Talk:List of general officers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Ages for New Primary General Presidency.

Today I inserted ages for the new Primary General Presidency based upon information contained in the PDF version of the May 2010 Ensign, which is now available online. But I had to approximate on the day of the month, which, interestingly and for no apparent reason, is not given in the magazine. The source follows for anyone who wants to double-check. PDF version of May 2010 Ensign, pp. 143-144. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Last week, the Church News featured an article on Sister Wixom, which listed her exact date of birth. So I entered that in last Saturday. Then today, the Church News featured an article on Sister Stevens, which also listed her exact date of birth. So that information has been entered. I'm sure that next week, the Church News will feature an article on Sister Esplin, and her exact birth date can be entered at that time. I have listed the sources for each change. Interestingly enough, the Ensign reference inaccurately listed the birth year of Sister Stevens: 1952 as opposed to the more accurate 1951. The 1951 date includes month and year and is listed twice in the Church News article, so I have no doubt that this is the correct year. Please post here with any questions you might have about the changes that have been made or are being made. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Today in the Church News, Sister Cheryl A. Esplin was featured in an article. Among the things listed in that article was her exact date of birth. That information has been entered and sources cited. Any questions? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited.

This page is not rich in verifiable resources. Since verifiability is one of the pillars of WP, I would suggest that sources be added for all the information contained herein as soon as it can be reasonably arranged. In the section above, I cited the source for the information on the Primary General Presidency. I add to that source the following sources that will verify the information on this page in every particular. The sources are as follows:

Sunday School: News of the Church, May 2009 Ensign, pp. 141-142.

Young Men: News of the Church, May 2009 Ensign, pp. 142-143.

Young Women: News of the Church, May 2008, Ensign, pp. 141-142.

Relief Society: News of the Church, May 2007 Ensign, pp. 127-128.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I tried to add references to the information on this page, but I keep getting cite errors and they are sufficient enough to wipe out some of the information on this page. Help! I don't know how to fix it. As an additional note, I felt it would make more sense if we listed the auxiliary presidencies from oldest to most recent. So I have done so. If we can fix the cite errors, this page will be in good shape. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the ref tags. You were only missing a few "<" and ">" symbols and a dedicated notes section for the references. You can see what you were missing by looking at this diff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. A HUGE oversight on my part. But I guess it's easy to overlook. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New Relief Society Presidency.

I have inserted the new Relief Society Presidency. Only problem is, no ages are listed for them. So we'll have to wait for the Ensign to come out in order to obtain that information. Oh, well. Post here with questions/comments. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The May Ensign contains birth year and month for Sisters Stephens and Reeves. Oddly enough, no exact day is listed, and no birth month or year is listed for Sister Burton. So we'll have to wait until the Church News runs articles on the new Relief Society general presidency to obtain the exact information. Post here with questions or comments. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Found an article highlighting Sister Burton's call to the Relief Society General Board. That article lists her age at the time of her call in January 2011. So I approximated an age for her based on that. More exact information can be entered when the Church News runs an article on her. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Church News posted an article about Sister Burton today. The article lists her exact age. So her birthdate has been inserted into this article. Subsequent articles will, no doubt, give exact ages of Sisters Stephens and Reeves. That information will be added as soon as it becomes available. Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

An article in the Church News today featured information about Sister Stephens, including her exact birthdate. That has been entered into this article. Next week, I'm sure, an article will feature Sister Reeves. As soon as age information is available, it will be posted here. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Order in which the general officers are listed.

Good Olfactory recently reordered the general officers to alphabetical because he said the current order didn't seem to make much sense. I undid that revision because, IMHO, the order makes perfect sense. They are listed chronologically, from least recent to most recent. This means that the page is reordered whenever a change is made in auxiliary presidencies. The conference edition of the Ensign always lists the general auxiliary presidencies. In the May and November 2011 & May 2012 Ensigns, the Auxiliary Presidencies are ordered as follows: Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, Young Men, Sunday School. The current order, chronological, makes the most sense to me. However, I would not be opposed to listing them alphabetically or in the order they are listed by in the Ensign. What I'm asking for is a consensus decision on this. The page has been ordered chronologically for at least the last year. If the consensus decides otherwise, that's fine with me. But I object to anyone altering a long-established ordering system without requesting feedback first. So, I would ask for feedback on this matter before the order is changed. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to reorder them whenever a change is made. An order should be selected and used consistently, regardless of changes to the individuals in the positions. Alphabetical by organization name would probably be the easiest and most neutral way. When the page was first started, they were listed in alphabetical order by organzation. This was unilaterally changed without consensus by User:Jgstokes, so it's a bit disingenuous (or at the very least least forgetful) for him to suggest that we need a consensus to reverse his own unilateral change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Unless anyone else is going to comment here so we can gain a traditional "consensus", I propose restoring the original order from when the article was first created, which was alphabetical by organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments: First, I did not unilaterally change this page. I sought for and received comments from at least two other editors that I can recall, and they agreed with this change. It has been long enough that I don't remember who those editors were, but the discussions in question took place on their talk pages. I am not in the habit of making unilateral changes. And I would welcome a different system, as long as the consensus agrees. But since the consensus at one point was plugging for the current ordering system, it would take a consensus to change it again. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. This sounds pretty sketchy on the details of this consensus. I certainly was not consulted on my talk page, and I was the originator of the page and the original order. It doesn't make much sense to me to seek consensus about an article on personal talk pages as opposed to the talk page for the article, where all who care about the issue will have fair notice that it is being discussed. You say above that you "would not be opposed to listing them alphabetically", and I agree with that, and it conforms with how the article was originally set up. Given that it seems unlikely that anyone else is about to comment here, what is the outstanding issue? If we can agree on a format, it looks like we have a consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments in response. I recognize that the details of the previous consensus are a little sketchy. I apologize that you were not consulted. I had no knowledge that you were the one who set up this page and the original order. If I had, I would have certainly asked for your feedback. Sometimes, other editors have approached me on my talk page requesting comment on an article's talk page, so it's not unheard of for a consensus to be reached without posting on the actual article's talk page. I agree that if two of us agree on a system, that can constitute a consensus. I am therefore reordering the information to the previous alphabetical order. If anyone has any additional comments, please post them here. Otherwise, the consensus has decided. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New Young Women General Presidency.

The newly sustained Young Women General Presidency needs to be inserted into this page. As we currently have no ages on them, it will be difficult to include that information. I think we can make the change anyways. For this change, please see this article. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jean A. Stevens year of birth

There are two citations beside the birthdate/age calculator for Jean A. Stevens. The Ensign one says she was born in November 1952 but the Church News one says she was born on Nov. 20, 1951. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the discrepancy when her information was originally added. Generally, I would say go with the Church News information because that's an exact date. Typos have been known to occur in the Ensign. Usually, a correction will be posted if mistakes are made. But the Ensign has let some typos stand, whereas the Church News will always post a correction, clarification, or retraction. So I would say, when in doubt, go with the source that lists the exact DOB. Other thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with going with the more precise date, which was in the CN. I guess that means we should remove the Ensign as a reference for the age. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Randall L. Ridd

According to this article, Randall L. Ridd has been called to be the new second counselor in the Young Men General Presidency, succeeding Adrian Ochoa, who was called to the Second Quorum of the Seventy in April General Conference. Brother Ridd's call is effective today. No age for him yet, as the news release didn't provide one. His biography will likely appear in the June 2013 Ensign. If my calculations are correct, the Young Men General Presidency will be released next April as Brother Beck and Brother Gibson will have served five years by then. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, role Brother Ridd will have in the new presidency. Exciting news! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be created for Randall L. Ridd

It hardly seems fair to me that all auxiliary presidency members should have a Wikipedia article about them except Randall L. Ridd, second counselor in the Young Men General Presidency. Biographical information about him is sparse, but it is available on lds.org. And a more complete biography about him appeared in the November 2013 Ensign, when he was officially sustained. I have looked at it, but it doesn't contain birth year and month, so age is still approximated. If/when the Young Men General Presidency is organized and he is retained, they might do a more extensive biography on him. I don't know much about creating Wikipedia articles, or I'd take care of it myself. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I figured it out and created an article for Ridd today. Much to my frustration, in the three sources I found for Ridd on the Church website, the information about him was sparse. So the best I could do was a stub. Let me know how it looks. If Ridd is indeed retained when a new Young Men General Presidency is organized, maybe they'll do a more extensive biography on him. Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to editorship and advisership of the Church magazines affect General Officers

As you can see by the changes made a short while ago to this page, some of the general officers have been called upon to serve as assistant editors/advisers to the Church magazines. Called to serve as an assistant editor of the Church magazines is Carol F. McConkie, First Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency. Called to serve as advisers to the Church magazines are Brian K. Ashton, Second Counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency, Cheryl A. Esplin, First Counselor in the Primary General Presidency, Douglas D. Holmes, First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency, and Carole M. Stephens, First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency. It seems the general officers of the Church are being given more responsibilities, which, in my mind, strengthens the case for combining this page about general officers with its sister page, which discusses the assignments of general authorities. I haven't looked yet to verify this, but I am certain that these changes are also reflected in the other Church magazines as well. So I would respectfully request that no deletions of these assignments be made unless and until a consensus, by discussion, determines to do so. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think that having opportunity to advise (share some opinions or views, along with many others, let alone the regular staffs of the magazines) does anything to change the core of the discussion previously held on this topic, found here. Another issue is taking care to not place too much stock or value in the listing of editors or advisers. Since many assignments - particularly those held by leaders serving at the church's headquarters, are not often published or known - the potential exists to place undue weight on the importance of these, which are more visible than other things. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Editorial comment with recent edit

Hello again, everyone! In a recent edit, ChristensenMJ noted by way of editorial comment that he was not sure how relevant it is to list the assignments of the general officers as advisers (which, by extension, may include the member of the Young Women General Presidency serving as an assistant editor). While I respect his right to this opinion, I disagree. On Wikipedia's page, which lists the current general authorities, a list of relevant assignments held by these men is included, insofar as those assignments can be ascertained. Among those general authority assignments listed are those relating to the publication of Church magazines. I submit that if the General Authorities page lists those assignments, then those general officers who have similar responsibilities relating to the Church magazines should have that listed somewhere. That said, if we wanted to go to the trouble of adding a list of current and past editors and advisers to the Church magazines on the individual Wikipedia pages for those magazines, I could see where having those assignments listed on those pages instead of here might be more relevant. But I also submit my opinion that all known assignments for general officers that can be included here should be listed. The fact of the matter is that general officers of the Church serve on a part-time basis. Although they fill additional assignments as invited to do so, none of them are required to move to Salt Lake City. (For those curious, I know this because a family that are long-time friends to my parents used to live next door to Julie B. Beck, and not only did Sister Beck live at home while serving as Relief Society General President, but her husband simultaneously served as bishop of their ward.) For that reason, for assignments such as serving on the Church councils, the Board of Education, or as editors/advisers to the Church magazines indicates to me that, where necessary, these part-time Church leaders spend additional time at Church headquarters. That said, I know that many of you may disagree on this point, as is your privilege. I just wanted to throw out my opinion on this subject here. But let me be clear: Even if no one agrees with me on this point, I wanted to open this subject up for discussion. I personally would have no objection if the determination is made to list the current editors and advisers on the individual pages for the Church magazines, and if it is then removed from this page and the general authorities page. Just some food for thought. I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. Thanks.

As will be noticed even in the section directly above this new one, I don't think there is a great deal of value or stock to be placed in being an adviser to the magazines - for either general authorities or general officers. My comment in the edit and for this page has nothing to do with men versus women or general authorities versus officers. Just so we're clear on that, since the above comment seems to imply differently. It also had nothing to do with minimizing the importance of general officers, which may have been the background for the discussion about their service - notwithstanding that simply moving to Salt Lake or not has nothing to do with being a general authority or general officer. Of course they spend a good deal of time at church headquarters with the various councils and committees they serve on. Again, totally has nothing to do with the adviser issue, or their assignments. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate what you said, particularly in reference to there being no real difference between general authorities and officers regarding time spent at Church HQ, but I disagree on the point that assignments such as the editors and advisers of the magazines are irrelevant for both pages. If such assignments were truly irrelevant, why include them in the magazines at all? By extension, what would be the purpose behind the Church mentioning any assignment? I have an answer for that. The work of every Church leader is important, no matter whether they serve full-time or part-time, or whether or not their assignments are identified. It has been a long-established practice for periodicals, religious or otherwise, to acknowledge those involved in publishing them, and I think that we who edit Wikipedia do a disservice to any Church leader if their assignments have been identified and they are not acknowledged here. But that's my opinion. Unless the consensus disagrees with me on this point, it seems wiser to include assignments which can be reliably sourced. Until such a consensus is established, I would be unalterably opposed to removing the information. I hope you know I take no offense at your honest assessment, and I likewise hope you will not take offense at mine. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

New columns added for assignments

Hello again, everyone! I recently took the liberty of adding new columns to each of these presidencies so that the known assignments could be placed there. Doing it that way seemed to be more a more effective use of space (in my personal opinion) than having a massive paragraph at the end of each section listing all the relevant assignments. I am hoping that in the days ahead, more information may come to light regarding the assignments of these individuals, at which point those can be added for the relevant individuals. I recognize that some may see the editorship and advisership of the magazines as not sufficiently notable, but if that were the case, no periodical, including those put out by the Church, would list such information at all. Feel free to post here with questions or comments on these changes.--Jgstokes (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)