[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, that's a very unspecific example, jay. That's like me saying, "I know a white guy who's an anti-black, anti-Jew racist." Um, okay. What am I supposed to draw from that? Maybe the guys on your North America team aren't that smart.

A few points:

First, I'd like some concrete examples, if you have any, of this happening in the church. I'd like to see this argued this not only from a theoretical point of view, but a practical one. I have this feeling that this idea that racial diversity is de facto better than the alternative is just a product of 20th century man.

Second, I consistently maintain throughout these discussions that the church is an entirely different animal from any other organization. No company, no institution can compare.

Third, I reject the notion that the white man can never get far enough out of his Beaver, Utah roots to fully comprehend the needs of other areas of the world.

Fourth, Gordon Hinckley is arguably the most world-conscious prophet we've had since David McKay ... and perhaps ever. He's had 3 opportunities to select new men for the apostleship and look who he's picked: Eyring, Uchtdorf, and Bednar. Let's break it down:

3 White males
2 Americans (and 1 imperialist European)
- 1 from Utah
- 1 from Arkansas (ah, the dreaded racist south!)
2 Educators and former/current university presidents

Let's factor God out of the decision-making process for a moment (just so Arch doesn't blow a fuse) and pretend that Hinckley makes these decisions solely on his own good judgment. If he shared your concerns, don't you think he would've addressed it with at least one of these picks? If not him, who? Prophet Monson? Prophet Packer?

I'm not arguing that diversity of background and experience is a bad thing (though that's certainly what this will be cast as). More than once, I've heard the apostles extol the diversity of the quorum's experience as a strength, and I agree with that.

I just take issue with the notion that diversity--especially racial diversity--is de facto better. I take issue with the notion that because I was raised in Texas, it's impossible for me to ever fully gauge how to appropriately address problems in Ghana, or China, or Turkey, or wherever.

You are asking for the impossible (and I am quite certain you know it). The church doesn't exactly publish their deliberations. They don't invite outsiders in to listen in on their deliberations. Most of their decisions aren't public. Most of the issues they discuss aren't public. In fact, can anyone tell me what was on the agenda of any meeting of the First Presidency for any week of any year in the past 10 years? Did anyone get a copy of the minutes? Of course not.

I think Jay Santos' point is excellent. Even if you have seasoned managers with lots of international experience (as the church certainly does), you are bound to overlook many issues important to people in other parts of the world or issues important to people of a different race or ethnicity.

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

And yes, the fact that you are from Texas means you are far less likely to ever fully understand how to resolve issues in Ghana.