Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 303056)

I don't really care.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 303062)

I agree with President Monson's statement given circa 3:45 PM Mountain Time today:

(Paraphrased) 'I testify that he [Elder Andersen] is "the man" the Lord would have in this position.'


Given that, I really don't care about the particulars.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303064)

An actuary with no concern for details, aberrations or outliers, how irregular.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 303072)

First, this is strictly a qualitative question. Second, there is no evidence that a unique solution is present or even necessary. Third, a prophet testified the Lord is on board with the selection.

What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303041)

Indy, tooblue and Tex.

Do you believe that there's no human element in the selection of an apostle and that the men selected are the sole individuals whom the Lord could select?

Or are there multiple individuals whom the President could have the discretion to select, which would be approved by God?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303081)

He responded that he could name off 5 different individuals for whom, were they called, he would happily raise his hand to sustain them higher than anyone else. He elaborated that he thought there were many righteous people who could fill this calling, but the Lord is who makes that decision. It is his responsibility neither to seek nor to decline, but to accept in humility.

I agree with him.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303081)

In his press conference today, Elder Andersen was delicately asked by an AP reporter what he would say to the large number of minorities joining the church about why the open position in the quorum was not filled by someone from their ranks.

He responded that he could name off 5 different individuals for whom, were they called, he would happily raise his hand to sustain them higher than anyone else. He elaborated that he thought there were many righteous people who could fill this calling, but the Lord is who makes that decision. It is his responsibility neither to seek nor to decline, but to accept in humility.

I agree with him.

If your question is more about mechanics, how-does-it-work, well, there I can't help you. In my own personal ministry, I've had moments both where revelation has come like a thunderclap, and others where I've felt the Lord wanted me to work it out on my own.

I don't suppose it's possible to know really how the Lord communicated "Neil Andersen" to Thomas Monson, but I believe the prophet when he declares that this is the man he wants in this position at this time.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303083)

This is my definition of blind faith, not meaning it pejoratively.

You don't seek to understand but simply accept it, because it was said.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303084)

On the contrary, my faith in Elder Andersen's calling is based on long experience and multiple witnesses of the Spirit over years of listening to and heeding their counsel. Just because I don't initially treat each sentence from the prophet's mouth with doubt does not mean my faith is blind.

By your apparent definition, there is no such thing as faith at all. We believe only what we can verify.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303085)

Do you wish to emulate your priesthood leader how he exercises his priesthood authority?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303086)

I don't know what you mean.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303098)

Do you wish to emulate the example of the Prophet in exercising your priesthood authority?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303102)

The obvious answer is "yes" but I can't shake the feeling I'm being set up ...

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303104)

And to emulate him, don't you need to know how does something?

Or do you wish to emulate in a vacuum?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303106)

I'm not emulating in a vacuum ... I've already posted twice about my own personal experience with revelation.

But to get back to your original comment: what does this have to do with blind faith?

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303107)

My point is, the orthodox seem to say, I don't care to know about the selection process the Prophet uses, "the Lord selects".

Well, if I follow the logic taught within the Church, I would love to know the details of the selection process, so that when I'm a bishop, EQP, or Stake President, I can better attune my process to one who is more practiced in it.

When somebody says, "the Lord selected," as if the human element played no role, that's where I differ.

Often, I feel and believe that I could have said, "the Lord is pleased with teh choice of X".

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 303121)

The D&C is chock full of examples where the Lord explicitly names people for various callings/tasks. Why would He be any less explicit with President Monson than He would be with Joseph Smith?

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303107)

My point is, the orthodox seem to say, I don't care to know about the selection process the Prophet uses, "the Lord selects".

Well, if I follow the logic taught within the Church, I would love to know the details of the selection process, so that when I'm a bishop, EQP, or Stake President, I can better attune my process to one who is more practiced in it.

When somebody says, "the Lord selected," as if the human element played no role, that's where I differ.

Often, I feel and believe that I could have said, "the Lord is pleased with teh choice of X".

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303102)

The obvious answer is "yes" but I can't shake the feeling I'm being set up ...

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303128)

That's because you're trying to retrofit every public statement into your preconceived belief that men make most church decisions on their own, and God just looks in on them from time to time.

It's not as though there isn't a plethora of doctrine, scripture, and sermons on how revelation works.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303130)

I would like President Monson to explain every detail of his deliberation process. That would be of interest and I might learn something instead of vague generalities.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303130)

Everything is so vague and general. I know them relatively well, and find them nonspecific.

I would like President Monson to explain every detail of his deliberation process. That would be of interest and I might learn something instead of vague generalities.

Originally Posted by tooblue (Post 303134)

You have every right to demand an explanation from the Lord just as Nephi did in regards to Lehi's vision of the tree of life. However, you do not have a right to demand such from President Monson.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303138)

Some things are best learned by experience.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303143)

I don't demand it, I wish for it. Precatory, not mandatory.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303041)

Indy, tooblue and Tex.

Do you believe that there's no human element in the selection of an apostle and that the men selected are the sole individuals whom the Lord could select?

Or are there multiple individuals whom the President could have the discretion to select, which would be approved by God?

Originally Posted by fusnik11 (Post 303082)

Five is pretty weak don't you think? Of the hundreds of minority leadership he has dealt with, he could sustain five? Congrats to him. Institutional racism in the church, loud and proud.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303144)

I will never be prophet, but I have held lesser leadership positions.

This is your axiom, not necessarily a truth, and certainly only relative to context.

Link?

Originally Posted by cougarobgon (Post 303146)

While it was disappointing that my mission president, Carlos Amado, was not called even though he has served as a member Q of 70 for 20+ years, I just don’t see the institutional racism you see within the church. I am a Mexican American (not by name only, but, I actually look the part) who lives in the Pacific NW and most often than not, I am the only one in my meetings who people may consider a “minority”. I don’t recall an occasion when I experienced the “institutional racism” you believe exists.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon (Post 303146)

There has to be a human element component involved in the selection of an apostle as is there in the selection of individuals to any other leadership position in the Church. Sometimes it comes down to who you know, who your progenitors are, etc…When staffing wards I am sure that bishops draw from a pool of people that include people they know very well or have worked with in the past in other callings. At least that was my experience when it was my responsibility to staff a ward. However, there were occasions when I was prompted to go outside that group of individuals and extend a calling to someone I did not know very well. I believe that there has to be a combination of the human element and inspiration/revelation, how else are we to exercise free agency and rely on personal experiences to magnify our callings?



While it was disappointing that my mission president, Carlos Amado, was not called even though he has served as a member Q of 70 for 20+ years, I just don’t see the institutional racism you see within the church. I am a Mexican American (not by name only, but, I actually look the part) who lives in the Pacific NW and most often than not, I am the only one in my meetings who people may consider a “minority”. I don’t recall an occasion when I experienced the “institutional racism” you believe exists.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 303151)

I am unaware of someone being called to the 12 who was not well known by the prophet at the time. Can anyone give one example of an apostle who was called that was unknown to the prophet prior to the calling? I don't think it happens, because I don't think the process involves God handing the prophet a name and the prophet obeying. I believe instead the prophet ponders who may be a good fit, presents a name to the Lord, and then has that decision ratified or rejected.

In each instance historically, the prophet selected someone he knew very well (often a relative or close acquaintance). This is why I get frustrated by the lack of minorities called to the office of the 12 (or the First Quorum of the 70, for that matter). It seems to reflect one of two issues: the prophet isn't associating closely with many minorities, or the prophet doesn't trust that there are any minorities with whom he is familiar who are capable of being an apostle.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303154)

I think this is a totally fruitless line of thinking. One could just as easily argue that God puts men in future prophets' paths so they will be acquainted and experienced with each other when time comes to select a new apostle.

I don't think the prophet sits around in his office, twiddling his thumbs, waiting for God to Fedex him the new apostle's name, and I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. Obviously there is some personal judgment on the part of the man.

The bottom line is, you either believe that Neil Andersen (or fill-in-the-blank) is the man God wanted to be there, or you don't. Those of you getting your panties in a twist about "gosh, ANOTHER white guy??" are really drifting toward the latter category, ignoring what the men you sustain as prophets are actually telling you.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303155)

I think he allows it. And so in some respects that should be enough. But based on pure speculation, there are probably others he might allow.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303155)

I think he allows it. And so in some respects that should be enough. But based on pure speculation, there are probably others he might allow.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 303162)

Possibly. Elder Andersen could name five. [*Cue Fusnik whine.] But he didn't, and so the inevitable conclusion among Borderlanders is that it's Monson's fault.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 303166)

In reality, most of us who harbor some belief sit closer to one side of the fence than we would like to believe.

Tex and Indy believe Elder Anderson is THE apostle which God wants now, and I'm not saying those two profess this, but some believe that God may have whispered the name into President Monson's ear, instead of President Monson taking to God in prayer.

Others opine that he has been accepted by suggestion and that it really doesn't matter. In the end, both sides may accept him as an apostle, but the method of arrival differs.

Now people will take issue by pointing to the verbiage used by leaders, he said the Lord chose. And I wouldn't argue one could use that verbiage if it was the Lord acquiesced. One makes a stronger plea, especially coming from a position of authority.

The difference I don't believe necessarily that there is only one whom would have been accepted, and believe whom is selected is based in no small part upon the circle of associates known to the Prophet. If it weren't so, an apostle would occasionally be called from outside the circle.