Template talk:LDS70pres

Oaks and Bateman in the Presidency of the Seventy

Copied from Talk:Robert C. Oaks#Oaks and Bateman in the Presidency of the Seventy
Robert C. Oaks served in the Presidency of the Seventy from October 2, 2004-August 1, 2007. Merrill J. Bateman served in the Presidency of the Seventy from April 5, 2003-August 1, 2007. Because whoever was called first to the Presidency of the Seventy has the greater seniority, Bateman was senior to Oaks. I'm more than a little curious about why in the Seventy Presidents Template Bateman is listed after Oaks, and I don't know how to fix that. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see it should go Uchtdorf–Bateman–Groberg–Oaks–Andersen, unless I too am missing something. I will change it. Snocrates 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Current members only

Similar to the difference between Template:Qof12 and Template:LDSApostles, the name of this template indicates that it is only for current members of the Presidency of the Seventy. If another template is desired to show all who have been ordained to the office of seventy, it may be needed but impractical. --Eustress (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you just altered the template to make it say that. It was never intended as a "current members" template — it has always been a historical members template. You need to heed your own advice and create a different template if you think one is justified for current members only, but not destroy this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought my reasoning was sensical and more organizationally correct, but I'll be accomodating. I created Template:LDS70presCURRENT. By way of compromise, I will also modify the header of this template to reflect the fact that it is a historical list of all current and former members of the Presidency of the 70. Hope this is reasonable. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the original name was more accurate, seeing as how this group has only been called "Presidency of the Seventy" since 1975 or 1976. Before that, it was "First Council of the Seventy", and before that, it was something else. Originally this was named "Seven presidents of the Seventy" as a neutral, purely descriptive term that could encompass all people through history despite the different names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not accurate...it's outdated. I've compromised and hope you will too. --Eustress (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What? How is "Presidency of the Seventy" more accurate than a neutral descriptor term that has never been used to describe the group? The pre-1976 members were not members of the "Presidency of the Seventy", and the post-1976 members were not members of the First Council of the Seventy. I don't find favoring one of these above a neutral descriptor term a "compromise", I see it choosing inaccuracy and anachronism when none should exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "neutral descriptor term" is original research; i.e., you created it. This is a template, not an extant explanation of the topic. Users will be able to reference the article about the Seventy and learn about the history of the Presidency of the Seventy. "Presidency of the Seventy" is recognizable (even used by the editors above), while I think your term is confusing, rather than clarifying. --Eustress (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I created it? Are you sure about that? Perhaps you'd like to research the history of this template before you accuse me of that. Perhaps also you'd care to actually research the term "Seven Presidents of the Seventy", and see if it's used in any external literature as a way of referring to people in this group both pre- and post-1976. (Hint: it is.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about the false accusation. So, whatever name we use, it will be inaccurate, so why not use the current name? --Eustress (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the name "Seven presidents of the Seventy" is one that is widely used in historic studies to refer to the group of people, whether they be pre-1976 or post-1976. It's a term that has been developed by researchers to refer to both sets of people together, and thus also seems like the most logical term to use in a WP template including the same information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well would you mind describing who these researchers are and how they came to their conclusion? (P.S. I'm going to bed now, but I'll review your research tomorrow. Thanks.) --Eustress (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't like to write research dissertations on talk pages, but you can get a lot of research done yourself on the issue by just performing a basic google search. I couldn't tell you for sure with what "researcher" the term originated, though to some extent it probably came from the term "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy", which is a term Joseph Smith used to refer to the group prior to "First Council of the Seventy". Rather than being something that takes a whole lot of "development" or innovation by scholars, it just seems to me to be a commonsense, "everyday language" term to use, since (1) there are seven of them, and (2) they are presidents of the seventy: thus: the "seven presidents of the seventy". (I used the phrase "developed by researchers", which was perhaps a too neat and tidy description of what I was getting at, but I wanted to say it in less than what I'm writing here.) The earliest reference I can find without looking to hard is in the New York Times from 1900, when they referred to B. H. Roberts as "one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy": see here (pdf) (second line of news story). In any case, the LDS Church still uses the term "one of seven Presidents of the Seventy" in media releases to refer to someone in the presidency: see here. These templates and their names don't need to be "re-made"; in most cases, some thought has gone into them and the terminology to use, etc. The reason I know it's in wide use by researchers is it's commonly found in BYU Studies articles, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries, Dialogue articles, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how "it just seems to me to be a commonsense" is not POV. Anyway, I think most of your argument is irrelevant and am disappointed that you re-reverted the page when I was offline—not even allowing any time for other editors to chime in and not trying to reach consensus first. I've noticed your edits on several LDS-related articles in the past and have seen that things usually have to be done your way. I've tried to compromise and have been accommodating to your other requests, but you won't meet me in the middle. I hope we can collaborate more effectively in the future. Best --Eustress (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, taking "your side" is not a "compromise" or meeting "half-way", even though you'd like to identify it as such. You are the one who changed the wording intitially without consensus, so if anything it should revert to its original pending further input from other editors. Sorry if you aren't clear on how that works. By the way, you asked where I got the term that has been used, and you managed to pull out one statement I made about my personal opinion (and it was obviously made as such) and try to taint the entire term with POV as being "my" term, while ignoring the rest of the comment by simply saying it's "irrelevant". Nice technique, but it's not convincing and is no way to act when you ask for information and then get it. Anyway, since you failed to address the substance of my claim that this is the well-accepted term, I will assume that you are conceding the point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The nerve...I'm not conceding to your points, only to your hubris. I don't have time for edit wars over templates. --Eustress (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can say for next time is if you don't want the information, don't ask for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple and less-wordy compromise would be to change it to "Presidents of the Seventy of The Church of...". It's describing the position (president) and the body (the Seventy). They have always been called presidents, and the quorum(s) have always been Seventy. I have made the change to the template. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do you think your name change creates enough differentiation between Template:LDS70presCURRENT and Template:LDS70pres‎? My reason for getting involved on this template was to provide some type of distinguishing factor between current and historical (i.e., current and former) members of the Presidency, similar to the difference between Template:Qof12 and Template:LDSApostles. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"They have always been called presidents, and the quorum(s) have always been Seventy." Yes, and there's always been seven of them, which is the only difference between what I was saying and your proposal. Shorter is better, though, and to take out the one word is fine. It appears that Eustress will accept proposals from other editors, but not necessarily ones from those s/he has issues with. On reflection, this struck out portion of my comment was not appropriate, and I apologise to Eustress for making it and to anyone else that it bothered. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eustress - I suggest dropping the "Members of the" portion of the Template:LDS70presCURRENT title. That would make it consistent with the Template:Qof12 title (which doesn't say "Members of the..."), as both infoboxes are describing a body, i.e. the Quorum of the Twelve (a body) and the Presidency of the Seventy (a body). I think that one change would make Template:LDS70presCURRENT fully analogous to Template:Qof12, and Template:LDS70pres‎ analogous to Template:LDSApostles. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

I suggest dropping the "Members of the" portion of the Template:LDS70presCURRENT title. That would make it consistent with the Template:Qof12 title (which doesn't say "Members of the..."), as both infoboxes are describing a body, i.e. the Quorum of the Twelve (a body) and the Presidency of the Seventy (a body). I think this one change would make Template:LDS70presCURRENT fully analogous to Template:Qof12, and Template:LDS70pres‎ analogous to Template:LDSApostles. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion...nice work! --Eustress (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I suggest that {{LDS70presCURRENT}} be merged into {{LDS70pres}} just as {{LDSfirstpresidencyCURRENT}} was merged into {{LDSfirstpresidency}}. This is a very easy change and it brings 2 related templates into one place that can can be changed when the Presidency is changed, with no loss of information. I did a mock up at User:ARTEST4ECHO/template, including examples and documentation If you look in the "Examples" you can see how this can be done under the {{LDS70pres | current=yes}} example.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My only concern with that is that where we only want the current presidency to be listed, it might be impossible to just list the current presidency instead of all of this information. If you can find a way around this difficulty, then by all means, merge them! --Jgstokes (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks good ARTEST4ECHO; I support merging them as you've set out in your mock up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Change/Comment - I have added Jgstokes suggestion to the options. "current=only" will basically give you what is currently in {{LDSfirstpresidencyCURRENT}}.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I have no objections to the way things currently stand with this template. Thanks again! --Jgstokes (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I do have one question though. In looking, for example, at Richard J. Maynes, there are two templates relating to the Presidency of the Seventy that he is not mentioned in: First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy and Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy. Is there a way to "turn off" or make invisible the templates that do not mention Maynes? It doesn't seem logical to have templates not associated with him in an article about him. I imagine this is a problem for the rest of the current Presidency of the Seventy members as well, except for with Ronald A. Rasband we would want the Senior or Presiding President Template to stay in there. And what about those in the other templates? Take for example Tad R. Callister. He shouldn't have all templates actively showing under his name, just the one for Presidency of the Seventy. And with Bruce R. McConkie, the only template we'd want to show is the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy. I know that would be a lot of work, but it shouldn't take all that long if it's doable. Is it something that can be done? Or are we forever doomed now to have all templates relating to the Presidency of the Seventy showing up on all pages of all who fall under any of the categories? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it's all one template, as far as I know they all do appear, but the various sections can be defaulted to collapse. ARTEST4ECHO might know more about this, though, and there might be a way to make some invisible. The only way I would know of to avoid it would be to make all of the templates separate, but since they all involve what have essentially been the same positions, I think we've agreed to merge the templates and keep them together. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested changes

I'm going to break this from the Merge discussion as this really is a different topic.

I can easily set it up so that each group can be hidden or shown. I agree that Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy should probably only be shown on those pages that appear in that list. In a nut shell we would be treating the Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy section the same way as the Current Presidency of the Seventy section. It makes since, so I will be bold and change it.

As for the other suggestion, I'm not sure what is appropriate with regards to the other two section First Seven Presidents of the Seventy/First Council of the Seventy and Presidency of the Seventy. To be honest, it because I'm unfamiliar with the topic. If you can clarify it, perhaps I can adjust it better.

It seems to me that the only difference between "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy/First Council of the Seventy" and "Presidency of the Seventy" was a name change in 1976. If that is the case, then I would think these two groups should always be shown, as they are actually the same position, but with a different name. This is similar to how we treated the name changes at {{LDShistorian}}, {{LDSyoungmen}} and {{LDSyoungwomen}}. While the names changed they filled the same function, therefore everyone is included.

Anyway, if you can clarify for me the difference between First Seven Presidents of the Seventy/First Council of the Seventy and Presidency of the Seventy then perhaps I can make your suggested changes.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 21:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They were similar, to be sure, but not the same. A big difference was in the title. Where members of the current Presidency of the Seventy are correctly referred to as "Elder So-and-so", members of the First Council of the Seventy were correctly referred to as "President So-and-so". Grampa Bill, who is noted for his pages about general authorities, noted the following about the First Council of the Seventy:

"The First Council of the Seventy, comprised of the first seven presidents of the First Quorum of Seventy, was organized on February 28, 1835, at Kirtland, Ohio, by Joseph Smith in response to revelation regarding the organization of priesthood offices. Later, when it was determined that five high priests had been ordained seventies, the First Council was reorganized in April 1837, using only priesthood members who were seventies (HC 2:476).

"As outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 107:93-98, the Seventy "should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the seventy." Other seventies could be called as needed, but the first seven presidents (First Council of the Seventy) were to preside over all the additional seventies as well as the First Quorum.

"Through the years the role of the First Council of the Seventy and their specific function as General Authorities have been modified in such areas as the seventy's missionary role, their ability to preside and ordain, and their position as "especial witnesses" (Madsen, pp. 299-300).

"By 1936 the various seventies quorums scattered throughout the Church were placed under stake supervision. In 1961 members of the First Council of Seventy were ordained high priests with their primary calling being missionaries, but they also had the authority to act as administrators and direct the affairs of the Church in various parts of the world, under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

"On October 3, 1975, the First Quorum of the Seventy was reconstituted as an entity, and on October 1, 1976, the members of the First Council of the Seventy and the Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were released and added to the First Quorum of the Seventy. A new presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy was sustained. Additional men were selected to be members of the First Quorum and to act as General Authorities to assist in the expanded functions of Church leadership (Ensign 6 [Nov. 1976]:9-10).

"In 1984 Gordon B. Hinckley, counselor in the First Presidency, announced that in order to infuse "new talent and a much widened opportunity for men of ability and faith to serve" as General Authorities, new members of the First Quorum were to be called to act for a period of three to five years (CR, Apr. 1984, p. 4). This policy was redefined on April 1, 1989, when the Second Quorum of Seventy was organized, comprised of men who would be called to serve for a period of five years (CR, Apr. 1989, p. 22). President Hinckley later indicated that members of the First Quorum would serve until "factors of age and health" made them candidates for emeritus status (Ensign 20 [Jan. 1990]:10). The leaders of the Seventy were identified as the "Presidency of the Seventy."

"Members of the First Council of Seventy were not sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators."

See also this article by S. Dilworth Young of the First Council of the Seventy in the December 1975 Ensign, this article by L. Aldin Porter, then Senior President of the Seventy in the August 2000 Ensign, and this article by Earl C. Tingey from the September 2009 Ensign, featured after he became a general authority emeritus. That should be enough information to go on to indicate the difference between the First Council of the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy. Since they are separate entities (they are listed separately in the Deseret News Almanac), they should be listed separately, and the First Council of the Seventy/First Seven Presidents of the Seventy shouldn't show up on pages of individuals who are members of the more modern Presidency of the Seventy. Does that help? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. ARTEST4ECHO, I would not object to recollapsing these together. The main reason I separated them is that the 1975–76 change from First Council of the Seventy to the Presidency of the Seventy is the clearest thing there is to a "break" in the chronology of the presidents of the seventy, and it was just easier for me to initially structure it this way to ensure I wasn't leaving anyone out the template. That said, it is essentially the same position. Both groups have served as presidents over the seventies of the church. The main difference is more in what they were presiding over: the First Council of the Seventy presided over seventies throughout the church at the stake level. The Presidency of the Seventy primarily have presided over other general authorities (stake seventies were slowly phased out) and now area seventies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory - I'm happy to have it either way. I've actually learn alot of new stuff about how the {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} works because of your changes. My issue is not with how things are, my issue is I don't understand the subject matter, so I can't figure out how to modify the template to address Jgstokes comments. I can code the changes, but I need to figure out what the end results should look like. However, I will get there eventually.

Arbitrary Break

• Question - I'm getting there Jgstokes, but not quite yet.

First, lets only be concerned about those people who would be listed here. I.e. the various types of "Presidents of the Seventy". I understand that the various groups (First Council of the Seventy, First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, First Quorum of the Seventy and First Seven Presidents of the Seventy existed both at the same time and independently. However, my goal is to address you concerns about this template and only those listed here as Presidents or equivalent.

Anyway, tell me if I'm reading this correctly (I will be referring to all the leadership as "Presidents" even if that wasn't their title):

1. On February 28, 1835, First Seven Presidents of the Seventy were form as the Presidents of the First Council of the Seventy.
2. In the 1930s, the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy was renamed the First Council of the Seventy (per Seventy_(LDS_Church)#Expanding_membership). However how the Presidents were disgusted from plain members and an exact date has eluded me.
3. In 1975, the First Quorum of the Seventy was formed. I think the Presidents of this Quorum were still called the First Council of the Seventy for that year.
4. In 1976, the First Council of the Seventy, the First Quorum of the Seventy, and the Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were all merged into a new First Quorum of the Seventy under a seven-member Presidency of the Seventy.

So in a nutshell, those people who are going to be in this template were called:

First Seven Presidents of the Seventy from 1835 to the 1930's

First Council of the Seventy from 1930's to the 1976

Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy after 1976

Am I correct? --- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is correct, though @Jgstokes: could also confirm. With one small caveat I would add—the change in name from "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy" to "First Council of the Seventy" was fully complete by the 1930s, but it's difficult to nail down with any precision when or if the name officially changed. You can find "First Council of the Seventy" being used many years before the 1930s, it just wasn't used very consistently until the 1930s. By the mid-1930s the "First Seven Presidents" language seems to disappear completely. (If someone wanted to do original research, I suppose they could go through the Conference Reports and find out when the church changed the name during the sustainings of General Conference; that might indicate an "official" change. But I definitely don't think it was a sudden change that resulted from a centralized decision.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This sounds correct, with one BIG exception. The Presidency of the Seventy was actually established on October 3, 1975. On that day, the First Quorum of the Seventy was reestablished with three members: Charles Didier, William R. Bradford, and George P. Lee. Four additional members (Carlos E. Asay, M. Russell Ballard, John H. Groberg, and Jacob de Jager were sustained to the quorum in April 1976. Then in October 1976, a MAJOR reorganization was announced: all members of the First Council of the Seventy and all Assistants to the Twelve were released from those callings and transferred to the First Quorum of the Seventy. It was at that point that seven of their number were chosen to constitute the first Presidency of the Seventy. These seven men were Franklin D. Richards, James E. Faust, J. Thomas Fyans, A. Theodore Tuttle,, Neal A. Maxwell, Marion D. Hanks, and Paul H. Dunn. It is interesting to note that each of these seven men had served in one of the now defunct priesthood offices of Assistant to the Twelve or First Council of the Seventy. I have no idea when exactly the terminology shifted from First Seven Presidents to First Council of the Seventy. I do know that the First Council of the Seventy is the terminology under which all men from Hazen Aldrich to Gene R. Cook are listed in the Almanac. I could find no listing for "The First Seven Presidents" anywhere. Does that help? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The is a slight ambiguity about the October 1975 date for the creation of the "Presidency" due to the exact wording which was adopted. At the Oct 1975 conference, the seven who were formerly of the First Council were sustained as the "presidents and members of the First Quorum of the Seventy". But then in October 1976, the church president announced that they were taking action "to restructure the First Council of the Seventy". In the sustainings that followed immediately after, the seven were released "for their excellent services to the First Council of Seventy" and a new seven were sustained as "presidents of the Seventy". I think Jgstokes is correct, though, that in its records the church indicates that the "Presidency" was constituted in Oct. 1975.

What I think this all comes down to, ARTEST4ECHO, is that the name change from "Council" to "Presidency" was made essentially to accommodate the fact that the seven men were no longer going to be the only general authorities who were seventies. There was going to be a First Quorum of the Seventy that would be composed of general authorities, and because "council" and "quorum" is often used interchangeably in church lingo (as with Council/Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), it made sense to change the name from Council to Presidency to clarify that the seven would be members of the quorum (or council) but would also comprise the presidency of the quorum (and other seventies quorums in the stakes). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Good Ol’factory. I was going on information available in the 2013 Church Almanac, which may not take all sources into account and which might be outdated. The Almanac states in three or four places that the Presidency of the Seventy was created in 1975, but it could be in error. Just looked at it again. The First Quorum was reconstituted in 1975. It coexisted with the Assistants to the Twelve and the First Council of the Seventy, but went without a presidency until the following year, when, as specified, the Assistants to the Twelve and the First Council of the Seventy were released and made members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and it was at that time that the Presidency was established, with the seven men specified serving as the first Presidency of the Seventy. Sorry I misspoke. But the rest of it happened just the way I outlined it. By the way, I'm sorry I forgot to sign my comment above. I had to leave in a hurry and didn't have time. It's signed now, though the time will be wrong. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Start over

Ok, were not getting to where I need to be to understand what additional changes are wanted or needed. Let me start over sgain.

In the end, I really don't need to understand the how, when or where of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, First Council of the Seventy or Presidency of the First Quorum. What I need to understand is what you want changed.

What I am thinking your asking me to do is make it so that the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy sections and the Presidency of the Seventy sections can be hidden (in a since removed) when this template is shown on a page.

So on Levi W. Hancock page it would look like this (ignoring the "state" of the template):

I'm a correct? is this what you would like to be able to do?

If the answer is yes then it seems like you are saying that First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, First Council of the Seventy and Presidency of the Seventy are Distinct callings. If that is the case why are they on the same template. Should we be proposing a WP:split of this template into 3 distinct templates. One for First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, First Council of the Seventy and Presidency of the Seventy, with separate sections for the Senior Members of each group?--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say: (1) definitely don't split it into three separate templates. The three are, at its core, essentially the same position. The background circumstances changed and some of the responsibilities, but not so much the position. (2) I am fine for the first two original sections "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy" and "Presidency of the Seventy" to be merged into one single section. On reflection, a better approach might simply to combine them into one section and then have a footnote applied to the seven individuals who were called in 1976, indicating that at this stage the position was changed from First Council of the Seventy to Presidency of the Seventy. We categorize all of these individuals together in Category:Presidents of the seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I think it's fine to treat the template the same. (3) Keep the "Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy" box separate, and below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As for me, I would say: 1. It might be very helpful to split it into three separate templates, but I recognize I am in the minority here. What I am wanting is for only relevant templates to be showing on relevant pages. For example, Earl C. Tingey served as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy and as one of the Presidency of the Seventy, so he shows up on those two templates and all three of those templates should be visible on his page. Hazen Aldrich only served as one of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy/in the First Council of the Seventy, so that is the only template that should show up under his name. He never served as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or a Senior or Presiding member of the Seventy, so he shouldn't be in that template at all. Ronald A. Rasband belongs in the same categories as Tingey, but also as a currently serving member of the Presidency, so all those templates should be visible on his page. The First Seven Presidents/First Council of the Seventy template shouldn't be visible at all on Rasband's page because Rasband had no association whatsoever with it. 2. I would be unalterably opposed to combining the First Council of the Seventy/First Seven Presidents and Presidency of the Seventy because their functions were very different. The three articles I referenced should have pointed to some of the most significant differences between the First Council of the Seventy and the modern day Presidency of the Seventy. 3. As far as the Senior/Presiding President of the Seventy, there have only been a handful of those men (since the Presidency was formally reestablished in 1976) who have served in this capacity. I recognize what Good Ol'facotory is saying about them being in the same category here on Wikipedia. But I was not aware of this. In my opinion, there should be a separate category for the First Council of the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy. However, once again, on all these points, I recognize I am in the minority here, so I will be fine with whatever the consensus decides. I realize what I am suggesting will take a lot of work, but I believe it is doable, given time and patience and persistence. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am wary about making the beast overcomplicated. I fear that separating into separate templates might make it so; that was initially one reason why I combined the three in one. As far as I know, it's possible to make part of the template "disappear" on certain pages. What is possible is to have certain sections auto collapsed and certain sections auto expanded, with the subject's name being bolded where it appears in the template. So the entire template would appear on Aldrich's page, but only the sections he appears in would be auto expanded; the rest would be auto collapsed and the names not initially visible. Unless our whipping boy ARTEST4ECHO here knows how to disappear sections somehow. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood how ARTEST4ECHO has proposed above to approach this. Either appears to be do-able. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If such an arrangement could be made and accurately performed on each of the relevant pages so that only the relevant templates showed up on a person's page, I would have no objection to them remaining merged. I do still think we ought to separate out the First Council of the Seventy/First Seven Presidents of the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy as they are distinct and separate offices with distinct and separate roles. And I also still think that there should be a distinction between the senior member of the First Council of the Seventy and the senior/presiding president of the Presidency of the Seventy, since there is a distinction there as well. But we'll have to see if ARTEST4ECHO can even make any/all of this possible. He seems to know what he's doing. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Taken down to its core, the role of both bodies was (is) to "preside" over the seventy in the church. Much of the background details have changed, but it does have that basic commonality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We never know unless we ask, do we? I for one am content to wait on that point for to see if ARTEST4ECHO can even do any of this. As for them being essentially the same, you may be right, but if that's the case, then why are they listed under two separate headings in the Church Almanac? If they were really meant to be the "same group" with a "different name" then they would be grouped together in official Church publications like the Almanac. (several minutes later) Well, I must say I am confused. The April 1975 Sustaining of Church Officers lists the following as members of the First Council of the Seventy: S. Dilworth Young, Milton R. Hunter, A. Theodore Tuttle, Paul H. Dunn, Hartman Rector, Jr., Loren C. Dunn, and Rex D. Pinegar. Then in the October 1975 General Conference, without explanation, six of these brethren (Milton R. Hunter was apparently released in the intervening six months) along with Gene R. Cook are listed as the first Presidency of the Seventy. In October 1976, Spencer W. Kimball explained the reconstitution of the First Quorum of the Seventy. In that talk, he mentioned that the seven brethren then overseeing the members of the First Quorum of the Seventy were still members of the First Council. This was remedied during the Sustaining of Church Officers that followed when all Assistants to the Twelve and the seven members of the First Council of the Seventy were released. The new Presidency of the Seventy was sustained, the only ones retained in the newly constituted Presidency of the Seventy were A. Theodore Tuttle, Marion D. Hanks, and Paul H. Dunn. So it would seem that in constituting the new Presidency, President Kimball felt inspired to call some former First Council of the Seventy members and some former Assistants to the Twelve. It should be noted that the seniority of the retained brethren was also altered. Can I see your point about them being similar? I guess so. But I would not go so far as to call them the same. And I would still be in favor of them being in separate tables. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they're not exactly the same—no one is claiming that. They do share a core duty and place in the hierarchy, though, and one took the place of the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Since they're two different entities, and since one replaced the other, they should not share a template. That's why I am proposing that we have a separate template for First Council of the Seventy and Presidency of the Seventy and that they should be in different categories, with the possible exception of those seven brethren that for one year held the joint title of Presidency of the Seventy and First Council of the Seventy. They are divided into separate groups in the Almanac and in every other listing I've come across except this one, and I think we need to standardize this so that it will match verifiable information readily available elsewhere. Otherwise it might tend to confuse those who don't understand the distinction. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it as being more akin to Church Commissioner of Education or Church Historian and Recorder. The names of these positions have changed over time too, and some of the duties have been varied as well. But at their core, they have remained basically the same. For that reason, we keep them in the same templates: Template:CEScommissioners and Template:LDShistorian. The presidents of the seventy have always been the in the same template, I don't see a good argument for changing that now. There's absolutely nothing about the change that can't be adequately set out in template form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep employing the term "presidents of the seventy." If they truly were all presidents of the seventy, I wouldn't have a problem with having them in the same template. But the first group from Aldrich to Cook were the First Council of the Seventy. Different name, different organization, different purpose, up until 1975, when the "First Council of the Seventy" were sustained as the "Presidency of the Seventy" and held simultaneously the title "First Council of the Seventy." I think for clarity's sake (and to avoid confusing those who read about any of these bodies) we must make the distinction clear. But I recognize that I am in the minority here. It seems that we two are the only ones contributing to the conversation at the moment. For whatever reason ARTEST4ECHO is not commenting on his opinion. I am going to post this discussion on the Latter Day Saint movement talk page so we can get more people commenting rather than just the two of us, as it seems clear neither of us will be swayed or convinced by the other's opinion. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's very frustrating to interact with you. I'm using "presidents of the seventy" as a shorthand. It's helpful to avoid posting walls of text in every comment, and this usage is an attempt to help with that. Why this usage—because this has always been one of their roles—to preside over the seventy. The people in these positions have always been on the same template (and the same category), so unless there is a consensus to change this, there's no point of you continuing to tell me why I'm wrong. If you want to "make the distinction clear", as I've stated several times, we can easily do so on the template itself. That's precisely why I created the three separate sections in the first place!—but no one was complaining about this before, when they were all listed in one list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel frustrated. I have that effect on some people. Unfortunately, I can't do a lot about the way I feel about certain issues. There will never be such a consensus if we don't invite others to comment. And that is why I have left a neutrally worded note on the Latter Day Saint movement talk page asking for more comments on this issue so that it's not just the two of us going back and forth, neither of us making a dent in the other's position. And the distinction isn't clear, because on the template "Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy," all senior members are listed, whether of the First Council of the Seventy or the Presidency of the Seventy. And I don't think it should be that way. We should make a clear distinction between the Senior/Presiding member of the First Council of the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy. Aside from that, the main issue I have is that, regardless of which template they appear in, all templates are listed for all who have the designation of either group. And I don't think it should be that way. I would like to see only the relevant templates appearing on each seventy's page. I know that would take a lot of work, but that's precisely why I advocate separate templates. It would make it much easier to manage. I know no one was complaining about that before, and for that, I do apologize. But I often find that if I am not complaining about an issue, it is because I am not aware of it. Once I become aware, I do complain, as I did here. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's just the way I handle myself as a Wikipedia editor. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I realize I haven't said much in a while. I guess it's because I've been busy in real life and to be honest, a bit confused and frustrated at this topic. However, after spending much time reading both your argument, and trying to make since of what the different titles mean, I have to say that I agree with Good Ol’factory. I don't think spiting this into separate templates is a good idea.

The LDS Church has in the past changed the names, and even the leadership structure of a number of its general offices. However, fundamentally the duties of these positions and those individuals holding those positions seems to be the same. In this case, to spit this into separate templates would go against the common consensus we have on almost every Latter Day Saint Template. Good Ol’factory uses ({{CEScommissioners}} and {{LDShistorian}}) as examples. You can also use the {{LDSyoungmen}} and {{LDSyoungwomen}} as an examples.

Junius F. Wells was the General Superintendents of the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association. Yet we consider him to be in the same position as David L. Beck the General President of the Young Men, because it was their role to preside over the Young Men's organization, no matter what name it fell under. If we didn't Beck wouldn't be the 21st General President, he would be the 8th, and {{LDSyoungmen}} would only go back to 1977 when the current "Young Men" organization was merged with the Presiding Bishopric from 1974 and re-split in 1977.

This example would also apply to the Young Women (organization) (same changes as Young Men). This would also apply to the Relief Society (Emma Smith was president of the The Female Relief Society of Nauvoo not the Relief Society), and several other positions.

If we started doing this as the norm, we could even take this further and say that we would have to split all names from all positions held before 1851 into separate templates, as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" didn't exist under that name prior to 1851. We would have to have separate templates for Church of Christ, Church of the Latter Day Saints, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints positions, even though the members and leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider these people to be their historical leadership.

It would make thing into a nightmare.

However, I am not opposed to doing something like {{LDShistorian}}, i.e. creating separate child Navboxes to denote the change in name from First Seven Presidents of the Seventy to First Council of the Seventy and then Presidency of the Seventy, but keeping them in the same overall template. It would make the template look like this:

Of course this is without the "Current" Presidency or "Senior Member" sections that are chosen when appropriate. However, I think you see what I'm getting at.

Ultimately we could go back to listing all of them under in on group, without making a distinction, but I also think that this would take away from the template.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially what I was trying to do with my original set up. I combined the First Seven Presidents and the First Council of the Seventy because there's just no clear way to divide the two and no date on which the change was definitively made, which left it with two sections, plus the presiding president section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I went threw the actual pages and Morgan was the last one on the list that used "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy", that is why I broke it there. Basically I just read the pages to decided where they went.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I earlier did some (pretty casual) research when I was doing it, and I found a reference to Rufus K. Hardy being called as one of the First Seven Presidents. That would have been 1934. But then on the other side, I saw "First Council of the Seventy" being applied retroactively to Seymour B. Young's call in 1882. So from what I could tell, there was no sharp cut-off. But it would be interesting to know at what stage the name changed in the sustainings at general conference, or if anyone has written anything about this transition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, I don't really know this topic very well. I have only gotten involved as someone to edit the template code. I will gladly defer to leaving it the way it is.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says, only because it's a secondary source that has "semi-official" status, in that its content was approved by apostles of the church. It states in the article on the Seventy that the First Council of the Seventy was organized in 1835. So from that perspective, it's just a naming difference between the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My main reason for pushing the separation of these positions is because the Church Almanac makes a clear distinction between those who served as members of the First Council of the Seventy and those who serve as the Presidency of the Seventy. Upon reflection, (trying not to be unreasonable here) I would be fine with keeping them in one template as long as we could find a way to only show the relevant parts of the template on each page. As I have stated before, it is pointless to have a list of the Senior/Presiding Presidents or First Council members on Lynn G. Robbins's page because he isn't and hasn't been a Senior President or member of the First Council/First Seven Presidents of the Seventy. For Hazen Aldrich, it would be optimal if the only template showing on his page was the First Council of the Seventy. For Rex D. Pinegar, all four templates would show. For Ronald A. Rasband, the only template we'd need to hide would be the First Council of the Seventy. As long as we could work it this way for all the relevant pages, I would have no objections to keeping them as one template, though I still feel I would like them to be four separate templates. As far as when the terminology changed, I have no knowledge of that. According to the Church Almanac, the First Council of the Seventy functioned from 1835-1976 when the First Quorum of the Seventy was reconstituted. I have no idea when or why they started and stopped using the term "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy." But I imagine this was done to make it clearer that they were presiding over the seventy rather than performing any other function. I look forward to seeing what can be done with the future of this template. Sorry if I was being unreasonable. I have a bad habit of becoming so when I feel like my position is being ridiculed or discounted or not taken seriously. Something to work on for the future. If ARTEST4ECHO can make the template work the way I hope it will, then as far as I'm concerned, this entire conversation, which I believe I started, can be closed with honor. Thanks for another lively discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)