Vegas Odds on Who Will Replace L Tom Perry?

[idahommie]

What I see at the stake level down is it will have to be from the better educated, high income earning, return missionary, sealed in temple, 4+ kids and an already busy life........

[shadow]

What I see at the stake level down is it will have to be from the better educated, high income earning, return missionary, sealed in temple, 4+ kids and an already busy life........

I don't know about the 4 kids, but it would certainly need to be someone capable. Capable people are typically educated, successful in whatever they do, busy etc. and yes, they'd need to be sealed in the Temple, but not necessarily an RM.

[Squally]

Clayton, no.

Rasband, yes.

Also, James J. Hamula.

did you write this?

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 ClaytonClayton'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??

[ebenezerarise]

This thread makes me sick.