Who Really Chose The New Apostles?

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

 

You're misunderstanding what I was referring to when I used the phrase "with no prompting from me."

 

When I said "with no prompting from me," it referred to Elder Renlund applying to himself what he had just said by way of advice to my missionary son. That is, he said that my son has both the right and the obligation to know for himself through personal revelation that his call came from God, and then, without my saying anything, Elder Renlund applied that principle to his own recent calling to the apostleship. Without any comment or question from me, he said, after a fairly lengthy answer in response to my request for advice for my son, "Frankly, that's how we felt [meaning he and Sister Renlund] when I was called as an apostle, is that we trusted implicitly President Monson and his ability to receive revelation."

 

There was no leading from me in his choice to apply to himself the principle he had just given me to convey to my son.

 

My question that I quoted here from the interview might have seemed leading; perhaps it was in a way. But if you were to listen to the recording or read a full transcript, you would understand that my question came at the end of what Elder Renlund had just said in enunciating the principle of seeking personal revelation to know that one's calling came from God. My question was by way of summation. It was as if I had prefaced it with the words, "So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that ...." It is a technique I sometimes use in interviewing to make sure I have understood the person clearly. If I have, he presumably will confirm it; if I haven't he presumably will clarify. Frankly, I think it's a good technique to use in interviews.

 

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.

 

 

When I transcribed it, I wrote it as "them," but in actuality, I can't be certain he was saying "them" or "him." This is what it sounded like: "I would have advised 'em differently." That could be understood either way. I typically don't write in dialect when I am transcribing, so that's why I wrote "them" instead of "em." But I really don't know whether Elder Renlund's wording denoted one person or more than one.

 

It was a facetious comment in any event, but even if it were taken seriously, and even if he were referring to more than one individual, it doesn't have to be understood to mean that he believes the call came from "the mortal Brethren." In fact I take it to mean just the opposite -- as though he were saying facetiously, "If I believed this call came from mortal men rather than the Lord Himself (which I don't), I would have advised them differently."

Edited October 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

You're misunderstanding what I was referring to when I used the phrase "with no prompting from me."

 

When I said "with no prompting from me," it referred to Elder Renlund applying to himself what he had just said by way of advice to my missionary son. That is, he said that my son has both the right and the obligation to know for himself through personal revelation that his call came from God, and then, without my saying anything, Elder Renlund applied that principle to his own recent calling to the apostleship. Without any comment or question from me, he said, after a fairly lengthy answer in response to my request for advice for my son, "Frankly, that's how we felt [meaning he and Sister Renlund] when I was called as an apostle, is that we trusted implicitly President Monson and his ability to receive revelation."

 

There was no leading from me in his choice to apply to himself the principle he had just given me to convey to my son.

 

My question that I quoted here from the interview might have seemed leading; perhaps it was in a way. But if you were to listen to the recording or read a full transcript, you would understand that my question came at the end of what Elder Renlund had just said in enunciating the principle of seeking personal revelation to know that one's calling came from God. My question was by way of summation. It was as if I had prefaced it with the words, "So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that ...." It is a technique I sometimes use in interviewing to make sure I have understood the person clearly. If I have, he presumably will confirm it; if I haven't he presumably will clarify. Frankly, I think it's a good technique to use in interviews.

 

When I transcribed it, I wrote it as "them," but in actuality, I can't be certain he was saying "them" or "him." This is what it sounded like: "I would have advised 'em differently." That could be understood either way. I typically don't write in dialect when I am transcribing, so that's why I wrote "them" instead of "em." But I really don't know whether Elder Renlund's wording denoted one person or more than one.

 

It was a facetious comment in any event, but even if it were taken seriously, and even if he were referring to more than one individual, it doesn't have to be understood to mean that he believes the call came from "the mortal Brethren." In fact I take it to mean just the opposite -- as though he were saying facetiously, "If I believed this call came from mortal men rather than the Lord Himself (which I don't), I would have advised them differently."

 

Do you know when should be looking for your article? sounds interesting!

[Tacenda]

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/what-mormon-women-get/

I posted this above about the prophet calling Elder Stevensen without his wife Lesa's presence, just wonder why she wasn't included in the decision. Hopefully this isn't a derail.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/what-mormon-women-get/

I posted this above about the prophet calling Elder Stevensen without his wife Lesa's presence, just wonder why she wasn't included in the decision. Hopefully this isn't a derail.

I wondered the same thing. My experience has always been that when someone is called to a significan ecclesiastical position the wife is also a part of the interview.

It seems like a rather significant life change to not consult your spouse about.

[Rain2]

There was a time or two when the bishop wanted to meet me while my husband was out if state on business. My husband and I support each other and have talked about this. He knows I would rather go in alone than have to wait for him to get home so we have agreed that if I accept the calling, he would support me in whatever it is.

Maybe she was out of town. Maybe they have a family member in critical need in the hospital. Maybe she was right at a critical point at work or charitable organization. And maybe there wasn't a lit of leeway with the time of the appointment if I go by how one of them described getting the call which was on the same day as the other two.

I would love to have been there with my husband, but there is no way I would have wanted him to wait long for me if there was something else I needed to be doing.

But he better let me know what is going on as soon as he could contact me!

[Gray]

If we're giving God sole credit for these callings then we have the uncomfortable situation of trying to explain why out of 100 apostles, God always went with Caucasians. Is there something special about Caucasians? 100/100, that can't be random chance. At least if you think that God is making all the decisions here. If there's a human element, then we can start to make sense of the pattern. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

There was a time or two when the bishop wanted to meet me while my husband was out if state on business. My husband and I support each other and have talked about this. He knows I would rather go in alone than have to wait for him to get home so we have agreed that if I accept the calling, he would support me in whatever it is.

Maybe she was out of town. Maybe they have a family member in critical need in the hospital. Maybe she was right at a critical point at work or charitable organization. And maybe there wasn't a lit of leeway with the time of the appointment if I go by how one of them described getting the call which was on the same day as the other two.

I would love to have been there with my husband, but there is no way I would have wanted him to wait long for me if there was something else I needed to be doing.

But he better let me know what is going on as soon as he could contact me!

Actually, I think they reported that she was sitting on a bench in temple square waiting for him while he went into the Church Office Building for his appointment.

[Stone holm]

If we're giving God sole credit for these callings then we have the uncomfortable situation of trying to explain why out of 100 apostles, God always went with Caucasians. Is there something special about Caucasians? 100/100, that can't be random chance. At least if you think that God is making all the decisions here. If there's a human element, then we can start to make sense of the pattern. 

 

Yeah, that is part of the problem with this kind of situation.  When we assign sole credit, then we also assign full blame.  But we can't really assign blame to God, so then we start spinning reasons as to why God wanted to do something.  Which is exactly when outsiders look at the situation, and say "So these Mormons believe that God only wants white dudes on their 2nd highest council."  Then the next thought that goes through their heads is that Mormons are ethnocentric racists, then when the missionaries knock on there door -- they say "No thanks."  Believing that God wouldn't want them to be associated with a bunch of ethnocentric racists.  As a former local 70, I can say from experience this is the kind of stuff that restricts the number of potential converts.  It can sometimes be overcome with dedicated fellowship, but its tough.  Again, have nothing against these new Apostles and I am sure that they will do a fine job and are highly spiritual...but the average American who is not inclined towards organized religion, but is what we refer to as a "dry Mormon" and is not into right wing politics, is going to see this move as a confirmation of his/her preconceived notions about the LDS Church and what it stands for.  Actions speak louder than words.

[stemelbow]

Actually, I think they reported that she was sitting on a bench in temple square waiting for him while he went into the Church Office Building for his appointment.

That'd be weird, if true. Unless she wanted to wait outside, I'm not sure there'd be any reason to leave her out. maybe E Stevenson himself decided not to bring her in. I'd think if they saw she wasn't there, they could have said, "oh I had hoped your wife would have joined us". To which he could have said, "well she's right outside, let me call her". Or, "let me go find her and be back in a minute".

And maybe she's used to being left out.

[Tacenda]

Actually, I think they reported that she was sitting on a bench in temple square waiting for him while he went into the Church Office Building for his appointment.

Where was it reported that she was outside at the same time Elder Stevensen was inside.  I took it that this happened later in the day. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you know when should be looking for your article? sounds interesting!

Well, I suppose I had better write it then.

 

We are running them in order of seniority of the new Brethren. So Elder Rasband will be next weekend, then Elder Stevenson and finally Elder Renlund.

[BlueDreams]

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.

I have traveled to a couple of countries that are predominantly brown (not black though...yet) and have several international friends/family to compare notes with. (To note I rely more on my friends than my visits which are often limited and from the perspective of foreign traveler).

The simplified message is, it depends on their history and each place is different. In general, portions of concerns about diversity and class are universal, but take on different names in flavors. So for example, in Taiwan my friend would note that there is 3 main groups that follow ethnic and political lines and with varying levels of power and voice in the nation. In Nigeria, the concerns follow ethnic-political-religious lines that are know to conflict. Many Latin-American nations have issues with Colorism, which is similar to concerns of racism, but the borders between white black and brown are far less distinct...this is not including issues that fall under ethnic lines. I just finished attending a conference called white, black, and Mormon where elder situation talked about race and the church in Africa. He noted in most places the concern about the priesthood ban are just not there...unless there is more history of racial divisions (such as s. Africa) or sometimes on an individual basis. Their concerns usually fall in lines of poverty and access (and I would add gender).

With luv,

Bd

[sunstoned]

Yeah, that is part of the problem with this kind of situation.  When we assign sole credit, then we also assign full blame.  But we can't really assign blame to God, so then we start spinning reasons as to why God wanted to do something.  Which is exactly when outsiders look at the situation, and say "So these Mormons believe that God only wants white dudes on their 2nd highest council."  Then the next thought that goes through their heads is that Mormons are ethnocentric racists, then when the missionaries knock on there door -- they say "No thanks."  Believing that God wouldn't want them to be associated with a bunch of ethnocentric racists.  As a former local 70, I can say from experience this is the kind of stuff that restricts the number of potential converts.  It can sometimes be overcome with dedicated fellowship, but its tough.  Again, have nothing against these new Apostles and I am sure that they will do a fine job and are highly spiritual...but the average American who is not inclined towards organized religion, but is what we refer to as a "dry Mormon" and is not into right wing politics, is going to see this move as a confirmation of his/her preconceived notions about the LDS Church and what it stands for.  Actions speak louder than words.

For over a hundred and forty years an entire race of people were denied the priesthood.  From the essays we are told this was a mistake and the sermons by past church leaders on the reasons for the ban are wrong.  If past prophets could be this wrong on such an important and fundamental principle then why should we assume divine involved in the lesser matters, such as apostolic succession.

[Scott Lloyd]

For over a hundred and forty years an entire race of people were denied the priesthood.  From the essays we are told this was a mistake and the sermons by past church leaders on the reasons for the ban are wrong.  If past prophets could be this wrong on such an important and fundamental principle then why should we assume divine involved in the lesser matters, such as apostolic succession.

The essay does not say the policy itself was a mistake. It says some of the reasons given to try to explain it are now disavowed.

 

People in the past erred by presuming too much; don't make that mistake again in the opposite direction.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

The essays do not say the policy itself was a mistake. It says some of the reasons given to try to explain it are now disavowed.

 

People in the past erred by presuming too much; don't make that mistake again in the opposite direction.[/quote

I agree. It was the spin which was disavowed. But, it does leave us wondering about spin. For example how do we spin the situation that David O. McKay found himself in on the subject, or Harold B. Lee's unfortunate remarks if we presume too much inspiration.

[Scott Lloyd]

The essays do not say the policy itself was a mistake. It says some of the reasons given to try to explain it are now disavowed.

 

People in the past erred by presuming too much; don't make that mistake again in the opposite direction.[/quote

I agree. It was the spin which was disavowed. But, it does leave us wondering about spin. For example how do we spin the situation that David O. McKay found himself in on the subject, or Harold B. Lee's unfortunate remarks if we presume too much inspiration.

The indecision that beset the Brethren in times past over this matter I interpret as the proverbial "stupor of thought" on a collective scale. Of course, the scripture says a stupor of thought is indicative of a "no" answer. That is, God was saying the time was not right to rescind the restriction.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

Jesus Christ himself called Judas as an apostle, and we have had apostate apostles in this dispensation.  God the Father had to face the apostasy and rebellion of Satan.  We are losing touch with reality if we think that our leaders are all above apostasy, or even ordinary mistakes.  God does not micromanage such matters.  To do so would negate free agency and the law of opposition.

[Robert F. Smith]

For over a hundred and forty years an entire race of people were denied the priesthood.  From the essays we are told this was a mistake and the sermons by past church leaders on the reasons for the ban are wrong.  If past prophets could be this wrong on such an important and fundamental principle then why should we assume divine involved in the lesser matters, such as apostolic succession.

You are setting up a straw man version of apostolic succession.  Blaming God for human enterprises . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

If we're giving God sole credit for these callings then we have the uncomfortable situation of trying to explain why out of 100 apostles, God always went with Caucasians. Is there something special about Caucasians? 100/100, that can't be random chance. At least if you think that God is making all the decisions here. If there's a human element, then we can start to make sense of the pattern. 

Correct.  And this is very similar to past selection of mostly Italian cardinals, which is no longer the case under Pope Francis.

[Scott Lloyd]

If we're giving God sole credit for these callings then we have the uncomfortable situation of trying to explain why out of 100 apostles, God always went with Caucasians. Is there something special about Caucasians? 100/100, that can't be random chance. At least if you think that God is making all the decisions here. If there's a human element, then we can start to make sense of the pattern. 

It need not be viewed as an "uncomfortable situation." Until relatively recently, the pool from which to draw leaders has been mostly Caucasian. The outcome stands to reason, considering that 100 available slots is infinitesimal when compared to all the Church members who have lived and died since 1830. The number of available slots for other General Authority positions has not been so tiny; hence, more ethnic diversity among them, especially in more recent times.

 

I expect things will change in the future, but let's not ignore past conditions and circumstances.

 

Edited to add:

 

Except for Judas Iscariot, who was Judean, the earliest apostles were all Galilean. Shall we fault the Master for not being more "diverse" in His selection, or shall we recognize that the milieu in which the New Covenant was first taught, fostered and nurtured made for a limited pool from which to draw leadership?

 

The Restoration occurred scarcely 180 years ago, not very long at all in terms of the history of God's dealings with His covenant people. Give it some time.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Where was it reported that she was outside at the same time Elder Stevensen was inside.  I took it that this happened later in the day. 

I might be wrong. I had read or heard that but I can't find it so take my comment with a grain of salt.

[Russell C McGregor]

I might be wrong. I had read or heard that but I can't find it so take my comment with a grain of salt.

 

No, I think you're right (about Sister Stevenson being outside.)

 

Perhaps (and this is only a guess) the difference is that Elder Stevenson was already a General Authority, so the impact on his family of being moved from the Presiding Bishopric to the Q12 was relatively negligible, by comparison to being called as a new GA.

[Duncan]

if it matters but we have the Mission President and his wife live in our ward. She is here more often than he is. The previous Mission President and wife typically travelled together but this one doesn't seem to do that. According to her though she makes suggestions for transfers, i.e with the sisters but ultimatley the President is the one who gets revelation. I had never thought about that before and certaintly see the value in it, she would know the sisters maybe differently than he does and for all I know her insights is what ends up happening for transfers

[Stone holm]

if it matters but we have the Mission President and his wife live in our ward. She is here more often than he is. The previous Mission President and wife typically travelled together but this one doesn't seem to do that. According to her though she makes suggestions for transfers, i.e with the sisters but ultimatley the President is the one who gets revelation. I had never thought about that before and certaintly see the value in it, she would know the sisters maybe differently than he does and for all I know her insights is what ends up happening for transfers

Wives are considered when making calls, I know of one brother who was blacklisted insofar as a call to be bishop because of his wife. And it not uncommon for the call to suggest the wife is sort of a counselor on matters other than confidences and disciplinary actions.

[Rain2]

I have traveled to a couple of countries that are predominantly brown (not black though...yet) and have several international friends/family to compare notes with. (To note I rely more on my friends than my visits which are often limited and from the perspective of foreign traveler).

The simplified message is, it depends on their history and each place is different. In general, portions of concerns about diversity and class are universal, but take on different names in flavors. So for example, in Taiwan my friend would note that there is 3 main groups that follow ethnic and political lines and with varying levels of power and voice in the nation. In Nigeria, the concerns follow ethnic-political-religious lines that are know to conflict. Many Latin-American nations have issues with Colorism, which is similar to concerns of racism, but the borders between white black and brown are far less distinct...this is not including issues that fall under ethnic lines. I just finished attending a conference called white, black, and Mormon where elder situation talked about race and the church in Africa. He noted in most places the concern about the priesthood ban are just not there...unless there is more history of racial divisions (such as s. Africa) or sometimes on an individual basis. Their concerns usually fall in lines of poverty and access (and I would add gender).

With luv,

Bd

Interesting insights. Thank you!