It has to be asked....

[2ndRateMind]

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[mordorbund]

46 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I want to explore this idea that if there's a lack of diversity in the leadership of any organization it is inherently a BadThing(TM) - and if that organization is a religious one, then this structuring is not God's will.

@2ndRateMind Can you think of any precedents for God working within only a narrow demographic in working His salvific mission?

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

Can you think of any precedents for God working within only a narrow demographic in working His salvific mission?

Not really. I can think of patriarchal religious structures that deliberately denied any form of power or influence (and sometimes, still do) to the lower classes, or to women, or to foreigners, though, however wise and talented and Godly such individuals might be. For hecks sake, none of these guys even have a beard! How's that for uniformity? Let us beardies speak!

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[mordorbund]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Not really. I can think of patriarchal religious structures that deliberately denied any form of power or influence (and sometimes, still do) to the lower classes, or to women, or to foreigners, though, however wise and talented and Godly such individuals might be.

When you say "patriarchal", do you mean "men-only" or do you mean "father-governed"? Since we're talking about the history of God's dealings with His children, it makes a difference.

Are these religious structures you can think of part of the documented Christian organization as chronicled in the New Testament? The historical Old Testament revelations that preceded it? or are you referring to some extra-biblical organizations?

[Fether]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Christ never taught diversity, in fact the first people to receive the gospel were the least diverse on the planet, the Jews.

nope, no diversity, just truth. 

[2ndRateMind]

Indeed, the Jews are one of the most coherent, stable, defined religious communities in the world. It also has to be said, that they are one of the most racist. It took Christ to come among them, and reveal that His mission was not just for Jews, but also for Gentiles, to release the Holy Spirit and the Love of God amongst the whole of humanity.

But even Jesus Himself did not immediately realise this, according to scripture:

 

Quote

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.*

It took the Canaanite woman to challenge His predisposition to minister only to Jews, and reveal to Him the full extent of His mission.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Matthew 15: 21-28 KJV

Edited May 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

Christ never taught diversity, in fact the first people to receive the gospel were the least diverse on the planet, the Jews.

nope, no diversity, just truth. 

One could easily argue that parable of the good Samaritan was among the first public preachings on loving your neighbor, not being prejudiced towards them. 

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Leadership doesn't just change over night. In the upper leadership... The 70's and above, there are a growing number of of non white ethnicities. 

The reason it is so white now is that the base is Utah.,a very white state. The leaders often know locals better. 

In the coming years, you will see a much more diverse group. 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

... Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think (it) is unfair.  Consider that rejecting a message because of the color of the messenger(s)' skin (or gender or age) is a mistake. Your OP doesn't sound like you would want do that out-of-hand even if the messenger is different from you in any of the ways you mentioned. 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

'Pale, Male, and Stale' 

I'm a collector of relevant snark, and I hadn't heard that before - thanks for adding to my collection.  I'll toss it on the pile with "Pray, pay, and obey" (snarky summary of a Mormon's job), and "newlywed and mostly dead" (to describe the demographics of certain congregations).

The practical answer to your question, is the church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, where just about everyone is white, and geographic proximity and demographic odds are at play when it comes time to fill vacancies in upper leadership.  If we picked up and moved to South America or Africa, you'd see a racial change in a few generations.

That said, take a look at what has happened recently.  We had two vacancies in our senior leadership, and here's how they were filled:

Elder Gong was born in Cali, but has lived in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China.  Full bio here. 
Elder Soares was born and raised in Brasil, and has lived in Africa and Portugal.  Full bio here. 

 

We also have Elder Uchtdorf, born in Czechoslovakia, raised there and in Germany.   There.  Three apostles that indicate something other than your (legitimate) question about buncha old white american guys running our church.  Does that help?

As for cultural cohesion - well, we do believe we are bringing about the Kingdom of God, where people will be pretty much marching to the same drum of gospel truth.  We work very hard to make sure if someone gets on a plane and flies halfway around the world, they can find a church that is teaching from the same manual, and may even be giving the same lesson, albeit perhaps in a different language.   It's a feature, not a bug. 

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Classic snowflake post.
No research at all, just a jab.
1. Isolate your complaint to only the "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve".
2. Exclude the Seventy and RS, YW & Primary presidency since that doesn't fit your narrative.
3. Spout a narrative that is already false. At least do some home work first. Elder Soares would disagree with you, or is he "too white" for your liking.

Edited May 15, 2018 by NeedleinA

[2ndRateMind]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

When you say "patriarchal", do you mean "men-only" or do you mean "father-governed"? Since we're talking about the history of God's dealings with His children, it makes a difference.

Are these religious structures you can think of part of the documented Christian organization as chronicled in the New Testament? The historical Old Testament revelations that preceded it? or are you referring to some extra-biblical organizations?

By patriarchy, I mean, the government of everyone, by men, for men.

I think you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of a Christian denomination that does not favour men in power, and indeed, often limit power to men. That goes for pretty much all other religions, too. Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just recently allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

By patriarchy, I mean, the government of everyone, by men, for men.

I think you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of a Christian denomination that does not favour men in power, and indeed, often limit power to men. That goes for pretty much all other religions, too. Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So, my husband worked with this lesbian woman manager.  She's dumber than a bunch of hammers.  My husband is a straight white male.  He is the BEST manager in that organization.  The BEST.  And that is because he knows how to pick the person with the best-of-the-best skillset to do the job.  He could care less what that person looks like or what other characteristics that person has other than the person's ability to do the job at the highest performance level.  He got demoted because the lesbian woman manager wanted his job and they gave it to her because... diversity.  Guess what happened to their organization.  Shut down.  Yep.  They lost so much business they had to do a merger.  Guess what my husband is doing... he got hired by the organization that bought out his old one.

Yep.  That's what happens when YOU'RE A BUNCH OF RACISTS that look at skin color rather the content of one's character.

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Classic snowflake post.
No research at all, just a jab.
1. Isolate your complaint to only the "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve".
2. Exclude the Seventy and RS, YW & Primary presidency since that doesn't fit your narrative.
3. Spout a narrative that is already false. At least do some home work first. Elder Soares would disagree with you, or is he "too white" for your liking.

Indeed.... For all the talk Snowflakes and other SJW types give about not judging someone or a group by the color of their skin...  They are totally ok with making such judgements if the person or group happens to be white.

 

 

[2ndRateMind]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Elder Gong was born in Cali, but has lived in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China.  Full bio here. 
Elder Soares was born and raised in Brasil, and has lived in Africa and Portugal.  Full bio here. 

Thank you for enlightening me. I admit I am somewhat (not entirely) wrong. I look forward to the time when I will be completely wrong.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It took the Canaanite woman to challenge His predisposition to minister only to Jews, and reveal to Him the full extent of His mission.

Good thing God created us, so we could teach him truths he didn't know and reveal things to him. Yay us!

[Vort]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thank you for enlightening me. I admit I am somewhat (not entirely) wrong. I look forward to the time when I will be completely wrong.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Trust me, you're already there.

[NeedleinA]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thank you for enlightening me. I admit I am somewhat (not entirely) wrong. I look forward to the time when I will be completely wrong.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Darn those pesky facts.

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, that's because Anglicans don't have the Truth of the gospel.

Gender is an Eternal Characteristic.  Each gender has a defined role in the Kingdom of God.  We are also Eternal Spirits.  Our lives do not start at conception.  Our consciousness, like energy, is neither created nor destroyed.  Rather, God organized these existences (spirits) and created a vessel (a body) for them.  In God's plan for these spirits to gain knowledge - that is, becoming as God is - , it was deemed necessary that these spirits go through mortal existence.  Women were given the role of bringing these eternal spirits from pre-mortal existence into the mortal one.  Men were given the role of bringing these eternal spirits from mortal existence to the post-mortal one (through priesthood ordinances). 

But, in each of their roles, they can't completely accomplish it without the necessary contribution of the other.  Therefore, women can't bring spirits into mortal existence without the necessary contribution of men and men can't exercise their priesthood and bring souls into heaven without the necessary contribution of women.  And guess what - only the LDS Church teaches this.  Nobody else does because they lack the important teaching of pre-mortal existence.  Therefore, the LDS Church is the only Christian Church whose Women hold a foundational necessity to the kingdom of God through which mankind might be saved.  The LDS Church is also the only Christian Church who revere Eve as the Woman who first exercised that foundational necessity through her free choice.  Therefore, as other Churches hold Eve in a negative light, the LDS Church do not.

The Anglican Church gave women the priesthood because they are clueless as to the important foundational role of Women in the Plan for our Salvation - so they decided to give them a consolation prize to keep them happy.

Edited May 15, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

3 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

The number of assumptions in all that is dumbfounding.  I'm thinking it would be a good exercise (for someone to whom they are not obvious) to parse them out and analyze them for their validity (or lack thereof).

[Guest MormonGator]

The question I'd like to ask is, "Does ethnicity matter if I agree with what they are doing?" IE-If a group of old white men suddenly were in favor of gay marriage and female ordination, would you care if they were old white men? Probably not. If a group of Asian, African-American, Hispanic and white men and women said that gay marriage is an abomination-would there diversity be enough to satisfy you? 

[Guest MormonGator]

The interesting thing is that the church will get more diverse. That's a mathematical certainty. The church is rapidly shrinking in the white European demographic (not an insult, it's just numbers) and it's growing in the African demographic. That's good news/bad news for those who love diversity. The good news is that the church will get less white. The bad news is that African Christianity isn't exactly open to gay marriage, female ordination, etc. 

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

The question I'd like to ask is, "Does ethnicity matter if I agree with what they are doing?" IE-If a group of old white men suddenly were in favor of gay marriage and female ordination, would you care if they were old white men? Probably not. If a group of Asian, African-American, Hispanic and white men and women said that gay marriage is an abomination-would there diversity be enough to satisfy you? 

Not necessarily. I would still be bound to my own moral conviction, and the dictates of my own conscience, however diverse or prejudiced the leadership of my (hypothetical) denomination might be. But at least, with a diverse leadership, I would think it more likely that all sides of a question had been considered, discussed and a suitable decision reached, even if that decision were to be messy compromise and not a clearly defined dictat. Of course, one may not want to compromise at all, but that is not an entirely mature way to approach the complexity of the human condition, and the intricacy of the moral maze, that confronts us all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[lostinwater]

3 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Probably by any number of definitions, Mormon church leadership is not a diverse group.  i won't disagree there.

But is there an evil/dark plan by Salt Lake to intentionally exclude from minorities from leadership?  i really don't think so.  The church was started by white men in a standard deviation or two of the middle class, and it's sort of stayed that way.

It would make for more exciting newspapers, but sadly, most things are neither as perfect, nor as evil, as we're led/lead ourselves to believe.  

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

It would make for more exciting newspapers, but sadly, most things are neither as perfect, nor as evil, as we're led/lead ourselves to believe.  

Agreed.

Best wishes, 2RM