Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Scott Lloyd]

Am I the only guy never to have heard of him prior to the call? Dang, I feel so out of touch.

I've had three memorable encounters with him. A while back, I was assigned to write a Church News piece on the office of Seventy, its presence from antiquity, the development of it through the history of this gospel dispensation, and the genius of it in that it facilitates the administration of a global Church because it is infinitely expandable. That piece was drawn mostly on my interview with Elder Rasband, in which he was wonderfully informative and most accommodating. He was the senior member in the presidency of the Seventy, so it was recommended that he be the one to interview for that piece.

 

Back in July, I had the opportunity to cover the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Atlantic Coast Tour, basically being embedded with the choir as it traveled. Elder Rasband was the General Authority adviser assigned to be with the choir during that tour. So I had opportunity to observe him and take part in interviews with him.

 

Finally, a few weeks ago, I covered the important devotional address he gave at BYU during which he spoke about the topic of safeguarding religious freedom. He also spoke on that topic during one of the special sacrament meetings that were held for the Tabernacle Choir entourage in New York.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

"Revisionist?"I suppose you'll tell me that the claim that the "Reorganization" was the "successor" to a church that needed no successors isn't revisionist at all, right?

Thanks for attempting to know what I was thinking. The apostles that remained behind after the excursion west still had apostolic authority. Without BY they could still operate as a quorum. The only living person with any say over their apostleship died in Carthage. This utter rot that they don't have the "keys" is nonsense.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Valentinus

[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:

Here is something of a follow-up to Dan's earlier post on the same subject. If anything, it is more on-point than the prior one, so I'm linking to it as well.

 

Would I have liked to see non-Utahn, non-American apostles named?

 

Yes, I would have liked that. ...

 

That said, I believe that Elders Rasband, Stevenson, and Renlund were called by God, and I believe them to be true apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.  I sustain them wholeheartedly, and I expect good things from their ministries. ...

 

Moreover, as something of an aside, I take considerable satisfaction from the fact, clearly demonstrated by these apostolic calls, that the Brethren who preside over the Church don’t take dictation from political correctness, from academic commentators, from journalists, or from bloggers.  They were surely aware of the expectations, and the pressures.  They surely anticipated the criticisms.  But they followed what they believed to be the Lord’s will.

 

Precisely as I hope they’ll do, and as we need them to do.

I will here add a comment by way of reminder that absolutely no one in authority in the Church of Jesus Christ created, fed or even hinted at the expectation of one or more of the three new apostles hailing from outside Utah. That was entirely a phenomenon of the mass media, social media and cyber or real-life chatter.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Calling a minority general authority is a simple matter. An apostle of color, however, is an entirely separate issue, as they are immediately and irrevocably cast into the prophet lottery. And lets just forgo the line, soon to form, about how so totally ok we would all be with an african or mexican prophet, as long as the spirit confirmed he was called of God....

 

A black prophet just reminds the members of the priesthood ban, and we're trying to forget that.

 

A Lamanite prophet, and then we're thinking of his DNA, or looking at his childhood photos to see how many shades lighter his skin has become since his call to the quorum of the twelve.

 

Then when we see this prophet of color, like a nervous tick, the White and Delightsome phrase keeps popping up in our head like a non verbal form of turrets.

 

The more I think about it, we'll all be more comfortable keeping the ship on the same course as it's always been.

You are doing a sarcastic parody right?

[Stone holm]

viagra 20mg pills no new posts

viagra without prescription viagra 10mg how long does it last forum software

viagra without prescription - viagra and alcohol side effects login

viagra information food e-mail

Admin looks like you have a robotic ad spammer here

[Buckeye]

 

...

 

I'll paraphrase here, but he replied that our son needs to know he has both the right and obligation to know by personal revelation that his call is from God. Then, with no prompting from me, Elder Renlund applied that to himself, saying that he and Sister Renlund had both sought and received that confirming witness as pertaining to his recent call to the apostleship.

 

So, I will reiterate here with certainty the point I began this thread with: It was Jesus Christ Himself Who made the selection this past weekend of Elders Rasband, Stevenson and Renlund to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

Scott, your paraphrase of Elder Renlund's statement does not support your conclusion. The spirit can confirm a call without that call being the only call that would be confirmed. A missionary can (and should, Elder Renlund is right) seek confirmation of his/her assignment, but that doesn't mean the assignment is the only one that would be confirmed. Likewise with callings, even to the apostleship. I'm confident that the Lord is pleased with these selections. But that doesn't mean that the Lord personally made the selection. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

Scott, your paraphrase of Elder Renlund's statement does not support your conclusion. The spirit can confirm a call without that call being the only call that would be confirmed. A missionary can (and should, Elder Renlund is right) seek confirmation of his/her assignment, but that doesn't mean the assignment is the only one that would be confirmed. Likewise with callings, even to the apostleship. I'm confident that the Lord is pleased with these selections. But that doesn't mean that the Lord personally made the selection. 

 

I transcribed that portion of the interview last night so I could send it to my son. Here's the very last part, wherein I posed the question directly. (I admit I had this thread in mind when I posed it.)

 

Scott: No doubt in your mind that it was Jesus Christ who selected you and the other brethren?

 

Elder Renlund: No doubt. Ruth?

 

Sister Renlund: No doubt.

 

Elder Renlund (jokingly): Personally I would have advised them differently.

 

 

[ERayR]

Nobody knows their names just showed up on a white board in President Monsons board room.

[Russell C McGregor]

Nobody knows their names just showed up on a white board in President Monsons board room.

 

Ah-ha! So it turns out that the system is geared towards selecting white apostles, because their names are written on a white board!!

[ERayR]

Ah-ha! So it turns out that the system is geared towards selecting white apostles, because their names are written on a white board!!

 

Yep you are begining to see.  It is all a plot to enslave the masses.

[Russell C McGregor]

Thanks for attempting to know what I was thinking. The apostles that remained behind after the excursion west still had apostolic authority. Without BY they could still operate as a quorum. The only living person with any say over their apostleship died in Carthage. This utter rot that they don't have the "keys" is nonsense.

 

No, they couldn't operate as a quorum because there weren't enough of them. (Two at the most, IIRC.) They lost the keys when they went into apostasy. When Brigham Young was sustained as President of the Church, he was acknowledged by the Church as having authority over their apostleship. You can call this "nonsense" and "utter rot" if you like, but it's logically untenable to claim religious authority by tracing it to an organisation that one has repudiated.

[Buckeye]

I transcribed that portion of the interview last night so I could send it to my son. Here's the very last part, wherein I posed the question directly. (I admit I had this thread in mind when I posed it.)

 

Scott: No doubt in your mind that it was Jesus Christ who selected you and the other brethren?

 

Elder Renlund: No doubt. Ruth?

 

Sister Renlund: No doubt.

 

Elder Renlund (jokingly): Personally I would have advised them differently.

 

 

Scott, if this quote is accurate then I'll admit that Elder Renlund agrees with your statement about who called him (Sister Renlund too). However, it's incorrect for you to claim the statement was made "with no prompting from me" (see below). This a text-book example of a leading question. Elder Renlund did not make the statement himself. You phrased it. He agreed. So it carries some weight for me. But not as much as if he'd said it himself. And it certainly was not made "with no prompting."

 

Edit to add: Actually, now that I read the quote again, it seems that Elder Renlund backtracked from your characterization. His final statement was "Personally I would have advised them differently." I think it much more likely that the plural "them" he's thinking of is the FP (and possibly Q12) rather than plural Gods. So this statement strongly suggests he was thinking of the calling coming from the mortal brethen rather than deity, although he believes the mortal "them" to be inspired by deity.

 

I just concluded my one-hour (minus the time it took for the photo session) one-on-two interview with Elder and Sister Renlund.

 

The subject of ethnicity in the quorum never came up in our conversation.

 

But I did take a point of personal privilege and ask Elder Renlund what words of advice he might have for my missionary son who, in three weeks, will depart the MTC for the Sweden Stockholm Mission (where Elder Renlund and I both served in the 1970s).

 

I'll paraphrase here, but he replied that our son needs to know he has both the right and obligation to know by personal revelation that his call is from God. Then, with no prompting from me, Elder Renlund applied that to himself, saying that he and Sister Renlund had both sought and received that confirming witness as pertaining to his recent call to the apostleship.

 

So, I will reiterate here with certainty the point I began this thread with: It was Jesus Christ Himself Who made the selection this past weekend of Elders Rasband, Stevenson and Renlund to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Buckeye

[BlueDreams]

Sorry this took so long

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.

I hope we are

 

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 we may agree. In much of this I have this feeling of saying....yes, but....and feasibly, but. Throughout it. My main concern and why there are so many but's for me is because I get this feeling of moving too quickly past concerns and the import of culture and diversity in favor of unity and sustaining the apostles. Not only you, but others on this thread. 

 

The bold, for example, to me is a blindspot. It's one built in through your circumstances and experience within and outside of a church context. For me and my experience, I definitely have and definitely do. I see it in stories in the BoM, I feel it when I go to the temple, I see it in 1 of the 2 wards that I felt a particularly "zion" spirit from. Maybe principle is too strong of word....but a theme and direction may be more accurate...a pattern to existing as humanity. I don't think this is somehow your fault or choosing. I see it as culturally endemic for a lot of white people, from my interactions with family and friends. For example, when I go to my black family's house, race/culture are intrinsic in the conversation. Sometimes in humorous encounter, in their stories as immigrants and landing in a very white place, and sometimes seriously and fears/sorrows for their children who have had to learn they are not as safe as their white friends at times. And this is the same with my latino, native, asian, and poly friends (for differing reasons). My white family, race is periphery...it's still there and comes up in their minor prejudices and stereotypes. But they talk about "broader" more "universal" topics such as politics or the gospel...making assumptions when race crosses into them. I also saw this in mission interactions. I had a white and then a brown companion in a predominantly black area. When with the white companion, race concerns rarely were brought up by the people we taught. When I was with the brown all the sudden it felt more "free" for those we talked to to discuss going to a "white church." So I can understand the blindspot and where it resides. I can understand why it may feel like diversity concerns, are periphery in the gospel context. But I do see it and not as a periphery topic.      

 

Many of the concerns here paints those concerned or sad or disappointed as somehow assuming that we feel the Apostles weren't Godly men or that they won't fulfill their call as a minority would or that it's pointed as mostly the critics/media/intellectuals who feel this way. In that assumption I could understand the overemphasis on these men being chosen by the Lord as an argument. But that's not what is happening in the circles I walk in (which I'll wage a bet is probably a little bit more melanin concentrated than most here). Not all brown/black folk were disappointed of course....same as whites. But Disappointment, saddness, etc were not indicative of actually how faithful the person giving it were. Maybe bitterness, snark, and mocking....but I haven't seen that nearly as much.

 

Moving so quickly past it and defending instead of hearing/learning about minority experiences, personally, has been more disappointing and sad for me than the 3 apostles being very, very white. Unfortunately, I've seen that far more often in my day-to-day life, here, and other places than the jabs to the church about their white apostles. 

 

Also, some of this is purposely generalized beyond you. I never meant for it to really be pointed in your direction to begin with.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 8, 2015 by BlueDreams

[jkwilliams]

Wasn't it J. Golden Kimball who said there were three ways to get a high calling in the church? Revelation, inspiration, and relation.

 

Seriously, though, even if you don't believe Jesus made the call, the church has every right to choose whom it wants, regardless of nationality or skin color. 

[stemelbow]

If it's really God making the calls, when it comes to actions and teachings and Church, then it doesn't matter what fifteen men are sitting in those exalted spots. Doesn't that say God would confirm anyone whom the prophet and apostles decide upon? Sure it does.

When it comes to revelation on us making decisions, we're told study, ponder and then go to God with our decision. This makes it pretty clear what happened.

[Sleeper Cell]

If it's really God making the calls, when it comes to actions and teachings and Church, then it doesn't matter what fifteen men are sitting in those exalted spots. 

Obviously, you have never met me. 

[stemelbow]

Obviously, you have never met me.

I've met me and no one could be worse. Serious, if God is in charge and it be you or I in their with 14 other (tossing Rasband out :-)), or something, nothing would change, except with me they'd get many more challenges to the status quo, prolonging their actual meetings. A pain for them, but the end result would be the same, probably.

[Tacenda]

Listening to a MS podcast with a panel, one of them is a MD poster or was, his name is Sean Carter.  Anyway, back to the podcast.  There is a gal who is very outspoken on it and says it like she should at about 55 minutes in, she mentions that Elder Stevensen was called as an apostle without the consent of his wife, she wasn't at the meeting when the call was made.  Is this protocol with asking apostles that way, or did someone drop the ball?  As in when a bishop is called or SP is the wife in on it?  They mention that it's in the handbook that it should be done that way, so now did we just drop this handbook rule?  This gal, her name is Jaime, also stated how women basically disappear in the church.  We don't know our Heavenly Mother.  She mentions many things other than what I've provided, but she came in loud and clear if anyone cares to listen.  http://mormonstories.org/lds-general-conference-october-2015-review-three-more-white-males-from-utah/  Part 1

 

Excerpt from the talk she is referring to:

 

"Then, within a few moments, President Monson described that acting on the will of the Lord, he was extending a call to the Quorum of the Twelve to me. He asked me if I would accept this call, to which, following what I am sure was a very undignified audible gasp, in complete shock, I responded affirmatively. And then, before I could even verbalize a tsunami of indescribable emotion, most of which were feelings of inadequacy, President Monson kindly reached out to me, describing how he was called many years ago as an Apostle by President David O. McKay, at which time he too felt inadequate. He calmly instructed me, “Bishop Stevenson, the Lord will qualify those whom He calls.” These soothing words of a prophet have been a source of peace, a calm in a storm of painful self-examination and tender feelings in the ensuing agonizing hours which have passed day and night since then.

I rehearsed what I have just described to you to my sweet companion, Lesa, later that day, seated in a quiet corner on Temple Square, with a serene view of the temple and the historic Tabernacle lying before us. As we tried to comprehend and process the events of the day, we found our anchor to be our faith in Jesus Christ and our knowledge of the great plan of happiness. This leads to an expression of my deepest love for Lesa. She is the sunshine in and of my life and a remarkable daughter of God. Hers is a life punctuated by selfless service and unconditional love of all. I will strive to remain worthy of the blessing of our eternal union."

[Stone holm]

Wasn't it J. Golden Kimball who said there were three ways to get a high calling in the church? Revelation, inspiration, and relation.

 

Seriously, though, even if you don't believe Jesus made the call, the church has every right to choose whom it wants, regardless of nationality or skin color.

You are absolutely right, the Church, specifically the President has every right to call whomsoever he wishes. Further, I feel that the Lord would intervene if the President as a Prophet was set to call someone who would lead the Church into Apostasy. At one time, I believed that each Apostle was specifically pointed out to the Prophet by the Lord...I don't believe that anymore. But there are a lot of members who do. The issue for me was not whether these men can do the job and fill the role, but the image of the Church during a time when it has clearly been trying to face up to past issues and shed the image that the past history has cast over it which is causing people not to give it serious consideration.

[Duncan]

I know Pres. J. Golden Kimball had some interesting things to say about revelation in the Church, some good stuff I think!

 

"We need revelation for the calling of officers in the Church. Men should not be called merely through impression. I have felt censured for some work that I have done in the Church. I set apart Seventies as presidents of quorums, and after having set apart some of these presidents, I have been doubtful whether God had much to do with it, other than they had been chosen and set apart by one who had authority. It has not been demonstrated by the actions of some men that they were chosen of God; they were chosen by mere impression, and time was not taken to consider what God wanted. My conviction is that men ought not to be appointed by mere impression. The word of God teaches me that no man has a claim upon appointment in this Church, unless he is called of God as was Aaron. It doesn't matter whose son he is: although I fancy sometimes that I got my position as one of the First Council, out of respect to my father, so that his name might be represented among the authorities of the Church." April 1910 GC

 

and then this

 

"I am very proud of my parentage. I do not think any one appreciates their parentage more than I do. But, I want to say to the Latter-day Saints, pride in parentage won't save you. If we get salvation, we must keep the commandments, and serve the Lord. Knowledge pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ does not come through ordination, nor by appointment, nor by lineage, nor through father and mother, though they are helpful. But no matter who my father and mother were, or how devoted and faithful they have been; no matter how much work they have accomplished, and how much gospel they have preached to the children of men, I tell you if Heber C. Kimball's children are saved in the kingdom they must keep the commandments of God, or they won't be saved. If they don't accomplish it here, I am glad to know they will have another chance." April 1913 GC

[Gilbert]

Gilbert we may agree. In much of this I have this feeling of saying....yes, but....and feasibly, but. Throughout it. My main concern and why there are so many but's for me is because I get this feeling of moving too quickly past concerns and the import of culture and diversity in favor of unity and sustaining the apostles. Not only you, but others on this thread. 

 

Obviously my perspective on things is going to be somewhat skewed by my own experience. But I totally get what you are saying regarding "yes, but..." When dealing within the kingdom of God we see an interesting interaction between the spiritual and temporal, the perfect and imperfect, the eternal and finite. And while we may seek for and comprehend to some degree spirituality, perfection, and eternity, we can't help but be influenced in our perceptions by the temporal, imperfections, and the finite. So when we encounter a principle of the gospel and the Spirit bears witness of it to us we say "Yes, it is good and true" but as we seek to apply it to our lives we suddenly encounter things within and without us that must be addressed before we can freely give ourselves to the truth.  We end up with experiencing a "Yes, the gospel should trump all else BUT it's a lot easier said than done" situation. And whether these things are real or imagined, actually significant or not, the fact remains that if it keeps us at all from fully embracing the truth it is an important concern to address.

[BlueDreams]

We end up with experiencing a "Yes, the gospel should trump all else BUT it's a lot easier said than done" situation. And whether these things are real or imagined, actually significant or not, the fact remains that if it keeps us at all from fully embracing the truth it is an important concern to address.

 

Just to clarify, that's not my "yes, but" that I had in mind. But then again I'm willing to chalk this up as one of those moments we're probably not communicating well on. 

[rewcox]

I received a dramatic confirmation when Harold B. Lee was president. Since that time, I've have gentle confirmation on those called to lead, both local and GC.

If you don't receive confirmation, you may struggle when new ones are called. I did not know anything about Bednor or Uchtdorf. Is there any question Christ selected them?

[Bee Sweet]

There is not question!

[Rain2]

BlueDreams - you bring up some interesting ideas. Have you visited countries that are predominantly brown or black? I'm wondering if you saw it there as well.