Wednesday, August 18, 2004

titles are the hardest part

I'm pushing the limits of our friendship, but this is stolen from an e-conversation Jason and I had recently. I didn't ask him if I could do this, but I figured since he's now on his way back to his 2nd year at law school, he'll be busy enough not to notice.

Here it is:

This thought came to first as the instinctual question at the death of an Apostle: Who will take his place in the Quorum? Rather than elencate my favorite Seventies (based, like most people, entirely on their occasional General Conference addresses or rarely a little personal knowledge about their career or interests), I wanted to pose the question, why does this instinct arise in me, if not in many Latter-day Saints? Is it appropriate religiously--if I guess right, am I more in tune than somebody who guesses a Seventy that will be made emeritus next Conference, or a naive boy who avers it will be a certain very old and fragile if once lively and prolific liberal BYU professor? Does it promote the clear (or what is the) doctrinal view of how we as members should approach church leadership and church leaders? Not least of all these concerns, is it a disrespect to the man that gave up the years of his retirement and family reunions for the membership to whisper about who they think is next? Or is this too PC--should I not let the guessing game get to me? [there's an alliteration in memoriam].

(Many apologies, Jason, but I thought you raise some good issues.)


At 8/19/2004 09:33:00 PM,

I will never forgive you.

But I agree that I raise some interesting questions (without being clever enough to resolve them).

At 8/22/2004 11:03:00 PM,

Returning from the despondent mire of blogger inactivity, I come at last, hopefully back for a good long while now before my next AWOL stint. I figured I'd weigh in on the most recent post; the selection of the next apostle seems as good a subject as any on which to toss in my two cents.
As with all things, the issue is one of balance. Harmless speculation on who the next apostle might be is, at best, probably a waste of time. Not to say that wasting time isn't harmful in itself, but I don't think it needs go beyond that. It only gets truly harmful if we seek to employ our burgeoning prophetic sensibilities "beyond the mark," so to speak, from that point for which the Lord has given them to us (this comment applies most specifically to a certain member of this blog group that shall remain nameless in whom the gift of prophecy is stronger than the average bear and who could, if he chose, focus his clairvoyant rays in direcitons that would ultimately prove to be of no use to himself or to anyone else).
To recap, I think harmless, conversational speculation on who the next apostles will be is fine; concerted thought and attention to something outside our stewardship is here, as in most other cases, probably foolish.




<< Home