The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters. – Antonio Gramsci
When I was nine, one of the books I was really interested in reading was Edward Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I went to the library very excited to learn all about how such a powerful empire fell into chaos and was taken over by barbaric tribes, leading to a loss of technology and colonization. The book turned out to be boring as hell, at least to nine year old me, and I instead borrowed a sci-fi fantasy book called Attack of the Mushroom People. I’ve still never gone back and read it. Right now, the United States (and many other world governments) may be in a state of interregnum–the US in particular as long-time government agencies are shuttered, scientific and educational expertise are gutted and different viewpoints prevail. Whatever replaces the Trump regime will be something new, something different than what existed before. Whether that’s good or bad remains to be seen. I would really like to see a plan from someone who isn’t a White Christian Nationalist.
Interregnum describes a transitional era in which:
- Old systems and norms are collapsing
- New ones have not yet stabilized
- Social conflict, cynicism and populism fill the gap
People experience a vacuum of moral, political, and institutional authority. Consider eras like Weimar Germany or post-Civil War Southern US states or post-imperial Russia.
Due to the timing of Pres. Nelson’s death whose funeral was just yesterday, this last General Conference was held without a Church President and First Presidency. This hasn’t happened in over a hundred years. However, the Church learned an important lesson from the original Succession Crisis, which means that it basically doesn’t matter. We all know that Oaks will be unanimously named Church President when the Quorum of the Apostles meet (after the funeral), and that he will in turn select whichever members he chooses for the First Presidency. While we are technically in an interregnum (a time between reigns), we are kind of never in a true interregnum because the Quorum of the Twelve is in charge absent a Church President, and it is based on strict seniority.
But there’s another way to look at an interregnum, and that’s a higher level view of regime change–when older ways are replaced by newer thinking. This was inevitable. Church leaders have never been older than they are at this moment, mostly due to healthy lifestyles combined with advances in medical technology that allows people to live much longer than prior generations. And bear in mind the effects of things like unleaded gas (and paint), and air quality due to smoking prohibitions. It was always going to be the case that church leaders would continue to get older and older until eventually, many would die within a short period of each other. That has not yet happened, but is likely given the relative health and age of the most senior apostles. People don’t die when they reach a certain age. They die when their bodies stop living.
I read a book about caring for the elderly several years ago that talked about being “old” vs. being “old old.” If being old is a matter of your age, being “old old” is about your health. The book described age not mattering so much as the day when your health falters to the point that you become “old old,” marking a steep decline in your overall abilities. You might be 70 or you might be 95 when this happens. It makes you not only less able to do the physical aspects of life, travel, taking the stairs, walking on your own, but those things often quickly erode your mental and emotional capacity as well. You have to focus on your health to the exclusion of other things. And of course, people suffering from dementia may have mental decline first, followed by physical decline.
Which brings us to the church’s (potential) current interregnum period. The 3 most senior apostles (Oaks-93, Holland-84, Eyring-92) are not just old, but they are “old old.” Nelson was initially quite old, but not yet “old old,” in the sense of loss of vigor. He boasted of taking the stairs and told church members to “take their vitamins.” The first apostle we reach who still appears to have some physical and mental agility is Uchtdorf (age 84), followed by Bednar[1] (a youthful 73). It seems likely that both of them will succeed to the Presidency, and for Uchtdorf, that day may not be too far in the future–perhaps within 5 years. There are only 2 others currently in their 80s (Cook, Christofferson), and 5 in their 70s (Andersen, Rasband, Stevenson, Renlund, Gong). Only 2 are in their 60s today (Soares, Kearon), but whoever replaces the aging apostles will likely be in their 60s. It is quite uncommon for someone to be called who is already in their 70s.
Now, obviously, there are ideological views among the younger apostles that don’t always reflect a modern perspective, but there is still a pretty big difference between being born in the early 1930s and being born in the 1960s. The societal norms are simply not the same. The views you have about family, work, women, the economy, politics, and even things like church doctrine and history are formed during your lifetime and are influenced by the rest of society, the views of your parents, the prevailing social views. It does make a difference. You can’t ask a question that’s never crossed your mind. I’m certainly not hopeful about the likes of Bednar or Andersen or Rasband, but I do think there’s going to an interesting shift when the oldest cohort is no longer there.
As with other regime changes, old ideas eventually fall away as the strain to maintain them becomes too great. New technologies and ideas gain steam and replace them. We are in a time when people are questioning meaning, authority, truth, and our place in society more than ever. Whether we are in an interregnum period or not remains to be seen, as does what follows. There have certainly been greater examples of upheaval in the order within the Church. The first two that come to mind are the aforementioned Succession Crisis followed by the exodus to the West, and the post-Manifesto church which had to ditch polygamy and find a way to create something else without really letting go of those polygamist forebears and their ideas.
- Do you think that this time period is a sort of interregnum between an older cohort of leaders and some younger or more vigorous ones?
- What do you think things will look like in five years, both in the church, and in US politics (as well as global politics)?
- Do you think there is skepticism of authority among church members, or is that not very common?
Discuss.
[1] Ofsusan as he is sometimes called in ExMo Reddit
Wheat & Tares 
Here’s the thing about the younger, more vigorous cohort: they’ll be old when they’re running things, too. In 5 years, Uchtdorf will be a month away from 90. Bednar will be 78, and is probably the last guy who will ever have a shot at being president of the church before turning 80. (Kimball was the last one.) Life spans of the Q15 keep creeping up, so there’s likely no reversing this trend unless they shift to having emeritus apostles.
I anticipate that the church 5 years from now will look not much different than it does today. The church will continue to inch forward towards progressive ideas already held by most of the country, just 20 years late. Younger, progressive members will continue to leave the church leaving an increasingly older and conservative membership that is increasingly at odds with those leaving, which creates an impossible decision to leadership: appeal to those leaving by ruffling the feathers of the stalwart, or watch the whole church continue to slowly atrophy.
Because the leaders are so old, I really don’t think that they actually exert as much control over the organizations as younger leaders in other organizations. Tradition is a strong force. The church can’t quite figure out a way out of extremely old prophets. Well, their only way seems to be to appoint an occasional young apostle, like Bednar, and figure that he will eventually become a younger prophet. Honestly, I was surprised Nelson made it so long. And he seemed to push through a number of things that seemed distinctly his craft. Rejection of calling members Mormons. Massive expansion of temple construction. Two-hour church. PoX reversal. Granted, the changes were not huge or sweeping. But they were noticeable for the rank-and-file. Every conference my wife’s family would swoon at the new temple announcements. Can’t boast growth in membership numbers, then build a bunch of temples with all that excess money and call it growth and the make the members think that the “work” is being carried out. However, I think they’ve reached a point where there are simply too many scheduled constructions and not enough have actually broken ground. Plus, some temples are truly absurd. Dubai? Shanghai? Come on.
What will the church look like in 5 years? I second DaveW. There will be little noticeable change from what it is today. What is interesting though, is that all the subtle housekeeping changes over time do actually make a difference. Emphasize this a little more and that a little less. Changes are made and they are noticeable over the timeframe of decades more so than 5 or 10 years. I have noticed how the church has stopped obsessing over same-sex marriage so much. It is taboo to call Native Americans Lamanites, let alone talk about how Native American converts magically have whiter skin. Now it is taboo to call Mormons Mormons, or even LDS to some degree. I guess they are Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsians. Maybe Cojcoldsians will catch on.
You ask an interesting question on skepticism on authority among church members. Government authority when Democrats are in power? A resounding yes. Near constant. Questioning Trump’s authority? Who is this Trump guy? I barely hear anyone actually say his name, let alone with any sort of criticism. Church authority? They goose-step in line.
First time commenter here.
Young members increasingly expect transparency, inclusion, and dialogue, while leaders often emphasize continuity, obedience, and loyalty.
To the degree that leaders can increase transparency, inclusion, and dialogue, they will be able to have an enthusiastic and passionate base among the younger church members.
If they demand ever greater continuity, obedience, and loyalty, I think they will find a continued exodus of young members. I’m not feeling very hopeful.
I agree with Seth’s comment about the need for more two way communication. I’m in the latter end of Gen X. I recently was called to a ward “leadership” calling which included being involved in various meetings with stake leadership (primarily meeting the stake presidency members) for the first time. I was shocked at how all the communication is top down. 95% of the meeting time is being told what to do by the stake leadership. The remaining 5% is everyone saying about how great the meeting went. No time is set aside to ask about our ward’s challenges, the problems we have in our callings or what support we need. I raised this issue and was told that the stake makes the decisions and it’s my job to do it.
I was expecting these meetings to be totally different. Even in the corporate world, most of my meetings with leadership are being asked what help I need, how they can better help me, etc. If Christ came to our ward on Sunday, I’m guessing it would be a lot of two way communication and not a bunch of orders.
If I think this way as a Gen Xer, I can’t imagine what someone younger will think when they get into these meetings and are expected to do nothing but say how great the meeting was.
Timely and thought-provoking topic. As already discussed, the current succession policy eliminates the hope for younger Q15 members to be president – let alone exert meaningful influence.
The five-year forecast of Mormonism and US/Global politics is bleak and getting bleaker. While membership outside the U.S. now accounts for >50% of the total population, third-world members have lower retention/activity rates and exert minimal policy influence. The church is unable to strike a balance between tradition and modernization. The bottom line is that core doctrines are not going to materially change in the next five years.
I do not see any movement occurring related to issues important to younger members (e.g., women/priesthood, gender roles, and historical transparency). The church is inexorably shifting to the right as most influential members (i.e., the top 10% of tithe payers) exert disproportionate influence on policy decisions. If anything, there will be further retrenchment during the Oaks regime and then the world will end if/when Holland assumes power.
The only hope may be Uchtdorf assuming the mantle of president and leading with increased global outreach and transparency.
In the show The Crown, then-Prince Charles is portrayed as wanting to enact progressive change and softly advocates for the Queen to abdicate the throne at some point. Now that Charles is the King, it’s my understanding that he has not advocated for any meaningful change. I understand it’s mostly a ceremonial role but does carry influence.
My point? Once you reach a certain age, my guess is the energy and inertia simply isn’t there my move the needle more than a bit. My guess is that the limited nonagenarian inertia and energy will probably result in retrenchment rather than progression.
Whether we are in some kind of interregnum depends on whether there is a transformational leader in the wings. At the moment it doesn’t seem likely, but you never know, really. One thing we learned from Nelson is that we don’t quite know which leaders have ambitions to make a lot of changes until they assume the presidency. Perhaps the most transformational possible change might be making changes to succession, which results in a slow shift to younger leadership. I could imagine the most likely scenario be to introduce voluntary (rather than age-mandated) emeritus status for anyone who starts to get, as you say, “old old”. It comes down to whether there’s an president-in-waiting who is particularly bugged by the status quo of sucession planning and is ready to make a change. It’s not impossible that someone like Bednar with his business management background might think that way. It would have nothing to do with wanting more progressive thinking (which I don’t think he does) but just from having spent a lifetime thinking about how to run an organization well.
The problem with voluntary emeritus status is that it can only be implemented from the top, which would required someone choosing to step down. This after a lifetime of living with the idea that God pre-selects presidents of the church based on His foreknowledge of when they are going to die. Our doctrine is that if you aren’t dead, its because God wants you to be the president. Furthermore, the people most in need of retiring as Apostles are the ones least capable of making that decision for themselves.
I believe the only way we are likely to get any retirements for apostles is if someone hangs on as president of the church who is completely incapacitated for a very long time. For instance, if Bednar were president and at age 80 it was clear that he was unable to function (remember names, understand where he is, etc.) but then the situation went on for year after year. The Church has experience with leaders retiring from public events (Benson, Monson, Nelson) but those have been for only a year or two. If it went on for 5 years, 8 years, 10 years, at some point I think the rest of the Q15 would step in and make the decision to change the way things work.
I don’t think there is enough difference between church presidents to call the time between an interregnum. One president has basically the same beliefs, faithfulness, and background as the next. Sure, they have different gospel hobbies. RMN’s was “the word Mormon is bad” and DHO’s is religious freedom and homophobia. But the changes made with these hobbies are not really all that significant, especially when viewed from a few decades perspective rather than just a yearly perspective.
As far as them making changes, I think Chadwick has it correct that when people reach a certain age, they just don’t have the energy or drive to push for change. And it doesn’t have to be old old either, just as soon as you see your doctor more often than your children. I know I am younger than Charles and already I am feeling uninterested in things I used to love, like travel and hobbies. And the more controversial the change, the more energy it would take to push it through.
Easy changes could be pushed by younger GAs with presidential approval, with the younger man either in the 1st presidency or 12, so old church presidents doesn’t mean no change at all. But it is going to mean we are 30 or so years behind the rest of society and changes will not be big or frequent.
I come from a country where the prime minister is 60, and more than half of his politicians are female. Where the conservative opposition parties are led by a 63 year old woman.
Having people in their 80s and 90s leading is even more ridiculous from our perspective.
If the Lord has anything to do with the succession, we might have a few quick deaths, Uchtdorf to give women the priesthood, call young women to be Apostles and then resign to set that precedent. Shake things up, change the system.
As for what is left of America after trump. I can only think there might be such a backlash. But I do not understand the moral vacuum that elected him in the first place.
General authorities need to retire at 75 across the board. No more “fill in the blank” old men in charge. Get them younger in their forties, give them the experience and then let the new blood in. Nothing against doing this in scripture.
-Signed a tired TBM
I would love to see emeritus status for apostles at a certain age and feel it is one of the most impactful changes that could be made. I believe it is 75 for seventies. Even if it were 85 for apostles that would make a huge difference.
Frankly, I believe we’re in serious need of the wisdom of the ancients. Maybe a time will come when we’ll see a “younger” apostle become president of the church–but for now I’m happy to be led by people who have experienced as much of the modern timeline as is humanly possible. It wasn’t so long ago when we had leaders who were brought up at a time when there we no automobiles–who lived to see the inception of the internet! IMO, that span of experience can broaden our leaders’ view of the modern world in a way that enables them to discern between fleeting fashions and grass roots stability. That said, I realize that it takes a lot of compassion and openness to receive what’s good about the new–and I think the apostles generally do a very good job of blending what’s good about the new with what’s good about the old.
The general rule is there will be some changes in direction when a new President takes office. We all sort of forgot that in the 13 years President Hinckley ran the Church (and he had been more or less running it for a decade before that as well), followed by another 10 years for President Monson, who pretty much stayed the course the Hinckley had set.
So when Pres. Nelson took office and started changing a few things, it appeared to most of us to be, Wow!, big changes! Not really, it’s just the previous thirty years had been unusually quiet. I expect more changes with Oaks-Holland-Eyring-Uchtdorf-Bednar.
One thing I’d like to know is…how big is the pool of possible candidates to replace the ranks of GAs, really? I bet it’s not as big as we might assume. The filtering that happens to get through to apostleship is very, very fine. I wonder how that plays into succession. It might be well and good to say, “Let’s bring in younger blood.” But how many like-minded stake presidents are there really who can be 70s, then GA 70s, then Q15?
Opening it to younger people will necessarily lead to more diversity of thought and quicker changes I imagine.
And if the pool of *men* isn’t really that big, then that would be a stronger pressure for being more inclusive of women….
“Frankly, I believe we’re in serious need of the wisdom of the ancients. ”
Such as? If you struggle to think of any real examples of how their wisdom is helpful to us today, perhaps Trump’s truth social account may help. He’s pretty ancient.
Someone already covered how Oaks is stuck thinking that large families are economically feasible in a time when healthcare, housing, and food costs have not kept up with wage inflation. So there’s a data point against your statement.
Chadwick,
I like to think that perhaps one of the reasons as to why Latter-day Saints have four accounts of the creation is because the modern world–the West in particular–is in desperate need of some basic reminders. Here some foundational truths from those accounts that both the ancients and modern ancients uphold:
–God is the Creator.
–Humanity has a divine lineage.
–The Adversary is real.
–Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
–We live in a fallen world.
–Salvation from our fallen condition is possible through the atonement of Christ.
Our secular mechanized society–as a general rule–doesn’t believe any of the afore mentioned statements–not a one! We are in serious need of grounding in the foundational truths of the gospel. And I believe the apostles — with their many years of mortal experience — are well positioned to conduct the church properly through the malaise of worldly doctrines that incessantly compete for our attention.
Jack,
You have a small problem. You can’t seem to break out of fundamentalist thinking. For example, the Old Testament contains at least two prominent creation stories in the Book of Genesis alone (roughly Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which do not mesh well and are likely composed by different authors). There are also allusions to other creation accounts in Job 38, Psalms 74 and 104, and Isaiah that describe the defeat of chaos monsters (Leviathan) or the stretching of the heavens. So should we add chaos monsters and the stretching of the heavens to your list? Or should we perform marriages when the bride and groom are umm…. less than fully clothed? Is the Adversary a talking snake?
Jack:
Hmm. So is this how you interpret this playing out in real life:
“Oh God is the creator and Satan is real and gay marriage is bad and we live in a fallen world. This information was instrumental in my choice to go to university, become a veterinarian, contribute to my 401k in my early 20s, delay having children until I can support them emotionally and financially, prioritize therapy, limit my children’s access to social media, and not doomscroll in the midst of Project 2025.”
Seems the above outcomes are more likely to come from that individual reading Angela Duckworth or Brene Brown or Rich Dad Poor Dad or Jonathan Haidt and having secular parents that frequent museums and model healthy money practices and social boundaries, but what do I know? None of these folks would be considered ancient, notwithstanding their wisdom. I guess the stuff in museums might be ancient.
When I listen to fast and testimony meeting, the most insensitive, black and white thinkers are men under 40. So yeah, I think there is wisdom that comes with age. You need your teeth kicked in a little before you are fit to lead.
Anon,
I love digging into the creation and garden stories–there’s so much I could say about the analogues involved. But that is a topic for another time and thread. But I will say this: the statements that I posted in my previous comment are truths that appear consistently across all of the accounts–with the exception of the Book of Abraham which is truncated and therefore speaks in concert with only three of the six statements.
I find it interesting that in the professional world, people past retirement age are often considered unemployable because they may have lost their intellectual sharpness and vigor…to the point where we have ADEA to protect anyone over the age of 40 from age-based discrimination. Yet we seem to be stuck leaders in powerful positions well into their twilight years.
We’re running into an odd era where we really need to be concerned whether the decisions being made by our major leaders are impacted by things like Alzheimer’s and dementia.
The last three presidencies have all been men aged 70+. Some of the most powerful senators are well into their 80s. Senator Chuck Grassley is 92 years old and plans to run for a 9th term, meaning he’d be 95 at the time of the election and 101 at the end of the term. I have many family members who have remained active and vibrant well into their 90s, but never once have I thought they should make a run for political office…but maybe I’m wrong.
“Happy 90th birthday grandma! This is a difficult conversation to have, and we want you to know how much we still love and value you. But you’re getting to the age where we think it would be best for you if you…this is so hard, I just don’t know how to say it…where it’s time for you to run for congress.”
With modern life expectancy, the LDS church has become a defacto gerontocracy. I was once in a room with one of the twelve, where he admitted that the church moves into the future by “walking backwards while looking at the past,” making it chronically a few steps behind. To put it into perspective, the AM car radio was brand-new technology when Elders Oaks and Eyering were born.
I’m not sure it’s fair (for us or for them) to expect high-quality leadership at such advanced ages.
Chadwick,
There’s no question that there are a lot of good folks our there making wise decisions who rely mostly on the best knowledge that the secular world has to offer. But we have to look at the aggregate to get the complete picture. We are the richest people to have ever walked the planet–and yet there’s so much suicidal ideation in our society. Why? The answer to that question may be complex when we look at individual cases–and it’s my personal opinion that so much of our distress is a product of not knowing who were are. Loss of identity is one of the main contributors to depression–and we’re a depressed society–so much so that I’m of the opinion that mental illness might very well be a prophetic fulfillment having to do with a “sickness that will cover the land” or “men’s hearts failing them” and so forth. But even so, there’s no question in my mind that things would be a lot better in our homes, families, marriages, and in society generally speaking if we were (collectively) more grounded in the foundational truths of the gospel. The best medicine for the troubled soul is to partake of the love of God which “sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of men.” And being grounded and settled in the restored gospel is what will get us moving in the right direction–toward the love of God.
Jack,
I will actually agree with you that more spirituality would be a net benefit to our modern society. I would even say that loss of community created by people leaving organized religion has created a real social deficit. I will also agree that people can benefit from the wisdom of their elders. I might even go so far as agreeing with your claim that people need to be grounded in the “foundational truths of the gospel”. The difference, I think, is that I would define foundational much more narrowly than I think you would. Like, I would say the foundational truth is mostly found in places like the Sermon on the Mount, and that we benefit from participating in religious communities that help us live those ideals. The rest is all peripheral and can be updated with the times, including arcane leadership succession schemes. We don’t have to take our scriptures so literally, we can update our understandings with new information, including from secular sources, and we should absolutely seek wisdom, but it might sometimes be available from someone younger than 90 or even outside our particular religious group.
Adding a second thumbs up for Pirate Priest’s comment. It isn’t only in the Church that the leadership is getting old old. Some have suggested the General Authorities retire at 75, or even 85. I would support that sort of age limit for elected office as well. Younger, even. Add a constitutional amendment that says you can’t hold elected office past your 72nd birthday — state or federal. And apply that age limit to the Supreme Court justices as well.
It isn’t just that people’s mental abilities and energy to keep up with a changing world decline as they get older. There are younger people waiting in the wings. Make younger leadership the norm. And by young, I mean late 50s through 60s. Retire in your 70s and go found a charity and pick up some hobbies. There are other things to do in life than keep doing what you’ve been doing for 40 years.
DaveW’s point about Church leaders dying in office is a good one though. We’ve been taught to believe that Church leaders get released when they die. But then again, someone can just reveal that dying in office is only a policy and there is now a mandatory retirement age.
As for global politics — it will be interesting to watch the post-American era unfold. I wish I didn’t live in interesting times. But with Trump jerking around everyone on the planet, I doubt any countries are going to trust America’s electorate anymore. The era of America being the world’s policeman will decline, along with American scientific and medical leadership. Other countries will step into the gap and the balance of global power will shift. If it keeps on this way, America will become a country with a tiny rich class, and a lot of lower income, less educated laborers. With the Republican attack on higher education, defunding universities and scientific research, and pushing to bring manufacturing back to American soil, we will voluntarily turn ourselves into a third world country.
I predict China as the Next Big Country, with Brazil being the leader of the Americas in the next decades.
When you add America 75% of the people of the world now live in totelerian regimes. So those of us in the free world are particularly blessed/skilled. That the downfall of America was voted for by religious people including 2/3 of Mormons says something about the relationship between religion and morality.
The 25% in the free world are much less religious.
Those of us still free have to defend against the big money spreading the American messages of hate and the whole trump package particularly to our right wing politics.
Our government for example has just banned children under 16 from the internet, to protect them, and is defending our culture (particularly indigenous) from being exploited by AI from America. For example Ai can produce a dot painting, and not pay anything to the culture that originated it.
Totally agree with Janey.
Perilous times need vital leaders in politics and religion. Religion should have been warning about trump not training his supporters.
.