stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know that it follows that God's love will necessarily be manifested by tokenism. So you complain about the general leaders who are called from different locations because somehow you assume tokenism? I'm confused why that'd be an issue to you. Don't you think leaders are called by revelation? And now, some that are called are there for tokenism? That feels, at least, a little problematic for your consistency, Scott.
ALarson Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This is beyond race in my view. I definitely agree. I think it's quite natural to call those you know, those you may have served with before and trusted or even family members (as in the early days of the church). I love what J. Golden Kimball stated about that (love his humor): Quote “Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church.” Some still believe there is nepotism involved: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/04/14/nepotism-in-the-church/ Quote As I watched the press conference last week between the Sunday sessions of General Conference, I found out that the new 2nd Counselor of the Young Women General Presidency, Ann Dibbs, is a daughter of President Thomas S Monson. It got me thinking about how many relatives of Church leaders also become leaders themselves. Is nepotism a problem in the Church today? http://www.mrm.org/nepotism Quote After meticulously documenting and tracing family records among LDS leaders over the years, Quinn commented that “Where kinship was involved, (Brigham) Young’s successors appointed only men with close kinship relations to current or former general authorities. Aside from Wilford Woodruff, LDS presidents after Young also doubled his proportion of appointments with close kinship connections. Twentieth-century presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant more than doubled the founding prophet’s proportion of appointments with close kinship to other members of the Mormon hierarchy” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, p.169-170). From 1847 to the early 1900’s, the practice of polygamy greatly multiplied the family ties between Mormon authorities in Salt Lake City. Church leaders routinely intermarried with descendants of other general authorities. But even after polygamy was officially ended, family ties remained a strong consideration in appointing men as LDS general authorities. How does the current Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles measure up? 100% of them are related in some way to current or former general authorities of the LDS Church. In the top 2 leading quorums – consisting of 15 men (The First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), five of these men are directly related to each other. Four are related to each other by marriage. Four are directly related to former LDS Presidents. Five are directly related to former apostles. Two are married to wives who are direct descendants of former presidents. Five are married to wives who are directly related to former apostles. Seven are married to wives who are relatives of current general authorities or of their wives. The only apostle who has no blood ties to any other general authority is Apostle Richard G. Scott. But, true to form, his wife is related to several current general authorities and even descends from a former LDS apostle. There is an Addendum to the above (and there have been others called since this as well): Quote On 2 October 2004, President Gordon B. Hinckley presented Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar to the LDS Church as new apostles following the deaths of David Haight and Neil Maxwell earlier in the year. I have been unable to ascertain any extended family ties to current or past LDS General Authorities for either of these men or their wives. On 6 October 2007, Quentin L. Cook was presented as a new apostle after the death of James Faust. Elder Cook and his wife both have multiple ties to current and past General Authorities, including former President Spencer W. Kimball, former Apostle Heber C. Kimball, and former Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter. Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson 4
bluebell Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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. I don't believe that it embarrasses God, so i'm not embarrassed by it either. 1
bluebell Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 2 hours 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 don't see why it matters. We can either believe him or not, it makes no difference to anyone. Besides, it's not at all unusual for someone to provide anecdotal evidence that can't be confirmed to illustrate a point. There's usually no reason to point out that a personal experience can't be confirmed, it's a given. 2
jkwilliams Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: I don't see why it matters. We can either believe him or not, it makes no difference to anyone. Besides, it's not at all unusual for someone to provide anecdotal evidence that can't be confirmed to illustrate a point. There's usually no reason to point out that a personal experience can't be confirmed, it's a given. Yep. I recounted an experience I had because it was pretty close to what Benjamin McGuire said: general authorities aren't necessarily called because of their spirituality but because they have certain skills that are needed. It doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial thing to say, but I suppose if Scott wants to make an issue of my mission president's character, that's up to him. I didn't tell that story to slag off on a general authority.
rpn Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 Or maybe it is that all the men of color have real jobs in teh kingdom that are far more important than being an Apostle and are of much more use to God doing what they are doing. Somehow it is hard to imagine that God cares as much about north american social sensibilities as we sometimes think He ought to. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yep. I recounted an experience I had because it was pretty close to what Benjamin McGuire said: general authorities aren't necessarily called because of their spirituality but because they have certain skills that are needed. It doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial thing to say, but I suppose if Scott wants to make an issue of my mission president's character, that's up to him. I didn't tell that story to slag off on a general authority. See, this is where I differ -- with you and, if that's what Ben meant, with him. I can't accept that God calls people to significant leadership positions without regard to their spirituality or, as Ben put it, a set of spiritual gifts. As much as one may dislike the personal leadership style of a person, I don't see that he can function in a divine calling without being blessed to some extent with spiritual gifts. And, for that matter, without seeking earnestly the best gifts, which one s commanded, especially as it pertains to his or her particular calling in the Church and kingdom. And again, what you call "certain skills that are needed" may indeed incorporate spiritual gifts that have already been given or may in the future be given to the leader.
hope_for_things Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 47 minutes ago, ALarson said: I definitely agree. I think it's quite natural to call those you know, those you may have served with before and trusted or even family members (as in the early days of the church). I love what J. Golden Kimball stated about that (love his humor): Some still believe there is nepotism involved: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/04/14/nepotism-in-the-church/ http://www.mrm.org/nepotism There is an Addendum to the above (and there have been others called since this as well): This is why I think they need to change the selection process otherwise the same kinds of people will continue to be called into these vacancies. Tradition will continue along the same lines and the leadership will increasingly look out of step compared to the rank and file membership. As growth has completely slowed or even started to regress in developed western nations, all of the growth will be in developing countries in the future. What happens when 60% or 70% of the base of members reside in these developing nations, will the 15 apostles and the majority of the 70s continue to be white men from the Mormon corridor? What about a two generations down the road, what if its 80% or 85% from other nations? When will the leadership of this world wide church start to look like the membership base?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 27 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't see why it matters. We can either believe him or not, it makes no difference to anyone. Besides, it's not at all unusual for someone to provide anecdotal evidence that can't be confirmed to illustrate a point. There's usually no reason to point out that a personal experience can't be confirmed, it's a given. 24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: ... but I suppose if Scott wants to make an issue of my mission president's character, that's up to him. I didn't tell that story to slag off on a general authority. I wasn't making an issue of anyone's character. I was exploring possibilities based on information -- and perhaps what was left unsaid -- in the anecdote as it was recounted. I believe, as a participant in the discussion, I am entitled to do that. Once further information was provided, I was willing to lay the matter down. No need for the sustained accusation of me making "an issue of [a] mission president's character.
Amulek Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is why I think they need to change the selection process otherwise the same kinds of people will continue to be called into these vacancies. By "same kinds of people," I assume you mean valiant, faithful, disciples of Christ who are able to stand as a witness to the world that He lives - that His gospel has been restored to the earth once more - and that though Him all mankind may be saved. If that's the kind of people we're going to keep getting then yeah, I can live with that. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: So you complain about the general leaders who are called from different locations because somehow you assume tokenism? Slow down there. I haven't complained about general leaders at all, let alone about them being "called from different locations." What an odd thing to say. Quote I'm confused why that'd be an issue to you. Don't you think leaders are called by revelation? And now, some that are called are there for tokenism? That feels, at least, a little problematic for your consistency, Scott. I'm only saying that I trust God in calling and placing people where He needs them when He needs them there, and I don't consider an ethnic makeup of this or that leadership body to be a reflection of His love or lack thereof, contrary to what you have implied. Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is why I think they need to change the selection process otherwise the same kinds of people will continue to be called into these vacancies. Tradition will continue along the same lines and the leadership will increasingly look out of step compared to the rank and file membership. As growth has completely slowed or even started to regress in developed western nations, all of the growth will be in developing countries in the future. What happens when 60% or 70% of the base of members reside in these developing nations, will the 15 apostles and the majority of the 70s continue to be white men from the Mormon corridor? What about a two generations down the road, what if its 80% or 85% from other nations? When will the leadership of this world wide church start to look like the membership base? CFR that growth has "completely" slowed. Wouldn't that meant that there was an increase of zero in convert baptisms and in children of record last year? That's not the impression I got from the statistical record given at general conference.
stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Slow down there. I haven't complained about general leaders at all, let alone about them being "called from different locations." What an odd thing to say. I guess I can't figure out why you introduced the idea of tokenism and if someone gets called you assume tokenism. 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm only saying that I trust God in calling and placing people where He needs them when He needs them there, and I don't consider an ethnic makeup of this or that leadership body to be a reflection of His love or lack thereof, contrary to what you have implied. Ok
hope_for_things Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: By "same kinds of people," I assume you mean valiant, faithful, disciples of Christ who are able to stand as a witness to the world that He lives - that His gospel has been restored to the earth once more - and that though Him all mankind may be saved. If that's the kind of people we're going to keep getting then yeah, I can live with that. Do you think that there are valiant, faithful people that live in these developing countries around the world? People of color, and people of faith. Or are you under the impression that the only people of this quality exist in the Mormon corridor?
Johnnie Cake Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours 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 suppose. We will, however, continue to disagree about your disgusting racebaiting. 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 So telling it like it is...is now race baiting? What an utterly contemptible, ugly thing to do. I flatly reject your assertion that I was race baiting. Speaking truth and pointing a spot light on the churches record of 100 out of 100 apostolic openings being filled by white men is not race baiting...its telling the truth...however your use of the term in this thread, as a diversionary tactic, certainly mirrors rightwing wacko's who use the term race baiting to deflect attention away from those who expose race inequities. But then you already knew you were using a tactic of the uber alt right didn't you....nice try. Edited September 11, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Calm Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: 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. There is also the requirement to move to SLC and if one's family isn't even in the US, let alone Utah, GAs and their wives may be missing out on a lot of family interaction basically until they die. If families are well off, perhaps they can pay to fly out several times a year; if not, it may be seen as too much of a sacrifice when there are others one feels are acceptable to the Lord as well. 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: You are forgetting our history John Taylor was English. There are apparently eleven apostles who were born outside the US: http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2421043&itype=NGPSID 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: All by itself, it would be an altogether inadequate reason to come back to the Church. Iirc, mormonewb's stated reason for leaving was the lack of action by the Church leadership in helping to create a safer environment for his sons and other young black men...but I may be confused and that was simply one of the last controversies he was focusing on at the time. add-on: I can't find his comment about this so it is likely not among the last things he was commenting on, but earlier in his board career (there is the possibility I am confusing him with someone else). He had strong feelings about many things, he was a supporter of OrdainWomen, SSM, and gay BSA leaders. He probably had several reasons for leaving the Church, his intensity makes it hard to tell what was the most important or if anything stood out as a primary reason rather than building on each other (at least from his board posting) Edited September 12, 2017 by Calm
stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: So telling it like it is...is now race baiting? What an utterly contemptible, ugly thing to do. I flatly reject your assertion that I was race baiting. Speaking truth and pointing a spot light on the churches record of 100 out of 100 apostolic openings being filled by white men is not race baiting...however your use of the term in this thread, as a diversionary tactic, certainly mirrors rightwing wacko's who use the term race baiting to deflect attention away from those who expose race inequities. But then you already knew you were using a tactic of the uber alt right didn't you....nice try. This thread has not gone well, if you ask me. The reactions have been ugly. I'm saddened to see it. Not much more to say about it than that. I think this thread has helped confirm much of what was said in the podcast.
hope_for_things Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that growth has "completely" slowed. Wouldn't that meant that there was an increase of zero in convert baptisms and in children of record last year? That's not the impression I got from the statistical record given at general conference. Golly, there have been tons of articles and even threads on this message board about slowing LDS growth, seems like there is a thread about this every couple weeks. And most of what I've seen in general is a trend in more developed nations, however, I think some developing countries are seeing slow growth as well. I have seen that the church is growing more in Africa in recent years. Uh, lets see... http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_case_studies&cat_id=8 http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5381411&itype=CMSID http://religionnews.com/2016/04/19/mormon-growth-slows-to-its-lowest-level-since-1937-heres-why-thats-great-news/ http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4776326&itype=CMSID
ALarson Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Amulek said: By "same kinds of people," I assume you mean valiant, faithful, disciples of Christ who are able to stand as a witness to the world that He lives - that His gospel has been restored to the earth once more - and that though Him all mankind may be saved. And those "kinds of people" do not exist outside of family relations or other countries around the world? I know they do and hopefully the selection process will continue to change and evolve (just as it has started to change regarding all the top leaders being related directly or through marriage). Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson
stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I definitely agree. I think it's quite natural to call those you know, those you may have served with before and trusted or even family members (as in the early days of the church). I love what J. Golden Kimball stated about that (love his humor): Some still believe there is nepotism involved: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/04/14/nepotism-in-the-church/ http://www.mrm.org/nepotism There is an Addendum to the above (and there have been others called since this as well): Thank you. That was great. Interesting addition.
ALarson Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that growth has "completely" slowed. Wouldn't that meant that there was an increase of zero in convert baptisms and in children of record last year? No, that would be "completely stopped" growing. Not just "slowed".
clarkgoble Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 3 hours ago, 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? I'd not heard about other victims. None of the other news stories mentioned them. I just know the time frame of the girl who was abused between 9-12 who was a family friend came forward apparently just prior to the excommunication.
stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 6 hours ago, rongo said: 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). Woe. This really helps me understand where some are coming from, I think. I can't understand why Lee was brought up here, but it is really concerning. I don't get the quick reflexive appeal to affirmative action--the need to make it negative. I guess we can't escape this stuff.
stemelbow Posted September 11, 2017 Author Posted September 11, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I don't believe that it embarrasses God, so i'm not embarrassed by it either. In order to be disturbed you have to have some level of embarrassment?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Golly, there have been tons of articles and even threads on this message board about slowing LDS growth, seems like there is a thread about this every couple weeks. And most of what I've seen in general is a trend in more developed nations, however, I think some developing countries are seeing slow growth as well. I have seen that the church is growing more in Africa in recent years. Uh, lets see... http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_case_studies&cat_id=8 http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5381411&itype=CMSID http://religionnews.com/2016/04/19/mormon-growth-slows-to-its-lowest-level-since-1937-heres-why-thats-great-news/ http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4776326&itype=CMSID "Slowing growth" is not what you said. These are your words: "As growth has completely slowed or even started to regress in developed western nation ..." If growth had "completely slowed," that would mean growth is at a standstill. In other words, no net increase in Church membership last year. I'm challenging you to show that this is the case. Or to admit that you misspoke. Or, failing that, to explain what you mean by "completely slowed."
Recommended Posts