Talk:Henry B. Eyring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Counselor Succession box should not be there

For some ridiculous reason, someone set up this article so there's a succession box for President Eyring's new 2nd Counselor position. However, the title of the box was bold, so it did not lead anywhere. And under "predecessor" when it showed President Faust's name, going to his biography, there was no 2nd Counselor succession box there. If we want a succession box for second counselor, I think that box should be there for every man who ever served in that position, not just President Eyring. Of course, that also means (to keep consistency) that we'd need to go through and do succession boxes for the positions of 1st Counselor, Assistant Counselor, and Additional Counselor. I don't think we need that kind of hassle. If readers are that curious about the positions, we could refer them to the officially-endorsed-by-the-Church Deseret Morning News Church Almanac. Thoughts?--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It really wouldn't be that hard to do if someone wanted to do it. A clear chronology of the First Presidency exists at First Presidency (LDS Church), so it wouldn't take a lot of figuring out, it would just be repetitive work in implementing such a thing. Because of the existence of the chronology at that page, I don't think it's necessary to do this, but I wouldn't oppose it if someone wanted to go forward and complete the boxes as you described for all the counselors. Snocrates 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I decided to just eliminate that succession box until further notice, or until some consensus is reached as far as keeping it and adding it for all counselors. If you disagree, feel free to revert the change. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a template box for all counselors, which is probably more useful anyway. Snocrates 02:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be kinda cool to have the succession boxes for everybody. Looking at Snocrates' list of counselors, it doesn't look like it'd be that much work? Does anybody have an opinion with regards to succession boxes vs. template box vs both? Phuff 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems that I see with succession boxes for counselors in this quorum are:
  1. If the person is the first counselor and dies, then the second counselor succeeds him with a new second counselor. Is the previous first counselor's successor the new first counselor or the new second counselor?
  2. What about when there was a third counselor? Who is his successor?
  3. What about when the president dies and the quorum is disolved? Do the two new counselors succeed, or do we just mark it as the quorum being disolved?
How do we resolve these with a template or otherwise? — Val42 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this would work simply by office. That is, we would list these in terms of the order they held the office. If somebody holds the office and dies, whoever next holds the office is the successor. Regardless of where they came from.
The extra counselors as had by David O. McKay, Brigham Young, Spencer W. Kimball might not get succession boxes, since they're not standard offices.
As to your point about when the president dies, once again, this would just be about the office of first counselor. In the case, for example, of Ezra Taft Benson to Howard W. Hunter, there would be no succession since the people holding those offices stayed the same (Hinckley as first counselor, Monson as second) no real succession took place.
I think we'd just do this with a succession box like is done with apostles, university presidents and even pulitzer prize winning novels, currently. — Phuff 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if those problems listed by Val42 above are resolveable in a technical sense (which they may be)—I see the succession box for counselors as problematic for the same reason I don't really like it for the Qof12 members. Simply stated, usually counselors in the First Presidency aren't thought of as "succeeding" one another in the same sense that a president of the church or presiding bishop succeeds the previous one. TS Monson "succeeded" GB Hinckley as 1st counselor, but usually things aren't spoken of that way. I created the template box b/c I thought it would be more useful as a visual aid than succession boxes for counselors. Snocrates 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from there in the sense that it's not often talked about in terms of succession, though I think many people think of it that way (i.e. when Hinckley became president of the church _of course_ Monson became the first counselor). I thought it would be useful and interesting to be able to quickly step back through all of the counselors with these links, but perhaps it's only something I would find interesting/useful. — Phuff 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The chronology at First Presidency (LDS Church) allows you to do this and would be a good guide if it's decided that these should be created. I'm not strongly opposed to it and I think it could be done if desired. I see little harm in it and most of the problems are not too difficult to surmount once you examine the chronology table. Snocrates 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the chronology at First Presidency (LDS Church) serves the intended purpose. I also have a comment about how that table presents information, but I will make said comment on that page. — Val42 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Call

The Newsroom bio at www.lds.org shows Eyring being called on February 4, unlike Monson and Uchtdorf who were called on February 3. I'm putting this information on the talk page because it can be confusing. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to Alanraywiki: Something you need to understand here. Up until the press conference, there was no way to tell who the new First Presidency would be. Even Church public affairs didn't know it before they were supposed to. Consequently, when the information was released to the press, there was little time to throw everything together. So, until Church Public Affairs gets the dates uniform, we ought to go with what we know. According to the original press release from the Church, the new First Presidency had been sustained, ordained and set apart to their new positions on the 3rd, even though the public announcement was only for the 4th. If that's not convincing enough, Monson and Uchtdorf's biographies say February 3rd, and 2/3 is a clear majority. Until information comes out solidly saying the whole thing was done on the 4th (which is unlikely) I'd go with what we know and put the 3rd for this as well. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of assuming it will be corrected and contorting our mind into figuring out what "really" happened, why don't we just use the date the source says? When (if?) the source changes or we get a different source, then the date should reflect whatever it says. Zoporific 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Because doing so would be inaccurate. The Church press release about the First Presidency before they were presented to the media said that as of February 3, the First Presidency WAS reorganized. There's no contortion of mind involved. I know of one source that quotes verbatim the statement from the Church, and I found others that point at the notion (incorrect though it may be) that Monson and Uchtdorf were also only "named" to their new positions on Monday. Since the second two sources contradict the first, as well as contradicting what you found, who are we to believe? Since the first source is the only one to actual quote (though indirectly) from the official Public Affairs statement, I'd say go with that one. Tell me what you think. Links to those sources follow. While these quotes are indirect, they are quotes nonetheless. When there are conflicting sources, I would say go with the ones that concur, except when they contradict official information officially released by the Church. The links follow. Hope they help. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KSL - New LDS Church Presidency to be announced today Note particularly the paragraph beginning with "At 11:00 Monday Morning". Thomas S. Monson named as new LDS Church President Points at the notion that Monson was only "named" Church President on Monday, which we know is not the case. Elder Uchtdorf, former pilot, named new counselor in the First Presidency States only that Uchtdorf was "presented" as the new 2nd Counselor yesterday, omitting information about his setting apart.

Just cite a source in the footnote that cites 3 February with respect to Eyring. Otherwise you're performing WP:SYN, a variety of WP:OR. Zoporific 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The lds.org Newsroom articles now only mention each member of the First Presidency being named on February 4. I could not find anything mentioning February 3. There must be a source out there that indicates they actually became the First Presidency on Feb. 3, but apparently it is not the Church web site (or at least I'm not seeing it there). Alanraywiki (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the bio on lds.org has been changed now to say Feb. 3. Zoporific 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it says that President Eyring was "named . . . on February 4" at [1] and that he was "named . . . since February 3" (odd wording) at [2]. I'm sure he became first counselor on February 3 and that it was announced on the 4th, but it would be nice if the web site were clearer. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Clear or not, confusing or not, the essence of the content is that he was sustained (by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) to the First Counselor position on February 3. Since this is verifiable, even if it is confusing, I'm changing the date in question to February 3. President Henry B. Eyring --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)