In case you missed it, President Nelson turned 100 yesterday. I am 99.9% certain that is older than anyone reading this post. I am 99.5% certain that is older than anyone who has ever visited W&T. I am sure most of you would be happy to reach 70 or 80, much less 100. I have posted on the general age issue before, but with President Biden, who is only 81, being pushed off (nudged off? ushered off?) the Democratic ticket recently because of a bit of age-related decline, the question remains relevant: How old is too old?
To wit, yesterday’s article in the New York Times, “The Leader of the Mormon Church Turns 100.” It has the expected reflection on that milestone (“He has been alive for more than half of the life span of the church itself”) but also reflection on the difficulties it raises: “[S]erving as a faith leader in one’s ninth decade — or one’s 11th, as in Mr. Nelson’s case — comes with challenges.” It’s a fine article. Does it raise any new angles on this issue?
Here’s one: “As life expectancies have risen, Latter-day Saints leaders have often assumed the top office well into their 80s and 90s.” You don’t generally come up with new ideas or original initiatives at that age. Either there are ideas and plans to improve the Church that you developed twenty or thirty or forty earlier, then you finally get to put into practice when you reach the highest office. In which case they are probably outdated and don’t match the current challenges or realities of the day. Or else you have forgotten all those earlier ideas and have nothing new to offer, you just keep the bus rolling during your few years at the top.
And here is a quote in the article from LDS historian Benjamin Park: “He’s stripping down the institution to what he sees as the core values and stripping away any other excesses.” Well, what are the core values? I suspect different people will give different answers, even radically different answers, to what the “core values” of the LDS Church are. For the senior leadership, I think the core value of the institution is continued and unquestioned leadership by ordained apostles. More generally, a second core value centers on LDS temples and the ordinances performed there, which in the eyes of the Church are the gateway to exaltation in the next life. For the day-to-day life of members in the pew, I think the senior leadership would see going to church every week, accepting callings and providing service, and paying tithing as the core values, those which define “activity” in the Church, paired with attending an LDS temple frequently. For “the gospel” as contrasted with the LDS Church as an institution, it might be “love God and love your neighbor.” Or, for a more conservative member, possibly “obey the commandments.”
Read the article and tell me what you think.
- If 100 or 90 or even 80 is too old, what exactly does a leader of that age lack that a younger man (and they’re all men) would say or do or preach?
- What do you think the core value(s) of the LDS Church are?
- Anything in the article I missed that you like?
- Is any reader 100 or older? Or even 90 or older? If so, raise your hand and get some praise from other readers.
Wheat & Tares 
The question of what a younger leader has to offer relative to an older one is more thought provoking than I expected. I tend to want younger leaders because I believe they are more likely to agree with me about some questions, but is age the real problem there? If we ask the question of why it took until 1978 to get rid of the priesthood restrictions, was that because of the age of those leading the church? By all accounts David O. McKay was far more open to lifting the ban than Harold B. Lee, who was over 20 years younger. If not for the unexpected heart attack that took Lee in his 70s, the ban could well have persisted for another decade and made the 1980s a really difficult time for the church. Is it possible that the real problem here is not so much the age of the senior apostles, but disempowerment of junior apostles, combined with a decision making system that effectively gives any apostle a veto over anything they don’t like?
Re: Core Values
It does seem like the Church is slowly stripping away everything on the ward level (2 hour church, the on-off again Activities Committee, the decline of youth programs, ditching home teaching, etc.) in favor of more emphasis on temple work. I am not that old (early 30’s) and it is amazing how much more temple work is a focus for the youth then it was when I was a kid. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a totally barebones ward community in the future, with temple work being the core of Mormon identity (especially if they go through with the rumored 1-hour church model).
If you believe that the president of the Church receives revelation directly from God (I used to believe this), his age really would not matter. If you believe the Q15 operate like a corporate board with a strong CEO in charge (what I now believe), the age of the CEO really matters. So what do you believe?
Even in my believing days I was confused by the notion that it was so great that God called Joseph Smith at age 14 to be a prophet because he was young and moldable to God’s will and isn’t it also so great that God now calls men in their eighties and nineties to be prophets because they are established and won’t be swayed by the popular notions of the times. Which is it?
The believers almost seem to take pride in this. “We have a 100-year-old president of the church!” And of course when he passes his successor will be a nonegenarian. And we just experienced a moment in the US where the nation gasped at an 81-year-old stumbling in a debate and demanded that he could not serve a second term because of his age. Granted leaders of the church aren’t involved in debate, but they are involved in important decision-making. And members look to them for inspiration and guidance. My uncle just died at 103. All the family showed him great respect. He was a purple heart, serving in WWII. But no one looked to him for words of wisdom after 100, and even well before. We all knew his mind was fading and he knew that as well. We took care of him as best we could until he passed. I think the gerontocracy of the church is highly problematic.
Quentin asks good questions. I do wish that we had younger leaders, and I won’t deny that part of that is an assumption that younger people would be more likely to agree with me in a number of different ways. For me there are two things at play here that are related, but separate. Our leadership is very old, AND our leadership has been in their current positions for a long time.
Age: I worry about leaders ability to relate to me, when they haven’t been parents of teenagers in decades. I remember trying to teach my grandmother (born just a couple of years before Nelson) to send an email when she was in her late 70s. It was rough! My parents are now in their 70s, and I see how quickly they get tired, and how easily they get overwhelmed by new experiences, like traveling to an unfamiliar place. They’re not senile or anything, but the thought of navigating new roads and eating at new restaurants stresses them out. I don’t know the apostles, so I can’t speak to their personalities or mental capacities, but based on all the old people I have known, they don’t learn and change easily.
Tenure: Nelson and Oaks have been apostles for more than 40 years now. For 40 years (or more) they have not been regular members of the church. Really, any position above Bishop really starts to detach you from regular membership. For decades they haven’t sat in a regular pew, or even attended a single ward regularly. And they certainly haven’t substituted in primary. They haven’t been home teachers. They haven’t planned youth activities. They haven’t attended EQ. (And they haven’t attended RS at any point in their life.) They haven’t done any of the things that I do as a member of the church. For my entire life they have been the center of attention at virtually every meeting they’ve been in. Cycling through apostles more quickly (20 year term? retirement at 80? 85?) might decrease the gap between their experience and my experience.
IMO it has little to do with age – and much more to do with ongoing cognitive, mental and physical abilities. Aside from that, it is impossible for me to care any less about RMN turning 100 years old.
The fact that President Nelson was “not available for an interview” with the New York Times (what a wonderful opportunity that would have been to share a messaage to the world!), and that he chose not to speak at his own birthday celebration (instead presenting a pre-recorded, carefully edited video of himself speaking), makes one wonder just how on top of things or in charge he really is these days.
3 Nephi 28:1-3:
1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?
2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.
3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.
Non-Q15 GAs automatically retire at 70. 72 is an excellent age for the Q15 to retire–they get two additional years, after all!
Then, if they don’t die, they can be called as custodians… After all, remember John 17, when Jesus washes the apostles’ feet, a task normally done by a servant or inferior? “15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” (NIV)
One of the biggest problems with GAs in for life, as DaveW alluded to, is that they (and those around them) start thinking that they’re better than / superior to everyone else and super-special. They lose contact with real people and they also lose humility.
(Modified– age 72 or after 20 years as a GA, whichever comes first.)
I agree it looks like Nelson/Oaks (purposely singular verb) is trying to create a stripped down church whose members are in lock step with rules, spend all their time going to the temple, and who have very little sense of community. As someone has pointed out they have no idea of what a normal ward is like or should be like….one which includes real people who live in this century and who have real problems.
I am in a ward which to a large extent tries to support community and inclusion, but I think it is because we are far enough from the Jello Belt for our leaders to live JUST inside the edge of many of the things we hear in Conference.
I am 81 and I know our thinking can change with the times if we are on the ground watching.
When BYU announced its new medical school, there was speculation on the Bloggernacle that it would use the occasion of Nelson’s 100th birthday to announce that the school would be named for him. That didn’t happen, so unless they are just waiting for him to die before making the announcement, Martha Hughes Cannon and Ellis Reynolds Shipp are still in the running.
Of the forces that tend to keep the church conservative/behind-the-times/slow to change, such as gerontocracy, political conservatism, and requirement for unanimity, I think one of the most important must be the assumption that the way things are has an inspired origin. The overturn of the priesthood ban is the extreme and obvious example, which appears to have been delayed by the common misunderstanding that it originated as an inspired doctrine from Joseph Smith. But I think this fallacy extends to all sorts of things that should have been re-assessed and changed long ago: the coffee and tea ban, the beard ban, the girls-passing-the-sacrament ban, outdated elements of the temple ceremony, even women and the priesthood. These practices all have this weight of presumed inspired origin hanging on them like anchors. Interestingly, although RMN is clearly a conservative in many ways, he is the kind of personality who has enough confidence in his own inspiration to overturn yesterday’s inspired practices, at least relatively smaller ones. Now I just need him to think bigger and liberal-er. Come on, do you want your legacy to just be deleting the word Mormon, some anodyne changes to the temple text, announcing a bunch of temples that may never be built? No, be that guy who brought back the beards, the coffee, and the women’s healing blessings!
I understand from Steven and another that Pres. Nelson did not speak at his own birthday party broadcast, not even one word. He isn’t engaging with the NYT to spread a message. We’ve seen this before, and the church administrators know what to do. What if a bishop could no longer serve? He would be released. What if a Relief Society teacher could no longer serve? She would be released. Except for very short periods of time, we don’t usually allow counselors to preside, because counselors don’t hold keys, and even in what used to be called the auxiliaries, the president was the president, and the counselors assist (but do not supplant) the president. I think that, effectively, Pres. Oaks is running the church, but he has never been sustained as president of the church. I agree with DaveW and lpf, in that our leaders have no idea what it is like to sit in a pew Sunday after Sunday, hearing book reports (what I call talks on conference talks, and in our ward lengthy segments are often read aloud) in sacrament and EQ/RS, and hearing very little about Christ, his life, his teachings, his parables, his healings, the prophecies about him, much less about forgiveness, resurrection, mercy, and the like. The people in the pews are not being fed, and our leaders don’t know it. We come to hear them, but do they really minister to us? I attend weekly, but candidly I have very low expectations about the quality of the teaching, and rarely are my expectations exceeded. I regret that.
In 3 Nephi 28 nine of the Nephite disciples requested of Christ that “after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry … may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.” Christ agreed and said that this would occur when they were 72. In our time, Joseph Smith prayed to know the time of Christ’s second coming and was told “Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man … I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.” 72 and 85–let’s average them and get 78.5. The age at which all Q15 should retire and leave the work. (Except that they should also serve no longer than 20 years, so it’s which anniversary comes first.)
This sounds facetious, but at least it has scriptural/prophetic backing. There needs to be a definitive way out. I also strongly suggest that the tradition of naming the longest-serving man as the new president needs to end. How about true common consent from the entire Church?
I agree that older people can adjust and understand if they are exposed, and motivated to understand. However, as Dave W points out, even when these men were younger, they were not part of situations that would have helped them understand. In their positions throughout their lives, they have been working to please, be promoted by, and heard by older white men in higher positions in the church. Their perspective is turned in that direction.
They have never had the experience of walking into a room full of people that have more voice and more power in their community than themselves, and that are of a different gender or race. They are of the faithful men who never had the experience of being unable to attend church or temple because of their care of some helpless or disabled person was more necessary than attending a meeting of any sort. If they ever had that experience, they would have been removed from the leadership track and never listened to again (that’s what happens to families in these circumstances in our wards and stakes). However, these types of experiences can build real understanding and connections with other people and with God. These sorts of experiences build spiritual maturity and an understanding of what it means to follow Christ, in a way that being called and elevated, cannot. Attending temple and church is countable, and are stats on other people that make a leader promotable.
There are also generational understandings and differences that have grown over time. We understand so much more about neurological and developmental differences that affect functionality and learning such as autism, ADHD, learning disabilities and many many other things that were mostly seen as moral situations rather than genetic situations (just laziness or a bad or stupid kid). Knowledge of effective parenting of both neurotypical children and children with disabilities has grown in leaps and bounds. Appropriate discipline during the older generation’s parenting years would have been based on shame, force and spanking. Today you could have your child removed from your home and placed in foster care for spanking and disciplining your children in ways that were perfectly acceptable in the older generation’s parenting years. Today we have more knowledge in the general population of many counseling concepts such as boundaries and autonomy. In spite of these differences and changes the leaders of the church are still imagining that parenting advice they deliver from the pulpit to parents today will be heard as appropriate and doable.
They completely miss the ethos of the younger generation. Most younger people don’t have much respect for anti LGBTQ or sexist sexist policies. This seems to be completely missed by the elderly leadership. They seem to believe that we are soldiers that will think and do what we are told by someone in authority. That way of thinking is diminishing throughout society. People are looking to think for themselves, and today they have access to the information they need to do that. The generational divide is wide, and it seems as if the general authorities are somewhat unaware of the impact of these issues. While I am glad Nelson has lived such a long and useful life, I feel dismay about about the huge gap in ages and understanding between the first presidency and young people in the church.
As I read the trends, there are four “core values” that church leaders are emphasizing: a more mainstream, less idiosyncratic image of Jesus; leadership by living prophets; temple worship; and families.
(1) Jesus. Compared to the Jesus of Mormonism forty years ago, the Jesus that church leaders talk about today is much closer to standard Christian ideas. This development is the clearest token of the church’s effort to move toward the Christian mainstream and away from the status of a peculiar, provincial sect. The oddness of nineteenth-century Mormon cosmology is being leached out of our discourse.
(2) Living prophets. The emphasis on living prophets is one possible answer to the question of what distinguishes the church if we move away from the social and doctrinal isolation of our origins. Church leaders have recognized the perhaps surprising fact that emphasizing living prophets does not require us to keep emphasizing the importance of Joseph Smith or the centrality of his revelations.
(3) Temples. This is another possible answer to the problem of distinguishing our church from other Christian churches. It is also a way of tying church members to certain behavioral rules. However, it is a mystery to me exactly what church leaders are planning for temples. Temples are nothing like a replacement for the milieu of a healthy ward; temples and wards provide fundamentally different things, whether socially, doctrinally, or spiritually. Yet the vitality of wards is being gradually depleted while more and more institutional energy is going toward temples.
(4) Families. “Home-centered and church-supported” seems to me a flimsy slogan rather than something substantive. But church leaders seem to be piling weight on that slogan. “Home” is a euphemism for “family,” and “family” means the ideal of the mid-twentieth-century white American middle-class TV sitcom family. All other types of families must adapt to church policies that are tailored to this ideal. “Home” or “family” serves as a hook on which to hang many things: the depletion of resources devoted to wards; the elevation of temples and temple theology; anti-gay, anti-queer, and anti-trans policies; patriarchal, anti-female practices. Whether families will ever serve as a focus of constructive, forward-looking teachings and practices is not clear to me.
This is probably a first attempt at defining what the church will look like. It seems likely that there will be more iterations of “core values” as leaders learn what is or is not working—and as leaders clarify and redefine their objectives. This will be a very long process, lasting many decades and several generations, I think.
Let’s face it: he is not in charge. And hasn’t been for a while. Hence the trans bigotry emanating from the person who is in charge: Oaks. Oaks has always worried about the little factories.
lws329’s recent comment has a lot of truth in it…
What a bunch of nonsense these comments are, written by many people who say in they no longer believe in the divinity of the church (why do you care then if its lead by a centenarian? Or anything it does for that matter?) The church has been lead by an elderly man since 1880!!!!! when 71 year old John Taylor took over. Every single president since then except for Heber J. Grant (who was 66) was in his 70’s or older when he become the top dog. Has the church grown or expanded at all since 1880?!
In my own short lifetime I have seen three Presidents (Hinckley, Monson and Nelson). All of them made huge changes and expansions in the church that, whether you agree with them or not, have seen the Church growing from 9.3M in 1995 to over 17M today.
Yep, we are clearly are lead by a bunch of fuddy duddies who don’t know what they are doing!
The constant whining in blogs about the “gerontocracy” with the supposed remedy of a retirement age of the apostles is a solution in search of a problem. Again what exactly is the problem here?
“Old people are conservative and can’t change!” Umm the last three presidents blew that moronic idea out of the water. President Nelson alone has made fundamental changes in how we worship, both in temples and on Sunday. Most active members have loved and easily accepted all of them. If the leadership of the church was truly so “out of touch” or “behind the times” where is the evidence for that, other than personal ancedotes from the commentators here?
Also religions by nature are CONSERVATIVE institutions! When you claim to teach eternal truths not much “innovation” is needed, we are not a tech company. And I love how these liberal blogs are always silent about the fact that liberal churches who do try to “keep with the times” have had plummeting membership for years, including (especially) the Community of Christ. Turns out hanging a pride flag outside your church door dosen’t lead to a rush of young people and families in (quite the opposite in fact)
There is no good reason why the Church needs to get rid of lifetime tenure for Apostles. You all don’t attack the church because it is weak and declining and retreating, you attack it because it is vibrant, strong and expanding (especially in Africa where I served my mission). There will always be bumps and challenges, but leaders who serve for life, with all the experience and institutional memory that comes with that, has been a plus our whole history.
@Quentin “Is it possible that the real problem here is not so much the age of the senior apostles, but disempowerment of junior apostles, combined with a decision making system that effectively gives any apostle a veto over anything they don’t like?”
Good point. Could we extend this to consider the disempowerment not just of junior apostles but of the entire church body (and every woman in the church, one might point out), and give every church member a voice? There are plenty of church members I disagree with yet I still prefer that every church member have a voice.
@NYAnn rhetorically asks “How about true common consent from the entire Church.” This.
Millenial Disciple: I’m not concerned about the church innovating, I’m concerned about whether they are teaching eternal truths. I know there’s a good chance you won’t agree with me here, but I also know I’m not the only member (still active member, even) who feels this way. Church leaders make mistakes, and they sometimes make big mistakes. The Temple/Priesthood Ban was wrong. It was wrong in the 1800s when it started, it was wrong every single day until 1978. Ideas presented as “eternal truth” to defend it were wrong. A great many apostles were the primary cheerleaders of that wrongness. The use of church resources in the Prop 8 campaign in California was wrong. The Policy of Exclusion was wrong. The recent handbook changes that threw my son out of the YM program are wrong. My stance is that if the church of today weren’t run by people who grew up during the 1930s, they’d make fewer of these errors.
I’d rather belong to a smaller church that was wrong less often. I’d rather belong to a church that when we look backwards decades from now, we marvel that our leaders were leading the way to more eternal truth, rather than bringing up the rear. I’d rather not be embarrassed when someone brings up the Temple/Priesthood Ban looking for an explanation for the fact that Prophets, Seers and Revelators spent a century defending the ban, and now we’re at a point where the official line from the church is “We don’t do that any more, we’re not really sure how it started, and we offer no explanation about why it lasted so long other than to disavow each and every line of reasoning that was ever used to defend that policy.” I’d rather that I could tell people that we had a prophet that told us to lead out in abandoning racism in 1920, not one that told us to do that in 2020. I anticipate that in a few decades we’ll be in more or less the same situation with a number of other current issues. Feel free to look me up in 30 years.
P.S. Statistically, the church grew fastest when the average age of the apostles was 30-something, not when it was 70-something.
P.P.S. Heber J Grant turned 62 the day before he became president of the church. Joseph F Smith was also 62.
P.P.P.S I don’t agree that membership numbers are a good measure of correctness, but you seem to. And you asked for evidence that the church leaders are “out of touch” or “behind the times”. Well, the ten years since 1950 with the lowest growth rate are each of the last 10 years. Hardly evidence that things are going swimmingly.
““Old people are conservative and can’t change!” Umm the last three presidents blew that moronic idea out of the water. President Nelson alone has made fundamental changes in how we worship, both in temples and on Sunday.”
OK, this just made me laugh. The idea that the church has drastically changed is truly absurd. Nelson has made fundamental changes in how we worship? Really? The smallest change, such as girls being allowed to distribute towels at the temple baptistry, is hailed as a miracle of modern revelation in effect by the true believers. It is remarkably bizarre.
Millennial Disciple wrote:
“Also religions by nature are CONSERVATIVE institutions!”
Like, that’s just your opinion, man. If we carelessly use the modern political senses of the words “liberal” and “conservative” when reading scripture, I’d rather point to Alma 1:30:
26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.
27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
28 And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.
29 And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.
30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.
Millennial Disciple, why would someone care about church issues if they’re not an active believer in the church? Maybe because the church is actively harming people we care about.
Yes, the church grew a lot during the late 20th century and early 2000s under the leadership of extremely elderly men. It was also actively harming plenty of people during that whole time.
”President Nelson alone has made fundamental changes in how we worship, both in temples and on Sunday.” Ok, if you say so. But the church continues to actively harm people so more change is needed.
“Also religions by nature are CONSERVATIVE institutions! When you claim to teach eternal truths not much “innovation” is needed, we are not a tech company.”
Tell that to Joseph Smith who had problems with the Protestant churches of his day. Tell that to Martin Luther who had a problem with the Catholic Church in his day. Tell that to SWK when he reversed the priesthood/temple ban. Tell that to the countless victims of abuse in our church and plenty of others. Wherever there is harm being done, change is needed.
You’re not actually offended by a lack of logic in this post/thread—you just don’t like reading criticism of the church because you’ve made the church an integral part of your identity. But in your haste to defend what is precious to you, you’ve failed to consider those in the church and adjacent to it who are actively suffering because of church policies and teachings. Dig deeper. Do better.
The fundamental issue with serving 40+ years as an Apostle – “The Mouth Piece of the Lord”- is that those men come to fully believe that any opinion they might have, whether it be placed there by God or not, is truly God’s will. My sense is that they lose the ability to separate their thoughts from Gods. Most Bishops know that they are trying their best to understand what God wants them to do – and they live with the fact that sometimes they didn’t get it right. I’ve been one, I know. Stake Presidents do the same – but as you move higher and higher, you come to expect you were called because of some exceptional relationship God has with you. I have seen it in GA’s that come to visit. That is natural, and I am not blaming the GA’s. We have created and supported their thinking. Imagine for 40+ years, every word you speak is treated as scripture. You think more than one earring is out of place? Must be God telling you that. You are uncomfortable with LGBTQ+ people? It must be God telling you that. I don’t know whether it is lack of humility (read the response to the SEC charges), or just decades of 18+ Million people hanging on your every word, but they are not able to fathom that a strong thought of theirs may be just that…. a strong thought of theirs and not the word of God. Why not let them serve 10 years and then let them substitute in Nursery once in a while? Or pass the Sacrament with their Granddaughter? I think the church would be much more authentic and connected to it’s members, because the leadership would be.
I think now more than ever we need the wisdom of the ancients.
I agree, Jack. We need the wisdom of a Marcus Aurelius, a Solomon, an Aesop, a Paul, a Nephi, a Blaise Pascal, or a Benjamin Franklin. These men were all at their best in their younger years, except maybe for Franklin. I wonder if the traveling high council might travel more. In Peter’s day they didn’t sit in Jerusalem, and Joseph Smith sent the Twelve out on missions that lasted several months at a time. I thought that the FP administered the temporal affairs, while the Q12 preached, often in remote lands. Things change, of course. I wonder if the 1978 priesthood revelation might have come sooner if it was the FP’s decision, with no 12s holding veto power. A streamlined decision-making apparatus might be more efficient. I am ok with life tenure, but sitting in SLC for too long at the center of power might lead in some cases to wanting to administer, which might be the FP’s principal role, instead if wanting to minister, which might be the 12’s principal role.
I agree–there are many folks who’ve done great things in their earlier years. But many of the great prophets did their most important work in their later years. Youth may excel in innovation–but an older Abraham and Moses were wiser in the things of heaven than the younger versions of themselves. And what we need more than ever before are people who can hear the voice of the Lord amidst all of the raucous sounds of the world–and that ability typically comes with time and experience: age.
Jack, in Moses’ later years he angered God so badly that he wasn’t allowed to enter the promised land so I don’t know that he’s the best example. And the fact that neither he nor Abraham ever really existed in history makes him a bad example as well.
RMN does exist and the church makes him and the other elderly GAs suffer needlessly while they should be allowed to rest and spend their precious remaining years with their families.
@Jack, if that’s true then why was the policy enacted to force GAs to retire when they reach age 70? Wouldn’t the Church benefit even more with the wisdom and experience of all of these men? (The need for the GAs to travel isn’t a good answer. If their wisdom and experience is so important, I’m sure that roles could be found for them that didn’t require too much travel.) My understanding is that there was considerable discussion in the Q15 about retiring Q15 members at age 70 as well. Funny how the Q15 recognized that the Church was facing issues with elderly GAs, yet they viewed themselves as too important to apply the policy to themselves.
mountainclimber479,
Maybe the day will come when apostles will move into emeritus status like the seventies. Even so, I’m of the opinion that now’s not a good time to make that kind of change. The world is too shaky–and we need leaders who cannot be moved on the things that should not be moved. Plus, while you may be right that older seventies might theoretically bring more wisdom to the table (IMO) fifteen older and wiser apostles is a sufficient number of seasoned oracles to lead the church aright–with the seventies handling the many “lesser” assignments that the apostles can’t see to personally.
Kirkstall,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the existence of past prophets. I, personally, take to heart the words of modern prophets on the reality of the existence of Abraham and Moses over the claims of a lack of evidence on the part of some specialists. Plus Section 84 of the D&C clarifies the reason for Moses being taken out of Israel’s camp–and it has to do with the people’s unwillingness to receive the powers of the higher priesthood. Moses, in his final years, set about to establish Zion among the Israelites–but they rejected it.
Re: The apostles suffering needlessly: Oh, they love building the Kingdom–and they set aside ample time to be with their families. I remember President Hinckley talking about retirement–how he couldn’t imagine sitting in a rocking chair contemplating the universe (something I love to do, mind you). He didn’t always enjoy being at the office but he loved the work–la obra–and he simply could not slow down. I think all of the apostles feel pretty-much like he did. At a recent interview Elder Bednar talked about how he feels “juiced” when he’s engaged in the work. They love it.
Like Jack, I have no problem with the stories of Abraham and Moses from the Old Testament. I also don’t think that our apostles suffer needlessly. I think that they are very well taken care of during their travels. I am very much disposed to show great respect and deference to our elders. We all loved my grandfather as he got older, but I remember the fight when my mom and my aunt took away his car keys. Had he told me that I should marry the Smith or Jones girl down the street, I probably wouldn’t have. My father had some ideas for me that I ignored, but I don’t think that made me a rebellious child, nor did he love me less or need to cast me out. I’m OK with life tenure. Instead of moving for mandatory retirement or term limits, I wonder why all the Twelve need to be doing administration work in SLC instead of doing ministering work in the field, living and traveling across the world. The FP can have 70s to help them in their work in SLC, along with the church bureaucracy. Imagine if the 12 traveled for 8 months of the year and came together for 3 months, and took a month off at Christmastime. It is true, I suppose, that the healthier ones travel most weekends, but those trips are carefully planned to keep the members away from them. They come to deliver a message and to return, but they don’t meet with people and talk about real life issue. Everything they hear is from the stake presidents, who can’t say anything negative because it would reflect on them. Any visits with members are carefully selected (or curated?), and I understand why. I’d would support putting the traveling high council on the road. This would have the FP administering and the 12 ministering. But this is my fantasizing, and isn’t how we do things.
Age has no impact on wisdom once a reasonable amount of experience is factored in. Say about age 50. After that, it’s all down hill. Trust me. I’m careening down that hill as we speak.
I have mixed feelings about age and experience and it’s impact on leadership. For instance, I am studying to be a counselor and in the forum of counseling, I see my advantage of experience very starkly (yes, I am over 50, old man, and hoping/planning for many more good years). I have to say that when my husband and I sought counseling when I was younger, I had absolutely no interest in being receiving marital and parenting counseling from a young childless single person, regardless of their education. I have grown children, and if you haven’t had that experience, really, you just don’t know some important things.
I want each of you men who think age and experience brings value to leadership to consider if a woman’s age and experience has any value whatsoever in the church as compared to a man’s age and experience. What I see in the church is high value of men’s age and experience while old women, just aren’t really “seen” or revered like the old men, or followed or allowed influence, really in any way. Even in the higher echelons of leadership, they are asked to do very little in the way of actual decision making as that is reserved for priesthood leaders. Anything they do is under direct control of the man above them. And they don’t exercise similar control over any women in the hierarchy. That is all for bishops and stake presidents to manage. They are released after little time in office, and at much younger ages. I often feel like our only value was child bearing, beauty and being the work horses of the church. Those are done just as well or better by younger women. We are a very under utilized source of leadership and wisdom in the church.
I don’t think the men in leadership can understand how completely meaningless and irrelevant a woman can feel/be as she gets older in the church. It completely surprised me. Somehow I thought my spiritual growth and wisdom learned through experience would matter. I thought I would have a way to share what I had learned with others. But absolutely nobody even notices those things in a woman in a church context. I hope other women are having better experiences in the church with aging.
lws329, I have received brilliant help from much younger persons. Most recently, grief counseling from a young woman who is just starting her family. I learned so much from her and I’m so grateful. My dentist is much younger than I. As is my physician. I think Nelson is essentially past his sell-by date. Oaks”I learned my bigotry in the last century and I’m not giving it up,” too, for different reasons.
“Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, second childishness and mere oblivion; Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”
There are probably no more than 6M active members. Moses and Abraham are fictional. The Church in Africa hides its past and present racial bigotry as it seeks converts. The church gerontocracy hasn’t made the church more honest, more loving, or more welcoming. They have made the Church rich in dollars and real estate and illegal activity (referring to shell companies and protection of pedophiles. Meanwhile, Nemo is going to be excommunicated, because he truthfully testified that spires on temples is not doctrinal).
YMMD.
@Jack,
I must assume that those things that should not be moved must include:
1. Prohibiting black members from attending the temple.
2. Prohibiting black members from holding the priesthood.
3. Discouraging all women from doing anything other than being a housewife.
4. Suppressing new Church historical facts (seer stone, Book of Abraham issues, Joseph’s polyandry, etc.) and excommunicating people that publish or discuss them.
5. Denouncing birth control and telling couples to have as many children as possible.
6. Teaching that LGBTQ choose their “lifestyle” and can change it through repentance and prayer.
7. Creating a document that “proclaims” (Family Proclamation) that the ideal and only real acceptable way (according to God) of viewing gender roles, sexual orientation, gender identity is the same way that these issues were viewed when they were growing up.
8. Prohibiting the children with a gay parent from being baptised and then reversing the prohibition 3 years later, claiming that they were doing exactly what God told them to do both times.
9. Banning trans members from working with youth while refusing to require background checks on all members working with youth, even though the vast majority of sexual predators within the Church aren’t the trans members.
10. Bragging about being invited and participating in the World Conference on Families, a hate group that promotes terrible policies against LGBTQ people and women.
11. Preventing women from participating in Church leadership/holding priesthood.
12. Preventing gay people in monogamous marriages from participating in the Church at all.
And the list could go on and on. Are these the sorts of things that you were referring to that “should not be moved”? If you think about it, the Church did move on many of these issues, and it will eventually be forced to move on others, but it was (and is) very slow to do so compared with “the World”. In other words, the scary “World” that the Q15 rails against each GC outperformed God’s prophet’s, seers, and revelators on many important issues. I don’t think it’s much of a reach to believe that the Church would have moved faster and been more Christlike sooner if the average age of the Q15 had been lower over the last 50 years (and beyond). I also don’t think it’s a reach to believe that the Church would have moved faster on some of these issues if they actually had women participating in the decision making process with them (they almost certainly would have done better on women’s issues!).
Can you name some issues where the Church would have incorrectly “moved” when it shouldn’t have if the average age of the Q15 had been 40 or 50 instead of 70+, and included both men and women, over the last 50 years?
Given your comments from the past, I also strongly suspect that you would say that the Church had it right no matter what the age/gender composition of the Q15 was. In your mind, the Q15 is always doing exactly what God wants them to do. If the Q15 could only have members under the age of 25, you would have commented here on how wonderful it is that the Church is run by such vibrant, young people who aren’t stuck in their ways and can quickly react to changes in society. I don’t think you’re really open to considering that the Church could be better, whether it be with the age of leaders or anything else. To you, Church leaders are selected by God, God is perfect, so by transitivity, the Church leaders and organization is also perfect. I guess it is the orthodox Mormon worldview (although you personally do seem to me to take it to an extreme), and I can understand how it can bring orthodox members a lot of comfort. The level of deflection and denial that orthodox members engage in when presented with so much information that appears to conflict with their worldview is pretty amazing.
mountainclimber479,
There are good explanations (IMO) for most of the examples in your comment–but the problems that I have in mind run deeper than those. And I’m talking about some basic ontological nuts and bolts–principles found the Creation and Garden narratives. At times I’ve wondered why we have four creation narratives in the church–and as time has passed I’ve come to realize that perhaps one of the reasons for the seeming redundancy is because we moderns need to be constantly reminded of the foundational elements common in (almost) all four tellings.
1. God is the Creator.
2. We have a divine lineage.
3. There are only two genders: male and female and both correspond to their respective sex.
4. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
5. The adversary is real.
6. We live in a fallen world.
7. As fallen beings we are in need of redemption through Christ.
Perhaps more might be culled from the creation accounts–but these that I’ve selected are becoming increasingly difficult for the intellectual community to accept. And what I find most interesting about them is that for the most part they have to do with identity–who and what we really are. This is the stuff that our marrow is made of–and if we get it wrong then we run the risk of getting lost in a sea of information where we’re “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”
mountainclimber479
Your most comment is really on the money.
@Jack, I asked you,
You came back with a list of 7 things. I have a hard time believing that a Q15 with an average age of 40 or 50 years old would “move” on any of those 7 items except for #3 and #4, so listing out the other 5 items is confusing to me (perhaps that was your point?). In fact, I provided evidence that the elderly Q15 has been moving on both #3 and #4, but they’ve just moved slowly on them–far too slowly. I strongly suspect that they will continue to be forced to move on these issues in the future. Sometimes that movement will only be possible with the death of certain especially stubborn Q15 members, which is another argument for retiring Q15 members once they reach a certain age or have served for a certain period of time. Since the Q15 are going to move on #3 and #4 anyway, why not enlist the help of some younger leaders with more flexible spirits who could make the changes to more quickly relieve the suffering of God’s children under the older, less Christlike policies/doctrines?
Also, if you are culling #3 and #4 from your reading of the creation narratives, then I think you’re really, really, really stretching the source material.
Jack, if someone (like you, it seems) believes/accepts each of those garden narratives as literal, then of course you are completely capable of taking (and apparently do take) just about any other (illogical and contradictory) church events as logical as well. Thus it is.
mountainclimber479,
I was trying to clarify what I meant by “things that should not be moved.” That’s why I went to the creation narratives for examples. They are ontological underpinnings to the saints’ understanding of the plan of salvation–without which we’d be hard pressed to find a secure footing in our basic understanding of who and what we are. And (IMO) numbers 3 & 4 are no less plain than any of the other examples–especially when we factor in commentary by modern prophets.
The examples you provided in your previous comment are less foundation with respect to getting our cosmic bearings. That said, I suppose it’s possible that a more youthful and mixed leadership would’ve acted differently in some of those instances. But even so, alternate futures are impossible to predict–and so we’d never really know if their decisions would have been any better–or worse for that matter.
Brian,
I guess we’d have to define what we mean by “literal.” I believe that there is a real creation of sorts. But the scriptural depiction of it follows the pattern of setting up Moses’ portable temple in the wilderness–at least more so than it follows geological or evolutionary pathways.
@Jack, #3 and #4 are the basis for the majority of the examples I cited in my previous comment, which you say “are less foundation with respect to getting our cosmic bearings”. It sure is easy for someone like you to say that those examples aren’t foundational since you are white, male and straight. Might you feel differently if happened to be born black, female, or gay?
The Family Proclamation references the Creation narrative several times, and quite frankly, there simply isn’t a whole lot of other justification for the Church’s unequal treatment of women and marginalization of females, black people, and LGBTQ people to be found in the scriptures. And, as I said earlier, the creation narrative really, really, really has to be stretched–far more than it ever should have been stretched–in order to use it to justify the treatment of women and LGBTQ individuals. The “commentary by modern prophets” on these issues has been a train wreck, as it has just been to react by resisting any sort of change until forced to do so by overwhelming scientific evidence or internal or outside pressures. Even the Church admits that the commentary on modern prophets regarding treatment of black people–and modern prophets did preach the Curse of Cain and “less valiant in the pre-existence theories–was a train wreck since they’ve explicitly disavowed all this commentary. They’ve also disavowed the teaching that gay people can “pray the gay away”, which was something that modern prophets repeatedly taught just 20 years or so ago. What other commentary by modern prophets is going to be disavowed in the next 10-20 years?
Sure, we don’t know for certain what would/will happen if the Q15 were significantly younger. There are only 15 of them, so just a few individual members can wield a lot of power, especially when unanimity is required. The evidence that racial biases of certain senior (older) members of the Q15 (including Harold Lee, Mark Peterson, and Joseph Fielding Smith) delayed the 1978 change with regard to black members is overwhelming. It is also well known that older people in the 1970s tended to be more racist than younger people. Therefore, it’s hardly a stretch to assume that the Q15 likely would have allowed black people to hold the priesthood and enter the temple earlier than 1978 if its members had been significantly younger. If it was true in 1978, then it’s true today. What important changes are being delayed today because the Q15 stubbornly refuse to step down once they have reached a certain age or served a certain amount of time to allow?
Are the people defending the meritocracy the same ones so upset with biden?
Last timetable presidential candidates were discussed someone described Harris as thick as a bag of hammers; I just watched her run rings round Trump who is obviously totally delusional. Are they now commending Harris or have they got another problem?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I’ve been travelling and could not respond to comments earlier. Here are just a few quick responses:
Quentin, thanks for affirming my sense that the young leader versus older leader issue is more complex than one might think. At age 55, a person has had 35 years of adult experience, usually including marriage, raising kids, and working in a career or managing a household. It’s not clear to me what another ten or twenty years of experience adds to their wisdom. The idea that only 90-somethings can be good presidents of the Church just lacks any real support. If we are getting senior leaders in their 90s, that just shows the system is broken.
Chadwick makes a similar point in his comment. Thanks.
Steven, yes it seems almost unimaginable that Pres. Nelson could not offer a quote for the NYT story, a fairly neutral or even positive piece. He could have said: “It has been an honor to serve in the LDS Church these many years and offer sincere testimony of the life and love of Jesus Christ, our Savior.” Or anything similar. An LDS press release gets little or no attention in the national press. A NYT story is read by millions.
Jack, your comments are a lot better than they used to be. Thanks for contributing.
Everyone else: Thanks for all the fine comments I don’t have time to get to.
”There are only two genders: male and female and both correspond to their respective sex.”
Flat out wrong. As wrong as saying the earth is flat and as easy to disprove. It’s way more harmful than believing in flat earth though.
Over 100 million people in the world have intersex characteristics. And gender is more complicated than you’ve been taught. Maybe listen to an actual trans person and learn from their lived experience. Our leaders are just wrong about it. Plain and simple.
This is why we need younger leaders so we can hopefully accept the data that is right in front of us and the people those data represent.
I sometimes wonder if the idea of the Q15 requiring unanimity in their decisions is really a myth. If so, then why are these horrible, hateful policies still put forward? Is there not one lone dissenter among the more moderate apostles? Or are they all ultimately company men, in lockstep with the agenda of the senior presiding member?
The other, less appealing possibility is that unanimity among the quorum is required, but the policies that get passed represent compromises among the members, which means that the more hardline apostles like DHO wanted the policy to be even more extremely heavy-handed. Probably something along the lines of mass excommunications of trans people along with the nuanced bishops who tolerate them.
Either way, the opacity (and mendacity) of the highest echelons of this organization couldn’t have less to do with Christ.
“If so, then why are these horrible, hateful policies still put forward?”
The policies are not implemented out of hate. The Lord says if we love him then we must keep his commandments. And so the apostles are tasked with walking the fine line between love and advocacy. They must set forth the commandments in clear terms so there is no misunderstanding while at the same calling on all members to be loving towards their neighbors irrespective of ideological differences.
Jack Hughes, I don’t know, but I imagine some leading by guilt. After discussing, the president makes his decision, and the members then must accept or reject. This isn’t a free choice: rejecting could well be viewed by peers and by leaders as rejecting the prophet. Thus there is unanimity, albeit coerced by guilt. I hope that this doesn’t happen, and I don’t know.
Jack, thanks for citing that verse. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Most of the time, we see this as a commandment, but I wonder if that is 100% right. Maybe it comes as an invitation. If you love me, as you say you do, then please keep my commandments, for this is the best way–love first, coming from belief/faith and from personal interaction with the Lord, followed by a personal decision not to be obedient (which is how we always interpret it) but instead a personal decision to do one’s best, to make the Lord’s teachings real in our lives. Most of the Lord’s commandments that we have recorded in the New Testament are commands to repent, to be kind, to forgive, to share, etc. Maybe keep my commandments isn’t an imperative, but is an invitation, and maybe (just maybe, in some things if not in all things) how I keep the commandments might be different from how my neighbor keeps the commandments. Regardless, it is love for the Lord that is the driving and first principle, and keeping the commandments only follows. You’ll agree, I’m sure, that many who keep the commandments and who do many great and mighty things in the name of the Lord will be rejected. The Lord said so in the sermon on the mount, and Paul taught something about all manner of obedience not really mattering, if there was no love first. I wonder if the church really needs to take any stand on all kinds of social issues. Maybe “we don’t know” and “you do what you think is best” are the best answers in a lot of situations. I would have preferred JFS and BrMcK, and others, to have said “we don’t know” about why Blacks couldn’t receive the priesthood, instead of making up, preaching, and teaching ideas that the church today explicitly eschews.
President Oaks once rightly said that God rarely explains himself — yet men make up all sorts of reasons all the time — and then, we preach those man-made explanations instead of the gospel.
But the gospel message really is an invitation, as Georgis shared. Nothing related to God or God’s priesthood is done by way of command or constraint or dominion, but only by persuasion, brotherly love, kindness, and patience, and so forth.
Yes, I like looking at the gospel as an invitation rather than as a commandment. It all works better from that perspective. I think that’s the way God really wants it to be.
Georgis,
I have no aversion to the laws of obedience and sacrifice–I believe they are necessary. And I think that we as parents know that certain kinds of disobedience cannot be tolerated–such as little children playing with fire without adult supervision. Even so, I’m of the opinion that when we begin to grow in the love of God we find ourselves living beyond the law. Rather than “not killing” we don’t get angry; rather than “not committing adultery” we bridle our passions. And so, while I agree that the Savior’s request to keep his commandments may be viewed as an invitation — and I’m not surprised that a kind soul like you would interpret it that way — I also believe that as we grow in his love we will find ourselves approaching the ideal of “living by every word that proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God” — but not as a matter of overzealous exertion. But rather as a result of becoming more fully consecrated–whereby we joyfully fulfill the laws of the gospel almost incidentally, as it were, to keeping our eye single to the glory the God.
Jack, we agree. As an individual loves the Lord, that individual determines how to make the gospel real in his life, and he then some things become commandments unto him. For example, the commandment might be to live the Sabbath day, but exactly how you live it and how I live it might differ. How I live it now might be different from how I lived it 20 years ago, and how I might live it 20 years from now. The key perhaps is, once I decide how to live any given particular law, not to impose my implementation on you, or on my neighbor. Thus obedience becomes an intensely personal thing, not something to use as a club against others. And you’ll have to agree that there is way too much judgment of our neighbors, perhaps more so in Zion than in the mission field, and that ought not be.
The carpenter king, bearer of thorns, preached of treasures not of this earth—yet gold piles high, temples gleam, and the meek wait outside, hands empty. Did the shepherd forget his sheep, or do we? 🕊️✨