- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
President Nelson Has now surpassed the record for being the oldest living church president at 97 years, 7 months, and six days. The previous record was set by President GBH. In a little over two years we could have a centenarian at the head of the church. I had to look up the word. I was hoping that it would be centurion but alas, no.
There are both good and bad things about having such an elderly leadership. Discuss.
Roy wrote:
President Nelson Has now surpassed the record for being the oldest living church president at 97 years, 7 months, and six days. The previous record was set by President GBH.In a little over two years we could have a centenarian at the head of the church. I had to look up the word. I was hoping that it would be centurion but alas, no.
There are both good and bad things about having such an elderly leadership. Discuss.
GOOD: Institutional authority/clout and he uses it. He has lived long enough to have diverse experiences that influence his thinking.
BAD: His mindset has been grounded in specific narrative facts for a very long time and has a hard time shifting to adapt to current conditions. It’s a lot easier for him to dismiss generations as “those crazy kids” – and he’s got good 4 generations of people younger than him to be those “crazy kids”.
How would the church handle a situation where the President / Prophet would have a form of dementia? I would assume the 1st Presidency would take over.
Minyan Man wrote:
How would the church handle a situation where the President / Prophet would have a form of dementia?I would assume the 1st Presidency would take over.
I think this has happened several times in my 40 years of membership, starting with Kimball. Kimball was especially bad because the other two members of the FP at the time were also incapacitated (Romney and Tanner). That’s when Hinkley was called as a “third” counselor and did all the work, and coincidence or not around this same time it seems to have become custom to call younger men to the Q12. Likewise Benson was not super healthy for very long in his presidency and again his counselors took over the duties (Hinkley & Monson). Hunter’s reign was short and Hinkley followed Hunter but remained fairly healthy through the end. Monson however was clearly suffering from dementia the last couple years of his life and again his counselors (Eyring and Uchtdorf) stepped into the day-to-day duties. Somewhere in there (more recently) it was also revealed that the major decisions of the church actually involve more than just the FP and included the Q12 and that all had to be in consensus before any changes were made. Looking at Nelson’s seemingly robust health, I don’t anticipate he will suffer from issues that will keep him from his duties (at least in limited form).
My personal opinion on the Q15 in general is that while age and experience are important to running the church, age doesn’t necessarily have to entail being 90 (or 80). The members of the Seventy are given emeritus status at age 70 (I don’t know if there’s some magic in the number relationship there). I would rather that the members of the Q15 had some similar honorary and honorable age limit (maybe 80?) or had the option that US supreme court justices have – appointed for “life” but many retire. I think the last pope also had it right, also appointed for life but willing to abdicate. I actually had this discussion recently with my son. As I’m looking at retirement soon, would that really be how I’d want to live my last years? Yeah the power might be nice, and there’s the adoration from the worshipping membership , but I want to retire and do things I want to do (and when) while I still can. While chatting with my retired neighbor several days ago he said something like the biggest decision he had to make that day was whether he was going to get dressed before watching the Masters.
And speaking of the current Q15, I felt bad for Ballard last GC. He was clearly struggling with his talk, obviously reading and not necessarily knowing/comprehending what he was reading. It was sad, and I hope that neither he nor someone else makes him (or us) endure that again.
When I was halfof Nelson’s age I was starting to recognize that my cognition wasn’t what it used to be and that I was growing more and more out of touch with the challenges younger people face. I know people like to believe they can correct for being out of touch through study and listening to people’s issues. I think that approach runs the risk of creating a blind spot where we think we know what it’s like but we don’t really know. There’s a difference between listening to stories about people walking a mile in shoes and actually walking that mile ourselves.
The good is that it solves the succession crisis. There’s no politics involved in who will inherit the throne. The decision is somewhat taken out of people’s hands.
The bad is we lag behind in addressing the issues of the day. We end up with people solving current problems with decades old tools and we also solve problems decades after we should have addressed them.
nibbler wrote:
When I washalfof Nelson’s age I was starting to recognize that my cognition wasn’t what it used to be and that I was growing more and more out of touch with the challenges younger people face. I know people like to believe they can correct for being out of touch through study and listening to people’s issues.
This admits the following:
- The you consider the resources of actively listening to diverse populations of people worth your time/resources.
- That “Listening To The People” is part of the job. (If you believe you are God’s mouthpiece, do you give yourself a pass on listening?)
In other words, is it a “descriptive” or “prescriptive” experience?
I do see a lot of “prescriptions” in President Nelson’s messages and actions. It makes sense with his “prescriptive” medical experience and with the collective understanding of what the role of “prophet” means.
But in any experience, you “mourn”, you “sit with” you “describe” or “make meaning” of something before you have the words to figure out what to do about it. I just don’t see President Nelson being able to escape cultural conditioning and business administration mindset through decades of experience to be able to fully be present to be part of the “descriptive” experience.
nibbler wrote:
I think that approach runs the risk of creating a blind spot where we think we know what it’s like but we don’t really know. There’s a difference between listening to stories about people walking a mile in shoes and actually walking that mile ourselves.
Or admit that those are actual shoes that can be walked in with integrity.
nibbler wrote:
The good is that it solves the succession crisis. There’s no politics involved in who will inherit the throne. The decision is somewhat taken out of people’s hands.
I think it solves 1 aspect of the succession crisis. But I also think that it more or less kicks the crisis down the line and provides some vague definitions on what it will look like 20 years or so down the road by which individuals get selected for apostleship as openings come up. It’s a lot more indirect politics then no politics.
I classify the “decision somewhat being taken out of people’s hands” as in the territory between “bug” and “feature”. Yay for decreased executive functioning requirements to do something like vote or formulate words for the situation. But I feel the process happens “to me” and is disconnected from myself as a member. I don’t think that my experience matters.
nibbler wrote:
The bad is we lag behind in addressing the issues of the day. We end up with people solving current problems with decades old tools and we also solve problems decades after we should have addressed them.
There is the whole “persuading the generation in charge that it is a problem or a priority problem” thing too…
AmyJ wrote:
It’s a lot more indirect politics then no politics.
Agreed. I did say somewhat.
I’m 77 yrs old. I wake up every morning and every joint in my body hurts. The other day someone suggested I talk during sacrament meeting. I’m currently working on my excuse why I can’t or shouldn’t.
I can’t imagine being active at 97 yrs old. The General Authorities must or should have a staff of people that look
after them & help with the “heavy lifting”. For example, talks during General Conference, etc.
nibbler wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
It’s a lot more indirect politics then no politics.
Agreed. I did say somewhat.
You did say that somewhat, and I agree with your example
I’m 25, and I must say I’m not particularly thrilled that the church is led by someone nearly four timesmy age. There’s no way someone that age can understand my generation. The church is failing to keep many young people like me in the church, and it’s not hard to see why. Whenever I hear general authorities speak, especially about the youth and YSA, it seems like they must live in an alternate universe. Being a young person today is very different from what it was 100 years ago. There are benefits to advanced age, but those benefits disappear at a certain point when the issues begin to increase. I would be fine if the average age was around 50-60, with retirement as an option or requirement after about 75.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.