The "ancient" Apostles...

[JLHPROF]

The apostles have never been older - http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/faithblog/2245029-155/with-average-age-of-80-mormon

 

For the first time the average age of the apostles reached 80.

 

Thomas S. Monson • 87.53 years

Henry B. Eyring • 81.75 years

Dieter F. Uchtdorf • 74.32 years

Boyd K. Packer • 90.48 years

L. Tom Perry • 92.57 years

Russell M. Nelson • 90.48 years

Dallin H. Oaks • 82.55 years

M. Russell Ballard • 86.40 years

Richard G. Scott • 86.32 years

Robert D. Hales • 82.52 years

Jeffrey R. Holland • 74.25 years

David A. Bednar • 62.71 years

Quentin L. Cook • 74.48 years

D. Todd Christofferson • 70.10 years

Neil L. Andersen • 63.56 years

 

This could mean a series of rapid leadership changes in the next few years.  Realistically we can expect numerous deaths in the next couple of years and numerous new apostles called.

Will this mean changes to the way the Church runs?

I am pretty certain that having so many changes in so few years that we will see our first minority apostle - although we still only have one minority in the Presidency of the Seventy so I might be wrong.

 

Could this upcoming sudden change in leadership bring about any sudden changes in the Church?

(I'm still hoping that 75 year old Holland gets to take the reigns).  We could also have a rapid succession of Harold B. Lee/Howard W. Hunter presidencies.

[Traela]

There certainly seems to be a good chance that we will jump straight from Monson to Oaks. I've always wondered if Elder Bednar looked at his age compared to the other apostles and said (very reverently, of course), "oh, crap."

[rpn]

As I recall, someone on the internet last year handicapped the likelihood that various apostles would become prophets and when.  I'm sorry I wasn't interested enough to remember who.   But  you might be able to find the blog or post somewhere online.

[Whiskeypete]

Best analysis I've seen:

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2009/10/14/predicting-who-will-be-church-president/
 

[theplains]

This could mean a series of rapid leadership changes in the next few years.  Realistically we can expect numerous deaths in the next couple of years and numerous new apostles called.

Will this mean changes to the way the Church runs?

I am pretty certain that having so many changes in so few years that we will see our first minority apostle - although we still only have one minority in the Presidency of the Seventy so I might be wrong.

 

Could this upcoming sudden change in leadership bring about any sudden changes in the Church?

 

It might result in the LDS Church expanding their canon from the last addition made in

1978.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Gervin]

Well of course, the doctrine is ever changing and expanding and becoming truthier. According to mfb.

[Coreyb]

I dunno about rapid changes. I think Elder Bednar has caught the vision of Boyd K Packer and should he shoulder the mantle he will keep things on the same trajectory.

[DJBrown]

The apostles have never been older - http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/faithblog/2245029-155/with-average-age-of-80-mormon

 

For the first time the average age of the apostles reached 80.

 

Thomas S. Monson • 87.53 years

Henry B. Eyring • 81.75 years

Dieter F. Uchtdorf • 74.32 years

Boyd K. Packer • 90.48 years

L. Tom Perry • 92.57 years

Russell M. Nelson • 90.48 years

Dallin H. Oaks • 82.55 years

M. Russell Ballard • 86.40 years

Richard G. Scott • 86.32 years

Robert D. Hales • 82.52 years

Jeffrey R. Holland • 74.25 years

David A. Bednar • 62.71 years

Quentin L. Cook • 74.48 years

D. Todd Christofferson • 70.10 years

Neil L. Andersen • 63.56 years

 

This could mean a series of rapid leadership changes in the next few years.  Realistically we can expect numerous deaths in the next couple of years and numerous new apostles called.

Will this mean changes to the way the Church runs?

I am pretty certain that having so many changes in so few years that we will see our first minority apostle - although we still only have one minority in the Presidency of the Seventy so I might be wrong.

 

Could this upcoming sudden change in leadership bring about any sudden changes in the Church?

(I'm still hoping that 75 year old Holland gets to take the reigns).  We could also have a rapid succession of Harold B. Lee/Howard W. Hunter presidencies.

 

Sort of depends upon whether a person believes the church is run by men or by God.  If a person believes that the church is run by God, there is no reason to think there would be drastic changes based upon simply turnover of mortals.

[JLHPROF]

Sort of depends upon whether a person believes the church is run by men or by God.  If a person believes that the church is run by God, there is no reason to think there would be drastic changes based upon simply turnover of mortals.

 

Historical precedent.

Now either God picks/arranges a certain personality take charge to instigate change, or the changes are man-made by prayerful men.  Either way, historically different prophets = different style = differences in the overall Church.

[mfbukowski]

Well of course, the doctrine is ever changing and expanding and becoming truthier. According to mfb.

You are not aware of this but many will verify that when callings in the church are made, it is often said "Well, there is nothing so constant as change, and so it becomes time to release........."

 

At least in my stake and in all the others I have been in, one hears that at least a few times a year as callings are changed.

 

Basic principles are eternal- like for example the golden rule, the idea that we must love and forgive each other, that God loves us and is our father, that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected and that we must try to become better human beings and try to do better daily.   These ideas never change because these ideas are what make us civilized beings.   Lose these and society will crumble

 

But the stories we believe that symbolize these beliefs change.  The practices we use to teach these principles change.  The symbolic vocabularies we use and the language we use changes.

 

I know you will probably disagree with that, but such is life.  The reality is that the Protestant movement has changed as much as any through the years, old denominations have disappeared and there is a different church with different "doctrine" on every street corner.

 

Were I Protestant, I would be the last to criticize the changing gospel of others, aware of the fact that my own faith was highly fragmented and without anyone to define consistent doctrine.

[Coreyb]

Sort of depends upon whether a person believes the church is run by men or by God.  If a person believes that the church is run by God, there is no reason to think there would be drastic changes based upon simply turnover of mortals.

I think that type of thinking would require that all presidents of the church are either exactly the same, or that they bring nothing to the table as far as leadership and God literally does ALL the leading. This would mean that all blame for anything done by "the church", good or bad, can be placed squarely upon God. This would also mean that literally ANYONE could be be the next POTC, even Kanye West, because their individuality means nothing, they are just a pawn for God. Personally, I think the scriptures show that God does not micromanage his leaders, or anyone. I think JLHPROF is right that historical precedents show that the individual called does have an effect. Perhaps, only because some are ready for revelations/ inspirations that others are not ready for. For example, Harold B. Lee said that blacks would never get the priesthood in his lifetime if he hadn't anything to do with it, and they didn't. Spencer w. Kimball didn't feel that way however, and we all know what happened with him.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is something unseemly about the subject of this thread.

[JLHPROF]

There is something unseemly about the subject of this thread.

 

Why?  The fact that the Church may have a rapid succession of new leadership is not unseemly.  It is of significant impact to the Church.

[Coreyb]

I guess it could be unseemly in the way that talking about what you are going to do with your inheritance once rich old grandpa bill finally kicks the bucket is unseemly.

[Freedom]

I remember the feat among some when Benson was about to become president. The papers were full of claims that the church would pull dramatically to the right. All we ended up with is 'read the book of mormon'. 

[JLHPROF]

I remember the feat among some when Benson was about to become president. The papers were full of claims that the church would pull dramatically to the right. All we ended up with is 'read the book of mormon'. 

 

Can't speak to politics, but there are always changes in tone and priorities with each prophet.  Some are more drastic and some are more subtle.

[The Nehor]

There is something unseemly about the subject of this thread.

I envy the elderly. They are that much closer to death and eternal youth. I am not sure why death is unseemly.

[Freedom]

Can't speak to politics, but there are always changes in tone and priorities with each prophet.  Some are more drastic and some are more subtle.

One man's drastic is another mans minute and irrelevant detail. There have been slight changes in focus, but the church as a whole has remained the same with the same goals and the same programs. We a dramatic increase in temple construction but all this did was to maintain the ration of members to temples, but it has slackened off again due, no doubt, to the astronomical costs. We have seen an increased presence in social media, but this is just marketing. Perhaps you could provide some examples of drastic changes.  

[JLHPROF]

One man's drastic is another mans minute and irrelevant detail. There have been slight changes in focus, but the church as a whole has remained the same with the same goals and the same programs. We a dramatic increase in temple construction but all this did was to maintain the ration of members to temples, but it has slackened off again due, no doubt, to the astronomical costs. We have seen an increased presence in social media, but this is just marketing. Perhaps you could provide some examples of drastic changes.  

 

Joseph F. Smith - The garments were revealed from heaven and cannot be altered or changed.

Heber J. Grant - The garments have no fixed pattern.

 

Harold B. Lee - We must not end the priesthood ban.

Spencer W. Kimball - I'm going to pray about the priesthood ban.

 

John Taylor - God will never allow us to end polygamy.

Wilford Woodruff - We are ending polygamy.

 

Joseph Smith - Ordinances are not to be altered or changed.

Heber J. Grant/Ezra Taft Benson - We are going to make many changes to the ordinances.

 

And that's a few doctrinal changes.

 

How about changes in priorities?

 

Heber J. Grant - Mortgaging the temple of God despite teachings against going into debt.

 

How about changes in tone?

 

Joseph Smith vs Brigham Young vs John Taylor

 

How about changes in culture?

 

David O. McKay - McKay spearheaded a change by example in the very appearance, dress, and grooming of the average member.

 

No, a change in prophet can result in big changes to the Church.

Edited March 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

It's too bad that a second "Comprehensive History of the Church" can't be written, picking up where B.H. Roberts left off (1930 to the present). The biggest hurdle is that Roberts was one-of-a-kind, and is really the only one in any era who could have written such a work. 

 

There have been sweeping and fascinating developments in the last 85 years . . .

[Freedom]

Joseph F. Smith - The garments were revealed from heaven and cannot be altered or changed.

Heber J. Grant - The garments have no fixed pattern.

 

Harold B. Lee - We must not end the priesthood ban.

Spencer W. Kimball - I'm going to pray about the priesthood ban.

 

John Taylor - God will never allow us to end polygamy.

Wilford Woodruff - We are ending polygamy.

 

Joseph Smith - Ordinances are not to be altered or changed.

Heber J. Grant/Ezra Taft Benson - We are going to make many changes to the ordinances.

 

And that's a few doctrinal changes.

 

How about changes in priorities?

 

Heber J. Grant - Mortgaging the temple of God despite teachings against going into debt.

 

How about changes in tone?

 

Joseph Smith vs Brigham Young vs John Taylor

 

How about changes in culture?

 

David O. McKay - McKay spearheaded a change by example in the very appearance, dress, and grooming of the average member.

 

No, a change in prophet can result in big changes to the Church.

So changing the design of the garment is a major change? This is like saying Honda adding rear mats as standard is a major change. I do not know of any changes to ordinances, can you provide an example? Unless you are revering to the accompanying ceremony. Yes there were a few significant changes (two that I can think of) but these were not prophet specific. Most of the examples you provided are limited to rearranging the chairs. None of them represent a significant change to the church.   

[Coreyb]

It's too bad that a second "Comprehensive History of the Church" can't be written, picking up where B.H. Roberts left off (1930 to the present). The biggest hurdle is that Roberts was one-of-a-kind, and is really the only one in any era who could have written such a work. 

 

There have been sweeping and fascinating developments in the last 85 years . . .

I think we have folks who could do it, the problem is there are so many interesting stories and documents how do you decide what not not to include? Also, many of the major players are still alive, so you might embarrass somebody.

[JLHPROF]

So changing the design of the garment is a major change? This is like saying Honda adding rear mats as standard is a major change. I do not know of any changes to ordinances, can you provide an example? Unless you are revering to the accompanying ceremony. Yes there were a few significant changes (two that I can think of) but these were not prophet specific. Most of the examples you provided are limited to rearranging the chairs. None of them represent a significant change to the church.   

 

Yes - changing the garment was a major change - if you doubt it do a little research into the response at the time.

And claiming no changes to ordinances is just being purposely obtuse.

 

We've been here before Freedom - you have the most unusual definition of "change" I've ever seen.

 

As for being "prophet" specific - if Prophet A say it can never happen and Prophet B makes it happen I'd call that pretty prophet specific.

Edited March 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

Yes - changing the garment was a major change - if you doubt it do a little research into the response at the time.

And claiming no changes to ordinances is just being purposely obtuse.

 

We've been here before Freedom - you have the most unusual definition of "change" I've ever seen.

 

As for being "prophet" specific - if Prophet A say it can never happen and Prophet B makes it happen I'd call that pretty prophet specific.

Well, you tend to make mountains out of grains of sand. Changing the design of the garment is an insignificant change. Now, not requiring the garment, that I would consider a significant change. Not requiring a temple recommend to enter the temple, that I would consider a significant change. Adopting the doctrine of the trinity, or abandoning the word of wisdom would be significant, but changing the design of the garments? Really? Sure, some people were surprised, but it had zero affect on how we worship, to the world at large it was not even a  blip on the radar of religious events. 

 

Please identify some changes to ordinance. The ordinances have remained the same since they were instituted. They have made changes to the ceremony in the temple but that is entirely different: 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Changes

[sunstoned]

Well, you tend to make mountains out of grains of sand. Changing the design of the garment is an insignificant change. Now, not requiring the garment, that I would consider a significant change. Not requiring a temple recommend to enter the temple, that I would consider a significant change. Adopting the doctrine of the trinity, or abandoning the word of wisdom would be significant, but changing the design of the garments? Really? Sure, some people were surprised, but it had zero affect on how we worship, to the world at large it was not even a  blip on the radar of religious events. 

 

Please identify some changes to ordinance. The ordinances have remained the same since they were instituted. They have made changes to the ceremony in the temple but that is entirely different: 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Changes

The changes to the temple ordinances are significant, and these were changes to the ordinances, not just the mechanics.  I was there pre 1990, so I do know.