Apostle of Color

[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

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.

I know, it's always such a tame love-fest around here, isn't it?

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

I am convinced that having apostles called of God, regardless of their skin pigmentation, is infinitely more advantageous to the Church, and Moksha's race-baiting has done nothing to challenge that belief. And that is coming from a member who will never be called into that quorum.

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

If you're going to be that obsequious, you should probably make the effort to spell his screen name right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pokatator]

Sorry Moksha, I spelled your name wrong in my previous post, it was an honest mistake....a typo. Please forgive me. Pokatator

PS Paharon the spell checker pointed this out to me.

[Kemara]

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

What color would that be? And why that color? Why not a different shade of that color? Why would you choose one shade of a color to the exclusion of all other shades, what makes the chosen shade of color more important or advantageous than all other shades? Why would an Apostle of color that is called at the exclusion of all other colors be advantageous?

[Moksha]

Why would you choose one shade of a color to the exclusion of all other shades, what makes the chosen shade of color more important or advantageous than all other shades?

Those are great questions, however we need not dwell on why it was done. It can be rectified the next time an Apostle is called.

I still think Pokatator and I should get together and raise some tator tots.

[Kemara]

Those are great questions, however we need not dwell on why it was done.  It can be rectified the next time an Apostle is called.

What exactly needs to be "rectified"?

[Moksha]

Those are great questions, however we need not dwell on why it was done.

[BlueDreams]

Why having only one shade of color to the exclusion of all others, of course. What were you talking about?

Wouldn't exclusion state a deliberate attempt to keep the apostleship one shade?

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but it doesn't sound right.

With luv,

BD

[Pahoran]

Those are great questions, however we need not dwell on why it was done.

[Pokatator]

I agree that an Apostle of Color would be advantageous for the church.

[Moksha]

As you know perfectly well, Kemara wonders why an "African-American" shade of brown should be preferred over a "Polynesian" shade of brown.

African American Brown vs. Polynesian Brown? When I first used the term Apostle of Color, I was not being intentionally vague, I was being inclusive of all who do not fit the "white" mold. Early on in this thread, someone pointed out that the majority of the Church Membership do not fit this mold. This non-molding fitting majority will continue to increase in size and percentage. My assumption is the Church would like the growth in this membership to continue.

I do not wish my pointing our the wisdom of having an Apostle of Color to be something that angers or frightens any of you. I am seeking to raise this issue to a level of conciousness without causing anyone to bare their claws. People of Color are a growing part of the Church and are equal partners in our Christian fellowship. Including them fully seems to me to be in the overall best interest of not only the spirit of the gospel but of the Church as a whole.

[Rock]

God is My Fortress,

You are clearly a mover and a shaker in a place where it is so needed.

I've enjoyed your posts.

It is without a doubt, LDS doctrine that you are led by a prophet of God. As you know, this is very different than the spiritual gift of prophecy, as distributed w/in the entire body of Christ. Your Church claims to be led by no less a prophet than those chosen prophets who prophesied of the Messiah in the Old Testiment. They receive direct, new, revelation from God Almighty. If that is true, then God alone chose these apostles. Not mere men.

But, is this the same God who caused Peter to say:

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter replied, "I see very clearly that God doesn't show partiality. In every nation he accepts those who fear him and do what is right".

?

[Del March]

It always makes me laugh when anti-racism people start talking about "white" as being one color. White is no more a colour than brown is. In fact, if one took the time and efforts to do so, one could find, say, 100 people who would establish a continuum of colours, from paper-white, to the darkest black. And then I would ask: where is the separation? Where do you put the limit between who is white and who is brown?

No matter what "white" racist people would like us to believe, there is no such thing as "white". There are just lighter versions of brown, yellow, pink, whatever.

My husband and I, for example, are technically both white. And yet, if you put our arms side by side, it becomes very obvious that I am in fact a light shade of yellow, while he is a light shade of pink.

As for an Apostle "of color": it will happen, I have no doubt about that. But it will happen when God wants it, and I sure hope it will NOT happen as a sign of political correctness.

Del

[Avatar4321]

I am convinced that having apostles called of God, regardless of their skin pigmentation, is infinitely more advantageous to the Church, and Moksha's race-baiting has done nothing to challenge that belief. And that is coming from a member who will never be called into that quorum.

I agree. I just think its interesting thinking of you as an Apostle. You never know. stranger things have happened, however unlikely it is.

[Avatar4321]

Those are great questions, however we need not dwell on why it was done. It can be rectified the next time an Apostle is called.

I still think Pokatator and I should get together and raise some tator tots.

But it isn't a problem. Nothing needs to be Rectified.

And you know, I bet the Apostles are all Ephraimites as well.

[Avatar4321]

God is My Fortress,

You are clearly a mover and a shaker in a place where it is so needed.

I've enjoyed your posts.

It is without a doubt, LDS doctrine that you are led by a prophet of God. As you know, this is very different than the spiritual gift of prophecy, as distributed w/in the entire body of Christ. Your Church claims to be led by no less a prophet than those chosen prophets who prophesied of the Messiah in the Old Testiment. They receive direct, new, revelation from God Almighty. If that is true, then God alone chose these apostles. Not mere men.

But, is this the same God who caused Peter to say:

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter replied, "I see very clearly that God doesn't show partiality. In every nation he accepts those who fear him and do what is right".

?

He may accept all people, but does that mean He chooses all people as Apostles?

Christ didn't call any Gentiles as Apostles in the merdian of time. In fact, there is no evidence He even called them out of more then three tribes of Israel.

No is this an indication that Christ somehow respected other nations less? I don't think so. But it would be the logical conclusion following your line of reasoning.

[Kemara]

African American Brown vs. Polynesian Brown?  When I first used the term Apostle of Color, I was not being intentionally vague, I was being inclusive of all who do not fit the "white" mold.  Early on in this thread, someone pointed out that the majority of the Church Membership do not fit this mold. This non-molding fitting majority will continue to increase in size and percentage. My assumption is the Church would like the growth in this membership to continue.

I do not wish  my pointing our the wisdom of having an Apostle of Color to be something that angers or frightens any of you. I am seeking to raise this issue to a level of conciousness without causing anyone to bare their claws.  People of Color are a growing part of the Church and are equal partners in our Christian fellowship.  Including them fully seems to me to be in the overall best interest of not only the spirit of the gospel but of  the Church as a whole.

Moksha,

I can barely see the dust from your tyres you are back-peddling so fast. I do not believe for a second that your call for an Apostle of color meant an Apostle of

[BlueDreams]

I do not wish  my pointing our the wisdom of having an Apostle of Color to be something that angers or frightens any of you. I am seeking to raise this issue to a level of conciousness without causing anyone to bare their claws.  People of Color are a growing part of the Church and are equal partners in our Christian fellowship.  Including them fully seems to me to be in the overall best interest of not only the spirit of the gospel but of  the Church as a whole.

I still don't find this a great opinion. What does it speak of our society when we cannot hold an understanding due to the pigmentation of skin. Your right, they are a growing part of the church and are equal partners. They are not barred from being apostle and when (not if) the day comes when someone comes from south america or africa or asia or any other geographical location. The job of an apostle is not to feed the needs of cultural complexities but to feed the souls with gospel truths. And the message of christ goes beyond humanity and into the soul where no color ever resides.

With luv,

BD

[Rock]

He may accept all people, but does that mean He chooses all people as Apostles?

Christ didn't call any Gentiles as Apostles in the merdian of time. In fact, there is no evidence He even called them out of more then three tribes of Israel.

No is this an indication that Christ somehow respected other nations less? I don't think so. But it would be the logical conclusion following your line of reasoning.

Its almost as if you are insinuating that "white" people (primarily of European blood?) whether they be German, English, French, Swedish -- whatever -- are somehow more closely related to the chosen people of God or Israelites, while people of color (specifically those with African blood and dark skin) can be compared with the Gentiles during Christ's ministry.

White people are no more God's chosen than black people are.

Do you have a basis for your belief that the God of the Bible would or should select all caucasians as His apostles? Is there a worthiness or righteousness or readiness factor that I'm just not seeing?

[Avatar4321]

Its almost as if you are insinuating that "white" people (primarily of European blood?) whether they be German, English, French, Swedish -- whatever -- are somehow more closely related to the chosen people of God or Israelites, while people of color (specifically those with African blood and dark skin) can be compared with the Gentiles during Christ's ministry.

White people are no more God's chosen than black people are.

Do you have a basis for your belief that the God of the Bible would or should select all caucasians as His apostles? Is there a worthiness or righteousness or readiness factor that I'm just not seeing?

I try to be as plain as possible but it seems as though you want to misconsture what I say.

Here it is: Applying the verse you cited the way you are trying to cite it would indicate that Christ was racist in the New Testament because He chose His Apostles from a specific group of people rather from other groups.

God can call whomever He wants. If there is a purple person in the world and God wants to call that person to be an Apostle let Him. I am not going to fight with Him or tell Him that He should or shouldnt.

Fact is over a few decades ago The Church was primarily an American church made up of caucasions. So naturally the Lord is going to choose people from the group of the faithful to be His Apostles. Wait till the Church grows just as strong in other areas of the world and I have no doubt He will find men among those people to call.

I do think the Lord will probably leave the leadership in the Church to children of Ephraim because the scriptures indicate that it is Ephraim who is to lead the Gathering and preparation for the Second coming.

However, your position is that if the Apostles arent of different races then they couldnt have been called of God. This is obviously false because the very New Testament you claim to believe explcitely points out that God chose His Apostles from a certain lineage and any acts on us would undermine the New Testament precedent.

My one question is why is this difficult to understand and why do you have to pretend that I am saying something I am not?

[Diggerdan60]

This thread is long and I haven't read the whole thing so excuse me if this point has already been made, but I think this whole discussion is racist. People are judging the apostles solely on skin color.

The apostles are all highly educated multi-millionaires who all happen to be white. I personally don't have a problem with this and I sustain them all.

But I don't see how calling another apostle millionaire with a PhD would be any more represetative of the church population than it is now. As a white man I would have more in common with an apostle of color who worked a 40 hour week his whole life and was getting by on a social security retirement, than any of the other apostles. That would be much more representative of the church population than the current set up. Look at an individual for who they are, their life experience and background and not the color of their skin.

But the Lord will call who he will to ba an Apostle and it will never be determined from societies political pressure.

[pezp]

White people are no more God's chosen than black people are

isnt this the religion where black people werent allowed the priesthood till 1978?

[Pahoran]

As you know perfectly well, Kemara wonders why an "African-American" shade of brown should be preferred over a "Polynesian" shade of brown.

African American Brown vs. Polynesian Brown? When I first used the term Apostle of Color, I was not being intentionally vague, I was being inclusive of all who do not fit the "white" mold. Early on in this thread, someone pointed out that the majority of the Church Membership do not fit this mold. This non-molding fitting majority will continue to increase in size and percentage. My assumption is the Church would like the growth in this membership to continue.

Yes, and? I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Given that Church has grown to its present state with the leadership we have, what makes you think the growth will grind to a halt if we don't start having token black figureheads?

I do not wish  my pointing our the wisdom of having an Apostle of Color to be something that angers or frightens any of you.

And I do not wish you to have any excuse to pretend to believe the obviously intentional falsehood that disagreement with you has anything to do with "racism." Not one of us is remotely "angered or frightened" by the prospect of a non-white apostle, or more than one, or a whole quorum of them for that matter, and not one of us will have any problem sustaining such an apostle, come the day that he is called.

And do you know why?

Because we know that that man will be called because the Lord wants him there, and NOT because of some idiotic racial quota system.

I am seeking to raise this issue to a level of conciousness without causing anyone to bare their claws.

Really? So why did you accuse those who disagreed with you of "racism?" How could that obviously false, malicious and deliberately provocative accusation fail to "cause anyone to bare their claws?"

People of Color are a growing part of the Church and are equal partners in our Christian fellowship.  Including them fully seems to me to be in the overall best interest of not only the spirit of the gospel but of  the Church as a whole.

Translation of "including them fully:" you want a racial quota system for the presiding quorums.

In that, you are alone.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Guest Five to one]

I'm all for racial quotas. I think the American white male is underrepresented in the LDS hierarchy.

[Calm]

multi-millionaires

??? Documentation please.

[Moksha]

African American Brown vs. Polynesian Brown?