Tacenda Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 I wonder how many blue collar workers are apostles.
Duncan Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 I wonder how many blue collar workers are apostles. some are lawyers and probably wore blue shirts and some were bizniz people, they must have worn blue shirts at some point 1
Ginger Snaps Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 Michael Otterson (managing director of church Public Affairs) had some thoughts on that at his recent FAIR address: Let me share the reality. Not all the Brethren have been businessmen, but most have had extraordinarily successful careers by the time they are called to be an apostle. As President Spencer W. Kimball once pointed out, the ability to lead people and an organization is a more-than-helpful attribute in a Church of millions of people, especially when combined with spiritual depth and a rich understanding of the gospel. Because several have been highly successful in business careers, when they become apostles their stipend and allowances may literally be less than a tithe on what they previously earned.Full Text 1
Tacenda Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 some are lawyers and probably wore blue shirts and some were bizniz people, they must have worn blue shirts at some pointfunny 1
Ginger Snaps Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 ^ Oops, I forgot to quote. That was in response to Jeanne's question in #48. I can't figure out how to edit.
Calm Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 25 posts and you will be able to edit and start threads in here.
Ginger Snaps Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 25 posts and you will be able to edit and start threads in here.Oh yes, I do recall reading that in the email I was sent Thanks!
hagoth7 Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 The most recent is Elder David A. Bednar. He had been president of BYU-Idaho, so I have to think the Brethren were already intimately acquainted with him.Yes, they were, and from much earlier than that.... https://www.lds.org/new-era/2009/06/the-20-mark-note?lang=eng
HappyJackWagon Posted September 28, 2015 Author Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) My former 1st counselor in a different ward is wealthy and politically active (he has a high-profile state government job with finance and political implications). When a stake president was going to be called, the general authority called him in (despite not ever having been in a bishopric or higher at that time). He asked him if he would sustain this brother as stake president. He told him (the GA) that he knew of dishonest business dealings, and he detailed them. The GA asked him what he intended to do if he were presented for sustaining the next day, and he told him that he would sustain him because he had told him everything he needed to know and the calling was extended despite that knowledge. He was sustained and set apart as stake president. A week later, he fled the country under investigation for business fraud. This anecdote came up in discussion of when it would ever be okay to vote "no" in a sustaining. The point being . . . I think some vetting does take place even at the bishop/stake president level. The GA knew of potential or cause for concern (vetting), and asked knowledgeable people (non-priesthood leaders) for specifics.I experienced this kind of thing personally in the past 6 months but at the Bishop level.I knew the new Bishop was being called and I expressed my concern (bordering on outrage) that this person would be called. The Stake Pres. was already aware of the concerns I would have but the counselors didn't know anything about the legitimate issues with the man being called. I wasn't sure how I would respond when asked to publicly sustain the man and I told them. They practically begged me all week long to sustain the man despite the problems they readily acknowledged. I caved and sustained the new bishop. The rest of the congregation, ignorant of the problems sustained him and things are going pretty well but I'm still not sure if I did the right thing or not. Edited September 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
pogi Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) but I'm still not sure if I did the right thing or not. I don't know specifically what issues you have with the bishop, but barring some serious violation, I think it is good to sustain those who are called to serve, even if we don't particularly like them or their style. To offer support means to offer your strengths where they may be weak. It is a team effort to make a ward function properly. I say good on you for making that choice. Edited September 28, 2015 by pogi 1
rpn Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) There are people who are sure that God would not just tell the name of the person, because the process of revelation requires studying it out in our own mind. I'm not one of them, because of an experience I had choosing teachers in a RS presidency. It is hard for me to believe that He would just let someone stew forever (He let me study stew and pray for three weeks before letting me know the name) on such an important choice, that cannot really be made by someone who doesn't see what God sees. And if it is He who chooses the apostles, then why would a background check matter? So the prophet could pull a Martin Harris and persuade Him otherwise? (So that the PR people would know what problems had to be addressed? So the brethren would be able to prepare for the impact on the apostle and family and their concerns to make the call transition as easy as possible?) If we believe that the studying it out in our mind is more than figuring out what His will would be, then we don't really think He runs the church. To me, identification of whom God wants, is much different from developing policies about how the church should run. Edited September 28, 2015 by rpn
jkwilliams Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 If we believe that the studying it out in our mind is more than figuring out what His will would be, then we don't really think He runs the church. To me, identification of whom God wants, is much different from developing policies about how the church should run. I don't believe it has to be either one or the other. I was always taught that we study it out and then find out what His will is. Neglecting either part would mean we're not entitled to receive revelation. Sorry, taking my Mormon hat off now. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 I don't believe it has to be either one or the other. I was always taught that we study it out and then find out what His will is. Neglecting either part would mean we're not entitled to receive revelation. Sorry, taking my Mormon hat off now.Leave it on for a while. It becomes you. 3
jkwilliams Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Leave it on for a while. It becomes you. Yeah, but it clashes with the sheep's clothing. 4
HappyJackWagon Posted September 28, 2015 Author Posted September 28, 2015 Am I correct in thinking that the new apostles will be presented in the Saturday morning session and then speak later during conference?
Stone holm Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 My wife asked me on the way home from Church whether I could imagine anyone turning down a call to be an Apostle. I said yes. She didn't care for some of the reasons that I said they might.
bluebell Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 My wife asked me on the way home from Church whether I could imagine anyone turning down a call to be an Apostle. I said yes. She didn't care for some of the reasons that I said they might.What were your reasons?
rpn Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 They have not spoken in the conference in which they are called historically. Those assignments are typically given months earlier and probably before the vacancies occurred.
readstoomuch Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 President Kimball talked about when he was called as an Apostle in his biography. As far as I know that is about as much as has been shared about what happened.
Ginger Snaps Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 They have not spoken in the conference in which they are called historically. Those assignments are typically given months earlier and probably before the vacancies occurred.Actually Andersen, Christofferson, Cook, Bednar and Uchtdorf all spoke in the Sunday morning sessions of their respective calling weekends. I didn't look back further than that. The next up in seniority is Holland who was ordained June of 94, so it's not surprising that he was on the Oct 1994 lineup 1
Ginger Snaps Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Oops, Eyring was next in April 1995 and he spoke at the Sat afternoon session that weekend. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Yeah, but it clashes with the sheep's clothing.You were doing so well for a brief, shining moment. Then you ruined it. A pity.
sethpayne Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 They have not spoken in the conference in which they are called historically. Those assignments are typically given months earlier and probably before the vacancies occurred. Sure. But with the passing away of 3 members of the Twelve wouldn't those speaking slots be open and available for the newly called?
Rain Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I will admit that I haven't had time to read all of this yet..but when "vetting" at least in church requirements and service, would this ever include anything in a repentance process? Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. I will check in later..a day off work is not a day off for me.. I can give no link, only what my Sunday School teacher who works for the church said about what Elder Holland told his department.First, though it really has nothing to do with vetting and I really can't figure out how the repentance process could be a part of vetting.What I was told was that Elder Holland said he went through an intense repentance right after he was called. All the little things in his life coming to mind that he had forgotten and thus hadn't repented of. It reminded me of the refiner's fire idea.Like I said, I can't verify it, but it does make sense to me.
The Nehor Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Yeah, but it clashes with the sheep's clothing.Take off the sheep's clothing and then take off the wolf's clothing to find out if there is a sheep in there.
Recommended Posts