Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church, hope_for_things engaged in some statistical sleight-of-hand that I have only now noticed. I can't let this go by, so I'm opening this thread to highlight it. Here's a copy-and-paste: Quote 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why are you and others ignoring the ethnic diversity among the Seventy, despite Smac97 having pointed it out? Don't the Seventy (General Authority Seventy and Area Seventy) count as "top Church leadership" to you? Ok, some quick math from SMAC's post, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these assumptions. 34 people with diverse backgrounds (I'm assuming non white Caucasian) 10 quorums of the seventy (70 * 10 = 700 seventy) + 7 members in the presidency = 707 total seventies 34 of 707 = 4.8% of the membership in the seventies come from a diverse backgrounds I'm thinking 4.8% of the seventy is not strong evidence of ethnic diversity in a church that certainly has way more than 4.8% of its members coming from ethnically diverse backgrounds. What hope_for_things failed to mention was that the 34 people that Smac97 listed were only General Authority Seventies. That is, they were only members of the First and Second Quorum of the Seventy. They were not selected from all 10 quorums, as hope_for_things falsely said. If one were to consider all of the quorums, including the third through the 10th, which are occupied by Area Seventies, the ethnic representation would undoubtedly be far greater. Why? Because Area Seventies tend to be called based on geographical locale of their homes, this because they serve on a part-time basis while living at home. This means those called in areas outside of the United States would be apt to reflect the nationality or ethnicity of their homelands. In fairness to hope_for_things, I will allow for the possibility that he may have been unintentionally deceptive with this. And he did invite us to correct him if he was wrong on any of his assumptions. But deceptive it was, nonetheless. The combined membership of the First and Second quorums, quite simply, is far less than hope_for_things supposed here, and thus the ratio would be far greater. Furthermore, a given Quorum of the Seventy may have, and likely as not, does have fewer than 70 members, as the procedure calls for each Quorum to have <up to> 70 members but not necessarily be filled with its full complement of 70 members. That would mean the aggregate total would be lesser still. Edited September 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 I am not sure what you are arguing for here. If it is ethnic diversity in church leadership, then good luck with that. Because the leadership of the church is by far made up of white, privileged men (always men) that largely come from several prominent Mormon families. It has been that way for over 150 years. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I am not sure what you are arguing for here. If it is ethnic diversity in church leadership, then good luck with that. Because the leadership of the church is by far made up of white, privileged men (always men) that largely come from several prominent Mormon families. It has been that way for over 150 years. If you'll look at the other thread, you'll see that the complainers were stacking the deck by only considering members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency (which, incidentally, right now includes a German national) and failing to consider the other General Authorities and Area Seventies, So what I am arguing for here is that critics avoid stacking the deck and thereby avoid being deceptive. For my part, I don't even care about ethnicity among the governing councils of the Church. I am colorblind in that respect. Nor would I care if the composition were to become markedly different than it is now. I only care that it be God who calls the shots, not critics, complainers and pressure groups. Edited September 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
Popular Post JulieM Posted September 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church, "Alleged lack of ethnic diversity"? I think there's nothing "alleged" about it, Scott. There is definitely a lack of ethnic diversity with the group of apostles serving (current group and past apostles) which is what the opening post was about. Edited September 12, 2017 by JulieM 5 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you'll look at the other thread, you'll see that the complainers were stacking the deck by only considering members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency (which, incidentally, right now includes a German national) and failing to consider the other General Authorities and Area Seventies, So what I am arguing for here is that critics avoid stacking the deck and thereby avoid being deceptive. For my part, I don't even care about ethnicity among the governing councils of the Church. I am colorblind in that respect. Nor would I care if the composition were to become markedly different than it is now. I only care that it be God who calls the shots, not critics, complainers and pressure groups. I agree that if you are going to count church leadership, then you need to count both quorums of Seventies. 2 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you'll look at the other thread, you'll see that the complainers were stacking the deck by only considering members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency... No, that's what was quoted in the OP for discussion (specifically "apostles"). It was you and others that tried to change it to include other leaders (70's). It's fine since this one is now your thread if you want to discuss the 70's, but don't misrepresent what Stemmelbow wanted to discuss in his thread. From the OP in the now closed thread; "100 straight apostles are white men. Didn't realize it. Of course, there's no way out of that. It's what it is. Race diversity is a problem, in my view, but diversity is lacking in the Church in many ways. Thoughts?" Edited September 12, 2017 by JulieM 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: No, that's what was quoted in the OP for discussion (specifically "apostles"). It was you and others that tried to change it to include other leaders (70's). From the OP in the now closed thread; "100 straight apostles are white men. Didn't realize it. Of course, there's no way out of that. It's what it is. Race diversity is a problem, in my view, but diversity is lacking in the Church in many ways. Thoughts?" I'm not going to relititigate the other thread, and if you insist on doing so, I will ignore your posts. But the fact is, the overall implied and overt accusations of racism in the selection of general Church leaders falls flat when one considers all of the General Authorities and Area Seventies, just as Smac97 pointed out in his excellent posts on the other thread. By the way, that's not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is the sleight-of-hand by hope_for_things. Do you have anything to say on that topic? If not, I'll invite you to stand down. And if no one else has anything to say on the topic, I'll invite the moderation team to close this thread, I having made my point. Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not going to relititigate the other thread, and if you insist on doing so, I will ignore your posts. But the fact is, the overall implied and overt accusations of racism in the selection of general Church leaders falls flat when one considers all of the General Authorities and Area Seventies, just as Smac97 pointed out in his excellent posts on the other thread. By the way, that's not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is the sleight-of-hand by hope_for_things. Do you have anything to say on that topic? If not, I'll invite you to stand down. And if no one else has anything to say on the topic, I'll invite the moderation team to close this thread, I having made my point. I edited my post before I saw your response with this: "It's fine since this one is now your thread if you want to discuss the 70's, but don't misrepresent what Stemmelbow wanted to discuss in his thread." I just don't agree with how you misrepresented Stemmelbow's thread and what his intent was with his OP and discussion. Of course, you're free to discuss the 70's as part of church leadership here on your thread even though that wasn't his intent with his other thread. Maybe you could have just left him out of it here rather than be negative and state: "In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church," Edited September 12, 2017 by JulieM 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: dup Edited September 12, 2017 by JulieM Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 All I can say is the complainers and ark-steadiers here had better hope the Church isn't true and that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are uninspired because if the Church is true and if the new members of the highest councils of the Church are truly called of God to fill the vacant positions, they are placing themselves real jeopardy as a consequence of being in rebellion against the revealed will of the Lord. Is it unreasonable for me to presume the reason why such people find it easy to question the inspiration of the highest Church leaders is because they really don't believe the Church is true and really don't believe the leaders are genuinely inspired of God? It seems reasonable to me that if they did believe the Church is true and the leaders truly inspired by God they would think twice before engaging in behaviors that demonstrate an unwillingness to believe the Lord is effectively guiding today's leaders by revelation from heaven. Is there anything unreasonable or illogical in my reasoning? Link to comment
stemelbow Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church, hope_for_things engaged in some statistical sleight-of-hand that I have only now noticed. I can't let this go by, so I'm opening this thread to highlight it. Here's a copy-and-paste: What hope_for_things failed to mention was that the 34 people that Smac97 listed were only General Authority Seventies. That is, they were only members of the First and Second Quorum of the Seventy. They were not selected from all 10 quorums, as hope_for_things falsely said. If one were to consider all of the quorums, including the third through the 10th, which are occupied by Area Seventies, the ethnic representation would undoubtedly be far greater. Why? Because Area Seventies tend to be called based on geographical locale of their homes, this because they serve on a part-time basis while living at home. This means those called in areas outside of the United States would be apt to reflect the nationality or ethnicity of their homelands. In fairness to hope_for_things, I will allow for the possibility that he may have been unintentionally deceptive with this. And he did invite us to correct him if he was wrong on any of his assumptions. But deceptive it was, nonetheless. The combined membership of the First and Second quorums, quite simply, is far less than hope_for_things supposed here, and thus the ratio would be far greater. Furthermore, a given Quorum of the Seventy may have, and likely as not, does have fewer than 70 members, as the procedure calls for each Quorum to have <up to> 70 members but not necessarily be filled with its full complement of 70 members. That would mean the aggregate total would be lesser still. This is not sleight of hand, Scott. Sleight of hand would be intentionally trying to trick or manipulate. He pleads from the outset for someone to correct him if he's wrong. Are you trying your hand at sleight of hand? That'd be an odd way to play this. I haven't looked into this at all. I found your reaction here too problematic as expressed. 3 Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church, hope_for_things engaged in some statistical sleight-of-hand that I have only now noticed. Scott, come on....that's not cool or accurate. Go ahead and talk about the Seventies on a thread you create, but you don't need to slam Stem when that's not what he did at all, IMO. Open this discussion for Hope_For_Things to respond to as I do think that could be an interesting discussion (regarding the racial diversity within the Seventies). However, I also feel you're not being fair to him (Hope_For_Things) either regarding how you've represented him. If he simply made an error, there was no deception involved on his part. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt so there can be a civil discussion here? He's one to always own up to any mistakes he's made from what I've seen on this board. Edited September 12, 2017 by ALarson 2 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 49 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I am not sure what you are arguing for here. If it is ethnic diversity in church leadership, then good luck with that. Because the leadership of the church is by far made up of white, privileged men (always men) that largely come from several prominent Mormon families. It has been that way for over 150 years. Sweet. I'm white privilege. When do I get to join the leadership? Link to comment
Hestia Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: In a now-closed thread, the one that stemelbow created to complain about alleged lack of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church, hope_for_things engaged in some statistical sleight-of-hand that I have only now noticed. I can't let this go by, so I'm opening this thread to highlight it. Here's a copy-and-paste: What hope_for_things failed to mention was that the 34 people that Smac97 listed were only General Authority Seventies. That is, they were only members of the First and Second Quorum of the Seventy. They were not selected from all 10 quorums, as hope_for_things falsely said. If one were to consider all of the quorums, including the third through the 10th, which are occupied by Area Seventies, the ethnic representation would undoubtedly be far greater. Why? Because Area Seventies tend to be called based on geographical locale of their homes, this because they serve on a part-time basis while living at home. This means those called in areas outside of the United States would be apt to reflect the nationality or ethnicity of their homelands. In fairness to hope_for_things, I will allow for the possibility that he may have been unintentionally deceptive with this. And he did invite us to correct him if he was wrong on any of his assumptions. But deceptive it was, nonetheless. The combined membership of the First and Second quorums, quite simply, is far less than hope_for_things supposed here, and thus the ratio would be far greater. Furthermore, a given Quorum of the Seventy may have, and likely as not, does have fewer than 70 members, as the procedure calls for each Quorum to have <up to> 70 members but not necessarily be filled with its full complement of 70 members. That would mean the aggregate total would be lesser still. Do not create threads in order to get the last word in on a conversation from a locked thread or to continue a disagreement. ~Mods Link to comment
Recommended Posts