stemelbow Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: There's not much need to "imagine" here. Here's a list of the General Authorities of the Church. Even a five-minute skim shows that a sizable number of them do not fit within the white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. stereotype: Dieter F. Uchtdorf Ulisses Soares Gerrit W. Gong Marcos A. Aidukaitis Jose L. Alonso Ian S. Ardern Yoon Hwan Choi Valeri V. Cordón Claudio R. M. Costa Joaquin E. Costa Massimo De Feo Benjamin De Hoyos Edward Dube Larry J. Echo Hawk Enrique R. Falabella Eduardo Gavarret Carlos A. Godoy Christoffel Golden Walter F. González Patrick Kearon Jörg Klebingat Erich W. Kopischke Peter F. Meurs Hugo Montoya Rafael E. Pino Joseph W. Sitati Michael John U. Teh José A. Teixeira Juan A. Uceda Arnulfo Valenzuela Francisco J. Viñas Chi Hong (Sam) Wong Kazuhiko Yamashita Jorge F. Zeballos Claudio D. Zivic J. Devn Cornish Per G. Malm Hugo E. Martinez Jairo Mazzagardi Adrián Ochoa Gérald Caussé And then we can take a look at the 3rd Quorum (Area Seventy): Detlef H. Adler Frederick O. Akinbo Vladimir N. Astashov Matthieu Bennasar Hans T. Boom Christopher Charles Walter Chatora Alessandro Dini Ciacci M. T. Ben Davis Robert A. Dryden Mervyn C. Giddey Yuriy A. Guschin Clifford T. Herbertson Tom-Atle Herland Aniefiok Udo Inyon Christophe Kawaya John A. Koranteng Serhii A. Kovalov Axel H. Leimer W. Jean-Pierre Lono L. Jean Claude Mabaya Declan O. Madu Tasara Makasi Khumbulani Mdletshe Joaquim J. Moreira Adeyinka A. Ojediran Alan T. Phillips Gennady N. Podvodov Gary S. Price Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Alexey V. Samaykin Jacques A. Van Reenan Daniel Yirenya-Tawiah And the Fourth: Julio C. Acosta Quilmer A. Agüero Angel H. Alarcon Omar A. Alvarez Carlos F. Arredondo Winsor Balderrama Hubermann Bien-Aimé Fernando E. Calderón Wilson B. Calderón Hernando Camargo Luis J. Camey Nicolás Castañeda Luis C. Chaverri Ulises Chávez Marion B. De Antuñano Ángel A. Duarte E. Xavier Espinoza Jose A. Fernández Candido Fortuna Sam M. Galvez Claude R. Gamiette Taylor G. Godoy Mathias Held Jose L. Isaguirre Pedro X. Larreal Alejandro Lopez José E. Maravilla Felix A. Martinez Alexander T. Mestre Alfredo Miron Adonay S. Obando Jared R. Ocampo Jesus A. Ortiz A. Moroni Pérez José C. Pineda Abraham E. Quero Miguel A. Reyes Rene Romay Luis G. Ruiz Netzahualcoyotl Salinas Jorge A. Saldívar Ernesto R. Toris C. Walter Treviño Ricardo Valladares Jesús Velez Alan R. Walker And the Fifth: Ruben Acosta Blake R. Alder Aley K. Auna Steven R. Bangerter Alan C. Batt Jorge T. Becerra Michael H. Bourne Robert M. Call Gene R. Chidester Brent J. Christensen Douglas L. Dance Marc C. Davis Ralph L. Dewsnup J. Scott Dorius Gary B. Doxey M. Dirk Driscoll J. Kevin Ence Jeffrey D. Erekson Peter F. Evans Bruce E. Ghent Richard K. Hansen Michael R. Jensen Steven O. Laing Bryan R. Larsen Kevin K. Miskin Dale H. Munk Mark L. Pace Steven K. Randall Blake M. Roney R. Scott Runia Eric J. Schmutz Edwin A. Sexton Paul H. Watkins William B. Woahn Kevin J Worthen And the Sixth: René R. Alba Alain L. Allard Dong Michael V. Beheshti Grant C. Bennett R. Randall Bluth Kevin E. Calderwood Matthew L. Carpenter Douglas B. Carter Donald D. Deshler Daniel F. Dunnigan K. Mark Frost Michael A. Gillenwater Leonard D. Greer Todd B. Hansen Raymond S. Heyman Brent J. Hillier David P. Homer Daniel W. Jones Milan F. Kunz Todd S. Larkin Alvin F. Meredith III J. Vaun McArthur Fred A. Parker Thomas T. Priday Brian L. Rawson Robert C. Rhien Gordon H. Smith Michael L. Southward G. Lawrence Spackman William H. Stoddard Stephen E. Thompson Maxsimo C. Torres Carlos Villarreal C. Dale Willis Jr. And the Seventh: P. David Agazzani Benedito S. Antunes Rómulo V. Cabrera José C. F. Campos H. Marcelo Cardus Aroldo B. Cavalcante Antonio F. Faúndez Matias D. Fernandez Ricardo P. Giminéz Maurício G. Gonzaga João Roberto Grahl Francisco D. N. Granja Sergio L. Krasnoselsky Luiz M. Leal Juan J. Levrino Geraldo Lima Eduardo A. Norambuena Raimundo Pacheco De Pinho Carlos E. Perrotti Marco A. Rais Jorge Luis Romeu Alfredo Luis Salas Pedro A. Sanhueza Ciro Schmeil Alin Spannaus Raúl H. Spitale Daniel Texeira Moroni B. Torgan Juan A. Urra Luis G. Zapata And the eighth: Benedito S. Antunes Pedro U. Adduru Taiichi Aoba Dong Chol Beh Victorino A. Babida Richard Baquiran Yoke Sang Freddie Chan Zeno Chow Paul R. Coward Robert J. Dudfield Meliula M. Fata Daniel G. Hamilton Johan Johansson Tae Gul Jung Wisit Khanakham Yutaka Onda Andrew M. O'Riordan Katsuyuki Otahara Ryan V. Pagaduan Abenir V. Pajaro Mark P. Peteru Siu Hong Pon Maximo A. Saavedra Jr. Benjamin Ming Tze Tai David J. Thomson George J. Tobias Steven L. Toronto Aisake K. Tukuafu Raul E. Vicencio Raul S. Villanueva Keith P. Walker Hoi Seng Leonard Woo I am not familiar with all these men. But quite a large number of them do not seem to fit the received-a-calling-due-to-preferential-and-unmerited-treatment-arising-from-being-a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. And then there are the numerous temple presidents, mission presidents, and thousands upon thousands of stake presidents, district presidents, bishops and branch presidents who are also in their callings despite not being a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. I do not discount the influence of human foibles in the administration of the Church. But "group think and the associated social and psychological effects of upbringing and heritage" do not seem to account for the significant numbers of something-other-than-a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S.-type men in leadership positions all throughout the Church. In fact, the above lists, to me, suggests that the Church (and, I think, the Lord) is quite a bit more, how should I put it, egalitarian than some of us tend to think. Of course the Church spent a good portion of its formative life relying principally on people from Utah and its environs. And yes, people from Utah and its environs are statistically over-represented in the leadership of the Church. But that seems to be changing rather quickly. I strongly believe that the Church wants the stakes of the Church to be administered by locally-grown leaders. This has been happening in various places in the world for some time now. And with time. some of those locally-grown leaders are called into the upper echelons of Church leadership. Again, I think the Church wants this to happen as well. But in the Lord's time, and for the right reasons. Placating faultfinders and dissidents is not, I think, high the Lord's or the Church's list of priorities. I think the lists of "exceptions" given above are hard to reconcile with the overly-pat-and-increasingly-inaccurate characterization of the Brethren as limiting the leadership positions in the Church to "close family relations and close friends rather than outsiders from other countries." Thanks, -Smac When I checked it a couple of years ago, 62% were from the US, wherein the US LDS membership made up closer to 42% of LDS membership worldwide. So while there was some diversity in that sense, there was preferential treatment to the LDS. of course activity rates were not factored, neither were newness to the religion--meaning the older generation of some areas were still new to the faith and thus less likely to be found as a GA. I figure as time goes forward this seeming disparity will even itself out--meaning geographic distribution of GA homeland will more closely resemble geographic distribution of Church membership. I don't think it a good criticism to fault the Church for diversity on this particular point because of that. I think she's really trying.
USU78 Posted May 4, 2016 Author Posted May 4, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I think she's really trying. "She" being the Church?
thesometimesaint Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm glad to hear it. Based on this and on your failure to respond to my previous CFR, I will assume, then, that the previous claim that the LDS Church segregates is congregations based on race is retracted. Agreed. Nobody has denied "that racism existed in some members of the Church." You publicly accused the LDS Church of presently segregating its units' boundaries based on race. This is a false accusation. You appear to have retracted it. You also cited the pre-1978 ban as some sort of evidence for ongoing race-based segregation in the LDS Church in 2016. Given your disavowal of ill intent as given above, I do not understand why you raised the ban in this thread. At this point, I don't care. Let's assume the best of each other, grant each other the benefit of the doubt, and move on. Thanks, -Smac Not what I said. I said we create Ward boundaries using socioeconomic values. IE; Where members live. Race certainly does factor in where members live. It is not the only factor, probably not even a major factor, but it is there. I do believe you have good intent. I wish you and yours well. 1
stemelbow Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: "She" being the Church? yes
Analytics Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: There's not much need to "imagine" here. Here's a list of the General Authorities of the Church. Even a five-minute skim shows that a sizable number of them do not fit within the white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. stereotype: Dieter F. Uchtdorf Ulisses Soares Gerrit W. Gong Marcos A. Aidukaitis Jose L. Alonso Ian S. Ardern Yoon Hwan Choi Valeri V. Cordón Claudio R. M. Costa Joaquin E. Costa Massimo De Feo Benjamin De Hoyos Edward Dube Larry J. Echo Hawk Enrique R. Falabella Eduardo Gavarret Carlos A. Godoy Christoffel Golden Walter F. González Patrick Kearon Jörg Klebingat Erich W. Kopischke Peter F. Meurs Hugo Montoya Rafael E. Pino Joseph W. Sitati Michael John U. Teh José A. Teixeira Juan A. Uceda Arnulfo Valenzuela Francisco J. Viñas Chi Hong (Sam) Wong Kazuhiko Yamashita Jorge F. Zeballos Claudio D. Zivic J. Devn Cornish Per G. Malm Hugo E. Martinez Jairo Mazzagardi Adrián Ochoa Gérald Caussé And then we can take a look at the 3rd Quorum (Area Seventy): Detlef H. Adler Frederick O. Akinbo Vladimir N. Astashov Matthieu Bennasar Hans T. Boom Christopher Charles Walter Chatora Alessandro Dini Ciacci M. T. Ben Davis Robert A. Dryden Mervyn C. Giddey Yuriy A. Guschin Clifford T. Herbertson Tom-Atle Herland Aniefiok Udo Inyon Christophe Kawaya John A. Koranteng Serhii A. Kovalov Axel H. Leimer W. Jean-Pierre Lono L. Jean Claude Mabaya Declan O. Madu Tasara Makasi Khumbulani Mdletshe Joaquim J. Moreira Adeyinka A. Ojediran Alan T. Phillips Gennady N. Podvodov Gary S. Price Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Alexey V. Samaykin Jacques A. Van Reenan Daniel Yirenya-Tawiah And the Fourth: Julio C. Acosta Quilmer A. Agüero Angel H. Alarcon Omar A. Alvarez Carlos F. Arredondo Winsor Balderrama Hubermann Bien-Aimé Fernando E. Calderón Wilson B. Calderón Hernando Camargo Luis J. Camey Nicolás Castañeda Luis C. Chaverri Ulises Chávez Marion B. De Antuñano Ángel A. Duarte E. Xavier Espinoza Jose A. Fernández Candido Fortuna Sam M. Galvez Claude R. Gamiette Taylor G. Godoy Mathias Held Jose L. Isaguirre Pedro X. Larreal Alejandro Lopez José E. Maravilla Felix A. Martinez Alexander T. Mestre Alfredo Miron Adonay S. Obando Jared R. Ocampo Jesus A. Ortiz A. Moroni Pérez José C. Pineda Abraham E. Quero Miguel A. Reyes Rene Romay Luis G. Ruiz Netzahualcoyotl Salinas Jorge A. Saldívar Ernesto R. Toris C. Walter Treviño Ricardo Valladares Jesús Velez Alan R. Walker And the Fifth: Ruben Acosta Blake R. Alder Aley K. Auna Steven R. Bangerter Alan C. Batt Jorge T. Becerra Michael H. Bourne Robert M. Call Gene R. Chidester Brent J. Christensen Douglas L. Dance Marc C. Davis Ralph L. Dewsnup J. Scott Dorius Gary B. Doxey M. Dirk Driscoll J. Kevin Ence Jeffrey D. Erekson Peter F. Evans Bruce E. Ghent Richard K. Hansen Michael R. Jensen Steven O. Laing Bryan R. Larsen Kevin K. Miskin Dale H. Munk Mark L. Pace Steven K. Randall Blake M. Roney R. Scott Runia Eric J. Schmutz Edwin A. Sexton Paul H. Watkins William B. Woahn Kevin J Worthen And the Sixth: René R. Alba Alain L. Allard Dong Michael V. Beheshti Grant C. Bennett R. Randall Bluth Kevin E. Calderwood Matthew L. Carpenter Douglas B. Carter Donald D. Deshler Daniel F. Dunnigan K. Mark Frost Michael A. Gillenwater Leonard D. Greer Todd B. Hansen Raymond S. Heyman Brent J. Hillier David P. Homer Daniel W. Jones Milan F. Kunz Todd S. Larkin Alvin F. Meredith III J. Vaun McArthur Fred A. Parker Thomas T. Priday Brian L. Rawson Robert C. Rhien Gordon H. Smith Michael L. Southward G. Lawrence Spackman William H. Stoddard Stephen E. Thompson Maxsimo C. Torres Carlos Villarreal C. Dale Willis Jr. And the Seventh: P. David Agazzani Benedito S. Antunes Rómulo V. Cabrera José C. F. Campos H. Marcelo Cardus Aroldo B. Cavalcante Antonio F. Faúndez Matias D. Fernandez Ricardo P. Giminéz Maurício G. Gonzaga João Roberto Grahl Francisco D. N. Granja Sergio L. Krasnoselsky Luiz M. Leal Juan J. Levrino Geraldo Lima Eduardo A. Norambuena Raimundo Pacheco De Pinho Carlos E. Perrotti Marco A. Rais Jorge Luis Romeu Alfredo Luis Salas Pedro A. Sanhueza Ciro Schmeil Alin Spannaus Raúl H. Spitale Daniel Texeira Moroni B. Torgan Juan A. Urra Luis G. Zapata And the eighth: Benedito S. Antunes Pedro U. Adduru Taiichi Aoba Dong Chol Beh Victorino A. Babida Richard Baquiran Yoke Sang Freddie Chan Zeno Chow Paul R. Coward Robert J. Dudfield Meliula M. Fata Daniel G. Hamilton Johan Johansson Tae Gul Jung Wisit Khanakham Yutaka Onda Andrew M. O'Riordan Katsuyuki Otahara Ryan V. Pagaduan Abenir V. Pajaro Mark P. Peteru Siu Hong Pon Maximo A. Saavedra Jr. Benjamin Ming Tze Tai David J. Thomson George J. Tobias Steven L. Toronto Aisake K. Tukuafu Raul E. Vicencio Raul S. Villanueva Keith P. Walker Hoi Seng Leonard Woo I am not familiar with all these men.... But you are right, they are all men. Every single one of them received "preferential and unmerited preference" based upon their sex. Likewise, every single of them received "preferential and unmerited preference" based upon being (or pretending to be) heterosexual. 2
smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 On 5/4/2016 at 1:02 PM, thesometimesaint said: Not what I said. I said we create Ward boundaries using socioeconomic values. IE; Where members live. Race certainly does factor in where members live. The CFR was not for evidence about factors people take into account when deciding where they live. The CFR was for evidence that the LDS Church takes race into account when it draws unit boundaries. There is no evidence in sight that the Church takes race into account when drawing boundary lines. None. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) On 5/4/2016 at 1:11 PM, Analytics said: But you are right, they are all men. Every single one of them received "preferential and unmerited preference" based upon their sex. "Unmerited," perhaps. Gender is not a "merit" as far as I can see. I strongly believe that there are countless women in the Church who would be excellent holders of the priesthood and priesthood leaders. That the priesthood is limited to men is not, I think, based on "merit" in that sense. (EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure what I meant by "preferential ... preference," but I'm sure it was a deep thought. ). But "preferential?" Nope. There is no "preference" involved in men holding the priesthood. It's not like the leaders of the Church have a choice to ordain women, and simply "prefer" to ordain men 100% of the time. Quote Likewise, every single of them received "preferential and unmerited preference" based upon being (or pretending to be) heterosexual. I'm not sure about that. Adhering to the Law of Chastity is certainly meritorious. I suspect that there are leaders in the Church who may have some measure of sexual attraction to those of the same gender (the binary heterosexual/homosexual construct is rather passé, is it not?), but who adhere to the Law of Chastity, and hence receive "preferential" treatment over those members of the Church who do not adhere to the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 5, 2016 by smac97 2
Analytics Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Unmerited," perhaps. Gender is not a "merit" as far as I can see. I strongly believe that there are countless women in the Church who would be excellent holders of the priesthood and priesthood leaders. That the priesthood is limited to men is not, I think, based on "merit" in that sense. But "preferential?" Nope. There is no "preference" involved in men holding the priesthood. It's not like the leaders of the Church have a choice to ordain women, and simply "prefer" to ordain men 100% of the time. Institutionalized sexism is still sexism. 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure about that. Adhering to the Law of Chastity is certainly meritorious. I suspect that there are leaders in the Church who may have some measure of sexual attraction to those of the same gender (the binary heterosexual/homosexual construct is rather passé, is it not?), but who adhere to the Law of Chastity, and hence receive "preferential" treatment over those members of the Church who do not adhere to the Law of Chastity. If it were that simple, the church wouldn't single-out alleged violations of the Law of Chastity that involve same-sex relationships for special treatment and scorn. 1
Popular Post cinepro Posted May 4, 2016 Popular Post Posted May 4, 2016 While I don't agree with all her points, I've read a little more about her bio and it strikes me that it is a huge tragedy for the Church to be losing members of that caliber. If her husband and kids follow suit, then the tragedy is compounded. I imagine she made huge contributions to the Church in each ward they lived in, and I can only imagine classes were better for her being a student or teacher in them. The Church is a much lesser organization each time an active, educated, thinking member leaves, and if this isn't an isolated incident, it should be a huge concern to the leadership. 5
smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) On 5/4/2016 at 1:39 PM, Analytics said: Institutionalized sexism is still sexism. Sexism: Quote 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. 2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women. 3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny. I am not sure any of these definitions apply to the LDS Church. The Church does not rely on "tradition" in the context of limiting priesthood ordination to men. So the first one's out. I suppose there could be a form of "discrimination," but not one that - as I am sure you intend to imply - sounds in malice or hatred of women. That just won't wash. "Devaluation?" Nope. "Ingrained and institutionalized prejudice" ("prejudice" being understood as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason")? Nope. Quote Quote I'm not sure about that. Adhering to the Law of Chastity is certainly meritorious. I suspect that there are leaders in the Church who may have some measure of sexual attraction to those of the same gender (the binary heterosexual/homosexual construct is rather passé, is it not?), but who adhere to the Law of Chastity, and hence receive "preferential" treatment over those members of the Church who do not adhere to the Law of Chastity. If it were that simple, the church wouldn't single-out alleged violations of the Law of Chastity that involve same-sex relationships for special treatment and scorn. You mean the same way the Church also "singles out" heterosexual polygamy as warranting excommunication? (Well, not quite, since I am not sure being in a same-sex marriage requires excommunication, whereas being in a polygamous marriage does.) The Law of Chastity applies to all of us in the same ways. We all face the same restrictions, regardless of gender, or age, or even "sexual orientation." Thanks, -Smac Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97 2
Analytics Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: Sexism: I am not sure any of these definitions apply to the LDS Church. The Church does not rely on "tradition" in the context of limiting priesthood ordination to men. So the first one's out. I suppose there could be a form of "discrimination," but not one that - as I am sure you intend to imply - sounds in malice or hatred of women. That just won't wash. "Devaluation?" Nope. "Ingrained and institutionalized prejudice" ("prejudice" being understood as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason")? Nope. You mean the same way the Church also "singles out" heterosexual polygamy as warranting excommunication? (Well, not quite, since I am not sure being in a same-sex marriage requires excommunication, whereas being in a polygamous marriage does.) The Law of Chastity applies to all of us in the same ways. We all face the same restrictions, regardless of gender, or age, or even "sexual orientation." Thanks, -Smac Yes, I know the standard apologetic answers. Taking a step back, let me explain my point. Julienna Viegas-Haws was raised Mormon in Belgium. She was once the face of the Church as a Temple-Square missionary. She is going through a faith transition and wrote an op-ed about her own beliefs. As cinepro mentioned, she was an especially valuable member of the Church. Her editorial was a great opportunity to gain some empathy for another human being. Rather than doing that, you looked at a single word in isolation and proceeded to lecture to us about how the use of this word meant that her view of the Church was a “political construct.” You then began to mind read and told us how she meant that more blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans needed to be general authorities, but of course she wouldn’t think there needed to be more Asian general authorities, because Asians aren’t a favored constituency of the American political left. This reading was an especially dim-witted interpretation of what she said—she was explicitly talking about the hurt that some black, female, and gay members have felt because of the Church’s policies. Of course the Church and its loyal defenders will not acknowledge the Church’s culpability in any of this, but at the very least it would behoove them to develop some empathy for the folks they are driving away. Your post made you look adamantly opposed to acquiring any empathy for the folks that are leaving your religion. 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Popular Post Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) On 5/4/2016 at 1:49 PM, cinepro said: While I don't agree with all her points, I've read a little more about her bio and it strikes me that it is a huge tragedy for the Church to be losing members of that caliber. If her husband and kids follow suit, then the tragedy is compounded. I imagine she made huge contributions to the Church in each ward they lived in, and I can only imagine classes were better for her being a student or teacher in them. The Church is a much lesser organization each time an active, educated, thinking member leaves, and if this isn't an isolated incident, it should be a huge concern to the leadership. I agree in many respects. Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, and others who have left have demonstrated formidable talents and skills which they could have contributed to the Church through continued fellowship with the Saints and discipleship in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. The real question, I think, is whether the Church is engaging in misconduct or material error(s), or is it out of harmony with God's will, such that the Church is culpable for the departures of these people. Generally and broadly and predominantly, I think the answer is "No." I think these people, talented though they may be, engaged in conduct that made continued membership in the Church impossible. I am saddened by their departures. I am also saddened at the departures of people who leave the Church for other reasons. We each of us have value and merit in the eyes of God. I don't want them these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community. People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith. On this we have a clear mandate: D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me." D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations." D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you." D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off." D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people." D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High." D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out." 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people." D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out." D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out." D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you." Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord." 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This is tough medicine. There is a lot of pain when these things happen. But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97 5
smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) On 5/4/2016 at 2:50 PM, Analytics said: Yes, I know the standard apologetic answers. Taking a step back, let me explain my point. Julienna Viegas-Haws was raised Mormon in Belgium. She was once the face of the Church as a Temple-Square missionary. None of which privileges her opinions and conclusions. Quote She is going through a faith transition and wrote an op-ed about her own beliefs. As cinepro mentioned, she was an especially valuable member of the Church. I agree that she is/was "valuable" to the Church. But what makes her "especially" so? Quote Her editorial was a great opportunity to gain some empathy for another human being. Rather than doing that, you looked at a single word in isolation and proceeded to lecture to us about how the use of this word meant that her view of the Church was a “political construct.” I offered my viewpoint. As did she. If it was wrong of to criticize her views, how is it conversely acceptable for you to criticize mine? Lemme guess: I'm a Mormon and she no longer is. She is at liberty to say whatever she likes, but I am not. Free speech for thee and thine, but not for me and mine. Is that it? And I did not take a "single word" of her remarks "in isolation." I explained my perspective in light of her remarks as a whole. Quote This reading was an especially dim-witted interpretation of what she said—she was explicitly talking about the hurt that some black, female, and gay members have felt because of the Church’s policies. Yawn. We don't need a board nanny, Roger. Nothing about Mrs. Viegas-Haws' position in life renders her remarks immune from criticism, nor does her position transmute her opinions into axiomatic truths before which we must all bow a knee. If you have a substantive response to my remarks, I'll respond. Quote Of course the Church and its loyal defenders will not acknowledge the Church’s culpability in any of this, The Church's enemies and critics of a certain ilk will not acknowledge that the Church is growing and improving all the time. Quote but at the very least it would behoove them to develop some empathy for the folks they are driving away. I have empathy for Mrs. Viegas-Haws. But "empathy" is not synonymous with "capitulating to the faultfinding opinions of others." Quote Your post made you look adamantly opposed to acquiring any empathy for the folks that are leaving your religion. In my posts I have made the following statements: "I wish Mrs. Viegas-Haws well. I hope she rediscovers faith..." "I hope she has a change of heart. I really do." "I respect the sentiment that 'her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life.' I am quite willing to accept that people can believe this, and I will respect it. I even think that many decisions made in this way will be correct and moral." "None of us, including the faithful, observant Latter-day Saints, believes that the Church is 'perfect,' or that it does not need to improve." "The Priesthood Ban is indeed a 'sad fact.' I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it." "Agreed {to the statement: 'However, as long as the Brethren leave the door open for members to conclude that the priesthood and temple ban was a directive from God, I think it will continue to negatively impact some members.'}." "I think the Church has made a lot of improvements in terms of race relations. Race relations can be a sensitive and difficult topic." "Nobody has denied 'that racism existed in some members of the Church.'" "I strongly believe that there are countless women in the Church who would be excellent holders of the priesthood and priesthood leaders. That the priesthood is limited to men is not, I think, based on 'merit' in that sense." These do not strike me as remarks made by a person utterly incapable of feeling empathy. Of course, it's rather self-serving of me to say so, nearly as self-serving as equating disagreement with people like you with a lack of empathy. In closing, I find the irony here rather amusing. You take great exception to me "mind reading" (your phrase), and then proceed to read my mind and declare it devoid of empathy. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97 3
consiglieri Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 On 5/3/2016 at 1:32 PM, USU78 said: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3826343-155/op-ed-what-i-have-learned-as So many questions I'd love to ask her to answer and explain: for example, how was it a surprise to her that testimony and personal revelation were somehow important to Mormons? Thanks for the link, USU78! I just read the article and agree 100% with every word of it. This lady is wise beyond her years. But I didn't see anything about her being "surprised" that a testimony and revelation are important to Mormons.
rockpond Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: While I don't agree with all her points, I've read a little more about her bio and it strikes me that it is a huge tragedy for the Church to be losing members of that caliber. If her husband and kids follow suit, then the tragedy is compounded. I imagine she made huge contributions to the Church in each ward they lived in, and I can only imagine classes were better for her being a student or teacher in them. The Church is a much lesser organization each time an active, educated, thinking member leaves, and if this isn't an isolated incident, it should be a huge concern to the leadership. True. And it is not an isolated incident.
Analytics Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, smac97 said: None of which privileges her opinions and conclusions. I agree that she is/was "valuable" to the Church. But what makes her "especially" so? I offered my viewpoint. As did she. If it was wrong of to criticize her views, how is it conversely acceptable for you to criticize mine? Lemme guess: I'm a Mormon and she no longer is. She is at liberty to say whatever she likes, but I am not. Free speech for thee and thine, but not for me and mine. Is that it? And I did not take a "single word" of her remarks "in isolation." I explained my perspective in light of her remarks as a whole. Yawn. We don't need a board nanny, Roger. Nothing about Mrs. Viegas-Haws' position in life renders her remarks immune from criticism, nor does her position transmute her opinions into axiomatic truths before which we must all bow a knee. If you have a substantive response to my remarks, I'll respond. The Church's enemies and critics of a certain ilk will not acknowledge that the Church is growing and improving all the time. I have empathy for Mrs. Viegas-Haws. But "empathy" is not synonymous with "capitulating to the faultfinding opinions of others." In my posts I have made the following statements: "I wish Mrs. Viegas-Haws well. I hope she rediscovers faith..." "I hope she has a change of heart. I really do." "I respect the sentiment that 'her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life.' I am quite willing to accept that people can believe this, and I will respect it. I even think that many decisions made in this way will be correct and moral." "None of us, including the faithful, observant Latter-day Saints, believes that the Church is "perfect," or that it does not need to improve." "The Priesthood Ban is indeed a 'sad fact.' I am glad we are nearly 40 years past it." "Agreed {to the statement: 'However, as long as the Brethren leave the door open for members to conclude that the priesthood and temple ban was a directive from God, I think it will continue to negatively impact some members.'}." "I think the Church has made a lot of improvements in terms of race relations. Race relations can be a sensitive and difficult topic." "Nobody has denied 'that racism existed in some members of the Church.'" "I strongly believe that there are countless women in the Church who would be excellent holders of the priesthood and priesthood leaders. That the priesthood is limited to men is not, I think, based on 'merit' in that sense." These do not strike me as remarks made by a person utterly incapable of feeling empathy. Of course, it's rather self-serving of me to say so, nearly as self-serving as equating disagreement with people like you with a lack of empathy. In closing, I find the irony here rather amusing. You take great exception to me "mind reading" (your phrase), and then proceed to read my mind and declare it devoid of empathy. Thanks, -Smac I highlighted in green the statements that I think demonstrate empathy. The others are generally kind sentiments, but it is not an expression of empathy to say you hope somebody will change their mind and come around to thinking and acting just like you. Just to emphasize the careful wording of my post, I didn't say that you as a person are "utterly incapable of feeling empathy." I said that specific post made you look like you didn't have empathy. I wasn't criticizing all of your posts, much less you as an individual. But to clarify, I was really focused on your comment about the "political construct" and the subsequent extrapolations. I try to have a lot of empathy for you; I know it would be hard to read an article like Julienna's without feeling attacked and getting defensive. Edited May 4, 2016 by Analytics
smac97 Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 On 5/4/2016 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said: I highlighted in green the statements that I think demonstrate empathy. The others are generally kind sentiments, but it is not an expression of empathy to say you hope somebody will change their mind and come around to thinking and acting just like you. This thread is not about me, so I'll refrain from further comment about me. Quote Just to emphasize the careful wording of my post, I didn't say that you as a person are "utterly incapable of feeling empathy." I said that specific post made you look like you didn't have empathy. I wasn't criticizing all of your posts, much less you as an individual. But to clarify, I was really focused on your comment about the "political construct" and the subsequent extrapolations. I try to have a lot of empathy for you; I know it would be hard to read an article like Julienna's without feeling attacked and getting defensive. I don't think my remarks about Mrs. Viegas-Haws looking at the Church as a political construct are unkind or unempathetic. I think it's a reasonable assessment. And with that, let's get back on topic. Thanks, -Smac 2
Analytics Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: This thread is not about me, so I'll refrain from further comment about me. I don't think my remarks about Mrs. Viegas-Haws looking at the Church as a political construct are unkind or unempathetic. I think it's a reasonable assessment. And with that, let's get back on topic. Thanks, -Smac Okay, let's get back on topic. Her comment about "reparative actions" was in the context of how the church allegedly hurts blacks, women, and gays. That was explicit and clear. Your claim that she wasn't really talking women and gays ("'Diversifying' here probably [does not mean] 'diversifying' in terms of traits other than race"), but rather was talking about blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans (but not about Asians because they aren't a favored political constituency!), is unequivocally unsupported by what she clearly said. I'm not saying your assessment was unkind, but I am saying it doesn't convey empathy, reasonableness, or reading comprehension. But if you'd like to continue defending your assessment, of course you don't need my permission to do so--you are free to criticize her views, even with really awful criticisms that have nothing to do with her actual views. Knock yourself out. I really don't have anything further to say on the matter.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 hours ago, rockpond said: Lashing out? Seriously? I don't see much on this thread of discussion of her actual points. Most of your response to her is ad hominem: she's a poor journalist, lacks historical perspective, not well read. Saying that she is wrong doesn't make her wrong. I think she represents a viewpoint that ought to be discussed more in the church, but I suppose it's easier to dismiss her. She's left. Others will follow. We don't need them, right? You're not seriously suggesting that because she has a POV that it is automatically justified, are you? We have discussed the same complaints she makes many times on this board. They are all too common, and can only be sustained through ignorance of actual history, theology, language, etc. Do we need apostates? Perhaps so. After all, there must needs be opposition in all things. 1
Ahab Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: You're not seriously suggesting that because she has a POV that it is automatically justified, are you? We have discussed the same complaints she makes many times on this board. They are all too common, and can only be sustained through ignorance of actual history, theology, language, etc. Do we need apostates? Perhaps so. After all, there must needs be opposition in all things. Yeah! So what is so sad about stereotypical cynicism if there must needs be some of it? Maybe we should be glad to be seeing some stereotypical cynicism because otherwise we wouldn't be seeing any opposition which we must needs have in all things. I'm going to reflect on this idea a little more now.
Storm Rider Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: We do segregate on the basis of Ward boundaries. Which are a function of socioeconomic conditions which do include factors such as race. The sad fact is that until 1978 blacks were discouraged from joining, and prohibited from full participation in the Church. It became untenable when SWK realized that asking the black Saints in Brazil to contribute to the construction of a Temple there, but were prohibited from attending. Yeah, not so much. If memory serves me correctly the Church divides wards based upon the number of priesthood and where the priesthood is located. Certainly there is other criteria, but they are a distant secondary issue. I think you really have to stretch it to wear racial glasses and see where race is even on the radar - it is irrelevant. 1
carbon dioxide Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 6 hours ago, cinepro said: While I don't agree with all her points, I've read a little more about her bio and it strikes me that it is a huge tragedy for the Church to be losing members of that caliber. If her husband and kids follow suit, then the tragedy is compounded. I imagine she made huge contributions to the Church in each ward they lived in, and I can only imagine classes were better for her being a student or teacher in them. The Church is a much lesser organization each time an active, educated, thinking member leaves, and if this isn't an isolated incident, it should be a huge concern to the leadership. I would not call it a tragedy. It is a loss yes but the Church has had people leave it since day one. All those who have left the Church and have died are now experiencing tragedy. Hopefully she will have a change of heart but at the end of the day, she is the one that loses everything if she does not. The devil laugh and his angels rejoice over her and in their perspective for very good reasons.
Jeanne Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 23 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I would not call it a tragedy. It is a loss yes but the Church has had people leave it since day one. All those who have left the Church and have died are now experiencing tragedy. Hopefully she will have a change of heart but at the end of the day, she is the one that loses everything if she does not. The devil laugh and his angels rejoice over her and in their perspective for very good reasons. I know you believe this...but isn't this a little over the top? No matter what good she does in this world she will experience tragedy when she dies. Her own change of heart doesn't call upon the devils
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You're not seriously suggesting that because she has a POV that it is automatically justified, are you? We have discussed the same complaints she makes many times on this board. They are all too common, and can only be sustained through ignorance of actual history, theology, language, etc. Do we need apostates? Perhaps so. After all, there must needs be opposition in all things. Having a POV doesn't automatically justify her just as you saying she's wrong doesn't automatically make it so. You haven't justified your claim that the points she made in the op-ed are ignorant of history, theology, or language.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 8 hours ago, smac97 said: There's not much need to "imagine" here. Here's a list of the General Authorities of the Church. Even a five-minute skim shows that a sizable number of them do not fit within the white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. stereotype: ............................................ ................................there are the numerous temple presidents, mission presidents, and thousands upon thousands of stake presidents, district presidents, bishops and branch presidents who are also in their callings despite not being a-white-guy-born-in-church-and-hailing-from-the-western-U.S. ............................................... But that seems to be changing rather quickly. I strongly believe that the Church wants the stakes of the Church to be administered by locally-grown leaders. This has been happening in various places in the world for some time now. And with time. some of those locally-grown leaders are called into the upper echelons of Church leadership. Again, I think the Church wants this to happen as well. But in the Lord's time, and for the right reasons. Placating faultfinders and dissidents is not, I think, high the Lord's or the Church's list of priorities. I think the lists of "exceptions" given above are hard to reconcile with the overly-pat-and-increasingly-inaccurate characterization of the Brethren as limiting the leadership positions in the Church to "close family relations and close friends rather than outsiders from other countries." ....................... I appreciate your long listing, Spencer, and pay close attention to that sort of thing each Conference. However, despite the fact that we both agree on the excellence of that diverse list, I was more interested in the composition of the Twelve and First Presidency. I have been in stakes run by extraordinarily spiritual and talented men who were not born in the USA. So I understand what you are talking about, and am all in favor of it. Not having a direct pipeline to God, I am ignorant of the details, and perhaps completely out of line. But there is place for a human critique, and I have made mine. Viegas-Haws has made hers. One day soon I may get a chance to find out who of us is correct (I'm an old guy).
Recommended Posts