One of our former

[stemelbow]

http://www.mormonstories.org/sean-carter/

Thought I'd share with those who remember him.  I had forgotten his handle, but have found it.  He was mormonewb here. 

Interesting guy and interesting interview.  I really liked hearing his take.  I thought his thoughts on race were really good. 

Two thoughts to consider here:

1.  I liked his perspective on supremacy.  I think he's got something there--not that's it's unique to him.  But certainly supremacy plays a role in our lives.  Humans like to see themselves as superior>  It's not wonder that happens as we group each other in different ways.  In my mind this extends beyond race.  It certainly feels like Mormons in general see themselves as superior to others--favored, the elect and all that.

2.  100 straight apostles are white men.  Didn't realize it.  Of course, there's no way out of that.  It's what it is.  Race diversity is a problem, in my view, but diversity is lacking in the Church in many ways.  Thoughts?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

2.  100 straight apostles are white men.  Didn't realize it.  Of course, there's no way out of that.  It's what it is.  Race diversity is a problem, in my view, but diversity is lacking in the Church in many ways.  Thoughts?

I have a though on this one.

So, is the solution to purposely call a non-white in order to break this streak/chain? Isn't that openly making it a matter of human choice, and not what God wants, no matter what that answer is?

I know that for the liberal members who desperately want a non-white apostle, God really wants non-whites to have higher representation among Church leadership, but is thwarted by the racist tendencies and traditions of the ruling elite. But, isn't the other side of the coin also just as prone to God being overridden by what man wants (in this case, apostolic affirmative action)?

It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's entry in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary" under "liberal Mormon." As with all of his entries on liberal/conservative dichotomies, he gives both views:

1. As perceived by a conservative Mormon: A Mormon who wants to pervert the gospel to fit the doctrines of men instead of waiting for the Brethren to receive revelations. Liberals talk about being guided by the Spirit but usually find that the Spirit is telling them to espouse currently fashionable American liberal causes and ideas. 2. As perceived by another liberal Mormon: A Mormon who believes that the Lord won't give you any answers unless you ask him intelligent questions. Liberals believe that a Saint should be sensitive enough to recognize truth and humble enough to accept it whether it comes from the Brethren or Boethius, Newton or Nietzsche.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have a though on this one.

So, is the solution to purposely call a non-white in order to break this streak/chain? Isn't that openly making it a matter of human choice, and not what God wants, no matter what that answer is?

I know that for the liberal members who desperately want a non-white apostle, God really wants non-whites to have higher representation among Church leadership, but is thwarted by the racist tendencies and traditions of the ruling elite. But, isn't the other side of the coin also just as prone to God being overridden by what man wants (in this case, apostolic affirmative action)?

It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's entry in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary" under "liberal Mormon." As with all of his entries on liberal/conservative dichotomies, he gives both views:

1. As perceived by a conservative Mormon: A Mormon who wants to pervert the gospel to fit the doctrines of men instead of waiting for the Brethren to receive revelations. Liberals talk about being guided by the Spirit but usually find that the Spirit is telling them to espouse currently fashionable American liberal causes and ideas. 2. As perceived by another liberal Mormon: A Mormon who believes that the Lord won't give you any answers unless you ask him intelligent questions. Liberals believe that a Saint should be sensitive enough to recognize truth and humble enough to accept it whether it comes from the Brethren or Boethius, Newton or Nietzsche.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles says the selection and calling of new Apostles is the prerogative of the president of the Church.

“[President Monson’s] practice has been to ask each of his counselors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve to give him names they would recommend for his consideration, not to discuss with each other but just individually, to give him whatever name or names they feel impressed he ought to look at," he says.

“What process he goes through exactly, I'm not sure. That’s, again, something private he pursues. He then brings back, when he’s reached his decision and had the inspiration he needs, the name or names to the council that we have of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to sustain it. That goes forward to general conference” (in Tad Walch, "Elder Christofferson Talks about How President Monson Calls a New Apostle, Reflects on Elder Scott,” Deseret News, Sept. 24, 2015).

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/calling-an-apostle-of-god?lang=eng

Perhaps God has only ever had a list of white men submitted to Him to choose from...

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.mormonstories.org/sean-carter/

Thought I'd share with those who remember him.  I had forgotten his handle, but have found it.  He was mormonewb here. 

Interesting guy and interesting interview.  I really liked hearing his take.  I thought his thoughts on race were really good. 

Two thoughts to consider here:

1.  I liked his perspective on supremacy.  I think he's got something there--not that's it's unique to him.  But certainly supremacy plays a role in our lives.  Humans like to see themselves as superior>  It's not wonder that happens as we group each other in different ways.  In my mind this extends beyond race.  It certainly feels like Mormons in general see themselves as superior to others--favored, the elect and all that.

2.  100 straight apostles are white men.  Didn't realize it.  Of course, there's no way out of that.  It's what it is.  Race diversity is a problem, in my view, but diversity is lacking in the Church in many ways.  Thoughts?

Thanks, I really enjoyed the interview as well.  Nice to have a perspective of someone who was in Mormonism for a while, but not that long, and that interacted on message boards for a while, but it was before my time here.  

I liked his comments about the 100 apostles being white as well.  If you think about it, in a worldwide church now where more than 50% of the membership is outside the USA, the calling of the last 3 apostles was very unfortunate.  I think what we have happening is we have a tradition for how apostles are called in the church, this is a process where names are recommended to leaders based on networks of who people know and who they've built confidence with and worked with and it preferences those already in the leadership hierarchy.  This old system will continue to preference those from Mordor (Mormon corridor in the USA).  

If the leaders want to start calling Apostles that reflect the diversity of the demographics of church members, they will need to change the traditional way they approach finding leaders.  I think this will need to start with how they call the seventy and will need to continue up to how they find candidates for the Apostleship.  The good news is that they have the power to change these practices.  The bad news is that they probably have no desire to shake up the old practice and they are largely blind to how their continuance of the old traditions and old system really is out of step with a much more diverse and worldwide church.  

[Duncan]

I was reading from the autobiography of a Seventy who served in the 1980's and IIRC he was told the brethren generated 300 names of men who could serve as a General Authority and it was whittled down to six and he was blown away he was on both lists. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Perhaps God has only ever had a list of white men submitted to Him to choose from...

Yes, I imagine God is very frustrated with these lists and the current process.  

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

cationhave a though on this one.

So, is the solution to purposely call a non-white in order to break this streak/chain? Isn't that openly making it a matter of human choice, and not what God wants, no matter what that answer is?

I know that for the liberal members who desperately want a non-white apostle, God really wants non-whites to have higher representation among Church leadership, but is thwarted by the racist tendencies and traditions of the ruling elite. But, isn't the other side of the coin also just as prone to God being overridden by what man wants (in this case, apostolic affirmative action)?

It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's entry in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary" under "liberal Mormon." As with all of his entries on liberal/conservative dichotomies, he gives both views:

1. As perceived by a conservative Mormon: A Mormon who wants to pervert the gospel to fit the doctrines of men instead of waiting for the Brethren to receive revelations. Liberals talk about being guided by the Spirit but usually find that the Spirit is telling them to espouse currently fashionable American liberal causes and ideas. 2. As perceived by another liberal Mormon: A Mormon who believes that the Lord won't give you any answers unless you ask him intelligent questions. Liberals believe that a Saint should be sensitive enough to recognize truth and humble enough to accept it whether it comes from the Brethren or Boethius, Newton or Nietzsche.

God has made it very clear....He prefers White Men to run His church...There are multi-generational people of color members within the church and the fact that not a single one of them has risen to apostleship in the 187 years history of the church demonstrates that God prefers White and Delightsome MEN to run his church.

God had the perfect opportunity this last time when He created 3 vacancies by taking the lives of 3 apostles...still He filled these vacancies with His preferred race, white and delightsome Caucasian men.  It's quite evident which race God prefers...He's made it quite evident.

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles says the selection and calling of new Apostles is the prerogative of the president of the Church.

“[President Monson’s] practice has been to ask each of his counselors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve to give him names they would recommend for his consideration, not to discuss with each other but just individually, to give him whatever name or names they feel impressed he ought to look at," he says.

“What process he goes through exactly, I'm not sure. That’s, again, something private he pursues. He then brings back, when he’s reached his decision and had the inspiration he needs, the name or names to the council that we have of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to sustain it. That goes forward to general conference” (in Tad Walch, "Elder Christofferson Talks about How President Monson Calls a New Apostle, Reflects on Elder Scott,” Deseret News, Sept. 24, 2015).

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/calling-an-apostle-of-god?lang=eng

Perhaps God has only ever had a list of white men submitted to Him to choose from...

This is the same process that vacancies in  the Stake High Council, Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies are filled.  When I was on the High Council we were asked to provide a list of names of men whom we felt could fill the position of Stake President.  Elder Tom Perry interviewed each of these men, I was one of the men under consideration and enjoyed my interview with him...fortunately I was passed over.  But it is interesting that the very same human process is used to fill apostleship.  Its all about who you know and evidently those submitting the names don't know any men of color

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This is the same process that vacancies in  the Stake High Council, Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies are filled.  When I was on the High Council we were asked to provide a list of names of men whom we felt could fill the position of Stake President.  Elder Tom Perry interviewed each of these men, I was one of the men under consideration and enjoyed my interview with him...fortunately I was passed over.  But it is interesting that the very same human process is used to fill apostleship.  Its all about who you know and evidently those submitting the names don't know any men of color

you should move to Canada, you'd be in a stake presidency in no time or on the High Council again!

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have a though on this one.

So, is the solution to purposely call a non-white in order to break this streak/chain?

Apparently not, since I suspect the first non-white apostle will be maligned by our critics as a mere token.

There is no pleasing the critics.  They will simply shift the goal posts to whatever arbitrary standard they themselves deem fitting, then complain when we fail to measure up.

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

Isn't that openly making it a matter of human choice, and not what God wants, no matter what that answer is?

Yes, it is.

The Church has grown tremendously in the last several decades.  Men from many different cultures are now in the upper echelons of Church leadership (take a look at the Seventies).  Sooner or later a Hispanic or black African will be called as an apostle.  But I think that will be a matter of revelation, not politically correct nose-counting

Exhibit A: "{T}he calling of the last 3 apostles was very unfortunate."  The only conceivable explanation for such an appalling calumny is that these three men . . . are of the wrong skin color.  Their individual worth, their conduct as human beings, their service to others, their faith in God, none of that matters.  That these men have been called as apostles is "unfortunate" because they are white, because they are of the wrong skin color in the eyes of the person who wrote that word.  

Imagine if a member of the Church said "The calling of Ulisses Soares and Gerrit W. Gong to the Presidency of the Seventy was very unfortunate," and if the context of that statement made it clear that the member's objection to these men being called into their positions was based solely on their race, there would be quite an outcry.  And justly so.

Racism is bad.  We should not use race as a disqualifier for serving in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Perhaps God has only ever had a list of white men submitted to Him to choose from...

So now we see folks here speculating.  No evidence.  Just sheer conjecture that General Authorities categorically exclude non-white men from consideration when they are called upon to assist the Presiding High Priest in the selection process.

These breezy accusations of racism are ugly and shameful.  I condemn them.  

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

God has made it very clear....He prefers White Men to run His church...There are multi-generational people of color members within the church and the fact that not a single one of them has risen to apostleship in the 187 years history of the church demonstrates that God prefers White and Delightsome MEN to run his church.

God had the perfect opportunity this last time when He created 3 vacancies by taking the lives of 3 apostles...still He filled these vacancies with His preferred race, white and delightsome Caucasian men.  It's quite evident which race God prefers...He's made it quite evident.

Yet another accusation of racism.  As a sarcastic profanation against God, but really an accusation of racism against the General Authorities.

Wow.  This thread is getting ugly.  Fast.

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you should move to Canada, you'd be in a stake presidency in no time or on the High Council again!

Surely, Canada can't be that desperate...

[rongo]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If the leaders want to start calling Apostles that reflect the diversity of the demographics of church members, they will need to change the traditional way they approach finding leaders.  I think this will need to start with how they call the seventy and will need to continue up to how they find candidates for the Apostleship.  The good news is that they have the power to change these practices.  The bad news is that they probably have no desire to shake up the old practice and they are largely blind to how their continuance of the old traditions and old system really is out of step with a much more diverse and worldwide church.  

Again, this presupposes that it will simply be an affirmative action initiative. 

I think the Church is still recovering from George P. Lee. Lee was a rising star for a while, but started agitating against the Church in a "social justice" bent (I think his excommunication stemmed from public criticism, not the sex offenses that happened after his excommunication). 

I think non-U.S. GAs are very carefully vetted to ensure (as much as possible) that they aren't going to "go rogue" with fashionable regional philosophies that are anathema to the still-predominant Rocky Mountain culture of the Church (think, Pope Francis and his brand of social justice that is driving conservative Catholics nuts). 

I think the liberal assumption is that representation in the upper levels of the Church should reflect numerically the statistical diversity of the Church (although, truth be told, I think they would prefer that all 15 of them be non-white, and include women, too!)    I know that they don't like the doctrines on lineage and descent, but one inescapable aspect of Mormonism is the role of Ephraim and Manasseh in the time of the Gentiles. The trajectory of Church history demands that there be a disproportionate (read: non-affirmative action) distribution of leadership.

Edited September 11, 2017 by rongo

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that we sometimes forget that this is a process. Most of our apostles today follow something of a pattern right? Get baptized (usually at age 8). Serve as a Bishop (5+ years), Serve as a Stake President (or at least a counselor - 7+ years). Be called as a regional authority (Area 70 or a Mission President - 3-5 years). And then if you are still young enough, you might be called as a General Authority Seventy (7-10) - and then, if you are young enough (that is, if you haven't hit the age 70 barrier when you are made emeritus), you might be called to be an apostle.

The challenge we face is that the highest quorums of the Church look more like the Church looked when they were born, not the state of the Church today. For us to see a black seventy, we would need someone who makes it into the system appropriately when they are children in 1978. We don't see many black members who are given the priesthood in 1978 who then are immediately made Bishops, and follow this pattern through to where they might be made apostles quickly. So we have two black General Authorities now.

Joseph W. Sitati became the first black General Authority. He was born in 1952. He didn't join the Church until 1986 (at the age of 34). In 1989 he became a District President (the first one in Kenya). He then became the first Stake President in 2001. Area Seventy in 2004. Then Mission President in 2007. And finally First Quroum of the Seventy in 2009. Even rushing through the stages, he is now 65.  And while it's possible he could become an apostle, it becomes more unlikely every year (he's 65 today right).

On the other hand, Edward Dube (while born 1962 he wouldn't be baptized until 1984) has more of a chance at becoming the first black apostle. And he also follows the pattern. Branch President, District President, counselor in a Mission Presidency, Stake President (1999), Mission President (2009), Area Seventy (2012), General Authority Seventy (2013). And so he is in that sort of sweet spot to be a potential apostle right now.

And, at the same time, the Area Seventies have many more black members in their ranks, some of whom may advance to General Authority status, and as they do, there will be more opportunities to call black apostles. 

I think that there is some truth in the idea that God has only ever gotten a list of white candidates - but this was caused as much by the context in which the restoration occurred and the ethnocentric policies that came with early Mormonism and the lack of diversity in the membership for much of the earlier history of the Church. But if my thought about the leadership representing the makeup of the Church decades earlier (when the process of moving people through the leadership starts) is right, then we should expect change now. The explosive growth of the Church in non-white parts of the world in the last half of the twentieth century has created a fairly diverse membership. But it is only in the last decade that we have seen that diversity appear through the leading quorums of the Church.

And finally, as Bruce R. McConkie points out in his book Mormon Doctrine under the topic heading of General Authority:

Quote

Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position of itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual, although every person called to a position in the Church does grow in grace, knowledge and power by magnifying the calling given him.

In other words, General Authorities are not called because they have a particular set of spiritual gifts - but are called instead because they have become successful administrators of the Church. The idea of moving through increasing stewardships is effectively married to the process of calling General Authorities - but it also means that we only get certain types of individuals as leaders (who fit a certain proverbial mold). And we have this problem (as we see frequently here in this forum) that there is a tendency to try and make that substitution - that leadership roles in the Church (or their absence) are somehow indicators of a persons spirituality and gospel understanding ...

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its all about who you know and evidently those submitting the names don't know any men of color

Do you know that no names of men of color have ever been submitted?  

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yet another accusation of racism.  As a sarcastic profanation against God, but really an accusation of racism against the General Authorities.

Wow.  This thread is getting ugly.  Fast.

-Smac

I can't see where anyone has accused the church of racism Smac...God just has a preference...he prefers White men to run his church...celebrate it, own it, shout it from the roof tops... "God prefers white men"

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you know that no names of men of color have ever been submitted?  

Of course not....but what we do know is that God has only chosen white American men to run his church...a run of 100 straight...so clearly God has a preference...some men prefer Blonds...but God prefers white men

[thesometimesaint]

Isn't it fascinating that LDS top leadership is drawn form the ethnic group that presides in the countries that they come from.  The original Apostles were all from Palestine.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Of course not....but what we do know is that God has only chosen white American men to run his church...a run of 100 straight...so clearly God has a preference...some men prefer Blonds...but God prefers white men

You are forgetting our history John Taylor was English.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

You are forgetting our history John Taylor was English.

Not to mention Dieter Uchtdorf.

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to mention Dieter Uchtdorf.

True. But then he speaks better English than some American's.

Edited September 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

True. But hen he speaks better English than some American's.

 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the Church is still recovering from George P. Lee. Lee was a rising star for a while, but started agitating against the Church in a "social justice" bent (I think his excommunication stemmed from public criticism, not the sex offenses that happened after his excommunication). 

Yikes, I think this is borderline racist.  I'm hoping you don't mean to do this.  Going straight to this kind of example is problematic.  

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think non-U.S. GAs are very carefully vetted to ensure (as much as possible) that they aren't going to "go rogue" with fashionable regional philosophies that are anathema to the still-predominant Rocky Mountain culture of the Church (think, Pope Francis and his brand of social justice that is driving conservative Catholics nuts). 

Sure they want group think, that is precisely the reason why we need some diversity, the group think is killing the church.  Love Pope Francis.  Pope Benedict was driving other groups of people nuts.  What's the deal?  

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the liberal assumption is that representation in the upper levels of the Church should reflect numerically the statistical diversity of the Church (although, truth be told, I think they would prefer that all 15 of them be non-white, and include women, too!)    I know that they don't like the doctrines on lineage and descent, but one inescapable aspect of Mormonism is the role of Ephraim and Manasseh in the time of the Gentiles. The trajectory of Church history demands that there be a disproportionate (read: non-affirmative action) distribution of leadership.

Of course the leadership should better reflect the members.  Unless you think that white Americans are somehow more righteous and more elect than others.  And yes, thanks for mentioning the elephant in the room, sexism.  Women need to be included too, but unfortunately we have to be patient for the patriarchy to figure that out.   As for Ephraim and Manasseh, I think that's one of those folk doctrines that we hope just fades into the distance...

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So now we see folks here speculating.  No evidence.  Just sheer conjecture that General Authorities categorically exclude non-white men from consideration when they are called upon to assist the Presiding High Priest in the selection process.

These breezy accusations of racism are ugly and shameful.  I condemn them.  

-Smac

You certainly see speculation.

But let’s consider the alternative, that the Apostles have submitted names of men who don’t have white skin, where does that leave us - that either Monson or God Himself have seen fit to reject them in favour of white skinned men. Whatever way you boil it down, it’s either racism at some point, or only white men have been good enough (in Monson’s or God’s eyes) to be Apostles.

Can you think of any alternative conclusions we can draw from the data? Pick your poison and own it.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Marginal Gains