Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Rain2]

Actually, I think they reported that she was sitting on a bench in temple square waiting for him while he went into the Church Office Building for his appointment.

Whether what you understand to have happened is correct or not I was just trying to show that her not being there may not be as unusual as it might sound. The entire info we might (according to this conversation) have is that she was sitting on a bench outside nearby. We just don't have the whole story so I can't say it would be unusual not to have her there. What was described by one of the apostles (can't remember which) was a multi-step thing so it wouldn't surprise me if something involving her was one of those steps since she was nearby (and nearby is different than it was just a short while ago now that there is an abundance if cell phones).

[sunstoned]

You are setting up a straw man version of apostolic succession.  Blaming God for human enterprises . . .

I am not blaming God at all.  My doubts are focused squarely on the brethren. Past behavior being a predictor of future behavior and all that.

[Gray]

It need not be viewed as an "uncomfortable situation." Until relatively recently, the pool from which to draw leaders has been mostly Caucasian. The outcome stands to reason, considering that 100 available slots is infinitesimal when compared to all the Church members who have lived and died since 1830. The number of available slots for other General Authority positions has not been so tiny; hence, more ethnic diversity among them, especially in more recent times.

 

I expect things will change in the future, but let's not ignore past conditions and circumstances.

 

Edited to add:

 

Except for Judas Iscariot, who was Judean, the earliest apostles were all Galilean. Shall we fault the Master for not being more "diverse" in His selection, or shall we recognize that the milieu in which the New Covenant was first taught, fostered and nurtured made for a limited pool from which to draw leadership?

 

The Restoration occurred scarcely 180 years ago, not very long at all in terms of the history of God's dealings with His covenant people. Give it some time.

 

We've probably been in Latin America long enough to see a Hispanic and/or Latino apostle by now. I would suspect that it is a matter of people being nominated by the current 12 who are well known to the 12. That's the human element. Not that there's anything wrong with the 3 new apostles we got, they seem like fine men. But I think the human element is also keeping equally fine minorities out of the pool for consideration, at least so far. 

 

Regarding the original 12 apostles, I think all of them had to be within walking distance of Galilee.

[iWriteStuff]

I think perhaps some are overthinking the question of church demographics.

 

Try this little experiment: lay aside all question of demographics and ethnicity and pray to know whether those who have been called as Apostles were called by God. Gain a personal witness of their calling.

 

I would put it to you that not only CAN you do it (I have) but you SHOULD do it.

 

When you know they are called by God, their ethnicity won't matter in the slightest. If it still does even after you know they are Apostles, maybe it's time to examine your own heart.

[Gray]

I think perhaps some are overthinking the question of church demographics.

 

Try this little experiment: lay aside all question of demographics and ethnicity and pray to know whether those who have been called as Apostles were called by God. Gain a personal witness of their calling.

 

I would put it to you that not only CAN you do it (I have) but you SHOULD do it.

 

When you know they are called by God, their ethnicity won't matter in the slightest. If it still does even after you know they are Apostles, maybe it's time to examine your own heart.

 

Lack of diversity is a barrier to minorities joining the church. It matters. 

[Storm Rider]

We've probably been in Latin America long enough to see a Hispanic and/or Latino apostle by now. I would suspect that it is a matter of people being nominated by the current 12 who are well known to the 12. That's the human element. Not that there's anything wrong with the 3 new apostles we got, they seem like fine men. But I think the human element is also keeping equally fine minorities out of the pool for consideration, at least so far. 

 

Regarding the original 12 apostles, I think all of them had to be within walking distance of Galilee.

 

Okay, let's say the three new apostles all had brown skin; what exactly have we gained that is superior to what we have now?  When were we brain washed to think that having a racially diverse group is superior to a group that is not?  What makes it superior?  What role does God's hand have in the matter?  Should God be ignored in order to create a Council of the Twelve that is more acceptable to the diversification crowd that thinks, without any evidence whatsoever, that racial diversity equates to superior performance and function at all times and in all places?  Who judges this and what are their qualifications?  What is most important God's direction or bowing to the god of diversity at all costs? 

 

I find the entire conversation, and all those similar to this topic, to be a bit of sham social engineering.  There is never any discussion about merit, or performance, or anything similar.  What has captured the minds of the great brain-washed is that diversity, balkanization, has become the goal of the chosen society.  Nothing is so important as having exact ratios for every committee - race and gender are superior characteristics to anything else.  Why?  Who said and what supports such a conclusion?  There is no evidence, there is no goal except that we not be equal.  We must be broken and remain in separate categories in order to manage and ensure that the committee has a representative of the chosen skin color, gender, and sexual orientation.  If a skin color or gender is missing,...well then, obviously no committee can function because skin color and gender alone have the all-consuming, all-encompassing qualities of...well, skin color and gender and everyone knows those are superior to all else.  Except if you are white and male then they should be damned and excluded because we all know they are evil and inferior beings.  Well, not really beings, but just necessary evils in the world of social engineering.

[iWriteStuff]

Lack of diversity is a barrier to minorities joining the church. It matters. 

How do you figure? Care to estimate how many more baptisms we would have had outside the U.S. if we had a Latino apostle? Or Japanese?

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I would venture to guess that the growth of the church has not been limited due to a lack of Philipino apostles.

Edited October 12, 2015 by iWriteStuff

[KevinG]

Experienced leadership demographics will always lag current demographics.  Look at the demographics of the church 30-50 years ago and that will tell you what the Quorum of the 12 will likely look like.

[Duncan]

How do you figure? Care to estimate how many more baptisms we would have had outside the U.S. if we had a Latino apostle? Or Japanese?

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I would venture to guess that the growth of the church has not been limited due to a lack of Philipino apostles.

 

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. 

[Storm Rider]

Lack of diversity is a barrier to minorities joining the church. It matters. 

 

How big a barrier?  What studies in the church support this claim and defines the barrier you are pre-supposing?  In foreign countries they see all of their leadership positions filled by local people; what impact does that have on them?  

 

At what point in individuality does diversity cease to have meaning?  Is there individuality when discussing diversity or is individuality subsumed and forfeited?  What does diversity mean and how is it limited by your definition?  You have limited diversity to a single qualification - skin color.  What studies support this being the superior quality to judge society, relationships, and church organizations?  

[Storm Rider]

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. 

 

They won't know their names, their culture, their life experiences, their skin color, or their family life.  In fact, they won't know anything about them.  What will they know?  That God is their Father; that he loves them; that he answers prayer; that Jesus is his Son; that Jesus is the Messiah; that Jesus restored his Church on the earth.  This is what they will know and understand. 

 

This whole topic of diversity is social engineering drivel that we all know how to repeat and no one understands as to why it is a superior way to go.  I wish these purveyors of diversity could actually understand MLK when he clearly stated what was most important, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  

 

The dream is to evaluate everyone based on the content of their character NOT their skin color!  

 

Gray, please explain how you and everyone else that is complaining about this issue, evaluated these three men called to be apostles?  Did any of you  being to judge them on their character or did you just judge them on their skin color?  That king of yours has no clothes. 

[BlueDreams]

I think perhaps some are overthinking the question of church demographics.

 

Try this little experiment: lay aside all question of demographics and ethnicity and pray to know whether those who have been called as Apostles were called by God. Gain a personal witness of their calling.

 

I would put it to you that not only CAN you do it (I have) but you SHOULD do it.

 

When you know they are called by God, their ethnicity won't matter in the slightest. If it still does even after you know they are Apostles, maybe it's time to examine your own heart.

This is silly. I've never doubted that these apostles are called of God. And I examine my heart all the time....plus it sets you up as judge to the one righteous way to interact with that. But their ethnicity still does matter to me and a number of other equally (if not more so) faithful saints. It doesn't in the sense of some vague tally for cultural diversity for the sake thereof....but a continually growing indication that we are truly becoming a zion people. For me, to be of one heart and one mind would entail that all hearts and all minds following Christ would hold equitable value and weight. That's not what we have and a lot of minorities feel/sense it in their lives. Moving toward that in anyway matters because its lack is prominent for them.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

This whole topic of diversity is social engineering drivel that we all know how to repeat and no one understands as to why it is a superior way to go.  I wish these purveyors of diversity could actually understand MLK when he clearly stated what was most important, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  

 

The dream is to evaluate everyone based on the content of their character NOT their skin color!  

 

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

Edited October 12, 2015 by BlueDreams

[iWriteStuff]

This is silly. I've never doubted that these apostles are called of God. And I examine my heart all the time....plus it sets you up as judge to the one righteous way to interact with that. But their ethnicity still does matter to me and a number of other equally (if not more so) faithful saints. It doesn't in the sense of some vague tally for cultural diversity for the sake thereof....but a continually growing indication that we are truly becoming a zion people. For me, to be of one heart and one mind would entail that all hearts and all minds following Christ would hold equitable value and weight. That's not what we have and a lot of minorities feel/sense it in their lives. Moving toward that in anyway matters because its lack is prominent for them.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

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.

[iWriteStuff]

With luv,

BD

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.

 

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

[Storm Rider]

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

 

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

 

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.

 

And that is with luv,

 

Michael

[Calm]

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.

 

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

So who is driving the wedge? You for insisting it is not an issue or BD for claiming it is?

[Gray]

Okay, let's say the three new apostles all had brown skin; what exactly have we gained that is superior to what we have now?  When were we brain washed to think that having a racially diverse group is superior to a group that is not?  What makes it superior?  What role does God's hand have in the matter?  Should God be ignored in order to create a Council of the Twelve that is more acceptable to the diversification crowd that thinks, without any evidence whatsoever, that racial diversity equates to superior performance and function at all times and in all places?  Who judges this and what are their qualifications?  What is most important God's direction or bowing to the god of diversity at all costs? 

 

I find the entire conversation, and all those similar to this topic, to be a bit of sham social engineering.  There is never any discussion about merit, or performance, or anything similar.  What has captured the minds of the great brain-washed is that diversity, balkanization, has become the goal of the chosen society.  Nothing is so important as having exact ratios for every committee - race and gender are superior characteristics to anything else.  Why?  Who said and what supports such a conclusion?  There is no evidence, there is no goal except that we not be equal.  We must be broken and remain in separate categories in order to manage and ensure that the committee has a representative of the chosen skin color, gender, and sexual orientation.  If a skin color or gender is missing,...well then, obviously no committee can function because skin color and gender alone have the all-consuming, all-encompassing qualities of...well, skin color and gender and everyone knows those are superior to all else.  Except if you are white and male then they should be damned and excluded because we all know they are evil and inferior beings.  Well, not really beings, but just necessary evils in the world of social engineering.

 

You can say that ethnicity doesn't matter. In that case, why 100 white apostles? What is often the case in any organization run by white folks, unless there are intentional steps taken to make the organization more diverse, diversity just doesn't happen. People "hire" those who are similar to them, those who they know, those who they are comfortable with. 

 

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence that diversity adds value to institutions. 

[Calm]

Why bother with discussions in quorums at all if all that matters is someone is called of God? Why not just have the First Presidency hand out assignments and instructions since they have the Spirit with them?

[Gray]

How do you figure? Care to estimate how many more baptisms we would have had outside the U.S. if we had a Latino apostle? Or Japanese?

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I would venture to guess that the growth of the church has not been limited due to a lack of Philipino apostles.

 

I don't have any data, of course. But if the LDS Church is perceived as a white church, then don't you think that would make minorities think twice about joining? 

[iWriteStuff]

So who is driving the wedge? You for insisting it is not an issue or BD for claiming it is?

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.

[ttribe]

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.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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.

 

And that is with luv,

 

Michael

 

Are both of you white males?  If so, I'm going to suggest you aren't in a place to question BD's experiences and position.  You haven't lived them, and these are the kinds of things you have to live to know what it means.

 

BTW, I am a white male...in the interest of full disclosure.

[Calm]

And yet you (IWS) are here contributing to a discussion that is doing just that.

You may not intend to do something, doesn't automatically mean you aren't doing it.

The Church leadership itself makes a big deal about diversity among the Saints...look on its main page on lds.org. There is diversity increasing over time in every quorum and council in the Church and it is pointed to as a good thing.

So why would different rules suddenly apply when you hit the 12? makes little sense to me.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

Why bother with discussions in quorums at all if all that matters is someone is called of God? Why not just have the First Presidency hand out assignments and instructions since they have the Spirit with them?

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

So who is driving the wedge? You for insisting it is not an issue or BD for claiming it is?

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.