Update: The new apostle is Elder D. Todd Christofferson, who previously served as one of the Presidents of the Seventy. See this biographical sketch for his personal and professional background; another one here. The "D" is for David. Professionally, he worked as an attorney. That's two attorneys in a row called into the Quorum of the Twelve.
Some of his talks and articles:
- "A Sense of the Sacred" (CES fireside, 2004)
- "Let Us Be Men" (Conference, 2006)
- "When Thou Art Converted" (Conference, 2006)
- "Justification and Sanctification" (Ensign, 2001)
- "Becoming a Witness of Christ" (Ensign, 2008)
[Original post] Life's been so busy, I almost forgot that we get a new apostle tomorrow. The SL Trib has an article exploring the possibilities: "Tough to predict who Monson will name as new apostle." Pretty safe headline, that. I'm putting my money on pulling for Elder Jensen, the guy who put the history back in "Church Historian," but I'm sure there are Bloggernaclites (and Bloggernaclettes) rooting for an Arabic-speaking South American female. Maybe next time. I'll update the post title when the announcement is made tomorrow morning.
I'll be looking for someone who has never served as a General Authority.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 04, 2008 at 08:15 PM
I predict some guy from the Seventy that no one's ever heard of. Except Justin, of course, because he's heard of all of them.
Posted by: Eric Russell | Apr 04, 2008 at 09:29 PM
I predict Bruce Hafen.
Posted by: se7en | Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50 PM
In order of personal preference.
Elder Jay Jensen... fantastic editor of the Ensign
Elder Claudo Costa
Elder Neal Anderson
Elder Walter Gonzales
Posted by: Mahonri | Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Hafen I could see. But I'm just not up on the pool from which they could draw. Here's hoping it's a scientist... (grin)
Posted by: Clark Goble | Apr 04, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Personally, I'd love to see Marlin Jensen or Bruce Hafen (the latter I met several times as an undergrad at BYU) -- but the affirmative action side of me would really like to see someone with Latin America roots.
And, of course, I'd really like to see Elder John Harris, formerly of one of the 'Area Authority Seventy' quorums of the Seventy (I think the 3rd quorum; he was released a year or two ago). In spite of his name (his father was English), he's actually a native Argentinian, and his wife Nadia is also from Latin America (I think Mexico).
Why Elder Harris? Well, you see, his son Michael happens to be married to our daughter Heather... :-) ..bruce..
Posted by: bfwebster | Apr 04, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I just commented to my wife the other day that I hadn't seen any "prediction" posts up yet. I was worried the world was changing on me ;-)
No predictions from me, but I'm sure we'll be presently surprised by the selection.
Posted by: Graham Wing | Apr 05, 2008 at 05:30 AM
I was talking to some LDS guys in my ward and asked the same question. I'd just come from a political conversation.
One guy says immediately "Condi."
I blinked. "Pardon?"
"Yeah, Spencer J. Condie."
"Ah. When I hear 'Condi' I generally think of, um, someone else. I don't think we're progressive enough to install a black female non-LDS politician as an Apostle of the Lord. Not quite yet."
;)
Posted by: NItsav | Apr 05, 2008 at 08:30 AM
Won't be Elder Mikkleson, because he's giving the opening prayer!
Posted by: Keryn | Apr 05, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Who's Todd Christofferson?
Posted by: Justin | Apr 05, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Here's from the biographical sketch I linked to in the update:
He earned a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University and a law degree from Duke University and then began working in his field. The family lived in the Washington, D.C. area; Nashville, Tennessee; Herndon, Virginia; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Elder Christofferson served as a regional representative, stake president, bishop, and stake mission president.
***
On August 15 1998, Elder Christofferson was called into the Presidency of the Seventy. He was sustained to his new calling October 3, 1998 and continues to serve at this writing.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 05, 2008 at 10:38 AM
That was a bit of a joke (playing off Eric Russell's comment).
Posted by: Justin | Apr 05, 2008 at 10:40 AM
at least he's a lawyer...
Posted by: hayes | Apr 05, 2008 at 10:45 AM
D. Todd dissolved my stake! He has great hair.
Posted by: Ann | Apr 05, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I wonder what the world thinks of a Church run by white lawyers and business men in dark suits?
Oh yea...
Posted by: imperfection | Apr 05, 2008 at 01:34 PM
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is run by Jesus Christ - seek not to steady the ark, ye of little faith !! The world contemptuous of white lawyers and businessment in dark suits is also contemptuous of Mormons who believe in the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the Restoration of the Gospel, and in a living prophet - so what? The Restoration of the gospel goes forth nonetheless, and the only path to safety and eternal life is to cling fast to the Iron Rod. Never mind the mockers in the Great and Spacious building !!
Posted by: Chuck Boyd | Apr 05, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Should we find it resassuring or not that Jesus seems to have a so much favorable opinion for lawyers than he used to?
Posted by: NorthboundZax | Apr 05, 2008 at 04:51 PM
I wonder what [imperfection] is implying. Is she saying that a persons skin color and what they wear are criteria for making knee jerk jugdments? That sure dosen't sound progressive to me. I fully sustain Elder Christofferson and do it without adding any qualifying snide remarks.
Posted by: Tubby Jr | Apr 06, 2008 at 09:09 AM
White, old, Utahan, rich ... but I'm not complaining because at least he is not related to the hierarchy. (although his wife does have some familial relations, although distant)
Posted by: tiredmormon | Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13 PM
I am sure he is a great man. I was just hoping for someone that added a little texture to the quorum. Pres. Uchtdorf brings so much because of his European background and experience; he just has a different and interesting perspective. And, although I understand the realities, why does it seem you have to be rich to be in the hierarchy? And don't get me started on nepotism (though this complaint is not applicable to Elder Christofferson).
Posted by: Martin Willey | Apr 09, 2008 at 04:03 PM
"why does it seem you have to be rich to be in the hierarchy?"
I have a theory ... and I know you want to hear it! Most of these guys are professionals. Getting rich as a professional means you are a workaholic. I have met alot of 70's and a few of the 12. These guys were workaholics in the business/professional world and after retirement they put the same energy into the church.
Posted by: tiredmormon | Apr 10, 2008 at 08:43 AM
"why does it seem you have to be rich to be in the hierarchy?"
So that they can quit their job and start working full time as an apostle without ruining themselves financially I would suppose.
As a general matter, the Church doesn't like to call people to stressful and demanding leadership positions when it feels like the calling would ruin the person's life. I've heard of guys being taken out of consideration for bishop or stake president because it was known that the person's wife was incapacitated on the reasoning that it would stress the family too much.
Posted by: Seth R. | Apr 10, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Seth R.: Like I said, I understand the realtities. The positions at issue are demanding and time consuming, and we need someone that has the time and resources to dedicate. I am just concerned that a message intentionally or unintentionally conveyed (or maybe just received) is that worldy success is the equivalent of, or a precursor to, righteousness. If all our "spiritual role models" are highly educated, affluent white men, what does that say to the many, many members of the Church (not ot mention those outside the Church) who do not fit that profile.
tiredmormon: I think that is a good theory, as far as it goes. I am sure being a demonstrated "hard worker" is a a desireable quality in Church service. I think there are a lot of hard workers or workaholics, however, in other walks of life. Couldn't the Church benefit from their experience and service?
Posted by: Martin Willey | Apr 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Seth,
You don't need to assume I was being negative. I wasn't!
Posted by: tiredmormon | Apr 15, 2008 at 08:41 AM
This here's America.
Whenever someone says "why does it seem you have to be rich to be in the hierarchy" it tends to be seen as a negative. That's not an unreasonable read on a statement like that.
Besides, I was just answering the question. Where did I ever say you were being negative (aside from just-now)?
Posted by: Seth R. | Apr 16, 2008 at 08:08 AM
Jesus was 30 when he began His ministry and 33 when he saved the world ,,, so why do we look for old men to lead us ?
Posted by: Yochannon | Apr 28, 2008 at 08:54 AM