Diversity?

[pam]

With my dad's family, family history is church history, at least as far back as 1844.

 

Then we are probably related somewhere along the line.

[omegaseamaster75]

Except you're not because what you're claiming is exactly contrary to the church, the gospel, and it's teaching and truths about who is called of God and why. So the only way you can legitimately claim being right is by denying the truth and reality of what is scriptural, policy, principle, and everything ever said on the matter, concerning how and why church leadership works. So cast that off and go on reveling in your personal philosophies believing your superior understanding supersedes all we have ever been taught on the matter. 

 

I haven't claimed anything that is contrary to the church, the gospel, or it's teachings about succession to apostleship. In fact I stated quite clearly that I sustained our leaders.

 

This does not make my observations untrue or inaccurate the leadership of the church has chosen it's direction and I will follow it. 

[Ironhold]

Honest question: What's it like to do family history with so much stuff that is (I assume) already known?

Back when I tried to be a member of the Boy Scouts, we were working on the genealogy merit badge one month. At the time, the badge literally required us to discover new family members.

Well, my dad's side is about as researched out as it's going to get. And at the time, we knew almost nothing about my mom's side due to her biological father dying when she was young* and her mother's family being back in the old country (her mother was descending into Alzheimer's at this point and so couldn't have remembered anything if she tried).

That meant I couldn't complete the badge requirements because there wasn't any way for me to get new names at the time. I was supposed to get an exemption because of this, but the local scouting program was such a jumbled mess at the time it never happened. I was so frustrated by this that I just gave up going to scouts all together.

*A few years ago, the National Archives announced that you could apply online to get copies of military records. My mom found enough information about her father to request his records, and his records contained enough information for us to locate and contact his family. Mom and my aunt were both able to visit this past summer.

[Ironhold]

Before anyone says anything -

I'm just fine with diversity.

The issue is how it happens.

For example, the University of Michigan was right to be concerned about the disproportionate college enrollment rates by race. But the bonus point system benefited no one. Instead, I'd have recommended that the college begin working with the various public schools in order to help prepare students for college and identify specific issues that need to be addressed.

IE, back around 2000 (three years before the decision), Central Texas College worked out an arrangement with various local high schools that allowed students to take "dual-enrollment" classes in certain subjects, like "Computer Science 101". The classes would be taught on the CTC campus, and students would receive credit at both their high school and CTC. I recall there being a small fee for doing this, but IIRC the fee was smaller than the full-fledged cost of tuition. This arrangement means that by the time the kids graduated high school, they'd already have CTC credits built up... credits that could easily transfer to any public school in the state.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Ironhold

[Guest]

I still don't understand how racism can be wiped out by employing racist methods.

[The Folk Prophet]

I haven't claimed anything that is contrary to the church, the gospel, or it's teachings about succession to apostleship.

 

Well let's just parse that, shall we?

 

I think that the church should be representative of the people that they lead. Leadership should be a reflection of this.

 

Neither of these statements are taught by the church or the scriptures in any regard. The church, conversely, teaches that the leaders should represent the Lord, and be a reflection of whom the Lord chooses.

 

It's no small coincidence that with the exception of 3-5 guys the quorum of the 12 and first presidency are all related or their wives are related in some way to a former GA, former apostle or former president of the church.

 

The church leaders being related or not is entirely irrelevant and is no coincidence whatsoever. The claim that it is no small coincidence is false, inaccurate, and implies that church leadership is based on this rather than on the Lord calling and preparing who He will.

 

I do find it interesting that the majority of leadership are from Utah. Like any big Corp you go with who you know.

 

The church does not operate in regards to callings like any big Corp.

 

Your message is clear -- The church chooses it's leadership like any big cooperation. Being called as an apostle is about coincidence, location, who you know, and your relation status. Leadership should represent the people.

 

Every statement you've made is directly contrary to what the church teaches about our leaders being callings.

 

The Lord chooses His apostles. The Lord knows everyone and prepares who He will to serve. The leaders represent the Lord and stand for the Lord to the people.

 

A claim that you sustain our leaders doesn't magically make your false statements reconcile with truth. Nor is that claim in any way relevant to whether your statements are right or wrong.

[Ironhold]

I still don't understand how racism can be wiped out by employing racist methods.

It can't.

Most so-called progressives don't understand that.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

 

 

Well let's just parse that, shall we?

 

 

Neither of these statements are taught by the church or the scriptures in any regard. The church, conversely, teaches that the leaders should represent the Lord, and be a reflection of whom the Lord chooses.

 

 

The church leaders being related or not is entirely irrelevant and is no coincidence whatsoever. The claim that it is no small coincidence is false, inaccurate, and implies that church leadership is based on this rather than on the Lord calling and preparing who He will.

 

 

The church does not operate in regards to callings like any big Corp.

 

Your message is clear -- The church chooses it's leadership like any big cooperation. Being called as an apostle is about coincidence, location, who you know, and your relation status. Leadership should represent the people.

 

Every statement you've made is directly contrary to what the church teaches about our leaders being callings.

 

The Lord chooses His apostles. The Lord knows everyone and prepares who He will to serve. The leaders represent the Lord and stand for the Lord to the people.

 

A claim that you sustain our leaders doesn't magically make your false statements reconcile with truth. Nor is that claim in any way relevant to whether your statements are right or wrong.

 

FYI when I make a statement and the first part of it is "I think" such as " I think that the church should be representative of the people that they lead" That is my personal opinion. that is the gospel according to Omegaseamaster75, to be taken or disregarded as necessary. I never stated that this was or should be taught. I haven't made false statements I have expressed opinion.  

 

He is a quote for you from no less than a member of the 70 (now deceased) J. Golden Kimball who wow happened to be the son of Apostle Heber C Kimball (I know this comes as a shock to all) said "Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church" 

 

I am sure that this was meant with his tongue firmly in his cheek, but a look at callings and leadership placement make this ring just a little bit true.

 

 

 

 

My opinions do not in anyway conflict with my sustaining of our leadership. I never stated that they were wrong, 

Edited October 7, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[omegaseamaster75]

The church does not operate in regards to callings like any big Corp.

 

Your message is clear -- The church chooses it's leadership like any big cooperation. Being called as an apostle is about coincidence, location, who you know, and your relation status. Leadership should represent the people.

 

Every statement you've made is directly contrary to what the church teaches about our leaders being callings.

 

The Lord chooses His apostles. The Lord knows everyone and prepares who He will to serve. The leaders represent the Lord and stand for the Lord to the people.

 

A claim that you sustain our leaders doesn't magically make your false statements reconcile with truth. Nor is that claim in any way relevant to whether your statements are right or wrong.

 

 The church may or may not choose leadership (They use revelation and such) like a big corporation but the structure and operation is exactly that of a large corp.

[The Folk Prophet]

FYI when I make a statement and the first part of it is "I think" such as " I think that the church should be representative of the people that they lead" That is my personal opinion.

 

Which is entirely irrelevant to anything I said concerning your posts. Of course you think what you said. Would you say it otherwise. I think what I say too. So does everyone. The point is that what you think is not the way it's supposed to work to any degree. This is based on the gospel truths that God calls his anointed leaders to stand as witnesses for Him, not the other way around, as is clearly taught, time and again, source after source, scriptural example after scriptural example.

 

that is the gospel according to Omegaseamaster75, 

 

Clearly. And it is, as I have pointed out, contrary to the actual teachings and positions of the church. Or, in other words, as I stated at first -- wrong.

 

to be taken or disregarded as necessary. 

 

...according to one's interest in being in line or out of line with the church on the matter...or in other words, according to one's interest in being right or wrong.

 

I never stated that this was or should be taught.

 

And yet you consistently espouse such opinions, contrary to what we are meant to believe and teach, and then when called on it try and hide behind the innocent, blinking, wide-eyed, diversion of "it's just my opinion". Obviously it's your opinion. It's still wrong.

 

My opinions do not in anyway conflict with my sustaining of our leadership.

 

Perhaps. That is what one might call a misdirect, however, as I've stated several times. Your sustaining of church leaders or not is irrelevant to whether your stated opinions are in line with what the church teaches or not.

 

But regardless of whether you are sustaining your leaders by expressing these doubt-casting, testimony-hurting type "opinions" out into the world (something that is fairly debatable. I'm not sure you really actually understand what sustaining our leaders means) they are still ideas that are not only wrong, they are toxic, and they need to be corrected.

 

 The church may or may not choose leadership (They use revelation and such) like a big corporation but the structure and operation is exactly that of a large corp.

 

Also irrelevant.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's not very popular to say to a 21st century American audience, but . . . familial priestly dynasties that stretch over decades--even centuries--are part of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. And early LDS leadership toyed with the idea as well, nearly to the end of the 19th century.

One man's "nepotism" is another man's "believing blood".

Edited October 8, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

It's not very popular to say to a 21st century American audience, but . . . familial priestly dynasties that stretch over decades--even centuries--are part of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. And early LDS leadership toyed with the idea as well, nearly to the end of the 19th century.

One man's "nepotism" is another man's "believing blood".

 

Yes. And yet, the call, ultimately, of how this works or not, is God's not man's. God calls. Not man. If God will's father-to-son prophets, then so be it. He will qualify whom he calls. And so it goes. The related nature of our current church leadership isn't evidence of anything though. It may well be meant-to-be. But if so, it is meant to be by God.

 

[Latter Days Guy]

Some interesting views being shared and I can see both sides of the argument. Though I do believe that the church as a global entity should reflect the membership, and it would be nice to see some more non-native Americans in higher leadership positions.  At the end of the day it is God who calls.   

Someone mentioned that people from first world countries are more able to meet the needs of the church because their passports are accepted in more countries, bit of a poor choice for an example, I don't see RC bishops and archbishops being denied entry to other countries just because they are from a poor nation.  Nor do I put limits on Heavenly Father being able to open doors to for someone if he deems to call someone from a poorer nation either.

[Traveler]

Same here pal. You are a better man that I am. I don't like cats at all.  Thank goodness LadyGator shares that opinion! 

 

Having been raised in a hunting family - I tried cat once.  There is a very good reason cats have not been domesticated as a food source.  I do not like cat either.  BTW gators are not bad but I like chicken better.

[Just_A_Guy]

Someone mentioned that people from first world countries are more able to meet the needs of the church because their passports are accepted in more countries, bit of a poor choice for an example, I don't see RC bishops and archbishops being denied entry to other countries just because they are from a poor nation.  Nor do I put limits on Heavenly Father being able to open doors to for someone if he deems to call someone from a poorer nation either.

 

Perhaps.  Do RC bishops hailing from nations whose passports aren't as universally accepted, serve outside of their home countries at the same rate as bishops from countries with more "powerful" passports?  Would/could the LDS Church expect to get the same sort of deference for its clerics, that the Catholics get for their clerics?

 

And, yeah; I certainly wouldn't put limits on God's ability to do . . . anything.  On the other hand, it's kind of an orthodox LDS view that there were practical reasons that the Restoration occurred in 19th century America rather than--say--16th century Spain or 21st century Gaza.  Without ruling out the possibility of the miraculous, I simply don't think God is above working through ordinary means using the tools He has available to Him.  The conjunction between Apostle Paul's status as a Roman citizen and the sheer geographical breadth of his ministry, was no coincidence.  And, at the risk of sounding jingoistic--for the past half-century, one of the tools that has been available to Him is that His Church is strongly established in a nation that, for whatever reason, has been described in secular political circles as a military, political and cultural "superpower".

Edited October 8, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

It makes sense that if an apostle is called from another country, like all of our apostles he would reside in the US. With all of the travel requirements he would naturalize. It is not difficult and he would then have a US passport and the ability to travel at will.

Edited October 8, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

I simply don't think God is above working through ordinary means using the tools He has available to Him.  

 

It's a bit argumentative, I'll admit, but it's a perspective thing that I think actually makes a difference. Saying it this way implies limitations. What is available to God? I mean, sure, factually God follows eternal laws. But when it comes to situation, to imply that the situation exists outside the plans of God and so He just makes use of it doesn't strike me as valid.

 

I think it, rather, a better way to look at it that God created the situation, and then uses it. His hand is, after all, over all.

 

There is a distinction to this that I believe is important. God happens to use white guys because America is a country that happens to have advantages -- vs -- God intends the men in the apostleship to be there, He established the country to have the advantages He intended, He sent the spirits He intended to the country He intended. He arranged to have these men prepared according to His plans and intentions, etc., etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

There is a distinction to this that I believe is important. God happens to use white guys because America is a country that happens to have advantages -- vs -- God intends the men in the apostleship to be there, He established the country to have the advantages He intended, He sent the spirits He intended to the country He intended. He arranged to have these men prepared according to His plans and intentions, etc., etc.

 

I don't disagree; though it's probably worth noting that a number of folks (not me) would dismiss that as a form of racism.

[Guest]

  

Someone mentioned that people from first world countries are more able to meet the needs of the church because their passports are accepted in more countries, bit of a poor choice for an example, I don't see RC bishops and archbishops being denied entry to other countries just because they are from a poor nation.  Nor do I put limits on Heavenly Father being able to open doors to for someone if he deems to call someone from a poorer nation either.

 

Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, just like LDS Bishops are regional.  They don't travel by virtue of their calling, except, for personal reasons, or at the direction of the Holy See. 

 

Now, Cardinals, including the Pope, and Holy See diplomats travel a lot.  But.... the Catholic Church has its own country - the Vatican.  Those who travel internationally for their calling in the Roman Catholic Church are given citizenship to Vatican City (currently 450 or so of them) and travel using the Vatican passport that has no-visa-required entry to 128 countries and automatic visa approval to hundreds more.

 

 

Perhaps.  Do RC bishops hailing from nations whose passports aren't as universally accepted, serve outside of their home countries at the same rate as bishops from countries with more "powerful" passports?  Would/could the LDS Church expect to get the same sort of deference for its clerics, that the Catholics get for their clerics?

 

And, yeah; I certainly wouldn't put limits on God's ability to do . . . anything.  On the other hand, it's kind of an orthodox LDS view that there were practical reasons that the Restoration occurred in 19th century America rather than--say--16th century Spain or 21st century Gaza.  Without ruling out the possibility of the miraculous, I simply don't think God is above working through ordinary means using the tools He has available to Him.  The conjunction between Apostle Paul's status as a Roman citizen and the sheer geographical breadth of his ministry, was no coincidence.  And, at the risk of sounding jingoistic--for the past half-century, one of the tools that has been available to Him is that His Church is strongly established in a nation that, for whatever reason, has been described in secular political circles as a military, political and cultural "superpower".

 

 

+100.  People always seem to think that if God wants something he just Magicks it into place and we are to marvel at this impossible miracle.  They don't seem to realize that things happen as they do because God calls his prophets, seers, and revelators to set it in motion in accordance with His will.

 

 

 

It makes sense that if an apostle is called from another country, like all of our apostles he would reside in the US. With all of the travel requirements he would naturalize. It is not difficult and he would then have a US passport and the ability to travel at will.

 

Uhm.  It is difficult.  I went through this process.  It's not as easy as jumping the Mexican border.  Why do you think politicians are all jockeying for position through their brilliant solutions for Immigration Reform?

 

But, more than that... the apostle would have to leave his entire family in his home country. 

 

Granted, it worked for Pres. Uchdorft, yes.  So, it will work for someone else... when God wills it.

Edited October 8, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Now, Cardinals, including the Pope, and Holy See diplomats travel a lot.  But.... the Catholic Church has its own country - the Vatican.  Those who travel internationally for their calling in the Roman Catholic Church are given citizenship to Vatican City (currently 450 or so of them) and travel using the Vatican passport that has no-visa-required entry to 128 countries and automatic visa approval to hundreds more.

 

(Random tangent):  I didn't realize until very recently just how few citizens the Vatican has.  But I I remember thinking, once I learned it, OK, Pope Francis; I'll change my mind about Europe's responsibility to take these middle eastern immigrants, as soon as the Vatican City converts itself to a democracy and naturalizes a couple of hundred Muslim, Protestant and Mormon immigrants.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

(Random tangent):  I didn't realize until very recently just how few citizens the Vatican has.  But I I remember thinking, once I learned it, OK, Pope Francis; I'll change my mind about Europe's responsibility to take these middle eastern immigrants, as soon as the Vatican City converts itself to a democracy and naturalizes a couple of hundred Muslim, Protestant and Mormon immigrants.

 

More important than that... you just don't become a Vatican citizen because you happen to be born there or because your parents are citizens, or because you live there, etc.  You can't just immigrate there either.

 

There are only 2 types of Vatican citizens:

 

1.)  People who live at the Vatican by virtue of their work for the Catholic Church.  Their spouses and children also qualify for citizenship if they live with the person at the Vatican.  They have to work for the Catholic Church to be granted citizenship.  An example would be the Swiss Guard.  When they stop working for the Church and they don't have citizenship elsewhere, they and their families automatically become Italian citizens even if they continue to live at the Vatican.

 

2.) People who the Pope authorizes to live in the Vatican or have Vatican citizenship - Cardinals, diplomats, etc.  All of these are Priests - they don't marry.  So, it's not like these people have families they support who require immigration into the Vatican or something like that.

Edited October 8, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't disagree; though it's probably worth noting that a number of folks (not me) would dismiss that as a form of racism.

 

Those same folks would also dismiss the Book of Mormon as racist.

 

(hint: from our limited mortal perspective, it is.)

[omegaseamaster75]

 

Uhm.  It is difficult.  I went through this process.  It's not as easy as jumping the Mexican border.  Why do you think politicians are all jockeying for position through their brilliant solutions for Immigration Reform?

 

But, more than that... the apostle would have to leave his entire family in his home country. 

 

Granted, it worked for Pres. Uchdorft, yes.  So, it will work for someone else... when God wills it.

My wife went through this process while married to me, it was easy as pie, so no biggie on that front.

[Traveler]

Many years ago when I lived in the Seattle area (neighborhood of PC) - I had a friend that I often rode on the bus with going to work.  He was LDS and black.  I would also point out this was within a decade of blacks receiving the priesthood.  Often we would talk about race (diversity) and the Church.  My friend taught me many things about prejudice - especially considering blacks.  For example: during our conversations I once said, "What blacks need is a really good leader."  I thought this remark would show my openness and lack of prejudice.  Instead my friend showed me how such thinking is prejudicial. 

 

After the remark, my friend looked at me and smiled pleasantly.  "What mankind needs," he started saying, "Is good leaders - you realize that it is actually a prejudice to think that good leaders should be of any particular race?"

 

Since that experience I have often ponderized the excuses individuals use to justify whatever prejudice they inflict on themselves or others.  There are many reasons that we can go about liking or disliking our leaders in the church - but if we are disappointed with someone just because of where they are from or borne - that is prejudice and it is ugly - regardless of how you try to dress up your prejudice and excuse it.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

My wife went through this process while married to me, it was easy as pie, so no biggie on that front.

 

Yes.  If you get married to an American or have American children or American parents.  It's called the Family Reunification Immigration Process.

 

People called as Apostles are usually already married with children in their own countries which would then make them un-qualified for Family Reunification.

Edited October 8, 2015 by anatess