- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Over the past few days, the Bloggernacle and other social media that are frequented or run by Mormons and non-Mormons alike have been awash in posts, articles, Facebook updates, Tweets, etc. about a BYU Religion professor (Prof. Bott) who was quoted in a Washington Post article about the LDS Church and its past Priesthood ban. Unfortunately, Prof. Bott shared his own personal views as to why the ban had been instituted – and those views were nothing more than the most condescending justifications that had been given prior to the lifting of the ban in 1978. What was most distressing to me was that a popular BYU professor of religion would be stating such things even after numerous repudiations of those justifications had been given by modern apostles and prophets, including Pres. Hinckley’s very forceful condemnation of any such beliefs since the receipt of OD2 and the lifting of the ban. This situation inspired my first New Year’s Resolution post this month, during which I will focus on the Atonement of Jesus Christ – but this post will not be what my “natural man” would write. I have commented extensively on the numerous posts at By Common Consent about Prof. Bott’s comments (
which I abhor with a truly deep and profound loathing), and anyone who has read my personal blog for any length of time knows how I feel about matters of race, racism and the Priesthood ban (and if you haven’t, feel free to click on the “Race” label near the bottom of that blog), but the heart of this post came to me only a few minutes before beginning to write what I had intended to write (an overview of how I see the scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ). I hope that sudden, dramatic change was inspired, since I had no intention to write what I am about to write until, literally, just as I sat down to write. I believe in the universal power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ to reach all who ever have lived and leave us “
amazed at the love Jesus offers (us) – confused by the grace that so fully he profers (us)“. I believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers unconditionally our natural weaknesses, our ignorance, our transgressions, our disabilities, our unstoppable mistakesand every other manifestation of the effects of the Fall which we did not choose consciously. I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ allows us to be judged (to receive or acquire judgment, if you will) according to our “best selves” – who we would be without the limitations imposed on us by forces outside our control and not of our choosing. I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ doesn’t make bad people good and good people better (and, importantly, great people infallible). Rather, I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ allows ALL people everywhere, of all times, in all places, throughout history and into eternity, to reach their highest potential without artificial restrictions of any kind. I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to take deeply flawed “natural (wo)men” and raise them to the same eternal reward as barely flawed “natural (wo)men” – that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the great equalizer of individual worth and growth and potential. I am saddened deeply by Prof. Bott’s recent words,
but I also am deeply saddened by my own words in many instances. I am outraged morally that he would believe the things he shared – that those things still haven’t been eradicated completely from among us, but I also am outraged at myself on occasion– when I realize what things still haven’t been eradicated completely from within me. I honestly would like to see him removed from his position at BYU, if for no other reason than to prove to the world AND to the LDS Church that the views he shared will not be tolerated in today’s LDS Church – but I also know that I do not want to be judged and treated “fairly” and “justly” according to the worst things I have said and done. Most importantly, however, above and beyond everything else related to this appalling and sad situation, I do not want Prof. Bott condemned and rejected and shunned for what, in the end, might be (and I repeat, might be) nothing more than a manifestation of “the natural weakness, ignorance, transgression, disability, unstoppable mistakes and every other manifestation of the effects of the Fall which (Prof. Bott) did not choose consciously” – and, therefore, what, in the end, might be (and I repeat, might be) covered already by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. On a deeply personal note – to make this more personal for me:
I have worked in many inner-cities throughout the Eastern US and have helped house and raise two young black men. I have lots of friends who are black. I have lived in the Deep South, and I was allowed once to see what tremendous growth the Church would experience there if the people (black and white, inside and outside the Church) could let go of their racism. I write regularly about issues of race – trying the best I can to educate people about them.
and, yet . . .
I also must admit that I am not free totally from the “little” manifestations of seeing people differently as a result of race. For example, my initial reaction occasionally still is a bit different when I see a group of young black men congregated on a street corner than it is when the group is white. I have learned to recognize that initial reaction and change it immediately, but it is something I have had to learn.
I have had to recognize it for what it is and immediately address it head-on.I am finding that it happens now much less often than it used to happen, but it still rears its ugly head occasionally – and it really is a necessary thing to admit and own up to that sad reality. It’s the first step in my on-going repentance – since it wouldn’t be changing if I hadn’t recognized it in the first place. I can and will condemn Prof. Bott’s words and his inability to discard the ideas that have been repudiated forcefully by our leadership for over 30 years, but I cannot bring myself, tonight, after having reacted naturally to those words this evening, to condemn Prof. Bott himself – and that conclusion only is possible for me because of how I view the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
I can and will condemn WHAT I should and must condemn, but I cannot allow myself to condemn another WHOM I am commanded not to judge.God bless you, Bro. Bott – even as I condemn your words and beliefs regarding this particular issue.
Yep — I feel the same way about my own attitudes toward homosexuals at one time. I was VERY NEGATIVE about them as people given their tendencies. I believed they chose that lifestyle, that it was evil, a conscious choice…etcetera. Then I spoke to a woman online at another stie from Britain. She was an active Mormon, but had been raised by a same sex couple in Britain since she was a child. She kept at me in a kind but persistent away about some of my attitudes, and it changed my thinking dramatically as she described her home life, and her own impressions. I am pleased to say I have dropped those attitudes. I won’t go into the details of where I stand on that issue now, but I have to say, I HOPE my new understanding of same sex tendencies is far more compassionate and far less judgmental than what my interactions within the LDS Church originally made them. And its true — it was my LDS associations that spawed such hardened ideas. Not my family, who was more liberal.
Ray, Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the professors unfortunate statements, your eloquent telling of the atonement, and clarifying so well that your criticism is of the professors statement and not of him personally. Would that we all could be so charitable even when we are righteously indignant. If only our politicians could think so clearly…
Just as an FYI, I just added a personal note toward the end of this post after reading a compelling post by John C. on By Common Consent. I appreciate your diplomatic approach, Ray, but I would have put it differently, i.e. Quote:What an idiot!
The guy needs to make a public apology and/or find another job. Maybe Bob Jones University is hiring.
I kinda agree with you, Doug. If there is any silver lining I could find in this, it is that by saying it publicly and the Church realizing how bad the statements are, it clearly needs to be refuted, and the church response was made. Ya, it was after the fact, but perhaps it clarifies for anyone in the church who still holds such views internally and unspoken to reconsider such a teaching. IOW, it forces the church to say in no uncertain terms, that we don’t teach that, and perhaps that helps people move forward.
I’m not disputing that I think what he says and believes is idiotic (and I have heard that he says similarly outlandish things about other issues, as well), so I won’t argue with that response, doug. Fwiw, I also wish BYU would fire him (or privately tell him to step down immediately for health reasons), but he’s set to retire in a couple of months, so I doubt it will happen.
It’s kind of a tricky subject. Early prophets and scripture did in fact say very racist things and claimed them as doctrine. Don’t we believe in revelation to our prophets? So you kind of have to dismiss revelation, at least some of it, or blame it all back on God. Polygamy is the same deal. We try to distance ourself from it, but it still happened at the request of God through a prophet. If not a prophet made it up.
I personally think that some of the early prophets had racist and polygamous inklings that they attributed to revelation.
Brown, I agree that it can appear to be tricky for many members, but it’s not for me. I have no problem not accepting what others thought was revelation, if I simply don’t believe it was. That’s how I look at all of our canonized scriptures, fwiw. Prophets are fully human, as well – and making mistakes, even big ones, for me doesn’t lessen the likelihood that they still were important, prophetic leaders. It just means I have to be an agent unto myself, answerable to God for following the dictates of my own conscience – and I have no problem with that. Here is the most relevant paragraph from the Church’s response:
Quote:The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”
I really like the Church’s response to Prof. Bott’s interview. It forcefully condemns ALL racism, including everything said by individuals inside the Church. (Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a swift, harsh statement from the Church in my entire lifetime, and I’m encouraged by that, given what happened and what it addressed.) I personally read that as a condemnation of the ban itself, since the ban obviously was racist in nature and practice, but I understand why others would want something more clear.
However . . .
This post is focused on the Atonement and our tendencies to rush to judge those with whom we disagree, often vociferously. As I said in the post, I absolutely LOATHE what Prof. Bott said (particularly since he teaches religion at BYU and should have known about all the repudiations of the former beliefs) – but it hit me hard Friday night that I still can’t “condemn” him, as quite a few people were doing at the various sites that were discussing the situation.
Brown wrote:Early prophets and scripture did in fact say very racist things and claimed them as doctrine….
…it still happened at the request of God through a prophet. If not a prophet made it up.
Can we be open to the last part, “the prophet made it up” and still believe the value of prophets on other subjects? Personally, I don’t feel it came at the request of God, like many things accepted in the Church. But I continue to value prophets as useful to me, yet imperfect without a doubt. On some issues, some things prophets say are not useful, just like parts of the bible do not have use for me. But other parts are near and dear to me and help me be a better person.
As Ray said it well
Old-Timer wrote:Prophets are fully human, as well – and making mistakes, even big ones, for me doesn’t lessen the likelihood that they still were important, prophetic leaders. It just means I have to be an agent unto myself, answerable to God for following the dictates of my own conscience – and I have no problem with that.
I don’t know that I’m at the point where I have no problem at all with this…it is troubling at times, it makes me think and wonder about things, especially what prophets are saying today…but I feel I’m growing because I’m internalizing this principle and am made to think through it. I’m still working at it, but it sure does seem consistent with history and the scriptures.
Prophets don’t wait to act until God has spoken. Sometimes they act and then get chastened when needed. Brother Bott voiced what many members still believe. By getting this out in the open, now the church must speak out on it, and that may help many people get over their racism that they have that they may not even be aware of how racist the thoughts are.
Like I mentioned in the polygamy article thread, it is possible God uses the World to teach and correct the Church. In racism, it seems the Church has lagged behind our society on dealing with this issue. Perhaps in homosexuality too.
Thus, the Atonement is truly needed, not just for those who haven’t joined the church, but clearly for the Church and for prophets that prove to us they do not have a fullness of truth all the time.
Heber13 wrote:Brown wrote:Early prophets and scripture did in fact say very racist things and claimed them as doctrine….
…it still happened at the request of God through a prophet. If not a prophet made it up.
Can we be open to the last part, “the prophet made it up” and still believe the value of prophets on other subjects? Personally, I don’t feel it came at the request of God, like many things accepted in the Church. But I continue to value prophets as useful to me, yet imperfect without a doubt. On some issues, some things prophets say are not useful, just like parts of the bible do not have use for me. But other parts are near and dear to me and help me be a better person..
I certainly can. But it is a pretty unpopular thing to say around many other LDS members. “When the prophet speaks the debate is over” and all that jazz. It can be hard to accept our prophets as having a red phone from God when they make such huge errors.
Quote:It can be hard to accept our prophets as having a red phone from God when they make such huge errors.
Good.
Sometimes I think the reason prophets are allowed to make such errors is so the rest of us can stomp the life out of the red phone belief that always will arise without such obvious mistakes.
Quote:Can we be open to the last part, “the prophet made it up”
I don’t think this is an appropriate way of phrasing it, it just makes him sound like a liar.
I’m going to post this also in the thread about church each week, but one of the very faithful brethren in my new ward mentioned in his testimony today (last week was Stake Conference) that as he has studied Church History he has had to learn to accept that all of us, including even our prophets, have weakness, make mistakes, hold on to incorrect beliefs and will be accountable for the things we say and do that hurt others – but that the GOSPEL the prophets teach (and he emphasized the word “Gospel”) is of God and that the Atonement is powerful enough to save ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He mentioned how thankful he has been for the chance to study Church History and come to this profound realization. I thought that was a wonderful way of saying it, especially since I am positive it was influenced heavily by Prof. Bott’s Washington Post interview.
I would agree with that, Ray. You and I think alot alike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.