Talk:Seventy (Latter Day Saints)

Future Directions

I know I'm largely responsible for some of the content on this page, but here are some things I would like to try out.

• Cite sources. Go as close to the D&C and scripture as possible, and build out from there.
• Cite magazine articles properly.
• Cite the general conference where specific events occured.
• Keep a separate list: List of Current First Quorum of Seventy members; List of Current Second Quorum of Seventy Members; List of Seventy Emeritus; List of Presidents of the Quorums of Seventy (historically and current);

Jgardner 22:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And all that could feasibly be done by consulting the most recent edition of the LDS Church Almanac, which, in this case, is 2006. That has all the information anyone would need to know to do all that. Signed, A Friend and Fellow Church Member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.93.10 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 January 2006

I think a full list of all quorum members is perhaps a bit too much, a list of the Presidents and notable members would perhaps be of more interest and use to readers. --Tobey 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would prefer a full list, especially at General Conference time. Not even lds.org lists the General Authorities, as far as I can tell. Those of us who live overseas may not have ready access to a copy of the Deseret News Church Almanac. Not to mention the fact that even the latest information is a year out of date by September. Meservy (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for would be List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also the list List of area seventies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --Trödel 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seventy lower than High Priests?

Although it could be argued that after 1936, when the Seventy were placed under Stake control, that the Seventy became lower than High Priests, but before that time Seventies were generally thought of as holding a higher priesthood office and responsibility.

Note the following -

"There is nothing in the Doctrine and Covenants upon which an idea can be based that the High Priests have precedence over the Seventies." (Brigham Young, Deseret News, 6 June 1877)

"The High Priests possessed the High Priesthood; but the Seventies possesed the High Priesthood and the Apostleship which was the highest power on the earth or in the Church." (Parley P. Pratt, Seventies Record, Nauvoo, Book B, 25 January, 1846, p. 226)

See also Joseph Smith's letter to Orson Hyde, 14th May 1840, History of the Church 4:129.

There is much more substantiation on this point, but this I hope will suffice.

--Tobey 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Office of Seventy still exists in the Church?

It is my impression that the Priesthood office of Seventy no longer exists in the Church.

This is based on a October 5th 1986 article article in the Salt Lake Tribune, relating an announcement by LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson the previous day, and titled "LDS Church Discontinues Office of Seventy".

This seems to be concurred by an article in the LDS Church's official magazine, the Ensign, which states -

(Ezra Taft Benson speaking:) "The seventies quorums in the stakes of the Church are to be discontinued, and the brethren now serving as seventies in these quorums will be asked to return to membership in the elders quorums of their wards. Stake presidents, in an orderly fashion, may then determine who among such brethren should be ordained to the office of high priest."

& "Now we announce the call of a new local officer to be known as an area authority. These will be high priests chosen from among past and present experienced Church leaders."

But this seems contradicted by the following line - "“Although the ordination to the office of Seventy is without term, a Seventy is called to serve in a quorum for a designated period of years."

Although this is anecdotal - I asked a friend of mine who worked in the Church Offices to ask one of the 'Seventies' is they had been ordained to that specific Priesthood office, and they told him they were a High Priest, and had only been set apart to perform the duties of a Seventy - a distinct difference. So I presume that in the previous quote it should say "set apart" rather than "ordained" but I am open to correction if anyone has any further information.

--Tobey 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually reply to old posts like this, but this is to dissipate any confusion that may later occur. Read the quote from President Benson closely. He is referring specifically to local quorums of seventy. Until 1978, each stake had one or more quorums of seventy. Many missionaries were ordained to the office of Seventy before going on missions, and so, while local seventy are now considered elders or high priests, the offices of General Authority and area authority seventy do indeed exist. Bruce 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the church public affairs would answer if we asked on behalf of wikipedia? Rdpuk 14:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. We'd have to make sure that the right question is asked. I propose "Are Area Authorities ordained to the priesthood office of Seventy or are they instead set apart to hold that responsibility?"

Contact details are available on - http://lds.org/newsroom/contact/0,15327,3883-1,00.html

--Tobey 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall looking at material that was being translated while on a mission in the year 2000 and noting that in the information on membership records it included "Seventy" as a priesthood office that could be indicated on a brother's membership record. --A.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.59.160 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 December 2006

As a purely anecdotal contribution to this ancient thread: I recall reading membership records around 2001 in a midwestern U.S. ward which reported the priesthood office of "Seventy" for three members of the local Elders Quorum. It was explained to me that their stakes ordained them to the office of Seventy during the 1970s (before the changes noted above), and they had not yet been ordained High Priests. This seems to show that the LDS Church still officially recognizes the office of Seventy for those who are no longer members of a Seventies Quorum.

On another note, it's my understanding that the office of High Priest succeeds the office of Seventy, in the same way the office of Teacher succeeds the office of Deacon; one office follows the other and previous powers/duties are absorbed into the new office. I assume this means that when an Elder is ordained a High Priest, he also receives the powers/duties of the office of Seventy (in the same way that new convert ordained to be a Priest also receives the powers/duties of the offices of Deacon and Teacher). Rich jj (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess if I had been paying attention I would have seen the explanation was already in the article at Seventy (Latter Day Saints)#Discontinuance of local quorums of seventy. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Area Authorities are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood office of Seventy. When the area authority position was created it took the place of the old regional representatives. This was in 1995 and they just needed to be high priests and were just called "Area Authorities." In 1997 President Hinckley said that the area authorities would be ordained to the office of Seventy and would be organized into the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Quorums of Seventy which has now expanded to eight quorums (I think it's eight). Also, I was at a meeting in February 2007 with Elder Bednar where he said Seventy is a higher priesthood office than High Priest. 98.164.215.102 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ChristianZ

That is fascinating about Bednar's comment. What meeting did he say this at? I thought it might be his BYU fireside, but I didn't see reference to it in there. I was convinced High Priests were higher than Seventies, because when stake quorums were discontinued in 1986, the church assigned seventies to Elder's Quorums. Stake Presidents then followed the normal process in deciding which seventies should be ordained as High Priests. See Seventy (Latter Day Saints)#Discontinuance of local quorums of seventy, especially the footnote. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

15 apostles?

There's to be a mistake .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.206.232 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 May 2007

If you were to sign your name, and explain your reasoning about this "mistake", perhaps someone could help you. I just looked at the article closely and found no reference to "15 apostles." but my guess would be that if there were such a reference, it would refer to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who, though they are now 14 in number, all hold the priesthood office of "apostle." Does that help? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Joseph Smith

There's been a short series of reverts around the phrase "By the time Joseph Smith was martyred".

I confess that this is not a cut-and-dried issue.

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition

1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

Using these definitions, it would seem obvious that Joseph Smith was a martyr. But, to be more precise, he was a Mormon martyr.

To be called a martyr is laudatory. To be called a heretic is derogatory. What's the difference? Whether the religion and/or principles are accepted as orthodox.

And this is what makes use of the word "martyr" POV. From a Mormon POV, Smith is obviously a martyr. From a secular POV, he is also a martyr but no more so than other heretics who are also martyred for their religion. From the POV of a "mainstream" Christian (e.g. a Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant), Smith was not a martyr, just a heretic.

Thus, to sidestep this whole POV dispute, it's easier to just avoid using the word "martyr" in this context.

--Richard 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word is best to be avoided. Saying he was "killed" or even "murdered" is less problematic and just as accurate. –SESmith 08:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes just made

I have made a few changes to this page, all in the Presidency of the Seventy section. I have placed by the name of each Presidency member the date of their call to the presidency, and the source for each date, which makes it verifiable. I have also changed Elder Tingey's title from "Presiding President" to "Senior President". While it is true that the most senior presidency member presides over the other six, he is defined as the Senior president in the following sentence: "Elder Carlos E. Asay will serve as Senior President of the Seventy." (Found in Ensign, Sept. 1995 p. 74) Further, note this sentence: "With Elder Asay’s release, Elder L. Aldin Porter will become the senior member of the Presidency of the Seventy." (Found in Ensign, Aug. 1996 p. 71) Consequently, the changes have been made. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A Discussion of "Seventies" Apostolic authority

The article states that "Seventies may act in the place of apostles, but a seventy does not hold apostolic authority. This means that they may have the power to do anything that is required to organize and administer the church, as long as they are under the direction of an apostle. Apart from the seven presidents of the seventy, seventies do not hold priesthood "keys."

I think that we should discuss this claim in more detail because there is a difference of opinion on whether Seventies have apostolic authority and the definition of apostolic authority. I will include some quotes for further discussion:

"This day the Council [presidency] of the Seventy met to render an account of their travels and ministry, since they were ordained to that Apostleship." (History of the Church 2:346)

It seems to me that this quote would lead us to believe that the Seventy is an "apostleship" of sorts or in scriptural terms they are "especial witnesses" of Christ (see D&C 107:25). D&C 27:12 refers to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by saying, "I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name,..." D&C 107:23 refers to the Twelve Apostles as "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world" yet verse 26 says that the Seventy form a quorum that is "equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named." So there appars to be no difference, or little difference, between the terms "special witnesses" and "especial witnesses" but the scriptures clearly grant the 12 special witnesses authority over the 70 especial witnesses or in other words the scriptures grant the 12 Apostles authority over the 70 apostles. We don't refer to them as "apostles" for the sake of clarity but I believe they are apostles in their right and receive apostolic authority.

Members of the Church understand that being "equal in authority" means they can preside in the absence of other Quorums. We understand the President of the Church is an Apostle as are his Counselors whether ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve or not. We sustain the President, his Counselors and members of the Quorum of the Twelve as "prophets, seers and revelators" in General Conference. We don't sustain them as "apostles" yet I believe that they, like the Seventy, possess apostolic authority by virtue of their office. We do not sustain the Seventy as "prophets, seers and revelators" which seems to indicate that the apostolic authority has nothing to do with the person being a "prophet," a "seer" or a "revelator" but instead has to do with the right to bear witness of the name of Christ in all the world.

It's also important to note that the Seventy, the Twelve and the First Presidency are Presiding Quorums in their own right and by their own authority. The President presides, and whenever he dies, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve presides as he holds the keys and has the authority to exercise them. There has never been a case where the Seventy had to preside over the Church but they could in their own right do so as they are "equal in authority" to the Twelve.

Joseph Smith, in 1836,

"...called upon the quorums and congregation of Saints to acknowledge the presidents of Seventies who act as their representatives, as Apostles and special witnesses to the nations, to assist the Twelve in opening the Gospel kingdom among all people" ( History of the Church 2:418)

It seems to me that Joseph Smith is distinguishing the role of "Apostle" as that of a "special witness" of the Lord. If this is the case then "apostolic authority" has little to do with "keys" of the priesthood as the article seems to imply, instead it is the authority to bear witness of Christ or the "apostolic authority." Which leads me to believe that presiding authority defined in scripture is separate from the apostolic authority. This would mean that apostles outside of the Twelve don't have the right to preside which has been the case in Church history. Several members of the First Presidency have been ordained as Apostles but not called to the Quorum of Twelve. For those who were subsequently called into the Twelve their standing in the Quorum was from the date of their ordination to the Twelve and not to the Apostleship.

Brigham Young speaking of the Seventy said they were called to be,

"apostles to the nations to carry the gospel; and when we send you to build up the kingdom, we will give you the keys, and power and authority" ( History of the Church 7:307).

So, it seems the Seventy possess the keys, power and authority needed and the President and the Twelve have the authority to delegate any and all keys necessary to perform their labors and when the President and Twelve are absent the Seventy possess authority over the Church. Either way, I think it is important that we not confuse LDS and non-LDS by claiming that the Seventy don't possess apostolic authority. The following quote by Earl C. Tingey is the primary reason I think we should not do so.

Earl C. Tingey said of the Seventy,

"When they are ordained, members of the Seventy do receive apostolic authority to bear witness that Jesus is the Christ and to go forth in all the world as the Twelve may send them.

I can't speak for Elder Tingey but it seems clear to me that he understands that the Seventy receive "apostolic authority to bear witness that Jesus is the Christ" and to "go forth in all the world" as the Twelve may direct them. I think it would be important to keep this distinction in the article while removing the claim that the Seventy don't possess apostolic authority because as we have seen Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Earl C. Tingey among others believe that the Seventy possess apostolic authority. Whether this is a portion of the apostleship or its entirety is something we can debate, discuss and pray about for many years but I think we have enough clarification that the Seventy have some, if not all, apostolic authority. I, of course, will wait to remove or re-word the sentence until there is some consensus. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

It seems to me you've been pretty thorough. I would only add that the Quorum of the Twelve is equal in authority to the First Presidency only when there is no First Presidency, and the Quorums of the Seventy are only equal to the two quorums previously named when said quorums do not exist. For the precedent, I direct you to something Joseph Smith once stated, which is: "Where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." The reference for that is: HC 2:374 (History of the Church Volume 2, Page 374). By explaining the surrounding circumstances of that, I think I can prove my point far better than I could with just my own words. When this quote was made, it was part of a response given by Joseph Smith on behalf of the First Presidency regarding concerns, complaints, and questions about slights that the Quorum members felt had been practiced against them, as brought up in a council meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. See HC 2:372-375 for the complete proceedings. It is plain that when Joseph used the pronoun "I" in the above quotation that the "I" referred to in the above quotation means "the President of the Church." So let me restate the quote using that knowledge, as follows: "Where [the President of the Church is] not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." Because of that quote, I think we ought to add the specification that the Quourum of the Twelve only has totally equal authority to the First Presidency where there is no President of the Church. Likewise, the Quorums of the Seventy are equal in authority only when there is no Quorum of the Twelve or President of the Church, and so on. The way I wrote it was to prove a point, but it is lengthy and even hard for me to understand, so if you can understand it, since we know that's the case, maybe a change could be made based on the doctrine taught in this quote. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Wording

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused by my poor choice of words but I agree with you that the Quorum of the Twelve is equal in authority to the First Presidency only when there is no First Presidency. That is exactly what I meant when I wrote that:

"Members of the Church understand that being "equal in authority" means they can preside in the absence of other Quorums....It's also important to note that the Seventy, the Twelve and the First Presidency are Presiding Quorums in their own right and by their own authority. The President presides, and whenever he dies, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve presides as he holds the keys and has the authority to exercise them. There has never been a case where the Seventy had to preside over the Church but they could in their own right do so as they are "equal in authority" to the Twelve."

I feel that the citation to HC 2:374 should be added to the article along with clarifying language. We need to somehow differentiate between "apostolic authority" and the authority to preside since the Seventy, technically speaking, possess apostolic authority and the authority to preside in certain circumstances but not in others. So I would propose the following language:

Seventies, being equal in authority, act under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as they labor in their apostolic ministry. <insert appropriate citations> Members of the Church understand that being "equal in authority" means they preside over the Church when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve aren't constituted. <insert appropriate citations> This means the seventies have the power to do anything that's required to organize and administer the church, as long as they do so under the direction of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve. <insert appropriate citations> They do not, as a Quorum, preside over the Church, by their own authority, unless the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are no longer in existence. <insert appropriate citations> Apart from the seven presidents of the seventy, seventies do not hold priesthood "keys" but are delegated the necessary keys to perform their duties. <insert appropriate citations> A seventy holds apostolic authority in the sense of being an "especial witnesses of Christ." <insert appropriate citations> and the Quorum of the Seventy may become the Presiding authority over the Church if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve cease to exist. <insert appropriate citations>

Please change this wording as you see fit so we can find the right balance.

Why this is so important

I wanted to add that I think it's really important that we get the wording right because a lot of people, both LDS and non-LDS, get their information from Wikipedia and I have heard many people inaccurately describe the functions of the organizations and quorums of the Church. We also live at a time when it's possible that both the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency could by some freak chance be destroyed in one catastrophic event such as an earthquake. It would be good for members of the Church to know without question who is the presiding authority in such an event. Our doctrine of succession should be as clear to the non-LDS layperson as that of any other Church including the Catholic Church Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Thank you, Edward. This appears to be a solidly written, extremely well-worded paragraph. I would propose, then, that the following be the result:

Seventies, being equal in authority, act under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as they labor in their apostolic ministry. <insert appropriate citations> Members of the Church understand that being "equal in authority" means they preside over the Church when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve aren't constituted. <insert appropriate citations> This means the seventies have the power to do anything that's required to organize and administer the church, as long as they do so under the direction of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve. <insert appropriate citations> They do not, as a Quorum, preside over the Church, by their own authority, unless the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are no longer in existence. <insert appropriate citations> Apart from the seven presidents of the seventy, seventies do not hold priesthood "keys" but are delegated the necessary keys to perform their duties. <insert appropriate citations> A seventy holds apostolic authority in the sense of being an "especial witnesses of Christ." <insert appropriate citations> and the Quorum of the Seventy may become the Presiding authority over the Church if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve cease to exist. <insert appropriate citations>

As far as actual citations go, I would strongly encourage a reading of an August 2005 ''Ensign'' article on pages 48-50 by Elder Earl C. Tingey, Senior President of the Seventy. The article clearly lays out what the role of the Seventy is relating to their relationship to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I'm going to provide a link to that story, then leave you to read it and decide for yourself (since you're the one that come up with this excellent paragraph) how much of the article to use, which quotation should go where, and whether it would be profitable for to use the HC quote I included in my last post. As long as we have citations at the points noted, it should be okay to go with what we have. Great job! Keep up the good work, and let me know when you have something written with the appropriate citations. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the members of the Presidency of the Seventy hold keys but no other Seventy does? That's a new one to me. I was under the impression that no Seventy held keys (unless perhaps while serving as a mission or temple president) but this is interesting new information to me that the Presidency of the Seventy hold keys. Do we have a reference for that? I don't see it mentioned in Elder Tingey's article. Also, at the meeting I was at with Elder Bednar he said that when the D&C says the Quorum of the Twelve is equal in "power and authority" to the First Presidency that the word "power" in this instance refers to priesthood keys. The D&C then says that the Seventy are equal in "authority" to the Quorum of the Twelve with the word "power" being purposely left out. 98.164.215.102 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ChristianZ

I realise this is very late, but the reference for the presidency of the seventy holding keys can be found in the LDS Church's new Handbook here: "The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First German Seventy?

I wonder who the first German Seventy was -- Elder Uchtdorf? -- pne (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That would be F. Enzio Busche. Mike (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope to the nope. Busche may have been the first German ordained a seventy and called to be a general guthority, but it is unlikely that he was the first German to be ordained a seventy. It is probable that several German immigrants to the United States in the 1800s were ordained to this priesthood office. Most missionaries were seventy rather than elders. There may have been Germans living in Germany who were ordained Seventies. Matthew R. Lee 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard J. Maynes reference

In attempting to add information about Elder Richard J. Maynes's call to the Presidency, I ran into an error with the formatting for the reference, and don't know how to fix it. HELP! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone (I'm not sure who) removed the sources I had listed for the changes made on February 11, 2012. Rather than removing them, they should have been fixed. Could someone with more WP experience than me please reinclude those references and fix the problem rather than removing them again? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the revision history. It has been claimed that the change doesn't become official until March 31, 2012. But changes in assignemnt don't have to be approved by the Church to become official. An announcement from the First Presidency suffices. Therefore, I am reverting the change. Please post here BEFORE reverting it again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably just a different interpretation of when things are "official". From my reading of LDS scriptures, one couldn't really say that the change is completely "official" until it is ratified by the common consent of church membership. That generally happens in a General Conference meeting. However, the change can certainly be implemented prior to common consent having been given. This is probably what has happened here, which changes the common consent bit into more of a formality or technicality than anything else. (Fixed the ref, by the way.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Any Church member knows that an annoucement from the First Presidency is enough to "make it official." It doesn't have to be ratified by the membership to be so. And, as you said in your reverts, the source says, "effective immediately." If it's in the source, it's good enough for me. Thanks for fixing this. Thanks for all your great work. Keep it up! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As there has been some dispute over the date of Maynes's call, I looked it up using a google search. The Church's official website reports the date of the change as January 20, 2012. So that is the date that should be used, regardless of what the LDS Church News reports. Post here before reverting. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 changes.

For the LDS section of this article, when August 1 arrives, we will want to make the following changes where it talks about the Presidency of the Seventy:

Jay E. Jensen will be released from the Presidency of the Seventy and as President of the North America Northeast Area.

Donald L. Hallstrom will preside over the North America Northeast Area, succeeding Jay E. Jensen.

Craig C. Christensen, newly called to the Presidency of the Seventy, succeeding Jay E. Jensen, will preside over the Idaho and North America Central Areas, succeeding Donald L. Hallstrom.

Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think that the sections in the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" need to be split from this page to a new page titled Seventy (LDS Church).

Pages using the title "(Latter Day Saints)" are, per MOS:LDS, supposed to be a generalized page covering all sects within the Latter Day Saint movement. Pages using (LDS Church) are specifically about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is similar to Quorum of the Twelve and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), in that Quorum of the Twelve is a generalized page on all the groups in all sects that are related to the original Quorum of the Twelve, while the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) covers the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles specifically.

The problem is, this page is has so much stuff in it specifically related to the LDS church that is has become a LDS Church specific page. The "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" section need to be shorted to one paragraph with a "Main articles:" link to a Seventy (LDS Church) page, thereby restoring a "generalization" back to this page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the article split as well. Good idea. Surprising no one thought of it sooner. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think clear that this is a good idea and we have a consensus. Therefore I'm making the change.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I need some input on the choice of which page to wikilink to on 5 pages. Most pages are pretty obvious (i.e. Seventy (LDS Church) vs. Seventy (Latter Day Saints) but these 5 either cross the 1844 death of Joseph Smith, or the date they were made Seventies isn't provided.

1. Thomas Bullock (Mormon) - Made a Seventy but no date given. He was baptized in 1841 and did serve in a few positions before 1844. However, I think he should probably link to Seventy (LDS Church) as most of his positions were after 1844 and he went with Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death.
2. Gilbert Belnap - Made a Seventy but no date given, but it was in Nauvoo. He was baptized in 1842 and did serve in a few positions before 1844. However, I think he should probably link to Seventy (LDS Church) as most of his positions were after 1844 and he went with Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death.
3. Amasa Lyman - Was made a Seventy in 1835 so I would think he should link to Seventy (Latter Day Saints, but he went with Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death and later became a member of the 12 in the LDS Church. I kind of feel that since he spent most of his time as a Seventy for the LDS Church he should link there.
4. Arnold Potter - Was made a Seventy in 1845, so I would think it should link to Seventy (LDS Church). However, he went on to form his own sect, so like others who were Seventies in other sects, he may need to link to Seventy (Latter Day Saints).
5. The Seventies Hall on the Nauvoo Historic District page. I have no idea when the Seventies Hall was build, or who owns it now. Any change I would make would be a guess.

Which page do you all think they should link to?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullock, Belnap, Lyman- LDS. Potter, LDS Seventies Hall - Latter Day Saint. That would seem to be the fairest way to do it. Other thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I too would put Bullock, Belnap, Lyman to (LDS Church). The Nauvoo Seventies Hall is owned by the Community of Christ, so I would put it to (Latter Day Saints). I agree that Potter should probably go to (Latter Day Saints), just because of his own personal history. I agree with what Jgstokes wrote. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, and done.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I take back what I said about ownership of the Seventies Hall. It might in fact be owned by the LDS Church. (Latter Day Saints) may still be the appropriate one, though, given that it was only used as a Seventies Hall during the Nauvoo period. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Seventies Hall is most definitely owned by the LDS Church at present. However it was built in the early 1840s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seventy (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131021170448/http://www.cofchrist.org/D&C164/ to http://www.cofchrist.org/D%26C164/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)