Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I think if you lived where I do you would absolutely be in a SP or HC. In the Regina Saskatchewan Canada Stake maybe 2011 ish? a guy moved into the area and 2 months later he was called into the Stake Pres. no body hardly knew him!
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 In the Regina Saskatchewan Canada Stake maybe 2011 ish? a guy moved into the area and 2 months later he was called into the Stake Pres. no body hardly knew him! Yeah, but they'd been watching him drive into town for the past 3 days...
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Yeah, but they'd been watching him drive into town for the past 3 days... right heh,well listen it's better than Alberta, great place to live if you're a horrible person
mfbukowski Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) My first calling in the church upon entering a family ward was gospel doctrine teacher. Those poor people who had to listen to me!! Then I became ward mission leader for a number of years. We after a few years moved and within 2 or three weeks in the new house, I was ward clerk. Edited June 2, 2015 by mfbukowski
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 right heh,well listen it's better than Alberta, great place to live if you're a horrible person You mean where all the majestic mountains are right?
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 You mean where all the majestic mountains are right? mountains aren't everything!!! yeh , if it wasn't for that I don't know who'd live there
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 mountains aren't everything!!! yeh , if it wasn't for that I don't know who'd live there Well, now that the NDP have control people from Saskatchewan will feel right at home.
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Yeah, but they'd been watching him drive into town for the past 3 days... are you Canadian?
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) are you Canadian? Naturalized. Born in England, lived in Calgary for 12 years before moving to Utah. Edited June 2, 2015 by JLHPROF
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Well, now that the NDP have control people from Saskatchewan will feel right at home. yeh! That was an interesting situation! FB was alight with all kinds of dire warnings, but so far the world hasn't ended yet!
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Naturalized. Born in England, lived in Calgary for 12 years before moving to Utah. I see why you've moved then
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I see why you've moved then Stop derailing the thread with all your anti-Alberta nonsense!! 1
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Stop derailing the thread with all your anti-Alberta nonsense!! hahahahaahaha! I have many, many close friends in Alberta, well not close but I know them! hahahahaha! Just kidding!
mormonnewb Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I think if you lived where I do you would absolutely be in a SP or HC. From my limited tenure, that seems to be the pattern. A guy in our ward moved to some Scandinavian country (not sure which, but I think it was the one with a lot of white people ... hehe). In any event, he was IMMEDIATELY made the bishop of his local ward. I mean like within the first month of moving there. I asked him if there was some kind of scandal or had the current bishop fallen dead or something, neither of which happened. I then asked him how the "locals" accepted a virtual stranger being made and he seemed puzzled by the question, like it had never occurred to him that someone might feel that way. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "No one opposed me." From this one isolated incident, I've drawn the following universal pattern that must inevitably be true in every case. There is a Church-wide perception that white American Mormons really know how to "do" Mormonism. So unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary, they will be put in leadership positions in non-American wards and stakes. After all, if you can't be in the home of true Mormonism (the City Creek Mall ... sorry, but that was too easy), then you might as well get a leader who has seen how Mormonism should really be done. Edited June 3, 2015 by mormonnewb
Rain Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Or it could just mean the Lord planned the timing just right and that he had skills or talents that were needed in that ward at that specific time.
rodheadlee Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If there's a language barrier and you come from a completely different culture, it becomes more complicated. Especially if you've only met someone a few times. Language barrier yes, completely different cultures fascinate me.
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 From my limited tenure, that seems to be the pattern. A guy in our ward moved to some Scandinavian country (not sure which, but I think it was the one with a lot of white people ... hehe). In any event, he was IMMEDIATELY made the bishop of his local ward. I mean like within the first month of moving there. I asked him if there was some kind of scandal or had the current bishop fallen dead or something, neither of which happened. I then asked him how the "locals" accepted a virtual stranger being made and he seemed puzzled by the question, like it had never occurred to him that someone might feel that way. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "No one opposed me." From this one isolated incident, I've drawn the following universal pattern that must inevitably be true in every case. There is a Church-wide perception that white American Mormons really know how to "do" Mormonism. So unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary, they will be put in leadership positions in non-American wards and stakes. After all, if you can't be in the home of true Mormonism (the City Creek Mall ... sorry, but that was too easy), then you might as well get a leader who has seen how Mormonism should really be done.I disagree that this is a universal. The problem is that in many countries many of the locals do not know how to "do Mormonism". In many areas almost everyone is a recent convert and local leadership is doing the best they can but they have little experience to work off of. If I were made a Stake President tomorrow I would have a lifetime of experience in how a stake is run to work off of because I have lived in them my whole life and been friends with many leaders and been in many counsels.Many are trying to do it from a manual and that is just not the same. I know that leadership missions were used to help train local leadership. A missionary couple would be sent and be made counsellors in wards, stakes, branches, districts, or whatever. This usually works well as the locals preside but they have an experienced leader to help advise and teach. 2
Avatar4321 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 From my limited tenure, that seems to be the pattern. A guy in our ward moved to some Scandinavian country (not sure which, but I think it was the one with a lot of white people ... hehe). In any event, he was IMMEDIATELY made the bishop of his local ward. I mean like within the first month of moving there. I asked him if there was some kind of scandal or had the current bishop fallen dead or something, neither of which happened. I then asked him how the "locals" accepted a virtual stranger being made and he seemed puzzled by the question, like it had never occurred to him that someone might feel that way. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "No one opposed me." From this one isolated incident, I've drawn the following universal pattern that must inevitably be true in every case. There is a Church-wide perception that white American Mormons really know how to "do" Mormonism. So unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary, they will be put in leadership positions in non-American wards and stakes. After all, if you can't be in the home of true Mormonism (the City Creek Mall ... sorry, but that was too easy), then you might as well get a leader who has seen how Mormonism should really be done.Do you often draw conclusions from isolated incidents? I mean general conclusions that you apply to an entire group and then act as if they at universal?That doesn't seem very prudent to me.I've seen countless bishops called. Race has never been a factor. In fact I can't even recall a time I've ever thought of a bishop in terms of race. It's jusy such an unimportant factor that it doesn't cross my mind. Why do you presume God makes calls on the basis of race when we are told he is no respecter of persons? Why do you have this chip on your shoulder when it comes to race? Why let it divide us when the healing of the atonement is free for all?Zion is about being one. You cannot be one if you keep dividing yourself into groups according to race 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) No more inappropriate than people declaring on their own authority that it's time someone of color be called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I would be just as happy as anyone if that happened. But tokenism has no place in the Kingdom of God. Sometimes it takes 1 break from the mold to get people thinking and considering things in a different way. 1 black, polynesian, asian, hispanic apostle suddenly reinforces the idea that 1- this is a worldwide church and not everything is Utah/USA centric 2- nonwhites are just as worthy to serve. The first may be seen as a "token" but it doesn't mean it's wrong. Given that more than 1/2 of members reside outside of the United States I would hardly label a non-US Apostle as "token." Scott's comment is odd given that US Mormons are now a MINORITY in the Church. Any demand or suggestion that the quorum needs to reflect the demographic makeup of the Church membership smacks of tokenism and ark-steadying. As JLHPROF so eloquently expressed it: As was recently discussed on the Word of Wisdom thread, there are many factors that play into revelation. It is rarely a "voice of God" audible/visual kind of revelation but rather consideration of many factors in council But that doesn't negate the fact that, in the end, it is the will of God that is made manifest. If anything, God is in the background guiding "the consideration of many factors in council." I am certain, for example, that God guided the investigation of the young Joseph Smith and was preparing his mind and heart before Joseph finally got around to asking in prayer which church was right. This is my point. God may very much want a non-white "token" to be chosen to teach the church something. There may be political or social reasons that are considered as revelation is sought so we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibilities of other factors as playing a role. By the same token (no pun intended), God is not going to pass over a white American who has been prepared to serve in the Twelve at this particular time in history just because a lot of people are thinking and saying that it needs to be somebody from outside the United States. How horribly awful to thnk an international church, and one that proudly proclaims that fact, have a leadership that may reflect that slightly more than it does now.Ark steadying indeed. As I've thought about this, a comparison has occurred to me: About three weeks ago, our eldest son received his mission call. He will serve in the Sweden Stockholm Mission, the same mission I served in some 40 years ago. I was thrilled and delighted that he was called there. But I have to say that in the days leading up to the call, though the possibility of his being called to Sweden was in the back of my mind as being a cool thing, I never had my heart set on it. The matters of vital importance to me were that he be found worthy to serve and that he be called under inspiration to where he could serve well and effectively while growing personally in the process. I'm convinced that has happened. The fact that it will be in Sweden is merely icing on the cake. I view the prospect of a member of a "minority" being called to fill the vacancy in the quorum in much the same way. It would be a cool thing, even thrilling, but not something of essential or vital importance. Edited June 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
Duncan Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 As I've thought about this, a comparison has occurred to me: About three weeks ago, our eldest son received his mission call. He will serve in the Sweden Stockholm Mission, the same mission I served in some 40 years ago. I was thrilled and delighted that he was called there. But I have to say that in the days leading up to the call, though the possibility of his being called to Sweden was in the back of my mind as being a cool thing, I never had my heart set on it. The matters of vital importance to me were that he be found worthy to serve and that he be called under inspiration to where he could serve well and effectively while growing personally in the process. I'm convinced that has happened. The fact that it will be in Sweden is merely icing on the cake. I view the prospect of a member of a "minority" being called to fill the vacancy in the quorum in much the same way. It would be a cool thing, even thrilling, but not something of essential or vital importance. not to derail but did your son make mention on his papers that you had served in Sweden? My bro. and I both served in LA but 7 years apart, it's always been a curious thing to me
Avatar4321 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 not to derail but did your son make mention on his papers that you had served in Sweden? My bro. and I both served in LA but 7 years apart, it's always been a curious thing to meMy father served in los Angeles. I served in San Fernando which had areas from the low Angeles mission. It was weird. But cool at the same times 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Except that he was just called to the Seventy. ... And? That's certainly not an impediment. Could someone who hadn't previously served in the Presiding Quorums of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be called into the Twelve? Ask Elders Oaks and Nelson. Thus, I see no reason why the Lord couldn't choose someone who'd recently been called to another position as a General (or as an Area) Authority.
Teancum Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Straw man.As you perfectly well know, nobody is suggesting that it would be a bad thing to have a non-American, or non-white apostle.Nobody.A few here seem to think suggting as such is not appropriate.Thus my remark. No straw man whatsoever.
Teancum Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I've said I would be as happy as anyone with a more internationally flavored Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But that is not the most important consideration or even among the most important. To borrow the phrasing of a famous historical figure, I tend to evaluate a leader not on the color of his skin but on the content of his character. So who is it who is applying the racial/ethnic/national litmus test, you or I?I am applying no litmus test, I was responding to you and others who imply to wish for such is not appropriate . Honestly I am not all that worried about it as it has little to no impact on me or those I care about. But for a church that has more than half its members outside he USA and has 98% of its top 15 leaders as white American men mostly from Utah...well they should be concerned .
rodheadlee Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I am applying no litmus test, I was responding to you and others who imply to wish for such is not appropriate . Honestly I am not all that worried about it as it has little to no impact on me or those I care about. But for a church that has more than half its members outside he USA and has 98% of its top 15 leaders as white American men mostly from Utah...well they should be concerned .Yeah, when are we gonna have a Polynesian Apostle?
Recommended Posts