I like this article much more than most that Brother Card has written on the subject, and do I agree that there are many considerations that go into the calling of a new Apostle. I do personally believe that wanting to have a Church leader of a different ethnicity is not just because it would be "cool" I also believe what you said about demographics. At some point, we *will* have leaders in the 12 of different ethnicities. I think to want to have that and to talk about it is a valid point. I also believe that the Lord could very well call someone *partially* based on the fact that the given apostle could reach a certain demographic evwn as they continue to really be "General" authorities, serving all the Church.

James

I also wanted to add to my comment, that I believe that the new Apostles called really desire to reach out to members and non-members of all races, and that I think they will be fantastic Apostles. I really have related very much the new first presidency and the new Apostle, and know that God has chosen them.

James

Come on, Scott, you're smarter than this. Being "cool" has nothing to do with it. We are a worldwide church now, with more members outside the US than in. It's time our leadership begin to more closely resemble that. There is no doubt Elder Christofferson is a good and humble and capable man, but there are good leaders capable of serving in Africa, South America, and South East Asia as well. This isn't about filling a spot because of race or ethnicity; it's about finding leaders who bring different perspectives to the position. As much as we like to glorify our leaders, they are human beings and see the world through a particular lens. When 95% of your leadership is from Utah and Idaho, you are getting a very homogenous perspective. The church is changing rapidly, but interestingly, it's happening more quickly on the ground than in the hierarchy.

RE: "Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf was called as the first apostle in the restored church whose native language was not English."

Just to clarify--Elder Anthon H. Lund and Elder John A. Widtsoe were immigrants from Denmark and Norway, respectively.

Good article though. Good points.

Your comments are right on, OSC. If I am viewed by my Savior as a most righteous Primary worker, who brought value and the spirit into the lives of the CTR 7 class I team-teach, I will consider my service in the church as acceptable to Him.

Serving on the High Council, Stake SS President, High Priest Group Leader and Ward YM President were also important callings, but give me time in the Primary working with those special, young, innocent (for the most part) children, and I am content.

Gotta love the the privledged perspective of a white male....Great leaders are definitely needed (as long as they are not women)...

Good article, good points. I'm a little confused about the commment that Muslims won't translate the Quran from Arabic however, because I have studied the Quran in English many times. Infact, I don't speak any arabic at all.

If I missed the point, or misunderstood the point, let me know.

I think OSC pointed out that the important work is being done "in the trenches", in the individual wards and branches by people called of God to fill those positions. They will best understand the needs of those they serve. And the EIGHT quorums of seventy that then oversee those wards, branches, and stakes are from all different nationalities. They bring their ethnic and personal understanding to the work they do. Then in turn, they can report to the apostles, with their own understanding and point of view, and can make the decisions that affect the church as a whole.

Just to point out, however, that all these people, if they are fulfilling their callings as they should, will be doing so in humble prayer and with the inspiration from the Lord.

(By the way, this comes from one of those brainwashed women that actually believes that the church organization was divinely inspired. Women fill ALL KINDS of leadership roles in the church.)

In most cases, it take years for the Lord to shape a man into the type of person who can serve as an apostle. I am confidant one day there will be more apostles from outside the United States, but it will happen on when the Lord deems them ready. Too many of you are looking only at the make up of the apostles and ignoring the diverse membership of the First Quorum of the Seventy from which many of our current apostles have come. As those brethren have time to serve as Seventies and go through the refining fire of the Lord diversity amongst the apostles will increase. The Lord is patient and organized in building His kingdom. We should be nothing less.

It matters not WHERE you serve, but HOW you serve.

Aspiring to what is considered a "higher" calling is not the mark of true humility. In fact, if you talk to most people in these "higher" callings (including bishops), they will tell you that with greater responsibility comes greater trials, too.

When you also consider that the men who are called to these hierarchal positions have to live in and around Salt Lake City, having someone from a foreign country necessitates their leaving their extended families behind permanently as Elder Uchtdorf and his wife did. I believe their children all still live in Germany, and that would be a hard thing to do. It's one thing to temporarily relocate elsewhere (such as the three years that mission presidents serve), but it's quite another to be asked to permanently leave behind your birth country and family.

The Lord calls those who are most qualified and have the best experience, and I believe the time will come when more from other countries will be called to the Twelve.

beekeeper, I firmly believe God gave us two ears and one mouth because he wants us to listen more than we talk. There are many great female leaders in the LDS Church - in fact, three of them lead the largest women's organization in the world.

The problem here is you're talking (or is that criticizing?) instead of listening.

Great article by OSC. It gives me much to think on. I am one of those who was thinking "wouldn't it be great if ...... Well it is great that The Lord called whom he did. Obviously I needed to think a little more deeply on the matter. I get to serve in my ward by being a Sunday School instructor. It is great to belong to a church that actually needs and values me.

It's interesting how "leadership" is viewed in the church. So many males aspire to be the bishop, and get there through means that in no way resemble leadership traits. The really sad thing about it, is that it works. Those who are great at kissing up (the buck privates) get the position, and thus we have great followers serving in positions of leadership. Those with true leadership abilities are looked at with distrust, and the system perpetuates itself!

Transplant, you've got it all wrong. No one in their right mind would aspire to leadership in this church, in the sense of seeking ambitiously for advancement, and anyone who does is exactly the opposite of what is wanted in leadership. You would have to be completely off your head (or totally ignorant of what it means) to aspire to be a bishop, or a stake president. Aspire to be worthy enough to be, but not seek after the actual office. I served as a bishop for four years and have been on numerous high councils, and have NEVER known any man called to be a bishop who had set as a cynical (and that's what it would be) goal to be a bishop. It just doesn't work that way.

I partially agree with "Phil" and partially with "transplant". I have seen some people aspire to leadership positions and have even seen some go so far as to do what I call "campaign" for the position. But I agree that no one in their right mind would honestly want that calling if they knew what all it entailed. Those who really do covet that calling (and that's what you should really call it -- coveting) are in no way humble enough to adequately perform it. But I have seen some people "get ahead", so to speak, in the Church by "kissing up", and those in leadership positions who "promote" these people will answer for it someday, too. By and large, I have had good bishops -- not perfect by any means -- who were trying their best to fulfill a calling for which they did not ask. We have to remind ourselves that the Church (any church for that matter) is made up of HUMAN BEINGS who are imperfect but trying the best they can to do the right thing and pray for the Lord to guide them in their positions.

1 - I poor pity the ward or stake who ends up with a leader who has "aspired" to the position. No one in his/her right mind will aspire to a leadership calling - although some DO and some GET IT - unfortunately.
2 - Those who are called to the apostleship need to be so DEEPLY rooted and so FIRMLY entrenched in the gospel on so many different levels. There is too much at stake to use as a determining factor state/country of origin, i.e., anywhere except Utah/Idaho, ahead of other considerations.

You do realize that the 'choice' of Apostles has correlations less with spirituality, business acumen, religiousness, ability, and mental stability and FAR more to do with who you married, who you are friends with or who's son you are?

Check out Quinn's 'The Mormon Hierarchy' if you want the backing sources for that.

To Transplant: Generally, the easiest way to get out of being called as bishop is to run for the office. Most prominently, it is those that do not want nor aspire to the office that get the call.

To OSC: Article was ok, however, the times and seasons are vastly different today than when Brigham Young et al were called as apostles. Certainly, in the infancy of the church, there was no choice--no one had experience in the church. They were certainly men for their time, but would be 'strangers in a strange land' if called today. Today, the equation is markedly different, with a different culture, organization, expectations, demands, etc. Generally, to call a recent convert, no matter how good a man, to positions of pressing leadership (eg, high council)just to make a point is to set him up to fail. In the words of Hugh B. Brown, "Pep without purpose is piffle".

Why does it take so long to comment on the new apostle? The Lord called him and the rest is speculation or empty words.

More patriarchal garbage that only serves the patriarchs.

Why do women let these guys get away with this?

So, just out of curiosity--what do you propose they do?

Funny- I've never wanted a leadership calling, and yet they keep being sent my way. I pity anyone who aspires to a calling, as I believe they will be left to their own strength until sufficiently humbled. Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies, so petitioning for a calling is asking for a whole mess of trouble, IMO.

BTW, I was very impressed by Elder Christoffersen's talk at Conference, and look forward to many more.

I understand that revelation is an important element in the calling of a new apostles. But revelation is dependent upon us asking certain questions, and I'd be curious to know if the general leadership of the Church is seriously asking God whether its time to start calling apostles who are from different countries. The quorums of the seventy are full of qualified candidates. There are now more members of the Church outside the United States than within. We have moved far beyond our roots as a white, American church. I don't doubt that the current apostles are called and committed to represent all people. But it would be very special to have apostles who shared the unique ethnic and cultural backgrounds represented by very large blocs of our membership.

I am going to assume that you mean women allowing the guys to hold the priesthood and all the callings that come with it.

I am female and I currently hold a position in the church which is normally given to a priesthood holder. I am the Assist Ward Mission Leader. Who knows why I got this calling. Perhaps it's to prepare my husband and I for a mission later in life.

I love the 12 Apostles and respect the men that are called. As one who has lived in 4 countries and works/travels internationally, there is definite value in different backgrounds and perspectives. I know the leadership asks for advice from non US GA's when addressing groups of saints or the media in various countries. What would it be like if they had these people already in their Quorum?

I see a lot of 'be patient, it will come' comments. If Pres. Kimball had not had it as a priority and made it a matter of prayer with his leadership, we would still not have the revelation on Priesthood. There is actually much change in the church that comes about for practical reasons and leadership constantly seeks for local advice on important matters of policy. I see no problem with people pressing for change in a organized and constructive way.

You're (and many others are) missing one important detail... members of the church believe it is the Lord who calls apostles. Remember that they are "special witnesses" of Christ. That would mean that the revelation is something much more significant than the type you and I receive, which can be dependent on the type of questions we ask.

Members believe this is the Lord's church. HE calls his special witnesses, not us. And His church transcends nationality, race and ethnicity. In the grand scope of things, He will call special witnesses that will help him achieve his goals - none of which include anything about race, nationality or ethnicity. These are things that WE look at.

I have never written in a comment before, but I felt a strong desire to ask a question. Over the last 13 years we have seen our church leaders (apostles and seventy) travel the world to interact and really get to know the people of the Church. I find it difficult to understand how so many people think that these me, called of God, would not seriously desire/consider other cultures to be represented in the Quorum. We saw with President Hinckley that the Church has put a large emphasis on world-wide growth and not the "Utah" church. Don't you think that the Lord knows who He wants to be His special witness? Our apostles aren't walking around with blinders on, of this I am certain.

On another note, my favorite quote from my father-in-law says "if a man wants to be called as a bishop then I hope he gets called." To this I agree. And can someone explain to me how one sucks up in the Church? I hope this doesn't refer to someone who shows respect and obeys the councel of his/her leaders.

It is amazing to me how naive some members of the church are and others are so cynical. Callings are just that; callings. They come on the Lord's timetable and as He sees fit. I have been in Bishoprics and virtually every men's presidency you can name in the ward. I have had stake callings. Currently I serve as the Deacon's quorum advisor and I teach institute. I don't mention this for any praise or glory, but to set the stage for my next comment. The greatest example of how we should serve and view callings that I have witnessed came from a friend and fromer stake president of mine who when he was released as a mission president to Moscow, was called to be a primary teacher in his ward. He served in the primary with the same diligence he gave to his other callings. Every calling is important to the Lord and the welfare of Heavenly Father's children. We should seek to serve where ever it is needed and heed the call when it comes.

Maybe to change the tone of this fun <ahem!> little debate, I'd be curious as to what my fellow posters would think of allowing those General Authorities we do have from other countries to give their talks in their native language? The Saints in non-English-speaking countries so rarely get to hear the leaders' voices instead hearing the voices of the translators. I'd be willing to read some subtitles to give them that chance. Any thoughts?

Joe, remember, our leaders are called of God not what we won't. I do believe in time, when God, feels the time is right we will have more leaders out side of the US. A blessed day it will be to, but lets not second gauss God.