BYU Students Prepare to Nail their Theses to the Wrong Door

It seems that popular BYU professor Randy Bott has created a stir in this recent article fromThe Washington Post. Rather than recap events myself, I’m going to link to some posts by other people who have discussed it:
My thoughts are that these BYU students who want to protest Dr. Bott are looking to nail their theses to the wrong door. What Dr. Bott said was certainly infantilizing and racist. However, it wasn’t any more racist than what multiple Mormon General Authorities said and taught prior to 1978—in fact, it was quite a bit less—and it wasn’t any more infantilizing than the arguments that still circulate among Mormons today about how women should not want the priesthood because holding the priesthood means so much terrible responsibility.
In regards to the racism issue: church leaders articulated all kinds of rationales for the priesthood ban prior to 1978, most of them thoroughly racist. Since 1978, “We just don’t know” has been the most common sentiment heard on the lips of General Authorities. Unfortunately, this is a deeply unengaging and unsatisfying response to the problem. Most non-members know it and a good number of members seem to recognize it as well, so I can hardly fault someone like Randy Bott for trying to devise his own rationale on the matter. Furthermore, those pre-1978 rationales for the priesthood ban were never recanted by the church, and Randy Bott is hardly out of line for continuing to believe in things that former prophets and apostles taught.
I suppose students can be upset at Dr. Bott for daring to talk to the media when he should have allowed such matters to be handled by GAs. Again though, what GAs are saying on the matter is deeply unengaging and unsatisfying. It’s natural for the media to want to turn to studied scholars of Mormonism who will at least speculate on the “why” of the matter.
In conclusion, dear BYU students: if you really want stuff like this to not happen, if you really want to protest someone or something, the place to nail your theses is not Randy Bott’s office door. It’s 50 N Main St., Salt Lake City. Tell your leaders that it’s time for answers, and if they don’t have answers, then perhaps it’s time to admit that the church’s past policies concerning blacks were sinful and wrong, and apologize. Other religions have repented of their past racism. You can, too.
And if you can’t—or won’t—do that, don’t make Randy Bott the scapegoat for your inability to take a stand. He doesn’t deserve it.
————
BTW, in the interest of disclosure, I never had Randy Bott as a professor in my time at BYU. I recall that he was always highly recommended by my roommates and friends, but I never took a class from him.

Comments

BYU Students Prepare to Nail their Theses to the Wrong Door — 16 Comments

  2. Randy Bott is quickly becoming the John D. Lee of the LDS Church’s blacks and the priesthood issue. Scapegoating him for saying things that General Authorities have said and never repudiated is really going to provide nice cover for future scandals. “What, you say that the LDS church is racist? No way! Look what we did to that racist bastard Bott…” This will of course lessen the need to actually, you know, do something to fix the actual issue. Deflection is always easier and cheaper than dealing with the issue itself.
    So, in summary, to all of the liberal Mormons looking to crucify Randy Bott, congratulations on contributing to the problem.
  3. I disagree. Just because you can find quotes that sustain Bott’s views, those quotes are over 40 years old! For over 30 years (since 1978) the Brethren have consistently discredited such statements. The most dramatic illustration was when Elder Bruce R. Mcconkie told the church education system to forget anything he or anyone said that contradicted this revelation (Aug 1978). Bott was probably in the audience because he worked for CES at that time. He has no excuse for teaching this at BYU. Furthermore, I can’t believe with all his years at BYU and in priesthood leadership that he wouldn’t see the foolishness of opening up these old wounds to the Washington Post!
  4. Mark ~ I don’t know if you’ve cracked open a Sunday School manual lately, but they contain plenty of quotes from LDS leaders that are over 40 years old. Age does not repudiation make.
    For over 30 years (since 1978) the Brethren have consistently discredited such statements.
    No, they haven’t. Statements against pre-1978 teachings on blacks have been rare and usually articulated in very unofficial venues.
    The most dramatic illustration was when Elder Bruce R. Mcconkie told the church education system to forget anything he or anyone said that contradicted this revelation (Aug 1978)
    Yes, exactly. He told people to forget about what he and others had said in contradiction of the 1978 declaration, i. e. teaching that blacks would not receive the priesthood in this life. Here it is:
    We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” 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.
    Teaching that blacks were barred from the priesthood prior to 1978 because they were the seed of Cain or because they were less valiant in the pre-existence does not contradict the 1978 declaration.
    That McConkie’s speech is the “most dramatic” of the few alleged repudiations says quite a bit about how much the church still needs to do to get this stuff out of its system.
  5. More “honest learning” about the LDS Church, Jack? Your intentions are about as veiled as a glass window.
  6. CF ~ I’m afraid I am not the sort of person who reads minds or gets hints, so I would appreciate it if you would explain your thoughts on my intentions clearly, and how you arrived at such conclusions. Thank you in advance.
  8. You’re exactly right. Why should Bott be criticized for teaching what the church leaders taught if no one has ever said “don’t teach that, it’s not true.”
  9. Jack, Agreeing with you wholeheartedly is getting old. :) Pls cut it out.
  10. Thank you very, very much. I did have Bott for D&C, and I remember a fairly entertaining lecturer with easy exams. Exactly what I wanted for D&C.
    I disagree with his opinions, but I do believe that he has dedicated himself to serving his church and students. I agree with you that the poor old man shouldn’t be so horribly vilified for saying things that can still be heard in Sunday School.
    And then there is the academic freedom issue. If I think BYU professors should have academic freedom, then I need to support Professor Bott’s right to say things I disagree with.
  14. And then there is the academic freedom issue. If I think BYU professors should have academic freedom, then I need to support Professor Bott’s right to say things I disagree with.
    There’s a whole lot of difference between (1) criticizing Bott for teaching x and (2)saying that Bott doesn’t have the right to teach x.
    Academic freedom doesn’t mean freedom from criticism of what you teach or objection to what you teach. It just means freedom from getting fired for what you teach.
  15. Kullervo-
    Good point. So I hope he doesn’t get fired for saying things I disagree with.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity