Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Your first post on the board, and it's a winner!

 

I hope to see more from you of like quality.

[hearserve]

I, too, was somewhat hoping that at least one of the new apostles would be from outside of North America. Having said that, I have received a confirmation that these callings are from the Lord. Now, I may be way off base, but I wonder if the reason for the seeming lack of diversity has something to do with patriarchal lineage. LDS doctrine states that the tribe of Ephraim has a special Priesthood role to play in these last days in the gathering of Israel, with the tribe of Manasseh assisting Ephriam. Could this be playing a role in who is chosen?

[Rain]

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 felt disappointed when we had to leave our home and go to a new state when DH lost his job. We didn't look back. We knew it was right. We knew it would be good and best for us. We see reasons we are here that we couldn't see that before and KNEW that would happen before we moved. Yet, we were still disappointed.

I have felt the Spirit through these men. I've already got answers to prayer through them. I know more will come. Being disappointed that we didn't have men of color or another nationality has nothing to do with knowing God chose who was best.

[Scott Lloyd]

I felt disappointed when we had to leave our home and go to a new state when DH lost his job. We didn't look back. We knew it was right. We knew it would be good and best for us. We see reasons we are here that we couldn't see that before and KNEW that would happen before we moved. Yet, we were still disappointed.

I have felt the Spirit through these men. I've already got answers to prayer through them. I know more will come. Being disappointed that we didn't have men of color or another nationality has nothing to do with knowing God chose who was best.

Saying I was not disappointed was not meant as an indictment or condemnation of those who did and do feel disappointed. It was an honest expression of my sentiment. Nothing more.

 

The important thing is that we see the hand of God in what transpired yesterday. It is OK to feel disappointment, so long as one doesn't allow that sentiment to carry one into murmuring or unseemly criticism of the prophet, his Brethren or their motives.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

I think if anyone wants to make the argument that the three new Apostles aren't adding "diversity" to the Q12, they need to provide some clarification on what they saying.  I mean, once you get beyond "skin color" or "country they grew up in", what are we talking about, and how do those two things guarantee "diversity"?

 

Take, for example, Elder Renlund.  Read this interview with his wife:

 

http://www.mormonwomen.com/2010/05/12/just-call-me-ruth/

 

I see several points there that would indicate "diversity" to me.  They were only able to have one child.  They've spent years living in Africa. 

 

Elder Stevenson had quite a bit of experience serving in Japan, and was an entrepreneur.

 

Sure, it might be great to have a Q12 that looks lime a Benetton ad, but I don't think that would guarantee the kind of change those who wish for "diversity" are looking for.  I just don't get it.

[Jeanne]

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

I am just thinking...Hey..You would make a great apostle!

[why me]

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.

I  think that he did chose the safe road. For after all, he preached among the jews. I dont remember him venturing outside the confines of his limited geographical area. He also seems to have had a totally different life before he started his ministry. Nothing special must happened since we have no teeage record of him. In other words, his life before his mission seems to be quite ordinary. And I would assume that he lived in comfort with his mother and father before taking up his ministry.

[Kenngo1969]

I am just thinking...Hey..You would make a great apostle!

How do you know I'm not?  (They say the best place to sow chaos is from within!

 

 

(The only thing I might be better at that someone who's outside of or disaffected from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is repenting (if even that).  That's it.  I don't care if you are an Evil Apostate, I love you as my sister.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I  think that he did chose the safe road. ...

Yes and no.  Unvarnished, frank criticism (not to mention outright condemnation) of Jewish leaders certainly wasn't the "safe" way to go.  (Of course, for all we know, he may have been thinking, "Neener, neener!  I can say what I want about you!  Dad will protect me until it's my time, anyway!"*

 

*Did I just say that about The Lord of the Universe?  You'd better excuse me.  I better hide under my desk!

Edited October 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[jwhitlock]

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.

I believe Scott was pointing out how ridiculous the article actually was, by substituting "Christ" for the church. He wasn'the presenting it as his own premise.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe Scott was pointing out how ridiculous the article actually was, by substituting "Christ" for the church. He wasn'the presenting it as his own premise.

Thank you.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

And yet, when it came time for him to choose apostles, he chose eleven Galilean men (apparently mostly middle-class, with small businessmen and civil servants predominating) and one "foreigner" from Judea.

But the amazing, astounding and wonderful news is this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has actual living apostles and living prophets.

How much more important is that than the colour of their skin or their geographic origin?

[Jeanne]

How do you know I'm not?  (They say the best place to sow chaos is from within!

 

 

(The only thing I might be better at that someone who's outside of or disaffected from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is repenting (if even that).  That's it.  I don't care if you are an Evil Apostate, I love you as my sister.

Yeah!!  An apostle who loves an apostate!

[omni]

If I were a betting man, I would have wagered good money that at least one of the men would have been non-white. At this point, given the church's reputation as a "white Utah church", I'm not sure what's more unlikely; that in 2015, Pres. Monsoon and eleven accomplished and intelligent men would pick three more white men from Utah, or The Lord would pick three more white men from Utah.

The head-scratching (IMO) choice of these men could actually be considered evidence they were of a divine nature...

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Hello Em,

 

That is the issue; individuals are called not based upon our desire, but on what the Lord desires in order to complete and fulfill his desire.  The Lord is about his own mission for this world.  Though we might desire something differently i.e. apostles from foreign countries or more racial, cultural diversity; those desires have little or nothing involved with what the Lord is seeking to do.  

 

This is what came to me just after these men were called.  God has his own goals and objectives and they are not mine or yours. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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 are quite right, Seth, but that begs the question of whether those three chosen to fill out the Twelve were really chosen by revelation.

 

Given that LDS presidents have indeed each brought their own style and attitude to the operation of the Church, perhaps we could compare the selections of Pope Francis, who has really been stirring things up in his Church by sidlining difficult members of his Curia in Rome, and in selecting a much greater diversity of bishops and Cardinals worldwide.  Italians are now out of favor, and well-known local clergy are being selected instead.  The Roman Catholic Church is now becoming a truly worldwide Church.  May take the LDS Church another generation before we see anything like that activity in an already very old RC Church.  These things take time.

[omni]

You are quite right, Seth, but that begs the question of whether those three chosen to fill out the Twelve were really chosen by revelation.

 

 

 

Enter Scott in 3…2…1...

[webbles]

I think if anyone wants to make the argument that the three new Apostles aren't adding "diversity" to the Q12, they need to provide some clarification on what they saying.  I mean, once you get beyond "skin color" or "country they grew up in", what are we talking about, and how do those two things guarantee "diversity"?

 

Take, for example, Elder Renlund.  Read this interview with his wife:

 

http://www.mormonwomen.com/2010/05/12/just-call-me-ruth/

 

I see several points there that would indicate "diversity" to me.  They were only able to have one child.  They've spent years living in Africa. 

 

Elder Stevenson had quite a bit of experience serving in Japan, and was an entrepreneur.

 

Sure, it might be great to have a Q12 that looks lime a Benetton ad, but I don't think that would guarantee the kind of change those who wish for "diversity" are looking for.  I just don't get it.

Another interesting thing about Elder Renlund is that he is a first generation American. His parents emigrated from Sweden and he lived there for a few years during his teenage years.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think if anyone wants to make the argument that the three new Apostles aren't adding "diversity" to the Q12, they need to provide some clarification on what they saying.  I mean, once you get beyond "skin color" or "country they grew up in", what are we talking about, and how do those two things guarantee "diversity"?

 

Take, for example, Elder Renlund.  Read this interview with his wife:

 

http://www.mormonwomen.com/2010/05/12/just-call-me-ruth/

 

I see several points there that would indicate "diversity" to me.  They were only able to have one child.  They've spent years living in Africa. 

 

Elder Stevenson had quite a bit of experience serving in Japan, and was an entrepreneur.

 

Sure, it might be great to have a Q12 that looks lime a Benetton ad, but I don't think that would guarantee the kind of change those who wish for "diversity" are looking for.  I just don't get it.

On the other hand, we emphasize through our "And I am a Mormon" ads that we are a very diverse Church.  And we are indeed culturally very diverse. It isn't ridiculous to think that a representation of that diversity in the leadership could be very useful to our international growth and acceptance.  We do, after all, live in the real world where such things actually matter.  Hence the reason for ads emphasizing our diversity.

 

Yet, because our Church is decentralized to such a great extent, it might not matter that we have a centralized bureaucracy drawn primarily from one well-known group.  The fact that I would like to see us go a bit deeper, may not matter at all.

 

Still, I was very impressed by one speaker's praise of the influence of women in Church councils, and specifically calling for their stronger participation in executive positions.  We may underestimate the importance of that sort of diversity in decision-making, thinking wrongly that the Lord is satisfied to communicate through any sort of clone.  Within the Body of Christ we need a rich variety of gifts.  The Lord deals with us as we actually are, not simply as clones.

[carbon dioxide]

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

There are others getting up in age too.  Russel M Nelson is like 90.  He sounds good today but when people get to be that old, when their health takes a downturn it usually is pretty quick. I think in the long term it will become important for the GA to reflect the Church as a whole.  I see nothing wrong with the men who were called.  I think well will have to see more non-Americans in the Seventy before we can expect that to trickle up into the Apostles rank. 

[Rain]

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.

 

I think everyone knew what you meant by "diversity" as well.   

 

Saying I was not disappointed was not meant as an indictment or condemnation of those who did and do feel disappointed. It was an honest expression of my sentiment. Nothing more.

 

The important thing is that we see the hand of God in what transpired yesterday. It is OK to feel disappointment, so long as one doesn't allow that sentiment to carry one into murmuring or unseemly criticism of the prophet, his Brethren or their motives.

 

Thanks you for saying it is ok to feel disappointment.  

 

Just wanted to give you an idea of why I replied so you can see why some of us took your post the way we did.  It wasn't the saying you were not disappointed that caught me. That didn't phase me at all. It was the question in bold below:

 

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?

 

 

I felt like you were saying that if I were disappointed then it means I don't have a knowledge that God is governing the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Enter Scott in 3…2…1...

Actually, Robert used the expression "begs the question" correctly, as an analysis of his phrasing will show.

Because of his scholarly background, he could be expected to know the proper usage of that phrase, which means to present as given the point one is endeavoring to prove.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

I was disappointed. It didn't last long....but that's mainly because all Saturday morning I was working to keep myself tempered on this. So it mostly worked....I was just astounded at just how very white and american they were. I looked them up and was pleased to see that 2 had a fair amount of international travel/living background and looking them up also gave me a sense of, well they make sense. So it's not like I'll be crying over it or anything. They're good smart men and I'm sure they'll do what God needs them to do. Besides, we've got time. I figure it'll happen on the younger end of my lifetimes.  

 

On the AP note....yeah it was a little excessive and I'm not a fan of it. My sentiments probably most match up with Emeliza and RFS.

 

That stated, i do have problems with what has been mentioned here about diversity in defense for not having it in the 12. I have stated and do believe that the socially derived differences that we ascribe to today will one day not matter. In the eternal perspective we will all be one and there will be no manner of -ites. But that does not remove their importance today. And today ethnic/racial differences do matter and play a part both in and out of the church. I think there's a reason that there have been more diversity in the seventy (particularly area authorities). Because it plays apart in understanding the cultures, concerns, etc of specific groups who may face unique challenges....and no matter how long a person lives in a specific area it may not be intrinsic as to someone of that region. The church is rapidly expanding in areas outside of UT and the U.S....and I do feel that having people outside the U.S. as apostles can be valuable. Not to show the changing face of Mormonism to the world, but to help that changing face in their calls.     

 

Honestly, a couple of responses here have seemed flippant about issues of diversity. I doubt that's what was meant, but that's exactly how it sounds. And from a person who does feel diversity matters, it doesn't warrant confidence in said statements....for me it re-entrenches they fact that having more diverse voices (in general) is important. Because it indicates to me that there may be some massive blind spots if one can assume racial/ethnic differences is somehow on par with hair color/pattern and face shape. Or that concerns about diversity can be swept away by insisting that we be united or one....it's a nice platitude....but honestly it can feel just like that. Especially since being "one" in this sense, often can inadvertently feel like favoring a white, north american (read U.S. Western...ok really, UT) view and culture as the template for oneness. It assumes an even playing field or an even capacity for correction and change to that zion society. And that's just not what happens. The learning is often in one direction...not always, but often. And often when the learning is bilateral it can be a little shallow...such as how do you take care of hair, or learning a dance, or something. But the cultural distinctions can be sincerely deep and important and highlight apart of the gospel in poignant ways...ways that may be inadvertently underscored for others.

 

I've seen this in my own life in countless ways. But I'll underscore a simple one. I was in a class geared toward diversity issues where my adviser was also the teacher. He noted that I had a strong capacity to perspective taking that would be a little more difficult for others. I didn't get it at first and thought it was just a thing people do. It became very apparent what he meant as my class learned things that I had taken entirely for granted. I assumed this was just normal, because weaving in and out of varying cultures was all I've ever done. But it's not. Most of us grow in one dominate framework and view point with at best, subsidiary influences. Most people who have grown up in a majority culture have the capacity to assume normalcy with their view. They may not see fall outs to their system of thought because their system of thought works perfectly in their context with problems being or perceived as minimal, until proven otherwise. i also watched this happen in this class...it was an emotionally charged class at times. And an experience in it, made me a little more judicious about how much I showed emotionally as a brown woman. But by the end of the class, I was growing tired of fitting into a system of thought that is not my natural way of existing/thinking....so I pushed hard against it (maybe too hard), including reading a poem i'd written when I was younger about race. My feelings spilled out - something like a cold rage and tiredness - and the effect was immediate. They had thought about these issues for several months at this point, but a number hadn't really felt what it would be to have my experience or anothers. And it gave them something they'd never really seen.

 

This is one experience and it may be jumbled. But basically, I may disagree with an overly critical point to the selection of the apostles...but minimizing the importance of diversity in human experience is not really the best way to assert against it, IMHO. It just further marginalizes people like myself.

 

With luv,

BD    

Edited October 4, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Rain]

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.

 

Still, I was very impressed by one speaker's praise of the influence of women in Church councils, and specifically calling for their stronger participation in executive positions.  We may underestimate the importance of that sort of diversity in decision-making, thinking wrongly that the Lord is satisfied to communicate through any sort of clone.  Within the Body of Christ we need a rich variety of gifts.  The Lord deals with us as we actually are, not simply as clones.

 

I think these two posts together illustrate why some may feel disappointed. I didn't realize, for myself why I was disappointed, till the two posts were on the same thread together. Logically/spiritually, I can know that God has chosen the right people to be on the quorum, but it feels like some of the council members have not been invited to the meeting.  And I emphasize "feels" not because I feel that strongly about it, but to show that I am mixed on the matter.    

[Kenngo1969]

There are others getting up in age too.  Russel M Nelson is like 90.  He sounds good today but when people get to be that old, when their health takes a downturn it usually is pretty quick.  ...

 

President Nelson is exactly where the Lord wants him right now.  The nanosecond that is no longer true, the Lord knows what to do, and He will do it at His pace and on His timetable.  All flesh is in God's hand.  (See Doctrine and Covenants 61:7.)