Newest Apostle


mikbone

Recommended Posts

Lemme get this straight:

—Two of the last three apostles are men of color; one of whom is in an interracial marriage (which I’ll bet has never created any difficulties for him) and the other of whom is from Latin America (but is still privileged because he chose to take a clerical job as a teenager and went on to get an accounting degree). 

—But:  we’re concerned because the third apostle is

     —an Englishman

     —who was born on the Scottish border

     —and spent much of his youth in Saudi Arabia

     —(where his dad was apparently a weapons contractor),

     —and spent much of his Church ministry advocating for refugees—

And thus, is ill-suited to properly comprehend the problems posed by ethnic tensions and/or poverty?

And we’re also going to keep kvetching that the recently-called apostles are, on the whole, “too white”?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

[1]Elder Uchtdorf was an airline pilot, Gong grew up on the SF Peninsula, a bastion of white upper middle class values, and its obvious that Kearon grew up upper middle class from a first world country.  All these people never really lived or even saw a third world lifestyle.

 

[2]I'm not advocating for affirmative action at all.  If people are not ready for the responsibility of the Apostleship so be it.  But if we want to be truly a World Wide Church, maybe a training program would be in order to get people ready.

1.  Erm . . . Uchtdorf’s family was refugees because their ethnicity in their particular area was on the losing side of World War II.  Gong’s dad, I understand, was a professor at San Jose State (a minor school . . my mom went there) —secure, but likely not particularly wealthy.  And Gong was working at the US embassy in Beijing when Tiananmen Square happened, so . . . there’s that . . .

But perhaps the complaint about Gong’s “white upper middle class values” is the really revealing part here.  Maybe we don’t actually care what color the apostles’ skins are, or how poor they are/used to be, or even what country they’re from; but we care very much about their being hostile to the cultural mores to which we are hostile and to which we think any God worthy of our worship must be similarly hostile.  

Is the problem really that apostles like Uchtdorf, Nelson, Oaks, and Soares were ostensibly born with some imagined degree of privilege?

Or is it that their life stories hew uncomfortably close to a Horatio Alger novel; and we recoil at the notion of that being seen as a model for Saints in the third world, because we’ve committed ourselves to an economic/ political philosophy that denies such rags-to-riches stories based in WASP-y notions of hard work and education and creativity and self-sacrifice and family and faith and friendship and individual virtue are even possible?

2.  This probably isn’t what you want to hear, but . . . BYU (and the other CES schools, and perhaps increasingly the PEF as well) are that leadership training program.  My first mission president was Carlos Godoy—grew up lower-middle class in southern Brazil, converted to the Church as a teenager, went to college, married young, Master’s degree at BYU, management track at a series of multinational corporations, hiatus as a mission president while still in his 30s, corporate consulting work, and then the Q70 and now the presidency of the 70.

But with regard to Church leadership specifically:  I think one of the strengths of the Church is that theres no “leadership track” that individual members can pursue with the likely end of a role in the global church hierarchy.  Keeps the riffraff out.  I daresay that a number of secularist/ partisan think tanks have spent a lot of frustrating hours trying to figure out how they might infiltrate the LDS Q70/Q12 the way they’ve infiltrated the leadership of so many other modern institutions; to remarkably little avail.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Lemme get this straight:

—Two of the last three apostles are men of color; one of whom is in an interracial marriage (which I’ll bet has never created any difficulties for him) and the other of whom is from Latin America (but is still privileged because he chose to take a clerical job as a teenager and went on to get an accounting degree). 

—But:  we’re concerned because the third apostle is

     —an Englishman

     —who was born on the Scottish border

     —and spent much of his youth in Saudi Arabia

     —(where his dad was apparently a weapons contractor),

     —and spent much of his Church ministry advocating for refugees—

And thus, is ill-suited to properly comprehend the problems posed by ethnic tensions and/or poverty?

And we’re also going to keep kvetching that the recently-called apostles are, on the whole, “too white”?

Side note:  Not trying to detract from the conversation, but this actually opens up another line of discussion unrelated to the original topic, but actually has had a direct impact on me when going out with the Missionaries.  Different topic, but it is a question related to what you brought up here.

I know Gong is considered a PoC, but is Soares really a PoC?

I KNOW what the church claims about Soares, I also know that in Brazil many consider him white, and that overall many consider him a majority of European descent.  The question is what is considered white vs. non-white?  These definitions can differ between Brazil and the U.S. in many ways. 

I also have seen minorities scoff at the idea of Soares being a PoC or being considered non-white in the U.S. when it's been brought up. 

I HAVE TO ADMIT I do not fully understand why, but I have seen this reaction.  Without knowing more about the why, I'm not sure repeating this often and loud is the smartest thing to do among those who may have a darker skin than Soares (the majority of racial minorities out there).

If he ISN'T seen as a minority by the majority of those who are minorities due to race, claiming he is a PoC may actually work against us.  I don't bring it up these days when we are with the missionaries as I've already seen a few bad reactions to these claims when presented to some of the Hispanic investigators we visited. 

I have been embarrassed enough by their reactions that I've never actually pursued the question after that, so I'm not fully informed on WHY they do not see him as one of their own (talking about the non-white hispanics that we talked to) in being a non-white PoC or of a non-white ethnicity.  I only know that though members are very proud to see him as a PoC, the investigators (plural) that we've brought this up to at times in trying to empathize with them...did not see it in the same way and actually on several occasions seemed to be quite offended.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But with regard to Church leadership specifically:  I think one of the strengths of the Church is that theres no “leadership track” that individual members can pursue with the likely end of a role in the global church hierarchy.  Keeps the riffraff out.  I daresay that a number of secularist/ partisan think tanks have spent a lot of frustrating hours trying to figure out how they might infiltrate the LDS Q70/Q12 the way they’ve infiltrated the leadership of so many other modern institutions; to remarkably little avail.

Indeed.   Either the church is what it claims to be, or it isn't.  Either God's hand is in callings and growth into leadership, or it isn't.  Non-revelatory attempts to secularize the career track have no place in this church.  Unless current leadership, through inspiration and study and faith, wants a particular secular best practice to be part of the work.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I know Gong is considered a PoC, but is Soares really a PoC?

I KNOW what the church claims about Soares, I also know that in Brazil many consider him white, and that overall many consider him a majority of European descent.  The question is what is considered white vs. non-white?  These definitions can differ between Brazil and the U.S. in many ways. 

I also have seen minorities scoff at the idea of Soares being a PoC or being considered non-white in the U.S. when it's been brought up. 

I HAVE TO ADMIT I do not fully understand why, but I have seen this reaction.  Without knowing more about the why, I'm not sure repeating this often and loud is the smartest thing to do among those who may have a darker skin than Soares (the majority of racial minorities out there).

If he ISN'T seen as a minority by the majority of those who are minorities due to race, claiming he is a PoC may actually work against us.  I don't bring it up these days when we are with the missionaries as I've already seen a few bad reactions to these claims when presented to some of the Hispanic investigators we visited. 

I have been embarrassed enough by their reactions that I've never actually pursued the question after that, so I'm not fully informed on WHY they do not see him as one of their own (talking about the non-white hispanics that we talked to) in being a non-white PoC or of a non-white ethnicity.  I only know that though members are very proud to see him as a PoC, the investigators (plural) that we've brought this up to at times in trying to empathize with them...did not see it in the same way and actually on several occasions seemed to be quite offended.

 

You’re right about definitions varying.  Race, in Brazil, is tied just as much to economic status as to actual skin tone.  You can take two people of identical skin appearance, and based on dress and grooming and deportment and accent and other cues about wealth/stability, one will be dubbed “preto” (“dark”) and the other won’t. 

That’s another reason this whole business of whining about the race of the various members of the Q12 is so silly—progressive members are, ironically, imposing an American notion of what globalism is supposed to look like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Race

Love how in one breath we're told to treat everyone equally and racism is awful, and in the next we're told how we ought to persecute (and yes, that's what it is) one specific race because, you know, persecuting one race will surely elevate the rest of them.  Satan and his angels are laughing.  How grateful I am that God is in charge and Christ has already won the war and no matter what anyone else says or does, I get to choose which side I want to be on.

I will engage now in a prediction that just might rise to the level of prophecy: The day we have a person who everyone agrees is a (or a dozen) "person(s) of color", ordained to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, that person will testify and teach the exact same things as the rest of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ always have.  And the Church of Jesus Christ will continue to function the same as it did the day before he was ordained.  If some people are disappointed by any of that, it will be to their condemnation - unless they repent and come unto the Lord Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I also have seen minorities scoff at the idea of Soares being a PoC or being considered non-white in the U.S. when it's been brought up. 

Why bring it up?  You're falling into Satan's trap.  The "minority" to whom you are talking may not know they've fallen into Satan's trap, but you ought to.  There is one race - the children of God.  That we look different from one another due to a multitude of physical differences is so irrelevant that, as already mentioned, Satan is laughing.

If someone you're teaching thinks the leaders of the Church can't lead them because differences, teach them to repent of their pride.  I mean seriously, it's as absurd as saying Elder Eyring can't understand me cause dude is just way too tall (compared to me), and President Nelson is just way too fit (compared to me), and Elder Soares' nose is just too dang big (compared to mine), and half of them don't even have to wear glasses all the time (compared to me), oh, and they're not women (compared to me)!!  How can they possibly lead the Lord's church when they're so dang different from me (who, after all, is so danged important that everyone in charge of any church I belong to ought to look and think and say and act exactly as I do cuz, I mean just look at me!  I'm practically perfect in every way.)?  Or to quote Jordan Peterson, "What the [heck] do you know anyway?"

The proper answer for someone who brings up race or culture or gender or whatever as a complaint against the leadership of the Church is not political correctness, or "look how we're changing to match social norms, don't worry, we'll catch up eventually."  The answer is Jesus Christ.  Teach people that he is in charge.  Teach people to have faith in him.  Invite the Holy Ghost, who can testify to all who are humble enough to hear.  Teach that Jesus Christ can guide even someone as unworthy as an upper-middle-class white man. (Loaves and fishes, people, loaves and fishes!!!!)

How sad when we can't even see through Satan's smoke screen well enough to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zil2 said:

How sad when we can't even see through Satan's smoke screen well enough to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. :(

That's why it's important to speak up when fellow Saints start saying things that aren't in line with Christ's Church.  It's why I had a period where I was pretty upset with being bamboozled by wolves in sheep's clothing, even on here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean to detract from the conversation at all, and this may be a completely false perception on my part, but growing up I always figured that being called to high leadership positions in the chuch would require a certain level of prosperity on the part of that individual and their family so they could financially support themselves beyond the (I assume) humble expense stipends they may receive.

At the end of the day, Christ prepares those who He calls to lead His church. The idea of church leaders being out of touch or unable to relate has been brought up several times before. I always remember a talk by Elder Holland where he said: "Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times. As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings." Prophets in the Land Again

Either the church is truly led by Christ or it is not. My testimony is firm in Christ as my personal Savior. Everything else is just an appendage to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

That's why it's important to speak up when fellow Saints start saying things that aren't in line with Christ's Church.  It's why I had a period where I was pretty upset with being bamboozled by wolves in sheep's clothing, even on here.  

For the record, I am not nearly smart enough to know that all this business is Satan's smoke screen.  Hugh Nibley (Approaching Zion, chapter 4) taught me that it was:

Quote

Satan's masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction. This is the polarization we find in our world today. Thus we have the choice between Shiz and Coriantumr--which all Jaredites were obliged to make. We have the choice between the wicked Lamanites (and they were that) and the equally wicked (Mormon says "more wicked") Nephites. Or between the fleshpots of Egypt and the stews of Babylon, or between the land pirates and the sea pirates of World War I, or between white supremacy and black supremacy, or between Vietnam and Cambodia, or between Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers, or between China and Russia, or between Catholic and Protestant, or between fundamentalist and atheist, or between right and left--all of which are true rivals, who hate each other. A very clever move of Satan!--a subtlety that escapes us most of the time. So I ask Latter-day Saints, "What is your position frankly (I'd like to take a vote here) regarding the merits of cigarettes vs. cigars, wine vs. beer, or heroin vs. LSD?" It should be apparent that you take no sides. By its nature the issue does not concern you. It is simply meaningless as far as your life is concerned. "What, are you not willing to stand up and be counted?" No, I am not.

And thereafter, I was able to learn the principle.  Race, gender, sexuality, politics - Satan has led is a little way down his road and then presented us with what appear to be choices: well, either you're a bigot or your not, either you're racist or not, either love is love or it's not.  And in every case, Satan defines both "is" and "not", and neither of his definitions is God's.

Be brave, people!  Stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ and his restored Church and gospel.  It will only get harder, so start practicing your bravery now.  Resolve now to be persecuted for his name's sake.

Quote

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

"The Church is racist." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

"The Church is sexist." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

"The Church is hateful." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

"The Church persecutes LGBTQ+ people" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

"Church leaders are out of touch" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

"Church leaders don't know what life is like elsewhere in the world / for people different from themselves" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"

....etc.

"Well, they're not saying evil against me, just the leaders of the Church, just some of our teachings, just..." - if you are a covenant member of Christ's Church, then yes, speaking evil against it or its leaders (whom you covenanted to sustain) is speaking even against you and you are obligated by covenant to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death..."  So be brave, and stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rcthompson88 said:

a talk by Elder Holland where he said: "Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times. As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings."

I had a friend who thought the way Elder Holland describes at the start.  Later she got a job in the Church office building and had occasion to attend meetings where GAs (and I think at least once, one of the Apostles) were in attendance.  It took exactly one such meeting for her to come away completely humbled and of the opinion Elder Holland ends with.

Praise God that so many of us are blessed to know by the Holy Ghost that Elder Holland's words are true, without needing to witness it first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Before he was an airline pilot, Elder Uchtdorf was a refugee, twice.

He also learned to fly in the West German Air Force, something that also keeps being forgotten. 

In any nation that has both a functioning air force and at least one functional civilian airline, as those military pilots come to the end of their time in service they'll generally head on off to the civilian airline to continue their employment as pilots. 

I don't see any listings as to what aircraft he flew, but given the time in which he served there is a *very* real chance that he was trained to operate the F-104 family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

For those of you who don't know, it was once joked that the cheapest way to acquire an F-104 was to purchase a plot of land and wait. This is because the flight characteristics of the F-104 were such that there was an alarmingly high incidence rate of aviation accidents, particularly among... the West German Air Force. 

From Wiki:

The introduction of a highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed air force was fraught with problems. Many pilots and ground crew had settled into civilian jobs after World War II and had not kept pace with developments, with pilots being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first-generation jet aircraft. Ground crew were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in the poor weather conditions of northwest Europe (unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). A total of 116 pilots were lost in West German F-104 accidents, including 1 ground-crew passenger and 8 USAF instructors.

Take this into consideration when you think about his time as a pilot.

And yes, there's another pipeline in place wherein pilots go to business school and become executives in whatever airline they fly for once they start reaching the age in which they'd otherwise be squeezed out of the cockpit. So it's not a surprise that he'd have gone on to become a VP. [

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an upper middle class White guy myself, I'm very gratified in the discussion my comment has generated.  It caused some people to think.

I'm a slight Horatio Alger story myself, as I paid my own way through college and came from a monetarily very humble background.  But the US is still the greatest land of opportunity ever, and I took advantage.

But I think my point still stands.  A son of mine recently moved with his family, to Utah Valley from California, and the cultural contrasts are subtle but distinct.  And this culture is very noticeable in Church leadership (who, BTW I support unreservedly).

An old example, but I remember a program called Block Teaching.  It was renamed Ward Teaching or Home Teaching sometime in the 1950s.  Why the rename?  The Church was so Utah centric that Home teaching was assigned in literal neighborhood Blocks so the teacher could walk to his assignment.  It took a while, but someone at HQ realized that this terminology didn't translate well in the hinterlands where it was impossible to walk to do the monthly teaching.  Totally unconscious by leadership, they were just naming the program due to their experiences.  Similar things happen today.

At some level, we are all products of our cultural experiences and upbringing.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

He also learned to fly in the West German Air Force, something that also keeps being forgotten. 

In any nation that has both a functioning air force and at least one functional civilian airline, as those military pilots come to the end of their time in service they'll generally head on off to the civilian airline to continue their employment as pilots. 

I don't see any listings as to what aircraft he flew, but given the time in which he served there is a *very* real chance that he was trained to operate the F-104 family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

For those of you who don't know, it was once joked that the cheapest way to acquire an F-104 was to purchase a plot of land and wait. This is because the flight characteristics of the F-104 were such that there was an alarmingly high incidence rate of aviation accidents, particularly among... the West German Air Force. 

From Wiki:

The introduction of a highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed air force was fraught with problems. Many pilots and ground crew had settled into civilian jobs after World War II and had not kept pace with developments, with pilots being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first-generation jet aircraft. Ground crew were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in the poor weather conditions of northwest Europe (unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). A total of 116 pilots were lost in West German F-104 accidents, including 1 ground-crew passenger and 8 USAF instructors.

Take this into consideration when you think about his time as a pilot.

And yes, there's another pipeline in place wherein pilots go to business school and become executives in whatever airline they fly for once they start reaching the age in which they'd otherwise be squeezed out of the cockpit. So it's not a surprise that he'd have gone on to become a VP. [

As someone who has traveled to Germany extensively, I can say that for sure Elder Uchtdorf did not come from some underprivileged background.  Granted his family may have experienced some problems following WW2.  But Germany is a very stratified society, and he could not have flown as an officer in the German military or held his job at Lufthansa, without some level of status in society.  What we here may call privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

As an upper middle class White guy myself, I'm very gratified in the discussion my comment has generated.  It caused some people to think.

I'm a slight Horatio Alger story myself, as I paid my own way through college and came from a monetarily very humble background.  But the US is still the greatest land of opportunity ever, and I took advantage.

But I think my point still stands.  A son of mine recently moved with his family, to Utah Valley from California, and the cultural contrasts are subtle but distinct.  And this culture is very noticeable in Church leadership (who, BTW I support unreservedly).

An old example, but I remember a program called Block Teaching.  It was renamed Ward Teaching or Home Teaching sometime in the 1950s.  Why the rename?  The Church was so Utah centric that Home teaching was assigned in literal neighborhood Blocks so the teacher could walk to his assignment.  It took a while, but someone at HQ realized that this terminology didn't translate well in the hinterlands where it was impossible to walk to do the monthly teaching.  Totally unconscious by leadership, they were just naming the program due to their experiences.  Similar things happen today.

At some level, we are all products of our cultural experiences and upbringing.

Your point doesn't "stand" though, and the majority of the discussion/thinking has been that your point was way off and you were wrong.  You say you support them unreservedly, but you suggest there were better options.  This is what I was referring to in my previous posts.

This is Christ's restored Church.  I trust he knows what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

Genesis 4:5-7

Quote

Genesis 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Does not in any way take precedence over the Book of Mormon verses that I quoted - quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Does not in any way take precedence over the Book of Mormon verses that I quoted - quite the opposite.

And in case we need a second witness (not that we should, but) the parable of the wheat and tares, and this from the Lord in D&C 86:

Quote

6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe;

The prophet will tell us when the harvest is fully ripe.  In the meantime, we should not be trying to kick people out, but to help them stay in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

  In the meantime, we should not be trying to kick people out, but to help them stay in.

Not trying to kick people out.

But encourage them to recognize their choices and act accordingly.  

I can't kick anyone out.  One can only damn ones self. 

Be careful out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

Not trying to kick people out.

But encourage them to recognize their choices and act accordingly.  

I can't kick anyone out.  One can only damn ones self. 

Be careful out there. 

Splitting hairs.  Whatever you intended, if you didn't know it, your words sounded like, "go find another church".  If you didn't intend to say that, just know that that's how it read and consider that going forward.  If you did, sorry, but you were in the wrong to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

As someone who has traveled to Germany extensively, I can say that for sure Elder Uchtdorf did not come from some underprivileged background.  Granted his family may have experienced some problems following WW2.  But Germany is a very stratified society, and he could not have flown as an officer in the German military or held his job at Lufthansa, without some level of status in society.  What we here may call privilege.

Holy understatement, Batman!

Ethnic German family that had been in Czechoslovakia for some time, kicked out after WW2, then had to flee eastern Germany because his dad opposed Stalin— (oh—wait—maybe THAT’s why the proggies have soured on Uchtdorf!) . . . 

Given that West Germany’s second chancellor was the son of a shopkeeper and its third chancellor was the son of a factory clerk (not to mention the failed artist son of an illegitimate customs clerk who had been running the show in Germany a few years before), I’m going to assert with some level of confidence that mid-20th century German society wasn’t quite as rigid as you seem to suggest here.  It seems that we have no grounds for asserting that Uchtdorf’s “privilege” amounted to anything more than being middle class and ethnically German in a country that even today is 88% ethnically German.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2023 at 1:16 AM, askandanswer said:

There are 12 men in the Quorum of the Twelve. One is of German/Austrian background, another has a Chinese background and the newest has a British background. That's one quarter of them

And one is from Brazil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2023 at 1:53 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Holy understatement, Batman!

Ethnic German family that had been in Czechoslovakia for some time, kicked out after WW2, then had to flee eastern Germany because his dad opposed Stalin— (oh—wait—maybe THAT’s why the proggies have soured on Uchtdorf!) . . . 

Given that West Germany’s second chancellor was the son of a shopkeeper and its third chancellor was the son of a factory clerk (not to mention the failed artist son of an illegitimate customs clerk who had been running the show in Germany a few years before), I’m going to assert with some level of confidence that mid-20th century German society wasn’t quite as rigid as you seem to suggest here.  It seems that we have no grounds for asserting that Uchtdorf’s “privilege” amounted to anything more than being middle class and ethnically German in a country that even today is 88% ethnically German.

We will have to disagree on this.  I know many Germans.  I have been in their homes and interacted on many social occasions.  These (my friends) are not LDS people.

German society is stratified.  I don't have time to examine the examples you posit above, but you can trust me in this.  It's not obvious to an outsider.  And wasn't to me for many years.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2023 at 12:02 PM, Grunt said:

Your point doesn't "stand" though, and the majority of the discussion/thinking has been that your point was way off and you were wrong.  You say you support them unreservedly, but you suggest there were better options.  This is what I was referring to in my previous posts.

This is Christ's restored Church.  I trust he knows what he's doing.

Have you ever spent any significant amount of time in Utah Valley?  The LDS based culture is strong-for good and bad.

I never suggested better options.  I merely asked if any other people were ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...