- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old Timer wrote:
There also is historic danger in young leadership.I am not defending the current age of leadership, but having young leaders wasn’t a walk in the park on a beautiful, summer day, either.
It’s experience vs innovation. I feel in the electronic age we clearly need to have some input from younger leaders.
I just read this article that the SL Tribune posted about the old leadership and millennials. As a millennial myself, I think a younger prophet and calling younger apostles could do wonders… http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/07/mormon-churchs-gay-policy-shows-the-next-prophets-challenge-may-be-retaining-millennials-who-view-politics-and-issues-differently-than-older-members/comments/#disqus_thread ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/07/mormon-churchs-gay-policy-shows-the-next-prophets-challenge-may-be-retaining-millennials-who-view-politics-and-issues-differently-than-older-members/comments/#disqus_thread The ideal would be a mixture of ages. I’m for keeping the system as-is (even though I’m mildly terrified of the kinds of things that may happen with Nelson/Oaks/Ballard as Prophets over the next decade or two and would personally love to skip down to Holland and Uchtdorf). My reasoning: If you know you only have a few years to do this Prophet thang, and you know that this thing ends when you straight-up DIE, you’re more likely to make choices based on what you really believe is morally right. If you’re 45 and you’re serving a 5-year term as Prophet, you know that if you want to further your Church-career and maintain your reputation, and earn the approval of your colleagues and peers after your term as Prophet ends, and bask in your own glory for another four decades after you “retire”, you’d better please all the right people while you’re Prophet, make the decisions and say the things that make THEM happy. But if DEATH waits on the other side of the Prophet gig, suddenly you’re realizing “who cares about my reputation or my resume?” What we have is not a perfect system, but I don’t think a perfect system exists unless Jesus is gonna come down here and run things. As someone born just recently enough to be called a “millenial” I still feel like if we let young people be prophets, things are gonna get real political real fast, and that’s the beginning of corruption in the ranks followed by a rapid downfall of the organization.
dande48 wrote:
But I had a thought; Why do we ordain the most senior apostle to be the prophet?
To avoid any controversy in who is the next prophet. There was a bit of a skirmish when Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young competed for it after Joseph Smith died. Having it be on a succession basis gets around all the controversy.
I agree it’s not fair to the membership, as much of the last decade has been spent with bed ridden prophets who are incapacitated while one of their counselors runs the show. The church experience feels a bit hollow as you never see your leader. Or if you do, you are wondering if he’s going to titter off the stage or start speaking nonsense.
And its not fair to the old guy who takes the helm either. But it’s the Mormon way, and like most things, I don’t see that changing.
SilentDawning wrote:
To avoid any controversy in who is the next prophet. There was a bit of a skirmish when Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young competed for it after Joseph Smith died. Having it be on a succession basis gets around all the controversy.
I remember. But we claim so strongly that prophets are supposed to be “called of God, by revelation”. The schism happened because personal ambition, glory-seeking, etc was interfering with revelation. Taking away the “called of God, by revelation” part of it, and changing to a seniority system doesn’t fix the problem. It’s feels like they resorted to amputation to stave off an infection, and hobbled the Church for good.
dande48 wrote:It’s feels like they resorted to amputation to stave off an infection, and hobbled the Church for good.
It does often feel like that is God’s will….to let what happens happens. No sensational circumstances seem to happen much. Maybe it doesn’t need to.Heber13 wrote:
It does often feel like that is God’s will….to let what happens happens. No sensational circumstances seem to happen much. Maybe it doesn’t need to.
One of the things I am experimenting with is that we as people attribute to God more than what God directly puts into play. I think we do this because it fills a part of our narrative. What if life isn’t so much about the specific tests we face (our challenges in life) as much as what we do about it:
a) Did we do
somethingabout it to recognize the struggle and keep going (after applying the stages of grief as needed)? b) Did we utilize the challenge as an opportunity to grow, change our perspective, or something to bow us over?
c) Did we try to make choices that were less about self-interest and self-preservation and think about others and how it impacted them?
I am beginning to wonder if we see God as someone with all the answers, power, and blessings because we need someone or something to have all the answers, power, and blessings because we don’t.
AmyJ wrote:
I am beginning to wonder if we see God as someone with all the answers, power, and blessings because we need someone or something to have all the answers, power, and blessings because we don’t.
that is how some define faith…we need something to believe in…whatever that something is that helps us.
I believe that is what Karen Armstrong writes about in her books about what God is, from a historical point of view in what humans do.
It could tie into the teaching that without faith, miracles cease. It’s hard to define a miracle if you are not thinking with faith.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.