Talk:Henry B. Eyring

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see the bio on lds.org has been changed now to say Feb. 3. Zoporific 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it says that President Eyring was "named . . . on February 4" at  and that he was "named . . . since February 3" (odd wording) at .  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Call 

message: Eyring served in other church position before he became a member of the presiding bishopric that are not listed. He was a district missionary in New Mexico, a member of the district presidency when he was in Massachusetts, and I am pretty sure also a counselor in the presidency of the Boston Stake. I believe he was a bishop in California. I will try to hunt down some sources on this. However the biography of him just published could probably also be used to flesh out the information contained here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church service 

message: This page lacks a section highlighting Eyring's involvement in temple dedications. He has dedicated one, broken ground for one, and rededicated at least one. He has also been involved with the dedication for several others, though I admit I don't know all of them. It would be a simple matter to research this information and get it into the article. So why is it not there already? Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Temple participation information added. The information is complete and correct, to the best of my knowledge. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation in temples. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry B. Eyring. 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://web.archive.org/web/20141119062334/http://humanum.it/en/program/ to http://humanum.it/en/program/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "While he has been a general authority of the church, Eyring has also served in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Quorum of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric. As a result, he is the only person so far to have served in all four groups of top leadership in the church." Do we want to include these sentences? While I think that it is true, I can't find any source (including LDS Church sources) that states this is the case. As such, it seems like original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - both on thinking it's true in a rather quick consideration of others who may have, along with the lack of a source being problematic.  In the continued absence of a source, I'd support its removal. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else wants to comment. If not, I'll remove it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service in all four groups of general authority