One of our former

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

This topic of Lee's alleged abuse has no business in this thread.  I was appalled it got mentioned.  I guess since it was I can't fault people for continuing it.  But, there was nothing in the OP to introduce child abuse. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you.  That was great.  Interesting addition. 

I don't understand why there's so many that are extremely defensive here.  We have a written record of who all the past top leaders have been.  Most agree (I think) that there are many factors why these men may have been selected as leaders. 

One thing that is not in dispute though (I think) is that there has not been much diversity within top church leadership in the past.   Do those involved in the discussion see that changing or hope it will change in the future?   Why (or why not)?

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

The initial Tribune story about the abuse suggested it going by memory. I tried to find it but it doesn't appear to be in their archive. The indirect evidence is that the girl was 17 during the trial and said she came forward at 12 which was right when he was excommunicated. Sunstone at the time published what they called "The Lee Letters" (page 50). Number 10 and 11 said:

10. Who wrote a letter to George P. Lee and falsely accused him of things which were not true such as polygamy and teaching false doctrine?

11. Who put George P. Lee on probation after he faithfully and honestly opened up to you in his attempts to answer your questions and false accusations with a presentation on the chalkboard?

The young girl who testified at his trial said he presented it as polygamy. So if Lee was claiming Benson was falsely accusing Lee of polygamy and the girl was accusing him of attempted polygamy with a minor, that's strong circumstantial evidence Benson at minimum thought Lee was involved in something like this. How much Benson/Hinkley knew isn't clear. The Trib story came out in 1993 and Lee said he was innocent but then a year later plead guilty. It's hard to believe they didn't know something. It's hard not to read those letters Sunstone published, especially Lee reacting to the First Presidency calling him "sick" in the same way once the abuse came out.

Edited September 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It's the accusations that have been ugly. Accusations of racism. Accusations that have ignored the proliferation of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church including the General Authority Seventies and the Area Seventies.

 

Smac97 was spot on in his assessment.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I remember reading at the time that officials had stated there were other victims coming forward.  A quick search brought this up (but I'll see if I can find other statements, if you're interesting....if not, I understand):

Quote

According to newspaper accounts spanning the time period between the filing of charges and Lee's plea bargain, there may have been additional victims. A story published two days after he was charged states: "Other possible victims are alluded to in the report, but officials say that for now, only incidents involving the l2-year-old will be prosecuted." A second newspaper story quoted sheriffs officials as saying "others allegedly have made similar allegations against Lee." 

ETA:

Sorry Stem, just saw your post above and won't post more about Lee (unless someone wants to start another thread on that topic).  My apologies....

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't understand why there's so many that are extremely defensive here.  We have a written record of who all the past top leaders have been.  Most agree (I think) that there are many factors why these men may have been selected as leaders. 

One thing that is not in dispute though (I think) is that there has not been much diversity within top church leadership in the past.   Do those involved in the discussion see that changing or hope it will change in the future?   Why (or why not)?

Why are you and others ignoring the ethnic diversity among the Seventy, despite Smac97 having pointed it out?

Don't the Seventy (General Authority Seventy and Area Seventy) count as "top Church leadership" to you?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's the accusations that have been ugly. Accusations of racism. Accusations that have ignored the proliferation of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church including the General Authority Seventies and the Area Seventies.

 

Smac97 was spot on in his assessment.

He seemed to have way over-reacted and not addressed much of what was said.  Who has used the word racism, explicitly? I see it, the term was introduced by Smac to complain that others are accusing racism.  No one did.   The dialogue has not been elevated by all the over-reaction. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's the accusations that have been ugly. Accusations of racism. Accusations that have ignored the proliferation of ethnic diversity in the leadership councils of the Church including the General Authority Seventies and the Area Seventies.

I haven't seen accusations, but many attempts to openly discuss this topic.  It's difficult to not at least bring up the topic of race as being a factor present when evaluating who the Apostles are and have been in the past.  (But I don't believe that means there was any ugly racism involved.) 

(I may have missed if there were accusations as I may have missed some posts.)

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you and others ignoring the ethnic diversity among the Seventy, despite Smac97 having pointed it out?

I was trying to stay on topic regarding the OP:

8 hours 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

No ulterior motives.

(And I still went of into the "Lee" topic...but have apologized.)

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The initial Tribune story about the abuse suggested it going by memory. I tried to find it but it doesn't appear to be in their archive. The indirect evidence is that the girl was 17 during the trial and said she came forward at 12 which was right when he was excommunicated. Sunstone at the time published what they called "The Lee Letters" (page 50). Number 10 and 11 said:

10. Who wrote a letter to George P. Lee and falsely accused him of things which were not true such as polygamy and teaching false doctrine?

11. Who put George P. Lee on probation after he faithfully and honestly opened up to you in his attempts to answer your questions and false accusations with a presentation on the chalkboard?

The young girl who testified at his trial said he presented it as polygamy. So if Lee was claiming Benson was falsely accusing Lee of polygamy and the girl was accusing him of attempted polygamy with a minor, that's strong circumstantial evidence Benson at minimum thought Lee was involved in something like this. How much Benson/Hinkley knew isn't clear. The Trib story came out in 1993 and Lee said he was innocent but then a year later plead guilty. It's hard to believe they didn't know something. 

I dunno. Seems like quite a stretch to me. If it were a matter of him sexually abusing a 12-year-old, it seems to me the accusation would be much stronger and more severe than merely teaching false doctrine about polygamy.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This topic of Lee's alleged abuse has no business in this thread.  I was appalled it got mentioned.  I guess since it was I can't fault people for continuing it.  But, there was nothing in the OP to introduce child abuse. 

I think it came up because people used Lee as an example of bigotry. (Speaking more broadly than this thread) I don't think that's fair. But I'll drop the topic and not mention it further. I did find the DesNews story which suggests she came forward after the excommunication. If so it's quite possible the first presidency didn't know.

My own view is that I suspect we'll soon have either an Asian or hispanic GA. I'm surprised we've not yet. But as others mentioned the Twelve have a lot of duties these days that require more unique skills than I think most members tend to assume. That gets worse as the Church continues to grow and you have Apostles who are incapacitated due to age or at least unable to do the same load younger Apostles can. Some things have been offloaded onto 70's but it's a more difficult issue than some suggest.

Edited September 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was trying to stay on topic regarding the OP.    No ulterior motives.

(And I still went of onto the "Lee" topic...but have apologized.)

You missed or skipped my question: Don't the Seventy (General Authority Seventy and Area Seventy) count as "top Church leadership" to you?

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He seemed to have way over-reacted and not addressed much of what was said.  Who has used the word racism, explicitly? I see it, the term was introduced by Smac to complain that others are accusing racism.  No one did.   The dialogue has not been elevated by all the over-reaction. 

Race is definitely involved in this topic (regarding the men who have been called to be Apostles in the church, past and present).  But racism doesn't need to be a part of the discussion and shouldn't have been introduced, IMO.

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[mnn727]

6 hours 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

American Men??  I think you need to go through the list again.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He seemed to have way over-reacted and not addressed much of what was said.  Who has used the word racism, explicitly? I see it, the term was introduced by Smac to complain that others are accusing racism.  No one did.   The dialogue has not been elevated by all the over-reaction. 

I suppose one can carry on race baiting without actually using the terms racism or racist.

It's what's called innuendo.

 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"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."

 

When I said completely slowed I meant to emphasize that it has slowed down so much that it is virtually not growing anymore.  I think the less than 1% growth last years stats which was the slowest growth rate since 1937 as one of the links also mentioned, that evidence of this complete slowing.  It doesn't mean no net increase.  No net increase would me that the growth has disappeared and is no longer there.   Its not that I misspoke, its that you misinterpreted.   

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I thought of affirmative action because of sentiments like this from this thread (most of which are from you, but some are from others):

ETA: sorry about the quote box. It MDDB'd on me. It should close after "The last 3 was a brazen . . ."

Quote

100 straight apostles are white men.

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.

The Church has had a presence in the Pacific for most of its history.  But how many Pacific Islanders have reached apostle status?  

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.

What else are we to think than affirmative action? 

Thought exercise: what should be done, in your view, and in the view of others, if there are three more vacancies at one time, and God reveals to the surviving apostles that these vacancies should be filled with ---- three more white North Americans? Should they do what they feel God told them to do? Or, should they follow the sentiments I quoted here?

The sentiment seems to be: affirmative action, or bust. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. Even if those who were called really were who God wanted and ordained (indicated).

That's affirmative action.

Edited September 11, 2017 by rongo
Aaaaargh! Quote feature.

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You missed or skipped my question: Don't the Seventy (General Authority Seventy and Area Seventy) count as "top Church leadership" to you?

Yes, I did miss that question.  And the answer is that I do count them as Church leadership positions, of course.  That's not what was introduced for discussion in the OP though.  Stem stated "Apostles".

If he wants to open it up to all church leadership, I'm fine with that since it is his thread.

[Amulek]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?

That's kind of an insulting question. Obviously, there are faithful Latter-day Saints in many countries throughout the world. Has anyone suggested otherwise? 

The question I have for you is: whom among the current Apostles do you think is unworthy to serve in that capacity? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I did miss that question.  And the answer is that I do count them as Church leadership positions, of course.  That's not what was introduced for discussion in the OP though.  Stem stated "Apostles".

If he wants to open it up to all church leadership, I'm fine with that since it is his thread.

But one cannot honestly fault the Church for lack of diversity in its "top leadership" and leave out all of the General Authorities except the apostles. It doesn't matter that someone already did it before you. It's still not right.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you and others ignoring the ethnic diversity among the Seventy, despite Smac97 having pointed it out?

Don't the Seventy (General Authority Seventy and Area Seventy) count as "top Church leadership" to you?

Ok, some quick math from SMAC's post, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these assumptions.  

• 34 people with diverse backgrounds (I'm assuming non white Caucasian)
• 10 quorums of the seventy (70 * 10 = 700 seventy) + 7 members in the presidency = 707 total seventies
• 34 of 707 =  4.8% of the membership in the seventies come from a diverse backgrounds

I'm thinking 4.8% of the seventy is not strong evidence of ethnic diversity in a church that certainly has way more than 4.8% of its members coming from ethnically diverse backgrounds.   

[Amulek]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And those "kinds of people" do not exist outside of family relations or other countries around the world?  

Obviously, they do.

Here's another obvious tidbit: There are more than 15 members of the church who, if called, would be perfectly qualified to serve as Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. There's nothing wrong with not being an Apostle. 

 

Quote

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). 

My understanding is that the selection process involves the living Prophet selecting worthy priesthood holders to serve in that capacity. So long as that continues, I see no need to get bent out of shape about things like the racial or ethnic makeup of the Apostles who have been called.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When I said completely slowed I meant to emphasize that it has slowed down so much that it is virtually not growing anymore.  I think the less than 1% growth last years stats which was the slowest growth rate since 1937 as one of the links also mentioned, that evidence of this complete slowing.  It doesn't mean no net increase.  No net increase would me that the growth has disappeared and is no longer there.   Its not that I misspoke, its that you misinterpreted.   

If the number is greater this year than last year, you cannot accurately say the Church is not growing anymore. According to this site, the growth rate is 1.59 percent last year with a net growth of 248, 218.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But one cannot honestly fault the Church for lack of diversity in its "top leadership" and leave out all of the General Authorities except the apostles. It doesn't matter that someone already did it before you. It's still not right.

Well, whoever starts a thread can specify what they want discussed in the thread.  Stem specifically stated "Apostles":

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

So that's what I was discussing (and did not intend my comments to mean that I do not consider the 70's to be church leaders).  I consider the women who serve in general auxiliaries to be church leaders as well, but they are also not being discussed here (from what I've seen).

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's kind of an insulting question. Obviously, there are faithful Latter-day Saints in many countries throughout the world. Has anyone suggested otherwise? 

The question I have for you is: whom among the current Apostles do you think is unworthy to serve in that capacity? 

You insinuated with your question that because I'm recommending that the church change its methods for finding leadership that this somehow was a commentary on the current leadership.  So I threw that question back at you.  I never suggested the current leaders aren't good and faithful people, I have confidence that they are.  I also have confidence that many other qualified and faith leaders could be found with diverse backgrounds that would reflect the membership base, if church leaders decided to change their practices for how they select leaders.