DiscussMormonism.com

When I ask that question, I'm not asking are they out of touch with reality (I'm not asking: are they crazy?). No, what I'm asking is: are they out of touch with the mainstream? Are they outdated? Are they over the hill? Should they all retire to a few years of golf, bingo, and the early bird special at Denny's? I say yes.

If anyone hasn't noticed, the church leaders are old. Real old. Older than dirt old. Gordon B. Hinckley's on a first name basis with half the Wasatch Peaks. They're old, and they're going to keep getting older. The advances in modern medicine can keep someone alive a whole lot longer than they could a few decades ago, and the age of people is going to keep getting pushed further and further (especially people who can afford the best care money can buy). The LDS church qualifies as a gerontocracy.

A by product of the age gap between the leaders and the rest of us is a cultural divide. What was exceptable when Boyd K. Packer was young and what are exceptable today are two very different things, and thus we get these generation gap issues (teased hair, body piercings, etc etc). A leader who has some knowledge of the mainstream could let some of these things go, but the leaders of the church are two or three generations past their heyday. Wouldn't a leader of youth and vigor be an absolute godsend for this Church just itching for some new blood?

The original leaders of the church were energetic, ambitious, and young (and named Young). Joseph Smith died at 39 (of course the length of life was shorter but he was leading the church in his 20s). Brigham Young was 46 when he was declared President of the Church, and served till his death in his 70s. The age has just continued to stretch from there. Hinckley will be 97 this year. He graduated from college before World War II. He's outlived the "Fighting" generation that's currently dying out. The Church is going to reach a point where the Prophet is a 120 year old man who won't give up the reigns.

So what can be done to breath some fresh air into this Church? Common sense would suggest finding someone of immaculate knowledge, speaking ability, and charisma in his middle years and throw him into the job. But that won't happen will it. The Church will continue this "rule by attrition" where the survivor gets the prize, no matter who that is.

So I ask the questions:

Are the leaders out of touch with mainstream America (or even mainstream LDS)?

Should the job of President automatically go to the oldest church leader?

How much could a young leader help the LDS church?

1. Yes, the leaders of the church are out of touch with mainstream America. The church is out of touch with mainstream America. I'm 31 and I feel out of touch with mainstream America...I'm not sure what mainstream America is, but if it requires viewing and emulating anything on MTV, American Idol, or Survivor: Wherever, count me out.

2. The job of president of the church should go to Daniel C. Peterson because he knows lots of stuff.

3. I don't think a young leader would make much of a difference, unless by "young" you mean someone in their twenties with a wild streak. Bednar is the youngest apostle (I think) and his conference remarks lead me to believe that he wouldn't be quick to change anything. The church's PR department will have more to say about its mainstreaming than the leadership.

I think they're like that on purpose - you know, 'be in the world, but not of the world' - because the world is EVIL. They'd just as soon have us all look and act the same - kinda how elohim and jehovah looked the same in the temple movies (i always found that rather strange).

I'm just finishing The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and he makes a really interesting point about changing morals -- in a chapter called The Moral Zeitgeist. It's quite obvious that morality changes over time. The progressives of even one generation past were not as far along as the average of the current times. To give individual examples, Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, and even Abraham Lincoln said that whites were superior to blacks -- today we are shocked when Joe Biden barely suggests that Obama is nice and "clean".

It seems like it's always the conservatives (religious and political) who are on the trailing slope of the curve. Today we have neo-conservatives, who want to preserve the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy -- who were progressives in their time! (And Democrats!!!) Isn't there an obvious pattern here?

And so with Mormonism -- you get the same pattern. Blacks were excluded, and past LDS leaders said they always would be, but now they are fully accepted. It was frowned upon for a woman to work outside the home, but now it is much more acceptable. Birth control was a no-no, but now it is quietly the norm, and families are getting smaller... catching up (or down) with the rest of the country. What's going to happen to gays a generation down the road? What will be the future of this religion's excessive fear of masturbation and pornography (and body piercing)? Isn't there an obvious pattern here?

Mormonism, as a policy and a religion, has long been on the trailing slope of the shifting moral zeitgeist. That's not what I would expect from a religion that is functionally different than the rest (i.e. directed by revelation). But it's exactly what I would expect from an organization run by minds of a past generation. They will always be playing catch-up. They're stuck behind the curve.

silentkid wrote:2. The job of president of the church should go to Daniel C. Peterson because he knows lots of stuff.

Believe it or not, I agree. DCP is, from what I hear, in the Bishopric of a Singles Ward. That alone puts him more in touch with the future of the church than 99% of the GAs. Not to mention the fact that he's on the cutting edge of where the church is going doctrinally. A third qualification is that he's "in the trenches" and fully in touch with what is being said about the church.

Love him or hate him, the fact of the matter is that, for the church's sake, Dr. Peterson is a far better candidate for the helm of the LDS Church than any other General Authority in office.

EDIT:

Ah hell, why not give credit where credit is due--Have you heard him talk? His fellow TBMs love him! He has far more charisma among his own than anyone else in the FP/Q12--enough charisma to steer the church in any direction it needs to go. So there's a fourth qualification for you.

I think the Brethren understand very well that morality is dynamic. Perhaps that is why they are so concerned about its direction because they will not be able to help but change to follow the masses as well at some point.

That being said, they have pointed out that we live a lesser law in some principles because of the deteriorated morals of our society. Examples would be divorce becoming more acceptable and common even in our temples in opposition to Jesus's statements about adultery, "He who marries her who is divorced commiteth adultery."

Yet as long as long as the Brethren hold that the ideal morality is what is to be practiced in the next life, I don't see a problem. The problem I would see is if they were to later start bad-mouthing polygamy and say it is not a Celestial law the way anti-Mormons do now. Then they would have no leg to stand on because their morality and ideal would be just as cambiant as societies.

I guess in a way this has already happened with the race issue. Yet the key question for me would be what would be what the earlier brethren thought about Blacks holding the priesthood in the afterlife. Does anyone have any statements?

I wasn't aware that the doctrines of Christ had a sell by date. Where in the scriptures is that? I can find it on my milk carton and on my package of sliced ham, but theres not even a barcode on my scriptures.

Now mind you, My set is about 15 years old, maybe your sets are newer and have this expiration date.

My concern is not one of age at all. I think with age comes wisdom (with the proviso that dementia has not set in). My concern is that the Brethren have no source of unfiltered information regarding the pulse of the membership and the thinking of our times.

They would have a ready made portal into these things if the perused the Mormon Issues forum at Beliefnet.com and MAD. I would be concerned that this forum may cause them angina.

They are absolutely out of touch. And if it's true that the leaders don't know anything about FAIR and aren't interested as some apologists have said, then that proves the point all the more. There's a bit of a generation gap between myself and my parents who as devout and as good of people as they are, I could really see they struggled to understand us at all. The upper hierarchy I think would be hopeless. Don't get me wrong, I think they do try, but what has been said is absolutely right about teased hair and earings. And deeper issues like homosexuality, forget it. They might understand to a point, they might feign a kind of deep concern, but they don't get it. There is no struggle right now in the church over homosexuality because it's an open and shut case for the leaders. There is no pull at all in its favor, the only real question is how to deal with it politically. But when the teenagers of today are 60 and moving up the ranks, it might be a struggle because even my generation, mid-30's has a tough time overall being offended by gays.

I don't know how things are now, but I could see years ago on my mission that the church's central hard-sell, the family, is out of touch. Yes, compared to a family broken by alcohol and drug abuse, it ain't bad. But one thing I really struggled with on my mission after visiting many other churches, is I didn't feel mine really had anything to offer. The rest of the religious world wasn't suffering in confusion as I had been led to believe. Many were far friendlier and had much better youth programs. In fact, there were a number of teens who were attending other church's youth groups for the friendships, we all know how 'clickish' the church can be.

I'll admit, I HATE the charismatic movement. But some of their youth programs are very good.

Believe it or not, I agree. DCP is, from what I hear, in the Bishopric of a Singles Ward. That alone puts him more in touch with the future of the church than 99% of the GAs. Not to mention the fact that he's on the cutting edge of where the church is going doctrinally. A third qualification is that he's "in the trenches" and fully in touch with what is being said about the church.

Love him or hate him, the fact of the matter is that, for the church's sake, Dr. Peterson is a far better candidate for the helm of the LDS Church than any other General Authority in office.

I was shamelessly trying to make my way into his signature line. I agree with you here, Shades.

I wasn't aware that the doctrines of Christ had a sell by date. Where in the scriptures is that? I can find it on my milk carton and on my package of sliced ham, but theres not even a barcode on my scriptures.

Gaz, does that mean there is no expiration date for this scripture (Exodus 21:7-8): And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power...etc., you get the idea.

Do we still sell our daughters into slavery? I hope that this scriptural invocation has expired.