omegaseamaster75 Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 we didn't have kids at the time, all you need is a sponsor, I was hers and we didn't have to go through family reunification process as she was "gasp" at the time illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I've thought about this and while I think I would have found an Obvious MinorityTM apostle "cool" and do agree representation of the global church would have some benefits, at the end of the day I don't seem to care nearly as much as others. Ultimately, and I type this with the greatest respect one would have for apostles called of God, it's some guy helping guide the church. I really don't care if he is a Utah boy of pioneer stock or a convert from some recently-discovered tiny island tribe. It's one thing to ponder the possible perks of a minority apostle. It's quite another to stick the definition of minority in a tiny box and whine and complain about how the Church isn't being politically and socially inclusive enough. And no matter who gets called as a future apostle, you know there will be somebody out there complaining. If an Obvious Minority were called, you can bet it would be the wrong minority to somebody. Vort, pam and carlimac 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) we didn't have kids at the time, all you need is a sponsor, I was hers and we didn't have to go through family reunification process as she was "gasp" at the time illegal. Your sponsor has to be either your spouse, your children, or your parents to go through the "easy" process (because of the current Family Reunification position of the USA). They can be your siblings but this has a lower priority so you'll have to wait a looooonnngg time (like 10 years) to get that approved and it's not "easy". If you have a desired skill - like if you're a nurse or a programmer, 2 skills that America is short on - your employer can be your sponsor and it's relatively "easy" too. Or if you're a student, the university can be your sponsor and it's also relatively "easy". None of these apply to any of the General Authorities. Factoid: This Family Reunification position of the US has been what gives immigration power to "anchor babies". Edited October 11, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 I'm bumping this thread up because of... reasons. As I've mentioned before, I work for a small-town local newspaper. I'm a movie reviewer, edutainment columnist, courier, and stringer. Yes, it takes a toll. But if it's got my name attached to it, you can rest assured that I did my dead level best under whatever circumstances I had to work with in order to produce a work I was proud of. Yes, there have been a few instances in which gross editorial interference has soured a piece, but that's not something I can control. I think you all can understand, then, why I feel like screaming every time I see Brady McCombs' name in the byline. McCombs is a reporter for the Associated Press. Specifically, McCombs is their #1 reporter for all things dealing with the church. McCombs also routinely violates the AP's own Style Guide, the Holy Bible of how to write media reports. His latest farce is this article here. The entire article is about the issue of diversity within the senior leadership of the church, but not once does he mention the church's full name. It's always "the Mormons" or "the Mormon church". The AP Style Guide quite clearly states that this is verboten; if you're dealing with the main body, it declares, then you must give the full name of the church at some point. So not only did McCombs botch the job yet again, the editor responsible for vetting this article botched it as well by not catching things. As far as the content of the article goes, McCombs delivers a triple play of incompetence by not examining the backgrounds of the three new Elders or thinking to ask the people he quoted about them. This includes Elder Renlund, as we've mentioned, whose time in South Africa is actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. I can't figure out how it is that McCombs is in the majors while I'm still on the farm team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) McCombs also routinely violates the AP's own Style Guide... McCombs, apparently doesn't know how to do math. I'm not keeping score. But he was. He mentioned that the black membership in the Church is only about 3%. Well, 3% doesn't round up to 1/12. So, just by the numbers, there shouldn't be any black members of the quorum of the 12. He tried to make it sound worse by counting all 15 rather than the 12. But this shows lack of understanding of how the process works...or... he was purposefully making it sound worse than it was. And 3% doesn't even make 1/15. He also mentioned that there are two blacks in the quorum of the seventy. There are currently 60 in the first quorum of seventy. That's about 3%. While we may not keep score, if people like this wish to keep score, they ought to do so with proper math. And if those who are "disappointed" would care to look, those countries and regions where minorities in the US are not minorities in those areas and thus make up a larger percentage of the Church membership, the area seventies are at a representative percentage racially of those areas' membership. And I do have to wonder why he made such a brief mention of other minorities and focused on blacks only. As if that is the litmus test of diversity. Asians aren't diverse enough. Latinos aren't diverse enough. Latinos at least would have made the percentage for apostleship. But he didn't even go there. If we are to take McCombs as a representative sample of the disappointed, it is quite apparent that those calling for diversity only care about making a stink and don't actually focus on reality. Edited October 11, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 It's to the point now that if I see McCombs' name in the byline, I know the article is going to be a hack job. McCombs can't be bothered to do even basic research on most topics, and is generally too lazy to use any term but "Mormon" no matter what group is being discussed; if the full name of any organization is mentioned, it's usually near the end of the piece instead of near the beginning. Remember the brother who delivered the Conference talk in Cantonese a few Conferences back? McCombs' first draft of the article identified the language as Mandarin. Someone at the AP hastily redid the article, but the comments were left untouched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 That McCombs article that so egregiously violated the AP's own style guide? My peeps over at Get Religion finally got around to taking a look at it. They aren't impressed, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.