- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Don’t we already have a President who is almost a “vegetable”? When you Google Monson and alzheimers/dementia etc.. quite a bit of stuff pops up.
[
Admin note:Knock it off, Angry Mormon – now. I mean it. Knock it off.That is SO far over the line for this forum there is no way I can pull it back – and it’s grossly inaccurate, as well.] As a personal, non-admin note, if you google anything, lots of stuff pops up – and, no matter what it is, over half of it is crap – especially when googling things that are attacked by lots of not-quite-unbiased people, to put it charitably.
In this thread an others, folks have expressed a range of feelings – from displeasure to dread – if BKP were to become president. In fairness to him, I’d just offer this: when ETB became the prophet, there were also a lot of uneasy folks. In the 1960s ETB was an anti-commie flame thrower. He wrote “An Enemy Hath Done This.” He was old-school, John-Birch-Society anti-commie. When he became president, though, his tone was pretty moderate, and he’s best known for preaching against pride and urging a reconsideration of the BoM. Hardly scary stuff there. I’m not saying BKP would go all soft and fuzzy, but there’s at least precedent for a former fire-breather to moderate his tone once he gets the corner office.
Canucknuckle wrote:
IIRC – Wasn’t that essentially the case with Benson in the last few years of his life. Hickley and Monson ran the show while Benson was incapacitated.Board members – please correct me if I am wrong but that was my perception of things.
That was my perception of things. We had the statements from president Hinkley that despite President Bensons physical incapacity his mind was still alert and he could communicate his intent to the brethren by a blink or the way he looked at them (I`m sure i`m misquoting that but that was the general gist of how I remember it). This was pre faith issue time for me so I didn`t have much of an issue with that. I do remember feeling that it was one of those PR statements to reassure the membership that everything was ok and not to worry.
It was only later that I read Steve Bensons remarks about how president Benson was unable to recognise anyone, even his family, and that it was a case of lights on nobody home. Who knows the full facts behind that situation though.
I can`t help but feel in retrospect that the church missed an opportunity at that point, not just to be honest about his state of health (if there was a question to be answered), but to teach the membership an important lesson. Growing up during the 80`s, and especially following president Bensons famous talk on the prophetic calling, there was an air of prophetic infalliability around. I don`t know whos fault that was but it was definitely there among the wards and stake I grew up in. What a lesson it would have been on the separation of the man from the calling if as a church we could have acknowledged that he was no longer able to function as prophet. How much easier would it be now for the membership to accept that although we revere Joseph Smith as a prophet that doesn`t mean that everything he said or did was prophetic (sorry I didn`t do a very good job of linking those 2 thoughts but you get the underlying idea). It would have been an important step towards the more open, nuanced and vibrant faith that I sense the church leadership are trying to foster amongst the membership now.
Personally, I think there should be an opportunity to opt for “retirement.” Pres. Benson probably should have done so. I’m not sure faster progress is desirable on all issues, though. We do tend to resist change, but then again, that probably causes less turnover than the other approach would. I do think a median age of 55-65 for leaders would bring healthier perspectives toward change without being over the top in embracing every new social trend. But nobody asked me. I have always thought it was odd that essentially our doctrine is that God kills off leaders who shouldn’t take the top spot before they get there. I think that’s probably not an accurate viewpoint, but it is the logical conclusion of how it’s explained. I think it’s more accurate to say that it’s really a council of leaders, not a president / CEO. And Pres. Monson is no more senile than others who preceded him. There were far more advanced in senility than he was.
TSM is not a vegetable as he is very mobile, and he can still speak. However I am getting doubts about his mind after a little research. Generally he seems alright but using a pre-recorded message at his birthday? Or thay bizarre (but actually quite funny) remark at the beginning of April conference? hawkgrrrl wrote:I do think a median age of 55-65 for leaders would bring healthier perspectives toward change without being over the top in embracing every new social trend.
Agreed. Just noting… the Current President of the Church is 85. The next SEVEN in line for that office are:– Boyd K Packer (88)
– L Tom Perry (90)
– Russel M Nelson (88)
– Dallin H Oaks (80)
– M Russel Ballard (84)
– Richard G Scott (84)
– Robert D Hales (80)
And when you read that list, you probably say to yourself, “Dallin Oaks is only 80… that’s not so bad.”
To hawkgrrrl’s point about healthy perspectives toward change, keep in mind that the Q12 must vote on any policy change, and there are seven members (the majority) who are 80+ years old.
There are only two of the 15 men who lead the church that are not yet eligible for social security:
– David A Bednar (60)
– Neil L Andersen (61)
Age though is a challenge. People live longer now. Not just in age but in capacity, too. My families tae-kwon-do coach is pushing 80 and is fit mentally and physically like you can’t believe. I look at my dad and many of his cohorts. These men have been retired by age, not capacity. They are still very alert and of sound mind and health. My dad is nearly 80. You wouldn’t know it to see him. You’d place him at 60 to 65. I also know younger men and women whose health and circumstances decline earlier.I think tons of factors really affect the outcome. I don’t have answers for the President Kimball and President Benson years, but President Hinckley was full steam ahead till the very end – so who knows.
I just don’t want to cut people out just because they passed some age requirement. We have a lot of capable senior people in our society and they should be able to continue to contribute if they can.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Don’t we already have a President who is almost a “vegetable”? When you Google Monson and alzheimers/dementia etc.. quite a bit of stuff pops up.
[
Admin note:Knock it off, Angry Mormon – now. I mean it. Knock it off.That is SO far over the line for this forum there is no way I can pull it back – and it’s grossly inaccurate, as well.] As a personal, non-admin note, if you google anything, lots of stuff pops up – and no matter what it is, over half of it is crap – especially when googling things that are attacked by lots of not-quite-unbiased people, to put it charitably.
Wow! I’m sorry my question upset you or anyone. I have heard people talk about it before at church and I guess I didn’t see what the big deal was or is. My apologies. I do find it interesting that people on hear can post derogatory pictures of the Catholic Pope comparing him to a character from Star Wars, but I can’t ask an honest question. I think if we are going to scrutinize Catholicism, we should at least be willing to scrutinize are own religion. Seems like a double standard.
This thread is very degrading to Catholicism and I won’t attack someones else’s religion. However, I do think it is okay for me to ask honest questions about my own religion. I
AngryMormon wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Don’t we already have a President who is almost a “vegetable”? When you Google Monson and alzheimers/dementia etc.. quite a bit of stuff pops up.
[
Admin note:Knock it off, Angry Mormon – now. I mean it. Knock it off.That is SO far over the line for this forum there is no way I can pull it back – and it’s grossly inaccurate, as well.] As a personal, non-admin note, if you google anything, lots of stuff pops up – and no matter what it is, over half of it is crap – especially when googling things that are attacked by lots of not-quite-unbiased people, to put it charitably.
Wow! I’m sorry my question upset you or anyone. I have heard people talk about it before at church and I guess I didn’t see what the big deal was or is. My apologies. I do find it interesting that people on hear can post derogatory pictures of the Catholic Pope comparing him to a character from Star Wars, but I can’t ask an honest question. I think if we are going to scrutinize Catholicism, we should at least be willing to scrutinize are own religion. Seems like a double standard.
This thread is very degrading to Catholicism and I won’t attack someones else’s religion. However, I do think it is okay for me to ask honest questions about my own religion. I
@Ray…whoa…I’m thinking you were just having a hard night? What with bc_pg going overboard a few times, especially with that personal attack on you. Maybe you were just a bit defensive? I didn’t really think AngryMoromon’s question was out of line. I have also heard rumors of this IN CHURCH (not on google) so what’s the big deal with him bringing it up? It’s a valid concern. I think the last thing we want to do is make people feel uncomfortable for asking questions….
Yeah, I was in a bad mood. There is no problem talking about the concept of stepping down due to health reasons (especially something like dementia), but it was calling Pres. Monson a “vegetable” that caused my reaction. Take out that wording, and I wouldn’t have said a thing. It’s that type hyperbole that bothers me most about lots of other sites, and I over-reacted. Sorry, everyone.
I was thinking of this topic when I saw it in the news. I have always agreed with Pres Hinckley’s response when asked about it…for the most part, it’s a great to have experienced leaders at the helm. It seems to me they get more gentle and compassionate with age and experience.
Remember, we do have emirates status. So there is a precedence for “retiring” if the church leadership felt like there were critical issues requiring more capacity…it is conceivable a prophet could step down. But it is not likely since the counselors and Q12 are there to support and sustain and hold up the arms of the prophet in today’s church.
I respect the pope for being courageous to take a bold step down. I wish I knew more about how the Vatican works to know if it is comparable to the FP +Q12 with councils and authority. Does anyone know?
Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, I was in a bad mood. There is no problem talking about the concept of stepping down due to health reasons (especially something like dementia), but it was calling Pres. Monson a “vegetable” that caused my reaction. Take out that wording, and I wouldn’t have said a thing.
It’s that type hyperbole that bothers me most about lots of other sites, and I over-reacted. Sorry, everyone.
Old=Timer, I was quoting the term “vegetable” that someone else used in reference to the Catholic Pope. Just seems like a double standard to me.
Sh*t happens. We’ll all get over it.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Honestly, I didn’t see the vegetable reference to the Pope. I must have missed it in the stress of all the other stuff. Again, my bad. It was a worse night than I realized. 😳 mom3 wrote:
I just don’t want to cut people out just because they passed some age requirement. We have a lot of capable senior people in our society and they should be able to continue to contribute if they can.But then again… watch this, and you’ll see the case the opposite way. Unfair to the speaker and the audience.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.