A question for the Orthodox:

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The D&C is chock full of examples where the Lord explicitly names people for various callings/tasks. Why would He be any less explicit with President Monson than He would be with Joseph Smith?

Now, you might go ballistic on this one, but JS claimed theophanies, most subsequent prophets have not.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My point is, the orthodox seem to say, I don't care to know about the selection process the Prophet uses, "the Lord selects".

Well, if I follow the logic taught within the Church, I would love to know the details of the selection process, so that when I'm a bishop, EQP, or Stake President, I can better attune my process to one who is more practiced in it.

When somebody says, "the Lord selected," as if the human element played no role, that's where I differ.

Often, I feel and believe that I could have said, "the Lord is pleased with teh choice of X".

That's because you're trying to retrofit every public statement into your preconceived belief that men make most church decisions on their own, and God just looks in on them from time to time.

It's not as though there isn't a plethora of doctrine, scripture, and sermons on how revelation works.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The obvious answer is "yes" but I can't shake the feeling I'm being set up ...

you mean caught with guile?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's because you're trying to retrofit every public statement into your preconceived belief that men make most church decisions on their own, and God just looks in on them from time to time.

It's not as though there isn't a plethora of doctrine, scripture, and sermons on how revelation works.

Everything is so vague and general. I know them relatively well, and find them nonspecific.

I would like President Monson to explain every detail of his deliberation process. That would be of interest and I might learn something instead of vague generalities.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would like President Monson to explain every detail of his deliberation process. That would be of interest and I might learn something instead of vague generalities.

You have every right to demand an explanation from the Lord just as Nephi did in regards to Lehi's vision of the tree of life. However, you do not have a right to demand such from President Monson.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Everything is so vague and general. I know them relatively well, and find them nonspecific.

I would like President Monson to explain every detail of his deliberation process. That would be of interest and I might learn something instead of vague generalities.

Some things are best learned by experience.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You have every right to demand an explanation from the Lord just as Nephi did in regards to Lehi's vision of the tree of life. However, you do not have a right to demand such from President Monson.

I don't demand it, I wish for it. Precatory, not mandatory.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Some things are best learned by experience.

I will never be prophet, but I have held lesser leadership positions.

This is your axiom, not necessarily a truth, and certainly only relative to context.

Link?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't demand it, I wish for it. Precatory, not mandatory.

In my experience, one day, your wish or desire may be granted predicated upon your faith.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indy, tooblue and Tex.

Do you believe that there's no human element in the selection of an apostle and that the men selected are the sole individuals whom the Lord could select?

Or are there multiple individuals whom the President could have the discretion to select, which would be approved by God?

There has to be a human element component involved in the selection of an apostle as is there in the selection of individuals to any other leadership position in the Church. Sometimes it comes down to who you know, who your progenitors are, etc…When staffing wards I am sure that bishops draw from a pool of people that include people they know very well or have worked with in the past in other callings. At least that was my experience when it was my responsibility to staff a ward. However, there were occasions when I was prompted to go outside that group of individuals and extend a calling to someone I did not know very well. I believe that there has to be a combination of the human element and inspiration/revelation, how else are we to exercise free agency and rely on personal experiences to magnify our callings?

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Five is pretty weak don't you think? Of the hundreds of minority leadership he has dealt with, he could sustain five? Congrats to him. Institutional racism in the church, loud and proud.

While it was disappointing that my mission president, Carlos Amado, was not called even though he has served as a member Q of 70 for 20+ years, I just don’t see the institutional racism you see within the church. I am a Mexican American (not by name only, but, I actually look the part) who lives in the Pacific NW and most often than not, I am the only one in my meetings who people may consider a “minority”. I don’t recall an occasion when I experienced the “institutional racism” you believe exists.