Are the LDS leaders out of touch?

[_truth dancer]

Seems to me the church lags behind society by a few decades.

Once something has been mainstream for twenty years or so, the church adopts it... think the ban, birth control, women working, divorce, temple changes, women praying in church, garment changes, etc. etc. etc.

I'm quite certain, once women are more prominent in government and business, the ban against women will be lifted. I'm quite certain once homosexuality is mainstream, a couple decades later it will not be a problem in the chruch. I'm sure that once drinking green tea and wine become regularly used to increase one's health the WoW guidelines will change as well. The white shirt idea will be gone in two decades. The, one year wait after a civil wedding, rule will change as it becomes widely known as the manipulative tool that it is.

Just give it time.

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

No, what I'm asking is: are they out of touch with the mainstream?

Yes, in my opinion.

Should they all retire to a few years of golf, bingo, and the early bird special at Denny's?

I think retirement should at least be allowed, on a case-by-case basis. Too many Church presidents have become incapacitated in their last years, so an emeritus plan seems appropriate. Also, if one simply is tired and wants to retire, then he ought to be able to.

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).

I see this a big problem ... and biggest threat to the Brethren's relevance.

Wouldn't a leader of youth and vigor be an absolute godsend for this Church just itching for some new blood?

Perhaps, but it depends on the guy. For example, David Bednar is quite young, but I've been totally unimpressed by him so far.

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

Yes, in my opinion.

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

No, in my opinion.

How much could a young leader help the LDS church?

Not sure. Like I mentioned, Bednar is young but not much of a leader, in my opinion.

[_guy sajer]

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."

I hear this all the time about the decaying morals of society. So, my question is "just when did the Golden Age occur in which society was all nice and moral?" I think these sort of comments (and certainly those by political conservatives) harken back to an imaginary 1950sish time in which life was simple, people smiled at each other and were friendly, and there was no sex outside of marriage. A purely mythical time, however.

I'd argue that Western society is, in fact, more moral today than at any point in its history. If the standard is conservative religion's mores surrounding human sexuality (and for conservative religion, this IS the relevant standard), what is the evidence that people today commit sexual sins at a greater rate than in the past?

But if the standard is how society treats its members, then Western mores surrounding gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., make it a far, far more moral society than anytime in the past, recent or distant.

Take a conservative religious type pontificating on morals, scratch the surface, and you'll find someone absolutely obsessed about other people's sex lives.

[_truth dancer]

I completely agree that this moment is by far the best, most moral time in the history of the world.

At least since Neolithic times....slavery is diminishing, women are starting to be recognized as human beings, children are being acknowledged as something other than property, there are laws to protect animals and our earth, people with disabilities are being accepted and cared for, we no longer think it is great to kill innocent victims in war, etc. etc.

We have a long way to go but certainly we have brought forth a care and concern and compassion unlike anything that has existed.

This doesn't mean I don't have concerns. I do.

For me, some of what I see in society is sort of a regression rather than a continual move toward greater care and compassion.

I hope humankind will continue to bring forth the depth of what is possible in the human.

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

I completely agree that this moment is by far the best, most moral time in the history of the world.

At least since Neolithic times....slavery is diminishing, women are starting to be recognized as human beings, children are being acknowledged as something other than property, there are laws to protect animals and our earth, people with disabilities are being accepted and cared for, we no longer think it is great to kill innocent victims in war, etc. etc.

We have a long way to go but certainly we have brought forth a care and concern and compassion unlike anything that has existed.

This doesn't mean I don't have concerns. I do.

For me, some of what I see in society is sort of a regression rather than a continual move toward greater care and compassion.

I hope humankind will continue to bring forth the depth of what is possible in the human.

~dancer~

And, TD, what force has consistently fought against these advances in human morality?

You guessed it, conservative, dogmatic religion.

Were it up to the religious conservatives (Christian, Muslim, etc.), does anyone really think that merely the notion of human rights and civil liberties would even be part of the social/political agenda?

[_Who Knows]

I'm not advocating putting a 12 year old in the driver's seat here (or some other young gun). But instead of putting a great-great grandfather in, putting a grandfather in the job.

That'll never happen, because of how prophets are 'chosen'. It's usually the oldest guy that wins the job. After you're in the 12, you have to wait for 11 guys ahead of you to die, and then you become prophet.

If they called a 30-something as an apostle, he might have a chance of being prophet by the time he's 50/60.

[_Yoda]

I'm not advocating putting a 12 year old in the driver's seat here (or some other young gun). But instead of putting a great-great grandfather in, putting a grandfather in the job.

That'll never happen, because of how prophets are 'chosen'. It's usually the oldest guy that wins the job. After you're in the 12, you have to wait for 11 guys ahead of you to die, and then you become prophet.

If they called a 30-something as an apostle, he might have a chance of being prophet by the time he's 50/60.

This is correct. Monson will probably be one of the longest living prophets around, provided he stays in good health. He is one of the younger members of the Quorum of the 12, even though he is more "senior" in rank.

[_Jason Bourne]

No, what I'm asking is: are they out of touch with the mainstream?

Yes, in my opinion.

Well yes and no. I think they see and know a lot about what is going on, but like all of us as we age, are less inclined to change. That my not be bad, at least from the angle of the leaders and of a conservative Church. But youth does not make change inevitable. Elder Bednar is the youngest apostle, still under 55. And he seems more rigid then many of those up the rank and older. And there is a a HIGH chance the Elder Bednar could be president someday.

Like it or not the LDS Church is very conservative and will likely remain so. This complaint that the leader are too old is not new. I recall hearing it often in the 70's when I was oh so young. Is it good or bad? Depends on your view.

Should they all retire to a few years of golf, bingo, and the early bird special at Denny's?

I think retirement should at least be allowed, on a case-by-case basis. Too many Church presidents have become incapacitated in their last years, so an emeritus plan seems appropriate. Also, if one simply is tired and wants to retire, then he ought to be able to.

I would like to see them be able to retire. If I recall, Pres. Kimball wished to be able to do so as he failed. Perhaps for apostles a mandatory retirement age of 80 would be wise. But would that taint the way the leaders are made president? Would it make it seem more political. The fact is, while since BY it has been done like this Church presidents have argued that it did not have to be that way. BY wanted JFS to be his successor because he wanted a younger man then JT and he did not like JT. But, when BY dies, even though Daniel Wells pushed for the advancement of JFS John Taylor, the senior apostle held the day and was made president.

A by product of the age gap between the leaders and the rest of us is a cultural divide. What was expectable 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).

I see this a big problem ... and biggest threat to the Brethren's relevance.

This has been an issue since John Taylor. They have all been old and perceived to be out of touch. I do not see it any more of an issue then it has been for years.

Wouldn't a leader of youth and vigor be an absolute godsend for this Church just itching for some new blood?

Perhaps, but it depends on the guy. For example, David Bednar is quite young, but I've been totally unimpressed by him so far.

Yes, see above

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

Yes, in my opinion.

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

No, in my opinion.

How would you do it?

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not advocating putting a 12 year old in the driver's seat here (or some other young gun). But instead of putting a great-great grandfather in, putting a grandfather in the job.

That'll never happen, because of how prophets are 'chosen'. It's usually the oldest guy that wins the job. After you're in the 12, you have to wait for 11 guys ahead of you to die, and then you become prophet.

If they called a 30-something as an apostle, he might have a chance of being prophet by the time he's 50/60.

In order based on what age they will be in 2007:

Pres Monson was the last real young apostle called and he was like 36. He is now 80. But if Pres Hinckley wasnot so longed lived he may have been president for a while now.

Elder Paker was 45 when ordaines and he is now 82.

Elder Perry was 51 and is now 84

Pres Faust was 58 and is now 87

E Nelson was 59 and is now 82

E Oaks was 51 and is now 74

E Ballard was 57 and is now 79

E Wirthlin was 69 and is now 90

E Scott was 59 and is now 78

E Hale was 61 and is now 74

E Holland was 53 and is now 66

E Eyring was 61 and is now 73.

E Uchdorf is I believe in his early 60's and Bednar is about 55.



E Hales was 61 and is now

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Hell yes they are out of touch. They come mainly from Utah and Utah is so far behind the real world. Now they want to do some back pedalin cause they want Mitty boy to be Pres. and they know there is not a chance in Hell tht will happen.
I watch a lot of political shows and they talk about Mitt like he is a mere annoyance and not a serious contender and one mention of his religion and any good reporter will bury him so fast under relgious crapthat the Mormons will go into hiding. I have already Blog him to death on the various blogs I can find.

So yes they are so far behind the real world it it not even funny, well actually it is kinda funny at times.