Handing Ammunition To Anti's

[Kenngo1969]

I don't disagree. I don't think the Lord micro managed Pres Monson on these calls, in fact I don't think He really managed him much at all. ...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I got what I perceive to be a strong witness to the contrary when listening to these three men this morning.  And my Sister, Bluebell's question deserves an answer.

 

P.S.: And if you're one of those people (and they're not few in number) who believe President Monson did the "safe" thing despite an attempt by the Lord to inspire him to the contrary, you might also want to explain why you consider it "safe": Do you think there would have been some sort of mutiny or mass-exodus by the membership if, say, Elder Dube, Elder Sitati, and Elder Alonso had been called instead of Bishop Stevenson, Elder Rasband, and Elder Renlund?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[3DOP]

Maybe the pope and politicized Mormons are more likely to get upset about failure to observe quotas among the Apostles than believing Mormons? Antis? Anti-Catholics are sometimes members of the Catholic Church! What about you guys?

Edited October 5, 2015 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

Not my place to judge, if the Lord wants to have the quorum of the Twelve in this time of racial and ethnic strife to be all of European descent and primarily from the Rocky Mountain West, it's His call. So I guess, the answer is the Lord handed them the ammunition because it's the first thing one notices when their pictures are posted together, namely they are all white Caucasians. The non-Mormon press are all saying it was predictable. I would have predicted that we would have had one from South of the border and possibly an Asian, but the Church leadership in these times did the unpredictable and called three Utahns of European descent. Probably the safe bet, look what happened to the Catholics when they ventured away from their European base.

 

I had this initial same reaction when the they were announced as new apostles.  However, I also had a rather poignant spiritual experience afterward my period of questioning and whining.  Do we have the same reaction when we see an all black choir gain new black voices?  Do we have the same reaction when Japan calls another identical looking member to a leadership position?  Do we have the same reaction when we see a representative from B'nai B'rith?  

 

What is God telling us when he calls an apostle?  What is the importance of filling the "slot"?  Is diversification only achieved racially?  What does God see as diversification?

 

I am human enough to have thought it would be nice to have a "diversified" Council.  Two things, pick up a book entitled The New Thought Police:  Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, by Tammy Bruce, "gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent" who "worked on a number of Democratic campaigns in 1990s, including the 1992 Boxer and Feinstein Senate races and the Clinton for President campaign" and "also has a history of supporting Republicans as well, including President Reagan, both Presidents Bush and, quite reluctantly, John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign."  She has some rather enlightening things that you might find as interesting as I did.

 

Last, try praying about the calling of these three individuals.  The result of my prayer was a rather thorough chastisement and a reassurance that there is only one Master of the ship and his hand is firmly a hold of the wheel.  

[ERayR]

Maybe the pope and politicized Mormons are more likely to get upset about failure to observe quotas among the Apostles than believing Mormons? Antis? Anti-Catholics are sometimes members of the Catholic Church! What about you guys?

Yep.

[Stone holm]

Why don't you think that God "managed the prophet much at all"?

 

When the Prophet introduces something startling, innovative, or game changing -- my radar always flashes that the Lord is sending him a clear message, when the program is business as usual, I tend to believe the Prophet is basically running on auto-pilot which means following protocol.  It is the conservative thing to do -- when in doubt don't.  I am sure the three men called as Apostles are tried and true, righteous individuals who are accustomed to working with Church guidelines.  The type of very capable men you call to high positions when the Lord isn't beating you over the head as to the need of a specific person.  Does that answer the question?

[bluebell]

When the Prophet introduces something startling, innovative, or game changing -- my radar always flashes that the Lord is sending him a clear message, when the program is business as usual, I tend to believe the Prophet is basically running on auto-pilot which means following protocol.

 

Why?  That seems like a really strange thing to put your trust in-the novelty of the decision dictating whether or not it's revelation.  

[thesometimesaint]

Absolutely agree. And when I hear someone use that quote like you have, I say then that's fine that He doesn't need my help with this one. The thing that is good to know when the Church says it can do without your help is to look upon that as liberating, so you can devote your efforts to something else and know that what needs to be done is going to be done. It may take a century or so like extending the Priesthood, but eventually it gets done.

 

God and his Church don't need me. But I sure need them.

 

Liberating I suppose. It comes across more as cutting of your own nose to spite your face.

 

If you want a change in the Church, there is a well established way to do it. IE; The way that Ordain Women tried to do it isn't one of them.

[Stone holm]

Why?  That seems like a really strange thing to put your trust in-the novelty of the decision dictating whether or not it's revelation.  

If the Church doesn't have a specific need to be steered in a certain direction, and you know that the direction they will follow is the path they have been on, then there is no major need for strong revelation or micro-managing.  If the Plan calls for a specific course direction, or its time to take a unique fork in the road -- then the Lord would step in.  Its why most Church's become conservative over time, there is safety in ruts.

[Stone holm]

God and his Church don't need me. But I sure need them.

 

Liberating I suppose. It comes across more as cutting of your own nose to spite your face.

 

If you want a change in the Church, there is a well established way to do it. IE; The way that Ordain Women tried to do it isn't one of them.

 

Absolutely.  If God and His Church doesn't need you, then you can focus on the things you need.  If God wants the Church to change, He will tell the Prophet -- so not to worry and certainly don't try to steady the ark you know.  Hasn't that been what they have been telling us?

[bluebell]

If the Church doesn't have a specific need to be steered in a certain direction, and you know that the direction they will follow is the path they have been on, then there is no major need for strong revelation or micro-managing. If the Plan calls for a specific course direction, or its time to take a unique fork in the road -- then the Lord would step in. Its why most Church's become conservative over time, there is safety in ruts.

Not necessarily.

If the prophet had a righteous desire to bring about some changes, but God did not want him to deviate from the current path or normal choices, the Lord would need to step in and reveal that to him.

On this particular topic, you are assuming that pres. Monson didn't want to diversify the quorum of the 12 and never thought to pray for names from other continents. That's an assumption without evidence to support it though.

Speaking for myself, I know that whenever I have ended up in leadership positions that the desire to change things up based on what I thought would be better is a hard desire to tamp down.

I don't think that what dictates God's need to use revelation to direct His church is whether or not it's as it has always been done, but more so whether or not it's something we want or don't want.

But even under such circumstances where what the prophet wants is already God's will, I would imagine that he still prays for confirmation.

[thesometimesaint]

Absolutely.  If God and His Church doesn't need you, then you can focus on the things you need.  If God wants the Church to change, He will tell the Prophet -- so not to worry and certainly don't try to steady the ark you know.  Hasn't that been what they have been telling us?

 

I do focus on the things I need. Two of them are the Church and God.

 

There is the big jump in your logic. While we are a top down organization, with no impute for the general membership governance in the Church becomes problematic at best. If you have a concern go to your Bishop, then Stake President, and on up the chain. I'm reasonably confident it was the concern expressed by the good Saints in Brazil and the rest of the world that played an important role in lifting the Priesthood restrictions.

 

There is a big difference between arc steadying, and seeking a solution to a problem. IE; Going before and moving the rocks out of the way is a solution that achieves the goal without the typical arc steadying.

 

Personally I'm the type of person who goes directly to the person that has the authority to change the situation.

Edited October 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

Not necessarily.

If the prophet had a righteous desire to bring about some changes, but God did not want him to deviate from the current path or normal choices, the Lord would need to step in and reveal that to him.

On this particular topic, you are assuming that pres. Monson didn't want to diversify the quorum of the 12 and never thought to pray for names from other continents. That's an assumption without evidence to support it though.

Speaking for myself, I know that whenever I have ended up in leadership positions that the desire to change things up based on what I thought would be better is a hard desire to tamp down.

I don't think that what dictates God's need to use revelation to direct His church is whether or not it's as it has always been done, but more so whether or not it's something we want or don't want.

But even under such circumstances where what the prophet wants is already God's will, I would imagine that he still prays for confirmation.

 

True.  But if we harken back to David O. McKay and the extension of the Priesthood.  What happened there, at least according to what I have read about President McKay, is that he prayed and prayed and got no inspiration to make a change so he stayed with the status quo.  That appears to be the approach used, no strong inspiration to make a course correction -- stay with the status quo.  I don't think that President Monson would strike out on his own, but that does not mean that the Lord is telling him not to.

[ERayR]

True.  But if we harken back to David O. McKay and the extension of the Priesthood.  What happened there, at least according to what I have read about President McKay, is that he prayed and prayed and got no inspiration to make a change so he stayed with the status quo.  That appears to be the approach used, no strong inspiration to make a course correction -- stay with the status quo.  I don't think that President Monson would strike out on his own, but that does not mean that the Lord is telling him not to.

 

Depends on interpretation and I am convinced President Monson has learned how to read God's messages.

[Stone holm]

Depends on interpretation and I am convinced President Monson has learned how to read God's messages.

You believe he was specifically told to call these three. You may be right. My gut tells me, no that he prayed, got no objection and took that for a confirmation that staying the course was the right thing to do. And if you wanted to make sure that the Church stayed the course, then these men were the smart move. One of us is probably wrong, but we will never know in this life and it won't matter in the next.

[3DOP]

What about this ammunition business which is the title of the thread?

 

Its been a few days now. What are the "Anti's" (sic) saying?

[Kenngo1969]

True.  But if we harken back to David O. McKay and the extension of the Priesthood.  What happened there, at least according to what I have read about President McKay, is that he prayed and prayed and got no inspiration to make a change so he stayed with the status quo.  That appears to be the approach used, no strong inspiration to make a course correction -- stay with the status quo.  I don't think that President Monson would strike out on his own, but that does not mean that the Lord is telling him not to.

The "status quo" is that people are called by inspiration in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to fill some racial or other quota.  I would say that's a pretty good status quo with which to stick.

[Kenngo1969]

What about this ammunition business which is the title of the thread?

 

Its been a few days now. What are the "Anti's" (sic) saying?

There's no such thing as an "anti."  They're all just the loyal opposition.  Alas, the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints missed an excellent opportunity to finally fill the racial quota on members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, choosing, instead, the "safe" route of calling three white guys.  It's "safe" because, well, the vast majority of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have revolted and apostatized at this sudden attempt to impart much needed racial diversity to the Quorum.

[3DOP]

Hey Ken...Thanks for clearing that up for me. Heh. I was thinking that maybe in this instance, 'ammunition for "Anti's"' was nothing more than what displeases disaffected Mormons...er, "loyal opposition"?

[Kenngo1969]

Hey Ken...Thanks for clearing that up for me. Heh. I was thinking that maybe in this instance, 'ammunition for "Anti's"' was nothing more than what displeases disaffected Mormons...er, "loyal opposition"?

Right.  Like calling three (more) white guys into the Quorum of the Twelve.*

 

*I don't necessarily think that this was a primary reason why no one "of color" was called into the Quorum, but one factor is that many of those candidates would have to come from areas of the world where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still developing and desperately needs that leadership on the local level.  Heck, that's even true of many areas of the United States outside the "Mormon Corridor" of Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, along with parts of Nevada and California.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[iWriteStuff]

I'm going to play "Finish This Sentence" with the title:

 

Handing Ammunition to Anti's is a form of assisted suicide.

[ERayR]

Hey Ken...Thanks for clearing that up for me. Heh. I was thinking that maybe in this instance, 'ammunition for "Anti's"' was nothing more than what displeases disaffected Mormons...er, "loyal opposition"?

 

You like that too. "loyal opposition"  sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[Stone holm]

Hey Ken...Thanks for clearing that up for me. Heh. I was thinking that maybe in this instance, 'ammunition for "Anti's"' was nothing more than what displeases disaffected Mormons...er, "loyal opposition"?

 

I believe the current phrase being used is "disappointed but not disaffected" -- and this isn't an issue of quotas or tokens, it is in a sense a missionary issue because as Latter-Day Saints we have for about three decades been preaching that the gospel is for all races, kindred tongues, etc. and that the Church is the Stone made without hands encompassing the whole Earth.  In our Ensigns, especially our Conference Issues, we are sure to include photographs of members of a variety of races and ethnicities.  We have Cultural Centers, etc to display our interest and support of wholesome foreign cultures.  And.....we regularly appoint only Caucasians primarily from the Rocky Mountain West to our 2nd Highest Council...and scratch our heads when people who really should be identifying with us given their values and ethics instead turn their backs on us because of the image we project at times.  The missionary message here had to have hit with a big thud outside of the Rocky Mountain west...but apparently it was not yet time for a successful global outreach.  We must be patient and wait.

[Garden Girl]

There's no such thing as an "anti."  They're all just the loyal opposition.  Alas, the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints missed an excellent opportunity to finally fill the racial quota on members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, choosing, instead, the "safe" route of calling three white guys.  It's "safe" because, well, the vast majority of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have revolted and apostatized at this sudden attempt to impart much needed racial diversity to the Quorum.

 

Ken... I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here... I can't believe that you are...

I don't think for one minute "the vast majority" of members would apostasize had one or two, even three, of diverse racial mix been named.  In fact, I believe most members were looking forward to the possibility, and like me, were initially disappointed that they were " three white guys."   But as I stated previously, after the news conference I felt much better about the selection.  These are remarkable men.

 

GG

[Calm]

He is being sarcastic.  The claim is that it was a safe choice...why would it be considered a safe choice?  He sees the person making the claim it was a safe choice as implying the majority of LDS are racist who would be offended or at least upset by the choice of nonwhite apostles.  If they wouldn't be upset, then there is nothing really that makes choosing three white men the safer choice in regards at least to the membership.

 

I am sure Ken does not belive it was either the safe choice or the membership would have been offended etc.

 

----

 

Given the amount of disappointment expressed, it seems to me that it was not a safe choice in regards to acceptance by others.

[bluebell]

Given the amount of disappointment expressed, it seems to me that it was not a safe choice in regards to acceptance by others.

In terms of garnering public approval, it was a very unsafe choice.