One of our former

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You are forgetting our history John Taylor was English.

Technically an American...as in citizen by default

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to mention Dieter Uchtdorf.

True that...I misspoke....I should have stopped at While Men

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Technically an American...as in citizen by default

True that...I misspoke....I should have stopped at While Men

I don't think John Taylor was an American citizen, but I could be wrong. He was baptized in Canada, where he had emigrated from England.

[stemelbow]

2 hours 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?

The reality is the Church lacks diversity.  In time someone will come along and break the streak, I suppose.  But that doesn't mean the Church is not directed from a very limited, in terms of diversity, perspective.  IT's a shame to some of us who, I guess, get maligned for voicing the concern. 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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)?

I think many, not just liberal folks, would love to see diversity.  THe Church has had a presence in the Pacific for most of it's history.  BUt how many Pacific Islanders have reached apostle status?  The issue from that perspective is the Church is doing business in an American way.  THat's why white americans or white American-like folks have always run the Church without any sort of exception.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

I understand there's a great deal of resentment for people who speak up and question.  It's not helpful in terms of dialogue, but ti's there.  Thanks for the note. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

The last 3 was a brazen move by the Church.  I think many anticipated some effort to mix it up, open up and try to move the Church forward. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I doubt maligned works well for those of us in the Church who find the workings a bit troubling. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Feels like a cop out when it comes to the topic.  No one is saying this stuff.  You just seem really upset at "critics". 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I'd recommend listening to the podcast.  You might not, but I think it'd be helpful to all. 

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The last 3 was a brazen move by the Church.  I think many anticipated some effort to mix it up, open up and try to move the Church forward. 

I don't know. Depending on your perspective, it seems that racial/ethnic/cultural diversity may not be as much a priority for God or the church leadership as it is for you. 

[Johnnie Cake]

28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think John Taylor was an American citizen, but I could be wrong. He was baptized in Canada, where he had emigrated from England.

Not to belabor the point but: 

Quote

Perhaps no other incident captures as well the paradoxical relationship John Taylor experienced with his adopted homeland of America. As the only Church President born and reared on foreign soil, Taylor had a complex relationship with his new country. On the one hand, Taylor heard and heeded a divine call to come to this land as a youth. Throughout his life he praised and espoused the ideals of American liberty. Of his own choice he applied for American citizenship in 1849 and served actively in governmental positions.[3]

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Not to belabor the point but:

Thanks for that. I gladly stand corrected.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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 presumes that the president of the Church is bound to select from the names that are submitted to him. I don't believe he is thus constricted.

It also presumes that he has only ever had the names of white men submitted to him. I don't see how you could know such a thing.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know. Depending on your perspective, it seems that racial/ethnic/cultural diversity may not be as much a priority for God or the church leadership as it is for you. 

I'm rejecting that possibility since I am most hopeful that GOd loves us. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I doubt maligned works well for those of us in the Church who find the workings a bit troubling. 

Moving the goal posts is the SOP for critics.

Quote

Quote

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.

Feels like a cop out when it comes to the topic. 

I will again note the deafening silence that arises whenever the "diversity" of the Seventy is raised:

Presidency of the Seventy

• Ulisses Soares
• Gerrit W. Gong

General Authority Seventies

• Marcos A. Aidukaitis
• Jose L. Alonso
• 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
• Taylor G. Godoy
• Walter F. González
• O. Vincent Haleck
• Joni L. Koch
• Hugo E. Martinez
• Hugo Montoya
• Adrián Ochoa
• Adilson de Paula Parrella
• Rafael E. Pino
• Joseph W. Sitati
• Michael John U. Teh
• José A. Teixeira
• Juan A. Uceda
• Arnulfo Valenzuela
• Taniela B. Wakolo
• Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
• Kazuhiko Yamashita
• Jorge F. Zeballos
• Claudio D. Zivic

That seems like quite a broad spectrum of racial diversity.

But for critics, it does not matter, because shut up.  And also racism.

Quote

No one is saying this stuff. 

Give it time.

Again, our critics routinely ignore the diversity reflected in the Seventy.  Why is that?  

Quote

You just seem really upset at "critics". 

I will own that.  I resent casual, and baseless, accusations of racism against the General Authorities.  Color me fickle.

Quote

I'd recommend listening to the podcast.  You might not, but I think it'd be helpful to all. 

I might.  I had a lot of first-hand experience with Sean Carter.  I was, in the main, not impressed.  He too was all to casual in his baseless slanders against the LDS Church and its leaders and members.

He also did not seem to know much about the Church.  Or respect it or its leaders or members.  Or appreciate what it has to offer.

Stoking racial resentments is not a good thing.  But some of our critics revel in such things, as evidenced by . . . this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2017 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm rejecting that possibility since I am most hopeful that GOd loves us. 

I don't think that loving us and not being overly concerned about diversity are mutually exclusive. If the church is, as many here believe, led by God, then perhaps he calls leaders for reasons other than their contribution to diversity. I don't know, but if I were a believer, I'd probably think that way. 

[bluebell]

59 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

Or maybe God preferred men for other reasons, who also happened to be white?  Could that be possible?  Or should it not be considered because it gives the church the benefit of the doubt?

As Benjamin McGuire said "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."  

The names of those presented are the names of those who have gone through many different leadership opportunities in the church.  The number of men of color who had that opportunity (until lately) is very small.  I don't believe that we can reasonable assume that God has only ever received the names of white men, but it is logical that if the names of men of colored were ever offered, that they were few and greatly outnumbered by the names of white men for reasons that McGuire outlines. Probability alone can greatly explain the racial make up of the leadership of the church.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

This strikes me as something you could have no way of knowing -- and a remark that is unpalatably snarky.

Furthermore, I wonder if it has occurred to you that "a particular set of spiritual gifts" might very well have contributed to their administrative acumen as well as untold other talents and thereby placed them in a position eventually to be selected for their high callings.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moving the goal posts is the SOP for critics.

That's really not the topic here. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will again note the deafening silence that arises whenever the "diversity" of the Seventy is raised:

Presidency of the Seventy

• Ulisses Soares
• Gerrit W. Gong

General Authority Seventies

• Marcos A. Aidukaitis
• Jose L. Alonso
• 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
• Taylor G. Godoy
• Walter F. González
• O. Vincent Haleck
• Joni L. Koch
• Hugo E. Martinez
• Hugo Montoya
• Adrián Ochoa
• Adilson de Paula Parrella
• Rafael E. Pino
• Joseph W. Sitati
• Michael John U. Teh
• José A. Teixeira
• Juan A. Uceda
• Arnulfo Valenzuela
• Taniela B. Wakolo
• Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
• Kazuhiko Yamashita
• Jorge F. Zeballos
• Claudio D. Zivic

That seems like quite a broad spectrum of racial diversity.

But for critics, it does not matter, because shut up.  And also racism.

The topic is the top 15, not just GAs.  The topic in the OP is 100 straight white men called as apostles.  The streak continues.  Maybe it'll be broken next one called.  We'll see. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Give it time.

Again, our critics routinely ignore the diversity reflected in the Seventy.  Why is that?  

Let's discuss in another thread.  I might participate. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will own that.  I resent casual, and baseless, accusations of racism against the General Authorities.  Color me fickle.

I might.  I had a lot of first-hand experience with Sean Carter.  I was, in the main, not impressed.  He too was all to casual in his baseless slanders against the LDS Church and its leaders and members.

He also did not seem to know much about the Church.  Or respect it or its leaders or members.  Or appreciate what it has to offer.

Stoking racial resentments is not a good thing.  But some of our critics revel in such things, as evidenced by . . . this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think he frames the issue quite well in the podcast.  I realize even so, many will push back on what he has said. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think that loving us and not being overly concerned about diversity are mutually exclusive. If the church is, as many here believe, led by God, then perhaps he calls leaders for reasons other than their contribution to diversity. I don't know, but if I were a believer, I'd probably think that way. 

I think Carter frames it well.  I'm going with it for now. unless convinced otherwise. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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).

The first black General Authority was Helvécio Martins, who was called to the Seventy in 1990.

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think John Taylor was an American citizen, but I could be wrong. He was baptized in Canada, where he had emigrated from England.

John A. Widtsoe was Norwegian by birth.

I'm not certain of his American citizenship, but I think it probable, as he spent two years working for the federal government supervising the Federal Bureau of Reclamation.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I think Carter frames it well.  I'm going with it for now. unless convinced otherwise. 

I tend to agree with Benjamin McGuire that the time lag of church experience is the most likely explanation. And I'm not being snarky.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He also did not seem to know much about the Church. 

 

Yet he acted like he did. He acted like he knew more about the 1978 revelation on the priesthood than those of us who were alive then and were active, adult members of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The first black General Authority was Helvécio Martins, who was called to the Seventy in 1990.

Yes. That comports with my memory of events.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. That comports with my memory of events.

Elder Sitati was the first black African to be called as a general authority. The late Elder Martins was Brazilian.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Moving the goal posts is the SOP for critics.

That's really not the topic here. 

The topic is, I think, about the LDS Church making race a selection criteria for General Authorities.

I understand you want to limit that discussion to the Twelve, because such a limitation facilitates the narrative that the LDS Church and its leaders are racist.  In contrast, discussing the next-highest quorum of leaders in the Church manifestly falsifies that narrative.  So critics ignore that quorum because shut up.  Also racism.

QED.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The topic is the top 15, not just GAs. 

I think we all know why people like you want to impose arbitrary and unreasonable constrains on "the topic."  Because . . . shut up.  Also racism.

You are trying to sell a narrative of systemic racism that manifestly falls apart when the Seventy are considered.  And then there are the Area Seventies (not GAs, but still with significant ecclesiastical and administrative responsibilities), and mission presidents, and stake presidencies, and bishoprics, and branch presidencies.

To borrow a phrase, the "inconvenient truth" is that the LDS Church has a remarkable degree of racial diversity within the upper echelons of its leadership.  The critics will not acknowledge this, and will instead set up arbitrary standards/expectations that - surprise! - will not fit the reality of what is going on the LDS Church.  Because the narrative matters more than reality.  Because shut up.  Also racism.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The topic in the OP is 100 straight white men called as apostles. 

Ben McGuire's post addresses this fairly well.

But I suspect his remarks, like mine about diversity in the Seventy, will be largely ignored because they do not advance the racebaiting narrative being pushed in this thread.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The streak continues. 

More racebaiting.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he frames the issue quite well in the podcast.  I realize even so, many will push back on what he has said. 

Yes, racebaiting usually works that way.  

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think that loving us and not being overly concerned about diversity are mutually exclusive. If the church is, as many here believe, led by God, then perhaps he calls leaders for reasons other than their contribution to diversity. I don't know, but if I were a believer, I'd probably think that way. 

We are here to be tried and tested, and some are here try and test us. GA's included. 

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I tend to agree with Benjamin McGuire that the time lag of church experience is the most likely explanation. And I'm not being snarky.

I agree.  And that is the problem.  I was going to reply to him, but I haven't had time to get that far yet.