Emeritus Apostles?

[Mars]

why should someone who doesn't feel up to giving a talk - standing there and speaking for 20 minutes in front of a huge crowd - necessarily not be in a right state of mind to prepare such a talk?  when that talk has - ostensibly - up to 6 months for preparation?

[HappyJackWagon]

why should someone who doesn't feel up to giving a talk - standing there and speaking for 20 minutes in front of a huge crowd - necessarily not be in a right state of mind to prepare such a talk?  when that talk has - ostensibly - up to 6 months for preparation?

Pres. Benson was incapacitated for quite a while. Do we know what that means in his case? Do we know that he was mentally capable? Do we know that they prepare all of their own remarks anyway? It raises questions. I have provided no absolute answer.

[rockpond]

At this point in the development of the Church, putting the Prophet on emeritus status and choosing a new apostle to serve as President of the Church has significant legal ramifications.  Namely, the documents which govern the corporation sole that holds all assets of the Church would need to be revised.  Without reviewing those documents, I'm not sure what it takes to make such a revision.  But I imagine that it is something that would need to happen while the current president of the church is of a sound mind.

[HappyJackWagon]

At this point in the development of the Church, putting the Prophet on emeritus status and choosing a new apostle to serve as President of the Church has significant legal ramifications.  Namely, the documents which govern the corporation sole that holds all assets of the Church would need to be revised.  Without reviewing those documents, I'm not sure what it takes to make such a revision.  But I imagine that it is something that would need to happen while the current president of the church is of a sound mind.

Sure. But it COULD be done if desired.

 

It's interesting to consider how the church might be different if the average age of apostles was 55 instead of 80+

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no opinion on the matter, but with the passing of three apostles recently whose mental capacities were questionable, I would like to know what the members of this board think about emeritus status for apostles. What about an incapacitated prophet?

President Packer's and Elder Perry's "mental capacities were questionable"? I was unaware of that.

[Thinking]

That's two CFRs, Thinking.

 

The next time I start a post right before I go to bed I'll set my alarm and wake up every hour to see if somebody has called for a CFR. After I do wake up and arrive at school, I will delay my math lessons for a few minutes to check.

 

Honestly, I feel like some of you are offended that I questioned their mental capacity. Many of my TBM friends have made comments about their mental capacity after observing them at GC. My comment was in no way a criticism of them, just an observation. Before my Dad passed away in February his mental capacity started to fade. It got to the point that my Mom wouldn't let him balance the checkbook anymore, among other things. Does that mean my Mom was being critical of my Dad? No. She was just being realistic. We all made life for my Dad as comfortable as possible before he passed, but his responsibilities decreased with his mental and physical capacity.

 

My wife is active LDS and watches GC, so I watch too and have noticed them struggling to read their talks. My CFR, then, is that I am a human being and can tell when somebody's mental capacity has diminished.

 

I know that members of the 70 are put on emeritus status so I thought it would be an interesting discussion about the possibility of emeritus apostles. Like I said in the OP, I don't have an opinion, but would like to hear the opinions of the active LDS on this board.

[Sunspot]

I believe in 1968 Hugh B Brown proposed and strongly advocated granting emeritus status to Apostles age 80. He had seen the failing health of Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and now David O. McKay up close and he wanted to avoid the President of the Church becoming incapacitated. There are three good sources for this: his journal, David O. McKay's secretary's journal (related in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism), and discussions with Spencer W. Kimball recounted by his son Edward (there may be others). His proposal was basically this: 

- At 80 years of age Apostles would be removed from their seniority standing in the Q12. In other words, they could still attend meetings of the 12 and/or 1st Pres, speak in General Conf. etc, but would no longer be eligible to be President of the Church. 
- Brown set the proposal up in such a way that it would eliminate him from ever being President of the Church. He didn't want it to appear like a power grab. 
- He was concerned about the failing health of David O. McKay, and the age of the next man in line (Joseph Fielding Smith) who was 93. 

Brown argued that the way the Church does seniority in the Q15 is not scriptural but, rather, is a policy that can be changed. His fear, was that with modern medical technology you would have significant periods of time when the President of the Church was non-functional mentally, but alive physically. For whatever you think of his plan, he was right about that. Kimball was sick and, per his son's accounts and President Hinckley's accounts, was not functional for nearly four years. And we're all familiar with President Benson's last few years. 

Brown's plan would also allow for the President of the Church to be released/resign if he became mentally incapable. 

Harold B. Lee and others in the 12 killed the plan. It never generated more than a couple of discussions. But occasionally has reared its head again. As noted above, President Kimball asked his brethren to release him from his calling.

[Scott Lloyd]

The next time I start a post right before I go to bed I'll set my alarm and wake up every hour to see if somebody has called for a CFR. After I do wake up and arrive at school, I will delay my math lessons for a few minutes to check.

 

Honestly, I feel like some of you are offended that I questioned their mental capacity. Many of my TBM friends have made comments about their mental capacity after observing them at GC. My comment was in no way a criticism of them, just an observation. Before my Dad passed away in February his mental capacity started to fade. It got to the point that my Mom wouldn't let him balance the checkbook anymore, among other things. Does that mean my Mom was being critical of my Dad? No. She was just being realistic. We all made life for my Dad as comfortable as possible before he passed, but his responsibilities decreased with his mental and physical capacity.

 

My wife is active LDS and watches GC, so I watch too and have noticed them struggling to read their talks. My CFR, then, is that I am a human being and can tell when somebody's mental capacity has diminished.

 

I know that members of the 70 are put on emeritus status so I thought it would be an interesting discussion about the possibility of emeritus apostles. Like I said in the OP, I don't have an opinion, but would like to hear the opinions of the active LDS on this board.

Other than having to deliver his talks while seated because of reduced mobility stemming from his polio as a child, I did not notice any undue strain on President Packer in preparing and delivering his sermons. Certainly no deficient "mental capacity.".

 

And as for Elder Perry, he struck me as being robust and forceful right up to the day he received the surprise diagnosis of terminal cancer.

 

I interviewed him in his office not long before his illness. I'll never forget his greeting as I was ushered into his office. "What are you doing to build the kingdom?" he asked in a booming voice.

 

He had a leading role in the Church's initiative to safeguard religious freedom not long before his passing, and was really making an impact.

 

To speak of their "questionable mental capacity" so matter-of-factly, as though it were a given, struck me as odd. Apparently others here found it so as well.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe in 1968 Hugh B Brown proposed and strongly advocated granting emeritus status to Apostles age 80. He had seen the failing health of Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and now David O. McKay up close and he wanted to avoid the President of the Church becoming incapacitated. There are three good sources for this: his journal, David O. McKay's secretary's journal (related in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism), and discussions with Spencer W. Kimball recounted by his son Edward (there may be others). His proposal was basically this: 

- At 80 years of age Apostles would be removed from their seniority standing in the Q12. In other words, they could still attend meetings of the 12 and/or 1st Pres, speak in General Conf. etc, but would no longer be eligible to be President of the Church. 

- Brown set the proposal up in such a way that it would eliminate him from ever being President of the Church. He didn't want it to appear like a power grab. 

- He was concerned about the failing health of David O. McKay, and the age of the next man in line (Joseph Fielding Smith) who was 93. 

Brown argued that the way the Church does seniority in the Q15 is not scriptural but, rather, is a policy that can be changed. His fear, was that with modern medical technology you would have significant periods of time when the President of the Church was non-functional mentally, but alive physically. For whatever you think of his plan, he was right about that. Kimball was sick and, per his son's accounts and President Hinckley's accounts, was not functional for nearly four years. And we're all familiar with President Benson's last few years. 

Brown's plan would also allow for the President of the Church to be released/resign if he became mentally incapable. 

Harold B. Lee and others in the 12 killed the plan. It never generated more than a couple of discussions. But occasionally has reared its head again. As noted above, President Kimball asked his brethren to release him from his calling.

Occasionally, when someone dredges up an internal proposal in the Church from yesteryear that failed to gain traction, I'm inclined to conclude the Lord didn't sustain it. An advantage of the council system in the Church is that a group of good people pool their capacity to receive  inspiration and what ultimately emerges from their deliberations can be confidently regarded as having a divine imprimatur.

[Thinking]

Other than having to deliver his talks while seated because of reduced mobility stemming from his polio as a child, I did not notice any undue strain on President Packer in preparing and delivering his sermons.

 

And as for Elder Perry, he struck me as being robust and forceful right up to the day he received the surprise diagnosis of terminal cancer.

 

I interviewed him in his office not long before he died. I'll never forget his greeting as I was ushered into his office. "What are you doing to build the kingdom?" he asked in a booming voice.

 

He had a leading role in the Church's initiative to safeguard religious freedom not long before his passing, and was really making an impact.

 

To speak of their "reduced mental capacity" so matter-of-factly, as though it were a given, struck me as odd. Apparently others here found it so as well.

 

You definitely have an advantage that most of us do not have. Perhaps their physical limitations made it seem like their mental capacities were diminished. Like I said, I was in no way being critical, just wondering about the possibility of emeritus apostles. Let's make this thread about that and not whether these three were mentally diminished and to what level.

[Scott Lloyd]

You definitely have an advantage that most of us do not have. Perhaps their physical limitations made it seem like their mental capacities were diminished. Like I said, I was in no way being critical, just wondering about the possibility of emeritus apostles. Let's make this thread about that and not whether these three were mentally diminished and to what level.

I don't associate with the Brethren one-on-one all that often, and I don't have an opportunity for observation too far and above the average Church member except for the fact that I perhaps am more apt to pay attention to what is going on because of the nature of what I do.

 

But I'm all for limiting the focus of the thread as you have requested here.

[Buckeye]

At this point in the development of the Church, putting the Prophet on emeritus status and choosing a new apostle to serve as President of the Church has significant legal ramifications.  Namely, the documents which govern the corporation sole that holds all assets of the Church would need to be revised.  Without reviewing those documents, I'm not sure what it takes to make such a revision.  But I imagine that it is something that would need to happen while the current president of the church is of a sound mind.

 

If he's of sound enough mind to run the corporation, he's of sound enough mind to sign revisions of the governing documents.

[HappyJackWagon]

Occasionally, when someone dredges up an internal proposal in the Church from yesteryear that failed to gain traction, I'm inclined to conclude the Lord didn't sustain it. An advantage of the council system in the Church is that a group of good people pool their capacity to receive  inspiration and what ultimately emerges from their deliberations can be confidently regarded as having a divine imprimatur.

Maybe. Or maybe it wasn't the right time based on the membership and sensibilities of the quorum members. Just like the blacks and the priesthood issue had to be reexamined post Harold B Lee, maybe it's something that should be considered again. Just because it didn't go through before doesn't mean it wouldn't go through now.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe. Or maybe it wasn't the right time based on the membership and sensibilities of the quorum members. Just like the blacks and the priesthood issue had to be reexamined post Harold B Lee, maybe it's something that should be considered again. Just because it didn't go through before doesn't mean it wouldn't go through now.

Nor does it indicate that something has any greater divine validity or chance of prevailing now just because it as been suggested before.

 

In any event, I have confidence in the council system as pertaining to the Brethren receiving and acting on inspiration in governing the affairs of the Church. And, as far as I can perceive at the moment, there is no inclination among them to do as is being suggested in this thread.

 

Or maybe it wasn't the right time based on the membership and sensibilities of the quorum members.

 

 

As a matter of faith, I believe a strength of that council system is its capacity to overcome individual prejudices, biases and predispositions that may exist individually among members of the council. Accordingly, I believe the removal of the priesthood restriction would have occurred earlier had the Lord intended it.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Derl Sanderson]

Derl. May I call you Derl? OK. Good.

 

You're suggesting that I WANT to forgo the presidency of Spencer Kimball? CFR. Show me where I said, or even implied I would be happy if we hadn't had Pres. Kimball. Don't waste your time because I know you can't do it. Simply retract and I'll be happy.

 

What I said, and I think it's clear to anyone who reads for comprehension, is that I could see emeritus status becoming a thing, especially if the incapacitated member made requested it. It may not have happened with Pres. Kimball, though I'm not familiar with that story, but if someone put their foot down and said they were retiring, like Pope Benedict did, it's hard to imagine the church forcing them to continue as an apostle. That just doesn't make sense to me. I can see them trying to talk the apostle out of the decision, maybe even with a pounding on the table with a fist like pres. Lee, but I can't see them forcing the issue. Once it happens and the tradition is less pristine, it would be easier to have others follow.

 

That's what I said, Derl. Don't misrepresent.

Sorry, unHappyJackWagon. Just posing the question, my delicate-skinned friend.

[cinepro]

 I was reminded by a priesthood leader that the tradition of having the senior (first called) Apostle's succeed to the Presidency was just that; tradition not doctrine.  And that if the Lord required He could call a local Bishop to be Prophet and bypass those in the Quorum of the 12.

 

Food for thought.

 

I'm afraid I'm going to need a CFR on that.

 

The way succession is set up now, the President of the Q12 immediately becomes the Church President the moment the previous President dies.  There isn't an instant of time when there isn't a presiding authority in the Church and someone else could be called to the position. 

 

 

President Spencer W. Kimball explained the transition of authority to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles after the death of the current prophet:

“The work of the Lord is endless. Even when a powerful leader dies, not for a single instant is the Church without leadership, thanks to the kind Providence who gave his kingdom continuity and perpetuity. …

“The moment life passes from a President of the Church, a body of men become the composite leader—these men already seasoned with experience and training. The appointments have long been made, the authority given, the keys delivered. … The kingdom moves forward under this already authorized council. No ‘running’ for position, no electioneering, no stump speeches. What a divine plan! How wise our Lord, to organize so perfectly beyond the weakness of frail, grasping humans” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1970, 118; or Improvement Era, June 1970, 92). (emphasis added)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-3-succession-in-the-presidency?lang=eng

 

 

At this point, the President of the Q12 forms a new First Presidency, but that is a matter of course.  He doesn't have the option to decline to be the Church President and pass it along to "a local Bishop."

 

 

 

As the presiding officer of the Church, the President of the Twelve has the prerogative to receive revelation regarding when to reorganize the First Presidency.

Edited September 29, 2015 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm afraid I'm going to need a CFR on that.

 

The way succession is set up now, the President of the Q12 immediately becomes the Church President the moment the previous President dies.  There isn't an instant of time when there isn't a presiding authority in the Church and someone else could be called to the position. 

 

 

 

At this point, the President of the Q12 forms a new First Presidency, but that is a matter of course.  He doesn't have the option to decline to be the Church President and pass it along to "a local Bishop."

When the president dies the power reverts to the Q12 who hold the keys as a body. They then set apart and ordain the new prophet. While I think the succession is clearly set forth I think there is time between death of the president and ordination of the new prophet that the quorum could elect to take a different path. I don't know how what that would look like but I think there is at least the possibility.

[The Nehor]

When the president dies the power reverts to the Q12 who hold the keys as a body. They then set apart and ordain the new prophet. While I think the succession is clearly set forth I think there is time between death of the president and ordination of the new prophet that the quorum could elect to take a different path. I don't know how what that would look like but I think there is at least the possibility.

This would be how it would work. The Twelve could also elect not to immediately select a new First Presidency and lead directly with the quorum president functioning as church leader.

When a church president is incapacitated this can lead to a sudden transition as the 1st counselor in the First Presidency has precedence over the priesident of the twelve but loses that immediately if the prophet dies.

I do not anticipate such a change but it could happen that the Twelve agree to select a different apostle as most senior.

[Thinking]

I'm afraid I'm going to need a CFR on that.

 

The way succession is set up now, the President of the Q12 immediately becomes the Church President the moment the previous President dies.  There isn't an instant of time when there isn't a presiding authority in the Church and someone else could be called to the position.

 

At the President’s death there is no First Presidency over the Twelve. Following the principles taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the President of the Church dies, the quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the counselors, if they previously had been in the Quorum of the Twelve, return to their respective places of seniority in that quorum. The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the ‘Presiding High Priest’ of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and ‘preside over the whole church’ (see D&C 107:65-66,91). ‘Equal in authority’ to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23-24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency...

Reorganization of the First Presidency. As the presiding officer of the Church, the President of the Twelve has the prerogative to receive revelation regarding when to reorganize the First Presidency. This decision is made in consultation with and through the unanimous support of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Succession in the Presidency

Edited September 29, 2015 by Thinking

[Kenngo1969]

The next time I start a post right before I go to bed I'll set my alarm and wake up every hour to see if somebody has called for a CFR. After I do wake up and arrive at school, I will delay my math lessons for a few minutes to check.

 

Honestly, I feel like some of you are offended that I questioned their mental capacity. Many of my TBM friends have made comments about their mental capacity after observing them at GC. My comment was in no way a criticism of them, just an observation. Before my Dad passed away in February his mental capacity started to fade. It got to the point that my Mom wouldn't let him balance the checkbook anymore, among other things. Does that mean my Mom was being critical of my Dad? No. She was just being realistic. We all made life for my Dad as comfortable as possible before he passed, but his responsibilities decreased with his mental and physical capacity.

 

My wife is active LDS and watches GC, so I watch too and have noticed them struggling to read their talks. My CFR, then, is that I am a human being and can tell when somebody's mental capacity has diminished.

 

I know that members of the 70 are put on emeritus status so I thought it would be an interesting discussion about the possibility of emeritus apostles. Like I said in the OP, I don't have an opinion, but would like to hear the opinions of the active LDS on this board.

By your logic, then (as well as that of your apparently-omniscient like-minded fellow observers), I must suffer from a corresponding loss or lack of mental capacity because my physical capacity is circumscribed by certain limitations.  I don't buy it.  I will stack my educational attainments, intelligence, and articulateness up against yours ... or against those of anyone with whom you associate on a regular basis ... any day.  Does one's physical capacity often diminish as one ages?  If one becomes old enough, it is inevitable.  Does one's mental capacity diminish as one ages?  In contrast to one's physical capacity, one's mental capacity may diminish as one ages, but it is not inevitable ... at least, a decline in one's mental capacity to the point of senility is not inevitable.  And yes, I do resent any implication to the contrary.  Live with it.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

By your logic, then (as well as that of your apparently-omniscient like-minded fellow observers), I must suffer from a corresponding loss or lack of mental capacity because my physical capacity is circumscribed by certain limitations.  I don't buy it.  I will stack my educational attainments, intelligence, and articulateness up against yours ... or against those of anyone with whom you associate on a regular basis ... any day.  Does one's physical capacity often diminish as one ages?  If one becomes old enough, it is inevitable.  Does one's mental capacity diminish as one ages?  In contrast to one's physical capacity, one's mental capacity may diminish as one ages, but it is not inevitable ... at least, a decline in one's mental capacity to the point of senility is not inevitable.  And yes, I do resent any implication to the contrary.  Live with it.

 

It may not be inevitable but exceptions are rare. Mental functioning does diminish with age. I am in my mid-30s and my ability to memorize things and recall things has already noticeably diminished. This is not a huge impairment in my life but it is real and something I expect will not improve back to its previous level.

 

Some apostles physically decay while their mental faculties seem to still be strong but even they admit that they are not as quick as they used to be. I would put Eyring in this category. Others begin to struggle mentally as well. Elder Haight was probably the most noticeable recent apostle to cope with developing dementia even while he could still physically get around reasonably well.

[Thinking]

I will stack my educational attainments, intelligence, and articulateness up against yours ... or against those of anyone with whom you associate on a regular basis ... any day.

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by Thinking

[mnn727]

I joined the Church when Ezra Taft Bensen was President, but after he was too sick to even attend GC. This bothered me until my Stake President said (I paraphrase) "Don't you think if God needed to get a message to His people he could heal President Bensen or have him die so the next Apostle in line would take over?"

It stopped bothering me after that.

Is this really Gods Church? if so then He is in charge and He can do what He needs to do.

Edited September 30, 2015 by mnn727

[Kenngo1969]

Damn straight.  I still don't appreciate your implication that, apparently, mental decline or insufficiency necessarily or overwhelmingly co-occurs with its physical counterpart.  Toss off my response by attempting to laugh it off if you wish, but I'm apt to cast a much more jaundiced eye to your contributions on this Board henceforth.

 

Have a pleasant evening. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I joined the Church when Ezra Taft Bensen was President, but after he was too sick to even attend GC. This bothered me until my Stake President said (I paraphrase) "Don't you think if God needed to get a message to His people he could heal President Bensen or have him die so the next Apostle in line would take over?"

It stopped bothering me after that.

Is this really Gods Church? if so then He is in charge and He can do what He needs to do.

President Hinckley made that point more than 20 years ago in the address to which I linked earlier in the thread which, predictably, has been overwhelmingly ignored.