One of our former

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Got it.

I think you mean Alvin R. Dyer, though.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I recounted the story not to gripe about the Area President but to note that what my mission president said was pretty much the same thing Benjamin and others have said. I don't know about you, but I've met more than one church leader who was difficult to work with. Saying so doesn't necessarily constitute evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. 

[bluebell]

28 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 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.

I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a result of the way that leaders are chosen in the church and the church's history, which prevented a lot of men of color from rising up through the ranks, so to speak.  For black men, they couldn't even get into leadership positions before 1978.  I also don't doubt that individual racism has played it's part but I don't believe that the majority of the people who present names are racist and have never presented the name of a man of color.

[smac97]

43 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. 

Not all of us view the world through "IT'S RACISM!"-tinges lenses.

43 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

Johnnie, Al Sharpton called and asked that you return is "Racebaiting for Dummies" book as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Smac

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

No, but I wouldn't expect it either.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

No, but I wouldn't expect it either.

Who knows? People join, leave, come in and out activity for all kinds of reasons. Why not this one?

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Del Parsons seems to think so. 

I've always found it fascinating that Jesus has whatever skin color the person depicting him is.

[ALarson]

1 hour 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.

Iirc, the abuse of the young girl had been going on for a few years prior to his excommunication. There were also other victims who came forward as well and I'm not sure how long that alleged abuse occurred prior to his excommunication.  Do you know much about the other victims?

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not all of us view the world through "IT'S RACISM!"-tinges lenses.

Johnnie, Al Sharpton called and asked that you return is "Racebaiting for Dummies" book as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Smac

Ok Ok I've had my fun...Let me just add...that the church can pick whomever it wants...I don't have a dog in that fight...but I think all can agree that the church has reached the point to where the calling of a man of color to the apostleship would be celebrated by all...both in and out of the church has a significant moment in history...I'm hoping that God agrees with me and sees fit the next time He has a position to fill that he finds a man of color who meets his standards among the millions of men of color in the church who can serve in this calling...it would be historic and cathartic

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

Iirc, the abuse of the young girl had been going on for a few years prior to his excommunication. There were also other victims who came forward as well and I'm not sure how long that alleged abuse occurred prior to his excommunication.  Do you know much about the other victims?

Can we all agree that, whatever the reason for the lack of non-white apostles, to say that the leadership is hesitant to call non-white men because they don't want another George P. Lee is to implicitly call the brethren racists? I would hope we can put that to rest.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Can we all agree that, whatever the reason for the lack of non-white apostles, to say that the leadership is hesitant to call non-white men because they don't want another George P. Lee is to implicitly call the brethren racists? I would hope we can put that to rest.

I hope you're not accusing me of implying that (or "implicitly" calling them racists) from the post and question I asked.  (I'm not sure why you directed it at me?)

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

I hope you're not accusing me of implying that from the post and question I asked.  (I'm not sure why you directed it at me?)

No, no, just too lazy to go back and find the offending post. But the sentiment behind it was appalling. Sounds like you agree. Sorry for tarring you by association.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Who knows? People join, leave, come in and out activity for all kinds of reasons. Why not this one?

The older I get the harder it is to change. That doesn't mean I can't, but at 66 years old it isn't likely. Unless something changes he will most likely not return. I don't believe it will be the Church will be the one that changes enough to suit him. That being said I hope we see an black Apostle before I leave mortality.

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I don't concede that it's strange to point out that some motives, all by themselves, don't constitute adequate reasons for joining the Church. That is the very reason pre-baptism interviews are conducted.

Furthermore, I should think that a person, having once apostatized from the Church, would need to express more of a reason and better reasons for coming back than solely because he happened to like a change in the racial makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve.

But whatever. I hope we've cleared the air on this now.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that it's strange to point out that some motives, all by themselves, don't constitute adequate reasons for joining the Church. That is the very reason pre-baptism interviews are conducted.

Furthermore, I should think that a person, having once apostatized from the Church, would need to express more of a reason and a better reasons for coming back than solely because he happened to like a change in the racial makeup of the Quorum of the Twelve.

But whatever. I hope we've cleared the air on this now.

I'm just saying I thought it was a strange thing to say, and I certainly wasn't jumping down your throat. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, no, just too lazy to go back and find the offending post. But the sentiment behind it was appalling. 

Got it.  I do agree with you.  

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok Ok I've had my fun...

Racebaiting is "fun"?

Oh.

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Let me just add...that the church can pick whomever it wants...I don't have a dog in that fight...

Right.  So you come here and racebait not on principle, but just for kicks and giggles?  

What an utterly contemptible, ugly thing to do.

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

but I think all can agree that the church has reached the point to where the calling of a man of color to the apostleship would be celebrated by all...

I suppose.

We will, however, continue to disagree about your disgusting racebaiting.

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

both in and out of the church has a significant moment in history...I'm hoping that God agrees with me and sees fit the next time He has a position to fill that he finds a man of color who meets his standards among the millions of men of color in the church who can serve in this calling...it would be historic and cathartic

It is hugely ironic that the principal racebaiter in this thread is now calling for something that will be "cathartic."

Stoking racial animosity ("Ok I've had my fun...") is not cathartic.

Casual and baseless accusations of racial hatred - as you have done - is not "cathartic."

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnnie,

I think that most of the LDS participants here would agree that a lack of diversity at the highest level was in part caused by the racist views of the Church in the past. I think that sometimes we want change all at once, and very quickly. Sometimes that is easier than other times. I think in this case, this is simply a slower process. I think that in 15 years or 20 years, there will be more room for complaint if nothing changes. But I don't think it is all that appropriate right now.

I think that there is something to be said for getting others into the leadership. I think that we are still working on this issue of the "image of God" or rather the idea that God is white like me. This feeds all sorts of other things, and certainly a non-white prophet might help alter some of that perception. I also think that it helps to have our non-white brothers and sisters see that they are able to serve in all capacities in the Church, and this is helped by greater diversity in the leadership. But I also think that the Church is actively addressing this. More and more local leaders are called from the native populations (this includes the area seventy and even the General Authority seventy). And I think it is easy for you to focus on this one aspect - and ignore the progress that has happened. I think that for the most part, there won't be this idea that the Church is capitulating to pressure in bringing more diversity to the leadership - precisely because it hasn't changed its policies, it just made them more inclusive.

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Racebaiting is "fun"?

Oh.

Right.  So you come here and racebait not on principle, but just for kicks and giggles?  

What an utterly contemptible, ugly thing to do.

 

I think he was mostly having "fun" at your expense.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Sure. I'd question the whole process that is being followed.  I think it was Hope_for who pointed out, if diversity is going to be considered they need to change up how they call apostles.  Joseph was no old man, of course.  So we see, no one needs to be old, steeped in Church culture, one who has climbed up the corporate ranks to be qualified.  THat's the just process now. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

One has to wonder if there was no priesthood ban for most of the Church's existence, if this would be how it is.  I think you noted later, as I skimmed, that it's obviously a result of the racism of the Church's past which has contributed to the lack of diversity now, in the leadership and throughout.  But perhaps that is the exact problem we need to address. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

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 ...

I'd say that is the problem.  The only way to become an apostle, through the Church, is to accept it's lack of diversity now in hopes it will change.  But as Carter pointed out in the podcast--not many who embrace diversity as an element of purpose and use are going to buy into a non diverse religion.   To build that up....well, the Church is just way behind.  In 50 years we might have room to talk here.  But then again, we might not, with the process of how it works now. 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Johnnie,

I think that most of the LDS participants here would agree that a lack of diversity at the highest level was in part caused by the racist views of the Church in the past. I think that sometimes we want change all at once, and very quickly. Sometimes that is easier than other times. I think in this case, this is simply a slower process. I think that in 15 years or 20 years, there will be more room for complaint if nothing changes. But I don't think it is all that appropriate right now.

I think that there is something to be said for getting others into the leadership. I think that we are still working on this issue of the "image of God" or rather the idea that God is white like me. This feeds all sorts of other things, and certainly a non-white prophet might help alter some of that perception. I also think that it helps to have our non-white brothers and sisters see that they are able to serve in all capacities in the Church, and this is helped by greater diversity in the leadership. But I also think that the Church is actively addressing this. More and more local leaders are called from the native populations (this includes the area seventy and even the General Authority seventy). And I think it is easy for you to focus on this one aspect - and ignore the progress that has happened. I think that for the most part, there won't be this idea that the Church is capitulating to pressure in bringing more diversity to the leadership - precisely because it hasn't changed its policies, it just made them more inclusive.

Actually it takes like 50 years or more of being an elder to get from calling as a GA to becoming prophet if you just check the time lines.  President Monson took like what- 17 years from being an elder to becoming an apostle and he was the youngest EVER and became a prophet at age 36.

It took HIM- the youngest ever- to become a prophet in 61 years from ordination to becoming prophet.

So 1978 plus 61 is  realistically is the MINIMUM time for how long it would take for anyone ordained to the Melch. Ph. to get through the ranks from Elders Q pres etc to Prophet.

So those ordained in 1978 MIGHT have a shot by 2040 or so, IF they are on the "fast track".

I think most members would love having an African American prophet so we could get rid of these issues and get on with life.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours 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. 

he 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?

He never really understood how the church works and came across as an "angry young man" while he was here.

I had a lot of interactions with him.

This is really just more of the kind of stuff he would say here- no surprises that he is still in the same place mentally.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No.  That is not my topic.  my topic is more about the lack of diversity.  I think we all know why there is not diversity in the upper echelons--the system hasn't been set up to support or embrace diversity, in any sense. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

You're missing the point of my OP.  You're trying to change the direction in so doing.  I don't care, really.  Have fun down your tangents, if that's what you prefer.  I'm just pointing out what I have not said, and what I have said. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

QED.

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

I'm not sure why you want me to shut up.  What is arbitrary?  What unreasonable constrain[t]s?  I made two observations and hoped to discuss those.  You on the other hand, are discussing something different while replying to me.  I don't need to shut up.  That's rude, dude.  What's so racist about what I've said? 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I'd agree with Sean who suggested the view you are espousing really just demonstrates ignorance.  I'm guessing you didn't and no desire to listen to podcast thus getting familiar with the intended topic.  If so, fine.  But keep in mind I think your view has already been explained to be a reactionary one that demonstrated ignorance.  Too bad.  I think you could add to this if you wanted to try. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

More racebaiting.

Yes, racebaiting usually works that way.  

-Smac

Alright.  I can tell you are going to be hypersenstive and continue to be unreasonable.  You've offered little room for consideration.  So whatever.  Have fun. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He never really understood how the church works and came across as an "angry young man" while he was here.

I had a lot of interactions with him.

This is really just more of the kind of stuff he would say here- no surprises that he is still in the same place mentally.

I had a lot too.  I didn't see him as an angry young man at all--mostly because he's older than me, but also because angry doesn't fit in anyway with what he gave off here.  Not at all.  He was frank.  He was far more certain on things he said than I am.  But angry?  I don't think so, even if he got angry a time or two.  He seemed quite happy to ask questions, give his opinion, tell people they were wrong in his view.  Angry seems like a terrible assessment to me.  Perception is everything.  I agree he didn't fully understand the Church or how it worked.  I don't know that he does now.  But that is one reason I think his view valuable.  he's intelligent.  He put in an effort with the Church.  He saw, he liked, he tried, he got more and more disillusioned, he left. 

[stemelbow]

This is beyond race in my view.  I had a discussion with a fellow in my ward.  He pointed out how each of the high council work in the same or similar field as the SP.  That each carried the same style in their clothes and how they do their hair--both of which me and this fellow are nearly the opposite of.  They're all younger than the SP, but close to his age (He's a young SP).  It became clear--his preference is preppy dudes who seek success in finances in way that most of us don't.  It was kind of a joke my friend made "I'll never be called to something important in the stake, because I don't use hair gel and make sure my part is precise".  But he took it further because it also bothers his wife--they were a clique that the rest of us were outside of.  Something I didn't notice as much because wife and I weren't somehow drawn to be their friends anyway.  But this guy and his wife wanted to.  Cute stuff...I mean I won't be with them because they all hate me for my views.  But, prejudice was clear. 

On top of that after talking about this with my wife and pointing out the local prejudice in our area, I realize we're all that way.  We just do what is comfortable to us.  Seems harmless enough.  But when it involves so many...well, it causes problems.