Without assessing fault or blame

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can agree that racial diversity will not always contribute to a diversity of views, but I disagree it addresses only PC issues. Mind you, I'm not much into PC, but I do care about representation of interests.




There you go again exhibiting hubris of knowing what Deity desires.



It's not just an issue of diversity. The Church is many things, and will not be able to govern efficiently and effectively, until the views of members throughout the world are considered. We will always see some disconnect until the needs of all members are important. Apparently to you, the needs of white male members are most important.

Agreed. And I have no idea what Tex means when he says it is hard to be diverse when you are the "only true church." What does that have to do with racial and ethnic diversity in church leadership?

[BlueHair]

The only way the quicken the pace of racial diversity in church leadership is to have some of the current leadership's family marry non-whites. The leadership has stayed mostly white because the leadership doesn't stray too far from a few established LDS families.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

The only way the quicken the pace of racial diversity in church leadership is to have some of the current leadership's family marry non-whites. The leadership has stayed mostly white because the leadership doesn't stray too far from a few established LDS families.

I kinda like the Affirmative Action for church leadership plan.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

The only way the quicken the pace of racial diversity in church leadership is to have some of the current leadership's family marry non-whites. The leadership has stayed mostly white because the leadership doesn't stray too far from a few established LDS families.

Somebody call Elder Scott. I understand he's still single.

[Detroitdad]

It is hard for me to understand why anyone would think that leadership that is not reflective of the membership experientially, geographically, racially or linguistically is not a bad thing. Without some point of reference how does one craft policies that adequately address the issues that are unique to some locale. If the church is to be the most effective instrument it is a no brainer that the leadership needs to be less Utah-Western U.S. centric.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

It is hard for me to understand why anyone would think that leadership that is not reflective of the membership experientially, geographically, racially or linguistically is not a bad thing. Without some point of reference how does one craft policies that adequately address the issues that are unique to some locale. If the church is to be the most effective instrument it is a no brainer that the leadership needs to be less Utah-Western U.S. centric.

Thus I ask you the same question I asked SIEQ: is it your contention that the current cadre does not "adequately address the issues that are unique to some locales"?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Thus I ask you the same question I asked SIEQ: is it your contention that the current cadre does not "adequately address the issues that are unique to some locales"?

I'll jump in here at a random place. Yes, I would absolutely contend that.

Case in point: my company is a multinational company. We'll get a team together of people from North America and develop some initial strategy on some initiative. Then we get guys from Europe and Asia involved and invariably the North America team will have missed the boat on several key issues that are important in those areas. And like the general authorities, these are seasoned managers who often times have lived and worked oveseas.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'll jump in here at a random place. Yes, I would absolutely contend that.

Case in point: my company is a multinational company. We'll get a team together of people from North America and develop some initial strategy on some initiative. Then we get guys from Europe and Asia involved and invariably the North America team will have missed the boat on several key issues that are important in those areas. And like the general authorities, these are seasoned managers who often times have lived and worked oveseas.

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 (in addition to the 2 we already have)

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.

[jay santos]

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 being from Texas will never be able to sit down with a Chinese government official and talk to him in native Chinese, ask him where he's from and find common genealogy, and then ask him to consider allowing the missionaries in.

You being from Texas might not ever understand the power an African apostle becoming a regular in the African media and news outlets.

You being from Texas might not understand the power of a Latino apostle meeting a Catholic cardinal in Brazil in a public setting.

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

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

[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.