'Favorites' revisited...

Things to Act has a good comment on the issue of 'favorites' among General Authorties.

Since I was one of those who made the offhand comment about favorite apostles in my note about Elder Maxwell, perhaps I should elaborate a little.

First, I sustain and support all 15 (er...um, 14) members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency as having apostolic authority--that they have all been specifically called of God to testify of Jesus Christ, and I believe all of them have done well in fulfilling that calling. Therefore, any discussion of 'favorites' has nothing to do with feeling one or more of them are 'unworthy' of being an apostle due to unrighteousness or some other personal characteristic. (In the early days of the Church, there were more blatant examples of unrighteous behavior among the apostles, leading to excommunications--and it's always possible that it could happen again, but with the current quorum membership I submit that it's not very likely)

Excluding unrighteousness or lack of faith in their divine calling as criteria then, what else can we consider in a discussion of 'favorites' or 'least favorites'? The main criteria in my mind when I made the comment was purely from a 'public addresses' standpoint. That is, their talks in General Conference or CES firesides, Ensign articles, etc... As is commonly known, apostles rarely have assigned topics when giving talks and, while they all have some variety in chosen topics, many of them tend to gravitate around common themes time after time. (I noted this in my 'pop quiz' from last week...) This is natural, as most people tend to feel more strongly about certain issues than others (one of my 'key principles' when I give lessons is free agency and the use thereof, and virtually all of my lessons regardless of topic have some relationship to (or at least a mention of) free agency). This can be taken too far to extremes, of course, but certain talk subjects are going to have a greater impact on a particular person than others.

I've found from many years of hearing conference talks and firesides, that there are some speakers whom regularly 'hit the spot' with me--Elder Maxwell, in particular, with his emphasis on discipleship--and others whom it seems year after year never give a talk that gets ranked in my Top Ten. I'm not sure this is really even a problem (or perhaps even avoidable) unless you take it to the extreme that you turn off the TV whenever Elder So-And-So gets to the podium because you have stopped believing that he's ever going to say anything worthwhile again.

What about personality? Many apostles--like Elder Maxwell--have a strong sense of humor which shows through in their talks and makes them easier to 'like'. Elder Maxwell's talks always displayed a marked sense of humility, which I found particularly appealing. Elder Holland conveys a sense of energy and enthusiasm in his talks which will also appeal to certain people, while others may prefer the more soft-spoken style of other apostles.

In college I knew a girl who was the granddaughter of an apostle and--although we never dated--I occassionally pondered the question of: If I were to marry an apostle's granddaughter and thus had much more contact on a personal level with one of the apostles as a family member, which one(s) would I like (or not like) it to be? There are a couple of apostles (whom shall remain nameless) who would scare me to death if I was married to their granddaughter, while others seem like more of a good fit with my personality and I could imagine having a close relationship. Elder Maxwell in particular just seemed to be a nice likeable guy who would be a great grandfather-in-law. Personality doesn't affect divine calling or authority, of course, but can indirectly influence feelings of 'favorites' or 'non-favorites'.

Is there a danger in having favorites? As mentioned, having 'least favorites' can lead to personal bias against spiritual messages being presented by that person, but I'm inclined to think that having strong 'favorites' is actually more dangerous than having 'non-favorites'. A 'favorite' apostle or bishop or EQ/RS president can cloud opinions of future apostles/bishops/presidents based on direct comparisons which might not be warranted ("Why doesn't this new bishop do things the same way MY bishop did?") Plus, there's the danger of viewing your favorite as the foremost spiritual authority in all things, and thus anyone who shares a different view than your favorite is wrong. This situation reared its head in at least one incident that I'm aware of where a popular mission president who was highly beloved by his missionaries decided to start his own church one day, and many of his missionaries went with him.

So, as with most everything, having 'favorites' is only a problem if taken to extremes. I'll miss Elder Maxwell's wit and wisdom, but if hypothetically he had decided one day to leave the Church and start a new one of his own, it wouldn't matter a bit to me. I'd just say "too bad" and find a new 'favorite'...