Gordon Monson: What if LDS apostles elected the next prophet? Let the white smoke blow from Moroni’s trumpet.

Having observed from afar the happenings at the Vatican over recent days as a new pontiff was elected, and having undergone the intense rope-a-pope tutorial that came by way of reading up on the subject and watching the film “Conclave,” it became apparent that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might learn — or pilfer — a thing or two from the Catholic Church when it comes to the transfer of power at the top.

Pope or prophet, it could be Holy One and the same.

Before anybody dismisses the idea of electing a prophet as absurd — and maybe it is — consider the possibilities for a few moments. As most people know, when a pope dies or resigns, cardinals gather in the Sistine Chapel behind closed doors to select a new Vicar of Christ. Only cardinals under age 80 are permitted to vote. The process can be a bit messy, a bit political, and that’s the way the papacy gets settled, whether it takes one round for the necessary number of votes or 10. But who’s to say heaven’s hand doesn’t work through all those human hands? And when it is decided, a signal to the world is sent out as white smoke blows up through the chapel’s chimney.

So, what if, in similar fashion, white smoke were blown out through the Angel Moroni’s trumpet atop the Salt Lake Temple, announcing a new “prophet, seer and revelator”? Let the horn blow.

Think about the advantages of having a Latter-day Saint prophet voted on by, say, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as opposed to the way it occurs now — by absolute seniority, the most senior apostle getting the call. There’s no suspense or surprise, nothing invigorating in or about any of that. If Russell Nelson is out, Dallin Oaks is in. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. What a snooze. Not just a snooze, but it’s kind of morbid, waiting for one leader to die for another, already designated, to take his place. Yeah, ask around. Latter-day Saints already have a certain favored apostle picked out, hoping he lives long enough to take the helm.

This is about more than just entertainment value, of course. It’s about efficiency and proficiency. Prophet proficiency.

It could be that, were a church president elected in such a manner, by a group that pretty much knows which of the apostles among them is the most capable, the most qualified, the most prayerful, the most loving, the best fit for the faith at that time, the church could end up being headed by a younger, more dynamic leader, a leader who could, in theory, more ably address the needs of a growing global faith of 17.5 million members that faces all kinds of pressing issues, from the spiritual to the temporal to the social to the political.

By the way, if the same 80-and-under rule were in place, that would severely limit the electors — nearly half (seven) of the current 15 apostles are at least four score years old — so let’s leave that out of the discussion.

What about politics and ambition?

Speaking of the political, such a process might get somewhat begrimed, what with men being men, humans being human, complete with unavoidable elements of cloaked ambition and arrogance coming into play. And make no mistake, they would come into play. Why else, when a church leader is elevated to the apostleship from some so-called lesser position, is that calling celebrated among church leaders and the church population as a whole? It is saluted that way, with a new apostle called and allowed to take his seat among the top brethren in the Conference Center during General Conference.

Ambition can poison any spiritual effort.

In “Conclave,” there is a scene in which one cardinal indicates that he doesn’t want to be pope, essentially that he’s never even given it thought. A fellow cardinal, in so many words, tells the first to get real, that every cardinal has at least thought about ascending to the papal throne and has, in his mind’s eye, designated a pope name by which he would be called.

That, then, could be either an advantage or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it, in electing a prophet. Just like the Catholic cardinals, Latter-day Saint apostles, who already have climbed to that level of leadership, have to have wondered, even suppressed under several layers of humility, what it would be like were they to become prophet. As is, they must wait to rise to that position by, in essence, staying alive.

That delay could prove beneficial. It gives would-be church presidents time to gain knowledge, experience and wisdom, allowing them to play out in their minds what they would do if they were the ultimate deciders. But the delay could last decades and debilitate them. After all, most people aren’t as clearheaded and capable at 90 as they are at, say, 65 or 70.

The recently elected Pope Leo XIV, formerly Robert Prevost of Chicago, the first American-born Holy Father, is a mere 69 years of age, younger than all but two current Latter-day Saint apostles. Leo is likely as smart and lucid as he’s ever been.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just like the Catholic Church, constantly faces big leadership decisions in an ever-evolving world. It might be nice to have a boss with all the acumen and mental nimbleness necessary to attack issues in a most meaningful way.

Divides, debates and drawbacks

There could be other concerns, though, if the lead Latter-day Saint quorum were to vote for its preferred prophet. For instance, what if the tally was tight, and a division arose among the apostles? What if half the quorum wanted a conservative candidate, a potential prophet who favored tradition, preferred doing things the way they’d always been done, and the other half backed a progressive prophet, an individual who wanted to meet that future with change? What then?

The answer to that conundrum can be found in one of the church’s most basic faith principles — relying on inspiration, utilizing correlation and finding consensus.

Already apostles have varied and strong opinions on numerous matters. They don’t always agree. And that’s good. Debates are healthy. These men aren’t all locked into identical group-think, the kind that continually lands on automatic unity. They come from various backgrounds, various professions, various life experiences. They hash out issues in their meetings, express their ideas — although that variance of thought rarely spills out to the public until histories and biographies surface decades later — and then an accord is settled on, a decision is made, a policy is set, a pronouncement is declared. Leaders just make themselves seem to be rowing together, in cadence.

There’s probably a greater divide among church members in general as to how they connect to Latter-day Saint theology — some leaning toward orthodoxy; others remaining more open-minded — than there is among the would-be prophet electors, but differences do exist.

Either way, the church would survive — it has come a long way since the succession fights after founder Joseph Smith’s death — and maybe even thrive if thinking within the faith was given a little more elasticity, if it were stretched to a greater expanse of inclusion.

It takes no huge stretch of imagination to say if a prophet were voted into office by the church population as a whole that an apostle like Dieter Uchtdorf would be a popular choice. The Silver Fox looks like a prophet, acts like a prophet, talks like a prophet, loves like a prophet and has the mental wherewithal to do a fantastic job in that role. But that sort of general vote typically would be less unanimous and more divisive, more dangerous for the health of the body of the church. That’s not the suggestion here.

If the vote were left only to the apostles, however, nobody could be sure that Uchtdorf would ever get the nod. He was previously demoted, if that’s the right word, when Thomas Monson died and Nelson removed Uchtdorf from the First Presidency. Why did that happen? Was it because Uchtdorf had become too popular among church members? Were jealousies stirring? God only knows.

Prophet-electing could create these sorts of showdowns. Also, if Latter-day Saints prefer a more progressive prophet, they can get one if he lasts through the current seniority process. Perhaps that’s God’s way of selecting a mouthpiece. If it were left to a vote, it could be that conservatives would dominate the outcome and a progressive would never ascend to the top spot — or vice versa.

On the whole, despite some downsides, the notion of voting in a prophet by the apostles has some merit, some intrigue and would bring the aforementioned element of excitement to the power changeover. Latter-day Saints would gather en masse to find out who the new guy is. Crowds at Temple Square might not rival those at St. Peter’s Square, but the anticipation would draw all kinds of curious worshippers eager to hear the news. Indeed, Catholics are onto something — have been onto something for ages — that could benefit Latter-day Saints.

Pumping a few thrills into the endeavor when a prophet’s time ends could light up a church that could use a few more thrills. I’m all for it. Let’s do it, then, God willing. Or, at least pray about it. Who knows? Maybe deity would give it a thumbs-up. Maybe the Almighty wouldn’t mind working with a human who could attend every meeting, attend to every matter with all his best faculties, and hear heaven’s voice without a hearing aid.

If so, let that smoke blow out of Moroni’s trumpet whenever a change is in order. The cool factor could do a sleepy church some good.

Habemus Prophetam.