Jump to content
Scott Lloyd

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How do the critics account for this?  In the main . . . they don't.  They just ignore the extensive racial and cultural diversity found in the upper echelons of the Church, and instead focus exclusively on the Twelve.

When was the last time that the new prophet came from outside of the Twelve?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And if and when a non-white man is called as an apostle, the goalposts will be shifted.  We'll see complaints of the individual being a token.  We'll see calls for "proportional representation" in the Twelve.  And so on.

There will be no shifting. If a non-white apostle is called who is young enough to ascend to the presidency, we'll shut up about that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Thinking said:
Quote

How do the critics account for this?  In the main . . . they don't.  They just ignore the extensive racial and cultural diversity found in the upper echelons of the Church, and instead focus exclusively on the Twelve.

When was the last time that the new prophet came from outside of the Twelve?

IIRC, never.  I don't understand the point of this question, though.

1 minute ago, Thinking said:
Quote

And if and when a non-white man is called as an apostle, the goalposts will be shifted.  We'll see complaints of the individual being a token.  We'll see calls for "proportional representation" in the Twelve.  And so on.

There will be no shifting. If a non-white apostle is called who is young enough to ascend to the presidency, we'll shut up about that issue.

We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Thinking said:

... There will be no shifting. If a non-white apostle is called who is young enough to ascend to the presidency, we'll shut up about that issue.

Who's "we"?  You and that mouse in your pocket?  On whose behalf are you speaking, exactly?  (Just curious.  You're welcome to do what 99% of posters here do, anyway, and completely ignore me if you wish. :rolleyes:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Thinking said:

Critics will be shocked if a non-white apostle is called who is young enough to ascend to be prophet.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And/or they will dismiss such a calling as a token.  Pandering.

In the aggregate, there is no placating the critics of the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

If he's young enough to ascend to the presidency, we would not consider it a token.

There ain't no wind, and yet them thar goal posts is right shifty, ain't they?!! :rolleyes::unknw: Jes' cain't win with some folks, is all they is to it, ah guess!  

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:
Quote

If he's young enough to ascend to the presidency, we would not consider it a token.

There ain't no wind, and yet them thar goal posts is right shifty, ain't they?!! :rolleyes::unknw: Jes' cain't win with some folks, is all they is to it, ah guess!  

Yes, I noticed that.

"If."

Any other "ifs" out there?  Almost certainly.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of attitude.  And the calling of apostles is not a matter of race-based nose-counting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why does it have to be a “matter of race-based nose counting” or political correctness?  Why can’t it be a matter of statistical improbility?

Think about it, in the 175 year history of the church every single apostle and prophet has been a white male.  Even taking into account the church’s predominantly white demographics, statistically speaking one would expect at least some non-white apostles over its history.

Now if one accepts that race may have played a role when when choosing these leaders (either via God or the Q15), well then that would solve our statistical conundrum.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting timing with some of the thoughts I've been having recently.  I was talking to a friend and we were discussing what would happen if one of the current Apostles in the church defected from the church over concerns about church leadership/scandal/history or something along those lines.  And if that said apostle participated in interviews explaining their reasoning for the defection, I wonder how many orthodox members would even listen to what they had to say.  

My friend was arguing that members would of course at least listen to the defecting apostle, but I was arguing against.  I know too many people that refuse to even entertain that current leaders are fallible in practice, or consider that their current positions may be flawed in any way.  I think if an apostle did defect that the majority of orthodox members wouldn't give their arguments even 5 minutes of their time, they would just immediately assume the defecting apostle and any evidence that they presented for defection is flawed and evil.  They wouldn't even be willing to give that person, even it was someone they admired greatly before defection, the time of day to listen to their reasons, because they would be acting out of fear rather than thinking rationally.  

It seems like Peterson's post is just another in a long line of, defend the status quo, rather than consider that the church has a diversity problem and that it might be rooted in prejudice and bias.  The default position by most orthodox members that I know is to assuming that the current layout of the leadership is God's divine will without any critical analysis of the situation.  

 

Superb illustration of the ad hominem fallacy. This should be cited in logic textbooks as an illustrative example. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There ain't no wind, and yet them thar goal posts is right shifty, ain't they?!! :rolleyes::unknw: Jes' cain't win with some folks, is all they is to it, ah guess!  

Please explain how the goal posts shifted between my two posts.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Superb illustration of the ad hominem fallacy. This should be cited in logic textbooks as an illustrative example. 

The you’d have a seriously flawed textbook because I’m not attacking or maligning a person’s character to distract from an argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Please explain how the goal posts shifted between my two posts.

This is not necessarily an indictment of  you personally, Thinking, but  it is the first I've ever heard from the Affirmative Action In The Apostleship™ crowd that not only must a newly-called apostle be the right color, he must also be young enough to ascend, one day, to the office of President of the Church.  Hence, my pointing out the shifting goal posts on a perfectly calm, serene day.  

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Thinking said:

... There will be no shifting. If a non-white apostle is called who is young enough to ascend to the presidency, we'll shut up about that issue. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] 

That's the problem with attempting to govern the Church of Jesus Christ (see what I did there? ;)) according to the seemingly ever-shifting whims of the madding crowds: They are indefatigable, and their list of demands is endless.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, omni said:

Why does it have to be a “matter of race-based nose counting” or political correctness?  Why can’t it be a matter of statistical improbility?

Think about it, in the 175 year history of the church every single apostle and prophet has been a white male.  Even taking into account the church’s predominantly white demographics, statistically speaking one would expect at least some non-white apostles over its history.

Now if one accepts that race may have played a role when when choosing these leaders (either via God or the Q15), well then that would solve our statistical conundrum.

You also have to take into account the high degree of nepotism that takes place in church leadership.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's the problem with attempting to govern the Church of Jesus Christ (see what I did there? ;)) according to the seemingly ever-shifting whims of the madding crowds: They are indefatigable, and their list of demands is endless.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The you’d have a seriously flawed textbook because I’m not attacking or maligning a person’s character to distract from an argument.  

You constructed a broad brush stereotype of “orthodox” Mormons as unreasonable and closed-minded. Then you lumped Daniel Peterson in with your fictional rabble rather than dealing with the message of his satire in an intelligent manner. 

It’s classic ad hom, defined by an online source as “directed against a person rather than the position [he or she is] maintaining.”

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

You also have to take into account the high degree of nepotism that takes place in church leadership.

You’re enacting Dan Peterson’s satire right here. I wonder if you’re doing it wittingly. 

Do you object to Jesus’s action of calling Peter and Andrew, both sons of Zebedee, as apostles? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You also have to take into account the high degree of nepotism that takes place in church leadership.

The only nepotism in the Church is the same type of nepotism in other industries.  A lot of high flying financial types all know each other because their dads know each other.  Their daughters marry other young men in the social circle.

I've never really understood why critics jump on this. There is literally nothing there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You constructed a broad brush stereotype of “orthodox” Mormons as unreasonable and closed-minded. Then you lumped Daniel Peterson in with your fictional rabble rather than dealing with the message of his satire in an intelligent manner. 

It’s classic ad hom, defined by an online source as “directed against a person rather than the position [he or she is] maintaining.”

Ad Hominem is about misdirection by focusing on negative attacks about a person to try and undermine their argument.  You’re confused and you’re misappropriating the term.  

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ad Hominem is about misdirection by focusing on negative attacks about a person to try and undermine their argument.  You’re confused and you’re misappropriating the term.  

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I know what it means. And it’s an apt term to characterize what you’ve done here.

By quoting the definition to me, you’re only implicating yourself. You invented a fanciful I-wouldn’t-put-it-past-em scenario. Then you applied it to Dan Peterson to discredit him as a person instead of dealing with the substance of his message. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The only nepotism in the Church is the same type of nepotism in other industries.  A lot of high flying financial types all know each other because their dads know each other.  Their daughters marry other young men in the social circle.

I've never really understood why critics jump on this. There is literally nothing there.

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):

Quote

After meticulously documenting and tracing family records among LDS leaders over the years, Quinn commented that “Where kinship was involved, (Brigham) Young’s successors appointed only men with close kinship relations to current or former general authorities. Aside from Wilford Woodruff, LDS presidents after Young also doubled his proportion of appointments with close kinship connections. Twentieth-century presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant more than doubled the founding prophet’s proportion of appointments with close kinship to other members of the Mormon hierarchy” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, p.169-170).

How does the current Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles measure up? 100% of them are related in some way to current or former general authorities of the LDS Church. In the top 2 leading quorums – consisting of 15 men (The First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), five of these men are directly related to each other. Four are related to each other by marriage. Four are directly related to former LDS Presidents. Five are directly related to former apostles. Two are married to wives who are direct descendants of former presidents. Five are married to wives who are directly related to former apostles. Seven are married to wives who are relatives of current general authorities or of their wives. The only apostle who has no blood ties to any other general authority is Apostle Richard G. Scott. But, true to form, his wife is related to several current general authorities and even descends from a former LDS apostle.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Does DCP know something? So, two more locals from slc or the wasatch front get promoted?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know what it means. And it’s an apt term to characterize what you’ve done here.

By quoting the definition to me, you’re only implicating yourself. You invented a fanciful I-wouldn’t-put-it-past-em scenario. Then you applied it to Dan Peterson to discredit him as a person instead of dealing with the substance of his message. 

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.  

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes 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.  

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.  

This satire obviously seems to be a way to get ahead of anyone who may complain about what probably will happen in a few days. They can certainly choose whomever they want and my guess is that it will be more insiders with the right pedigrees that they can trust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This satire obviously seems to be a way to get ahead of anyone who may complain about what probably will happen in a few days. They can certainly choose whomever they want and my guess is that it will be more insiders with the right pedigrees that they can trust.

Agreed, its not really surprising.  

Share this post


Link to post

It's a pretty funny satire, full marks for that. It succeeds in being funny, but it misses the mark on relevance.

We have no information about the ethnicity of Jesus' apostles. He wasn't leading an international church, just a very small religious movement made up of the people in a very small radius who shared his Jewish apocalyptic beliefs.

People talk about how calling an apostle shouldn't take into account "racial quotas" but that's obviously already been the case forever. If white people hadn't been prioritized, we'd have some people of color in the position by now. Demographically speaking it's very strange not to have already have a Hispanic or Latino apostle, since there are so many members of the church from that background. The call to include minorities in the Q12 is a call to END the current status quo of "racial quotas" which has given preferential treatment to Caucasian leaders.

There are of course other factors besides racial preference that have lead to the current make-up of the leadership, nepotism probably being the most obvious.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

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." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×