By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News reports the passing of Jeffrey R. Holland, a prominent figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, at the age of 85, due to complications from kidney disease. Holland, who was next in line to become the church president after President Dallin H. Oaks, was known for his impactful sermons and long tenure within the church. He previously served as the president of Brigham Young University, leaving behind a legacy of leadership and influence within the church. Holland’s death leaves a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve, which will be filled by Oaks in the coming months.
Read the original article here
Jeffrey R. Holland, a prominent figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has passed away at the age of 85, leaving behind a complex legacy and raising significant questions about the future leadership of the church. This news comes at a time when the church is navigating a period of transition, with a very aged senior leadership. Given his age, the fact that he was next in line to lead the church is a striking detail. One can’t help but wonder about the practical implications of having leaders so advanced in age. This situation has prompted a natural reflection on the structure and long-term viability of the Church’s leadership model.
The current head of the church, President Dallin H. Oaks, is 93 years old, and the next in line after him, as the succession plan stands, is Henry B. Eyring, who is 92. This highlights the advanced ages of those at the helm, and this structure does not appear to prioritize younger candidates. The ages of the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provide further context: Dieter F. Uchtdorf (85), Quentin L. Cook (85), David A. Bednar (73), D. Todd Christofferson (80), Neil L. Andersen (74), Ronald A. Rasband (74), Gary E. Stevenson (70), Dale G. Renlund (73), Gerrit W. Gong (72), Ulisses Soares (67), Patrick Kearon (64), and Gérald Caussé (62). This raises the question of whether a generational shift in policies might be on the horizon as the current leaders pass away, and new leaders step up.
The passing of someone like Elder Holland, who has been a recognizable face and voice within the church for many years, inevitably sparks a range of reactions. For some, the news is a source of sadness, a recognition of the loss of a figure who played a significant role in their lives. However, for others, particularly those who have left the church or who disagree with its teachings, there might be a more complex mix of feelings. It’s understandable that for those who have experienced pain or disagreement with the church’s stances, the passing of a leader might not elicit sadness. It’s also notable that former members often hold a clear, direct, and sometimes critical perspective on the church and its leadership.
There is a sense that the current structure of the Church, with its emphasis on seniority in the leadership succession plan, presents its own challenges. Some might suggest that this could result in policies that are outdated or that the leadership’s ability to relate to younger generations might be diminished. Many have voiced concerns about the lack of diversity within the top leadership, particularly regarding gender and racial representation. This raises questions about how the church’s values and practices might evolve in the coming years.
For those who grew up in the church, like many others, the names and personalities of the leaders become familiar and highly influential. This familiarity with church leaders fosters a sense of personal connection, and the news of their passing can feel like a personal loss. The idea of losing these figures can be a difficult one for members of the church. But there are also ex-members that express a sense of distance from the church now. This highlights how people’s connections to the church and its leaders can change over time.
While for some this marks the end of an era, others might view it as an opportunity for the church to change. Others might express sentiments of weariness with the church’s leadership, while others might feel a sense of distance or even relief. There are those who believe that the church is in need of new voices, new perspectives, and new directions. The call for a generational shift, and perhaps a wider array of perspectives within the leadership, is an important one. The legacy of leaders like Jeffrey R. Holland is likely to be viewed in a wide variety of ways.
The church’s history and its future are always in a state of flux. The passing of Elder Holland, therefore, is not merely the end of an individual’s life. It is also an indication of the ongoing narrative of the church’s evolution, its relationship with its members, and its place in the world. This situation provides a unique opportunity for both reflection and speculation.