[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You think something like talks in GC are just PC; I think you would be annoyed if every talk was given in a language other than English and then translated. I know many people who refuse to watch a foreign movie for that very reason.

I don't think you'd find me choosing not to listen to what was said, simply because the talk is translated. I'm not going to tune out the first Spanish-speaking talk in Conference, simply because there's an English voice-over.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is incredibly ironic that your concern with giving talks in other languages is that it "is an impossible task to not leave someone out...." And your solution, therefore, is to leave everyone out equally OTHER than you and your fellow English speakers? Hmm...

I think the effort to include everyone for that sake is a losing battle. And I already said, I don't consider it "leaving people out." You do.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you dispute it, give reasons for the dispute.

I thought you just indicated it wasn't desirable because President Hinckley hasn't shown it to be desirable. If you find it to be desirable, then isn't the church falling short of doing something it should be doing?

Originally Posted by UteStar

Then why do you find it desirable Tex?

I may have overreached a little and probably should clarify. I find diversity of experience very valuable and desirable. An engineer and a poet are going to approach a problem differently, and will often think of things the other did not consider. In collaboration, the two can concoct a more perfect solution.

In addition, I don't deny that a Chinaman will know more about what it's like to be Chinese than an American who is born and raised in America, and simply studies China--or even lives there for a while.

I guess it boils down to two issues:

1. The idea that racial diversity leads to de facto better decisions as a church. Or its corollary: that the white man is incapable of comprehending enough about other cultures to properly administrate their circumstances.

2. The idea that priesthood callings should be extended as part of an effort to "send a message."

I principally disagree with both of those. I say simply: get the right man. Someday the right man will be a non-white. (Just recently the right man was a non-American, and I cheered it!) But he will be selected because he is the man God wants, not because his skin color "sends a message."