Without assessing fault or blame

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I can't speak for others. But I don't feel that way. I actually got that connotation from Indy's post, and I was responding to the feeling I got from that which seemed like he was saying the "local" (read: different colored folks) can handle stake prez but nothing higher.

I was feeling the same way that Jay was feeling and exact opposite to what Tex portrayed. The whole argument on one side was how can you question that there aren't more nonwhites as GAs or apostles. These men have been prepared and that is the way it is and we shouldn't even wonder why there aren't more non-US GAs and apostles. Then, you hear that the only reason we are discussing it is as Lingo said 'it must be white guilt.'

Indy makes a terrific point and others have made it as well...the church is kind of stuck right now in that the turnover is so low among these leaders. But I truly believe over the next 10-15 years as the leadership turns over, the church will start calling nonUS men into these positions...this will only help the church in growth, understanding and yes, even PR.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UteStar

I was feeling the same way that Jay was feeling and exact opposite to what Tex portrayed. The whole argument on one side was how can you question that there aren't more nonwhites as GAs or apostles. These men have been prepared and that is the way it is and we shouldn't even wonder why there aren't more non-US GAs and apostles. Then, you hear that the only reason we are discussing it is as Lingo said 'it must be white guilt.'

Indy makes a terrific point and others have made it as well...the church is kind of stuck right now in that the turnover is so low among these leaders. But I truly believe over the next 10-15 years as the leadership turns over, the church will start calling nonUS men into these positions...this will only help the church in growth, understanding and yes, even PR.

Heh, fair enough. Maybe what it boils down to is me taking Arch about as serious as I take SU. Then I won't get worked up.

[ute4ever]

As membership continues to rise worldwide, won't it continue to rise amongst the white Americans and Europeans?

Sure it makes sense that once there are 5x more members in Africa, that more African GA's would pop up on the scene. But during the same time, won't there be 5x more members in the US and Europe?

Unless membership growth in non-caucasian areas considerately outgain the caucasian, the pool of whities to select GA's out of will remain the majority.

[ute4ever]

Suppose the 13 million members currently break down like this:

11 million American & European caucasian
1 million Central and South America
1 million Africa, Asia, Aussie and Pacific Islander

20 years from now, say there are 65 million members. Presumably they will break down like this:

55 million American & European caucasian
5 million Central and South America
5 million Africa, Asia, Aussie and Pacific Islander

And it remains that 9 out of 10 GA's are whities.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

As membership continues to rise worldwide, won't it continue to rise amongst the white Americans and Europeans?

Sure it makes sense that once there are 5x more members in Africa, that more African GA's would pop up on the scene. But during the same time, won't there be 5x more members in the US and Europe?

Unless membership growth in non-caucasian areas considerately outgain the caucasian, the pool of whities to select GA's out of will remain the majority.

I think the dynamic here is that a GA probably takes 30 years to make.

Take the GA's of today and their average call date was probably 20 years ago.

That means that to be race neutral, the GA's of today should represent church membership of 50 years ago. And it might take 50 years for GA's to represent today's membership.

Certainly non-caucasian areas are growing faster than caucasian areas of the church, and have so for the last 50 years, so the gap will begin to close but it will take a while.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Suppose the 13 million members currently break down like this:

11 million American & European caucasian
1 million Central and South America
1 million Africa, Asia, Aussie and Pacific Islander

20 years from now, say there are 65 million members. Presumably they will break down like this:

55 million American & European caucasian
5 million Central and South America
5 million Africa, Asia, Aussie and Pacific Islander

And it remains that 9 out of 10 GA's are whities.

False assumptions. Growth rates will not remain constant in "White" America. For example, Church growth in California is stagnant and relative to the overall population there, at least among non-Latins, declining.

The growth rate outside North America will greatly outstrip North America, and indeed inside some countries such as Germany is declining due to housecleaning.

Currently membership outside US exceeds inside, and Latin America will soon match membership, numerically, inside US.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

As membership continues to rise worldwide, won't it continue to rise amongst the white Americans and Europeans?

Sure it makes sense that once there are 5x more members in Africa, that more African GA's would pop up on the scene. But during the same time, won't there be 5x more members in the US and Europe?

Unless membership growth in non-caucasian areas considerately outgain the caucasian, the pool of whities to select GA's out of will remain the majority.

The conversion rate amongst whites sucks, to put it mildly, and other races are joining at a much faster rate.