- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In a recent thread, I read about the problems men encounter as they age as prophets and apostles — such as dementia — with the counselors picking up their responsibilities. It leads me to question why we have lifelong appointments to the higher offices in the church. We see protracted illnesses, like with Ezra Taft Benson, and Spencer W. Kimball that essentially put the office of prophet on hold until they pass on to the next world. Sure, their counselors step in and manage the church without them — but I would like to ask — what is the value of having lifelong appointments when it simply places the office of prophet or apostle on hold until the person passes on?
You could argue that it preserves succession in the church — it prevents ambitious apostles from ousting the current prophet on the basis of health reasons, but even that could be addressed through objective criteria and some kind of majority vote, and perhaps, even with the consent of the outgoing prophet if he is capable of giving such consent.
So, why do we have lifelong calls to higher level positions in the church? What value do they provide? Is releasing men whose bodies no longer allow them to serve adequately in a position a viable option?
“I’m not dead!” “I’m getting better.” ” I don’t want to go on the cart.” “I feel fine.” “I think I’ll go for a walk.” “I feel happy. I feel happy.” Probably because the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Lifelong calls completely removes the politics of succession. The apostles don’t have to worry about politics and the members don’t either, it never comes into question. It also takes the decision out of leader’s hands and gives the decision making power to an entity that is completely outside of their control. That could be viewed as dodging responsibility but that’s really what sets the stage for proving that there is no impropriety.
Maybe politics can work their way into the current system. Hey Elder SoAndSo… want to go out for some cheeseburgers? My treat.
😈 I wonder how an age limit might work out? Give these men a rest after 20 years of service or age 75, whichever comes first. It wouldn’t completely eliminate the possibility of health problems becoming an issue, but it could help. Succession by seniority might get tricky. What’s the process when a prophet ages out? Like if someone was an apostle for 18 years before aging into the role of prophet, do they only have a year and a half of being a prophet, do they get some type of extension?
I’m sure the current system is the lesser of evils when considering the division in membership that occurred after JS died.
I think you could simply give them an upper age limit, and when they reach that age limit, new positions get filled just as they do when the prophet or one of the apostles die. There would be no succession issue I think the lifelong calling concept tends to make the church less dynamic than in the past. It entrenches policies that are a reflection of certain mens’ personalities rather than what is good for the church in changing times.
nibbler wrote:Probably because the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Lifelong calls completely removes the politics of succession. The apostles don’t have to worry about politics and the members don’t either, it never comes into question. It also takes the decision out of leader’s hands and gives the decision making power to an entity that is completely outside of their control. That could be viewed as dodging responsibility but that’s really what sets the stage for proving that there is no impropriety.
I agreeSilentDawning wrote:I think you could simply give them an upper age limit, and when they reach that age limit, new positions get filled just as they do when the prophet or one of the apostles die. There would be no succession issue
As long as the first presidency and quorum of the twelve decided together on a decision like this, I would have no problem with it.
SilentDawning wrote:I think you could simply give them an upper age limit, and when they reach that age limit, new positions get filled just as they do when the prophet or one of the apostles die. There would be no succession issue
The only potential issue I see with that is that they could potentially call in a 40-something apostle with the expectation that he’ll become prophet when the others age out, but that’s really not that much different than an “issue” with the current system.
I don’t disagree with you SD, but I do see potential pitfalls. What about a guy Like Pres. HInckley who lived to a very ripe old age and pretty much had it together right up until the end? Were he to be given “emeritus status” do you think he would have gone away quietly, or more especially, do you think the people would have let him go quietly? To millions of members baptized from the mid-80s until his death he was the church (or at least the face of it). I liked the guy, even though I don’t fully agree with everything he said (one set of earrings, for instance). There is stuff we would have missed had he been forced into retirement at age 80 or something (I think it’s 70 for the Seventies). Then there’s the whole “only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys” thing – never in the history of the church has one been unauthorized while alive (at least not that I am aware of), and how would we go about that? Common consent? A vote by the rest of the apostles? Could that also open the door to the idea that of he comes up with a really oddball idea that the others could vote him off the island? I really do see this as more tradition than doctrine – but I think it’d be a very hard tradition to break. On the other hand, the pope did it and it seems to be fine.
As a side note, I could see the JSB becoming a retirement community for old GAs. Perhaps in forced retirement and with a bit of dementia they would say what they really think of each other!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.