Without assessing fault or blame

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

It is hard for me to understand why anyone would think that leadership that is not reflective of the membership experientially, geographically, racially or linguistically is not a bad thing. Without some point of reference how does one craft policies that adequately address the issues that are unique to some locale. If the church is to be the most effective instrument it is a no brainer that the leadership needs to be less Utah-Western U.S. centric.

One of the obvious ones is single members vs. married. It's hard for many married members, especially those who married young to understand the needs of single adults. The church is getting better at it, but it's taken a long time.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by BlueK

One of the obvious ones is single members vs. married. It's hard for many married members, especially those who married young to understand the needs of single adults. The church is getting better at it, but it's taken a long time.

Getting better but still problematic. An average single/student ward is comprised of 57% women compared to 43% men. Men love to hang out at the mingles to graze and have deep seated fears of commitment. My hypothesis (faith based SU) is that the older a man gets, the less likely he is to marry. Would love empirical evidence to subtantiate.....

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't necessarily believe that God does select most of our leaders. I believe that God approves of our leaders after the remaining leaders contemplate and pray about a replacement for a leader who has passed away. For this reason, I believe that most of our leaders tend to come from a small inner circle of people, largely Utahns, almost universally American and white.

If this is true, then one has to ask if the current leaders are really pondering those outside of their inner circle for leadership positions. If it is not true, then it is just the way it is and God has a reason for it. I don't think the evidence suggests that God is actively selecting church leaders, though, other than perhaps a handful. In general, I think the evidence suggests that God lets people work things out on their own and then confirms that what they have chosen can work out and be acceptable (which doesn't imply that what they have chosen is the only way or even the best way).

Therefore implying that someone such as, say...yourself could and would make a more appropriate decision in regards to calling a new leader.

It's a fascinating theory, but I think that you ultimately place limitations on divinity to assume that God does not prepare our leaders, does not place the appropriate people in the path of current leaders, to subsequently be considered in those decisions. The way you describe it sounds like you very much believe it to be the "luck of the draw" if you will. If you by chance HAPPEN to be born on the bench, and you HAPPEN to grow up in a good family, and you find yourself friends with GA's in this ward that chance drove you to be in then you might just find yourself being called to be a GA.

This is good information to have. I think I'd like to be the mother of a GA, so someday when I get married I'll tell my husband that we have to move to the bench, because that's clearly how one gets called.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Getting better but still problematic. An average single/student ward is comprised of 57% women compared to 43% men. Men love to hang out at the mingles to graze and have deep seated fears of commitment. My hypothesis (faith based SU) is that the older a man gets, the less likely he is to marry. Would love empirical evidence to subtantiate.....

Here's the biggest issue I see. People in general are marrying at a later age than in the past (both men and women) and the church is no different. We can say that's good or bad, but it's a fact whether we like the trend or not, and therefore we should try to deal with it. The church does alright addressing the needs of the YSA's and even the older (40-45+ year olds), IMO, but is awful at serving the middle group (late 20s and 30s). The age 30 cutoff for singles wards is arbitrary and silly. In reality there is no difference between a single adult in their late 20s or early 30s, so why the cutoff there? Maybe it made some sense back in the day when more people married young and most YSA wards were comprised of mostly people in their early 20s. But outside of college towns that's not what most singles wards really look like anymore. Especially in metro areas you have a lot of young professionals and fewer of the really young ones who are off at school. In today's culture it doesn't really fit anymore and I think it would make more sense to make the distinction between college-type wards for 18-25 or so and then make a separate group for ages 26 to 40. When people leave college and go into the workforce is where the real change comes in life and that's where the line should be, IMO.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't necessarily believe that God does select most of our leaders. I believe that God approves of our leaders after the remaining leaders contemplate and pray about a replacement for a leader who has passed away. For this reason, I believe that most of our leaders tend to come from a small inner circle of people, largely Utahns, almost universally American and white.

If this is true, then one has to ask if the current leaders are really pondering those outside of their inner circle for leadership positions. If it is not true, then it is just the way it is and God has a reason for it. I don't think the evidence suggests that God is actively selecting church leaders, though, other than perhaps a handful. In general, I think the evidence suggests that God lets people work things out on their own and then confirms that what they have chosen can work out and be acceptable (which doesn't imply that what they have chosen is the only way or even the best way).

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Not to put myself out there as Sis. Humility, but it seems to me that it takes a certain level of arrogance for one to assume that they can evaluate the needs of church members, and subsequently conclude that there is a need for changes in church leadership better than God.

Have we no faith that God will provide the appropriate leaders for the times, or have we now gone so far as to no longer believe that God selects our leaders?

The idea that God selects our leaders appears to be a minority view around here.

Parenthetically, it is interesting that some constantly jump down my throat for daring to opine about what God thinks or how he operates, but they have no problem presuming to know what's best for the entire membership at large.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you suggesting that the Lord is so proactive in His affairs with the brethren that they don't even have to ask a question to receive an answer?

Translation: "Let me make a straw man out of your argument so I can knock it down."

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That no matter what, the brethren will be prompted to do what they are supposed to do or to do what is best for the church? Well, the presidents of the church would take issue with your argument, as would the scriptures.

Translation: "I just pinned my straw man for a 3-count."

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The leaders of the church are supposed to ponder an issue, resolve it in their minds, and then pray for confirmation. In fact, there is nothing in your story to suggest that this didn't occur in exactly that fashion. Building a temple in Germany is something that would have been on the minds of church leaders who were thinking globally (and nobody is suggesting that our church leaders don't attempt to think globally). It isn't the obvious global questions that we are concerned with here- it is the issues that are not obvious, even to a person who has lots of familiarity with a culture.

And your statement of "diversity for diversity's sake" is just a distraction from the actual discussion. You know that nobody is promoting "diversity for diversity's sake." In fact, many exceptional reasons have been given for the usefulness of diversity (and you have even offered some of your own). To then fall back on your trite line is disingenuous and shallow.

I think that's exactly what you're promoting.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I have no idea what it means to "be born on the bench." I would say that I don't find the theory to be particularly fascinating because I think it has been around for a long time and is supported by most of the evidence in church history.

East benchers, AKA the Mormon elite.

You might be right, I might be wrong. My tendency is to believe that if there is really someone that can do a better job, and should be in a position of leadership, they would be.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Doesn't that suggest that no apostle should ever be kicked out of the Quorum of the 12 or that no apostle could ever apostatize?

Wouldn't God know that they were going to apostatize and prevent them from ever being named as an apostle in the first place?

Wouldn't it suggest that God would have told Joseph Smith that under no circumstances could he give the Book of Lehi to someone else, and when Smith asked again, He would have still told him absolutely not?

And we have Mormon elite living on a bench in the East?

No, I don't see how calling the right person with the appropriate capabilities also strips them of their free agency.

Are you not in Utah?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It doesn't strip them of their free agency. But you indicated that God would only call people who would be better than others. If that is the case, then wouldn't God only call people who wouldn't later exercise their free agency to the detriment of the church, since, presumably, He would know they would do just that?

I am not Utah Coug.

She did not say..."GOd would only call people who would be better than others.".....you know how to take a few words out of a sentence and twist them into meaning something different.

This is classic dishonest CaliCoug debate style. Taking something someone says and then actually make it sound like she said something completely different.

It is okay to be honest Cali. You need to learn how to debate without being dishonest.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It doesn't strip them of their free agency. But you indicated that God would only call people who would be better than others. If that is the case, then wouldn't God only call people who wouldn't later exercise their free agency to the detriment of the church, since, presumably, He would know they would do just that?

I am not Utah Coug.

Well I suppose that's one way of twisting things, but certainly no the intent behind the post. The meaning that I INTENDED to relay was that the leaders that are called are those with the necessary capabilities to fulfill the calling. Whether or not they choose to fulfill the calling is still free agency.

I have work to do, why are we playing these word games?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ironic, given that you have also said it would be "desirable" to have a more diverse leadership (though in your defense you also said it wouldn't be desirable, making it possible for you to take any position at all on the subject).

Racial diversity "for the sake of" is all I really oppose. In other words, I reject the idea that black people will feel more "loved and included" when we call our first black apostle.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not sure you know what a straw man argument looks like (kind of akin to the appeal to authority fallacy we discussed earlier). If you take issue with my characterization of your post, tell me why and we can discuss it.

Okay. "Are you suggesting that the Lord is so proactive in His affairs with the brethren that they don't even have to ask a question to receive an answer?"

No.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I have noticed you tend to resort to the "translation" issue with regularity when you start to lose an argument.
Back to undesirable, I see.

I've noticed you start to dicker with my debate style and choice of words when you run out of substance.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Doesn't that suggest that no apostle should ever be kicked out of the Quorum of the 12 or that no apostle could ever apostatize?

Wouldn't God know that they were going to apostatize and prevent them from ever being named as an apostle in the first place?
...

If that is the case, then wouldn't God only call people who wouldn't later exercise their free agency to the detriment of the church, since, presumably, He would know they would do just that?

I would take one step back from what BDB said. Rather than saying he picks the "better man" for the job, I'd say he picks the right man for the job. In other words, he picks the man he wants to fulfill whatever purposes he has in mind.

All men's choices fit into the plan of the creator, whether they want to or not. Even Judas played a necessary role.