The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just organized a district in Ilorin, in Kwara State. This is a move into more traditionally Muslim areas of Nigeria, although less so than Jos and Abuja. Those two cities have large populations from the south due to mining and government respectively.
There are also some branches in the north in more traditionally Muslim areas. Still Ilorin is probably the first place to get a district that was a base of one of the Emirates in the Sokoto Caliphate. It was also part of the British Protectorate of Northern Nigeria before the unification of 1908, which some call the mistake of 1908, which gave us the modern, culturally bifurcated country of Nigeria.
The Church has had a branch in Ilorin since 1992, but didn't get a second branch there until 2016. It was long part of the Enugu Mission, after the 1992-1993 plan to have a mission based out of Ilorin was decided to not be a worthwhile use of mission resources.
Ilorin is now in the newly formed Ibadan Mission. I am not sure if prior to July it was in the Enugu Mission or the Lagos Mission. Enugu was where the Mabeys and Cannons lived on their mission to Nigeria in 1978-1979. Although unlike places further south there were no pre-existing believers, they did convert many Christians in that city.
However Ilorin is not Muslin at the same level of northeast Nigeria. There is not Sharia law there. Nor does it have as deep Muslim roots as the northwest in places like Kano.
Christian missionaries did not come to Ilorin until about 1905, although there were unsuccessful attempts earlier. However in the 1920s indigenous Christian Churches sprang up in the area. The exact balance of Christians and Muslims I have not yet learned. Ilorin has long been a place of many ethnic groups. The largest, the Yoruba, who dominate the whole of south-west Nigeria from Lagos north, are majority Muslim but with noticeable numbers of Christians. The Hausa, Nupe and Falani among other groups are thought to be almost all Muslim. However there have also been migrations from the basically all Christian south-east of Nigeria. Thus, religious plurality exists and better for LDS growth, it often exists in Churches that embrace the gifts of the spirit and notions of personal revelation through dreams.
Last year there were similar growth anniversaries of forming districts in the eastern parts of Nigeria's middle belt. This area in the time around 2000 saw some of the worst inter-communal violence in Nigeria. The violence has since moved north, where Boko Haram has more often attacked more moderate Muslims, instead of the Christian/Muslim fighting in the middle belt area. I hope the Church continues to grow in the middle belt. Still, there are large swaths in the southern third of Nigeria of places that are not yet part of a branch or ward. Akwa Ibom has a lot of rural presence of the Church, this is the area where many of the pre-1978 congregations waiting on the misisonaries were. However even in Cross River State, that included Akwa Ibom in 1978 and thus the Cross River district was the first one formed in Nigeria, even in Cross River State the northern part of the state there are just two branches, with boundaries in theory stretching 30 miles or more out of the location city, but probably much of the area still yet unreached.
On the other hand, the area between Calabar and the Cameroon border, is assigned to the mission branch. So there is a lot of potential for growth in much of Nigeria.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Breast feeding in Church
A local woman in Utah who has made waves and started a fight with her bishop wants The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come out with a uniform policy on breast feeding. This is an idea so culturally specific I think only a Utah Latter-day Saint would ever come up with it.
To begin with, I am not convinced the actions of her bishop were as much a reaction to her breast feeding in public as opposed to her combative and rude reactions to others issues with it.
Actions in public society can never just be about a woman and her child and how they want to do things. They have to be navigated by other cultural considerations. Personally I can see values in opening more space for breast feeding. On the other hand I have read other places where people actually gripe that women's restrooms in LDS Church buildings have been made too comfortable for breast feeding.
I have known other buildings that had rooms specifically just for breast feeding, this is more common in newer buildings. I have also known other buildings with large numbers of mothers of young children to transform a classroom into a breastfeeding station.
The main reason why I think the demand here is unworkable is that breast feeding is a culturally navigated issue. In some cultures breast feeding in public is viewed very differently than others. Any possible statement on the matter would either offend people in some cultures where things are approached very privately, or those who allow it much more in the open.
Worse still, a lot of possible statements on the issue would offend people in both cultures.
This is clearly an issue best decided at the local level.
To begin with, I am not convinced the actions of her bishop were as much a reaction to her breast feeding in public as opposed to her combative and rude reactions to others issues with it.
Actions in public society can never just be about a woman and her child and how they want to do things. They have to be navigated by other cultural considerations. Personally I can see values in opening more space for breast feeding. On the other hand I have read other places where people actually gripe that women's restrooms in LDS Church buildings have been made too comfortable for breast feeding.
I have known other buildings that had rooms specifically just for breast feeding, this is more common in newer buildings. I have also known other buildings with large numbers of mothers of young children to transform a classroom into a breastfeeding station.
The main reason why I think the demand here is unworkable is that breast feeding is a culturally navigated issue. In some cultures breast feeding in public is viewed very differently than others. Any possible statement on the matter would either offend people in some cultures where things are approached very privately, or those who allow it much more in the open.
Worse still, a lot of possible statements on the issue would offend people in both cultures.
This is clearly an issue best decided at the local level.
More on Miss America
So the Philadelphia Inquierer published some quite informative articles on the Miss America pageant. This may be in part because Atlantic City where it is held is within the paper's greater readership area.
What we learn from all of this, and from thinking about it, is that Miss America is in crisis. The removal of the old board and the introduction of a new leadership has caused a break. Many people feel they were basically told the competition had to either drop the swimsuit portion, or be dropped by ABC. It is now clear that was never the case, and they feel lied to.
However a bigger break seems to be a fight over the wording of the contracts. The new leadership, if I am reading what is going on correctly, seems to want to make Miss America an at will employee of the Miss America organization. Weather they would remove her without good cause is hard to say, but I can see people not wanting to make removal easier. There is also talk of giving her bonuses if she does her job well.
Such changes are a lot bigger than ending the swim suit competition and opening the processional to any outfit, not just evening gowns.
Also unclear is how the trickle down from the national organization works. Will all state competitions no longer be allowed swim suit competitions and evening gowns as of next year.
Related to this there has been some argument over the amount of scholarship money given out by Miss America. It used to claim $45 million, but only around $2 million is actually traced. One issue often overlooked is scholarship awards are a funky thing.
Miss America compensated winners in furs and movie contracts in the 1930s. In 1944 it began giving out college scholarships. However contestants must be between age 18 and 26. Maybe it is time to reconsider the top age and move to 30. Either way, not all 26-year-olds will be going to college within the allowed time for the scholarship money. Others will have bills below what they win. This might not be a direct likelihood for those people the top prize, but many of these contestants will have other scholarship sources. So like most scholarships that awarded and that paid out is not the same.
However Miss America has another problem. It is actually the main motivation behind dropping the swim suit competition, although I am not sure that change will fix the other problem. In the 1980s annual competitors within the system could number 85,000. This year, only 4,000 women entered into the competition at its sub-state level feeder competitions.
Why this is I cant say for sure. Marriage rates for women in this age bracket have dropped. Have any competitors with out-of-wedlock children ever participated? Even if they are not formally barred, post-pregnant bodies are a hard fight against those that were never such in many cases.
There are many other issues. There are lots more options for women in sports, other scholarship options have also multiplied. Social stigma against pageants has increased. At the same time all youth organizations have struggled. Boy Scouts a little less since the LDS-Church propped it up, but the break between the LDS Church an Boy Scouts may have been because the system called for a level of social capital not workable any more. It also was mainly just the LDS Church and BSA and Boy Scouts Canada, and only on the boys not the girls side. All this made the attempt of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints such as Russell M. Nelson to create a unifying worldwide program only workable if scouts was left behind.
There is another possible issue. This is competition inflation. Basically over time people run up the stakes of competitions by trying harder and harder to win. This increases the direct financial costs of winning and more often the opportunity cost, the amount of time diverted to winning as opposed to other things.
Closely related to this is the likelihood that the number of local level competitions has fallen. Whenever such a competition folds, it probably decreases the likelihood people will participate.
Right now Miss America is facing the effects of years of fewer competitors and apparently a loss of sponsors. The new contracts seem to say your scholarship money is unsure, and you will be more at will. I can see why people are reluctant to sign such especially with a lack of transparency at the top. Rewriting the contracts the same year the competition itself was so fully reformatted was a very bad idea.
What we learn from all of this, and from thinking about it, is that Miss America is in crisis. The removal of the old board and the introduction of a new leadership has caused a break. Many people feel they were basically told the competition had to either drop the swimsuit portion, or be dropped by ABC. It is now clear that was never the case, and they feel lied to.
However a bigger break seems to be a fight over the wording of the contracts. The new leadership, if I am reading what is going on correctly, seems to want to make Miss America an at will employee of the Miss America organization. Weather they would remove her without good cause is hard to say, but I can see people not wanting to make removal easier. There is also talk of giving her bonuses if she does her job well.
Such changes are a lot bigger than ending the swim suit competition and opening the processional to any outfit, not just evening gowns.
Also unclear is how the trickle down from the national organization works. Will all state competitions no longer be allowed swim suit competitions and evening gowns as of next year.
Related to this there has been some argument over the amount of scholarship money given out by Miss America. It used to claim $45 million, but only around $2 million is actually traced. One issue often overlooked is scholarship awards are a funky thing.
Miss America compensated winners in furs and movie contracts in the 1930s. In 1944 it began giving out college scholarships. However contestants must be between age 18 and 26. Maybe it is time to reconsider the top age and move to 30. Either way, not all 26-year-olds will be going to college within the allowed time for the scholarship money. Others will have bills below what they win. This might not be a direct likelihood for those people the top prize, but many of these contestants will have other scholarship sources. So like most scholarships that awarded and that paid out is not the same.
However Miss America has another problem. It is actually the main motivation behind dropping the swim suit competition, although I am not sure that change will fix the other problem. In the 1980s annual competitors within the system could number 85,000. This year, only 4,000 women entered into the competition at its sub-state level feeder competitions.
Why this is I cant say for sure. Marriage rates for women in this age bracket have dropped. Have any competitors with out-of-wedlock children ever participated? Even if they are not formally barred, post-pregnant bodies are a hard fight against those that were never such in many cases.
There are many other issues. There are lots more options for women in sports, other scholarship options have also multiplied. Social stigma against pageants has increased. At the same time all youth organizations have struggled. Boy Scouts a little less since the LDS-Church propped it up, but the break between the LDS Church an Boy Scouts may have been because the system called for a level of social capital not workable any more. It also was mainly just the LDS Church and BSA and Boy Scouts Canada, and only on the boys not the girls side. All this made the attempt of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints such as Russell M. Nelson to create a unifying worldwide program only workable if scouts was left behind.
There is another possible issue. This is competition inflation. Basically over time people run up the stakes of competitions by trying harder and harder to win. This increases the direct financial costs of winning and more often the opportunity cost, the amount of time diverted to winning as opposed to other things.
Closely related to this is the likelihood that the number of local level competitions has fallen. Whenever such a competition folds, it probably decreases the likelihood people will participate.
Right now Miss America is facing the effects of years of fewer competitors and apparently a loss of sponsors. The new contracts seem to say your scholarship money is unsure, and you will be more at will. I can see why people are reluctant to sign such especially with a lack of transparency at the top. Rewriting the contracts the same year the competition itself was so fully reformatted was a very bad idea.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Miss America and Mormonism: An Uncomfortable relationship
In some ways the headline understates the difficulties involved. President Spencer W. Kimball directly denounced women parading around in swimsuits to be judged by men in a talk at BYU. Yet there were two Mormon winners of the Miss America title. More recently there was a case where an LDS contestant from Idaho was the only one not to wear a bikini.
On the other hand Charlene Wells' father, Robert E. Wells, of the 70, may have received a confession of sexual improprieties by Joseph Bishop given when he was mission president and neither removed him as mission president nor taken action to prevent his call as MTC president, in the later position he may have abused the authority, that may have been unwisely given him, to initiated sexual relations with sister missionaries, that may or may not have constituted sexual assault. Wells has not yet been given a chance to present his side of what transpired, and at least in some cases Bishop has denied basically all the accusations, so it is hard to know what happened. Still, it is hard to not feel that if Bishop did confess a long standing issue of hyper sexual attraction and at times failing along this line, that giving him a position of trust over young nubile females was anything other than a major mistake.
While Miss America started out as just a chance to show off women in bathing suits to increase tourism to Atlantic City, it soon sought a larger course. In the 1950s it chose to not force Miss America to appear at a specific event in a bathing suit, and its former main sponsor, a bathing suit company, jumped ship, and formed the Miss USA competition.
Miss America was hated by bra burning feminists in the 1970s. From at least some time in the 1950s until about 1989 it banned contestants wearing bikinis. Yet by about 2005 the standard issue for contestants unless they chose otherwise was not just a bikini but a string bikini.
The late 1980s also saw a rise in the quality of talent on the part of the winners. However since then TV ratings have plummeted. However this is true of all TV ratings, as we have more options on TV, more options other than TV.
Where does this all leave us. Well, last winter the previous directors were forced out in the wake of a scandal that involved emails related to saying unkind and gossipy things about contestants. At the same time the Metoo movement, put into over-gear by the fall of Harvey Weinstein last October, but building on other issues but things into high hear. The caderie of accusations by former Miss USA consestants against Donald Trump also may have been motivation.
This lead to a decision in May or June that the competition this year would no longer include a swim suit competition and "contestants will no longer be judged based on looks."
Having read through the reactions posted on the Washington Post comments page I can say a few things. First off, about half the people who posted probably just read the title and then knee jerk reacted. Closely related to that, almost half basically engaged in false dichotomies, that we have women parading around in high heels along with string bikinis, or we have them in full burkhas. On the other hand, others insisted that anyone who paid any attention to how physically attractive women were had no interest in their intellectual abilities.
What really surprised me was that no one really considered weather the super skimpy bathing suits seen in recent Miss America competitions were the only option. Maybe to some people being judged in a one piece or in a bikini is all the same, but no one seemed to even consider this issue.
At the same time people seemed to say this change would effect the chance of the US winning at Miss Universe. The only problem is that Miss Universe is a competition that includes the winner of Miss USA, it has no connection to Miss America.
The total failure of most to get this does show how little most people follow these pageants. Of course to some Wikipedia people I am a radical enemy of articles on pageant winners. This is true, but only because I eventually realized that winning a pageant was not a big deal, contrary to what some editors wanted to say, and at the state level did not justify having an article.
I have never watched the Miss America pageant. I also have never seen the super bowl.
My general thought on the whole issue is I think the Miss America competition is still probably worth keeping. However I am a lot less sure if is worth televising. One big issue is how much will the national level reforms trickle down. Oddly enough because of how they were announced, the 2018 competition for the 2019 title might not incorporate appearance at all, but appearance will have weeded out the contestants.
Will the competition for the 2020 title really "not be based on appearance". I have my doubts. Especially if they keep the same guidelines on age. I doubt we will see many people who are less slender and in others ways fit less a certain body image. Only time will tell for sure.
On the other hand Charlene Wells' father, Robert E. Wells, of the 70, may have received a confession of sexual improprieties by Joseph Bishop given when he was mission president and neither removed him as mission president nor taken action to prevent his call as MTC president, in the later position he may have abused the authority, that may have been unwisely given him, to initiated sexual relations with sister missionaries, that may or may not have constituted sexual assault. Wells has not yet been given a chance to present his side of what transpired, and at least in some cases Bishop has denied basically all the accusations, so it is hard to know what happened. Still, it is hard to not feel that if Bishop did confess a long standing issue of hyper sexual attraction and at times failing along this line, that giving him a position of trust over young nubile females was anything other than a major mistake.
While Miss America started out as just a chance to show off women in bathing suits to increase tourism to Atlantic City, it soon sought a larger course. In the 1950s it chose to not force Miss America to appear at a specific event in a bathing suit, and its former main sponsor, a bathing suit company, jumped ship, and formed the Miss USA competition.
Miss America was hated by bra burning feminists in the 1970s. From at least some time in the 1950s until about 1989 it banned contestants wearing bikinis. Yet by about 2005 the standard issue for contestants unless they chose otherwise was not just a bikini but a string bikini.
The late 1980s also saw a rise in the quality of talent on the part of the winners. However since then TV ratings have plummeted. However this is true of all TV ratings, as we have more options on TV, more options other than TV.
Where does this all leave us. Well, last winter the previous directors were forced out in the wake of a scandal that involved emails related to saying unkind and gossipy things about contestants. At the same time the Metoo movement, put into over-gear by the fall of Harvey Weinstein last October, but building on other issues but things into high hear. The caderie of accusations by former Miss USA consestants against Donald Trump also may have been motivation.
This lead to a decision in May or June that the competition this year would no longer include a swim suit competition and "contestants will no longer be judged based on looks."
Having read through the reactions posted on the Washington Post comments page I can say a few things. First off, about half the people who posted probably just read the title and then knee jerk reacted. Closely related to that, almost half basically engaged in false dichotomies, that we have women parading around in high heels along with string bikinis, or we have them in full burkhas. On the other hand, others insisted that anyone who paid any attention to how physically attractive women were had no interest in their intellectual abilities.
What really surprised me was that no one really considered weather the super skimpy bathing suits seen in recent Miss America competitions were the only option. Maybe to some people being judged in a one piece or in a bikini is all the same, but no one seemed to even consider this issue.
At the same time people seemed to say this change would effect the chance of the US winning at Miss Universe. The only problem is that Miss Universe is a competition that includes the winner of Miss USA, it has no connection to Miss America.
The total failure of most to get this does show how little most people follow these pageants. Of course to some Wikipedia people I am a radical enemy of articles on pageant winners. This is true, but only because I eventually realized that winning a pageant was not a big deal, contrary to what some editors wanted to say, and at the state level did not justify having an article.
I have never watched the Miss America pageant. I also have never seen the super bowl.
My general thought on the whole issue is I think the Miss America competition is still probably worth keeping. However I am a lot less sure if is worth televising. One big issue is how much will the national level reforms trickle down. Oddly enough because of how they were announced, the 2018 competition for the 2019 title might not incorporate appearance at all, but appearance will have weeded out the contestants.
Will the competition for the 2020 title really "not be based on appearance". I have my doubts. Especially if they keep the same guidelines on age. I doubt we will see many people who are less slender and in others ways fit less a certain body image. Only time will tell for sure.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
The Reform of the Church under Russell M. Nelson
It is a bit hard to yet assess the Nelsonian reforms.
Some of this is a result of the Church being run be commitee, in a deliberate way in which no changes are made without consultation.
One thing that is clear, is that the Nelsonian reforms connect to those under Thomas S. Monson.
It is hard to figure exactly where to start tracking the current changes. Another related issue is that many changes are minor, incremental, and sometime hard for Church members let alone those not in the Church to figure out.
The start of the current system can largely be traced to the publication of the current Church Handbook of Instructions. The changes in there are at times complex. The main thrust was to try to shift some responsibilities from the bishop and the bishopric to the ward council. At the same time the ward acativities committee was scapped. In part this was because the committee often would create activities for its own purposes and neither consider the overall needs of the ward nor incoprate the ward into these activities. There are probably other changes, but those are the ones I can explain easiest.
The next big change I think is the introduction of the new curriclum for the youth sunday school classes and seminary and young men/young women. Although I only think this pre-dates the major shift in the age for missionaries.
The new curriculums emphasize more collaborative work and less the teacher just imparting information. On the other hand to some it can tend towards being more repetative than the old curriculum.
The missionary age change is very, very big. For elders not so much, though some. It makes it easier for many to go, and it gives more flexability in when to go. For sisters it is a huge plus. It makes it possible to finish a mission much younger, and makes it possible for many more to go. Weather its net effect is to make it so women in the Church are younger or older when they get married is hard to impossible to track. Since the marriage age has in general been rising for various factors, even if the marriage age in the Church has risen since the missionary age change, that would not show causation.
At this point we get a few other changes. First the church began to have women give prayers in general conference. However I am not sure if any of the prayers in the most recent conference were given by women. Although, what this most emphsizes is that while the talks are written and published, the prayers are not. This is part of why I think this issue has been over publizied by many.
The next set of changes largely result from the missionary age change and the connected rise in the number of sister missionaries. First, the role of the companion (wife) of the mission president was given a more formal setting in the way the mission works. At the same time the zone leaders council was replaced by the mission council. This council involved the mission presidents companion having a formal role. Also, the role of coordinating sister was created.
Next came the revision of the institute curriculum. The move from having the scriptures themselves to a new set up as the main curriculum was unpopular with some. However it generally increased understanding of the way the Church is run.
At this point I think we can start with the 2017 changes. Some of these point to why I cannot easily see a major break from Monsonian to Nelsonian reforms.
The first 2017 reform I can think of is the ending of sponsoring of explorer and varsity programs for the 14-17 year old young men. I have to admit that I do not understand exactly how much the programs for 14-17 year olds have changed, but it was the first step to leaving the scouts.
Other changes in 2017 included the announcment of allowing priests to officiate in baptisms for the dead, the change of the priesthood preview program for 11-year-old boys to priesthood and temple preview for 11-year-old boys and girls. Then of course there was the reformating of the melchizedke priesthood/relief society curriculum. This is a major set of cahgnes. Also there was the announcment that priesthood meeting and the general women's meeting would alternate April and October.
2018 has already seen many changes. The new letters on abuse make it clear that no Church leader should ever encourage anyone to stay in anabusive relationship or discourage reporting abuse. They also say those who report abuse should be believed. What is less clear is how much this is really a change from anti-abuse policies dating back at least to 1994 and stringent rules against those with sexual abuse of children on their record ever working with children.
There were some big changes though. The multiple adults working with youth was extended to all females and not just males. Policies for youth and women to interview not alone were put in place, but it is less clear how much this was a change and how much this was publicizing.
General Conference has major changes. The calling of an Asian-American and a Latin American apostle were the most hyped, but not the biggest changes.
The first major change was the end of high priest groups. In my branch the actual affect is less than clear. However it is a big change and move toward unity in most of the Church. Next, the replacement of home and visiting teaching with ministering is very, very big. It will take a while to understand, but it moves from focused reporting to braod goals.
Next in May we have the announcment of the end of the Church's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. If there is a misunderstood change, it is this. The goal here is two fold. 1-to make a unified international program. 2-to make the programs for boys and girls more unform.
June sees a few changes, although some are more hype than real. Plans for a new hymnbook and children's songbook are announced. However this involved a 2019 deadline for new hymn submissions, and plans for a unified hymnbook in each language. Although this somewhat existed, for example "israel, Israel, God is Calling" and its French equivalent are both hymn 6 at present.
The Church announced new adult and primary curriculm. I have to admit that I have not yet understood that much. As a Sunday School president, I need to soon.
The new mission presidents seminary was renamed the new mission leaders seminar. This emphasized the key role of the mission presidents compaions (wife). I am not sure if this is more than a symantic change. The seminar was also shortened, and the role of the aposltes and first presidency in running it seems to have increased.
The Church also made much more public the questions asked of youth in limited use temple recomends and other questions, although I have not discerned any actual policy changes there.
Some of this is a result of the Church being run be commitee, in a deliberate way in which no changes are made without consultation.
One thing that is clear, is that the Nelsonian reforms connect to those under Thomas S. Monson.
It is hard to figure exactly where to start tracking the current changes. Another related issue is that many changes are minor, incremental, and sometime hard for Church members let alone those not in the Church to figure out.
The start of the current system can largely be traced to the publication of the current Church Handbook of Instructions. The changes in there are at times complex. The main thrust was to try to shift some responsibilities from the bishop and the bishopric to the ward council. At the same time the ward acativities committee was scapped. In part this was because the committee often would create activities for its own purposes and neither consider the overall needs of the ward nor incoprate the ward into these activities. There are probably other changes, but those are the ones I can explain easiest.
The next big change I think is the introduction of the new curriclum for the youth sunday school classes and seminary and young men/young women. Although I only think this pre-dates the major shift in the age for missionaries.
The new curriculums emphasize more collaborative work and less the teacher just imparting information. On the other hand to some it can tend towards being more repetative than the old curriculum.
The missionary age change is very, very big. For elders not so much, though some. It makes it easier for many to go, and it gives more flexability in when to go. For sisters it is a huge plus. It makes it possible to finish a mission much younger, and makes it possible for many more to go. Weather its net effect is to make it so women in the Church are younger or older when they get married is hard to impossible to track. Since the marriage age has in general been rising for various factors, even if the marriage age in the Church has risen since the missionary age change, that would not show causation.
At this point we get a few other changes. First the church began to have women give prayers in general conference. However I am not sure if any of the prayers in the most recent conference were given by women. Although, what this most emphsizes is that while the talks are written and published, the prayers are not. This is part of why I think this issue has been over publizied by many.
The next set of changes largely result from the missionary age change and the connected rise in the number of sister missionaries. First, the role of the companion (wife) of the mission president was given a more formal setting in the way the mission works. At the same time the zone leaders council was replaced by the mission council. This council involved the mission presidents companion having a formal role. Also, the role of coordinating sister was created.
Next came the revision of the institute curriculum. The move from having the scriptures themselves to a new set up as the main curriculum was unpopular with some. However it generally increased understanding of the way the Church is run.
At this point I think we can start with the 2017 changes. Some of these point to why I cannot easily see a major break from Monsonian to Nelsonian reforms.
The first 2017 reform I can think of is the ending of sponsoring of explorer and varsity programs for the 14-17 year old young men. I have to admit that I do not understand exactly how much the programs for 14-17 year olds have changed, but it was the first step to leaving the scouts.
Other changes in 2017 included the announcment of allowing priests to officiate in baptisms for the dead, the change of the priesthood preview program for 11-year-old boys to priesthood and temple preview for 11-year-old boys and girls. Then of course there was the reformating of the melchizedke priesthood/relief society curriculum. This is a major set of cahgnes. Also there was the announcment that priesthood meeting and the general women's meeting would alternate April and October.
2018 has already seen many changes. The new letters on abuse make it clear that no Church leader should ever encourage anyone to stay in anabusive relationship or discourage reporting abuse. They also say those who report abuse should be believed. What is less clear is how much this is really a change from anti-abuse policies dating back at least to 1994 and stringent rules against those with sexual abuse of children on their record ever working with children.
There were some big changes though. The multiple adults working with youth was extended to all females and not just males. Policies for youth and women to interview not alone were put in place, but it is less clear how much this was a change and how much this was publicizing.
General Conference has major changes. The calling of an Asian-American and a Latin American apostle were the most hyped, but not the biggest changes.
The first major change was the end of high priest groups. In my branch the actual affect is less than clear. However it is a big change and move toward unity in most of the Church. Next, the replacement of home and visiting teaching with ministering is very, very big. It will take a while to understand, but it moves from focused reporting to braod goals.
Next in May we have the announcment of the end of the Church's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. If there is a misunderstood change, it is this. The goal here is two fold. 1-to make a unified international program. 2-to make the programs for boys and girls more unform.
June sees a few changes, although some are more hype than real. Plans for a new hymnbook and children's songbook are announced. However this involved a 2019 deadline for new hymn submissions, and plans for a unified hymnbook in each language. Although this somewhat existed, for example "israel, Israel, God is Calling" and its French equivalent are both hymn 6 at present.
The Church announced new adult and primary curriculm. I have to admit that I have not yet understood that much. As a Sunday School president, I need to soon.
The new mission presidents seminary was renamed the new mission leaders seminar. This emphasized the key role of the mission presidents compaions (wife). I am not sure if this is more than a symantic change. The seminar was also shortened, and the role of the aposltes and first presidency in running it seems to have increased.
The Church also made much more public the questions asked of youth in limited use temple recomends and other questions, although I have not discerned any actual policy changes there.
Our Great Leader: Russell M. Nelson
I feel like we have not had enough coverage of Russell M. Nelson. I also have a sense of not understanding him very well.
I read the biography of President Nelson by Spencer J. Condie back about when it came about in 2003 or so. That means it has been 15 years.
President Nelson was a very important person in the rise of modern heart surgery. I am not sure anyone who can express this issue eloquently has done it enough coverage.
President Nelson was the moving force behind the expansion of the Church into eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He has also made many, many visits to countries such as Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana and on and on.
Unlike most other current members of the quorum of the 12, President Nelson was never resident outside the US as a general authority. He was stationed in Korea and Japan while working in Army medical during the Korean War, although that was a investigative and moving assignment. He is also fluent in Mandarin. I am not sure what other languages he is fluent in.
Monday, April 23, 2018
The real internationalization of Church leadership
some would argue that the Church first went global no later the 1970s when Neal A. Maxwell and the Church Board of Education decided instead of having Americans run the Church Educational System worldwide, they would proactively recruit people from various countries and as much as possible have the Church Educational System run by locals. This is why Elder uceda, Elder Taylor Godoy, Elder De Hoyos and Elder Dube among LDS general authroties from outside the US all spent their careers running the Church's supplemental weekday religious education programs (seminaries and institutes) in their various countries, or at least as full-time Church employees running it. Elder De Hoyos may have never run it for more than Mexico. Elder Uceda I am not 100% sure on what the area he oversaw was exactly. Elder Godoy was last running the Church Educational System in his native Peru, plus Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Elder Dube ran it in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. The data on this issue is hard to find, but I have the impression that basically all international areas had locals running the Church Educational System at all levels, at a time when the Presiding Bishopric which oversees properties of the Church and distribution of funds and other physical operational activities was often relying more on Americans sent abroad. Thus the person who recruited Elder Soares into working as a fulltime employee of the LDS Church as Brazil South Area auditor in the 1990s was an American working as the head of temproal affairs in the Brazil Area at a time when the CES had been run by Brazilians for over 20 years. Elder Michael J. Teh, the only current general authority seventy from the Philippines, spent his career working for the Church. He was head of member and statistical records for the Philluipines Area and before that had worked as temple recorder. So less focused on fiancial issues than Soares, but not in a position where he worked directly with the teaching of Church doctrines, as were Dube, De Hoyos, Uceda and Godoy (plus Elder Paul Johnson from the US, not to mention Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the 12, although Holland since he was a religion professor at BYU came up from a slightly more acdemic pathway than some of the others), Elder Tanuiel B. Wakolothe only general authority seventy to date from Fiji, spent his early career as a police officer. However he was head of the Church's Fiji Service Center before becoming a mission president (in Arkansas, but that is another story). I have not yet figured out if this service center was involved in tracking land records, distributing lesson materials, or a place where employment and other services were given, or maybe even both.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Why the New York Times obituary for Thomas S. Monson was a travesty
The New York Times obituary for Thomas S. Monson missed the fact that he was a man known as a speaker, a great speaker, and a man who loved the poor, the elderly, the widow and reached out to the one.
Beyond this the article contained downright falsehoods.
This might not be so bad if all New York Times obituaries were hatchet jobs against the subject. Most are not. Here https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/sports/baseball/05harwell.html is an example of what the New York Times normally produces. Long obituaries with lots of details.
However with the rise of Kellerism do not hold your breath to see a balanced and humanizing obituary of any conservative religious leader anytime soon.
Beyond this the article contained downright falsehoods.
This might not be so bad if all New York Times obituaries were hatchet jobs against the subject. Most are not. Here https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/sports/baseball/05harwell.html is an example of what the New York Times normally produces. Long obituaries with lots of details.
However with the rise of Kellerism do not hold your breath to see a balanced and humanizing obituary of any conservative religious leader anytime soon.
Rusell M. Nelson: A witness to the world
It is hard to quantify, but President Nelson is possibly the most heavily traveled president of the Church to date. He has clearly spent more time in the nations of Eastern Euriope and Africa than President Hinckley did. although with how much President Hinckley traveled to Asia during his early time as a general authority and everywhere as President of the Church, President Nelson may not have yet traveled as much.
On the other hand, President Nelson did spent significant time in both Japan and Korea in the early 1950s. He visited every MASH location in Korea, and many other locations as well. As a medical doctor he traveled and made presentations all around the world.
Even back in 1974 President Nelson as general president of the Sunday School traveled to what was then Rhodesia on a Church assignment. His visit to Harare, Zimbabwe yesterday as part of his golbal ministry tour was at least his third visit to that city. He also went there in 2004 when he spoke at a stake conference, where the then stake president Edward Dube lamented that only 75% of his stake members showed up. Most stakes wish that 75% of the members entered a Church building even once a year.
In 1992 President Nelson dedicated Zambia for the preaching of the gospel. Weather he also was in Zimbabwe at all during that trip I do not know. It appears that this is the 3rd or 4th trip on the part of President Nelson to Zimbabwe.
Interestingly enough, no president of the Church has ever traveled to Francophone Africa while President.
It is hard to quantify, but President Nelson is possibly the most heavily traveled president of the Church to date. He has clearly spent more time in the nations of Eastern Euriope and Africa than President Hinckley did. although with how much President Hinckley traveled to Asia during his early time as a general authority and everywhere as President of the Church, President Nelson may not have yet traveled as much.
On the other hand, President Nelson did spent significant time in both Japan and Korea in the early 1950s. He visited every MASH location in Korea, and many other locations as well. As a medical doctor he traveled and made presentations all around the world.
Even back in 1974 President Nelson as general president of the Sunday School traveled to what was then Rhodesia on a Church assignment. His visit to Harare, Zimbabwe yesterday as part of his golbal ministry tour was at least his third visit to that city. He also went there in 2004 when he spoke at a stake conference, where the then stake president Edward Dube lamented that only 75% of his stake members showed up. Most stakes wish that 75% of the members entered a Church building even once a year.
In 1992 President Nelson dedicated Zambia for the preaching of the gospel. Weather he also was in Zimbabwe at all during that trip I do not know. It appears that this is the 3rd or 4th trip on the part of President Nelson to Zimbabwe.
Interestingly enough, no president of the Church has ever traveled to Francophone Africa while President.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Why the fall of Joseph L. Bishop does not worry me
The simple answer is of course, my faith is in Jesus Christ, I know men fail.
However the bigger answer is that God gives people agency, and allows them to misues it, to lie and to decieve. The gift of discernment does not mean false brethren and wolves in sheep clothing never have appointments in the Church. Otherwise Joseph Smith would have never put so much trusts in John C. Bennett, and Brigham Young would not have had to send Lorenzo Snow, Ezra T. Benson and Joseph F. Smith to Hawaii to remove Walter Gibson after he received communication from Jonathan Napela and probably other faithful Hawaiian brethren who reazlized that Gibson's actions, such as selling the priesthood, were not only out of line from the message they had learned from missionaries such as George Q. Cannon, but clearly violated the teachings of the Book of Mormon and New Testament. If there was ever a man who engaged in priestcraft in the Mormon Church it was Gibson, and Napela as the co-translator of the Book of Mormon into the Hawaiian langauge would clearly have realized that Gidson was guilty of this great evil.
Beyond this, the exact nature of Joseph L. Bishop's crimes are not clear. What he confessed to Robert E. Wells is less than clear. It seems alleged that while a missionary, presumably in the 1950s, Joseph Bishop confessed to his mission president inapropriate relations with females. To what extent these would fall under abuse of power and sexual harrassment is very hard to say, and what exactly he confessed, let alone what exatly he did is less than clear.
Some indications, such as one Deseret News article, suggest that while mission president in Argentina Bishop had some sort of connection with a woman that was not fully in line with the law of chastity especially for a married man. The exact nature of this relation is not clear, nor why it did not lead to his being released and excommunicated. The fact it didn't makes me think that at least the way he conveyed it to Elder Wells did not rise to the level of adultery.
The suit also attacks Bishop for his time as president of Weber State College (now University). I read the whole Ogden Standard-Examiner report on those accusations. It involves saying he was unethical, a bad example of a Church member, and some people felt he was dismissive of female employees, well one, and claims he tried to hound out lesbian students or something along those lines. It is not very clear at all. Two major problems with including that in the law suit. Trying to protray those actions as in any way a red flag that Bishop was likely to abuse power, sexually harrass and allegedly rape is a major stretch, and only vaguely works by 2018 definitions, not 1978 definitions. Beyond this, the suit avoids admitting that especially in Utah state educational institutions and hyper intent on showing distance from the LDS Church, so it is not clear the LDS Church could have obtained any direct information from Weber State.
When and how Bishop's accuser shared her claims is also a major point of contention. A man who apparently was her bishop in the 1980s only states that she told him the MTC president took her and her companion to a basement room in the MTC and showed them pornographic videos. His dismissal of this as a non-believable story is not the right reaction. However, that as a single incident as it seems to have been described would not constitute sexual harrassment per say, although it is clearly a violation of the rules and norms of the LDS Church, especially for mission leadership. Now if the woman had included other allegations of what Bishop did during this time, either sexually explicit actions or statements, or even how he looked at them, it might rise to sexual harrassment, but showing a pornographic video on one occasion does not in and of itself constitute sexual harrassment, especially as the term was understood in the 1980s.
What if anything the woman ever told Carlos E. Asay is not knowable, since he is dead and if he met with her he never made any report of it to any other person with the Church leadership.
On the other hand, in 2010 the Church reported the issue to police. Due to various factors the police only focused on the current threat, not the then 26 year old rape allegations. In 2017 a report was given to the BYU police, who then forwarded it to the Utah County Prosecutor's office. In this case it was seen as a criminal probe against Bishop. However although at least these people felt the accusations were credible, they did not pursue criminal charges due to the statute of limitations on rape in the 1980s.
What Bishop ever admitted to is still contested. Bishop's son says the only thing Bishop admits to is that the woman exposed her breasts to him at a meeting they had after her service as a missionary. What is not clear from this is weather anyone has followed up on this admission with intensive questions of Bishop to see if he touched her at all in any way during this exchange. If she voluntarily exposed herself after she was a missionary, with no prompting from him, and he responded by touching her exposed breats, would this count as a sex crime. If a man and woman are standing in close proximity and the women trears open her shirt in a suggestive way, is consent to touch assumed, at least in a tentative way, or is there a need for clear consent.
Now there is a claim by BYU police that Bishop told them he asked the woman to expose her breasts. The woman claims rape. What did actually happen is one big question.
The other issue is her suit seems to be proceeding on the grounds that the LDS Church not excommunicating Bishop is somehow an actionable tort for the woman. The very reasoning of the logic, that you can sue to financially punish a Church for not imposing excomunication on someone, is highly questionable.
However the bigger answer is that God gives people agency, and allows them to misues it, to lie and to decieve. The gift of discernment does not mean false brethren and wolves in sheep clothing never have appointments in the Church. Otherwise Joseph Smith would have never put so much trusts in John C. Bennett, and Brigham Young would not have had to send Lorenzo Snow, Ezra T. Benson and Joseph F. Smith to Hawaii to remove Walter Gibson after he received communication from Jonathan Napela and probably other faithful Hawaiian brethren who reazlized that Gibson's actions, such as selling the priesthood, were not only out of line from the message they had learned from missionaries such as George Q. Cannon, but clearly violated the teachings of the Book of Mormon and New Testament. If there was ever a man who engaged in priestcraft in the Mormon Church it was Gibson, and Napela as the co-translator of the Book of Mormon into the Hawaiian langauge would clearly have realized that Gidson was guilty of this great evil.
Beyond this, the exact nature of Joseph L. Bishop's crimes are not clear. What he confessed to Robert E. Wells is less than clear. It seems alleged that while a missionary, presumably in the 1950s, Joseph Bishop confessed to his mission president inapropriate relations with females. To what extent these would fall under abuse of power and sexual harrassment is very hard to say, and what exactly he confessed, let alone what exatly he did is less than clear.
Some indications, such as one Deseret News article, suggest that while mission president in Argentina Bishop had some sort of connection with a woman that was not fully in line with the law of chastity especially for a married man. The exact nature of this relation is not clear, nor why it did not lead to his being released and excommunicated. The fact it didn't makes me think that at least the way he conveyed it to Elder Wells did not rise to the level of adultery.
The suit also attacks Bishop for his time as president of Weber State College (now University). I read the whole Ogden Standard-Examiner report on those accusations. It involves saying he was unethical, a bad example of a Church member, and some people felt he was dismissive of female employees, well one, and claims he tried to hound out lesbian students or something along those lines. It is not very clear at all. Two major problems with including that in the law suit. Trying to protray those actions as in any way a red flag that Bishop was likely to abuse power, sexually harrass and allegedly rape is a major stretch, and only vaguely works by 2018 definitions, not 1978 definitions. Beyond this, the suit avoids admitting that especially in Utah state educational institutions and hyper intent on showing distance from the LDS Church, so it is not clear the LDS Church could have obtained any direct information from Weber State.
When and how Bishop's accuser shared her claims is also a major point of contention. A man who apparently was her bishop in the 1980s only states that she told him the MTC president took her and her companion to a basement room in the MTC and showed them pornographic videos. His dismissal of this as a non-believable story is not the right reaction. However, that as a single incident as it seems to have been described would not constitute sexual harrassment per say, although it is clearly a violation of the rules and norms of the LDS Church, especially for mission leadership. Now if the woman had included other allegations of what Bishop did during this time, either sexually explicit actions or statements, or even how he looked at them, it might rise to sexual harrassment, but showing a pornographic video on one occasion does not in and of itself constitute sexual harrassment, especially as the term was understood in the 1980s.
What if anything the woman ever told Carlos E. Asay is not knowable, since he is dead and if he met with her he never made any report of it to any other person with the Church leadership.
On the other hand, in 2010 the Church reported the issue to police. Due to various factors the police only focused on the current threat, not the then 26 year old rape allegations. In 2017 a report was given to the BYU police, who then forwarded it to the Utah County Prosecutor's office. In this case it was seen as a criminal probe against Bishop. However although at least these people felt the accusations were credible, they did not pursue criminal charges due to the statute of limitations on rape in the 1980s.
What Bishop ever admitted to is still contested. Bishop's son says the only thing Bishop admits to is that the woman exposed her breasts to him at a meeting they had after her service as a missionary. What is not clear from this is weather anyone has followed up on this admission with intensive questions of Bishop to see if he touched her at all in any way during this exchange. If she voluntarily exposed herself after she was a missionary, with no prompting from him, and he responded by touching her exposed breats, would this count as a sex crime. If a man and woman are standing in close proximity and the women trears open her shirt in a suggestive way, is consent to touch assumed, at least in a tentative way, or is there a need for clear consent.
Now there is a claim by BYU police that Bishop told them he asked the woman to expose her breasts. The woman claims rape. What did actually happen is one big question.
The other issue is her suit seems to be proceeding on the grounds that the LDS Church not excommunicating Bishop is somehow an actionable tort for the woman. The very reasoning of the logic, that you can sue to financially punish a Church for not imposing excomunication on someone, is highly questionable.
A non-white apostle
Elder Garret W. Gong is by almost no definition white. On the other hand, as an American of Chinese descent, he is excluded from most definitions of "underserved" and "underrepresented" minorities, and would be discrimanted against by most quota and affirmative action programs.
Elder Gong is clearly an American. Both of his parents were born in the US, so he is more American than David O. McKay and Joseph F. Smith and well as John Taylor, just to list presidents of the Church he exceeds in Americaness. If we look at apostles, his most recent immigrant ancestor may or may not have come more recently than David A. Bednar's. He is clearly more American than Dale E. Rendlund, both of whose parents were immigrants.
Also, President Eyring's father was born in Mexico, whith Mexican citizenship, and his great-grandfather, the one who met his Swiss great-grandmother in the company moving west when he was sick after a long mission in the realm of the Cherokee, was known as Enrique Eyring at the time of his death.
While Elder Gong's mother was not born in a state, that is because Hawaii was not yet a state at the time of her birth. His father was born in Merced where Elder Gong's grandparents, like many other Chinese-Americans, were small business owners, I can't remember for sure if it was a dry cleaners or restaurant they ran. On his father's side his ancestors came from China in the 19th-century. When his ancestors came to Hawaii on his mother's side is less clear.
Elder Gong's wife, Sister Susan Lindsay Gong, is the daughter of Richard P. Lindsay who was managing director of the Church's public affairs department for much of the 1980s and later a general authority sevcenty. Elder Lindsay has since died.
Elder Gong served his mission in Taiwan, was a Rhodes Schoolar after graduating from BYU, dated his wife while visiting Provo on a summer off from Oxford while his father, a professor at San Jose State University was a visiting professor at BYU. Walter Gong gave courses to faculty that influenced Stephen R. Covery enough that he quotes Walter Gong in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Elder Gong was on the factulty at Johns Hopkins, then worked for the US government both with an assignment to the embassy in Beijing and as an outside consultant with a think tank connected with George Washington University.
Elder Gong thus becomes the second apostle born in California, second only to Elder Bednar. Both were born in California, went to BYU, and spent their adult life first as a professor/government consultant in the US east of the Rocky mountains, and then came to the intermountain west with an assignment with a Church institution of higher education. Elder Bednar was a business professor and then president of Ricks. His career involves much more understandable roles.
Elder Gong was involved in foriegn policy development circles, and his Wikipedia article lists several papers he wrote. What he actually did is not always easy to understand, partly because of the sensitive nature of some foriegn policy discussion. If I understood what he said at a forum on the pros and cons of going to war in Iraq I went to in 2003 that he spoke at at BYU, he was involved with some government bodies that analized the appropriate response to the actions of North Korea.
Where Elder Bednar was president of Ricks College and then BYU-Idaho, Elder Gong was assistant to the President of BYU for planning and assessment. He served as such with both President Bateman and President Samuelson.
Elder Gong is clearly an American. Both of his parents were born in the US, so he is more American than David O. McKay and Joseph F. Smith and well as John Taylor, just to list presidents of the Church he exceeds in Americaness. If we look at apostles, his most recent immigrant ancestor may or may not have come more recently than David A. Bednar's. He is clearly more American than Dale E. Rendlund, both of whose parents were immigrants.
Also, President Eyring's father was born in Mexico, whith Mexican citizenship, and his great-grandfather, the one who met his Swiss great-grandmother in the company moving west when he was sick after a long mission in the realm of the Cherokee, was known as Enrique Eyring at the time of his death.
While Elder Gong's mother was not born in a state, that is because Hawaii was not yet a state at the time of her birth. His father was born in Merced where Elder Gong's grandparents, like many other Chinese-Americans, were small business owners, I can't remember for sure if it was a dry cleaners or restaurant they ran. On his father's side his ancestors came from China in the 19th-century. When his ancestors came to Hawaii on his mother's side is less clear.
Elder Gong's wife, Sister Susan Lindsay Gong, is the daughter of Richard P. Lindsay who was managing director of the Church's public affairs department for much of the 1980s and later a general authority sevcenty. Elder Lindsay has since died.
Elder Gong served his mission in Taiwan, was a Rhodes Schoolar after graduating from BYU, dated his wife while visiting Provo on a summer off from Oxford while his father, a professor at San Jose State University was a visiting professor at BYU. Walter Gong gave courses to faculty that influenced Stephen R. Covery enough that he quotes Walter Gong in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Elder Gong was on the factulty at Johns Hopkins, then worked for the US government both with an assignment to the embassy in Beijing and as an outside consultant with a think tank connected with George Washington University.
Elder Gong thus becomes the second apostle born in California, second only to Elder Bednar. Both were born in California, went to BYU, and spent their adult life first as a professor/government consultant in the US east of the Rocky mountains, and then came to the intermountain west with an assignment with a Church institution of higher education. Elder Bednar was a business professor and then president of Ricks. His career involves much more understandable roles.
Elder Gong was involved in foriegn policy development circles, and his Wikipedia article lists several papers he wrote. What he actually did is not always easy to understand, partly because of the sensitive nature of some foriegn policy discussion. If I understood what he said at a forum on the pros and cons of going to war in Iraq I went to in 2003 that he spoke at at BYU, he was involved with some government bodies that analized the appropriate response to the actions of North Korea.
Where Elder Bednar was president of Ricks College and then BYU-Idaho, Elder Gong was assistant to the President of BYU for planning and assessment. He served as such with both President Bateman and President Samuelson.
The new apostles
The new apostles are only 50% Americans, as opposed to the new General Authorities called, who are 62.5% American. The new members of the Presidency of the 70 called are 40% American, and they will make it as of August that only 3 of the 7 president will be American.
The Quorum of the 12 is now having two non-Americans for the first time since John A. Widstoe and Charles A. Callis were members, although since both Callis and Widstoe were US citizens who immigrated to the US at ages 10 and 11, they were for all intents and purposes Americans.
N. Eldon Tanner was born in the US because his mother was visiting her parents, but his family was resident in Canada. Marion G. Romney was born in Mexico, but came to the US as a youth, and his parents were of American origin.
Elder Uchtdorf had been to the US for pilot training prior to his call as a general authority, but had basically always been a resident of Germany. Elder Soares was living in Utah doing a special assignment for the Office of the Presiding Bishopric at the time of his call as a general authority. However he was born and raised, served his mission in and worked up until his call as a mission president in Brazil, some of that time as Director of Temporal Affairs for the Brazil South Area. Elder Soares was mission president in Portugal.
Elder Gong while the first clearly non-white apostle is without question American. Elder Soares is phenotypically white. The nature of his actual ancestry I am not aware of, so I can not rule out indigenous American or slightly more likely African ancestry. However other factors suggest to me that Elder Soares probably does not have any known African ancestry. Since he was born in 1958 he would have been just over minimum mission age at the time of the 1978 revelation, but I have not come across any suggestion that he has African ancestry, and even though there are lots of people with some level of African ancestry in Sao Paulo, it is people from places like Forteleza that are even more likely to have it. There are lots of people of fully traceable European ancestry in souther Brazil.
This does not change the fact that Elder Soares is clearly culturally distrinct from many Utah Mormons, although the number of people of Brazilian origin and descent in Utah is higher than some realize.
Elder Soares is another step in internationalizing the Quorum of the 12 along with Elder Uchtdorf, although I still think looking at it this way unreasonably minimizes the importance of other general authorities and of general officers.
At present the Church still calls General Officers exclusively from those living in Utah. The newly called general officers at this conference were all white Americans. Sister Craig was raised in Provo where her dad was a BYU professor, except her last two years in high school when he father was president of the Pennsylvania Harrisburg Mission. Her father was born in Logan, Utah but raised in New Brunswick, New Jersey where her grandfather was a professor at Rutgers University. Her grandparents were in the same ward as Elder Christopherson when he was a teenager and incluenced him enough that he mentioned Sister Craig's grandmother in one of his general conference talks, as an example of what faithful women in the Church can do.
Sister Craven, the new second counselor in the Young women general presidency was born in Ohio. Her father was in the US military. Her mother's maiden name was Kaszuk, a slavic name that fits with common names in parts of Ohio. Her parents joined the Church later while living in Texas, the family was sealed in the Swiss Temple while her father was stationed in Germany. She was however baptized in Utah, while her father was on a tour of duty in Vietnam. Growing up she lived in 7 US states and Germany and England.
The Quorum of the 12 is now having two non-Americans for the first time since John A. Widstoe and Charles A. Callis were members, although since both Callis and Widstoe were US citizens who immigrated to the US at ages 10 and 11, they were for all intents and purposes Americans.
N. Eldon Tanner was born in the US because his mother was visiting her parents, but his family was resident in Canada. Marion G. Romney was born in Mexico, but came to the US as a youth, and his parents were of American origin.
Elder Uchtdorf had been to the US for pilot training prior to his call as a general authority, but had basically always been a resident of Germany. Elder Soares was living in Utah doing a special assignment for the Office of the Presiding Bishopric at the time of his call as a general authority. However he was born and raised, served his mission in and worked up until his call as a mission president in Brazil, some of that time as Director of Temporal Affairs for the Brazil South Area. Elder Soares was mission president in Portugal.
Elder Gong while the first clearly non-white apostle is without question American. Elder Soares is phenotypically white. The nature of his actual ancestry I am not aware of, so I can not rule out indigenous American or slightly more likely African ancestry. However other factors suggest to me that Elder Soares probably does not have any known African ancestry. Since he was born in 1958 he would have been just over minimum mission age at the time of the 1978 revelation, but I have not come across any suggestion that he has African ancestry, and even though there are lots of people with some level of African ancestry in Sao Paulo, it is people from places like Forteleza that are even more likely to have it. There are lots of people of fully traceable European ancestry in souther Brazil.
This does not change the fact that Elder Soares is clearly culturally distrinct from many Utah Mormons, although the number of people of Brazilian origin and descent in Utah is higher than some realize.
Elder Soares is another step in internationalizing the Quorum of the 12 along with Elder Uchtdorf, although I still think looking at it this way unreasonably minimizes the importance of other general authorities and of general officers.
At present the Church still calls General Officers exclusively from those living in Utah. The newly called general officers at this conference were all white Americans. Sister Craig was raised in Provo where her dad was a BYU professor, except her last two years in high school when he father was president of the Pennsylvania Harrisburg Mission. Her father was born in Logan, Utah but raised in New Brunswick, New Jersey where her grandfather was a professor at Rutgers University. Her grandparents were in the same ward as Elder Christopherson when he was a teenager and incluenced him enough that he mentioned Sister Craig's grandmother in one of his general conference talks, as an example of what faithful women in the Church can do.
Sister Craven, the new second counselor in the Young women general presidency was born in Ohio. Her father was in the US military. Her mother's maiden name was Kaszuk, a slavic name that fits with common names in parts of Ohio. Her parents joined the Church later while living in Texas, the family was sealed in the Swiss Temple while her father was stationed in Germany. She was however baptized in Utah, while her father was on a tour of duty in Vietnam. Growing up she lived in 7 US states and Germany and England.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Why I am not a Utah Expatriate
With it having been over 80 years since the first stake was formed in Chicago, and over 65 since the first stake was formed in Detroit, one would think we would be past the era of the Utah Expatriate. However I don't feel it.
While not all the people I hometeach have connections to Utah, they all connect to Utah, Idaho or Washington State. Some people at times think of The Belle Isle Branch as white Utah Expatriates and black Michigan born converts, but it is more complex than that.
A classic example of the Utah expatriate is Sister Jean B. Bingham. True, she has been resident in Utah for the last 9 years, and was born in Provo. She also started her undergraduate education at BYU and met her husband there. However she went to high school in New Jersey, and elementary school in Minnesota and Texas. She spent most of her married life in Illinois and Wisconsin.
However she was raised a Utah expatriate. Her parents were from Tooelle and Grantsville and every summer her family would spend 4 weeks visiting relatives and family in Utah. It is that constant return to Utah that makes someone a Utah exapatriate, and the key in me not being one.
My first trip to Utah was when I was one. I have no recollection of it. The next time I went to Utah was a age 15. I had by that time made three trips to California, so I was closer to a California expatriate with three of my grandparents living there, and my parents having come close to moving back there in the late 1980s.
Of course when Sister Bingham was growing up from 1952 even until the time she was married in 1972, the closest temples were in Utah. When I was growing up the closest temples were in DC until I was 4, Chicago until I was 9, Toronto until I was 19, and I was thus endowed in the Detroit Temple.
Thus it is the building of the DC Temple in 1974, not the first stake in the east, that allows us to start moving beyond being Utah Expatriates.
While not all the people I hometeach have connections to Utah, they all connect to Utah, Idaho or Washington State. Some people at times think of The Belle Isle Branch as white Utah Expatriates and black Michigan born converts, but it is more complex than that.
A classic example of the Utah expatriate is Sister Jean B. Bingham. True, she has been resident in Utah for the last 9 years, and was born in Provo. She also started her undergraduate education at BYU and met her husband there. However she went to high school in New Jersey, and elementary school in Minnesota and Texas. She spent most of her married life in Illinois and Wisconsin.
However she was raised a Utah expatriate. Her parents were from Tooelle and Grantsville and every summer her family would spend 4 weeks visiting relatives and family in Utah. It is that constant return to Utah that makes someone a Utah exapatriate, and the key in me not being one.
My first trip to Utah was when I was one. I have no recollection of it. The next time I went to Utah was a age 15. I had by that time made three trips to California, so I was closer to a California expatriate with three of my grandparents living there, and my parents having come close to moving back there in the late 1980s.
Of course when Sister Bingham was growing up from 1952 even until the time she was married in 1972, the closest temples were in Utah. When I was growing up the closest temples were in DC until I was 4, Chicago until I was 9, Toronto until I was 19, and I was thus endowed in the Detroit Temple.
Thus it is the building of the DC Temple in 1974, not the first stake in the east, that allows us to start moving beyond being Utah Expatriates.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Thomas S. Monson, rest in peace
Thomas S. Monson passed away last night. Although when he died was just after midnight Michigan time.
It is hard at this juncture to say a lot. I am saddened by the passing and glad he has rejoined his belowed Frances.
President Monson was first called as an apostle in 1963. The president of the Quorum of the 12 then was Joseph Fielding Smith, whose parents had lived in exile in Hawaii for some of his formative years, and who was a teenaged before the Salt Lake Temple was completed.
The president of the Church who called President Monson was David O. McKay. When President McKay had become president of the Church all stakes were in the US, Albetrta, Canada or the Mormon colonies in Hawaii. No stake operated in a language other than English. It was only while President Monson was president of the Canadian mission that missionary work to French-speakers in Canada was initiatiated.
In 1971 Elder Monson was one of the apostles involved in setting apart the leadership of the Genesis Group. This group was created to serve the needs of African-American Latter-day Saints. In 1973 in his journal as noted in a Deseret News article published today, Elder Monson expressed the hope that the African-American brethren leading the Genesis Group could soon receive the priesthood. He was the last man alive who had been present in 1978 when President Kimball received the revelation on the priesthood. He was also present at the first sacrament meeting of the Genesis Group, and performed the first temple sealing involving a couple including an African-American. Also as a member of the Priesthood Executive Committee he was involved in issueing the first mission calls to people of African-descent in the 20th century (Elijah Able had been a missionary in the 19th-century). Among those then called was Marcus Martins who would be called as a mission president by President Monson.
President Monson dedicated Haiti for the preaching of the gospel in 1982. His first assignments as an apostle had been to Oceania. He organized the first stake in Tonga for example.
President Monson had a vision of a church where all wards and branches were lead by local brethren, and not by full-time missionaries. Where as many people as possible lived in stakes and could receive patriarchal blessings and where no members lived more than 200 miles from the temple.
From about 1969-1985 President Monson oversaw the Church in Eastern Europe. It was truly a labor of love. He was centrally involved in the negotiations that lead to missionaries in East German before the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans called as missionaries, and the building of the Friberg Germany Temple. While most of the major progress in eastern Europe happened after President Monson was called to the First Presidency, and it was Elder Russell M. Nelson who was the main point man on that, President Monson was key in laying the groundwork.
President Monson was also a key figure in the LDS edition of the scriptures that came out from 1979-1981.
He was a man who had a vision of ministry to the one.
His role while a counselor to Presidents Benson, Hunter and Hinckley is hard for me to directly assess.
As preisdent of the Church, he oversaw many major developments, although many were continuances of policies of those before.
The biggest change under his administration was the lowering of the missionary age, especially for young women. This also lead to a reformating of mission counsels. There were also major advances in missionary use of technology and changes in various other guidelines for misisonaries.
Another big change was seen in major revisions of Church curriculum. This started in 2013 with new youth curriculum. The CES curriculum went through major revisions as well. Then in 2016 came teacher councils. The 2010 revision of the Church Handbook of instructions also emphasized more the importance of the ward council. The Church moved to be more strongly governed by councils at all levels. The new melchizedek preisthood and relief society curriculum move this central role of councils and new approach to curriculum even more broadly. The adult Sunday School curriculum has not seen much revision. The Doctrine and Covenants online materials did include some very useful connections and additional material, but I have to say it was not uniformly utilized. On the other hand the online edition of the Old Testament student manual still uses the Old Bible dictionary name for an article, not even reflecting the alterations in the Bible Dictionary published in I believe 2013.
On the political and social issues front President Monson has largely reflected a continuation of policies from before. The 2008 support of Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states was in line with previous support. The move of the Church voicing its support for legal protection of man/woman marriage outside of the US may have been new under President Monson, but was a result more of the issue being voiced in areas where there was a chance for public comment combined with situations like an all Mexican area presidency in Mexico being about the only group that could have lead out on the issue in the political climate of Mexico. The Church seems to have possibly been more vocal in its support for finding solutions to immigration issues that would allow families to remain together, but I have not studied the issue in depth enough to be able to time Church statements on this issue very clearly.
While the Church has clearly endorsed a level of housing and employment protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation that I do not think was announced before, it has signaled that man/woman marriage will remain the only accepted place for sexual interaction in Church policy. The policy to excommunicate those who enter same-sex marriage has caused outrage to some, and others to misrepresent it.
The Church has also lead out in interfaith work, and a push for religious freedom.
At the same time the Church has majorly increased its openess and scholarly publications. The Chuirch Historians Press was launched under President Monson, although much of the initial legwork for this initiatiate was started under President Hinckley. Starting in 2013 the Church published several gospel topic essays, that dealt frankly with difficult subjects like race and the priesthood. The fact that a few weeks ago I was able to show such to an active Church member who had never read them shows that they have not been read as much as they need to be.
The role of women in the Church has also beeen changed in significant if not fully comprehended ways. Women giving prayers in regular sessions of general conference, and the women's conference being made for all women 8 and up and being clearly indicated as part of general conference are significant changes. The most recent, with the alternating general priesthood meeting and general women's meeting on Saturday evenings of general conference is also a big one. Also the role of the mission president's companion (wife) has been given a more formal place in mission structure, and the mission council now includes female missionaries, and there is the new leadership title for sister missionaries (the exact name escapes me at the moment).
The BYU pathway program has been another major initiative during President Monson's presidency.
Lastly, we have seen a push forward in the number of temples. Not on the level of what we saw under President Hinckley, but still a major push forward. We have seen temples announced for several places very far from existing temples.
I know there are lots more things to cover, but I think this is a good start.
Latly, President Monson was a man of compasion who was able to lead to Church to better reach out in service and caring to meet the needs of the individual.
It is hard at this juncture to say a lot. I am saddened by the passing and glad he has rejoined his belowed Frances.
President Monson was first called as an apostle in 1963. The president of the Quorum of the 12 then was Joseph Fielding Smith, whose parents had lived in exile in Hawaii for some of his formative years, and who was a teenaged before the Salt Lake Temple was completed.
The president of the Church who called President Monson was David O. McKay. When President McKay had become president of the Church all stakes were in the US, Albetrta, Canada or the Mormon colonies in Hawaii. No stake operated in a language other than English. It was only while President Monson was president of the Canadian mission that missionary work to French-speakers in Canada was initiatiated.
In 1971 Elder Monson was one of the apostles involved in setting apart the leadership of the Genesis Group. This group was created to serve the needs of African-American Latter-day Saints. In 1973 in his journal as noted in a Deseret News article published today, Elder Monson expressed the hope that the African-American brethren leading the Genesis Group could soon receive the priesthood. He was the last man alive who had been present in 1978 when President Kimball received the revelation on the priesthood. He was also present at the first sacrament meeting of the Genesis Group, and performed the first temple sealing involving a couple including an African-American. Also as a member of the Priesthood Executive Committee he was involved in issueing the first mission calls to people of African-descent in the 20th century (Elijah Able had been a missionary in the 19th-century). Among those then called was Marcus Martins who would be called as a mission president by President Monson.
President Monson dedicated Haiti for the preaching of the gospel in 1982. His first assignments as an apostle had been to Oceania. He organized the first stake in Tonga for example.
President Monson had a vision of a church where all wards and branches were lead by local brethren, and not by full-time missionaries. Where as many people as possible lived in stakes and could receive patriarchal blessings and where no members lived more than 200 miles from the temple.
From about 1969-1985 President Monson oversaw the Church in Eastern Europe. It was truly a labor of love. He was centrally involved in the negotiations that lead to missionaries in East German before the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans called as missionaries, and the building of the Friberg Germany Temple. While most of the major progress in eastern Europe happened after President Monson was called to the First Presidency, and it was Elder Russell M. Nelson who was the main point man on that, President Monson was key in laying the groundwork.
President Monson was also a key figure in the LDS edition of the scriptures that came out from 1979-1981.
He was a man who had a vision of ministry to the one.
His role while a counselor to Presidents Benson, Hunter and Hinckley is hard for me to directly assess.
As preisdent of the Church, he oversaw many major developments, although many were continuances of policies of those before.
The biggest change under his administration was the lowering of the missionary age, especially for young women. This also lead to a reformating of mission counsels. There were also major advances in missionary use of technology and changes in various other guidelines for misisonaries.
Another big change was seen in major revisions of Church curriculum. This started in 2013 with new youth curriculum. The CES curriculum went through major revisions as well. Then in 2016 came teacher councils. The 2010 revision of the Church Handbook of instructions also emphasized more the importance of the ward council. The Church moved to be more strongly governed by councils at all levels. The new melchizedek preisthood and relief society curriculum move this central role of councils and new approach to curriculum even more broadly. The adult Sunday School curriculum has not seen much revision. The Doctrine and Covenants online materials did include some very useful connections and additional material, but I have to say it was not uniformly utilized. On the other hand the online edition of the Old Testament student manual still uses the Old Bible dictionary name for an article, not even reflecting the alterations in the Bible Dictionary published in I believe 2013.
On the political and social issues front President Monson has largely reflected a continuation of policies from before. The 2008 support of Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states was in line with previous support. The move of the Church voicing its support for legal protection of man/woman marriage outside of the US may have been new under President Monson, but was a result more of the issue being voiced in areas where there was a chance for public comment combined with situations like an all Mexican area presidency in Mexico being about the only group that could have lead out on the issue in the political climate of Mexico. The Church seems to have possibly been more vocal in its support for finding solutions to immigration issues that would allow families to remain together, but I have not studied the issue in depth enough to be able to time Church statements on this issue very clearly.
While the Church has clearly endorsed a level of housing and employment protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation that I do not think was announced before, it has signaled that man/woman marriage will remain the only accepted place for sexual interaction in Church policy. The policy to excommunicate those who enter same-sex marriage has caused outrage to some, and others to misrepresent it.
The Church has also lead out in interfaith work, and a push for religious freedom.
At the same time the Church has majorly increased its openess and scholarly publications. The Chuirch Historians Press was launched under President Monson, although much of the initial legwork for this initiatiate was started under President Hinckley. Starting in 2013 the Church published several gospel topic essays, that dealt frankly with difficult subjects like race and the priesthood. The fact that a few weeks ago I was able to show such to an active Church member who had never read them shows that they have not been read as much as they need to be.
The role of women in the Church has also beeen changed in significant if not fully comprehended ways. Women giving prayers in regular sessions of general conference, and the women's conference being made for all women 8 and up and being clearly indicated as part of general conference are significant changes. The most recent, with the alternating general priesthood meeting and general women's meeting on Saturday evenings of general conference is also a big one. Also the role of the mission president's companion (wife) has been given a more formal place in mission structure, and the mission council now includes female missionaries, and there is the new leadership title for sister missionaries (the exact name escapes me at the moment).
The BYU pathway program has been another major initiative during President Monson's presidency.
Lastly, we have seen a push forward in the number of temples. Not on the level of what we saw under President Hinckley, but still a major push forward. We have seen temples announced for several places very far from existing temples.
I know there are lots more things to cover, but I think this is a good start.
Latly, President Monson was a man of compasion who was able to lead to Church to better reach out in service and caring to meet the needs of the individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)