'Critics unhappy about the choice of apostles': a satire

[stemelbow]

I like Peterson, but I'd think about the time Paul started claiming to be an apostle, the trend was bucked.  It seemed Paul took authority and made noise enough to upset the status quo.  He wasn't, apparently, a backwater Galilean quite like the others either.  If the Church started appointing diversity within its upper ranks within a generation or two then Peterson's satire would make sense.  But as it is, it feels like he defeats any attempt to use this type of reasoning as defense of the current trend to promote white guys, most often related to former white guys who had prominence in the Church.  I wouldn't deny there hasn't been some effort, old Pres Uchtdorf is a good example of bucking a trend.  I suspect at some point a guy from Latin America will make it into the very exclusive club, although it maybe a guy from Latin American descent but from the US.  I guess we'll see.  Perhaps next week we'll see some startling move.  

And unfortunately, perhaps even more glaring a problem in Peterson's satire is his use of Jesus using the weak in society as apostles.  That's not the Church's approach at all, contradicting the practice Jesus set up.  

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I like Peterson, but I'd think about the time Paul started claiming to be an apostle, the trend was bucked.  It seemed Paul took authority and made noise enough to upset the status quo.  He wasn't, apparently, a backwater Galilean quite like the others either.  If the Church started appointing diversity within its upper ranks within a generation or two then Peterson's satire would make sense.  But as it is, it feels like he defeats any attempt to use this type of reasoning as defense of the current trend to promote white guys, most often related to former white guys who had prominence in the Church.  I wouldn't deny there hasn't been some effort, old Pres Uchtdorf is a good example of bucking a trend.  I suspect at some point a guy from Latin America will make it into the very exclusive club, although it maybe a guy from Latin American descent but from the US.  I guess we'll see.  Perhaps next week we'll see some startling move.  

And unfortunately, perhaps even more glaring a problem in Peterson's satire is his use of Jesus using the weak in society as apostles.  That's not the Church's approach at all, contradicting the practice Jesus set up.  

Yes, good points. Blue collar guys don't tend to become senior church leaders. At least not in recent history.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus would have been more inclusive as a natural extension of his gospel, not political correctness. But just because something is politically correct in todays world, doesn't mean it's wrong.

The same guy who said he was sent only to the House of Israel?

[Exiled]

Just now, Gray said:

Yes, good points. Blue collar guys don't tend to become senior church leaders. At least not in recent history.

LDS, Inc. is big business and I don't blame them in calling businessmen, lawyers, and others who have experience and ability in managing the business.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Let's say you own a car that needs a lot of work done. If you fix one thing, does that make all the other problems go away?

Yet the people suggesting all the car repairs tend to be those who think we should junk the car and ride a bike instead. We are naturally suspicious of their suggestions.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

LDS, Inc. is big business and I don't blame them in calling businessmen, lawyers, and others who have experience and ability in managing the business.

I sort of get the need to have that, although of course being a successful surgeon or lawyer does not automatically make you a good administrator. If that's the idea, they should be calling way more VP-level executives to the Q12. At the end of the day the LDS Church is a very large organization that needs adept administration. But it also needs good pastoral care as well. Tough to say what kind of profile would really have the most success.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The same guy who said he was sent only to the House of Israel?

Unclear. I would guess he probably didn't say that. But are you advocating for that now?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is not true.  Most, if not all industries and commercial organizations have policies against nepotism.  The church does not.  This is why many of teh 12 are related.  This is why a son of GA gets called to be president of BYU-I.   Here is an an excerpt from Michael Quinn's book, Mormon Hierachy, that shows how prevalent nepotism is in the church (bolding is mine):

 

The directly related bit tends to include third and fourth cousins and more cousins. Seeing that as nepotism is silly. I do not even know who my second cousins are let alone my third and fourth. I can barely keep track of the 50 some odd first cousins I have.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Unclear. I would guess he probably didn't say that. But are you advocating for that now?

Yeah, when Peter changed the rules the whole thing started going downhill.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

LDS, Inc. is big business and I don't blame them in calling businessmen, lawyers, and others who have experience and ability in managing the business.

Yes you do.

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes you do.

How so?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Exiled said:

How so?

I can read your mind.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, when Peter changed the rules the whole thing started going downhill.

Who let in these gentile riffraff?

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can read your mind.

Great. What am I thinking now?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The last few times new apostles were called they have a press conference, and the reporters always ask why those chosen are not hispanic, black, or more representative of the diversity of church membership.  Elder Anderson responded that he also wasn't sure why he was called, and that he could think of a number of a great candidates.   What I like is what Pres Nelson prophesied that "We’ll live to see the day when there will be other flavors in the mix," he said, "but we respond because we’ve been called by the Lord. Not one of us asked to be here." 

Pres. Hugh B. Brown said there would be a Japanese Apostle someday, maybe that day is today? guess we'll see this weekend

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Great. What am I thinking now?

“Nehor is an idiot.”

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who let in these gentile riffraff?

Filthy uncircumcised scum!

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Pres. Hugh B. Brown said there would be a Japanese Apostle someday, maybe that day is today? guess we'll see this weekend

When I was taking CES institute classes, the director of the institute asked how many were of the lineage of Ephraim.  All the hands went up except for two.  Myself and another girl from Mexico.  He then asked who was from the lineage of manasseh, and so she and i raised our hands.  He then explained that the lineage of Ephraim has the sacred mission to provide leadership for the church and gather the other tribes (D&Cov133:30-33).  He then explained that this was why someone from the tribe of mannaseh will never be called to be an apostle.  It really hurt me to hear this then, but I'm over it now.  I think he subscribed to this doctrine of Ephraim at the top in birthright leadership and blacks at the bottom with no lineage or right to priesthood as was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  This is still in our hymns, for example when singing, hymn2 the spirit of God verse 4, we sing "And Ephraim be crowned with his blessing in Zion, As Jesus descends with his chariot of fire!"  Or Ye Elders of Israel Hymn319 in the chorus we sing, "O Babylon, O Babylon, we bid thee farewell;   We’re going to the mountains of Ephraim to dwell."  I usually just go silent on this part of the chorus.   Another example, 5 years ago I was speaking with a young african american missionary who asked me with great concern why in his patriarchal blessing the patriarch refused to declare any lineage?  We went through galatians 3:29, and I explained how prophets of our church due to racism, ingrained bigotry from lucifer taught that men and women of african descent could not receive temple blessings and perhaps this patriarch didn't know what to do.  It bothered him greatly.   I'm still waiting for the day when this institute director's perspective that hispanics of the tribe of Manasseh (Lehi's lamanite descendants) ideas will be proven wrong by the Lord.  Still waiting.  I know for the presidents of Relief society, Young women, and Primary the president has been 100% white since the founding of the church, as with 100% white for all apostles.  For me I expect things to change because the Lord's thoughts are higher, "Isaiah 55:8-9.  Certainly blacks can be declared of the tribe of Ephraim, as well as hispanics and anglo-white's of other tribes as well, and I don't think today the leaders have this older hierarchy of lineage perspective.  I heard Monson was of the tribe of Levi for example.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by blueglass

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“Nehor is an idiot.”

No. I wasn't thinking that. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

No. I wasn't thinking that. 

Now you are thinking:

”Haha that fool Nehor will never know that I was thinking that and just said I was not. He will never know. Exiled, you sly devious dog. You are brilliant. Nehor seems nice though. I wonder if I should ask him out.”

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When I was taking CES institute classes, the director of the institute asked how many were of the lineage of Ephraim.  All the hands went up except for two.  Myself and another girl from Mexico.  He then asked who was from the lineage of manasseh, and so she and i raised our hands.  He then explained that the lineage of Ephraim has the sacred mission to provide leadership for the church and gather the other tribes (D&Cov133:30-33).  He then explained that this was why someone from the tribe of mannaseh will never be called to be an apostle.  It really hurt me to hear this then, but I'm over it now.  I think he subscribed to this doctrine of Ephraim at the top in birthright leadership and blacks at the bottom with no lineage or right to priesthood as was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  This is still in our hymns, for example when singing, hymn2 the spirit of God verse 4, we sing "And Ephraim be crowned with his blessing in Zion, As Jesus descends with his chariot of fire!"  Or Ye Elders of Israel Hymn319 in the chorus we sing, "O Babylon, O Babylon, we bid thee farewell;   We’re going to the mountains of Ephraim to dwell."  I usually just go silent on this part of the chorus.   Another example, 5 years ago I was speaking with a young african american missionary who asked me with great concern why in his patriarchal blessing the patriarch refused to declare any lineage?  We went through galatians 3:29, and I explained how prophets of our church due to racism, ingrained bigotry from lucifer taught that men and women of african descent could not receive temple blessings and perhaps this patriarch didn't know what to do.  It bothered him greatly.   I'm still waiting for the day when this institute director's perspective that hispanics of the tribe of Manasseh (Lehi's lamanite descendants) ideas that would be proven wrong by the Lord.  Still waiting.  I know for the presidents of Relief society, Young women, and Primary the president has been 100% white since the founding of the church, as with 100% white for all apostles.  For me I expect things to change because the Lord's thoughts are higher, "Isaiah 55:8-9.  Certainly blacks can be declared of the tribe of Ephraim, as well as hispanics and anglo-white's as well, and I don't think today the leaders have this perspective.  I heard Monson was of the tribe of Levi for example.  

The best solution to the lineage / Patriarchal Blessing problem would be to start calling some blind patriarchs.

Edited March 27, 2018 by cinepro

[blueglass]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The best solution to the lineage / Patriarchal Blessing problem would be to start calling some blind patriarchs.

Yeah, I can't imagine developing a lineage/DNA haplotype doctrine.   "New instructions for patriarchal blessing candidates:  1)  swab your mouth and send sample to ancestry.com  2) visit with geneticist and discuss family genealogy results 3) submit DNA/family group sheet report via MLS to patriarch, 4) read "All Abraham's Children" by Armand Mauss and "Seven daughters of Eve" by bryan skykes.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong on this accusation.  I didn't make any disparaging attacks on Dan Peterson or anyone else that fits the definition for an Ad Hominem attack.  My thought experiment was just that, a thought experiment about a conversation I was having with a friend, but it at no point attempts character attacks towards an individual to try and distract from their argument.  

 

Your "thought experiment" strikes me as garden-variety prejudice. Prejudice that was the basis for your attack on "orthodox" Latter-day Saints as a group and Daniel Peterson in particular.

Quote

I didn't find his satire persuasive, so I didn't choose to engage directly with it though a rebuttal of his points.  That doesn't make my comments Ad Hominem though. 

They were ad hom of the first order, directed at the person instead of his position, and based on your own contrived, wouldn't-put-it-past-'im, prejudice.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

When I was taking CES institute classes, the director of the institute asked how many were of the lineage of Ephraim.  All the hands went up except for two.  Myself and another girl from Mexico.  He then asked who was from the lineage of manasseh, and so she and i raised our hands.  He then explained that the lineage of Ephraim has the sacred mission to provide leadership for the church and gather the other tribes (D&Cov133:30-33).  He then explained that this was why someone from the tribe of mannaseh will never be called to be an apostle.  It really hurt me to hear this then, but I'm over it now.  I think he subscribed to this doctrine of Ephraim at the top in birthright leadership and blacks at the bottom with no lineage or right to priesthood as was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  This is still in our hymns, for example when singing, hymn2 the spirit of God verse 4, we sing "And Ephraim be crowned with his blessing in Zion, As Jesus descends with his chariot of fire!"  Or Ye Elders of Israel Hymn319 in the chorus we sing, "O Babylon, O Babylon, we bid thee farewell;   We’re going to the mountains of Ephraim to dwell."  I usually just go silent on this part of the chorus.   Another example, 5 years ago I was speaking with a young african american missionary who asked me with great concern why in his patriarchal blessing the patriarch refused to declare any lineage?  We went through galatians 3:29, and I explained how prophets of our church due to racism, ingrained bigotry from lucifer taught that men and women of african descent could not receive temple blessings and perhaps this patriarch didn't know what to do.  It bothered him greatly.   I'm still waiting for the day when this institute director's perspective that hispanics of the tribe of Manasseh (Lehi's lamanite descendants) ideas will be proven wrong by the Lord.  Still waiting.  I know for the presidents of Relief society, Young women, and Primary the president has been 100% white since the founding of the church, as with 100% white for all apostles.  For me I expect things to change because the Lord's thoughts are higher, "Isaiah 55:8-9.  Certainly blacks can be declared of the tribe of Ephraim, as well as hispanics and anglo-white's of other tribes as well, and I don't think today the leaders have this older hierarchy of lineage perspective.  I heard Monson was of the tribe of Levi for example.  

From "Guide to the Scriptures":

Quote

Manasseh’s descendants were numbered among the tribes of Israel (Num. 1:34–35; Josh. 13:29–31). Moses’ blessing of the tribe of Joseph, which was given also to Ephraim and Manasseh, is recorded in Deuteronomy 33:13–17. Their assigned land was partly west of the Jordan and next to Ephraim’s. They also had colonies east of the Jordan in the rich pastureland of Bashan and Gilead. In the last days, the tribe of Manasseh will assist the tribe of Ephraim in gathering scattered Israel (Deut. 33:13–17). The Book of Mormon prophet Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3).

(Boldface emphasis mine)

Both tribes are descended from Joseph and inherit the blessings -- and responsibilities -- that come through him.

I see no qualitative difference in those inherited blessings. Nor do I see any reason to feel slighted when encountering ecclesiastical references to the tribe of Ephraim, since, in a latter-day context, the blessings and duties are essentially the same.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your "thought experiment" strikes me as garden-variety prejudice. Prejudice that was the basis for your attack on "orthodox" Latter-day Saints as a group and Daniel Peterson in particular.

I guess you could characterize every difference of opinion as a prejudice.  Do you think you have a prejudice against people like me.  What about Dan Peterson, does he have prejudice against those who don't think that church leaders are diversified enough.  

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They were ad hom of the first order, directed at the person instead of his position, and based on your own contrived, wouldn't-put-it-past-'im, prejudice.

I've clarified how you're incorrect and provided the actual definition for what ad hominem is.  Nothing I said was directed at the person, you misread my original post and now you're stubbornly beating that same misreading drum.  Get over it.