One of our former

[clarkgoble]

2 hours 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). 

I believe the abuse was going on around the time of his criticizing the dropping of the Lamanite programs. The trial was in 1994 when the girl was 17 and she said the abuse began when she was 9 and accused him at 12. He was excommunicated in 1989. There were some indications the brethren knew about it leading to the excommunication. I couldn't find anything explicit, but the time frame fits.

Edited September 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

When I was on my mission, our Area President was, to quote my mission president, "A rather stern man." He was not in the least personable and tended to be pretty autocratic, for want of a better word. My mission president became used to being overruled in even the most trivial of matters. One day, after a rather peremptory overrule, followed by a warning never to ask again because, "I never approve" such requests, my mission president sighed and said, "Elders, let this be a learning experience. Sometimes the Lord chooses men for some special purpose, not because they are particularly spiritually minded or are good speakers, but because whatever skills they possess are needed." That seems to be the gist of what Benjamin McGuire was saying, and I tend to agree. Or maybe my mission president was being snarky.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

well..................!

[Johnnie Cake]

Let me remind the board that the 500lbs Gorilla that some members of this board do not seem to want to celebrate and embrace is the string of 100 white men being called to serve as Apostles.  Certainly this is a point of celebration...no member of the church should be embarrassed by this reality.  That God prefers white men to run His church should be a something all members of the church should be proud of and want to celebrate...nothing to be ashamed of here.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Let me remind the board that the 500lbs Gorilla that some members of this board do not seem to want to celebrate and embrace is the string of 100 white men being called to serve as Apostles.  Certainly this is a point of celebration...no member of the church should be embarrassed by this reality.  That God prefers white men to run His church should be a something all members of the church should be proud of and want to celebrate...nothing to be ashamed of here.

Glad to hear it.
I'm not ashamed at all.

[Duncan]

I wonder if Sean Carter would come back to the Church if they did call a Non White to be a General Authority

[thesometimesaint]

Was Jesus to be ashamed that the original Apostles were all Jewish men in Palestine?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder if Sean Carter would come back to the Church if they did call a Non White to be a General Authority

All by itself, it would be an altogether inadequate reason to come back to the Church.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

So its a mere coincidence that "God preferred men for other reasons" and they all turned out to be White, 100 times out of 100?  This would presume that there is not a single qualified man of color within the entire church that has these "other reasons" and that would be paramount to calling God a racist...which is an argument that I don't think anyone is making.  I think its best to stick with what we do know...God prefers White men...any other conclusion would just be speculation.

Certainly if all leadership within say Ford Motor Company  since its founding comprised of all White Men...no one would point their finger at Ford and call their management hiring practices racist would they? Oh wait, never mind.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I was on my mission, our Area President was, to quote my mission president, "A rather stern man." He was not in the least personable and tended to be pretty autocratic, for want of a better word. My mission president became used to being overruled in even the most trivial of matters. One day, after a rather peremptory overrule, followed by a warning never to ask again because, "I never approve" such requests, my mission president sighed and said, "Elders, let this be a learning experience. Sometimes the Lord chooses men for some special purpose, not because they are particularly spiritually minded or are good speakers, but because whatever skills they possess are needed." That seems to be the gist of what Benjamin McGuire was saying, and I tend to agree. Or maybe my mission president was being snarky.

Or maybe your mission president was wont to make off-the-wall proposals and requests. No way to know from your anecdote.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe the abuse was going on around the time of his criticizing the dropping of the Lamanite programs. The trial was in 1994 when the girl was 17 and she said the abuse began when she was 9 and accused him at 12. He was excommunicated in 1989. There were some indications the brethren knew about it leading to the excommunication. I couldn't find anything explicit, but the time frame fits.

My memory is that the abuse didn't come to light until several years after the excommunication. What are the indications that the Brethren knew of it beforehand?

[Amulek]

 

This brings to mind the word of the Lord to Samuel: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

I honestly don't think God cares about the racial make-up of the Apostles, and I am happy to sustain anyone whom the Lord sees fit to call to that office. 

Here's the thing I have never understood about this whole line of criticism though: If the church hasn't been restored as it claims to be, then the Apostles are all just pretenders anyway, right? They hold no real authority to begin with? In which case, what difference does it make if the "Apostles" aren't sufficiently diverse for someone's liking? 

And let's be honest, it isn't like there is a golden ratio of races that could be used to comprise the 12 that is going to suddenly convert any non-believer into a believer. It's really just something else that some critics of the church happen to dislike and want to complain about. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So its a mere coincidence that "God preferred men for other reasons" and they all turned out to be White, 100 times out of 100?  This would presume that there is not a single  men of color within the entire church that has these "other reasons" and that would be paramount to calling God a racist...which is an argument that I don't think anyone is making.  I think its best to stick with what we do know...God prefers White men...any other conclusion would just be speculation.

Was Jesus White?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or maybe your mission president was wont to make off-the-wall proposals and requests. No way to know from your anecdote.

Nope. As you may know, a lot of people in my mission experienced illness, and quite a few were sent home to recuperate. Under the previous Area President, those who returned were usually granted an extension of up to two months to make up for the lost time. On the day in question, a sister missionary who had missed a couple of months recuperating at home, asked for a two-week extension. My mission president said he was fine with that but would have to check with the new Area President. The response was a resounding no, with the Area President saying he never approved extensions of any length, so my mission president shouldn't ask again. 

Incidentally, my wont-to-make-off-the-wall-proposals-and-requests mission president was subsequently called to the First Quorum of Seventy. 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All by itself, it would be an altogether inadequate reason to come back to the Church.

Would you tell him not to come back because his reason is inadequate?

[Jeanne]

I am inclined to think their is a leaning to posterity and professions...am I wrong?

Edited September 11, 2017 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Was Jesus White?

Del Parsons seems to think so. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope. As you may know, a lot of people in my mission experienced illness, and quite a few were sent home to recuperate. Under the previous Area President, those who returned were usually granted an extension of up to two months to make up for the lost time. On the day in question, a sister missionary who had missed a couple of months recuperating at home, asked for a two-week extension. My mission president said he was fine with that but would have to check with the new Area President. The response was a resounding no, with the Area President saying he never approved extensions of any length, so my mission president shouldn't ask again. 

Incidentally, my wont-to-make-off-the-wall-proposals-and-requests mission president was subsequently called to the First Quorum of Seventy. 

I was going to say as I recall he became a General Authority and future President of a rather large Temple

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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

I don't know that it follows that God's love will necessarily be manifested by tokenism.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

I realize that my comments in thread could  get under your skin... sometimes pointing out the truth does that...but I'm only the messenger pointing out the obvious...it is not me but the policy of exclusive white men that should be the target of any ire you may have, not me.  I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the next time an apostle is called...he too will be white.....any other choice would just be caving to societal pressure...and God never does that right?

 

I get the sense that none of the believing posters of this board are embarrassed by the fact that 100 out of 100 possible callings to the apostle ship have gone to white men?  Please help me understand why this does not disturb you. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I was going to say as I recall he became a General Authority and future President of a rather large Temple

Yep. He's a great man.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Would you tell him not to come back because his reason is inadequate?

Of course not.

Am I not free to comment on something in theory without having my intent thus impugned?

Suppose I were to say that eligibility for welfare assistance from the Church does not, all by itself, constitute an adequate reason for joining it. Would you be so quick to jump down my throat?

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course not.

Am I not free to comment on something in theory without having my intent thus impugned?

Suppose I were to say that eligibility for welfare assistance from the Church does not, all by itself, constitute an adequate reason for joining it. Would you be so quick to jump down my throat?

No one is jumping down your throat. I just thought it was a strange thing for you to say and wondered if that meant you'd turn such a person away. Which you have answered.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott -

I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was trying to point out that as a general rule we have this tradition of leadership. People rise up through it. And while it is possible for a leader of the Church to simply pick someone to call to a high position in the Church, this usually isn't the case at all. The last time this was done (at least that I know of) was with Richard Dyer. And while Richard Dyer was ordained an apostle (so that he could be a counselor to the First Presidency), he was never admitted to the Quorum of the Twelve, and did not advance in that sense. The point was simply that to make it through the ranks, blacks in particular have to start counting from when they were given the priesthood. For the rest of the Church, I think that we sometimes forget that the Church had a period of incredible growth, and much of the diversity we see today simply wasn't there at the time when we would need it to see the leadership of the Church reflecting that diversity now. We are just now getting to the point where we would expect to see greater diversity in the leading quorums of the Church based on that diversity growth in the past. I expect that diversity will come. But, this is something that I think won't be rushed.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope. As you may know, a lot of people in my mission experienced illness, and quite a few were sent home to recuperate. Under the previous Area President, those who returned were usually granted an extension of up to two months to make up for the lost time. On the day in question, a sister missionary who had missed a couple of months recuperating at home, asked for a two-week extension. My mission president said he was fine with that but would have to check with the new Area President. The response was a resounding no, with the Area President saying he never approved extensions of any length, so my mission president shouldn't ask again. 

Incidentally, my wont-to-make-off-the-wall-proposals-and-requests mission president was subsequently called to the First Quorum of Seventy. 

As I said, there was no way to know from your anecdote as you initially recounted it.

By the way, I can conceive of good reasons to disapprove extensions as a matter of policy, reasons that come to bear regardless of extenuating circumstances. I don't know that would necessarily render a leader austere or intransigent -- although it might be consistent with such a pattern.