Kenngo1969 Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 A few years ago in a similar conversation here on the Board ("We need an Apostle of color"), someone Photoshopped Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's face purple, posted it, and asked, "Does he count?" (Personally, I thought it was a pretty clever response , but maybe that's just me ). Just as I don't think the Lord's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking his watch waiting for allegedly-recalcitrant brethren to die so that He can finally implement the changes He wants in His Church, I don't think He's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking His watch waiting for allegedly recalcitrantly-racist brethren to die so that He can finally call an Apostle of color. I want who the Lord wants: if He happens to want another white guy from inside the Mormon Corridor, I'm not gonna argue with the Lord of the Universe. If an Elder Sitati, an Elder Dube, or someone else of a different race, ethnicity, nationality, or color is called, I'll treat it like I would the calling of any other Apostle. I'll rejoice over it just as much, either way.
Dgal Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 A few years ago in a similar conversation here on the Board ("We need an Apostle of color"), someone Photoshopped Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's face purple, posted it, and asked, "Does he count?" (Personally, I thought it was a pretty clever response , but maybe that's just me ). Just as I don't think the Lord's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking his watch waiting for allegedly-recalcitrant brethren to die so that He can finally implement the changes He wants in His Church, I don't think He's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking His watch waiting for allegedly recalcitrantly-racist brethren to die so that He can finally call an Apostle of color. I want who the Lord wants: if He happens to want another white guy from inside the Mormon Corridor, I'm not gonna argue with the Lord of the Universe. If an Elder Sitati, an Elder Dube, or someone else of a different race, ethnicity, nationality, or color is called, I'll treat it like I would the calling of any other Apostle. I'll rejoice over it just as much, either way.I understand what you are saying.But remember, we are white Americans, too. It's easy for us to say that.
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 I understand what you are saying.But remember, we are white Americans, too. It's easy for us to say that. Prior to 1978 it wasn't all that easy to say that either.
Stone holm Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 A few years ago in a similar conversation here on the Board ("We need an Apostle of color"), someone Photoshopped Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's face purple, posted it, and asked, "Does he count?" (Personally, I thought it was a pretty clever response , but maybe that's just me ). Just as I don't think the Lord's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking his watch waiting for allegedly-recalcitrant brethren to die so that He can finally implement the changes He wants in His Church, I don't think He's sitting around, tapping his foot, and impatiently checking His watch waiting for allegedly recalcitrantly-racist brethren to die so that He can finally call an Apostle of color. I want who the Lord wants: if He happens to want another white guy from inside the Mormon Corridor, I'm not gonna argue with the Lord of the Universe. If an Elder Sitati, an Elder Dube, or someone else of a different race, ethnicity, nationality, or color is called, I'll treat it like I would the calling of any other Apostle. I'll rejoice over it just as much, either way.Not sure I understand this, you think He is killing them off, or that He doesn't care they are so white, or that President Monson has been having fishnet visions like unto Peter?
Danzo Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 I understand what you are saying.But remember, we are white Americans, too. It's easy for us to say that.It's easy for all faithful members.
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 It's easy for all faithful members.You know that kind of remark which throws people's faith in question is a bit much.
Popular Post Danzo Posted July 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) You know that kind of remark which throws people's faith in question is a bit much.I associate with faithful members of other races and nationalities regularly (one of them is my wife). I served a mission in another country. I have yet to see anyone of them complain about the color or nationality of the general authorities. Our testimonies of the church have nothing to do with the color of their skins. A few months ago our stake was reorganized by someone of a different race and nationality no one complained. Edited July 6, 2015 by Danzo 5
Popular Post Avatar4321 Posted July 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 6, 2015 I associate with faithful members of other races and nationalities regularly (one of the is my wife). I served a mission in another country. I have yet to see anyone of the complain about the color or nationality of the general authorities. Our testimonies of the church have nothing to do with the color of their skins. A few months ago our stake was reorganized by someone of a different race and nationality no one complained.And that's because when we are baptized we are made one body united in Christ. Why should we let skin color determine anything when the Lord doesn't? 6
David13 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I'll be honest, with the aging and passing of two leaders now, and perhaps more in the fairly near future, I think it's a good thing. It's the 21st century and I believe we need some new, and yes, younger blood, in the 12 and 1st Presidency. What is needed is a fresh perspective for moving forward with our changing cultureThe problem is, the culture is changing into total immorality. And we do not need that. Right and wrong does not flex and bend with the times, it stays constant.dc 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Not sure I understand this, you think He is killing them off, or that He doesn't care they are so white, or that President Monson has been having fishnet visions like unto Peter?I'm not sure that I care to try to make you understand it, either. Have a nice evening.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 The problem is, the culture is changing into total immorality. And we do not need that. Right and wrong does not flex and bend with the times, it stays constant.dcSomeone posted on another thread something attributed to President David O. McKay (but unsourced): "Right is right even if nobody does it; wrong is wrong even if everybody does it."
Dgal Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 It's easy for all faithful members.Agreed. But as a missionary church, it's those who aren't members we are wanting to convert. How we look to non-members matters, believe it or not. We are to spread the Gospel, are we not? Shouldn't we then look more global if we seek to be more global in our efforts?
Avatar4321 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Agreed. But as a missionary church, it's those who aren't members we are wanting to convert. How we look to non-members matters, believe it or not. We are to spread the Gospel, are we not? Shouldn't we then look more global if we seek to be more global in our efforts?I think we should look more individually than globally
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 The problem is, the culture is changing into total immorality. And we do not need that. Right and wrong does not flex and bend with the times, it stays constant.dc You really want to go down that road? Seems to me the definition of right and wrong has changed considerably over time -- given slavery and male domination of women were once considered right, and that much of Christianity would have taken issue with our belief that when the Lord ordains it polygamy is on the right. How about little things like "spare the rod and spoil the child", etc. 1
Danzo Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Agreed. But as a missionary church, it's those who aren't members we are wanting to convert. How we look to non-members matters, believe it or not. We are to spread the Gospel, are we not? Shouldn't we then look more global if we seek to be more global in our efforts? Do you have experience with people turning down the gospel message due to the racial makeup of the quorum of the 12? Someone who didn't join, but would have, if one of the general authorities had a different color of skin? I personally haven't experienced it. 1
Dgal Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Do you have experience with people turning down the gospel message due to the racial makeup of the quorum of the 12? Someone who didn't join, but would have, if one of the general authorities had a different color of skin? I personally haven't experienced it. I have had my international friend tell me that the LDS church is an American church
Avatar4321 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I have had my international friend tell me that the LDS church is an American churchTruth is truth regardless of whether its Americans embracing it or someone else.
Danzo Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I have had my international friend tell me that the LDS church is an American church Was this person an investigator?if he or she was, was the perception that it was an american church a positive or a negative?If it was a negative, do you think he or she would have been more likely join had there been more general authorities of more diverse races? 1
ERayR Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I have had my international friend tell me that the LDS church is an American church And he is correct. God restored it in east coast America and nurtured it to maturity in western (Utah) environment. So yes it is very much an American church. Think about it The Catholic Church is an Italian church. The Lutheran church is a German church. We could go on but I am sure that by now every church is tied to some geographical origin. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Dgal,Did you mention that there are now more members of that "American church" outside the U.S. than in?
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 And dang it, the Church of Jesus Christ can't win: It cannot attract members because its leadership is not diverse, or because it's racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or because it favors traditional marriage ... Dang, there are only about a million possibilities ... The Church can either stand for what's right, or it can try to please everyone, but it can't do both ...
strappinglad Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I don't think Christ's Church is going to appeal to very many folks. I think there is a scripture about that. 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an American church, and a Spanish church, and an African church, and a Mexican church, and an Italian church, and a French church ... It may not attract very many converts from any one of those places, but it will attract the elect from all of them: "Mine elect hear my voice ..." But it will do that because they ARE the elect, and not because of affirmative action or for any other reason. Edited July 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
David13 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Strappingglad; Kenngo;I like your posts there. Good reference.dc
strappinglad Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Strappingglad; Kenngo;I like your posts there. Good reference.dchere's an app for that .
Recommended Posts