Ethnic Composition of Mormonism

OK, I’m four years late in providing the GQ answer but in my defense, the Mormon church has never released their numbers.

Only recently have independent Mormon demographers released their estimated numbers of active Mormons worldwide, which they put at 4.5 million. (The LDS church does not release the number of active members, but only touts the number of total members, which is above 15 million worldwide.)

Americans and Canadians represent about 58% of active members. Central and South America provide 27%, and the Philippines is 3%. The Americas and PI are 88%.

Sub-Sahara in another 4%, Western Europe is about 2.1%, New Zealand and Australia are 1.8%, the remaining Oceania is 2%. East Asia is 1.5%.

Taking the race of members from the Pew Research survey for 2011

So, taking my WAG at the breakdown of race within each region, I get the following numbers:

White…57%
Hispanic…30%
Black …4.8%
East Asian…1.3%
Filipino…2.9%
Pacific Islanders…2.2%
Other…1.8%

Any guesses as to the race breakdown of the leadership?

Tends:

Those who study these things are divided into three camps.

Optimistic:
While the overall growth rate has declined, there is sufficient growth in Brazil, modest growth in the US, spotty growth in the PI and outstanding growth Africa to keep the rate positive in the short term. Flat growth in most of the rest of the world is acknowledged.

Long term trends are generally not looked at.

TB notes: If this is the case, expect the percentage of whites to continue to decline and the number of Hispanics, Black Africans and Filipinos to increase.

Pessimistic:
The net negative decline in active members in the UK and the flat growth in Western Europe is a harbinger of what will occur in the US as the number of disaffected members overtake the number of new members. Growth outside of the US will not offset the net losses.

Long term treads: We are at or near the peak of active members.

TB notes: This is perhaps a little overly pessimistic, but outside of Sub-Saharan Africa, the days of wild growth for the church are pretty much over.

The percentage of active Mormons in the US will never be higher than now. Looking at California, despite there being 17 missions of 200 plus missionaries per mission, all the efforts of the 3400 missionaries combined with the larger than average number of children has not been enough to offset slowly declining numbers of active members. The number of stakes (administrative groups of congregations) is less now than in 1994.

The question of when whites will become a minority is a matter of time.

“Fence sitters”:
Donno. Somewhere between.

TB notes: Where is Nate Silver when you need him?

Yes it was. See the quotes from Brigham Young and the vast majority of prophets until the doctrine was changed in 1978.

From my thread in MPSIMS, Melbourne pointed this out about the Catholics:

So, yes, please check your history before stating things such as this.

No one is making the argument that skin color makes you sinful. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that people are placed in this world according to how valiant they were in the previous round. Leaders all the way from Brigham Young through 1978 have made the argument that blacks were cursed with dark skin because they were ho-hum slackers in the Great War in heaven.

Theologically, the conclusion that Blacks were unfaithful in the preexistance was almost inescapable as long as the ban continued on blacks being allowed the same saving ordinances to get into the highest degree of heaven, despite however worthy the individual was. There were a number of people who had received these ordinances and then when their one drop of black blood was discovered, the ordinances were cancelled.

One either accepts a capricious god or looks for an explanation. In addition to the concept laid out in the Book of Mormon, one doesn’t have to go any further than the other scriptures which Smith produced to connect the dots.

Until science proved otherwise, Mormons believed that Indians were the direct descendants of the Lamanties. The Indian’s darker skin was the sign of this curse. It doesn’t get more racist than this.

The church has produced a number of statements from the very early beginnings showing this relationship.

Hmmm. Do you still need further evidence? I think you’ll find that us former members are much more aware of church history and doctrine than current members, as many of us actually studied it when we were making the decision to remain or leave.

As noted previously, I’m not accusing the members of being racists themselves, or anymore so than the general public. The doctrine is racist.

You completely glossed over the quote I gave you about how all the references you quoted are NOT church doctrine. They were speculation and are not officially endorsed by the church. Brigham Young has a very interesting place in Church history as a controversial prophet. Even I think he made a lot of statements he knew were not revelation, and the Church recognizes that yes, even the prophet isn’t infallible and we must decide for ourselves when given guidance from our leaders. You can try all you like, but the fact remains the church isn’t racist.

April, why do you believe the church reversed its position in 1978?

So black people could be ordained?

Because the people in the church were able to accept revelation and make a better decision. Again, the church recognizes fallibility and corrects when God directs it too. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Just like individual are redeemable from sinful mistakes, so is the entire church. The Prophet isn’t the Pope, he is just a man who is not perfect and neither is anyone, the church reversed it’s position because it was able to admit error. Again, that is part of the reason Mormonism was so enlightening for me. Other denominations or faiths were inflexible but the LDS church encourages self reflection, communication with God, and a personal relationship with Jesus that allows for mistakes and redemption even at the highest levels. God is infallible, and His is an eternal perspective and often we on earth because of our limited mindset take longer to realize what is right. The priesthood took a long time to be available to all because of man’s mistakes not God’s.

The revelation that the IRS would stop providing federal student aid to BYU, you mean?

Early prophets of the LDS church had some pretty shocking and downright evil teachings. If you say that those teachings were false and that they were taught by prophets who didn’t know what they were doing, how can you be so sure that the current LDS prophet is right? Maybe he’s teaching false doctrine too, but doesn’t know it.

Given what I’ve read - the LDS God is downright evil. If that faith is true, then rebelling against God is the right and moral thing to do.

Not the the thread topic. Go to lds.org and search Nature of God and Plan of Happiness. Pretty awesome, benevolent, forgiving kinda guy. Not going to deviate from thread topic any further since this looks to be going to way of belief bashing and not as the OP intended. Peace out and God Bless

Yeah, let’s keep this civil and try to steer it back.

Moderator Note

robert_columbia, General Questions is not the place to tag religious teachings as evil. No warning issued, but let’s keep such remarks out of this forum.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

This thread has moved well beyond the factual questions in the OP (which was posted more than three years ago). I think it’s best at this point to move this to Great Debates.

The parents pay for it of course. A close friend of mine (now an atheist) went on a mission and his parents saved up the $10k required for it his whole life. It would have been nice if they’d used that to send him to school or something, but nah, fucking around in Maryland for two years was a better use for it.

I had a friend from DC visit me in Madison a few years back, and at one point driving through town, he pointed out and said to me “Look, Boyo Jim, a black person!” :stuck_out_tongue:

Madison is pretty overwhelmingly white, too.

I’ll reply to the rest later, if I get around to it, but I wanted to point out that you are preaching something in direct opposition to the current doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and if your local bishop were a prick, which many are, he would haul your ass into a disciplinary council, at which place you didn’t back down, you would face official disciplinary action such as disfellowship where you would be subject to restrictions such as even answering questions in class or praying or excommunication, which cuts you off from God entirely.

Mormons do not believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus. Only with God. To claim otherwise is in direct oppositions to those you sustain as the Special Witnesses To Christ, the apostles. Bruce R. McConkie clearly taught that Mormons are not to look for a pesonal relationship with Christ.

my emphasis.

Mormonism is a nice religion, with warm fuzzy feelings, isn’t it?

Nm

Sooooooo off topic and not even what I meant. Reported

And what rules exactly do you think he broke? You are witnessing for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and, in doing so, you gave false information about their teachings. Why should TokyoBayer not be able to correct you?

To be honest, it seems like he got it right, and you can’t find a counter, so you’re instead alleging a rules violation.

If he is so wrong about what you meant, why not tell us? Because it sure seems like he caught you not knowing your own doctrine.

I’m just trying to stay on topic. Sorry if you think I have ulterior motives but I was under the impression that major topic shifting in a thread is a rule violation. I already agreed to stop but y’all keep pulling me back. Please let me stay within the rules and stop trying to bait me. Thanks

We’re over in GD now, and topic shifts are not a violation.

It’s actually really easy to stop posting in a thread if you don’t want to.

However, this still doesn’t change the fact that according to Mormon doctrine, if you were to publicly proclaim what you have done in this thread, you could face official church discipline, depending if you local leader were a jerk or not.

Teaching or supporting the idea that one should have a personal relationship with the Savior is heresy in the LDS church and has officially been denounced from the pulpit by one of the prophets and apostles. As he said, you have been officially warned. (By them, I’m not a jr. mod.)

If this is mistaken, please cite a correction.

To be fair, the vast majority of Mormons don’t know their doctrine nor their history.

This is the reason why the church is losing tens of thousands of members and this trend will continue to increase as more people are finding out the unvarnished truth via the internet.

[/QUOTE]

He always speaks well of you.