The apostolic short list

[_malkie]

... 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.

- -

[_palerobber]

they're chosen by an IBM machine with a sense of humor.

[_souldier]

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."

I guess if this was true and the SCMC got wind of this they could possibly change the candidates. I highly doubt they would simply because most faithful members wouldn't give a rat's ass if this story was published from the rooftops after it was confirmed. Who knows, I wouldn't put it past them now after learning about a little of the history they covered up.

[_kairos]

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??

Plesase God not Hamula- MP in DC South and the most arrogant ,condescending , $700 suit and $100 haircut jerk but with a very nice wife. If this guy ever had an experience with God, he would be telling us how God took his advice- please not him!

but what do I know?

k

[_moksha]

The three are James J. Hamula, Ronald A. Rasband, and L. Whitney Clayton.

What is the Las Vegas line on this?

[_Runtu]

Plesase God not Hamula- MP in DC South and the most arrogant ,condescending , $700 suit and $100 haircut jerk but with a very nice wife. If this guy ever had an experience with God, he would be telling us how God took his advice- please not him!

but what do I know?

k

Were you in the DC South mission? That's the mission I live in now.

[_suniluni2]

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.

How dare he speak of Brother Mariott like that!

[_malkie]

they're chosen by an IBM machine with a sense of humor.

or by a Kansas voting machine.

[_suniluni2]

They just pray and fast about it, or at least say they're praying and fasting about it, then get together and start throwing out names. Then it's just a mixture of politics, personalities, and agendas until they have an agreement, which they then say was inspired. Something like that.

[_SuperDell]

Steve Young, Danny Ainge and Johnny Miller will be called to be the newest Apostles. The Church will start a sports outreach program where kids try out for the teams and get dunked as 'initiation' into the sport.

Worked so well a few decades ago God has decided these great brethren will start it again.