3 New Apostles Called

[Magus]

That's very interesting information to consider, thanks. Would that condemnation be the one regarding the Book of Mormon and lack of reading/appreciating it? And do you know where I can find that interview?

Well, I suppose I could just be a happy-go-lucky Mormon and not question anything and just accept and sustain all my leaders without any critical thought whatsover.

But that's not my nature.

I accept and sustain these men...I look forward to hearing what spiritual insights they have to share. But there are some states of affairs in the Church that are a bit troubling when viewed critically. I believe this is the Lord's Church, but as has been said, woe to him who says "All is well" in Zion. I hate to rain on anyone's enthusiasm. I just find it stifling that most of these guys are rich white dudes from Utah. Come on. Is that all the Lord has to choose from? Are the pickin's that slim?

[ebenezerarise]

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

We already have an apostle from outside the USA. Pres. Uchtdorf was born in (what is now) the Czech Republic and was raised in Germany.

Indeed. People forget as well as President John Taylor was not an American.

[iWriteStuff]

I just find it stifling that most of these guys are rich white dudes from Utah. Come on. Is that all the Lord has to choose from? Are the pickin's that slim?

I find it more useful to focus on spiritual qualifications rather than temporal. By which I don't mean to say that there aren't spiritually qualified individuals outside of these three that could have filled these spots, only that out of all the spiritually qualified individuals in the church, the Lord chose these three.

I have a testimony of that. I hope you do too, some day.

[rewcox]

For me it's not so much a criticism as it is a series of critical questions - is having the apostles create a list from acquaintances and/or friends to choose from and present to the Lord the most effective way to lead the Church? Even if the Lord approved and chose those 3 out of the choices presented? Is there a better way? Are there others just as qualified that could have been chosen and approved?

How do members receive callings in a Ward? By the Lord, through the bishopric.

How do members receive callings in a Stake? By the Lord, through the stake presidency and stake council.

How is a bishop called? By the Lord, through the stake presidency, with a letter signed by the First Presidency. Call issued by the Stake President.

How is a Stake President called? By the Lord, through visiting General Authorities.

How are apostles called? By the Lord, through the President of the Church.

So, do you question if the Lord was involved? Do you think President Monson could slide them past President Eyring, President Ucthdorf and the other apostles.

I guarantee you all the apostles received confirmation, including the three who were called.

We too can receive confirmation.

[ajax]

Three rich white dudes from Northern Utah? Who woulda thunk? I literally makes jbalm's chances higher than most.

How do members receive callings in a Ward? By the Lord, through the bishopric.

etc etc....

Not really, having been in several positions of extending callings, we were essentially just looking for warm bodies.

J Golden said "Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."

I think he understood the reality.

btw - I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with recognizing that not every little decision is Jesus inspired. We're just people trying to run an organization.

[shadow]

For me it's not so much a criticism as it is a series of critical questions - is having the apostles create a list from acquaintances and/or friends ito choose from and present to the Lord the most effective way to lead the Church? (Can you source this please?) Even if the Lord approved and chose those 3 out of the choices presented? Is there a better way? (A better way than the way you presume? You don't even know but you speak as if you do. Making up a false conclusion then speaking as if it's truth is nothing new on this site) Are there others just as qualified that could have been chosen and approved? (Get your own revelation regarding these three. If you get an affirmative revelation then anyone else doesn't matter. But yes, if one refused then another would've ben called)
You seem to be avoiding/ignoring these questions, which are valid, and just saying that anyone who has them is a fool, simply because the Lord chose them by revelation. (They're not valid questions because you have no idea how they were called, all you do is make assumptions and act on them, but one thing you REFUSE to see is that they were called by revelation. Go get your own revelations then you can know how revelation works.)
At the crux of this question is - just how much is the Lord governing the Church with his hands-on, and how much is he allowing the apostles to take the wheel and learn on their own? It wouldn't be the first time the Lord has let apostles or Church leadership unwittingly "try the faith" of the membership. (You'll have to get your own revelation on the matter.)
I don't have an answer, I'm just inquiring - and I'm not a fool for doing so, nor are others.

I recommend asking these questions to someone else. You won't get an answer from Shadow on this subject. Post these questions tomorrow and see what responses you get

It's hard to answer made-up questions that aren't based on anything but assumptions.

[Obrien]

For me it's not so much a criticism as it is a series of critical questions - is having the apostles create a list from acquaintances and/or friends to choose from and present to the Lord the most effective way to lead the Church? Even if the Lord approved and chose those 3 out of the choices presented? Is there a better way? Are there others just as qualified that could have been chosen and approved?

How do members receive callings in a Ward? By the Lord, through the bishopric.

How do members receive callings in a Stake? By the Lord, through the stake presidency and stake council.

How is a bishop called? By the Lord, through the stake presidency, with a letter signed by the First Presidency. Call issued by the Stake President.

How is a Stake President called? By the Lord, through visiting General Authorities.

How are apostles called? By the Lord, through the President of the Church.

So, do you question if the Lord was involved? Do you think President Monson could slide them past President Eyring, President Ucthdorf and the other apostles.

I guarantee you all the apostles received confirmation, including the three who were called.

We too can receive confirmation.

Rewcox - it seems your base assumption is that the LORD is calling all these people. I know for a fact that the Lord does not call everyone in a ward. The bishopric member who called me as a GD teacher told me they thought I would accept, and they thought I would be good at it. I specifically asked if it was an inspired call - he said no, but it would be confirmed over time. Whatever... I accepted and taught for almost 2 years. I hated it at first (I hate public speaking), but grew to appreciate it more as time passed. I certainly changed (mostly for the better) as a result of the call. I never got a confirmation that I was to be the GD teacher for the ward, but I received inspiration about what to teach during the course of my call.

One of the rebukes I got was interesting - I always would go out to the parking lot before class and pray for guidance and to speak truth and His words during class. One day, I went out and prayed as usual, and got no comfort AT ALL from the prayer. I went in and "taught" the class. It was the worst lesson ever. Terrible. Uninspired. Straight out of the book. I was given to know later that I was left to my own devices during that lesson, because I was praying for the right things, but for the wrong reasons. I wanted the Lord's help in teaching lessons so that I would appear smart, well read and articulate to the class. I was taught that I should seek His guidance to teach His thoughts, and not to put on airs for the class. It was the best lesson I learned being a teacher. I taught what He put on my heart after that, in all of my weakness. He never "let me down" again. I love Jesus.

[Obrien]

Three rich white dudes from Northern Utah? Who woulda thunk? I literally makes jbalm's chances higher than most.

How do members receive callings in a Ward? By the Lord, through the bishopric.

etc etc....

Not really, having been in several positions of extending callings, we were essentially just looking for warm bodies.

J Golden said "Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."

I think he understood the reality.

btw - I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with recognizing that not every little decision is Jesus inspired. We're just people trying to run an organization.

Hi Ajax - nice to "see ya".

[ajax]

:-H

[Obrien]

You can leave the forum, you just can't leave it alone, eh?

[ajax]

Must be the sign of the true forum, or just the end results of psychological manipulation.

Just doing a drive by.

[jbalm]

Three rich white dudes from Northern Utah? Who woulda thunk? I literally makes jbalm's chances higher than most.

Pffft. You'd think.

I applied. Didn't get it, obviously. It's all freaking politics, man.

[Jason]

Thank Emma for making my point. Pres Kimball wore threadbare suits when he was President. How do I know ? I know because my family members helped get him a new one. On a personal note Pres Kimball and my grandmother use to sing duets together in the 6 th grade and I have visited him on multiple occasions. Pres Hinckley was far more affluent than you know. How do I know ? I was one of his sons roommates for a while. Pres Monson has 3 homes the total value of which now probably exceeds $ 1,000,000. ( just did a Zillow search on all three). How do I know ? It is a matter of public record on the SL County Assessors web site. Maybe that shouldn't concern you or me but at least we should know the truth. Pres Packard who had worked all of his life for the church owned a 5000 sq ft house on 2 acres that was valued by the County assessor at $ 2,000,000 . Lets us speak the truth when we say church leaders don't have great ( by my standards anyway its great) wealth. They do . Maybe this doesn't and shouldn't make any difference . I am only pointing out it is a change from a church president whose wife mended his suits to today's millionaire church leaders. Despite what you guys would like to believe everything I have said is true ,You can look a little bit and in a hour confirm it. But it is clear that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink

If you looked them up...why would you say "probably"? Just curious...

I know of a multi millionaire in San Diego who bagged groceries for a living for most of his adult life before finally moving to department management. He made his wealth while bagging groceries. He happened to purchase a home at the right time and then when other homes on his street came up for sale he purchased them and rented them out. Mowed the lawns, did his own maintenance, watched his properties on the way to work and on the way home. Something went wrong...he spotted it quickly and rectified it himself. He was also righteous and didn't cheat on his wife or other such nonsense and thus never went through divorce or other such divestiture of assets. Also was conservative by nature and quick to save and slow to spend. And truth be known was favored of the Lord to a large degree for very good obedience reasons. Are we to hold it against him?

Is there anybody in this country today who's wives mend their suits? Particularly when it costs more to dry clean a suit a couple of times over purchasing another?

Furthermore. I've never ever heard anyone on here belittle Christ or His early apostles for 1) Christ setting them up economically twice with so many fish that nearly capsized the boats; and 2) for His apostles starting with Peter accepting the economic tribute and living off of it as they went about furthering the work.

Far as I know from what's recorded they didn't just give the fish to the poor. Judas was in charge of the purse the 1st time around. Don't recall for sure the 2nd time around.

[ajax]

Far as I know from what's recorded they didn't just give the fish to the poor.

Also, Jesus told the rich young man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. I presume he sold them for money (a handful of bible translations say money), and then gave the money to the poor. Jesus didn't condemn money. He also didn't tell the man to give his possessions directly to the poor. He first told him to sell them. The poor may not have had use for some of his stuff, but they could have used the money to then procure whatever they needed.

Same in Acts 2. They sold their possessions for money and gave the "proceeds" to the poor, in other words money. As long as money is honest (appropriate weights/measures and not diluted "dross") is serves as a beautiful co-operating and co-ordinating function among acting individuals.

[shadow]

Maybe you're right.

I'll answer my own questions with other questions.

Why not just pray to have who the Lord would have revealed to them, instead of making a list of candidates? They're prophets after all, is that too tall an order?

Why is it that you assume there was list?

Not that there's anything wrong with a list, it's worked that way for me when I was in a SS presidency, but where do you get this "list" info from?? And why are you opposed to a list? What if President Monson looked into a hat containing a stone to get revelation? Would that freak you out?

[Zathura]

Maybe you're right.

I'll answer my own questions with other questions.

Why not just pray to have who the Lord would have revealed to them, instead of making a list of candidates? They're prophets after all, is that too tall an order?

Why is it that you assume there was list?

Not that there's anything wrong with a list, it's worked that way for me when I was in a SS presidency, but where do you get this "list" info from?? And why are you opposed to a list? What if President Monson looked into a hat containing a stone to get revelation? Would that freak you out?

I would prefer the hat method.

The list method excludes everybody outside of the list. The seer stone would reveal Gods will, which could be any man in the church. Not just a select few general authorities that were put on a list

[shadow]

What if the names on a list were put there via revelation? And what if there was no list?
Can revelation not work by narrowing things down?

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

[Zathura]

What if the names on a list were put there via revelation? And what if there was no list?
Can revelation not work by narrowing things down?

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

It could be. There could be no list. I accept everything you say.

Here's my thought. In the MTC, the branch presidents ask all the missionaries in the districts for recommendations for who should be the district leader. A Mission President(Not all of them) Asks his AP's for recommendations for who should be office Elder's and Zone Leaders. When a ward grows and splits, a set amount of names are chosen from the ward and submitted to the First Presidency. Among these names the new Bishop is chosen. The same method is used when Stake Presidents are chosen, except it's not the First Presidency that takes care of this.
When someone receives the second Endowment in the Church by one of the current Apostles, they are asked to give recommendations for others who they think qualify for this ordinance.

Elder Christofferson explained that the Prophet will ask members of the 12 if they have any recommendations. Considering all of these things, is it likely that the Prophet has a different method of going about this? I don't think so. I think he most likely takes a few names and narrows them down until he has a small amount, and decides between them. This is how every other calling of importance is made.

[shadow]

Is there anything wrong with that? If in the end he gets the revelation of who to call then what does it matter? Can getting a list be part of "studying it out"? If yes, then why murmur?

8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

[ebenezerarise]

Some might find this information of interest:

http://www.mormonobserver.com/2015/10/0 ... A.facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Magus]

Maybe you're right.

I'll answer my own questions with other questions.

Why not just pray to have who the Lord would have revealed to them, instead of making a list of candidates? They're prophets after all, is that too tall an order?

Why is it that you assume there was list?

Not that there's anything wrong with a list, it's worked that way for me when I was in a SS presidency, but where do you get this "list" info from?? And why are you opposed to a list? What if President Monson looked into a hat containing a stone to get revelation? Would that freak you out?

If you read some of my other posts around the forums, (not that you're obligated to or that I'd expect you to) you'd know that using stones to obtain revelation most definitely wouldn't freak me out.

As for using lists - I'm pretty sure I read it in an article on the Church's main website at lds.org, called something like, How Are Apostles Called, or whatever. But I can't find it now - but no matter, I found another source that says the list method is common, here.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2 ... apostle-is" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My problem with making lists is that it limits your pool of choices, very often to rich white dudes from Utah. While I'm sure the Prophet takes the list and asks the Lord who He wants, and I'm sure the Lord calls from that list, I seriously doubt that the people on that list are the only ones in the Church worthy to be called as apostles, and there's nothing to say that they would necessarily be the best choices, either. It feels like the Lord is going along with the method, but I question whether that method is the best. Like I said earlier - they're prophets - why don't they just pray for the Lord to reveal who He has in mind instead of giving Him a pool to select from?

It seems you have a hard time ingesting valid criticism. Like, you really seem incapable of taking it at all when it's directed at the Church. Please don't take this too personally, I'm not trying to offend or attack you, it's just you really seem obstinate to what to what are fair and valid criticisms, and have even gone so far as to say that I "refuse" to see that these men were called by revelation - which is just flat out untrue. I fully acknowledge that they were. It's okay to see fault in fallible men, regardless of the fact that they are prophets. It's okay to see fault in "the Church," since it is, after all, made up of fallible people and left in the hands of fallible men. It doesn't have to be apostasy, rebellion or unrighteous murmuring. Constructive criticism and questioning is a tool to make things better.

I wonder, what would the Lord's criticisms of the Church and its membership be? Or is all well in Zion and the leaders of our Church perfect in their abilities and immune to fault?

[Zathura]

Is there anything wrong with that? If in the end he gets the revelation of who to call then what does it matter? Can getting a list be part of "studying it out"? If yes, then why murmur?

8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

Didn't murmer bud.
Didn't disagree with you either. Don't create problems

[Zathura]

Maybe you're right.

I'll answer my own questions with other questions.

Why not just pray to have who the Lord would have revealed to them, instead of making a list of candidates? They're prophets after all, is that too tall an order?

Why is it that you assume there was list?

Not that there's anything wrong with a list, it's worked that way for me when I was in a SS presidency, but where do you get this "list" info from?? And why are you opposed to a list? What if President Monson looked into a hat containing a stone to get revelation? Would that freak you out?

If you read some of my other posts around the forums, (not that you're obligated to or that I'd expect you to) you'd know that using stones to obtain revelation most definitely wouldn't freak me out.

As for using lists - I'm pretty sure I read it in an article on the Church's main website at lds.org, called something like, How Are Apostles Called, or whatever. But I can't find it now - but no matter, I found another source that says the list method is common, here.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2 ... apostle-is" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My problem with making lists is that it limits your pool of choices, very often to rich white dudes from Utah. While I'm sure the Prophet takes the list and asks the Lord who He wants, and I'm sure the Lord calls from that list, I seriously doubt that the people on that list are the only ones in the Church worthy to be called as apostles, and there's nothing to say that they would necessarily be the best choices, either. It feels like the Lord is going along with the method, but I question whether that method is the best. Like I said earlier - they're prophets - why don't they just pray for the Lord to reveal who He has in mind instead of giving Him a pool to select from?

It seems you have a hard time ingesting valid criticism. Like, you really seem incapable of taking it at all when it's directed at the Church. Please don't take this too personally, I'm not trying to offend or attack you, it's just you really seem obstinate to what to what are fair and valid criticisms, and have even gone so far as to say that I "refuse" to see that these men were called by revelation - which is just flat out untrue. I fully acknowledge that they were. It's okay to see fault in fallible men, regardless of the fact that they are prophets. It's okay to see fault in "the Church," since it is, after all, made up of fallible people and left in the hands of fallible men. It doesn't have to be apostasy, rebellion or unrighteous murmuring. Constructive criticism and questioning is a tool to make things better.

I wonder, what would the Lord's criticisms of the Church and its membership be? Or is all well in Zion and the leaders of our Church perfect in their abilities and immune to fault?

I enjoy your posts. I could probably learn a thing or two from you

[ithink]

There is no shame in being extremely wealthy.

Not now anyway. There is the eye of the needle though. That is a problem.

The eye of the needle is not a problem of material possessions de per se. There are a lot of not so wealthy that act like nouveaux riches, being persporrent and thoughtless of the other people, showing off the little they have like if it was an heavenly heritage. Those are the ones that desdain more of the poor.

Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man, and I bet ya he could pass in any needle you could throw at him
Personally, I do want rich people and I hate poverty. The Marxists want to end the rich (while being themselves rich). Christ wants to end the poor. And that is entirely different.

"Christ wants to end the poor."

He sure does. That is what He was doing here. That is what got him killed.

The eye of the needle conundrum is exactly what it is, there is no interpretation of justification of it. I believe it just means we all have nothing the moment we die, but when we understand that, and live that, it changes how we live. Unfortunately, I do not see the LDS Church doing that as a whole.

[Niemand]

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.

Enoch is still in the Ethiopian canon but not included in the Apocrypha. I suspect it was taken out for its sheer length and also because it may encourage people to try and contact angels.

The Book of Enoch, NT, POGP & D&C
viewtopic.php?69577