I checked a sample of a few dozen temples in the US yesterday and found that all (with one exception) were open, even though it was Juneteenth. The one exception, Provo City Center, has been closed all month, presumably for deep cleaning. By contrast, every US temple I checked is set to be closed on July 4th.
We here at ZD are excited to bring you this exclusive leak, directly from the highest levels of the Church Administration Building, of a possible response by the Church to opposition by local residents to the proposed height of the steeple for the McKinney, Texas Temple.
I really enjoyed Patrick Kearon’s talk this last General Conference. His message was well summarized by his title: “God’s Intent Is to Bring You Home.” He told the story of a policeman he once watched from a hotel window whose job for the day was to turn people away from a closed street. Elder Kearon said that the policeman looked like he was very much enjoying turning people away: “he seemed to develop a spring in his step, as if he might start doing a little jig, as each car approached the barrier.” He contrasted this policeman with God, who he said is eager to bring us home.
I thought this was a lovely message. But it seems obvious. Why would he feel the need to say it? The linguist Paul Grice came up with four maxims that appear to govern our conversational interactions. The first of these, which I think is relevant for this talk, is to be informative. We generally say things that we expect the other person doesn’t know. We want to communicate something. A Monty Python sketch provides a handy illustration of how this maxim can be violated for comic effect. When the pilot tells the passengers “There is absolutely no cause for alarm,” he of course brings up the possibility that there is cause for alarm, because why would he be telling them that if he didn’t think they might be alarmed? That is, the passengers are expecting the pilot to follow the norm of being informative. All the same goes for assuring them that “the wings are not on fire.”
Back in 2020, I wrote a post where I looked at the large number of temples President Nelson was announcing, in contrast with the slow pace at which their construction was taking place. Of course since then, the pace of announcements has only increased. In that post, I mentioned that he had announced 24 across the previous year and a half. Now, he announced 35 new temples in each of the past two years, and slowed only a bit to 15 in Conference a few weeks ago. In this post, I’m going to update the analyses I did for the 2020 post, as well as adding a couple of new ones. Nearly all my data is just taken from the Church’s list of temples, which lists announcement, groundbreaking, and dedication dates.
This first graph shows counts of temples announced, temples having ground broken, and temples dedicated each year since 1950. Note that for 2024, I estimated announcements as two times the number we’ve already had (as we’ve had one of two Conferences), and ground breakings and dedications as three times the number we’ve already had (as we’re about a third of the way through the year).
The biggest feature is of course the turn-of-the-millennium rush to get to 100 temples, where a bunch were announced, had ground broken, and were dedicated in pretty short order. The recent increase in announcements hasn’t been followed as reliably by groundbreakings and dedications, although dedications are clearly up since the pandemic. But they aren’t nearly up to the level of announcements.
Best hymn: “Oh, What Songs of the Heart,” Saturday evening. It gets bonus points for mention of Heavenly Parents, but I really liked it musically too.
Worst hymn: “Lord, I Would Follow Thee,” Sunday morning. This was just very bland.
Fastest hymn: “The Lord Is My Light,” Saturday evening.
Slowest hymn: “Did You Think to Pray?” Saturday morning.
Best and worst choir: I really liked the Utah Valley Institute choir that sang Saturday evening. I was much less a fan of the BYU-I choir that sang Saturday afternoon. It wasn’t a knock on their singing; I just felt like the arrangements they sang had weird pacing changes. (Sorry, as a music noob, I can’t explain it any better.)
Longest prayer: 167 seconds, S. Gifford Nielsen, Saturday morning invocation.
Shortest prayer: 51 seconds, Emily Belle Freeman, Saturday afternoon benediction. I appreciated that she didn’t force herself to use proper prayer pronouns.
Unsurprising prayer difference: Men gave eight prayers, with the shortest being 93 seconds (average of 114 seconds). Women gave two prayers, with the longer being 68 seconds.
Best slip of the tongue: While conducting the Sunday afternoon session, Quentin L. Cook welcomed us to the 109th annual General Conference. (It was actually the 194th.)
Best title: Patrick Kearon, “God’s Intent Is to Bring You Home”
Overdone title: Dale G. Renlund, “The Powerful, Virtuous Cycle of the Doctrine of Christ” I didn’t realize until I read the talk that he was quoting Russell M. Nelson, who has a love of hyperbole.
Longest talk: D. Todd Christofferson, 1961 words. (He also gave the longest talk among Q15 members last conference.)
Shortest talk: Susan H. Porter, 1252 words.
Best laugh:
Strangest joke: Jeffrey R. Holland, who hadn’t given a talk in a couple of conferences because of health issues, joked that it was because he gave a bad talk last time. He said that he was at risk of being banned again, “positioned on a trapdoor with a very delicate latch.” While I appreciate his willingness to laugh at himself, I found this an odd choice of jokes precisely because we have seen that speakers don’t get removed from the rotation if they do bad things. You can try to stealth canonize your favorite proclamation and still come back. You can openly set up a money-making scheme and still come back. It seems like a weird thing to call attention to.
Bad pattern: There was wall-to-wall discussion of temples and covenants. Two speakers—J. Anette Dennis and Dallin H. Oaks—brought up temple garments, which I feel like are mentioned in conference rarely if ever. (Gerrit W. Gong even exhorted members to buy our own temple clothes.) I have to wonder if President Nelson has noticed that maybe all the new temples he’s announcing aren’t drawing as much new patronage as he had hoped, so now he’s trying to drum up some more traffic to make them look more successful. This discussion showed up in some strange lines:
Beloved buzzwords:
A couple of weeks ago, the Church put up an Instagram post with a quote from J. Anette Dennis of the Relief Society General Presidency from her talk in the Relief Society broadcast. The quote begins, speaking of the Church:
There is no other religious organization in the world, that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women.
The quote continues for a couple of paragraphs that add some context, but it has been edited since it was first put up, and I believe it was originally just this quote. In any case, it drew thousands of comments on Instagram, many from commenters saying this is obviously false. Comments were deleted a couple of days into the discussion, which provoked further outrage and sadness from commenters, but fortunately they were eventually restored and the discussion continued. The Church social media team (and many commenters) said this was a broader platform issue, although a Meta spokesperson quoted in a New York Times story (gift article—no subscription required) denied this.
The blowup was also covered in the Salt Lake Tribune. From the more apologetic side, the Deseret News published a couple of opinion pieces from women who don’t feel unequal in the Church, and Public Square Magazine put up a response to the New York Times article. From the more critical side, the Salt Lake Tribune published an opinion piece from Rosemary Card, April Young Bennett at the Exponent traced the line of thinking to then-Elder Oaks trying to placate Ordain Women a decade ago, and Lisa Torcasso Downing at Outside the Book of Mormon Belt wrote an extensive response to an apologetic post on Facebook. Molly at Roots and Reckoning also curated and categorized a few hundred of the best quotes from the Instagram discussion at her blog.
I thought it would be interesting to read all the Instagram comments. I found a handy tool called IGCommentExporter, and it pulled 12,578 comments into a csv file for me. I read through them and tagged them with themes they brought up and noted some of my favorites, and that’s what I’ll tell you about in this post.
Before I get to that, though, let me tell you about some limitations in the data and my work:
Is that enough caveats? Okay, here’s what I found. I read 12,578 comments. I assigned each comment at least one tag, a total of 16,921 tags, or about 1.3 per comment. This graph shows how often the tags were used.
Flush with success after its recent purchase of the Kirtland Temple from its sibling church, Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced today that it will be attempting to purchase other historic religious sites. Spokesman Orson Pratt-Whitney-Young explained that although the Church has expanded its temple-building program under the leadership of President Russell M. Nelson, that the acquisition of the Kirtland Temple “opened his mind to a vision of expanding our temple program in another direction.” Specifically, Pratt-Whitney-Young explained that the Church will be making offers of purchase on historic religious sites all over the world that are not related to the Latter-day Saint tradition.
For example, the Church has communicated to the government of England an interest in purchasing Stonehenge, the famed prehistoric megalithic structure. Although the site dates back to around 3100 BC and the Latter-day Saint Church only to 1830 AD, Pratt-Whitney-Young explained that some members of the Church believe there is a connection through the Jaredites, a group of people who fled the Tower of Babel in one of the faith’s books of scripture, the Book of Mormon. (In a later question-and-answer session, Young added that a former Church member is planning to publish a book outlining the connection, to be titled The Stonehenge Hypothesis.) Although the Crown has shown no interest in selling, Pratt-Whitney-Young maintained that the Church remains hopeful. He supplied an artist’s rendition of what the site would look like after the Church had made some “minor modifications” to “ensure the security of the site.” All would be welcome to visit the site once the Church owned it, he explained, although only qualified members of the faith would be permitted in the “tastefully small” Latter-day Saint temple to be built inside the iconic ring of massive stones.
In addition to Stonehenge, Pratt-Whitney-Young listed the following sites that the Church will be attempting to purchase from their current owners:
Pratt-Whitney-Young conceded on questioning that none of the other governments or religious organizations who currently own these sites has shown interest in selling. He pointed out, though, that the Latter-day Saint Church has “been led to amass great wealth by the hand of the Lord” (the Church has large real estate holdings, as well as a stock portfolio valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars) and that this wealth might be used to change the minds of reluctant government and religious officials. “Governments trust in the arm of flesh, and this leads them to the iniquity of endless borrowing,” he explained. “Perhaps one day when their debt grows too great, they will see the wisdom in accepting our offers.”
If we’re between Palm Sunday and Easter, that must mean it’s Holy Week. But more importantly for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after Easter comes General Conference! I have some guesses about things we will and won’t hear about.
When I blogged last month looking at temple activity in Utah, and how patrons move between temples when their first choice is closed, several commenters asked about utilization: What fraction of endowment session seats are being filled? In this post, I’ll show some summaries from the same endowment session data I used in the last post.
But first, commenters also pointed out that I left out a huge disclaimer in that post: The data I have is only for people who schedule online. Online scheduling is still relatively new (maybe even only becoming available during Russell M. Nelson’s presidency if I remember right), and many members therefore have decades of experience just going to the temple for endowment sessions and counting on open space being available. So it wouldn’t be surprising if a substantial fraction of temple patrons don’t show up in my analysis because they didn’t schedule online. Also, to be complete, it’s also possible that people could schedule a place but then not show up for their appointment, although I’d guess that’s probably less common. In sum, the true attendance numbers are very likely higher, perhaps much higher, than what I’m showing. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s a temple worker or attender what their impression is of how many people attend without scheduling online or how many schedule online and then don’t attend. And thanks again to commenters on my last post who raised this issue and shared their experience with this.
While I’m offering that big caveat, let me tell you about two other smaller one related to data exclusion. First, in looking at utilization, I’m using only English language sessions. Utilization rates for sessions in other languages are affected by a second effect in addition to members’ general interest in attending the temple: the number of members nearby who speak the language the session is presented in. For English, there are presumably always plenty of members nearby who speak the language, so differences in utilization can be attributed more straightforwardly to differences in willingness to attend. The second exclusion of data is that I dropped all Monday sessions. Provo consistently had a few sessions on Mondays, but because it was the only temple open for endowments that day, I didn’t consistently gather the data. It’s only a small number of sessions anyway, so I just excluded all Mondays.
This first graph shows counts of total endowment session seats and seats used, aggregated across all Utah temples.
The LDS Church purchased some historic sites, documents, and artifacts from Community of Christ last week. If you read Mormon stuff on the internet, you’ve probably already heard plenty of commentary on the exchange. I have little to add to the commentary I’ve read. I feel especially bad for people I know in Community of Christ for whom this blow came out of left field.
Of the historic sites sold, the Kirtland Temple is probably the most recognizable. It’s also the most important to me personally. My family moved to the Midwest about a decade ago, and since then I’ve gotten to visit Kirtland a number of times. I’ve always been more impressed with Community of Christ’s presentations and tours at the temple than the LDS Church’s presentations and tours up the road at and around the Newel K. Whitney store. This is a common complaint, but it’s true: LDS tours are typically designed to use history as a prop to wring correlated spiritual experiences and missionary referrals out of visitors. Community of Christ tours, on the other hand, are more like actual historical tours where the guides try to give an overview of important events that happened at the sites, leaving the interpretation up to the visitors. I don’t have high hopes that the LDS Church’s tours of the Kirtland Temple will be anything other than the carefully correlated bland stuff that’s our usual.
Several of my Kirtland visits have been for Sunstone Kirtland conferences. These have always been generously hosted by Community of Christ at the visitor center next to the temple. I’m guessing the LDS Church won’t want to host such heresies there, so these conferences will likely be held at another venue, if they continue at all. I thought it might be fun, then, to reflect on some of the things I’ve enjoyed most at Sunstone Kirtland.
I do want to note that I’ve been to the main Sunstone conference in Salt Lake a few times too, and I’ve also enjoyed it a lot. It’s great that there are so many interesting people and different presentations. In Kirtland, I feel like we’ve rarely even had concurrent sessions, where you get to choose which you want to go to. But the small size is also a benefit in that it’s so much easier to meet someone if I want to. If I want to ask a presenter a follow-up question, or even just meet them, after a session at Kirtland, it’s always been easy.
Another aspect that was always great is that we’d start or end with a tour of the temple. These were always done by super knowledgeable people who could tell us all kinds of interesting things. At least once, Lachlan Mackay, a historian who’s on the Community of Christ Council of Twelve, did the tour. If you’ve been to the temple, you probably remember that the doors have been painted green because historical research indicates that that was their original color. If my memory is correct, Mackay told us on a tour that the exterior walls were originally slate gray, but he hadn’t been able to persuade everyone to go back to that color like with the doors.
Here are some conference sessions I particularly enjoyed. (To protect people’s privacy, I’m giving names of presenters and people I met at the conferences only if they’re public figures to some degree.)
The Lord commanded Nephi to cut off Laban’s head.
After some reluctance, he chopped and made him dead.
Murder was good: Laban was a wicked man.
Nephi and his kin got brass plates as God planned.
Chorus:
“I will go; I will do the thing the Lord commands.
I know the Lord provides a way; he wants me to obey.
I will go; I will do the thing the Lord commands.
I know the Lord provides a way; he wants me to obey.”
The Lord told Abraham he must kill his only son.
He took Isaac with him to get the Lord’s will done.
When ready to kill, at last his knife he drew,
Broke in then an angel: “God was testing you.”
Chorus
The Lord commanded Thomas to exclude kids of gays.
Never to baptize them in all their youthful days.
Thomas and Russell knew they were in a bind.
Finally years later, Russell changed God’s mind.
Chorus
As the Church rushes to build ever more temples for a membership that’s now growing only slowly, the GAs must face the question of whether new temples are actually bringing in new patrons. Because that’s the goal, I would think: to make the temple accessible to members who couldn’t get to it before.
When a temple is first built in a place, a country or a region of a large country, it should draw in many new patrons who couldn’t attend (or at least couldn’t attend regularly) before. In large countries like Brazil or countries where travel may be difficult like The Philippines (I’m just guessing, with all the islands), it makes sense that building temples in different regions would make temple attendance accessible to more members. But at some point, when most members who want to go can go, a new temple is likely to just redirect temple patrons from one to another rather than actually bringing in anyone new.
Utah is the obvious place where this point of diminishing returns for new temples is coming, if in fact it hasn’t already arrived. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at attendance there as a preview for what might happen as more and more parts of the world approach a point of temple saturation.
Between April and December of last year, on a nearly daily basis, I checked the number of available seats for endowment sessions in each temple in Utah for the next day. I also checked the number of available seats for sessions a month or two in the future to get an idea of each session’s capacity. (And to account for the fact that a few seats are scheduled even a month or two out, I took the capacity for each session as the maximum of any capacity for a session on the same day of the week and at the same time on any day within 60 days of the day of the session.) I then took the difference between capacity and seats remaining the day before as the number of endowment session patrons.
I originally planned to show graphs of daily patron counts, but there’s so much variation within weeks that it’s hard to see trends, so I’m going to show weekly counts instead. Also, to make the data easier to look at, when a temple was closed for just one day (like July 4th) or for the few days when I missed gathering data, I filled the day in with the average for the same day of the week within 30 days in the past or future.
Because the question I’m interested in is the effect of one temple on another nearby, I’ll show a few pairs of nearby temples. Here are Jordan River and Draper.
Both temples show increased attendance when the other closed. In May, when Jordan River closed, Draper’s weekly counts went from about 2600 to about 3000. And again in October, its weekly counts went from about 1800-1900 to about 2800. On the Jordan River side, when Draper closed in July, its weekly count went from the range of 6000-7000 to nearly 8000.
This post is a list of the funniest comments (and lines in posts) that I read on the Bloggernacle last year. Even among the comments, I’ve typically excerpted just a part of a longer comment. Each person’s name is a link back to the original comment or post, so you can go and see the larger context if you’re interested.
In case you haven’t read them yet, here are links to compilations for previous years: 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008.
Jack Hughes, commenting on Dave B.’s post “Next Up: New Testament” at W&T:
I believe in the basic Gospel teaching principle of “line upon line”, but not “repeat the 4th grade every year for the rest of your life”. That’s not what I signed up for.
Anna, commenting on Bishop Bill’s post “Love (terms and conditions apply)” at W&T:
See, most people base their idea of God on their parents because when we are infants, our parents are very God like. And sometimes we disobey and our parents don’t notice or simply fail to punish us. And so as an adult, we disobey God and go down to the honey tonk and take someone home to copulate like rabbits, and no immediate consequences follow, and hey that was fun.
Old Man, commenting on Elisa’s post “Royal Defectors” at W&T:
Some time ago I sought clarification regarding an apostle’s military record from the history dept. (The local seminary teachers were spreading some faith-promoting falsehoods.) The history folks forwarded my phone call and I ended up discussing the issue with that apostle. He laughed and shouted at me while his secretary held up the phone “Don’t believe everything you hear from CES.”
The Church announced a few days ago that Patrick Kearon of the Seventy has been called into the Quorum of the Twelve to fill the vacancy created by M. Russell Ballard’s death. I’m very happy at President Nelson’s choice.
First, I’m of course a complainer, so I do want to mention a few concerns I have. One is that President Nelson seems to be in a rush in not wanting to wait for Conference, and having Elder Kearon ordained already really makes clear that sustaining votes from the membership are 100% loyalty tests, and not at all what they originally were. Another is that it’s too bad the Q15 remains so white. And old. And of course you know I’d love to see women ordained and have a woman called.
But setting those issues aside as large ones that the Church is not likely to move on soon, like I say in the title, I’m thrilled with the selection of Patrick Kearon. Here are some reasons why:
What do you think of the call of Patrick Kearon to the Quorum of the Twelve?
A few days ago, Peggy Fletcher Stack reported in a Salt Lake Tribune article that wards in the San Francisco Bay Area, where Relief Society presidents had been sitting on the stand during sacrament meeting, were told to stop this by the area president. She also reports that many women, both in the area, and in other places, are unhappy with the change. For example, over at the Exponent, Kelly Ann posted her letter to the area presidency, and pointed out that one of the people quoted in the Tribune article is also collecting letters to send.
I share the frustration of the women and girls quoted in the article. It’s sad that such a tiny step toward showing women in a position of authority was something that the area president felt the need to put an end to.
But I’m also utterly unsurprised at the area president’s response. It’s just another exhibit to add to the long list that shows that patriarchy is truly one of the core values of the Church. We might have documents like the Articles of Faith to tell us what our core values are, at least in theory. But what values does the organization of the Church exhibit? Statements like scriptures or proclamations tell, but our practices show much more clearly. And we have so, so many practices that show that the GAs have patriarchy as a default assumption. Men’s Church participation is assumed and requires no comment; women’s participation is unusual and requires consideration and explanation.
The Church is unusual among Christian churches in having two different types of worship spaces, chapels and temples. Chapels are open to anyone, even if most people who participate are members. Temples are open only to members, and not even all members, but only those who have cleared hurdles of belief and commandment-following. Chapels are, at least potentially, at the center of community-building. We not only go to worship services there, but also to ward activities or activities run by organizations within the ward, like the Relief Society. There are even sometimes public-facing events in chapels, like blood drives or voting. In temples, by contrast, we largely do things “alone in one another’s presence,” to borrow a phrase from a BYU professor (who was advising us that movies didn’t make good settings for dates). Although there is a little more interaction in sealings and baptisms than endowments, for example, temples are far inferior to chapels as sites of building community.
As a heretic who’s on the outside of the temple, I still find a lot of value in the community-building possibilities of the Church. So I’m disappointed that since he’s taken office, President Nelson has shown himself to be far more interested in the church of the temple than the church of the chapel. For example, here’s something he said in Sheri Dew’s 2019 book about him: “The only buildings that are absolutely essential are temples. Stake centers and chapels are a luxury.” This was in the context of talking about making church more home-centered, so he might not have meant it to be quite as anti-chapel as it comes across here. But I’m still honestly struck in a bad way that he would refer to church buildings as a “luxury.”
To be fair, I can see why he might see less value in chapels. If his goal is to get people on the covenant path, only their baptism and confirmation take place in a chapel. After that, it’s all temple ordinances. Attending church in a supportive ward might be a nice to have, but it’s not going to make the difference in exaltation. President Nelson, like many of his fellow GAs, is also clearly deeply concerned with people’s loyalty to the Church. Chapel worship is all well and good in this area, as you’ll hear lots of rhetoric about how the Church is God’s one true organization, but the chapel doesn’t provide the opportunity like the temple endowment does for members to promise all that they have or ever will have to the Church. I can see how this makes the temple far better in President Nelson’s eyes.
And of course President Nelson isn’t just talk when it comes to valuing the temple over the chapel. He’s announced a huge number of temples, many of which have been started, and a few of which have even been completed. And on the chapel side, I was intrigued to see an analysis linked on the Mormon subreddit a few months ago, done by u/xanimyle, that shows the distribution of years the Church’s chapels were built. I’ve reproduced their graph below, and here’s a link to the original post.
After I put up my last post, where I gave updated probabilities of each current Q15 member becoming Church president, a friend asked me if I had ever looked at sensitivity of these probabilities to the death of one Q15 member. So, for example, Russell M. Nelson is 99. If he died tomorrow, this would obviously have a big effect on the chances for Dallin H. Oaks, as he’d become Church president. But what about all the men junior to him? And you could ask the same question about each Q15 member. Like David A. Bednar seems a pretty good bet to become Church president at some point, but if out of the blue, he died tomorrow, how would that shuffle the probabilities for the men junior to him?
I recalculated all the yearly probabilities of being Church president for each of the 14 remaining members of the Quorum, with each current member being removed in turn. I used the same method and same actuarial table as in my last post. For simplicity, I didn’t do any of the health adjustments that I tried in that post; I just stuck with the base case of the unadjusted mortality table probabilities for each man (still depending on age, though).
To make the results easier to look at, I’m showing them organized by surviving member rather than by dying member. That is, I have one graph showing all the probability changes for Dallin H. Oaks if someone senior to him died (of course there’s just one man senior to him: Russell M. Nelson) and then another graph for all the probability changes for M. Russell Ballard if someone senior to him died, and so forth. Also, so you can compare the graphs to the ones in my last post, I’m keeping each man’s line color the same as in the last post and also keeping the scale of the Y-axis constant for all the graphs. In each graph, I’m making the original probability curve solid and then making dashed all the probability curves that would result if another senior member died. This might sound too messy to look at, but I think it turns out to not be too bad because the probability curves shift in regular ways, and don’t jump and cross each other all willy-nilly. Anyway, I’m hoping that even if this explanation of the graphs doesn’t make total sense, once you look at a couple of the them, it will be clearer.
There are a couple of other things to note about the graphs. One is that to avoid having the graphs for the more junior members be really cluttered, I’m only showing modified probability curves for a senior member’s death changes the member in question’s probability by at least one percentage point in at least one year. For example, Russell M. Nelson’s death would have a near zero impact on Ulisses Soares’s probabilities, as Elder Soares is already very likely to outlive President Nelson, and his chances of becoming Church president depend much more heavily on the life expectancies of men closer to him in seniority, like Gerrit W. Gong, for example. The other last thing to note is that because I only checked probabilities in yearly steps, pairs of Q15 members who are the same age as of the start date have exactly the same effects on probabilities for members junior to them if they (the members who are the same age) were to die. This means that there are two pairs of members, Jeffrey R. Holland and Dieter F. Uchtdorf (both 82) and Neil L. Andersen and Ronald A. Rasband (both 72), for whom the adjusted probability lines for men junior to both of them are identical, so I’ve just labeled them with both men’s names.
Okay, enough preamble. Here’s the graph for Dallin H. Oaks.
Who among the Q15 will eventually become president of the Church? This is always an interesting question for a couple of reasons, I think. One is that the members of the Q15, even though they typically present a united front, clearly have different visions for what the Church should be. So it actually matters who makes the top spot and who doesn’t. Of course the most obvious example of this is that Russell M. Nelson was clearly fuming about use of the label “Mormon” for decades, and it was only after he finally became Church president that he could finally impose his idea on the rest of us.
The other reason I think this is such an engaging question is that it seems so tantalizingly tractable! There aren’t a million variables and unknown unknowns to account for. There’s just this very simple succession rule, and this well-defined pool of candidates, and so who gets to become president boils down to who outlives who. And it seems like we should be able to predict that, right? Right??
Of course the answer is no, but it’s fun to try anyway. I looked at this question the same way I have in previous posts (e.g., in 2015, in 2018). On the advice of an actuary friend of mine, I use a handy mortality table (specifically, the part for white collar males, employees up until the series ends at age 80, and healthy annuitant thereafter) provided by the Society of Actuaries. I’ll explain the details at the end of the post if you’re interested, but for now I’ll just say that I can use the table to work out each man’s probability of surviving to any particular future age, and from that and the probabilities of surviving for Q15 members senior to him, his probability of being church president.
When I’ve done this type of analysis before, commenters have asked the reasonable question of whether I couldn’t make an adjustment for the Q15 members’ health. I have had two concerns with trying to do this. First, it’s hard to know how to assign levels of health in any reliable way, and second, even if I did know how healthy each of them were, I’m not sure how to adjust the mortality tables in response.
But in this post, I’m throwing caution to the wind and trying an adjustment. I’m using a very crude health categorization: I’m adjusting mortality rates only for the two Q15 members who weren’t at October Conference in person, namely Russell M. Nelson and Jeffrey R. Holland. I worked around my second concern by trying a range of possible adjustments. I adjusted the yearly mortality rates for President Nelson and Elder Holland by increasing them by 10%, 20%, 50%, and 100%. (Note that it’s really easy to mix up percentage changes and percentage point changes. These are percentage changes. So for example, if a table mortality probability is 3%, then the adjusted rates for the various increases are 3.3% [adding 10% of 3%], 3.6% [adding 20% of 3%], 4.5% [adding 50% of 3%], and 6% [adding 100% of 3%].)
The graph below shows the probability of each Q15 member being church president for each year for the next few decades. The solid lines show the unadjusted probabilities, and the dashed lines show the probabilities with a 50% adjustment.
Best hymn: “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” Saturday afternoon.
Worst hymn: “We Listen to a Prophet’s Voice,” Saturday morning. We can’t seriously claim to believe in fallible prophets while we sing this hymn.
Fastest hymn: “Arise, O God, and Shine,” Saturday evening.
Slowest hymn: “I’m Trying to Be Like Jesus,” Sunday morning.
Best tacit admission that the hymn is too long: The YA choir singing “I Believe in Christ” Saturday evening just skipped verse 2.
Longest prayer: 164 seconds, Michael T. Nelson, Saturday morning benediction
Shortest prayer: 49 seconds, Clark G. Gilbert, Saturday evening invocation
Best title: Robert M. Daines, “Sir, We Would Like to See Jesus”.
Worst title: M. Russell Ballard, “Praise to the Man”. Can we please just not with the prophet worship?
Title that sounds like a threat: Yoon Hwan Choi, “Do You Want to Be Happy?”. Well, do ya, punk?
Good patterns:
Bad patterns:
Random interesting bits:
