed his brother Abel. In this view, blacks also were 'less valiant' in the sphere known in Mormon theology as the "premortal existence."

"The longtime religion professor further argued that blacks were not ready for the LDS priesthood, Post reporter Jason Horowitz wrote, 'like a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car.'

"Bott's views, the church statement said, 'absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.'

"It went on to say that '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.'

"Further, the LDS statement said, 'it is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.'

"Reactions to Bott's quotes in the bloggernacle were swift and almost entirely critical. It even spawned a Twitter hashtag: @bottgate.

"FAIR, a group of Mormon defenders, described the 'curse of Cain' as one of one of the 'myths' about the priesthood ban. http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/25/three-mormon-myths-about-blacks-and-the-priesthood/

"'By Common Consent' reposted Lester Bush's definitive account of the ban's origins in 'Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.'

"BYU students planned a protest for March 2.

"But Bott is not alone in his views, writes Joanna Brooks at Religion Dispatches.

"'Racist rationale[s] for the priesthood ban ... persist and circulate, generally unquestioned and unchallenged.'

"Before now, the most matter-of-fact renouncement came from LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, who told filmmaker Helen Whitney in 2007 that the church was 'unequivocal' in rejecting these notions and keeping them from being written or taught within the church.

"'We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason,' Holland said. 'But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared.'

"Apparently, Bott slipped through the net."

("Mormon Church Disputes BYU Prof's Remarks About Blacks," by Peggy Fletcher Stack and Kristen Moulton, "Salt Lake Tribune," 29 February 2012, at: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/53617297-180/church-bott-blacks-lds.html.csp)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 11:52PM by steve benson.

I love that the church PR folks state that Professor Bott's comments don't represent the church's position in any way. He's a lifelong active member of the LDS church, a card-carrying temple worthy member, and a tenured professor at the church's school charged with educating students about all church-related issues. But somehow, on this one point, he's not teaching the church's position. If the Washington Post had polled 100 professors at BYU, 99 of them would have expressed opinions nearly identical to Prof Bott's.

This one's gonna be hard to cover up...

Of course, no one clearly comes out and states what the church's true position is on the matter BECAUSE IT'S A BLATANTLY RACIST AND INDEFENSIBLE POSITION!! Idiots, all of them.

Is non-racism retro-active?

Say, back to 1844?

just curious.

...slimy act by the church. The ban was racist to begin with. There's no escaping that fact. There is no 'rationalization' for it that won't be racist, because you cant rationalize a racist policy without racism. Even saying "we don't know" (being totally weasely, and dishonest) can't mitigate the fact that it was a fundamentally racist practice.

And-- it doesn't matter whether it was a 'practice' 'tradition' 'folk doctrine' 'doctrine' 'policy', or whether it started with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Those excuses are just changing the subject to something irrelevant. The ban was racist and the church upheld it until it required 'revelation' to be reversed. If it wasn't a legit policy/teaching/doctrine of the church, why did it require so much trouble to stop it?

Idiots.

Didn't I learn in my sunbeam classes that American Aboriginals were cursed with a darker skin? Maybe I was a really poor student, and I missed the part about racial equality? I do know that I was castigated for bringing the issue up.

Well, "I don't know that they teach that"...NOW, but they sure as hell did when I was a 12-year-old mouldy-bread pusher who didn't want to get up early on a Sunday morning and sit in a basement and be taught that I had more power in my pinkie than all the kings, presidents, and rulers of the world, and that Negroes came through the pre-existence as wishy-washy fence-sitters in the War in Heaven and were doomed by those flawed pre-mortal choices to be born Negro in this life - inferior and unworthy temporal descendants bringing the curse of Ham. Eternal (until 1978) punishment for saying "hold on a second, I don't know about that..." Who knew such a loving Father in Heaven had such a long memory and such a vicious bitter streak in him?

The one and only time (pre-1978) I questioned the incongruence between that doctrine of foreordained destiny and the other doctrine claiming we are not compelled to bear the sins of our parents ("We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."), I received a tart response designed to embarrass me into silence. IOW, I guess, I was asking one too many thought-provoking questions.

"Further, the LDS statement said, 'it is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.'


Has no one bothered to consult their Prophets and Apostles teachings on the matter?

I'm sure they could discover why, how and when if they wanted to.