Talk:Seventy (LDS Church)

Second Quorum of the Seventy - emeritus designation

At the LDS Church's general conference in October 2015, three members of the Seventy were released. This included two who had been serving in the Second Quorum of the Seventy. All three were identified as being designated as emeritus general authorities, as shown here. Later in October 2015, Sam K. Shimabukuro died and the associated Church News article identified him as an emeritus general authority (here). The church's latest general authority chart (here) does not distinguish between members of the First Quorum of the Seventy and those of the Second. It simply refers to General Authority Seventies, as apparently distinguished from Area Seventies. Yesterday, a good faith editor tried to update the article about Eduardo Ayala, noting a recent letter Ayala was reported to have received from the church's First Presidency about him now being an emeritus general authority. Collectively, these instances appear to point toward a change in practice by the church. Previously, those released from the First Quorum were designated as emeritus, while those released from the Second Quorum were not. It is unknown, and perhaps unlikely, that any formal announcement will be made. I reverted the Ayala edit, but noted in the edit summary that this article about the Seventy had been previously updated with this apparent change. I decided to at least open a talk section on this as it likely will come up more - and it also would have an impact not only on those with WP articles who served previously in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, but also on the article which lists the general authorities. It all seems somewhere between speculative and reliable. So, for now - this may just fit into the "for what it's worth" category. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Coming to this a few months later to add my thoughts. I think before any changes are considered to this article, we should wait until April (two months from now) and see how new General Authority Seventies are sustained. I am not sure why the Church would combine the General Authority Seventies to one group. The individual biographical sketches of current and former general authority seventies still lists them as being in the First or Second Quorum. I was stunned when Aoyagi and Carlson (who is not yet 70) were granted emeritus status. It could be a new policy, but I think we would be better served to wait for the Church to announce officially why they are no longer distinguishing between the General Authority Seventies before anything is changed. It is only two months unitl we might find out for sure, after all. At least, that's my two cents. Any additional thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Quorum affiliation not known

Good Olfactory reverted my good-faith edit in which I stated that the quorum affiliation was not known and would not be officially announced by the Church. I got that directly from an e-mail inquiry I had made with the Church. They did state, however, that those called in April 2016 have been assigned to a specific quorum and that the official quorum assignment may be highlighted in the articles the Church News will write for each newly called seventy. I would have no problem omitting this material, but wanted to post my explanation as to why I included this in the article. I also noticed that a cursory read in the Church News article titled "Meet the New General Authority Seventies" that those specifically assigned to the First Quorum seemed to be listed as such, while those assigned to the Second Quorum were not so designated. But you can bet I will keep an eye out on this and post further information about specific assignments. Does that explain things? I hope so. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just played out a hunch. Looked again on lds.org at the biographies of the General Authority Seventies, and the assignation for those previously designated as being in the First or Second Quorums of the Seventy has changed to now simply be "general authority seventies" and there is no listed differentiation between those of the First or Second QUorums. Given that we also know that former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy have now been designated "emeritus general authorities", and given the facts that those new GA Seventies weren't sustained to a specific quorum, it is my proposal that, for this page, we list them under one section. It'll take some work, which I won't do now because time doesn't allow it, and the consensus is not established to do so. The appropriate changes will also need to be made to the specific Seventy page and on all the biographies of past and present seventies if this change is implemented Wikipedia-wide. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of comments in reply to my comment above signal that everyone is okay with this change? I don't mean to pressure anybody, but feel these changes, if they are to be implemented, should happen sooner rather than later. I won't do it if no one else is in favor of making the change, but how I am to know whether or not that is the case? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Juan A. Uceda and Patrick Kearon called to the Presidency of the Seventy

In view of the good-faith edit asserting that Elders Uceda and Kearon had not been called to the Presidency of the Seventy but just to preside over the areas in the US and Canada, I thought it would be worth mentioning this again: according to this article, written in 2004, leadership of the areas in the US and Canada have become the responsibility of the Presidency of the Seventy members. It is therefore impossible, as asserted by that good-faith edit, for GA Seventies not in the Presidency to be asked to supervise those areas, until official confirmation comes down from the Brethren that this practice has changed. That said, many GA Seventies assist presidency members with the work of the areas in the US and Canada. But it is the members of that Presidency that have sole responsibility to preside over those areas. Additionally, we have verification of the calls of Uceda and Kearon, which can be found here, hereand in the August 2017 Ensign here. I think where the editor in question was getting confused is in the fact that the relevant lds.org leader biographies have not yet been updated to reflect these changes, and that there has been no sustaining of these brethren yet. But that will likely happen in October, unless the Church chooses to not do so, as was the case in the changes in Church leadership made as a result of the newly sustained apostles in October 2015. I am posting these links on this talk page to hopefully put this issue to rest for any that are still confused on this point and to note that these changes are official, even if some editors have not heard of them. Thanks to you all for your ongoing good faith edits. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Name change proposal for subsection heading

Hello again, everyone! I am commmeting here today to propose a name change for a subsection heading. In the world of academia, a retired professor of any institution is known as a "professor emeritus". But in this article, one of the subsection headings under "Current organization" is entitlted "Emeritus general authorities". It is therefore proposed that we change that subsection heading to instead read, "General authorities emeritus", though I suppose that the correct pluralization of the key term would make it "General authorities emeriti". I would not see either as a problem, but wanted to address that proposal here. I welcome feedback on this. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine as currently shown. While it's just my view, there is no data to support it, I tend to feel the current usage is more common among church members. I also don't feel any need for the article to conform with what is typically done in academia. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)