- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Lately I’ve been interested in the choices of Pres. Monson (and past presidents of the church) as to who to call to the first presidency and Q12. I find it interesting that two junior apostles are in the first presidency (i.e. GBH called Eyring to the 1Pres – his first call to the Q12). GBH and Pres. Monson were both David O. McKay calls and McKay strikes me as a relatively ‘progressive’ president, but Joseph Fielding Smith strikes me as totally old school (so does BKP – a Joseph Fielding Smith call). So I got to thinking, and we may never know the answer to this, but is it the privilege of the president alone to choose new members of the Q12 and 1Pres? And does the 1pres or Q15 review conference talks beforehand to avoid “apostasy”? It seems to me like they should to avoid Poelman-type talks and “embarrassing” corrections like Cristofferson’s recent one.
So what are each of the Q15 known for? What direction would General Conferences go if they were to become president? I can get an idea for how wide the range is – BKP being on one end of the spectrum, Uchtdorf being on the other. But what about the others? Pres. Monson seems to be fairly progressive, but the whole Prop 8 thing makes me question that. What say ye?
http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/31/predicting-the-next-apostle/ My husband (writing under the name Carter Hall) created a statistical analysis to determine the next apostle when Neil Anderson was called. He nailed it! (well, one of his top tier choices anyway) Click the link to see the factors that make it more likely someone will be chosen (and less likely in some cases).
What is this about Christofferson’s recent correction? I must have missed something. Answer: 1. Taking care of entire wards full of old widows
2. Flying airplanes for Lufthansa
3. Being the son of a Mormon scientist who defied the ultra-literal Joseph Fielding Smith / Harold B Lee / Bruce R McConkie religious cabal.
Quote:is it the privilege of the president alone to choose new members of the Q12 and 1Pres?
No and Yes in that order.
I think the FP ends up reflecting the leadership philosophy and style of the new President. By that, I mean each new President chooses people who will create the type of input structure he wants. Some (like Joseph Fielding Smith) choose those who share their general view of things, so opinions generally will be unanimous; others (like our last two) choose those who they think will create a “balanced council”.
I’ll never be in that position, but I like the balanced council approach. As a leader, I don’t want to be told I’m right all the time; I want to hear different opinions and views before I reach a decision.
I see a shift in power drifting away from ultra-literal interpretation of doctrine. The old guard from that era is now dying out. I also see a shift towards including a wider diversity in many ways. We have a member of FP who is not an American-born, Utah native from old pioneer stock (Elder Uchtdorf). I’m sure he probably married into some family or another for connections, but still. It’s a step. I see continuing the focus on Mormonism as a lifestyle religion, trying their best to keep out of controversy and blending in — the bland homogenization of Mormonism. We don’t explore deep topics a whole lot, and mostly focus on family life and our definition of moral living. That isn’t a problem per se. It just is what it is.
I don’t see a shift away from the majority of leaders being business executives with MBA’s, communications or PR backgrounds, and other academic but practical professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc.). We are getting more and more GA’s from outside the US. That is a big step in the right direction IMO.
There seem to be few scientists, and even fewer people with background in theology, philosophy or the humanities. Is there a single GA that’s a professionally trained theologian? (I am excluding CES employees from that for the sake of this observation).
afterall wrote:What is this about Christofferson’s recent correction? I must have missed something.
Thanks Scooter! I had not followed that thread and did not realize there was clarification in the SLT. hawkgrrrl wrote:http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/31/predicting-the-next-apostle/ My husband (writing under the name Carter Hall) created a statistical analysis to determine the next apostle when Neil Anderson was called. He nailed it! (well, one of his top tier choices anyway) Click the link to see the factors that make it more likely someone will be chosen (and less likely in some cases).
That’s really cool. I could see a pattern in the ages of new apostles called, but that post was spot on! I think if BKP had been president, then Claudio R. M. Costa would have been the pick. Just wild speculation on my part.
Are any of the other members anywhere close to the ends of the spectrum as BKP or Uchtdorf? Or are they all somewhere in between?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.