How Old Is Too Old?

“Is 98 too old to lead the church?”

Yes.

Everyone ages differently. It really just depends on overall physical health and mental capacity and that varies from person to person. Just look at kingship overtime. There has long been a tendency/tradition of human cultures to value old leaders even into their old age, and to keep them in power out of fear of some sort of catastrophe if they strip them of power and replace them with someone younger while they are still alive. There is also the tendency of humans in power to want to remain in power even in their old age. The LDS church and major political parties of the US are no exception. It is rare to find people like Pope Benedict XVI, who retired, and even he still retired at the age of 85. Nikki Haley’s suggestion that we give cognitive tests to all candidates over the age 75, not being able to bring herself to mention dear leader Trump by name, seems to have fallen flat at her most recent speech at the very Trump-friendly CPAC. A large, influential bloc within the Republican votership simply disregards Trump’s age, all while they relentlessly mock Biden for being too old (just 4 years older than Trump). If someone mentions it to them, they will shout them down. Candidates rising to challenge Trump over his age will be harangued and harassed by Trump, and to their likely detriment. I simply don’t see how Desantis would survive Trump’s onslaught against him. Trump is already launching caustic invective against him, and Desantis hasn’t even announced his candidacy. The Democrats rally around Biden because he has had a surprisingly amazing first two years as president and played and slayed the Magats and weak-kneed reluctant Trumpist Republicans during his SOTU address to Congress. Biden is a behind-the-scenes fighter who strategy is not constant media statements and appearances, like his predecessor, but unexpected Dark Brandon moments where he rises from the ashes to deliver action and confound his opponents. His age is a concern to everyone. But he has my full support moving forward if he so chooses to run. He has the power of incumbency, which is a massive power, indeed. Bear in mind that Trump, in spite of his age and unpopularity, nearly won the 2020 election, largely because he was the incumbent. He won more votes than any president in any election, except Biden. Just 20,000 more votes in Wisc., 10,000 more in Az., and 11,780 more in Ga., and he would have won. Furthermore, Biden uniquely commands the respect of nearly the entire Democratic votership. Yes, progressives wince at Biden, but they will vote for him against any Republican. Trump will win the Republican nomination again, is my best guess. The justice system has proven itself too slow and ineffective to do anything against the powerful, let alone, Republican demigods like Trump, who have spent their lives gaming the system and knowing how to exploit its every loophole.

We hold to several competing mainstream ideas that make a gerontocracy almost unworkable. Church members cling to notions of instantaneous revelation through prophets. We have also developed cults of personality around members of each First Presidency. That is why Uchtdorf did so well. He still had the energy, flexible worldview and personality traits to pull it off. Monson was boring and mentally rigid by the time he became President. His best days were behind him. I’ll leave it to you to determine how the current First Presidency rates. If Uchtdorf is called into the next First Presidency, we’ll likely witness diminished capabilities.

There are really two questions here:

* First, age as a number. That varies from person-to-person. I know people my age (55) who are broken down physically, already starting to have diminished intellectual capacity, and/or seem much older than they are for a variety of reasons. I also know people my age who are mentally sharp, in prime physical condition, and could easily pass for 30. The combination of modern medicine, lifestyle, and genetics mean that in many cases, 50 is the new 30 (or 90 is the new 70).

* Second–and the question that I think is probably more relevant to the intent of the original post–age as a mindset. That is, as we age, our values, ideas, and worldview tends to get more ossified and less likely to change. We see this in the political philosophies of both Trump and Biden to a large extent, although both have ceded some ideological ground to elements in their respective parties due to external pressure and expediency. Biden, for example, came of age at the height of union membership and power…and he is all-in on unions to this day. For the LDS Church leadership, this is even more accurate–and underscored by the nature of their belief system. What was true for them in their formative years (20s and 30s…which equates to the 1940s and 1950s) tends to drive their attitudes today. Unlike politicians, Church leaders tend not to pay much attention to expediency or external pressure, so change occurs glacially…especially when that change would counter or challenge deeply entrenched ideas or beliefs.

The reality is that we can expect, in the LDS context, that the leadership will remain old (and, probably, older) as lifespans continue to increase–particularly since (unlike politics) there is no other way to replace a member of the leadership short of death (OK, maybe excommunication…but that is so rare at that level as to be a non-factor). Unless a culture of age-related resignations and emeritus status emerges, not much is likely going to change at the Q15 level.

For as public-facing as President Nelson was until about 6 months ago, I’m guessing his age is catching up to him and we’ll either see a much more frail prophet come conference or not at all. When was the last time we saw him in public? By my calculations it was the First Presidency Devotional in December where he didn’t speak and was shuffling afterwards.

Too old to be a spiritual leader for the Church and its members? No.

Too old to be the managers of a global, multi-billion dollar church with operations in hundreds of countries? Yes.

It is my position the only way to “save” the church from corporate mediocrity and compromised integrity is to sever the church from the corporation. Reverse the correlation and consolidation that has been the priority of the past 50 years. Allow local stakes and wards much greater independence in their operations.

Stop exploiting the members to feed the corporate beast. Whose purpose does the corporate church serve? It hoards billions of dollars, but why? It has no accountability and yet the general authorities demand members owe them obedience.

The corporate LDS church is a man made creation that now stands as a stumbling block to the success of the Lord’s work and the spiritual progression of the Saints.

I agree that age, physical capability, and mental acuity are relative. It’s tough to say what is too old.

What concerns me more than age in concrete numbers is the ability of our present leaders to understand the needs of society now and the needs of future generations. Our political leaders are too out of touch and too focused on their own desires (usually for power). They are largely unwilling/unable to meaningfully tackle things that will leave the world a better place.

Older people have wisdom and experience we should value, but we need to be honest that this is not often sufficient in a complex changing world. Their formative experiences decades ago prevent them from fully embracing new values, ideas, and technologies. This is why US society and institutions are badly in need of an overhaul, and the same is true for the church.

It’s tragic that we have not found a way for church leaders (e.g. Thomas Monson) and to a lesser degree (e.g. Diane Feinstein) to age with dignity, with their families, and out of the public eye.

Anna, I think what you point out is worth considering. But, tell me, do you really think they didn’t have the presence of mind to adjust their Depression Era thinking after the first 10 billion or maybe the second one?

It’s also worth considering that the disclosures we’ve recently been blasted by are only arising from one investment instrument, Ensign Peak Advisors. How many more are there in addition to all the real estate?

I’m also left to wonder what their personal Depression Era experiences were. As we well know, some families were rocked to their foundations by the financial trauma. We speak less often about other families who were entirely stable and, by comparison, really fortunate. I wonder where the FP’s families fit in that spectrum that justifies deliberate dishonesty with both the membership and the regulating bodies.

You’re entirely right, LHCA.

My 74yo husband is an independent consultant who remains fully employed at the top of his field. Neither of us is as fit as we once were but in matters of experience and accumulated expertise we’re both fully functional. My husband isn’t competing with younger associates; they’re hoping, in time, to be able to compete with him.

The saying “progress comes one funeral at a time” exists for a reason. For that reason I think age does matter in certain circumstances.

@LHCA: Thank you so much for sharing your personal experience. It has challenged my own preconceived notions. Many of the people in my life in this age demographic are more set in their ways and one of my biggest fears of aging is turning into them in this particular regard (in other ways I would love to be like them). I’m happy to hear that it’s not a forgone conclusion that I cannot keep an open mind in the future.

To answer alice’s question to Anna I’m not sure they will ever see it as enough money. I have seen relatives who are within 1-2 days of passing still insisting that they cannot spend another night in the hospital or they will be penniless and instead they pass on millions of dollars to their heirs. I think we really cannot comprehend what the Great Depression did to this generation.

Alice, good point about they really could have adjusted their thinking out of the rut caused by the depression. Also, good point about “was their personal upbringing really as traumatic as to mark them for life?” I knew many people who did adjust their thinking out of the depression rut, and learned to spend when spending was advisable. I knew many others who just couldn’t, and continued to live like church mice, in spite of money becoming plentiful in the 50s and 60s. Those were some of the most prosperous years in history, yet many people continued to make totally unnecessary sacrifices. And while a couple of them talked about their poor widowed mother, they just do not show symptoms of growing up poor compared to those around them.

The older GAs act more like those who grew up during the depression who were just a bit better off because the breadwinner still had a job. Both of my in laws were that way. One’s dad was in the state legislature, while the other was raised on a farm. They show “depression scars” but not poverty scars. Sure, they had to tighten their belts, but there is a big difference between tightening the belts and going hungry. But often the fear of going hungry has a bigger impact on saving than actually going hungry. Kind of like women who get raped are often less damaged than those who were actually raped, because they know they survived. It is the fear but not knowing that is worse in some ways.

I guess my point is, they are showing every symptom of having been traumatized and then failing to adjust their thinking.

The deficiency I observe in our leadership, and I believe it may correlate inversely with age, is what I would call imagination. I think a large part of why they’re socking away money is they have no idea what to do with it. This is a failure of ability to look forward creatively and imaginitively. It also explains why they’re always stuck in the slow lane with every single wave of social change, most conspicuously at present the LGBTQ issue. The prevailing attitude toward LGBTQ in the US at least shifted way too quickly for them to keep up with. There are thousands of younger minds full of ideas of what could be accomplished with our resources, and there are numerous proposals from creative thinkers of how to resolve our theological dilemmas. I’m thinking we actually need people way younger even than our youngest GA’s though, like people in their 30’s and 40’s, when creative minds are at their most productive.

Yes it’s possible to be too old to effectively govern a country or lead a church, just like it’s possible to be too young. I don’t know what that magic number is, but it’s probably younger than 90 and older than 30. There may be outliers but it’s too much to expect that all Q15 are outliers.

Exclusion of folks on the LGBTQ spectrum isn’t an issue of imagination. Nor is it an issue of decrepitude. It’s a moral issue.

Some of the 15 will remember when McKay and his leadership team fought Black voting rights. They weren’t geriatric then. Some of them may very well have been among the 15 or the 70 when women were denied equal Constitutional protections in large measure due to efforts of the church. (You can check I’m not going to.). Of course, they’ve continued to make the same mistake as they became geriatric. If that isn’t lacking empathy and Christian charity then it’s just a selfish wish to retain comfort because it sure as shootin’ isn’t the counsel of a loving god. And that’s been going on for a long time in the church.

I got that much 60 years ago when I was 16 and the cause célèbre was voting desegregation. Of course, I had the advantage of growing up outside of UT in the northeast.

@NYAnn, I like the quotes you included from members of the seventy regarding the mandatory retirement age. It’s another double standard within the church. Indeed, our church is full of paradoxes.

To the question, “Is 98 too old to lead the church?” I want to say yes it is, but I don’t think there is value in asking at what age is one too old to lead effectively. Negative effects from aging seem to be a function of genetics/epigenetics and lifestyle, and vary considerably by individual. The root problem within our church’s leadership succession process is its structure–the succession process rewards old age, for better or worse. And that’s the problem. There isn’t any flexibility. There are no incentives for members of the Q15 to say, “I need to step down and into emeritus status.” There are only positive incentives to hang in there for the duration. Becoming president assures immortality among mortals. Buildings are named after you, books are written, your likeness is sculped in statuary, everyone stands when you enter the room, and you have near unilateral decision making authority (e.g., I’m assuming everyone here recalls when Wendy Nelson basically said President Nelson has been waiting for this for a long time because now he can do what he wants.) Modifying the succession structure and service incentives might better optimize top leadership selection, expressed vision and enable better organizational change. Right now it seems to me there are too many extrinsic motives for any of the Q15 to challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom and advocate for a change in the succession process. We need more senior leaders who are intrinsically motivated and willing to challenge our own history regarding the divinity of selection by seniority in the quorum. (History tells me, at least in my opinion based on what I have read, there was little divine inspiration behind our current structure of succession.) With advances in healthcare and preventative medicine, we can expect all members of the first presidency going forward to be in their mid-eighties to nineties from here on out. Over the next century, the average age of the first presidency will only increase if there isn’t change.

I think the Q15 must have come to understood the negative consequences (likely unintended) for members of the Seventy to be called for life. There is an analog here that can be applied to the Q15 as a thought exercise. When the first presidency implemented the mandatory retirement age for the Quorum of Seventy (then First Quorum of the Seventy and now General Authority Seventies), I think it was likely motivated to keep the church’s emerging leadership pipeline moving forward more dynamically. By the time the church implemented the retirement policy, I’m sure it was largely because the church now had a large supply of potential Seventy throughout the church. The church has an incentive to bring up who they see as capable men into the ranks of the Seventy to see who emerges as likely Q12 candidates, and it helps to be able to predictively cycle members out of the Seventy to continue to make room for others who can then be vetted over their tenure. (Area Seventies are an important stepping stone in the pipeline.)

The pipeline concept is known at the stake level. I have been in bishoprics where were asked to recommend candidates for bishop and asked to include the member’s age. Once, our recommendation for the next bishop was rejected simply on the basis of age–our recommendation to the stake president was too old. He was 53 and would have been an amazing bishop, but our stake president said directly to us that the church needs to call men in their thirties so it can determine if they are fit for stake presidency assignments later in their 40’s or early 50’s, because that is the pool from which mission presidents are called. He was defining the church’s preferences when it comes to its leadership development pipeline the leadership experiences the church wants to see in a good candidate for mission president or Area Authority. So, back to my ward, a 36-year-old man was called. Our ward split and I went to the other ward with the bishop with whom I was serving. I heard rumors things were rocky in the other ward, and after a couple of years that man was released as bishop. The problem? He simply wasn’t fit to be a bishop. Did it have to do with his age? Unsure. But he was called because of the stake president’s age bias. Naturally, bishops are called in their 50’s and 60’s and 70’s. The oldest bishop I served with was 74 when called–there’s a well of interesting stories I can share there. The best bishop I served with, hands down, was in his mid-fifties. The most ragged bishopric I served in was with a bishop who was 34 when called. (I was that age at the time too and I shutter a bit looking back at how we ran the ward–good judgment is in some part a product of life’s experiences, and you simply have a lot less when you are a young man.)

Agism seems to exist on both ends of the church. Within the local church, the bias seems to be for younger leaders. At the general church level, it is structurally biased for older age. Both approaches create problems and need to be critically examined–but we don’t seem to do that much so I’m not optimistic much will change.

I don’t know, Georgis, in fact I have my doubts that there is no age too old to be a prophet. A prophet needs to be willing to study it out in his mind, and over and over our church’s prophets have proven to be “products of their time. So, Brigham had a mental block about “studying out in his own mind” about giving the negro (wording it how he would) the priesthood. And Oaks seems to have a real hang up about studying about LGBT. Nelson hates to study the good possibilities in the word Mormon. And none of them seem willing to even ask God if women could have priesthood.

Age plays a part in what a prophet is willing to think is possible, just as age and upbringing and education played a part in what scientists could imagine. So, for a long time scientists could not imagine the earth going around the sun, because religion told them the sun went around the earth. But previous people had already discovered that because they were willing to imagine it. If the prophet just can’t imagine something, it can make him unwilling to pray and ask. I have been unwilling to pray to ask things when I was afraid of an answer I didn’t like, and I am pretty sure most of us have been.

Anna, I distinguished between the two capacities (or hats), which isn’t LDS practice but was OT practice and frequent BoM practice. In those times, the prophet only needed to speak the word and will of the Lord–not to preach, for anyone can preach, but to be the mouthpiece of God. When God has nothing to say, He needs to prophet; when He has something to say, He will find a prophet. Most general conference addresses are fine counsel, but I am not certain that they are all prophetic parlance. The prophets of old usually did not administer the affairs of the church. Certainly they did not in the OT, where the high priests in Jerusalem administered the church, while the prophets preached in the wilderness. Think John the Baptist prophesing in the wilderness while Caiaphas administered the temple establishment, including tithes, ownership of land, contracts for sheep, schedules for which priests were to work at any given time, etc. In our time, the two capacities (or hats) are held by the same person, but when does he wear which hat? Yes, a president who administers can receive confirmation from the HG on decisions, but he’s still administering, which is an important part of his office. Joseph Smith is quoted as saying that he was a prophet when he acted as a prophet. He was also president of a church, community organizer, father and husband, neighbor, leader of the militia, etc. I wear many hats, but I don’t wear them all at the same time, and I think that few of us do.

I will be sixty five next month so I am creeping into old age. While I am healthy an d fit and have been blessed with some measure of vitality for my age, I am not what I once was. Everything is harder and takes more time. One thing I cannot deny if I am honest with myself is the way this diminished vitality impacts my decisions. When everything is harder than it was twenty or thirty years ago, I find myself less likely to make decisions that will require risk, or work or effort. Sometimes this is conscious and sometimes it is unconscious.

As an example; I look at my children who are having children of their own, and when I consider the effort and risk of having and rearing children it seems so daunting that I find myself (without saying anything to my children)hoping they will limit the number they have.

There is no way I can honestly say that this doesn’t effect my decision making ability in everything. While my wisdom is valuable this very real impact on my decisions indicates to me that I should never be in a position to make decisions that affect people who are younger and more energetic. I can advise, counsel, and consult with them, but when it comes to decisions I should never be in a position in any institution to make decisions that affect anyone beyond myself.

Alice,

I am assuming no such thing. What I do recognize is the burden of raising children, from my current perspective of diminished vitality, clouds my decision making ability.

I only used child bearing to demonstrate how my reduced capacity can impact other people’s decisions.

Perhaps I should have used a different example like my son’s decision to enter into a ten year program to become a doctor. That course of action seems overwhelming from where I sit today.

These are two of an infinite number of decisions that are impacted by my reduced strength and vitality.

My entire point is that with age comes wisdom and experience (hopefully) but it also brings with it (generally) a reduced willingness to make decisions that require long term commitment and the energy to accomplish them.

President Veazey of the Community of Christ announced his retirement saying “It also will create opportunities for younger World Church leaders to share their gifts more extensively, which will bless the church”. I would love the Utah church to follow this example.