Russell C McGregor Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 So a minority shouldn't be called simply because they are a minority? It may depend on how you emphasise that sentence, but I would agree that nobody should be called "simply because they are a minority." They should be called because they are who the Lord wants.
sethpayne Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 The only problem with that is that the apostles aren't here to represent the membership. They are there to represent the Lord to the membership. A somewhat important distinction, I suspect. I understand that is Elder Packer's view. I'm not so sure it is the Lord's. 2
CMZ Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 President Rueben j Clark was not in a position of authority before his call as a general authority.For that part God could call a deacon p the apostleship if He wanted to. Yes, except that the deacon would have to be old enough to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, unless a special exception was made for them (like I think with John W. Young). Heck, even a non-member could be called, but then they'd have to get baptized...
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I understand that is Elder Packer's view. I'm not so sure it is the Lord's. You really think the Lord needs a middleman to communicate our views to Him? 1
CMZ Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Is Kim Clark next? (Sorry; couldn't resist!) I had indeed wondered about that. I also used to wonder if Rex Lee would be called.
Russell C McGregor Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I understand that is Elder Packer's view. I'm not so sure it is the Lord's. I am confident that it is the Lord's view. And if the Church can be said to have an official position on the subject, that would be it. Once again, I find myself wondering why some seem to assume that if a Church leader says something, the default position is to doubt it -- and also assume that their views are utterly indistinguishable from normative Latter-day Saint discourse. 4
CMZ Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Except that he was just called to the Seventy. There's been times where someone was called to a certain general authority position and then right after that they were called to something else. Edited June 2, 2015 by CMZ
Stargazer Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I don't like to speculate, but since I am personally acquainted with one current GA (a member of the 1st Quorum of 70), I would like to nominate him! He's quite the spiritual giant, and has been such ever since I first met him when I was on my mission. That would be Elder Bruce D. Porter. But I agree that it would be cool to have a non-white Apostle! 1
Stargazer Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 The only problem with that is that the apostles aren't here to represent the membership. They are there to represent the Lord to the membership. A somewhat important distinction, I suspect. I agree with you, but sometimes members seem to need or desire to have a GA whom they feel represents them. I have not asked my German LDS friends, but I wouldn't be surprised if they take a certain amount of comfort in President Uchtdorf. I remember reading once that there was some feeling among the Maori LDS that when Matthew Cowley was called as an Apostle he was their representative among Church leadership.
Tacenda Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Why is that? I don't have a problem getting to know people different than me. I can sail into any port in the world and make good friends in one day and they become life long friends.Jealous
Avatar4321 Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Yes, except that the deacon would have to be old enough to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, unless a special exception was made for them (like I think with John W. Young). Heck, even a non-member could be called, but then they'd have to get baptized...Joseph Smith was called at the age of a teacher. Samuel was called as a prophet at age 13.You do realize the age delineation are artificial in the sense that the Lord can do whatever He pleases, right? Nothing is set in stone.
Tacenda Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I'm not too savvy on how they call an Apostle. Do they pick one of the seventy or GA's or could it be my bishop or SP? Usually you have to work up to the title or have done a lot serving in the different capacities.
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I'm not too savvy on how they call an Apostle. Do they pick one of the seventy or GA's or could it be my bishop or SP? Usually you have to work up to the title or have done a lot serving in the different capacities. could be anyone from anywhere!
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 No.Not if you believe God has any direct impact on people. If leadership wasn't an important factor, I suspect we'd just as many janitors and mechanics as MBAs and MDs.
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Why is that? I don't have a problem getting to know people different than me. I can sail into any port in the world and make good friends in one day and they become life long friends. If there's a language barrier and you come from a completely different culture, it becomes more complicated. Especially if you've only met someone a few times.
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Wow that's pretty racist. Not at all. More than half of the members of the church are outside the US, and most of those are Hispanic or Latin American. If it's just a pool of all worthy members of the church, we'd expect to see more Hispanic representation in the Q12. Or even some representation, but there's none. I don't think it's because they're not worthy. Do you?
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Wow that's pretty racist.And in this context leadership I experience is part of "worthiness". I have worked with wonderful spiritual brethren who cannot even run a meeting and they are not effective leaders. Sorry- that's the real world It takes people skills, speaking skills, the ability to read and write effectively, a knowledge of scripture and an understanding of church organization to run even a ward. You have to know what tasks go to the Elders Q and which to the HP Group, the difference between Cub Scouts and primary, and what the young women's personal progress program is. I short you need leadership experience. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Hispanic members don't make good leaders? I suppose that would be as charitable an interpretation of your statement as your interpretation of mine. Edited June 2, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Are you saying that "progressive" types have a hard time relating to conservative Church members? A little bit. But cultural barriers are even harder to get past. Which is why I suspect that church leaders tend to choose others who are like them for leadership roles. You see the same thing in the business world, unless affirmative action procedures are in place.
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Not at all. More than half of the members of the church are outside the US, and most of those are Hispanic or Latin American. If it's just a pool of all worthy members of the church, we'd expect to see more Hispanic representation in the Q12. Or even some representation, but there's none. I don't think it's because they're not worthy. Do you?There is another factor. i suspect that the reason that so many General Authorities come from Utah-Idaho is that people with leadership experiencecombined with being a seasoned member of the church are a dime a dozen in the area. Until about the end of the Second World War we were not really building up the church elsewhere so much as telling people to come to the USA. With the church growing in many areas and without a lot of history leadership is scarce. We call senior couples on missions just to help train local leadership. Those who have the skills needed are scarce and calling a Seventy or Apostle there could mean lacking a good bishop or Stake President. God can call whom he wants but from a logistical standpoint it makes sense to grab people where there is a surplus instead of scarcity.This is also why I expect the demographics of church leadership to start changing soon. It has been about 70 years since the emphasis on gathering shifted and many of the foreign stakes are becoming stronger and more self-sufficient in leadership. 2
Duncan Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Something i've noticed is that during Pres. McKay's time as President brethren like Marion D. Hanks, A. Theodore Tuttle, Boyd K. Packer, Hartman Rector Jr. Paul H. Dunn, these come to mind anyways but they had zero leadership experience, or not much anyways. Then during Pres. Kimball's time brethren like F. Enzio Busche, Hans B. Ringger, Charles Didier, Elder Kikuchi and others all came from all over the world and not just Utah, Idaho, Arizona stuff
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 You really think the Lord needs a middleman to communicate our views to Him?Why is Christ described as our advocate with the father? A recent ensign article says the Savior pleads for us. Does God really need a middleman to plead for us? 2
The Nehor Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Why is Christ described as our advocate with the father? A recent ensign article says the Savior pleads for us. Does God really need a middleman to plead for us?Yes, because forgiveness of sin requires it as per the scriptures.God does not need a mediator to know our thoughts and desires and if the Seventies giving prayers at General Conference are any indication they do not know my thoughts and desires in any case. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 If leadership wasn't an important factor, I suspect we'd just as many janitors and mechanics as MBAs and MDs. I did not say leadership wasn't an important factor.What I meant was God can bestow any gifts and inspiration needed, regardless of education or job experience. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are perfect examples of that.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Wow that's pretty racist.And in this context leadership I experience is part of "worthiness". I have worked with wonderful spiritual brethren who cannot even run a meeting and they are not effective leaders. Sorry- that's the real world It takes people skills, speaking skills, the ability to read and write effectively, a knowledge of scripture and an understanding of church organization to run even a ward. You have to know what tasks go to the Elders Q and which to the HP Group, the difference between Cub Scouts and primary, and what the young women's personal progress program is. I short you need leadership experience.I very much agree with this about the qualifications for Church leadership. And I would add further that a good leader is not careless in the way he delegates duties. Rather than dishing out ill-considered directives, he thinks them through carefully and communicates them clearly, being ever open to feedback. I have a story that illustrates this, if anyone is interested. 1
Gray Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 I did not say leadership wasn't an important factor.What I meant was God can bestow any gifts and inspiration needed, regardless of education or job experience. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are perfect examples of that. Of course, even leadership experience isn't a guarantee that one has good leadership abilities or even people skills. Some people never develop those skills despite years of experience. But I digress.
Recommended Posts