Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Calm]

Because God's method of working with His mortal sons and daughters is to have them deliberate and come to a unified conclusion, after which He ratifies it by the Spirit if it is in accordance with His will.

So why does the Church point to diversity in its lower quorums and councils as a good thing?

Why is increasing the number of women in councils, expanding the number of women in the auxilary board to cover the world more effectively seen as a good thing?

Edited October 12, 2015 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

If there is a wedge being driven here, it's not a good thing. I'm inclined to close this thread rather than have it be a vehicle for the driving of a wedge. It has probably gone on long enough anyway, and there is no point that has not already been made.

 

Please, if you wouldn't mind...at least give me enough time to respond. I don't like leaving unanswered questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please, if you wouldn't mind...at least give me enough time to respond. I don't like leaving unanswered questions.

I'll leave it open for now.

 

The moderators, of course, will do as they please.

[Scott Lloyd]

So why does the Church point to diversity in its lower quorums and councils as a good thing?

Why is increasing the number of women in councils, expanding the number of women in the auxilary board to cover the world more effectively seen as a good thing?

I suppose because it is a good thing. I don't believe I have contended otherwise.

 

Edited to add:

 

The point I have tried to make -- as reflected in the thread title -- is that the racial makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is not necessarily an indication that somebody other than God and Jesus Christ selected them.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

I'll leave it open for now.

 

The moderators, of course, will do as they please.

Of course, I'll try to get to it by lunch.

[Calm]

I suppose because it is a good thing. I don't believe I have contended otherwise.

Then why would it not be a good thing among the 12?

If the unique experiences of the current 12 can contribute to their being more effective in their callings, if their life experiences of being successful business men, doctors, lawyers, etc help in their callings, why would not adding other perspectives also add to the effectiveness of the Quorum?

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, I'll try to get to it by lunch.

No rush. I'll give you ample time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why would it not be a good thing among the 12?

 

 

You'll have to ask God that in your prayers -- unless you've already concluded that He didn't have anything to do with the selection.

[ttribe]

You'll have to ask God that in your prayers -- unless you've already concluded that He didn't have anything to do with the selection.

 

Wow...straight to the dismissal with Cal, of all people.

 

I suspect her argument is not that God's hand is not in the calls and makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve.  I suspect her argument is against defending the makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve by dismissing the concept of diversity out of hand as "drivel" driven by some unworthy political agenda.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow...straight to the dismissal with Cal, of all people.

 

I suspect her argument is not that God's hand is not in the calls and makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve.  I suspect her argument is against defending the makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve by dismissing the concept of diversity out of hand as "drivel" driven by some unworthy political agenda.

It was not meant to be dismissive. It was in support of the point I have repeatedly made here, most recently a couple of posts above, wherein I said:

 

The point I have tried to make -- as reflected in the thread title -- is that the racial makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is not necessarily an indication that somebody other than God and Jesus Christ selected them.

 

[Bobbieaware]

Oh, we do understand it, succinctly. But many of us are very aware that we are still not there yet to MLK's dream. I just spent a day listening and talking to those who desire that dream of MLK.....that their whole being and experience be equally valued to their brothers and sisters of a paler and more european background. More importantly, that their children experience that. Their experiences though (and my own for that matter) tells them clearly we're not there yet.

I have been told how exceptional I am....not because I'm all that exceptional but because stereotypes for brown and black women would assert that I am.

I have had my experience assumed....not based on my character or fault, but based on the color of my skin.

I have had my voice shut down....not based on my uncouth attitude, but because my brown experience made a white perspective feel threatened.

I have told that I am really white....because I'm more educated, act certain ways, or dress in certain ways....all that feel more acceptable or just plain better

I have been given certain positions, some embarassing that I really don't fit, not because of my character or natural interests but the assumed position and interests of my darker-skinned ancestry.

on the positive note, I have also been able to touch people both in therapy and in a gospel context in ways that my white peers could not....because my skin and all the experiences that it represents was different.

and this is from things I can remember in the last 5-10 years with LDS populations. So you can start telling me about "social engineering drivel" around the time that these experiences stop cropping up. And you can talk of my lack of understanding to MLK's dream when you have lived or at least heard my very brown experience.

With luv,

BD

It would be enlightening if rather than making generalized statements about the KINDS of racial stereotyping you say you have been subjected to in the Church, if you would provide specific DETAILED EXAMPLES of what you actually experienced? The most egregious example of each type of stereotyping would suffice. As one who has learned through unpleasant experience that it isn't always wise nor correct to jump to what appears to be the most obvious conclusion, it would be most helpful to know what actually happened to you.

Think of this: because of your obvious intellect, erudition and literacy, it's easy for me to imagine members of the Church might take note that you are exceptional Latter-day Saint, and do so without any subtext of racial stereotyping driving the perception at all. This causes me to wonder if your perceptions of racial stereotyping could, at least in part, stem from a preexisting bias of your own -- a bias that motivates you to try a little too hard to find examples of stereotyping in your own life's experience so you can feel justified and validated in holding on to that bias. And is it also possible that some stereotyping was present in your experiences, but that said stereotyping was actually a "minor player" in the incidents you recall, but because you're on the lookout for racial stereotyping you could be magnifying it's significance beyond what it deserves?

 

See the above caution to iWriteStuff. You are already on thin ice. If you continue to make this a discussion about the poster rather than the content of her post you will be banned from the board.

[Kenngo1969]

That's my thinking. I seriously doubt that investigators are going to even know that there are 12 Apostles, let alone know any of their names. 

Maybe we should add a question to the baptismal interview: "Please state the names of all 15 current apostles, and give a short biography for each."

[ttribe]

[iWriteStuff's post removed]

 

I do not know how to state this strongly enough. Do NOT do NOT do NOT silence a church member talking from her own experience from her own cultural background. Do NOT do NOT question her "heart." You will find yourself banned from threads faster than you can say testimony if you continue down this road.

 

 

[bobbieaware's post removed]

 

See the above caution to iWriteStuff. You are already on thin ice. If you continue to make this a discussion about the poster rather than the content of her post you will be banned from the board.

 

I have been critical of the moderating on this board in the past, but I applaud these responses. Thank you.

[jkwilliams]

Oh, we do understand it, succinctly. But many of us are very aware that we are still not there yet to MLK's dream. I just spent a day listening and talking to those who desire that dream of MLK.....that their whole being and experience be equally valued to their brothers and sisters of a paler and more european background. More importantly, that their children experience that. Their experiences though (and my own for that matter) tells them clearly we're not there yet.

 

I have been told how exceptional I am....not because I'm all that exceptional but because stereotypes for brown and black women would assert that I am.

I have had my experience assumed....not based on my character or fault, but based on the color of my skin.

I have had my voice shut down....not based on my uncouth attitude, but because my brown experience made a white perspective feel threatened. 

I have told that I am really white....because I'm more educated, act certain ways, or dress in certain ways....all that feel more acceptable or just plain better

I have been given certain positions, some embarassing that I really don't fit, not because of my character or natural interests but the assumed position and interests of my darker-skinned ancestry.

on the positive note, I have also been able to touch people both in therapy and in a gospel context in ways that my white peers could not....because my skin and all the experiences that it represents was different.

 

and this is from things I can remember in the last 5-10 years with LDS populations. So you can start telling me about "social engineering drivel" around the time that these experiences stop cropping up. And you can talk of my lack of understanding to MLK's dream when you have lived or at least heard my very brown experience. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Sorry to hear you've dealt with that. It really is hard for people to get past that kind of unthinking ethnocentrism. The really overt discrimination is actually easier to combat because it is obvious, but the kind of discrimination you describe is difficult. 

 

We lived in a ward once where people kept telling my wife how impressed they were that I was so "articulate" and "impressive." She was quite puzzled (not because I'm neither of those things) until someone casually mentioned that it was nice to see a "latino" doing so well. Somehow it had been assumed I was a Latin American who had adopted North American culture. Of course, I'm about as white as you can get, though I have very dark hair. But it was a lesson to me about assumptions and about how white Americans (not omitting myself) tend to view "acting white" (for want of a better descriptor) as positive and how the experience that is assumed is based on how closely one adheres to those cultural markers.

 

ETA: Obviously, this is not unique to Mormon culture, but it is a reminder that Mormonism exists within a larger culture with all that entails, both positive and negative.

Edited October 12, 2015 by jkwilliams

[BlueDreams]

First to Iwritestuff
 

I'm gonna try and olive branch this one and suggest maybe focus on skin color and ethnic background is actually a tool of the Devil to drive a wedge between the saints so as NOT to have hearts and minds as one.

 

Goin in backwards order here. That is not an olive branch, IWS….olive branches usually do not entail gently suggesting that the ideas of another are being led by Satan. I also like Cal’s question on this as well.

I think this thread is a marvelous example of how effective a tool it truly is.

 

I see this thread differently. But I get it….race topics can be uncomfortable, at best, to talk about. It can become divisive because it is hard to view and accept life experiences that feel outside our truths. I’ve watched it happen in varying formats before. But discomfort does not mean Satan is in the mix. It’s the natural experience of us learning and having our rough edges as a people smoothed.

 

Could you please clarify the above? How does not having a minority ethnicity in the 12 somehow equate to not having hearts and minds as one?

 

Are we somehow looking for proportional representation a la parliamentary politics?

 

Would it bother me if Joseph Smith was black and all the apostles of the restoration were Hispanic if I knew they were called of God? No. So why does it bother you? Honestly trying to understand why the color of one's skin is so important to those put off on this forum by the white complexion of the new apostles.

 

The questions are extremely loaded. I know for you, they are probably not and seem pretty straight forward. But for me they are. I’m going to pull something out of church context as an example. Currently there is the movement with Black Lives Matter. In response a number have begun saying “all lives matter” and the black activists/community aren’t exactly please about it. Is this a false statement? Of course not. All lives do matter. But it asserts equity of experience between blacks and whites that doesn’t actually exist.

 

The color of an apostles skin as an individual without any context does not matter, hypothetically. And it’s not really about “proportional representation.” It bothers me because it assumes an equity of experience between minorities in the church and particularly the U.S. (or other areas with history of colorism/racial strife) that does not actually exist. JS was not black, no apostle was ever Hispanic, when I look at paintings in the temple they’re white people with 1-2 examples otherwise in the most recent temples…usually of Jane Manning James. The videos in the temple are mostly white actors. A+E are white in all depictions. The spiritual history of minorities in our culture magically began somewhere in the 70’s and realistically the last decade or 2. There’s still people who believe skin tone was a curse (or a mark of a curse….splitting hairs in my opinion). This shows in our art of the Lamanites v Nephites. People do get upset about a black Jesus at the byu bookstore because it’s not “accurate” (like all the other Jesus depictions obviously are (and yes that’s a real-life example)). Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

But maybe it simply comes down to what it means to be one heart and one mind. I get the sense that my vision of this is probably not the same as yours or others. Zion, in the context I heard shared hear sounds like a place where race/culture/ethnicity just don’t matter. To me its one where all within their experiences are utterly valuable (including in their experience of race/culture/ethnicity).

 

I have experienced moments that felt closer to Zion. One of those was in a ward where 32 nations were represented (they’d counted out of curiosity). The ward was a sprinkling of so many of the varying looks and places of the Lord’s children. And each voice in that experience was seen as needed for the development of the body of Christ as a ward family. This came in open sharing of their experiences and cultural history in relation to the gospel message, showing the varying ways of the gospel like a prism expounds the varying shades/spectrums of light. These experiences, even if they were tough or difficult or noted periods of repression by a majority culture, were accepted and welcomed. It was beautiful and it was no wonder that such a ward just grew and grew.

 

It isn’t that a minority apostle will somehow solve all problems in the church body. But more so that we, as the body of Christ, have grown a little closer to the image of Zion. The church isn’t perfect in that sense because we are not perfect…and we have not transcended the issues of race and ethnicity. This may not make sense to you or seem lacking. And that I’m sorry, because I am trying to shorten a lifetime of experience into a few paragraphs. Which is why answering a few of your questions feels a little loaded for me. It’s hard to help you see from my eyes (see my quote in blue in the signature line). But I hope this help to see a little.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Blue, tell me what these comments have to do with the three men called to be apostles?  

 

Storm, to be fair…your comment wasn’t directly about 3 men being called to be apostles. (but you’re welcome to look at my answer to IWS to get an idea of what I might say). You started the comments I was responding to with “the whole topic of diversity….” That goes well beyond the apostleship and my earlier concern that in defense of their call as apostles many have ended up minimizing the issues surrounding race/ethnicity as almost a non-issue (or at least a non-issue in the Church and/or gospel).

 

 

No mame, I don't have to earn anything before I am empowered to talk about MLK and his simple desire that we each be judged on the content of our character.  I am a human being and am empowered to understand his words and live by them.  I don't need my skin color to be anything, but what it is.

 

 

My Comment came because you were asserting that other people’s experience/understanding of MLK’s speech were somehow lacking. Which is presumptuous. The “purveyors of diversity” include people like me who know that we are not at the point that my skin color and ethnic background are not anywhere near equal footing. We’ve moved up in a lot of ways from the day MLK made that speech, but in others we’ve hit a plateau. Color blindness doesn’t solve that. It doesn’t get us nearer to MLK’s dream. It leaves us inept at reaching that next mountain top.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[iWriteStuff]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I'm asking each to examine their hearts and see from whence cometh their actions.

 

A) Is emphasizing race and ethnicity central to having a testimony? B) If not, is it creating division? C) If it's creating divison, is it of God? D) If it is not of God, why give it a moment's time and attention?

 

You can answer those questions any way you please. My answers are A) No. B) Yes. C) No. D) I won't.

 

Consistent with my answer to D, I refuse to contribute to a divisive discussion involving race and will try my best to love all my brothers and sisters equally.

 

I do not know how to state this strongly enough. Do NOT do NOT do NOT silence a church member talking from her own experience from her own cultural background. Do NOT do NOT question her "heart." You will find yourself banned from threads faster than you can say testimony if you continue down this road.

At the risk of appearing to argue with a moderator, I would ask where was I silencing anyone? I asked clarifying questions to try to obtain a better understanding of her position. 

 

I also don't believe that I'm intentionally minimizing someone else's cultural background. The original question on this thread was "Who really chose the new apostles?" My responses have been tailored to answer that question and suggest how one could know for oneself. If there was a thread specifically devoted to racial issues in the church then I would be happy to observe and learn (sans participation) as I have no personal experience with it except when I have lived in wards that were predominantly Hispanic.

 

Yes, I'm white. No, I don't claim to have any special insight into minorities or their cultural background. I never claimed to. My whole point before and now is this: God chooses whom He chooses. Who are we to question that? I would have LOVED to see someone chosen outside the Mormon Corridor. But at the same time, I went into Conference intentionally seeking to gain a testimony of the newly called apostles. I did that and received my confirmation. My guess is if we all did that, we wouldn't have a need to criticize the choice.

 

 

I guess you can go ahead and ban me now.

[iWriteStuff]

First to Iwritestuff

 

Goin in backwards order here. That is not an olive branch, IWS….olive branches usually do not entail gently suggesting that the ideas of another are being led by Satan. I also like Cal’s question on this as well.

I see this thread differently. But I get it….race topics can be uncomfortable, at best, to talk about. It can become divisive because it is hard to view and accept life experiences that feel outside our truths. I’ve watched it happen in varying formats before. But discomfort does not mean Satan is in the mix. It’s the natural experience of us learning and having our rough edges as a people smoothed.

 

 

The questions are extremely loaded. I know for you, they are probably not and seem pretty straight forward. But for me they are. I’m going to pull something out of church context as an example. Currently there is the movement with Black Lives Matter. In response a number have begun saying “all lives matter” and the black activists/community aren’t exactly please about it. Is this a false statement? Of course not. All lives do matter. But it asserts equity of experience between blacks and whites that doesn’t actually exist.

 

The color of an apostles skin as an individual without any context does not matter, hypothetically. And it’s not really about “proportional representation.” It bothers me because it assumes an equity of experience between minorities in the church and particularly the U.S. (or other areas with history of colorism/racial strife) that does not actually exist. JS was not black, no apostle was ever Hispanic, when I look at paintings in the temple they’re white people with 1-2 examples otherwise in the most recent temples…usually of Jane Manning James. The videos in the temple are mostly white actors. A+E are white in all depictions. The spiritual history of minorities in our culture magically began somewhere in the 70’s and realistically the last decade or 2. There’s still people who believe skin tone was a curse (or a mark of a curse….splitting hairs in my opinion). This shows in our art of the Lamanites v Nephites. People do get upset about a black Jesus at the byu bookstore because it’s not “accurate” (like all the other Jesus depictions obviously are (and yes that’s a real-life example)). Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

But maybe it simply comes down to what it means to be one heart and one mind. I get the sense that my vision of this is probably not the same as yours or others. Zion, in the context I heard shared hear sounds like a place where race/culture/ethnicity just don’t matter. To me its one where all within their experiences are utterly valuable (including in their experience of race/culture/ethnicity).

 

I have experienced moments that felt closer to Zion. One of those was in a ward where 32 nations were represented (they’d counted out of curiosity). The ward was a sprinkling of so many of the varying looks and places of the Lord’s children. And each voice in that experience was seen as needed for the development of the body of Christ as a ward family. This came in open sharing of their experiences and cultural history in relation to the gospel message, showing the varying ways of the gospel like a prism expounds the varying shades/spectrums of light. These experiences, even if they were tough or difficult or noted periods of repression by a majority culture, were accepted and welcomed. It was beautiful and it was no wonder that such a ward just grew and grew.

 

It isn’t that a minority apostle will somehow solve all problems in the church body. But more so that we, as the body of Christ, have grown a little closer to the image of Zion. The church isn’t perfect in that sense because we are not perfect…and we have not transcended the issues of race and ethnicity. This may not make sense to you or seem lacking. And that I’m sorry, because I am trying to shorten a lifetime of experience into a few paragraphs. Which is why answering a few of your questions feels a little loaded for me. It’s hard to help you see from my eyes (see my quote in blue in the signature line). But I hope this help to see a little.

 

With luv,

BD

Excellent response! I appreciate the insight, sincerely. I can understand your perspective at least a little better thanks to the clarity you have provided.

 

In all fairness, I think we've been talking past each other. Part of that is probably due to unfamiliarity with one another. It is easy to impute motive to one another when we are unaware of our backgrounds and experiences.

 

I did not mean to disparage your experiences and I apologize if it came across as such. I recently migrated over from a different forum where attacking the church for any perceived wrong, real or otherwise, became so commonplace as to make defenders and outcasts of anyone actually standing on the side of the church. I realize that's not you in the slightest, but my quickness to testify of truth and to encourage others to know it themselves sometimes trumps (sorry, I used that word) my social awareness.

 

I know they're called of God. I hope you do too. And I hope some day we get an apostle from an ethnically different background. Each culture has interactions with our Savior and we would be blessed to hear of them.

 

(Aside: Nibley suggests that the Lamanites' "darkness of skin" was more a reference to their falling away from truth and resorting to dark habits and customs, not necessarily an actual change in skin pigmentation... I'll find that and post it later if I'm not banned)

[BlueDreams]

It would be enlightening if rather than making generalized statements about the KINDS of racial stereotyping you say you have been subjected to in the Church, if you would provide specific DETAILED EXAMPLES of what you actually experienced? The most egregious example of each type of stereotyping would suffice. As one who has learned through unpleasant experience that it isn't always wise nor correct to jump to what appears to be the most obvious conclusion, it would be most helpful to know what actually happened to you.

 

Quickly, before I run to finish my chores for the day. I want to respond to this without getting you in further thin ice with the moderators. 

 

First I have given detailed examples here on this board prior. But I prefer not to do this again here.  This is largely because my experiences are not up to be deduced by your (or any others) expert opinion of what "really" happened or what was "really" meant (which p.s. is ironic having white people tell me, a brown person, what really happened in regards to casual racism or racially insensitive moments....and is also probably where the warning is coming from). I'm aware that most of these experiences were not meant to be "taken that way" by the individual. That they meant "something else" or that they were trying to compliment me on something else. But in the experiences I had in mind, race was the backdrop for my exceptional stance.

 

Think of this: because of your obvious intellect, erudition and literacy, it's easy for me to imagine members of the Church might take note that you are exceptional Latter-day Saint, and do so without any subtext of racial stereotyping driving the perception at all. This causes me to wonder if your perceptions of racial stereotyping could, at least in part, stem from a preexisting bias of your own -- a bias that motivates you to try a little too hard to find examples of stereotyping in your own life's experience so you can feel justified and validated in holding on to that bias. And is it also possible that some stereotyping was present in your experiences, but that said stereotyping was actually a "minor player" in the incidents you recall, but because you're on the lookout for racial stereotyping you could be magnifying it's significance beyond what it deserves?

 

 

 

I'm not "on the look out" for racial stereotyping. In someways I underplay my reactions and initial thoughts because doing otherwise can be caustic... it's generally not a great idea because people assume I'm playing the race card and then feel defensive and make me to be the problem....So I don't do it a lot in order to maintain dialogue. I realized a while back that I don't say a specific person or thing is 'racist' or at least 'ignorant' until another white individual has labeled it as such. And even then I'm cautious.

 

Bobbie, you do not live my life. Nor the experiences I've had. To assume my preexisting bias is in play, while yours is somehow not in question, is problematic. Which is a big reason why I will not give DETAILED examples for you or others to disseminate and assume that many of them were not really about race. Those experiences come from a vulnerable place...ones I do not share for casual dissection.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 12, 2015 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

At the risk of appearing to argue with a moderator, I would ask where was I silencing anyone? I asked clarifying questions to try to obtain a better understanding of her position. 

 

I also don't believe that I'm intentionally minimizing someone else's cultural background. The original question on this thread was "Who really chose the new apostles?" My responses have been tailored to answer that question and suggest how one could know for oneself. If there was a thread specifically devoted to racial issues in the church then I would be happy to observe and learn (sans participation) as I have no personal experience with it except when I have lived in wards that were predominantly Hispanic.

 

Yes, I'm white. No, I don't claim to have any special insight into minorities or their cultural background. I never claimed to. My whole point before and now is this: God chooses whom He chooses. Who are we to question that? I would have LOVED to see someone chosen outside the Mormon Corridor. But at the same time, I went into Conference intentionally seeking to gain a testimony of the newly called apostles. I did that and received my confirmation. My guess is if we all did that, we wouldn't have a need to criticize the choice.

 

 

I guess you can go ahead and ban me now.

 

I would hope you not get banned. But, I would state that these questions the mods responded to, particularly, do feel loaded and would lead only to one real answer...which I wouldn't have actually believed or assumed. Which was the problem. It was inadvertently placing your take on diversity issues as correct and any others (particularly mine) as somehow antithetical to the Gospel and the Church. Whether that was your intention or not (and I like to believe not), that's what was received from this end. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 12, 2015 by BlueDreams

[toon]

A little off topic....but I wonder if part of their placement on the board is due to the fact that KK and OW had an embarrassing moment on FB when they forgot to note when the first black woman gave a prayer in GC ever. They got grilled by a number of black LDS activists for it, pointing to this being one of the reasons they weren't willing to jump on board with them. After that, it seemed there was a bit of a response to try and start addressing minority issues and cover their blindspot. 

 

Maybe the had their eyes closed during the prayer.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll leave this thread open for another four days. That should provide ample time to wrap up any ongoing conversations.

 

Come Friday, assuming the moderators have not already closed it, I will lock it.

[Storm Rider]

Storm, to be fair…your comment wasn’t directly about 3 men being called to be apostles. (but you’re welcome to look at my answer to IWS to get an idea of what I might say). You started the comments I was responding to with “the whole topic of diversity….” That goes well beyond the apostleship and my earlier concern that in defense of their call as apostles many have ended up minimizing the issues surrounding race/ethnicity as almost a non-issue (or at least a non-issue in the Church and/or gospel).

 

 

 

My Comment came because you were asserting that other people’s experience/understanding of MLK’s speech were somehow lacking. Which is presumptuous. The “purveyors of diversity” include people like me who know that we are not at the point that my skin color and ethnic background are not anywhere near equal footing. We’ve moved up in a lot of ways from the day MLK made that speech, but in others we’ve hit a plateau. Color blindness doesn’t solve that. It doesn’t get us nearer to MLK’s dream. It leaves us inept at reaching that next mountain top.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I was addressing specifically one line of MLK speech.  He stated he had a dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  I have always taken his words at face value and that he said what he meant to say.  Do you interpret them differently?

 

The thrust of everything I wrote is that three men were called of God to serve as apostles.  Critics complained that their calling was a lost opportunity to gain diversity in the Church.  I condemn such talk because it obviously discounts the character of these three individuals.  There was no attempt to support the call, but to condemn as supposedly lost opportunity to diversify the Council of the Twelve.  

 

When a conversation condemns individuals, not because of their personal qualifications and/or their character, because of their skin color, then that criticism is racist and can only be racist.  

 

I think there is a difference between racism and diversity.  I support all actions to stamp out racism - the judging of an individual only because of their skin color.  I support all actions to evaluate each individual based upon the content of their character and their merit.  

 

I may read too much into MLK's words, but they mean something to me important.  My character, your character, everyone's character should mean infinitely more than one's own skin color.  That is the sum total and gist of what I intended to communicate by my contributions.   

[iWriteStuff]

(Aside: Nibley suggests that the Lamanites' "darkness of skin" was more a reference to their falling away from truth and resorting to dark habits and customs, not necessarily an actual change in skin pigmentation... I'll find that and post it later if I'm not banned)

 

Looks like I'm not banned yet, so I'll go ahead and share that quote from Nibley now. It comes from "Lehi in the Desert":

 

This amazing coincidentia oppositorum is the clash of black and white. With the Arabs, to be white of countenance is to be blessed and to be black of countenance is to be cursed; there are parallel expressions in Hebrew and Egyptian. And what of Lehi's people? It is most significant that the curse against the Lamanites is the very same as that commonly held in the East to blight the sons of Ishmael, who appear to the light-skinned people of the towns as "a dark and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations, . . . an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety," etc. (1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:24). It is noteworthy that all the descendants of the Book of Mormon Ishmael fall under the curse (Alma 3:7), as if their Bedouin ancestry predisposed them to it. The Book of Mormon always mentions the curse of the dark skin in connection with and as part of a larger picture: "After they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people," etc. "Because of the cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people . . . and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey" (2 Nephi 5:24). The statement that "God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21) describes the result, not the method, which is described elsewhere. Thus we are told (Alma 3:13, 14, 18) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" (Alma 3:18). Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves. The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing "the tradition of their fathers" (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one. Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become "white" again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15—16). The cultural picture may not be the whole story of the dark skin of the Lamanites, but it is an important part of that story and is given great emphasis by the Book of Mormon itself. There is nowhere any mention of red skin, incidentally, but only of black (or dark) and white, the terms being used as the Arabs use them.

 

 

Totally unrelated to the conversation at hand, sure, but it was one of those things that raised my eyebrows when I read it....

Edited October 13, 2015 by iWriteStuff

[BlueDreams]

Looks like I'm not banned yet, so I'll go ahead and share that quote from Nibley now. It comes from "Lehi in the Desert":

 

 

Totally unrelated to the conversation at hand, sure, but it was one of those things that raised my eyebrows when I read it....

 

No, Thank you. I could use this quote for something also completely unrelated to this thread.