VideoGameJunkie Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 He's younger than Monson and Eyring, and let's say Monson passes away, and Eyring becomes prophet, won't he keep Uchtdorf in the First Presidency? And then if Eyring passes, wouldn't Uchtdorf become prophet for being in the First Presidency for so long? I'm not sure how succession has seemed to work in the past.
Vance Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) President Eyring is not in line after President Monson. President Packer is. President Uchtdorf in near the end of the line. Edited September 17, 2014 by Vance
JLHPROF Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Pres. Uchtdorf is far down the senority line. And the only allowances for a senior apostle not succeeding to the presidency is if a revelation is received calling a different Apostle or if the senior Apostle would not be considered the "worthy" senior. APOSTLE DATE CALLED APOSTLE REPLACEDThomas S Monson 10 Oct 1963 Henry D Moyle Boyd K Packer 09 Apr 1970 David O McKay L Tom Perry 06 Apr 1974 Harold B Lee Russell M Nelson 12 Apr 1984 LeGrand Richards Dallin H Oaks 03 May 1984 Mark E Peterson M Russell Ballard 10 Oct 1985 Bruce R McConkie Richard G Scott 06 Oct 1988 Marion G Romney Robert D Hales 07 Apr 1994 Marvin J Ashton Jeffrey R Holland 23 Jun 1994 Ezra Taft Benson Henry B Eyring 06 Apr 1995 Howard W HunterDieter F Uchtdorf 02 Oct 2004 Neal A MaxwellDavid A Bednar 02 Oct 2004 David B HaightQuentin L Cook 06 Oct 2007 James E FaustD Todd Christofferson 05 Apr 2008 Gordon B HinckleyNeil L Andersen 04 Apr 2009 Joseph B Wirthlin
Buckeye Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Pres. Uchtdorf is far down the senority line. And the only allowances for a senior apostle not succeeding to the presidency is if a revelation is received calling a different Apostle or if the senior Apostle would not be considered the "worthy" senior. APOSTLE DATE CALLED APOSTLE REPLACEDThomas S Monson 10 Oct 1963 Henry D Moyle Boyd K Packer 09 Apr 1970 David O McKay L Tom Perry 06 Apr 1974 Harold B Lee Russell M Nelson 12 Apr 1984 LeGrand Richards Dallin H Oaks 03 May 1984 Mark E Peterson M Russell Ballard 10 Oct 1985 Bruce R McConkie Richard G Scott 06 Oct 1988 Marion G Romney Robert D Hales 07 Apr 1994 Marvin J Ashton Jeffrey R Holland 23 Jun 1994 Ezra Taft Benson Henry B Eyring 06 Apr 1995 Howard W HunterDieter F Uchtdorf 02 Oct 2004 Neal A MaxwellDavid A Bednar 02 Oct 2004 David B HaightQuentin L Cook 06 Oct 2007 James E FaustD Todd Christofferson 05 Apr 2008 Gordon B HinckleyNeil L Andersen 04 Apr 2009 Joseph B Wirthlin You're probably correct from a pragmatic standpoint. There was no revelation leading to the "senior apostle=president" policy, so I don't see why there would have to be a revelation to change the policy. But in reality, the policy is so ingrained in the membership that many would want/need a revelation to accept the change. Just like with the racial priesthood ban. 1
mormonnewb Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Pres. Uchtdorf is far down the senority line. And the only allowances for a senior apostle not succeeding to the presidency is if a revelation is received calling a different Apostle or if the senior Apostle would not be considered the "worthy" senior. APOSTLE DATE CALLED APOSTLE REPLACEDThomas S Monson 10 Oct 1963 Henry D Moyle Boyd K Packer 09 Apr 1970 David O McKay L Tom Perry 06 Apr 1974 Harold B Lee Russell M Nelson 12 Apr 1984 LeGrand Richards Dallin H Oaks 03 May 1984 Mark E Peterson M Russell Ballard 10 Oct 1985 Bruce R McConkie Richard G Scott 06 Oct 1988 Marion G Romney Robert D Hales 07 Apr 1994 Marvin J Ashton Jeffrey R Holland 23 Jun 1994 Ezra Taft Benson Henry B Eyring 06 Apr 1995 Howard W HunterDieter F Uchtdorf 02 Oct 2004 Neal A MaxwellDavid A Bednar 02 Oct 2004 David B HaightQuentin L Cook 06 Oct 2007 James E FaustD Todd Christofferson 05 Apr 2008 Gordon B HinckleyNeil L Andersen 04 Apr 2009 Joseph B Wirthlin Any idea of how we would decide a "tie" in the case of Uchtdorf and Bednar? Interestingly, on lds.org, it says that Elder Bednar was ordained and set apart on October 7, 2004. For Pres. Uchtdorf, it simply lists the date that he was sustained -- October 2nd (both he and Bednar was sustained at the same GC meeting). I think I read elsewhere that Pres. Uchtdorf was set apart on October 4th. So what date is official for succession purposes? The sustaining or setting apart date?
Buckeye Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 FWIW, while President Uchtdorf will not be President of the Church anytime soon, because the apostles above him in seniority are also significantly older than him, there is a decent chance that he will be President some day.
Buckeye Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Any idea of how we would decide a "tie" in the case of Uchtdorf and Bednar? Interestingly, on lds.org, it says that Elder Bednar was ordained and set apart on October 7, 2004. For Pres. Uchtdorf, it simply lists the date that he was sustained -- October 2nd (both he and Bednar was sustained at the same GC meeting). I think I read elsewhere that Pres. Uchtdorf was set apart on October 4th. So what date is official for succession purposes? The sustaining or setting apart date? The policy is that, when two apostles are sustained at the same time, the one who is older (born first) gets the higher seniority. So Uchtdorf comes before Bednar. Again, its just policy, but its been that way for a very long time. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 17, 2014 Author Posted September 17, 2014 I made the thread because I know many people who would love to see Uchtdorf as prophet.
mormonnewb Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 FWIW, while President Uchtdorf will not be President of the Church anytime soon, because the apostles above him in seniority are also significantly older than him, there is a decent chance that he will be President some day. All but Holland are older than Uchtdorf. Holland is the same age as Uchtdorf, but has seniority. Someone has done a statistical analysis of succession and has assigned probabilities for each apostle eventually becoming the prophet. Bednar has the best chance at 55%. Holland is next at 50%. Uchtdorf is fifth on the list at 32%. http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2009/10/14/predicting-who-will-be-church-president/
cinepro Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) And the only allowances for a senior apostle not succeeding to the presidency is if a revelation is received calling a different Apostle or if the senior Apostle would not be considered the "worthy" senior.CFR on anyone other than the Senior Apostle ever becoming Prophet.Upon the death of the Prophet, the Senior Apostle isn't "called" to be the Prophet. He isn't voted, or selected, or otherwise "chosen" by God* or any group of people. He just is the Prophet. That's how succession works. *God's "choosing" is done by who is called to the Quorum of the 12,the order in which it happens, and who dies first. Edited September 17, 2014 by cinepro 1
sandude Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I believe that whoever is set apart first would win the tie 1
Coreyb Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I'd prefer Holland or Uchtdorf over Bednar. No offense 1
cinepro Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I believe that whoever is set apart first would win the tie Wow. I had always heard that it was based on the age of the two apostles if they were ordained the same day, but this article on the Church website says it goes by order of their ordination. Although I suspect the older Apostle is always ordained first... The President of the Church is the Apostle with the most seniority. The Apostle who is next in seniority is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, unless he is serving in the First Presidency, in which case the Apostle next in seniority serves as the Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Seniority among the Apostles is determined not by age but by the date and order of their ordination as Apostles. For example, Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson were both ordained Apostles on October 7, 1943, with Spencer W. Kimball being ordained first. Because of this, President Kimball became President of the Church in 1973 when Harold B. Lee died. Succession in the Presidency
ksfisher Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I believe that whoever is set apart first would win the tie That's my understanding as well. (Only ordained, not set apart.)
JLHPROF Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 CFR on anyone other than the Senior Apostle ever becoming Prophet.Upon the death of the Prophet, the Senior Apostle isn't "called" to be the Prophet. He isn't voted, or selected, or otherwise "chosen" by God* or any group of people. He just is the Prophet. That's how succession works. There is no CFR as this has never happened. But there are scriptural and historical provisos for what SHOULD happen in such a case. For instance, in case of the Prophet losing his office or an self-proclaimed successor appearing:D&C 43:3-5And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; Clearly it IS possible for a prophet to fall.We can also look at the stories of Richard R. Lyman, John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley. If their being out of harmony with the Quorumn had gone unnoticed they could have succeeded based on senority.
ksfisher Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I suspect the older Apostle is always ordained first... I would wonder if it would be the apostle that was called first.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Typically members of the First Presidency are held over by the next prophet but it isn't required. Hugh B Brown was released from the 1st Presidency when Pres. Lee took over. It created a little bit of a stir and was considered a slight by some people.
halconero Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Any idea of how we would decide a "tie" in the case of Uchtdorf and Bednar? Interestingly, on lds.org, it says that Elder Bednar was ordained and set apart on October 7, 2004. For Pres. Uchtdorf, it simply lists the date that he was sustained -- October 2nd (both he and Bednar was sustained at the same GC meeting). I think I read elsewhere that Pres. Uchtdorf was set apart on October 4th. So what date is official for succession purposes? The sustaining or setting apart date? Stick pull. 4
stemelbow Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 I thought he was a prophet. and why does it matter who is actually sitting in the top seat? They all play vital roles here. 1
Avatar4321 Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 He already is a prophet. Technically anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ is 1
Guest Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 He's younger than Monson and Eyring, and let's say Monson passes away, and Eyring becomes prophet, won't he keep Uchtdorf in the First Presidency? And then if Eyring passes, wouldn't Uchtdorf become prophet for being in the First Presidency for so long? I'm not sure how succession has seemed to work in the past.Only if he lives long enough. The senior Apostle is always the the next President.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2014 Popular Post Posted September 17, 2014 You're probably correct from a pragmatic standpoint. There was no revelation leading to the "senior apostle=president" policy, so I don't see why there would have to be a revelation to change the policy. But in reality, the policy is so ingrained in the membership that many would want/need a revelation to accept the change. Just like with the racial priesthood ban. I don't see an imminent need to change the practice. Presumably if one is worthy and fit to be in the quorum, one is worthy and fit to lead the Church as president. 8
mormonnewb Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I don't see an imminent need to change the practice. Presumably if one is worthy and fit to be in the quorum, one is worthy and fit to lead the Church as president.That is the rub -- whether an apostle is fit to be in the quorum. Very few human beings die in a state of fitness. We gradually reduce in fitness over time.Yet, our apostles must serve until death, meaning that most will have some period of time in which they are mentally and/or physically unfit for the role. Given that we have a pretty deep apostle "bench," this isn't much of a problem. However, it does seem to present a challenge in regards to the President of the Church.Is there anything doctrinally that prevents an apostle or the President from simply resigning from their office? 1
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted September 18, 2014 Popular Post Posted September 18, 2014 Someone, I believe it was Mark Beesley, once made an excellent point here on the Board: Is it nice to have our Beloved Prophet travel among the Saints and address us, and address us every General Conference, and represent the Church of Jesus Christ to the world and in the media? Yes, it is. But do we need a prophet to do all of those things? No, we don't. The only thing we need a prophet to do is to hold the keys, and whatever state of physical or mental health he might be in, regardless whether he is able to address us or to represent us before the world, he still holds the keys. 7
Alan Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Given the ages of the apostles, it's pretty obvious assuming normal longevity, that Elder Bednar will be president of the church one day. And given the fact that so many of the apostles are now so old, that day may not be far away.
Recommended Posts