Church repudiates mark of Cain theory

[Archaea]

This is as close to seeing an apology as one will see.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...he-church.html

"For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent," Purdy said. "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."
Purdy referred specifically to the positions attributed to Bott in the Post article and said those positions "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," Purdy said. "It is unfortunate that the church was not given a chance to respond to what others said."

[MikeWaters]

That's no different than what McConkie said a long time ago:

Elder McConkie said, "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."

The answer to why blacks did not receive the priesthood is pretty simple: original racism in a system that is prone to perpetuate the decisions of its leaders due to presumed inspired precedent.

More specifically: Brigham Young was a racist, and was happy to be influenced by other leading racists in the church who made claims about what the then deceased Joseph Smith had said.

The reason that the church cannot produce a doctrinal reason for the ban is that there isn't one.

Change in the policy occurred when finally enough apostles had died or changed their views, through the encouragement of SWK and the earlier leadership of men like Hugh B. Brown.

[MikeWaters]

Another couple of points:

1. Randy Bott is a dumbass. Let me explain why. He is supposedly a professor of religion. A professor. Which means he should be at the height of understanding, context, and religious research. Not to mention judgment. Instead he serves up the same old racist tripe that has been offered forever. He apparently isn't even familiar with the disavowals from people like McConkie. In other words, he hasn't done even the most basic research into the subject, yet he feels qualified to speak to the Washington Post. Unfortunately his dumbassery fits perfectly into what I consider to be part for the course for the BYU religion department. Glorified sunday school instructors, valued more for their charisma more than anything else, at worst skirting along the edge of priestcraft. I don't mean to completely devalue the role of the sunday school instructor professor. I had one that I liked, Dan Hone. He was completely unacademic, but he was sincere in a way that most of the other guys I had were not. I had one class from one of the Santiago sons. He wasn't a bad guy, but it was basically a really mediocre Gospel Doctrine class.

2. How is it that Randy Bott and Daniel Peterson, both professors of religion in the department of religion, have never met each other? What kind of leadership is there? Is CES just shuffling these guys through?

Maybe this Mitt stuff will be good for the church for the simple reason that Mitt is bad for the church. Meaning Mitt will bring scrutiny to the unseemly underbelly of some church history/culture, and this will lead to some positive response from the church.

Does anyone REALLY think the church cares about dispelling these myths? Do they actually want to do anything about it? We still have a YM manual that specifically discourages mixed race marriage. Maybe I should email it to the WashPost editor.

[Archaea]

Eventually, you'll see stronger statements. It's just very hard for these men to acknowledge mistakes. They fear if you acknowledge mistakes in anything but the kindest tones it will encourage members to be less respectful and make their job of governing the congregation more difficult.

I believe Peterson works for the Arabic, or Middle Eastern Department. Bott is nothing more than a glorified Sunday School teacher. You forget many of these religion professors have no Phd's and have not studied theology or theological matters critically.

[ChinoCoug]

Dan Peterson is not part of the religion faculty. He is ancient near eastern studies.

[RedHeadGal]

The Post article that precipitated this reaction is interesting. Although some of what Bott says is, indeed, awful, I'm not sure it apprears as though he speaks for the church. Plus, it's not like the church as this easily defensible position.

And so what if we don't know the origins of the ban? We do know it originated in the 19th century, and so it's not that strange to look for more modern explanations as to why the church was holding on to it through most of the 20th century. And those reasons don't make sense/are racist.

Here's one of the best gems:

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.”

That quote actually reminds me a lot of arguments I often hear by/about women and the priesthood.

[MikeWaters]

It could be that one day we have priestesses and prophetesses. And will think nothing of it.

I wish we would, just for the fact that we would have a greater pool of qualified persons to fill callings.

[Archaea]

I imagine some form of exercising the priesthood by women will occur, especially in light of our temple worship.