Talk:First Presidency (LDS Church)

Winder

In this article, mention is made about John R. Winder being an apostle and member of the First Presidency but not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. When I was going over the Quorum of the Twelve Chronology page, I issued the following statement on that page: "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)"

Likewise, he shouldn't be listed on this page as an Apostle if he never was ordained as such. Consequently, I have removed the record of his "supposed" apostolic office from this page. Thanks. --Jgstokes 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit, I think you must have misunderstood. He was listed as an example of a member of the First Presidency who was never ordained to the priesthood office of apostle. This conforms to what you have said above and so his name should not have been removed as you did. I have reverted the change. -SESmith 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Gause's counselorship

Hello, Fellow Editors! I am establishing this subject to reach some sort of a consensus. I changed the order in which Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon were listed primarily because Sidney Rigdon has "official Church recognition" (ie in the 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac) as the first 1st Counselor in this dispensation, while Gause is listed merely as an "other counselor." The contention has been made that since Gause is listed first in Joseph Smith's History of the Church, he must have been first counselor as far as Smith was concerned. Frankly, I don't understand that or agree with it. In the heading to the LDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 81, we read the following: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, March 1832. HC 1: 257–258. Frederick G. Williams is called to be a high priest and a counselor in the Presidency of the High Priesthood. The historical records show that when this revelation was received in March 1832, it called Jesse Gause to the office of counselor to Joseph Smith in the Presidency. However, when he failed to continue in a manner consistent with this appointment, the call was subsequently transferred to Frederick G. Williams. The revelation (dated March 1832) should be regarded as a step toward the formal organization of the First Presidency, specifically calling for the office of counselor in that body and explaining the dignity of the appointment. Brother Gause served for a time, but was excommunicated from the Church in December 1832. Brother Williams was ordained to the specified office on March 18, 1833." It is true that Brother Gause was the first one to whom this distinction was given. However, note that Williams was to replace Gause as per this revelation. Then, in Section 90, verses 6 & 7 read, "And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom; As also through your administration the keys of the school of the prophets, which I have commanded to be organized[.]" So, in Section 90, Rigdon is listed before Williams, who, in Section 81, is designated as the replacement for Gause. That means that even if no record is had of Rigdon being the First Counselor before Section 90, in the Lord's eyes, he was. Further, remember that long before Gause or Williams came into the picture, Rigdon was called to stand by Joseph, assisting him with many of the tasks a Counselor would have done had that distinction been given at the time. (See, for example, D&C 35 (particularly verses 3, 4, 19, 20 and 23), 36:2, 41:8, 49:1 & 3, 52:3 & 41, 58:50 & 57, 61:23 & 30, 63:55-56, 70:1, 71:1, and 76 (whole section received by Joseph and Sidney together, yet another function of a counselor). Of course, if after looking at these sources, some of you aren't convinced, that's okay, too. Thoughts about how to resolve this difference of opinion? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately it's an anachronistic debate because Smith never designated first or second counselors. But the only scholarly work on this issue that I can find is the following:

Quinn, D. Michael (1983), "Jesse Gause: Joseph's Smith's Little Known Counselor" (PDF), BYU Studies, 23 (4): 487–93.

See especially pages 489–490, where Quinn writes:

"Both men [Gause and Rigdon] were simply called 'counselors' to the Church president, but President Gause may have had the precedence of being First Counselor: Joseph Smith listed him first when recording the organization of the First Presidency, and Jesse Gause was also nearly ten years older than Sidney Rigdon at a time in the Church when seniority was determined on the basis of age. On 10 August 1832, one of Gause's Shaker associates wrote that Jesse Gause 'is yet a Mormon—and is second to the Prophet or Seer—Joseph Smith.'" [footnotes omitted]

Your reasoning based on DC section 81, while perhaps convincing for believers, is not backed up by any scholarly work and is therefore WP:OR. There is no other source to go by that I know of, except the church almanac, and it does not cite its sources and is therefore of little convincing value. I find Quinn's reasoning convincing (particularly the part about Gause being older and therefore senior—similar to how the initial quorum of the 12 apostles was set up) and worth using as a guide here. Quinn cites sources for his contentions, which no other source I can see does. Snocrates 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included an explanatory footnote based on Quinn. The only other possible solution I see is to place both Gause and Rigdon in the "Other Counselors" cell, which may historically be the most accurate thing to do. But I see no justification for putting Rigdon first and Gause second, since that is based on nothing but an ex post facto WP:OR interpretation of LDS Church scripture (which have been changed and adjusted many times, and, after all, the document formally doesn't even include Gause's name). Snocrates 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of the First Presidency

This table is useful. However, I think that it would become more useful with a minor change: Where the same person holds the same position in the First Presidency during two successive periods, the cell should span rows. — Val42 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be helpful. Snocrates 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession of Presidency

Zoporific,

Your reverts of my edits concerns the succession of the church seem to be in direct conflict of official Church Documents, talks by Prophets and General authorities, and their authoritive newsletter known as the "Ensign". As a faithful Latter-Day Saint myself, I must ask why you desire to revert changes from the wikipedia, despite them being fully researched and backed up.

As with article policy, my sources are verifable, lead to official church documents, and talks.

If you are willing to provide a reliable source from the church that shows my statements to be in contradiction with other church teachings, I would be happy to strike a compromise outlining both views, otherwise I think by wikipedia policy, you're forced to concede the documented fact, whether it's what you've heard all your life or not. Please let me know how you feel.

Ryancwa (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't and won't speak for Zoporific. But for myself, I will say that as a Latter-Day Saint myself, I am an editor of a fairly objective online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) and Wikipedia policy is and always has been that you can't use what's happened in the past as a 100% accurate way of predicting the future. I haven't taken a look at your article in question, but since this is my first experience seeing succession in the presidency happen, I have to use ALL the information I can find to form an opinion as far as my understanding of Church procedure. In the viewpoint you presented, Ryancwa, one important element is missing. That element has been mentioned before. It is, simply stated, this: The senior apostle always becomes the next president of the church, except in cases where the senior apostle is otherwise inspired or instructed. Granted, the whole senior apostle being inspired to appoint someone else as President of the Church has never happened. However, there is a proviso in Church history and doctrine for that to take place if the Senior apostle feels so inspired. And that's been brought up on other talk pages about this issue as well, and not just by me. For that reason, to state unequivocally that President Monson will be the next president of the Church is highly speculative, constituting an attempt to second-guess the Lord's inspired procedure. I agree that in all likelihood President Monson will be the next prophet, but there's always a chance that he'll be inspired to appoint someone else. Because of that indefinite element, Wikipedia editors in the past have decided (and I concur with them) that until it's official, even if there's an official source from an official Church leader, Wikipedia should not try to state this as a given until it's verifiable. And since something in the future is unverifiable anyways, it shouldn't be included in the article. Consequently, I'm reverting your change, unless someone disagrees with me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Ryancwa, I had another look at your source. And it lends more verifiability to the consensus reached in the past. McConkie also clearly states that IF the President of the Quorum of the Twelve is so inspired by the Lord, he will appoint and ordain someone else to be the new prophet. So the same source you used to back up YOUR viewpoint is more supportive of the viewpoint reached by the consensus. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jgstokes that it's not as clear-cut as some would like to make it out to be. We run into WP:CRYSTALBALL problems. Better to play it conservatively, since WP is an encyclopedia without any special "insight" into how editors "know" the circumstances will pan out. Zoporific 03:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

JGStokes and Zoporific,

You two make strong points, and I agree, however as the Wikipedia is supposed to be an informative Encyclopedia, perhaps better outlining based on the actual issue would be appropriate? What's really going on here is this: The Church says that the senior Apostle will ALWAYS be the next prophet, unless HE chooses to appoint someone else. So we disagree over how to phrase whether he will or won't be the Prophet. Perhaps instead of discussing over and over again this topic, we can form a more appropriate outline of how the church's documentation presents the scenario. We can outline that Church documentation says the Senior Apostle will become the next prophet, but that the church also provides that that Senior Apostle can, by revelation, choose another. Technically, that would be THE MOST accurate, and informative information to provide.

Why don't we just agree to make that change in all the appropriate places? After trying to understand both sides of the story, that seems to make the most sense, as illustrating what the official policy is seems to be the most accurate. Thoughts from both of you?Ryancwa (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryancwa, I got the message you posted on my talk page. Thanks for letting me in on responding to your response. As far as actual outlining of the process, I think we have that discussed remarkably well already on the Wiki page about succession. If you wanted to write up something to add to it or a different page comprising a different idea, that would be fine. I am unsure what you mean exactly by "making the change in all the appropriate places". In my mind, on an online encyclopedia based on VERIFIABLE FACT, there is no appropriate place to list what MIGHT happen based on what happened in the past. At the outset, it's really not too much of an issue to wait anyways. It won't be too long. The Church Public Affairs Department has officially announced that there IS right now a new First Presidency, and that the new president of the Church and his two counselors will be meeting the press tomorrow (Monday February 4) at 11 AM (MST). So, since I'm in MST time zone, I can tell you that that time is a mere 20 hours away. I really don't think it would be that much of an issue or a sacrifice to hold off on an "official Wiki change" until that time. After the press conference announcing that change, I intend to seek out on the web a verifiable source for the change, and then to change the article if it hasn't been changed already at that time. At this point, either you updating the page in question, starting a new page with the new information you presented, or simply waiting until the trio are announced would, in my mind, be the best course of action. Thanks for your thoughtful response and for taking time to let me know about it. I will enjoy hearing your perspective on this issue ASAP. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

JGstokes, I agree with the limited 'necessity' of making any change tonight, especially with the announcement coming so soon. However, I have had some introspection on this snow Sunday, and have determined what is actually bothering me. I'll explain;

There is an *immense amount of conversation regarding this issue. How to say it, what to say, what is appropriate and isn't appropriate. That in itself to me, reflects that it is a complicated topic that many people aren't familiar with. If we have a section in a Wikipedia Article that says "Succession of the Presidency" (or similiar) that section should contain ALL the verifable facts, including explaining why the comment might be a source of such 'heated debate'. The section, as it stands right now, more outlines like a news paper would: "If the church remains consistent, they'll probably Choose prophet X" when really, it shouldn't be a news paper. It should an be informative encyclopedia, with information explaining not just WHO might be the next prophet, but WHY & WHY NOT. As a section header titled "succession of the presidency" (or similiar) it really contains very little information regarding the topic. So, after much intropsection and thought as to what is good for the Wikipedia, and reliable, and informative, I think the section should be reauthored/edited/changed/updated to provide all the facts regarding how and why (or why not) a prophet might be chosen. All of this can be provided using all the sources we're already familiar with.

I think including this information is relevant and important, as it has sparked so much debate. I find it funny that no one has thought to just clear it up in the article to begin with.

What are your thoughts on this? Thanks again for discussing the issue in this venue. I will update your talk page with notification. Ryancwa (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryancwa, I say to you what I have said to other editors in the past. As much as possible, I'm trying to be impartial here. This means that I wouldn't feel comfortable forming an opinion until I see an example of what you mean. If you could put together such a page as you have in mind, I could then give you a more honest opinion. As it is right now, I would not dare to say I approve or disapprove of such an action because I have yet to see it. So, put it together, post a link to it on my talk page, and only THEN can I/will I give you an honest opinion. But I promise you that when I give that honest opinion, I will not sugar-coat things. I will merely tell it like it is. Good luck putting together this page. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

F. Michael Watson's tenure as FP Secretary

I noticed that someone put 2008 as the end date for F. Michael Watson's tenure as First Presidency Secretary. His tenure hasn't ended. If you go back and look at the Saturday Afternoon Session where he reads the statistical report, you'll find he was introduced by President Uchtdorf as "Elder F. Michael Watson of the Seventy and First Presidency Secretary." Additionally, while the fact that he's a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy IS verifiable, the fact that his tenure as FP Secretary has ended is NOT. I hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an additional note, he is now in an area presidency in Africa and has therefore likely been released as First Presidency Secretary. However, we don't know who the successor is/will be even if he has been. I guess we'll have to wait until October or April to find out. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New Picture

Perhaps we can find a new picture for this article this one is out of date, has obsured figures (and has an embarassing president in it). mormon wiki has http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/images/1/1a/First_presidency_Monson_edited.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.128.36 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)