One of our former

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I'm looking at the overall trend downward, not just one year.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.   

Reasonable explanations have been given here about how long it takes a man to advance through the leadership pattern until he reaches the top councils of the Church and that the Church has not been ethnically diverse long enough for that to have happened.

But I still say it is not honest to exclude the Seventy when assessing the ethnic makeup of the "top leadership" of the Church.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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

Of course. (Nothing too profound or controversial about that statement .)  I actually think that's the point many are attempting to make!

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

There's nothing wrong with not being an Apostle

Of course not.  Who has stated otherwise on this thread?

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Reasonable explanations have been given here about how long it takes a man to advance through the leadership pattern until he reaches the top councils of the Church and that the Church has not been ethnically diverse long enough for that to have happened.

But I still say it is not honest to exclude the Seventy when assessing the ethnic makeup of the "top leadership" of the Church.

I agree with those explanations for how we got to where we are today. Its the current status quo.  That can be changed in an instant thanks to modern day revelation.  Change the practice for selecting Seventy and Apostles and get some diversity in the leadership.  This can happen starting today with every new selection.  They just have to change the status quo.  No excuses, as President Kimball was famous for saying just "do it!"  

Oh, and if you agree with my quick math on the seventy at 4.8%, how is this any kind of strong evidence for supporting this idea of ethnic diversity?  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm looking at the overall trend downward, not just one year.  

A "trend downward" is not the same as the Church "not growing anymore."

Nor is it the same as the growth having "completely slowed" (an oxymoron, that, unless you mean it has come to a complete halt).

 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A "trend downward" is not the same as the Church "not growing anymore."

Nor is it the same as the growth having "completely slowed" (an oxymoron, that, unless you mean it has come to a complete halt).

 

Semantics, I already explained what I meant by completely slowed.  You seem hung up on those words for whatever reason.  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with those explanations for how we got to where we are today. Its the current status quo.  That can be changed in an instant thanks to modern day revelation.  Change the practice for selecting Seventy and Apostles and get some diversity in the leadership.  This can happen starting today with every new selection.  They just have to change the status quo.  No excuses, as President Kimball was famous for saying just "do it!"  

 

The Lord works with people according to their capacity. If it takes a man a good portion of a lifetime to develop the capacity to serve, that's what the Lord works with.

Quote

 

Oh, and if you agree with my quick math on the seventy at 4.8%, how is this any kind of strong evidence for supporting this idea of ethnic diversity?  

 

If it is increasing over time, it is evidence of what has been posited here: that ethnically diverse people are called when they are ready.

I reject your implied contention that it has to take place in an instant. That's what smells like tokenism to me.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Semantics, I already explained what I meant by completely slowed.  You seem hung up on those words for whatever reason.  

Your words lacked clarity, and it has been difficult to get you to explain your meaning clearly. Had you said the growth had "substantially slowed" or "significantly slowed," your meaning would have been easier to grasp. Those are comparative terms, not absolutes like "completely."

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Isn't it fascinating that LDS top leadership is drawn form the ethnic group that presides in the countries that they come from.  The original Apostles were all from Palestine.

Aside from the unfortunate knee-jerk racism of Johnnie Cake, you make an interesting point, sometimes  The original 12 were not only from Palestine, but they were all Jews.  Then when a replacement for Judas was needed, they cast lots over a couple of Jews on a list.  Then there was that Jewish guy who simply took his place as an apostle, even though he came from Syria (Antioch):  Paul the Apostle was not on a list, and he was not selected by the other apostles.  The Lord reached out and coerced him to be an apostle via vision and blinding.  Real Christians were immediately against that choice of the most dangerous anti-Christian, but the Lord forced their hands.

From time to time, LDS apostles are selected in odd ways.  Take J. Reuben Clark, Jr., who was not on anyone's list.  Pres Heber J. Grant simply needed a first counselor to replace Charles Nibley.  Clark was made an apostle at the same time that he was made 1st counselor, even though the 2nd counselor had more seniority than he did (David O. McKay).  The LDS Pres can do pretty much what he wants.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reasonable explanations have been given here about how long it takes a man to advance through the leadership pattern until he reaches the top councils of the Church and that the Church has not been ethnically diverse long enough for that to have happened.

For one race (blacks), but not for all of them (unless I missed it....but mainly the date/year for when black males could receive the priesthood):

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.

 

 I can see room for discussion regarding all of the other races as well (without accusations of racism).

Edited September 11, 2017 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

Are any of those who are questioning the selection of apostles etc. claiming that they have a revelation from God on the matter??? 

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.

Um...isn't that kind of exactly what you have been doing? If complaining about the church leadership not being sufficiently diverse doesn't qualify as "commentary on the current leadership," I'm not sure what does.

 

Quote

I never suggested the current leaders aren't good and faithful people, I have confidence that they are. 

But being good and faithful isn't good enough, right? In your view, the current leaders need to be good, faithful, and diverse.  At least, that's what I understood you to be saying. 

Of course, if you are perfectly content with the current set of Apostles that have been called to occupy that office, then that's wonderful! We are in complete agreement.  

 

[Bob Crockett]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

From time to time, LDS apostles are selected in odd ways.  Take J. Reuben Clark, Jr., who was not on anyone's list. 

Pres. Clark was basically inactive in Washington D.C.  He did not get along with Reed Smoot, who was the branch president.  Pres. Clark's exposure to the church was in Salt Lake, when he came home to visit.  He'd be asked to speak in the Tabernacle.  If my memory serves me (and it is faulty at this point), he wasn't even a high priest.

[CV75]

8 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. 

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?

I sense some unmet need for superiority on his part. Race diversity as secularly defined will evolve as the Church membership evolves, but eventually we will accept the fact there is only one race. Hopefully folks like Sean will open their minds to that fact. I don't think Jesus promotes His race much, though so just as "it is what it is," "it wil happen when it happens."

Greetings from vacation in Old Quebec!

[Bob Crockett]

In terms of race diversity, the Lord's church is only 180 or so years old?   The Church at 180 A.D.  was almost entirely composed of Greeks and Romans.  Some Jews.  

[Bobbieaware]

9 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. 

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?

From what was I able to gather while Sean Carter (mormonewb) was a regular participant on this board, I would say it would be a stretch to imagine he was a loyal and sincere member of the Church. To me it was transparently obvious he was a bitter apostate who was using his nominal Church membership in a cynical ploy to lend an air of legitimacy to his self-righteous screeds of condemnation against the Lord's anointed.. The fact that he's now spewing the same bitter anti-Mormon rhetoric as a former member of the Church is about as surprising as knowing tomorrow is Tuesday.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Lord works with people according to their capacity. If it takes a man a good portion of a lifetime to develop the capacity to serve, that's what the Lord works with.

No need to assume those of other ethnic backgrounds don't have sufficient capacity.  It's the methodology for how they select candidates that has bias built into the process.  

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it is increasing over time, it is evidence of what has been posited here: that ethnically diverse people are called when they are ready.

I reject your implied contention that it has to take place in an instant. That's what smells like tokenism to me.

It doesn't have to change instantly, but it could.  They could even facilitate earlier emeritus status for current members to accelerate the change process.  God works in mysterious ways. 

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But being good and faithful isn't good enough, right? In your view, the current leaders need to be good, faithful, and diverse.  At least, that's what I understood you to be saying. 

 

Yes, this is what I'm saying.  There is utility in diversity, studies in the corporate world show this, and I believe it would help our church too.  Find faithful members with ethnically diverse backgrounds that reflect the membership demographics and call them to these positions, with God's inspired blessing added on top of course.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

From what was I able to gather while Sean Carter (mormonewb) was a regular participant on this board, I would say it would be a stretch to imagine he was a loyal and sincere member of the Church. To me it was transparently obvious he was a bitter apostate who was using his nominal Church membership in a cynical ploy to lend an air of legitimacy to his self-righteous screeds of condemnation against the Lord's anointed.. The fact that he's now spewing the same bitter anti-Mormon rhetoric as a former member of the Church is about as surprising as knowing tomorrow is Tuesday.

Wow, sticks and stones.  Now tell us what you really think.  

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, sticks and stones.  Now tell us what you really think.  

He was absolutely terrible and I couldn't understand for the life of me why somebody who was such a bitter enemy of the leaders of the Church wanted to be a member. I was about to put him on 'ignore' when he suddenly stopped posting.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

He was absolutely terrible and I couldn't understand for the life of me why somebody who was such a bitter enemy of the leaders of the Church wanted to be a member. I was about to put him on 'ignore' when he suddenly stopped posting.

Did you listen to the interview?  I didn't think it was overty anti Mormon at all.  I can't comment about his posts here, but your derogatory comments about him sound pretty over the top to me.  

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Let me clarify: one need not have any special spiritual gifts beyond what the church membership at large may have to be called as a general authority. You seem to believe that I said someone "spiritually dead" so to speak, would be called as a church leader. I did not even hint at this, and I didn't think Brother McGuire did, either. 

[jkwilliams]

55 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

From what was I able to gather while Sean Carter (mormonewb) was a regular participant on this board, I would say it would be a stretch to imagine he was a loyal and sincere member of the Church. To me it was transparently obvious he was a bitter apostate who was using his nominal Church membership in a cynical ploy to lend an air of legitimacy to his self-righteous screeds of condemnation against the Lord's anointed.. The fact that he's now spewing the same bitter anti-Mormon rhetoric as a former member of the Church is about as surprising as knowing tomorrow is Tuesday.

Sounds like my kind of guy. 

[Bobbieaware]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I didn't think it was overty anti Mormon at all.  I can't comment about his posts here, but your derogatory comments about him sound pretty over the top to me.

All the thoughts I've expressed thus far are my honest sentiments, and of all the participants I've been aware of on this board, he is by far the one I liked least. I truly rejoiced when his participation here came to an end. You likely would have loved him.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

All the thoughts I've expressed thus far are my honest sentiments, and of all the participants I've been aware of on this board, he is by far the one I liked least. I truly rejoiced when his participation here came to an end. You likely would have loved him.

So are you going to contribute anything of substance to the discussion or did you just show up to post personal attacks?  

I've been reading and catching up.  Lots of different thoughts and opinions so far. Then I hit your posts    

Do you have an opinion on the lack of diversity?

I think it would be a good change. I would be thrilled to see an Apostle called from South America, Asia or another country!  I know others would too.

Edited September 12, 2017 by JulieM