A question for the Orthodox:

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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?

*shrug* It's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

I happen to believe personal revelation is an intensely personal thing. Does that mean we can't learn from someone else's explanations of how it works for them? No. But there are risks in getting too specific to too large and diverse an audience. When every word you say is scrutinized in detail and essentially carved in stone, there can be misunderstandings or misinterpretation. Some may try to imitate rather than emulate.

Sometimes it's better to teach principles, and let people discover the application themselves.

You can watch and read everything ever produced on the topic of skiing, but until you put your feet on the slope for the first time, you're no better a skier than the person who knows nothing.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

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.

Fusnik's is fairly petty complaint. It was just an off-the-cuff response to a pretty tough question to answer. Kinda unfair to pick it apart like that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

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?



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.

I am unaware of someone being called to the 12 who was not well known by the prophet at the time. Can anyone give one example of an apostle who was called that was unknown to the prophet prior to the calling? I don't think it happens, because I don't think the process involves God handing the prophet a name and the prophet obeying. I believe instead the prophet ponders who may be a good fit, presents a name to the Lord, and then has that decision ratified or rejected.

In each instance historically, the prophet selected someone he knew very well (often a relative or close acquaintance). This is why I get frustrated by the lack of minorities called to the office of the 12 (or the First Quorum of the 70, for that matter). It seems to reflect one of two issues: the prophet isn't associating closely with many minorities, or the prophet doesn't trust that there are any minorities with whom he is familiar who are capable of being an apostle.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am unaware of someone being called to the 12 who was not well known by the prophet at the time. Can anyone give one example of an apostle who was called that was unknown to the prophet prior to the calling? I don't think it happens, because I don't think the process involves God handing the prophet a name and the prophet obeying. I believe instead the prophet ponders who may be a good fit, presents a name to the Lord, and then has that decision ratified or rejected.

In each instance historically, the prophet selected someone he knew very well (often a relative or close acquaintance). This is why I get frustrated by the lack of minorities called to the office of the 12 (or the First Quorum of the 70, for that matter). It seems to reflect one of two issues: the prophet isn't associating closely with many minorities, or the prophet doesn't trust that there are any minorities with whom he is familiar who are capable of being an apostle.

I think this is a totally fruitless line of thinking. One could just as easily argue that God puts men in future prophets' paths so they will be acquainted and experienced with each other when time comes to select a new apostle.

I don't think the prophet sits around in his office, twiddling his thumbs, waiting for God to Fedex him the new apostle's name, and I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. Obviously there is some personal judgment on the part of the man.

The bottom line is, you either believe that Neil Andersen (or fill-in-the-blank) is the man God wanted to be there, or you don't. Those of you getting your panties in a twist about "gosh, ANOTHER white guy??" are really drifting toward the latter category, ignoring what the men you sustain as prophets are actually telling you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think this is a totally fruitless line of thinking. One could just as easily argue that God puts men in future prophets' paths so they will be acquainted and experienced with each other when time comes to select a new apostle.

I don't think the prophet sits around in his office, twiddling his thumbs, waiting for God to Fedex him the new apostle's name, and I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. Obviously there is some personal judgment on the part of the man.

The bottom line is, you either believe that Neil Andersen (or fill-in-the-blank) is the man God wanted to be there, or you don't. Those of you getting your panties in a twist about "gosh, ANOTHER white guy??" are really drifting toward the latter category, ignoring what the men you sustain as prophets are actually telling you.

I think he allows it. And so in some respects that should be enough. But based on pure speculation, there are probably others he might allow.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I think he allows it. And so in some respects that should be enough. But based on pure speculation, there are probably others he might allow.

Of course. The Lord could have just as easily called Elder Andersen before Elder Cristofferson; as they were both suitable candidates.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I think he allows it. And so in some respects that should be enough. But based on pure speculation, there are probably others he might allow.

Possibly. Elder Andersen could name five. [*Cue Fusnik whine.] But he didn't, and so the inevitable conclusion among Borderlanders is that it's Monson's fault.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Possibly. Elder Andersen could name five. [*Cue Fusnik whine.] But he didn't, and so the inevitable conclusion among Borderlanders is that it's Monson's fault.

In reality, most of us who harbor some belief sit closer to one side of the fence than we would like to believe.

Tex and Indy believe Elder Anderson is THE apostle which God wants now, and I'm not saying those two profess this, but some believe that God may have whispered the name into President Monson's ear, instead of President Monson taking to God in prayer.

Others opine that he has been accepted by suggestion and that it really doesn't matter. In the end, both sides may accept him as an apostle, but the method of arrival differs.

Now people will take issue by pointing to the verbiage used by leaders, he said the Lord chose. And I wouldn't argue one could use that verbiage if it was the Lord acquiesced. One makes a stronger plea, especially coming from a position of authority.

The difference I don't believe necessarily that there is only one whom would have been accepted, and believe whom is selected is based in no small part upon the circle of associates known to the Prophet. If it weren't so, an apostle would occasionally be called from outside the circle.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In reality, most of us who harbor some belief sit closer to one side of the fence than we would like to believe.

Tex and Indy believe Elder Anderson is THE apostle which God wants now, and I'm not saying those two profess this, but some believe that God may have whispered the name into President Monson's ear, instead of President Monson taking to God in prayer.

Others opine that he has been accepted by suggestion and that it really doesn't matter. In the end, both sides may accept him as an apostle, but the method of arrival differs.

Now people will take issue by pointing to the verbiage used by leaders, he said the Lord chose. And I wouldn't argue one could use that verbiage if it was the Lord acquiesced. One makes a stronger plea, especially coming from a position of authority.

The difference I don't believe necessarily that there is only one whom would have been accepted, and believe whom is selected is based in no small part upon the circle of associates known to the Prophet. If it weren't so, an apostle would occasionally be called from outside the circle.

Agreed. I don't understand why it would be important to the Lord that the prophet knows the future apostle (Tex suggested that the Lord put future apostles into the prophet's path so the prophet so they would know each other). To what end? If the Lord is telling the prophet the name, why must the prophet know the guy personally? The Lord gave the name. End of story. Familiarity with the individual is totally trivial, if God gave the one and only name that could be given.

All of the evidence strongly suggests that the prophet selects the name and takes it to the Lord for confirmation, which also suggests many could be called and acceptable to the Lord. I sustain Elder Anderson because I believe he is an apostle. That doesn't mean I believe he is the only one who could have been an apostle. I wish they would look outside the circle of white guys educated in Utah or Idaho.

[MikeWaters]

having selected a child-molester apostate once before among ethnic minorities, they may be a bit wary of selecting someone outside their circle of friends.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Agreed. I don't understand why it would be important to the Lord that the prophet knows the future apostle (Tex suggested that the Lord put future apostles into the prophet's path so the prophet so they would know each other). To what end? If the Lord is telling the prophet the name, why must the prophet know the guy personally? The Lord gave the name. End of story. Familiarity with the individual is totally trivial, if God gave the one and only name that could be given.

All of the evidence strongly suggests that the prophet selects the name and takes it to the Lord for confirmation, which also suggests many could be called and acceptable to the Lord. I sustain Elder Anderson because I believe he is an apostle. That doesn't mean I believe he is the only one who could have been an apostle. I wish they would look outside the circle of white guys educated in Utah or Idaho.

As a guy sitting on the sidelines, I agree with this position. But again, I'm beginning to feel it won't matter much.