Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Scott Lloyd]

If you believe, as I do, that the Lord Jesus Christ selected the three new members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and made His will known through His prophet, seer and revelator, Thomas S. Monson, then the quasi-political punditry and second-guessing that has gone on since yesterday as to somebody from this or that area and of this or that socio-political or ethnic group not having been selected comes across as a bit, well, myopic.

 

As the scripture states,

 

"8 ¶For my ^athoughts are not ^byour thoughts, neither are your ^cways my ^dways, saith the Lord.

 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ^aways ^bhigher than your ways, and my ^cthoughts than your thoughts.

 

(Isaiah 55:8-9)

 

To illustrate this, I present here an abbreviated version of an AP story, taking some literary license by, in some instances, replacing the term "Mormon church" or its equivalent with the name of Jesus Christ. Thus, the absurdity of the second-guessing is made immediately clear. Let me emphasize upfront that I HAVE DOCTORED THE TEXT IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT.

 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Jesus Christ didn't go far to select three new members for a top governing body that sets policy and runs His worldwide church's business operations — choosing two former business executives and a cardiologist from Utah who had already been serving in lower church leadership positions.

Ronald A. Rasband, 64, is a former CEO of the Huntsman Chemical Corporation. Gary E. Stevenson, 60, was the co-founder of an exercise equipment manufacturing company. Dale G. Renlund, 62, was a cardiologist and directed a cardiac transplant program.

Their appointments — announced Saturday at church conference in Salt Lake City — surprised many outside religious scholars who speculated that Christ would choose at least one new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from a country outside the U.S., perhaps from Latin America or Africa.

That would have been a symbol and recognition of the expanding global reach of a religion that has more than half of its 15 million members outside the United States.

Instead, Jesus made safe, solid and comfortable decisions that fit the template for choosing modern apostles in the church, said Patrick Mason, associate professor of religion at Claremont Graduate University in California and Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies.

Although Rasband, Stevenson and Renlund are fine men who will make great leaders, the Christ missed an opportunity to make an important statement to Latter-day Saints of color or those from other countries, said Ignacio Garcia, a professor of Western and Latino history at Mormon-owned Brigham Young University.

"Saints of color always have to respond to: 'Why do we belong to that white church?'" Garcia said. "It becomes harder and harder as we go further into the 21st Century: We still can't point to a more diversified leadership."

Mason points out, though, that Renlund and Stevenson have held major leadership positions with the church in foreign countries: Renlund in Africa and Stevenson in Japan. That may suggest that Christ felt He could infuse international experience without having members who are from those countries, he said.

 

Edited October 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[emeliza]

I believe the apostles are called of God, under the direction of Christ, given to Monson and confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

I also fully admit I am disappointed that the three men were all white Americans. I don't think it is wrong for me to feel that way.

What would be wrong is to assume the callings were wrong just because I had a different desire. I fully sustain these men and stand behind them. But I still have a desire that there will in the future be men called with different cultural backgrounds.

The only real issue I have with the above article is the line is the one about Jesus making "safe, solid, comfortable decisions......". It is presumptuous to declare why the choice was made.

[rongo]

I want those whom God chooses to be called, without political or tactical considerations.

 

However . . .

 

I, for one, don't like it when the Church is reactionary to interest/pressure groups. I don't have a problem with women praying in GC (in fact, I like their prayers better than the men's, since that was instituted a couple of years ago  ), but I don't like how this change, along with other concessions to pressure (general women's/girl's meeting, live broadcasting of priesthood session, etc.) clearly were reactive to current pressure and agitation.

 

So, part of me is glad when the vacancies in the 12 aren't filled by ethnic minorities or non-Americans (especially just to rectify perceived past injustice). It would appear to be more quota or PR driven than anything else, and yet again, reactionary to current percolating interest/pressure group wish lists.

 

While I believe that the calls were made by inspiration, I also like *not* dancing while being pistol-whipped. Take that, agitators!

Edited October 4, 2015 by rongo

[rpn]

In the run up to conference discussion, I did think that it is pretty insular to think that our Heavenly Parents and Savior are as interested in the North American diversity concerns as He is in furthering His plan.   I find myself thinking that He needs that diverse leadership on the ground with the members who need their strength, in local and regional service.

[rongo]

For what it's worth, in the "new apostle office pool,"* I won with Elder Stevenson. Kim Clark was my losing pick.

 

I always bet on presiding bishopric members or church university presidents. More in the last several decades have come from those groups than any other group (Oaks, Bednar, Holland, Eyring, Hales, etc.).

 

*I'm kidding about the office pool, or betting, of course. But when people bandy about which member of the seventy will be called, I always predict it will be from the presiding bishopric or a church university president. I believe Rex Lee would have been called, had he not died of cancer at a young age.

[rongo]

Maybe I get partial credit for Elder Renlund. His talk in the last conference was my chosen 4th Sunday lesson for last week. I must have known something, right?  . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

In the run up to conference discussion, I did think that it is pretty insular to think that our Heavenly Parents and Savior are as interested in the North American diversity concerns as He is in furthering His plan.   I find myself thinking that He needs that diverse leadership on the ground with the members who need their strength, in local and regional service.

While I agree with this (and rewarded it with a rep point), I hasten to say I would have been as thrilled as anyone if one of the new apostles had been from Latin America or Africa or some other locale outside North America. I suppose the difference between me and others is that I am not at all disappointed that things transpired as they did. How can I feel disappointed when I have the certain knowledge that God is in His heaven and is governing His Church according to His divine will and knowledge that transcends anything on earth?

Edited October 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

The world looks at the outside. The Lord looks inside.

[why me]

The lds church is in an interesting position. If apostles were chosen from africa or in any other part of the world, critics would have been stressing social pressure for the decision. And if three new white guys were chosen, the  critics would be critical for a different reason. Thus, it was a no win for the church when it came to the critics.

 

As I see it, if one believes in revelation and the truthfulness of the lds church, then one must go with the current callings. But yes, the critics and those looking for  a way out, can use these choices for their own ends. 

[carbon dioxide]

I believe the apostles are called of God, under the direction of Christ, given to Monson and confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

I also fully admit I am disappointed that the three men were all white Americans. I don't think it is wrong for me to feel that way.

What would be wrong is to assume the callings were wrong just because I had a different desire. I fully sustain these men and stand behind them. But I still have a desire that there will in the future be men called with different cultural backgrounds.

The only real issue I have with the above article is the line is the one about Jesus making "safe, solid, comfortable decisions......". It is presumptuous to declare why the choice was made.

I myself was a little disappointed as it would grow the Church outside the US even faster but as I reflected the Lord does not care what we personally would like and we need to be realistic in our expectations. God does not run his church with the desires of man or how the world is moving.  Apostles will most likely be called from the body of other general authorities.  We will one day see a black apostle or a Hispanic one.  This will happen but probably will not happen until one sees more diversity among the Seventy which will happen as time moves on. 

[emeliza]

I suppose the difference between me and others is that I am not at all disappointed that things transpired as they did. How can I feel disappointed when I have the certain knowledge that God is in His heaven and is governing His Church according to His divine will and knowledge that transcends anything on earth?

I wouldn't discredit those of us that felt disappointment. It isn't wrong to feel disappointed when something you had wanted doesn't happen. The difference is how you act on that disappointment. Does the person shrug it off by acknowledging it was the Lord's decision and stand behind the chosen, or do they speak badly and make it out to be human err on those called....

[Jeanne]

Just wishing that God could tell the members here why there is not any diversity at this time.

[boblloyd91]

I guess I also felt disappointed about the lack of diversity. However I also realize that these three probably have a great deal of experience that will serve the church well. The question about the lack of diversity was brought up in the news conference after the afternoon session, and I feel that they responded to it very well. I must say I was also quite impressed by their spirit this morning especially Elder Renlund. I have several friends from Japan who expressed excitement about Elder Stephensen, apparently he is highly thought of by the members over there. Finally, not to sound too pessimistic but I am not too sure how long President Monson has watching him this morning. He gave his all but it's obvious he was struggling, so I myself wouldn't be surprised if we had two more new apostles these next few years, as President Monson and Elder Hales are getting up there in years

[Kenngo1969]

Just wishing that God could tell the members here why there is not any diversity at this time.

Sure.  Define "no diversity."  Is there any kind of a consensus (let alone unanimity) about what that means?

 

Why, for example, are there no balding, otherwise-close-cropped, bespectacled, slightly overweight guys who walk with a pair of forearm crutches (or with a pronounced limp without them) in the Quorum of the Twelve?

 

Your mileage probably varies, but I think the proposition that only someone who looks like me can [fill-in-the-blank-here; e.g., relate to me; lead my church; et cetera] is a fallacy.  I think it's entirely possible even for someone who looks nothing like me to relate well to me (given my looks, that'd better be the case! ), to give me sound, inspired counsel, and so forth.  And with respect to the second possibility, not only can someone who looks nothing like me do those things, that possibility is also a fallacy because ... I don't believe it is my church.  If the Lord had wanted an Elder Sitati or an Elder Dube or an Elder Alonso (fine men that they are) as one of His Apostles, I'm sure he could have gotten that message through even President Thomas S. Monson's thick skull.   God doesn't need my advice about who should lead His Church.

 

And while I don't expect you to take my word for it (undoubtedly, your mileage varies on this score), I had a witness of the Spirit while listening to them speak this morning that each of the three men called to fill vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve is who the Lord wants, where He wants him. 

 

P.S.: I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: God doesn't care if we think He's racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or otherwise bigoted, or politically incorrect.  When He tells us in the scriptures, "I am able to do mine own work," that's exactly what he means.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[sethpayne]

Instead, Jesus made safe, solid and comfortable decisions that fit the template for choosing modern apostles in the church,

 

I've never known Jesus to be one to choose "safe, solid, and comfortable decisions."  In fact, such a course seems quite the opposite of what He both taught and lived.  Surely the restoration itself wasn't safe, solid, or comfortable.

Edited October 4, 2015 by sethpayne

[Kenngo1969]

I've never known Jesus to be one to choose "safe, solid, and comfortable decisions."  In fact, such a course seems quite the opposite of what He both taught and lived.  Surely the restoration itself wasn't safe, solid, or comfortable.

You're missing Scott's point.

[jwhitlock]

Sure.  Define "no diversity."  Is there any kind of a consensus (let alone unanimity) about what that means?

 

Why, for example, are there no balding, otherwise-close-cropped, bespectacled, slightly overweight guys who walk with a pair of forearm crutches (or with a pronounced limp without them) in the Quorum of the Twelve?

 

Your mileage probably varies, but I think the proposition that only someone who looks like me can [fill-in-the-blank-here; e.g., relate to me; lead my church; et cetera] is a fallacy.  I think it's entirely possible even for someone who looks nothing like me to relate well to me (given my looks, that'd better be the case! ), to give me sound, inspired counsel, and so forth.  And with respect to the second possibility, not only can someone who looks nothing like me do those things, that possibility is also a fallacy because ... I don't believe it is my church.  If the Lord had wanted an Elder Sitati or an Elder Dube (fine men that they are) as one of His Apostles, I'm sure he could have gotten that message through even President Thomas S. Monson's thick skull.   God doesn't need my advice about who should lead His Church.

 

And while I don't expect you to take my word for it (undoubtedly, your mileage varies on this score), I had a witness of the Spirit while listening to them speak this morning that each of the three men called to fill vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve is who the Lord wants, where He wants him. 

 

Bingo. Claims for diversity can be taken to absurd lengths. They begin with demands for nose count parity and then every special interest group wants someone representing "them".

 

It's interesting to see how some people think that only someone from the same culture / race / gender / orientation / etc. can understand what their needs are. This assumes that everyone in some defined group thinks like everyone else in the group and has the same needs as everyone else in the group. That assumption is manifestly false, so having a group representative, while helpful, is not the panacea people make it out to be.

 

More importantly, however, when a leader of the church pays attention to the whisperings of the Spirit, then that leader can understand and meet the unique needs of individuals or groups of people. That's because the Spirit knows all things, and can instruct and show any leader of the church what needs to be done for members with different backgrounds than he or she has.

 

So, I'm more interested in making sure that those who Christ selects have the Spirit. If they do, then nothing else - including diversity in response to special interest demands - will move the kingdom of God forward.

 

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. If diversity is all important, then perhaps a Man who lived 2000 years ago of Middle Eastern descent in a culture of heavy Roman and Jewish influence can't possible understand what a white, middle aged technologically oriented American really needs, because He was not one of "us".

 

Yet Christ does understand me better than I know myself, so I think that I can trust the Spirit to overcome any shortcomings of a "lack of diversity".

[jwhitlock]

I've never known Jesus to be one to choose "safe, solid, and comfortable decisions."  In fact, such a course seems quite the opposite of what He both taught and lived.  Surely the restoration itself wasn't safe, solid, or comfortable.

 

Neither was Christ's life totally one of risky, shifting, uncomfortable decisions. His life and the course of the restoration has been one of balance, both of afflictions and blessings and stretches of just normal living.

[sethpayne]

You're missing Scott's point.

 

Probably.  Wouldn't be the first time.  

[Jeanne]

I just meant diversity in the way in which this conversation is based (in my view).  As mentioned in the HJ  this morning, many thought that at least one apostle would come from a different country/nationality.  I think everybody knew what I meant..I am sorry if I step on toes here..but know that this is of no reflection on the good people who were called to these positions.  Ouch..it is hard to ask a question here anymore.

[sethpayne]

Neither was Christ's life totally one of risky, shifting, uncomfortable decisions. His life and the course of the restoration has been one of balance, both of afflictions and blessings and stretches of just normal living.

 

I don't disagree with you -- completely.  I think the life of Jesus was one very much one of sacrifice, challenge, and difficulty in the aggregate.  Moments of peace?  Absolutely.  But mostly tough.  But I know what you are getting at.

 

And for that reason, I think that particular point is odd if given in support of Scott's thesis.  As you say, life is a balance between safe and difficult choices.  So pointing out that Jesus made a safe choice doesn't really say much.

[Kenngo1969]

I just meant diversity in the way in which this conversation is based (in my view).  As mentioned in the HJ  this morning, many thought that at least one apostle would come from a different country/nationality.  I think everybody knew what I meant..I am sorry if I step on toes here..but know that this is of no reflection on the good people who were called to these positions.  Ouch..it is hard to ask a question here anymore.

Absolutely nothing I wrote was intended as a personal criticism.  I apologize if that is how it came across.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure I understand the proposed dichotomy between "safe" and "unsafe" choices, for two reasons: (1) I don't think President Monson said to himself (for example), "I've pondered, prayed, and fasted, and I really think the Lord wants (e.g.) Elder Sitati, Elder Dube, and Elder Alonso to fill these three open slots in the Quorum of the Twelve, but if I go through with that, well, gosh, sure as shootin', I'll have a mutiny on my hands.  Nope!  Can't risk it!  Better go with Bishop Stevenson, Elder Rasband, and Elder Renlund." and (2) if Elders Sitati, Dube, and Alonso had been called, there wouldn't be a mass-exodus.  There might be an odd member here or there ("odd," both in the sense of being one of a very small number and in the sense of being strange) who might take issue with such callings for some off-the-wall reason, but the membership as a whole wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

To say that choces are "safe" or "unsafe" implies that a majority (or a sizeable minority) of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have a problem if someone of another race were called to such positions.

 

That simply isn't true.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never known Jesus to be one to choose "safe, solid, and comfortable decisions."  In fact, such a course seems quite the opposite of what He both taught and lived.  Surely the restoration itself wasn't safe, solid, or comfortable.

 

 

You're missing Scott's point.

Yes. I'm glad someone else noticed that.

[Gilbert]

This thread reminded me of a BYU devotional talk given by Elder Oaks back in 2000 titled "Weightier Matters."

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2000/03/weightier-matters?lang=eng

 

Here's a couple of excerpts (in bold):

 

The word diversity has legitimate uses to describe a condition, such as when one discusses “racial and cultural diversity.” Similarly, what we now call “diversity” appears in the scriptures as a condition. This is evident wherever differences among the children of God are described, such as in the numerous scriptural references to nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.

Yet in the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that His followers would be “diverse.” He prayed that they would be “one” (John 17:21–22). Modern revelation does not say, “Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse ye are not mine.” It says, “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27)...

Our Church has an approach to the obvious cultural and ethnic diversities among our members. We teach that what unites us is far more important than what differentiates us. Consequently, our members are asked to concentrate their efforts to strengthen our unity—not to glorify our diversity. For example, our objective is not to organize local wards and branches according to differences in culture or in ethnic or national origins, although that effect is sometimes produced on a temporary basis when required because of language barriers. Instead, we teach that members of majority groupings (whatever their nature) are responsible to accept Church members of other groupings, providing full fellowship and full opportunities in Church participation. We seek to establish a community of Saints—“one body,” the Apostle Paul called it (1 Cor. 12:13)—where everyone feels needed and wanted and where all can pursue the eternal goals we share.

 

Cultural diversity only matters to the extent that a particular culture emphasizes an eternal principal. For example, many hispanic cultures place great value on families. To that extent it is relevent to the gospel. But any cultural uniqueness that does not promote eternal principles is not important in the eternal scheme of things. I believe that these men who have been or ever will be called to such positions arrive there firmly grounded in eternal principles, regardless of their background. So what does it matter what race or ethnicity they are. They are not called to represent a race, culture, or any group of people to the Lord. They are called to represent the Lord to the world.