Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Robert F. Smith]

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? 

There are a great many of us who do not live up to our full potential.  Fortunately, some do.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.  ..................................................................

................  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.

These are all very important concerns.  However, very few members ever think along such lines.  Hopefully, the leadership does take that into account.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

How do you know that the modern obsession with "diversity" isn't just another example of "group think?"

 

As in, everyone tells you that we need "diversity," and like a good little follower, you nod without thinking. Are you sure none of that is going on?

 

After all, isn't it true that "diversity," as used by the "progressive" left, means something like "people who think like us?"

[Robert F. Smith]

How do you know that the modern obsession with "diversity" isn't just another example of "group think?"

 

As in, everyone tells you that we need "diversity," and like a good little follower, you nod without thinking. Are you sure none of that is going on?

 

After all, isn't it true that "diversity," as used by the "progressive" left, means something like "people who think like us?"

Probably not.  Instead, the bane of both left and right is the discomfort each side or faction has with different perspectives on a host of issues.  Having to wrestle with reality or with God is not something most partisans are interested in -- they are too busy defending some untenable position in the ever polarized and oversimplified world.  Too many of us come to the debate with our opinions already fully formed, unready to actually consider alternative perspectives.  Fortunately, the Brethren actually listen to one another, and are ready to change their minds in accord with the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately, they might not always have the opportunity to consider odd points of view simply because no one has presented what only diversity can make possible.

 

Brother Brigham had very few worthy opponents.  Orson Pratt was willing to stand up to him on principle, even though it cost him dearly.  Today, of course, it is the theological view of Pratt which is normative within the LDS Church.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[strappinglad]

A couple of items. A few posters here have referred to President Monsoon. Now I know he can tell a good story but I have never considered him that 'windy'.  
A brief reading of the history of the 12 in the first 50 years of the Church can illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of diversity and homogeny .

 As has been mentioned here before, when the pool of the seventy gets deeper, the pool of the 12 will follow. In 40 years, all the current apostles will be replaced. Anyone here want to bet that the new ones will all hail from Utah?

[Kenngo1969]

There are accounts not a few of the process of extending callings at all levels of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wherein various names were submitted, suggested, and considered, but no consensus could be reached on whom should fill the particular position in question, whereupon either: (1) the process was repeated until inspiration was recieved, or (2) in an unconventional way or at an unusual moment, a name came into the mind of the person responsible for issuing the call, whereupon that person was considered and approved.

Yet, in this case, the consensus of the skeptics seems to be, "Well, we've pondered, fasted, and prayed, individually and collectively, about whom should fill these callings, and these are the names we've received. I haven't gotten any inspiration about whom the Lord wants, but gosh, my hands are tied. If this is the list, this is the list, and if Bishop Stevenson, Elder Rasband, and Elder Renlund are the best we can do ..."

Edited October 6, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[BlueDreams]

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. 

 

To be honest yours was I believe, but it was not at all the most cringe-worthy and it wasn’t unique in the sense that several stated similarly.

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.

 

 

That’s not what I said nor would insinuate….but then on second thought, I realized it could be legitimate to say just that. There were times that the cultural baggage of the people did limit the spread of His Kingdom, the most obvious being the priesthood ban on blacks. The purpose of his Kingdom is Zion or to create one heart and one mind. For better or worse, that is something that we play a heavy part in creating or being apart of. I don’t think, in the long run, our foibles will hinder his purposes coming to pass. He’s God after all. But the temporal station of his Kingdom has become limited and even fallen apart in the temporal position several times in the past….often because people struggled with cultural and religious practices and making them come together congruently. Half of the NT is a great example of that.

I think you hit the nail of the head when you said that the differences that separate 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).

 

 

I know you mean to be jovial, but comparing green jello and funeral potatoes to lived cultural experiences kinda fits in the boat of taking cultural diversity way too lightly. And I don’t know if I agree whether culture will not play a role in the eternal things entirely. I mentioned this in a different thread altogether, but I feel that who we were here will be overlayed by who we were in the pre-mortal life and spirit world…and then in eternity. I in the sense that culture and experience here will definitely color that overlaying of experiences (excuse the pun) I do think it will have some bearing on us. I just don’t think how we view and interact with those differences will drastically differ, insomuch there will be no –ites (ie. at odd camps).

 

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.

 

 

Not from what I’ve read and heard. The culture of many of these areas in Africa where they’re having great success is also important. My brother is currently in madagascar and I know a senior couple who’ve served 2 missions in Africa….plus a few others. The difference they’ve of religious openness and community welcomeness that is culturally ingrained…it give cultural space for that great success.  It’s one of the things that I’ve heard all of them mention right off. So no, culture can and does have an effect.

 

Don’t get me wrong, the Spirit is integral, but I think the manner we learn together is important. The example of your White utah boys and girls is the model of teaching where the spirit works as a conduit through the missionaries. Though that is true it is only one small part of it. We learn together through the spirit and from each other. Both are pertinent. The way, at times we learn where majority culture becomes the normative model, can limit the learning from each other.

 

As Cal(m) mentioned, the church, in a lot of ways has seen the pertinence of having leaders endemic to the areas they’re serving in. They’ve not the pertinence of diversity in things like board members for the young women, area seventies, and the seventies. Not for diversity’s sake, but because there are things others can teach that are needed and integral for a zion society to be furthered. Without them, it can be limited.  

 

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.

 

 

This was one experience with few in this body....and if it had just been Peter in this work, the amount of foreigners may have stayed marginal. The greater amounts of conversion and change took far more than him to spread and they needed people like Timotheus and Paul to help bridge distinct cultural/socioeconomic gaps. Peter was great and made powerful in God’s hand.  But if it were left to just him the work would have only gone so far IMHO….because he is still just one man and his capacities in this life will still be limited.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

How do you know that the modern obsession with "diversity" isn't just another example of "group think?"

 

As in, everyone tells you that we need "diversity," and like a good little follower, you nod without thinking. Are you sure none of that is going on?

 

After all, isn't it true that "diversity," as used by the "progressive" left, means something like "people who think like us?"

 

All are capable of group think....all you need are individuals who think fairly the same on a given topic...their ideas won't range too far on it because of it.

 

And no, it's not true that diversity for the "progressive left" must mean "people who think like us"....of course if you go too extreme in any view (left, right, progressive, conservative, whatever) you are like to assume that the good falls into the category of "people who think like us." It's not a progressive left phenomenon. It's just a pretty dang human one when views become to insular.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited October 6, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Russell C McGregor]

All are capable of group think....all you need are individuals who think fairly the same on a given topic...their ideas won't range too far on it because of it.

 

And no, it's not true that diversity for the "progressive left" must mean "people who think like us"....of course if you go too extreme in any view (left, right, progressive, conservative, whatever) you are like to assume that the good falls into the category of "people who think like us." It's not a progressive left phenomenon. It's just a pretty dang human one when views become to insular.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

[Stone holm]

How do you know that the modern obsession with "diversity" isn't just another example of "group think?"

 

As in, everyone tells you that we need "diversity," and like a good little follower, you nod without thinking. Are you sure none of that is going on?

 

After all, isn't it true that "diversity," as used by the "progressive" left, means something like "people who think like us?"

Group think occurs normally when you surround yourself with people who come from the same background, culture, and or educational institution. It can occur amongst any group which is ideologically connected. It is not limited to either the left or right, religious or atheists. One way it can happen is if you are culturally insulated. What is critical here is not necessarily race or ethnicity, although those tend to be markers. Pope Francis is for example pretty clearly Caucasian and not Latino, but I don't think there is much question that he brought a fresh perspective to the Vatican. In that case, it happened to be left wing which is understandable since he was a South American Jesuit, a group known for leading the Christian Left during the 70's. Don't know if he was involved or not. But, I am sure that someone from South America is likely to have absorbed the culture more than a person who visited there for several years. One would have to be deaf to not see a different cultural tone in Pres. Uctdorf (excuse sp) than in he other Apostles. But, as I have said repeatedly, these are most likely fine, righteous men who will fulfill their callings, and if the Lord felt their was an overwhelming need for a course correction right now, He would have made His wishes known...so these men were safe bets.

[BlueDreams]

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

 

and I've seen what sometimes feel like a semi-allergy by "conservatives" to anything to do with diversity talk, gender parity, social equity, or views that don't fit their paradigm or feel in someway threatening to maintaining their values, traditions, ideologies, etc. 

 

And i've seen it. A lot. 

 

The difference is that I don't assume it's somehow unique to conservative ideologies. It's just the other side of the same coin of problems....people do not like having what they feel is right pushed against or overly questioned.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Stone holm]

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

Actually, the press seems to think that a South American Apostle would have been more conservative on certain issues than those selected. If we look to other Christian sects, it is pretty clear that their African counterparts also tend to be more conservative. Only in Europe is there a mild tendency towards being more progressive, and I have not heard many "progressive" voices calling for more from that continent.

[lisakhyde]

I am the niece of Dale Renlund, and I just published an article about Dale's background on Mormon Observer. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

 

http://www.mormonobserver.com/2015/10/05/want-a-new-apostle-with-a-diverse-background-hes-already-there/

[Bobbieaware]

All are capable of group think....all you need are individuals who think fairly the same on a given topic...their ideas won't range too far on it because of it.

 

And no, it's not true that diversity for the "progressive left" must mean "people who think like us"....of course if you go too extreme in any view (left, right, progressive, conservative, whatever) you are like to assume that the good falls into the category of "people who think like us." It's not a progressive left phenomenon. It's just a pretty dang human one when views become to insular.

 

With luv,

BD

Gotta watch out for that groupthink -- it's never a good thing. The devout followers of Christ chronicled in 4 Nephi succumbed to the enticements of groupthink, and though a skilled propagandist tried to whitewash this ignoble period of Nephite history with rhapsodic descriptions of how supposedly wonderful things were, those of us in the know are able to see right through the propagandist's skillfully-constructed smokescreen...

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, NOR ANY MANNER OF -ITES; BUT THEY WERE ONE, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi)

[stemelbow]

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

You make a good point. A white male from Utah could have very different views and opinion than another white male from Utah. It just so happens that if an opinion is going to be the same among two males, it'll be most similar by two that are from the same place and have been influenced by the same environment.

There might be more diversity of thought and perspective in the Q12 and FP, but it doesn't really show much.

[jkwilliams]

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

Believe it or not, I agree with you here. Diversity of background can indeed be a positive influence in a society or an organization, but too often such diversity is based on artificial distinctions, such as skin color, and even then, diversity of opinion seems not to be highly valued. Real diversity means inviting people to the table who might make us a little uncomfortable.

[BlueDreams]

Gotta watch out for that groupthink -- it's never a good thing. The devout followers of Christ chronicled in 4 Nephi succumbed to the enticements of groupthink, and though a skilled propagandist tried to whitewash this ignoble period of Nephite history with rhapsodic descriptions of how supposedly wonderful things were, those of us in the know are able to see right through the propagandist's skillfully-constructed smokescreen...

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, NOR ANY MANNER OF -ITES; BUT THEY WERE ONE, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi)

 

I wouldn't call this groupthink, I'd call it christ-think. Where all (there wasn't a group that didn't need to change) willingly altered their views and practices to allign with God's not a specific man-made group's ideology. Beyond the removal of in and out groups and the removal of sinful interactions....what that looked like in the propagation of culture and family traditions (that are inert or edifying) is limited. 

 

with luv,

BD

Edited October 6, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

I am the niece of Dale Renlund, and I just published an article about Dale's background on Mormon Observer. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

 

http://www.mormonobserver.com/2015/10/05/want-a-new-apostle-with-a-diverse-background-hes-already-there/

Wow, can't wait to hear more. I liked him right away when he spoke at the news conference. His admitting to his lack of sleep, which I often have. But he just seemed to not put on any face but his own. Hopefully we hear more from your aunt too!!

[jkwilliams]

I am the niece of Dale Renlund, and I just published an article about Dale's background on Mormon Observer. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

 

http://www.mormonobserver.com/2015/10/05/want-a-new-apostle-with-a-diverse-background-hes-already-there/

Thanks for that interesting background. I liked what I saw of him when he spoke.

[Gilbert]

To be honest yours was I believe, but it was not at all the most cringe-worthy and it wasn’t unique in the sense that several stated similarly.

 

BD, I'm not going to address each of the points you brought up because I think to a degree we may just be speaking past each other (most likely due to my not effectively communicating my perspective). So rather I will just get to the heart of where I'm coming from.

 

When viewing any aspect of this life and the role the gospel plays in it I always start with what I absolutely know to be true. I will simply label these things as the principles of the gospel. From there I try to square everything else I encounter with those things. If they don't square then I know they are to one degree or another not of God. This doesn't mean they are necessarily of the devil either, perhaps just of man. To my knoweledge I have never come across the principle of culture or diversity in the gospel. Like I said in my original post, principles of the gospel (such as family value) may be incorporated into a culture, but this only means they have something in common with others who likewise place high value on this principle of the gospel. And it is these common beliefs that bring people together, not their differences. As the gospel spreads cultural aspects that are not in harmony with the principles of the gospel actually act as a hinderance. So to your point these aspects need to be addressed but the only solution is humility on the part of the people espousing non-gospel adhereing ideas and practices, rejection of these cultural philosophies, and the adoption of gospel principles. When Samuel the Lamanite came among the Nephites the response of the people was based on their acceptance or rejection of gospel principles, not culture. Maybe some didn't like the idea of a Lamanite preaching to them but this would merely be a manifestation of their rejection of the principle of humility. It is people's reaction to the Spirit-confirmed teaching of gospel principles that determines their fate. Spirit speaking to spirit is the universal language.

[Gilbert]

Gotta watch out for that groupthink -- it's never a good thing.

Groupthink is the ideal, so long as God is part of that group.

[pogi]

I am the niece of Dale Renlund, and I just published an article about Dale's background on Mormon Observer. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

 

http://www.mormonobserver.com/2015/10/05/want-a-new-apostle-with-a-diverse-background-hes-already-there/

 

Thanks for sharing.  He sounds like just the man for the job. 

[Stone holm]

Thanks for sharing.  He sounds like just the man for the job. 

 

I am sure he will do the job.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are accounts not a few of the process of extending callings at all levels of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wherein various names were submitted, suggested, and considered, but no consensus could be reached on whom should fill the particular position in question, whereupon either: (1) the process was repeated until inspiration was recieved, or (2) in an unconventional way or at an unusual moment, a name came into the mind of the person responsible for issuing the call, whereupon that person was considered and approved.

Yet, in this case, the consensus of the skeptics seems to be, "Well, we've pondered, fasted, and prayed, individually and collectively, about whom should fill these callings, and these are the names we've received. I haven't gotten any inspiration about whom the Lord wants, but gosh, my hands are tied. If this is the list, this is the list, and if Bishop Stevenson, Elder Rasband, and Elder Renlund are the best we can do ..."

I too have heard incidents such as you describe above, frequently enough for me to conclude that it is not always a matter of the Lord in effect saying to the prophet or priesthood leader, "Oh well, you put some thought into it, and whatever you decide will be fine with Me."

 

Not long before graduating from BYU, I filled an internship with University Relations writing for the alumni magazine. On one occasion, we (the editor and I) interviewed Elder Neal A. Maxwell for a profile we were writing on BYU President Dallin H. Oaks. (As I recall, he was slated to be released at the end of that academic year.)

 

Elder Maxwell described the process by which Brother Oaks was selected as university president. Elder Maxwell said that the Board of Trustees was mostly (perhaps wholly, I don't recall) unacquainted with Dallin Oaks, but on separate occasions unassociated with one another, individual members of the board had had occasion to meet Brother Oaks and take their measure of him. Later, his name surfaced in the minds of the board collectively to the point they were able to recommend him to be called to the position of university president.

 

Accounts like this tell me that very often, if not in every single case, God engineers events so that the one whom He wants called to a position is placed within the awareness of the authority making the call. The Spirit then works on the mind and heart of that leader until his own will in the matter is aligned with the will of God.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks BD. However, I have observed that when trendy lefties boast about the "diversity" of whatever group they happen to belong to, it is "diversity" in everything but opinion.

 

E.g.. they might produce white male "progressives," female "progressives," Maori "progressives," Polynesian "progressives," Asian "progressives," and then smugly congratulate themselves on the "diversity" of their group.

 

I've seen it. A lot.

And I've seen such groups get awfully nasty toward someone of their favored ethnic group who doesn't conform to the favored opinion.