Should the LDS president be chosen like the Pope?

Our new apostles are chosen in pretty much the exact same way that the Pope is chosen (without the white smoke) – by the top leadership getting together, talking about candidates, making suggestions about a short list, choosing the final person to be the next apostle. The only real difference between the two organizationally when it comes to succession is that the senior person in the Q12 (Q15, usually, but not always) takes the role of President of the Quorum.

I don’t see that big a difference between how the Pope and the LDS President are chosen, when it comes right down to it. This new Pope was the one who got the second most votes last time around, so it’s not like it’s a big surprise – and we actually have more of a history of possible surprises in the First Presidency – although that isn’t saying much, since we’ve only had two FP counselors who weren’t apostles.

I work with many Catholics and it was actually quite moving the prayers they expressed for the new Pope and the genuine hope for their faith. There was a succession crisis after the death of Joseph Smith and there was quite a bit of “campaigning” by many individuals to take over the role as the new prophet. I’m not sure after Brigham Young succeeded in becoming the next prophet if the process has changed from today. Maybe someone can chime in on this historical part.

With the new Pope being announced I was thinking about this process too and started to poke around the Internet a bit.

From the LDS Newsroom

The appointment of a new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints happens in an orderly way that — remarkably in today’s world — avoids any trace of internal lobbying for position or rank. Viewed by members as a divinely revealed process, it is devoid of electioneering whether behind the scenes or in public.

Seems like an odd way of wording this. Makes it sound like the LDS church is above the whole process of other wordly organizations (I assume meaning the Catholic church). Here is the full link – http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

And then this head scratching comment at Mormonwiki (I know it’s just wiki but it’s out there to read)

It is truly the Lord who calls a man to be prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord controls who His president will be in the following ways:

The Lord determines who is called to be an apostle and when they will be called. This includes who will be ordained first if two men are called at the same time (For instance, Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson were ordained apostles on the same day. Because Pres. Kimball was ordained first, he became prophet after the death of Harold B. Lee. If Pres. Benson had been ordained first, Pres. Kimball would never have become the prophet).

The Lord can choose when an apostle will die, thus altering seniority.

The Lord, through revelation, established the system.

Link –http://www.mormonwiki.com/Choosing_a_Prophet

I’ve always thought that the Spirit should determine who the right person is for the right time. In the LDS church it is a foregone conclusion who the next prophet will be. Revelation is not even mentioned. When you read the official succession process of succession in the church, it sounds like a board meeting with formal motions and the rest of it. Al least the Catholics state they involve prayer and fasting in their process…

I suppose the machinations, if there are any, occur when someone is picked as a GA and/or becomes an apostle.

But 14 million vs a billion? No contest. Pope is more prestigious whether right or wrong. And their art, music and architecture is light years ahead of the LDS.

The hierarchy of the church demands that there be a church president. However, the idea that God wants a specific person to be president is a bit of a stretch, to me. Lots of religious people, including LDS, but also outside the church, seem to have a belief that God manipulates minute details in our lives, like a puppet-master. A common statement when a pro athlete suffers and injury or gets cut by his team, is to say that it’s God’s will or plan. Really? This seems even more important when it comes time to chose the next prophet. I mean, God must have been pretty displeased with Harold B. Lee’s presidency, because God “took him home” after less that a year and a half, and when he was just 74. But another way to look at it is that any of the Q15 is perfectly capable of taking on the role of Church President. The Church today is guided much more by sound practices and inspiration than it is by revelation. In that sense, it is no different from the Catholic Church. I think it is fairly accepted that MEN choose the Pope, and because they are good men, they choose a good Pope, and the Pope, being a good man, can officiate in the office of Saint Peter and do the best he can for God and Church. If God is looking the other way for a few minutes, and a random series of life events makes a senior Apostle President of the Church, even though God didn’t specifically “call” him, and then God wants to reveal that it is time to build a temple in Far West, I assume he would not have any problem telling it to the current Prophet/President.

So, from that standpoint, designating the Senior Apostle to be the next President makes perfect sense. As Ray pointed out, these Apostles are chosen through diligent evaluation, not that different from the Papal Conclave, yet probably over a longer period of time, and perhaps with less politics involved. They prove themselves. If they aren’t up to the task, they can be removed from the Quorum. Although this hasn’t happened in our memory, it certainly can and has happened.

Good point, Sam.

I know someone who converted to Catholicism after rejecting our Mormon history based on his new view of our prophets and apostles. I’ve never understood that, except to believe that he really didn’t understand Catholic history any better than he understood Mormon history. He got a very biased exposure to our history and the same, from the other angle, of Catholic history.

Frankly, the same can be said about pretty much any religious history. Good people tend to choose good successors – but that’s only a tendency. If anything, the Old Testament ought to serve as a serious cautionary tale about the ups and downs of both perceived prophetic and dynastic leadership.

Where would Packer lead the church if he became the next prophet?

Not far, I think – both as a function of available time and inclination. He’s not a reformer or dictator at heart – and he’s not as hardcore conservative, overall, as most people think, given how much his sexual views dominate attention.

I guess for me the idea of the apostles seeking and receiving inspiration together works better because I can see the Holy Ghost in the process. I can also see the sitting prophet designating a successor working because if the prophet is inspired he should be inspired to know who the next one will be. But having a set pattern that allows for no inspiration and appears to have been started as a tradition and not revelation I don’t see the HG in it…

Thoughts??

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

The Bible appears to say that everyone that comes to power is appointed to that power by God. I personally feel that this section was written to keep the early Christians from becoming too subversive and facing increasing persecution but if the political leaders are designated by God then it makes sense that the religious leaders are too.

I am also thankful for the LDS system of succession – it tends to minimize corruption and campaigning but also dynasties.

I understand that BY really didn’t want to leave the church in the hands of John Taylor but was powerless to stop it. So a church president might have a fair amount of influence in selecting a new Apostle but the succession path to the president has already been predetermined (at least for the next 50 years or so). I am glad that the hardliner pro-polygamists, or pro-priesthood ban camp, or anti-evolution crew didn’t have the power to ensure that the next administration was as devoted to these particular ideas as they were. If you’re the president and you want to give your candidate the best chance of being a future president – You need to select someone very young!

I am also glad that we don’t go from Father to Son like the RLDS used to. I would hate to hang the church’s hopes on a kid that might want nothing to do with leadership.

I do think that there should be an acceptable option for a man to resign for health (or any other) reason. No intrigue or speculation necessary – just this particular man determines that he is no longer suited for the calling. Would that work?

I see no problem with a resignation of that sort but on the other hand I think history has shown that the church could carry on pretty much indefinitely with an incapacitated president. The counselors would just step in to fill the vacuum.

But what would happen if there was a massacre of GAs? Or a plague?

I had read in “Answers to Gospel Questions” that the most senior holder of the Melquisidec priesthood would automatically become the next president and would have the responsibility to reconstitute the decimated quorums. That particular answer makes me wonder about the necessity of priesthood keys. Would the surviving priesthood member have the keys distill upon him like dew from heaven (or like happens to the immortals in the highlander movies)??? Or maybe it is all symbolic.