A question for the Orthodox:

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

I don't know what you mean.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know what you mean.

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

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

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

Or do you wish to emulate in a vacuum?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

Or do you wish to emulate in a vacuum?

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?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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?

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".

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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".

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?