Stokes Sounds Off: Interesting Tidbits About Newly Announced Leadership

Search This Blog

Leaderboard

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Interesting Tidbits About Newly Announced Leadership

Hello again, everyone! I thought I would post again now to share some things that I found interesting, and I hope you will as well, in terms of the newly announced leadership. First, the four oldest apostles of the Church now all bear the title of President. We have one nonagenarian (President Nelson) and one that will be a nonagenarian in October of this year (President Ballard). Additionally, the age difference between Presidents Oaks and Eyring (they were born 9 months and 19 days apart) is one of the closest differences between two First Presidency members that we have seen  in a while.

In fact, I was curious, so I looked it up. The last time the Church came anywhere close to having First Presidency members relatively close in age was at the time Presidents Kimball, Tanner, and Romney served together, from December 1973-July 1981 (at which time the considerably younger Elder Hinckley was brought into that presidency).

How close were the first three in age? President Kimball was born March 28, 1895, President Romney on September 19, 1897, and President Tanner on May 9, 1898. With more than two years passing between the births of Presidents Kimball and Romney, the period of time that passed between the births of Presidents Romney and Tanner was 7 months and 20 days.

It is significant to me that we have not had two (or more) First Presidency members as close in age as Presidents Oaks and Eyring are since the death of President Tanner concluded his service on November 27, 1982. Think of that for a minute. That was 35 years, 1 month, and 18 days ago, or 35.12 years ago the Church last had First Presidency members this close in age.

Additionally, it may interest some of you to know that President Eyring is the first man to go back to his previous position as Second Counselor after serving as First Counselor since that was the case for J. Reuben Clark. He and David O. McKay had served as First and Second Counselors respectively to Heber J. Grant and George Albert Smith. Since President McKay was the senior apostle to President Clark, when the First Presidency was reorganized, President McKay became the Church President. He selected Stephen L. Richards, a more senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve, as his First Counselor, and, in like manner to President Nelson and President Eyring, he asked his former senior in the First Presidency to become the junior member.

President Clark's response to that invitation, as recorded in General Conference (which took place around the events of the death of George Albert Smith and the reconstitution of the First Presidency, with the former Church President's funeral services held during the time that would otherwise have been reserved for the Saturday Afternoon Session) was similar in pattern to President Eyring's response to once again becoming the Second Counselor when President Nelson invited President Oaks to replace President Eyring as the First Counselor, and it echoes something that then-President now-Elder Uchtdorf said in General Conference on previous occasions (which KSL reported earlier today was his response to being reassigned to the Quorum), that calls are never sought for or declined, and that lifting where you stand is what all members of the Church, whatever their calling, should do. The more important thing is not where you serve, but how.

But in getting back to my point (sorry about the sidenote), the last time a First Counselor reverted to the Second Counselor position was (in President Clark's case) on April 9, 1951, which makes the difference between that date and the date of President Eyring's own revert (January 14, 2018) a period of 66 years, 9 months, and 5 days, or 66.77 years.

Additionally, the last time a member of the First Presidency under one prophet was not retained in that body by the next was when President Marion G. Romney, who served under President Kimball's administration but was not retained by President Benson, primarily in consideration for his failing health and old age. The date of that change was November 10, 1985, and the difference between that date and the date when President Uchtdorf reverted back to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (January 14, 2018) is 32 years, 2 months, and 4 days, or 32.18 years. That's significant, to be sure.

I was going to write more in this post, but I will save it for the next one, as this one has run a little longer than I intended it to. That does it for now. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

No comments:

Post a Comment

In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.

I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.

And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.

Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.