Is the Church Ready to Have a Racially Diverse Leadership?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In Daniel Peterson's latest article for the D-News:

Just as Jews around the world are citizens of their respective countries but have a special interest in the historical land of Israel, most modern Latter-day Saints live outside of Utah.

Now that almost 60% of LDS live outside the U.S., when will the top leadership of the Church (First Presidency, Quorom of the Twelve, Quorom of the Seventies) actually reflect this culturally and racially diverse membership of the Church?

Watching General Conference and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir one can easily come to the conclusion that the Church is entirely composed of Caucasians from Utah.

Is their any legitimate reason for the Church's top leadership to not accurately reflect the racially diverse membership of the Church? If so, what are the reasons?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now that almost 60% of LDS live outside the U.S., when will the top leadership of the Church (First Presidency, Quorom of the Twelve, Quorom of the Seventies) actually reflect this culturally and racially diverse membership of the Church?

It doesn't surprise me a bit that the highest quorums lag behind the general membership in terms of demographics. Particularly at the level of the Twelve and the First Presidency, the overall membership of which is influenced by the principle of life-tenure.

It takes time for people to rise up through local leadership callings and become "seasoned" enough for general leadership callings.

But I do think that we're seeing a considerable shift in the Seventy, including a fair number of Latin American, Asian, and European members. And even an African -- the second black general authority. Members of the Twelve typically emerge from the Seventy, and, thus, this shift will ultimately have its effect.

These things will come.

Watching General Conference and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir one can easily come to the conclusion that the Church is entirely composed of Caucasians from Utah.

As both a practical matter and a matter of policy, members of the Tabernacle Choir must come from within a certain radius -- I can't remember the precise figure; perhaps a hundred miles, perhaps a bit less -- of Temple Square. Thus, they're going to represent the Church's demographic in that area, which is (horrible as this may sound to some) largely Caucasian.

They're not going to represent, and cannot represent, the membership of the Church in Guatemala, Korea, Brazil, or Ghana.

Is their any legitimate reason for the Church's top leadership to not accurately reflect the racially diverse membership of the Church? If so, what are the reasons?

See above.

And, for the record, although I would be perfectly happy and indeed very pleased to see a Latino member of the Twelve, and/or an Asian member, and/or a black member, I don't favor quotas or tokenism, and I don't think it's really very important that the presiding quorums "accurately reflect" the ethnic composition of the worldwide Church as if they constituted some sort of representative assembly.

[_MsJack]

Everybody Wang Chung ~ Last year, when I joined the Evangelical Covenant Church, there was a black couple that joined our congregation in the same group of new members. Really great couple with really fantastic testimonies and background stories. I'm not going to say their names because I don't want people Googling them, but the wife is a published author and the husband holds a position in the administration at one of the universities in the area.

They said that they had a heart for finding a church with a vision of racial and ethnic diversity, and they said that they had looked at a lot of different denominations and visited a number of congregations that were very eager to have them. Everyone they talked to affirmed that their church was interested in racial and ethnic diversity; no one openly admitted to being opposed to it.

Their next question was always: "Show us your leaders." And with that they kept walking away, because the leaders of the other denominations they checked out were always entirely one race (I assume white, but it's possible they visited some predominantly black denominations and had the same issue with all-black leadership).

Plenty of people tried to tell them that their denomination simply did not have any qualified minority members who could serve in leadership. They didn't think this was a very good excuse. They felt that the best way to promote ethnic diversity was to have diverse leadership, and if a denomination lacks qualified minority members, then minority leaders should be selected and trained for the job.

As far as the LDS church goes, I think that the membership is more than ready for ethnic diversity in its leadership, and I have to wonder how many potential converts from minority groups are turned off by the all-white leadership (as the black couple from my church was turned off by the leadership of other Protestant denominations). If anybody in the church lacks readiness for ethnic diversity in leadership, it's the current leaders themselves.

[_Runtu]

I think the church is culturally "ready" and has been for a long time. Really, though, the top-level leadership usually comes from within a connected network of people, most of whom are white and live in North America.

[_Buffalo]

Uchtdorf didn't become a GA until 1994, and he's already in the first presidency. There has been ample time since the lifting of the ban for there to have been a black apostle by now - and definitely a Hispanic one. There are probably at least as many Hispanic members as white, yes?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Uchtdorf didn't become a GA until 1994, and he's already in the first presidency. There has been ample time since the lifting of the ban for there to have been a black apostle by now - and definitely a Hispanic one. There are probably at least as many Hispanic members as white, yes?

If you want to assert that the leaders are racists, feel free. I see no actual evidence for it, though.

President Uchtdorf has, it's true, experienced something of a meteoric rise -- which, I happen to know, surprised him very much. I'm confident that the fact that President Monson has known and worked with him for many years, owing to an assigned responsibility for Germany, played some role in his call to the First Presidency, if not to the Seventy and the Twelve. I have to say, though, that, even apart from his relationship with President Monson, President Uchtdorf's call to the Twelve didn't surprise me. I actually predicted it; I had heard his abilities mentioned with virtual awe by several General Authorities prior to his call, and made a mental note of the fact.

I don't think that the Church sees itself as governed by any kind of racial, ethnic, or national quota system, and I don't think that it should be.

Still, I don't think it should be overlooked or minimized that the Presidency of the Seventy now includes Elders Costa and González, and that the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy currently include such members as Aidukaitis, Aoyagi, Alonso, Amado, Caussé, Choi, Costa, DeHoyos, Falabella, Gavarett, Godoy, Gong, González, Kikuchi, Ko, Kopischke, Malm, Mazzagardi, Pino, Sitati, Soares, T eh [can't write his name properly without it being "corrected" to the], Teixeira, Tenorio, Uceda, Viñas, Yamashita, Zeballos, and Zivic.

I think the Church is entirely ready to have a racially diverse leadership. In fact, to a very great degree -- certainly on the local and regional level -- it already does.

[_jon]

I think that the evidence shows that the Church has a racially diverse leadership at most levels, including the First Presidency.

It is a shame that the Church achieved this long after most walks of life had already moved on from institutional racism.

A more up to date question may be whether the Church is ready for a sexually diverse leadership...

[_Joseph]

White and Delightsome from Idaho and Utah(with the occasional Orange County, CA guy) isn't 'racially diverse'?

[_Buffalo]

Uchtdorf didn't become a GA until 1994, and he's already in the first presidency. There has been ample time since the lifting of the ban for there to have been a black apostle by now - and definitely a Hispanic one. There are probably at least as many Hispanic members as white, yes?

If you want to assert that the leaders are racists, feel free. I see no actual evidence for it, though.

President Uchtdorf has, it's true, experienced something of a meteoric rise -- which, I happen to know, surprised him very much. I'm confident that the fact that President Monson has known and worked with him for many years, owing to an assigned responsibility for Germany, played some role in his call to the First Presidency, if not to the Seventy and the Twelve. I have to say, though, that, even apart from his relationship with President Monson, President Uchtdorf's call to the Twelve didn't surprise me. I actually predicted it; I had heard his abilities mentioned with virtual awe by several General Authorities prior to his call, and made a mental note of the fact.

I don't think that the Church sees itself as governed by any kind of racial, ethnic, or national quota system, and I don't think that it should be.

Still, I don't think it should be overlooked or minimized that the Presidency of the Seventy now includes Elders Costa and González, and that the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy currently include such members as Aidukaitis, Aoyagi, Alonso, Amado, Caussé, Choi, Costa, DeHoyos, Falabella, Gavarett, Godoy, Gong, González, Kikuchi, Ko, Kopischke, Malm, Mazzagardi, Pino, Sitati, Soares, T eh [can't write his name properly without it being "corrected" to the], Teixeira, Tenorio, Uceda, Viñas, Yamashita, Zeballos, and Zivic.

I think the Church is entirely ready to have a racially diverse leadership. In fact, to a very great degree -- certainly on the local and regional level -- it already does.

I don't think they're racist - except maybe those among them who opposed lifting the ban. They just rely too heavily on their good old boy network. Also, they're pretty tone deaf.

[_Scottie]

I believe so.

My Grandma was horribly racists, especially against blacks. She'd always say how she can't stand how those niggers have taken over the television!!

That wasn't necessarily uncommon for her generation.

That generation has mostly died off and I think the new generation is extremely tolerant of all races.

Now, in another 50 years, when all of you homophobes die off, our grandkids can ask the question if we're ready to have a gay in the Q12. They will probably have a similar post as mine, just replacing nigger with fag.