The short answer is: Yes, the average age of apostles is getting older. My friend Quentin Spencer is somewhat of a data nerd, and he has a blog called LDS Data Analysis that discusses statistics in the LDS church. His latest post was called Demographics of Apostles. I will give you some highlights and color commentary from his blog here, but I highly recommend you click on the link above and read the gory details for yourself!
First up is the graph below showing the average age of the apostles and the oldest and youngest. The saw tooth nature of the lines happens when an apostle dies and is replaced with a younger man, which is always the case. The average age of the apostles at the beginning of this year was 78.7 years, just short of the all-time high in 2015 of 79 years. In a few months the current batch of apostles will be the oldest in history.
One reason for this might be due to medical advances; they are just living longer. But longer lives does not account for the average age at which they are called, which is also going up. From the scatter plot below, you can see that from 1900 when most apostles were in their 30s and 40s, to 1970, when the last apostle under 50 was called there has been a gradual increase in age. Since 1970, it has crept up to where in the last 20 years, almost all the new apostles have been between 55 and 65.
Another thing Quentin touched on in his blog was what calling the apostles had before they were apostles. Before 1960, less than half of the apostles were a General Authority before they were called (70, or assistant to the Q12). Since 1969, almost 90 percent of those called have been a GA or university president (which in our current climate, is treated as a quasi-GA) The most common calling today is being in the presidency of the 70.
Quinten summed up his data with the following:
To become an apostle, one must therefore become a general authority in one’s early 50s or younger, and within a few years be called into higher leadership callings among the general authorities. And one must not be too old when a vacancy is open in the Quorum of the Twelve. Becoming president of the church requires living at least another 30 years beyond that.
What do you think? Is having an older leadership (and getting older) a pro or con? Can it be bad when you are running for President of the United States, but good if you are a member of the First Presidency?
Wheat & Tares 
It probably depends on what you are hoping for from leadership. If you’re looking for leadership that is dynamic, that applies the themes of the gospel to modern-day problems, that seeks to be a force for change that brings about peace, justice, and mercy in the world, then the answer is the increasing age of the apostles has been a disaster. But if what you’re looking for constancy and for protecting the status quo, regardless of the consequences or how damaging to an evolving membership, then it has worked very well.
If you’re a believer, you probably think age doesn’t matter. You would argue that the Q15 are called by God and that’s all that matters.
If you’re a little skeptical about that, you might have a different view. You might point out that in any organization the leadership should, to the extent possible, represent the people whom they serve. If the demographic of the Q15 is a dozen or so guys in their 70s and 80s (and 90s) who have been in Church jobs for the last 20+ years, it’s hard to imagine that they’ll be in touch with the reality that most members live. Does that present a gap in what the organization needs? I’d say so.
The LDS Data Analysis blog is interesting. I guess for me it’s not really surprising that callings in the Q70 etc. have turned into something of a training ground. Most big organizations have some sort of track to the top leadership spots, whether formal or informal.
Some of the age increase is surely just an increase in life expectancy overall. Also, they’re receiving top-quality medical care and remaining physically and mentally active into their twilight years. There’s also published studies showing thay data that being in a position of power correlates to health and longevity.
The increase in age of those being called might just by simply that the whole leadership pool and shifted because the top leaders are living longer.
Age can be an asset if it brings experience and connections with people that teach a person how different individual experiences are. Experience can teach humility and to learn and listen to people in different situations from you, so you can catch glimpses of their experiences and understand them a little bit. Empathy and wisdom and balance can come from age and difficult experiences. Particularly when you discover that you were wrong about somethings in the past.
However, if a person doesn’t really listen or have curiosity about others but only looks to confirm their biases, age and experience can harden a person so they can only see one point of view, their own. If being a leader in the church dominates your time for much of a long life, and that leadership doesn’t offer much opportunity to listen to those from different backgrounds and situations, an older person may fail to see outside of the world in which they live. While I hope our leaders do better than that, I am concerned that only one type of person can succeed as a leader in the imperfect structure we have. So, unfortunately, only one type of point of view may be experienced by our leadership.
I fear that it leaves us in a narrow place to seek guidance from God on leading the church. I fear they simply aren’t curious about what other people may know that they don’t…
Josh H: “You might point out that in any organization the leadership should, to the extent possible, represent the people whom they serve.”
And you might point out that in the case of the church the leadership, to the extent possible, DOES represent the people whom they serve.
Unfortunately.
Being almost 80 myself, I can testify that 80 year olds don’t have the energy or the sharpness that younger people do. I couldn’t think of anything worse for me than to be chosen as an apostle or president. I would institute an emeritus rule for apostles at 75.
Gebanks: good idea for the Church. Good idea for the country: Biden is 80 and Trump is 76. Imagine if we could dump those two for a couple of governors in their 40s or 50s.
Age in itself need not be a detriment to functioning effectively in a high demand leadership position. What concerns me about the Q15 is that they, with the exception of Uchtdorf, suffer from serious hardening of the attitudes that they grew up with and espoused. It appears to me that they haven’t ever felt the need to seriously rethink the values and beliefs that they formulated when they were in their 20’s to 40’s. The world has changed so much since those who are now in their 70s-90’s were young adults or in early middle age. What ideas were considered right, good and acceptable in the 1950’s-1980’s such as vilifying and persecuting those who are LGBTQ+ and people of color; treating women solely as objects of sexual pleasure, unpaid domestic help and baby factories; insisting on conformity of thought and behavior; accepting that those in positions of leadership and authority are always right and always have the welfare of those who exist/function below their own exalted stations at heart; and that men always make the best leaders to name just a few have now been proven to outright wrong and harmful.
The men and handful of women who are chosen to replace those who’ve died or served their allotted time appear to be chosen because they also are stuck in the past in their thoughts and attitudes. This is not a recipe for success when leading a worldwide organization. It appears that the church leadership is stuck in the amber of inflexible thoughts and attitudes. How can the church grow and improve when the leaders’ minds are permanently stuck in the past?
To quote a friend from high school;
Change is inevitable. Growth is optional.
A Poor Wayfaring Stranger,
Nowadays (IMO) marriages and families are less functional and happy, generally speaking. We’re in serious need of an injection of older values.
Even so, it isn’t so much the “older values” that will save us as it is the reliability of the Lord’s watchmen–and that’s where the age and wisdom of the apostles is most useful–IMO.
I would hope that RMN, Oaks, Ballard, Eyring who are the oldest of the old are humanely allowed generous daily time for naps.
Personal note – commenting again after a 10-day absence and enjoying the process of getting caught up here with all the posts and comments.
@jack my grandparents stayed together until their 60s despite their relationship having fallen apart since very early in their marriage. I wonder if my father would have been more or less damaged by that upbringing if they had respectfully parted ways rather than continuing that troubled “old values” approach.
There were plenty of unhappy dysfunctional marriages in the past, but due to stigma and lack of opportunity, people were stuck in them.
@jack my grandparents stayed together until their 60s despite their relationship having fallen apart since very early in their marriage. I wonder if my father would have been more or less damaged by that upbringing if they had respectfully parted ways rather than continuing that troubled “old values” approach.
There were plenty of unhappy dysfunctional marriages in the past, but due to stigma and lack of opportunity, people were stuck in them.
Krishewz,
I’ve no doubt that many marriages in the old days were loveless. Even so, I think we moderns tend to believe that there must’ve been an inordinate amount of unhappy marriages because people were stuck together. But I don’t believe that was the case–at least as it compares to the misery that we see in marriages today. I admit that in some cases it’s a blessing (these days) that there’s a relatively easy way out of marriage. Even so, in most cases of divorce — especially where children are involved — it is very costly and destructive–and the damage is permanent. And now, with 40% of children not living with their biological father, we’ve got *serious* problems on the horizon–IMO.
@Chet-
My sixty year old mother was told several times in preparation for her upcoming mission that time was available for napping should their office work be too demanding. Since the church often suggests imposing missionary standards on as many people as possible, this bodes well for napping in Church HQ.
There are absolutely things that younger generations can learn from older generations. It takes a certain degree of life experience before you realize how tiny you are in the world and how little you actually know.
I recently heard a coach half-jokingly say that he’d considered closing his gym to anyone under 30 because that’s the age when people figure out how little they know and start listening.
We shouldn’t be quick to dismiss the people who came before us. That said, we also have to accept that the world does change, and that we’ll have to adapt.
I wish there was a mechanism in the LDS church for retirement from the Q15, even just on a voluntary basis, like in the Community of Christ. We already have emeritus 70. Emeritus members of the Q15 could still offer their knowledge and experience when needed.
Some have joked and commented about naps for the older GA’s.
I have often wondered exactly how many hours a week these old guys really put in.
I would not be surprised to find it around 4 to 6 myself.
I will also guess they do not even show up to the office a lot of the time.
The phrase “working from home” is probably used in their behalf a lot.
I remember it was not uncommon for President Kimball to work sixteen hour days. Things may have changed since then–but my sense is that the apostles (generally) have got a lot on their plates and the greater challenge (for them) is to make sure they don’t overbook themselves.
Just want to throw in a simple but potentially significant factor. Let’s assume, and it’s probably a good assumption, that all of the Q15 actually follow the Word of Wisdom as generally understood within Church culture. None of them are now, and most probably never have been, regular or even periodic drinkers of alcohol. Last year, I made a cautionary trip to the E.R. for a possible case of acute pancreatitis. Three months later, the soonest I could get in, my primary care doctor gave me a checkup and reviewed the ER’s diagnosis. In both cases, the most pressing question medical staff asked was, “Have you been drinking?” As long as my weight and blood-sugar levels are not careening out of control, the thing which my healthcare providers are most consistently preoccupied with, is if I drink alcohol.
Accepting that living as old as these men do is much less of an accomplishment given their access to the best healthcare, so many of their daily cares looked after by doting family and support staff, and the fact President Nelson has convinced most or all of them to go all-in on low-fat diets, their relative health in old age is impressive but not miraculous. And people who lay off booze altogether get a lot of mileage out of that choice, even if their diets and lifestyles are otherwise unremarkable.
Perhaps there is no more reason for members of the presiding quorums to retire from their quorums than there is for grandma and grandpa to retire from being grandma and grandpa. My earliest memory of an apostle was LeGrand Richards. I had started going to Primary when I was ten, and a few months later the Primary was getting ready to sing for stake conference (North Las Vegas stake, 1976 or ’77). We were told in rehearsals that LeGrand Richards would be coming. I’d never heard of him, but this was said in a way that sounded good and important. Stake conference came, and I was in my choir seat Sunday morning, and we heard from the pulpit that Elder Richards was not feeling well and could not come. A few years later, 1981, the satellite dishes were installed, and I remember listening to the old man talk a couple of times before he died in ’83. I like having had that “horse-drawn buggies to Apollo rockets” link through him and his peers to time broader than my own lifetime.
I don’t know where the idea comes from that apostles have a tremendous work load that requires maximum lively fitness from each one. Proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world is a big order, but we all seem to do what we can and not worry a lot about what has to wait for someone else to do later. Elder Haight in his last few conference talks left me with the impression that he was spending a lot of time in a cabin in Idaho. My intake from the apostles’ service is mostly when they talk in General Conference twice a year. Four times over the last 30 years one of them has presided my stake’s conference, and there are temple dedications. No doubt they do many other things that have nothing to do with me, but if the oldest few have to leave most of that behind-the-scenes stuff to the younger members of their quorum, I don’t think I am missing much. If all the church got from LeGrand Richards his last decade were a couple conference talks a year, I am glad for those.
@John Mansfield – this is a good point. I’m sure the Q15 is a very close-knit group in general, and there very well could be some sort of understanding about a de facto retirement as older members slow down and younger members take on more responsibility…maybe with some exception for the first presidency.
I suppose my comment was more to allow members to step down if they felt they could no longer lead effectively due to age, illness, or personal circumstance. This may already be happening unofficially.
@John C – Also a very good point. That could certainly impact their longevity.