The Aging of the Apostles

Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles

I've been talking about this for a while, but I thought I'd do an actual post on it. As President Monson's health has forced him to slow down his schedule, there's this growing sense that we don't know how much longer he'll be able to lead the church. Not that he's on death's door or anything, but there's been growing speculation he's suffering from dementia and needs more help whereever he goes. The most recent General Conference felt like a real tribute to him, where those who've served beside him for decades were seeing the beginning of the end, and they wanted him to know how much they and we love him.

It isn't unusual for the Prophet's health to hinder his ability to lead. Ezra Taft Benson, Spencer W. Kimball, David O. McKay, and Heber J. Grant were rarely seen in public or able to speak in Conference their last few years. Pres. Benson was president of the church for nine years, but really only was able to lead the first four.

Age in leadership is becoming an issue for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and it may be time to implement a policy change to reflect this. Medical advancements means the average person lives longer, and right now if the Prophet dies, the most senior Apostle assumes the mantle. But by using this "divine right of kings" style of succession since the days of Brigham Young means that as long as this system continues, the next Prophet will never be younger than his mid-80's when he starts the job. Keep in mind, the average age of the Brethren is right now the highest it's ever been.

My proposal for Apostles would be similar to what they do for the Seventy. In the Quorum of the Seventy, when they hit age 70, they get released and designated emeritus. For Apostles, I'd recommend they have a system where we can have emeritus Apostles, say at age 90.

The first century or two, this system worked because Apostles would resign or be excommunicated or die young. It's also good that this happened, because there seemed to be numerous attempts to stack the deck in the Quorum of the Twelve with relatives. Joseph Smith insisted his brother William be an Apostle when the Three Witnesses, whom Joseph has commissioned to select the original Twelve, were all against it. Brigham Young selected three of his sons to be Apostles (though two of them never actually joined the Q12). John Taylor called one of his sons; Wilford Woodruff called one of his sons; Joseph F. Smith called two of his sons, one of whom (Joseph Fielding Smith) eventually became the Prophet. There are also numerous examples of sons or grandsons of Apostles also becoming Apostles (see Smith, Richards, Lyman, Cannon, Grant, Whitney, Merrill, Cowley, Kimball, and Ballard).

It's been over 70 years since an Apostle resigned or was excommunicated, so the only other way of getting new blood in the Quorum is due to illness or natural causes affecting a current member. Age has therefore been a factor in governance of the church, most famously when Gordon B. Hinckley was made Third Counselor in the First Presidency because Pres. Kimball and his first two counselors were too infirm to do their jobs.

Right now of the 15 Brethren, 2 are in their 60's, 4 are in their 70's, and the other 9 are in their 80's or 90's. Not to be morbid, but Elder Packer is to the point where each General Conference feels like his last, but the next two in line are in their 90's and they both seem like they have a few years to go.

The current leadership seniority ladder is thus, including what year he was called and which prophet called him:

First Presidency
1963-(DOM)-Thomas S. Monson - 8/21/1927 - 87
--1995-(GBH)-Henry B. Eyring - 5/31/1933 - 81
--2004-(GBH)-Dieter F. Uchtdorf - 11/6/1940 - 74

Quorum of Twelve
1970-(JFS)-Boyd K. Packer - 9/10/1924 - 90
1974-(SWK)-L. Tom Perry - 8/5/1922 - 92
1984-(SWK)-Russell M. Nelson - 9/9/1924 - 90
1984-(SWK)-Dallin H. Oaks - 8/12/1932 - 82
1985-(SWK)-M. Russell Ballard - 10/8/1928 - 86
1988-(ETB)-Richard G. Scott - 11/7/1928 - 86
1994-(ETB)-Robert D. Hales - 8/24/1932 - 82
1994-(HWH)-Jeffrey R. Holland - 12/3/1940 - 74
--HBE - 81
--DFU - 74
2004-(GBH)-David A. Bednar - 6/15/1952 - 62
2007-(GBH)-Quentin L. Cook - 9/8/1940 - 74
2008-(TSM)-D. Todd Christofferson - 1/24/1945 - 70
2009-(TSM)-Neil L. Andersen - 8/9/1951 - 63

Now say they decided to implement this policy this April. Elders Packer, Perry and Nelson would be designated emeritus with a vote of thanks, and there would be three new Apostles. Let's say their ages are 60, 53 and 50, and two of them are non-American. Elder Oaks would become President of the Q12.

Let's now say that the emeritus policy doesn't apply to the Prophet, and Pres. Monson lives five more years. April 2020, Oaks would become the new Prophet at age 87. Elders Ballard and Scott will have been made emeritus already, and so two younger Apostles would have been called before Pres. Oaks makes his first calling. Elder Hales would be President of the Q12, and then 12 of the 15 Brethren would be in their 70's or younger.

There are many advantages to this. One, we know that the Brethren will never give anything other than a united front. There are many issues they aren't addressing right now, because they don't all agree on how to answer it. With more turnover, they may have an easier time getting to conclusions on more things. We sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators, and on some things, there may be a Doubting Thomas in the Quorum that's halting some prophecies, sights, or revelations. I think back to the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood. Hugh B. Brown really wanted to reverse this policy in the 1960's. It should have been reversed in the 1960's if not sooner. (It never should have been a policy, but that's another post.) Harold B. Lee was against it, and so the ban stayed. (And it's been my theory that maybe the Lord called Lee home a little early so that the ban could be lifted.)

Another advantage is the constant fluctuation of cultural differences in Quorum. Sometimes it seems like there aren't enough delineations over what is doctrine, what is policy, and what is just cultural, which is to say we've made certain policies because of cultural bias.

It feels like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is due for some big things in the 21st century, and this would be a significant policy change that could help the leadership lead on those very things.

I "Know" The Church Is True

We've heard the robotic repetitions, precious though they may be, from little children on Fast Sunday. They trundle up to the podium, the first counselor has fun with the switch to adjust it to the proper height, and then the child says something along the lines of this:

"I'd like to bear my testimony; I know this church is true. I know Thomas S. Monson is a prophet. I love my mom and dad. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen."

That's nifty, but what does it really mean?

I remember giving a similar testimony all through my years where my age was comprised of one digit. But when people say they "know," how are they really using that word?

By Common Consent has a post on this phenomenon, posing this problem:

I have noticed over the last several decades that, increasingly, expressions of faith are no longer perceived as good enough. Only expressions of KNOWLEDGE!, with its greater perceived certainty, are considered the normative form of discourse in a F&T meeting. 

The diminution of expressions of hope/belief/faith/trust in our church culture has, it seems to me, given rise to a rather unfortunate if unintended consequence: faith just isn’t what it used to be.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who "knew"

I think it's a good thing to calm down on the "I know"s and ramp up some "I believe"s. I've had people bear their testimony to me of some things that just don't ring true. Once on my mission, we brought an investigator to church. Now we were in a quaint ward with some colorful characters, and we had one enthusiastic fellow in elders quorum who liked to, shall we say, get in touch with his inner Orson Pratt when it came to the more fantastical elements of the gospel. At one point, he bore his testimony that Adam lived to be 600 years old because the Earth spun faster back then. He knew this to be true!

As we left church with him, we had to point out to our investigator that hey, some of that stuff you heard isn't church doctrine, it's just Brother So-and-So going off.

Testimony meeting can be whatever the members make it. I think everyone has that person in their ward who gets up almost every month and starts with "I would be an ungrateful servant if I didn't come up here today." No, you wouldn't. But it's very rare that anyone gets up there without saying "I know" two or three times.

I'm going to pay attention next month. My hope is that I hear the words "believe" and "faith" more than "I know." After all, to have faith is better for your soul than to know, isn't it?

Apocrypha - Bel and the Dragon

Stephan Kessler's 17th century painting "Daniel, King Cyrus in Bel's Temple."

Bel and the Dragon is an odd little story that's part of the story of Daniel. It's pretty obvious why many would want it removed from the mainstream Bible.

Bel very closely resembles Baal, an idol god worshipped by many in that area at that time. In the story, Daniel condemns the idol Bel, but the priests argue that Bel is a real god, because they place food and drink in front of him every night, and in the morning, the food and drink are consumed.

The priests make a deal with King Cyrus and say if they can prove Bel is real and actually consumes the food, then Daniel should be slain. And if Daniel can prove it's a hoax, they agree to be slain. The king agrees.

Guards make sure no one can enter or leave the temple. Ah, but there's a trap door in Bel's temple, where the priests would sneak in with their wives and children, eat the food, and sneak back out. In the morning the food is gone, and the priests think they won, but before anyone can actually step into the temple, Daniel points out the new footprints on the ground. The king is angry, and he has the priests, their wives and their children killed. The temple of Bel is then torn down. The chapter then awkwardly shifts gears.

23 And in that same place there was a great dragon, which they of Babylon worshipped.

24 And the king said unto Daniel, Wilt thou also say that this is of brass? lo, he liveth, he eateth and drinketh; thou canst not say that he is no living god: therefore worship him.

25 Then said Daniel unto the king, I will worship the Lord my God: for he is the living God.

26 But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave.

27 Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder: and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.

28 When they of Babylon heard that, they took great indignation, and conspired against the king, saying, The king is become a Jew, and he hath destroyed Bel, he hath slain the dragon, and put the priests to death.

So there's a dead dragon, and now the people of Babylon are really upset. The chapter goes on to say that this is why the priests threw Daniel into the lions' den, which contradicts the explanation in the Book of Daniel, and then we meet the prophet Habakkuk, who is told by an angel of the Lord to go visit Babylon and give Daniel some food while he is in the den. Habukkuk says he doesn't know where the den is, so the angel impatiently picks up Habukkuk by his hair and carries him to Babylon and drops him on the top of the den. How cool is that?

Habukkuk gives Daniel his supper, then the angel restores Habukkuk to where he'd been, and the next morning, when Cyrus visits Daniel, he sees Daniel is alive and fed, and so the king frees Daniel, and throws those people who wanted Daniel to die into the lions den, where they're attacked and killed immediately.