stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 So I listed the countries of the world. I listed the populations of those countries I listed the LDS population of those countries. I broke down the US to state level and Canada to Province/Territory level. I learned the birth place of the GAs. These are the locations that are over-represented in GAs(probably mostly expected): Utah - Over by 19 persons California - over by 1 UK - over by 1 Uruguay - over by 1 New Mexico - over by 1 South Africa - over by 2 Portugal - over by 1 Germany - over by 3 France - over by 1 Zimbabwe - over by 1 Puerto Rico - over by 1 Hong Kong - over by 1 Kenya - over by 1 Sweden - over by 1 Under Represented Mexico - by 4 Brazil - by 4 Philippines - by 3 Chile - by 2 Peru - by 2 Argentina - by 2 Idaho - by 3 A number of others. Based on ratio of members in country. Granted the number of members is from the Church, so the under represented show the countries with some of the lowest activation rates and the lowest self-identification rates. But I thought I'd pass this along. Does this show a lack of diversity? 3
Okrahomer Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Thanks. This is interesting. If I recall correctly, there are quite large numbers of members in both Nigeria and Ghana. Since they're not showing up, does that mean that their representation ratio is about right? Edit to add: Sorry, I didn't answer your question; but I don't know what it shows. I know in some of the places I've attended church with any regularity, it represented a "drain" and was viewed somewhat negatively when local leaders were called to serve in Stake or District callings. Perhaps a desire not to "drain" good and strong leaders into general Church leadership plays a role. Edited October 14, 2015 by Okrahomer 1
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Author Posted October 14, 2015 Thanks. This is interesting. If I recall correctly, there are quite large numbers of members in both Nigeria and Ghana. Since they're not showing up, does that mean that their representation ratio is about right? Not necessarily. I left out most of those that are under-represented because the list is pretty long. Nigeria is under-represented by 1 and Ghana is right where it should be.
ksfisher Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Perhaps God just needs to be reminded that we've divided up his planet with imaginary lines that he perhaps cannot see as he looks down on us. 4
ksfisher Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 No Canadians! "And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence." It's not the time of the Canadians yet. 1
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Author Posted October 14, 2015 No Canadians! Canada is under-represented by 1. You should feel slighted, every one of you. 1
Storm Rider Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 What kind of diversification are you looking for? Fat ones? Black headed ones? Cultural? Intelligence? Occupational? Generational? Or are you just interested in racial diversification, a rather ultra-focused, racist standard.
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Author Posted October 14, 2015 What kind of diversification are you looking for? Fat ones? Black headed ones? Cultural? Intelligence? Occupational? Generational? Or are you just interested in racial diversification, a rather ultra-focused, racist standard. Race hasn't been mentioned. This is all geography. 1
Duncan Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) "And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence." It's not the time of the Canadians yet. go home you're drunk! ! Edited October 14, 2015 by Duncan
mnn727 Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) Does this show a lack of diversity?Only if you believe God is not involved in the choosing process.It also discounts that people need time to grow in their faith. GA's being called today would have joined the Church in the 1950's and 1960's, so go back and compare populations from then. Edited October 15, 2015 by mnn727
KevinG Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Given a 30-40 year lag in the time a new member would become a General Authority compare the current GA representation to total population of members 30 years ago and see where it lands.
stemelbow Posted October 15, 2015 Author Posted October 15, 2015 Only if you believe God is not involved in the choosing process. It also discounts that people need time to grow in their faith. GA's being called today would have joined the Church in the 1950's and 1960's, so go back and compare populations from then. Sure, the whole you must be a lifelong member to be a GA is interesting but I do believe quite a few of them were well groomed before joining the Church. Grooming need not be limited to those in the Church, I've found. God can groom anyone. This is more of a does God confirm people readily? It seems like it. Getting called of God in the Church means God confirms the leader's choice, let's keep in mind. It could be that God would confirm many millions of members.
stemelbow Posted October 15, 2015 Author Posted October 15, 2015 Given a 30-40 year lag in the time a new member would become a General Authority compare the current GA representation to total population of members 30 years ago and see where it lands. This lag time is likely a big part of the issue, no doubt. Afterall it seems that many in the GA position have known each other for many years--the good ol' buddy syndrome that many companies get caught up in. It does make it feel the corporation is more corporate than Church, at times though.
KevinG Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) This lag time is likely a big part of the issue, no doubt. Afterall it seems that many in the GA position have known each other for many years--the good ol' buddy syndrome that many companies get caught up in. It does make it feel the corporation is more corporate than Church, at times though. Don't let the superficial commonalities of large organizations fool you into thinking the church is in any way a corporation. It owns a corporation for fiscal purposes, but it is not a corporation. No corporation in its right mind takes 12 year olds and puts them in charge of branch operations. Moses benefited from nepotism. Edited October 15, 2015 by KevinG 1
stemelbow Posted October 15, 2015 Author Posted October 15, 2015 Don't let the superficial commonalities of large organizations fool you into thinking the church is in any way a corporation. It owns a corporation for fiscal purposes, but it is not a corporation. No corporation in its right mind takes 12 year olds and puts them in charge of branch operations. Moses benefited from nepotism. I didn't say it is a corporation, even if it is (corporation of the President...) but it often acts like a corporation. That's obvious.
CMZ Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) A lot of the concern over what places are represented stems from the mistaken notion that becoming a general authority is so that one can receive honor and prestige and that the place they come from will then share some of that honor and prestige. Richard Hinckley came to our stake and said in priesthood leadership that if he had known all that was involved in being a general authority before he got the call that he would've ran and hid. When we insist that a Latino or African or whatever become an apostle (or whatever calling we insist they must have) then we are insisting that they be given a very difficult calling, when their individual salvation is not dependent on having that calling. It's pretty much only family relationships that matter in the long run anyway. Any church administrative calling is temporal and less important than family duties. Edited October 16, 2015 by CMZ 2
stemelbow Posted October 19, 2015 Author Posted October 19, 2015 A lot of the concern over what places are represented stems from the mistaken notion that becoming a general authority is so that one can receive honor and prestige and that the place they come from will then share some of that honor and prestige. Richard Hinckley came to our stake and said in priesthood leadership that if he had known all that was involved in being a general authority before he got the call that he would've ran and hid. When we insist that a Latino or African or whatever become an apostle (or whatever calling we insist they must have) then we are insisting that they be given a very difficult calling, when their individual salvation is not dependent on having that calling. It's pretty much only family relationships that matter in the long run anyway. Any church administrative calling is temporal and less important than family duties. You would think that being an apostle would mean more work than just being a non-apostolic GA. But I'm not so sure. Richard Hinckley would probably know, I suppose. So we can trust him. There is over-representation in the GAs in places in Africa. Just none in the 12. That seems to argue against your point.
Recommended Posts