A friend of mine posted the below on a Facebook group we are both on, and gave me permission to post here.
Going into general conference weekend after the death of a president of the church, we can expect a new first presidency and a new apostle. I’ll begin with the first presidency. The seniority scheme now stands as Oaks, Holland, Eyring, Uchtdorf, Bednar. After the last change in first presidency, only the second time in modern history in which a living counselor was not retained in a new presidency, there was much speculation about why Uchdorf would have been “demoted”. I think that decision could just as easily have been interpreted as Nelson wishing to have an ally that thought similarly to him in the presidency, and I think there’s also a case for having the heir apparent in the first presidency to ease transitions. Under that logic, there’s a case for bringing Holland into the presidency as he’s now next in line. However, both Holland and Eyring seem to be in frail health, and there’s a case, particularly in this era of very old first presidencies, for having someone a bit younger in the presidency. For this reason, I predict Bednar is brought in as second counselor. The question is whether to keep Eyring or replace him with either Holland or Uchtdorf. I predict Eyring stays. New first presidency: Oaks, Eyring, Bednar. I think Uchtdorf will yet serve in a first presidency again, but not this time.
There’s now a pretty well established pattern of calling new apostles out of the presiding bishopric and presidency of the Seventy. The only major outlier from this pattern in this century is Bednar, who had been serving as president of BYUI. Theyt don’t do random stake presidents anymore because I suspect some look back on the choice of Benson, who became a bit of a loose cannon while serving as an apostle, as a risk they don’t want to take anymore. They want to stick with the existing pool of GAs. We’re at a particularly interesting moment because most of the current presidency of the Seventy have only been there for less than 2 years. My guess is that the newly called ones are fairly unlikely. So that basically leaves 3 leading options:
- Gerald Causse, 62 years old, presiding bishop for 10 years
- Carl Cook, 67 years old, GA for 14 years, presidency of Seventy for 7 years, senior president of Seventy
- Mark Palmer, 69 years old, GA for 9 years, presidency of Seventy for 4 years
All 3 of them have given multiple previous general conference talks, but Causse is the only one that I actually remember, and he’s given by far the most talks. I’m putting my money on Causse. Last time around I believed Causse and Kearon were the leading candidates, and Kearon was chosen. At this point Causse is just much more of a known quantity both to the church and likely to the Q15 than the others. And I like him. He’s given the only talk I’m aware of ever to discuss environmental responsibility as a spiritual responsibility.
If we wanted to look at outsider wild card picks, there’s Edward Dube, also a current member of the presidency of Seventy. I think Nelson was more invested in the idea of calling the first Black apostle and first African apostle than Oaks might be. Dube is still a bit of an unknown quantity to the church, having only spoken twice in general conference in his 12 years of service as a general authority. The question is whether he’s considered an unknown quantity to Oaks, and whether Oaks is interested in going with an outsider pick. My prediction is that it doesn’t happen this time, but could eventually.
My prediction: Causse is called to the 12 and one of the counselors to the presiding bishop becomes the new bishop.
It’s a common pastime in this situation for progressive Mormons to worry about their least favorite Seventy, usually someone who recently gave a problematic talk, becoming an apostle. I’m convinced the system of vetting junior Seventies and gradually elevating them to higher responsibilities prior to calling as an apostle is sufficiently well established now, under at least 3 different church presidents, that it would be very unlikely for Oaks to choose to depart from that. Don’t worry too much until your least favorite GA is elevated to the presidency of the Seventy.
What do you think for next Apostle?
What are your guesses for the member of the FP? Does Oaks release Henry Eyring because of this health? Is Holland installed because he is the next in line, and needs to learn the ropes (despite his health?) Is it now the time for Bednar to take his rightful (to him) position in the leadership? Is Uchtdorf a long shot to be put back in, despite he being more senior than Bednar? Would a Bednar selection be another slap in Uchtdorf’s face?
Wheat & Tares 
Causse is essentially the CFO of the church. He spoke at my stake conference a few years ago and I really liked him at the time. His talk was light, fluffy, and feel-good. Didn’t take himself too seriously. Plus he’s European which is a positive for me.
My problem with Causse is that as a member of the presiding bishopric he signed off on the tithing investment / shell company scheme and maybe even ran some of the operations. I realize he might have been taking orders from higher ups, but it makes me not trust him. The “someone told me to do it” no longer flies…
I think Cook could go to the first presidency as a fellow attorney and someone not afraid to be the enforcer or bouncer.
Maybe Oaks isn’t the sentimental type but if he is he might choose Holland for no other reason than awarding him a kind of lifetime achievement award.
Both of them have been the president of BYU. Both really came into their own in the 80s. If he’s sentimental at all Holland is in even though he’s weak and not in great health.
I have heard—and I could be wrong, my sources are third-hand —that President Oaks’ health isn’t the best—physically but also cognitively. At 93, that is no wonder. And yes, Elder Eyring’s health is failing. I’d be shocked if it were Holland. His health is also too frail. And I never got the sense that Oaks and Holland were particularly compatible. Bednar, as the youngest of the senior crew makes sense, and he and Oaks are more ideologically compatible.
But I’m going out on a limb: oaks, eyring, Uchtdorf with Bednar as a third counselor. Causse is plausible, but not enough people are talking about Peter Johnson. I’ve heard Oaks quietly detested the priesthood ban. If he knows his time and bandwidth are limited, Dube or Johnson would be his best shot at a maximally impactful legacy. I don’t think elevating the Proclamation or walking us even further into the homophobic wilderness is in the cards. Hope I’m right.
Holland is about to die. Literally. He has no kidney function and has a portable dialysis machine with him everywhere he goes. Putting him in the FP would be ridiculous.
That doesn’t mean it won’t happen – the Josh H lifetime achievement award theory has some merit to it – but he’s not being trained for anything. The logical choice would be to get the Monson FP back together and bring back Uchtdorf, as he is very likely the next prophet, assuming Oaks sticks around longer than Holland and Eyring, who is also wheelchair bound. But Uchtdorf and Oaks don’t seem particularly compatible. If its Bednar, that will be really obnoxious.
It would be nice if the new FP were announced before Conference, but with the funeral for Pres. Nelson on Tuesday of next week, that seems unlikely.
FP: Pres. Oaks
1st Counselor: Elder Bednar, the Chosen One
2nd Counselor: Elder Gong, the smartest guy in the room and a Chinese-American.
New apostle: Mitt Romney. Remember that fifty years ago, Pres. Kimball went outside the stable of Seventies to choose two new apostles, Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks. I’m thinking Pres. Oaks might do the same with his first new apostle appointment.
Causse is a protégé of Neil Andersen via the now defunct France Bordeaux mission.
Oaks
Eyring
Bednar
New Apostle: Kevin W. Pearson. His rhetoric matches Oaks and Bednar and he proved his chops being on the Strengthening Church Members Committee and mirroring Bednar with his, don’t pray about serving a mission. The answer is yes.
At 78, Mitt Romney would be the oldest new apostle since George Q Morris was called in 1954 at age 80. No one over 70 has been called to be an apostle since Hugh B Brown (74) in 1958. Haight (69 in 1976), Wirthlin (69 in 1986) and Cook (67 in 2007) are the next oldest.
Of the 14 current apostles, their average age at time of call is 60.4 years. Oaks (51), Bednar (52) and Holland (53) were the notably young ones. Cook (67), Rasband (64) and Gong (64) were the three oldest. The other 8 were between 57 and 63. There hasn’t been an apostle in his 40s since Monson’s birthday in 1977.
We must not forget the prophecy about three general authorities dying close together, and how the replacements will not be able to hold the church together..
https://www.reliefmine.com/three-mormon-leaders-die-close-together/
I saw a post that said Peter Johnson posted on Facebook that he’s speaking Sunday morning at 10 am, which seems unusual to announce in advance, so I’m hoping for him over Pearson. I think they held the tribute service/broadcast yesterday so they could go ahead with a new 1st Presidency before the funeral. Like the Bednar/Gong ideas. Will be an interesting weekend!
Cook as new counselor. Causse as new Apostle.
Bednar in the 1P and Causse as new apostle both seem like the obvious choices. I’d love to be surprised by something, though, like a deliberate pick who will disagree and provide some needed alternate questions and thinking.
Hmmm. They went with a non-US apostle last time, so maybe that increases Peter Johnson’s chances this time around. they can have diversity, but still have a US, worked at BYU background.
I’m not seeing they have any greater linguistic advantages moving Elder Dube from presidency of 70 to the 12. Does it make any difference to assignments he might get? Elders Holland and Eyring don’t look like they’re going to be hanging on very long anyway, so Bishop Caussé and Elder Dube could still get a chance fairly soon.
And in breaking news, the new Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman, Dame Sarah Mullally. Also, according to the same news release, the Archbishop of Canterbury is required by law to retire at age 70. She’s 63, so will have 7 years.
Finally Kevin Pearson is the new Europe North Area president since August.. so unlikely candidate for apostle I think.
what did we do…? his bio says he served a mission in Finland so… along with Marcos Aidukaitis as a counsellor, presumably for his Portuguese. Yep Portugal is in the Europe North Area, but not the more northerly France, Spain, Germany… (scratches head). Alan Phillips (British) is the other counsellor.
Peter Johnson has got charisma for days… and that matters when the Church is (should be?) connecting with younger members. His life story and journey toward conversion will resonate with many. Speaking of resonating – as the Church grows in Africa, there is a huge upside for these new members to see a black Apostle.
A small part of me still hopes that we’ll buck the (NON SCRIPTURAL) tradition of elevating the next senior Apostle into the role of Prophet. If they announced on Sunday morning that the senior leadership that selected Dieter Uchtdorf or Gerrit Gong to be the next prophet… mind blown! It’s been done this way because this is how Brigham bullied his way into being prophet, and thus it continues til today. But there’s nothing to prevent them from throwing us a curve ball.
Does it really matter who the next person will be? They will either do the same thing or will not be able to express how they feel. In addition the local press will start their announcement with “historic” choice even if it’s another white guy who may not be from Utah.
A better question to ask rather than who the next apostle/president/FP will be is why do any of you even care?
Based on the comments/sentiment expressed on this blog the vast majority of you have little to no genuine belief in the church or doctrines it exposes. This is evident in your framing that President Oaks will choose an apostle based on politics/optics/geography etc other than, you know, revelation from God. How many of you smugly rolled you eyes as you read that last sentence, “Oh you naive TBM, you still haven’t realized the Church is run by men, not God?”
I personally hope Ahmad Corbitt is the new Apostle, just to cause all you self-hating white liberals to point and sputter as a black convert to the Church who loves Brigham Young and the dosen’t see himself as a victim or the Church as racist is now a Special Witness of Christ.
But seriously why do any of you care? If you disagree with the Church on so many issues just join the (steadily declining) Community of Christ. Or one of the (also steadily declining) liberal protestant churches out there. You know, the ones with pride flags on the outside and zero young people on the inside. Or just become a nice fuzzy agnostic or “spiritual but not religious”. That way the utterly horrible prospect that Dallin H. Oaks being a prophet of God need not concern you at all!
You only have one life to live after all
A Disciple: You were right about the eye roll, but wrong about WHERE in your statement it happened. It was actually here: “all you self-hating white liberals” Mm ‘kay, bud. If you really believe that, I guess godspeed, bro. And yes, I will personally state that I *mostly* do not care and/or see that I have any dog in this fight, and even when I was as “all in” as I was as a missionary, it was utterly out of my control, and yours, and everyone’s. It’s still fun to discuss things with other people, to speculate in an area we all have a lot of information, etc.
I personally remember when Benson took the reins, and my parents told me that many of the adults at church were up in arms because he was widely seen as an extremist, a conspiracy theorist, a far-right wing politician with a clear agenda. I know many have said “See, he wasn’t bad at all! He just focused on reading the Book of Mormon and reclaiming the nickname Mormon as a badge of honor!” Those things are true, but he also guilt-tripped the young women of church into staying home, even if they wanted to have a career, and boy is there a crap ton of fallout from that. You might not be hearing it (knowing you from the comments here, I would bet you are mostly oblivious to it), but I’ve heard it my entire adult life from women who regret putting his regressive advice over their own conscience and needs. Many lives were ruined by that advice, but they were women’s lives, so mostly invisible to the church.
Disciple asks, why care if you disgree with things the church does or says? It’s a fair question. You’re not wrong that I’d probably enjoy the Community of Christ, but I choose to keep participating in the LDS church, for various reasons that would take too long to go into here. “Why I care” in this instance is that because I’m staying, and because I want the church to become the sort of place my kids might want to continue participating in as adults, it still matters to me who is in charge now and down the road. It matters because I don’t believe there is any such thing as divine inspiration that isn’t partly influenced by the humans who seek it, so the direction of the church is influenced by the humans who lead it. I do think that any individual choice of apostle mostly doesn’t have a substantial long-term effect on the church because they all probably agree on 90% of things by the time someone is elevated to that level. But I also think that sometimes there are outliers that matter. I’m interested in whether the next apostle is an outlier in a good or bad direction. I consider Benson to have been an outlier pick who was a net negative for the church. Likewise Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, and to a lesser degree Mark Peterson and Delbert Stapley, all of whom are now well documented to have stood in the way of progress. I think it’s possible that Kearon and possibly 1-2 other current apostles could prove to be an outlier in a positive direction, but it will take a long time to know. Most of the likely candidates seem fairly neutral to me. Some of the candidates some other commenters here are concerned about worry me as well for the possibility of them proving to be a negative outlier. Fortunately, I don’t think any of them are likely this time around.
Disciple: A lot of faithful members that I know would happily acknowledge their belief that there is a healthy amount of human agency in the process of making church callings by revelation and that people that they sustain in those callings make terrible decisions at times or hold repugnant beliefs. The church is theirs as much as yours and they have a stake in the decisions it makes.
To A Disciple’s point, I didn’t comment on this thread because I 99% do not care. They can call whoever they want. Won’t affect me directly, though it will affect me indirectly. I still have loved ones who are active members. It impacts them. And I care about them. So I guess I care a little. I want their faith tradition to be the best it can for their sake. Sue me.
Also to A Disciple’s point. As a liberal, I stand for things. I stand for due process for all. I stand for everyone to have access to healthcare. I stand for the marginalized. And more. A Disciple’s only wish for the next Q12 pick is not that it’s someone who will support things he stands for. His only reason to care is that the next person chosen harms people he hates. Talk about self loathing.
As the kids say, touch grass.
Why not Benson Boone?
I just want to clarify that the “Disciple” who posted above is different than me. I did not write that comment and do not agree with it.
If President Nelson had to replace someone himself, (if someone besides him had passed) he would have put in his son-in-law Ringwood, who had been in charge of key committees- kind of super correlation guy (including many of the changes like the new hymnal, etc. ) But, the hook of nepotism isn’t as strong as alliances.
Will the real Disciple please stand up?
I didn’t watch conference (I won’t take that emotional risk), but after listening to Radio Free Mormon’s summaries, reading all the ALSSI comments, and reading Dave B’s concise summaries I am filled with hope for the church.
Disciple, I care because I was raised Mormon and you can’t take the Mormon out of the girl even if I no longer can think in a conventional Mormon way. I care deeply about the church and its future even though that future no longer includes my children.
Speaking hopefully, I remember Oaks causing a huge backlash at BYU when he said Black Lives Matter at a BYU devotional. The black LDS thought leaders like Sistahs in Zion put their money on Peter Jackson for the new apostle and after reading what has been said about his talk I am with them.
While Oaks wants to support more births in the church (like they will listen if you keep saying it🤷) he knows the youth of the church are pro LGBTQ and he can’t change that. I don’t think he will canonize the Proc. I am dreaming that he calls Uchtdorf and Gong to the first presidency.
Rather Eyring stays in or out is irrelevant. Oaks will do whatever Eyring wants, but it changes nothing.
From what I hear Oaks is plenty tired. I hope this tempers his actions.
Now that the FP is in place and have had a full 2+ weeks to consider it, I think an announcement should be coming today or next Friday about the new apostle.
As for who that apostle will be, I think 3 criteria need to be considered:
1. Age (16 of the last 22 apostles were between 57-64 years old and the average is right around 60 years old)
2. Tenure as a General Authority (6.5 years is the minimum (Renlund) of the last 18 apostles, but most had at least 8 years and the average is about 12 years)
3. Leadership experience (18 of the last 19 apostles called were either a) in the Presidency of the 70, b) in the Presiding Bishopric, or c) a President of a BYU institution).
Based on these criteria, I think the most likely candidates are:
1. Gerald Causse (current PB)
2. Carlos Godoy (former member of P70)
3. Peter Johnson
4. Clark Gilbert (former president of BYU-I and BYU-PW)
5. Edward Dube (current member of P70)