Today’s guest post is from Carol Brown.
Although I value the wisdom and life experience that often come with old age, I respectfully suggest that all general authorities become emeritus at age seventy. Before you accuse me of ageism, please know I am very old. I know firsthand some of the challenges elderly folks face, even with decades of church service. I also have served among and know many older members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Let me explain a few of my reasons for recommending emeritus status for top LDS leaders:
First, the Church is an increasingly wealthy, complex corporation with many monumental decisions concentrated in the hands of a very few men. These men need to be alert and healthy to manage the ecclesiastical, financial, and social issues of the Church, and some elderly folks are neither. One cannot be on a regime on pain medications or battling major health challenges and still be at peak mental performance. I speak from personal experience.
Statistics show that 33% of people age 85 and older will have dementia. We know that past prophets have suffered from it, including Presidents Monson, Benson, Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, and McKay. This should be cause for concern.
LDS theology states that “there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred” (D&C 132:7). This teaching alone should motivate leaders to consider emeritus status for top LDS leaders, who, with the miracles of modern medicine, may be kept alive longer than ever and who are empowered to speak on behalf of God.
Another issue is the insularity that decades in top LDS leadership can create in leaders, who may no longer be familiar with the day-to-day lives of ordinary Saints. The 2015 POX, the current transgender policy, and the past exclusion of Black members from receiving temple blessings long after the culture and science affirmed that these folks are innately worthy and valuable deserves careful consideration.
I visit with a number of highly intelligent older men and women. Without exception, they admit they are not as sharp as they used to be—either physically or mentally. Even with decades of life experience, they lack the day-to-day experiences of folks in their fifties and sixties. Although some still work and volunteer, most admit that they cannot perform to the level that we could a couple of decades ago. That is why—even with their wisdom and life experience—you see few, if any LDS bishops called to serve in their eighties.
Finally, allowing older LDS leaders to spend more time with their loved ones and families would show compassion to those who have served so devotedly to the church for so long. If they or their spouses become infirm, they could have the time to care for and receive the care that they need. They could also enjoy their grandchildren and great-grandchildren without the constraints of a demanding calling, and they could savor their golden years without the pressure of running a multi-billion-dollar organization.
In 2013 Pope Benedict XVI broke with centuries of tradition by resigning as head of the Catholic Church, citing his deteriorating strength due to the demands of the papacy and his old age. He was eighty-five. Pope Francis followed him and to the dismay of some conservative and traditionalist Catholics, instituted reforms that included updating laws designed to silence victims of abuse, alienate women and LGBTQI members of faith, and to isolate powers to a small group of men within the Vatican. He also addressed issues that included climate change, the plight of refugees, and other social justice issues. Although the Catholic Church grew under his leadership, the number of nuns declined as did attendance in some regions during and following the Covid pandemic.
One wonders if a younger LDS leadership might confront issues of financial transparency, ecclesiastical sexual abuse, and wealth creation in the LDS Church or if the Church would continue to uphold its current policies. Leadership from more areas of the world could reflect the views of the church’s growing international numbers. However, any liberal moves by leadership could offend the majority of LDS members who are politically and socially conservative.
I love and admire older folks. I am one. I have spent much of my life working with and serving the elderly. With that said, I believe we need younger leaders to administer the complicated affairs of a global church, whose management is concentrated in the hands of a very few. With many top LDS leaders in their 80s and 90s, a system of gerontocracy can lead to stagnant leadership that is unequipped or unwilling to confront current challenges. Top LDS leaders should be at their peak physically and mentally and should resign if they are not. That would be a sign of humility and courage that reflects the best of Christian discipleship.
What are your thoughts?
- Do you think top leaders should have emeritus status? If not, why not?
- If so, what age would you recommend? 70? 75? 80?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Paging President Uchtdorf…. In the United States, commercial airline pilots working for major carriers (Part 121 airlines) must retire at age 65. However, there is no maximum age for other types of commercial flying, such as corporate or private aviation, as long as the pilot maintains a valid medical certificate. Europe has similar rules. How does the health, energy and mental clarity needed to fly a passenger-filled commercial aircraft compare to the abilities needed for leading a worldwide church with all of its spiritual and social challenges, multi-billion dollar wealth, etc.? I am not going to specify an emeritus age for general authorities, but I have seen the aging effects that my elderly family members and friends have experienced. They deserve rest and dignity in their sunset years.
I am sympathetic to both sides of this question. I will note, however, that senior church leaders are not in front-line response positions, and that they can hire excellent younger and expert staff in any number of disciplines to do the heavy sorting and lifting. Thus, they collectively are more a somewhat removed board of directors than actual must-show-results workers.
My bigger concern is their unavailability for honest conversations with church members. I wish we could have honest and meaningful conversations. Somehow, when Paul or Peter visited Sardis or Antioch or wherever, I suppose they were willing to talk to regular people, rather than being hermetically sealed behind handlers until time for their one-way sermons.
I agree in principle. I would add that there appears to be a policy or practice of not calling someone to a GA position if they are already 70 or older. (I don’t know how formal and whether there are exceptions. I’ve seen the pattern and I know individuals who have been affected by the practice/policy.) That means somebody has done the same or similar analysis, and that we’re already well into an emeritus at 70 practice except for a very small number of life-time callings.
I don’t think 70 is the right dividing line. I am 70 (with absolute zero personal stake in this question, for what it’s worth) and I think I know my peer group well enough to see a wide range of capabilities at this age. Some have already slowed down but others look to be good for another five to even ten years. Of course the risk of serious impairment ramps up quite quickly with every year, but I’d prefer to provide for easy exits (retirement; limited scope and time; training instead of line responsibility) instead of a sharp divide at 70. Furthermore, a bright line at 70 would further bias the system toward GAs who are of an economic class that permits early retirement or who worked for the church for much of their life. I think the system is already biased too far in that direction. Thinking of all the people who work full-time until the traditional 65, there’s not enough time to learn the ropes and provide substantial service.
I completely agree that there should be an emeritus status for the Q15 – it already existed in many other layers of the church leadership.
We want to maximize the benefits of vast life experience while mitigating the inevitable impacts of old age.
At minimum, there should be a voluntary emeritus status for the Q15. I also don’t mind the idea of dual cap – a maximum age and a maximum length of active service. Both can be relatively long to maintain the stability that the LDS church likes to maintain. Something like, age 85 or 30-40 years of tenure or voluntarily (for health reasons, etc)
Watching the announcement of the new First Presidency was painful. President Oaks, President Eyring, and President Holland all appeared barely capable of making short statements. It appeared to be a huge effort just to do this short broadcast, with no questions taken or press present that I saw. I really don’t understand how they do not see the need to make changes. Elder Christofferson seemed to be functioning well. He is 80 years old. It’s hard to explain how I felt watching this. It breaks my heart. It is cruel and yet they are doing it to themselves and each other.
Emeritus status even at age 85 would help a lot. We would still have frail, struggling leaders. Emeritus status at 70 would immediately take out most of the Apostles and is not feasible.
This is a question that is not open to church members to consider or analyze. The head of the church is Christ, it is HIS prophets and HIS Apostles, and only HE alone decides who they will be. This is not a charitable organization or a common secular profession.
By the way, why do you refer to the Catholic Church, for example? The Catholic Church distorted the teachings of Christ, accepted the third temptation of Christ. It is the Catholic Church that always persecutes everyone who disagrees with its imposed false version of Christianity. It is not surprising that under Bergoglio, LGBT ideology took over. Because the path from inquisitorial fascism to LGBT fascism is not as far-fetched as many people think. By the way, the Pope himself did not declare that he rules his church according to revelation, but only according to tradition, customs, canons, and so on.
I am a very healthy 85 year old women…… but…….i agree with everything you said! I am not as sharp as I was 15 years ago. I have advocated for years that emeritus status would help the Church.
Aside from disagreeing that 70 would be a correct emeritus age (my own parents are beyond that and still going fine like someone in their 60s), the one thing in my mind is really just to ask, what is the actual purpose of a “general authority”? Let’s focus just on the apostles – what is their actual purpose? If we are looking from a scriptural perspective, it is to be special witnesses of Christ isn’t it? That doesn’t seem to require an age limit. What I gather from most conversations on the topic is that we are in fact concerned with administrative issues. And, yes, there is a whole discussion to be had about what role(s) apostles actually fill in the reality of the actual church organization (there sure seems to be a lot of administrative work done – committees, etc.).
To me, that suggests maybe the real question is whether the general authorities are focused on the truly substantive things pertinent to their offices (apostle, seventy, etc.), and what could/should be shifted to people for the administration part of things.
In practical reality, I acknowledge that I have no idea how that could be implemented – but in theory, it makes sense.
Even the LDS system itself supports an emeritus program for apostles: (1) they retire Seventies at age 70; (2) they don’t call local leaders or mid-level leaders in their 70s or even typically their 60s. So plainly, from the Church’s own system, they see a problem with leaders in their 70s and 80s, much less in their 90s. Except for apostles, which simply doesn’t make sense.
Remember that when the emeritus system for Seventies was put in place in 1991, there had been discussion of extending it to apostles as well. But the apostles making the decision decided no retirement or emeritus for apostles.
If Pres. Oaks had called two younger counselors from among the junior apostles, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this.
Dave B., now-President Christofferson looked positively youthful in relation to the others!!
This is interesting:
https://studyfinds.org/people-hit-functional-peak-around-60/
If I was a TBM at the time of Monson, and if the church announced that Monson had dementia and was stepping down, I’d see that as a sign of a healthy organization. Leave him on the stand and during conference, let him pop up and leave his love for everyone and bare his testimony. I probably would have cried.
Instead they hid him and let rumors swirl.
It’s ok to get sick, it’s ok to get dementia, it doesn’t mean God left you because you can no longer serve in your capacity. It just means God picked a human who wasn’t a superhuman. That’s the cool thing about the gospel, God doing his work with fallible humans.
Make it so number one!
Being 81 years old myself, I believe that it is cruel and unusual punishment to keep people working past 80. I retired at 76. I definitely don’t have the energy I had at 70. There is a saying: the 60s are go go, the 70s are slow go, and the 80s are no go. I think they should start with age 80 as a retirement age. Maybe move it downward if that isn’t working out. Otherwise, we are going to continue to have presidents who are incapacitated or demented by the time the reach the presidency.
@John,
It is true that this is a question (like so many others) that members don’t have any say in, but why should they not have opinions about it? We can say the head of the church is Christ all we want, but there are too many past decisions that I don’t believe Christ could have had anything to do with. If the Book of Mormon admits to the possibility of containing “errors of men”, then surely the Handbook of Instructions could as well, could it not?
Lockstep succession and a fixed retirement age wouldn’t mix well, I think. The implication is that when an apostle is called, we already know if and when and for how long they would serve as president of the church in, maybe 15-20 years down the road. That raises the stakes for whoever is deciding on that particular calling relative to the current system. It also probably leads to shorter presidential terms because I think I higher fraction would have their term and then retire. (This requires a bit of retrospective data analysis, which I now intend to undertake because it’s an interesting question.) I’m not sure that’s necessarily a desirable outcome either. I think somewhere between 5-10 years is probably a good term. So my point is that a fixed retirement age means completely rethinking succession, which might be a good thing, but that’s a big leap from the current system. I’m not sure a fixed retirement age is strictly necessary anyway, but I think a good starting point would be voluntary retirement. I think it should be normalized that when someone is no longer able to travel or feels their health or abilities are beginning to fail, or just feels they would like a few quiet years out of the spotlight at the end of their life, they can step aside. Maybe there should be informal upper ceiling. Nobody stays past 90 or maybe even 85.
Interesting that the OP chose 70 as the ideal mandatory retirement age for apostles. I’m inclined to agree. With the benefit of a few years of hindsight, I realize that the age window of late 60s to early 70s is where I noticed sharp behavioral changes in my boomer parents. This is the point at which they became much more cranky, adopted narrower worldviews, took a hard right turn politically (they had been level-headed moderates guided by common sense during my growing up years), began to let fear dictate their decisions, and generally complained about the state of the world while longing for the relative stability of their youth (conveniently forgetting about Vietnam and civil rights struggles and all the turbulence of that era) while having no more ability to look ahead to the future. They also became far more devoutly TBM than I ever remember them being when I was young. They associate almost exclusively with other LDS boomers who share similar (often abhorrent) views. The current LDS Church seems to cater to that cohort now. They may be nice enough people as individuals, but they are not the people who should be in charge of the organization–or anything for that matter. Around age 70, a switch seems to flip. It makes these people more of a liability, that outweighs any possible value that may come from vast life experience.
Transferring these men to “emeritus” status is charitable, because it still keeps them on retainer in case the occasional odd administrative situation arises that requires some extensive institutional knowledge to solve. But for the most part, retirement would be theirs to enjoy as they see fit.
There have been a number of comments in support of normalizing voluntary retirement from the Q15/Church president. I would also support trying that out if that’s all the Q15 can agree to. However, I do have a concern about this. I fear that were this to be done, we’d end up having the Q15 members who don’t think they are constantly receiving inspiration/revelation from God retiring when the effects of aging reach a certain point while the Q15 members who believe that they are constantly receiving inspiration/revelation will hold on until the end. And, quite frankly, the guys who think they’re constantly receiving revelation from God are typically the guys that really shouldn’t be in charge.
For example, Nelson, Bednar, and Cook have all made multiple comments about how they feel that God is very regularly directing and guiding them. On the other hand, Hinckley made comments kind of implying that he didn’t feel he was receiving inspiration all that much. I also don’t recall Uctdorf saying such things, either. Do we really want a Q15 more stacked with the Nelsons, Bednars, and Cooks of the world and fewer of the Hinckleys and Uctdorfs? I shudder just thinking about it. If we go with voluntary retirement, I fear that’s what may happen.
John: “This is a question that is not open to church members to consider or analyze.” LOL, no, it (like basically everything) is not open to church members to DECIDE. The church can correlate the contents of the manuals, but they can’t correlate the thoughts in our heads. Nice try. Also, the church was founded on common consent which obviously went out the window, but it’s still supposedly how things are supposed to be decided according to the D&C. Everyone has conveniently forgotten that. We’re allowed to think thoughts and discuss them. Or do you think the church should control every topic we can discuss? That’s an authoritarian cult if so.
There are a few different ways we could improve from our current gerontocracy, which is causing some serious relevance problems. The parenting advice leaders are giving is based on a world that not only is foreign to my kids, but that I didn’t personally experience and I’m Gen X, so not exactly young. That’s just one example. If leaders’ advice is unrelatable and irrelevant, how are they supposed to provide value in their General Conference talks? They end up speaking to a smaller and smaller subset of church members, many of whom are also much older.
Politics has also become a gerontocracy in the US, and there are a few other ways to turn the tide on this trend:
1) Replace vacancies with much younger leaders (e.g. in their 30s and 40s rather than their late 60s)
2) Have “term” limits (e.g. 18 years of service as an apostle rather than an age cutoff), and yes, mandatory retirement at age 70 is a good idea. I agree with those who say making it optional creates a whole different set of problems.
3) If you do keep it optional, continuing to pay them 50% of their current stipend for retiring would certainly help them make the jump. I’m doubtful any of them has leveraged the role to “get rich,” but giving up $120K (is it $140K per year now? I forget) for the rest of your life with all your expenses covered to boot is a lot of safety net as well as social cache. They would already be giving up the admiration and VIP status that the position conveys, and let’s be honest, they are only human. That’s a big disincentive to step down, not only for them, but for their family members.
4) Speaking of which, we really need to do something about the nepotism in the church. I’m not super excited that everyone seems to be related to each other. That’s not really how you improve the relevance of the counsel they are giving. It’s how you create an elite leader class to rule over the plebes.
Gee guys, I don’t know. Somehow the Lord was able to lead and guide the church out of obscurity and out of darkness through the efforts of a poorly educated, twenty-something-year-old Joseph Smith, and not the more educated and experienced Sidney Rigdon. I think he can also lead a complex church in our day using the elderly set of modern apostles we have today. He has always used the weak things of the world to accomplish his mission. His ways confound the wise… and it is magnificent to behold!
With all due respect, we probably don’t need to second guess the Lord in this matter.
Best wishes to you all!
OP – this was very well-written and reasoned. I enjoyed reading it and thought you raised valid points. I especially appreciated the personal perspective and observation you included.
The ability to retire is a mercy, not a penalty. Some people want to hang on forever, but many more want to hang it up and relax for a few years. The people who want to hang on forever are the ones that other people wish would retire. I’ve been the young and energetic assistant for an elderly man, and good grief, I was the one doing his job so why was he getting all the accolades for it?
A few commenters have suggested that 70 is too young, that there are still some good years after 70. That’s actually a good reason for a mandatory retirement age at 70. The retirees can use a few more energetic years to travel on vacations they’ve been delaying, take up a new hobby or activity, and still be healthy enough to sit in the bleachers and watch their grandson perform with the high school marching band. Rather than push off retirement until all the good years are gone, retire while you still have time to establish some new social circles and get involved with younger relatives. Grandpa who comes to a high school performance can be a lot more relevant to a grandson than Grandpa who can’t get out of his recliner anymore.
@John and @Chicago Suburbs, your comments are assuming that God plays a very direct role in choosing the apostles/Church presidents. It would seem that John, and probably Chicago Suburbs as well, would need to believe that God is directly controlling both the calling and the death dates of the Q15 to get the right person into the presidency at the right time. God’s involvement in killing off prophets/apostles at the right time seems highly unlikely to me. When you think hard about this, do you really, honestly think God is doing that?
Furthermore, if God were truly direclty involved in issuing the calls to the Q15 in the first place, I would expect, as Chicago Suburbs notes, more people like Joseph Smith to be called. In other words, I would expect people to be called from all countries of the world, some with very little education (like Joseph Smith), some very young (again, like Joseph Smith) and some older, some wealthy and some poor (again, like Joseph Smith), occasionally someone with a law or business background/degree, but more often than not, probably people from other professions (because there *are* other professions, like farming, or, um, I guess treasure digging, you know, again like Joseph Smith). Is this how the Q15 has looked during your lifetime? Or, do you see mostly old, white, Mormon Corridor born and raised, educated, wealthy businessmen and lawyers?
While your version of how apostles and Church presidents are called does match what is typically taught from the pulpits, are you open to considering that maybe what is taught from the pulpits on this topic is wrong? There really is no scriptural support for lifetime apostleship, the senior member of the Q15 ascending to the presidency, etc. Yeah, the Q15 has said the system we have is great, but they’ve said a bunch of stuff we no longer believe today, so is there a chance that the current system could be improved?
Finally, I (and I know I’m not alone) don’t see a world in which God is intervening as much as you seem to believe that He is. There is so much suffering and injustice in the world that God apparently just allows to happen. And yet, am I supposed to believe that in the midst of all of these huge problems, God precisely calculates the date at which each of these 15 men will be called and then breath their last breath? It just doesn’t seem very likely to me. I perceive of a world in which God, if He even exists, is a whole lot more hands off than what many orthodox Mormons believe. I wouldn’t be surprised if He isn’t involved at all in deciding who is called to the Q15, much less their death dates. Is there room for people like me in your church, or would you just prefer we walk away?
First of all, if the church REALLY wanted “vast life experience” they would broaden the applicants for GA to somebody besides straight, cis, white, old, *males*. Especially the males part of this. No, they only pretend that life experience is valuable, because yes old men have more life experience than young men. If they were really looking to broaden the life experience of GAs, letting them get old is the least effective way. They are just a bunch of men who have had exactly the same life experiences over and over, not too much variation between the lot of them.
If they actually valued life experience they would be moving much quicker to get blacks in there. So far, we are almost 50 years since a member of the 12 being black became a possibility and still, we barely have a handful in the seventies, the lowest ranks of “top leadership”.
If they really valued varied life experience, they would stop ignoring the experience of half the church by ignoring women. Women have very different experiences growing up in the church than men do, but that whole half of the church only gets a “voice” after they have proven they think just like the men do and uphold patriarchy above the good of humanity. So many women have bad experiences in the church that women are now leaving in greater numbers than men for the first time in world history. Traditionally, for some reason the men have never bothered asking, women were always more religious than men, all through recorded history. But now that has changed and the men don’t even seem to care enough to notice. Why are women of all religious backgrounds abandoning organized religion at greater percentages than ever before? Aw, who cares as long as old men get to run things.
And I won’t get into the idea of valuing the sinning gay’s life experience or those horrid trans women who want to be men or the delusional men who think they are women. No, their life experience is not worth considering when we think about the value of varied life experience. [end sarcasm]
No, they only value their own life experience, repeated for 90 years. And they think that qualifies them to make decisions about the rest of us? That just shows their huge lack of life experience because they all have pretty much the same experience of being white cis straight males in a culture that values those traits above all others.
So, I am nixing the whole argument about the “life experience” of old white men. Not that I have anything about old white straight cis men, because I am married to one and I like him quite a bit. It is just that this ONE life experience is NOT all there is.
And I am in favor of holding an election for prophet and having mandatory retirement age for all GAs.