We’re back to talking with Greg Prince. In my previous post with Prince, we discussed the history of gays in the LDS Church and the Policy restricting children of gay parents from being baptized and ordained. With President Monson ailing, I wondered if the Policy (sometimes referred to as the POX) was result of a similar situation from 1969 involving an ailing President McKay and the policy denying blacks the priesthood, and Greg answered yes the situations were similar, and outlined 4 leadership vacuums that resulted in questionable policies enacted. He related the relatively well-known story that Hugh B. Brown was trying to change the black ban administratively, while Harold B. Lee was fighting to keep the ban alive.
When this letter was sent to the McKay sons, Lawrence McKay showed it to Hugh Brown but Alvin Dyer who was an extra counselor in the First Presidency also got a copy of it and he freaked out and took it to Harold B. Lee. Lee pretty much freaked out because both sides, seeing that McKay considered it a policy, assumed that if it’s a policy then it can be changed. That was the good news for Brown. It was the bad news for Lee and for Dyer. So there was some real heavy-duty sparring going on.
I talked to Ed Firmage who was the grandson of Hugh Brown and he was the one who told me, “Yes my grandfather tried to change that administratively, and that’s why he was released from the First Presidency after McKay died.” But all of that occurred in a period where there was a period of power vacuum. President McKay, even though he was lucid enough to talk to his son and verify the contents of that letter physically didn’t have capacity to referee this match or to stop it. It was carried on mostly in private so the general church membership didn’t know about it, but it was a real crisis. So that was power vacuum #1.
Power vacuum #2 happened when Spencer Kimball began suffering subdural hemorrhages, and had to have at least, as I recall, two cranial surgeries to remove the blood clots. So his physical and mental capacity began to diminish significantly. His was the second presidency where there had been a prolonged period of incapacitation, about four years. During power vacuum #2 there, you had the dismantling of the Historical Department, of the history division within the Historical Department.
…
Power vacuum #3 was with Ezra Taft Benson who was basically totally incapacitated for almost five years, and the efforts by some church leaders to try to deny that resulted directly in the very high profile defection of Steve Benson, one of the grandsons who said, “Look, you’re propping up my grandfather and trying to say he’s running the church. My grandfather can’t even utter a coherent sentence.”
Power vacuum #4 is what we’re seeing right now. You have seen a diminishing of President Monson’s capacity ever since he became church president in 2008. He held one press conference right after he became president. That’s been it. If you look at the role he has played in General Conferences, it has been since 2009 since he conducted a session. The last two General Conferences, instead of doing the customary four addresses, he cut down to two and they were basically for those old enough to remember, two and a half minute talks. It’s in power vacuum #4 that the Policy emerges.
I noticed that President Monson did not deliver an address at the Christmas Fireside last night, and it is well known that he is ailing mentally, perhaps physically too. Pope Benedict was the first pope in 400 years to resign the papacy. I asked, “What do you think the church should do to avoid these types of power vacuums? Or should they? Should they do anything?”
Greg: What we call the zone of dementia begins roughly in the mid-80s. By the time you get to your late 80s, you’ve got almost a 50-50 chance of showing signs of dementia. That zone hasn’t moved. What’s happened is that more people are moving through that zone because they are living to an older age.
We have been much more successful at keeping the body alive than in keeping the mind alive, so this has kind of a cascade effect. More of them are moving into the zone of dementia, and because they are all on average living longer than the predecessors, it means that the sitting church president in each case on average, will live to an older age than his predecessor.
…
So, if you’re just looking at this from a medical standpoint, it’s inevitable that incapacitation of an LDS Church president will be both more frequent and longer lasting. In a fast-paced, complex world with a growing church, that may not give you the ideal governance. So the question is, what do you do about it?
What we did about it is to say look. Here’s the medicine involved in this, period. If they choose to address the situation at some point, it’s their call. But what we can say with a high level of confidence, because we looked at this through the eyes of medicine is, this is the situation. It’s going to happen more frequently, and last longer.
The phrase, “not ideal governance” really caught my attention. We just had a priesthood lesson on how President Hinckley handled President Benson’s extended illness, and how everything was fine. But I agree with Prince: It was “not ideal governance.”
I know that Greg got a little bit of flak for saying that nearly every LDS doctrine has changed. In the midst of our conversation, he said something similar when I asked him if he ever saw the succession policy changing.
Greg: I see virtually anything changing because I have seen everything change. I’m not aware of a single LDS doctrine of any significance that from 1830 forward has gone completely unchanged. You’d think a lot of them would, but it turns out, no there were some substantial changes in many cases very early on. If you just look at the First Vision narratives, you see the evolution of Joseph Smith’s theology of deity, and it’s taking place in a very rapid fashion and in a very dramatic fashion.
It wasn’t just nibbling at the periphery. He was going through evolutionary leaps in the way that he portrayed the godhead. That was reflected in his subsequent retellings of the story of the First Vision. Each time he told it anew, it incorporated the then current version of his theology of deity. That’s why those different versions are telling different stories, because they became theological narratives rather than historical narratives.
What do you think of Greg’s comments? Should the prophet retire when he is ailing? Does it matter?
Wheat & Tares 
Despite the challenges of aging in position, a beautiful aspect to me of accepting a call to the quorum is knowing you will die in office–really offering the sacrifice of your life to the Lord there. Modern martyrs, if you will.
I’m skeptical, as always, whether a graceful retirement would have the intended effect. Some people seem to believe that if such a thing were instituted, either as policy or just as a soft practice, we’d have an ongoing stream of elderly leaders retiring in comfort while “fresh” people entered the group . I think it’d be more likely that there would be even more pressure on current apostles to seek out new members that match their politics and ideology, ensuring continuity of the most conservative worldviews.
I think you’d also see leaders trying to justify their continued tenure. During his brief service as president, Howard W. Hunter made it a point to demonstrate that his mind was still functioning even as his body mortally failed him. He was right to do so (and correct in his assumption, I believe): he had to both show that his debilitating physical condition hadn’t rendered him incapacitated, and also distinguish his tenure from the difficult final years of President Benson.
Interesting stuff. With my own parents getting older, I’ve become very aware of the mental changes of the elderly and warier of elderly church leadership. Which isn’t to say they still are not inspirational, but I have to place what I’m hearing inline with how my parents have changed over time.
I think the real problem is the pretending that all is well in Zion. There have been at times clear cut indications of disagreements in the Q12/15, as Prince mentions here. The problem is that these are kept completely hidden from the membership so that no one knows the not-so-pretty background when changes are enacted and most members think it came directly from God and is scripture. The (dare I say) political wrangling and power dynamics don’t exist in most people’s minds. That creates a really distorted loyalty toward and view of the church and the church leadership. Which then creates a great deal of conflict as people become more informed and/or leave the church.
I see ACW’s point as well though. Will outing all the power dynamic solve the problem and bring more people to Christ? I honestly don’t know.
Side bar:
For at least a few years before 1969, Alvin R. Dyer (infamously responsible for the baseball baptism era, since he was the pusher of the notion “if you can get them in the water, they are ready”) was circulating throughout the European missions a written copy of a talk by him describing the origin or races from Noah’s sons Ham, Japheth, and Shem. One of my fellow missionaries pressed him on his sources. His reply referred all source questions to earlier talks or writings of his own. At least one of those, however, included citations to others — always 19th century Protestant “biblical” speculators. Having built an enthusiastic following on the basis of his racism, I can well believe it was Elder Dyer who “freaked out” at the possibility of an administrative change to the Church’s racist policy.
Question(s):
Was the “POX” the result of one or more of the Q15 similarly “freaking out” over Obergefell and persuading an ailing President Monson to sign off? Was he really persuaded or was it more like BRMcC’s conversation with DOM about a second edition of “Mormon Doctrine”? To what extent was Q15 approval of those handbook changes a matter of merely not bucking seniority or [apparent] approval by President Monson? I have been unable to find any other than RMN purporting that revelation had anything to do with it. Have I just missed it?
Comment:
There are those who don’t appreciate leadership by gerontocracy, but still would not want to have an incapacitated President Monson retire unless certain others “in line” , but not part of the current First Presidency, also retired. For those concerned about succession at least, yes it does matter whether an ailing President retires. Lack of strong leadership at that level could be better than the immediately expected alternative. On the other hand, those I knew who feared an ETB or JFS Jr presidency were pleasantly surprised to see that the things they objected to in those Brethren’s time in the Q12 were not repeated after they became Presidents of the church. (Unfortunately, some of that stuff still showed up in Priesthood/Relief Society manuals on their teachings, as if they had been teachings of of the President. Bro. Jones’ expressed concerns are reasonable. I don’t know what change could be an improvement, or whether the incapacity of a President of the Church may be a positive feature rather than a “bug.”
Kimball kept coming back. I remember the era as his personal physician kept talking to the doctor ‘s brother (also a doctor) who would call up with these “he is about to die” bits of gossip and then Kimball would not die and would do something else.
I think that created an expectation.
I agree with Bro. Jones that a graceful retirement might not have the intended effect, especially if it were sprung on the Church without warning and a buildup. If we kind of eased into it – and, most importantly, if those men were then completely removed from the discussion of who would take their places, if such were even possible – we might manage something workable over the next, say, 3 prophetic successions. I do find Greg Prince’s analysis compelling, and I fear that unless some action is taken, we’ll continue to be governed by a line of increasingly senile, less-than-capable men.
The policy coups that Br. Prince notes are the consequence. I’m sure that we can all think of other disasters that could be foisted on the Church with a leadership vacuum at the highest levels. One thing Prince also notes in his great biography of President McKay is that moving into the prophet’s chair tended to mollify the hard-line tendencies of the more rigid apostles; Joseph Fielding Smith was the example he used, and I think that the same could be said of Pres. Benson.
In re. Dyer, I seem to recall a poor copy of a mimeograph of an alleged talk of his (pretty sure it was him) that circulated in my mission, in which he posited that the Holocaust and the Nazis did the Lord’s work by removing the complacent, assimilationist Jews in Europe and giving a new impetus to the Zionist movement, fulfilling the prophecy of the re-establishment of Israel. I still have trouble wrapping my head around that concept.
The present system clearly serves the 15 better than it does the faithful or the institution of the church. I think that’s evident in the confusion of the last decade and the fact that the only definitive statements that we’ve had to attempt to resolver it come from amorphous parts of the COB rather than the prophets, seers and revelators.
Is this what Heavenly Father intends?
The leadership vacuum is not really in evidence during the Benson years. The loss of one grandson is not a huge shift with wide impact. It is most likely that the minimum visible power vacuum or politicking was due to the seniority of the 2 counselors. Unless President Hunter was extremely forceful and vigorous in pushing policies different from Hinckley and Monson, there would be nothing changed. They were younger, healthier and together likely to be church president for far longer than President Hunter. An enterprising junior would naturally try to cultivate the relationship with one of the first presidency members anyway in order to get his voice elevated.
ACW, I understand your point, and I think that these wonderful men have served the church well. The question for me is this: is their continuing to serve better for them or the church? With such a diminished capacity, I think the church suffers from poor leadership when they suffer ailments. Yes, they can be considered martyrs, but a true martyr is killed by others, not old age. Besides, does God need martyrs when there are plenty capable men who could serve more ably?
I appreciate their leadership. I don’t want to diminish that. I just think that God inflicting ailments on them should be a sign that it is time to convalesce in peace. When they aren’t making decisions because they are physically or mentally incapable, I feel they should step aside so “the church will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent.” God always finds a capable man when an apostle dies. Why wait for death when they are suffering so much? Where is the revelation stating they MUST serve until death?
It seems that the policy came about during a time that was more like the Kimball presidency. The president is in decline, but not completely out of the picture. It seems that some of the senior apostles are the most fervent supporters of the policy, but it may be that President Monson or Eyring was/is also in total agreement and it was then implemented.
Also, the fact that the policy is referred to as a revelation does not preclude someone other than President Monson having received the revelation. It would be unusual for the Q15 to admit that, but it is not out of the bounds of policy changes. I think that if the revelation were to modify major doctrine, that the Q15 would be reluctant to move forward without unanimity and clear language of how the revelation was received.
Maybe the dismantling of Scouting is occurring without President Monson’s knowledge?
ji – I’ve wondered that as well. It will be interesting to see if Scouting is gone entirely within a year of Pres. Monson’s death. It seems a kindness to him (that I don’t begrudge at all) as he was so dedicated to scouting and it would be painful to his memory for him to be the president to receive the revelation to end the program.
There was a time when retirement was discussed for apostles. Like most with power, they decided to hold unto it and only have lesser general authorities retire.I would like to see a mandatory retirement age. 75 would be great and then they can enjoy their golden years with their spouse.
Seems like they should develop a retirement strategy for Q15. When someone becomes mentally incapacitated and/or so physically incapacitated that they cannot perform their duties there ought to be procedures where they are retired and new leadership is put in place.
Agree with Miguel. I have trouble understanding how you can claim someone is the Lords Prophet when he is incapable of recieving revelation. In the new presentation on temple square they make a point of how exhausting it was for JS.
There are members who will accept anything, but if the church is to grow, or retain our youth, we need to be credible. Claiming the present holder of the position is actually capable of recieving revelation, is not credible, not sure of the next few.
Need 75 retirement, perhaps start with 80.