Talk:Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thomas B. Marsh and Brigham Young[edit]

Why is Thomas B. Marsh above the following, though he was ordained later? By the Way I read in the Church Almanac 1997-98 April the 25th as date of ordination. --Donnyw 21:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good observation - the list is in order of senority within the Quorum. When the Quorum seniority was set in order, Marsh was ordained president, as it was assumed he was the oldest (we now know David Patten was older). You'll also notice that Brigham Young Jr. has an earlier ordination date than those above him, as he wasn't assigned a place within the Quorum until there was a vacancy (he was in the first presidency as an apostle, but not in the Quorum proper). The one major exeption to this is the re-shuffling of the quorum by Young in Utah territory - where Orson Pratt lost his seniority to John Taylor because of his Kirtland apostasy - Young clarified that it was seniority based on "good standing" within the quorum, and Pratt had lost his "standing" for a period of time, although he was never replaced. Marsh, while he was re-baptized, would never get his standing back within the quorum, this is likely due to his involvement in an affidavit that led to the extermination order.
The list also does not account for those who were ordained to the office of an apostle, but never set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The most well-known of these are the Three Witnesses and Sylvester Quayle Cannon (d. 1943), although there were others - particularly in the early Church, but some known that lived in the mid-to-late 1900s. There is also some evidence that Joseph F. Smith was ordained an apostle as early as age 15, but in any case, he was ordained (possibly again if the above is true) on the date specified, and assigned into the Quorum at that time. It also does not account for the many high priests who have served as members of the First Presidency, Assistants or secretaries to the quorum and attended their meetings on a regular basis, although never ordained as Apostles or never sustained as members of the Quorum (it does take into account J. Rueben Clark who was ordained an Apostle after nearly two years as serving as part of the first presidency as a high priest and then sustained as a member of the Quorum and placed in seniority after a vacancy in the quorum arose - he never served in the Quorum, but remained in the first presidency for the rest of his life).
It is also interesting to note that some have been released/resigned from their position in the Quorum of the Twelve (John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley being most controversial).
I'm not sure on the actual ordination date of Marsh - I do know that it has been a matter of controversy and the "official" date has changed multiple times as new historical documents have surfaced. I'll see if I can check into the latest research and post what I find here. No promises - just will check. I probably supplied more info than you wanted, but there it is. -Visorstuff 17:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps much of the above would be best drawn out on the Apostle (Mormonism) article, along with your other recent observations as to the variable quantities of apostles, generally? Alai 05:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correlation with Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ)[edit]

Per the discussion in the Latter Day Saint movement project, I took the text of Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) and integrated it into this article. Since this is integrated now as a Latter Day Saint movement article, I separated out the list of apostles into pre-1844 and post-1844, since pre-1844 refer to apostles recognized by most of the movement and post-1844 refer only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.-- 17:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Oops --- somehow I got logged out prior to making these changes --- this = --John Hamer 17:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Model page for what I was thinking of occurring from that discussion. -Visorstuff 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that what you did is fair, considering my bias as a member of the LDS church. Jgardner 19:35, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Should we actually separate out the pre-1844 quorum and then link from there to the LDS quorum of the 12 and the CoC Council of the 12? Would this ultimately be better? I think it would help people understand the issue better and they wouldn't jump to the assumption that somehow the LDS church has an absolute claim on the pre-1844 history. Thoughts? Jgardner 19:47, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

All of the apostles[edit]

As vacancies arise within the Quorum, all of the Apostles, including the First Presidency [...]

But as Visorstuff observed, elsewhere, the Presidency need not (all) be Apostles. Should that more correctly be "those of the FP"? Or is it indeed all of the FP, regardless? Alai 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just fixed. -Visorstuff 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now, to further exceed my quota of dumb questions for the day: are the Counselors, in the (seemingly usual) case of being apostles, formally part of the Quorum? This isn't clear to me, as Thomas S. Monson isn't listed on this page at all, but we have that "President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is the most senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" in the article of that ilk. Does his title President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles put him in said Quorum, or in effect over it? Either way, I think we have some minor consistency issue in one place or the other. Alai 05:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The more questions you ask the more I think there are not dumb questions :)
This is a very good question as then it would be the Quorum of Thirteen Apostles ☺ - Members of the First presidency are not generally considered to be also members of the quorum of twelve; however, at the time of the death of the Prophet (the President of the First Presidency), The first presidency is dissolved, all first presidency members that have at one time been a member of the quorum of the twelve (and thus are also apostles) are now returned to that quorum (which in the usual case makes 14 apostles) and the President of the Quorum of Twelve (in this case Monson) presides over the calling of the new prophet (President of the First Presidency and the Church). Because Monson is currently in the First Presidency he can not thus actively preside over that quorum - and Boyd K. Packer is the "Acting President of the Quorum of Twelve".
Some related information. The new Prophet (President) then calls counselors who are usually from among the members of the Twelve, and usually number 2 (but don't have to be either). If the new counselors are from the Quorum of the Twelve, then a new Apostle needs to be called and set apart as a member of the Quorum of Twelve. However, there could be a situation where the new President doesn't call at least once counselor from the Quorum of the Twelve - in which case there would remain 12 apostles to constitute the full Quorum and no new apostle need to be called. The most recent example non-traditional cases (off the top of my head) were: 1) the calling of Gordon B. Hinckley to the First Presidency as a 3rd Counselor by Spencer W. Kimball (and subsequent calling of an additional Apostle to fill his spot in the Twleve), 2) the calling of Alvin R. Dyer as a member of the First Presidency, and also being ordained an apostle, who was never a member of the Quorum of Twelve, and thus would not return to being a member of the Quorum upon the dissolution of the First Presidency.
I hope I am being completely accurate here - help me out if not Trödel|talk 15:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. Another example is J. Reuben Clark, Jr. - he was a high priest in the first presidency, but later, ordained an apostle. Although he was never a active member of the Twelve (always in the first presidency), President McKay, at the death of another Apostle, placed him in the twelve formally, then called him back out as part of the first presidency and then called another apostle - thus giving him seniority status for succession. McKay had three counselors at one time, and Brigham Young had as many as 12 counselors. -Visorstuff 15:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks guys, informative stuff as always. So in summary, can we say that: the President of the Quorum is the most senior Apostle, but isn't necessarily, and in recent practice has not been, in the Quorum per se; if he's not, there's an acting President, who is always, by definition, in the quorum itself. And regarding apostles in general (thinking of the other article, here, pardon me while I braindump all in the one place), these are: The Prophet; all members of the Quorum; either, both, or none of the Counselors (or even, more than two in past practice); and possibly some members of the Qot70, this last part somewhat unclear? Alai 02:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some seminary teachers just asked me what the ordination dates for the current quorum are. I came here and found that Bros. Eyring and Uchtdorf were not included in the list of current quorum members. This makes perfect sense, but I would like to propose that alongside the list of current members of the quorum there be a list of the Apostles in order of seniority. Please note that Apostles called into the First Presidency remain Apostles, though they don't participate in the Quorum. The reason I'm asking is that this page seemed to be the most logical place to find the complete list, but Bros. Eyring and Uchtdorf are nowhere to be found.WindRiver Publishing (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Best place to find such information would probably be the individual articles about the apostles in question. Zoporific 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This is a great article (my first visit) and I'll be 'watching' and possibly adding comments here in TALK. I'll also take your suggestion and visit the 15 individual WP pages: (12 in the Quorum of the Twelve, and three in the Presidency, who are also ordained Apostles (translation: "Special Witnesses of Christ.") Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) and Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) did exist in 2008 at the time of Zoporific's inquiry, but unfortunately no one pointed that out, so doing so now. -- (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Members of the Original Quorum, Prior to 1844[edit]

John, could you double check the dates on the other sects? For example, you have written that william Smith was "Strangite and Williamite after 1844" but he couldn't have been strangite until at least 1846, and definitely not RLDS (which I believe he was) until 1860. Another is John E. Page - if I remember right, he was excommunicated much earlier than 1844. He was never given keys. He also couldn't be strangite until 1845 at the eariest, and hedrickite until the mid 1860s. How accurate should we make this? Remember, many of the twelve who left the LDS Church, didn't until the Utah migration, or slightly before (William SMith was excomm. in October 1844 and then struggled with who to support the rest of his life). In fact, I can't think of a member of the twelve that left right during the July succession crisis. All that left, left later that year or the following. Am I wrong? Just want to make sure this is reflected as accurate. -Visorstuff 15:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Community of Christ - three Presidencies[edit]

Just read the following addition:

It is the Second of three Presidencies of the Church.

Not being that familiar with the CoC what are the three presidencies - is it: First Presidency, Presidency of the Seventy, Stake Presidency? or some other group. Thanks in advance Trödel|talk 20:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the QotTA is the second one... Perhaps, First Presidency, PotQ 12 Apostles, then of the 70? Alai 01:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The seven Quorums of Seventy, in aggregate, comprise the third "presidency". This is a theoretical expression of balance of power, because if there was a division over a policy question which set the three "presidencies" against one another, the decision of two of them together would prevail. In practice, the power of the Seventy is diffuse, because unanimous agreement within each presidency, quorum, or aggregate of quorums (in the case of the Seventy) is required by D & C Sec. 104:11f (CofC), (Sec. 107:27 LDS). The subsequent verse (11g or 28) A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise, I believe is interpreted to mean a majority is sufficient when all members are not able to be present. Within the Community of Christ, operational executive power resides with the First Presidency, assisted in major decisions by the Joint Council, a body comprised of the First Presidency, the Council of Twelve, plus the three members of the Presiding Bishopric (the chief financial officers). The Joint Council functions like a board of directors with 18 members. --Blainster 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Authority of 12 vs. Presidency[edit]

This paragraph bothers me:

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., the President of the Quorum of the Twelve was Brigham Young. Assuming control of the church, Young emphasized the Utah church's position that the Quorum of the Twelve should be the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After a new First Presidency was formed, the Quorum of the Twelve took what has come to be its current place within the hierarchy subordinate to the First Presidency and higher in authority than the Seventy. The Quorum of Twelve was originally designated to be a body of "traveling councilors" equal in authority to the First Presidency as well as to the Seventy, the standing High Council of Zion and the High Councils of the various Stakes of Zion (Doctrine & Covenants 107:25-27, 36-37).

I am no expert of the "politics" of the two bodies, nor the history, but I understand that they are equal and behave that way. There has never been a conflict between the two organizations, and so we have never seen whether or not one body is more "powerful" than the other. My understanding is that when there is a major policy decision, the presidency consults with the 12 and comes to a consensus. On many occasions, they work with the 12 to reach a consensus on even more minor issues.

I have changed it to reflect my opinions: revert or modify at will. Please cite any examples of conflict or one organization dictating to another. I believe throughout the history of the church, they have been united.

Jgardner 19:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The biggest example of conflict in the quorum and the first presidency is the Young-Orson Pratt debates in the 1870s. You can go back and read some of the resolutions in the deseret news on the outcome of certain doctrinal clarifications. It nearly divided the quorums and the two groups unanimously agreed to abide by the decisions made, which they have ever since.

Also, the twelve are subordinate to the 1st presidency. They act "under the direction" of. The "Equal" nature is heavily debated in shcolarly circles - whether that means they have checks and balances, whether they could lead in the absence of the other or whether their decisions are just as binding to those they are responsible for as the other are all possible meanings as well as others. The aguments typically fit into these three categories, and has never been clarified by revlelationt to the entire church. Try re-reading those revelations and change "equal" to "their decisions are equally binding" or "can perform checks and balances" or "have the same authority" (which all MP holders do - just different responsibiliities). It is a very complex issue. In practice from an cultural standpoint you are correct, but it is not as clear as you think from a scholarly standpoint - hense such drastic differences between Latter Day Saint denominations. -Visorstuff 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Late in reply, and thanks for the excellent work. However, I see it as two different things: The FP can direct individual members of the 12, such as where they should be serving and what they should be doing. However, taken as a whole, their decisions are equal and independent. I'm not familiar with the Young/Pratt episode but I will look into it and see what I can find. Note that the 12 has to be joined unanimously to make a decision, so if even one member is out of step, they can make no decision and thus have lost their standing in the hierarchy as being equal. Jgardner 22:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Doctrinal Clarifications[edit]

There are a number of doctrinal issues with the explanation of the Latter-day Saint portion of this article. I've made some corrections, and will likely do more later.

If you look at the history of the 1st presidecny during the the second half of the 1900s most counselors in the first presidency were called from the quorum, but historically it is about equal as far as called from teh quorum versus not. Remember Young had six councillors in the first presidnecy and only two were members of the quorum prior to their calling. The rest were either ordained an apostle as a membewr of the first presidncey (but not part of the quorum) or stayed a high priest. There are other examples more recently.

Second any Melchizedek priesthood holder in the church who is faithful is eligible to be called as an apostle - not just high priest. B. Young was called to be an apostle from being an Elder (as were others). When people later suggested that you must "progress" from a high priest to being an apostle, he clarified this is not the case. Each has their own responsibility and place. Both are offices in the priesthood. But one could theoretically be called from being an aaronic priesthood deacon and ordained to be an apostle. His responsibility would just increase.

Lastly it was written that quorum of the 12 "members are only released if they are excommunicated or pass away." Again, not the case. After the second manifesto, some were released just because they had more than one wife - not excommunicated. Apostle is a life-long calling, but membership in the quorum is not. Hope this helps clarify. Let me know if I need to explain better. good edits. -Visorstuff 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major Revision proposal[edit]

I'd like to change this page in a major way by making it a disambiguation page.

  • Move comments about the original quorum to Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (pre-1844)
  • Move comments about the LDS 12 to Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS)
  • Move comments about the CoC 12 to Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (CoC) (or whatever is preferred)
  • Move list of LDS members of the 12 to List of Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS)

I know considerable work was done to unify these articles, but as it is now, it seems confusing to me and I don't think new readers will fare much better.

I would like to track the history of the quorum as a whole eventually, perhaps in articles such as "History of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (pre-1844)" etc...

Let me know what you all think. Jgardner 22:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saint project had decided against creating articles with (LDS) or (Community of Christ) in their titles, preferring to have a central article with (Mormonism) in the title. That's why this one was combined together in the first place. Otherwise, we'd have to have articles like "Quorum of the Twelve (Strangite)". I think having an article titled "Quorum of the Twelve (pre-1844)" would be confusing to the readers. --John Hamer 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with John Hamer. -Visorstuff 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ugly Sentance in 'Quorum in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'[edit]

Am I the only person who finds this paragraph unwieldy? Especially the last three sentances.

As a matter of policy, apostles are asked to quit their professional careers and devote themselves fulltime to church service. Even members of boards and professional organizations are asked to resign. Those who are able provide for themselves. Those who are not receive a small stipend from the church for subsistence. Because the calling of apostle is a typically lifetime calling, it is usually the last job they will ever hold.

My grammatical skills have fled, or else I would try to correct it myself. Im also new and I don't want to mess anything up... =P

The requested cleanup has been attempted. --Blainster 17:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Traveling apostles[edit]

Most of the apostles were traveling (in support of Smith's US presidential efforts) at the time of his martyrdom. That is why there was a delay in their assembly after his death. The first paragraph is probably not the place to get into such details, but if Westbrook wants to include this matter, he/she should identify the date of the mission to England mentioned, and document the changes by Smith to the Doctrine and Covenants 107 instructions. --Blainster 22:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Blainster. The apostles did still travel. However, it was in a different capacity than it had been earlier, and the article seemed to completely ignore the fact that Joseph did change the responsibilities of the Twelve. For instance, in the CoC section, the article said something to the effect that "the council of the apostles continues to act as it did before the succession," with the result being that it implied, at least indirectly, that the LDS quorum usurped authority for themselves or radically turned away from joseph's teachings, which is just not true. i think this implication should be avoided at all costs, which is the reason for my clarifications (though you are right, i was not clear enough). as long as joseph's changes in the twelve's responsibilities are no longer ignored, i am happy w/ your edits and the article's current status. documentation and more detail would be nice, but like you said, it probably should be dealt with as its own separate issue.

Proposed Seperate Article for Council of Twelve Apostles CoC[edit]

I plan to link the "Council of Twelve Apostles" link from the Community of Christ article to its own article rather than to this one. While the history of any denomination is important, we have to recognize that the history of CofC Council of Twelve Apostles has been seperate from the Quorum of Twelve Apostles for 162 years versus a 14 year shared history.

It is also massively confusing to try and read about CofC and find so much LDS related material.

If people are concerned about having multiple entires, just remember they are really different subjects, despite the fact that some of the names are similar. An article on differences and similarities might be useful. But having lots of shared sub-articles is confusing. It is better to draw the historical connection once in the article on each movement. Have a unifying article on the Latter Day Saint movement, and perhaps, as I propose, an article that compares an contrasts.

For an analogy, I don't think LDS members would be too happy if every LDS related-article got bogged down in tedious discussions about the details of Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, they are similar, even related, but reading pages and page about the idiosyncracies of Catholicism does not lead one in an organized way to information on the LDS church. There are numerous articles that need this type of cleanup to help eliminate the (hopefully not deliberate) confusion that has evolved here.

Comments are welcome. Glenn4pr 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree - Excellent idea. Please proceed. Val42 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But then

If you are Catholics and you adhere to catholic tennets, then why pretend you are not Catholics? A catholic is one that takes authority from the three sources, the Pope, tradition, and lastly the Bible, in that order of importance. Also that argues that because the early desciples had prayer meetings on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday as well as the Sabbath day, it followes we can pick any day to be the worship day, and since the Moslems had already picked Friday and the Jews had Saturday, we can pick Sunday.

A Catholic is one who prays through Mary instead of through Christ. A Catholic is one who accepts religious idols in the house of worship (church) against the teachings of the Bible. One who does not allow priests to marry. Believes in church hierarchy even when the Bible say the only head is Christ.

If you then accept all these but just want to be called by a different name, then it is rather pointless is it not?

Surely a community of Christ should base all their teachings on the teachings of Him whose name is in the Community name and not seek to be Catholic, thus including tradition and the Cannonic laws, sources of authority. Or have I misunderstood what you were saying about your link to Catholicism.? I do wish Christians would be more honest about themselves. It confuses those of us trying to understand what this whole thing is about. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 15:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, Wikipedia articles have helped your understanding. These are very old comments. Could automatic archiving be turned on, (set for 3yrs) ? -- Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't think that the Council of 12 apostles CoC article should be merged with LDS article[edit]

I think both should hold their respective places, but stay apart from each other. The Community of Christ is sepearate in how it's priesthood is run as well as their "apostles." I believe that the LDS' article should stay how it is, seperate of an addition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree; both articles should remain separate. But it looks like they have already been merged on this page. From my reading of this page and a (quick) comparison with the respective article for the CoC, it looks like it has already been merged. I think that it would be better to have a summarry for the LDS and CoC on this page then each should have their own pages. Val42 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely opposed. They are two completely different entities (that share a similar name).--TrustTruth 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to keep a separate article for Community of Christ's Council of the 12, what is the sense of having the identical information also on this page? Either it has to be removed from this page and maintain the separate page, OR we need to merge the pages.
Do I understand from your votes that you favor removing the information from this page? Thanks, SESmith 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I am in favor of removal and maintaining information seperately for each denomination on its own page whenever the amount of material is too great for the denomination to be contained in a single article. There are so many differences that it just makes no sense to have everything combined. Glenn4pr 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I am also in favor of them being in separate articles. This article should cover the organization until 1844, then the articles should be split up by denomination, with summaries on this page. But I don't have time to do anything with it today. Val42 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John R. Winder was never ordained an apostle[edit]

John R. Winder was never ordained an apostle. Wikipedia’s page on him notes: “Having never been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles prior to his call to the First Presidency, a rarity, there has been some dispute as to whether or not Winder was ordained an Apostle at the time of his appointment as First Counselor.” In the 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac, his biography as a member of the First Presidency is featured on page 55. He is listed as number 7 on that page. I quote the relevant part from it. “Ordained high priest March 4, 1872, by Edward Hunter; sustained as second counselor to Presiding Bishop William B. Preston April 8, 1887, at age 65; sustained as first counselor to President Joseph F. Smith Oct. 17, 1901, at age 79; died March 27, 1910, at Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Co., Utah, at 88.” If it’s listed in the official Almanac of the Church, consequently, it is verifiable. As a result, in the going-over of the chronological listing of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that I’m doing, I have removed him as an “other apostle.” Thank you. Jgstokes 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't know why the article on him would state that there has "been some dispute" as to whether he was ordained or not. I'm wondering if there is another source somewhere that claims he was. -SESmith 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Second in command[edit]

This article currently says that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is "second in command" to the First Presidency. I don't think that "second in command" is the correct wording, though it does (more or less) convey the correct idea. But I can't come up with what wording to use. Would someone please work on this? Maybe we can come up with some consensus. Val42 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it actually uses that terminology, though it probably connotes the idea. (You may be thinking of the more general article Quorum of the Twelve.) I like the wording that it has "a leadership role second only to that of the First Presidency", which is one of the phrases used in this article. -SESmith 09:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a look at it, and it appears to me as if you're both right. It doesn't say "second in command" in so many words, but there is some reference to their being second only to the First Presidency. One thing that bothers me is the statement that "The quorum. . . .[is] equal in authority to the First Presidency as well as to the Seventy, the standing Presiding High Council, and the High Councils of the various stakes." For my purposes, I only used the parts of the statement that were relevant to what I want to say. For starters, I ran a search on on the phrase "standing presiding high council" and in the early days of the Church, that is what the stake High Council was called, so it seems a bit redundant to have listed the "standing Presiding High Council" and the "High Councils of the various stakes." I suggest getting rid of one of the terms. In addition, as I stated before elsewhere, Joseph Smith once stated "Where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." The reference for that is: HC 2:374 (History of the Church Volume 2, Page 374). By explaining the surrounding circumstances of that, I think I can prove my point far better than I could with just my own words. When this quote was made, it was part of a response given by Joseph Smith on behalf of the First Presidency regarding concerns, complaints, and questions about slights that the Quorum members felt had been practiced against them, as brought up in a council meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. See HC 2:372-375 for the complete precedings. It is plain that when Joseph used the pronoun "I" in the above quotation that the "I" referred to in the above quotation means "the President of the Church." So let me restate the quote using that knowledge, as follows: "Where [the President of the Church is] not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." Because of that quote, I think we ought to add the specification that the Quourum of the Twelve only has totally equal authority to the First Presidency where there is no President of the Church. Likewise, the Quorums of the Seventy are equal in authority only when there is no Quorum of the Twelve or President of the Church, and so on. The way I wrote it was to prove a point, but it is lengthy and even hard for me to understand, so if you can understand it, since we know that's the case, maybe a change could be made based on the doctrine taught in this quote. Thanks. --Jgstokes 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the way that it was reworded.
Now, to your other question: I think that it would be best to quote from the D&C or HotC, since they should both be brief quotations showing these relationships. Val42 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is, how can we best do that? I laid out a detailed explanation of the point in my last post, but I don't think that there is a place in a concise article such as this for wordy notations, even for clarification purposes. So if someone could maybe look over my above paragraph and perhaps boil it down to a possible paragraph that could be used instead of the phrase "second in command" then maybe we can get it fixed. I know I don't have the head for summarizations. My previous posts have indicated as much. To whoever takes on this project, good luck and thanks. Better you than me! --Jgstokes 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two changes made based on historical fact[edit]

Dear Friends, Today a couple of historical questions came to mind as I looked again at the Chronology. I consequently did some research on the following two changes that had been made earlier with the following result: 1. 29 October 1965—5 October 1967 In this bracket and subsequent brackets until President McKay's death, President Joseph Fielding Smith was removed as a member of quorum when he was in the First Presidency That did not happen. I was able to pull up an old Conference report from April 1966. Two articles having relevancy caught my attention. The links follow. As you will note, the first link is a listing of General Authorities attending the Conference. Joseph Fielding Smith, in that first conference after his setting apart as a member of the First Presidency, remained President of the Quorum of the Twelve and was listed as the first among their number. The same thing happened in the second link, which is the sustaining of Church officers that was conducted during that time. Therefore, I will be placing Joseph Fielding Smith's name back in the Quorum where it belongs, thus removing him also from the list of "other apostles." This would also explain the seemingly unexplainable reason why the supposed "vacancy" created by Joseph Fielding Smith's leaving the Quorum was never filled: he never left. 2. 23 January 1970—9 April 1970. The reason for a change on that date was given as follows by SESmith: delete false statement, Assistants to 12 were eliminated in 1976; he died in 1977. It's true that he was only an Assistant to the Twelve until that office was dissolved, but following that, he became a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70 until his death. I don't know how we'd list that, or even if we need to, but that's just for informational purposes. Hope this has helped. --Jgstokes 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That change I made was a parenthetical beside Alvin R. Dyer's name which said he remained an Assistant to the 12 "until his death". He did not, as my note indicated, but he did remain an ordained Apostle, which was why he was in the "other Apostles" category. This comment to my edit had nothing to do with Joseph Fielding Smith. -SESmith 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've adjusted the chart to eliminate one set of boxes that were redundant now that you made the change based on your JFS research. The quorum or number of ordained apostles did not change at all on that date so I've just eliminated it as a "change date". Some nice research there. -SESmith 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed the word "to" to the word "in"[edit]

Friends and Fellow Editors: I have made yet another change. In the footnote next to the information about Joseph Fielding Smith's calling as a member of the First Presidency, the word "to" was used. I changed it to the word "in" based on similar terminology used in relation to President Hinckley's 1/2 year role as a "Counselor in the First Presidency." While it may seem irrelevant initially, the GBH biography detail on this point gives the reason for the change. When President Hinckley was called, during one of the initial meetings of the new First Presidency, some discussion was had as to whether it would be more appropriate for him to be referred to as a "Counselor in the First Presidency" or "Counselor to the First Presidency." President Hinckley voted against the word to, saying that he felt members might get the idea he was brought on board to counsel all three men. So it was decided to rather use the word in because that's what the others were sustained as. President Smith likely faced the same predicament. In the source I brought up that started this whole discussion, he is sustained as a "counselor in the First Presidency." If it's in the source, it's verifiable, thus the change has been made. --Jgstokes 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Succession box[edit]

All the apostles appear to have a succession box identifying who preceded them and who succeeded them. This works well for politicians because there will only be one in office at a time. However, with apostles using the term "succeeded by" implies to me that they are no longer an apostle. Does anyone else feel that the succession box does not really work for apostles? Alanraywiki 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that it has a place. Let me explain why. To illustrate my point, I will use as an example what happened after Elders Neal A. Maxwell and David B. Haight died ten days apart back in July 2004 (the 21st and 31st respectively). With statements like "[Dieter F.] Uchtdorf was called to fill the vacancy created by the death of Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who died on 21 July 2004." and "[David A.] Bednar filled the vacancy occasioned by the death of Apostle David B. Haight on July 31, 2004." it's unclear as to exactly how that happened. I know if I were an outsider, not having any background about the Church, my impression from these statements would be that Uchtdorf and Bednar took the place of Maxwell and Haight, and I would be more than a little confused as to why the quorum change in 2004 wouldn't make it look like this: Packer, Perry, Bednar, Uchtdorf, Nelson, Oaks, Ballard, Wirthlin, Scott, Hales, Holland, and Eyring. You know and I know that's not the way it works in the Church. So, what really happened was that Nelson took the place of Haight, Oaks took the place of Maxwell, Ballard took the place of Nelson, Wirthlin took the place of Oaks, Scott took the place of Ballard, Hales took the place of Wirthlin, Holland took the place of Scott, Eyring took the place of Hales, Uchtdorf took the place of Holland, and Bednar took the place of Eyring. A bit lengthy and difficult to read, I admit, but because of the way quorum seniority now stands (with new apostles being more junior rather than taking their predecessors places) that is exactly what happened. And each apostle that has so advanced has had a chance in each position. Packer became an apostle back in 1970, in turn being the 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, even if it never read exactly that way in the listings. So, in reality, Eyring became the 11th apostle on July 21, 2004 and the 10th apostle ten days later. Uchtdorf was called before Bednar, so he never had a chance to be the 12th because there weren't twelve members at the time of his call. And because of this process, this "moving up in the ranks" as we might call it, the succession boxes tell us for certain how that worked. And if we were really fanatical about this matter, we'd try to make a listing of who held what position in seniority in the quorum at any given time. Anyhow, I've droned on long enough. I hope I haven't confused you too much, Alanraywiki, and I also hope you understand my position about the matter of succession boxes, and that is that I think they should stay. Anyone wanting to disagree with me can feel free to do so, but if it were my decision, I'd leave them exactly as they are.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You've both got good points. I guess that this means that Alanraywiki has the better point then. However, I think that this does deserve more discussion before we remove the "succeeded by" box. — Val42 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the s-box is of limited value for LDS Church apostles. I think people are far more likely to want to know who an apostle "replaced", i.e., who died immediately before they were called, and who "replaced" them after they died. I can't see there being much interest in knowing who was the apostle called immediately prior to them and immediately after them. That's just my opinion, though. Snocrates 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So, it sounds like what we need to do is to rename the two links. What should we use? — Val42 03:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The succession box in its current form is not helpful. It would be more helpful if it where patterned after the succession box for U.S. Supreme Court Justices. In that case, the predecessor is the person who retired or died. Even so, it is understood that seniority for currently serving justices is based on starting date, not on who that justice replaced. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles follows that exact same pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Would there be any objections if I started to work on such a change? Zoporific 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to you starting to work on this, however, I don't think that other points mentioned should be overlooked. It was suggested before suggesting a redo that the two links should simply be renamed. However, I'm not sure I agree with this either. We know that now there is a new First Presidency, which will be announced tomorrow. This means that, unless one or both of the new prophet's counselors DID NOT come from the Quorum of the Twelve that Quentin L. Cook, the #12 apostle before Hinckley's death (that is, #12 excluding Hinckley & his counselors) is now #11. So whoever is the new apostle (if one is needed) could well be said to "succeed" Cook, with Cook being the "predecessor" for the new guy. I don't think we can lightly overlook this. However, if you wanted to start work on the idea before presented, I would have no objections. I would, however, speaking for myself, like to see the way you'd work this first before any changes are made so that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing blindly. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But there's no specific calling in the church of being "apostle #11" that WP is concerned with. All we really care about is the office of apostle, so the predecessor should be the apostle whom the person called replaced, per the U.S. Supreme Court example. Zoporific 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that you'd be hard pressed to find an instance where someone is called as "apostle #11." Let me put it this way. When Bednar was called, he sat in the 12th chair, because he was the apostle most recently called (in terms of seniority). Then, when Cook joined the Quorum in October, it was because Eyring, who had sat in the 10th chair, was called to the First Presidency. Uchtdorf replaced Eyring sitting in the 10th chair. Bednar replaced Uchtdorf sitting in the 11th chair. And Cook replaced Bednar sitting in the 12th chair. That's the way the change in seniority works. So in a very literal sense, before President Hinckley died, Cook was preceded in the 12th chair by Bednar and will be succeeded in the 12th chair by the new apostle (if any). For that reason, the succession boxes as they now stand are not only appropriate, but very useful. This way we know that Cook was called after Bednar who was called after Uchtdorf who was called after Eyring who was called after..I think you get the idea. This way we also know that Nelson was called before Oaks who was called before Ballard who was called before Wirthlin who was called before...I think you get the idea here as well. Understanding that (which I still may not have explained very well) also explains why it couldn't and won't work for succession boxes to be done after the order of Supreme Court Justices. Of course, if you wanted to do another set of boxes, you could call them something like "called to replace" and "replaced by cal of". Like I said, I'm willing to withhold speaking solidly against it or for it until I see an example of what you have in mind. But I think that Wikipedia editors would be making a big mistake not to take into account what I've just shared with you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The current succession boxes are not particularly useful for WP because they provide no information that can't be gathered already from a chronological list. Succession boxes are usually added when a chronological list would not provide certain information, such as who died and freed up a position in a hierarchy to allow the person in question to be added. As I said above, as far as WP is concerned, it doesn't matter who "sits in chair #10" or whatever. All we care about is succession to the Apostleship. I doubt very much the church itself makes any distinction. Apostles are just apostles — they don't "succeed" into a higher position when someone above them in seniority dies. I think you are confusing seniority with the position itself. The succession box addresses the position, not seniority. It's the identical situation as addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court justices box. Examine those — they are concerned with the position of associate justice, not the seniority in the court. Zoporific 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, at the moment, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about your idea as yet because I have yet to see it. But I honestly don't think the other points on this issue (besides yours and mine) should be excluded from impacting the decision of the article. As an additional note, the succession boxes as they now stand seem to make it a lot clearer. I know I get lost sometimes trying to figure out the succession boxes for Supreme Court Justices. As I understand WP policy, we are trying to make it EASIER for the average, everyday reader, NOT harder. And it seems to me (without having a look at what you have in mind) that the succession boxes WOULD be harder to understand if done the way you're thinking of doing. However, again, I can't say for sure how I'd feel about them until I saw an example of what you have in mind. But I think succession boxes should be chronological rather that saying that one person "replaced" another. To say that one "replaced" another gives the wrong impression. The dictionary defines "replace" as "1. to take the place of. 2. put something back where it belongs. 3. to provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of." with those definitions in mind, succession boxes are more appropriate because, according to the dictionary, succession is defined as "1. following one thing after another in time. 2. a group of people or things arranged or following in order. 3. the action of following in order." The Quorum of the Twelve is all about order. Quentin L. Cook did not become President Hinckley's new counselor because he was Faust's replacement (which is essentially what he was). Eyring succeeded Faust, Uchtdorf succeeded Eyring, Bednar succeeded Uchtdorf, and Cook succeeded Bednar. Because you keep arguing in favor of a position I said I wasn't necessarily opposed to, I will state my position again, and hopefully it won't be taken out of context. I am not AGAINST or IN FAVOR OF making a change at this time. I would have to see an example of it BEFORE I made a final decision. ALL I am doing is trying to present you with both sides of an issue so that you can take both under consideration when you start redoing these. Let me see your work before you try to convince me that you're right, because I haven't seen enough of your work on this issue to judge one way or the other. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at Template:LDSApostles. That is the chronological listing, which is also on every apostle page. Why duplicate this with the succession boxes? "Replace" is a colloquial term used in this context. You don't have to get all nervous about its theological connotation. Zoporific 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it. I know that's a chronological listing. I know that what you said about duplication is true. But if that's the case, the Supreme Court succession boxes are redundancies of what's in THAT template. I'm not "getting all nervous about its theological connotation." The ball is entirely in your court. If I SEE a sample of what you have in mind, I would know definitely where I would stand on the question of replacing the one or the other. As I said, I'm not necessarily opposed or in favor of EITHER option at the moment. You are so busy dealing with my "nervousness" that you forget the simplest remedy of all for it: Show me an example of what you have in mind. Then, I'll express an opinion of it. I just wanted to bring ALL facts to your possession so that you could take them into account before experimenting with this. The easiest solution for this apparent issue you have with the points I brought up is for you to show me what you have in mind. At that point, I can make an informed decision. In the meantime, it's pointless to argue the finer points of the so-called "theological connotation." Show me what you have in mind, and I'll give you an honest opinion. It's that simple. As a matter of fact, as evidenced by your continued attempts to "sway" me on a viewpoint I haven't definitely given, you are making more of an issue out of this than I am. Show me what you have in mind, and I'll promise to keep an open mind until then. Until I see that, though, further discussion wherein you try to convince me of a position I am neither for nor against at the moment is profitless. And, in case you're wondering, the only reason this response is so long is because I had to make sure that I was not saying anything I'd regret later, but that I also would make it clear to you once and for all where I stand. As I said before, all your continued attempted swayings are doing is prolonging the obvious resolution to what is only being made a problem by this same attempted swaying. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Laugh) I was just trying to be helpful — you don't necessarily need to respond at length to every comment I make. If you don't want a discussion to be "prolonged", then quit responding! I'll go ahead with some sort of "apostolic succession" box; I find this more interesting and ultimately more do-able than a Quorum of the Twelve succession. The redundant one for the Quorum can remain since you seem attached to it. You seemed nervous about the use of the word "replaced"; I thought that was self-evident from the amount of effort you put into letting us all know what the definition is. Zoporific 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This won't be a lengthy response because such are no longer needed. I agree it would be interesting to see. That's why I've been repetitious in asking to see it. And it should be fairly easy to put together. I'm not necessarily "attached" to anything. It's just that the boxes as they now stand are the ONLY thing I have seen for this since joining Wikipedia. Since I don't know about anything else besides the succession boxes, how would I be positively in favor of something I haven't seen and don't know about? If you do them and I find that my opinion is that they are more helpful and less confusing, then the so-called "attachment" will end. After all, when talking about succession boxes, I have no way of knowing if I'd be in favor of a change unless I can see the change. Good luck in putting them together. Let me know when you have a sample done I could look at. In the meantime, the whole prolonged discussion goes both ways. If I'd quit responding, you could get to work. But then, if you'd show the sample once you've worked it out, there would be nothing for me to respond to. It's the whole Catch-22, other-side-of-the-coin thing all over again. Good luck.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Quorum members' tenures need to be fixed[edit]

We have a slight problem with the dates of tenure for members of the Quorum. The dates don't make sense, and they aren't consistent. Let me give you an example. In the succession boxes listed in Thomas S. Monson, his tenure as a quorum member is listed as ending on February 3, 2008, when he became President of the Church. However, Gordon B. Hinckley's tenure is listed as ending on February 25, 1994, which was while he was still a member of the First Presidency. My point is that it's inconsistent. Either Monson's tenure should be listed as ending when he became a member of the First Presidency, which was November 30, 1985, or Hinckley's tenure should be listed as ending when he became President of the Church on March 12, 1995. I noticed that when looking at the succession boxes for other quorum members, similar inconsistencies exist. They should be fixed. The only question is, how? I feel we need to make this accurate, but I am at my wit's end to know how to go about doing so. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When the most-senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve is called to be a counselor in the First Presidency, that man is still sustained in general conference as President of the Quorum of the Twelve. Therefore, their tenure would seem to be from when they are called (and ordained) until they either die or are called to be president/prophet. — Val42 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a pretty straightforward approach to this issue. I agree with you. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this issue, or can it be fixed in the manner suggested above? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it depend on whether you are talking about tenure as an apostle or tenure as a member of the Quorum? If the president of the Quorum is a member of the First Presidency, they usually aren't still a member of the Quorum, are they? For example, when T.S. Monson was president of the Quorum and 1st counselor in the First Presidency, he was never sustained as a "member" of the Quorum, so shouldn't his tenure in the Quorum have ended when he joined the First Presidency? Of course, their tenures as apostles never end whether they are in the Quorum or not, but I think the boxes you are referring to are specific to tenure in the Quorum. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Either way, the date for Hinckley is still inaccurate, because he joined the First Presidency in 1981, not 1994, when, according to the Wiki list, he stopped being a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I believe tenure should end on the Wiki list when they are called to the First Presidency or to be prophet because they are not technically members of the Quorum of the Twelve when in the First Presidency. All I'm wondering about is how to make it uniform. Any further thoughts? I'd be okay with anything, just so long as it's consistent all the way through. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But how can an apostle called to the First Presidency be the president of the Quorum of the Twelve if he's not considered a member? — Val42 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know, but it seems to be how it can work. See, for example, here, where T.S. Monson is sustained as President of the Quorum but he is not included as one of the members of the Quorum. I imagine it's because President of the Quorum is a formal position in church hierarchy that is separate from what Quorum you actually belong to. If the person holding that position belongs to the Quorum of the First Presidency, they are usually not also a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you really wanted these to get these dates accurate, they could get quite complicated for people who have been in the First Presidency, because when the president of the church dies, of course, the counselors in the FP return to the Quorum. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley's time as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve would include four different stints: 5 October 196123 July 1981; 5 November 198510 November 1985; 30 May 19945 June 1994; and 3 March 199512 March 1995 (I got these dates from here and don't otherwise know if they are 100% accurate). This could became a real headache if you're wanting to make it completely accurate this way, which it probably should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My argument is that even though they may not be "in" the quorum while they are in the First Presidency, they retain their seniority as if they were still in the quorum. I think that the dates should reflect this. The issue that you just brought up would also greatly complicate matters. What about if the field in the template is renamed to be something like "dates of seniority" in the quorum? This would then be applicable from when said person were ordained until he was made president, died or was removed from office (as a few have been). — Val42 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I understand what you are saying now. I think that could possibly work and may be a good solution to avoid the complications. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I would be more in favor of what was discussed previously than the new suggestion. Membership in the quorum has no bearing on the calling of President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is always the most senior apostle next to the President of the Church. That's why Monson was sustained during Hinckley's tenure as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But since Monson couldn't actively function as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and be Hinckley's most senior advisor, President Packer was called as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve. As long as ANY of the apostles have not been released from their callings as such, they are empowered to function as apostles and, as necessary, as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles whether or not they are in the First Presidency. Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdorf have just as much authority to perform in apostolic roles as do Packer, Perry, and the rest. Just because they are not active members of the Quorum doesn't mean their membership terminates. I'll have proof of that fact before the end of the week. The important thing is to get uniformity into the dates. The simplest way, in my opinion, is to not list the end of tenure until either death or elevation to President of the Church. Otherwise, you have multiple date brackets, and, as has been stated before, we are trying to make it easier for the reader, not harder. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That sound reasonable. Unless there is an objection, I suggest that we pick this up when this proof is given or next Monday, whichever occurs first. — Val42 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This is being posted 1 1/2 months after the last post as a belated follow-up on the proof I promised. It has been posted in Talk:Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church). My latest-posted comments there sum up well my viewpoint pertaining to this matter. I hope this is helpful to you and that this problem can be resolved, unless it already has been. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A New Photo[edit]

I think that having a picture of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1898 as a picture for this article is kind of cool, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a picture with the current twelve? Anyone know of an appropriate one?

Just a thought. Cheers!

Mwinslett (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think having both would be beneficial (the article just needs more pictures in general), but it might be difficult obtaining rights to post a recent one. Best --Eustress (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviving this discussion after 2 months of silence on the issue. I agree a new photo would be helpful. The Church posted a photo of the new Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on their website, accompanying each biography of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. However, the rights and usage information on the LDS Newsroom's webpage states that the photo can only be copied/downloaded for personal, noncommercial use, and may be used by media personnel for news forums. Any other reproduction, copying, etc. is prohibited unless the material states otherwise. The picture of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles contains the notice "copyright 2008 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved." So, I guess that answers that question. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Daniel H. Wells.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Daniel H. Wells.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

areas of the world outside of Zion or its stakes[edit]

Maybe this makes sense to a Mormon, but it doesn't mean anything to me and, I suspect, many others. Cripipper (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Usefullness of comparisons with College of Cardinals, notability, context, and lack of good sources[edit]

This article was a hot mess. I tried to add some material that showed the subject's notability. Then someone edited it out. I am reverting the last edit that removed referenced text that created context for the whole article. Without the text and citations, quite frankly, the entire article is fancruft. There is no context that connects anything here to the outside world. it is virtually uncited. There is no proof that the subject of the article is even notable. The average reader, much less a moron in a hurry, has no idea what anything in this article means. Notability has not been shown that this body even matters, outside the 12 men and their families who are current members. Without citations from independent scholarly works and other good sources, this article needs to be deleted and started over from scratch. Please give me three good reasons why I should not take this article to the deletion process, if we are going to remove the only sourced material in the article. In the meanwhile, I am also tagging the article for issues. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I don't view this article as the mess that it has been described to be. I haven't done any research to provide any specific citations that would speak to your question of whether this group is notable or not, though that certainly extends beyond the 12 members and their families. It is one of the governing bodies of the LDS Church, which includes 14+ million members worlwide, including of course the recent Republican nominee for President of the U.S., Mitt Romney, along with a list of other notable people. It makes an effort to provide information and description of that governing body. I believe it would be a hard pressed case for someone to try and desingate this as not being notable so as to qualify for article deletion. If there is a desire to retain the information you've included and draw the comparisons to the college of cardinals, I would suggest reviewing the area of the article that discusses succession in the presidency of the LDS Church and find a way to combine those - or at least put them in better proximity to one another. It's addressed in the area you've included, then several paragraphs later returns. It might be well to have those be more in sync. For the reference given toward causal readers, I'd suggest they are more likely to follow the multitude of links to other areas that would explain things about the church, its people and other facts, rather than a bunch of citations that try to substantiate whether a certain group of people think it's notable or not. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Any comparison with the College of Cardinals is shallow at best, and is not really all that helpful in understanding the topic, especially when describing succession of leadership. There is nothing like a Papal conclave in the LDS Church. Since the 1844 succession crisis, seniority within the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has always been the deciding factor: the only changes since then have been refinements to how that seniority is determined, and how long the church is led by the Senior member of the quorum before the First Presidency is reorganized. The only parts of this process which are not predetermined are who the counselors in the First Presidency will be, and who will be added as the junior most member(s) of the quorum to fill vacancies, but again there are no elections in this. As for notability and sources, the references that have been recently added should suffice, even though more work is needed to get all the inline citations done. Additionally, you could also consider this query of The New York Times: a couple of semi-recent articles there could make good replacement sources for the Outside the Beltway blog, and possibly others that you added in your new paragraph. -- (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with leaving the comparison with the Catholic institution intact, for now. It seems to be supported by sources, although I haven't looked closely at them. So unless this article gets too big, and we have to start cutting material and moving it to sub-articles, I don't think we should be in a paring-down mode just yet. Also, I'm glad to see citations being added. I think at one point, this article was basically just a list, but it is be good to have well-cited background and explanatory material. COGDEN 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Incumbency seems obvious for current members[edit]

In the current members section/table we see, "L. Tom Perry . . . Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, called by Spencer W. Kimball, April 6, 1974 – Incumbent" I don't think we really need "incumbent", it seems rather obvious. And it's not listed for everyone -- Russel M. Nelson (immediately after L. Tom Perry) basically has the same text but doesn't have that word. Consequently, I'll be removing it unless someone has an objection. Banaticus (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Can someone explain why Stevenson is higher in seniority than Renlund? I thought when apostles are called the same day age would decide seniority. --Intimidator (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A: Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Elder Stevenson is already the Presiding Bishop of the church. But you are correct; they were not called in age order as is customary. Elder Stevenson is nearly 3 years younger than Elder Renlund:

10 - Elder Ronald A. Rasband February 6, 1951 11 - Elder Gary E. Stevenson August 5, 1955 12 - Elder Dale G. Renlund November 13, 1952 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Speculation, but they probably had Rasband and Stevenson selected, and then when Richard Scott died and they needed a third replacement, Renlund was selected. They must've kept the original order of when the names were chosen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Rasband, Stevenson, and Renlund were all called the Tuesday before General Conference weekend. It is very rare to have multiple apostles called outside of the age rule that typically prevails in such circumstances. Apostolic succession is being discussed in the next topic down, and I would greatly appreciate input. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)--Jgstokes (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apostolic succession[edit]

I am posting for a very particular reason. On the Latter Day Saint biographical templates of Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund, Rasband the first one of the three called, is listed as succeeding L. Tom Perry, the first apostle who died last year, Stevenson, the second called, is listed as succeeding Boyd K. Packer, the second apostle who died, and Dale G. Renlund, the latest one called, is listed as succeeding Richard G. Scott, the most recent apostle to die in 2015. I have to say that, of the two methods, I prefer listing specific apostles as succeeding specific individuals in the order of their deaths. This means that, for Wikipedia purposes, we would list Russell M. Nelson as succeeding Mark E. Petersen, who died January 11, 1983, and Dallin H. Oaks as succeeding LeGrand Richards, who died on January 11, 1984, and that we would list Dieter F. Uchtdorf as succeeding Neal A. Maxwell, who died on July 21, 2004, and David A. Bednar as succeeding David B. Haight, who died on July 31, 2004. This makes much more sense to me and would be more concise, not to mention more accurate, than saying that Uchtdorf and Bednar were called to replace Haight and Maxwell. While both statements are true, the first option, in my mind, is the better one. And I certainly would be opposed to changing the listings for the new apostles to say that they all succeeded all who died in 2015. Better to assign one name as successor. I could be bold and go ahead and make this change for all multiple apostolic deaths and callings, but I know there may be some who, as is their privilege, disagree with me. So I wanted to post here and form some kind of consensus before any such changes are considered. That said, I will step off my soapbox and leave it for others to comment on this issue. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)