Doesn't it really all come down to the Gerontocracy?

[FMCoug]

Most of the stuff we're talking about seems to be more about the church being "slow" to change certain policies, etc. Let's face it, if the revelation giving the priesthood to all worthy men had been received in 1958 vs. 1978, this would not even be a discussion. At least for most of us. But if you figure that the leaders of the Church will tend to be 20-40 years older than their peers in similar organizations, it kind of makes sense. Keep in midn that today in 2008, we have a President of the church who was an adult during WWII. That is a LONG time ago.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Most of the stuff we're talking about seems to be more about the church being "slow" to change certain policies, etc. Let's face it, if the revelation giving the priesthood to all worthy men had been received in 1958 vs. 1978, this would not even be a discussion. At least for most of us. But if you figure that the leaders of the Church will tend to be 20-40 years older than their peers in similar organizations, it kind of makes sense. Keep in midn that today in 2008, we have a President of the church who was an adult during WWII. That is a LONG time ago.

WALLACE: There are those who say: "This is a gerontocracy... this is a church run by old men."

HINCKLEY: Isn't it wonderful to have a man of maturity at the head? A man who isn't blown about by every wind of doctrine?

WALLACE: Absolutely, as long as he's not dotty.

HINCKLEY: Thank you for the compliment.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

WALLACE: There are those who say: "This is a gerontocracy... this is a church run by old men."

HINCKLEY: Isn't it wonderful to have a man of maturity at the head? A man who isn't blown about by every wind of doctrine?

WALLACE: Absolutely, as long as he's not dotty.

HINCKLEY: Thank you for the compliment.

I'm not saying the gerontacracy is wrong. That's a separate discussion. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that a group of white men born in the early 20th century would be slower to accept racial equality than a group of men born 50 years later. That's all I'm saying.

And as I have said before, it all comes down to the Church being led by men, not gods as some would like to believe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I'm not saying the gerontacracy is wrong. That's a separate discussion. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that a group of white men born in the early 20th century would be slower to accept racial equality than a group of men born 50 years later. That's all I'm saying.

And as I have said before, it all comes down to the Church being led by men, not gods as some would like to believe.

Is it possible God intended it to happen this way?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I'm not saying the gerontacracy is wrong. That's a separate discussion. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that a group of white men born in the early 20th century would be slower to accept racial equality than a group of men born 50 years later. That's all I'm saying.

And as I have said before, it all comes down to the Church being led by men, not gods as some would like to believe.

The slowness to change comes in large part due to the nature of a gerontocracy.

The leadership would be interesting to study from a sociological and management standpoint.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is it possible God intended it to happen this way?

I would never be so arrogant as to say I know the mind of God. So yes, it is certainly possible.

Is it possible that God inspires the Quorum of the 12 in the same way / to the same degree as he does us in our own lives? Leaving them to their own devices / skills / experience /education most of the time and intervening as needed?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I would never be so arrogant as to say I know the mind of God. So yes, it is certainly possible.

Is it possible that God inspires the Quorum of the 12 in the same way / to the same degree as he does us in our own lives? Leaving them to their own devices / skills / experience /education most of the time and interventing as needed?

As I said in another thread, it appears that on CG at least, the discussion of blacks and the priesthood always boils down to how much people believe God personally directs his work.

I'm really not interested in going down that road yet again. I simply wanted to reiterate that just because we're a gerontocracy and "no one should be surprised" doesn't meant that it wasn't still all according to God's plan for his church.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I simply wanted to reiterate that just because we're a gerontocracy and "no one should be surprised" doesn't meant that it wasn't still all according to God's plan for his church.

I don't disagree with that. And I also believe that had He wanted to, God could have appeared to the Quorum of the 12 at any time and directed them to make this change, and they would have, regardless of their personal feelings as mortals.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I don't disagree with that. And I also believe that had He wanted to, God could have appeared to the Quorum of the 12 at any time and directed them to make this change, and they would have, regardless of their personal feelings as mortals.

I agree.

[SeattleUte]

The LDS Church, for better or worse, is a bulwork of extreme social conservativism. It is nothing if not that. Everything from the neo-Biblical magic world view to the hatred of gays to kooky racial theories to backward attitudes toward women, is all trying to retain a centuries old outlook. For better or worse, that is its appeal, its strength, as well as its weakness. That is what the LDS CHhrch is, what sums it up. The LDS Church is being rational opposing feminism, gays and intellectuals. Packer is right that these are the mortal enemies of LDS faith.