LDS Presidential terms

Theo1689

Well-known member
So for those Mormons who are unaware of their own leadership, here is a listing of the Mormon "Prophets" ("Presidents") from inception to the current day.

PresidentAge at PresidencyTerm (Length)
Joseph Smith Jr.
Brigham Young
27
46
1830-1844 (14)
1847-1877 (30)
John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff
72
80
1880-1887 (7)
1889-1898 (9)
Lorenzo Snow
Joseph Fielding Smith
84
63
1898-1901 (3)
1901-1918 (17)
Heber J. Grant
George A. Smith
62
75
1918-1945 (27)
1945-1951 (6)
David O. McKay
Joseph F. Smith Jr.
78
94!
1951-1970 (19)
1970-1972 (2)
Harold B. Lee
Spencer W. Kimball
73
78
1972-1973 (1)
1973-1985 (12)
Ezra Taft Benson
Howard W. Hunter
86
85
1985-1994 (9)
1994-1995 (1)
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas Monson
85
81
1995-2008 (13)
2008-2018 (10)
Russell Nelson942018- (3+)

Now, there are a number of reasons for my sharing this.

The first and most recent is the fact that the current "Mormon" participating in this forum didn't know who "SWK" was in a discussion. "SWK", of course, refers to Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th President of the LDS church. Considering that was only 5 "Presidents" ago, and that he served from 1973-1985, that would be like an American note knowing who George H.W. Bush was (5 Presidents ago), or not knowing who Ronald Reagan was (who served in the '80's, the same time frame as SWK). That's pretty bad, IMO.


Now another reason I bring this up (and I've brought it up before) is because the LDS church, like the Roman Catholic Church, runs on a "gerontocracy", a system run by "old people". For the past number of decades, the average age for a "prophet" to come to office is in his mid-eighties. And this is based on the system the LDS church has set up, having to work your way up through "Seventy", "Apostle", the "Twelve", and finally the "First Presidency". And since these are often limited groups, you have to wait for someone else to die before you can be "promoted". It's kind of like the Catholic church, and their priests working their way up to "Cardinal", and then "Pope".

This creates church "Presidents" who are advanced in age, who are not going to stay in office very long (take note of Jos. F Smith Jr., Harold B. Lee, and Howard Hunter!). Further, I remember well when Monson was no longer mentally "with us", and they simply brought him out to GC as a "figure head", it reminds me of Joe Biden today.

And while Mormons "brag" about their system being Biblical, it is nothing of the sort. The OT prophets were NEVER organized like the LDS church, and God selected them directly, rather than having them "work their way up" through a system. The prophet David was a teenager, the youngest of seven brothers, yet God chose HIM as His prophet. Where are the "David's" in the LDS church of today?
 
Last edited:

Magdalena

Well-known member
When a Mormon president dies, the apostles pretend to vote on who the next one should be. But everyone already knows who it is, because they’ve been in line for a long time.
 

Markk

Active member
Unless you’re someone who speaks up about mormonism. Then he’s not.
I think Oaks might be one of the more caniving GA…I believe from what I have read, he was the main force behind Uchtdorf getting kick out of the first presidency after Monson died.

I think Uchtdorf wants to take the church away from core doctrines, his teachings are way watered down…while Oaks is still old school. I don’t trust Bednar either. But I think Uchtdorf might have the last laugh, if something happens to Holland he might make prophet in the next ten years or so.

Bednar will most likely have a long run as prophet the way thing are setting up, I have read he is a real blank and white leader with no grace in is style of leadership.

But who knows…
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I think Oaks might be one of the more caniving GA…I believe from what I have read, he was the main force behind Uchtdorf getting kick out of the first presidency after Monson died.

I think Uchtdorf wants to take the church away from core doctrines, his teachings are way watered down…while Oaks is still old school. I don’t trust Bednar either. But I think Uchtdorf might have the last laugh, if something happens to Holland he might make prophet in the next ten years or so.

Bednar will most likely have a long run as prophet the way thing are setting up, I have read he is a real blank and white leader with no grace in is style of leadership.

But who knows…
After Oaks said to basically do whatever you can to discredit anyone who tells the truth about Joseph Smith, it was obvious what an evil hypocrite he is. If he gets in, I think the church would take a very different turn from where Nelson is trying to take it. But even Nelson is deceptive. Someone told me I should listen to him because he’s such a nice, kind guy. So I did. He’s doing exactly what Gordon Hinckley did, trying to make mormonism seem more mainstream Christian. Only he's trying to seem more personable about it. But it’s still deception.
 

Markk

Active member
After Oaks said to basically do whatever you can to discredit anyone who tells the truth about Joseph Smith, it was obvious what an evil hypocrite he is. If he gets in, I think the church would take a very different turn from where Nelson is trying to take it. But even Nelson is deceptive. Someone told me I should listen to him because he’s such a nice, kind guy. So I did. He’s doing exactly what Gordon Hinckley did, trying to make mormonism seem more mainstream Christian. Only he's trying to seem more personable about it. But it’s still deception.
I’ve read that Oaks and Nelson are tight, and that’s why Uchtdorf was sent packing back to the quorum. I don’t trust any of these guys but too me Oaks in on the same level that Packard was, but much smarter.

I also read that Oaks was supportive of the smearing and excommunicating the September 6. But again who knows for sure. Two of the 6 have been reinstated, under ETB, and Monson, but a 3rd…, Lavinia Anderson, has been denied re-baptism after 25 years of faithful attendance as a excommunicated member, turned down by Nelson, Oaks, and Eyring.
 

Erundur

Active member
I think Oaks might be one of the more caniving GA…I believe from what I have read, he was the main force behind Uchtdorf getting kick out of the first presidency after Monson died.
The First Presidency dissolves when the president dies, so the counselors are always "kicked out".
 

Markk

Active member
The First Presidency dissolves when the president dies, so the counselors are always "kicked out".
Technically yes , but Eyring remained, right? And even he was moved from 1st to 2nd counselor to get Oaks in with his friend Nelson.

It is a demotion to not be retained as a president of the church. The last time it happened before Uchtdorf was in 1985, and that was Romney who was in very bad health if I remember correctly. It is viewed as a lessor calling by a lot of TBM folks.

Th link below is how many members saw it. There were even TBM here at the time that said they did not like it…which says a lot for a TBM to do so on a forum like this.


He even had to reassure folks he was okay with the demotion…

 

Erundur

Active member
Technically yes , but Eyring remained, right? And even he was moved from 1st to 2nd counselor to get Oaks in with his friend Nelson.
Wrong. Eyring was called as a counselor in the new presidency. The new president can choose whoever he wants as his counselors.
It is a demotion to not be retained as a president of the church.
You mean as a counselor to the president, and no it isn't.
It is viewed as a lessor calling by a lot of TBM folks.
If that's true, then a lot of TBM folks don't understand how callings work in our church.
 

Markk

Active member
Wrong. Eyring was called as a counselor in the new presidency. The new president can choose whoever he wants as his counselors.

You mean as a counselor to the president, and no it isn't.

If that's true, then a lot of TBM folks don't understand how callings work in our church.
LOL…yes he can pick who ever he wants, and he picked his best friend, and dumped Uchtdorf. A practice that is not the norm.

No I mean president …They are are all presidents, in the first presidency, and they are also all prophets, seers, and revelators. And it is a demotion of presence and perception. And who knows maybe even in their pay checks, and as the article read GC talk time?

The current First Presidency is: LDS .org


They understood that it was a slap in the face to a president they liked. And it hurt them. And I am sure it was for a reason. These are men who have different views of how the church should be ran, it is not a Pollyanna where everybody agrees with each other. They are men, most successful business men who are use to get there ways.

I am reading a book right now about the riffs between Orson Pratt, BY, and Joseph Smith…and who took sides with whom. It is a interesting subject and human nature is not excluded from the GA and leadership of the church. It is no different than in ward leadership, often there are clicks, and if you are LDS you know it to be true…you don’t have to like someone to serve a calling with them. And you can say what ever you like, Oaks and Nelson did not want Uchtdorf in the first presidency for a reason. I have no idea what that reason might be, my guess is he is not Utah enough.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
LOL…yes he can pick who ever he wants, and he picked his best friend, and dumped Uchtdorf. A practice that is not the norm.

No I mean president …They are are all presidents, in the first presidency, and they are also all prophets, seers, and revelators. And it is a demotion of presence and perception. And who knows maybe even in their pay checks, and as the article read GC talk time?

The current First Presidency is: LDS .org


They understood that it was a slap in the face to a president they liked. And it hurt them. And I am sure it was for a reason. These are men who have different views of how the church should be ran, it is not a Pollyanna where everybody agrees with each other. They are men, most successful business men who are use to get there ways.

I am reading a book right now about the riffs between Orson Pratt, BY, and Joseph Smith…and who took sides with whom. It is a interesting subject and human nature is not excluded from the GA and leadership of the church. It is no different than in ward leadership, often there are clicks, and if you are LDS you know it to be true…you don’t have to like someone to serve a calling with them. And you can say what ever you like, Oaks and Nelson did not want Uchtdorf in the first presidency for a reason. I have no idea what that reason might be, my guess is he is not Utah enough.
Personally when I was active I liked Uchtdorf at first because I was raised in Germany and I was excited to have a German President. But then when I listened to him more and more I felt that he lacked tenderness and compassion that is common in the Presidents of the church. Some people said that's because he is German, but no, that's not what it was. I just got a bad feeling about him. Even now being inactive there is just something about him that bothers me.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
LOL…yes he can pick who ever he wants, and he picked his best friend, and dumped Uchtdorf. A practice that is not the norm.

No I mean president …They are are all presidents, in the first presidency, and they are also all prophets, seers, and revelators. And it is a demotion of presence and perception. And who knows maybe even in their pay checks, and as the article read GC talk time?

The current First Presidency is: LDS .org


They understood that it was a slap in the face to a president they liked. And it hurt them. And I am sure it was for a reason. These are men who have different views of how the church should be ran, it is not a Pollyanna where everybody agrees with each other. They are men, most successful business men who are use to get there ways.

I am reading a book right now about the riffs between Orson Pratt, BY, and Joseph Smith…and who took sides with whom. It is a interesting subject and human nature is not excluded from the GA and leadership of the church. It is no different than in ward leadership, often there are clicks, and if you are LDS you know it to be true…you don’t have to like someone to serve a calling with them. And you can say what ever you like, Oaks and Nelson did not want Uchtdorf in the first presidency for a reason. I have no idea what that reason might be, my guess is he is not Utah enough.
That’s probably true. He’s not part of the inner circle elite that have certain names in pioneer ancestry.
 

Markk

Active member
Personally when I was active I liked Uchtdorf at first because I was raised in Germany and I was excited to have a German President. But then when I listened to him more and more I felt that he lacked tenderness and compassion that is common in the Presidents of the church. Some people said that's because he is German, but no, that's not what it was. I just got a bad feeling about him. Even now being inactive there is just something about him that bothers me.

Most Mormons I talked with felt the opposite.

He uses a lot of Christian terms, like grace, and I think many members liked that…it was different from the old white shirt messages. But I guess everyone see’s things differently.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
Most Mormons I talked with felt the opposite.

He uses a lot of Christian terms, like grace, and I think many members liked that…it was different from the old white shirt messages. But I guess everyone see’s things differently.
Yeah could be why they liked him. 🙂
 

Erundur

Active member
LOL…yes he can pick who ever he wants, and he picked his best friend, and dumped Uchtdorf.
No he didn't. There was no First Presidency, so there was no one to dump.
No I mean president
Then you are even more wrong. There is only one president of the church, and he is never demoted.
They are are all presidents, in the first presidency
There is only one president in the First Presidency, and two counselors. You're getting confused because counselors to a president are addressed as "president".
They understood that it was a slap in the face to a president they liked.
If that's what they understood then they were wrong, and need to learn how presidencies work in our church.
 

Markk

Active member
There is only one president in the First Presidency, and two counselors. You're getting confused because counselors to a president are addressed as "president".
LOL …as I addressed them…I smell a sock puppet. You have to be OC…LOL, only he could put up a silly argument.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
After Oaks said to basically do whatever you can to discredit anyone who tells the truth about Joseph Smith, it was obvious what an evil hypocrite he is. If he gets in, I think the church would take a very different turn from where Nelson is trying to take it. But even Nelson is deceptive. Someone told me I should listen to him because he’s such a nice, kind guy. So I did. He’s doing exactly what Gordon Hinckley did, trying to make mormonism seem more mainstream Christian. Only he's trying to seem more personable about it. But it’s still deception.
Wasn't Oaks the one who said that sometimes something true isn't always "useful"? "Faith-promoting"? Or was that someone else?
 
Top