Selecting New Apostles

From the Salt Lake Tribune, a variety of reflections on the upcoming selection of two new apostles for the LDS Quorum of the Twelve. Many of those quoted in the article favor a pick that would advance ethnic or international or gender diversity. No one made the obvious prediction: a married white male from Utah with a law degree.

Here is a quick review of some illustrative recent selections. Joseph Fielding Smith selected his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, an attorney, probably the most influential apostolic selection of the 20th century. Spencer W. Kimball, facing two openings to fill, selected Dallin H. Oaks, a Utah Supreme Court Justice at the time, and Russell M. Nelson, his heart surgeon. Three BYU presidents have been selected: Dallin H. Oaks, Jeffrey R. Holland, and David A. Bednar. The most “diverse” recent selection was Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a native German who was an airline pilot. My personal favorite choice of the recent selections is D. Todd Christofferson. Apart from being a married white male from Utah with a law degree, he clerked for Judge John J. Sirica of Watergate fame, he ran the Church History Department before being called as an apostle, and he usually inserts some actual theological discussion into his Conference talks.

And here is some helpful commentary from President Hinckley on the process of selecting a new apostle.

As always, keep your comments civil and productive.

60 comments for “Selecting New Apostles

  1. We’re supposed to keep our comments civil after your “usually inserts some actual theological discussion into his Conference talks”?

    Physician, heal thyself.

  2. Mark B., that was intended to be a compliment. Most Conference talks are pretty basic: stories, advice for practical living, some quite general doctrinal discussion. Elder Christofferson brings in theological concepts which obviously reflect broader reading and reflection on his part. I wish other speakers made the same attempt.

  3. Re Mark B. (#1)

    I agree with Mark B.’s pithy comment: this post oozes condescension.

    Obviously, the new Apostles will be male, and almost certainly married, though I wouldn’t be shocked by a widower.

    Probability alone explains why a [shudder] white male is most likely to be called, particularly if you include Hispanic whites in this group. The over-representation of attorneys perhaps reflects current threats to the Church, though I’m reluctant to speculate.

    Personally, I’m holding out for Mitt Romney. (kidding)

  4. FYI. Joseph Fielding Smith selcted Boyd K. Packer to the Quorum of the Twelve. Harold B. Lee called Bruce R. McConkie.

  5. Thanks for the correction, Jim. Elder McConkie actually filled the vacancy created upon the death of Joseph Fielding Smith. He was called by Field Smith’s successor Harold B. Lee.

  6. The ease and frequency of travel makes this generation of First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve far more likely to be more intimately familiar with potential general leaders from more places in the world than was possible even 30 years ago. I mean, it’s always possible, for those of us who believe in revelation, that the Spirit could nudge President Monson to call that unknown shoemaker in the far corner of some refugee camp who has never had experience even as a branch president — but it seems more like, for those of us who believe in revelation and the outlying case of J. Reuben Clark, Jr., notwithstanding, that the Spirit would already have nudged Church leaders over the past generation to have already called the next apostles through a series of local and regional and area and even higher callings, where they have gained the perspective and experience needed to serve in the Quorum. The new apostles are likely to be already familiar to us by name, or at least very familiar to Church leaders.

    That, and the facts that they will be male, speak English (whether as first or second language), and be the right men for the positions, is all I can guess.

  7. David Bednar was a BYU-I, not a BYU, president–right? Unless we’re taking the Eastern Idaho approach, where when people say “BYU” they actually mean “BYU-I”…”

  8. Well I’m in east Idaho, and when people say byu they mean the one in Provo. I don’t know how many e. Idahoans you regularly talk to.

    I believe (hope) technology is what is making diversity in leadership possible. We’ve seen it trickle up on some general boards for women; I hope the pattern continues.

  9. Henry B. Eyring was another BYU-I (formerly Ricks College) president called to be an apostle. Kim B. Clark is a distinct possibility, though I’m wondering if, at age 66, he isn’t a bit past the age to be called as an apostle. (But then, I believe Elder Cook was around that age when he joined the Quorum, so who knows.)

  10. “this post oozes condescension.”

    Actually, pretty much every post by Dave lately oozes condescension. Civility for y’all, but not for him.

  11. I agree with Ardis’s reasoning (#7); the likelihood of someone being called to the Quorum of the Twelve from outside the ranks of the current general authorities is extraordinarily low…bordering on impossibility. Ray Flynn wrote a novel several years ago (THE ACCIDENTAL POPE), which told the story of a former Catholic priest with children (and an American, no less) who was chosen as pope. The analogue in the LDS context would be a random gospel doctrine teacher from Kenya with no experience in significant leadership callings being called as an apostle. I cannot see something like that happening in the contemporary LDS Church.

    What will be more intriguing is whether the next two apostles take after Elder Packer or President Uchtdorf in their publicly expressed rhetoric and sensibilities. Given the Obergefell decision, the consternation being expressed by and about “progressive” Mormons (a term I use for convenience rather than accuracy…too much baggage), the continuing internationalization of the Church, the on-going problems with retention, and the other challenges facing the Church, the selections could provide some insight into how the Church will deal with these issues going forward.

    L. Whitney Clayton, for example, would certainly have a different perspective on many of these issues than, say, Marlin K. Jensen. Of course, we could read too much into previous comments and conduct–just think of how disappointed Dwight Eisenhower was in Earl Warren once the latter was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court–but given the age and health of several of the current apostles, these two selections should be influential in key decisions immediately and for a long time to come, so their backgrounds will be interesting.

    Elder Bednar was, in fact, president at the college formerly known as Ricks.

  12. Kristine A–I’m also in east Idaho. Not Rexburg, though. Perhaps those actually in Rexburg know better.

  13. So we know that software chooses who makes the general authority short list. There are a few Vegas Odds predictions out there. Those all lean towards the presidency of the 1st quorum of 70. The folks with “inside information” have leaked that it will be 2 of these 3: James Hamula, Ronald Rasband, Whitney Clayton.

    here’s the bigger question: Who actually makes this decision? If Monson passes it on to someone else, who would that be, Oaks, Nelson, his first presidency?

  14. 34% of LDS membership speaks spanish as a first language. 0% of apostles do. 59% of LDS membership speaks another language than english as their first. Has anyone besides Uchtdorf been that way?

  15. Thanks for the comments, everyone.

    Commenters #1, #4, and #11, thank you for noticing my engaging but lighthearted style.

    I understand the distinction between BYU and BYU-I (and BYU-Hawaii for that matter), but given the calling of Elder Bednar as an apostle and the selection of rather high profile Kim B. Clark as the BYU-I president to succeed him, it seems clear LDS leaders view the presidency of any of the BYUs as a weighty position of roughly equivalent responsibility.

  16. And, no, Jonathan, nobody with “inside information” is going to leak it. And, Pres. Monson is not going to pass the calling of a new apostle on to someone else. Despite the sick speculation of that guy who was excommunicated–I’ve forgotten his name–Pres. Monson seems perfectly capable of handling that responsibility. See, for example, his sermon at Elder Packer’s funeral.

  17. It’s interesting that a number of American members “favor a pick that would advance ethnic or international diversity.” It’s kind of them to think in that direction.

    As far as I can assess (yes, subjective) it seems most members abroad accept the general American leadership as a natural extension of Church history filled with American figures. The veneration given to the prophet and the apostles reinforces this acceptance. It may well be that members abroad have more confidence in seasoned American leaders, usually of pioneer stock, with typical Anglo-Saxon names, who embody the traditional Mormon history and experience, rather than in someone with a non-English sounding name, from another continent or country, or even someone from their own ranks. Of course, we would need a survey to check this hypothesis.

  18. I’m glad the Lord cares more about diversity of the heart and soul over the external cultural and ethnic kind.

  19. I’m hoping one of them is Harry Reid. Just for the entertainment value of watching heads explode.

  20. I wouldn’t say a non-GA is bordering on impossible. Four of the current apostles (Monson, Oaks, Nelson, Bednar) were not general authorities when called.

  21. I don’t know why everyone is so critical of attorneys. Nothing wrong with them as far as I can see. ;)

  22. Seriously, though; if I understand the process correctly, the Quorum meets and the prophet takes suggestions or gives some of his own. I think President Monson will make the ultimate decision, but he will discuss it with the Quorum and they will be unanimous at some point. I think President Uchtdorf broke the ice and I believe that someone from South America will be chosen this time. Just a guess, though.

    I don’t think we have the same deal with “McKay men” and “Clark men” that we used to. I feel Elder Bednar in particular was influenced by Elder Packer as a young apostle, but I think the Apostles for some time have not gone with such a “strong hand” as in the past. I think the 70s, AAs, etc. have more autonomy as the Church has grown. There are now almost 1.5 million members for each of the 12. Just 30 years ago, it was 300,000.

  23. I think of David the Prophet- the musician and poet and long to see a musician like Craig Jessop or artist like James Christensen, or a humanities scholar called into the 12, but that isn’t going to happen.

    Why? I hypothesize that the church office building politics are pretty rough waters. Although there are smiles and prayers and “order”, I suspect that one has to be an extremely strategic navigator to affect any change within the “Quorum-of-the-first-preseidency-and-the-12” then pass through correlation and public relations (staying ‘on message’) with anything resembling the original intent intact. Musicians, artists and scholars (for the most part) lack that aggression- that personality type.

    Even Sister Okazaki and the unusually business savvy RS presidency of the time were run over by the proclamation and were un-sustained in their literacy initiative. Sorry to say, but one needs to be a shark to survive GA-filled waters. That type of street-smarts comes from A) growing up in those families where these type of survival skills are both taught and inherited B) Becoming a Harvard Business professor or climbing extremely high on your profession’s leadership ladder or C) having a lot of natural talent in this area AND being connected through Salt Lake families or friends.

    Unless you have the political smarts to keep alive, you will be chum or roadkill- probably both.

    I think there are many extremely spiritual LDS persons out there- people who have the type of testimony it takes to be a witness of Christ at that level, people who essentially have a direct-line to the almighty, but it’s merciful that they aren’t put in that position without the personality to succeed. They would be extremely hurt and we, their brothers and sisters in the peanut gallery would probably feel it more acutely.

    So, knowing what is needed out there at 50 E North Temple, they would be well served by Harry Reid!

  24. From a heads-exploding standpoint, I don’t think the Church could do better than to call *both* Reid *and* Romney.

    Unless, I suppose, they called Jay Bybee . . .

  25. Doesn’t HR require that the position be posted in the Deseret News before being filled? Now that the Church may be susceptible to claims of discrimination, I think it would be wise. They may also need to justify why qualified women weren’t brought in for an interview. This is exactly the kind of thing everyone had been worried about.

  26. For those who are speculating about the out-of-nowhere type pick for the Q12, I would add that in the last 50 years, every apostle called has had at minimum, 25 years of dedicated church service. Although some were not GAs, all have had a high level calling in the church beforehand, ie. AA, regional rep, mission president, BYU president, etc. I think that some recently moved up GAs have been given tryouts to see how they might work out at the highest levels. Bishop Causse and Elder Walter Gonzales may be two such.
    I also would not eliminate President Clark (or even Elder Jensen) because of age. There will be at least two new apostles called this year. It would not surprise me if one was well past his 50s, there is always the other one who will be younger, plus it looks likely that more apostles will be called soon due to the poor health of others.
    In the spirit of the Elder McConkie call, how about a wild guess of Elder Allan Packer or Brother Lee Perry.

  27. Ideally a Spanish background, and a black African, but more importantly progressive, not conservative, in their views, so they can explain to the others how it is in the outside world. If they come from these backgrounds but are conservatives, they will just obey, and conform, which will do little good except improve the look of diversity without changing anything.

    If we stay white, then Causse from the presiding bishopric, and Harry Ried (though he may already have an important job), but it would be good to have someone who is outspokenly pro gay marriage, to show conservatives that other opinions are valued, and acceptable.

    An equally important discussion is who should be the next Prophet. Should they stick with tradition, or ask the Lord? We need to have this discussion now, so that when the time comes the thought is there, that at least some of the members think having the oldest person is not the way the Lord wants it, and not the way to have a vibrant growing and progressing Church.

    MY vote Would be for Elder Uchtdorf if we could vote. Who knows what might be possible if we had someone strong enough, and open, to receiving revelation, and free of the conservative Utah culture that has constrained the church for so long.

  28. I think the real opportunity is an age-based choice. It’s tough to have a Q15 in which the dominant influencers are in their 80s and 90s. Age is also the one factor that can potentially ‘choose’ the future prophet of the Church which needs (IMHO) younger and more imaginative leadership.

  29. Sorry, Dave, but your “engaging but lighthearted style” was altogether too subtil for me.

  30. “An equally important discussion is who should be the next Prophet.”

    An equally important discussion for whom, exactly? Who should be discussing this, outside of the Apostles when President Monson passes? I certainly hope not anyone on this board, because that’s so far outside of our stewardship as to boggle the mind.

    “Should they stick with tradition, or ask the Lord?”

    Do they stick with tradition now? Or do they ask and find that it is the will of the Lord that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve should be the next prophet? This question seems to be assuming something untoward.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t post on this topic, because I always find any discussion on who “should” be called as an Apostle of the Lord to be spectacularly presumptuous on its face.

    While I’m not naive enough to discount some level of politicking at church HQ, I still have faith that the selection process of Apostles is guided by the Lord. Checking off diversity, ethnicity, and political views in a selection process is a great way to get a leadership that isn’t guided by the Lord and turns this church into something just like every other church on earth; an earthly institution that has the form of Godliness, but denies the power thereof.

  31. I won’t make any inappropriate suggestions, but I will say that I hope I get to keep hearing talks from Bishop Causse for a long time. Every time he gives a talk it is powerful and moving and inspires greater compassion.

  32. Dave, I think some of your feedback here is based on your addendums to links and such so people are predisposed to read a similar tone into all your contributions. I will say that I agree with your affection for Elder Christopherson’s talks.

  33. Thanks for the comments, everyone.

    JTown (#34), I just don’t agree with the “shut up and do what you’re told” approach to membership in the Church. That is a stereotype that is popular with the rank and file but it is a misconception and a misunderstanding. Even President Hinckley, in his statement linked in the OP, states: “The right to nominate rest with a superior officer or officers at whatever the level. But that nomination must be sustained. That is it must be accepted and confirmed by the membership of the Church …”

    On what basis do members of the Church accept and confirm those who are nominated? Not with an automatic “yes” or a blind faith vote, but with an informed vote. And “informed” means thinking. Reflecting. Discussing. So there is nothing wrong with talking about who the next apostle might be or should be or could be. Granted, current LDS leaders are a lot less interested in feedback from the rank and file than in earlier times, but we still have the right to think and discuss.

  34. I don’t think anyone ever suggested that church members could not engage in idle speculation. Just don’t forget that it’s idle.

  35. I’m holding out for Robert Kirby. We need another J. Golden. And what about Steve Young? He’s got the genes; he’s got the money; he’s got the name recognition. And he could nicely complement President Uchtdorf’s airplane analogies with a few football stories. Donny anyone? Donny and Marie? How about Orrin Hatch? It might be the only way to keep him from running again.

  36. Catholicism has been around 10 times as long as Mormonism, and is still dominated by Italians–albeit the last two Popes have been from outside Italy. . If there is a movement towards substantial racial and geographic diversity in the FP and 12 in my lifetime, I will be delightfully surprised.

  37. For those looking for diversity, there are 70s who are Asian, black, Hispanic who could be moved up. How about Larry Echo Hawk?

  38. Lew Scannon. One of the funniest things I’ve ever read was Robert Kirby’s column on his selection as the new prophet (if you can find it). Been there and done that as they say.

  39. That Dave takes JTown’s thoughtful comment in 34 and boils it down to “shut up and do what you’re told” shows a serious inability to understand anyone he disagrees with. It’s not lighthearted and engaging – it’s judgmental and condescending to create simplistic straw men out of faithful but thoughtful members.

  40. I am hoping for Elders Claudio Costa, Bruce D. Porter or Russell Osguthorpe, heck even Robert Millet would be fantastic. I think Rasband is BORING as heck. I would leave the Church (not really) if Callister (he’s connected and conceited-i’ve met him numerous times) became an Apostle or John Bytheway or the current popular flunkie Hank Smith. I would leave outright if Alex Boye became anything

  41. Is this the place for guesses, too? My guess is L. Whitney Clayton will be one of them. One thing you didn’t point out is that most recent apostles were serving in the Presidency of the Seventy at the time of their call—Brothers Neil Anderson, Todd Christofferson, Quentin Cook, and Dieter Uchtdorf all held that position when they were chosen. The only non-US-born member of the Presidency right now is Ulisses Soares, so that would be neat if he filled the second position, although with President Thomas’s two picks so far, he seems unlikely.

    Annon, about picking an artist, this doesn’t exactly qualify, but President David McKay chose Richard L. Evans, who was most famous as writer and announcer for Music and the Spoken word, back in 1953. I would definitely qualify him as a poet and actor, which seems in the same vein as what you were talking about. So picks like that definitely have happened. And even more interestingly, at the time of his call, Brother Richard was the youngest member of the quorum, so he could easily have been Church President if he hadn’t died young.

    And, while Brother Bruce McConkie is best known as a theologian, his call came right after he shared a poem he composed in the previous Conference, so you could say it was his gift for poetry that qualified him in President Harold Lee’s eyes, or God’s, and at least have a foundation to stand on. After his call, reading his self-composed poems is definitely when I felt most touched by his call as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

  42. J Town 34, How many of the last 14 Prophets has been the President of the Quorum of the 12? Has it ever been anyone else? Is it only tradition that the President of the Q12 be Prophet? Have some of them been very elderly and infirm? Have some had strokes or otherwise been rendered incapable? Have they remained in the position in spite of being incapable of doing the job? Why tradition?

    If when pres. Monson dies the 14 meet and automatically choose the President of Q12, we will have Prophets over 90 for the foreseeable future. 33% of men at 90 have dementia. Does the Lord kill off those he doesn’t want as Prophet? Is that how the lord is involved in the decision?

    Is it the concern of members, yes if they are concerned with the future of the Church, and whether it achieves it’s potential? The active membership is not exactly filling the whole earth as we used to expect. Could it with more dynamic, and capable leadership? Could it do worse?

    I know the obedient answer is to be unquestioning, and sustain who we’re told. I think sustaining also includes giving advice, and helping them to recognise what is apparent to others, even if not themselves or other obedient members.

    Can you see that the church would be a different place if Pres. Uchrdorf, were Prophet as opposed to Pres Oaks? Which would the Lord like, and do we have to have 10 years of Pres Oaks in order to get a 90 year old Pres Uchtdorf?

    I am concerned about the Leadership of the church because I can’t see it achieving it’s potential until we have a Prophet who is open to and energetic enough to actually receive revelation and really lead the church to be a light unto the world and all those other phrases.

  43. Dave,

    Shut up and do as you’re told? I don’t recall saying that at all. Perhaps my comment was not sufficiently clear. I understand speculation as to who might be called as an Apostle. It’s a natural thing (though I’m not sold on how beneficial it is), and I said nothing about it. What I take exception to is speaking of who “should” be an Apostle or prophet. Because we cannot see or judge someone’s heart, their righteousness, their relationship to the Savior, or a ton of other things that are important when someone is called to be an Apostle of the Lord. Because that is their calling. Not an Apostle of the people or of the church. An Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. I just personally cannot understand applying man’s logic, political views, or philosophy to that decision. It seems like a HUGE trap for the membership, both individually and collectively. It seems the kind of thinking that would lead us to believe, as many did of Joseph Smith, that we know better than the prophet does. That he is not inspired of God, that he is a fallen prophet if he was ever a prophet at all. That is a short, swift road to apostasy. Many seem to be traveling that road these days and that is a large concern to me.


    I never said anything about being unquestioning (though asking questions for the purpose of gaining understanding and criticizing because we disagree are not the same thing) and I see a ton of assumptions in your comments. Can members be concerned about the future of the church? Of course. We should be. We should ponder and pray and give thoughtful, prayerful input where warranted (and I do so in my Ward Council all the time; they’re probably sick of it, to be honest). I simply disagree that we know enough to suggest who the next Apostle or prophet should be. I understand that many disagree with me.

    “until we have a Prophet who is open to and energetic enough to actually receive revelation and really lead the church”

    I wholeheartedly reject your assertion here, because I believe we have had and do have prophets who are open and energetic, who receive revelation, and who lead the church in the way the Lord wants. Not necessarily the way every individual might prefer. There are things I don’t understand and things I might personally do differently, of course. And I’m grateful every day that I am not the one making the decision. Because what seems like a good idea to me, or even most people, may not be the mind of the Lord on the topic. And it’s His church.

    I don’t think “voting” a person of a certain race or nationality into a position of leadership will make them more likely to listen to the Lord’s will. In fact, I believe such a belief indicates a more “corporate” viewpoint (i.e. with the right CEO, dynamic and insightful, the company will prosper) rather than a “spiritual” viewpoint (i.e. Enoch, Moses, David, Joseph Smith would not have been anyone’s choices to be called by the Lord to do much of anything, based on information available.) I don’t believe that the corporate viewpoint will work for the Lord’s church.

  44. Thanks for the comments, everyone.

    JTown (#48), that makes a little more sense. But when you say, as in your earlier comment, in reference to the next President of the Church as well as the new apostles — “Who should be discussing this, outside of the Apostles when President Monson passes? I certainly hope not anyone on this board, because that’s so far outside of our stewardship as to boggle the mind.” — well, it certainly sounds like you are reproving us for talking about the upcoming selection of new apostles (while, at the same time, participating in the conversation). Your later comment — “I understand speculation as to who might be called as an Apostle.” — seems to clarify things.

  45. J Town:

    I would encourage you to lighten up a bit. That’s quite the negative view on life, to think that having a fun discussion about future church leaders somehow ultimately leads to a prideful personal apostasy.

    The reality is that, there are always more eligible candidates than open positions. So to discuss a list of people you think would do well and have been adequately prepped for the call with your fellow Saints is hardly harmful. To wit, in October 2004, in my last year at BYU, I remember discussing openings in the 12 at that time with several classmates. Many knew of a David Bednar, President of BYU-I (they were transfer students) and they all speculated he would be a good candidate. Having not attended BYU-I, I didn’t know much about him. Yet he got the call. It was neat to think several of my classmates had experiences with a new Apostle, had felt his potential capacity for this call, etc. Here I am, 11 years later, still yet to apostatize from the church. Just my own personal experience.

  46. Chadwick,

    That would be a negative, and false, view on life indeed. Good thing that isn’t what I said.

    Dave seemed to understand my clarification, so I’m not sure why you do not. I will reiterate again that speculation as to who “might” get called is one thing. Asserting who “should” be called is very different.

    I’m not sure what you think your personal experience means in relation to my comments, as I certainly never claimed that anyone who speculated on who might be called to the apostleship would apostatize.

    Am I light enough now, or should I lose a few more pounds tilting at straw men? :-P

  47. “For those looking for diversity, there are 70s who are Asian, black, Hispanic who could be moved up. How about Larry Echo Hawk.”

    He was my Stake President at BYU for a while. I remember hearing him speak in Stake Conference in the Provo tabernacle. Very fascinating life journey of spiritual and political experiences, very kind humble guy.

  48. I have been hoping for years to see someone of Hispanic or Brazilian background to be called. The Lord knows who he needs and who would be best for the Church, but there are millions of members who speak Spanish or Portuguese who would feel wonderfully represented by having one of their own in that quorum.

  49. From a heads-exploding standpoint, I don’t think the Church could do better than to call *both* Reid *and* Romney.

    Unless, I suppose, they called Jay Bybee . . .

    Who tailors your jib, friend? I like its cut.

  50. Eh, Jay Bybee would only be heads-exploding to those who don’t share his politics. Unfortunately, not a lot of Mormons in that camp. Lots of heads exploding in the bloggernacle, not many elsewhere. My vote is for the Democrat Duo, Harry Reid and Larry Echohawk.

  51. My hope is either too high or too low, depending on your point of view: please, please NOT a son, son-in-law, or nephew of a current or past apostle. If we must have a white male American lawyer, please at least choose one from new blood. One who didn’t get the special seats in the Marriott Center when he was at BYU and who honestly knows what it’s like to be just a regular member of the church.

  52. I don’t know how likely more Europeans would be, but I’d like Bishop Causse (French) and Massimo DeFeo (Italian). I’ve experienced both speaking in my stake conferences during their service as area authority 70s.

  53. I most studiously ignored Peggy’s oh-so-politically-correct suggestions, but was interested in Robert Kirby’s so much more entertaining but slightly fatuous sales pitch advocating for his own appointment to the quorum.

  54. “married” and “male” are already requirements for apostleship candidacy, so those shouldn’t be surprises.

  55. I really like Bishop Causse, but I think it would be great to have Claudio Costa and Joseph Sitati on the quorum for a better worldview.

Comments are closed.