A question for the Orthodox:

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because I will assume perhaps incorrectly that you have not actively participated in the selection process, why do you believe God "has an active role in the calling of Apostles"?

Because I read the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by indy coug

i'm amused by the implication of that statement, which is that the prophet effectively lives in a hermetically sealed office at the top of the church office building with no real exposure to people from all over the world nor is in touch with the many apostles and seventies that likewise are spread over the face of the earth administering the affairs of the church.

The prophet is actively aware of who is doing the heavy lifting around the world and a failure to call a minority as an apostle isn't due to some congenital insularity disorder.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Because I read the Doctrine and Covenants.

lol.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? It is an unknown reason precisely because it God hands the prophet the name, the fact of any relationship between the prophet and the future apostle is totally irrelevant. The man will be called even if the prophet has never heard of him in his life, because that is what God said to do. The purpose can't be so the individual will be called as an apostle. The calling is already a given. Hence, the purpose is unknown.

Still no answer to my question above. Typical Glen.

More reductionist nonsense. Typical Cali.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Explain your reason for the failure, Indy. God doesn't want minorities in the 12?

False dichotomy. Same question in reverse: if God wanted a minority apostle, do you think he could make it happen?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who said it is an entitlement? They are qualified. They aren't being called. Why? The fact that there is a 100% correlation throughout the history of the church to the calling and to one's race seems to indicate the answer may have something to do with race.

Correlation is not causation.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

More reductionist nonsense. Typical Cali.

Typical Glen dodge.

False dichotomy. Same question in reverse: if God wanted a minority apostle, do you think he could make it happen?

That doesn't seem to be how God operates. Rather, God appears to appreciate the fact that such ideas come from His children first, which He then ratifies. It seems to be His model for teaching us. So no, the absence of a minority doesn't seem to indicate at all that God does not want a minority. It seems to indicate, rather, that the prophet hasn't given him the name of a minority for approval yet. I hope that happens soon.

Correlation is not causation.

Who said it was?

[SoCalCoug]

Indy: If you were hungry, and Archaea had an apple, an orange, and a pear on the table, and he picked up and offered to you the orange, and you took it, even though you might have also accepted the apple or the pear if offered, can't it be said that you chose the orange? Isn't that simply what Archaea is saying?

I don't understand why you keep resorting to the ad hominem attacks. It doesn't make you seem smarter.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Because I read the Doctrine and Covenants.

Then he finds examples of apostles who haven't followed the precepts in D&C and decides that he is in full compliance if he does exactly what the apostle did.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Indy: If you were hungry, and Archaea had an apple, an orange, and a pear on the table, and he picked up and offered to you the orange, and you took it, even though you might have also accepted the apple or the pear if offered, can't it be said that you chose the orange? Isn't that simply what Archaea is saying?

I don't understand why you keep resorting to the ad hominem attacks. It doesn't make you seem smarter.

Thank you for stating it more clearly and succinctly.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

God appears to appreciate the fact that such ideas come from His children first, which He then ratifies. It seems to be His model for teaching us.

I don't disagree with these two statements, but I don't see why that precludes God from putting his (future) prophets in settings, places, and with people who he intends on having them call as leaders.

You appear to have adopted the Archaean viewpoint that the only intervention God has in our lives is of the spectacular, ephiphanic brand, and that all other interactions are just rubber stamps of previously-decided, human made decisions.

I happen to believe God's involvement in our lives is far more granular.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So no, the absence of a minority doesn't seem to indicate at all that God does not want a minority. It seems to indicate, rather, that the prophet hasn't given him the name of a minority for approval yet. I hope that happens soon.

That is an absurdly illogical deduction. That's like saying the reason Burger King doesn't serve Kung Pao chicken is because the president of the company hates eating it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who said it was?

You.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Thank you for stating it more clearly and succinctly.

That's an insulting analogy, both to the men who are called and to the men who are not.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's an insulting analogy, both to the men who are called and to the men who are not.

Feeling a false affront?