Pres. Uchtdorf'S Priesthood Talk About Diversity

[CV75]

It is the "rolls eyes" emoticon. I am rolling my eyes at the quoted statement.

And?

[Stone holm]

And then again, the same thing is being done when one holds up an entire religious community as an example of being concerned with outward appearances and not with a person’s spirit.

I am skeptical about the claim anyway, since flashiness of any kind is avoided, and if only particular work horse breeds are available / used in a particular area for practical purposes, this would translate into a narrow range of color. Even if the claim represents a very rare exception, is it not rather a form of diversity than an “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap” to lay on the Amish community with a broad brush?

Are we now making excuses for using intolerance on a point of diversity to champion diversity as well as to stereotype?

Wow do you know anything about the Amish? The colony I lived near was very strict Berne Amish which did not allow the covered buggies that are normally associated with the "fancy" Amish, their Bishop did not allow them to work in Town except as a group to tear down houses. They were strictly farmers and barn carpenters with some house construction in the rural areas, they used only plain brown horses because to do otherwise involved vanity, they used strictly open buckboards, but were allowed to have umbrellas to break the wind in the winter. I could go on and on. i like them alot and believe that the Celestial Kingdom will be loaded with Amish. But, their way is not the Mormon way.

[thesometimesaint]

Strange thing to want to find. Jesus has said that in His version of the Gospel, all men will be brought before him and the Father to account. Doesn't seem anyone is excluded.

If only it did that, you might have a good point.

As an aside, you seem to be wandering off the subject.

I didn't say I want to find it. The Jews thought the Gospel was for them alone, until Peter was told otherwise by God.

[Saints Alive]

The Jews thought the Gospel was for them alone, until Peter was told otherwise by God.

Not quite, it is actually pretty interesting to study the role of the gentile in jewish society. But thats a topic for a different thread and probably a different forum.

[CASteinman]

I didn't say I want to find it. The Jews thought the Gospel was for them alone, until Peter was told otherwise by God.

Pretty much irrelevant to the context.

[thesometimesaint]

Pretty much irrelevant to the context.

Just trying to determine whom is excluded from the Gospel. The context is do we go to Church Meetings for others, or do we go because we want to commune with Christ?

[CASteinman]

Just trying to determine whom is excluded from the Gospel.

A weird thing to want to do. And if you were trying to do that you should actually read what the Gospel is, according to Jesus, so you understand what it is you are examining exclusion from. Otherwise you might make some errors. Which -- incidentally, you are.

The context is do we go to Church Meetings for others, or do we go because we want to commune with Christ?

Irrelevant. You were talking about the Gospel. Now Church Meetings. Different subjects.

[CV75]

Then why do you characterize their form of diversity as “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap”?

[Stone holm]

Then why do you characterize their form of diversity as “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap”?

I was talking about us not the Amish. The Amish have a specific reason behind their restrictive standards, which is integral to their way of life which deemphasises material signs of pride in the form of expensive clothing, vehicles, gadgets, etc. They also apply that to their church governance where their ministers are selected from amongst their elders by drawing lots from a hat, and their meetings rotate from house to house. This type of uniformity has very little to do with Mormon culture, although I have a friend who has been trying to adapt plain lifestyle and Mormonism. I feel like you are trying to twist my words. The point is that we are not like the Amish, we aren't even close to being like the Amish. Yet we are trying to conform to this 1950's white middle class American "traditional " family with more kids than usual.

[Saints Alive]

. Yet we are trying to conform to this 1950's white middle class American "traditional " family with more kids than usual.

My first act as President of the church... Members may no longer use anything made after 1959

[CV75]

I was talking about us not the Amish. The Amish have a specific reason behind their restrictive standards, which is integral to their way of life which deemphasises material signs of pride in the form of expensive clothing, vehicles, gadgets, etc. They also apply that to their church governance where their ministers are selected from amongst their elders by drawing lots from a hat, and their meetings rotate from house to house. This type of uniformity has very little to do with Mormon culture, although I have a friend who has been trying to adapt plain lifestyle and Mormonism. I feel like you are trying to twist my words. The point is that we are not like the Amish, we aren't even close to being like the Amish. Yet we are trying to conform to this 1950's white middle class American "traditional " family with more kids than usual.

No, you said:

Really you think so? I don't he seemed to be drilling in the okay folks lets knock off the unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap we aren't Amish.

To me that very much looks like you are saying that the Amish employ "unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap," (I'm not sure how it can be taken at face value in any other way) and then used an exceptional example of one conservative community's purported uniformity in color of horses (as opposed to the breed, which in turn drives the color, or as opposed to avoid flashiness -- which I still question since I do know something of the Amish) to support the generalization. You called out the white Utah Mormons' intolerance of Hispanics by using another group's use of horses as an example (a group you later insisted you admire).

The talk was more about loving one's neighbor in the four areas he discussed than about castigating the intolerant, anyway. So It's funny how the point of your remarks is about someone else's need to repent for not appreciating diversity, and fails to recognze that the few lines regarding diversity apply to all sorts of problems with intolerance all over the world, but to the white Utah Mormons and Amish farmers.

But, if now:

The point is that we are not like the Amish, we aren't even close to being like the Amish. Yet we are trying to conform to this 1950's white middle class American "traditional " family with more kids than usual.

...then why were the Amish brought in as an example of the "unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap" in the first place? We are not like them, yet we are trying to be something else? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Let's say you goofed by bringing the Amish-bashing into it. Within the Gospel context, what is wrong with large families of any race or class, in any decade? What is wrong with conforming to the Lord's blessings when they are avaliable, and living so as to someday receive them when they are not immediately available? Who is intentionally trying not to conform to the Lord's blessings?

[Calm]

To me that very much looks like you are saying that the Amish employ "unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap

Stone holm can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he is saying that the "cookie cutter uniformity" is build into the Amish system for a reason (and such a reason--humility--that is both valid and good but not necessary to express in such a way) and therefore is neither unnecessary or crap; however, if LDS engage in similar "cookie cutter uniformity" that since it is not build into our belief system, but imposed culturally upon it, it can become both unnecessary and crap.

then why were the Amish brought in as an example of the "unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap" in the first place?

The Amish are a group where uniformity is required based on their beliefs, our belief system does not require it...at least to that extent in outward appearance...so if we adapt the uniformity that is present in their group, it is unnecessary. Uniformity is not necessarily good or bad, it is so based on whether it is being applied in a useful manner for a particular group based on that group's standards.

One could argue that extreme uniformity is counterproductive for any group that is attempting to be relevant on a worldwide basis, reaching out to all peoples, bringing them a message of love and that they too are children of God...not because of how they behave, but because of their inheritance. Choosing a global standard that is foreign...and even in some ways antagonistic...to many of the cultures the gospel is being taken to is counterproductive. We need to view standards as individual attributes and not as a global system that can be transplanted from one culture to another without concern.

Edited April 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Interesting, the problem is that both the left and the right often think that they are the one's keeping God's commandments. But though he did mention politics, I did think that he was specifically addressing those who seem to think that all good Mormons should conform to the roles, dress, and lifestyle of the 1950's White Middle class family.

I read a study a day or two ago, will try and find it later, that found the level of happiness in general for the US was highest in the 1950s...it may not just be the fantasy portrayed by the media of that time that makes some think going back to the standards of the 50s might be a good idea.

Not the study, but refers to it: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679289/happiness-is-the-ultimate-economic-indicator

As an interesting aside...a list of the happiest states: http://www.livescience.com/9785-happiest-states-pinned.html

Edited April 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I read a study a day or two ago, will try and find it later, that found the level of happiness in general for the US was highest in the 1950s...it may not just be the fantasy portrayed by the media of that time that makes some think going back to the standards of the 50s might be a good idea.

Not the study, but refers to it: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679289/happiness-is-the-ultimate-economic-indicator

As an interesting aside...a list of the happiest states: http://www.livescience.com/9785-happiest-states-pinned.html

Home and we, along with our memories of it, have changed. You can never go back home again, and I'm not sure we would want to even if we could.

[Stone holm]

I read a study a day or two ago, will try and find it later, that found the level of happiness in general for the US was highest in the 1950s...it may not just be the fantasy portrayed by the media of that time that makes some think going back to the standards of the 50s might be a good idea.

Not the study, but refers to it: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679289/happiness-is-the-ultimate-economic-indicator

As an interesting aside...a list of the happiest states: http://www.livescience.com/9785-happiest-states-pinned.html

Well setting aside the fact that blacks weren't allowed in public pools down South and had to use different schools and drinking fountains back then, yes if we returned to the economic system of small merchants, small farmers, and union wage industry...yes I would agree.

[CV75]

Stone holm can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he is saying that the "cookie cutter uniformity" is build into the Amish system for a reason (and such a reason--humility--that is both valid and good but not necessary to express in such a way) and therefore is neither unnecessary or crap

It would take some twisting to take that meaning out of the original post.

; however, if LDS engage in similar "cookie cutter uniformity" that since it is not build into our belief system, but imposed culturally upon it, it can become both unnecessary and crap.

The Amish are a group where uniformity is required based on their beliefs, our belief system does not require it...at least to that extent in outward appearance...so if we adapt the uniformity that is present in their group, it is unnecessary. Uniformity is not necessarily good or bad, it is so based on whether it is being applied in a useful manner for a particular group based on that group's standards.

One could argue that extreme uniformity is counterproductive for any group that is attempting to be relevant on a worldwide basis, reaching out to all peoples, bringing them a message of love and that they too are children of God...not because of how they behave, but because of their inheritance. Choosing a global standard that is foreign...and even in some ways antagonistic...to many of the cultures the gospel is being taken to is counterproductive. We need to view standards as individual attributes and not as a global system that can be transplanted from one culture to another without concern.

The original remark about the Amish aside, we are also a group where uniformity of belief (in the Atonement) is required. What is the straight and narrow way, if not a form of “uniformity,” or the blessings of large families, prosperity, etc. for that matter? For all we know, since we are not immersed in the culture or the Amish belief system, Amish uniformity is as symbolic to them as striving to follow the prophet’s counsel on families and prosperity to faithful LDS, which some enjoy mocking as TV’s Cleavers. I think both are bad ways to support the ideas of the talk.

The more people try to get on an even keel, the more they will find themselves paraphrasing the original talk:

“But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities.

It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency—with all its far-reaching consequences—of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences.

The Church thrives when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen our fellow disciples.”

[Calm]

Home and we, along with our memories of it, have changed. You can never go back home again, and I'm not sure we would want to even if we could.

There is also the context...I would suspect that most (perhaps even a vast majority) who had lived through the 30s and 40s would see the 50s as an improvement on their past life, not necessarily so for those who have lived after them even if there are many things of the 50s that they would like to recapture.

[Calm]

It would take some twisting to take that meaning out of the original post.

That was not the only thing he stated, however.

If you were to be judged by only the first post in any discussion you were in, don't you think there might be many cases of misunderstanding of your intentions?

[thesometimesaint]

There is also the context...I would suspect that most (perhaps even a vast majority) who had lived through the 30s and 40s would see the 50s as an improvement on their past life, not necessarily so for those who have lived after them even if there are many things of the 50s that they would like to recapture.

I don't believe in romanticizing the past. Life was brutally mean, and blessedly short for the great bulk of human history. I'm a product of the 50's. My Grand-kids have temptations I never dreamed of. My kids had the allure of cynical pop culture. I lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation. My parents lived through the Great Depression and WW2. My Grandparents came west in covered wagons. Each generation has its problems and challenges. I have no desires for the 1950's and don't envy my Grand-kids challenges. I guess if I had to chose any time/place in history to live, other than my own. I'd pick the life of a late nineteenth century, upper middle class gentleman, in New England.

[CASteinman]

Life was brutally mean, and blessedly short for the great bulk of human history.

I have always thought roughly the same and that the Dark Ages were an example. But recently I was watching a special about the Dark Ages and the commentary said that things were actually not all that bad for them. Which surprised me... but then, if you think about it, it makes sense in some ways.

I have a theory or belief that the hardness of times can be evaluated by changes in measures of family formation, infant mortality, child deaths vs adult deaths, and overall survivable reproduction rates.

On those measures, we may be going through some harder times right now I think.

[Stone holm]

Economically, the 1950's were a golden age for America's white middle class and most of the industrial blue collar class. But it couldn't last since all of our industrial competitors were on their knees except possibly the Soviets, and we didn't trade manufacturing goods with the communists so they couldn't flood our country with goods made with ultra cheap labor. I am not sure that a social conformity with an economic system that no longer exists is sustainable. As my lawyer son whose wife is a physician we have a fair number number of members who are in the professional classes who are living in a bubble and are somewhat clueless of the real world around them. He is something of an elitist , but he is a pretty keen observer of what clearly isn't working. His Elder's Quorum Pres. Said at a meeting while I was visiting that he came from a long line of broken homes and they believed in giving 150% to their marriages so that when they ultimately failed they would not be at fault. That kind of cynicism may be more pervasive than we wish to admit.

[Yirgacheffe]

I read a study a day or two ago, will try and find it later, that found the level of happiness in general for the US was highest in the 1950s...it may not just be the fantasy portrayed by the media of that time that makes some think going back to the standards of the 50s might be a good idea.

Not the study, but refers to it: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679289/happiness-is-the-ultimate-economic-indicator

As an interesting aside...a list of the happiest states: http://www.livescience.com/9785-happiest-states-pinned.html

I'd be interested in the study you are thinking of because nothing in you link really indicates it was the "standard" that improved happiness levels. And the second one I find rather problematic where they match up "objective measures of happiness". Off the bat when they pit things like congestion and air quality against peoples stated level of happiness in states like New York or Illinois where the congestion and air quality issues are really centered in the one major "metro area" in the state. While the larger portion of the state does not experience these problems on the same level. I usually take all these happiness studies with a grain of salt, Utah is often pegged as depressed and recently the residents of Chicago were pegged as the most happy with them selves (a very important indicator of happiness) both somewhat contradicting what is presented in your link.

[Calm]

The study didn't link it to the standards of the time either, just stated that happiness levels (however they had chosen to measure them....which IIRC was just self reported "how happy are you" or "are you happy") peaked in the 1950s.

[thesometimesaint]

I think all of you would enjoy this.

[Darren10]

You forgot to mention how they out perform their US counterparts in life expectancy, quality of life after retirement, childhood education, high school education, lower percentages of citizens in prison, minimal murder rates and almost all indicators of first world well being.

Other than those minor omissions, you got it spot on.

Life expectancy is lower, sir, despite the horrific American diet. Retirement is banrupting the entire continent. In the US we mandate all get educated. In Europe children are filtered through qualifications in order to go through the schools. Regardless, you don't have to convince me that the American education system needs some big overhauling. Can't argue against the lower murder rate. And yes, regarding quality of living, I'd definitely want ot live in Europe than in many other places in the world.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Darren10