The apostolic short list

[_souldier]

Since my faith transition, one question that became vastly more complex was how new apostles are chosen. Before it was the (Q15-x) or First Presidency prays about it and the bat phone rings with the name of the new replacement being named from the other side. Now I'm thinking it's more like when Matthias was called. The apostles had a short list of people they thought qualified for the job then "cast lots". Who knows. Maybe they do have a list of names in a hat which are drawn once one of them kicks the bucket. But it's gotta be more complicated than that. I know many of you fine researchers and scholars must know more about the process. How much do we know about choosing a replacement for the apostles who die?

[Guest]

I recall something about apostles each coming up with three names or some such. On the one hand, it is an interesting question.

And, yet, I find I care less and less about it with each passing year. My interest was beaten out of me when they chose the fellow who, as a civil servant, arranged for the privatization of a public hospital, and then joined the purchasing private company as a Vice President. The hospital quickly became sub par and financially unstable.

Greater love for himself hath no man than this--that he should steal from the people to fatten himself.

[_Equality]

I recall something about apostles each coming up with three names or some such. On the one hand, it is an interesting question.

And, yet, I find I care less and less about it with each passing year. My interest was beaten out of me when they chose the creep who, as a civil servant, arranged for the privatization of a public hospital, and then joined the purchasing private company as a Vice President. The hospital quickly became sub par and financially unstable.

Greater love for himself hath no man than this--that he should steal from the people to fatten himself.

The calling of the venal lawyer was bad, but I thought it worse when they called the guy who mocked what other Christians wear to church on Sunday and approvingly told the story of his father who, when his mother was physically unable to iron dad's shirts, bought her a machine to do the work rather than getting off his ass and ironing his own shirts.

[_ludwigm]

... how new apostles are chosen ...

Ask Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian fideSS party's Father of God godfather.

When the party won with 2/3 majority (reached by 35% of the voters), they rearranged (halved) the parliament, OV summoned all of the prospective representatives --- 133 according to the 2/3 of 200 --- to his house. One after another. After measuring their loyality and faithfulness, some of them were blackballed. Not much of, because batboys know their position, and know what to say.
What to say? Nothing which have to do with any truth. The expectations of the master.

- [#img] http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images ... -voice.jpg[/img] -

[_cinepro]

My interest was beaten out of me when they chose the fellow who, as a civil servant, arranged for the privatization of a public hospital, and then joined the purchasing private company as a Vice President. The hospital quickly became sub par and financially unstable.

Greater love for himself hath no man than this--that he should steal from the people to fatten himself.

Yeah, after learning about Elder Cook's business dealings, I just get really uncomfortable whenever he speaks in conference. While I don't expect the Apostles to be perfect, I can't believe he was called as an Apostle.

In 1985 the hospital attorney, Quentin Cook, and its CEO, Henry J. Buhrmann, presented a 30 year lease to the five elected directors who signed without dissent. A shell corporation was formed with the hospital attorney and CEO assuming similar positions in the privatized hospital. Late 1985 millions of dollars of public assets were transferred to the new corporation which began operation behind closed doors. It still lacks transparency.

The public did not know. There were poorly-publicized meetings, inadequately covered by the local press. Dissenters were hardly noticed. I read the lease and wonder how anyone could sign it but one of the signers, Dr. Peter Eisenberg, was wildly enthusiastic about it for years. In contract Gary Giacomini, then a county supervisor, called it "the biggest theft of public property in Marin's history."

http://www.coastalpost.com/04/08/25.htm

[_Runtu]

Yeah, after learning about Elder Cook's business dealings, I just get really uncomfortable whenever he speaks in conference. While I don't expect the Apostles to be perfect, I can't believe he was called as an Apostle.

Indeed. It's hard to take him seriously when he says things like this:

Other evil people exploit, manipulate, and tear down society with drugs, pornography, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, robbery, and dishonest business practices. The power and influence of these people is very large even if they are relatively small in number.

[_Alf O'Mega]

As the resident handicapper, I suppose it is incumbent upon me to produce a racing form for the upcoming conference.

First, although there are now three vacancies in the quorum, don't be surprised if not all of them are filled at this conference. They probably have two candidates vetted and ready by now, but they may well decide to defer the last vacancy, both to give themselves more time to deliberate and to allow the quorum to assimilate the new blood more gradually.

My two leading candidates are:

• Ronald A. Rasband (b. 1951): 4-1
• L. Whitney Clayton (b. 1950): 4-1

Both are senior presidents of the seventy. Neither would be a startling choice demographically, as both are young for the quorum but are still older than the darling dauphin David Bednar. Both have been fairly visible at public events lately, accompanying senior apostles on overseas trips and showing up at conferences, temple dedications, and groundbreakings. And both fit the apostolic professional profile: Rasband was a senior business executive, and Clayton was an attorney. (Oh, another attorney? Where are my smelling salts?)

Dark horses, each a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy:

• Bruce D. Porter (b. 1952): 10-1. An academic with political experience.
• Kim B. Clark (b. 1949): 15-1. Another academic, until recently president of BYU-Idaho.
• S. Gifford Nielsen (b. 1954): 20-1. BYU and NFL quarterback who has the requisite gravitas with some bonus charisma.
• Larry J. Echo Hawk (b. 1948): 20-1. Democratic politician and member of the Pawnee Nation with BYU ties.

Long-shots:

• Gérald Caussé (b. 1963): 50-1. First counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, this French businessman has given a couple of well-received talks in General Conference recently, but he is too young at the moment. His time may come.
• Erich W. Kopischke (b. 1956): 50-1. Another well-regarded Seventy from Europe, but does the quorum really need a Dieter-lite?
• Richard E. Turley (b. 1956): 100-1. Assistant church historian, which alone may disqualify him, but he's also a lawyer, and the quorum may want to have a historical specialist to help deal with the aftermath of the essays and the Joseph Smith papers as their implications continue to dawn on those willing to read.
• Mitt Romney (b. 1947): 500-1. Probably never going to happen (as the odds indicate), but still an enormously popular fellow who knows how to get things done.

But easily my leading candidate is:

• None of the above: 1-2

[_Manetho]

A couple of months ago, Everybody Wang Chung quoted an anonymous Redditor who claims to be in on the church's vetting process (http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38496&start=21; you'll have to scroll because I'm not sure how to link individual posts). For those who may not have seen it then:

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??

[_I have a question]

Why would you need to vet someone who God has told you to call?
It's like they don't trust God to give them good information or something....

[_Alf O'Mega]

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.

I don't know what to make of this. A quick web search shows that this claim has been floating around on the para-Mormon circuit for a couple of months now, although I wasn't aware of it until just now. It reeks of plausibility, but it could also be that some corners of ex-Mormon troll-dom are growing in sophistication. If it is true, however, I wonder what it means that a casual observer like myself could pick two of the three leading candidates out of an unspecified personal orifice?

I also wonder about the Heisenberg principle. (Has observing the candidate pool changed the candidate pool?) Picking from those three now would validate the leak and lend credence to future anonymous tips. Surely the apostolic on-deck circle is large enough that, if they were so inclined, they could fill a couple of slots with others and then circle back to one of the leaked candidates at the next conference, for example.

I'm not inclined to change any of my odds yet, though. These were the alleged candidates following L. Tom Perry's death. With two more vacancies, who knows in what direction the pool has deepened?

My money is still on "none of the above."