Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Kenngo1969]

Another thought occurs to me.  Will the hopeful observers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who favor using it as an instrument of social engineering attempt to tease out of President Nelson's talk an expectation that women one day will be formally ordained to the Priesthood, while concluding from his address last October that Elder Oaks, by contrast, represents a more hard-line faction among the apostleship that opposes women's ordination, and begin prognosticating about which "faction" will/should win in our progressive times?  Will they begin prognosticating where the newly-called Apostles stand on the issues of female ordination and gay marriage, respectively, and how the Quorum's new makeup might affect the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ on those issues?

[mrmendoza]

Being a Hispanic-American, (Yes I know a lot of you don't like hyphenated Americanisms, but even so .....) I think I would have been thrilled if a Hispanic from any country had been called to that exalted position. However, until I saw this thread I hadn't even given it any thought. The Lord calls whom He calls! No doubt when Jesus called fishermen, tax collectors, and reactionary zealots, and all Galileans at that, to His original 12 Apostles, I'm sure that a whole lot of other groups  had reasons to take offense, and or be disappointed!

  I do think that it is a marvelous privilege to be able to raise our hands to sustain the Lords anointed! While I don't like to see opposition, I do believe that it is important that dissenters can be recognized as such. It shows that our sustaining votes are not just taken for granite!

  For those who did raise a dissenting vote, I would hope that your vote was not just a political statement! While I myself do not always agree with many of our leaders politics, I still recognize them as the Lords Anointed and try to follow their Gospel teachings.

Mike

[Stone holm]

If the issue of not selecting a Brother from South America is broached, one is automatically either attacked for having somehow impugned the good men who were selected, or as second guessing Christ. Have been thinking about this question all weekend and I believe it was probably the conservative thing to have done, and I use the word "conservative" in a good, not a political way. We assume sometimes that Christ micro manages the First Presidency. I doubt that, in fact I doubt that Christ manages them much at all, even with respect to such weighty matters as the Apostolic succession. If Christ feels that calling a certain person to the Quorum of the Twelve is important at a particular point in time, then I am sure He makes that very, very plain to the Prophet. If not, then the duty of the Prophet is to make sure he doesn't tap someone that Christ would object to. We may as someone else noted call this the safe bet, no problem with that. It simply means if you are not strongly inspired to call someone who hasn't come up through the channels, don't. It is fairly clear that is what happened, no strong revelation, fall back on protocol call someone known to the Church who won't rock either the boat or the Church. Want diversity in the Church under such weak inspiration moments call someone who fits the protocol who has virtual experience with the other culture in the form of prior Church assignments rather than actually calling someone from that culture.

[cinepro]

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.

 

I didn't read the first part and just assumed that was an article Scott had written for the DN and they were publishing it tomorrow.

Edited October 5, 2015 by cinepro

[Teancum]

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?

Well sure Scott. Is anyone surprised at your views or that you started this thread? Your constant theme is that you fall in line with WHATEVER the church and its leadership does and that they do no wrong. I except nothing less from you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Another thought occurs to me.  Will the hopeful observers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who favor using it as an instrument of social engineering attempt to tease out of President Nelson's talk an expectation that women one day will be formally ordained to the Priesthood, while concluding from his address last October that Elder Oaks, by contrast, represents a more hard-line faction among the apostleship that opposes women's ordination, and begin prognosticating about which "faction" will/should win in our progressive times?  Will they begin prognosticating where the newly-called Apostles stand on the issues of female ordination and gay marriage, respectively, and how the Quorum's new makeup might affect the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ on those issues?

There may indeed be differences of opinion on a number of issues among the Brethren, Kenngo.  There always are.  But I don't think that the issues you raise here are among those differences.  What might be the real issues which confront the Church in coming decades?  Any ideas?

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't read the first part and just assumed that was an article Scott had written for the DN and they were publishing it tomorrow.

Good grief. The part all in caps didn't catch your attention?

[Kenngo1969]

There may indeed be differences of opinion on a number of issues among the Brethren, Kenngo.  There always are.  But I don't think that the issues you raise here are among those differences.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  What might be the real issues which confront the Church in coming decades?  Any ideas?

I don't have an answer to your question.  I would need to cogitate on it some.  (See the "Ponderize" thread. )  As for the issues I mentioned, I don't think there are differences regarding those issues that will divide the Brethren either, which is ... uhhh ... why I brought them up.   Sadly, however, I think those issues will continue to divide the membership.  And if they ever do divide the Brethren, I believe Joseph Smith said (though this isn't how Brother Joseph phrased it) that if any issues ever do divide the Brethren publicly (such that, essentially, there is a schism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) that one would end up on the "right" side of such a schism if he casts his lot with the Prophet and the majority of the Twelve.  (Though I hope the day when such a choice would be necessary never comes.  Part of the reason why I brought up the whole ridiculous notion of an "Oaks Faction" versus a "Nelson Faction" is to point out that I don't think any of the three Brethren called this weekend will, their relative youth notwithstanding, move the Church of Jesus Christ closer to accepting formal women's ordination or gay marriage.)

 

Hope this clarifies.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't have an answer to your question.  I would need to cogitate on it some.  (See the "Ponderize" thread. )  As for the issues I mentioned, I don't think there are differences regarding those issues that will divide the Brethren either, which is ... uhhh ... why I brought them up.   Sadly, however, I think those issues will continue to divide the membership.  And if they ever do divide the Brethren, I believe Joseph Smith said (though this isn't how Brother Joseph phrased it) that if any issues ever do divide the Brethren publicly (such that, essentially, there is a schism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) that one would end up on the "right" side of such a schism if he casts his lot with the Prophet and the majority of the Twelve.  (Though I hope the day when such a choice would be necessary never comes.  Part of the reason why I brought up the whole ridiculous notion of an "Oaks Faction" versus a "Nelson Faction" is to point out that I don't think any of the three Brethren called this weekend will, their relative youth notwithstanding, move the Church of Jesus Christ closer to accepting formal women's ordination or gay marriage.)

 

Hope this clarifies.

Yeh, it does.

However, let me just say in passing that I don't foresee any schism in the future of this Church, and I think that the membership is unlikely to mutiny -- even if there is some grousing about this or that, as we find on this board.  I think instead that the issues that will consume our leaders in the future will have more to do with (1) cultural style and presentation of the Gospel, (2) how to deal with intransigent governments, (3) how to deal with militant/jihadist Islam, and (4) how to deal with the Jews.

[Kenngo1969]

Yeh, it does.

However, let me just say in passing that I don't foresee any schism in the future of this Church, and I think that the membership is unlikely to mutiny -- even if there is some grousing about this or that, as we find on this board.  I think instead that the issues that will consume our leaders in the future will have more to do with (1) cultural style and presentation of the Gospel, (2) how to deal with intransigent governments, (3) how to deal with militant/jihadist Islam, and (4) how to deal with the Jews.

Joseph's "schism scenario," I believe, was conditional, that is to say, it was phrased as, "if it happens"; it wasn't phrased as a prophecy.  As I say, the hopes of the so-called "progressives" on issues of gay marriage and women's ordination likely were dashed (or at least, they're no closer to being realized) with the calling of these three Brethren.  Your other comments are interesting. Perhaps the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in East Germany provides something of a template for #2, and Dan Peterson likely has some keen insights on #3 and #4, respectively.

[Thinking]

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.

 

You are correct. However, it's not the critics who have never selected a non-white apostle.

[Erin15]

I'm quite sure there are a great many persons of color who at this very moment have the faith, obedience, and spiritual sensitivity to fulfill the calling of apostle.

I'm also quite sure that each and every one of them, if they were here, would chastise anyone complaining about "diversity" to stop being so petty and encourage them to follow the prophet and sustain him instead of complaining.

It is ironic, therefore, that the people advocating for the calling of a person of color would be the first to be rebuked by that same person of color for the very act of advocating for him.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Erin15

[Buckeye]

To answer the OP, President Monson chose the 3 new apostles (very likely with input from this counselors and the Q12) and sought confirmation from the Lord. I believe the Lord approves of the callings. I believe there are thousands of other people he would have approved of. It's no different than selecting a spouse or a missionary assignment. Just because the selection/assigment is confirmed, it doesn't mean it's the one and only possibility. 

[Duncan]

To answer the OP, President Monson chose the 3 new apostles (very likely with input from this counselors and the Q12) and sought confirmation from the Lord. I believe the Lord approves of the callings. I believe there are thousands of other people he would have approved of. It's no different than selecting a spouse or a missionary assignment. Just because the selection/assigment is confirmed, it doesn't mean it's the one and only possibility. 

 

 

I have often wondered about that, were there others who were foreordained to the apostleship but somehow never lived up to it here? like was say for example Elder John Henry Smith,called in 1880, the second choice for someone who was supposed to be called but just wasn't worthy or whatever? 

[Buckeye]

I have often wondered about that, were there others who were foreordained to the apostleship but somehow never lived up to it here? like was say for example Elder John Henry Smith,called in 1880, the second choice for someone who was supposed to be called but just wasn't worthy or whatever? 

 

I've never heard of being foreordained to an apostleship. Given enough time, I'm sure all who are worthy could eventually serve. My point was mostly that the pool of worthy, acceptable choices, that would be approved by the Lord, is almost always larger than the number of slots of fill. This is generally true for all callings.

[Duncan]

I've never heard of being foreordained to an apostleship. Given enough time, I'm sure all who are worthy could eventually serve. My point was mostly that the pool of worthy, acceptable choices, that would be approved by the Lord, is almost always larger than the number of slots of fill. This is generally true for all callings.

 

right heh! I've heard my whole life that men are foreordained to be an apostle, prophet, stake president, bishop who knows what else and so the presiding officer has to pray to find out who the Lord already chose and in life they've lived up to that responsibility. Granted even once someone gets to be these callings, whatever they are they can still sap people's strength

[Gilbert]

 

 

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.

 

 

BlueDreams, your concern on this issue and yet willingness to hold fast to the truth is inspiring. If more people took your approach we would have a lot fewer "Bitter Bobs" in the Church.

But to address your concern, I felt like perhaps my post was one of which you took a little offense concerning my treatment of the topic of diversity. Let me clarify. I totally agree with you that diversity does matter today. When the Lord speaks to us He does so in a way we can understand. Our ability to learn and comprehend eternal truths is influenced by our background. The parables used by the Savior are perfect examples of this. We sometimes have a hard time understanding them because our background is different than Jesus' original audience. So to say recognizing diversity in perspective and experience in building the kingdom of God is unimportant would be foolish to say the least. But it is equally foolish to say that God's efforts to build his kingdom is some how limited by the diverse situations his children find themselves in and the limited experiences of those called to serve them.

I think you hit the nail of the head when you said that the differences that seperate us today will one day not matter. In the eternal scheme of things the cultural influences that can affect us so much here and now will have little bearing on us. Even green jello and funeral potatoes are unimportant parts of our existence here (insert aghast emoticon).

So how do we reconcile the seeming need to be taught in a way we need to understand with the fact that our leaders and teachers in many instances do NOT come from a similar background as our own? The answer is the Spirit. When dealing with things of an eternal nature that eternal part of us (our spirit) has far more bearing on our ability to comprehend eternal truths than our earthly background. That's why white Utah boys and girls are sent into the heart of black Africa and still experience great success. Because its not a cultural experience but a spiritual one. Our heavenly origins as spirit brothers and sisters carry far greater influence in building God's kingdom than our temporary earthly circumstances.

 

Remember that on the day of Pentecost when the preaching of Peter was understood by many foreigners, it was not Peter's background and knowledge of how to effectively communicate with his diverse audience that brought about their conversion. It was the Spirit's ability to communicate inspite of Peter's seeming shortcomings. We could even say that Peter's "non-diverse" background helped pave the way for their conversion as it was his weakness in communicating that allowed the power of God to be manifest. We have the promise from the Lord that he qualifies whom he calls. It is in our weaknesses that we are called. Two of the new apostles spoke directly to this point yesterday. But because they see their weakness they have the Lord's promise that they will be made strong.

[The Nehor]

You are correct. However, it's not the critics who have never selected a non-white apostle.

Indeed, the critics actually do nothing at all.

[Stone holm]

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    

 

I confess, had not read this before my last post.  I believe you nailed it.  One of the ways we avoid "group think" is to have people from different cultures and ethnicity at the table.  That is not important to reflecting culture as we can have "culture centers" and "culture nights", and specific wards based on specific languages -- but it is important to prevent culture from being confused with doctrine, and doctrine from being confused with culture.  In a more trivial manner, I am considered a "flatlander" or "from away" -- out here in New England which has been my home for more than 20 years, same is true of my children -- my grandchildren maybe considered Vermonters.  Sometimes I have to force myself to think as a native Vermonters to understand what is going on -- although admittedly, Vermont was effectively taken over by people "from away" in the 1970's and 1980's, so often it is the native Vermonters who are in fact out of touch.  My foster son's fiancé has been raised in two cultures: Peruvian and American.  She has opened my eyes to cultural blindspots -- my son volunteered for assignment to a Spanish speaking Ward in order to make sure his kids experienced the real world outside the upper middle-class "med/ed" bubble that his actually Ward lived in.  My son's approach has colored how I look at a lot of our cultural issues and how they intersect with our religion.

[Calm]

"That's why white Utah boys and girls are sent into the heart of black Africa and still experience great success. Because its not a cultural experience but a spiritual one."

But the Church is more than just sharing a spiritual experience.

When I hear discussions about understanding diversity, these days I tend to go back to Sister Eubank's talk titled "This is a Woman's Church". If you don't know the talk, take a moment to think about what that means to you.

I would suspect the vast majority of Saints in the US wouldn't understand it in the same way as the woman telling Sister Eubank's friend meant it, at least not until they were told and at that time they might add it to their understanding...hopefully, some might only register it superficially and thus in the future decisions would not be influenced by that exposure to an additional perspective.

While it is certainly possible that the Spirit may convey all perspectives needed to our leaders, it seems to me reality is that God doesn't choose to operate that way. That is why instead of allowing the Spirit to tell the RS leader training in Africa, it was one of the women who experienced that aspect of a change the gospel had wrought in her life that taught the sister what she needed to know and then her friend sharing the experience with Sister Eubank and Sister Eubank sharing it with all those exposed to her talk...just like what finally conveyed a perspective in Bluedreams' class was not a theoretical discussion or a purely spiritual communication, but the sharing of a personal perspective.

Those Utah boys and girls will do a lot more good in the Church if while they are there sharing the gospel as they know it, they also listen to those they are teaching teach them on how they live the gospel in Africa and keep their eyes and ears as open as their spirits so when they go home they take a wider prespective of life with them.

But just like a nonmember can live all his life among Mormons and pick up a lot of what it means to be LDS if they are open to it and yet still not know some of the essential experiences of being Mormon, just because someone who grew up in the US and can always return to the US has lived for many years in a variety of cultures, they may still miss out on some of the essential perspectives of what it means to be a Saint in Africa, Asia, or even next door.

The Spirit can indeed make up for any gap in our leaders, but if God had chosen to operate that way, he could have saved a lot of money for the Church by just having them sit in SLC making decisions based on what the Spirit tells them without spending great effort sending people all over, not only teaching, but collecting information and as important experiences.

So in the end, I do believe that God will use as one of his tools diversity of cultures in the highest quorum as he has in almost every level of the Church so far in order that the current mortal version of his kingdom uses his instruction (whether by the Spirit or by his working through human interaction) to the fullest extent. It seems consistent with how he has approached leadership and the needs of his people over time.

 

add-on after interruption (and some editing above):

 

That some Saints expected it to happen this time and are disappointed seems unimportant as long as those of us who are disappointed (as I am) choose to happily look forward to the day when it happens (if it is meant to be or we receive information on why it isn't going to happen) and not get all snarled up in the timing.

 

If you haven't had a chance to read Sister Eubank's talk or are clueless about what I was referring to and delaying having to go look for a link for accuracy, here it is:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

 

I am going to tell you a story, and it actually happened to Lillian DeLong, a friend of mine. She served on a Relief Society board years ago. And she was assigned to go to Ghana. And she had her husband with her. And they were in a very rural part of Ghana. So, they did their training. She was there to do Relief Society Training. And it is a very simple structure and they were in different rooms, and her husband was in Priesthood and she was in Relief Society and they did their training. After it was over, a woman came up to her, in her beautiful Ghanaian church dress, and she shook her hand and she kept saying “This is a woman’s church.” She’s just crying and tears are just streaming down her face. She kept saying, “This is a woman’s church.” Lillian didn’t really know what she was talking about. And she’s smiling and saying, “Yeah.” But the woman just kept pumping her hand and saying over and over again, “This is a woman’s church.” And finally Lillian said, “What do you mean, ‘This is a woman’s church?’” And she said, “We have just been in the marvelous Relief Society that teaches us not only spiritual things but temporal things about how to make our lives and our children and our families better. And at the same time your husband is in the Priesthood room and he is teaching our husbands that the culture of the church does not allow for them to beat their wives and their children.” 

And she said, “In this church, my husband and I get to go to the temple and we are going to seal our children to us. And I have seven of my eleven kids that are dead. And I want my children with me and this is a woman’s church, because it protects me and gives me all of those things.” I never forgot this story that Lillian told me. And although it maybe is a poor title for this talk, it is why I titled this talk that, because our doctrine gives us those things.

Some things this woman shared with most American sisters...a desire to be eternally sealed to their families in the temple and all that such means and yet she had an experience that few American sisters have at this time, living in a culture where a husband beating a wife was seen as acceptable.  Our leaders need to be aware of all perspectives of Saints in the Church and potential Saints (which is everyone else), the Spirit is the only way for all needs to be learned but the Lord seems to expect us to use our mundane abilities and connections to learn as well.  

 

It makes sense to send out North American missionaries to experience all the world, it also makes sense to send African, Asian, European, etc leaders to SLC to bring the world to one place.  God is already doing this with other quorums.  Is there any reason not to do it for the 12 that I am missing?  And if not, then why not look forward to the day when it happens?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel Peterson doesn't post much here anymore, but this blog post relates somewhat to the topic of this thread, so I link to  it here. An excerpt:

 

Sadly though predictably, the calls to the apostleship extended to Elders Ronald Rasband, Gary Stevenson, and Dale Renlund have been met in certain circles with indignation and snorts of derision.

 

Boring.  White bread.  All from Utah.  No diversity.  No fishermen.  No carpenters.  All middle-class to upper middle-class.  All educated.  No poor and illiterate peasants.  Three businessmen.  (Actually, one of them is a cardiologist.  And, by the way, one speaks fluent Japanese and has lived for nearly a decade in Asia.  Another grew up partly in Sweden and Finland, speaks excellent Swedish, and has, I’m told, spent five of the last six years living in Africa.)

 

I’ll probably respond to some of this, indirectly, in a column a couple of weeks from now.

 

For the moment, though, I want to comment on one recurring sneer that I’ve been reading:

 

Those who weren’t chosen to join the Twelve, some have said, are probably bitterly disappointed.  And those who’ve been called are thrilled because their ship has come in.  Their ambitions have been realized.  They’re now going to have all of the perks and glory of the apostleship.  Yippee!

 

Such sentiments, I think, are very likely more self-revelatory about the souls of those expressing them than they are indicative of the character of Church leadership.

 

Seriously.

 

A friend of mine who has served for many years now in the Seventy confided to me one day that “99.9% of the glamor connected with this position comes during two weekends in Spring and Fall.”  Another friend in the Seventy once remarked rather wearily, when I ran into him overseas and asked him how he was doing, that “the law of consecration is a check with an unlimited number of zeros.”

 

And I’ve seen enough of the responsibilities of the Twelve, and of their daily schedules, to know that it doesn’t get any easier on their level, nor, really, much more glamorous.

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

To answer the OP, President Monson chose the 3 new apostles (very likely with input from this counselors and the Q12) and sought confirmation from the Lord. I believe the Lord approves of the callings. I believe there are thousands of other people he would have approved of. It's no different than selecting a spouse or a missionary assignment. Just because the selection/assigment is confirmed, it doesn't mean it's the one and only possibility. 

While this might be the case in some instances, I know of nothing to compel the belief that it is the case all of the time. I'm confident that there are at least some occasions when it is not that haphazard, when the Lord desires a specific person to serve in a specific calling at a specific time, and He will guide the one acting in His behalf to make that specific selection. This oft-quoted statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith would lend support to the idea that people were fore-ordained to minister in the callings in which they now find themselves serving:

 

"Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose that I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 365.)

Consider this: Some of those called into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will end up in the position of president of the Church; prophet, seer and revelator; holder of the priesthood keys in this gospel dispensation; having a marked influence in the history of the Church for a period of time. Do you really believe the Lord would leave that eventuality wholly up to the whims of whomever it is that is choosing the newest member of the quorum, or would He exercise some guiding influence in the choice?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

I don't know who specifically would be complaining about a lack of diversity in leadership, but I'm not sure I would listen to any complaints from the Ordian Women crowd:

 

http://ordainwomen.org/faq/

[Calm]

And I’ve seen enough of the responsibilities of the Twelve, and of their daily schedules, to know that it doesn’t get any easier on their level, nor, really, much more glamorous.

 

There are some men who see retirement as hell, but even they still in general want to be able to pick and choose what hours and how they work.  Apostles don't get that choice for the most part.  And traveling when one is older isn't half so fun as when younger, sitting in a chair for hours with muscles tightening up, eating food that one's digestion isn't quite tolerant of, being more sensitive to changes in tempature and weather.

 

Since it is typical now that those of the 12 have had experience in very time consuming callings already, they are likely not going in blind to what it means to have the majority of the hours of the rest of your life committed to the workings of the Church.

 

I find it hard to believe that many people would look forward to such a forever commitment, pretty much on par hours and attentionwise with having a toddler at the end the rest of the world is retiring....and the toddler never growing up.  Sure there are wonderful aspects of being a parent, but there are wonderful aspects of being a grandparent as well and it may be easier to appreciate the first at a younger age and the second at an older age.

[Calm]

I don't know who specifically would be complaining about a lack of diversity in leadership, but I'm not sure I would listen to any complaints from the Ordian Women crowd:

 

http://ordainwomen.org/faq/

IIRC, one of them was a German.