3 New Apostles Called

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Serragon »

Stahura wrote:
Serragon wrote:Some here have argued that the Lord requires a wealthy self-motivated professional to be an apostle. They use the current make-up of the quorum as proof positive. They seem to believe the Lord is almost literally issuing the call to the individual.

Some here have argued that the quorum is stagnating and needs to be more diverse, both economically and culturally. By extension this implies they believe the Lord is not behind the calls of the new members.

I think both are incorrect views.

I have had the experience to serve in multiple Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics as a secretary and/or clerk. I have also had the blessing of being and EQ president. I have witnessed hundreds of callings deliberated and issued.

There are a few rare times where the Spirit speaks so strongly that it is apparent to everyone who should be called. These are powerful experiences. The vast majority of the time however it is simply a confirmation that the person is not unacceptable to the Lord.

My experiences tell me that the Lord is generally content with whomever is called. Occasionally he intervenes for a specific purpose, but not often. This in no way diminishes the mantle or the appointment of that individual.

In the case of the apostles, I would say that there were probably hundreds of thousands of people who the Lord would have accepted if presented to Him. The 3 that were presented were accepted of Him. The fact that they are not economically, culturally, or racially diverse is of no moment. As long as these men humble themselves before Him, they will be able to fulfill their mission with his assistance. What they lack, he will provide.
Do you think that there are some truly humble men that are true witnesses of Christ, that aren't even considered for positions like this because of their financial situation? And since they are never considered, the General Authorities never end up presenting those names before the Lord to seek revelation concerning them?
Yes. I have witnessed it my self on the ward and stake level and it irritates me. I spoke out about it often to the Bishops and SP's I have served with. I have also witnessed the Lord directing us to a person we were not originally thinking of.

But I don't think it diminishes the calling or authority of those who were presented and accepted.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Zathura »

iWriteStuff wrote:
Stahura wrote:
shadow wrote:
Stahura wrote:
Did Peter call Paul to his office and extend him the Call of Apostlr which he received through revelation?
It doesn't matter, with Mary everything was in harmony and they sold albums worldwide. Nobody complained about their nationality. Nobody said "Well if Paul was black and from my country then I'd probably buy their album." It just didn't matter. The taste of the gospel is the same. It doesn't matter the nationality. It tastes good.
image.jpg
I asked a serious question, and i expected a serious answer.

You say that the Apostles are called by revelation. Today, the Prophet prays and then extends the call to the new Apostle, ensuring him that the call is of God.

Is this what happened to Paul? Did Peter call Paul in and extend him the calling and ensure him that he is an Apostle of Jesus? How did Paul know he was an Apostle?
Ya know, I just poured through the New Testament accounts and all the related Institute and Seminary manuals referencing Paul and his apostleship. Jesus called him a Chosen Vessel, and several modern day prophets have said that he was called in the pre-mortal existence, but I haven't found one single reference to when the calling was extended.

Acts chapter 1 states how apostles were selected in Christ's church (Matthias: chosen through revelation by God and the casting of lots by the remaining 11), but I dare you to find any reference to calls extended by the early church whenever a vacancy came up after that. Not even Paul's gets a mention. That he was referred to as a "chosen vessel" is true, and later he refers to himself as an apostle, but when did that start officially?
I believe it started the moment that Jesus Christ appeared to him and called him to the work. From that point on, he was an Apostle. There are arguments made that he was never officially part of the "quorum of the 12". If that's true, I find it very ironic that the majority of the teachings in the Bible that we read from after the 4 Gospels were written by a man who wasn't ever a sustained "prophet,seer, and revelator"
It's also interesting to note that he contended with Peter on doctrine, considering Peter was supposed to have been the President of the Church,and Paul may have never been a sustained Apostle. If God is the same today as he was yesterday, what would happen if a Paul came in our day?

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Obrien »

Stahura wrote:
Serragon wrote:Some here have argued that the Lord requires a wealthy self-motivated professional to be an apostle. They use the current make-up of the quorum as proof positive. They seem to believe the Lord is almost literally issuing the call to the individual.

Some here have argued that the quorum is stagnating and needs to be more diverse, both economically and culturally. By extension this implies they believe the Lord is not behind the calls of the new members.

I think both are incorrect views.

I have had the experience to serve in multiple Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics as a secretary and/or clerk. I have also had the blessing of being and EQ president. I have witnessed hundreds of callings deliberated and issued.

There are a few rare times where the Spirit speaks so strongly that it is apparent to everyone who should be called. These are powerful experiences. The vast majority of the time however it is simply a confirmation that the person is not unacceptable to the Lord.

My experiences tell me that the Lord is generally content with whomever is called. Occasionally he intervenes for a specific purpose, but not often. This in no way diminishes the mantle or the appointment of that individual.

In the case of the apostles, I would say that there were probably hundreds of thousands of people who the Lord would have accepted if presented to Him. The 3 that were presented were accepted of Him. The fact that they are not economically, culturally, or racially diverse is of no moment. As long as these men humble themselves before Him, they will be able to fulfill their mission with his assistance. What they lack, he will provide.
Do you think that there are some truly humble men that are true witnesses of Christ, that aren't even considered for positions like this because of their financial situation? And since they are never considered, the General Authorities never end up presenting those names before the Lord to seek revelation concerning them?
Yes. It takes a certain amount of gravitas to become a leader in the modern church. I could care less about a person's ethnicity (either white or non) in regard to being a GA. However, after all the awesome stories the Ensign has published over the years about poor, dark people all over the world surmounting massive obstacles to become and remain LDS, you'd think ONE of those faithful might be called into a leadership position.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Zathura »

iWriteStuff wrote:
Gordon B. Hinckley never had a great wealth of cash stashed away. He wasn't "rich" by any standard. Neither was Thomas B. Monson. And really, where have you gone to gain access to these brothers' financial statements? Are you their tax accountant?
I'm not among those criticizing the brethren for only calling successful business men. I was only asking this man a question because he's been in positions where he participated in the calling of other men.

It is true that in Brazil, men who don't have an education and a car will never be considered for Stake President Positions, I have the word of an Area 70 confirming that. Perhaps this is the Lord's will. Perhaps it isn't, I'm not criticizing anything.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by iWriteStuff »

Stahura wrote: I believe it started the moment that Jesus Christ appeared to him and called him to the work. From that point on, he was an Apostle. There are arguments made that he was never officially part of the "quorum of the 12". If that's true, I find it very ironic that the majority of the teachings in the Bible that we read from after the 4 Gospels were written by a man who wasn't ever a sustained "prophet,seer, and revelator"
It's also interesting to note that he contended with Peter on doctrine, considering Peter was supposed to have been the President of the Church,and Paul may have never been a sustained Apostle. If God is the same today as he was yesterday, what would happen if a Paul came in our day?
Thanks for responding! To your point about him being called and ordained the moment he was stopped by Christ, why then did he have to go get baptized? He wasn't even officially a member of the kingdom of God yet, nor are we aware of there being any vacancies in the existing 12 at the time (again, lack of scriptural evidence).

My point in asking for a reference to show when he was set apart as an apostle is to stress the fact that there isn't one. My personal thought is that he became a disciple of Christ the moment he experienced his Damascus moment, but he still lacked entrance to the kingdom (as Jesus Himself still needed to experience through authorized servants) as well as a shedding of his old ways (his very next move after baptism was to preach Christ to his former Jewish associates, thus severing the relationship and establishing his new loyalties). The apostleship probably came later in his ministry, but when and where is a scriptural mystery (unless someone else can find it - I clearly can't).

As per apostles who stand up to the President of the Church, who's to say it doesn't happen now? I've heard it said by one (reference lacking at the moment) that meetings with the brethren can be quite the spirited debate - they don't automatically start from the same point and take their marching orders from the Pres., they prayerfully search out the matter and seek the Lord's will after much discussion. They have very different backgrounds with unique perspectives and don't automatically start at unanimity.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Zathura »

iWriteStuff wrote:
Stahura wrote: I believe it started the moment that Jesus Christ appeared to him and called him to the work. From that point on, he was an Apostle. There are arguments made that he was never officially part of the "quorum of the 12". If that's true, I find it very ironic that the majority of the teachings in the Bible that we read from after the 4 Gospels were written by a man who wasn't ever a sustained "prophet,seer, and revelator"
It's also interesting to note that he contended with Peter on doctrine, considering Peter was supposed to have been the President of the Church,and Paul may have never been a sustained Apostle. If God is the same today as he was yesterday, what would happen if a Paul came in our day?
Thanks for responding! To your point about him being called and ordained the moment he was stopped by Christ, why then did he have to go get baptized? He wasn't even officially a member of the kingdom of God yet, nor are we aware of there being any vacancies in the existing 12 at the time (again, lack of scriptural evidence).

My point in asking for a reference to show when he was set apart as an apostle is to stress the fact that there isn't one. My personal thought is that he became a disciple of Christ the moment he experienced his Damascus moment, but he still lacked entrance to the kingdom (as Jesus Himself still needed to experience through authorized servants) as well as a shedding of his old ways (his very next move after baptism was to preach Christ to his former Jewish associates, thus severing the relationship and establishing his new loyalties). The apostleship probably came later in his ministry, but when and where is a scriptural mystery (unless someone else can find it - I clearly can't).

As per apostles who stand up to the President of the Church, who's to say it doesn't happen now? I've heard it said by one (reference lacking at the moment) that meetings with the brethren can be quite the spirited debate - they don't automatically start from the same point and take their marching orders from the Pres., they prayerfully search out the matter and seek the Lord's will after much discussion. They have very different backgrounds with unique perspectives and don't automatically start at unanimity.
I agree. Also, Joseph wasn't baptized for long time after the first vision and his conversations with Moroni.
And yeah, there's no references to him being set apart.

What I meant was imagine a man who attacks the church now. Jesus appears to him and asks him to stop fighting against his church, then tells him he's a chosen vessel and commands him to be baptized etc. This man then begins preaching the Gospel, without every having received authority from the Church leaders, which is what Paul did. Then this man shows up in Salt Lake and contends with Thomas Monson on a certain doctrine, and ends up being correct. Can you see this happening?? No wayyy!

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Serragon »

Stahura wrote:
iWriteStuff wrote:
Stahura wrote: I believe it started the moment that Jesus Christ appeared to him and called him to the work. From that point on, he was an Apostle. There are arguments made that he was never officially part of the "quorum of the 12". If that's true, I find it very ironic that the majority of the teachings in the Bible that we read from after the 4 Gospels were written by a man who wasn't ever a sustained "prophet,seer, and revelator"
It's also interesting to note that he contended with Peter on doctrine, considering Peter was supposed to have been the President of the Church,and Paul may have never been a sustained Apostle. If God is the same today as he was yesterday, what would happen if a Paul came in our day?
Thanks for responding! To your point about him being called and ordained the moment he was stopped by Christ, why then did he have to go get baptized? He wasn't even officially a member of the kingdom of God yet, nor are we aware of there being any vacancies in the existing 12 at the time (again, lack of scriptural evidence).

My point in asking for a reference to show when he was set apart as an apostle is to stress the fact that there isn't one. My personal thought is that he became a disciple of Christ the moment he experienced his Damascus moment, but he still lacked entrance to the kingdom (as Jesus Himself still needed to experience through authorized servants) as well as a shedding of his old ways (his very next move after baptism was to preach Christ to his former Jewish associates, thus severing the relationship and establishing his new loyalties). The apostleship probably came later in his ministry, but when and where is a scriptural mystery (unless someone else can find it - I clearly can't).

As per apostles who stand up to the President of the Church, who's to say it doesn't happen now? I've heard it said by one (reference lacking at the moment) that meetings with the brethren can be quite the spirited debate - they don't automatically start from the same point and take their marching orders from the Pres., they prayerfully search out the matter and seek the Lord's will after much discussion. They have very different backgrounds with unique perspectives and don't automatically start at unanimity.
I agree. Also, Joseph wasn't baptized for long time after the first vision and his conversations with Moroni.
And yeah, there's no references to him being set apart.

What I meant was imagine a man who attacks the church now. Jesus appears to him and asks him to stop fighting against his church, then tells him he's a chosen vessel and commands him to be baptized etc. This man then begins preaching the Gospel, without every having received authority from the Church leaders, which is what Paul did. Then this man shows up in Salt Lake and contends with Thomas Monson on a certain doctrine, and ends up being correct. Can you see this happening?? No wayyy!
My experience is that most (definately not all!) church leaders are more than happy to discuss points of doctrine privately. I have even seen leaders who were taught new ideas and corrected.

I think the issues arise when people try and do it publicly.

Doing it in private seems to be the more loving and charitable way. Publicly seems to be more about humiliation and embarassement.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by shadow »

Obrien wrote:
shadow wrote:
Stahura wrote:
Did Peter call Paul to his office and extend him the Call of Apostlr which he received through revelation?
It doesn't matter, with Mary everything was in harmony and they sold albums worldwide. Nobody complained about their nationality. Nobody said "Well if Paul was black and from my country then I'd probably buy their album." It just didn't matter. The taste of the gospel is the same. It doesn't matter the nationality. It tastes good.
image.jpg
As usual, more lighthearted deflection from shadow.

Boo's original analysis was cogent and on point. I hope the GAs are "up for the challenge" as well. I am less optimistic than Shadow or iwrite that all these callings are made by revelation. I have seen repeatedly both in the church and in real life that it is often who you know, rather than what you know, that "qualifies" a person for a position.
I'm not even optimistic, I have received the revelation that they are the Lords apostles. I hope one day you stop criticizing, complaining and armchair quarterbacking so you can get you're own revelation on the matter too. It'll be a bit nicer to no longer watch you kick against the pricks and post faithless comments like usual.

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by natasha »

Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by iWriteStuff »

natasha wrote:Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.
Totally agree! Which is why I say there's not enough scriptural evidence (currently, anyway) to prove or disprove how Paul was ordained and set apart as an apostle. My only conjecture is that it would probably be similar to the way in which the 11 ended up with Matthias as #12, as per Acts 1.

He was foreordained to the work, sure, but not yet set apart for it until the laying on of hands, as with all ordinations.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by rewcox »

iWriteStuff wrote:
natasha wrote:Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.
Totally agree! Which is why I say there's not enough scriptural evidence (currently, anyway) to prove or disprove how Paul was ordained and set apart as an apostle. My only conjecture is that it would probably be similar to the way in which the 11 ended up with Matthias as #12, as per Acts 1.

He was foreordained to the work, sure, but not yet set apart for it until the laying on of hands, as with all ordinations.
There are lots of stuff. Some people don't want it out because it doesn't support their paradigm. Nibley references all kinds of papers.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by iWriteStuff »

rewcox wrote:
iWriteStuff wrote:
natasha wrote:Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.
Totally agree! Which is why I say there's not enough scriptural evidence (currently, anyway) to prove or disprove how Paul was ordained and set apart as an apostle. My only conjecture is that it would probably be similar to the way in which the 11 ended up with Matthias as #12, as per Acts 1.

He was foreordained to the work, sure, but not yet set apart for it until the laying on of hands, as with all ordinations.
There are lots of stuff. Some people don't want it out because it doesn't support their paradigm. Nibley references all kinds of papers.
Source? Always open to another Nibley book to digest.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by rewcox »

iWriteStuff wrote:Source? Always open to another Nibley book to digest.
I don't keep sources. Approaching Zion, Temple and Cosmos.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Zathura »

natasha wrote:Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.

No, there are books that were taken out, likely because they taught certain doctrines that the Catholic Church didn't agree with in that era. I remember reading that the book of Enoch was taken out and branded as Apocrypha in like 500AD or something like that.. I think that one of the books written by LeGrand Richards speaks of this? I can't remember it's been so long since I've read about things like t his.

boo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1559
Location: Arizona

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by boo »

Stahura wrote:
natasha wrote:Hey guys....do any of you think that we have ALL the books that could have been in the Bible? I would imagine that there are books that just might explain some things but we don't have access to.

No, there are books that were taken out, likely because they taught certain doctrines that the Catholic Church didn't agree with in that era. I remember reading that the book of Enoch was taken out and branded as Apocrypha in like 500AD or something like that.. I think that one of the books written by LeGrand Richards speaks of this? I can't remember it's been so long since I've read about things like t his.
Read Bart Ehrman " Othorodox Corruption of Scripture " or virtually any of his 30 books

boo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1559
Location: Arizona

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by boo »

shadow wrote:
boo wrote:
shadow wrote:Hey Boo, you might want to check out the apostles of Christ during his ministry. Where were they from? Were any of them related to each other? I'll wait for your answers.
Ah Shadow I should have expected as much. My comments go to the continuing narrowing scope of church leadership during my life time . But as I expected your response has nothing to do with the substance of the comment. Only a non sequitur about the way the church was organized 2000 years ago. I may point out that true growth and success for the primitive church did not occur until outsiders ( think Paul) began to be part of the hierarchy. You are welcome to simply say I disagree that this development is a bad thing but I doubt you can disagree with its reality.
I guess the Lord is getting it wrong. See, I believe, as do most Mormons, that people are called via revelation. Maybe you should let God know that revelation should come from Boo, then to the Lord, then to the Prophet. Obviously the church is wrong since the great Boo says so.
Shadow I am tempted to ask where you went to 6th grade and when did you learn conceptual thought. My post doesn't say any other the things you imply it does. It doesn't speak to the issue of revelation at all. You keep accusing me of things of which I am not guilty .i initially thought that I would give you the benefit of the and assume your failure to understand was because you didn't take the time to actually think about what I said ie the narrowing scope of church leadership over the last 50 years. Now I realize you chose to attack because you recognize the truth of what I said and can not dispute it . Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my observation

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by samizdat »

boo wrote:The larger question is that out of 16 million members how is it that not only are all the 15 white affluent males but that 11 of them were born in UT , 14 educated as undergraduates in the same 3 schools ,and 14 of them hold advanced degrees or were successful business men. All had years of experience in the great bureaucracy of the COB before they were called . Effectively the instition is only advancing its executives from within . A common sign of morbidity.And in most cases those advanced are related to or close friends of GAs ? Elder Rasband wife is the daughter of a GA. Elder Rutlund is a close friend of Elder Nelson ( both cardiologists in SLC). In my time the church was different. Apostles were often called from outside Ut and often from outside the US ( Pres Tanner and Brown from Canada and Romney from Mexico ) .Consider Pres Hunter and Kimball and Stapley ( one from Calif and 2 from Az). They typically had no church wide experience . Pres Kimball was a SP. Clark virtually no church experience ( he never served as a bishop or SP, he was on a general board but barely functioned) And they were of a more diverse economic background. Pres Kimball was a life insurance salesman. Benson was a farmer. Stapley a farm implements seller. Clark a diplomat. Most did not hold advance degrees. This was when the church had 2 million members and was even more concentrated in the Mor /Cor than it is now. We may claim to be a world wide church but the leadership is more narrowly constituted ,more demographically constricted and more elitist by birth ,education , training and marital or social connection than ever before. We really are a Ut church with regional franchises. It must be understood if you are part of the franchisee the Lord will never consider you worthy to be a special witness of his "name". All of this happens at a time where the church is facing the greatest number of people leaving since Kirtland ( says the church historian ) , baptismal rates per missionary are the lowest in this dispensation, growth is the lowest percentage wise ever, new temple construction or announcements have ground to a stop and the church faces more challenges to the family and from social issues ( gays) than ever before. I sincerely hope the brethren are up to the task but I fear more of the same ( or actually doubling down on the same ) will continue to bring the same results.

Boo, who would you have called?

The Lord saw fit to call three white people from Utah with vast experience in traveling around the world for the Church.

An American passport is more powerful than a Mexican one. And a Mexican one is far more powerful than a Kenyan one.

Certain things exist now that did not exist in 33 AD.

boo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1559
Location: Arizona

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by boo »

I would not have called anyone .That is not my prerogative. Please read what I wrote not what you expected me to write. I have merely articulated a historically demonstrable fact . Over the last 50 years the 15 have become a more narrowly constricted elite social group demographically ,culturally , educationally and economically. They all are with one exception born in the same small area ,go to the same 3 colleges ,have the same church experience ,and have very similar professional attainments. This is a dramatic change from when I was growing up. So dramatic as to be virtually beyond comprehension. No one who has commented on my entry has even tried to dispute its accuracy. Comparisons to 33 AD are not relevant . i have never raised the issue of diversity within the leadership of the primitive church .Whether this narrowing leadership phenomena is good or bad remains to be seen but I am not sanguine. If anyone cares to dispute the accuracy of my comment please do . Show me where i am wrong . I welcome correction Shadow. But please ,please read what was written and respond to it not what you may wish I had written. If you think this development is healthy in a increasingly multicultural church I would be delighted to hear your thoughts. But please respond to what i actually wrote and not like a bunch of Pavlovian attack dogs to a non-existant post.
Last edited by boo on October 5th, 2015, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by shadow »

boo wrote:The larger question is that out of 16 million members how is it that not only are all the 15 white affluent males but that 11 of them were born in UT , 14 educated as undergraduates in the same 3 schools ,and 14 of them hold advanced degrees or were successful business men. All had years of experience in the great bureaucracy of the COB before they were called .
Your question of "how is it that...." is answered like this- via revelation.

boo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1559
Location: Arizona

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by boo »

So Shadow do you at least concede that what I wrote was true ?

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by EmmaLee »

iWriteStuff wrote:Gordon B. Hinckley never had a great wealth of cash stashed away. He wasn't "rich" by any standard. Neither was Thomas S. Monson.
Neither was Spencer Kimball. He was a very non-"wealthy" insurance salesman from a small Arizona town.

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by Obrien »

shadow wrote:
Obrien wrote:
shadow wrote:
Stahura wrote:
Did Peter call Paul to his office and extend him the Call of Apostlr which he received through revelation?
It doesn't matter, with Mary everything was in harmony and they sold albums worldwide. Nobody complained about their nationality. Nobody said "Well if Paul was black and from my country then I'd probably buy their album." It just didn't matter. The taste of the gospel is the same. It doesn't matter the nationality. It tastes good.
image.jpg
As usual, more lighthearted deflection from shadow.

Boo's original analysis was cogent and on point. I hope the GAs are "up for the challenge" as well. I am less optimistic than Shadow or iwrite that all these callings are made by revelation. I have seen repeatedly both in the church and in real life that it is often who you know, rather than what you know, that "qualifies" a person for a position.
I'm not even optimistic, I have received the revelation that they are the Lords apostles. I hope one day you stop criticizing, complaining and armchair quarterbacking so you can get you're own revelation on the matter too. It'll be a bit nicer to no longer watch you kick against the pricks and post faithless comments like usual.
Yep, it makes no sense that you "know" it and I don't. You always discount people who don't agree with you by saying they are faithless, a prick kicker, a complainer, an arm chair quarterback etc. I could say you're a hopeless idolater, a yes man, a blind follower etc, but it would really serve no purpose other than to alienate and offend you, so I will forebear with the personal attacks.

I know what revelation from heaven is like. It is far more powerful than a warm feeling, a comfortable sweet spirit, or an emotion. I have no idea if you have experienced a real revelation. Maybe you had a warm fuzzy when you thought about T Monson, so you assume that's a heaven sent confirmation he's a PRS. If so, God help you.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by shadow »

I understand revelation quite well. I experience it often. Just because you lack it in some areas doesn't mean that others lack it as well. Best wishes to you and may your unbelief be reversed.

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by ebenezerarise »

boo wrote:The larger question is that out of 16 million members how is it that not only are all the 15 white affluent males but that 11 of them were born in UT , 14 educated as undergraduates in the same 3 schools ,and 14 of them hold advanced degrees or were successful business men. All had years of experience in the great bureaucracy of the COB before they were called . Effectively the instition is only advancing its executives from within . A common sign of morbidity.And in most cases those advanced are related to or close friends of GAs ? Elder Rasband wife is the daughter of a GA. Elder Rutlund is a close friend of Elder Nelson ( both cardiologists in SLC). In my time the church was different.

Let's just stop right there and correct some history, shall we?
Apostles were often called from outside Ut and often from outside the US ( Pres Tanner and Brown from Canada and Romney from Mexico ) .Consider Pres Hunter and Kimball and Stapley ( one from Calif and 2 from Az). They typically had no church wide experience . Pres Kimball was a SP.
Kimball....Kimball....where have we heard that name before? Spencer was a grandson of Heber C. Tanner, Brown and Romney...all related to previous GAs.
Clark virtually no church experience ( he never served as a bishop or SP, he was on a general board but barely functioned) And they were of a more diverse economic background. Pres Kimball was a life insurance salesman. Benson was a farmer. Stapley a farm implements seller. Clark a diplomat. Most did not hold advance degrees.
Benson was no farmer. He was a farming AUTHORITY long before he became an Apostle. He was also hyper-related to historic church leaders. Clark was an accomplished man, a clear leader in legal minds. No slouch outside the Church.
This was when the church had 2 million members and was even more concentrated in the Mor /Cor than it is now. We may claim to be a world wide church but the leadership is more narrowly constituted ,more demographically constricted and more elitist by birth ,education , training and marital or social connection than ever before. We really are a Ut church with regional franchises.
Tell me again why it matters who the Lord selects as leaders? Do that make you live the gospel better?
It must be understood if you are part of the franchisee the Lord will never consider you worthy to be a special witness of his "name".
And you have to be an apostle to be "worthy" of a special witness? This happens for no one else?
All of this happens at a time where the church is facing the greatest number of people leaving since Kirtland ( says the church historian ) , baptismal rates per missionary are the lowest in this dispensation, growth is the lowest percentage wise ever, new temple construction or announcements have ground to a stop and the church faces more challenges to the family and from social issues ( gays) than ever before. I sincerely hope the brethren are up to the task but I fear more of the same ( or actually doubling down on the same ) will continue to bring the same results.
Sources please? I see the Church doing miraculous work. Where have you been?

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: 3 New Apostles Called

Post by ebenezerarise »

boo wrote:I would not have called anyone .That is not my prerogative. Please read what I wrote not what you expected me to write. I have merely articulated a historically demonstrable fact . Over the last 50 years the 15 have become a more narrowly constricted elite social group demographically ,culturally , educationally and economically. They all are with one exception born in the same small area ,go to the same 3 colleges ,have the same church experience ,and have very similar professional attainments. This is a dramatic change from when I was growing up.
You clearly have no grasp on apostolic history in the Church. Point is, it has always been as it is right now. There has been virtually no change....

...unless you listen and watch in General Conference.

What I've noticed in General Conference are a lot more accents, I lot more unusual names, a lot more different colors in faces.

It is just a matter of time before we see an apostle or even President of the Church from outside the USA.

And, just as it is now, that won't matter one whit.

Post Reply