Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Moksha

Apostle of Color

Recommended Posts

Kemara, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the expression "People of Color" as it is used in the United States. It is an encompassing term used by the Rainbow Coalition people to signify those folks who do not fit comfortably into the white mold.

Del made a excellent comment that this white mold has significant width, but unfortunately has not been wide enough to prevent past discrimination for those too far outside its artificial boundaries.

I wish Koakaipo could step in and expand on this theme, but I assure you Kemara, I am not backpedaling.

What did you have in mind about Apostle Matthew Cowley?

Moksha,

As I previously stated I do not believe that your original position and call for an Apostle of color meant an Apostle of

Share this post


Link to post

Kemara, I like you. It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell someone else what they meant. As for mopping the floor, well if its dirty someone has to do it.

GIMr - the last I heard she gave a boffo lesson to her Mia Maids last Sunday. Future of the Church? Well, she is young and talented, unlike myself. Does the Church need someone like her with a mixed background and indomitable spirit? Absolutely!

Racial Sensitivity Training? When I first took a training course in this back in the later 1970's, it was a real eye opener. The trainer told us right off the bat that everyone in America - black or white - shares in the dance of racism to some degree. The idea of a color blind America was a mere chimera, because the ideal never happens in real life.

We were made to confront our own racist assumptions and work on them together. As you know, I have suggested here and elsewhere, that such training would be beneficial for members of the Church, in approaching and realistically dealing with this issue. I think that a two hour block time, joint Priesthood and Relief Society meeting would be an ideal setting for such training.

Share this post


Link to post

Kemara, I like you. It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell someone else what they meant.  As for mopping the floor, well if its dirty someone has to do it.

No, it doesn

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. I foamed at the mouth when I was on this thread last. I want to keep myself in check this time, but I still feel as a mentioned before that people really aren't that far away from one another I bet in reality-in rhetoric, that's where all the polarizing is going on.

The divide mainly is how people view the notion of how an apostle is called. Some seem to characterize it as an exclusively mystical event, while others see it as a mystical event in some ways but also a process.

If you believe the former, then you think there is no room for what is seen as second guessing God, because it is God who is directly picking these apostles and only that person could fill the spot. If you think in terms of the latter take, you see more room for asking questions as there seems to be a greater level of human input.

If we just kinda gave eachother the benefit of the doubt here that no one wants to assume the other side just completely sucks, then there's more room to discuss the actual divide if you ask me.

My take with the latter notion isn't a politically correct stance by the way. It's a practical stance that is rooted in the organization of the church and it's leadership in regards to the process of counsel and how counsel has historically been used in relation to revelations on down to basic administrative responsibilties.

Share this post


Link to post

Kemara, thank you for liking me. You are more sensible that that Pahoran character, although your writing is almost identical...hahaha.

You may claim victory in your own mind, but third parties outside the Church reading this might find your protestations to be little more than an extension of obfuscation by attacking the messenger via trivialities and misrepresentations. They might even conclude that there still remains major bias hidden (not too well) beneath the surface of the Church's image.

I think we need to root out that bias and heal it. We need to do what we can to make sure that everyone at some future date will no longer feel any prejudice because of the color of their skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Kemara, thank you for liking me. You are more sensible that that Pahoran character, although your writing is almost identical...hahaha.

It's not only bad form, it's rather unconvincing to pretend to ignore someone and then throw barbed little back-handers at them.

AFAICT, Kemara and "that Pahoran character" are on the same side of this issue. If you detect a similarity in our writing style, then perhaps that might have to do with how much we have in common culturally.

Which is more than either of us have with you.

Not that there is anything wrong with being you (apart from your fanaticism on this particular subject) but simply that you are going to have more in common with Americans of your generation, regardless of colour, than you are with non-Americans, regardless of colour.

You let your colour define a large part of your identity. Most non-Americans do not, and you seem unable to grasp or relate to that.

You may claim victory in your own mind, but third parties outside the Church reading this might find your protestations to be little more than an extension of obfuscation by attacking the messenger via trivialities and misrepresentations. They might even conclude that there still remains major bias hidden (not too well) beneath the surface of the Church's image.

I agree with you: the less people know about the Church and the Mormon people, the more likely they are to let their opinions be [mis]informed by superficial stereotypes.

I think we need to root out that bias and heal it.

What bias? The one that uninformed people assume exists?

We need to do what we can to make sure that everyone at some future date will no longer feel any prejudice because of the color of their skin.

I don't agree.

There's nothing we can do to "make sure" that people "feel" something or other. There will always be those who "feel... prejudice because of the color of their skin," even in situations where it cannot possibly be a factor.

Like this MB, for instance. Nobody can see anybody; nobody really "knows" what anybody else's skin colour is, and therefore it never can become an issue unless and until the person involved chooses to make it so. And yet there are people who do.

That's the way it is here; and, in my experience, that's the way it is throughout the Church. People are generally more interested in the content of your character than in the colour of your skin. There may be some exceptions--there probably are, in fact--but this is normal LDS life.

What we really need to do is to make sure that none of us is doing anything to create racial bad feeling. From either side of the presently non-existent "colour bar."

Come the day that I am asked to sustain an apostle not of my own skin colour--and I fully expect to see it happen--I will do so just as cheerfully and wholeheartedly as I do those apostles who are of my own skin colour.

Can you say the same?

You may answer "yes" or "no."

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Kemara, thank you for liking me.

My pleasure.

You are more sensible that that Pahoran character, although your writing is almost identical...hahaha.

Why thank you, that you believe that Pahoran character and I have almost identical writing styles has to be one of the nicest things said to me on this board, I take it as a compliment though I doubt you meant it as such. Alas, I think your praise is a little off the mark I do not possess the talents or depth of knowledge that makes Pahoran one of the best janitors on this board

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...