Talk:List of general authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assignments for individuals

I revised this list a few days ago as per the change of assignments contained in the August 2007 Ensign. I also changed the listing of the General Authorities Chart to Ensignrather than Liahona because the Ensign is for all nations, while the Liahona is in different languages for specific nations. I hope that made sense to you. Anyways, the issue I want to bring up now is, would we like an official list of the different committees the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are involved with? That would have to be obtained through Church public affairs, and I could probably take care of getting that, given a period of a few days. As a matter of fact, I might just request it anyways. If they don't have it, they could tell me where to get it. Hope this has all been comprehensible. I just wanted everyone to know what I was wondering about. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If that list could be obtained you could include the committee assignments on this page on the "Current specific assignments" box. That would be very useful to have, I think. –SESmith 23:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the Church's official web page. The closest I can get to contact information is an address for Church Headquarters--no e-mail address, just a street address. I know that in other LDS-related articles I read here, there was talk about getting official statements from the Church about certain things. So my next question is, is there a better way to contact them other than a letter to the General Church HQ, which could take months to get a resolution about, or do we just have to send the letter and await a reply? Thanks again.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For the apostles at least, the information might be included in the 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac. I haven't checked, but it seems to me I remember this information being in an edition I had back in the early 1990s. –SESmith 04:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a copy of that particular Almanac, and I can assure you it's not in there. It makes no sense to me that they'd have those in one edition, they should have it in a newer addition. That was a good idea, but I'm afraid we're back to the drawing board. Any other thoughts?--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I pulled out my copy of the 1993–1994 edition and under the current Apostles' biographies it does include what church committees they were members of. i guess they stopped doing that. –SESmith 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So, again, the question, what would be the best way to find that out? I only volunteered to get that information because I thought I could do so without having to contact the Public Affairs People. Being a relatively new member of Wikipedia's editors, I wouldn't feel comfortable with trying to represent the group on this matter. Is there someone I can contact who could do that?--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any other source it might be available in. But I don't believe WP authorizes editors to speak on their behalf in requesting information, because do so would constitute "original research". If information is not in a reliable source that is published and freely available, WP standards say it shouldn't be included in the article at all. It probably shouldn't be included unless we can find it without asking the church for it. –SESmith 03:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Assignments of the Seventy changed

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference, President Hinckley announced 3 changes in General Church leadership (1 new member of the First Presidency, 1 new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and 1 new member of the Presidency of the Seventy). He also announced releases and granting of emeritus status to other members of the Seventy. This means in part that Elder Gonzales now has Elder Cook's former assignment as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, and that those who were released or granted emeritus status were replaced in their assignments by others, with the exceptions noted by President Hinckley. So, my suggestion is, as soon as those changes are in the public domain (in a place where they can be used as a citation) then this page should be change accordingly. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of those changes have already been made, but not all of them. Phuff 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Oaks is still in 2nd Quorum of the Seventy

I had to do some major work just a few minutes ago to make sure this article was accurate. Robert C. Oaks, released from the Presidency of the Seventy on August 1, was returned to the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy not made a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy. There has been no official Church statement issued to indicate that he is now a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy. And before he became a member of the Presidency of the Seventy in October 2004, he was a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. The General Authorities Chart for October 2007 (which is put out by and therefore officially endorsed by the Church) clearly pictures Oaks as a member of the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy. Since this is a source officially endorsed by the Church, the information is accurate. Please do not make changes unless they can be verified. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig C. Christensen and William R. Walker are now in 1st Quorum

It escaped my notice when I was watching General Conference this weekend, but in rewatching the Solemn Assembly sustaining of Church officers, I discovered that, in addition to the 15 new seventies (13 to the First Quorum and 2 to the Second Quorum), Elders William R. Walker and Craig C. Christensen were moved from the Second Quorum to the First Quorum. Consequently, I have altered the page to reflect that. For verification purposes, see audio or video archives of the Saturday Morning Session Solemn Assembly Sustaining of Church Officers. Transcripts are not up yet, but will be by Thursday. Go to the link below, and click on the audio or video option by the first "President Dieter F. Uchtdorf" listing for verification. I hope this information is helpful to you. 178th Annual General Conference --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice table but...

Whoever created the tables, high five. Very nicely done. And listing ages is particularly informative. Unfortunately, listing ages becomes problematic after a couple of weeks, when the ages start to change. Is there any way of coding birthdays so that they appear in a table as (current) ages? AuntieMormom (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They already are coded to the birth date to give the current age at the time you're looking at the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The table related to the Apostles has an extra column that is not needed. Use of "CES" and "Board" is redundant because they are combined/concurrent assignments. In addition, at the present time, Elder Nelson is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of both the Boards of Trustees and the Board of Education, rather than simply a "member" of the Board. There ought to be consideration to removing this additional column. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with combining them --Trödel 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ordained" is incorrect terminology for PB

I just noticed incorrect terminology in relation to the Presiding Bishopric. The date they started serving is listed under "date ordained." The problem with that is, no presiding bishopric member has been "ordained" to the Presiding Bishopric. They HAVE been previously "ordained" bishops, but have merely been "set apart" for their current callings. A call to the presiding bishop IS NOT an advancement in the priesthood because there is no priesthood office called "Presiding Bishopric." They are merely high priests, ordained bishops, who have received the call to serve. For a more appropriate term, I would suggest "Date called." or "Date when service began" or "Date set apart". This needs to be cleared up because having the wrong terminology can prove confusing to readers who know enough about the Church to not understand why the term "ordained" is used in this context. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's a big deal. Because the format is in chart form, there's not a lot that can be done to personalize the chart column for each calling. People even in the LDS Church often use "ordained" and "set apart" interchangeably for certain callings, like President of the Church (even lds.org states that the president of the church is "ordained", but other sources say there is no priesthood office of president of the church and that he is simply the senior apostle who is "set apart" as the president). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. However, the President of the Church IS ordained as such, because ordination, in addition to being about priesthood offices, implies keys that will not terminate. For example, a High Priest still retains the priesthood office of Elder, Priest, Teacher, and Deacon. It just means he will play a different role in the building up of the kingdom, and as long as he is faithful, he never loses the rights, keys, and authority he held with previous priesthood offices. The President of the Church is invested with ALL the keys of the kingdom, and this is done through an ordination. I have never yet heard of a Church President being "set apart." As I said, ordination implies keys that will not terminate. The President of the Church serves for life. The Presiding Bishopric serves until released. This means their role is not permanent, and therefore they are not "ordained" to the Presiding Bishopric. As far as the confusion of sources between what the Church website says about the Church and what other websites say about it, I would go with what the Church website says. The world is full of so-called "established experts" on the Church, but very few of these so-called experts are people who have turned away from the Church. Even among Church members, these terms are mistakenly used interchangeably. But Church leaders have time and time again spelled out the difference between the two. One is ordained to a priesthood office, but set apart to a certain Church calling. I can guarantee you will never find a Church-endorsed source that says a President of the Church is "set apart". This applies to the counselors in the First Presidency, because it's very clear that their tenure will end at some point, either by their own deaths or the death of the President they served with. But a President of the Church, once ordained, remains a Church president for this life and beyond. Otherwise, the numbering system for Church Presidents would be confusing. Why refer to Gordon B. Hinckley posthumously as the 15th President of the Church? Because the Church President is a Priesthood office. However, all this is just a side issue. Getting back to the core issue, as proven, members of the Presiding Bishopric's tenures are not until death, but just until release, unless they die in office. Therefore, it is misleading to refer to them as being "ordained." "Sustained" wouldn't be the right word, because the current PB was only sustained after serving three months together. I'd still heartily recommend "Date called" "Date service began" or "Date set apart." --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee you will never find a Church-endorsed source that says a President of the Church is "set apart".

Really? Many sources on lds.org state that the president is "ordained and set apart". In fact, it appears that the "ordaining" part only started with George Albert Smith: see list at “Presidents of the Church,” The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A, p. 277, especially Heber J. Grant's entry, which says he was "blessed and set apart as President of the Church". Nothing about "ordaining" there.

See also, “Chapter 17: Being Loyal Citizens,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, p. 157: "President Heber J. Grant was set apart as President of the Church in 1918".

See also, “Chapter 20: The Still, Small Voice of Revelation,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, p. 181: "One such revelation came just after he [Grant] was set apart as President of the Church".

To me it looks like the "ordaining" part has only been part of the process since 1945/GASmith became president. And prior to GASmith, there's no indication that they set apart or ordained — all of the sources just say they were "sustained" as president. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right on that, but I'm afraid in proving your point by nitpicking at one opinion phrase I used in my last comment, you have fallen into the trap that many other WP editors (including myself) fall into from time to time: picking on an extraneous point in order to eliminate the resolution of the actual issue at hand. And the issue is this: There has never been an official Church source stating that a man has been "ordained" to the Presiding Bishopric. Ordained a bishop or called or set apart to the Presiding Bishopric, yes, but not ordained to the Presiding Bishopric. For those who are looking for information about the way the Presiding Bishopric works, this term is inaccurate and misleading. Not to mention the fact that on the WP pages about the current Presiding Bishopric, no mention is made of them being "ordained" to their current positions. The terminology is either CALLED or SET APART. Because of this, I took the liberty of making the change to "Date service began" which IS accurate and IS NOT misleading. Btw, in case you're wondering why I didn't post a response to your last post earlier, I stepped away from WP for a few days so as not to say something here I would have regretted later. At the end of the day, all I can say is that starting a discussion on extraneous issues which are irrelevant to the matter at hand only serves to prolong an amicable solution. I have changed the terminology at least temporarily, and I would urge further input from both you and other editors before the change is reverted. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue at hand, it seems to me you like making sweeping statements of claims that you can't possibly back up or know for sure, like "there has never been such and such" or "I guarantee x". Judging by the ease with which the first one of these types of statements was proved wrong, I would suggest maybe scaling those back a bit lest the others also be proven wrong — just for credibility on the real issues at hand, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understood what you were trying to say there. However, you ought to know that the only reason I am raising questions about the use of the word "ordained" is because I have yet to see a source wherein it is stated that an individual is "ordained" to the Presiding Bishopric. All the official Church references appear to use the phrases "set apart" or "began serving" or "called" but NEVER (in any of the sources I've seen) has the term "ordained to the Presiding Bishopric" been employed. If you were to show me sources that proved I was wrong on this, then OF COURSE I would back down and let the new information alter my viewpoint as my understanding changed. However, I have not seen any evidence to contradict what I have been saying all along about the Presiding Bishopric (even though we both have been sidetracked by irrelevant issues), so, until I see proof that this is the case, I have to form and state an opinion based on what I know and what I've seen. If you come across any references categorically stating that the Presiding Bishopric is "ordained" and these sources are endorsed or put out by the Church, then in that case, all my objections will cease. For the moment, to obviate this problem, a few days ago, I altered the wording on the chart to say "date service began" and I would suggest leaving the wording as is until further research and verifiable sources prove that the word "ordained" IS acceptable to use in connection with the Presiding Bishopric. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The change you made is fine with me. I was just trying to say that it can be dangerous to make "guarantees" about sources, since such statements, if proved wrong, can damage your credibility as a WP editor. If you were just trying to say, using a rhetorical flourish, that you yourself hadn't seen any sources to that effect, I understand. I have no problems with your implemented solution, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you said about credibility. I'll watch myself. Thank you. Please pardon any confusion my verbosity might have brought to this discussion. Brevity was never one of my strengths, and my mouth (in speaking) or my fingers (in writing) have a tendency to run over. If the issue I raised truly is resolved, I'll consider this discussion honorably closed and invite you to do the same. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 changes

I was thinking we could make the August 2008 changes to a subpage of this talk page and then merge the information with the article page on August 1st. Does anyone else think that is useful? --Trödel 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but it sounds to me as if that would be beneficial. That way, it's a simple matter of merging the information rather than entering it on August 1st when the changes become effective. I think I'd be in favor of that, as long as it's sourced so we know it's correct. Excellent suggestion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started the new page here: Talk:List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/August 2008 where the changes can be made. I think the announced changes would be a good source. I also made a few of the changes. A copy of the Church News article from Jun 8, 2008 is available on Mormon Times --Trödel 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing the article leaves out is who is replacing Jensen in these positions:

Editor of Ensign, Liahona, New Era, and The Friend; Executive Director of Curriculum Department

So we'll need to find out that stuff. --Trödel 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over the new page, and it looks good. However, the other positions Tingey holds will be transferred to Andersen as the new Senior President of the Seventy, so that should probably be fixed. It is likely Tingey will be granted Emeritus status in October, as he has been called to be a temple president, but until his status is confirmed, it's a good idea to leave him in the 1st Quorum of the Seventy. On the issue of who will replace Jensen as editor of the Church Magazines and Executive Director of the Curriculum Department, I haven't come across anything. However, shortly after these changes are made, the next Church magazine editions should state who the new Editor is, and that Editor will be the new Executive Director of the Curriculum Department. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten to move the other positions. I think we should list his calling as a Temple President for now. Agreed re soon to be emeritus status - If I remember right it was automatic at a certain age (72 if memory serves) but lately the age has been varying. I'll be looking forward to the next Ensign for a new reason :) --Trödel 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went over the page and verified correct changes or (in a few cases) made verifiable changes that weren't showing. I don't think we should list the temple president calling because it's not effective yet, and won't be until AFTER Tingey is given emeritus status, if such is the case.

Your memory almost serves you correctly. It used to be standard procedure for members of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy be be granted Emeritus Status after turning 70, and for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy to serve for 3-5 years, later expanded to 6, or until their 70th birthday. However, you will note as you look at the ages and tenures of members of these quorums that currently, there are at least three members of the First Quorum of the Seventy (Tingey, Child, and Mickelsen) that are over 70. Likewise, in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, there are at least three over 70 (Callister, Oaks, and Wood), all of whom have served longer than 3-5 or even 6 years, and a few more (Steuer, Mask, and Lund) who have served longer than the standard 6 years. It seems nowadays, the only conditions in determining who is granted emeritus status (in the case of the First Quorum) or released (in the case of the Second Quorum) are what the Spirit directs (the most important factor) and the health of the individual and his spouse. Consequently, it is difficult to know for sure what will happen next General Conference with emeritus status/releases, but there are some predictable factors. Steuer will be released because he too has been assigned as a Temple President. I imagine we'll see a few unassigned but ailing members of the 1st Quorum granted Emeritus status, and a few 2nd Quorum members released. But that's just a sidenote. The page looks pretty good right now, and, as I said, I put in some work on it just a few moments ago, so as of right now with the information we have, it is accurate. One thing I did wonder about, though. In the source, it says that Neuenschwander and Porter will be administering the Middle East/Africa North Area from Headquarters. Because that was in the source but not on our page, I put them down as "Area Supervisors." Is there a better title for that? How do we want to handle it? Btw, the facts I shared with you about the members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy were off the top of my head from what I remember about my Church History studies, so sorry if I got any of the facts wrong. Memory's a strange thing at times. :)--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Steuer is a good prediction, the others really can't be. I was thinking of putting in years served to make that easier to sort and see in years instead of calculating in one's head by ordination date. I was going to put in the Middle East/Africa North Area info, but wanted to check with the CDOL first to see if it had info on how they were assigned. Memory is strange but very useful --Trödel 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over what you revised in the Presidency of the Seventy section, and I have a few questions:

How come Andersen and Rasband, who were put into the Presidency at the same time, don’t have the same number of years listed? They have both been in three years.

Costa and Snow will have been in exactly one year on August 1. Why are they listed at 0 if their one year anniversary is on August 1?

Gonzalez has been in for almost a year, so it seems inaccurate to put him at 0 years. Is there a way to list part of a year?

Clayton has been in for part of a year, so if part of a year can be listed somehow, shouldn't that apply to him?

Shouldn’t Jensen be listed at “0” and not “-1” because he will be instated on August 1?

I’m not sure “set apart” is the correct terminology–not sure that Presidency members are “set apart.” In the Ensign, it merely says “called” or “appointed”. Shouldn’t one of those terms be employed instead?

Thanks for answering these questions, and sorry if they seem stupid. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unhappy with the way that the Age template worked on the years served - I wanted to find a better template for date/year calculation that would include a decimal so that we would have partial years included. Jensen will automatically go to 0 on August 1st because the template uses today's date, same with Costa and Snow - when we merge this page on August 1 - they will be automatically listed as 1. I'll see if I can find a better template. I agree about the presidency.

I agree about the terminology for the Presidency - we should match the Ensign's terminology. I am not sure what to do about Seventies - I know from conversations that they are Ordained a Seventy and then set apart to be a member of the quorum. For example the latest Seventy in the Caribbean area was set apart to be in the 6th quorum instead of the 4th, but they other Seventy in the Caribbean area are still listed in the 4th quorum - I am not sure if that is just a failure to keep things updated or if the Caribbean area has people in both quorums as a holdover from before the Presidency was assigned direct leadership over the Areas in North America and certain countries now in the Caribbean area were moved out of the North America Southeast Area. I guess where there is uncertainty we should keep doing what you are doing and list the verifiable sources.

PS Thanks for fixing the Area Authority area pages - I was assigning the quorums based on the areas that will go in effect on Aug 1 rather than the current status - and we need to find a verifiable source for which Quorum the Caribbean Area Seventies are in as the CDOL lists some of them in the 4th and one in the 6th quorum. I don't get the Church News which is probably the best source for that sort of thing, but maybe I'll subscribe again - it is so cheap - but I let them pile up unread and then I figure why bother :) --Trödel 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminology for the Presidency has been given as either "appointed" or "called," so either would work for that.

When you say "listed," which list are you talking about? The 2008 Church Almanac, put out by the Deseret Morning News, lists the Caribbean Area as being in the 6th Quorum and previous issues since that area has been established have done likewise. Since this is verifiable, it ought to be taken into account. I have yet to see a source saying the Caribbean Area Seventies serve in the 4th Quorum. When you say "CDOL," what do you refer to? I'm not familiar with that term. The 2008 Church Almanac clearly states on page 61 that "Area Seventies residing in...the Caribbean Area...make up the 6th Quorum of the Seventy." For clarification, that's not all it says about the 6th Quorum; I merely included the wording that is relevant to the current issue.

I'm glad to see you appreciate my fixes of the Area Authority page. I did explain the changes I made on the newly started talk page, so further discussion about Area Seventies listings can take place there. Hope this is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping a line to explain changes I just made.

I discovered a few inaccuracies in the list of call dates for the Presidency of the Seventy. Andersen's listing was three or four months earlier than it should have been, which is why Rasband, who was called at the same time as Andersen, was listed as having one year less in the presidency. Also, in the cases of Gonzales and Clayton, the date that was on our list for their sustaining was a day off each. Therefore, it might be well worth our while to double-check ALL the dates for the General Authorities--tedious, I know, but it would be better to double check than to have inaccurate dates floating around. I'd start on that myself today, but I've got other things I need to do.

Also, my August Church magazines arrived today, and Spencer J. Condie has replaced Jay E. Jensen as the Editor of the Church Magazines. Additionally, Gerald N. Lund has been relieved of his responsibilities as an adviser to the Church Magazines, being replaced by Kenneth Johnson. Accordingly, I have made the appropriate changes.

It should also be noted that the New Era (magazine) still lists Jensen as editor and Lund as an adviser. However, that is not correct because of changes found in the Ensign (magazine), Friend (magazine), and Liahona (magazine).

As a sidenote just to show you how a similar proofreading error happened with the New Era (magazine) earlier, I draw your attention to the first content page of the May 2008 New Era (magazine). Though D. Todd Christofferson was listed as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) in the appropriate boxes of the Ensign (magazine), Friend (magazine), and Liahona (magazine), the New Era (magazine) did not list Christofferson as a Quorum member until the June edition, when it talked about his call to serve. This was an obvious oversight on their part, and since the other three magazines clearly list the changes described above, it's happened again.

I say that only to clear up and eliminate possible confusion about how the August 2008 New Era (magazine) could be used as a counterexample to the changes I just described. Hope this makes sense. Just wanted to let you all know about these two items. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that the New Era has an earlier go to print deadline than the other magazines could also explain the discrepency - since from what I understand they don't print the magazines at the same time but sequentially. --Trödel 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be. But I really don't know. At any rate, I was just using it as an example about past inaccuracies. 3 similar listings out of 4 total listings is enough to make it verifiable. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As an additional note I forgot to mention, since the Editor of the Church magazines has generally been the Executive Director of the Curriculum Department, it is more than likely that Condie will be the Executive Director of the Curriculum Department. I can't remember if I input that or not. Someone may wish to double check that. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to inform everyone that I have almost completed the date double-check I asked about. I just have the Second Quorum of the Seventy to go. I did find a few inaccuracies and have had to fix problems along the way, but it's coming along well, and I fully expect to have all the dates verified before the changes take effect on August 1. Of course, if anyone else wants to help with the last bit of date verification, they are more than welcome to. I've been using the 2008 Church Almanac and the biographical information of the newer seventies for verification purposes. Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just finished verification, and to the best of my knowledge, all dates for all General Authorities have at this time either been verified or corrected. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that work! --Trödel 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's the sort of thing I don't mind doing, and now that the current dates are accurate, all we'll have to do in future is ensure accurate dates for those who will be called as General Authorities later on. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge complete

Merge of the changes is complete. Note that this makes some weird stuff happen in the history (like if you compare a change by Good Olfactory to the one before by Jgstokes - a bunch of dates Jgstokes made get removed by Good Olfactory's change because they were actually made on two different pages, the original article, and the temporary page setup for the august changes (which is now deleted). I believe I have incorporated all the changes made to the the article that were not made on the August 2008 changes page, but feel free to check it out -This is the version right before the histories were merged: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_general_authorities_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&oldid=228331755 TIA --Trödel 02:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Age and years served update

I updated the age and years served using the months template / 12 and rounding to 1 decimal point. I also tried out the years and months template but it was too verbose - 4 years 3 months and such - so it would make the list too wide. Let me know if this is better

I will also try to do the merge of the August changes to this page tomorrow night after 7 pm EDT (next day UTC), but feel free to email me if you notice it hasn't been done --Trödel 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work. The new method looks great. Remember, though, the new changes aren't in effect until August one. Given that WP time is different from mine, it sounds like that will work. Currently, for me, it's about 1:10 PM on Wednesday July 30. So, according to the time zone I live in, the changes won't be in effect until a little under two days from now. That's slightly different from WP time. So, I guess what I'm saying is I have no problem with the changes being made on August 1 UTC, even though it won't be August 1 for me at that time. Sorry about my rambling, and thanks for fixing the ages/years served listings. That's something that's quite a bit beyond my area of expertise. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Observations

I noticed with interest who is remaining as an Area President. Four of them are over 70, it seems like it would have been a good time to release them from service as an Area President if they will be released in October - I'll be curious to see what happens in October. The four are Lynn Mickelson, Charles Didier, , William Parmley (all three members of the 1st quorum and over 72), and Robert Oaks (who is a member of the 2nd quorum with 8.3 years served). I for one am glad to see that they continue to let seventy serve beyond 72 when they are healthy - there is no substitute for experience. --Trödel 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, the only time Area Presidencies are altered has been when other changes necessitate it. For instance, when Quentin L. Cook was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) in October 2007, since he was an Area President over certain areas as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, he was relieved of that responsibility, and Walter F. Gonzalez, who replaced him, took on his Area Presidency assignments. Likewise, the change in status for Gonzalez necessitated a change in the area presidency he presided over. Same deal with D. Todd Christofferson's call to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church). L. Whitney Clayton replaced him, and whatever Area Presidency position he was in was reassigned to someone else. I have observed that unless there is a change in the General Leadership of the Church such as this, the area presidencies remain unaltered for the full year. You would be interested to know that Lynn A. Mickelsen and Charles Didier have been over seventy for a period of some years and have still held on to Area Presidency assignments. As long as their health remains okay, and as long as the Spirit directs, they will remain in the 1st Quorum of the Seventy and in their current assignments. I therefore believe that they will not be released in October. William W. Parmley is actually in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, but you are correct that he is over seventy. The situation that Mickelsen and Didier are in is exactly the same as that for Oaks and Parmley. In my copy of the Church Almanac, beside the names of each General Authority, I list their ages. I have taken a look at how old each member of the First Quorum is, and how long each member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy has served and whether they are over 70 or close to that. From that, I have made predictions relating to what changes may transpire in October. Though I'm probably either partially or entirely wrong, this is what I've come up with:

Members of the First Quorum of the Seventy who may be granted Emeritus Status:

Sheldon F. Child has been called to be a temple president and is 70.

John B. Dickson is 65 and unassigned.

Bruce C. Hafen is 67 and unassigned.

John M. Madsen is 69 and unassigned.

Glenn L. Pace is 68 and unassigned.

Earl C. Tingey has been called to be a temple president and is 74.

Lance B. Wickman is 67 and serves as Church General Counsel, but there are enough unassigned lawyers among the Seventy that could fill that position.

Members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy who may be released:

Mervyn B. Arnold, who has served for 5 years. However, he's only 60.

Douglas L. Callister has served for 8 years. He's 69.

James M. Dunn will have been in 6 years in October and is 68.

Daryl H. Garn will be 70 in December and will have served for 6 years in October.

Spencer V. Jones will have been in for 6 years in October. However, he'll be 63 in September.

Gerald N. Lund will be 69 in September. He has served for 6 years.

Clate W. Mask Jr. has been in 5 years. He'll be 66 next month.

Robert R. Steuer will be 65 in December, has served for 7 years, and has been called to be a temple president.

Robert S. Wood will be 72 in December and has served for 9 years.

Again, some of these may not fully be accurate. This is largely a guess on my part. If I had to refine my guess, I would say that Elders Child, Madsen, and Tingey may be granted emeritus status, and Elders Callister, Dunn, Garn, Lund, Steuer, and Wood may be released. I only suggest the possibility of these changes because these men are either unassigned, getting old, in ill health, or asked to fill other assignments. I wouldn't put my head on a block for any of these changes, and I'm more than likely 100% wrong. However, I do enjoy making these predictions, and it's always interesting to me to find out how right/wrong I am. Let me just say that the last time I made predictions about changes in general Church leadership, I was just about 100% correct because such changes were to be expected. However, I'm not infallible, so there's more than an outside chance I'm dead wrong. The spirit of inspiration always defies what on the surface appears to be sound logic. Hope you've enjoyed reading my guesses. Please don't take them as gospel truth. But don't be surprised either if I have guessed partially or completely right. Unlikely, but it could happen. Hope you've enjoyed reading this as much as I've enjoyed writing about it. Hope this information (such as it is) is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did enjoy reading it. I remember that David E. Sorensen was released from the presidency shortly before he was granted emeritus status (and called to be the San Diego temple president. --Trödel 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that in what I wrote I didn't sound too obnoxious or anything like that. I thought you might enjoy a little Church History lesson, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. Now the bothersome thing is to have to wait until October to see how right/wrong I am. Whoever said time flies obviously never made a prediction like this. :) --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2009 Changes in Area Leadership Assignments

Effective August 1, 2009, changes have been made in Area Leadership Assignments. These changes are featured in the August 2009 Ensign on pp. 76-77. I suggest that these changes be incorporated as soon as possible for the accuracy of this page. I would take care of it myself, but I don't have time to do so. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have made all these changes. Note that the following were released from Area assignment in August 2009

• Shirley D. Christensen (age 70.5 - 6.3 years) - 2nd Q
• Charles Didier (age 73.8 - 33.8 years)
• David F. Evans (age 57.9 - 4.3 years)
• Larry W. Gibbons (age 67 - 3.3 years) - 2nd Q
• Keith K. Hilbig (age 67 - 8.3 years)
• Lynn A. Mickelsen (age 74 - 19.3 years)
• Dennis B. Neuenschwander (age 69.8 - 18.3 years)
• Robert C. Oaks (age 73.4 - 9.3 years) - 2nd Q
• William W. Parmley (age 73.5 - 6.3 years) - 2nd Q
• Lowell M. Snow (age 65.6 - 3.3 years) - 2nd Q

I speculate that, given their age, Didier & Mickelson will be designated Emeritus; and Oaks & Parmley (and probably Christensen) will be released from the 2nd Quorum at the next general conference. Of course that all depends on health and other considerations. --Trödel 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes, Trodel. Before yesterday, I had not been on Wikipedia in more than a year. It's good to be back. As for your speculation, I can give you more than that. I can give you a prediction based on cold, hard facts. Here they are:

First Quorum Members who may receive Emeritus Status in October:

Charles Didier: Has been released as Brazil Area President, has served for more than 34 years, and is 73.

Lynn A. Mickelsen: Has been released as Mexico Area President, has served for 19 years and is 74.

Dennis B. Neuenschwander: Is a widower, has been released as Middle East/Africa North Area Co-Supervisor, has served for more than 18 years, and will soon be 70.

Second Quorum Members who may be released in October:

Douglas L. Callister: Has been called as Bountiful Utah Temple President, has served 9 years, and is 70.

Shirley D. Christensen: Has been released as Central America 1st Counselor, has served 6 years and is 70.

James M. Dunn: Currently unassigned, has served 7 years and is 69.

Daryl H. Garn: Has been called as Mesa Arizona Temple President, has served 7 years and is 70.

Spencer V. Jones: Currently unassigned, has served 7 years and is 64. If not released, will likely be sustained to the First Quorum of the Seventy in April.

Clate W. Mask, Jr.: Has been called as Guatemala City Guatemala Temple President, has served 6 years, and is 67.

Robert C. Oaks: Has been released as Europe Area President, has served 9 years and is 73.

William W. Parmley: Has been called as Sacramento California Temple President, has served 6 years, and is 73.

W. Douglas Shumway: Has been called as Albuquerque New Mexico Temple President, has served 6 years and is 69.

Robert S. Wood: Has been called as Boston Massachusetts Temple President, has served 10 years and is 73.

Additional changes that are forthcoming at some point:

New Presiding Bishopric: Current one has served almost 14 years, and all members are close to or over 70.

New Primary Presidency: Current one has served for 5 years next April.

How's that for cold, hard facts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - that's pretty good - thx for the research. --Trödel 06:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty close - didn't predict Madsen and Spencer Jones is still serving although he is the longest tenured 2nd quorum member by far - 7 years vs 4.5 for closest member - :) --Trödel 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Curriculum Department Advisers

This topic is being started to report another change that I found out about that I do not have time to make myself. As found in the September 2009 Ensign, the advisers to the Curriculum Department have changed. This also means a change in advisers to the Church magazines. As found on page 3 of the magazine previously referred to, Spencer J. Condie is still the editor. However, the advisers have changed. Instead of Elders Gary J. Coleman, Kenneth Johnson, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, and W. Douglas Shumway, the new advisers are as follows: Keith K. Hilbig, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, and Paul B. Pieper. Since the magazine previously referred to is a verifiable source, I'd appreciate someone making those changes on this page in my behalf. Thanks in advance for the help. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just made the changes myself. Never mind. Thanks anyways. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

New Pacific Area Presidency

As per this article: New presidency named for Pacific Area, the wikilist has been modified to reflect this change. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New Europe East Area Presidency

Today in the Church News, a change in the Europe East Area Presidency was announced by the First Presidency, effective immediately. Elder Wolfgang H. Paul continues to serve as Area President. But his First Counselor, Elder Kevin W. Pearson, has been reassigned to Church headquarters for a special assignment with the Missionary Department. Elder Gregory A. Schwitzer, formerly the Second Counselor in the area, is the new First Counselor. And Elder Aleksandr M. Manzhos, an Area Seventy, has succeeded Elder Schwitzer as Second Counselor. See the following source for verification of this fact: New presidency named for Europe East Area. Consequently, the appropriate and necessary changes have been made. This source will need to be cited within this article at the appropriate places. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Changes in General Church Leadership for April 2010

For those who may be interested, I have compiled a list of possible changes in general Church leadership for April 2010. The list follows, along with the reasoning behind certain facts.

First Quorum of the Seventy: New members sustained from Second Quorum of the Seventy, Area Seventies, or Church at large.

Second Quorum of the Seventy: Spencer V. Jones released (to fulfill assignment as president of the New Mexico Farmington Mission); new members sustained from Area Seventies or Church at large.

Presiding Bishopric: Possible release of all of them and sustaining of new Presiding Bishopric.

Area Seventies: Some released, others sustained.

Primary General Presidency: Sisters Cheryl C. Lant, Margaret S. Lifferth (husband called as Australia Melbourne Mission president), and Vicki F. Matsumori (husband called as Washington D. C. North Mission president) released, new Primary General Presidency sustained.

Well, what do you think? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check new information for date accuracy.

Please be sure when dates are added that they are accurate. Otherwise, WP readers will receive misinformation. Accurate information is fairly easy to verify, and it is far easier to insert accurate information to start with than it is to fix erroneous information. Thanks.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For some of the callings in the 1970s and 1980s, the church almanacs appear to use date of sustaining in general conference, whereas the table uses actual date of calling. Oftentimes these dates differed by a number of months, as set out in the reference to the Ensign references on the individuals' pages. Angel Abrea is one example. He was called and set apart on March 20 but not sustained until the April general conference. Because the General Handbook was changed to say that a person should not be set apart until they are sustained, this practice seems to have been discontinued for GAs, and they are typically now set apart on the day they are sustained, as I understand it. It used to be quite common for a new apostle to be ordained fairly quickly when one of the Twelve would die, but now the practice seems to be to wait until they have been sustained in a general conference. The only exception that still seems to be maintained is the re-organization of the First Presidency—they still do this within days, without the sustaining in general conference preceding the ordination and setting apart of counselors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Hopefully inaccurate date entry can be avoided in the future. Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't thought of that. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Emeritus General Authority

I was bothered by the current WP definition of Emeritus General Authority. In going back to the talk in which this term was first introduced, I found out why. The definition as it stood was misleading and erroneous. Consequently, I have replaced the WP definition with President N. Eldon Tanner's explanation of this term. It has been properly sourced and cited. If there's a better way to handle WP's definition of this term, I'd love to hear about it. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is what bothered you the statement that they are no longer members of a quorum but they remain general authorities? This wasn't stated by Tanner, but by necessary implication I think it probably has to be true. In the First Quorum of the Seventy there are now 60 or so members (not including members of the Presidency of the Seventy, who may also be members of that Quorum). At the same time, there are now 42 emeritus GAs who were members of that Quorum. A Quorum of the Seventy can't have more than 70 members, so by implication I think it has to be said that the emeritus GAs are no longer members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. At the same time, they remain general authorities because they have not been formally released. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I don't necessarily buy it. Tanner said specifically that they were not released from their calling, but were only released from active service. By "active serve" I would assume he meant traveling, because Emeritus brethren are often called as temple or mission presidents. Also, you said, "A Quorum of the Seventy can't have more than 70 members." I find that statement problematic. It is true that the scriptural specification (in the Doctrine and Covenants) for the Seventy says 70 members. But you will also note that the scriptures make allowances for "7 times 70" seventies if the labor in the kingdom requires it. The LDS Church thrives on the principle of modern revelation. Though the designation of emeritus seventy was first expalined by Tanner, the decision to so designate came down from Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet at that time. Tanner expressly said that they were only released from active service, NOT their quorum designation. Since Tanner was in essence speaking for Kimball, by "implication" we must assume that the President of the Church IN THIS CASE received revelation to allow more than 70 in the quorum. They would not be "listed," because they are no longer "active" in the quorum, but they are quorum members just the same. Does that make sense? I hope so. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense and I understand. The problem is, the "7 times 70" is referring to the creation of new quorum of the seventy—up to 7 times 70 quorums if necessary—in other words, have as many quorums of the seventy as you need. But the principle that a quorum of the 70 can only have 70 members is scriptural and is still applied. That's the reason the quorums that contain Area Seventies have been divided. In many cases, they are geographically divided in odd ways—there's no logical reason for some of them to be divided and grouped the way that they have. But when the quorum nears 70 members, they create a new one. Hence, there are 8 quorums now. If you count them, there is no quorum of the seventy that has more than 70 members. (Unless you include the emeritus ones in the first quorum, which, as I've said, we don't need to do to be logically consistent.) I'm quite sure I have a reference for this, which I will provide soon I hope to substantiate the position that they are no longer members of a 70s quorum. When Tanner spoke, I think they may well have still been in the quorum, because there was still room. But now there is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will wait to form a final opinion on this issue until I see the source you claim to have. In the meantime, I would like to bring 2 more sources to your attention that seem to concretely prove the point I was trying to make. On an earlier issue on another page, Elder Bruce R. McConkie made the following statement: "The proper course for all of us is to stay in the mainstream of the Church. This is the Lord's Church, and it is led by the spirit of inspiration, and the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture." (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of the Restoration, pg. 66). You may ask what this quote has to do with the issue at hand. It's simple. If the practice of the church constitutes the interpretation of the scriptures, then by implication, if the Church practice is to have more than x amount of members of any given quorum, even if the number x is spelled out in the scriptures, then current practice is the interpretation of the scriptures.

With that quote in mind, I now present the second source. It's an obituary for Elder William Grant Bangerter, who died on Sunday. From the first line of the obituary, I quote. "William Grant Bangerter [was] an emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." [William Grant Bangerter::Daily Herald-Obituaries http://www.ads.heraldextra.com/articles/2010/04/22/obituaries/357495.prt] Now, would you please tell me why anyone, in or out of the Church, would call someone a member of something if he or she is not? It is obvious from the obituary that Elder Bangerter considered himself a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy until his death. No one is removed from their permanent callings even if their status changes. To say otherwise would be akin to implying that if I change wards or stakes, I am no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As I said, I will defer my final judgment on this point until I see your source. But until that time, there is nothing that anyone can say that will convince me that granting emeritus status to members of the First Quorum of the Seventy takes away their membership in that Quorum. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem sufficiently confident in your own opinions and they seem more a matter of faith than anything else, and you're right that no one can counter that with evidence. So it doesn't seem worth discussing further. Though if the best you can come up with is a privately-written and paid obituary in a non-LDS Provo newspaper, I think it's telling. If you refer to Bangerter's obituary in the Church News or the Deseret News, both which are owned by the LDS Church, they refer to him simply as an "emeritus general authority". I also generally take the church's canonized texts and handbooks at their word, both of which say quorums of 70 have up to 70 members. If I'm misreading you and you are really interested, you may also want to refer to the July 2004 Ensign magazine, which states that the Sixth Quorum of the Seventy was created because the Fifth Quorum of the Seventy was at the point where it was exceeding 70 members, and that 70 members constitutes what it calls "a full quorum". There's a bunch of other stuff similar to this if you are interested in more. For instance, the Ensign and the Deseret News Church Almanac refer to people in the position as "emeritus general authorities". I think there's a Sunstone commentary on the issue too which I haven't been able to find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A few items need to be cleared up. When I feel I'm right, I stick to my guns. However, when I am proven wrong, I admit it. I concede your point about the area seventy quorums. That was a great find. Thanks for sharing. In your rush to contradict my chosen stance on the issue, you completely bypassed the Bruce R. McConkie quote. I reiterate the relevant part of that quote: The practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture. You have failed to disprove that part of it. I will say this much. Up until sometime during President Benson's tenure, the Emeritus brethren were still featured on the General Authorities chart of the Church. On that chart, above their pictures, was written the words, "Emeritus Members of the First Quorum of the Seventy." The fact that the Church stopped featuring them on the chart at some point during Benson's tenure does make me think a little. I never want to be accussed of being close-minded. If you find additional evidence that I'm wrong, please bring it to my attention, and I will gladly change my stance. In the meantime, I intend to keep doing research to back up what I claim. I have a good friend in Elder C. Max Caldwell, a released member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy who serves as the senior sealer at the Mount Timpanogos Temple. So far, he's never failed to answer any gospel question I put to him. The sources he has pointed me towards in the past have even helped to resolve doctrinal disputes here on WP. If anyone can point me to a source that substantiates or disproves what I claim once and for all, it would be him. I'll talk to him this week. In the meantime, if you find other sources, I would welcome them. I hope I'm not sounding disagreeable here. All I want is for this information to be accurate. If that means what I think right now is correct, I will continue to support my chosen view. If there is enough evidence to the contrary, I will accept it. Right now I base my opinion on what I've been able to find, and what I'm hearing here. You haven't convinced me, but I am not immovable. Fair enough? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no doubt that the church used to refer to emeritus GAs in the way you say, but I would also guess that was before including them in the 1st Quorum would put the Quorum above 70 members. It would be easy to find out—just find an old chart where they were referred to as that and count up the members—I bet you dollars to donuts it will be less than 70. Today, including the emeritus ones in the 1st Quorum puts the 1st Quorum over 70 members—and surprise!—they now refer to them as Emeritus General Authorities. So to me it looks like the practice of the church has changed since the Tanner quote. I ignored the McConkie quote because I don't think it's particularly relevant because here we are simply disagreeing on what they "practice of the church" is, so it makes little sense to point out that the practice of the church constitutes the correct interpretation of scripture. As a principle that may be true, but you say the church includes them in the 1st Quorum and I say they do not. Thus the disagreement is not resolved by recourse to that quote. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

After taking a few days to cool off (always wise before putting my foot in my mouth), to do some research of my own, and to talk to Elder C. Max Caldwell, a released member of the Seventy, about this issue, I now feel prepared to clear the air between us and clarify the issue once and for all. Before I say anything else, I want you to know that what I learned before talking to Elder Caldwell softened me enough to help me resolve to accept whatever he had to tell me, whether it substantiated or contradicted what I personally believed. And I hope that this same spirit will attend me as I write this next part of our discussion.

First of all, let me say this: in your last post, you turned aside a quote from Elder Bruce R. McConkie on the basis that it had nothing to do with the issue at hand. But I reiterate the last part of the quote, "The practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture." I believe that this DOES have relevance to the matter at hand. I will tell you why. You have appealed to as yet unreferenced scriptures to substantiate your claim that any given quorum of the seventy cannot have more than seventy members. You cited the fact that there are 8 quorums of the seventy now because any combination of any of the quorums would take quorum membership to above 70. In this post, I intend to show that both assumptions are incorrect.

Now, since you seem to have a pretty good grasp of LDS doctrines and practices, I am proceeding on the assumption that you are LDS yourself. Based on that assumption, I will highlight resources from modern scripture (the Doctrine and Covenants and the Ensign) that will prove what I say to you.

Point A: your claim that a quorum of the seventy can have no more than seventy members. Where in the scriptures does it say that? I think we can agree that numbers in the scriptures cannot always be taken literally. Take, for example, the Savior’s admonition to forgive our brethren until "seven times seventy." To take it literally would be to say that we are only required to forgive our brethren 490 times. So, once I have been offended 491 times, I no longer have to forgive anyone. I think we can agree that that’s ridiculous. Same deal with the only specification for the number of seventies quorums. Seven times seventy if the labor in the kingdom requires it. Where’s the provision for the 8th quorum of the seventy? In modern revelation as given to Gordon B. Hinckley, the prophet at that time.

A name is not the best indicator of what something is. Is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles incorrectly organized when there are vacancies due to death? Or when there 14 apostles in the quorum after the death of the prophet? (See User talk: Sesmith, item number 6, for a detailed explanation of this point. As a sidenote, the information contained therein was also compiled by Elder Caldwell and appears there with his permission.) Have you ever seen an elders’ quorum with the scripturally mandated 96 members? I don’t think so. Not for a hundred years, at least. As a new Aaronic Priesthood holder, I joined a quorum of only 3 other boys. The deacon’s quorum presidency was the deacon’s quorum. Were we any less a quorum because we did not have the scripturally mandated 12 boys? No.

You claim that your viewpoint is substantiated by the scriptures, but have not provided a single resource to prove that claim. So, let’s go into what the Doctrine an Covenants really says about the seventy. From the Guide to the Scriptures, I take the following, "The Seventy are called to preach the gospel and be especial witnesses of Jesus Christ, D&C 107: 25-26. The Seventy act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve, building up the Church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, D&C 107: 34. Choose other seventy, even seven times seventy, if the labor requires it, D&C 107: 93-97. The quorum of seventies is instituted for traveling elders to bear record of my name in all the world, D&C 124: 138-139."

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I offer additional proof. From the index, which cites scriptures in the Triple Combination are taken the following scriptures which I will not reproduce here, but invite you to study at your leisure. They are: D&C 107: 25, 26, 34 (two references), 38, 93-97 (each verse dealing expressly with the seventy and referencing their role and having multiple references); D&C 124:138-139. Nowhere in the modern revelations does it specify the number of seventy as to the limit for each quorum size. In fact, when mentioning the seventies as a group, the Lord refers to only one quorum of the seventy. Where is the provision for other quorums of the seventy? Again, in modern revelation.

Now, to the next issue, your claim that there are 8 quorums of the seventy now because any combination of any of the quorums would take quorum membership to above 70. I concede that that was indeed the reason that “News of the Church” gave for the splitting of the 3rd and 4th quorums into the 7th and 8th quorums, but that is not so. Elder Caldwell was close to the decision-making when it happened, and he said that he knows from his own knowledge that the split was due not to number, but to geographic restrictions. The same scriptures that set the precedent for seventies quorums also encourage quorums to meet together often. That just isn’t practical to do when you live half a world away from the rest of your quorum. So it was more a matter of geography than it was numbers.

Elder Earl C. Tingey, who served faithfully for many years in the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, has written three stunning articles about the seventy. Both appeared in the Ensign. I provide a link to them here. You may study them at your leisure. The first: The Saga of Revelation: The Unfolding Role of the Seventy (Ensign, September 2009, pp. 48-50). The second: The Quorums of the Seventy (Ensign, August 2005, pp. 54-60). And finally, Area Authority Seventies: To Bear Record of My Name in All the World, (Ensign, October 2002, pp. 50-55. You will note that the last article cited, the one about area seventies, specifically states that the division of quorums is geographical, not by numbers.

I can also recommend a talk by Elder S. Dilworth Young, which can be found here: The Seventies: A Historical Perspective, Ensign, July 1976, pp. 15-21

Now, that being said, I did observe something interesting in my research. From Sustaining of Authorities, I quote: "It is proposed that we release Elders L. Aldin Porter and Marlin K. Jensen as members of the Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy. It is also proposed that we release Elders L. Aldin Porter, Vaughn J. Featherstone, Rex D. Pinegar, John K. Carmack, and L. Lionel Kendrick as members of the First Quorum of the Seventy and designate them as emeritus members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. All who wish to join with us in doing so, please manifest it."

And then from The Sustaining of Church Officers, we read, "It is proposed that we release Elder Ben B. Banks as a member of the Presidency of the Quorums of the Seventy and as a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and designate him as an emeritus General Authority. All who wish to join with us in doing so, please manifest it. Thank you."

I have diligently searched the Ensign from the November 2001 to November 2002, and fail to find any reason for the change in terminology. But as Elder Caldwell observed to me just this afternoon, a change in terminology does not necessarily connote a change in status. There has been no repeal, that I am aware of or have been able to find, of the designation of emeritus general authorities as members of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

In case you haven't noticed, I have provided at least ten sources to substantiate what I claim. You have provided nothing but your own word. Since what I claim is backed up by sources that should be more than sufficient for you, the burden of proof is now on you. One source proving me wrong would suffice. Unless you can prove your opinionwithin a reasonable amount of time, say within a week, it will be my recommendation that the text I object to be deleted.

Well, that’s enough to chew on for the moment. Let me know what you think. We might disagree on this point, but I still respect your opinion and your work as a Wikipedia editor, and I hope you can say the same for me. Thanks for wading through this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer to get something that is on point, rather than just conjectures and original research opinions. According to the quotes, they are released as members of their Quorum but retained as emeritus members. That says to me they are not members of the quorum. I think we just interpret the same language differently. I don't think we can say it's something that any appeal to sources has by any means resolved. Until someone finds something directly on point, it will be uncertain. I stand by what I said about the BRM quote. It applies, but not in the way you think. If we disagree about what current practice is, it renders his quote unhelpful in the context of the disagreement. I also stand by the idea that a 70s quorum has up to 70 members: again, we are just interpreting the same words in different ways. I think you assume too much from some of your readings. Of course the quorums of 70 are organised by geography—but this says nothing about how many members the quorum may have. In other words, a quorum could be divided by geography and yet still be limited to 70 members. It's not an either/or choice. But I digress. For now, what can be agreed upon is that they remain general authorities until their death, which is what the definition should say until there is a source that can directly comment on this disagreement. Whether they are a member of a 70s quorum is interesting, but it is of little consequence. I've made the adjustment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess all we can do at this point is agree to disagree. I feel that you are deliberately overlooking sources that prove what I've been trying to say. I'm sure I would have come up with these resources on my own, given time. But I find that for any doctrinal question, it helps to talk it out with someone before I form a solid opinion. Call it original research if you will, but in my mind, the fact that someone else pointed me towards these resources is a definite plus. I knew they were out there, I just didn't know where to look. It is now clear to me from your reply that you never intended to list sources that back up your claims. Here and now is neither the time nor the place to spout off unsourced, biased opinions. With that said, I did find the new wording to be slightly more to my liking, but as some of the contents clearly do not encompass that which I feel can be added from the sources I cited, I still think it needs work. Also, I am not comfortable in having just you and me responding to this issue when it's evident that your mind is closed to the truth. So I have invited another WP editor whom I highly respect and who has helped clear up WP confusion in the past to weigh in on this issue. I invite you to do the same. Having said this, I want you to know that our current dispute in no way diminishes my respect for you as a person or a WP editor. I have admired your work in the past, and am confident that I will continue to do so in the future. But at present, the dispute is just a little more than I can handle on my own. So I will say this: the sources I have found (whether through my own research or with the help of others) seem to bear out the opinion I've held all along. I am willing to hold off further objections until others weigh in. But unless you or others can produce evidence substantiating your current seemingly fallacious claims, I am determined to hold my ground. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh—it looks like there are currently 63 members listed as members of the First Quorum. Add the 7 presidents, each of whom is drawn from the First Quorum, and we get 70 members. Coincidence? I would suggest not. If this ever exceeded 70, I think it would tell us something, but I would bet it will not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So, now you're attempting to prove your point by conjecturing about what might happen in the future? Come on! That's hardly conclusive, and it doesn't help your argument at all. You know, the 7 presidents haven't always been drawn from the First Quorum of the Seventy. Robert C. Oaks served for several years as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy. He was called from the Second Quorum of the Seventy, and when released from the Presidency, that's where he returned until his release last October. So there were only 6 of the 7 presidents of the Seventy from the First Quorum during Oaks's tenure. So using that argument is somewhat misleading. I have never yet heard of an incident where the First Quorum actually numbered above 70, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Name is not always indicative of number. Even the scriptures can be misleading at times in light of the current practice of the Church. The D&C specifies that 3 presiding high priests compose the First Presidency. But David O. McKay at one time had a First Presidency of 5. What allowed him to do that? Modern revelation. The scriptures specify 12 apostles. But there are 15 living apostles, including those of the First Presidency. During interim periods that only last a few days between the death of one Church president and the calling of a next, the counselors who are apostles resume their places in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The quorum numbers 13 or 14 during those periods. What allows that to happen? Modern revelation to the Senior Apostle. The only way you can discard these examples is if you do not believe in the principle of modern revelation. Of course, if that is the case, your argument holds no water anyways because you claim that modern revelation substantiates your viewpoint.

Instead of tossing out meaningless conjectures as a lifeline (a dangerous strategy at best), why don't you cut the speculation and present actual sources that substantiate your claim? That's what this really all comes down to. If you have sources that substantiate your claims, give them. If not, then it's pointless to throw out meaningless conjectures that do nothing to strengthen your argument. The theory you presented has just been proven to be false. So, at the moment, from what I can see, you don't have a leg to stand on and are using any method (however obscure and absurd) in an attempt to contradict what I have demonstrated from sources that go beyond conjecture to actual truth. You first presented your argument almost a month ago. So far, nothing you have found seems to contradict information in the sources I have found. Sticking to your guns is not a problem. But when WP readers don't have accurate, trustworthy, verifiable information, the credibility of WP goes on a downward spiral. Are you honestly willing to let WP credibility take a beating simply because you refuse to accept the truth? Think it over. If the answer to that question is yes, you are free to continue spouting meaningless conjecture. But if the answer to that question happens to be no, and I think it will be, then either cite your sources or admit that you don't have any. If you cite your sources and they bear out what you say, I would be happy to agree with you. But if you don't cite your sources or admit that you don't have any, it will still be my recommendation that the wording I find misleading and inaccurate should be deleted. Just give it some thought. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I think doing so would be pointless. There's not even an underlying content dispute that would require it, so there's nothing about WP credibility at stake. I assumed this was just a friendly beside-the-point debate, with both parties not able to "prove" their belief because there are no sources that explicitly address the issue in dispute. I think you may be taking this too seriously. I have just been trying to have an interesting dialogue about it while considering all points, but if you don't want to do that, that's fine. It is kind of extraneous to the article content at this point. (Given your post in a section below I do find your attitude towards speculation a tad unusual, or at least inconsistent.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources is never pointless. I am happy to change my viewpoint, if it can be reasonably shown that I am wrong. However, you have utterly failed to do so. The sources you claim, if they are what they say they are, would be sufficient to convince me and end the issue under discussion. Frankly, it looks to me like you might be a little too scared of what the sources actually say to study the issue completely. I never thought I'd see the day when a WP editor whose work I respect would chicken out of supplying proof to substantiate his claims. But then I suppose there is a first time for everything. Cowardice is the only valid reason left to explain why you have not cited sources to substantiate your claim. I believe if you were to seriously study the sources I have given in the past, they would prove to you that what I say is true. I may be taking the debate too seriously, but this is only because it has to do with the interpretation and reporting of correct gospel principles. And I always take such things seriously because they form the basis of what I know to be true.

On the speculation issue, I take this opportunity to explain my stance more fully. Speculating about what changes might be made to Church leadership seems to be relatively harmless, because the guesses made are almost always proven to be entirely wrong. Speculating about Church doctrine and practice is another story altogether. Some have wrested the scriptures or the words of Church leaders to their own destruction. I never have and never will condone such an attitude because it runs counter to everything I know to be true. That's the difference. Where no solid information is available, speculation is tolerated, if not encouraged. But where the doctrine and practice of the Church have been declared, the speculation stops. "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." Hopefully that clarifies my stance on the speculation issue.

Now, to further establish a point of proof, I mentioned in an earlier post that the division of area seventies was geographical rather than numerical. If you go back to the Ensign when the Second Quorum of the Seventy was established (May 1989 was when it was reported), it clearly states that the establishment of the Second Quorum of the Seventy had nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with establishing a separate quorum for those under a temporary call. It may interest you to know at that time that the combined number of General Authority Seventies was 67, excluding the emeritus brethren, who, for whatever reason, were not numbered among the Seventy at that time. So, if your earlier claim about the splitting of seventy quorums being based on when they reach the number 70 was true, the Second Quorum of the Seventy should not have been created at that time. I think you will see that following this line of reasoning is ridiculous. So, I believe we can agree that the establishment of membership in any given quorum of the seventy is not numerical, but done rather as the Spirit directs.

The sources seem to bear out this viewpoint. But, as I said, if there's something that I've missed, I would keep an open mind about the issue. As it now stands, though, it appears that the sources that have been produced thus far substantiate what I claim, and my recommendation remains that the objectionable wording be removed or tweaked further to reflect the truth. That recommendation, more than anything, is the real reason I suggested getting more feedback. With just two of us participating in the discussion, we could go back and forth on the issue, neither of us gaining or losing ground, interminably. I still maintain that for the credibility of WP, this issue needs to be resolved ASAP. This is because inaccurate information (from where I sit) reflects on the integrity of the material in question. That's the reason for asking for additional feedback. Any other reason is secondary and far less relevant. Hopefully this has cleared up any questions about my position or conduct. I would suggest having this isssue resolved one way or another by June 1. Thanks for reading this. Hope it helps. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Lol, no, I am not "chicken". Frankly, I have tired of the debate due to your black-and-white/either-or approach. Yes, the seventies are divided geographically. But that doesn't automatically mean that the quorums are not also limited to 70. It's possible for both to be true. I don't think it's a terribly urgent issue, since there is no text in the articles that is currently in dispute. The sources are subject to interpretation and extrapolation and can be interpreted in various ways. That's a good sign that we should avoid the issue in the article per WP:OR. I was interested in the intellectual speculation here if it were limited to the talk page, but not so much anymore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Date query from my talk page.

Copied from my talk page:

"Why did you change all the dates from day month year format to yyyy-mm-dd format. That format is much more difficult to read and the whole reason we went through and put in the <span style="display:none">yyyy-mm-dd</span> codes in was so that they would sort correctly. Overtime people keep changing it to the unfriendly ISO format and I don't understand why -- Trödel 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the chance to clarify. Thanks for asking. The only dates whose format I personally altered were the date of sustaining for those sustained in 2009. My reason for formatting these? Simple. All the other dates on the page are like that. I was going for uniformity. If you really feel like the current date format is problematic, and wish to challenge that format, you may do so at your convenience on the talk page of the relevant article or articles as the case may be. I personally have no problem with keeping the current format or altering to a more user-friendly format, as long as the consensus agrees. But again, the only dates I altered were for those brethren sustained in 2009, and I did it in exactly the same format as was previously on the page. I look forward to seeing what the consensus decides on this issue. Thanks again for the question. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)"

What can be done about this? It must be a real issue of concern. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have heard about it on my talk page. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ISO works much better in sortable tables so that you can choose to sort the table by date. Other formats don't allow you to do this (it will sort "April" dates before "January" dates and will only sort the years last, so it's next to useless.) So I support using ISO when the table is sortable, as they are here. I also agree with implementing consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Having heard from you, I would now say that I am in favor of keeping the current system. From personal experience, I would say that I have found ISO to work much better. Sorting is so much easier that way. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If the only reason is for sorting then the hidden codes I mention solve that problem. However, when the wikilinking dates became an issue and was contentious, someone came in and removed all the dates that were in wikilinks (See this edit). Prior to that time they displayed according to the person's preferences (as you can see on this revision) under the "Date and Time" tab. Which displayed dates by default as Month dd, yyyy (in 2003-8 if I remember right - when the default was changed to not change the format of wikilinked dates for unlogged in users). Anyway the whole date issue is a cluster if you ask me since the style guide recommended that dates be wikilinked for several years (and reformatted the dates to each individual users preferences) and now recommends they not be linked and that the articles instead be internally consistent and ignore the users preferences.

Personally I'd prefer just to re wikilink the dates so they format the way each user wants them to - but that is a useless battle. In the absence of that I'd like to see the dates in a more easily read format (i.e. dd mmmm yyyy or mmmm dd, yyyy) in the table while leaving the hidden sort codes so that they will sort correctly regardless of the format. --Trödel 02:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. As long as the sorting works properly to sort earlier years earlier, I don't mind which format is used. The use of the hidden codes is obviously more tedious to produce, but if someone believes strongly in retaining the American-style dates because this is an American-based church, I don't see a problem with them doing the work to make it so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 changes

The Church has announced changes in area leadership that are effective August 1. If we can do what we have done in the past in setting up a sub-page that will replace this page on August 1, that would probably be good. See the following sources for the relevant changes that have taken place since last August: New Presidency named for Pacific Area, New Presidency named for Europe East Area, New Area Leadership Assignments. Anyone who wants to work on this sub-page is welcome to do so. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I created the new page for incorporating the changes now Talk:List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/August 2010. I'm not on more than a couple times a week, so send me an email if it is after August 1st and I have forgotten to merge the two pages. Note to any admin that wants to merge the pages, unless I'm mistake the way to merge is to delete the article page, move the new material including its history from that new page (Talk:page/August 2010) to the article page, then undelete the all the revisions that were deleted - thus you retain the edit history as required by the gfdl (and now the cc license). --Trödel 02:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this page. I have implemented the changes I mentioned as follows:

Mervyn B. Arnold is now the President of the South America South Area.

Shayne M. Bowen needs to be removed as President of the South America South Area.

John B. Dickson, the former Second Counselor in the Africa West Area, is now the First Counselor.

Eduardo Gavarret needs to be removed as First Counselor in the South America Northwest Area.

Carlos A. Godoy, the former Second Counselor in the Brazil Area, is now the First Counselor.

Christoffel Golden Jr. needs to be removed as First Counselor in the Africa West Area.

Rafael E. Pino, the former Second Counselor in the South America Northwest Area, is now the First Counselor.

Joseph W. Sitati is now the Second Counselor in the Africa West Area.

Juan A. Uceda is now the Second Counselor in the South America Northwest Area.

Stanley G. Ellis needs to be removed as the First Counselor in the Brazil Area.

Larry R. Lawrence is now the First Counselor in the Europe East Area.

Jairo Mazzagardi is now the Second Counselor in the Brazil Area.

Wolfgang H. Paul needs to be removed as the President of the Europe East Area.

Kent F. Richards is now the Second Counselor in the South America South Area.

Gregory A. Schwitzer, the former First Counselor in the Europe East Area, is now the President.

Any questions? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just realized I omitted the word "Area" from listings for Arnold, Uceda, Lawrence, Mazzagardi, and Richards. So I fixed that. I also entered in Spencer V. Jones's calling as President of the New Mexico Farmington Mission, which is effective July 1. But since it is not an "area assignment" per se, I wasn't sure how to list it. So, under the area, I put "New Mexico Farmington" and under the calling, I put "Mission President." Is there a better way to list that? What are your thoughts?

Also, I took a look a little while ago at ages for First Quorum members and tenures for Second Quorum members. I think it would be safe to say that Spencer J. Condie, Bruce C. Hafen, Kenneth Johnson, Glenn L. Pace and Lance B. Wickman may be granted Emeritus status in October. The only other one close to 70 is Richard G. Hinckley, and he'll not be there until sometime next year.

I really don't know at this point what to predict about changes for the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Spencer V. Jones would be a logical choice for release as he will start serving as President of the New Mexico Farmington Mission on July 1. But it seems to me that if they were going to release him to fulfill this calling, they would have done so in April. Out of all the others, Wolfgang H. Paul is over 70, but he's not quite served 6 years. There are other unassigned brethren that have served close to, but not quite six years. So it'll be interesting to see what is done there. Thanks for wading through these ramblings. Hope they made sense. Keep up the great work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In looking at my Ensign for August 2010, I learned that Paul B. Pieper, previously an adviser to the Church Magazines, is now the editor, replacing Spencer J. Condie. He also replaces Condie as Executive Director of the Curriculum Department. The advisers to the magazines used to be Keith K. Hilbig, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, and Paul B. Pieper. But the advisers are now Stanley G. Ellis, Christoffel Golden Jr., andYoshihiko Kikuchi. The changes, to the best of my knowledge, have been correctly implemented into the subpage. I would welcome assistance from anyone who wants to touch it up before tomorrow when the changes are official. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the changes have been in effect for 9 days now, I went ahead and updated the page. I took the back-door approach to it: I copied the entire subpage, then pasted it into this article. The subpage still exists, and all the changes made to it are still visible when you look at the history for the subpage. Someone with more WP experience than I have can handle merging the actual changes from the subpage into this page. Post here with any questions, comments or feedback. Good to have this up to date! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What dose this mean

Can someone clarify what this statement means "Member and Member, Executive Committee" with regards to Boards of Trustees/Education of the Church Educational System in M. Russell Ballard. Is the Executive Committee separate from the Board of Trustee? The syntax is just confusing to someone who doesn’t know the system.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right that it can be confusing. The Executive Committee is a subcommittee of the Boards of Trustees/Education. Elders Nelson and Ballard have assignments as members of the Executive Committee, along with Elder Snow and Sister Beck. So the statement, within the column of the "CES Board" is trying to show that yes, they are a member of the Board, but in addition are members of the Executive Committee. On the other hand, you'll note that Elder Bednar is a member of the Board, but not the Executive Committee. Please feel free to provide an enhanced way to make this more clear. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple break would make the statment make more since. Tell me what you think.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)