Hello again, everyone! Having set the background in my last post for the alterations to my predictions for the April 2018 General Conference, I now want to turn to an exploration of the order in which our new First Presidency might speak .
First of all, I wanted to examine when new Church presidents have given their first addresses in General Conference as such. Presidents Kimball, Benson, and Hunter all opted to do so at the beginning of the first session of their first General Conferences as Church president, while, more recently, Presidents Hinckley and Monson opted to give their first public addresses as Church president during the Priesthood Session on Saturday evening, with their first addresses to the Church at large in the Sunday Morning Session.
The one different thing about President Nelson is that he has already given his first public address to the Church as its' president, opting to do so after his call as such was announced. But aside from that, I would imagine his next opportunity to address Church members would mirror that of his two prophetic predecessors. It is possible he might opt to address the Church after the Solemn Assembly, but it seems more likely he will opt to wait until the priesthood session, and then publicly address the entire Church the following morning.
That brings me to the subject of the counselors in the First Presidency during the first General Conference of a new First Presidency. When President Kimball was sustained as Church president, his First Counselor, President N. Eldon Tanner, led the Solemn Assembly and was the concluding speaker at the Saturday Morning Session. Second Counselor President Marion G. Romney joined the other two in speaking during the Priesthood Session, and gave his first address to the Church-at-large on Sunday Morning.
Because President Benson opted to give his first address as Church president in the Saturday Morning Session, his counselors, Presidents Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson, gave their first addresses to the Church-at-large during the Sunday Morning Session. President Hinckley opened that session and President Monson closed it. The same occurred for the October 1994 General Conference under the direction of President Hunter.
For President Hinckley's first conference as Church president, he and his counselors all gave their first public addresses to the Church in their new roles during the Sunday Morning Session. President Monson opened the session, with President Faust speaking next, and President Hinckley was the concluding speaker (with that session including one member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and a member of the Presidency of the Seventy).
Most recently, for President Monson's first General Conference as Church president, since President Uchtdorf led the Solemn Assembly, President Eyring was asked to be the final speaker during the Saturday Morning Session. President Monson requested that President Uchtdorf be the first speaker during the Sunday Morning Session.
So, if, as I theorized in my last post, President Oaks leads the Solemn Assembly at the top of the Saturday Morning Session, it makes sense to me that President Eyring would be asked to speak at the conclusion of that session, while President Oaks would give his first address as President Nelson's First Counselor at the beginning of the Sunday Morning Session.
That does it for this post. 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.
Monday, January 29, 2018
April 2018 General Conference Predictions Alterations: Part Two--First Presidency Speaking Order
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
3 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey James, I was just wondering if the likelihood of having the 1st counselor lead the Solemn Assembly is changed if he is new to the First Presidency himself. Could Pres. Nelson ask Pres. Eyring to do it as the one who is best known as a member of the First Presidency?This situation last came up in April 1970 (which is before the Church magazines that are saved on the church's site and I don't know if that information is easily available), when Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and his 2nd counselor, Pres. Tanner had both been in the First Presidency but Harold B. Lee, his first counselor, had not.
ReplyDeleteIf such information is available, we could also look at April 1951 (the Solemn Assembly for David O. McKay, when 1st counselor Stephen L. Richards was new to the First Presidency) and I presume April 1902 (the Solemn Assembly for Joseph F. Smith, when 1st counselor John R. Winder was both not an apostle and new to the First Presidency) as the two previous times when a Solemn Assembly was held when the first counselor was new to the First Presidency. (In the case of Joseph F. Smith, he himself was the only one who had been in the First Presidency, and both of his counselors were new in that sense.) However, going that far back could mean that what they did then is less likely to be used as a pattern now.
This was just a thought I had, let me know what you think!
Hello, and thanks for your great question. For my purposes, I felt that looking at the Solemn Assemblies for the last five Church presidents was enough to establish somewhat of a precedent that in turn could give some indication of the probability of which of President Nelson's counselors might lead the Solemn Assembly. I may do more research further back in Church history based on your excellent question. But before I go that route, I wanted to note more of my rationale behind my assertion that President Oaks might lead the Solemn Assembly. Although he and his apostolic seatmate President Nelson (who were sustained at the same General Conference but ordained to the apostleship a few weeks apart) are newer to the First Presidency than President Eyring is, because the two senior members of the Church's leading Quorum do have such a strong relationship, I don't think President Nelson would ask President Eyring over his dear friend President Oaks. Aside from that strong relationship. there is another reason: President Eyring has served alongside both of President Nelson's prophetic predecessors, but between him and President Oaks, while President Eyring has had more experience in the First Presidency, he was sustained in the Solemn Assembly for the prophet to whom he would serve for a few months prior to that prophet's passing, and did not lead the Solemn Assembly for the next Church President due to an ankle injury. So this would only be President Eyring's third Solemn Assembly since becoming an apostle. By contrast, although President Oaks has not been in the First Presidency before now, he has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles long enough that his time in that Quorum saw him observing the Solemn Assembly process for four Church presidents prior to President Nelson. With all of that in mind, along with the fact that, as observed above, then-President Uchtdorf led the first Solemn Assembly that was held following his call to the apostleship, for my purposes, I feel perfectly confident in asserting that President Oaks has been (or will be) asked to lead the Solemn Assembly for President Nelson. With that said, as I am able to do so, I will do more research on Solemn Assemblies in general, with particular focus on your well-taken observations. But barring anything unexpected, I don't see myself changing my thoughts in this regard. With that said, if the April conference sees President Eyring leading the Solemn Assembly, I hope you will come back here to say "I told you so." I hope that explains where I am coming from in terms of my assertion that President Oaks will likely lead the Solemn Assembly. Thanks for taking time to comment. I always appreciate your great insights and questions.
ReplyDeleteHello again. As I now have time to do so, I am looking further into the questions you asked. I found a copy of the April 1970 General Conference report. In that report, it was noted that the Solemn Assembly took place in the morning session on the third day of the conference. And it would appear from that report that N. Eldon Tanner, as Second Counselor, conducted the session, but Harold B. Lee was tapped to lead the Solemn Assembly. Check the link below for verification.
ReplyDeletehttps://ia801606.us.archive.org/20/items/conferencereport1970a/conferencereport1970a.pdf
For President McKay's Solemn Assembly, his Second Counselor J. Reuben Clark did lead that Solemn Assembly, but it seems from what I read in that General Conference report that this was mainly done at the request of President McKay and in deference to the fact that, prior to the death of his predecessor, President George Albert Smith (who passed away just prior to the General Conference dates set, and for whom a funeral service took place in the slot that would have otherwise marked the Saturday Afternoon Session), President Clark was the senior leader to President McKay in the first Presidency, as the two were First and Second Counselors respectively to George Albert Smith, and before him, to Heber J. Grant. So in that sense, the Second Counselor to President McKay made sense as a choice.
The particulars relating to this Solemn Assembly can be found in the Conference Report for the April 1951 General Conference, which can be found at the link below:
https://ia600606.us.archive.org/9/items/conferencereport1951a/conferencereport1951a.pdf
With all of that said, I see nothing in the two reports that would be sufficient for me to change my mind on the idea of President Oaks leading the Solemn Assembly for his longtime seatmate President Nelson. The friendship and service together in the Quorum that the two shared still seems to be a more compelling argument than the idea that President Eyring would lead that Solemn Assembly simply because he has been in the First Presidency longer. With all of that said, let me know if you have any further questions.