Talk:Council on the Disposition of the Tithes

message: Is it correct to refer to this council as a quorum?Isaac Crumm 07:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered about that and am not sure. I would think no—it's more of a council (hence the name). Quorums are generally a gathering of priesthood holders who hold the same priesthood office. Quorums also generally have a president at the head. Although these rules can presumably be bent, as when Patriarchs meet with the high priests quorum. I would be open to not calling it a quorum in the article unless someone can find a reference where it is called that (I can't). Some people would argue that a quorum and a council are the same thing (e.g., the Council of the Twelve), but I think this group is more analogous to a ward council or a stake welfare council than a quorum. What do you think? --SESmith 07:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. It should be changed unless someone can find a reference.Isaac Crumm 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -SESmith 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is incorrect to call it a quorum because in the revelations and in the following source, it s referred to as a council. http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-690-2,00.html. If it's good enough for the Lord, it's good enough for me. --Jgstokes 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quorum?

message: What is the rationale for changing the date (in "As of _______, the members of the Council are:") from May 2007 back to April 2007? I don't think the membership in the Council has changed since April, has it? If it has, we should update the name instead of retrodating the statement in the article. -SESmith 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that, and I did so (I believe) because the members of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes were listed in the latest Church Auditing Department report, which came during the April General Conference. However, come to think of it, by that rationale, I should have technically switched the date to the final part of December 2006 or the first part of January 2007. Whatever the reason was, it's not important. My question is, are we going to leave this date as-is in this article, or update the "as of" date every month? I think that may have been what was going through my head when I changed it back to April 2006. However, inasmuch as the council membership does not change, I think it's safe to leave the "as of" date as May 2007. Whatever the reason for the change I made, I'm glad you fixed it. Thanks. --Jgstokes 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I think someone (or I?) originally put a date to the list because it said something like, "currently, the members are...", and that was seen as unacceptable because the reader would not know if it was up to date or not. Is there another way around the problem? -SESmith 04:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. I don't see any way to fix this without making more problems. So, I imagine, unless it's objectionable, it would be all right to leave the date as "May 2007," unless, of course, the members of the council change anytime soon, which may or may not be likely --Jgstokes 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "As of" date

message: Friends and Fellow Editors,
Because President James E. Faust, who died on August 10, 2007, cannot as a dead man be a member of a living council, I have removed his membership listing in this council. As soon as a new 2nd Counselor is called, his name can be put in President Faust's place. For now, though, I have removed him.
--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of President Faust's listing as a member of this council 

message: The council did publish its financial records, at least into the 1950s. I don't know the exact date in which it stopped, but I could probably find out. Anyway, it's incorrect to state that it has never published its financial records. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stopped in 1959, according to this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Published records

message: Based on changes made to the Presiding Bishopric on March 31, 2012, this list needs to be updated. But I don't have sufficient knowledge of the templates to take care of it myself. Please help! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, I took care of this problem myself. The list is up-to-date as of March 31, 2012. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Presiding Bishopric needs to be added. 

message: Hello again, everyone! This is just a reminder to those watching this page that a prior consensus established on this talk page noted that the "as of" date should only be updated when a change to the membership of this Council is made, which only ever occurs when there is a corresponnding change in the membership of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, or Presiding Bishopric. For example, Dean M. Davies, the current First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, will turn 70 next year, which, based on what happened in 2012 (when the entire Presiding Bishopric was released and granted emeritus status) may mean Davies could be granted emeritus status next October. If that was to occur (henwhich seems consistent with patterns observed in recent years), then the subsequent changes in the Presiding Bishopric woould be not4ed, with the "as of" date updated to October 2021. Either way, updating the  date to January 2020 when there have been no changes to the membership of the Council since April 2018 would require a new consensus before the change could stick. But even if a change were to be made to the "as of" date, I don't see why changing it to January of this year would make more sense than changing it to May of this year. At least, that's my take on this issue. I welcome any other input from any editors who might care to weigh in on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As of" date--Part Two