- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Church leadership is determined by who lives and who dies. I didn’t make that policy. Talking about it can seem morbid, but not talking about it for that reason, ignores the fact that that is how our Church works. The following illustrates the order of seniority of the FP/Q12:
1. TS Monson – 86
2. BK Packer – 89
3. LT Perry – 91
4. RM Nelson – 89
5. DH Oaks – 81
6. MR Ballard – 85
7. RG Scott – 85
8. RD Hales – 81
9. JR Holland – 73
10. HB Eyring – 80
11. DF Uchtdorf – 73
12. DA Bednar – 61
13. QL Cook – 73
14. DT Christofferson – 69
15. NL Andersen – 62
I hope they all live a long and happy life… every one of them…
Some observations about this list:
– Assuming that they all live to be exactly 100 years old, our next presidents of the Church will be OAKS, HOLLAND, and BEDNAR. Elder Hales is 12 days younger than Elder Oaks, so he would actually sneak in there, but I’m calling them the same age for the purpose of this discussion.
– I’m fairly concerned. For starters, I don’t see Elder Holland as quite as liberal as many here seem to. He has empathy for people, no question, but I don’t think he has the desire for modernization of the Church, the way that Elder Uchtdorf seems to. But Elders Oaks and Bednar… yikes!
– As much as we all lean on E. Uchtdorf to modernize, it’s important to note that there are only four of the 15 that are more junior than he is. His position in the FP is very important, but he is a long, long way away from even the possibility of leading the Church.
– Nine of the 15 are 80 or older. I think the Church stands to change a lot in the next five or so years. It’s been five years since we had a new Apostle, but I could easily imagine having four or five new Apostles in the next five years. This represents the possibility of either accelerating change or circling the wagons to guard the old ways.
– I hope that the Church continues to seek out people that try to solve the problems of the Church beyond the “be more faithful” approach. I worry that when the time comes to call the next Apostle, that there will be a desire by the majority of the leadership to counter what they might see as the liberalization of the Church by calling someone like Donald Hallstrom, Richard Maynes, or Tad Callister. These fellas are all in the Presidency of the Seventy, as were the three most recently-called Apostles at the time of their call.
I have given a bit of thought as to what would happen if BKP were head of the church. I think it would be difficult, and not only that but people would also have to be ready for a Teachings of the Presidents of the Church featuring BKP a generation or so down the road. All of his talks would be elevated in status overnight. It would be fuel on the fire for some ultra-orthodox members. I’d be really interested in seeing who he would select as counselors. I don’t personally know him but Bednar also strikes me as the hardline approach guy… the bad cop apostle if you will.
Along these lines someone – possibly Curtis – posted a fairly sophisticated mathematical analysis with estimated probabilities that each apostle would reach the position of president. If I remember correctly Uchdorf was definitely a possibility but not as certain as we in this forum would probably like. I believe that organizations change when there is incentive to do so, and when things are going “well” that they won’t change. If there is financial or legal pressure to change then the church will change. If not, then we are on the Lord’s timetable for change.
Funny, I was thinking about something similar the other day. I was thinking we only get to bask in the full light of Uchtdorf if Pres. Monson is alive. From there it’s the roll of the dice. Additionally, Elder Uchtdort didn’t stir up much when he was an Elder it wasn’t until his FP gig that we began to hear the present messages he gives. I also think Holland is a crowd pleaser. – No throwing rocks – I don’t mean that is derisive I mean it as he is PR guy. Depending on who and where the wind his blowing, he moves his sail accordingly.
I, too, hope any new selections come from foreign lands, foreign committee’s etc. Elder Causse is a hopeful, and Uchtdorf was an unheard of member of the seventy before being a GA, so there is hope.
Thanks for line up. I think the real catch for me, was realizing how many were younger than my parents. That shocked me. I had it the other way around.
Minimizing the role of the church in your life has the effect of little of this mattering anymore. One can be in the church, but not of it… SD
I’m not sure why Holland gets so much the love. There is a thinly veiled anger to him that really is quite off-putting IMO. Frankly, Oaks scares me less. Interestingly, I had to do a RS lesson on one of BKP’s talks, and it really wasn’t bad. It wasn’t one of his hellfire and damnation ones. It was also comforting to those whose children stray. In some ways it was quite touching. I think we forget that when they are apostles, they can say whatever and there’s slightly less pressure because they aren’t the Big Kahuna, but as we saw with ETB, give a guy the big chair, and suddenly he’s all “let’s read the BOM” and a rip off of C.S. Lewis about pride and other fluffy kittens of doctrine. Everyone thought he was going to require John Birch society membership to get a temple recommend. Not so. Trying to figure out anything logical about the leadership of the Church is an exercise in frustration due to the secrecy of the Church, but it started to make sense once I borrowed an ex-mo friend’s copy of D. Michael Quinn’s “The Mormon Hierarchy.” This book should not be read as Gospel (it should be read critically, as with any other writings), but I learned a very important reality about the Church. It is not run, or even “led” in any sense that we conventionally think of organizationally, by the President of the Church. The Church likes to give off the impression that it is led by one man, but that is not true. It is much more complicated than that. President Monson is not analogous to the President of the US, not a prime minister, not even a CEO. Not like the Pope. So that means there is good news and bad news. The good news is that not so much depends on one man as is commonly assumed which should allay your fears of succession (remember ETB and how he didn’t undo anything Kimball did?). The bad news is, the way the Church is actually governed makes it extremely conservative and very likely to keep falling behind the times until perhaps one day it’s a tiny organization publishing writings no one reads. I hope that does not happen but the only way to stop it, I am afraid, is for faithful members (not exmos) to take the initiative and start changing our beliefs on our own.
The Church does change and is changing in response to outside pressure. They just like to make it seem as if nothing is changing. The problem, we don’t have much time left; too much damage has been done already by their inaction.
This is kind of a side question, but I also wonder about an apostle’s family. Seems like there is sort of a gentleman’s agreement to keep non-believing children and extended family out of the picture, but that seems less likely in the future. Will the next to join the Q of 12 need to be men who are on very good terms with any of their ex-/inactive-/middle-way-LDS family, so that investigation or attention drawn to them doesn’t reflect badly on the man and the church? Seems like a good thing. It’s strange to feel hopeful about different life expectancy. I can hope for a certain route through the apostles, but I’m unlikely to get it. I think the points made earlier are important – a president does not get to make any executive decisions. Even the first presidency can be over-ruled if there’s not consensus. What makes us so conservative is there will usually only be changes when there’s a unanimous decision. Even a single dissenter in the 15 can stop something happening.
So I agree that the next “wave” of apostles is probably more important than the next one or two prophets.
On the other hand… the membership will pay closer attention to the president and the first presidency. Their messages get taught every month in homes. It’s often the first article people go to in Ensigns and they get to give the most talks in conference. In terms of setting the tone of the rhetoric of the church, the presidency lead the way. My hope is that Pres. Monson lives for another 10 years. I’d take that over the risk of losing Eyring and Uchtdorf from the presidency. I believe Uchtdorf is able to do more ‘behind the scenes’ in the first presidency. I get the impression he has a lot of influence in the history/essay writing initiative. His invitation to the church history symposium is probably not a coincidence. Long may it continue.
Ann wrote:This is kind of a side question, but I also wonder about an apostle’s family. Seems like there is sort of a gentleman’s agreement to keep non-believing children and extended family out of the picture, but that seems less likely in the future. Will the next to join the Q of 12 need to be men who are on very good terms with any of their ex-/inactive-/middle-way-LDS family, so that investigation or attention drawn to them doesn’t reflect badly on the man and the church? Seems like a good thing.
No desire to get off topic, but Ann’s question is very important. The Brethren are extremely cautious about how who they choose to be in Q12, and for good reason–can you imagine the harm if someone like Paul H. Dunn were an apostle? Today’s leadership is very stable and composed of enlightened men (not everyone in the Church actually understands the Gospel, but the apostles do), but it wasn’t always that way if you go back to the late 19th century. The Church is socially very intimately connected if you are talking about the members of pioneer heritage who live in the Corridor, and so it is possible to know someone’s character in a way that is not possible if the person is a convert or comes from outside the mainstream. Uchtdorf came from a tiny strand of Mormons so there was a safety factor there. I believe this explains why the Church hasn’t invited Latin Americans to be apostles, and not some kind of nefarious racism or racial order at work.
So, yes, Ann … I can imagine one of the unofficial criteria being the character and relationship of close family members.
Physical health, and family background would have to be factored into this as an actuarial calculation. Regardless of my feelings towards BKP, I doubt he would be a president long due to health issues.
Some of the older ones are actually healthier than some of the people under them. My own hunch is that despite the Alzheimer rumors, that TSM has a good few more years in him physically.
I also think Pres. Monson has some time left but I think he will go suddenly and unexpectedly because his health is otherwise good for his age. He’s not like some of the more recent presidents who languished for years while counselors did all of the work. Not being morbid or anything, I think the one with the best shot at being his successor at this point is Elder Oaks, although one of the three ahead of him might get a brief shot like Pres. Hunter. I remember when Elder Oaks was called it was part of a wave of calling “younger” apostles so that they weren’t 95 and incapacitated by the time they got the top job (although that was never an official church statement to my knowledge, there was talk of the church being run by out-of-touch old white men, which is still true). It actually kind of scares me that Elder Oaks is in that position because I see him as pretty much an old school hardliner. Sadly, I think that despite the early history of the church Pres. Uchtdorf is an enigma and the next apostles called (and I do agree there may be as many as a half dozen in the next five years) will be much the same as the ones there currently – primarily white guys with pioneer ancestry, often related, and primarily from the Mormon Corridor. I think if the church is really to move forward and become the global church it needs to be (and maybe wants to be) that needs to change.
(On edit I have decided to point out here that it doesn’t necessarily matter to me because I think they generally lack revelation anyway – I don’t believe any of the presidents since Joseph Smith have actually had a revelation. Therefore I can take whatever they say with a grain of salt as generally their own opinions, although those opinions may be influenced by the rest of the Q15.)
convert1992 wrote:not everyone in the Church actually understands the Gospel, but the apostles do
Did you hear Elder Bednar’s talk in GC about tithing? He didn’t seem to understand the scriptures he was quoting. I believe that the 12 are excellent practitioners, but, I don’t think of any of them as very knowledgeable on any theological level. They don’t seem to grasp the NT, for example. They tend to take tiny quotes or vignettes out of the Bible and use them to explain why we should be more dutiful in our callings, but they seem to be unaware of the NT teachings of Jusification, Sanctification, and New Life. In contrast to Jesus, Paul, and even Joseph Smith, they seem more interested in repentance and obedience than spiritual enlightenment. How often do Apostles quote Hebrews, 1 Thessalonians, or Romans in GC?convert1992 wrote:I believe this explains why the Church hasn’t invited Latin Americans to be apostles
I believe that one of the next, if not the next, Apostle will hail from either Brazil or Mexico. We’ll have two or three from Latin America in the next dozen years. Internationalization aside, that’s not necessarily a good thing. I don’t know why, but it seems to me that Church leaders from Latin America are sometimes more Black & White than even the average Church leader. By way of example, Claudio M. Costa, a First Quorum of the Seventy (from Brazil), gave a talk in GC, Oct 2010, in which he used the 14Fundamentals as a basis for unflinching obedience to the Prophet.Good point OON about Latin Americans and obedience. On the other hand, that’s what Catholics thought they were going to get with the new pope and that’s not what they got – and they’re mostly pleasantly surprised and pleased. Germans are also known as being quite strict and obedient as a people, but Pres. Uchtdorf’s tone is mild. I also agree with you that the apostles do not necessarily understand the gospel. I think some do and some are muted because they don’t want to offend. Others are just Sunday school parrots, repeating what they have been taught all of their lives without ever questioning or delving deeply into that which they might not fully grasp.
On Own Now wrote:Did you hear Elder Bednar’s talk in GC about tithing? He didn’t seem to understand the scriptures he was quoting. I believe that the 12 are excellent practitioners, but, I don’t think of any of them as very knowledgeable on any theological level. They don’t seem to grasp the NT, for example. They tend to take tiny quotes or vignettes out of the Bible and use them to explain why we should be more dutiful in our callings, but they seem to be unaware of the NT teachings of Jusification, Sanctification, and New Life. In contrast to Jesus, Paul, and even Joseph Smith, they seem more interested in repentance and obedience than spiritual enlightenment. How often do Apostles quote Hebrews, 1 Thessalonians, or Romans in GC?
Long ago we rejected the model of pastors and priests graduating from seminary. There is no formal training for almost any of the leadership positions in the church. (it is actually somewhat ironic to me that leadership “training” is often not training at all). The down side of this is that very few Mormons have broad theological understandings.
Individuals seem to be promoted based upon organizational skills, stability, and loyalty to the organization. That’s not necessarily bad – just the way it is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.