Without assessing fault or blame

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Frankly I think a few people on this board suffer from White Guilt.

Something maybe you could use a good dose of. How do you define white guilt?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Something maybe you could use a good dose of. How do you define white guilt?

I define it as feeling guilty for being white.

Pretty simple, really.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I define it as feeling guilty for being white.

Pretty simple, really.

What about any part of this thread makes you think someone feels guilty for being white? Don't be an asshole.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So flat organizations don't gain benefit from diversity in leadership? I'm just not seeing it.

I'm sure your dad felt like he had flexibility to handle issues in his stake, but no stake president has control over or even much input into issues like:

how to spend media dollars
where to put missionary resources
teaching curriculum
global church policy
doctrinal statements and interpretations
influence over millions of saints not hundreds
authority and position to meet with high ranking government officials
influence on BYU
influence on large scale humanitarian efforts

Isn't it a bit patronizing to tell the "local" leaders, you're good enough and your input is valued at the local level where your sphere of influence is teeny, but us white, Utahns will handle it from there?

Well, until a new policy is put into place where GAs/Apostles/Prophets are replaced by events not involving death, what do you suggest?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, until a new policy is put into place where GAs/Apostles/Prophets are replaced by events not involving death, what do you suggest?

Apparently Hugh B. Brown pushed for a policy that would require mandatory emeritus status at 75 years old. Had such a policy been adopted Brown would have immediately been made emeritus (perhaps that's why he proposed it). I'm not aware of any others in the 12 having been in support of his suggestion. I thought that was interesting.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So flat organizations don't gain benefit from diversity in leadership? I'm just not seeing it.

I'm sure your dad felt like he had flexibility to handle issues in his stake, but no stake president has control over or even much input into issues like:

how to spend media dollars
where to put missionary resources
teaching curriculum
global church policy
doctrinal statements and interpretations
influence over millions of saints not hundreds
authority and position to meet with high ranking government officials
influence on BYU
influence on large scale humanitarian efforts

Nonetheless, it speaks to the concern that minorities feel less loved or less welcome because their leaders don't look like them or speak their language.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Isn't it a bit patronizing to tell the "local" leaders, you're good enough and your input is valued at the local level where your sphere of influence is teeny, but us white, Utahns will handle it from there?

I think the thing that chafes me more than anything in this discussion is the attitude some of you folks have. I don't think anyone here is arguing that there is nothing good to be gained at all from having non-Utah, non-white men involved in high church leadership.

What bothers me--and maybe this is my problem--is the condescension, even near hostility, about the idea.

It isn't: "Gee, wouldn't it be neat to have an African apostle? That would really illustrate how far we've come from the pre-1978 days."

Instead it's:
"The GA's are basically saying: Hey you non-whites, we're going to patronize you by denying you influence over anything other than your measly little stakes."
"The 12 are just a "good ol' boys" club from the benches. They're so busy calling their own friends and family to the apostleship that they don't bother to look at the talent across the church."
"GA's need to 'get out on the world scene' and see how things really are."
"There's no way a white Utah man can really understand another culture or make informed decisions about how to direct the church in that culture."
"The views of minority races and cultures are not given proper weight in the church today--and the church can't govern efficiently otherwise."

And on and on. There's this stunning top-down hubris that grates me, and it's probably why I dig in my heels.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, until a new policy is put into place where GAs/Apostles/Prophets are replaced by events not involving death, what do you suggest?

I'm not as aggressive about placing blame on this issue, and I haven't if you read my posts. In fact, in the last thread this came up I was on your side because the argument was more of how to do it not why we need it. The how is very difficult, because of how slow the turnover is, and how the pool of candidates for an apostle is much less diverse than the general church, etc. I'm talking theoretical here about the virtues and benefits of diversity.

As for how this turns to action, I just hope church leadership recognize the benefits of diversity and are actively and conciously trying to bring it to pass as fast as possible (which may be a long time). And I don't really have any evidence to say they aren't.

I actually disagree with one of Tex's points on this where he said GBH, being very globally aware comparatively, has made three apostle choices lately that didn't do anything to increase diversity. I disagree, as I believe the Elder Uchtdorf calling was a fairly large step towards that end.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I actually disagree with one of Tex's points on this where he said GBH, being very globally aware comparatively, has made three apostle choices lately that didn't do anything to increase diversity. I disagree, as I believe the Elder Uchtdorf calling was a fairly large step towards that end.

Actually I agree with you. I grouped him in with the other two because of someone else who grouped "white European" into the list of non-starters.

The church was quick to point out, it should be noted, other non-American apostles (I think Uchtdorf is the 6th?).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Apparently Hugh B. Brown pushed for a policy that would require mandatory emeritus status at 75 years old. Had such a policy been adopted Brown would have immediately been made emeritus (perhaps that's why he proposed it). I'm not aware of any others in the 12 having been in support of his suggestion. I thought that was interesting.

That' an interesting idea, and I think it the idea actually has some legs. As medical technology increases and average life span extends, the 12 will become older and older, and we very well may have a string of prophets that are 95-105 years old. That could prompt a change in the policy.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Nonetheless, it speaks to the concern that minorities feel less loved or less welcome because their leaders don't look like them or speak their language.



I think the thing that chafes me more than anything in this discussion is the attitude some of you folks have. I don't think anyone here is arguing that there is nothing good to be gained at all from having non-Utah, non-white men involved in high church leadership.

What bothers me--and maybe this is my problem--is the condescension, even near hostility, about the idea.

It isn't: "Gee, wouldn't it be neat to have an African apostle? That would really illustrate how far we've come from the pre-1978 days."

Instead it's:
"The GA's are basically saying: Hey you non-whites, we're going to patronize you by denying you influence over anything other than your measly little stakes."
"The 12 are just a "good ol' boys" club from the benches. They're so busy calling their own friends and family to the apostleship that they don't bother to look at the talent across the church."
"GA's need to 'get out on the world scene' and see how things really are."
"There's no way a white Utah man can really understand another culture or make informed decisions about how to direct the church in that culture."
"The views of minority races and cultures are not given proper weight in the church today--and the church can't govern efficiently otherwise."

And on and on. There's this stunning top-down hubris that grates me, and it's probably why I dig in my heels.

I can't speak for others. But I don't feel that way. I actually got that connotation from Indy's post, and I was responding to the feeling I got from that which seemed like he was saying the "local" (read: different colored folks) can handle stake prez but nothing higher.