Pro and con of the LDS gerontacracy

[SeattleUte]

Having LDS leadership be of so extraordinarily advanced age practically guarantees against sexual or even financial scandal at high levels. At their age, there isn't much zest for the kind of life associated with those temptaions. On the other hand, they are literally from another age. This is especially true given their life long ultra conservativism on social issues, and for many of them an absense of an intellectual life (I'm aware there are exceptions such as Dallen Oaks; maybe he's the only exception currently). Thus, the LDS Church pretty much exists in amber.

[Sullyute]

Even though the answer you provided is very critical (we wouldn’t expect anything different), I think the original question is valid and interesting. Here are some of the pros and cons that came to my mind:

PROS (in no particular order):

Experience - Church Administration: Most of the recent apostles have been bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and seventies before getting the call to be an apostle. Then they have an additional 30+ years of Church leadership here before they become the Trustee-in-Trust/President of the Church.

Experience – Business Management: Most have strong experience with managing large businesses or institutions, employees and shareholders, multi-million dollar budgets, and publicity and marketing.

Mellowing: I think that age calms some of the angst, anxiety, and hawkishness of youth. I think age had a lot to due with the mellowing of Benson rhetic by the time he became President.

Family – isn’t it about time: Church leaders recently haven’t been called until they are in their late 50’s or early 60’s so most if not all of their children have been raised already so they can dedicate more time with the detrimental affects on the family.

Slow to Change: Age generally brings deliberate and sedate actions so Church leaders tend to take their time in making important decisions.

Respect for Elderly: With the loss of respect for the aged in many cultures, having leaders in their 80’s and 90’s can foster respect and love for the wisdom that comes with age and experience.

CONS: (in no particular order)

Enervation: Generally older leaders have greatly diminished vigor and energy to meet the demanding responsibilities that come with higher church leadership. Especially considering the President of the Church is generally the oldest and has the most responsibilities.

Senility: So not only does the physical ability of leaders diminish as stated above, but their mental capacity is at risk. There have been some Presidents that were sharp right to the end (Hinckley), but it seems that more have had very public deterioration of their mental capacity (Benson, Smith, McKay, etc).

Slow to Change: This can go both ways, it is good to not make changes based on the direction of the wind, but change can become more difficult with age. “That is the way that it has always been.”

Power: A lot of power and authority is condensed into the hands of one very aged individual with little to no [earthly] accountability.

Succession: Since the leadership is based on time in the Q12, by simply choosing a very young apostle, the President of the Church can play the odds that the individual will become President in the future (Jos. F Smith, Grant, McKay, Monson, Bednar?). So certain ideas, leanings, beliefs, propensities, etc can be potentially perpetuated by choosing the applicable young leader with those characteristics.

Removal: Although there have been a few leaders removed from office by others in that same office, there is only one way to remove someone from the pinnacle of that apostolic position.



Here are some numbers showing the average age of when someone is called into the Q12 broken down over 25 year increments. There is an interesting correlation between the rise in age with the decline of nepotism.

1835-1849 = 31
1850-1874 = 39
1875-1899 = 37
1900-1924 = 43
1925-1949 = 55
1950-1974 = 57
1975-1999 = 58
2000-2011 = 60

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I can't believe this thread was originally an air ball. What a fascinating subject!

[woot]

Even though the answer you provided is very critical (we wouldn’t expect anything different), I think the original question is valid and interesting. Here are some of the pros and cons that came to my mind:

PROS (in no particular order):

Experience - Church Administration: Most of the recent apostles have been bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and seventies before getting the call to be an apostle. Then they have an additional 30+ years of Church leadership here before they become the Trustee-in-Trust/President of the Church.

Experience – Business Management: Most have strong experience with managing large businesses or institutions, employees and shareholders, multi-million dollar budgets, and publicity and marketing.

Mellowing: I think that age calms some of the angst, anxiety, and hawkishness of youth. I think age had a lot to due with the mellowing of Benson rhetic by the time he became President.

Family – isn’t it about time: Church leaders recently haven’t been called until they are in their late 50’s or early 60’s so most if not all of their children have been raised already so they can dedicate more time with the detrimental affects on the family.

Slow to Change: Age generally brings deliberate and sedate actions so Church leaders tend to take their time in making important decisions.

Respect for Elderly: With the loss of respect for the aged in many cultures, having leaders in their 80’s and 90’s can foster respect and love for the wisdom that comes with age and experience.

CONS: (in no particular order)

Enervation: Generally older leaders have greatly diminished vigor and energy to meet the demanding responsibilities that come with higher church leadership. Especially considering the President of the Church is generally the oldest and has the most responsibilities.

Senility: So not only does the physical ability of leaders diminish as stated above, but their mental capacity is at risk. There have been some Presidents that were sharp right to the end (Hinckley), but it seems that more have had very public deterioration of their mental capacity (Benson, Smith, McKay, etc).

Slow to Change: This can go both ways, it is good to not make changes based on the direction of the wind, but change can become more difficult with age. “That is the way that it has always been.”

Power: A lot of power and authority is condensed into the hands of one very aged individual with little to no [earthly] accountability.

Succession: Since the leadership is based on time in the Q12, by simply choosing a very young apostle, the President of the Church can play the odds that the individual will become President in the future (Jos. F Smith, Grant, McKay, Monson, Bednar?). So certain ideas, leanings, beliefs, propensities, etc can be potentially perpetuated by choosing the applicable young leader with those characteristics.

Removal: Although there have been a few leaders removed from office by others in that same office, there is only one way to remove someone from the pinnacle of that apostolic position.



Here are some numbers showing the average age of when someone is called into the Q12 broken down over 25 year increments. There is an interesting correlation between the rise in age with the decline of nepotism.

1835-1849 = 31
1850-1874 = 39
1875-1899 = 37
1900-1924 = 43
1925-1949 = 55
1950-1974 = 57
1975-1999 = 58
2000-2011 = 60

Good post. I think one of the biggest cons is that there can be no illusion that some particular person was chosen, specially prepared, and called by god to lead his church for a special purpose. Instead, we get an assembly line of folks, who, even if they were once dynamic and interesting, have lost much of that by the time they have a shot at the throne, and any given apostle only becomes prophet through the luck of outliving the others.

On the other hand, it seems like a great way to do things if the priority is maintaining institutional inertia and having experienced leaders who don't assume authoritative positions until after the period during which people tend to do things like have affairs, question their testimonies, etc.

So I think the current system is a really good one for the church's purposes and I doubt it ever changes.

[mUUser]

Family – isn’t it about time: Church leaders recently haven’t been called until they are in their late 50’s or early 60’s so most if not all of their children have been raised already so they can dedicate more time with the detrimental affects on the family.

I wish this trickled down to the bishop level. It makes me sad that my bishop, who has a suburban crammed full of kids, is only in the 4th of his 5 year service. Ive watched a couple of those kids go into a free fall and his poor wife has aged 20 years -- looks completely overwhelmed.

[pellegrino]

I wish this trickled down to the bishop level. It makes me sad that my bishop, who has a suburban crammed full of kids, is only in the 4th of his 5 year service. Ive watched a couple of those kids go into a free fall and his poor wife has aged 20 years -- looks completely overwhelmed.

but don't you see that he's been fast-tracked into the executive development program? That's how the church hierarchy works. Very rarely does a man who is first made bishop in his fifties receive greater, more noticeable callings. The proving grounds with regards to priesthood leadership takes place from the age of about 28 to 45. Look at all of the Q12, or even the 70s, they all were called into bishoprics or as bishops in their 30s, Stake Presidency in their 40s and if they move to the next level it happens during their 40s or 50s.