Is the Church Ready to Have a Racially Diverse Leadership?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm always dismayed by these kinds of posts that project bad thoughts, bad faith, bad feelings on unbelievers.

I neither said, nor thought, nor implied anything about bad faith on the author's part.

The way you've constructed the question, Zee is a bad guy either way.

I don't think his current state is good -- does that surprise you? seriously? -- so, in a very limited way, you're right. But it's a very, very limited way.

Either he was always cynical and venomous (which would explain his apostasy),

I don't think it would be a total explanation, but it might be at least a partial one.

or his apostasy caused him to change for the worse (which of course validates the notion that apostasy is bad, evil, wrong).

You can't, with a straight face, possibly expect me to believe that apostasy is a change for the better, or even a matter of indifference, or to agree with the notion that apostasy is good, righteous, and right.

If that's the way you want believing Latter-day Saints to feel on this board, you might as well invite the few of us who post here to leave.

Isn't possible that you're reading too much into it?

It's certainly possible that you've read far more into my comment than is there.

And if the church really isn't true and has caused the kind of pain that Zee and I and others have experienced, I'd say we have a right to be angry and cynical about the church, at least for a while. The trick is to get over it and not let it fester.

You have the right to feel any emotions you choose. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

And I have the right to view things from the perspective that the Church is true, and to doubt that the Church, as such, was the sole or even primary cause of the pain that you claim to have suffered.

I think what you said here is more toxic...

De gustibus non est disputandum.

your basically off-handed insulting him,

Not even remotely. But I am, quite clearly, expressing disapproval.

"Kumbaya," anyone? Is this an agreement-only board now? (Or does that apply only to me?)

making a judgment on his past faithfulness.

That's quite explicitly what I didn't do.

your not asking a question, your trying to make a statement.

I asked two questions.

Your statement is wrong.

And you, in fact, just did make a statement. (Are statements no longer permitted here? Does the prohibition apply just to me? Have I missed a new rule?)

[_Doctor Scratch]

There's no question that problems of racism continue to linger in the Church, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume that a good chunk of the Twelve/FP are racist on some level. They have just gotten much better at hiding this. After the tremendous smack-down they endured during the 1970s (culminating in the lifting of the ban, of course), they've learned their lesson.

As for Dr. Peterson's suggestion that racial diversity will "eventually" happen---I think this is the right time to point out that the Church believes in the notion of continuing revelation. The Brethren can do whatever they like. Plus, as several people have persuasively argued, racial diversity has the potential to function as a powerful PR/missionary tool. You really have to ask: What is it that's preventing the Brethren from capitalizing upon this opportunity?

Perhaps the best litmus test for determining their racism, though, would be their reaction to one of their children or grandchildren entering into an interracial relationship/marriage. Admittedly, we can't know how they'd react, but I think it's worth noting that "counseling" interracial couples about "problems" they're likely to encounter is quite widespread among Church ecclesiastical leaders. I.e., it's not uncommon for bishops to "warn" interracial couples about the "difficulties" that they're likely to encounter, which is about as perniciously subtle a form of racism as one could imagine.

[_Scottie]

You can't, with a straight face, possibly expect me to believe that apostasy is a change for the better, or even a matter of indifference, or to agree with the notion that apostasy is good, righteous, and right.

For about a year after my apostasy, I would agree with you. I was bitter, angry and I wished with all my heart that I could un-ring the bell that led me out of the church. I'm quite certain I made similar comments.

Now, it amazes me that I was ever happy in the LDS Church. I am SO much happier being out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I.e., it's not uncommon for bishops to "warn" interracial couples about the "difficulties" that they're likely to encounter, which is about as perniciously subtle a form of racism as one could imagine.

I think it's simple realism.

I've counseled interracial couples myself, and have always discussed the problems they might encounter. And I was delighted to send them to the temple.

But it's not surprising to see Scratch, as he typically does, ascribe bad motives to believing Latter-day Saints.

[_zeezrom]

Dan,

For the record, I'm not bitter about Heavenly Father and his racist comments made in the Book of Mormon and the ones he made to latter-day prophets. I understand that he has some problems he needs to work through. Over time, I'm confident he will come around.

I am at peace with your god and I hope you can come to terms with mine.

Zee.

[_Daniel Peterson]

your god

My God's title is capitalized. Even Bertrand Russell had sufficient class and maturity to capitalize the word.

[Guest]

Here's the thing, Dan: Did you also "counsel" interfaith couples in a similar way? How about overweight couples? Couples with physical disabilities? Couples where one of the people has a mental illness? Or was your "realism" just limited to the issue of race?

Regardless, there's something remarkably strange about your description of sitting down a young couple and scaring/lecturing them about all the problems they're going to face, and then punting them off to go get sealed for Time & Eternity in the temple. It would be like the missionaries telling a potential convert about all the controversies, difficulties, and hardships they'll face as members of the Church, only to smilingly usher them off to the baptismal font. Frankly, I'm stunned that you can't see the problems inherent in this, Dr. Peterson. I genuinely hope that you've stopped with this "realism," and that you've resolved to treat interracial couples the same way you treat white couples.

[_zeezrom]

your god

My God's title is capitalized. Even Bertrand Russell had sufficient class and maturity to capitalize the word.

Fine. Your God. I hope you know I'm not bitter. Neither is Heavenly Mother. We have moved on.

[_Rambo]

your god

My God's title is capitalized. Even Bertrand Russell had sufficient class and maturity to capitalize the word.

I remember when we use to talk about becoming a god. It was always a non capitalized g when saying we can become a god. When we talked about our God it was always the capitalized one. I wonder if God's father is a capitalized one or not.

[_Scottie]

Scratch,

You can pretend all you like that there won't be problems with inter-racial marriages, but the sad, real fact is that they will have issues to deal with that same-race couples will not.

While I don't necessarily agree with the word "warn", I think it is prudent to do as Dr Peterson has said and at least inform the couple that there will be additional trials on top of the standard trials that traditional marriage brings.