Without assessing fault or blame

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is it your contention that GAs are not "getting out on the world scene"?

That is not my contention. My contention is that I would like to seem them doing it more, and specifically helping along the things I mentioned.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You being from Texas ...

I really don't know either because I'm just a white boy from Utah, but based on my experience in the world, I know there's a lot I don't know, and no matter how hard I try to understand I never will, that comes from my geographic, racial, and cultural background.

It's hard to find examples of something when we've never had a racially diverse leadership.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The best example I can give you is the perception of some Latinos I know that they would like talks in general conference to be in Spanish. They asked me why talks weren't in Spanish, and I told them I had no idea. The thought had never even occurred to me. When they asked, it seemed blatantly obvious. It certainly would send a message of inclusivity. I have hoped for such a talk ever since that day.

It seems the best example anyone has been able to offer is the PC message it sends, which was exactly what I said is the core why you folks want it. While the church's image is obviously important to the brethren, I'm not so sure these PC concerns rank real high on the list.

If they did, I think a man like Hinckley would've addressed them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It seems the best example anyone has been able to offer is the PC message it sends, which was exactly what I said is the core why you folks want it. While the church's image is obviously important to the brethren, I'm not so sure these PC concerns rank real high on the list.

If they did, I think a man like Hinckley would've addressed them.

It's not PC for people to show people of other cultures respect by speaking their language. If all talks are in English, it means nonEnglish speaking members remain on the outside looking inside.

And to state "a man like Hinckley would've addressed them," is not an argument. He's not a polyglot and served his mission in England, so he may not be sensitive to that issue, no mattter how a good a man he is. I'm certain there are a myriad of other culturally-related issues which our leaders ignore out of ignorance, not out of good sentiments.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

It seems the best example anyone has been able to offer is the PC message it sends, which was exactly what I said is the core why you folks want it. While the church's image is obviously important to the brethren, I'm not so sure these PC concerns rank real high on the list.

If they did, I think a man like Hinckley would've addressed them.

What I wrote has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with getting the global church meaningfully involved in its own administration. I'm not pushing tokenism and I'm not pushing some kind of quota. When the inspiring and useful thoughts of Mormons of many cultures and nationalities are being broadly circulated, we'll all benefit from the additional perspective. You'll see citations from people whose names you might not be able to pronounce popping up in your lesson manual, but you'll love it because what they're saying rings with the truth of the Spirit.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not PC for people to show people of other cultures respect by speaking their language. If all talks are in English, it means nonEnglish speaking members remain on the outside looking inside.

And to state "a man like Hinckley would've addressed them," is not an argument. He's not a polyglot and served his mission in England, so he may not be sensitive to that issue, no mattter how a good a man he is. I'm certain there are a myriad of other culturally-related issues which our leaders ignore out of ignorance, not out of good sentiments.

Have you not read Hinckley's biography? He has TONS of intimate experience with organizing the church outside the US, especially in Asia. There is no church leader that is more well-traveled and met with more peoples than President Hinckley.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It seems the best example anyone has been able to offer is the PC message it sends, which was exactly what I said is the core why you folks want it. While the church's image is obviously important to the brethren, I'm not so sure these PC concerns rank real high on the list.

If they did, I think a man like Hinckley would've addressed them.

What? It ISN'T a PC message! It is a message of inclusivity and caring, and it is a message that means an awful lot to the people who receive it. Saying it is just PC is about as intelligent as saying that sending aid to foreign nations is just PC. It may ALSO be PC, but it is something far more significant than that.

And nobody is disputing that these issues don't rank high on the list of the GAs. What I am saying is that they SHOULD rank high on their list.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not PC for people to show people of other cultures respect by speaking their language. If all talks are in English, it means nonEnglish speaking members remain on the outside looking inside.

Except it's not "English" and "non-English". It's English, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Tagalog, Japanese, and so on. It is an impossible task to not leave someone out, unless of course we're just talking about the "gesture" ... which in my mind goes back to PC.

And I simply don't understand how they "remain on the outside looking inside." My goodness, the talks are translated on the fly into two dozen different languages or more, and sent on the airwaves across the world. And the words are put out in print in two dozen more. I fail to see how anyone in this church is standing on the outside with respect to language.

That said, I do fully expect someday to have a talk delivered in a language other than English. The quorums will naturally diversify themselves as the church grows, and sooner or later a non-English-speaker will be given a chance to speak.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And to state "a man like Hinckley would've addressed them," is not an argument. He's not a polyglot and served his mission in England, so he may not be sensitive to that issue, no mattter how a good a man he is. I'm certain there are a myriad of other culturally-related issues which our leaders ignore out of ignorance, not out of good sentiments.

I think you'd have an uphill battle to argue that Hinckley is not acutely aware of many different customs and circumstances around the world. And where he lacks, there are also a "myriad" of other people to help him.

Let's not forget that all the Quorums of 70 don't live in the Wasatch Front. Most of them live in the countries or regions where they serve, and work directly with the very "indigenous" people they serve. Some of them even speak the language. A support staff of approximately 300 mission presidents further support the cultural effort.

A world culturally ignorant church we are not.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What I wrote has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with getting the global church meaningfully involved in its own administration. I'm not pushing tokenism and I'm not pushing some kind of quota. When the inspiring and useful thoughts of Mormons of many cultures and nationalities are being broadly circulated, we'll all benefit from the additional perspective. You'll see citations from people whose names you might not be able to pronounce popping up in your lesson manual, but you'll love it because what they're saying rings with the truth of the Spirit.

I'm not arguing with that. I think seeing Ensign articles published by folks all over the world is great. (Take note: it's been happening for a while already.)

I just take issue with this idea that the global church is not already "meaningfully involved" in its own administration. Or, that having a racially diverse leadership would meaningfully change the way things are currently run.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What? It ISN'T a PC message! It is a message of inclusivity and caring, and it is a message that means an awful lot to the people who receive it. Saying it is just PC is about as intelligent as saying that sending aid to foreign nations is just PC. It may ALSO be PC, but it is something far more significant than that.

That suggests that the current message is less "inclusive and caring" and I dispute that.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Precisely. I am actually quite surprised that people are even disputing this would be desireable.

I think it is desirable ... just not for the reasons you're saying. I'm not going to see the first black apostle called and think, "Oh good! Now the blacks will know we care about them!" The black members of the church should already know and feel that.

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by Tex

That suggests that the current message is less "inclusive and caring" and I dispute that. I think it is desirable ... just not for the reasons you're saying. I'm not going to see the first black apostle called and think, "Oh good! Now the blacks will know we care about them!" The black members of the church should already know and feel that.

Then why do you find it desirable Tex?

I find it desirable because we are a church that has more members outside of the United States than in it and yet it is not close to even reflecting that in church leadership. Hopefully, our top leadership of the church will reflect that in the near future. It will take time. And yes, I think it is vital that we have members of the quorum from different regions all over the world. Have an apostle or a general authority from Japan, South Africa, Sweden, Samoa, Ecuador, etc. will have great influence in their countries and in those regions. They will bring to the table much more (in a knowledge of its country's history, culture, etc.) than someone not from that area. I truly believe the church will grow faster and grow stronger when we have people of influence from those regions in higher levels of church positions.

President Hinckley is a remarkable man and the church has seen change under his leadership. Here is hoping that it will continue and improve over the next 25 years.

[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."