Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Uneven Article Re: Elder Peter M. Johnson

Recommended Posts

But neither of those leaders were African AMERICAN in a church that for much of those 41 years was largely more AMERICAN than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

I loved the guy!  What is the chance he will be called into the 12?  (The Lord Knows)

Share this post


Link to post

I am tired of the knee-jerk defense and knee-jerk offense by some at certain matters, one of them being race.

Yes, it is great an African-American is speaking as a General Authority at Conference.

Yes, it could have happened before, but it did not.

Be grateful for favors great and small.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Uneven Reporting of the Report.

I don't understand why this article is being criticized.

It was factual, and oh by the way, your report left out this.

Quote

After Johnson’s Sunday sermon, many Latter-day Saints turned to social media to celebrate the milestone.

“Y’all I’m really crying in hearing Elder Johnson speak,” wrote one woman on Twitter. “Such an intimate moment and prayer answered. This is our church too.”

“Still not quite over Elder Johnson’s talk. It was perfect — the delivery, the message, and the history making moment,” wrote another commenter. “Black American saints are inspired and rejoicing.”

Said another: “I would like to listen to Elder Johnson speak every day, every day, every day,. That talk was so moving to me.”

Darius Gray has known — and admired — Johnson for many years. “When I heard he was going to speak, I was visiting with other saints in their home and I said, 'Watch this. You are going to see history."

Gray, co-founder of the Genesis Group for black Latter-day Saints, said Johnson’s sermon was “overdue” and a sign that the church "is moving forward at a human pace.”

“It’s not always the speed that God might wish," he added, "but at a speed that makes mankind — and leadership — comfortable.”

Gray also hoped that Johnson’s faith would be what people remembered first, then his race.

“Peter represented himself well — not simply as an a man of color but as a Latter-day Saint," he said. “He should be seen first in that light and then in the uniqueness of his position.”

 

Edited by Thinking
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Thinking said:

Uneven Reporting of the Report.

I don't understand why this article is being criticized.

It was factual, and oh by the way, your report left out this.

I provided a link.  

I didn't think quoting the entirety of the article fell within Fair Use.

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I provided a link. 

Yes you did. However, you know that many people don't click on the link and depend on the quoted parts as being the most relevant. The end of the article (the part I quoted) was very positive. You could have included part of it.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Trib:

I'm not sure what "fanfare" could or should have attended Elder Johnson's calling.

Actually, I think the lack of fanfare was notable.  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, ongoing "fanfare" regarding the ministries of Elders Soares and Gong in the Quorum of the Twelve.  The normalization of racial diversity amongst the upper echelons of leadership in the Church has been happening for quite a while.

"41 years?"

"Not until this year {2019}?"

What about Elders Helvecio Martins (called as a GA in 1990) and Joseph Sitati (called as a GA in 2009)?  

So there were no "signs" in 1990 or 2009?

Read the rest of the article, which somehow manages to have tinges of disparagement against the Church.  I guess we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Uneven?  You take issue with a side comment about Johnson being called with little fanfare, that no African American had been called for 41 years after the ban, and referencing two people called that weren't African Americans, and you take issue with someone making a comment about this being a sign of progress?  And the Trib is uneven?  

Slow news day might be the best explanation for this over-reaction, but it's a poor one.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Uneven?  You take issue with a side comment about Johnson being called with little fanfare, that no African American had been called for 41 years after the ban, and referencing two people called that weren't African Americans, and you take issue with someone making a comment about this being a sign of progress?  And the Trib is uneven?  

I'm not sure I understand your point.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Slow news day might be the best explanation for this over-reaction, but it's a poor one.  

Whose over-reaction?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I figured you might not.  I'm just saying pointing out that he was called with little fanfare does not suggest there should have been fanfare.  I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate.  Listing two non-African Americans to complain about the 41 years is silly.  I'm suggesting, saying there is a sign of progress does not suggest there have not been other signs previously.  

I"m clearly suggesting there is nothing uneven in the article, but oddly, you reaction to it was nothing but uneven.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whose over-reaction?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well...I don't know...who might have reacted to the article in a dramatic fashion?    hm.... "...look at the Church in the bleakest way possible"  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I figured you might not. 

So the lack of clarity was intentional?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just saying pointing out that he was called with little fanfare does not suggest there should have been fanfare. 

I think it does.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate. 

I didn't say the article was inaccurate.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Listing two non-African Americans to complain about the 41 years is silly. 

I'm not sure about that.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm suggesting, saying there is a sign of progress does not suggest there have not been other signs previously.  

The article hints at a 41-year lack of progress.  I think that's not quite right.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m clearly suggesting there is nothing uneven in the article, but oddly, you reaction to it was nothing but uneven.  

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well...I don't know...who might have reacted to the article in a dramatic fashion?    hm.... "...look at the Church in the bleakest way possible"  

"Dramatic?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Isn't he also the first Seventy that once was Muslim?  That's even more remarkable than just being black.

Edited by gopher
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the lack of clarity was intentional?

I think it does.

I didn't say the article was inaccurate.

I'm not sure about that.

The article hints at a 41-year lack of progress.  I think that's not quite right.

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

"Dramatic?"

Thanks,

-Smac

If you find this worth making an issue over, have at it.  I find your response uneven and dramatic, as I said and tried to point out.  I assure you, I did not intend to be unclear.  I just figure you, in your literal style might miss my point, after I posted it.  I'm happy enough with my clarification and will leave your response for what it is.  

All the best.  

Share this post


Link to post

It was nice to see JRR Tolkein finally get his due in Gen Conference.  But I will not be happy until Frank Herbert's Dune gets top billing.  And don't even get me started on the lack of Asimov in the upper echelons of the church. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It was nice to see JRR Tolkein finally get his due in Gen Conference.  But I will not be happy until Frank Herbert's Dune gets top billing.  And don't even get me started on the lack of Asimov in the upper echelons of the church. 

Asimov had good ideas, but as an overall role model he lacks imo.  I would rather he not get quoted considering his reputation with women.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

  I would rather he not get quoted considering his reputation with women.

I was thinking the same thing about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they keep getting quoted anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was thinking the same thing about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they keep getting quoted anyway.  

They are known for groping women in elevators or the equivalent of their day?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

They are known for groping women in elevators or the equivalent of their day?

I'm pretty sure you have at least some idea of what they were known for.  Example: I'd think marrying women without informing your initial wife, is something objectional enough to say I disapprove of his/their reputation with women. And let's face it, that's just the tip of the iceberg for them.  So, admittedly, I do feel at an impasse of sorts on this.  If men who have objectionable reputations with women should not be quoted, because they did things that we or someone of us find objectionable, then we might have very little to say about Mormonism's history at all.   Other than, perhaps, that many men who started it and led it have objectionable reputations with women.  Please don't quote them...they have terrible reputations with women

Share this post


Link to post

I get why some view their reputation as disreputable and their behaviour as disrespectful to women in general.  I also understand the source of good ideas isn't always relevant to the conversation.

We cannot teach the truths of our faith without referring to Pres. Smith and Young.

That necessity does not apply to Asimov, imo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate. 

The article is, technically, accurate on this point. But I think the way it's phrased is designed to be misleading. Here's the quote again:

Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics have been called to be general authorities and given conference speeches. But not until this year has there been an African American doing so.

They don't specify Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans or US Pacific Islanders, so the inference here is that they are talking about race - not race + country of origin. So, primed to believe that we're talking about race, the article then immediately pivots to race + nationality, but that's not how the casual reader is going to understand what it being said. They are going to take it to mean that there has never been a black man (or woman) who has ever given a conference address in the last 41 years. 

But that would be incorrect. There have been black Latter-day Saints who have participated in conference before - just none who happen to have been born in America. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get why some view their reputation as disreputable and their behaviour as disrespectful to women in general.  I also understand the source of good ideas isn't always relevant to the conversation.

We cannot teach the truths of our faith without referring to Pres. Smith and Young.

That necessity does not apply to Asimov, imo.

The last sentence may or may not be true.  Perhaps looking into his ideas we'd gain a better understanding of Mormonism.  Seeing as men who started the religion have poor reputations with women as does Asimov, we might be better equipped to understand what they were doing and saying if we just gave more focus to Asimov.  

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like some people can’t distinguish between American blacks and those from other countries. Let alone why it should matter. It has an uncomfortable “they all look alike” vibe to it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...