consiglieri wrote:At least in response to Peggy's question, President Nelson got around to admitting that some time in the future there could be "different flavors" in church leadership.
Flavors? Are you kidding me? Nelson is comparing racial and gender diversity as "different flavors?"
What the hell is wrong with these guys?
They're completely ignorant, intentionally or not, of the unavoidable disparities generated by a leadership which excludes other major flavors groups. Such disparities create blindness and incompetence in the leadership and consequently in the institution.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Meadowchik wrote:They're completely ignorant, intentionally or not, of the unavoidable disparities generated by a leadership which excludes other major flavors groups. Such disparities create blindness and incompetence in the leadership and consequently in the institution.
And, they never did answer Stack's question. It was all a deflection (and a very poorly worded one).
Here's the question again:
“So under President Monson we saw some real advances toward gender equity — the lowering of the missionary age, especially for sisters, and also adding women to some of the executive committees, but the church leadership is still white, male, American. What will you do in your presidency to bring women, people of color, and international members into decision-making for the church?”
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meadowchik wrote:They're completely ignorant, intentionally or not, of the unavoidable disparities generated by a leadership which excludes other major flavors groups. Such disparities create blindness and incompetence in the leadership and consequently in the institution.
And, they never did answer Stack's question. It was all a deflection (albeit a very poorly worded one).
Here's the question again:
“So under President Monson we saw some real advances toward gender equity — the lowering of the missionary age, especially for sisters, and also adding women to some of the executive committees, but the church leadership is still white, male, American. What will you do in your presidency to bring women, people of color, and international members into decision-making for the church?”
I think patting Peggy Stack on the head is the answer in itself.
Nelson "answered the question she should have asked" in good old Robert Millet style.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maksutov wrote:I think patting Peggy Stack on the head is the answer in itself.
True. I imagine she just loved him responding like that too, as it's no secret how the leaders REALLY feel about her. Pretty hypocritical of Nelson, in my opinion. But members think it was so magnanimous of him to express his love of her.
Water Dog wrote:So, was he calling her to repent? That's kind of how it felt to me.
It was just weird. Both Nelson and Oaks came off as just old men who kept saying how much they loved everyone and that God loves all of his children. I'd love a count of how many times they stated one of those in response to every question.