Talk:President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

Untitled
COGDEN, I am curious to know the reason of the name change of this page. LDS Apostles have asked the the word Apostle be dropped (avoid its often use, and there are other Apostles ordained from time to time that are not assigned membership in the quorum). However, I'd like your reasoning before giving mine on why it should be changed back. Especially from a historical point of view and locating scheme. It may be more correct, but does it make it harder to find? Would a common misperception correction in the first paragraph suffice? -Visorstuff 23:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are right. My reasoning was that Quorum of the Twelve was more correct historically, and I wasn't sure that other denominations had adopted the same terminology. But the addition of "Apostles" seems to be in pretty common use, even in the Community of Christ, where the Quorum is called the Council of Twelve, but informally it is called the Council of Twelve Apostles. I'm okay with changing it back. COGDEN 07:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One other reason is that there are "councils of twelve" on the stake level. This structural similarity and responsiblity of the various councils is more noticible how the COC Twelve Apostles operate, in my opinion. There are additional reasons as well, however, I will not add to any confusion of the issue anymore. Good change, I think it is accurate enough. -Visorstuff 23:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter. Consult your November 2005 edition of the [i]Ensign[/i]. Look at the brown box on page three that lists the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. You will see that it comes without reference to the word "apostle." Now turn to the General Authority chart on page 64. Under the First Presidency pictures is the title "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." Note also that in that magazine every member of the Twelve that speaks has "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" under his name. I don't know where you got the notion that the Church doesn't use the title Apostle, and I haven't found any documentation to the effect that this is official Church policy. Another thing. What you call a "council of the twelve" on the stake level is properly referred to as the "stake high council." It has never been referred to as a council, and the proper title for members of the Stake High Council is High Councilman. I hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

17 August 2022 Revisions
Hi Jgstokes. I'm wondering why my recent revisions were undone. Most were grammatical changes to improve the flow of the page, so hopefully those weren't an issue. The more lengthy changes are: Bottom line: I'm not sure why these edits were reverted. They are brief, are supported by the existing citations, and clarify the existing text without distorting its meaning. Could you please explain your thinking? Thanks! -TheOtter (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rudger Clawson: in its again-current form, it states that his tenure as Quorum President is the longest in history, which is demonstrably incorrect. The very list containing the statement shows that Orson Hyde had a longer tenure, hence my clarification that Clawson's would have been the longest under current practice.
 * Joseph Fielding Smith: in its again-current form, it states that “He was a member of the First Presidency until 8 January 1970, but remained a member of the Quorum during this time." This ambiguous statement is extremely confusing, since there is also a Quorum of the First Presidency. I realize that only the President and his first two Counselors constitute the Quorum of the First Presidency, but that information is somewhat esoteric and is definitely not common knowledge—not among Latter-day Saints, and certainly not among non–Latter-day Saints. So, of which quorum did Smith remain a member? I was also very confused by the fact that no Acting President is listed during Smith's tenure. Who served in that capacity while Smith served in the First Presidency? It took me probably 5-10 minutes of additional research to figure out that no one did. A single phrase of my edit clarifies this and, I believe, thus enhances the article.
 * , as I stated in my edit summary, the biggest issue I had was that the edits, while factually and grammatically correct in substance and phrasing, the notes as written in the article were too cumbersome. What I mean by that is that the entries for Hinckley, Monson, and Oaks state concise information about why an Acting President was needed during their terms of service. Those shorter explanations are great for the table. So my suggestion is that the longer explanations should be scaled down to a similar length in the table, and that any additional details (which are contextually important), if they are included, should be featured in a footnote. Also, some of the relevant details in the the text you added are essentially duplications of information available elsewhere on Wikipedia (such as this one, this one, and this one. There are even subsections in each of those 3 articles that could be linked to in the article body here that could also help to scale down the amount of space needed for the notes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the note content or substance. My only concern is that including all relevant information about certain factors in the table may make the table itself less useful to readers here. Hope that explains my objections. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)