Apostle of Color

[Kemara]

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.

Pahoran,

This post was good, it hit the nail right on the head. I dont think there is any need for me to try and add to it, you said it all.

I hope that GIMR and Moksha both find happiness, peace and full acceptance in the Church for exactly who they are. I hope they never feel the sting of racism in the Church again, that they will experience racism I think is inevitable, and to say this is unfortunate rather understates the case. I dont know what the answer to this is and have never pretended to do so, but their stated solution is doomed to failure for the reasons you and others have shared not to mention repugnant in its nature - of that I am certain.

GIMR and Moksha, I wish you both only the very best and that your righteous desires are fulfilled. I can assure you that although I disagree vehemently with your answer to the problem of racism in the church that my acceptance of you is total and my love and concern for you is real - of this point I am certain. I dont have all the answers to your problems, neither do you, maybe their isnt an answer, maybe racism in the Church will always exist because individuals with individual natures will always exist. I do know this much though, there are many of all races and cultures who will welcome you openly adn accept you unreservedly, I hope you all find one another.

[koakaipo]

I probably won't be able to be back here for a couple of days, but just wanted to add a couple thoughts as I think this thread is becoming more interesting and full of great thoughts from posters I am not very acquainted with but I"m sure would enjoy in real life:

a)I personally believe that Moksha's views are not as polarized as other posters here believe. I think there is some gap in communication here, perhaps because Moksha(heck and me and gimr) are new and yet tied to a different forum, so we understand eachother. But we don' t necessarily know you guys as well, and you don't know us as well, so it's very easy for both sides to fill in the gaps with impressions. I believe neither side is as polarized as the posts suggests-I think the friction here is largely due to 1)lack of familiarity with eachother 2) one side of the argument is leaning towards a liberal understanding while the other side is leaning towards a more conservative understanding 3) there was (unintended) breach of protocol between us newbies and the veterans here.

I personally don't think any of you would have a problem with an apostle of color-I mentioned this awhile back with Kemara-I don't think that's the point of contention. The point of contention is that some believed that Moksha was degrading the leadership by inferring that an apostle of color was" long overdue."

c) WHich leads me to a stickier point that I would like to address. I want to please leave with you guys the problem I do have with this notion that someone how God is waiting for the right time to spring an apostle of color on us. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY disagree with this.

I'm beating this like a dead horse, but want it to be understood where my point of disagreement is at. It's not in the belief that anyone is inherently oppossed to having an apostle of color. It's the idea that people are treating the very notion of choosing an apostle of color as something that is somehow BIG enough to make God have to direct it. I disagree with so much forethought going into the very idea of picking someone of color.

I totally find such a superficial marker as skin pigment-someone's mere physical characteristic-irrelevant. It should just be common sense on all our parts that one's physical featues are simply a non issue in regards to picking an apostle. I don't have to ponder over the fact that next apostle may have a receding jawline or a receding hairline or floppy ears, I don't think God has to wait to introduce someone to us with such characteristics as a new leader.

Dang, there's so much stuff piled on Heavenly FAther's plate already-I mean that. Do we really have to be spoonfed by Him to the point of holding our hands through the coordination and introduction of an apostle of color? I don't think so, and honestly I don't think anyone on this thread thinks so either. God gave us free will and common sense and a good mind with the intention of us using it! Again, what I like about the Mormon legacy is the independent hearty stock we come from-that's what I find pride in as a Mormon. And I just think it's common sense to think that an apostle of color would be a good thing-without necessarily saying the apostles we don't have aren't swell either or that somehow they aren't doing their job by not having picked an apostle of color yet. We simply got a good candidate pool in this church-how bad can that be???

[koakaipo]

PS-re: spoonfeeding us through the introduction of an apostle of color

I need to qualify this statement as well because it could be miscontrued due to my lack of clarification. I agree with daydreams that picking an apostle is both a process as well as mystical in that of course divine guidance is needed. What I'm trying to point out is that some things don't need divine guidance. And one of those things we shouln't expect divine guidance in is the concept of someone's physcial appearance. Common sense would tell us that a physical characteristic does not in any way affect the spiritual character or the moral makeup of a man. Just as I wouldn't feel the need to anticipate an apostle with big ear lobes because it is really irrelevant for his job title, I would also expect a similar lack of anticipation of an apostle of color-other than the practical benefits he could bring to the job.That was my point....(whew, I'm trying so hard to be a polite newbie when I'm so used to being a grumpy veteran on my home forum....)

[BlueDreams]

I know you wont be be able to post but I'd like to point out two things.

1. I'm not DayDreams but BlueDreams (Honest mistake, i've done it before myself )

Common sense would tell us that a physical characteristic does not in any way affect the spiritual character or the moral makeup of a man

2. I do not think so either. I would sustain a man with whatever physical differences, as long as he was the man meant to be the apostle at that time (that was what I meant for a natural change, a change not created due to a consensus of popularity but because they were the one spiritually meant for the job). I think most everybody here would also agree.

With luv,

BD

P.S...I do know Refuge a little from lurking and participating a couple of years on a site...Moksha also seems a familiar name that seems in connection into the old board (I think).

[Moksha]

The presence of a whites only section on the Conference dais stands out.

Please provide your sources, evidence, proof and/or anything which supports your position of their existing a racially segregated whites only section on the conference dais.

I think he's referring to place where the apostles sit.

Is where the Apostles sit a racially segregated whites only section that Moksha says it is?

Try to find a a shade darker than pink in that section.

[Pahoran]

Moksha,

you wrote:

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"?

Are you certain you want to open this particular door?

After all, calling people "racists" for objecting to your race-baiting is rather offensive, and would fit any reasonable definition of a "personal attack."

Speaking of race-baiting, you previously wrote:

The presence of a whites only section on the Conference dais stands out.

And when challenged to substantiate this claim, you rather lamely rejoined:

Try to find a a shade darker than pink in that section.

But that isn't the question that was asked.

Can you not actually tell the difference between a place which is set aside for "whites only" and a place where there happen to only be white people sitting right now?

If not, then all I can say is "oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

The presence of a whites only section on the Conference dais stands out.

Please provide your sources, evidence, proof and/or anything which supports your position of their existing a racially segregated whites only section on the conference dais.

I think he's referring to place where the apostles sit.

Is where the Apostles sit a racially segregated whites only section that Moksha says it is?

Try to find a a shade darker than pink in that section.

I think I've learned something here today: The Church discriminates against me because it won't let me sit in the section at general conference reserved for apostles. Goody! Now I get indulge in licking my perceived wounds.

[Moksha]

The time is overdue for an Apostle of color.

Wow Moksha, you sure created a load of controversy with this one. You were even advised to start the Church of Moksha. Well at least you could proclaim everyone delightsome.

[Avatar4321]

I hit a vein of unresolved racism in this crowd, eh?

Folks with resolved racism would immediately recognize the benefits the Church would accrue through having an Apostle of color.

It seems to me before you accuse others of racism, you should ask yourself, why should race matter? Who cares who God calls as His Apostles? What would change with an Apostle of Color or if God called a 15 year old as an Apostle?

I thought the whole goal of overcoming racism was to treat people by their character rather than the color of their skin. I must be racist for thinking character is a more important quality than skin color though. You've shown me the way.

[Avatar4321]

Is this related to God finally realizing the time was right to allow men of African ancestry to hold the priesthood?

Is the best way to address this question to attack me, or is that just the way of the Apologist?

You accuse people of racism because they disagree with you on what should be done and you are surprised that you are the one criticized? Methinks you need to rethink your strategy.

[Avatar4321]

i need to look at the dates better. sighs.

[Chris Jodrey]

I think Moksha is racist. Sometimes people pretend to be very socially open-minded and comfortable when they really have deep, unresolved complexes, in an effort to hide them. They may even go so far as to be radicals for what they fear.

Moksha...?

Moderator: Do not call posters racist. That is considered name-calling.

[Chris Jodrey]

As for whether the Church is racist... maybe some are. But I would feel comfortable in declaring that the vast majority are not. My home ward was just full of people of diverse ethnicities. IMO, if you're the standard, country-town white person, demanding racial diversity in the Church is just stupid. Is it your people that aren't being represented? Do you want diversity just for the sake of diversity?

To quote my room mate, "People are always complaining that there aren't enough female politicians or black politicians. I think we should complain about not having enough good politicians." I think the same thing applies here. Whether or not someone is white or black or Asian (or Michael Jackson) is totally besides the point and the only ones that make a big deal out of it are those who can't see past the surface and see the people.

[T-Bone]

Hey, how about Asian? There are lots of members in Japan, for example.

[BlueDreams]

Wow Moksha, you sure created a load of controversy with this one. You were even advised to start the Church of Moksha. Well at least you could proclaim everyone delightsome.

Moksha,

Out of curiosity, why in the world did you bring this back from the dead?

With luv,

BD

[mbh26]

I hit a vein of unresolved racism in this crowd, eh?

Folks with resolved racism would immediately recognize the benefits the Church would accrue through having an Apostle of color.

Or perhaps race wouldn't really matter. Isn't that what racism is, discrimination or favortism based on race?

[RalphHolb]

So the LDS church does not practice Affirmative Action. That's it, I am taking my ball and I am going home.

[pezp]

its lovely to see that race doesnt matter (obviously when whites arent the ones left out)...

i still remember the fuss about teh movie of a black jesus....man there it did matter? why folks?....

[Del March]

i still remember the fuss about teh movie of a black jesus....man there it did matter? why folks?....

You know very well that it wasn't the skin color of that Jesus that was the problem, it was his actions.

Del

[Pahoran]

Wow Moksha, you sure created a load of controversy with this one. You were even advised to start the Church of Moksha. Well at least you could proclaim everyone delightsome.

Moksha,

Out of curiosity, why in the world did you bring this back from the dead?

With luv,

BD

Maybe he craves attention.

Hey, how about Asian? There are lots of members in Japan, for example.

See my post on the previous page. Once we start proceeding from the asinine assumption that the Quorum of the Twelve is supposed to be a kind of Church Parliament giving equal representation to all, we are going to need about 190 apostles.

Pezp,

you sneered:

its lovely to see that race doesnt matter (obviously when whites arent the ones left out)...

i still remember the fuss about teh movie of a black jesus....man there it did matter? why folks?....

Great idea. Let's consolidate all the race-baiting threads into one.

As to your question: instead of asking the "folks" why don't you ask the producers of the movie? They clearly thought it mattered. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctrinal Engineer]

As in, say, Elders Maxwell (educator), Packer (educator), Oaks (university president), Holland (university president), Eyring (university president), Bednar (university president), Scott (nuclear engineer), and Nelson (heart surgeon)?

Don't forget Faust (lawyer)

Maybe you could just say "men with white-collar careers that feel comfortable wearing a suit"

[Pokatator]

Wow Moksha, you sure created a load of controversy with this one. You were even advised to start the Church of Moksha. Well at least you could proclaim everyone delightsome.

Moksha,

Out of curiosity, why in the world did you bring this back from the dead?

With luv,

BD

I think it was great to bring this thread back from the dead. I was unaware of it, it was before my time here. I think it would be good to bring it back next March in 2007. I found it a great read and if it is stirring-the-pot well I think the pot needs stirred once in a while.

One of my favorite films, and my most favorite western film is Mel Brooks', Blazing Saddles. This film was made before the PC culture of today. It made fun of everyone, basically nothing was sacred. But to me it showed the complete stupidity of prejudice.

I agree that an Apostle of Color would be advantageous for the church. And this is coming from a melanin challenged member.

Moksah, thanks for the re-post, I was blessed by you and specifically by God_is_my_Refuge's posts.

PS Could I borrow your hat for a Saint Patty's Day party this Friday?

[Moksha]

I think Moksha is racist. Sometimes people pretend to be very socially open-minded and comfortable when they really have deep, unresolved complexes, in an effort to hide them. They may even go so far as to be radicals for what they fear.

Moksha...?

Unresolved complexes? In my own defense - twitch er ahh sputter - sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Do you think the above analysis could also be used for religion?

[BlueDreams]

I think it was great to bring this thread back from the dead. I was unaware of it, it was before my time here. I think it would be good to bring it back next March in 2007. I found it a great read and if it is stirring-the-pot well I think the pot needs stirred once in a while.

Lol, it could become the phantom of fairtboards

[koakaipo]

Ah, the genius that is Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles....