Talk:Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)/Archive 1

Archive 1

14 apostles in quorum

Dear Friends: I was overjoyed to research the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on Wikipedia today and find this wonderful chronology. However, I vehemently and violently object and must emphatically protest to the use of the term "dropped" in the Chronology as it now stands. The way it's written now, it appears that on the dissolvement of the First Presidency at the death of the Prophet that the two most junior apostles are dropped as the two apostles who are counselors in the First Presidency return to their positions. The fact is, that is simply not the case. Even when a Church president is alive, he and his counselors that have at one time or another been members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are counted among that number. Let me demonstrate what I mean. It is common knowledge that unless President Thomas S. Monson precedes President Gordon B. Hinckley in death or unless the Lord, through a revelation to President Monson after President Hinckley's death, says otherwise, that President Monson will become the 16th President of the Church. Before that reorganization where he will choose his own counselors takes place, though, he and President James E. Faust will resume their places in the Quorum. In that case, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will really have 14 apostles in seniority as follows (that is, assuming no other members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 Apostles precede President Hinckley in death): Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry, James E. Faust, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Joseph B. Wirthlin, Richard G. Scott, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar. Assuming no changes are made to the membership of the quorum, or even if there are changes made, the two most junior members will not lose their place in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In point of fact, the 14 apostles (if there are 14 at the time) will play a vital role in the reorganization process. I strongly protest the use of the word "dropped" in that context, because members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the instance described above, as in the deaths of all Presidents of the Church, lose neither their place in the quorum, nor their seniority, nor their apostolic calling. There are also historical holes in the record. I can't pinpoint the exact source of the problem, but as one who loves Church history, I can tell you that there are some major holes in the chronology as it now stands. I hope this information is helpful to you. Jgstokes 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to concur with this (though it is lengthy and difficult to read). What is the basis for continually "dropping" the junior two apostles during periods when there is no First Presidency? This might be the product of some theoretical notion about the Quorum but I don't think it has any correlation to the reality of what happens. There is never any announcement that the junior members are removed. Do you have any indication that they do not participate as full members of the Quorum during these interim periods? Let's fix this.

A quibble and a comment about the comments above. The quibble: While serving in the First Presidency, an apostle is NOT a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, even if they once were. True, they retain their apostolic calling and their apostolic seniority and are added back into the Quorum in their place when the First Presidency is dissolved, but they most certainly are not members of the Quorum when they are member of the quorum of the First Presidency. Every priesthood holder in the church can only belong to one priesthood quorum at any point in time.

The comment: I believe the approach of the chart is that there can only be 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at any given time. Like you, I don't know where to find any sort of authority for or against this proposition, and it wouldn't be a big deal to include the extra apostles in the quorum during these interim periods, though it would sometimes result in the "Quorum of the Twelve" containing 13, 14, sometimes 15 members. Mind you, the chart has "solved" this (perhaps unsolveable) problem by having the column for other apostles who are ordained to that office. Perhaps your problem is more with the word dropped than with anything else? Even though it's long, I think the chart is great because it allows you to find out the status of the quorum and the ordained apostles on any given date in church history!! I would strongly oppose any attempt to "dumb it down".

I think the fact that no one is notified during these interim periods that the junior apostle(s) was/were "dropped" is not a good indicator as to whether it happens or not. They also don't announce that the First Presidency is being reorganized until after it has actually happened! Quite simply, the quorum is generally not sustained at all during these interim periods. -SESmith 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about each priesthood holder only belonging to one quorum at a time. Whenever a worthy priesthood holder advances from one quorum to another, he still maintains the former positions in the quorums to which he has previously been ordained. Let me explain it this way. Right now, I have been an ordained elder and therefore a member of the Elders' Quorum for almost three years now. And I have never once been released from being a member of the other quorums to which I have previously belonged, even if my activity in such quorums no longer takes place. As an elder, I still hold the calling, position, and office of a priest, teacher, and deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood and am still responsible when occasion requires for ministering in these offices. My father is a high priest, and while he also no longer participates in other Priesthood quorums, he has never been released from them and consequently (whether sustained or not) remains an elder, priest, teacher, and deacon as well as being a high priest. President Gordon B. Hinckley is not just the prophet, seer, and revelator and President of the Church. He is also an apostle, high priest, elder, priest, teacher, and deacon, and if occasion requires, he is authorized and able to and does perform the duties pertaining to any and all of these offices. To illustrate the validity of this point, I share two examples. 1. Because members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are often on assignment each Sunday, every Thursday as part of their temple meeting, they have a Sacrament Service. As I understand the process, the 15 apostles take turns in preparing, blessing, and passing the Sacrament to one another. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I know it happens. So when they do that, they are all functioning in the offices they hold as members of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums of the Church. 2. President Thomas S. Monson, 1st Counselor in the 1st Presidency, recounts a story about an experience he had visiting an older brother in the Church that had grown up with him. This brother had gone inactive, and President Monson urged him to come back to Church activity. President Monson, who at one time had served as this man's quorum president, checked up on him until he became active with these words: "Remember this: I am still your quorum president, and I have a responsibility to make sure you remain active in the Church. So you see, being advanced in the priesthood never causes a priesthood holder to lose the office and calling which he has previously held and been previously ordained to. That's the way it is.

Your second point, that there can only be 12 members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, is also a misconception. Even while serving in the First Presidency, Presidents Hinckley, Monson, and Faust remain members of the Quorum of the Twelve and ordained apostles while giving this additional service. If circumstances require it, they are fully authorized, capable, and able to perform the same duties that apostles designated specifically as "members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." See the above paragraph to reiterate why this is the case. You're right. It is mainly the word "dropped" that has my most violent objection, because the members of the Quorum of the Twelve are never dropped. If you're a Church member, look at the first page of any copy of the Ensign magazine that you might have lying around. Near the beginning of any issue of that magazine are listed the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If President Hinckley were to die before the June Ensign became available, but the reorganization of the First Presidency could only take place after that June 2007 edition was released, in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 14 men would be listed. I guarantee it. And I object to the insinuation that a revision of the chart to reflect this difference would be "dumbing it down." Anything that makes written material easier to read can only enhance it. While I would find it silly to constantly list the First Presidency members who are also apostles with the Quorum of the Twelve, the fact is that when President Hinckley dies and Presidents Monson and Faust return to their places, far from being "other apostles" Elders Uchtdorf and Bednar would retain their position, status, place, authority, and office in the Quorum of the 12, because, as I stated above, at that time, they will be a vital part of the reorganization process.

As a matter of record, during the early days of the Church when the President of the Church had died and the apostles presided over the Church for extended periods of time, those former members of the First Presidency that are also members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (since even death does not take away a priesthood office nor the authority thereof even if someone else must be ordained to take the place of the deceased) had their names presented as being among the Quorum even though this made 12, 13, or even 14 apostles, and it would be the same way if President Hinckley were to die before October General Conference but there was no time before it to reorganize the First Presidency. That is the system as I understand it, unless you have documented proof that it is otherwise.

For these reasons, I suggest that something be done to fix the problem. I'd try it myself, but even bringing it up was like stirring up a hornet's nest, so if I tried to fix it, someone here might object. So I leave it to you. At least that way I'm not responsible for it. But either way, I think it needs to be fixed to be more historically accurate. Thanks for your attention.

Jgstokes 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong about membership in a quorum. You are confusing holding of a priesthood office and being a member of a priesthood quorum. Members of the First Presidency hold the priesthood office of Apostle, but they are not members of the quorum of the twelve apostles, nor are they members of any quorums of high priests, elders, priests, teachers, and deacons, even though they also hold those priesthood offices. They are members of the quorum of First Presidency of the church. Every priesthood holder is only a member of one priesthood quorum, even if they retain multiple priesthood offices. I refer you to the recent sustaining of church officers: Thomas S. Monson is sustained as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but he is not listed as a member of the quorum. When the First Presidency is dissolved upon the death of the President, the surviving members return to the Quorum of the Twelve due to Apostolic seniority, not because the members of the First Presidency have magically been members of the Quorum of 12 while they were in the First Presidency. Think about it—if you're not meeting actively with a body of other men, you are not a member of their quorum. That goes to the very meaning of the word quorum. Boyd K. Packer manages meetings of the Quorum of the 12, because the president of the Quorum (Monson) doesn't attend the meetings and is not a member of the Quorum right now.

If you believe that the Quorum of the Twelve can have more than 12 members, how do you explain the fact that Amasa M. Lyman was indeed dropped from the quorum after Orson Pratt was rebaptized and readmitted into the quorum? (This is found in History of the Church. Joseph Smith added him to the First Presidency because Lyman was quorum-less after Pratt was readmitted to the Quorum.) I'm definitely not making the argument that the Quorum of the 12 cannot in any cases have more than 12 members—you should have read my previous post more carefully if you believe I am—but I am pointing out that that seems to be the approach Joseph Smith took when there were more than 12 Apostles who were at one time part of the quorum—Smith dropped the junior members out. The onus is on you to come up with explicit examples where this wasn't done. Perhaps if you could provide some reference for retaining 13+ apostles in the quorum during the periods between organizations of First Presidencies...

And with all due respect, you should know that the Ensign is published several months before the cover date and that the church would never print copies without listing a First Presidency—they would simply delay printing until the new First Presidency is announced. And I guarantee that—try to find an Ensign that has no First Presidency listed—you won't be able to find one. -SESmith 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Boy, oh, boy! When I make my mind up to stir up a hornet's nest, I really do so. No offense meant, my friend, and I hope none is taken. I realize now that when I was disagreeing, the way I did so was also making me appear to be disagreeable. I'm sorry.

I see what you said about offices verses quorum membership. And you are correct in what you said in citing the most recent Sustaining of Church officers. And I guess I also see your point about the Quorum of the Twelve membership.

Now, as to what you said about my belief about why the Quorum of the Twelve can have more than 12 members, you proved it yourself in the example you cited. When the Church and all the leading quorums thereunto appertaining were originally organized, while members of the First Presidency (under Joseph Smith) held the apostolic keys, they were not members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Because of that fact, the actual number of apostles (speaking of membership in the quorum and not of all those who were indeed ordained at the time) was 13 when Orson Pratt was rebaptized and readmitted into the quorum. And since the President of the Church was still alive and the members of the First Presidency were not officially recognized as members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, then in that case the number of apostles couldn't be more than 12. However, when Brigham Young became the President of the Church and his counselors were selected from the membership of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles replacement apostles were selected to fill their place since they were no longer "officially" members of the Quorum. From these two seemingly contradictory examples, we learn that the "if there are more than 12 members the excess are dropped" holds true when and only when the President of the Church is alive and disfellowshipped members resume their place in the Quorum. Let me illustrate. We have on the records of the lives of the apostles on Wikipedia accounts of how some fell away from or were excommunicated from the Church. Let's pull the latest example out of the hat. The last apostle to be excommunicated by the Church was Richard R. Lyman on his admittance of sexual misconduct. He lost all his blessings as a result, including his place in the quorum. Mark E. Petersen was called to fill that vacancy. If and only if Lyman had repented and been readmitted to the Quorum, Petersen would have lost his seniority and his place in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. However, there has never once been a case on the death of the president where the "excess members of the quorum," that is, any who would bring the total to more than 12 at one time, would have been dropped. You show me one provable reference, any provable reference, where that is the case, and that'll be the end of my contention on the matter. However, if you can't, and I don't believe you'll be able to, it's pointless to discuss it further as neither of us would get anywhere.

Now, pertaining to the last bit of what you said, namely, and I quote your exact words, I have the answer for you. You said, "And with all due respect, you should know that the Ensign is published several months before the cover date and that the church would never print copies without listing a First Presidency—they would simply delay printing until the new First Presidency is announced. And I guarantee that—try to find an Ensign that has no First Presidency listed—you won't be able to find one." My response to your contention on that point is this: Take the May issue of the Ensign for this year that has yet to be delivered to our mailboxes. That can't be published "several months before the cover date" because it's impossible to print a report on General Conference until it's actually happened. Another example: If you have many years of Ensigns handy, take a good look at the cover of the one for April 1995. That's the one covering the death of President Howard W. Hunter and the resulting reorganization of the First Presidency. Do you really expect me to believe that such events are anticipated months in advance and the magazines are consequently published with the proper information before the events actually happen? You've got to be kidding me! As far as what you said about the Ensign never printing a copy without it listing a First Presidency, that's absolutely false. You're only saying they "would never" do it because they have yet to do so. If an Ensign was published under the circumstances I described in my last response, than that's the way it would be, especially if there was no First Presidency for a while. In the event that President Hinckley were to die just before a General Conference, do you really believe they would delay that scheduled conference simply because he died? They might, but we can't say they would for sure because it's never happened. And in the event that they didn't, President Monson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would preside over the Conference, and the sustaining of the Church officers would include 14 members of the Quorum of the Twelve, as would the center foldout. I've studied enough about matters like these to know that would be the case. Look at it this way. In 1983, LeGrand Richards died. In April that year, no one was sustained to fill the resulting vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve, nor was it filled in October that year. Then, exactly a year later, Mark E. Petersen died, and that left 10 apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve. The name of the Quorum was not altered during that time it was incomplete, nor were replacements called on the spur of the moment just to make sure the Quorum was fully organized. Only in April 1984 were the two vacancies filled. And during that time, no change was made in the way the members of the quorum were referred to, though the Quorum was incomplete. As a more recent example, you will recall that when Elder Maxwell died and Elder Haight followed 10 days after in July 2004, the September and October Ensigns featured the information on their deaths. The September Ensign listed the members of the Quorum of the Twelve that are listed in this chronology under the dates of July 21-July 31 2004. Then, when reporting on the death of Elder Haight, the October Ensign listed the 10 members of the Quorum of the Twelve that are listed in the Chronology from July 31 2004-October 2, 2004. These Ensigns were not delayed in their publication simply because the Quorum of the 12 Apostles wasn't "fully organized." Why do you think that would change in the case of the First Presidency? That doctrine of members of the First Presidency also belonging to the Quorum of the 12 and the number of members of that quorum not exceeding 12 is a doctrine that belongs to other split-off religious denominations, not the LDS Church. And I challenge you if you can to prove that what I have stated would not be the case, again listing your historical sources. FYI, I'm basing my information on some older Ensigns, the "History of the Church" volumes, and the official Church almanac. What sources do you have besides those you already cited and your word alone? From what I've seen, with all due respect, you have none. Sorry if this sounds trite, accusatory, or immature, but I have the above sources that can't be easily discounted, discredited, or overlooked, and if your sources, whatever they are, say otherwise, unless they are officially endorsed, sponsored, and published by the Church, I wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw them. I leave this with you for you to reflect upon and consider. Respectfully Submitted with a desire for Historical Accuracy, Jgstokes 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of when the magazine is published (an irrelevant side issue if there ever was one), it does not change the fact that you have not yet provided an example of an official church publication that lists 13+ people as belonging to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Until you come up with something concrete, it's all just speculation. I also don't see why you seem so intent on arguing a proposition that I already said I am not opposed to. Instead of going off on speculations about the printing schedule of the Ensign, maybe you could channel your efforts into digging up a conference report from 1888 so we could see how the Quorum of the 12 was sustained after John Taylor died and there were 13 living Apostles who had at one time or another been members of the Quorum. (Hm. Likely they weren't even holding conferences in 1888.) Incidentally, and this is only anecdotal evidence and not meant to be determinative of anything—I was at a stake conference on 5 March 1995—Howard Hunter had died just days before and there was no First Presidency—and when they did the sustaining of officers they sustained the Quorum of the Twelve—with only 12 members. The other two were not mentioned at all. Interesting—but of course could have been the error of the individual stake. As I recall, a Seventy was in attendance, but again—not determinative.

At the end of the day, the issue is really just not relevant in today's church considering the short turnaround time between death of a president and reorganizing First Presidencies. Do I think even the most junior Apostles participate when the Quorum gathers to choose the next president?—Of course. Is the issue of having more than 12 non-First Presidency Apostles even an issue in the church today?—Of course not—because typically the new president selects one or two previous members of the quorum to join the quorum of 1st presidency. But if the new president just happened to select two non-Apostle high priests as his counselors, do I believe that the church would continue to indefinitely sustain 13 members of the Quorum of the Twelve?—No—But the junior member would be readded to the quorum as soon as one of the Apostles died. However, I just don't think the president of the church would ever again put the Quorum in the position of having to do that, because it would appear to many that the junior apostle is being "punished", when that's not it at all. But all this is just my opinion.

I would note that other quorums in the church are quite strict about the number of members they may have. Deacons quorums may only have 12; teachers quorums may have only 24; priests quorums may have only 48; elders 96; seventy quorums 70. These numbers are maximums, not minimums. Of course the Quorum name doesn't change when there are only 10 members. Like any other quorum, the prescribed number is a maximum, not a minimum. (e.g., A Deacon's Quorum is not invalidly organized just because there are only 6 members!) The only two quorums of the church that don't fit this pattern of having a maximum number of members are high priests quorums and the First Presidency. In this case, the fact that the name of the Quorum includes a number suggests to me that it may be more like a Quorum of Seventy or a Quorum of Elders than a High Priests Quorum with unlimited membership. Again, this is just my own opinion though.

Once you acknowledge that the Quorum may have more than the prescribed numbers, you start down a slippery slope. Why not expand the Quorum to 24 members now that the church is so big? Why not 96 Apostles in the Quorum? Well, because the D&C says it should be twelve. Not 13 or 14—Twelve. Not that there can't be more than 12 men with the priesthood office of Apostle—there almost always is—but it seems only logical that there can only be 12 members of the Quorum at one time.

It also seems a bit disingenuous to me to dismiss an example provided and claim that it is the result of a "sepcial instance" that applies "when and only when the President of the Church is alive and disfellowshipped members resume their place in the Quorum." Talk about rule specificity! In the absence of written statement from the church affirming your specificity rule, it seems safer and more honest to take this as an application of a broader rule that applies in all cases of excess Apostles. Again—this is just my opinion—but I prefer to apply an Occam's Razor approach rather than the approach of creating special rules for every particularized incident that may befall the Quorum.

PS on interesting but irrelevant points: General authorities submit their talks to the Ensign several months before General Conference. (If you are a member of the media you can also get a copy of the talks beforehand if you don't feel like attending all the sessions.) After Conference, the Ensign "tweaks" the talks as needed—for instance, when a person ad libs something or gives brief introductory remarks not originally submitted), but most of the body of the written talks remain the same. (Ever wonder why the May and Nov Ensigns are always later in coming than a normal issue?—it's because these are printed after conference whereas others are printed more in advance of hoped-for delivery date.) As for the April 1995 edition, someone in the magazine industry would tell you it's not too hard for a magazine to change its cover and the lead story when someone unexpectedly dies. It doesn't mean that the rest of the magazine wasn't printed long before the death. -SESmith 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, boy! Another hornet’s nest stirred up. I don’t know how I do it. I agree wholeheartedly that when the magazine is published is a side issue, and I am even willing to stipulate its irrelevance. I agree that for the most part it’s all speculation, however, you haven’t yet answered my challenge: show me where this isn’t, or won’t, or wouldn’t be, the case. I’ve made an extensive study of Church history, particularly focusing on statistics that may not matter to anyone but me. I believe I know how the whole presidential succession thing works. And I did try to find the information you requested. However, I was only able to find a limited number of complete conference reports from the early days of the Church. Btw, you were wrong about them not holding Conferences in 1888. Ever since the organization of the Church, General Conferences have been held at least every six months or as often as the previous conference stipulated. The one exception I found was during a flu epidemic in the ‘60's. But that’s just a sidenote that may or may not matter to you. Getting back to your challenge to me, here’s what I found: The most complete database of Conference Reports had a limited number available from the early days. Consequently, I was unable to find any fitting your requirements, though I know they exist somewhere. However, I did find one case where John Taylor was serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. There were 14 apostles in that case, however, because there was no First Presidency at that time (that is, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also served essentially as Acting Church President) the final two, who were counselors to Brigham Young before his death, were sustained as Counselors to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It should be noted that this designation hasn’t been used for over 100 years. And in that case, because there had been no First Presidency for over three years, the very situation under discussion did not exist. In the example you cited, I imagine the names that were omitted were the two most Junior Apostles at that time, Robert D. Hales and Jeffrey R. Holland. I imagine it was an error, because nothing that has been said will make me believe that the two most junior apostles lose their place in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the death of the prophet because it doesn’t happen. In the biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, the funerals of Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Howard W. Hunter are described. The surviving counselors typically sit in their customary places, with the chair between them empty. And all 14 apostles are sitting in their places. That would indicate to me that they don’t lose their place in the quorum. Sheri L. Dew, author of the prophet’s biography, describes the process that is used to select, ordain, and set apart a new President of the Church. All 14 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are given an opportunity to express themselves regarding their feelings toward reorganizing the First Presidency, starting with the most senior and ending with the most junior. Again, all 14 apostles participate in this process. For proof, see the prophet’s biography, pages 309, 318-319, 331, 434, 496, 508-509. (Pages 331 and 508 in particular reflect the view I have held all along respecting the two most junior members not losing their seniority or their place at all, emphasizing fourteen apostles. This is the first time I let my sources do the speaking for me, which I should have done all along.

Above, I went into great detail as to how the selection of the new Church president works and how all fourteen apostles are instruments in bringing that to pass. I am pleased to hear you admit as much. That is miles of progress from where we both were several days ago. And I see what you’re saying about the traditional way the First Presidency is reorganized. I agree mostly with what you said in your second point. However, I would like to emphasize what you probably already know, and that is that when the First Presidency is reorganized, no one can say for sure whether or not the new counselors will be from the Quorum of the Twelve. If Gordon B. Hinckley were to die soon, and Thomas S. Monson elected not to have either counselor from the Quorum of the Twelve, I don’t believe they would drop Elder Bednar from the Quorum until there was a later vacancy. I can’t say for sure whether they would allow 13 members in the Quorum of the 12. As you and I both said, in different words, the maximum number set for the quorum is 12. However, that is always subject to changes based on modern revelation. And if modern revelation changed that, I don’t think the name of the Quorum would be changed. However, again, we don’t know. I guess we’ll have to wait for if and when something like this happens again. However, in the examples you cited above, again, those were only listed as examples of how it worked during lengthy periods of time when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I issue another challenge: Find me one example of the truth of your viewpoints when there was a formally organized First Presidency, and list your sources.

I agree with what you said about the revelations specifying maximum numbers allowed in the Quorum, however, in the Quorum of the Twelve, if you read some of those same revelations you cited more carefully, you will learn that this rule is in force only when there is a First Presidency (and more particularly a president of the Church) over the Twelve Apostles. When there is none, that rule does not apply. Your 13 and 14 apostles argument falls flat on its face when you read those revelations more clearly. And don’t forget: If the prophet at any time felt that quorum size and thus the name needed to be altered, it could and would be done. And, in the case where there is no President of the Church, as many counselors in the First Presidency as were members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at one time, would take their places in the Quorum, with all members participating in the reorganization, however many they might be. And even if there were (taking the extreme case) hundreds of thousands of millions of men called to be members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were called simultaneously to be in the First Presidency (as was the case with J. Reuben Clark) under this same rule, upon the death of the prophet, all who had been members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at one time (unless they were deceased, disfellowshipped, or excommunicated) would participate in this process, however many in number they would be. Modern revelation could at any time make possible the expansion of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (not that I think it would, but it could).

Well, the next thing I have to say is that you are the first person to ever have the guts to call me disingenuous, and your honesty speaks volumes about your character. I’m sorry you feel that way about me and hope you will change your mind at some point. But just as I could not lightly dismiss your examples without much thought, consideration, and research, I don’t think you should overlook my viewpoints or research without much thought, consideration, and research of your own. Your main response to my views have been angry, bitter, sarcastic retaliations that may or may not be related to the issue at hand. However, I’ve been guilty of plenty of that in our conversation myself, and I realize to gain your forgiveness, I must apologize. I am sorry and hope you will forgive me. However, I don’t think you can lightly dismiss what I have said in this most recent response any more than I could dismiss what you said without serious though, consideration, and research. Good luck to you wherever the research you do from my response takes you. I want you to know I hold no bad feelings for you, and I sincerely hope you don’t hold any for me.

Finally, on your postscript, all I can say is that I knew everything you said and more about the magazine before you said it, but I didn’t think about my other sources until I did more careful, prayerful, research about what you said. I hope my sources are helpful and educational to you and that my more thoughtful response to your points has changed your opinion about me. Even if it hasn’t, that’s okay. What would life be without differences of opinion and misconceptions? Btw, in case you were curious, the HTML version of the Ensign for May 2007 is available in the Gospel Library of the Church website. I get daily news updates from the Church, and from them I gather that it won’t be too much longer before the PDF version of the Ensign becomes available on the website. Hope this information is helpful to you. Jgstokes 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I probably haven't made my position clear. I'm not trying to strongly advocate any particular position—I'm just going where the evidence takes me. I'm also not actively searching for information that backs up my preferred "position" (if any). The reason I've taken the position I'm taking above is that the only examples I have been able to find that seem relevant have resulted in the junior Apostle being dropped from the Quorum (e.g., the Amasa Lyman/Orson Pratt situation). (I also have the "anecdotal evidence" experiences like the stake conference, but as I say, those are not very convincing to me.) You say that this procedure (the dropping of the junior member) is only for a very specific type of situation (the readmitting former member thing)—and that's fine that you believe that and I don't begrudge you for it—but until I find an initial situation where the Quorum undoubtedly has had more than 12 members, I have to just stick with the evidence I have. The evidence I have is meager, but it at least points in one direction. I'd be more than happy to learn that the Quorum can have more than 12 members and that this has been the case all along or that the rule has been changed since Joseph Smith's day due to a change in policy or a new revelation to the church leaders. But I just can't believe the proposition at all until I see examples of it (or evidence of a written rule about it). When I do, I will believe it because that's where the evidence will point. Until then, I have to go with what I've seen.

That is why I'm not responding to your "challenges" to seek out information that backs up my "position": (1) because it's not my preferred "position", and (2) I generally don't like to search for information with the intent of proving a certain proposition is true or false—I just don't like doing research like that. Sorry.

I trust and do not doubt any of the information you've provided about the funerals and the choosing of a new president by the apostles in the Dew book and the other sources you found. I sincerely believe that is how it works. However, the reason this is not determinative of the issue in question is because at no time in those interludes has the church ever been asked to sustain the quorum with more than 12 members. I'm not saying it's impossible for such a sustaining to happen, but I am saying that until I see an example of the church doing so I have to believe the quorum can only have 12 members because that's where the other evidence I have points to. As far as I know, the Quorum has only ever been sustained with 12 members. That's really the bottom line argument for me; should I see an example that demonstrates otherwise, I will completely change my opinion on the matter. That is why I feel the onus is on you to provide an example. I can't prove that there are no instances where this has happened. But maybe you can prove that there is an instance where this has happened. (It's like the old saying, "you can't prove a negative".)

As for the DC revelations on the Quorum, I see and understand your point, but I also don't think the revelations say that the rules set down in them don't apply when there is not a First Presidency. Again, if the revelation doesn't say what happens in a weird situation, I have to go with what it says about the quorum in normal situations and adapt it to the weird situation. Until—of course—I see some evidence that would indicate I need to adjust this view. And yes I also realise the prophet could at any time change the rules and the names, but I don't think that's terribly relevant to our discussion since clearly no president has been mucking around with the rules (or at least if they have they haven't told the church about it).

I didn't mean you were disingenuous in general—I have no idea about your character and wouldn't claim to be able to discern it through WP posts. I meant the argument was disingenuous. Perhaps the wrong word was used—or at least perhaps I assumed too much. What I meant was, "whoa, you are really bending over backwards to create a very complicated and technical rule that will not contradict your stated opinion on this matter". If you made this argument innocently and not disingenuously, I apologize. Don't take my statements personally, please.

I also haven't intentionally written "angry, bitter, sarcastic retaliation[s]". However, I have no choice to accept that I have acted that way or at least that you have interpreted me that way. I guess that means I'm just a smarmy person. Oh well, it takes all types to make the world go 'round, as they say. I'm happy with how I am and I'm definitely not unhappy with how you are or the way you've treated me. If you feel you've acted in an inappropriate manner towards me, may I suggest that perhaps you are taking this all too seriously. Attacking ideas or opinions are not the same as attacking a person, and I certainly don't feel like I have personally suffered as a result of this discussion or that an apology from you to me is appropriate or necessary. -SESmith 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for anything, because, as you said, that wouldn't be appropriate or necessary. But I will just say this: Just because the fourteen members of the Quorum of the Twelve are not sustained during interim periods doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And also, is it necessary for you to see that there are fourteen members of the Quorum of the Twelve sustained as such during interim periods? If it is, it's not going to happen, because there's no documented proof of such besides President Hinckley's biography and others like it. So I guess what I'm asking is, will you have to see the proof that 14 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles sustained during interim periods before you allow the change to be made in the Chronological chart that removes the word "dropped" and shows fourteen members in the Quorum? If so, then the change might never be made. I see what you're saying about the weird situation thing, but just because it's not announced as an official revelation of the Church does not mean that it is not the case. After all, words of the prophets, seers, and revelators do not have to be presented as official revelations to be accepted as such. Otherwise, how could the members of the Church accept the General Conference talks and material contained in the Church magazines as scripture for our day? In addition, and with all due respect, may I remind you that though the user who agreed with me at the beginning of this topic did not provide a signature to let us know who he/she/it was, whoever it was agreed with me, and so far you are the only one who is, in your own words, "quibbling" about it. I think that if two of us feel that a change ought to be made and only one person is opposed to it, then the change should be made. Of course, I may be wrong. I've only been a registered user of Wikipedia for a few days. However, if you are the only objector, I will take on the project of fixing this from the days of Lorenzo Snow onward, and if you find sources indicating that such a view as presented by the two of us is not the case, you can feel free to revise it again. Jgstokes 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) I was referring to your apology above, not any anticipated apology.

(2) It's true of what you say about how a thing not specifically "proveable" can be true. I agree, but disagree that such information is approrpriate for inclusion in Wikipedia unless backed up by some reliable source.

(3) I will believe the 13+ apostles in the quorum principle as soon as I see any evidence that the quorum was ever sustained with more than 12. This could be past examples or future examples. Future ones, as you say, are highly unlikely to occur. Alternatively, an official church publication or a First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve statement would convince me if it spelled out the rule explicitly.

(4) Two against one does not a consensus make. The change you've made is fine, but I think considering the dispute it's only fair to include a note on the information of these interim periods that states that there is no evidence of the Quorum ever being sustained with 14 members and that the junior two may not have been (technical) members of the Quorum during these periods. That way both views are presented. I have made the change. -SESmith 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds all right to me. Thanks. --Jgstokes 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

SESmith, the information you requested me to find (that is, an official Church statement on whether the Quorum of the Twelve can have more than 12 members) was brought to my attention this evening. Because it contains a whole informational page, rather than reproducing that here, I will create a separate page for it entitled "Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have more than twelve members?" If that satisfies your #3 point, I will either recommend that the page be changed or change it myself. Incidentally, I was looking over this page earlier this week, and I noticed that your notice about how the two most junior members might not have technically been members at that time WAS NOT included in an earlier case where 14 members are listed. That should be fixed as well. I look forward to your reception of the information I received tonight. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks—feel free to put it on my talk page if you want. –SESmith 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have it here: Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have more than 12 members? If it's to be a permanent Wikipedia page, it will probably need to be redone. When the information was given to me, I was told that as long as I did not alter the content of it or take credit for it myself, I could use it however I wanted. As long as the information given to me (currently contained in quotation marks) remains the same, even if my preamble and postnote are changed, altered or deleted, Wikipedia editors are free to alter the setup of the page. Hope this helps.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have more than 12 members? for the reason the article is no longer showing in the main article space. You may want to ask an admin to restore the content to a user page if you can find a way to rework the material in such a way as it's inclusion is not a violation of the GFDL. All WP contribs are subject to the GFDL -- when you're editing a page here, look at the line appearing above Edit summary which starts "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" and ends "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." -- 159.182.1.4 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jgstokes, if you'd like me to see this, you may just want to e-mail me the information rather than posting it on WP. If you'd like to do that, I can be emailed through my userpage. Thanks for your efforts. –SESmith 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SESmith, I finally got the page together for you and posted it on your talk page. Hope this works, and that it convinces you. If not, that's okay, too. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the information I posted on SESmith's talk page in November, the Church Public Affairs department has released a statement about succession in the Presidency. Items 2 & 3 corroborate the view I've held all along: that during interim periods, the junior members ARE NOT dropped. The source follows my signature. In light of that, I am changing the chronology chart to conform with this verifiable information, because the current procedure is based on what happened in the past. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I'm not sure how accurate this is and wouldn't rely on it as authoritative statements of procedure in defining what happened in the past, as you have attempted to do. This document appears to be more of a "church succession for dummies" guide to the press who know nothing about the process, but in dumbing it down, it hasn't necessarily got the details correct from a historical standpoint. For example, it states that the newly chosen president "chooses two counselors from among the Quorum of the Twelve", which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of past practice knows is not necessarily the case, since there have been many First Presidemcy counselors chosen who were not members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles when they were selected. Because of this, I'm not convinced that this source alone is enough to get rid of the disclaimer notes on past situations where there have been more than 12 apostles after the president died. As SESmith points out, the Quorum could only justifiably be said to have 14 members if there was evidence that the church as a whole sustained the body with 14 members, which is not done, regardless of the fact that all 14 participate in choosing a new president. In the LDS Church, no common consent sustaining = no official organization in that form. I agree, though, that this statement could be used as a citation for showing that the Quorum right now has 14 members, but not in cases past. Snocrates 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m going to address your objections one sentence at a time. In doing so, I have no desire to offend. I also don’t mean to make the following statement as a personal attack on you, Snocrates. What I have to say is based on my real musings about your thought process and what prompted you to say what you did. What is it that makes this statement unreliable as authoritative? If the Church can’t speak for itself, who can? Another point that bears considering: This page isn’t titled “How succession works in this particular case” but rather “succession in the Presidency.” It doesn’t outline how succession will work with the passing of Gordon B. Hinckley. If you read the article, it doesn’t mention any particular names. It just says that this is what happens when a president of the church dies. This is, more or less, the process that has been followed 14 times before. I don’t know what you mean by that sentence about how this is a succession guide for media who know nothing about the process. All media, at least in my neck of the woods, have been exposed to this process before, so there’s no need for the Church to “dumb it down” for anybody. I’m willing to admit that I was perhaps being a little nitpicky by trying to force Wikipedia to accept a rule of my own creation based on my understanding of the Church procedure involved as Wikipedia policy on this issue. But I also think that you’re nitpicking a little yourself by portraying the whole paper as inaccurate based on a few perceived historical inaccuracies. The whole point about selection of counselors was for the “dummies” as you call them. ANY worthy Melchizedek Priesthood bearer including (if the Lord willed it) myself as an Elder COULD be President Monson’s counselor(s). However, the whole calling a counselor outside of the Quorum of the Twelve hasn’t been done for around 50 years or so, so the practice of calling counselors from the Quorum of the Twelve has been somewhat routine, which was probably why the Church PR didn’t list the few, isolated, exceptional cases. It’s okay if you’re not convinced. SESmith wasn’t either. However, he/she did say that IF I could show him/her ONE example where the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was sustained with 14 members or IF I could find ONE official statement from the Church or its representatives that proved my point, he/she would be convinced. I produced just three months ago one such example on his/her user or talk page. I have now produced a second example officially endorsed by the Church. And I haven’t heard back about it, so since there has been no further commentary from this individual, I would assume that he/she is satisfied with what I produced. You ended your post with a reiteration that you accepted that there are 14 members right now, but that you believe it might not have been that way in the past. So I reiterate: The cited article was not titled, “What happens after the death of President Hinckley” but “Succession in the Presidency,” which, as I stated at the beginning, includes ALL 15 men who have been Presidents of the Church. The only instances I know of when the two juniormost apostles were dropped was when the First Presidency was dissolved on the deaths of the first three prophets and not reorganized right away. In those cases, the counselors that were apostles returned, and there WERE 14, so until the new prophet was called, while the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles governed the Church, the two juniormost apostles were dropped. And I say to you what I said to SESmith when he/she and I were at odds over this: Find me ONE source that says it HASN’T been that way in the past, and I will silence any further argument on my part about the issue. However, I don’t want this to turn into an editing war, with both of us stubbornly reverting each others edits ad nauseum. If we can’t come to some consensus (input from a few more editors would be nice) I would suggest mediation. I hope this can be settled amicably without it, but I also want to say that unless I see a source given to me by you that corroborates your chosen viewpoint, I’m not backing down about this. This has been said as respectfully yet forcibly as I can say it. I look forward to hearing your reaction. In the meantime, I’ll probably revert the change again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I'm not SESmith. I don't know if s/he would be convinced by this or not, and I don't ascribe to all the statements made by that user. (2) The onus is not on me to find a statement that says this is not the way it works — the onus is on those who claim this was the way it worked. (3) As I said, the source you've provided works for the current situation, but is of no help for historical issues. (4) As long as there is an objection to the deletion and no reliable source can be found explaining what happened in the past, the note should remain. Besides, someone stating that it has worked such-and-such a way in the past does not make it so. What we really need to see is evidence that the church used the process of common consent to sustain the Quorum with more than 12 members. I don't see any references that cite such examples, so the ambiguity remains and therefore so should the note. I'm sorry if this contradicts your opinion, but without a source that's all it is. Snocrates 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really beginning to frustrate me. I've given the source over and over again. I will agree with you on only one point: I should be the one looking for a source to corroborate my opinion, rather than you looking for one to corroborate yours based on your interpretation of the facts. You seem to be so focused on dealing with other points I bring up that you are overlooking the most important one, which I will again reiterate: The page I referenced WAS NOT just for outlining how Hinckley's successor would be chosen. It refers to the "President of the Church" which title includes ALL 14 men who have held it. You discredit the source only because you perceive some historical inaccuracies, but I've explained, and I believe amply enough, a counterargument to your objections. It's become obvious to me that we've got a problem here: I am unwilling to discredit a Church-endorsed source based on your argument, and you seem unwilling to take any of my concrete counterexamples under consideration simply because you seem to be misinterpreting the page, again overlooking my explanation of "historical inaccuracies. I think that mediation should be the next step. It's obvious neither of us will get anywhere, and I'm not about to start an "edit war" because you're so busy nitpicking at a few points that you overlook the rest. I will request mediation ASAP. After all, what we really have is the clash of two personal opinions. Perhaps one or more additional opinions might change things for you or me. I can't let this one rest, but neither can you, so the only way out of it I can see is mediation. Rest assured this is not a reflection on my respect for you as an editor. I greatly admire the work you've done in the past, and for the most part agree with your edits. But on this point, I think you're mistaken. I'm sure your feelings are much along the same line. So I'm going to step away long enough to ask someone to mediate this discussion. It'll be a lot quicker than arguments and counter arguments. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is hardly necessary when we have not waited long enough to get input from others to gain a consensus. See the comment below from another user as the start of this process. I think you need to chill about it. You have an opinion and you think I'm wrong; that's fine, but unfortunately what you think is not what governs WP. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but that's a fairly common reaction with editors who can't always get their own way on WP. You could start your own website on these issues, and then it could say whatever you please! Snocrates 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates, as you probably already know, I chose to request a third opinion rather than requesting mediation. I owe you an apology. When I wrote earlier that I was going to request mediation, I had a full head of steam, taking our difference of opinion too much to heart. Sometimes in the heat of the moment, I allow my head to speak before my heart has a chance to respond. I just wanted to apologize and respond to your latest comments. I'll be commenting more on the 3O POV, but I wanted to make a couple of comments here. For starters, you said mediation was not neccessary since there hasn't been time to gain a consensus. As I mentioned before, while you are not SESmith, s/he raised some of the same issues you have. Our discussion on the 14 apostles thing has been going since the beginning of May of last year. While the discussion between you and I hasn't been going that long, I had to compromise on that one because there was no other input besides the two of us. Now we have much the same situation. I think, perhaps, that eight months is a long enough time to wait for a concensus, even if the editor "opposing" my view has changed, don't you? You were right in calling for me to "chill" but I already addressed that. I know that WP is not governed by what I think. However, I also think that my viewpoint should not be discredited simply because WP is not governed by what I think. As far as your comment about editors who don't get their own way, if you look at my contributions and the number of various discussions about sundry issues that I've been involved in, you'd see just exactly how many times I have, regardless of my own opinion, not objected to changes contrary to my personal beliefs when a consensus calls for that to happen. I realize that you too probably were getting frustrated, mostly because of my frustration, but I think perhaps your last sentence was uncalled for. Remember, I was only trying to put forth what Church procedure was based on my understanding of such. If I have misunderstood, then I have been in error, but that's hardly cause for you to exclaim I ought to start my own website so my view could be advanced. Well, I've said what I wanted to say, at least under this section of the talk page. Below features my comments on the 3O POV. I again apologize if I went overboard, but I think that errors in judgement have been made on both sides. I'm willing to own up to and try to make right my part of the mess. The rest is entirely in your hands. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

3O point of view

A request was made for a third opinion so I am here to answer that request. I have a question and three comments:

• The note in the table says "For this period, the Quorum is listed as having 14 members." Do we have an official church "listing" for each of these citations? If not then this specific assertion should be removed until one can be found. If there's no "listing" we shouldn't say there is.
• One thing I would like to see is the NOTE surrounded by <small /> tags. This reduces the notes weight and makes the information easier to read. Remember, people are coming here for information, and while I don't advocate getting rid of the important stuff the big stuff should come first.
• While the statement from the church does layout the general procedure, including mention of the 14 Apostles in the Qo12, it is, in point of fact, a press release and not doctrine. There is nothing in the BoM, PoGP, D&C, or any other doctrine of the Church that specifically lays out what is supposed to happen. Basically because, in short, it's not impactful enough. The situation resolves itself with the ordaining of the next President and everything goes on.
• I think the statement should read "There is no evidence that the Quorum was ever sustained by the general Church body with 14 members." or some such stipulation as this is the point of contention I see in the argument above (and because that's who sustains the Qo12).

My own personal opinion is that someone should inquire to their Bishop or President if a member of the Qo12 is released from his Quorum calling to serve in the First Presidency. This might give insight as to whether the two younger Apostles are "dropped" or whether the Members of the First Presidency are dealt with in a special manner. In the end, there doesn't need to be an answer to this. It could simply remain unanswered and trivial. Much like the U.S. Presidency when passing from one person to the next. If we don't swear-in a new President until January 22nd that doesn't mean there's no President for a day. And it doesn't mean the country can't function. It's just one of those things. Padillah (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your suggestions, in fact I think they are good ones, except for the one about someone trying to find the "answer" through WP:OR of asking someone in the church. The note could even be in a footnote if you find its current format troublesome. I have no problem with that, but I do think it should remain. Snocrates 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By no means was I trying to advocate OR to solve this. I meant ask a President or Bishop how or where to find the answer, where is the doctrine that describes this process? Padillah (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. It sounds like Jgstokes has gone to great lengths to research this out, and he produced some opinions from a general authority, I believe, but there is nothing "official" that he or I has turned up, apart from the recent statement to the media. But as I have pointed out, this does little to resolve the historical issues. I think the revised statement you propose stating that the quorum was never sustained by the membership with 14 members is a good solution until anything else can be turned up. The part about the quorum being "listed" with 14 members referred simply to the WP listing, I believe, but I take your point that it could be misinterpreted as meaning it's been listed somewhere else, which I agree is not true. Thus, it should be deleted from the note, I agree. Snocrates 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the revised statement. For this reason alone, I think that requesting a 3rd opinion was worth it. Parenthetically, I should also mention that I will be talking to my institute instructor, a former bishop, tonight about this question, as well as a few others prompted by this whole discussion. The discussion SESmith and I had earlier prompted me to ask my institute teacher about whether the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could have more than 12 members. This led to the information he directed me to that I could have compiled on my own had I known where to look. But his brief response steered me in the right direction, and I did my own research from there, a lot of which was included in that paper which I reposted on SESmith's user talk page several months ago. I anticipate something similar happening in this instance. However, since these are not very difficult questions in theory, I expect my institute teacher (a man well versed in the scriptures) to have the answers to most, if not all, of the questions. Once he has kind of steered me in the right direction, I can maybe come up with some answers based on what his answers prompt me to research. If I find anything solid that advocates or eliminates solidly one position from the other from the church teachings, I'll let you know what I find out, and then perhaps the revised statement can then be either restored to what it was before or eliminated entirely. Thanks for helping out with finding this new direction I can be looking in. While I know WP's OR policy well (because that's how I shot myself in the foot before trying to resolve the differences in opinion between SESmith and myself), I think that whatever I find can be sufficient enough to warrant a change one way or the other without violating Wiki policy. Thanks again for the help you both gave me on this issue, and sorry if I've been a pain in my reactions to all this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Snocrates and Padillah, sorry it's taken me so long to get the proof I promised. I spoke tonight with my institute instructor, who referred me to Elder C. Max Caldwell, a former member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy who currently serves as a sealer in the Mount Timpanogos Temple and was a guest instructor tonight. My institute instructor referred me to Elder Caldwell, an expert in Doctrine and Covenants and Church History matters. I put my questions to him and got a brief response to each that I then thought about and researched and included in my answers to the issues raised. I post my questions and the answers here and suggest that they perhaps could be reformatted in such a way as to include it in the page about succession. I hope it answers all the questions for both of you. With what I am about to present, it is my recommendation that on the basis of the answers the footnotes about apostles being "dropped" should be removed. That said, here's the info:

NOTE: The key to understanding all the answers to these questions is found in Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of the Restoration, pg. 66, wherein McConkie states, “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." (emphasis added). What this means, in essence, is that whatever the Church leaders do sets the precedent, even if it’s not spelled out in the scriptures.

1. Question: Has the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ever been sustained with more than twelve members? Where is the scriptural or other precedent for this answer?

Answer: Yes, the Quorum of the Twelve has been sustained with more than twelve members. At the death of a Church President, the First Presidency is dissolved, and the counselors that were taken from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles return to that quorum. In the latest example, this means that President Monson and President Eyring returned to their places in the Quorum, Monson to the 1st chair, and Eyring to the 11th chair. After President Hinckley’s death, for that week, the Quorum of the Twelve (now numbering 14) governed the Church for the next week until February 3, when the First Presidency was reorganized. For that period, the Quorum recognized itself as having more than twelve members. The Quorum sustained itself as such. While 14 members in the Quorum of the Twelve has never been sustained by the membership of the Church, the Quorum, sustaining itself, was comprised of 14 members. Think of this situation in terms of a bishopric. Just because the Church at large doesn’t sustain every bishopric in their callings, their authority is not invalidated, and they are allowed to function because they were sustained by those in their ward boundaries. Since the Quorum of the Twelve during interim periods is independent of all other priesthood organizations of the Church, a vote by that body gives them just as much authority to function throughout the Church during interim periods as bishoprics have to function in their responsibilities by being sustained by their local congregations. In either case, a general Church vote is neither necessary or appropriate. And in the particular case of the Quorum of the Twelve, as the governing body of the Church during interim periods, it is led by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, who, for that period, can authorize 14 members in the Quorum.

2. Question: Are the two junior apostles “dropped” from the Quorum (not losing their apostleship) during interim periods so that there are no more than the scripturally set 12 in the Quorum, then reinstated to the actual quorum following the reorganization of the First Presidency? If not, where is the scriptural or other precedent for this answer?

Answer: No. See above. Because the senior apostle during interim periods presides over the governing body of the Church, he can decide to allow 14 members in the Quorum for the duration of the interim period. The previous practice of dropping the two most junior members of the quorum during interim periods only applied when the reorganization of the First Presidency was not imminent. During periods of time when the Quorum was the leading body for years rather than days, the Quorum couldn’t function interminably with more than 12 members. However, since the practice has been instituted beginning with Lorenzo Snow of having interim periods last for days rather than years, the official vote of the Church has never called for the sustaining of more than 12 members in the Quorum, nor would the junior apostles be “dropped” for such a short period. All Quorum members have a vital role in the reorganization process, and none would be deprived of that privilege simply because they were more junior. Additionally, “the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” is just the name of the Quorum. When there have been less than 12 members due to deaths of apostles, there hasn’t been a name change between the time of death and the time the vacancy was fulfilled. Further, if the labor in the vineyard required it, and the senior apostle was so directed, he could call additional apostles, increasing that body as much as was necessary for the labor of the vineyard. A name is not always the best definition of what something is. The important thing about the quorum is the function, not the name.

3. Question: Is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “released” from his quorum calling (not position of seniority in the quorum) to serve in the First Presidency? It is my understanding that while a man can hold numerous priesthood offices (Aaronic & Melchizedek Priesthood) that he can only belong to (that is, be actively involved with) one priesthood quorum at a time. If this is not the case, how exactly does that work, and where is the scriptural or other precedent for this answer?

Answer: A member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles does not get released from his quorum calling. During interim periods, where the former counselors used to be in terms of seniority is vital in determining what happens next. A man may be able to belong to and be actively involved in more than one quorum at a time. When Hinckley was the President of the Church, Monson served as his 1st Counselor, but he also served as President of the Quorum of the Twelve. Just because Monson was not actively involved with the Quorum during his time as 1st Counselor in the First Presidency did not deprive him of his doctrinal right to be the President of the Quorum he wasn’t functioning in. The bishop is the president of the Priests’ Quorum in a ward. As such, he is not deprived of his authority as the president of the quorum simply because his duties may take him elsewhere from time to time. When necessary during Hinckley’s tenure, Monson could and did function in his role as Quorum President. However, because he could not always actively be involved with overseeing the work of the Quorum because he was serving as Hinckley’s counselor, Packer served as Acting President to fill in when Monson couldn’t be there in his role as Quorum President. There are generally accepted practices in place to prevent one man from trying to be an active member of too many priesthood quorums at the same time. However, when occasion requires it, a man ordained to higher priesthood offices can perform functions of lower priesthood offices as necessary. Every man who serves as an apostle may also and does serve from time to time in the functions of high priest, elder, priest, teacher, and deacon. To suggest that a member of the First Presidency taken from the Twelve Apostles is released from his calling in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is similar to suggesting that a high priest can never pass the sacrament. Just because active membership in a quorum ceases doesn’t terminate his calling to that priesthood office or body or his authority to perform the functions of a lesser priesthood office. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now comes the part your going to scream about: can we verify any of that? I understand (and even accept) the explanations given by Elder Caldwell but how do we present this to the reader? A big sticking point with many editors is that Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. Can we show these arguments in church publications? how does one reference the sustaining vote of the Q12? Are the quorum votes recorded somewhere we can reference? We've answered the doctrine question now we need to establish verifiability. That being said I think we can drop the footnotes, but I don't feel that footnotes supporting the above points should be added until we can establish references for them. Padillah (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to scream about anything. My purpose in providing this information was to prove beyond doubt that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles can have more than twelve members during interim periods. As long as you're convinced that we can drop the footnotes originally objected to by me, I can reasonably expect, ask for, or require no more. Now, as far as the verification for all of this: I direct your attention to a couple of sources. On the WP page about the president of the Church, under succession, it talks about how succession works. There, it clearly states that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve during interim periods is the de facto leader of the Church, and therefore empowered to decide matters of procedure and policy from that point until he officially becomes the President of the Church, and from then until his death. As such, he takes over the major roles of decision making and leading the Church, as is evidenced by the fact that without exception, each President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has presided at the funeral of the President of the Church. N. Eldon Tanner offered an excellent explanation of what happens during interim periods. This particular citation is taken from the September 1978 Liahona, pg. 2.

"I would like to explain to you exactly what took place following the unexpected death of President Harold B. Lee on December 26, 1973. I was in Phoenix, Arizona, to spend Christmas with my daughter and her family when a telephone call came to me from Arthur Haycock, secretary to President Lee. He said that President Lee was seriously ill, and he thought that I should plan to return home as soon as possible. A half hour later he called and said: 'The Lord has spoken. President Lee has been called home.'

"President Romney, who in my absence was directing the affairs of the Church, was at the hospital with President Spencer W. Kimball of the Council of the Twelve. Immediately upon President Lee’s death, President Romney turned to President Kimball and said, 'You are in charge.' Not one minute passed between the time President Lee died and the Twelve took over to preside over the Church.

"Following President Lee’s funeral, President Kimball called a meeting of the apostles for Sunday, December 30, at 3:00 p.m. in the Salt Lake Temple council room. [I would interject here that if the funeral and reorganization takes more than a week that there would be at least one Thursday meeting for the Quorum of the Twelve. Those weekly meetings wouldn't stop for the Quorum simply because the First Presidency was dissolved.] President Romney and I had taken our respective places of seniority in the Council, so there were fourteen of us present. Following a song, and prayer by President Romney, President Kimball, in deep humility, expressed his feelings to us. He said that he had spent Friday in the temple talking to the Lord and had shed many tears as he prayed for guidance in assuming his new responsibilities and in choosing his counselors.

"Dressed in our temple clothing, we held a prayer circle. President Kimball asked me to conduct it and Elder Thomas S. Monson to offer the prayer. Following this, President Kimball explained the purpose of the meeting and called on each member of the Quorum according to length of service as apostles starting with Elder Ezra Taft Benson, to express his feelings as to whether the First Presidency should be organized that day or whether we should carry on as the Council of the Twelve. Each said, 'We should organize now,' and many complimentary things were spoken about President Kimball and his work with the Twelve.

"Then Elder Ezra Taft Benson [the second senior apostle] proposed the name of Spencer W. Kimball to be the President of the Church. This was endorsed by Elder Mark E. Petersen [the third most senior apostle] and unanimously approved.

"President Kimball then nominated his counselors: N. Eldon Tanner as first counselor, and Marion G. Romney as second, each of whom expressed a willingness to accept the position and devote his whole time and energy in serving in that capacity. They were unanimously approved. Then Elder Mark E. Petersen, [now] second in seniority in the Twelve, nominated Ezra Taft Benson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve. This was unanimously approved.

"At this point all the members present laid their hands upon the head of Spencer W. Kimball, and President Ezra Taft Benson was voice in blessing, ordaining, and setting apart Spencer W. Kimball as the twelfth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then, with President Kimball as voice, N. Eldon Tanner was set apart as first counselor and Marion G. Romney as second counselor in the First Presidency of the Church. In the same way President Kimball pronounced the blessing and setting apart of Ezra Taft Benson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

"There were then eleven members of the Twelve [if you add the new president and the counselors, that's 14 quorum members] and this would necessitate calling a new man to fill the vacancy in the Quorum."

The April 1995 Ensign lead story opens with the following statement: "On Friday, 3 March 1995, President Howard W. Hunter passed away, leaving mortality at 8:35 a.m. at his apartment. President Hunter’s death, from natural causes associated with prostate cancer, drew to a close his nine-month, five-day leadership of the Church that began 30 May 1994, the day President Ezra Taft Benson died. Thus passed the mantle of priesthood leadership of the kingdom of God on earth to President Gordon B. Hinckley.

"At the death of the President of the Church, the First Presidency is dissolved and priesthood leadership in the Church at that moment reverts to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Order within the Quorum of the Twelve is by rank of seniority from the time members are called to the Quorum, the members of which are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church. At the death of the President of the Church, counselors in the former First Presidency who are Apostles and numbered within the Quorum of the Twelve return to their order within the Twelve.

"Consequently, on Sunday, March 12, President Gordon B. Hinckley, as President of the Twelve, called a meeting of Quorum members, each of whom individually holds in trust all of the keys of the priesthood of God on earth."

Notice in the above reference that it talks about how at the death of a prophet, the keys automatically revert to the Quorum at large, with the senior apostle presiding over the quorum and directing the work of the Church. Note further that it is mentioned that the two former counselors revert to their positions in the quorum (indicating that they never lose their positions by being called to the First Presidency. Otherwise, how would they know where their positions are?) and that NO MENTION is made of the "dropping" of junior quorum members during interim periods. If the Quorum of the Twelve DID drop the junior apostles, that would be mentioned. However, since the only change is that the First Presidency is dissolved, the counselors returned to their positions, and the Quorum of the Twelve becomes for interim periods the presiding quorum of the Church, it is obvious that the two junior apostles ARE NOT DROPPED. Nowhere is that mentioned. I admit that we'd be hard pressed to find a reference that states the Quorum of the Twelve sustained itself during an interim period with more than twelve members. But in the same breath I also submit that we'd be hard pressed to find a source stating beyond doubt that the two junior members are dropped. In President Hinckley's biography, Go Forward With Faith, Sheri L. Dew describes some of the events and feelings of President Hinckley between Hunter's death and his ascension to the presidency. The following excerpts come from pp. 506, 508. "Though President Hinckley would not be ordained the President of the Church for nine days, the mantle had shifted instantly and without ceremony to him...President Hinckley set in motion the arrangements for President Hunter's funeral...For President Hinckley, some things changed without delay. The Brethren immediately looked to him as the presiding authority, and there were other adjustments as well...On Sunday morning, March 12 [this means that there was one Thursday between March 3-March 12 wherein the Quorum of the Twelve met as 14 in number and under the direction of President Hinckley as Quorum President.] the fourteen apostles [which, as noted by President Tanner, constituted the Quorum of the Twelve for the interim period] came fasting to the Salt Lake Temple." That should be more than sufficient evidence to substantiate what Elder Caldwell told me. If it's not, I can only say that there is also no evidence that the Quorum of the Twelve did not sustain itself with more than twelve members during interim periods. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you had me at "President Kimball called a meeting of the apostles for Sunday, December 30, at 3:00 p.m. in the Salt Lake Temple council room. President Romney and I had taken our respective places of seniority in the Council, so there were fourteen of us present." If this statement can be sourced then we have a sitation and we can close this issue. That is reference to an official meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve where it is specifically mentioned to have more than the standard twelve. Nicely done! Padillah (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar statements were sourced in Hinckley's biography when Dew talks about what happened when Hunter died. But for this particular case, since you said "if a citation can be found" I have found one. In President Kimball's biography, chapter 1 is titled "Succession in the Presidency." The whole chapter proves what Tanner said. However, I draw your attention particularly to pages 5 (which talks about how the funeral arrangements for Lee were handled) and 7 (which references the before-mentioned organization of a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and specifically states that there are 14 members of the Quorum present at that meeting. Btw, I would have originally felt that Tanner's word on what happened was good enough. After all, at the time he made the statement in question, he was the second-highest ranking Church official next to President Kimball. However, since the biography has been researched, edited, and referenced, that should serve as sufficient proof. I would have copied the exact excerpts. However, it's late, and I'm not feeling well at the moment, so if the actual wording is needed, it'll have to wait a day or two. But I've given the references, so it should be fairly easy to verify. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Page needs to be updated with new apostle--logger (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley resignation date

I saw the statement that further research was needed on resignation date(s) for John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley. Accordingly, I went to the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac, and looked at the biographies for the two men in question. If you have a copy of that, I would refer you to pp. 75-76, where Taylor and Cowley are listed as apostles 34 and 38 respectively. The same resignation date is given for both apostles, that of October 28, 1905. Unless a source is found stating anything to the contrary, I would suggest going with the date of October 28, 1905. Thanks, and I hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Change just made.

I have taken the liberty of adding to the chart the information about the change in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that has occurred with the death of Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin. When the new apostle is added in April (or before, as the case may be), we can add to the chart again. Hope this works for everybody. If not, let me know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)