From a heads-exploding standpoint, I don’t think the Church could do better than to call *both* Reid *and* Romney.

Unless, I suppose, they called Jay Bybee . . .

Who tailors your jib, friend? I like its cut.

He was my Stake President at BYU for a while. I remember hearing him speak in Stake Conference in the Provo tabernacle. Very fascinating life journey of spiritual and political experiences, very kind humble guy.

That would be a negative, and false, view on life indeed. Good thing that isn’t what I said.

Dave seemed to understand my clarification, so I’m not sure why you do not. I will reiterate again that speculation as to who “might” get called is one thing. Asserting who “should” be called is very different.

I’m not sure what you think your personal experience means in relation to my comments, as I certainly never claimed that anyone who speculated on who might be called to the apostleship would apostatize.

Am I light enough now, or should I lose a few more pounds tilting at straw men? :-P

I would encourage you to lighten up a bit. That’s quite the negative view on life, to think that having a fun discussion about future church leaders somehow ultimately leads to a prideful personal apostasy.

The reality is that, there are always more eligible candidates than open positions. So to discuss a list of people you think would do well and have been adequately prepped for the call with your fellow Saints is hardly harmful. To wit, in October 2004, in my last year at BYU, I remember discussing openings in the 12 at that time with several classmates. Many knew of a David Bednar, President of BYU-I (they were transfer students) and they all speculated he would be a good candidate. Having not attended BYU-I, I didn’t know much about him. Yet he got the call. It was neat to think several of my classmates had experiences with a new Apostle, had felt his potential capacity for this call, etc. Here I am, 11 years later, still yet to apostatize from the church. Just my own personal experience.

JTown (#48), that makes a little more sense. But when you say, as in your earlier comment, in reference to the next President of the Church as well as the new apostles — “Who should be discussing this, outside of the Apostles when President Monson passes? I certainly hope not anyone on this board, because that’s so far outside of our stewardship as to boggle the mind.” — well, it certainly sounds like you are reproving us for talking about the upcoming selection of new apostles (while, at the same time, participating in the conversation). Your later comment — “I understand speculation as to who might be called as an Apostle.” — seems to clarify things.

Shut up and do as you’re told? I don’t recall saying that at all. Perhaps my comment was not sufficiently clear. I understand speculation as to who might be called as an Apostle. It’s a natural thing (though I’m not sold on how beneficial it is), and I said nothing about it. What I take exception to is speaking of who “should” be an Apostle or prophet. Because we cannot see or judge someone’s heart, their righteousness, their relationship to the Savior, or a ton of other things that are important when someone is called to be an Apostle of the Lord. Because that is their calling. Not an Apostle of the people or of the church. An Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. I just personally cannot understand applying man’s logic, political views, or philosophy to that decision. It seems like a HUGE trap for the membership, both individually and collectively. It seems the kind of thinking that would lead us to believe, as many did of Joseph Smith, that we know better than the prophet does. That he is not inspired of God, that he is a fallen prophet if he was ever a prophet at all. That is a short, swift road to apostasy. Many seem to be traveling that road these days and that is a large concern to me.

Geoff-Aus,

I never said anything about being unquestioning (though asking questions for the purpose of gaining understanding and criticizing because we disagree are not the same thing) and I see a ton of assumptions in your comments. Can members be concerned about the future of the church? Of course. We should be. We should ponder and pray and give thoughtful, prayerful input where warranted (and I do so in my Ward Council all the time; they’re probably sick of it, to be honest). I simply disagree that we know enough to suggest who the next Apostle or prophet should be. I understand that many disagree with me.

“until we have a Prophet who is open to and energetic enough to actually receive revelation and really lead the church”

I wholeheartedly reject your assertion here, because I believe we have had and do have prophets who are open and energetic, who receive revelation, and who lead the church in the way the Lord wants. Not necessarily the way every individual might prefer. There are things I don’t understand and things I might personally do differently, of course. And I’m grateful every day that I am not the one making the decision. Because what seems like a good idea to me, or even most people, may not be the mind of the Lord on the topic. And it’s His church.

I don’t think “voting” a person of a certain race or nationality into a position of leadership will make them more likely to listen to the Lord’s will. In fact, I believe such a belief indicates a more “corporate” viewpoint (i.e. with the right CEO, dynamic and insightful, the company will prosper) rather than a “spiritual” viewpoint (i.e. Enoch, Moses, David, Joseph Smith would not have been anyone’s choices to be called by the Lord to do much of anything, based on information available.) I don’t believe that the corporate viewpoint will work for the Lord’s church.

If when pres. Monson dies the 14 meet and automatically choose the President of Q12, we will have Prophets over 90 for the foreseeable future. 33% of men at 90 have dementia. Does the Lord kill off those he doesn’t want as Prophet? Is that how the lord is involved in the decision?

Is it the concern of members, yes if they are concerned with the future of the Church, and whether it achieves it’s potential? The active membership is not exactly filling the whole earth as we used to expect. Could it with more dynamic, and capable leadership? Could it do worse?

I know the obedient answer is to be unquestioning, and sustain who we’re told. I think sustaining also includes giving advice, and helping them to recognise what is apparent to others, even if not themselves or other obedient members.

Can you see that the church would be a different place if Pres. Uchrdorf, were Prophet as opposed to Pres Oaks? Which would the Lord like, and do we have to have 10 years of Pres Oaks in order to get a 90 year old Pres Uchtdorf?

I am concerned about the Leadership of the church because I can’t see it achieving it’s potential until we have a Prophet who is open to and energetic enough to actually receive revelation and really lead the church to be a light unto the world and all those other phrases.