New Why?

[_The Mighty Builder]

Since the Mormon Church now boasts that over 50% of its membership reside outside of the US, shouldn't over 50% of the Apostles be non-Americans? Maybe even latino, black, pacific islander, etc.?

[_harmony]

Since the Mormon Church now boasts that over 50% of its membership reside outside of the US, shouldn't over 50% of the Apostles be non-Americans? Maybe even latino, black, pacific islander, etc.?

Yeah, right. And the books should be open.

[_beefcalf]

The General Authorities in SLC now are all men who came into ecclesiastical power no later than the 1970's, with many having come-of-age in the 1940's and 1950's. It is difficult to imagine that the racial attitudes these men learned during their youth could easily be eradicated. President Benson was ruling the roost after the 1978 pronouncement and I don't think there was a chance in heck he would have ever promoted a dark-skinned brother to any General Authority position. Granted, there would need to be some time for a dark-and-loathsome (but soon-to-be-white-and-delightsome) brother to make his way up the Bishop > Stake-Pres > Area-Pres > Mission-Pres > Seventy ladder but you get my point.

The church certainly wants to put it's racism behind it, and I think we all agree that the 1978 change to allow all worthy men hold the priesthood without regard to race was a positive move in that direction. But the fact remains that the subject of the equivalency between dark skin and 'loathsomeness' is part of the web and woof of the Books of Mormon and Abraham. Changing policies is one thing, but a wholesale redaction of these concepts from canonized scripture is quite likely a bridge too far. As is the hope for an overnight change in attitudes among the men who lead the church.