As I mentioned in a previous post,
In 1968 Hugh B. Brown was the one to propose that ALL general authorities become emeritus at a certain age, and had it been accepted he would have been one of the first to go emeritus. (see An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown)…this idea was implemented ten years later, but did not include the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. In 1979 the church Patriarch, Eldred Smith, went emeritus and that position in the Church (which Joseph F. Smith placed in higher authority than the Quorum of the 12) has remained vacant ever since.
What do you think of Brown’s suggestion?
Wheat & Tares 
I agree . For their sake and the sake of their families.
But some people see the Q15 as a governing body with (hidden) political leanings. And they somehow think that by retiring a certain set, this might make those remaining more prone to lean another way, perhaps their way.
I count myself among them. I imagined that Packer was the arch conservative and U-dorf was the champion of the progressives. I assumed that with the death of Packer the church would lean the other way. It hasn’t . If anything it seems to be quite the opposite. None of this can be measured or proven, it is all speculation and perceptions. By the end of his life it is hard to image Packer having any influence except his past because his deteriorating health made him so feeble..
So while we think this emeritus idea is a good idea, let us remember why. And not entertain false hope of leadership going a different direction if it happens. And in this light, it is up to them. If they want to run the final laps in this life carrying these burdens then so be it. There is ample redundancy in the system to support 3/4 of them being totally incapacitated.. As J. Golden Kimball put it: There are plenty of flats in the quorum, might as well have a few more spares.
I think this question is incomplete without consideration of whether or not they should continue to collect their “modest stipend” once retired. Paying it to retired and active GAs would mean that much less for actual aid to needy individuals. …which is truly modest as it is.
Besides emeritus status for aged leaders, it would be great if new apostles weren’t chosen by current apostles. This is what leads to nepotism and picking favorites.
Most of Elder Brown’s proposal did not include emeritus status for the sitting President of the church, although it could easily have been updated with that very minor change. Most of the day to day operations of the church are easily handled by counselors in the FP or by the apostles. The problem arises when there is a major decision and the president is so feeble that he cannot be fully involved in it. The calling of new apostles late in the Kimball and Benson administrations (Elders Nelson, Oaks, Ballard and Hales) were some of the incidents that come to mind. President Hinckley did most of the work in extending these calls, and I have heard very little about the involvement of the church president or other senior leader in the Q12. We will see if there is a big decision required like those while President Monson is incapacitated. President Kimball was famous for getting a burst of energy in the late 70’s and early ’80s when a big decision time came up. It is difficult for the senior leaders to just retire an experienced and revered leader, especially when previous leaders in similar situations have sometimes been given energy to carryout clearly inspired programs after major health challenges in their lives.
Elder Brown had famously changed the age limit, always making him one of the first to leave. If the church leadership had implemented the proposal and set the age limit for all Q15 at 84-88, we would have had all of the same church presidents, with the exception of missing Joseph Fielding Smith. Their tenures and time in service would have changed somewhat, but the succession otherwise would have been the same. We would now likely be in the midst of the Oaks presidency, with the Holland presidency coming soon. The biggest change in actual policies and direction would probably have been some of the decisions made in the later part of the Hinckley administration. President Hinckley would have gone emeritus in the ’90s after serving a short 3-5 years. Most of the 21st century would have been the Monson administration.
Forcing GAs into emeritus status at a certain age is just ageism. It’s a pretty blunt way of getting to the result you might want.