So that no one can be Prez/Prophet for very long and then they can't screw up too badly or build up a private following apart from the organization. Maybe it didn't start out that way but it seems to be an unintended benefit.

Think about it ... if they get a youngish guy in the presidency (even 50ish), do they REALLY want someone to reign over the damn corporation for thirty or forty years like Brigham Young?

Without a system in place to get someone out of that position in a non-scandalous way, it would get awkward.

It is their form of term limits.

...not to mention the senility factor. Old guys with failing memories are easier to make toe the party line.

And if they really get out of line, to get away with murder.

And, easier to Blame if - when they screw up!

Selection for Profit certainly isn't Performance-based.

They're less likely to revolt at that age.

Pull out one peg of the structure could cause the entire house of cards to collapse.

Can't afford to have an apostle go rogue.

:-)

I know I want the apostles old. The older they are and the more isolated a life they have in Utah, the more they fossilize into a dusty old bone of an institution. No knew ideas and no liveliness or vigor is their speciality and it makes the downward spiral even faster. Hurray!!!

Great discussion on slc npr

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/gerontocracy-and-future-mormonism

The system of the changing of the guard has not changed. People are living longer these days. That means these leaders are staying in their callings longer.

LDS inc is stuck with their current highly flawed system of succession for their top leader, which ends up having circumstances dictating the final decision to them instead of actually making a decision or have god finger some one outright ......as God supposedly did with Joe Smith, because MORmON leadership would NEVER be able to select a PRofit any other way with out fracturing their stupid church into pieces. you know, just like it did when Brigham Young and others attempted to take over from a very dead Joseph Smith.

So much for their (supposedly) being inspired or directed by God.

I was about to make a comment about the Mormon leaders being in the Greatest Generation and how that effected them when I decided to look it up. To my surprise, the current leaders of the church fall into the generation I wasn't aware of known as the Silent Generation or Traditionalists.

An explanation of their characteristics that I found:

"Raised in a paternalistic environment, the silent generation was taught to respect authority. Conformity and conservatism are prized. "--Seems about right to me for the Gerontocracy and the older they are the more likely to be true. My elderly mother is all about "family honor" at all costs--conform at your own expense. Gays are expected to conform at the cost of their very happiness and the same for women in the Mormon church, and for the men.

This description would be less and less accurate for each new generation of Americans, except for Mormons who will always be Traditionalists or Silent. The Mormon goal is to stay stuck in the past. What better way than making sure the new apostles and prophets are stuck mentally in the first half of the last century? Ask not what your church can do for you. Ask what you can do for your church. What greater qualification than being 90 years old? Sounds like a plan!

The Gerontocracy resist change because they see that as a challenge to their ego fueled authority rather than seeing change as growth, education, and increased understanding.

And, I love meeting people from that generation who are progressive, open, and always considering what's new. Oddly, I haven't met many if any TBMs who fit that description.

If it was up to me, I would pick men in their late teens and early 20s. To be apostles. The same time the a lot of people leave the church.;)

Then I would do a Brigham young and find a way to reorder the qurom to put them on top. (It's a little quicker than waiting the old guys out). I would also choose these new young people as the first presidency. And get half if not more of the apostles excommunicated. Not much of a stretch compared to the early church. It's quicker than waiting for the old guys to die.

I might skip some of those steps, but basically if I was in charge of the church, I would essentially end it. I wouldn't do it all at once probably. I would slowly start selling the church's property. I would allow anyone who wanted to to get their tithing money back. By the end, everyone would.

I'don't encourage members to start thinking rationally for themselves. I would remove all the lies about church history, make all their he truth not only easily available, but encourage members to read it. Maybe start teaching it in church. I'd do a few other things before officially ending the church and giving all the money back to their hehe he members. And this would all be within a couple of years. I think the transition would be a little smoother that way. And it wouldn't cause as many people to break off and go back to doing the same thing in a new church that that hey create.

I think I agree.

Everything basically has to be made on consensus between the Q15 anyway, so "the prophet," in reality, is just a figurehead for the church members.

I think "the Brethren" like the stable, NON-progressive nature of the leadership. They don't want a wild card, maverick and especially someone who might APOSTATIZE.

The want people to progress through the ranks who are FULLY VETTED, FULLY BRAINWASHED, AND FULLY COMMITTED TO THE PROGRAM. They don't want anyone rising through the ranks that are a risk.

This is partly why I think they still believe (at least in their own insider way). If they didn't believe why would they be so stubborn with changes which grow the church? Why push so hard on things like kid interviews, gay hate, etc. if it negatively affects the church?