Please join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Joanna Brooks, Heather Olson-Beal, and Charles Randall Paul for a free-flowing and insightful discussion about these and other aspects of the relationship between church members and those who lead them.

It’s tough to guess when Pres. Monson has only extended one apostolic calling thus far.  To get past this sample size of one, I expanded the field to include all apostles called since Monson has been in the First Presidency.  He wasn’t in charge in most of these situations, but I assumed he was involved to some extent as he counseled with then Presidents Benson, Hunter and Hinckley.

Since Pres. Monson joined the FP in November 1985, nine apostles have been called to the Quorum of the Twelve (Q12).  I reviewed their pre-apostolic resumes to see if I could identify common factors that may have led to their selection.  Presumably Pres. Monson will use a similar thought process as he considers the next apostle.

AGE

It’s tough to draw a compelling histogram with a sample size of 9, but I didn’t let that stop me:

• 5 of the last 9 apostles were clustered together in the center, aged between 59 and 63 when called.
• 2 of the 9 were younger than the norm:  Holland (53) and Bednar (52).
• 2 of the 9 were older than the norm:  Wirthlin (69) and Cook (67)
• Beyond these nine I found that new apostles are seldom called once they reach the age of 70; it has happened only 5 times in the history of the Church, and the most recent, Hugh B. Brown, was over 50 years ago.

Based on recent history, it appears that the “target range” for apostolic callings is in the late 50s or early 60s.  Pres. Monson’s first pick was right in the target range, age 63 (Christofferson).

EXPERIENCE

The last 9 apostles came from 3 different pools:

• 5 of the 9 were called directly from the Presidency of the Seventy (P70), which makes sense organizationally.
• 2 of the 9 served in the First Quorum of Seventy (1Q70), but served in the Presiding Bishopric (PB) rather than the P70.
• 2 of the 9 were current or former presidents of Church-owned universities.  E. Holland had also subsequently served in the 1Q70, but not the P70.  E. Bednar had only served as an Area Authority/Area Seventy in addition to his time as president of BYU-Idaho.  I found it interesting that these 2 had such different paths to the Q12 because I had already considered them outliers based on their age when called.

Any discussion of potential apostles should obviously begin with the current P70, and possibly consider former members of the P70.  Service in the PB and leading a Church university are also potential paths to the Q12.  True to these patterns, E. Christofferson was serving in the P70 when called one year ago.

LENGTH OF SERVICE

I was surprised to find little correlation to length of service in the P70 and an apostolic calling.  Of the 5 who served in the P70, the time they spent there varied widely from 5 weeks (Wirthlin) to 10 years (Christofferson).  Others served 2 months, 2 years, and 5 years.

More interesting is the correlation between total time served in the 70 (any quorum), PB, as university president, or Assistant to the 12.  8 of the 9 newly called apostles had at least 10 years combined service in these groups.  Only Bednar (always the outlier) fell short of this mark.  His combined service in the 5Q70 and Pres. of BYU-Idaho totaled only 9.5 years.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION APOSTLE?

When E. Cook was called in 2007, he and Pres. Eyring (new member of FP) held a press conference.  One of the first questions centered around the calling of yet another American as a high-ranking leader in a global Church.  Apparently they were expecting something different, perhaps because E. Uchtdorf had been called (along with Bednar) to fill one of the last vacancies.

Does the Church worry about apostolic demographics?  Probably not, but a new apostle from a country besides the U.S. is somehow exciting.  It seems to validate the growth of the global Church, and I’m sure it will happen again eventually.

PREDICTIONS

Based on all these criteria, I identified the 9 individuals I see as the most likely candidates for the open spot in the 12.  Any of these men could be selected to join the Q12, and there are doubtless others who are well-qualified.  My picks are divided into 3 tiers:

TIER ONE

Claudio R. M. Costa. Currently serving in the P70 and his age (60) is about perfect.  Served in the 70 for 15 years, with 20 months of that in the P70.  I gave him bonus points for being Brazilian and his work as a professional diamond cutter (totally irrelevant but more interesting than just another attorney, businessman or Church employee).

Neil L. Anderson. Currently serving in the P70, plus he’s on the young end of the target range (57).  He has served in the 70 for 16 years, and he and E. Rasband have the highest tenure in the P70 (nearing 4 years, although this hasn’t necessarily mattered in the past).  Bonus points (from me) for speaking French, Spanish and Portuguese, and I liked his last conference address.

Jay E. Jensen.  After 17 years in the 70, he has the odd distinction of being both the junior member of the P70 (8 months tenure) and the senior member of the P70 (67 years old).  That puts him out of the target range, but I can’t shake him specifically because he was just put in the P70.  Years ago, E. Wirthlin was called to the P70 and served only 5 weeks before joining the 12.  More recently, E. Cook spent only 2 months in the P70 before becoming an apostle.  In both cases, the same President who put them in the P70 moved them rapidly into the Q12.  Could Jensen be ticketed for a similar path?  My wife (Sister Hall?) gives him bonus points for looking like Pres. Faust around the eyes.

TIER TWO

Cecil O. Samuelson.  Has served 14 years in the 70, including a term in the P70 (although not currently) and several years as President of BYU.  He climbs this high on the list (despite being a little older than the apparent target at 67) because of the BYU job.  It worked for Oaks, Holland, Eyring, and Bednar.

Marlin K. Jensen.  Leading the field as far as GA tenure goes, Jensen has logged 20 years in the 70, including 3 years of past service in the P70.  At 66, he’s a little older than the target, but tenure gets him this high.

TIER THREE

Ronald A. Rasband, Steven E. Snow, Walter F. Gonzalez, and L. Whitney Clayton:  The rest of the current P70 are all in their upper 50s but haven’t been around for quite 10 years (9 for Rasband, 8 for the others).  For that reason alone they drop to Tier 3.  More apostles have been called over 65 (see Tier 2) than have been called with less than 10 years of service (as defined above).

Still, they are on the list and could be called.

THE REST

I briefly considered several others, including Dennis B. Neuenschwander (former P70, 18 yrs in 70, but at 69 years old, less likely), Keith B. McMullin (only member of PB under age 70), and Glenn L. Pace (former PB who at 69 probably won’t reunite with Hales and Eyring as apostles).  Bruce C. Hafen is also a former Ricks/BYU-Idaho president currently in the 1Q70, but not the P70.

All others in previous P70s, Presiding Bishopric or presidents of universities are either over age 70 or have been given emeritus status.

To wrap it all up, I find it interesting that although all of these men have led the third highest quorum in the Church, our interaction with them is fairly limited.  They speak every three or four conferences, and you might see them once in a lifetime at your Stake or Regional Conference, but they aren’t nearly as well known as the 12.  All that will soon change for someone.

Is there a dark horse I have missed?  Have any of their conference talks or other messages been particularly meaningful to you?  Who do you think will fill the empty seat?

When I was a teenager I suffered from an almost crippling depression. It kept me from developing meaningful and balanced relationships with people (though I had many good friends) and it caused me to be very angry with God at times. There was a scripture that pierced me to the heart in the same way that Joseph Smith describes being pierced by James’ admonition to ask of God for wisdom, and it was Christ’s plea to His father, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I remember walking in the cold through my neighborhood at night, looking up at the stars and saying quietly, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” to whomever would listen.

That scripture didn’t make sense to me. I felt that way sometimes. I felt that God had abandoned me, or forsaken me, and I didn’t know why. It bothered me, and so I periodically would ask people to explain to me the purpose of that scripture. Usually they’d rehash the same answer that everyone else did: “Christ had to feel everything that we feel, so He had to feel loneliness.” This answer made me mad. It completely didn’t help me, and I felt that all these Mormons were just robots, programmed to say “Christ had to feel everything that we feel, so He had to feel loneliness” when asked about that scripture. Now and then someone would reference Skousen’s work on the Atonement and this gave me a different perspective on the matter, but didn’t satisfy me. The question was never really answered to my satisfaction and it was very frustrating. And so years passed without me ever knowing what I had to gain from Christ’s plea.

Last year, I raised my hand in Institute after we studied Christ’s last moments on the cross, and I asked my Institute teacher what the meaning of that scripture was. This is an Institute teacher that I loved and respected greatly (and still love and respect), and his answer was, in effect, “Christ had to feel everything that we feel, so he had to feel loneliness.” In frustration, I sank in my chair, silent. After class I talked to my teacher and told him that I’ve been vexed by that scripture for a long time, and perhaps it’s something I’m just going to have to ask God when I meet him. The issue was closed for a time and I stopped thinking about it.

Months passed, and I have slowly learned how to live without depression crippling me. I feel less angry and I find meaning in more of my life. These lessons were not learned easily. It took hard work, tears, and little packages from God throughout the years of my life.

Two weeks ago I attended a fireside in Louisville, Kentucky, featuring Elder Richard G. Scott. My mind raced the whole time. At the beginning of the fireside, I met with my sister who delivered to me a small, black box with a diamond ring that came from my grandfather. He knew I’m not a rich man, and I was planning on asking a beautiful young lady to marry me soon. I sat in a chair on the stand (I was in the choir) with this diamond ring in my pocket, wondering if this was the right decision for me. Skeptically I looked at the back of Elder Scott’s head.

I knew Elder Scott is an apostle, and I respected that, but I came to the meeting with a sour attitude.  I was certain that there was nothing he could say that I hadn’t heard before. I needed real answers. I didn’t want any of the watered-down, useless stuff I hear so often in church, stuff like, “Christ had to feel everything that we feel, so he had to feel loneliness.” I’ve been so frustrated with answers like that and didn’t expect to hear anything more useful. I knew that if I wanted real answers it was up to me.

Elder Scott spent the first 30 minutes of his presentation trying to get his laptop projector to work. I mused on the idea that everything he was trying to do with his Photoshop program and expensive projector, he could have done with a chalkboard, and a chalkboard is much cheaper and the learning curve is quite a bit more manageable than a laptop as well, and why are we always inventing things that are suppose to improve our life but end up being complicated and difficult versions of what we already have that break and go obsolete faster?  I sank deeper in my chair. Elder Scott then said a few things about revelation and opened the floor to questions.

Again my cynicism was reinforced.  When you allow the regular folk to ask whatever questions they want, what you’re going to get is a lot of lousy questions that waste everybody’s time.  I sat through a few of those and fiddled with my thumbs a bit.

It was then that Elder Scott taught me something that left an incredible impression on me, and probably will till the day I die, because he answered the question that had troubled me for ten years.  Someone asked him, “What can you teach us about the Atonement?”  I sighed quietly to myself.

Elder Scott began to speak on Christ’s Atonement, and then completely out of the blue, he referenced Christ’s last few sentences on the cross.  He told us that Christ said, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” because God had withdrawn from him, and God had withdrawn from him as an expression of trust.

Suddenly it all made sense. My teenage depression made sense. My hurt, my pain, my trials all made sense. Christ taught that He did nothing of Himself, but only did as He was commanded of God. It was like a father, holding the handlebars of his child’s bike, teaching him how to ride. Without getting into the particulars of how closely God managed Christ’s works throughout His life, I saw this father pushing his child on a bike, and at the last moment letting go, trusting that the child would continue pedaling.  God didn’t just let go, he stepped away from the bike. God was showing us that He trusts Jesus, and if God trusts Jesus, then we can, too.

This was the answer that I’ve always been looking for, and it’s led me to consider much of what has been said in the Bloggernacle and by those who feel disillusioned by the Church.  I’ve felt disillusioned by the Church now and then.  I’ve felt forgotten by God and I’ve felt insignificant.  I felt that I didn’t have a place, or that I’m too “different.”  Sometimes God lets go of the handlebars, but I kept pedaling, and so that’s my advice to those who feel the same way.  Keep pedaling.  It means He trusts you.  So many feel God letting go and simply stop pedaling and fall over.  I’ve thought about the words of my Uncle John as he pondered the people he has seen struggle with the Church: so many who “trade down” once they leave, never finding the same happiness again. I can’t speak for everyone but in my life there was value in just pedaling when God lets go.

When Elder Scott finished and bore his testimony of Christ I knew what I needed to do. Last Wednesday I asked a beautiful, wonderful, and nurturing young woman to marry me. But I also saw Christ. Not in a literal sense, but in that chapel, in my mind’s eye, Christ became a real figure to me. A real being that could have been standing at the pulpit in Elder Scott’s place. I saw Him walking with His apostles, and I saw Him teaching them. And here was an apostle in every sense of the word standing before me, doing what apostles are called to do: tell us that Christ is real. He lives. He wants us to be happy. He died for us.

Being an apostle meant so much to me that day, and more to me now. Thank God for apostles and their service to us.

A gerontocracy is a form of oligarchical rule in which an entity is ruled by leaders who are significantly older than most of the adult population.

Some examples of political gerontocracies:

• In the Soviet Union, gerontocracy was the rule of thumb from the 1970s until March 1985, when a dynamic, young, ambitious leadership headed by Mikhail Gorbachev took power.
• Iran and other theocracies often promote gerontocracy for their highest ruling offices, but parliamentary members must be under age 75 as a balance (keeping that youth vote?).
• India’s Tamil Nadu state is ruled by an octogenarian oligarchy.
• Within the U.S. Senate, the oldest senators are typically assigned to chair committees; some later run for president.
• Catholicism.  Due to the high number of aging Cardinals, Pope Paul VI removed the right for Cardinals to vote for a new Pope once they reach the age of 80.
• Wikipedia cites LDS as a Gerontocracy:  “On the other hand, gerontocracy may emerge in an institution not initially known for it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr., a 24-year-old man [sic], who in 1835 constituted the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with members ranging in age from 23 to 35.”  You may recall these were not all winners. “Once it was established that succession to the church presidency derived from longest tenure in an office held for life, the hierarchy aged markedly, and with the growth of the church the age at which officials were named to the highest bodies continued to rise. Six church presidents have held office past the age of 90, and until his death in 2008 the church was actively led by Gordon B. Hinckley, a man who remembered the day his father replaced the family horse-wagon with a Ford Model T.^“

So, is Mormonism a Gerontocracy?  The tradition of promoting the longest-serving member of the Quorum goes back to 1847, when Brigham Young replaced Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith Jr., as the prophet. Such a method predisposes the Mormon Church to continually select men who have already lived long lives, leading some critics (and Larry King who is sort of a fanboy) of the church to refer to its leadership as a “gerontocracy.” Monson is 80, and the next most senior apostle, Boyd K. Packer, is 83.

Counter-examples:
- Faust in the First Presidency
- GBH in the First Presidency during ETB’s era
- Bednar (in the 12) is 55 years old.  A mere kid.
- Alvin Dyer in the First Presidency (was never even a member of the 12)

So what are the potential drawbacks of a Gerontocracy?

• Mental Deterioration.  The decreased faculties of the aged can potentially be a handicap in providing effective leadership.  Eventually, the mortal body shuts down, and occasionally the mind precedes it.
• “Out of Touch.”  Church members may feel the leadership are out of touch with their viewpoints, experiences, and needs, thereby leading them to marginalize their counsel.
• Resistance to Change.  The elderly may have a difficult time relating to a quickly changing world.  Some are not comfortable with technology.  Some have worldviews set in cultural standards of the past.
• Living in the Past.  It seems that everyone finds a certain era in their life they feel comfortable with and they never leave it (or quit buying new clothes after a certain era).  This seems to be human nature.  Fortunately for my kids, I’ve been mostly able to shake off the 80s.
• Ageism.  Gerontophobics will be scared off.  Ken Dychtwald identified seven assumptions of gerontophobia:
  • If young is good, then old is bad
  • If the young have it all, the old are losing it
  • If the young are creative, the old are dull
  • If the young are beautiful then the old are unattractive
  • If the young are stimulating, then the old are boring
  • If the young are full of passion, then the old are beyond caring
  • If the children are tomorrow, the old represent yesterday

Gerontocracy generally occurs as a phase in the development of an entity, rather than being part of it throughout its existence. Opposition to gerontocracy may cause weakening or elimination of this characteristic by instituting things like term limits or mandatory retirement ages (emeritus status).

And what are the positives of a Gerontocracy?

• Stability.  Gerontocracy’s stability is seen as its strength, which can be more appropriate for institutions that teach principles that do not vary over time.
• Resistance to Change.  Elderly leaders are more likely to allow change more slowly rather than reacting to the whims of time and trend.
• Respect for Elders.  Psychologically, it’s much easier to unquestioningly follow the commands of someone older than you. So the strict seniority-based promotion scale serves a practical purpose.
• Experience.  These leaders have got many more years of life experience than the rest of us.  With age, wisdom.
• Credibility by Imitation.  For millions of people, the Pope is the representative of God on earth.  Having a similarly-aged leader lends an air of “me too” credibility for those who are most comfortable with this image.
• God’s Really in Charge.  He can kill off potential leaders before their time, at least according to the “lower decks” scuttlebutt I have heard.  And God is the ultimate Geriatric!

So, what’s your opinion?  Is the church a Gerontocracy?  If so, why did it become one?  Will it always be one or is this a temporary condition?  How do others perceive this, both in and out of the church?  Do the positives outweigh the negatives?  Does the world really change all that much or is doctrinal stability more desirable?