Apostle of Color

[heavymental]

This is taken right off the Genesis website:

After much prayer and scripture study over the past few months, I have concluded that the folklore is of man and not of God. I know many of you came to this conclusion a long time ago, but for me it has never been a problem because I knew that I was directed to this Church by the Holy Spirit of God and no one was going to drive me away from His Church. Eternity is a long time versus the short life we live on earth. I would rather spend my eternity with Heavenly Father than without Him. My prayer is that all of us would consider the feelings of Heavenly Father and how He feels when a chosen child walks away from His Church because of the insensitivity of others.

We must not allow the ignorance of others to detour us from our call from the Savior to join His Church. We come from proud people who have experienced the depths of agony (just as the Savior did) and now we are proud productive members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and society.

It seems to me these African American members of the Church are more concerned about living the gospel of Jesus Christ and focusing their attention to being charitable, loving and obedient to God's commandments.

[Kemara]

For those who think the church's history is so spotless when it comes to race...

Need I bring people of color (many, not just mine) to testify of what is being done in our midst?

Of course its not spotless, no organization with millions of people from all walks of life can claim anything like this it would be na

[Refuge]

focusing their attention to being charitable, loving and obedient to God's commandments

And why the insinuation that those who ask for equal treatment in their wards do not?

I live the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[koakaipo]

heavymetal-this is one person, who is quite eloquent and has a beautiful spirit it seems. What an example. Are you okay though with the fact that the writer is saying the ban was not of God though but of the folklore of man? Because that's what she is saying-she's disagreeing with the interpretation of the practice, and is saying that she/he still isn't going anywhere because it's her church. I love the spunk and I love the realization that it's his/her church just as much as anybody else's.

[Kemara]

I am sure after reading all my posts

In most of them you called me a racist. Where is this supposed good will?

Yeah. I thought so.

Oh, and you insinuated twice that I would discriminate against YOU when I haven't done any such thing, or shown that I would. You twist my words, and then come back crying about love.

Yes, mature a little.

Yes I do state that your call for racial quotas in calling church leaders is racist, because it is, the fact that you wont or cant admit this does not make it any less true.

You discriminate against everyone, including me, when your position is to call an Apostle based on his race. This is racism/discrimination by definition.

I came back crying about love? Yet more distortion and misrepresentation in an attempt to villify me, how about you attempt to stick with the truth from now on.

[Refuge]

Your answer to your problem will not work

Asking the GAs to speak about it won't work?

And who doesn't have faith in their prophets?

*laughs*

[heavymental]

And why the insinuation that those who ask for equal treatment in their wards do not?

I guess I could ask why the insinuation that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is ignorant...

BTW, I wasn't insinuating anything in the thread, simply pointing out that there are always a varity of approaches to making change and having your concerns heard.

[Refuge]

Yes I do state that your call for racial quotas in calling church leaders is racist, because it is, the fact that you wont or cant admit this does not make it any less true.

I'm sorry, but we do not operate in the twilight zone. I'm not calling for racial QUOTAS. I haven't called for a quota. I asked to see leadership of color, so that people of color who value knowing that they are more than JUST A QUOTA can feel like they are considered worthy attributes to this church. To that you attatched all sorts of dunce-like demonizations.

You discriminate against everyone, including me, when your position is to call an Apostle based on his race. This is racism/discrimination by definition.

But it's not racism not to call one based on race.

I came back crying about love? Yet more distortion and misrepresentation in an attempt to villify me, how about you attempt to stick with the truth from now on.

So you don't? Love, that is. Ok....

Kemara, I wouldn't set foot near you. Let me show an ounce of anything other than a testimony of how wonderful I've been treated, and you'll call me a racist. No thanks.

[Kemara]

Asking the GAs to speak about it won't work?

And who doesn't have faith in their prophets?

*laughs*

If it will work then why are LDS still committing adultery, fornication, not doing home teaching, not paying a full tithe, not got current temple recommends, not attending sacrament meetings etc etc. They may have faith in their Prophets but this does not mean they will listen - I would have thought that was obvious.

Anyway, this is not what I was referring too, I was referring to your position of calling Apostles based on race - this wont work either, for the same reasons getting GA's to speak on racism wont work.

*just a slight giggle not a laugh*

[Refuge]

anyone who disagrees with your point of view is ignorant...

Nice jab! All throughout this thread, the people "for" the issue at hand have been repeatedly told of their lack of spiritual maturity, that they don't practice the Gospel, pure religion, etc. That they've been treated no differently than anyone else. In essence flat out denial of what others have said, for the sake of feeling comfortable within themselves. I call that ignorance.

Really understanding.

[Refuge]

In other words, don't try, because no one listens...

And yet this is the true church.

Those who care, who wish to actually discuss, and not call those who wish to see more diversity present in our church, in ALL areas, join us on the other thread. But if you can only make excuses, malign and defame, bear your testimony to yourself.

People wonder why others leave. But I want a better day for my posterity. I'll ride out this mess.

[koakaipo]

for the sake of argument, I don't think it's instructive to frame the call for an apostle of color in similar terms to affirmative action-I don't think it applies to this situation in any way shape or form....

[wenglund]

Wade my friend, a rose is not a feeling human being. I refuse to be kept in the background to be pulled out whenever the NAACP comes a-calling.

That's what's happening. It's not fair.

I am so sorry that you didn't SEE my point. I supposed that, ironically, such is inevitable when one can SEE, and value, and appreciate, only one's own point of view, regardless of the rose-like beauty contined in other points of view.

Perhaps it is just me, but even in the absence of "feelings," I believe there is much to learn from nature.

And, I may be in good company. In his parables, Christ often likened mankind to various plants (wheat/tares, lilies of the field, fruit trees, etc.)

Be that as it may, I think it bears repeating that: I see the hostility going both ways on this thread. It has become a matter of hurtful accusations and counter-accusations. Each side is looking to "fix" the other, rather than looking to "fix" themselves, or understand each ofther, and in the end only "breaking" things down all the more. (This was stated three pages earlier on this thread, and here some are still going at it.)

How long will it be for some to figure out this isn't working?

Isn't it time to heal? Isn't the best place to start the healing is with ourselves? (I am speaking as much here of myself as I am others.)

If so, for those still interested, I may be of some assistance at the aforementioned thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kemara]

I'm sorry, but we do not operate in the twilight zone. I'm not calling for racial QUOTAS. I haven't called for a quota.

But it's not racism not to call one based on race.

So you don't? Love, that is. Ok....

Kemara, I wouldn't set foot near you. Let me show an ounce of anything other than a testimony of how wonderful I've been treated, and you'll call me a racist. No thanks.

You have called for a balance, an accurate reflection of the makeup of the church, a representation of the cultural diversity in the church, a proportional share of the leadership based on race, a targeted minimum - a.k.a. Quota. You can run and you can hide but that is exactly what you have called for, a quota. Could it be that you have finally seen how wrong this is but refuse to admit it and so have chosen the run and hide and hope no one see's tactic? Sorry, but I saw.

Callings to positions of leadership are not based on race at all, on either an exclusionary basis or an inclusionary basis, you point is moot.

Now I dont love?? Ok, it speaks volumes, that this is the level to which you will stoop.

Why do you continue to misrepresent me and my position on this matter? Have I offended you so much with the truth that you cant bring yourself to be honest? I have never questioned the validity of your experience, I have in fact affirmed it, I dont consider you a racist because you offer something other than a glowing testimony - and whats more you know this because you have read my posts and yet you choose to ignore it in order that you may further villify me with distortion, misrepresentation and in this instance deceit. Why would you do this? You know perfectly well my disagreement with you is based on your call for quotas and not your experience with racism in the church. Can you at least admit this much?

[heavymental]

Nice jab!

There seems to be a double standard that seems to apply here.

[rameumptom]

I believe that when God feels the Church is ready for an apostle of color AND He chooses to call one, one will be called.

As it is, we tend to have more diversity in our wards than most other Christian Churches in the USA. The wards I attended and served in Alabama are mostly mixed; while the Christian churches down there are segregated (primarily by choice). I have had wonderful times with colored branch presidents, high counselors, elder's quorum presidents, and etc.

Given that blacks have had the priesthood for less than 30 years, I think the membership is growing into the new environment well. And just as the timing for lifting the priesthood ban had to wait until the Church and world were ready for it (at the time of the Sao Paolo Brazil temple dedication), so the time will come for all things - IF the Lord so chooses.

We need to remember, the Lord, when it comes to eternal principles, is color blind. Also, he may need the stronger leaders of color in their areas to strengthen them, rather than at the head. Finally, we do have leaders of color. There are several in the Quorums of Seventy, which is where God needs them right now.

Finally, the Catholic Church is much older than we are, yet you probably will not yet see a Pope of color. Their cardinals are on the same level as apostles, and there are colored cardinals, but there are hundreds of them (more akin to our 70). So, perhaps when the Pope is called by God, and is colored, perhaps the world will be ready for us to also have a colored apostle.

Since I have a testimony of the prophets of God, I don't worry about cultural/political issues. I know that the Lord will fix any perceived problems in His timeframe, just as he did in taking the gospel to the Gentiles in Peter's day (but not in Christ's).

[BlueDreams]

Rameumptum,

Very well said.

...As for the rest...WOW. I am now thuroughly confused nor have I felt this way in a very long time.

Things I agree with:

1. The racial seperatist attitudes are NOT universal, that they deal with the individual and therefore need to be handled on individual bases. That was a large point to my post, that I had not been treated any differently in my ward, that it IS changing in this next generation (attitudes towards race)...remember the ostracizing of my friend over petty teen drama I mentioned. Well the two girls had been fighting over a guy...the guy had been black (and I mean the VERY dark end of the spectrum), they had both been white.

2. The debate needs to be toned down. Like I said, I have a hard time following...more than that, both sides are talking right passed each other and the discussions are taking place only in the ears of the beholder. (sort of goes with the saying at the bottom of my post...we're taking offence off of each other where offence is not meant...leads to a hairy mess and more volitile insults in the end)

3. We should talk of what we know and give a clearer explanation of what we perceive. As someone in one of the posts said, the people here are anonymous, we do not (for the most part) know them and the attitudes and perceptions they truly hold. Yet on both sides there is assumptions of one's knowledge and biases that simply cannot be had...yeah i know I'm just waiting for it, waiting for someone to shout SEE this is why YOU.... Before we point at others, point at ourselves and check our attitudes and the level of negative connotations certain words peronify.

With luv,

BD

[Refuge]

SEE this is why YOU...

are a perceptive human being.

Hope you have a good rest of the day. As far as me, I was invited to this forum by another. We both feel that there's not much discussion to be had, as everyone is here trying to bite and defend. The church is perfect in every regard, and those who disagree....

take your pick of insults.

I'm simply in the process of laying yet another dream to dust. Selfish of me to think my church should care, as it has to do with it's history and teachings. But that is life, and everyone suffers.

[koakaipo]

I am asking an honset question here: Why is it that people are acting like picking an apostle is a purely mystical event? I don't think it is. If that was true, we'd see leaders getting up in general conference, calling off a random name the PRice is Right style to come on down-it would be more random of a picking. It isn't like that though-it's is a process.

The process includes sorta picking a pool of candidates that are made of good stuff. I went to college and there was a good man there and everyone, even my non-member mentoring professor, was like he's got the right stuff for being an apostle.

Of course getting prayerful guidance comes in as to which people would make good leaders. But don't you think that there are number of members of color who have the right stuff? Do we have to act like there is really only a few members who could become great apostles? I dont' think so.

Lastly, why is skin pigment being treated like such a big deal-that somehow God has to wait til the time is right before allowing an apostle of color to be chosen? I really don't think it's a big deal and all, and I think most members wouldn't either. It's a physical characteristic, not a spiritual one. It's like saying God has to wait to find the right time to choose an apostle with a big nose or something. Not really relevant I think.

[Pahoran]

Koakaipo,

speaking of colour, when you are a little less kakariki you may realise that people do not simply reinvent themselves every time they post. Moksha has a track record in this forum, that includes repeating baseless conspiracy stories like the following:

I'm not sure if this helps, but back in the 1970's the American Library Association had to issue an alert to all libraries that young Mormon Elders were checking old and rare books out of Libraries and never returning them. Perhaps the books were not faith promoting, or touted the wrong facts. This gets back to my first post that was also slightly misunderstood, and that is the push to only have faith promoting information was rendered moot by the web.

In addition he regularly finds ways to demonise those who disagree with him. For Moksha, the word "apologist" is a term of opprobrium.

His summing up of the thread in response to you was a tissue of self-serving falsehoods. Not only was it wrong in fact, it didn't even superficially resemble what had transpired. There is not one Latter-day Saint here who would have a problem with an apostle "of color." But there are and will always be faithful Latter-day Saints who have a problem with self-appointed ark-steadiers, and that was the source of the disagreement--the only source. Thus, what he chose to misrepresent as "racial fear" and "unresolved racism" etc. was nothing of the sort.

And he had no discernible reason to suppose that it was.

Now this thread has probably gone on too long, and passions have become inflamed. But for those who have the patience to follow it, the problem with the approach being taken by the "reform party" is obvious. For if, as Samantha says, Elder Martins can't represent her because he's a black Brazilian, not a black USAmerican, then Kemara's fundamental point is proven: just one "Apostle of Color" could never be enough.

We would need, at a minimum, a USAmerican Black, a Caribbean Black and a Canadian Black. And how could any Yankee Black really know what someone from Mississippi went through? So we'd probably have to have at least two from the US, and a Brit as well.

And we haven't even gotten into Africa yet!!

A Ghanaian couldn't possibly represent Nigerians, a Nigerian couldn't represent the Saints from the Cote d'Ivoire, the Ivory Coast is of no help to Ugandans, and no-one from Uganda could properly serve the Rwandans. Whoops! Given their recent history, we'd have to have Tutsi and Hutu with separate representation--preferably not sitting next to each other. Likewise with Ethiopia and Eritrea.

And of course, no-one from any of the so-called "black African" nations could ever understand what it was like to live under apartheid, so in addition to the Tanzanian and Congolese apostles we'd need at least one each from South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

So now we've taken care of most of the significant Black populations, let's look at the other people of colour who would need representation in the quorum.

Madagascar is close to Africa, but the Malagasy people are not "black." They are malayo-polynesian. Chinese are not Japanese, however alike they may look to non-asians, and neither of them are Korean. Indians are not Sri Lankans. Filipinos are not Malaysians who are not Indonesians. Samoans and Tongans generally don't like each other, so if a Tongan apostle were called--Tonga being the country with the largest proportion of Latter-day Saints in its population--he would be no comfort to Samoans, Cook Islanders, Tahitians, New Caledonians, Marquesans, Hawaiians or the Maori.

Speaking of whom, if Kemara were called, Ngati Kahungunu would have representation--but who would represent Tainui, Ngapuhi, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Toa, or any of the other tribal groupings?

Yes, Elder Uchtdorf is there from Europe; but Germany is not all of Europe. Del would of course love to see a French apostle, but if Elder Didier were called into the Twelve, that wouldn't quite do; he's Belgian, which means he's a Walloon--basically a kind of French-speaking Dutchman, rather like Bretons are basically French-speaking Cornishmen.

Not that the Dutch would consider him one of theirs. A Belgian is a Belgian, and he's not even Flemish.

Just like Austria is not Germany, despite the language. And we haven't even looked at the Mediterranean or Eastern Europe yet.

And don't forget Latin America.

So, by my calculations, we'd need about 190 apostles.

Unless, of course, we were to take the view that Elder Packer pointed out long ago: the leaders of the Church don't actually represent the people. They represent the Lord to the people.

Which rather tends to settle the matter, don't you think?

Come the day that the first "apostle of color" is called--and I have no doubt that that day will come--I, Wade, Kemara, Dan and every other Latter-day Saint who disagrees with Moksha and his chutzpah will cheerfully and without reservation be able to sustain that apostle, secure in the confidence that he was NOT chosen for what he looks like, but because the Lord wants him to be there.

And if that "apostle of color," or one of those who comes after him, should ultimately come to preside over the Church, none of us will have any problem either.

The ONLY problem that any of us has is the notion that race should be a selection criterion.

And those who would accuse us of "racism" therefor are merely race-baiting.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[kurtlein]

Pahoran.

What an excellent post! AMEN!

[koakaipo]

Pahoran-

Please read my post in regards to what I think is at root here-about 30 or so replies back. I suspect as a newbie poster, he was simply not observing the pecking order of an established group. It happens all the time on my regular forum-we veterans can have less patience for newbie posters.

Moksha is a liberal Mormon indeed. I don't disagree. But, honestly, you look at the first, say, 20 posts in response to his thread. I honestly thought maybe his post was deleted initially, cause did all the brouhaha really start with a line that said an apostle of color is long overdue-mind you with colored letters all perty-like?Not exactly my idea of a threat personally.

And yet, the rseponses are so disproportional! Good gracious, it's like he pronounced himself the anti-christ or something, the way people reacted. I'm not used to that level of sensitivity-that's all. I am realizing that a little better now-I think the other forum I am at is a bit more raucous in nature and I'm used to seeing things being said much more provocatively to garner such a response. Moksha is lamb on the board over there for the most part-not the type to get this type of reaction. It was simply surprising to me to see.

Lastly, however, I do think there is something to be said about the fact that no one really(be honest here) discussed this subject.I still am trying to understand the whole controversy about the notion of someone saying there should an apostle of color and people getting in a huff about as if he was degrading leadership.

I accept that I am on a new forum and thus have to do in Rome as the Romans do. I'm learning. But I still stand by assertion that Mormons need not be so squeamish to dissent. It should be a starting point for discussion, as I said Joseph Smith asserted, not a time to shut people down. We are made of heartier stock than that.

ANd I still stand by the idea that this medium-an online anonymous forum-may really be a place for people to try to find a safe way to question things. How absolutely dreadful to find you can't even question or discuss things-in an anonymous environment. It's just a suggestion, but one I do want to suggest that you may be talking to a member who is struggling, who is trying to find some sort of community, even in cyberspace, that will accept him, even if he is doesn't fit the rank and file profile. These forums are like the island of misfit toys-let the train with the square wheels hang out here in acceptance if he wants to!

[koakaipo]

PS-I still want someone to explain to me if they think the choosing of an apostle is a purely mystical event, or a process, and the implications of either---and why skin pigmentation is being treated as something that needs to be treated with such forethought-as I said earlier, do we think twice about figuring out the right time to have God pick an apostle with big ears or glasses or a receding hairline? Please explain the difference to me in terms of relevancy.

[Moksha]

I must ask for clarification from Dunamis: Does this board have any policy about personal attacks?

Are they okay if they are against someone you perceive to be the "enemy"?

[BlueDreams]

Lastly, however, I do think there is something to be said about the fact that no one really(be honest here) discussed this subject.I still am trying to understand the whole controversy about the notion of someone saying there should an apostle of color and people getting in a huff about as if he was degrading leadership.

From what I understand...and like I said, there were times I was scratching my head (or hitting it and making the doh sound homer has a tendency of making) the main problem appears to be the use of the word NEEDS to be an apostle of color. That their SHOULD be one. It infers that (again posting from statements i've seen)....

a) THe apostles there aren't good enough...if you need an apostle it usually means a prior apostle is gone.

b.) that G-d does not know who needs to be picked

c) that others know better than the leaders picking a new apostle

d) That the human characteristics of empathy and understanding are unachievable for the apostles we have right now.

e) It begs the question...then why not a South American, polynesian, russian, or asian apostle too? If we had an apostle of color, basically, which color do we need most? And what consititutes that color as being a better color than another (which is also the basis of the racist claim (which I do find very insulting and with a lack of tact))

f) Why force it when it can come naturally? A natural change would be less alienating and more unifying then insisting change (sweeter IMHO also).

Those are the reasons I could think of.

I still want someone to explain to me if they think the choosing of an apostle is a purely mystical event, or a process, and the implications of either-

I think it is a mixture of both. It is common since that you would want a man who is aged with experience, especially with the church today. A guy who will be stable and without to many extra obligations. But that's the extent of common sense to me. An apostle also needs to be spiritually progressive, in other words, strong in an active faith, humble, and with charity. Those can never be found by the common sense and best judgments of man.

With luv,

BD