Did you see the lame explanation in the Snews

[All-American]

If there's one thing that should be blatantly obvious by now, it is that the church as a whole is slow to accept change, whether that be the fault of its leaders or its members or its true head. The last two picks went international and skewed young, so a conservative pick doesn't surprise or concern me in the least.

[MikeWaters]

The Qofthe12 is much more diverse than it used to be. It used to be just family members and very close associates. We have moved out of the realm of nepotism to competency. But let's face it, they are only going to choose people they trust, and the people they trust are the people they have worked with. And how do they choose people to work with? They choose people they know. And the people they know live and work in Utah, for the most part.

You won't see the Qofth12 diversify until you see the Seventies diversify. And not just a token person here and there.

For those of us living in the "mission field" (btw, what's up with Eyering using that phrase? I find it a little bit offensive in its Utah-centricness), we don't have to worry about being called as a GA, for the most part, even if we are stake presidents, etc.

Why choose a stake president you know casually when you can call a stake president you've known for 25 years?

It's interesting how the center of power has moved out of the United States and Europe for many churches. Like the Anglicans. The conservative African anglicans are wielding all kinds of influence, to the point of divorcing American espicopalian churches from the Anglican group altogether.

But their structure, I think is more representative than ours. It's sort of like in theirs, stake presidents wield power. Stake presidents in our church wield nothing of the sort. It's a complete top-down relationship.

So we would be in a situation where only 25% of the church is in the USA, but all the power and authority resides not only just in the USA, but in the intermountain west.

That will be interesting. If the intermountain west will maintain its grip, or let go. I would think it would have to let go, if the church is to progress into a worldwide church.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

when somebody asked why another Utahn about Cook?

He's a world traveler. Oh brother. He served in England on a mission and was in the Philippines for a few years.

The Church missed a great opportunity for diversity there and missed it.

The timing was perfect for the church to send a global message. The choice of Cook was conservative and safe. Just like when new bishops select their friends as counselors, and incoming RS Presidents choose their quilting partners.

Unfortunately I don't see change on the horizon...

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

when somebody asked why another Utahn about Cook?

He's a world traveler. Oh brother. He served in England on a mission and was in the Philippines for a few years.

The Church missed a great opportunity for diversity there and missed it.

I'm sure Cook is a wonderful man, and I'm sure he will do a great job but I was hoping for a brother from Latin America to be called

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

i honestly felt let down by this calling, and agree that the church missed a chance at really proving that it is a diversified and truly a world-wide religion.

perhaps it has congregations throughout the world, but the church is still utah/western states-centric in its leadership. if i was a member in south america, where the huge numbers in membership gains truly come from that are constantly being bragged about, i would feel snubbed.

How could you not?

Originally Posted by Requiem

The timing was perfect for the church to send a global message. The choice of Cook was conservative and safe. Just like when new bishops select their friends as counselors, and incoming RS Presidents choose their quilting partners.

Unfortunately I don't see change on the horizon...

I hope you're wrong. They have two minorities in the Presidency of 70s now. So maybe one of them is being groomed

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Church missed a great opportunity for diversity there and missed it.

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

i honestly felt let down by this calling, and agree that the church missed a chance at really proving that it is a diversified and truly a world-wide religion.

One might have thought this when Gordon B. Hinckley was newly sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve too, eh?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

One might have thought this when Gordon B. Hinckley was newly sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve too, eh?

When was GBH sustained? 1940s or 50s? Back then I wouldn't have expected anything less. Today I do.

Cook seems like a nice enough chap, who is a safer choice. He's old, so the chances of anything bad being in his present and past are remote. He's a lawyer, so he knows how to work bureaucracies.

It just looks like it's a group trying to keep power in the intermountain west. Oh well.

Again Indy holds the perhaps conventional belief that God bestows upon GBH the only name of the only person who is worthy to hold the administrative office of Apostle magically.

I still believe God merely confirms the choices after due deliberation by those in charge. And they choose their friends and associates.

Remember the story of David, how the prophet selected him. We have no more stories of David.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I still believe God merely confirms the choices after due deliberation by those in charge. And they choose their friends and associates.

Yeah, and that's what Cali thinks happened with Nephi/Laban. The end effect of factoring God as far out of the equation as you can, is that you can criticize the man and the decision without criticizing God.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yeah, and that's what Cali thinks happened with Nephi/Laban. The end effect of factoring God as far out of the equation as you can, is that you can criticize the man and the decision without criticizing God.

You have little evidence that suggests God supports your ideas. In fact, because they're mostly just buddies from the west, our hypothesis appears more plausible.

If they were selected from diverse areas, with surprises, your hypothesis would have credence. But the actual evidence belies your hypothesis.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have little evidence that suggests God supports your ideas. In fact, because they're mostly just buddies from the west, our hypothesis appears more plausible.

If they were selected from diverse areas, with surprises, your hypothesis would have credence. But the actual evidence belies your hypothesis.

Unlike you, I do not presume to know the mechanics of how a prophet selects a new apostle. But I believe in the oft repeated prophetic testimonials that the men chosen are chosen of God. I doubt God would ever view any of those selections, even those who later fell away, as "missed opportunities."

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The end effect of factoring God as far out of the equation as you can, is that you can criticize the man and the decision without criticizing God.

This is precisely what I believe Arch is doing. Arch, have you ever been in a position where you've had to prayerfully find counselors or people to fill positions in church?

Methinks you speak in a position of complete ignorance, and given my experience of what goes on at the local level gives me no reason to believe that Pres Hinckley is different and relies more on geographic/cultural/racial/etc cronyism than exists on a local level.