Talk:President of the Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Table the Presidents

I was wikifying the dates for the Presidents of the Church section when I noticed that:

1. There is a lot of redundant information on each line, and
2. Some of the information might be better presented and digested if presented in a table.

Here's a brief idea for table-izing the information. I've tabled just a few presidents as a test for discussion. I think this:

#	President	Life	Served	Length	Ordination
1	Joseph Smith, Jr.	December 23 1805 - June 27 1844	1830-1844	14 years	April 6 1830
2	Brigham Young	June 1 1801 - August 29 1877	1847-1877	33 years	December 27 1847
3	John Taylor	November 1 1808 - July 25 1887	1808-1887	10 years	October 10 1880
4	Wilford Woodruff	March 1 1807 - September 2 1898	1889-1898	9 years	April 7 1889

is easier to digest than this:

1. Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844), served 1830-1844 (14 years). Born December 23 1805; died June 27 1844. Ordained President of the Church on April 6 1830.
2. Brigham Young (1801-1877), served 1847-1877 (33 years). Born June 1 1801; died August 29 1877. Ordained President of the Church on December 27 1847.
3. John Taylor (1808-1887), served 1880-1887 (10 years). Born November 1 1808; died July 25 1887. Ordained President of the Church on October 10 1880.
4. Wilford Woodruff (1807-1898), served 1889-1898 (9 years). Born March 1, 1807; died September 2, 1898. Ordained President of the Church on April 7, 1889.

It also eliminates the redundant information. What does everyone else think? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:31, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

By all means, I think it would be a nice improvement. Everyking 19:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The table is much better. COGDEN 02:41, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone liked the idea. Done. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Man, I really screwed that up, didn't I? Had to do it all by hand, so it isn't surprising some errors slipped in. Sorry! I usually don't screw up so bad! — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:47, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Moving article to President of the Church (Mormonism)

On the [Latter Day Saint movement project], it was decided to combine articles that contain the joint early history of the movement with articles about specific denominations. Thus, rather than have President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and President of the Community of Christ, etc., that these articles should be combined under the title "(Mormonism)". Following this directive, I combined this original LDS article with the Community of Christ article. Information on other denominations still needs to be added. --John Hamer 19:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bold titles

A general 'rule of thumb' on titles is to use italics when typeset, and double quotes when not typeset. Bold is usually reserved for special emphasis in headings. Since the use of bold for the many titles in the article here is quite distracting, I reduced the excessive emphasis to italics here, which is what one would normally expect. --Blainster 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Succession, doctrine

I don't believe it is necessary to point out that the traditional succession is not 'doctrine' or 'scriptural'. There are hundreds of church policies that are not scriptural or doctrine, and I don't think we should point this out every time a policy comes up.

According to every official statement by the church, Succession works by automatically making the senior Apostle the next prophet... IF you can find any General authority saying this is not doctrine, then I would agree with putting that qualifier in. Otherwise, tell me why we should keep it in? --Measure July 1, 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Maybe it is just a matter of semantics. As I understand it, after the death of the prophet, the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the "acting" prophet of the church (until a new prophet is appointed and ordained to that office/position). As has always happenned, this senior member then is then chosen to be the next prophet by a unanimous vote of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. But as far as I know, there would be nothing doctrinally preventing them from receiving revelation to appoint someone else, again requiring a unanimous vote for that person. Val42 July 1, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

There would be nothing Doctrinally preventing us from ordaining 10-year old boys as preists in the Aaronic preisthood, but if I were to state "The office of priest is obtained by worthy 16 year olds", I don't expect anyone would put "although not doctrinally necessary" in front of it.

In my study of this issue, however, it seems to me that it is -almost- doctrinal that the senior apostle becomes the next president. Looking at the ensign article I linked to seems to solidify the position. Are there any official church statements even saying there is a -possibility- that the senior apostle would not become the new Prophet? --Measure July 1, 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Three counselors

I was just looking at the article again and noticed a minor issue. Benson and Hunter both had three counselors, including Hinckley in the presidency. I am unaware of any other cases where there were three counselors. But I don't know how to put it in to the article; the ways that I've thought up so far don't work. Val42 July 1, 2005 23:20 (UTC)

The counselors to Benson and Hunter were Hinckley and Monson, and neither president had more than two. The last to have more than two was Kimball, who added Hinckley as third counselor behind Tanner and Romney. David O. McKay had four counselors during the late 1960s.

I added some detail on this point. --MrWhipple 23:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

There were three cases where Presidents of the Church had three or more counselors. Joseph Smith had several additional counselors. David O. McKay had four additional counselors, and President Spencer W. Kimball had three. Presidents Hinckley and Monson served with Presidents Benson and Hunter for the entire duration of their Presidencies. There were no additional counselors at that time. A Fellow Church Member 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Table structure for lists

The current table headings mean that two pieces of information are in every row twice: the death date and the ordination date. I propose changing the headings to:

	Picture	President	Birth	Ordination	Death	Length

This would make the following change to the CJC LDS table:

	Picture	President	Birth	Ordination	Death	Length
2		Brigham Young	June 1, 1801	December 27, 1847	August 29, 1877	29 years
...
15		Gordon B. Hinckley	June 23 1910	March 12, 1995	living	currently serving

and the following change to the CoC table - note the use of references for resignations as president resulting in change in presidency at time other than death:

	President	Birth	Ordination	Death	Length
2	Joseph Smith III	November 6 1832	April 6 1860	December 10 1914	54 years
...
6	Wallace B. Smith	July 291929	April 5 1978	living	18 years

Rational I think this makes the table easier to understand - looking at a range of dates in a single column is counterintuitive for me. Additionally, compairing years, and other information is much easier to do between non-adjacent presidents. It also eliminates the inconsistency in describing the "served" column between the different churches. Trödel•talk 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Succession

This phrase "The tradition of waiting for 2-3 years before confirming a new president continued until the death of the fourth President, Wilford Woodruff, in 1898." (emphasis added) just strikes me as not being exactly right. Tradition is not really the right word here - as there are different reasons for the delay between the death of JS and the calling of BY, the death of BY and the calling of John Taylor, and the death of JT and the calling of WW. It wasn't really an established tradition but more a result of necessity. However, I am not sure how to word it differently - I tried several options but wasn't really happy with any of them. Trödel 06:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mormonism

Why does Wiki have so many pages on Mormonism. Catholocism is older and has more members why does it have so few pages and Mormonism have a page for every slight difference. I do not want more Catholic pages but would rather see Mormon pages consolodated.

Why are there so many articles on Mormonism? Probably because their are a lot of Mormon editors on the 'pedia. That being said, I don't think this article should be merged with Mormonism. There are a lot of articles that link to this one and this topic is too big to fit into the Mormonism article. I think it should stay as it is. We have a whole article on the Popes don't we? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only do we have an an article on the office of Pope, we have an article on every Pope who ever lived (just as we have an article on every President of the Church who ever lived). This topic is, of course, notable enough to keep its own separate article. Kafziel ^Talk 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive right to receive revelation (LDS Church section)

The last 9 words of this sentence seem to be getting taken out a lot lately: "He is considered to be the highest priesthood authority on Earth, with the exclusive right to receive revelations from God on behalf the entire church or the entire world."

Isn't it fairly clear-cut that the president of the LDS Church is said to have the exclusive right to receive revelation for the entire church or the world, but that anyone else can receive revelation for themselves or their family or church stewardship etc.? Eliminating these words makes it sound like the church believes only the president of the church is entitled to receive revelation from God. Please discuss and explain before taking out again. Thx. -SESmith 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)\

In 1830, was Joseph, Oliver, and the other elders co-equal?

The first part of the Joseph Smith as President section says that until Joseph the Hiram Page incident, Joseph was considered co-equal among the other elders, and it says he was just an "apostle" and "an elder", and there were other apostles and elders. IIRC, wasn't Joseph called the First Elder, and wasn't it established that he had authority over the other elders of the Church? I think the statement that they were all co-equal is unfounded. Joseph Antley 01:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ruler (in Israel)

The opening paragraph gives various titles of the President of LDS. What does "Ruler (in Israel)" mean? Does that mean that Mormons in Israel call him ruler? Is he considered by people outside of Israel as ruler of Israel? Anyone care to elaborate, either here on the talk page or in the article? Valley2city 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A brief summary: Latter Day Saint sometimes refer to those within the church as part of "Israel" because it is believed that becoming a Latter Day Saint is part of the prophesied latter-day regathering of the lost tribes of Israel. Some LDS denominations give "patriarchal blessings" that declares what tribe of Israel the recipient is descended from. Most members of the LDS Church have been declared to be from Ephraim or Manassah, two of the lost tribes. The President of the Church used to be called a "ruler in Israel" because he was the head of this group of latter-day "Israelites". Sometimes LDS who hold the priesthood are called the "Elders of Israel". –SESmith 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That clarified much. Valley2city 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about disambiguating to separate articles, for president of LDS movement and of specific churches?

I am finding it difficult to link to this article clearly and have the objective reference clear, as to precisely what President of the Church is intended - such as here, where "president of the church" as between Brigham Young and William Bickerton was anything but objective. How about splitting this into separate articles for President of the Church in the "LDS movement", another for President of the Church of specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other churches stemming from LDS movement? Thoughts? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what has been done with Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency and Presiding Bishop and it seems to be working. Once the split is made, it is a lot of work to go through and to insert the right disambiguations, though. I completed what I believe is most of the work disambiguating Presiding Bishop (LDS Church) and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), and I've started on First Presidency (LDS Church), but still have a long way to go on that one. I imagine there will be similar amounts of back-work to do for President of the Church (LDS Church). Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this especially since about 2/3 of the article length is on one denomination. --Trödel 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever does it has to be prepared to do a lot of disambiguation editing, as Rich Uncle Skeleton has outlined. I've examined it and it would be quite a bit of work. Snocrates 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but better start this disambiguation now rather than wait until there is even more work to do. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Infalliability

The section "Establishing doctrine, infallibility, and opinion" states that "the words of the president of the church are "infallible" only in the sense that they are correct and binding on the church and its members." I deleted that because there are other references that state only the Standard Works are binding on its members, but it was put back in. For example: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine."(Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7) I have replaced it with a quote which states that member's "greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church." This emphasizes the importance of the teachings of the President of the Church without saying members are necessarily bound by them. I also don't like the saying "infallible in the sense" because I think it is misleading. Our doctrine is very different from the Catholic doctrine on infallibility, and should not be confused. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me, and I was in error. I was editing the section and then I got interrupted, and I forgot completely about it. I remember reading it through after my edits and that part I re-added was contradictory, and I intended on removing it or changing it. Then I got interrupted. I'm impressed with your edits and think they look good.

Here's something to think about, though — if only the Standard Works are binding on the members, then why must the statement of B.H. Roberts — who wasn't even a "prophet, seer, and revelator", be accepted as binding on this issue? If it doesn't say in the Standard Works that only the Standard Works are binding, then that principle isn't really 100% binding, right? :) Snocrates 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually thought about that, but then I figured Wikipedia isn't exactly binding either. B.H. Roberts was more authoritative than what was there. I still believe that the teachings are "valuable for our profit and learning", and our "greatest safety comes from strictly following" them, but I think there is a danger in making them more authoritative than they were ever intended to be, especially when trying to make sense of statements from past leaders. Besides Roberts remarks, there is precedence in D&C's command for common consent, and examples on how other scriptures became canonized. I hope I didn't go too overboard. I mean, the teachings can still be doctrine, and we can treat as such, without it being "binding." I just wanted to make clear they should in nowise be considered infallible.Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this section in the article:

Not everything the prophet says is considered to be doctrine. Joseph Smith, Jr. taught "a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such."[16] When he declares new doctrine, "he will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."[17] If the doctrine is not accepted by the Church as the word of God, members are not bound by the doctrine,[18] even if it comes from the President of the Church.[19]

There is no mention of how Mormons who openly question the President are received and to what extent they are allowed by social pressure to question a teaching or word of the President. Although this idea of being able to question is stated, how much has it ever happened and what is the general reaction of a Mormon person if you were to ask them about this? -- Avanu (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would surmise the reason there isn't a mention of this particular case is because sources aren't readily available beyond things like personal blogs (which aren't considered reliable). There really haven't been a lot of journalistic or scholarly article written about Mormon culture in that regard, at least that I've come across. I can tell from my own experience what that typically is (all very recent events actually), but there is little I can point to from reliable sources that would be appropriate for this article. This recent article in USA Today is a good start as it does do some interviewing of people who have publicly disagreed with church leaders' comments and the reactions they have received from rank-and-file church members. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the USA Today article was originally published in the Salt Lake Tribune, so if cited it should probably be to the Tribune. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the story he linked to, I wouldn't say it is a good example of people in disagreement with Church leaders, because the topic was homosexuality, which is something that is a contentious subject even without any church involvement. I would think a better example might have been how people who disagreed with blacks being denied the priesthood before 1978 were treated, or how people who disagree with pre-existence or certain ordinances, or various branches of Mormonism are treated, or even something as simple as saying "so and so is wrong about X". -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

President Packer's remarks about homosexuality in the October Conference are a perfect example: church leader says something at conference, a member publishes a disagreement, general negative reaction follows from regular church members which includes questioning faith. I'm not seeing why "contentious" makes the example any more or less valid. It doesn't need to be just an LDS controversy to apply, it just needs to be public (even on a limited scale like a personal blog) disagreement with official church statements like from conference. While this Tribune article is hardly authoritative on the overall subject, it could definitely be a source for writing on what happens within the LDS culture when people publicly disagree with church leaders, though not enough to warrant excommunication (which takes far more than a simple disagreement). --JonRidinger (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I am more questioning the situation when it relates to Mormonism specifically. Although it might provide insight to consider everything, it seems to me that restricting it to Mormon specific issues would provide a better guide. -- Avanu (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how restricting it to Mormon-specific issues makes it better in any way. There are many things that church leaders have spoken on that has sparked debate amongst church members. The issue for this article is helping to show how Mormon culture generally reacts when statements are made on any issue, particularly in relation to those who are faithful, active members yet disagree with something that a church leader has said. What they disagreed on is largely irrelevant; it's that they disagreed and how the culture reacts that we're showing through reliable sources. Basically, the de facto belief is that the President (and apostles too) is not infallible, but the de jure practice is generally that he is based on that general reaction when someone disagrees with anything he says, Mormon-specific or not. Remember, Mormon belief also does not restrict the duties of the President as Prophet to speak only for the church either. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The section seems to adequately describe all aspects of the issue as it is. If there are reliable sources that can add any additional perspectives, they are welcome. I don't know of any that support the assertion that "the de jure practice is that [the President] is [considered infallible]." ...comments? ~BFizz 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All you had to do was ask:

Mormons don't use the term "infallibility" to refer to their leaders and readily acknowledge that they are imperfect men. In practice, though, Mormon belief comes awfully close to that standard.

"We pay lip service to the prophet's fallibility," said Edward Kimball, son of late church President Spencer W. Kimball. "But when you come down to specifics, we can't think of any incidents where a prophet was wrong."

By the way, the use of "de facto" and "de jure" in comments above seem slightly off from their proper definitions. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And quoting from "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet"

"And now," said (Brigham Young), "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."

When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

-- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, switched de facto and de jure (always seem to do that...dangit!). The de jure (i.e. "official") belief based on repeated statements from Joseph Smith down to present leaders is that the prophet and apostles are not infallible; that they are called of God, but still mortal men (infallibility itself is generally considered a Roman Catholic doctrine related to the Pope). The de facto practice amongst many church members (i.e. the "church culture"), however, is the opposite. That isn't based on direct statements (Mormons will never say the prophet and apostles are "infallible"), but rather negative reactions to disagreement (suggesting it is wrong to disagree with church leaders on anything), reactions that the Tribune article highlights. It would be even better if we had additional articles from third-party sources. It's not to prove that the prophet and apostles are wrong; just to show an element of LDS culture. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to remember by a rule of thumb: Catholics have a doctrine of papal infallibility but Catholics don't generally believe it. Mormons have a doctrine of fallible prophets but Mormons don't generally believe it. :) (I kid, I kid.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits regarding Presidency succession.

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)

The same debate is going on elsewhere, like Talk:Thomas S. Monson and Talk:First Presidency (LDS Church). You're presenting one side or POV, but not the other. It's not as clear-cut as you are making it out to be, and citations can be provided on either side. It's nothing to do with "what [I've] heard all [my] life". I'm not interested in discussing the matter here, as it seems to be ongoing at Talk:First Presidency (LDS Church) with other editors. Zoporific 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that comment elsewhere, that Cititions can be provided on both sides. Can you please provide such documentation? No one on Talk:Thomas S. Monson Seems to be able to provide it either. My POV is based solely on official documentation provided by the Church. If it is truly POV, then the cititions (which again, I haven't seen) must also be from official church documentation? Please help me understand the argument here so that I can present a more logical discussion on Talk:Thomas S. Monson. Ryancwa (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Josephfsmith.gif

The image Image:Josephfsmith.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed from this article, as have others which are similarly problematic to be used here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Prophet–Presidents

Dose anyone have any information as to when the term "Prophet–President" was introduced into the Community of Christ, formerly RLDS Church? For example, Joseph Smith was never called the "Prophet–Presidents", but he is considered one of their former Presidents. At what point did the name change?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good question—I'm wondering if the title is more of a shorthand term rather than an official title. "Prophet–President" never appears in the CoC Doctrine and Covenants, and all of the sections that are signed by one of the Prophet–Presidents (including the most recent section, 163) have the leader using the title "President of the Church". Some headers refer to the president as the "prophet and seer". This bio about the current president actually reverses the order and uses the term "president-prophet", so it seems to me that it's more of a shorthand way of referring to the combination of the two roles in one leader rather than an official name of a position. As to when they started using it—that's a great question. There might be something in the old RLDS History of the Church, which I will check out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.