- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The number of new apostles next month just rose to three. It has to be a long time since that has happened. Old-Timer wrote:The number of new apostles next month just rose to three. It has to be a long time since that has happened.
1906 according to Deseret News.
My picks would be Rasband, Causse and Soares. My husband did this analysis when E. Andersen was called: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/31/predicting-the-next-apostle/ On Own Now wrote:…But a factor that we have talked about a bit here is that
it’s probably time to expand the horizons with non-US-born Apostles.I’d be pretty surprised if one of the two isn’t from Mexico or Brazil. Those two nations each support 34 LDS Missions… each… 34. The Church has a very strong presence in both countries. There are 12 temples in Mexico, with another soon to be dedicated. Brazil has half the number of temples, but probably because population is more concentrated. The first temple in Latin America was Sao Paulo, Brazil. My feeling is that the Church is so prevalent in those places that it makes sense to have a member of the Q12 from one of those two countries. It might also work to have an Apostle from a different Latin American country. The Church only publishes the Bible and the JST in two languages: English and Spanish. Yet, there has never been a Latino Apostle (apologies to Marion G Romney)… As much as I would like to see a Latino LDS apostle or any non-American not named Uchtdorf in the big 15 for that matter just to shake things up and provide some different perspectives my spidey sense tells me it will probably be all three white American lawyers or businessmen such as L. Whitney Clayton, Rasband, and James J. Hamula.
LookingHard wrote:Not to derail this thread, but my very TBM wife is pushing my son next year to go to BYU-I. He doesn’t want to go there because, “they are just way too strict.” Out of all of my kids he is the most likely to say, “the emperor has no clothes” and I think if she prevails it probably will tilt him more to leaving the church if not while there, at least some point afterwards. I know of one person in my ward that does say that BYU-I and it’s ultra-conservatism, ultra-orthodox, and rules that treat you like a child (his words) set him up to leave a few years after graduation. But I also have someone in my ward that is proud as can be that they didn’t go to that heathen school in Provo.
My daughter’s dream is to go to BYU-P. And if not that BYU-I. She likes the strict rules and the mindset of other kids who go there. She went away to a language camp there a year ago and came home a different person after interacting with some really good kids that gave her a much better sense of who she is. As a parent, knowing how many “offers” she seems to be getting lately, I also feel more comfortable with her attending a BYU-X school than a state school. I saw how wild west it was at the university I attended. It seems that for me, one part of the LDS experience I like is the way it strengthens youth who want to be strengthened with structure.
Anyway, back to the original topic….after this scenic detour to BYU.
Emailed with my South American missionary son today. He thinks Jorge Zeballos is a pretty strong candidate and believes he will be called. He is in the First Quorum and in an area presidency, but my son says he was recently called to Salt Lake for a “special assignment.” He has heard him speak a couple times and has met him. Zeballos speaks fluent English and has an MBA from BYU, and he is a convert. FWIW my son likes him. He spoke at April conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/if-you-will-be-responsible?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/if-you-will-be-responsible?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/be-fruitful-multiply-and-subdue-the-earth?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/be-fruitful-multiply-and-subdue-the-earth?lang=eng This is pure rumor found on another web site. The person writting it claims to work for the church and does background checks for new GAs. Take it with a gain of salt. Quote:
Here’s what I can tell you. There are enough people privy to this information that it won’t be possible to identify me through this disclosure alone.Basically, whenever new General Authorities are being proposed, the names are submitted to our department to do a final “background check”–you can think of it as a kind of “vetting” that is done in politics when Presidential candidates select a VP running mate. We get information consents from the candidate and check everything imaginable: financial, employment, educational, resumes, church callings, political involvement, criminal (never had an issue with this one!), disciplinary councils the candidate has been involved in as a leader. We write up a report flagging any possible areas of concern. For the most part, there are no issues, except for occasional ones that might “look bad” from a secular media perspective.
They never tell us that these people are being proposed as General Authorities–we just get a generic request for the vetting–but when the next General Conference roll around and we see the people we vetted called … well, it doesn’t take long to figure out what your roll is in the machinery.
Anyway, when an Apostle dies things get a little bit “obvious”. For one, the request comes shortly after the death of the apostle. Secondly, rather than a bundle of names as is common to receive, we receive just three names. Thirdly, the submitted names usually contain one or more CURRENT General Authorities. All three of these are red flags to me at least that we are vetting the new Apostle. My suspicions in this regard were confirmed when we vetted Elder Anderson as one of the three candidates in late-2008, shortly after Joseph B. Wirthlin died, and he was subsequently called as the new Apostle in April 2009. I assume that the three names are submitted by the President of the Church, or possibly the First Presidency together, I don’t know.
I’m not exactly sure why we do a second “vetting” in this situation for someone who is already a General Authority and has undergone the process previously. I guess it’s probably meant as a type of “fail safe” procedure, to catch anything that was possibly missed the first time around. We also do review what the person has done as their time as a General Authority and flag anything potentially problematic.
So basically, what I can tell you is that we’ve recently received a fresh submission to do background checks for three men and we’ve mostly completed the process. All three are currently General Authorities and are in the Presidency or Quorums of the Seventy. The three are James J. Hamula, Ronald A. Rasband, and L. Whitney Clayton.
Clayton’s report sent up a few flags, definitely more than the other two, so I would bet against him being called. The reports for Hamula and Rasband were clean and we basically gave them both the thumbs up.
At this stage, I see no way that at least one of Hamula or Rasband is not called. Since we have another vacancy in the Twelve, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Hamula and Rasband are BOTH called. I’m not sure if we are going to get another three names to vet for the second vacancy, or if they are just going to be happy with having done these three.
So there you go. Oh–lastly the issue of timing–we won’t find out for sure who is called until General Conference in October. I think that that is pretty well understood and accepted by the membership now. In the past, some Apostles have been called in between Conferences, but the last few First Presidencies have thought it best to wait until General Conference in order to maximize attention on the event.
I find the process a little bit ridiculous and I have often felt like it’s weird that the Prophet and First Presidency need us to flag issues of concern for them when they are considering inspired callings. Are the calls inspired? Well, Elder Clayton was being considered, but now I can basically guarantee that he won’t be called because of the work I participated in. Can it hardly be said to be inspiration when the decisions are based on paid workers doing research??
Sheldon wrote:This is pure rumor found on another web site. The person writting it claims to work for the church and does background checks for new GAs. Take it with a gain of salt.
Quote:
… we’ve recently received a fresh submission to do background checks for three men and we’ve mostly completed the process. All three are currently General Authorities and are in the Presidency or Quorums of the Seventy.The three are James J. Hamula, Ronald A. Rasband, and L. Whitney Clayton…Clayton’s report sent up a few flags, definitely more than the other two, so I would bet against him being called.So much for my prediction; maybe they actually will finally select a Latino apostle. I remember reading this rumor a while ago but I didn’t remember him saying there were potential problems with Clayton.
Final background checks as a sign of lack of inspiration? I don’t see it that way at all, if the report is true. Of course, we see what we believe to a large degree.
I would be shocked if they didn’tdo background checks and rechecks…. Ann wrote:I would be shocked if they
didn’tdo background checks and rechecks….
I agree, Ann. Even bishops and stake presidents get a check before they’re actually extended the call.Sheldon wrote:This is pure rumor found on another web site. The person writting it claims to work for the church and does background checks for new GAs. Take it with a gain of salt.
I remember reading that back in early July shortly after BKP passed. Things may have changed since then. With the very recent passing of RGS things may have changed if the info were only a week old. Either way we’ll know in a little over a week.
Old-Timer wrote:Final background checks as a sign of lack of inspiration?
I don’t see it that way at all, if the report is true. Of course, we see what we believe to a large degree.
Ann wrote:I would be shocked if they
didn’tdo background checks and rechecks…. Totally agree. I doubt the anonymous statement comes from a real source anyway, but even if it was written by DFU, I still find nothing of value in the shocking nature of how the process is carried out.
I think it’s significant that the choosing of the person to take Judas’ place in Acts 1 was portrayed as follows: Peter asked that the body of followers in Jerusalem consider who would be good candidates and lays out some criteria. The group chose out two men: Barsabbas and Matthias. Then, when they had arrived at two candidates, they put the final choice to God, asking that he make the choice between them. And the manner in which they had God choose was to “cast lots” i.e. throw dice/flip a coin. In other words, they didn’t wait for God to speak a name. They did their best to choose two worthy people and then left it up to God from there. But even their manner of leaving it to God was to do something that would have a definite outcome, whether God intervened or not.
OON: Thank you for sharing your analysis. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into this.
It is down a bit in the article (a little more than halfway), but Elder Christofferson says they each submit names to Pres. Monson for consideration and he brings one back to sustaining in the joint council: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865637493/Elder-Christofferson-talks-about-how-President-Monson-calls-a-new-apostle-reflects-on-Elder-Scott.html?pg=all ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865637493/Elder-Christofferson-talks-about-how-President-Monson-calls-a-new-apostle-reflects-on-Elder-Scott.html?pg=all
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.