Not surprisingly, the large majority of calls for diversity in my FB feed came from progressive North Americans, because most of my FB friends are progressive North Americans. Does anybody have the sense that there was a deep, anguished movement among members in Brazil or Zimbabwe, say, to see one of their own represented in the Quorum?

Rosalynde, instead of soliciting data why not just use your sense of empathy to figure out how members of color feel about their wildly disproportionate representation among the Q12 and P70?

That said, I certainly don’t think we have to be the fastest growing church. Part of that period of growth was due to becoming an international church. There were a lot of growth opportunities. By the end of the 80’s those growth opportunities changed. Now we should expect to grow at a much slower rate. The big difference is in Africa.

No one ever said the stone cut out of the mountain would be the fastest rolling or the biggest, only that eventually it would fill the earth, and growth of other faiths is part of that whether they are a preparatory experience or included in that prophecy.

If their individual contribution is of equal value to an individual with a different background, why do you want to see more diversity?

I’m not sure most people realize just how fast the growth of the Church in Africa has been.

From the Talk Elder Sitati gave Friday at the UU “Black, White and Mormon” conference.

“In 1978, there were 7,567 Mormons in Africa. At the end of 2014, there were 448,487.”
that’s an average annual growth rate of 161% the Church in Africa is roughly 60 times as big as it was in 1978.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638671/Major-LDS-growth-in-Africa-unaffected-by-priesthood-restriction-Elder-Sitati-says.html

Elder Sitati I note is 63 and has at most 29 years experience as a PH holder, Elder Stevensen at 60 has 48.

I do statistics over at ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com and 30% of new units formed this year are in Africa. For comparison Utah and Idaho, together, account for 16% of new units and the rest of North America (including Mexico and the Caribean is another 27%.

I want to second what others have said, that my desire for diversity is a cumulative desire, and does not take away from my appreciation for any of the apostles personally. Just because many of us hope for some apostles from different backgrounds does not mean we do not value the ones from the backgrounds currently represented. Nor does it mean we think all of our current apostles are all the same; they clearly are not. Brothers Ronald, Gary, and Dale all will bring different, unique talents and perspective to the apostles, which will, I believe, benefit the quorum and the church.

In wishing for greater diversity, I think it is wrong for anyone to dismiss the differences and unique value of each of the individuals that were called. Yes, they are all upper-middle-class white men from Utah, but that does not mean they are the same, nor that their individual contribution is any less valuable than that of someone from a different class, gender, or nationality. Maybe I do not think that those three combined were the best choice, but that does not mean they were not a good choice. I personally think they were.

That’s how I feel, anyway.

First, I think most people are overlooking the most likely reason three white men from Utah were called: President Thomas Monson’s poor health. As was very apparent in conference, President Thomas is in very poor health physically. Six months ago, he turned down a visit from the President of the United States because of ill health. I don’t think there is any chance he was interviewing a lot of candidates for the three positions. He chose, by inspiration, from among the people he knew. Does he mostly know white men from Utah, and is that a problem? Yes. But it is also endemic to having our church run by old men. Realize that when President Thomas became an apostle in 1963, the church’s official position was still one of explicit doctrinal racism. Thankfully, he is the last apostle for whom this will have been true—Brother Russell Nelson, the next-most senior, was called in 1984, after Official Declaration 2 was given.

At the age he’s at, President Thomas just doesn’t have the physical strength to be making many new acquaintances. If a person isn’t a General Authority living in Utah, or at least visiting there often, and doesn’t have some other personal association with the prophet, like being a president of a church-run university or family friend, there is very little chance the prophet will know them well enough to select them. And even being a General Authority usually isn’t enough: you usually have to be in the Presidency of the Seventy or the Presiding Bishopric.

That is actually good news, since for the first time I can remember, there are two non-US-born individuals in those positions: Ulisses Soares is in the Presidency of the Seventy, and Gerald Causse is the new Presiding Bishop.

And, while the process is slow, there has been improvement. The last time three apostles were called, in 1906, one was the son of a former apostle, born in Utah, one was the grandson of an apostle and the son of a woman who had married the prophet Joseph Smith, born in Utah, and the third, David O. McKay, was also born in Utah. We still have the Utah problem, but at least the apostles aren’t usually related to previous church leaders anymore, although admittedly several still are.

My second thought is, I’m confused why so many people are focused on race, instead of nationality. If this were a US-exclusive church, it would make a lot of sense, since race relations are a big deal here. However, this is a global church. I feel increased diversity means more nations being represented, without regard to something as superficial as skin tone (and more genders, but that’s a different discussion). Honestly, to me it seems racist to suggest that Gerrit Gong, an American born to two American parents, would somehow increase diversity more than Dale Renlund, the son of two Scandinavian immigrants (who I agree does not increase diversity nearly as much as someone from another nation would).

Some people might say that they want apostles who look like them, and I can understand that, but I think it is much more important to have apostles who can be understood by members without the use of a translator (especially given how awful the English dubs are to listen to; I assume the ones in other languages are just as bad).

Plus, in many, many parts of the world, racism just isn’t an issue, or if it is, it is very different than in the United States, with different targets of discrimination. Terms like “person of color” have no meaning in the vast majority of the world, and honestly, that’s a good thing and not something I want to see reversed.

Again, we’re making progress here. The second-or-third most powerful member of the church speaks German as his native language, and is from that nation. The First Quorum of the Seventy is gaining less and less members from Utah, and more and more from other countries. Change is happening. It is just very slow. And I can understand the frustration over that.

And again, it would be nice to keep gender part of the conversation too, since women are the least-represented General Authorities of all, there being zero (General Auxiliaries are not considered General Authorities). And sadly, if the trend on nationalities is any indication, even after women receive the priesthood, it will still be at least another century or so until one is called as an apostle.

And of course, I’m a francophone and shopped at Carrefour on my mission in French Polynesia.

“I sometimes wonder if all the public pressure on the Church during the 60’s regarding blacks and the priesthood cause the revelation to be delayed.”

Interesting thought. Meaning, ‘we were going to do it anyway, but now we can’t because it might appear that we’re caving to public pressure from radicals’?

I suppose that’s possible. Even adults can succumb to stubborn, teenage pride.

Isn’t it established that Hugh B. Brown almost succeeded in getting the priesthood ban overturned in 1969 in response to protests from entities such as Stanford University, only to have Harold B. Lee prevent this from occurring? And didn’t LeGrand Richards provide an interview in which he characterized the decision to overturn the ban not as a revelation but as a response to the impending opening of the Sao Paulo Temple?