Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the quotes, those are helpful.  The recent Oaks talk definitely raised the ante on this topic, and may have created a new precedent.  I wonder if that will continue to be moderated by the comments of others.  Remember one Apostolic statement does not constitute official church doctrine, I believe Elder Anderson has recently articulated this idea.  As for the proclamation, I agree with you that many leaders would consider many of its contents to be doctrinally based, but I'm not sure they would consider the whole proclamation to be doctrine.  It strikes me as very contextual to its time and place, where I think of doctrines as more universal principles that transcend time and place.  In that sense I think that many parts of the proclamation really fail the test of doctrine for me personally, and I believe they also fail the test as articulated in my earlier newsroom link.  

 

Oaks’ talk on the Family Proclamation also provided some interesting insights into the “revelatory process” that produced it.  Namely that the Family Proclamation was not given by the Prophet (Pres. Hinckley) but that it was drafted and edited over a period of nearly a year by members of the Twelve and then presented to the Prophet and his counselors for their approval and additional edits.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Hugh B Brown is the only counselor in history to not be retained in a presidency, so I think it’s likely the precedent will continue.

I usually use the proper titles, was just in a hurry for that reply. 

 

Actually there were a few men who weren't retained in the 1st Presidency beyond Hugh B. Brown, namely Daniel H. Wells, Brigham Young Jr. John W. Young, Marion G. Romney, Albert Carrington, Thorpe B. Isaacson, Rudger Clawson was in it for less than a week, Amasa M. Lyman was in it but that was an interesting case

Edited January 5, 2018 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oaks’ talk on the Family Proclamation also provided some interesting insights into the “revelatory process” that produced it.  Namely that the Family Proclamation was not given by the Prophet (Pres. Hinckley) but that it was drafted and edited over a period of nearly a year by members of the Twelve and then presented to the Prophet and his counselors for their approval and additional edits.

That you find this so remarkable says more about your own understanding of the revelatory process than it does about the process itself. 

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t agree that they have special access to the mind of God because of their church positions.

Really?? Wow, what a shock!!

I know you don't, but we do.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I do believe they have official authority for the institution, but that doesn’t make them any better aligning with the divine will or more likely to be inspired than anyone else.  

As far as believing Latter-day Saints are concerned, it does.

You're entitled to your opinion, HFT. But we are going to act just as if we believe what we believe, okay?

And we're going to take direction on matters of faith and morals from those whom the Lord has raised up to be his spokesmen upon the earth in our day, and not from all the self-appointed individuals who try to put themselves forward in their place.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

3 out of 15, not bad.  

And not one of them has ever said otherwise.

15/15.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The talk caused an immediate stir in the press and Was redacted in response to the controversy.

Is this an example of the post hoc fallacy, or do you have something more than mere assumption to back that up?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 A cosmetic change to an average talk this was not.

And you know this - how?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Not explicitly calling it doctrine or revelation, which is what you can’t prove.

I don't need to "prove" anything. Of course it's doctrine, and of course it's a revelatory document. When all 15 living prophets, seers and revelators put their hands to a joint statement, it thereby becomes official and authoritative LDS doctrine that is binding upon the Church.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t see how your example shows a violation of the Oxford definition.

I don't care whether my example exactly matches the Oxford definition, explictly contradicts it or falls somewhere in between. As far as the Latter-day Saints are concerned, apostasy is what the apostles say it is, not what any dictionary says that it is.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Feeling like I’m starting to repeat myself at this point...

Okay.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

Actually there were a few men who weren't retained in the 1st Presidency beyond Hugh B. Brown, namely Daniel H. Wells, Brigham Young Jr. John W. Young, Marion G. Romney, Albert Carrington, Thorpe B. Isaacson, Rudger Clawson was in it for less than a week, Amasa M. Lyman was in it but that was an interesting case

Thanks, appreciate the additional names, I was repeating what I thought I heard from somewhere else, but then even last night I heard about Marion G. Romney as well.  I'm not as familiar with all those other cases, but Daniel H. Wells was interesting because he was an ordained apostle, but never part of the quorum of apostles, but he was also an ordained counselor to the quorum.  

At any rate, I think its safe to say that there is precedent for typically keeping the counselors when a new president arrives, but that there are also exceptions to that rule, and especially as you go back further in the timeline.  

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Really?? Wow, what a shock!!

I know you don't, but we do.

As far as believing Latter-day Saints are concerned, it does.

You're entitled to your opinion, HFT. But we are going to act just as if we believe what we believe, okay?

And we're going to take direction on matters of faith and morals from those whom the Lord has raised up to be his spokesmen upon the earth in our day, and not from all the self-appointed individuals who try to put themselves forward in their place.

I imagine when you say "we" in these statements you're speaking for yourself and a belief that your thoughts on this subject represent the typical conservative Mormons thoughts.  I would caution that from my experience there are a variety of beliefs all across the board.  I know people within my circle of personal experience that look extremely orthodox on the surface, but have disclosed things to me in private settings some very nuanced and unorthodox perspectives.  

At any rate, I would encourage you to consider based on your earlier statement about not knowing the mind and will of God, that you might also have some things to learn on the subject of what a prophet actually is.  

 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And not one of them has ever said otherwise.

15/15.

Mindreading again.  Show the evidence.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s all very complex and there certainly are strains of retrenchment and assimilation happening at the same time.  That doesn’t mean they all cancel each other out or that their impacts are all equivalent.  

Also, personality throughout history has had a huge impact on how the church has been governed.  Consider the stark differences in leadership style between a Joseph Smith and a Brigham Young.  

LOL -- but I didn’t say assimilation and retrenchment cancel each other out (that would be stagnation), but that their interplay has been leveraged and manifest in a successful way for the Church (according to Mauss at least), which I call progress.

I think a focus on personality along with its influence on leadership style takes away from both Parks’ and Mauss’ points, who focus on attitudes (“inclusive approach,” “conservative hard-liner”) and expertise (“inspiration, intuition, or sociological insight”), respectively. Parks especially asserts how style and personality can change, especially toward a more “moderate and conciliatory” nature, which runs counter to most personality psychology theories on the subject, another reason why i find these as not being so important.

Parks is drawing his conclusions from what he has picked to include from the media (making them arguable), and Mauss acknowledges the benefit of using media sources of observation since these are "better known and less arguable." Hence one is an opinion piece and the other a more scholarly treatment. And since you are asking for posters' thoughts and opinions, that is what I offered a few posts ago; thank you for seeking clarification on what I meant.

I'd be happy to explore additional points of discussion with you as well.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Oaks’ talk on the Family Proclamation also provided some interesting insights into the “revelatory process” that produced it.  Namely that the Family Proclamation was not given by the Prophet (Pres. Hinckley) but that it was drafted and edited over a period of nearly a year by members of the Twelve and then presented to the Prophet and his counselors for their approval and additional edits.

I think this gets to the "style" of revelation -- it comes in many different ways. As indicated in my post above, I don't think "style" has very much to do with the actual outcome, or whether arevelation can be considered assimilatory or retrenching, or whether either of these "competing trajectories" (per Parks article) prove to impede the progress of the Church (per Mauss article).

Edited January 5, 2018 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I imagine when you say "we" in these statements you're speaking for yourself and a belief that your thoughts on this subject represent the typical conservative Mormons thoughts. 

Change the phrase "typical conservative Mormons [sic] thoughts" to orthodox Mormon belief and you would have it about right.
 

Quote

 

I would caution that from my experience there are a variety of beliefs all across the board.  I know people within my circle of personal experience that look extremely orthodox on the surface, but have disclosed things to me in private settings some very nuanced and unorthodox perspectives. 

 

 

 

That some individuals are apt secretly to harbor false notions and entertain false doctrine does not endow them with any special insight. Nor does it lessen the verity of genuine doctrinal truths in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Quote

At any rate, I would encourage you to consider based on your earlier statement about not knowing the mind and will of God, that you might also have some things to learn on the subject of what a prophet actually is.  

I suppose we all have some things to learn. But my observation from his posts is that Kiwi already has a reasonably good understanding of "what a prophet actually is."

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this gets to the "style" of revelation -- it comes in many different ways. As indicated in my post above, I don't think "style" has very much to do with the actual outcome, or whether arevelation can be considered assimilatory or retrenching, or whether either of these "competing trajectories" (per Parks article) prove to impede the progress of the Church (per Mauss article).

My understanding is that revelation nearly always follows a period of sustained fact finding, analysis, thought refinement, etc., before the resulting product receives the divine imprimatur. Often, though not always, this is a group effort.

The notion of a latter-day prophet in each and every instance delivering a divine edict like Moses descending from Sinai strikes me as simplistic.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

"Double down": "to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking"

So it seems that "double down" = "not making any changes to the Church's substantive doctrines and practices."  Is that what you mean?

I'm thinking more about doubling down on the idea that the 2015 policy was revelation

Again, I am not following.  The Church's position about the 2015 policy is X.  It is in full force and effect.  So how do you propose it can be made more forceful and effectual (that's what "double down" seems to suggest)?  How do you make X more X?

You are speaking as if the policy is up for debate, as if there is some question as to the ongoing application of the policy, as if there are competing factions within the Church that are jockeying for positions of authority and influence in order to reduce or eliminate the effect of the policy.  This seems like wishful thinking.  In the extreme.

I am reminded, once again, of Elder Oaks' 1987 article that explains in great clarity the options for a person in your position:

Quote

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

...

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.

...

 

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

...

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

Elder Oaks also presents a strong caution for members of the Church who speak and/or act against the Brethren:

Quote

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them?

Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and “works of darkness” are on the way to spiritual destruction, “for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.” (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)

Another consequence of the divine warning against criticizing Church leaders is addressed to those leaders themselves. It stresses their special responsibility in the exercise of their authority. In contrast to government and corporate officers, who can often be high-handed and authoritarian in the use of their powers, Church leaders have strict limits on the way they can exercise their authority. The Lord has directed that the powers of heaven can be exercised only “upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36)—that is, “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41). And this command is enforced:

“When we undertake to … gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37.)

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

I have been on this board since 2004.  I have seen dozens upon dozens of situations in which members of the Church come here and publicly speak against the Brethren, including attempts to justify and rationalize their course of conduct.  

"They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings."  

Yep, that's pretty much what happens.  I've seen it again and again on this board.  These cautionary words from Pres. Kimball also merit attention:

Quote

President Cannon warned again: “If any of you have indulged in the spirit of murmuring and fault-finding and have allowed your tongues to give utterance to thoughts and words that were wrong and not in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel, … you ought to repent of it with all your hearts and get down into the depths of humility and implore Him for the forgiveness of that sin—for it is a most deadly sin.

“The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men: they are fallible men. … [No one knows that better than they themselves.] No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. …”

This is true concerning all of the brethren, I am sure.

“Nevertheless, God has chosen these men. He has singled them out, … but He has selected them, and He has placed upon them the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and they have become His representatives in the earth. He places them as shepherds over the flock of Christ, and as watchmen upon the walls of Zion. And He holds them to a strict accountability … for the authority which He has given to them, and in the day of the Lord Jesus they will have to stand and be judged for the manner in which they have exercised this authority. If they have exercised it wrongfully and against the interests of His work and the salvation of His people, woe unto them in the day of the Lord Jesus! He will judge them. …” (Gospel Truth, p. 276.)

This same early apostle tells us that the Lord gives the authority to judge and condemn only to the regularly constituted councils of the Church and not to man generally; “and those who lift their voices … against the authority of the Holy Priesthood … will go down to hell, unless they repent.” (Ibid.)

I think the remarks and cautions set forth above are profoundly prophetic.

Quote

and an emphasis on the more egregious elements of the policy that are so divisive. 

No part of the policy is "egregious."  As for "divisive," virtually all of that comes from over-the-top reactions to the policy, not the policy itself.

By way of evidence, I point to the Church's nearly century-long and nearly identical policy regarding children from polygamous households.  No complaints about "egregiousness" or "divisiveness" with that policy.  Weird, eh?  Identical policies, radically different responses.

Quote

The church has conflicting ideas about how to interact with LGBT members. 

No, it doesn't.  But I'll listen.  What are these ideas, and how do they conflict?

Quote

I believe there are very different perspectives among the brethren on how to handle this topic. 

And yet the 2015 policy changes were sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  How do you account for that?

I account for it by . . . accepting Pres. Nelson's statement.

Quote

Hence the conflicting messages that continue to be sent, one month there is a more inclusive vibe sent, and the next month a more hurtful message. 

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  What "conflicting messages?"  CFR, please.

Quote

I believe there is a battle being waged within the hierarchy, and I pray that love wins the battle.  

I think there is discussion and debate within the heirarchy.  Not "battle."  Again, the 2015 policy changes were sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 

And I believe it is revelation that led to the 2015 policy changes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 5, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That some individuals are apt secretly to harbor false notions and entertain false doctrine does not endow them with any special insight. Nor does it lessen the verity of authentic doctrinal truths in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Definitely not false doctrines, just different perspectives.  No need to prop up your views as authentic and put down others as  false.  That kind of dialogue doesn’t show mutual respect.  

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

When you're in your 90's it doesn't take long for things to change. When you're already 93 the probability he'll be around for more than two years is extremely low. Not saying it can't happen. Just that it's not likely. So much of his immune system and the ability to come back from damage is so compromised that it doesn't take much to make one ill. Even with modern technology. He's at the age where genetics is actively working to end his life.

Even Oaks, who's even more spry for his age, at 85, has a reasonably good chance of dying before replacing Nelson. And if both Oaks and Nelson lasts 2 years then Oaks will be 87 and not apt to be President in good heath.

Using standard actuarial tables, somebody who has survived to 93 has better than 50-50 odds of surviving two more years. The chances of him being around for his 100th birthday are a bit higher than 10%.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What if I feel the influence of the HG when I eat spaghetti?  

Clear evidence that Nehor is right.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not following.  The Church's position about the 2015 policy is X.  It is in full force and effect.  So how do you propose it can be made more forceful and effectual (that's what "double down" seems to suggest)?  How do you make X more X?

You are speaking as if the policy is up for debate, as if there is some question as to the ongoing application of the policy, as if there are competing factions within the Church that are jockeying for positions of authority and influence in order to reduce or eliminate the effect of the policy.  This seems like wishful thinking.  In the extreme.

When Elder Nelson characterized the controversial policy as revelation in a talk about one month after the policy was leaked, that act added more authoritative weight to the way people looked at a very controversial policy.  In the Radio West interview that Robert linked to earlier in this thread, this was referenced by Greg Prince I believe.  

I typically assume that most people on these online message boards are following the online events surrounding issues like this.  Perhaps that's a fault of mine, and I shouldn't assume people are aware of all the discussions.  There have been a plethora of commentators whether you read blogs, or social media or listen to podcasts (I do all three) that have talked about this, my opinion on this subject is not an isolated one I came up with on my own.  

What is up for debate?  I think much is up for debate within the quorum and the higher echelons of the church.  I think they are constantly debating these things.  My opinions are informed by my reading of history and reading about previous debates and discussions that have been documented in times past.  I also follow people that say they are aware of such debates from associates involved in the current church leadership.  Do I personally have any special source that works in the church, no, I have no personal special source.  I trust that the historical precedent for these kinds of debates, coupled with the controversy we see on the outside, coupled with statements and actions of inclusion, vs. statements and actions of exclusion, coupled with the people who do have family and friends that work at the church who report on things.  All of this collectively tells me that there is great debate and conflict on this issue in the church hierarchy on this subject.  

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Oaks also presents a strong caution for members of the Church who speak and/or act against the Brethren:

No offense SMAC, but I think you've been a bit preachy with me of late on this topic of what you believe is appropriate criticism.  I disagree with you, I disagree with Oaks, let this dog lie.  

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the 2015 policy changes were sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  How do you account for that?

I account for it by . . . accepting Pres. Nelson's statement.

My suspicion is that Elder Nelson overreached on this statement and his recounting of events around it.  Sounds like we disagree on this topic, which is fine.  

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clear evidence that Nehor is right.

Perhaps Nehor comes from the same tribe of Israel that also established themselves in Italy?  

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Definitely not false doctrines, just different perspectives.  No need to prop up your views as authentic and put down others as  false.  That kind of dialogue doesn’t show mutual respect.  

Faced with a choice, I cast my lot with the prophets and the apostles.

You may regard it as disrespectful to say so; I don't.

 

[Exiled]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/

 

My guess is that Nelson will do something to cement his legacy early on as he realizes he doesn't have much time.  I agree with the suggestion that the author makes regarding canonization of the family proclamation.  It'll be something he would be remembered for and will cement his 2015 policy views.  So, that may be something he does.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Using standard actuarial tables, somebody who has survived to 93 has better than 50-50 odds of surviving two more years. The chances of him being around for his 100th birthday are a bit higher than 10%.

The fact that President Nelson, a heart surgeon by background, has both the know-how and the will to pursue a lifestyle that would tend to prolong life gives him better-than-average odds, I would say.

 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What is up for debate?  I think much is up for debate within the quorum and the higher echelons of the church.  I think they are constantly debating these things.  My opinions are informed by my reading of history and reading about previous debates and discussions that have been documented in times past.  I also follow people that say they are aware of such debates from associates involved in the current church leadership.  Do I personally have any special source that works in the church, no, I have no personal special source.  I trust that the historical precedent for these kinds of debates, coupled with the controversy we see on the outside, coupled with statements and actions of inclusion, vs. statements and actions of exclusion, coupled with the people who do have family and friends that work at the church who report on things.  All of this collectively tells me that there is great debate and conflict on this issue in the church hierarchy on this subject.  

This is why I think that the revelatory process described by Oaks in his Oct 2017 address is relevant.  As he described, that document was debated for nearly a year.  I'm not suggesting that it was contentious in any way but if it took a year of drafts and revisions than there had to have been some discussion about what to say and how to say it.  They obviously didn't all agree on the document the first time they wrote it.  And, after months of work, the first presidency still had changes.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Using standard actuarial tables, somebody who has survived to 93 has better than 50-50 odds of surviving two more years. The chances of him being around for his 100th birthday are a bit higher than 10%.

Good correction. Life expectancy for someone his age from the table I looked at is 3.2 years. Still not a long time but better than I indicated. Although to my point it doesn't address his health, which was my main focus. i.e. how active and involved is he. That's the key issue for how much influence he has. If he's alive but bedridden and not going to the regular meetings of the twelve then he'll have moderate influence at best.

BTW someone did an interesting analysis using actuary tables to plot probabilities of who will be prophet. To my surprise Uchtdorf has pretty low odds.

Edited January 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is why I think that the revelatory process described by Oaks in his Oct 2017 address is relevant.  As he described, that document was debated for nearly a year.  I'm not suggesting that it was contentious in any way but if it took a year of drafts and revisions than there had to have been some discussion about what to say and how to say it.  They obviously didn't all agree on the document the first time they wrote it.  And, after months of work, the first presidency still had changes.

I’ve heard that the timing of the release of the policy caught many of the leaders off guard and the handling of it afterwards in the public eye is additional evidence to me that this policy wasn’t fully approved by all in its current form.  Those are some reasons I question Elder Nelson’s telling.