Thoughts on new First Presidency?

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It occurred once in my ward that our bishop who worked for Boeing in Seattle, he got promoted away from the area. Don't know if that was because he wanted an early release or not. I suspect not, since he seemed to enjoy the calling.

Not sure how often that might happen. I am sure if there are some dramatic changes in a bishop's life and family that he needs to focus on he can simply ask to be released instead of moving out of the ward. 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'd love Eyring to be in there.

I would like Elder Eyring. He has roots in the Mexican Colonies! 

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/4/2025 at 10:13 AM, Prof said:

Carl B. Cook, president of the Seventy, will be the next apostle

 

On 10/4/2025 at 10:41 AM, Okrahomer said:

This would not surprise me at all.  He and I were missionary companions in Germany years ago.  His deep spirituality and exceptional talent were already clearly evident.

Certainly, he's come a long way since this encounter with President Monson in an elevator!

It Is Better to Look Up

Edited October 8, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[ZealouslyStriving]

Wouldn't it be something if they just left the Apostolic Interregnum in place for a few years?

[teddyaware]

I’m wondering if President Oaks is considering younger, more physically capable members of the First Presidency who will be able to travel without difficulty and freely interact personally with the saints? 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wouldn't it be something if they just left the Apostolic Interregnum in place for a few years?

Why?

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?

Just that it would catch everyone completely by surprise.

Again, nothing nefarious or conspiratorial in my comment- just a fun musing.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Certainly, he's come a long way since this encounter with President Monson in an elevator!

I loved that story!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wouldn't it be something if they just left the Apostolic Interregnum in place for a few years?

I like this option just for the phrase. “Interregnum”. Makes me feel educated. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Just that it would catch everyone completely by surprise.

Again, nothing nefarious or conspiratorial in my comment- just a fun musing.

I figured it was musing, just interested in your thought process.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I like this option just for the phrase. “Interregnum”. Makes me feel educated. 

I love the sound of it and the look for some reason.  Add “Apostolic” to it and it can’t get much better….

I wonder how often I could slip it into conversation if it did continue.  

[MiserereNobis]

In the Catholic Church, the time between popes is called a Papal Interregnum.

If your apostolic interregnum continued for a few years, how would missionary lessons and testimonies have to change about having a living prophet? Tongue-in-cheek, kinda. I'm just thinking how the missionaries would have to teach that you believe in a living prophet but you just don't have one right now, so it's 14 (right?) living prophets. Having to explain the succession process early in the missionary lessons would be an interesting twist on teaching.

[Calm]

All of our apostles have been ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.  Even when President Nelson was alive, there were 15 prophets leading the Church.  President Nelson was the senior apostle in that sense, the leader of the leaders.

Quote

All 15 Apostles—the three members of the First Presidency and the 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—are set apart as prophets, seers, and revelators, and as such “hold all the priesthood keys that have ever been conferred upon man in this dispensation.”3

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/the-lord-calls-his-prophets?lang=eng

”Having to explain the succession process early in the missionary lessons would be an interesting twist on teaching.” 
 

Missionaries should be challenged every now and then  (as if learning the lessons, often in a new language, living in a new location and possibly culture, abiding by a rigorous and repetitive schedule, being required to be sociable even when it’s difficult to do so, and learning to endure the 24/7 company of someone you didn’t choose as a companion and may or may not be that compatible with isn’t enough of a challenge).

Edited October 10, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

In the Catholic Church, the time between popes is called a Papal Interregnum.

If your apostolic interregnum continued for a few years, how would missionary lessons and testimonies have to change about having a living prophet? Tongue-in-cheek, kinda. I'm just thinking how the missionaries would have to teach that you believe in a living prophet but you just don't have one right now, so it's 14 (right?) living prophets. Having to explain the succession process early in the missionary lessons would be an interesting twist on teaching.

It is interesting to note that in this last General Conference President Oaks made a special point about how his talk had been written before the passing of President Nelson. As if to say, "I didn't write this under the prophetic mantle as President of the church." Also worth noting, and this is purely my own conjecture, but President Nelson was hitting it hard on Second Coming talks. He was very direct about how close it is and how we need to prepare. This conference I don't think I heard the words "Second Coming" a single time in the entire 10 hours. It makes me wonder if God has certain messaging reserved only for the president of the church, even if all Apostles are prophets as well.

It's hard to really pin down because historically there's never been apostles and prophets living simultaneously. I don't know the timeline on when John the baptist was murdered, but if he was alive while the 12 apostles were, it wasn't a very long overlap and besides, Jesus was living at the time so He kind of trumped the prophet and the apostles. Before Jesus there were no apostles, only prophets, and the way missionaries teach, it really sounds like the president of the church is viewed like Jonah or Moses, and the apostles are viewed as similar to the apostles in the new testament.

I don't know if there's a distinction, but I do know that I'm tired and I like to ramble when I'm tired. Have a great weekend brother.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JVW said:

It's hard to really pin down because historically there's never been apostles and prophets living simultaneously.

Not sure what you mean by this.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not sure what you mean by this.

I’m thinking he’s referring to the scriptural record? Even in the book of Mormon after Christ’s resurrection, we don’t have a record of a prophet and apostles at the same time. In that instance it was a prophet and 12 disciples.

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m thinking he’s referring to the scriptural record? Even in the book of Mormon after Christ’s resurrection, we don’t have a record of a prophet and apostles at the same time. In that instance it was a prophet and 12 disciples.

In the Church today all 15 are prophets and Apostles. Whenever Jesus was on the earth there was no need for a "First Presidency".
Could the Book of Mormon disciples and New Testament apostles also be considered prophets? 

The New Testament seems to list them as if apostles and prophets are separate callings.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;(Eph 4:11)

Edited October 11, 2025 by JAHS

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In the Church today all 15 are prophets and Apostles. Whenever Jesus was on the earth there was no need for a "First Presidency".
Could the Book of Mormon disciples and New Testament apostles also be considered prophets? 

The New Testament seems to list them as if apostles and prophets are separate callings.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;(Eph 4:11)

I think they probably could have been, but we have no evidence they were viewed that way (or believed themselves to be prophets as well). So i think all we have to go on with the topic is extrapolation from our current understanding.

Unless there’s been some revelation on it that I’m not aware of. And that could certainly be the case.  

[longview]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think they probably could have been, but we have no evidence they were viewed that way (or believed themselves to be prophets as well). So i think all we have to go on with the topic is extrapolation from our current understanding.

Unless there’s been some revelation on it that I’m not aware of. And that could certainly be the case.  

We understand from the New Testament that Peter was the chief Apostle. He received revelations for developing and guiding the Church of the Meridian of Time. That is the role of a prophet. Apostle Paul did defer to Peter as the presiding authority and also received a great deal of revelations.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, longview said:

We understand from the New Testament that Peter was the chief Apostle. He received revelations for developing and guiding the Church of the Meridian of Time. That is the role of a prophet. Apostle Paul did defer to Peter as the presiding authority and also received a great deal of revelations.

 Very true. But we don’t have any evidence that the other apostles considered themselves prophets and seers. Maybe they did, there’s just nothing in the NT to support the idea.

[JVW]

On 10/10/2025 at 10:42 PM, JAHS said:

In the Church today all 15 are prophets and Apostles. Whenever Jesus was on the earth there was no need for a "First Presidency".
Could the Book of Mormon disciples and New Testament apostles also be considered prophets? 

The New Testament seems to list them as if apostles and prophets are separate callings.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;(Eph 4:11)

I know all of the apostles are also prophets, and I didn't really think anything of it even though people in church say things like "the capital "P" prophet" referring to the president of the church and "lower case "p" prophet" when referring to the apostles. I viewed them all the same but there are a few things that indicate that perhaps apostles and prophets (i.e. the president of the church) are not entirely equal in their roles. One was President Oaks mentioning that he wrote the talk before Nelson's death, as if that mattered. The other is that the apostles all quote the living prophet all the time, and they don't call him "our dear president", and they don't quote other apostles while referring to them as "our dear prophet Elder Anderson", etc. They quote the current church president in a whole slew of talks every conference and refer to him as "our dear prophet, President so-and-so" and there are even calls for people to pray for "the prophet" not "the prophets".

All that being said, this idea is a very new idea for me, I just had it like 5 days ago, but I think it merits some consideration. There may very well be a special and unique mantle placed on "the prophet" that "the prophets" don't have, even though they have all of the keys of the priesthood. 

[JLHPROF]

I was just skimming the Deseret News article about the meeting where the Apostles select the new leadership.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/10/11/meeting-where-latter-day-saint-prophet-is-chosen/

A couple of thoughts occurred.

1. The article keeps using the phrase "ordained" as Church President.  I think this is an incorrect usage. "Set Apart" is the correct term isn't is? That's how I was taught and that's how some Apostles describe it, but others in the article do also say "ordain".  But is it an actual ordination? It's setting apart for a Church calling, not ordination to an actual priesthood office correct?

Otherwise no living person could ordain someone to a higher office than they themselves hold. Thoughts?

2. Apostlic seniority and therefore priesthood seniority usually directs these decisions. There is no doubt that the President presides not just from a Church authority perspective but in priesthood authority too.

So my other thought is when the counselors in the First Presidency are called they rightly preside over those still in the Quorum in a Church administrative capacity. However do they preside in priesthood authority or would they consider the senior Apostle as having authority over a junior Apostle temporarily serving in the First Presidency?

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Speaking of "the Meeting"- there was speculation in my EQ that it wouldn't happen today because Elder Christofferson is not in SLC, but in Elko, NV to dedicate the Temple.

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Speaking of "the Meeting"- there was speculation in my EQ that it wouldn't happen today because Elder Christofferson is not in SLC, but in Elko, NV to dedicate the Temple.

Quorum meetings are usually on Thursdays.

[ZealouslyStriving]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quorum meetings are usually on Thursdays.

I've heard in several places that the Sunday after the funeral is the traditional day for "the Meeting".