Ages of the Apostles

[_skippy the dead]

As far as I can tell, here are the ages (and seniority) of the current apostles (with the new president tossed in at the top):

Thomas Monson - 80
Boyd K Packer - 83
L. Tom Perry - 85
Russel M Nelson - 83
Dallin H Oaks - 75
M. Russell Ballard - 79
Joseph B. Wirthlin - 90
Richard G Scott - 79
Robert D. Hales - 75
Jeffrey R. Holland - 67
Henry B. Eyring - 74
Dieter F. Uchtdorf - 67
David A. Bednar - 55
Quentin L Cook - 67

I hadn't seen the ages laid out so plainly until today, and I can't help but wonder what detriment there is to having such an aged group of men lead the church. It's a pattern that's not soon to be broken. Disregarding any voodoo about the apostles being able to "choose" when to die, it would appear that the next president will be well into his eighties, if not beyond.

What are your opinions on the impact this has on the church as an organization (and please, no comments about dentures or dye jobs)?

I would be concerned about declining mental acuity and diminished physical capabilities. Plus, there is a significant reduction in an elderly person's ability to acclimate to or initiate change. Is that an issue? Is it time to introduce an "emeritus" status for these lifetime callings? Is there any doctrine that requires a man, once called, to stay in the position until death?

This was just an interesting subject to roll around in my noggin today. Thought I'd open it up for your collective comments.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I had a post about the general aging issue a long while ago...I think it will continue to be a problem as modern medicine pushes the age of existing to new limits. The German bloke was considered a breath of fresh air apparently in this new First Presidency...and he's 67! Think about 30 years from now when the "breath of fresh air" will be just a shade under 90.

[_charity]

There are culture in the world where age is given respect for the wisdom that accumulated with the years. Of course, this is a throw away culture, and we look to 30'ish celebrities as our cultural icons.

What a messed up world.

[_the road to hana]

There are culture in the world where age is given respect for the wisdom that accumulated with the years. Of course, this is a throw away culture, and we look to 30'ish celebrities as our cultural icons.

What a messed up world.

And your point is?

I don't think most people have a problem with "elders" in a church being elders. I suppose there are those who'd have preferred that Jesus had picked octogenarians as his apostles, too. I'm not sure it's relevant.

Jesus picked peers. Joseph picked peers. Gordon picked peers. Three different age groups. All considered "apostles" by the membership in question.

Now, to the topic of the thread.

There's already an "emeritus" status that's been used with GA's. Seems to me that in putting people into the Twelve it's almost like stacking the Supreme Court; some older, some younger, but in for life. Oaks and Holland were younger when they went in, and looking at the current line-up, I'd say there'll be only one president of the church between Monson and Oaks, if that, and then maybe one between Oaks and Holland, if that.

[_skippy the dead]

There are culture in the world where age is given respect for the wisdom that accumulated with the years. Of course, this is a throw away culture, and we look to 30'ish celebrities as our cultural icons.

What a messed up world.

I think there's a vast difference between respecting wisdom accumulated with the years and expecting a 90 year old man to withstand the demands, both physical and mental, that are part and parcel of leading a large organization. Hence the "emeritus" idea - the old wise one would still be contributing his wisdom, without having to work full-time, thus enabling a fresher individual to slide into the apostle slot to meet the demands of the position. Unless the apostles are mere figureheads, then I suppose the question is moot. But as long as there is real administration to be done, it does not seem unreasonable to ensure that those called upon to do it are fully able.

And I'm not talking about cultural icons at all, 30-ish or otherwise. That's just a diversion on your part.

[_karl61]

Kind of looks like the current Supreme Court.

[_charity]

There are culture in the world where age is given respect for the wisdom that accumulated with the years. Of course, this is a throw away culture, and we look to 30'ish celebrities as our cultural icons.

What a messed up world.

And your point is?

I don't think most people have a problem with "elders" in a church being elders. I suppose there are those who'd have preferred that Jesus had picked octogenarians as his apostles, too. I'm not sure it's relevant.

Jesus picked peers. Joseph picked peers. Gordon picked peers. Three different age groups. All considered "apostles" by the membership in question.

Now, to the topic of the thread.

Which is what exactly? That old is bad?.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Which is what exactly? That old is bad?.

I think the issue is that the 80 year old leaders are outta touch. And not just with the 17 year olds...everyone from 35-40 and down probably.

[_skippy the dead]

Kind of looks like the current Supreme Court.

Not quite. The average age of the apostles is 75.6, with a median age of 77. The average age of the justices is 67.7, with a median age of 69 (with both figures skewed by Justice Stevens, at the age of 87). Plus, the justices can elect to retire gracefully. The two most recently appointed justices were 53 and 57. Justice Thomas, who has been on the court since '91, is still only 58 years old after over 16 years on the Court. And honestly, the workload for a typical Supreme Court Justice is likely far less than that of an apostle.

[_the road to hana]

There are culture in the world where age is given respect for the wisdom that accumulated with the years. Of course, this is a throw away culture, and we look to 30'ish celebrities as our cultural icons.

What a messed up world.

And your point is?

I don't think most people have a problem with "elders" in a church being elders. I suppose there are those who'd have preferred that Jesus had picked octogenarians as his apostles, too. I'm not sure it's relevant.

Jesus picked peers. Joseph picked peers. Gordon picked peers. Three different age groups. All considered "apostles" by the membership in question.

Now, to the topic of the thread.

Which is what exactly? That old is bad?.

Nope. I think the court, I mean, the quorum, is stacked, with men from more than one generation, but all generally of what would be typically considered retirement age.

Difference is, in Mormonism, men tend to retire into the position of General Authority, where in other churches, men have served in the clergy their entire lives and frequently retire (or, in the case of Catholic cardinals, lose their voting authority) at a mandated age.