Uneven Article Re: Elder Peter M. Johnson

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I hear the prophet's security detail all use Glock maula pistols.

Nice and quiet...

 

[Damien the Leper]

20 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Nailed it!!

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

he used to be Muslim!

That's nice, but how is this relevant?

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think real progress will not have come until we as a people are no longer inclined to make a fanfare whenever someone of a certain race or nationality takes the pulpit at general conference or is sustained in one of the higher councils of the Church (or cease to make a stir when, in our perception, not enough people of a certain "flavor: are in those councils).

We need to get to the point of judging others not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, as Dr. King put it.

Yeh, but this Saturday Jaren Hall will be the first African American quarterback to start for BYU, and that is recognized prominently in this morning's Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2019/10/7/20902957/jaren-hall-says-he-is-proud-to-become-first-african-american-to-start-at-quarterback-for-byu?utm_source=Morning+Edition .

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

The "continuation is in the ongoing gathering of Israel is sad" because it is unnecessary.

Romney, Stapley, Lee, and the other GAs who delayed the opening of the temple and priesthood blessings to all worthy church members have a special price to pay, including those who listened to Lee instead of Brown.

No one, no not one, including me, are exempt from the Lord's ire.

 

Quote

        Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

        Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

        And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.  Pres. D. Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

 

[Analytics]

On 10/9/2019 at 12:14 PM, smac97 said:

From the Trib:

...I guess we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible.

The article is about some Saints who watched general conference and felt "joy and gratitude" about a particular speaker. I find your innocence on the topic kind of cute, but I assure you--the Church could be looked at much, much more bleakly than as depicted in this article.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If someone who was 25 to 35 called to be a counselor in EQ in 78, then EQP in 80, was called as bishop at 30 to 40 in 83, SP in 88, finished serving there in 98 at age 45-55.

How many were called to be EQP in 80?  Probably none.  Exceptional individuals exist, but by definition they are uncommon.  I would not expect that many new priesthood holders would be called as EQP two years after receiving the priesthood.  The fastest "ascent" that I am aware of was the only man I baptized on my mission (I think he was 28 or so).  He got called as a counselor to his branch president as a priest just three months after his baptism -- and this was not an inexperienced branch.  And in less than a year he was in the stake presidency.  Several years later he was the head of Church Education for southern Germany.  But he was an extreme outlier.  

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Here we are 20 years later....

Not really. 

There are currently 1629 stakes in the US.  Assume average 1000 stakes in the last 30 years (since potentially serving in SP if ordained to priesthood in 78). Changing every ten years means around 3000 potential currently trained candidates minus the already called or gone inactive or otherwise unavailable. 

I've known a number of stake presidents whom I considered to be definite GA material.  Yet none were ever called to be such.  It is possible that none of them ever came to the attention of SLC?  I don't know how the President of Church comes up with candidate lists for GA positions.  I'd like to think that inspiration and revelation plays an extremely important role.  So, perhaps there haven't been as many black American GAs as some might want because the Lord didn't want to call that many?  Or perhaps the Lord cares most for who is qualified by His standards -- I don't think the Lord operates according to racial quotas.  Although I wouldn't be surprised if diversity wasn't on the Lord's mind.  He invented our psychology, after all.  Who else would know better how to handle us?

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course, only 3% of American Saints are black, so if proportional back in 98 about 30 candidates and now 90 if I did my math right.  Since some would be ill or dead and others no longer active, say 60.

However Alabama got its first black stake president in 2013, so I have my doubts about proportionality nor do I think they should be choosing leaders based on that.  I couldn’t find out the first AA SP, just before 2005 iirc. 

A possible limiting factor is many African American members live in inner cities and while I see bishops from all incomes, stake presidents I know have been upper middle class or higher in income...I don’t know if there is anything relevant to the calling that being comfortable financially aids, probably time commitment though is it more than a bishop?

I think that American blacks have had a particularly difficult time.  And not just from white members who couldn't lose their prejudices, but also from their fellow blacks.  If voting Republican can get you labeled as an Uncle Tom, how much worse would it be for you to become a Mormon!  I recall reading an autobiographical book by Mary Frances Sturlaugson, the first black woman to serve a full-time LDS mission. Her family completely disowned her -- I don't know if they ever relinquished that stance, but that kind of thing was and probably is more prevalent for black converts than others.  That's a lot of pressure, and in such circumstances only the strong survive.  So limiting factors abound.  I believe that non-US blacks don't have to face the same kind of pressures through converting, at least not in the same degree. I may be speaking from ignorance here.

As for upper middle class being more prevalent as stake presidents (and consequently GAs), you have to consider that being a successful SP or a GA requires a fair amount of organizational expertise/talent.  And those with such talents are almost invariably successful in their chosen professions and businesses as well.  

As for my "cursus honorum" timetable, it is true that there have been some adult converts who have become GAs in surprisingly short order.  

The three whom I am immediately aware of, one white, two black:  

1. Hartman Rector Jr.  He was baptized in 1952 at age 28.  16 years later he was a GA, at 44.
2. Helvecio Martins.  He was baptized in 1972 at age 42. 12 years later he was a GA, at 54.
3. Joseph Sitati.  He was baptized in 1986 at age 34. 23 years later he was a GA, at 57.

But even here, their ages at the time of the call to be GAs were quite similar to those men who were born in the church.  FWIW.

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But even here, their ages at the time of the call to be GAs were quite similar to those men who were born in the church.  FWIW

But that is irrelevant to the time table since we are not requiring them to be young adults or less in 78 after all.

My summary was just to point out it is not accurate to state there has hardly been enough time for a nonpriesthood holding member in 78 to become experienced enough to be a GA. Your three examples of 12, 16, and 23 years demonstrate this. 

Therefore there must be other reasons besides time needed that it took 41 years. 

[Jake Starkey]

I am sure there are plenty of reasons besides those given above for advancement to GA, but guess what: the GAs will not discuss it with any of us.

Not one of them believes they are to be counseled by the rank and file in and out of the church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Then ccw in church.

As I responded to your picture, I was struck with irony that I was on the way (my wife driving) to go get a haircut, and shopping with my sidearm on me. Almost my entire adult life, in the military and in law-enforcement, I have always been armed. But, I have never carried a weapon, concealed or otherwise in Church, unless it was on a weeknight on my home, and then only because I forgot. My family and my friends usually take great comfort in the fact, that if out in the public, they are safer as a result. To answer your question, no not in a Church, unless I was on duty in my own jurisdiction. But, I am not a Church Leader, I don’t get death threats, or threats on Church Headquarters, as do many from disaffected or disgruntled ex-members. So to answer the broader question, no matter the time, the place, no one under such threat should be unprotected. 

One of the worst things to happen in the City of Atlanta, from which I retired, was the Wednesday Night meeting, when the Mother of the late, Martin Luther King Jr, was shot in the back while playing the organ. She had survived so much in her life, when someone came in the door shooting up Ebenezer Baptist Church, on Auburn Ave. by a stay bullet. In fact Church shootings (well all soft targets) are on the rise, and any Church or Church Leader should be able to protect themselves against ANY evil, ANYWHERE. We live in a evil world, and I wish there were no need for weapons anywhere, and no one hopes for this more than all old warriors and cops! Many places made soft, by even trying to unarm those who know how to protect. Politicians like to call them gun free zones, but they are becoming “target rich environments”. But enough on that topic, if you wish to start another thread, I am sure you will find those on both sides of the topics. I for one will obey the Church’s policy.    

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's nice, but how is this relevant?

you were going over his CV!

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But that is irrelevant to the time table since we are not requiring them to be young adults or less in 78 after all.

My summary was just to point out it is not accurate to state there has hardly been enough time for a nonpriesthood holding member in 78 to become experienced enough to be a GA. Your three examples of 12, 16, and 23 years demonstrate this. 

Therefore there must be other reasons besides time needed that it took 41 years. 

I don't think "accuracy" applies here.  The thing is extremely squishy. This is not a precise science.  If you want "accuracy" get out your measuring tape and calculate the number of square feet in your bedroom.  

As for "there must be other reasons" -- why must there be other reasons?  Because the outcome doesn't fit with some peoples' preferences or desires?  Well, I'll tell you that I wanted the priesthood restriction lifted as soon as I heard about it.  Didn't get my wish, but if I had, the first black American GA might very well have been 41 years after I first heard about it and wanted it lifted -- 1966 + 41.  That's 2007.  

Maybe it took 41 years because the church is racist.  That's what some people think.  I happen to think that it took 41 years because that's how long it took for the Lord to train and qualify the first black American Latter-day Saint that He wanted called as a General Authority.  Was he the first black American who was qualified to be a General Authority?  I refuse to believe it.  There's bound to have been many such.  So why didn't any of them get called? Maybe it's the Lord who's racist.  That's what some other people think.  But wait a minute, there's bound to have been plenty of White, Asian and Native American men who were qualified to be a General Authorities and yet didn't get called to be one.  What's up with that?  

What if the Lord had delayed this call only 31 years?  I know exactly what would have happened: people would have been wondering why it took that long, and would have been saying "there must be other reasons" besides the time it takes to raise up leaders.  

I try not to second-guess the Lord.  I have a hard enough time running my own affairs, I'll be darned if I'll try to run His.  <== that's a song reference, by the way, a shout-out to the 70s (Sunshine Go Away Today) - not really relevant to the thread...

Edited October 10, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 10/10/2019 at 11:46 PM, Duncan said:

you were going over his CV!

They also mentioned his secular profession, but I didn't comment on it because it's not relevant.  His former faith is likewise rather irrelevant in connection with his call to be a GA.  What difference does it make to the question of the "suspicious" 41 year gap between 1978 and the first black American GA?  If there's a connection, though, I'd love to know what it is. 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Stargazer

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's nice, but how is this relevant?

Because we love seeing all come unto Christ? 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The thing is extremely squishy. This is not a precise science

So saying there was hardly enough time is inappropriate speculation, imo. 

“I try not to second-guess the Lord.”

Making a time table is more or less second guessing the Lord in my view. 

Better to not try and come up with reasons/justifications. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 10/9/2019 at 1:14 PM, smac97 said:

 I guess we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just like death and taxes, you can (as you said) “we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible”. That and their posters in the comments section. If a story was written about the Rocky Mountains in the Salt Lake Valley, being on the East side of the city, the posters would blame Brigham Young and The Church, for moving them from the West side.  

Edited October 11, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Jake Starkey]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Just like death and taxes, you can (as you said) “we can always count on the Trib to look at the Church in the bleakest way possible”. That and their posters in the comments section. If a story was written about the Rocky Mountains in the Salt Lake Valley, being on the East side of the city, the posters would blame Brigham Young and The Church, for moving them from the West side.  

They didn't?    Got to toughen up, for there is opposition in all things.

[Stargazer]

On 10/11/2019 at 12:40 AM, Calm said:

So saying there was hardly enough time is inappropriate speculation, imo. 

And looking for other, more nefarious reasons why it took 41 years isn't inappropriate speculation?  Please.

On 10/11/2019 at 12:40 AM, Calm said:

“I try not to second-guess the Lord.”

Making a time table is more or less second guessing the Lord in my view. 

Looking objectively at how long it seems to take to train up an a leader, and then comparing that with how long it took for the first American black to be called as a general authority, is not second guessing.  It is looking objectively at the apparent timetable that the Lord seems to have. In this case, I observe that 41 years isn't necessarily an excessively long delay.  This is my opinion.  You express your opinion here all the time.  Is that second guessing?

On 10/11/2019 at 12:40 AM, Calm said:

Better to not try and come up with reasons/justifications. 

Who is in charge here?  You? Me?

No, it's the Lord.  If you believe otherwise, then fine.

What is reasoning? What is justifying?  I just happen to be giving a reason why I think it might have taken 41 years instead of, say, 31 years.  Or 21.  Or instantly.  I just don't happen to believe that there is some hidden, nefarious, and shameful reason why it took so long for an American black man to be called as a General Authority.  If there is such a  nefarious reason, which obviously must be racism, then how could it be that the first black General Authority was a Brazilian named Helvecio Martins?  And this took place only 12 years after the 1978 revelation, not 41! And he was called by Ezra Taft Benson, thought by some to be one of the more racist recent presidents of the Church!  Are we celebrating that?  No, we're looking suspiciously at 41 years.  Are we thinking that maybe President Benson liked Brazilian black people more than he liked American black people?  How ridiculous would that be?

Why is it so blasted important that an American of African descent is called as a General Authority vs any other kind?

Let me repeat myself, since you seem to have missed my message: "I happen to think that it took 41 years because that's how long it took for the Lord to train and qualify the first black American Latter-day Saint that He wanted called as a General Authority."  And I will add to this to say that there may have been others who were qualified during that time, but since the number of openings among the ranks of General Authorities at any given time is rather small, it's hardly surprising that those possible others were never selected. Because there were plenty of others of other races who were also not picked, including whites, and some who were picked, including Asians and Native Americans.

I just disagree with people who say that it took 41 years before an African-American was called as a General Authority because the Church is racist.  And I try to show by statistics that this 41 years is fairly reasonable.  If you don't like my opinion, then I am sorry you feel that way, but there we are.

By the way, do you think I'm racist?

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/11/2019 at 12:17 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because we love seeing all come unto Christ? 

Yes, of course we do!   

But in a discussion of why it took 41 years for an American of African descent to be called to be a General Authority, the fact that the man who was called 41 years afterwards used to be a Muslim is irrelevant to the discussion. If you disagree, please explain why.

[Jake Starkey]

And, yes, we can rightfully and righteously hold the Brethren and their actions up to inspection and constructive criticism.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

looking for other, more nefarious reasons why it took 41 years isn't inappropriate speculation?

Of course it is.  What makes you think I thought it wasn't?

Quote

If you don't like my opinion, then I am sorry you feel that way, but there we are.

I don't like your statistical analysis.  I don't see it even matching your own stipulations of timing.

Quote

By the way, do you think I'm racist?

Why, do you actually care if I think you are racist?  Would my answer change your behaviour in any way?

Edited October 12, 2019 by Calm

[blueglass]

On 10/10/2019 at 2:05 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

This sounds intellectually nice, but I distinctly remember the physical thrill that went up and down my body not once or even twice but several times when I visited the Salt Lake Temple right before starting my mission and found myself sitting next to an African-American brother about my same age. That thrill was sheer gratitude mixed with joy and several other things that I don't have names for but all of which felt really good. And none of it would have been possible if this brother in Christ had just blended into the mass of humanity instead of standing out to me as an individual with his own unique place and story ... much of which was inevitably entangled with his 'race' and with a policy that the Lord saw fit to place upon His Saints for a time.

I personally think He was trying to teach us something, but we cannot learn what that is if we don't see others for who they are -- including identities and histories. It's similar to how I felt earlier today when my boss, upon reading of the synagogue attack in Germany yesterday, asked me to pen letters of solidarity to our city's rabbis. I cannot do that with any level of sensitivity or insight without recognising and valuing the stories and identities both of those men carry uniquely by virtue of being practising Jews.

Praise Yahweh!  Just to be clear though the Lord was not the source of the black priesthood/temple ban doctrines or policy.  It was a catastrophic mistake.  Prophets reveal wonderful doctrines but they can also invent garbage because they and all of us are fallible.

[Jake Starkey]

The "catastrophic mistake" occurred in the milieu of American cultural history.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

The "catastrophic mistake" occurred in the milieu of American cultural history.

This is known as Paul Reeve's false justification #6

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70793-emergence-of-new-justifications-for-the-black-priesthood-and-temple-ban/

 

[alter idem]

I thought Elder Johnson's talk was excellent, one of my favorites from this conference. It is one I will be listening to again and again.