Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:08 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Because those of us who have read history from before 1978 know that race has had a lasting effect on the Church. Thankfully we're moving away from that, but I imagine that it will take at least a few more generations before it is completely gone.

Perhaps it will take that long.  But I think we perpetuate and foster racial discord when we make irresponsible claims about racism in the Church.  For example, a person attempting to use the ended-in-1978 ban as evidence of the Church segregating by race in 2016 could perhaps be criticized for trying to stoke racial tensions, and for trying to exploit the ban in a bad faith effort to malign the Church (since the Church does not segregate by race, and the pre-1978 ban has nothing to do with how the Church's unit boundary lines are set in 2016).

I think the Church has made a lot of improvements in terms of race relations.  Race relations can be a sensitive and difficult topic.  So I think we do a disservice to ourselves and to the Church when we pick at scabs over wounds which are healing, and when we do so for polemical advantage against the LDS Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

He has His timetable and His agenda, and He is under no obligation to share with us the "whys and wherefores" of His "whens and hows," does he?

Of course not.

But progress only seems to happen when we ask questions and take our concerns to Him.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Do we know for certain that it was not a directive by God?  Perhaps that might require its own revelation.  That it was not directed by God.

Perhaps.  Either way, as I said, it will be problematic for members.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There has never been a blacks-only or whites-only LDS congregation that I have been able to discover.

 

Factually wrong. From the Race and the Priesthood essay...

Quote

There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.³

So there hasn't been a "churchwide" policy of segregation but then in footnote #3

Quote

3. At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.

In any case, you are factually wrong in your statement.

Then you said...

Quote

Bringing in gerrymandering arguments is simply ridiculous:  as ridiculous as finding offense in the microaggressive:  "May I take your coat, ma'am?"

If you find it ridiculous you may not understand. The argument had been made that there was no racial segregation. The point of the "gerrymandering" argument is that even if there isn't a direct, overt policy of racial discrimination, racial discrimination can still occur based on geographic limitations. Think about it.

Edited May 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:35 AM, rockpond said:

Of course not.

But progress only seems to happen when we ask questions and take our concerns to Him.

I don't think opposition to the Church is the only engine for "progress" in the Church.  I am far from persuaded of that.  In fact, I think the Church principally makes progress through observance of revealed principles, through reasoning and study, through the councils of the Church, through ongoing revelation, and through well-intentioned and in-good-faith feedback/input from the Saints.  

Mrs. Viegas-Haws has taken up against the Church.  She has become part of its opposition.  We are taught to expect such opposition:

• "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."  (2 Nephi 2:11).
• "Every time you kick 'Mormonism' you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it."  (DBY, 351).
• "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."  (Matthew 5:11).
• "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  (D&C 6:34).
• "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."  (John 16:33).

I hope she has a change of heart.  I really do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think opposition to the Church is the only engine for "progress" in the Church.  I am far from persuaded of that.  In fact, I think the Church principally makes progress through observance of revealed principles, through reasoning and study, through the councils of the Church, through ongoing revelation, and through well-intentioned and in-good-faith feedback/input from the Saints.  

Mrs. Viegas-Haws has taken up against the Church.  She has become part of its opposition.  We are taught to expect such opposition:

• "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."  (2 Nephi 2:11).
• "Every time you kick 'Mormonism' you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it."  (DBY, 351).
• "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."  (Matthew 5:11).
• "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  (D&C 6:34).
• "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."  (John 16:33).

I hope she has a change of heart.  I really do.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't say anything about opposition.  Just asking questions and expressing concerns.  We have a rich history of that (and success at receiving divine answers in response).

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:52 AM, rockpond said:

I didn't say anything about opposition.  Just asking questions and expressing concerns.  

This thread is about the publishing to the world of an essay that can be both described as slanderous attack on the church and as "{j}ust asking questions and expressing concerns."

Quote

We have a rich history of that (and success at receiving divine answers in response).

We do not have a "rich history" of encouraging and fomenting discord and animosity against the Church and its leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Anyone?

Well, perhaps unrepentant felons, abusers, molesters, and mass-murderers.

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think opposition to the Church is the only engine for "progress" in the Church.  I am far from persuaded of that.  In fact, I think the Church principally makes progress through observance of revealed principles, through reasoning and study, through the councils of the Church, through ongoing revelation, and through well-intentioned and in-good-faith feedback/input from the Saints.  

Mrs. Viegas-Haws has taken up against the Church.  She has become part of its opposition.  We are taught to expect such opposition:

• "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."  (2 Nephi 2:11).
• "Every time you kick 'Mormonism' you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it."  (DBY, 351).
• "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."  (Matthew 5:11).
• "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  (D&C 6:34).
• "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."  (John 16:33).

I hope she has a change of heart.  I really do.

Thanks,

-Smac

i Nephi 8

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spaciousbuilding; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

 28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

 31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

 32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

 33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

 34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, perhaps unrepentant felons, abusers, molesters, and mass-murderers.

+ gay couples and their children.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This thread is about the publishing to the world of an essay that can be both described as slanderous attack on the church and as "{j}ust asking questions and expressing concerns."

We do not have a "rich history" of encouraging and fomenting discord and animosity against the Church and its leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

A "slanderous attack" for sharing her experience in an op-ed?  Perhaps we shouldn't be that sensitive.  Or you can cite the slander for me... I'm not seeing it.

If you think that every method of speaking out is a slanderous attack than we don't really have room for asking questions and expressing concerns anymore.  #sad

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

All of which are "favored political constituencies" for which the contemporary American political left regularly demands "preferential and unmerited treatment."

Note that she omits Asians, Indians, and other racial/ethnic groups which, by her apparent reckoning, are A) not reflected in the GA quorums, but which B) are not "favored political constituencies" for which the contemporary American political left regularly demands "preferential and unmerited treatment."

Hence my point that she is reading political expectations (of a decidedly leftist American flavor) into the administration of spiritual matters of the LDS Church....

I find your analysis entirely unconvincing.  The church has hurt women, blacks, and gays with policies that are or were targeted at them.  You might argue they have no legitimate reason to feel hurt, but you can't argue they don't feel hurt.  That is what she is talking about, not "preferential and unmerited treatment for favored political constituencies."

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I specifically noted that "I don't say this to criticize the American political left."  Rather, I was attributing her perspective on the Church (vis-à-vis her apparent preference for racial quotas in the leadership of the Church) to political, rather than religious/spiritual, origins.  Her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership" (which is to say, a demand that leaders of the Church make decisions about who to call as General Authorities based on A) skin color, B) an intent to seek forgiveness from society ("reparative actions")) makes little sense coming from a Latter-day Saint who believes the Church is guided by revelation.  However, her demand makes quite a bit of sense when it is construed as coming from the viewpoint that A) the Church is a political construct, and B) that construct should reflect the values of and conclusions reached by the American political left (which uses words like "diversity" as a sort of code for preferential and unmerited treatment for some favored political constituencies).

That's my take.

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand very well what you mean, particularly with respect to revelation guiding the decisions as to who should be appointed to vacant posts.  However, we are dealing with guys who are very human and capable of also being guided by group think and the associated social and psychological effects of upbringing and heritage.  The Utah intermountain effect may be stronger than they or you imagine in influencing who gets appointed to which post.  Over time this effect may diminish, and I think that we see some signs of that at present.  Indeed, the preferential and unmerited treatment could very well be going in a direction other that what you imagine.

This was certainly a problem within the Roman Catholic faith, the curia being dominated for so long by the Italian clerics.  You may not think that they are guided by revelation, but I am thinking more of the very human nature of those Italian clerics who could not imagine someone other than an Italian being Pope, for example.  It isn't that they opposed diversity, so much as that they knew their fellow Italians better and were more comfortable with them.  This has been true for a long time among the LDS Brethren, who frequently trust close family relations and close friends rather than outsiders from other countries.  The exceptions are welcome, but in the meantime prove the rule.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You aren't actually saying what she has wrong on those ten points.  I responded to each one... some are factually correct, some are an accurate reflection of church culture (past or present), and some are just her lived experience (which you can't declare to be wrong).

If you were to listen to her Mormon Stories interview, I think you would find that she has not rushed to judgement at all.

I considered not only her claims in her article, but also your listing of them, and then replied as I did.  You are saying that her lived experiences are automatically true, as though perception is everything, and any personal opinions are therefore valid.  Thus, Nazi claims about the Jews were automatically valid, and could then be acted upon through the establishment of death camps.  Thus also, Japanese Americans could readily and illegally be interned in concentration camps simply because of the false perceptions of other citizens.

She employs a number of factual errors and blatant fallacies in her article, and her journalism is atrocious.  Her premises are false, as are her conclusions.  She is certainly entitled to her opinions, and can freely broadcast them as often and to whomever she wishes.  That does not make them factual.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I considered not only her claims in her article, but also your listing of them, and then replied as I did.  You are saying that her lived experiences are automatically true, as though perception is everything, and any personal opinions are therefore valid.  Thus, Nazi claims about the Jews were automatically valid, and could then be acted upon through the establishment of death camps.  Thus also, Japanese Americans could readily and illegally be interned in concentration camps simply because of the false perceptions of other citizens.

She employs a number of factual errors and blatant fallacies in her article, and her journalism is atrocious.  Her premises are false, as are her conclusions.  She is certainly entitled to her opinions, and can freely broadcast them as often and to whomever she wishes.  That does not make them factual.

Her lived experiences are true for her.  They don't dictate truth for others.  And her lived experiences were only several of the points.

Some of her other ten points were true.  Factually, as I noted.

Feel free to point out her "factual errors and blatant fallacies".  I don't see them.

FYI:  She's not a journalist.  It's an op-ed piece.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Her lived experiences are true for her.  They don't dictate truth for others.  And her lived experiences were only several of the points.

Some of her other ten points were true.  Factually, as I noted.

Feel free to point out her "factual errors and blatant fallacies".  I don't see them.

FYI:  She's not a journalist.  It's an op-ed piece.

As I understand it, she has been writing published articles for a while now.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

As to her factual errors, you and I have discussed a number of them on this board, and we have frequently disagreed.  You didn't see the factual errors and fallacies then, and I don't imagine that you will suddenly have a change of opinion.

Of course her lived experiences are true for her, which is why she is lashing out at others, just as good Americans mistakenly lashed out at fellow citizens who just happened to be Japanese.  Writing an article for public consumption requires more than a by gosh and by golly set of assumptions.  It requires facts.  Carefully researched facts.  Truth is not relative and based solely on perception.  Viegas-Haws lacks historical perspective and is not well-read.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I understand it, she has been writing published articles for a while now.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

As to her factual errors, you and I have discussed a number of them on this board, and we have frequently disagreed.  You didn't see the factual errors and fallacies then, and I don't imagine that you will suddenly have a change of opinion.

Of course her lived experiences are true for her, which is why she is lashing out at others, just as good Americans mistakenly lashed out at fellow citizens who just happened to be Japanese.  Writing an article for public consumption requires more than a by gosh and by golly set of assumptions.  It requires facts.  Carefully researched facts.  Truth is not relative and based solely on perception.  Viegas-Haws lacks historical perspective and is not well-read.

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?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Factually wrong. From the Race and the Priesthood essay...

So there hasn't been a "churchwide" policy of segregation but then in footnote #3

In any case, you are factually wrong in your statement.

Then you said...

If you find it ridiculous you may not understand. The argument had been made that there was no racial segregation. The point of the "gerrymandering" argument is that even if there isn't a direct, overt policy of racial discrimination, racial discrimination can still occur based on geographic limitations. Think about it.

Thanks for the head's up on (a) the probable illegality of mixed congregations under Apartheid and (b) the impracticality of mixed congregations in Jim Crow Dixie back in the day:  that it was relegated by the authors to footnote status makes me wonder just how many individuals we're talking about who may have been prohibited by law and/or circumstances from attending non-mixed wards/branches.  I daresay only a handful.  One of my wardies did his mission in So Africa during Apartheid (ca 74-76), and he regaled me once on the policies in place on what to do about blacks/cleurlings [sp?] who investigated.  Lots of restrictions on missionaries' activities in theory:  not so much in practice.

I understand quite well, TYVM, what the gerrymandering argument is about:  inferring race-based policies where there are none for the sole and express purpose of discouraging people of color from investigating Mormonism.

[USU78]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I considered not only her claims in her article, but also your listing of them, and then replied as I did.  You are saying that her lived experiences are automatically true, as though perception is everything, and any personal opinions are therefore valid.  Thus, Nazi claims about the Jews were automatically valid, and could then be acted upon through the establishment of death camps.  Thus also, Japanese Americans could readily and illegally be interned in concentration camps simply because of the false perceptions of other citizens.

She employs a number of factual errors and blatant fallacies in her article, and her journalism is atrocious.  Her premises are false, as are her conclusions.  She is certainly entitled to her opinions, and can freely broadcast them as often and to whomever she wishes.  That does not make them factual.

Terrific argument.  One minor quibble:  I'd like to keep this discussion going, and fear the possibility that one would infer Godwin when no Godwin is intended.  And you're quite right:  a former Mormon anti-Mormon bigot seems always to fit certain stereotypes, and this one's no different in her views and her arguments and, especially, her disregard of facts and logic.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 11:39 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I understand very well what you mean, particularly with respect to revelation guiding the decisions as to who should be appointed to vacant posts.  However, we are dealing with guys who are very human and capable of also being guided by group think and the associated social and psychological effects of upbringing and heritage.  The Utah intermountain effect may be stronger than they or you imagine in influencing who gets appointed to which post.  Over time this effect may diminish, and I think that we see some signs of that at present.  Indeed, the preferential and unmerited treatment could very well be going in a direction other that what you imagine.

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.

Quote

This was certainly a problem within the Roman Catholic faith, the curia being dominated for so long by the Italian clerics.  You may not think that they are guided by revelation, but I am thinking more of the very human nature of those Italian clerics who could not imagine someone other than an Italian being Pope, for example.  It isn't that they opposed diversity, so much as that they knew their fellow Italians better and were more comfortable with them.  This has been true for a long time among the LDS Brethren, who frequently trust close family relations and close friends rather than outsiders from other countries.  The exceptions are welcome, but in the meantime prove the rule.

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

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps it will take that long.  But I think we perpetuate and foster racial discord when we make irresponsible claims about racism in the Church.  For example, a person attempting to use the ended-in-1978 ban as evidence of the Church segregating by race in 2016 could perhaps be criticized for trying to stoke racial tensions, and for trying to exploit the ban in a bad faith effort to malign the Church (since the Church does not segregate by race, and the pre-1978 ban has nothing to do with how the Church's unit boundary lines are set in 2016).

I think the Church has made a lot of improvements in terms of race relations.  Race relations can be a sensitive and difficult topic.  So I think we do a disservice to ourselves and to the Church when we pick at scabs over wounds which are healing, and when we do so for polemical advantage against the LDS Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not in favor of making any irresponsible claims. But I do know history, at least a little. I think anyone using the pre-OD2 position to stoke racial tension in 2016 is being irresponsible. Recognizing that racism existed in some members of the Church is entirely different. While OD2 made such racism contrary to Church doctrine. It didn't eliminate all such feelings in all members. 

I agree. The further we get away from that time period the better I like it.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Thanks for the head's up on (a) the probable illegality of mixed congregations under Apartheid and (b) the impracticality of mixed congregations in Jim Crow Dixie back in the day:  that it was relegated by the authors to footnote status makes me wonder just how many individuals we're talking about who may have been prohibited by law and/or circumstances from attending non-mixed wards/branches.  I daresay only a handful.  One of my wardies did his mission in So Africa during Apartheid (ca 74-76), and he regaled me once on the policies in place on what to do about blacks/cleurlings [sp?] who investigated.  Lots of restrictions on missionaries' activities in theory:  not so much in practice.

I understand quite well, TYVM, what the gerrymandering argument is about:  inferring race-based policies where there are none for the sole and express purpose of discouraging people of color from investigating Mormonism.

Since such pre-1978 segregated congregations in the Church were by no means common or even widely known (I had never heard of them prior to the publication of the Gospel Topics essay) I'd say such a thing can be regarded as very much an anomaly, especially when we consider that nothing in the official policies of the Church ever provided that there be such a thing.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Thanks for the head's up on (a) the probable illegality of mixed congregations under Apartheid and (b) the impracticality of mixed congregations in Jim Crow Dixie back in the day:  that it was relegated by the authors to footnote status makes me wonder just how many individuals we're talking about who may have been prohibited by law and/or circumstances from attending non-mixed wards/branches.  I daresay only a handful.  One of my wardies did his mission in So Africa during Apartheid (ca 74-76), and he regaled me once on the policies in place on what to do about blacks/cleurlings [sp?] who investigated.  Lots of restrictions on missionaries' activities in theory:  not so much in practice.

I understand quite well, TYVM, what the gerrymandering argument is about:  inferring race-based policies where there are none for the sole and express purpose of discouraging people of color from investigating Mormonism.

Since such pre-1978 segregated congregations in the Church were by no means common or even widely known (I had never heard of them prior to the publication of the Gospel Topics essay) I'd say such a thing can be regarded as very much an anomaly, especially when we consider that nothing in the official policies of the Church ever provided that there be such a thing.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Thanks for the head's up on (a) the probable illegality of mixed congregations under Apartheid and (b) the impracticality of mixed congregations in Jim Crow Dixie back in the day:  that it was relegated by the authors to footnote status makes me wonder just how many individuals we're talking about who may have been prohibited by law and/or circumstances from attending non-mixed wards/branches.  I daresay only a handful.  One of my wardies did his mission in So Africa during Apartheid (ca 74-76), and he regaled me once on the policies in place on what to do about blacks/cleurlings [sp?] who investigated.  Lots of restrictions on missionaries' activities in theory:  not so much in practice.

I understand quite well, TYVM, what the gerrymandering argument is about:  inferring race-based policies where there are none for the sole and express purpose of discouraging people of color from investigating Mormonism.

No. You really don't get it. That's ok. I'm sure it's because I'm not explaining it well. I won't bore you with repeated attempts.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 0:37 PM, thesometimesaint said:

I'm not in favor of making any irresponsible claims.

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.

Quote

But I do know history, at least a little. I think anyone using the pre-OD2 position to stoke racial tension in 2016 is being irresponsible.

Agreed.

Quote

Recognizing that racism existed in some members of the Church is entirely different.

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

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97