Uneven Article Re: Elder Peter M. Johnson

[smac97]

From the Trib:

Quote

Jerri Harwell was listening to Sunday’s final session of General Conference when suddenly she stopped packing for an upcoming move and turned her head to see who was at the pulpit.

“That,” thought the Salt Lake City author and college professor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "doesn’t sound like a typical general authority.”

There, on the screen, was Elder Peter M. Johnson warning of the dangers of the devil and encouraging church members to read and study the faith’s signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, "every day, every day, every day.”

At that moment, Harwell — and other Latter-day Saints in Utah and around the world — witnessed church history. It was the first time a General Conference sermon was delivered by a black man born in the United States.

While there have been other black general authorities, Johnson is the first African American to be named to such a lofty position. Six months after being called to the Seventy — and with little fanfare — the 52-year-old New York native became the first to speak at a modern-day semiannual gathering.

I'm not sure what "fanfare" could or should have attended Elder Johnson's calling.

Actually, I think the lack of fanfare was notable.  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, ongoing "fanfare" regarding the ministries of Elders Soares and Gong in the Quorum of the Twelve.  The normalization of racial diversity amongst the upper echelons of leadership in the Church has been happening for quite a while.

Quote

“Hallelujah,” Harwell rejoiced. “My very first thought, was: It only took 41 years. It’s about damn time.”

Harwell was, of course, referring to June 8, 1978, decree that ended the LDS Church’s more than centurylong ban on black men and boys being ordained to the all-male priesthood and on black women being allowed in Latter-day Saint temples.

Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics have been called to be general authorities and given conference speeches. But not until this year has there been an African American doing so. “We are the last to get called as a general authority,” she said, "even though we have been in the church since the beginning. And I can’t help but wonder why?”

"41 years?"

"Not until this year {2019}?"

What about Elders Helvecio Martins (called as a GA in 1990) and Joseph Sitati (called as a GA in 2009)?  

Quote

Still, the occasion was one of joy and gratitude, Harwell said, saying Johnson’s sermon is a sign “that things are coming along and the church is making progress.”

So there were no "signs" in 1990 or 2009?

Read the rest of the article, which somehow manages to have tinges of disparagement against the Church.  I guess we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2019 by smac97

[rpn]

But neither of those leaders were African AMERICAN in a church that for much of those 41 years was largely more AMERICAN than anything else.

[longview]

I loved the guy!  What is the chance he will be called into the 12?  (The Lord Knows)

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

But neither of those leaders were African AMERICAN in a church that for much of those 41 years was largely more AMERICAN than anything else.

So diversity in terms of race and citizenship (as reflected in Elders Martins and Sitati) is less significant?

Would that we could spend more time appreciating these men for the content of their character, and less time fabricating and emphasizing weird, arbitrary quotas and rules pertaining than the color of their skin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2019 by smac97

[Jake Starkey]

I am tired of the knee-jerk defense and knee-jerk offense by some at certain matters, one of them being race.

Yes, it is great an African-American is speaking as a General Authority at Conference.

Yes, it could have happened before, but it did not.

Be grateful for favors great and small.

[The Mean Farmer]

Someone, somewhere, at all times and in all places, can find a reason to be butt-hurt about any item. 

 

[Thinking]

Uneven Reporting of the Report.

I don't understand why this article is being criticized.

It was factual, and oh by the way, your report left out this.

Quote

After Johnson’s Sunday sermon, many Latter-day Saints turned to social media to celebrate the milestone.

“Y’all I’m really crying in hearing Elder Johnson speak,” wrote one woman on Twitter. “Such an intimate moment and prayer answered. This is our church too.”

“Still not quite over Elder Johnson’s talk. It was perfect — the delivery, the message, and the history making moment,” wrote another commenter. “Black American saints are inspired and rejoicing.”

Said another: “I would like to listen to Elder Johnson speak every day, every day, every day,. That talk was so moving to me.”

Darius Gray has known — and admired — Johnson for many years. “When I heard he was going to speak, I was visiting with other saints in their home and I said, 'Watch this. You are going to see history."

Gray, co-founder of the Genesis Group for black Latter-day Saints, said Johnson’s sermon was “overdue” and a sign that the church "is moving forward at a human pace.”

“It’s not always the speed that God might wish," he added, "but at a speed that makes mankind — and leadership — comfortable.”

Gray also hoped that Johnson’s faith would be what people remembered first, then his race.

“Peter represented himself well — not simply as an a man of color but as a Latter-day Saint," he said. “He should be seen first in that light and then in the uniqueness of his position.”

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Thinking

[smac97]

Just now, Thinking said:

Uneven Reporting of the Report.

I don't understand why this article is being criticized.

It was factual, and oh by the way, your report left out this.

I provided a link.  

I didn't think quoting the entirety of the article fell within Fair Use.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Slow news day?

[Thinking]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I provided a link. 

Yes you did. However, you know that many people don't click on the link and depend on the quoted parts as being the most relevant. The end of the article (the part I quoted) was very positive. You could have included part of it.

 

 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Trib:

I'm not sure what "fanfare" could or should have attended Elder Johnson's calling.

Actually, I think the lack of fanfare was notable.  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, ongoing "fanfare" regarding the ministries of Elders Soares and Gong in the Quorum of the Twelve.  The normalization of racial diversity amongst the upper echelons of leadership in the Church has been happening for quite a while.

"41 years?"

"Not until this year {2019}?"

What about Elders Helvecio Martins (called as a GA in 1990) and Joseph Sitati (called as a GA in 2009)?  

So there were no "signs" in 1990 or 2009?

Read the rest of the article, which somehow manages to have tinges of disparagement against the Church.  I guess we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Uneven?  You take issue with a side comment about Johnson being called with little fanfare, that no African American had been called for 41 years after the ban, and referencing two people called that weren't African Americans, and you take issue with someone making a comment about this being a sign of progress?  And the Trib is uneven?  

Slow news day might be the best explanation for this over-reaction, but it's a poor one.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Uneven?  You take issue with a side comment about Johnson being called with little fanfare, that no African American had been called for 41 years after the ban, and referencing two people called that weren't African Americans, and you take issue with someone making a comment about this being a sign of progress?  And the Trib is uneven?  

I'm not sure I understand your point.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Slow news day might be the best explanation for this over-reaction, but it's a poor one.  

Whose over-reaction?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I figured you might not.  I'm just saying pointing out that he was called with little fanfare does not suggest there should have been fanfare.  I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate.  Listing two non-African Americans to complain about the 41 years is silly.  I'm suggesting, saying there is a sign of progress does not suggest there have not been other signs previously.  

I"m clearly suggesting there is nothing uneven in the article, but oddly, you reaction to it was nothing but uneven.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whose over-reaction?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well...I don't know...who might have reacted to the article in a dramatic fashion?    hm.... "...look at the Church in the bleakest way possible"  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I figured you might not. 

So the lack of clarity was intentional?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just saying pointing out that he was called with little fanfare does not suggest there should have been fanfare. 

I think it does.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate. 

I didn't say the article was inaccurate.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Listing two non-African Americans to complain about the 41 years is silly. 

I'm not sure about that.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm suggesting, saying there is a sign of progress does not suggest there have not been other signs previously.  

The article hints at a 41-year lack of progress.  I think that's not quite right.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m clearly suggesting there is nothing uneven in the article, but oddly, you reaction to it was nothing but uneven.  

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well...I don't know...who might have reacted to the article in a dramatic fashion?    hm.... "...look at the Church in the bleakest way possible"  

"Dramatic?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[gopher]

Isn't he also the first Seventy that once was Muslim?  That's even more remarkable than just being black.

Edited October 9, 2019 by gopher

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the lack of clarity was intentional?

I think it does.

I didn't say the article was inaccurate.

I'm not sure about that.

The article hints at a 41-year lack of progress.  I think that's not quite right.

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

"Dramatic?"

Thanks,

-Smac

If you find this worth making an issue over, have at it.  I find your response uneven and dramatic, as I said and tried to point out.  I assure you, I did not intend to be unclear.  I just figure you, in your literal style might miss my point, after I posted it.  I'm happy enough with my clarification and will leave your response for what it is.  

All the best.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

It was nice to see JRR Tolkein finally get his due in Gen Conference.  But I will not be happy until Frank Herbert's Dune gets top billing.  And don't even get me started on the lack of Asimov in the upper echelons of the church. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It was nice to see JRR Tolkein finally get his due in Gen Conference.  But I will not be happy until Frank Herbert's Dune gets top billing.  And don't even get me started on the lack of Asimov in the upper echelons of the church. 

Asimov had good ideas, but as an overall role model he lacks imo.  I would rather he not get quoted considering his reputation with women.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

  I would rather he not get quoted considering his reputation with women.

I was thinking the same thing about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they keep getting quoted anyway.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was thinking the same thing about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they keep getting quoted anyway.  

They are known for groping women in elevators or the equivalent of their day?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

They are known for groping women in elevators or the equivalent of their day?

I'm pretty sure you have at least some idea of what they were known for.  Example: I'd think marrying women without informing your initial wife, is something objectional enough to say I disapprove of his/their reputation with women. And let's face it, that's just the tip of the iceberg for them.  So, admittedly, I do feel at an impasse of sorts on this.  If men who have objectionable reputations with women should not be quoted, because they did things that we or someone of us find objectionable, then we might have very little to say about Mormonism's history at all.   Other than, perhaps, that many men who started it and led it have objectionable reputations with women.  Please don't quote them...they have terrible reputations with women

[Calm]

I get why some view their reputation as disreputable and their behaviour as disrespectful to women in general.  I also understand the source of good ideas isn't always relevant to the conversation.

We cannot teach the truths of our faith without referring to Pres. Smith and Young.

That necessity does not apply to Asimov, imo.

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying, pointing out that no African American had been called in 41 years since the ban was lifted is clearly accurate. 

The article is, technically, accurate on this point. But I think the way it's phrased is designed to be misleading. Here's the quote again:

Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics have been called to be general authorities and given conference speeches. But not until this year has there been an African American doing so.

They don't specify Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans or US Pacific Islanders, so the inference here is that they are talking about race - not race + country of origin. So, primed to believe that we're talking about race, the article then immediately pivots to race + nationality, but that's not how the casual reader is going to understand what it being said. They are going to take it to mean that there has never been a black man (or woman) who has ever given a conference address in the last 41 years. 

But that would be incorrect. There have been black Latter-day Saints who have participated in conference before - just none who happen to have been born in America. 

 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get why some view their reputation as disreputable and their behaviour as disrespectful to women in general.  I also understand the source of good ideas isn't always relevant to the conversation.

We cannot teach the truths of our faith without referring to Pres. Smith and Young.

That necessity does not apply to Asimov, imo.

The last sentence may or may not be true.  Perhaps looking into his ideas we'd gain a better understanding of Mormonism.  Seeing as men who started the religion have poor reputations with women as does Asimov, we might be better equipped to understand what they were doing and saying if we just gave more focus to Asimov.  

[juliann]

Sounds like some people can’t distinguish between American blacks and those from other countries. Let alone why it should matter. It has an uncomfortable “they all look alike” vibe to it.