All over the world:
1. Building/growing local leadership.
2. Native missionaries, and continuing to build up RM’s after they return, and keep them active.
5. Temple-sealed marriages.
6. Children born in the covenant, raised with a full set of church programs, and groomed from childhood to be missionaries and leaders.
7. Area presidencies living in the area.
8. Perpetual Education Fund.
9. Retired-couple service missionaries training local leaders.
10. Church printed-material in the primary local dialects. (Currently there are 164+ languages which have some church material.)
When that first generation of raised-in-the-church boys return from their missions and take their places as leaders, that’s when growth turns exponential. When you just rely on American elders, growth stays arithmetic.]]>
I heartily agree. Having lived in Japan for a while, I was never able to really be myself when Japanese was coming out of my mouth. Had I spoken in English, that would’ve been totally different. Then I could’ve communicated my message, my personality, my wit, my wisdom…EVERYTHING!
But no one would’ve understood me. Ah! There’s the rub. Even had someone translated for me, they still could not have captured the nuances of what I was saying.
So, point is, it doesn’t matter whether the GA’s speak in their native tongue or English, these meaningful nuances will not come across through translation to the audience.]]>
But we’ll be seeing more Asian, South American and European GA’s as these areas start having the critical mass, and assumably Africa comes at some time, too.
I think many of us Europeans do feel to a certain extent that the Church is still Utah-centric, but I have also seen efforts to bring about some change to that. I agree that while we should let time do its job it’s okay to talk about it now.
And as far as I’m concerned, I learned English early in my life and I have always been advocating for people to learn at least English, preferably some other language, too. You get so much more out of it when you hear, say, elder Holland (perhaps my favorite speaker for now) in his own words.]]>
Let the Lord decide how his Church will be managed. Political matters should have no sway.
The problem with this attitude (and it is not an isolated one) is that this is not at all the way the church actually works. The Lord largely leaves the day-to-day management of the Church to his servants and declines to command in all things. This should be no surprise to anyone who has actually run anything in the church, from an elder’s quorum to a mission to the Church itself, the Lord expects us to study the issues, make decisions and seek his guidance as to whether we are correct. We don’t just leave it all to him and expect him to make the decisions for us. Therefore, if we never have any discussions or ambitions toward diversity or multiculturalism, it won’t happen.]]>
October conf can be in Utah and April rotate. Sounds good to me. It’s such a good idea, I don’t know why we aren’t already doing it.]]>
Silly, silly SAM. It looks like you are the one who is assuming. I never gave a definition, only asked a simple question. And you will note that I used the words “races or cultures”, neither of which necessarily means “skin color.”
But I didn’t ask the question to see if your ward was “diverse enough.” In fact, I don’t expect most wards in the world to be diverse (at all) relative to their community demographics. The reason I asked it was to get a better understanding of what you consider diverse. Getting a dictionary-like definition of diversity is different than getting an account of how someone sees those around them. And now I have a better understanding of what you think qualifies as “diversity.” Thanks.]]>