Do the GAs not have the option to ask for a release from a calling? Everyone else does and they’re all said to be called by the Lord so why not? Cultural tradition?

Congratulations for this post. After re-reading the comments I’d say that you have managed to show the clear divide in the current church between those who could accept change and ask why it doesn’t happen and the ultra conservatives who insist on the ‘let the Lord decide’.

The Mormon liberal seem to say ‘well, its a good idea if they change’ but the conservatives reply with ‘They can stay in office until God removes them’.

I wonder though if there is actually a difference between the senile dementia stage that both president’s Benson and Romney reached and actual death? I mean when they ordained Romney the man would not have even been aware that they were doing it. And the final years of Benson only served to take time away from Pt Hunter -who was also very aged and weak. Hinkley didn’t face this problem so we can’t say that they had to retire him but when they are incapacitated…..well……

If we were in the ’60s we would be taking side on the blacks/priesthood issue as they did amongst the twelve. Seem even the church is susceptible to the liberals v. conservatives battle -the war on earth.

“Adam,

People can still be taken home by the Lord at any time, you know”

I made the comment above that God has the power to take any of us home when he wants.

Stephen Marsh said above: “Elder Marion Hanks … you do know he longed for a release. He served from such a young age, was away when his children were born, and served so very well.”

Elder Hanks was a General Authority.

Why don’t bishops serve until they die, jks? I mean, they have counselors to fill in for them if they get old and sick, too, right?

Thanks for some systematic argumentation. I have no interest in torpedoing what you have written!

I like that you have thought about the issue instead of reflexively defending the status quo.

I also like some of John Hamer’s ideas, but I think emeritus status based on age rather than term limits would have more support in LDS culture, as there is a thirty year old precedent.

Bottom line, as Stephen Marsh has noted with regards to Elder Marion Hanks, I think it’s kinder to the General Authorities and their families to let them off the hook a bit when they’ve worn out their lives in service…I know it’s not in any of our hands, but it’s interesting to think about the repercussions.

1) Being an Apostle or Prophet perhaps requires a greater decree of consecration than any other calling. One must totally give their life to service to receive the humility needed to receive revelatory inspiration for the church. D&C 4 would apply that they must serve with all their might etc, to “stand blameless before God at the last day.” Where greater light is given, there is also the potential for greater condemnation. The reassurance that you can work until God takes you may be part of the mantle that comes with the calling.

2) If one has a set term to be the prophet, would that limitation affect the ability for the revelatory process to yield fruit? i.e. the unfolding of the initial inspiration of drawing a small temple on a napkin to the ambitious project to double the number of temples worldwide. If one had foreknowledge that they were in a “lame duck” year and that a new prophet would take over, would one see a bold and ambitious inspiration through? One might tend to look at the known successor and envision exactly when he would fill the office and have the mindset drift toward that transition. If the new prophet came in and reversed a project while the prior prophet was an emeritus prophet, what kind of questions would that create?

3) You mentioned in #24 that the presidency of GBH may have begun earlier if term limits had been in place. He certainly would have been a capable President at that time. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the crucible of being in a presidency with ailing leadership shaped his vision of what needed to be accomplished during his years as a prophet in a way that no other experience could have.

4) It is a test of the faith of the membership to have an ailing leader. It was hard to turn on conference and hear those words, “President Kimball is watching the session from his apartment” and realize there would be no conference address forthcoming. If God’s power could remove leprosy from a person, could it lift the veil of dementia if it was necessary for His will to be made known? People have left the church in response to their personal answer to that question. The unique vibrancy of GBH was like a reward to the faithful who waited patiently through the difficult years. Now we are likely “spoiled” by having multiple addresses by a prophet at every general conference for the past decade. Should the church have an infirm leader for lengthy period, I suspect the tone of this type of thread would be much different. I like to have faith that the principle of prophetic succession is not so much bound that if it were God’s will to call an alternate Apostle rather than an infirm senior apostle, that the revelation would come in that manner.

There. I’ve put it out there John. Torpedo away!

Yes, one could make that argument, I suppose. But it would be a difficult argument for which to marshall a substantial amount of supporting evidence. One could also argue that the Hinckley administration was a huge wasted opportunity to expand the vision and reach of the church. In my opinion, there is more evidence supporting the latter proposition than the former.

Some folks apparently haven’t caught on that the title of this post is IMAGINE. What I sketch out here hasn’t happened nor is likely to anytime soon, nor am I advocating the particular policy I introduced above.

I did want to explore reactions to this, reasons why we release most leaders except for a few. I haven’t really got any good reasons, and I’m not surprised. I have received some enlightening feedback on other matters, however.

Interesting thought.

After reading about the power struggles and the panic that resulted from David O. McKay’s, Spencer W. Kimbell’s (with Marion G. Romney AND N. Eldon Tanner) and finally Ezra Taft Benson, I can only conclude that ensuring those in charge withdraw gracefully is much better than division among the leadership and/or senile rants at Temple dedications (a la President Benson).

This is a serious issue for a number of reasons. I am puzzled that this wouldn’t be a member’s business – it is the Church of the Latter-Day Saints too, isn’t it?

It’s not our place to suggest such a change.

If God wants this to be changed in such a fashion I’m sure he can tell President Monson himself.

I also don’t see the benefit of “ending speculation”. How is that important to God? Not that I think such speculation is a good thing, but I just don’t see it as being all that important.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Isn’t it wonderful? To have a man of maturity at the head, a man of judgment, who isn’t blown about by every wind of doctrine?

Mike Wallace: Absolutely, as long as he’s not dotty. [Laughs.]

Gordon B. Hinckley: [Laughs] Thank you for the compliment.

The real question is when do people cease to be productive and who are their peers? Most of the twelve have their social circle and their peers as the quorum and they are engaged in the work they care to do. Many contribute even when mostly disabled.

The ideal is a sense of brotherhood in the quorums. But this was an interesting post.

After all, you don’t want an inexperenced 70 year old as Church President, do you?

People can still be taken home by the Lord at any time, you know. But yes, in essence, it becomes as predictable as when a Seventy will retire.