The following comes from:
Confidence Amid Change: The Presidential Diaries of David O.
McKay, 1951-1970,
ed. Harvard S. Heath (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2019) (underlining in original)
February 21, 1952
With the united support of the people and divine inspiration
given to those appointed and sustained as leaders, no power on earth can destroy
the influence or prevent the progress of the Lord’s work. (p. 28)
November 14, 1952
Pres[ident] ]J. Reuben] Clark said he thought the fundamental
thing is the problem as to who is the head of the Aaronic Priesthood—the First Presidency
or the Twelve. Pre[ident] Clark agreed with me that the Twelve represent the
First Presidency in the organization of the Church, but there are two different
Priesthoods, that the Priesthood of the Church is the head of the Melchizedek
and also the Aaronic, but the Twelve are not. (p. 47)
April 1, 1953
Considered a proposed elevation for the Swiss Temple and
the new plan, which provides that instead of going from room to room, the
[decorative elements of the] creation room and the world room will be thrown on
a [movie] screen, so that the people will remain in their seats, and then go
through the veil into the Celestial room. The brethren were enthusiastic about
this new arrangement. (p. 67)
June 2, 1953
Just before we arrived in Chicago, we heard part of the ceremonies
of the crowning of Queen Elizabeth the II. I heard enough to convince me
that the Coronation was a sacred ceremony. (p. 73)
September 23, 1953
Dr. Edward R. McKay called regarding “contraception and the Church’s stand
toward their use.”
I told him that “the Church cannot countenance contraceptives—marriage
is for the purpose of having children and rearing a family. If a couple makes
modifications of this, the responsibility is theirs—they do not have the Church’s
sanction in the use of contraceptives, and the delaying of having children.”
(p. 79)
May 21, 1954
Further mention was made of paintings of the Savior.
The Brethren felt that all pictures of the Savior that we use should be
pictures of him in connection with his ministry and not any representation of
him after his resurrection. (p. 95)
May 28, 1954
The Brethren viewed the picture of the Savior as painted by
Mrs. Lane of California. The brethren thought highly of it, their only
criticism being that they thought the rays above the head should be subdued. They
felt that in the event they purchased it, they should have permission to make
copies of it. (p. 95)
June 3, 1954
Wilford Woodruff Handkerchief
A letter from Joseph J. Daynes together with the silk handkerchief
enclosed therewith was given attention. The handkerchief is the one that was
given by the Prophet Joseph Smith to [apostle] Wilford Woodruff at the time of
the founding of Nauvoo [Illinois] when there was much illness among the people,
which handkerchief the Prophet told President Woodruff to place upon the faces
of two little children who were sick and they would be made well. This
handkerchief has been in President Woodruff’s family ever since that time. The
Brethren signed a letter of acknowledgment and thanks to Brother Daynes. (p.
97)
August 18, 1954
The number of letters I had received from seminary and
institute teachers regarding President Joseph Fielding Smith’s book, “Man,
His Origin and Destiny.” The Brethren were agreed that inasmuch as this book
has not been passed upon by the Church that it could not be used as a study
course in the seminaries and institutes. They felt that the matter therein
discussed is really not essential to the advancement of the cardinal principles
of the Church. (p. 101)
August 30, 1954
Met by appointment at their request the following [LDS]
Seminary Supervisors and teachers: Elders Joy Dunyan, Lowell L. Bennion, Edgar
T. Lyon, and George Boyd.
They said that they were concerned about what their attitude
should be regarding the recent work of President Joseph Fielding Smith on “Man:
His Origin and Destiny.”
I told them that the book should be treated as merely the views
of one man; that it does not set forth the views of the Church, and should not
be prescribed as a text book, but merely as the views of one man. It is true
that one man is President of the Twelve, and makes it more or less
authoritative, but it is no more to be take[n] as the word of the Church than
any other unauthorized book. (p. 104)
December 29, 1954
I told Dr. Poll that the Church has not approved the book [Man:
His Origin and Destiny] by Joseph Fielding Smith]; and that so far as evolution
is concerned, the Church has not made any ruling regarding it, and that no man
has been authorized to speak for the Church on it. (p. 112)
February 29, 1956
First Presidency meeting. A discussion came up regarding a book that is being
prepared for publication by Cla[i]re Wilcox telling of a dialogue between
Joseph Smith and Willard Richards regarding the taking of other wives and urging
that the matter be concealed.
President [Stephen L.] Richards says that the author is a
relative of his and he thought we should resist the publication of such
material. In this connection President McKay gave the following:
Statement by President McKay on polygamy: President McKay stated that his
understanding of the revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith, contained in
the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is as follows: That the revelation
was regarding the eternity of the marriage covenant; it was not on polygamy.
And the Lord revealed to the Prophet that a man who conforms to that revelation,
that is, who enters into the eternity of the marriage covenant, received every
blessing pertaining to the salvation and exaltation of man. No blessing is
withheld. The part of the revelation pertaining to the marriage covenant pertains
only to one man and one wife; and then, after the Prophet received it, he asked
the Lord what about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who had more wives than one. And
then follows the answer of the Lord that, if a man marry another wife and she
is given to him as this wife is given to him, he does not sin, but he does not
get a higher glory. There are one or two verses which will lead one to think
that this refers to the plurality of marriage.
Plural marriage as a practice is not a principle. We have not
abrogated the principles of the marriage covenant and we never will, and the
practice of plural marriage is contrary to the law of the Church and the law of
the land. President Richards said he agreed with this understanding one hundred
per cent.
President McKay said that some of our people taught it as a
principle, which was not correct. (pp. 137-38)
April 29, 1957
Bishop Joseph L. Wirthlin called me by telephone and asked me
the Church’s position on the following question: He stated that he had been asked
to-day if it would be proper for L.D.S. girls to purchase crosses to wear. It
is Bishop Wirthlin’s understanding that there is a company downtown which is
pushing the selling of these crosses to girls.
I told Bishop Wirthlin that this is purely Catholic and
Latter-day Saint girls should not purchase and wear them. I stated further that
this was a Catholic form of worship. They use images, crosses, etc. Our worship
should be in our hearts.
Bishop Wirthlin said that this had been his opinion, but he
felt that he should check with me before making a statement. (pp. 172-73)
April 7, 1958
In Company with Sister [Emma Ray] McKay attended the General
Authorities semi-annal banquet and social held in the Relief Society Building.
At this social a film of Nauvoo which has been prepared under
the auspices of KSL Radio Station, Dr. LeRoy Kimball, and others was shown to the
General Authorities. It is reported that President Richard C. Stratford of the Northern
States Mission, Pres[ident] Junius M. Jackson of the New England Missions, and
others are interested in having the film shown in Nauvoo and the missions.
I have some reservations as to the value of the picture from a propaganda or missionary standpoint. In the picture emphasis is given to the
liberality of the Nauvoo Charter, favorable mention is made of the Nauvoo Legion,
but not much is said as to why the Legion was required to lay down its arms,
and the inference to any stranger might be that they were guilty of something
serious; that the impression is given that Nauvoo is a ghost town, [that] the
houses are still there, [and] the saints were driven out, but not enough
emphasis is given to the fact that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] and Patriarch
[Hyrum Smith] were martyrs. I feel that the history of Nauvoo and our
banishment therefrom s given in a way that does not reflect as favorable as it
should upon the Church or our prophets who were martyrs. (p. 213)
September 5, 1958
[excerpts from a discussion of apostasy among the French missionaries,
London, England]
President McKay: Not Brethren, we had better calling a
meeting of the Mission Presidents tomorrow, Saturday, at 10 o’clock.
Our Elders in Europe, as indicated here in France, are
preaching the eternity of the marriage covenant as being plural marriage
itself. They are misled. They should get clearly in mind the thought that the principle
of that great revelation is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and
what that principle is, the Prophet Joseph [Smith] explains clearly. The
marriage bonds of man and wife will last through the eternity—just as plain as
the English language can express it. When the Prophet Joseph received the great
revelation on the eternity of the marriage covenant, he asked the Lord about
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon, each of whom had more than one
wife; and then the Lord explained that “If I give to him a virgin by this same covenant,
he has not sinned because I have given her to him.” That is marriage under the covenant.
“If he has ten virgins, and he is married under the covenant, it is right
because I have blessed it, and if he does not have them given under the
covenant, he is committing adultery.” Marriage with more than one wife is just
as legal as with one wife because it comes under the eternity of the marriage covenant.
But the church did away with the practice of plural marriage
because of the law. President [Wilford] Woodruff said he was going to do away
with that practice, but he did not deny the principle of the eternity of the
marriage covenant. It is in force today as it has always been in force, but the
practice if plural marriage is not permitted, and anybody who indulges
in it or permit[s] marriage into it, has violated the law of the Church and
merits excommunication.
In the Book of Mormon times they had the same experience. The
Lord called the plurality of wives an abomination, but that did not do away
with the eternity of the marriage covenant, for it is an eternal principle. The
“Cultists” think with polygamy they will receive greater blessings in the
Hereafter, and that the Authorities of the Church are deluded. They do not
understand the difference between the eternity of the marriage covenant, and a
practice of plural marriage. (p. 238)
February 19, 1959
Was convened in the meeting of the First Presidency and
Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.
At this meeting, in preliminary remarks, I said that if every
members of the Church who partook of the Sacrament last Fast Day kept the
covenants that he or she made that day in partaking of the Sacrament, we would
be pretty close to the Millennium even now. If every person kept his covenants
to take upon himself the name of Christ and to keep his commandments without
any exception, worshiping God and being true to Him, treating his brother as he
would have his brother treat him, and always be guided by his spirit, I repeat,
we would be pretty close to the Millennium. And that is our obligation—the obligation
of the General Authorities—to make them feel the responsibility of membership
in the Church of Christ. (p. 270)
March 5, 1959
Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney called at my request. I
asked them if they would together to over Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon
Doctrine” and make a list of the correction that should be made preparatory to
his sending out an addendum to all members of the Church who have purchased his
book. (p. 270)
September 13, 1959
During this time I studied 28 requests for cancellation of
their temple [marriage] sealings, Elder Hugh B. Brown of the Council of
Twelve having made preliminary investigation of each case for me. This meant
the signing of my signature 168 times on the various letters of the parties
concern[ed], and to the Temple Presidents notifying them of the cancellations.
This in addition to writing “Approved” and date on each report given by Elder
Brown. (p. 291)
January 7, 1960
The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and
Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the
book “Mormon Doctrine” by Elder Bruce McConkie.
These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book “Mormon
Doctrine” had not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph
Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder
Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his
copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also
said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should
be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.
I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the
Committee should be announced to the Twelve.
It was agreed that the necessary corrections are no numerous
that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation
of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication
of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such
a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the
Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced at of the
Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.
Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in
the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church
doctrine. A rough draft will be submitted to us for approval.
[Cover letter from Romney to McKay, Jan. 28, 1959;]
The author [McConkie] is an able and thorough student of the gospel.
In many respects he has produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces
the student to the authorities on most any gospel subject.
As the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and
valuable features and the author’s assumption of “sole and full responsibility”
for it, its nature and scope of the authoritative tone of the style in which it
is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting
such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and
responsibility is to speak for the Church on “Mormon Doctrine.” Had the work been
authoritatively supervised, some of the following matters might have been
omitted and the treatment of others modified.
A. [Discourteous] references to churches and other groups who
do not accept “Mormon Doctrine.”
1. “Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter0day Saints” who sometimes refer to themselves
as “Josephites.” (Exhibit II-1, pages 50, 141, 362)
2. “Christian
Churches” generally (Exhibit I-2, pages 139, 455)
3. “Catholic
Church”. (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, [6]6, 129, 130, 216, 241, 242, 314-315, 346,
350, 422, 499, 511, 697)
4.
Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 260, 131)
5. Evolution
and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, [229-38], 659)
B. Declaration as to “Mormon Doctrine” on controversial
issues.
1. “Pre-Adamites”.
(Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)
2. Status
of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2, pages 36, 234-35)
3. Meaning
of the various accounts of Creation. (Exhibit III-3, pages 157-7, 167-8)
4.
Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 204)
5. Moses as
a translated being. (Exhibit III-5, pages 206, 445, 466, 727-8)
6. Origin
of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)
7, Defiling
the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)
8. Manner
in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)
9. Written
sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)
10.
Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694)
C. Miscellaneous [speculative] Interpretations. (Exhibit IV)
Frequency
of Administrations, page 22
Baptism in
the “molten sea,” page 98
II Peter
1:19, page 102
Paul
married, page 112
Status of
those “with Christ in His Resurrection,” page 128
Consecration
of oil, page 147
Councils
and schools among the Gods, page 151
Limitations
on Deity, page 154
Sunday not
a proper day for family reunions, page 254
Geological
changes at the time of the deluge, page 268
The Holy
Ghost a spirit man, page 329
Facing east
in temples when giving the Hosanna Shout, page 337
Details on
family prayer and asking the blessing on food, page 526
Women to be
gods, page 551
Interpretation
of Doctrine and Covenants 93:1, page 581
Interpretation
of “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning,” page 606
Resumption of
schools of the prophets, page 613
Time of
beginning of seasons, page 616
Interpretation
of III Nephi 21:20, page 618
D. Repeated use of the word “apostate” and related terms in a
way which to many seems discourteous and to others give offense. (Exhibit V,
pages 123, 125, 160, 169, 212, 223, 383, 528, 538, 548, 596). (pp. 300-3)
January 8, 1960
The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R.
McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine” recently published by Bookcraft
Company must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements,
and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation.
It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book,
and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not
want him to publish another edition
We decided, also, to have no more books published by General
Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency. (pp.
303-4)
August 10, 1960
A memorandum from Elder Spencer W. Kimball recited his having
been authorized, and his having restored blessings to a woman, who, in the
interim during her excommunication and restoration, give birth to a child. The question
asked of me today is whether or not the restoration had effect of placing the
child as thought it has been born in the covenant. After consideration, I
stated that the child should be sealed to the parents, and the child was not
born in the covenant since it was born before the restoration of the mother’s
blessings.
Child born During Father’s
Excommunication
I also ruled that in the case of a child born to a faithful
mother in the interim during the excommunication of the father and the restoration
of his blessings, it would be born in the covenant since the children go
with the mother. (pp. 335-36)
June 15, 1961
Seventies—Ordaining of to High Priests
Today at Council Meeting, I reported to the Brethren that I
had held a meeting with the members of the First Council of Seventy, and that
one Sunday morning, June 1, 1961, I had invited four of them to come to my
office and that President Henry D. Moyle and I had ordained the following High
Priests—Brothers Antoine R. Ivins, S. Dilworth Young, Milton R. Hunter, and
Bruce R. McConkie.
I said that in regard to the ordination of these Brethren, I
know it is right, and that the Lord approved of it, but that I di not know that
we are compelled to give it to all of the Brethren of the First Council of
Seventy just because we given it to those whom we send out to represent us.
When they are appointed, they will go representing the Twelve, and they should
be empowered with authority to do the work—that is clear to me.
In answer to a question as to whether these Brethren can
ordain Bishops, I answered yes, that they could do virtually everything that
the Assistants can do; that, however, they do not join the High Priests’ Quorum,
but that the First Council of Seventy is their quorum. Nor does it follow
that we shall call High Priests into the First Council of Seventy. We are not
going to do that, as the Prophet has ruled on that matter.
To that question if the members of the First Council of
Seventy who have been or may be ordained High Priests can perform marriages
in the Temple, I answered No, nor can they select and ordain Patriarchs.
(p. 369)
February 7, 1964
First Presidency meeting. Some consideration was given to the matter of the organization
of foreign language groups in the Salt Lake Valley and the problem in connection
therewith. Particular reference was made to the fact that by this means these
foreign speaking people do not have the advantage of attending Sacrament and
other meetings in the wards in which they reside and that as a matter of fact
we are encouraging these people from foreign countries to set up separate colonies
as it were. I made the statement, in which the counselors agreed, that we
ought not to encourage the setting up of branches for these European Saints who
speak different languages; that, however, there is a different situation where
different races are involved. (p. 517)
May 12, 1965
By appointment met with Samuel W. Taylor this morning.
Presidents [Hugh B.] Brown and [N. Eldon] Tanner were also present. Brother Taylor
appealed for the reinstatement to membership and restoration of former
blessings for his father, John W. Taylor, who, as a member of the Twelve,
was excommunicated from the Church March 28, 1911, and who passed away October
10, 1916.
I ruled, in which my counselors agreed, that authorization be
given for this reinstatement and restoration. The matter will be reported to
the Council of the Twelve in the meeting of the First Presidency and quorum of
the Twelve tomorrow. (p. 591)
May 14, 1965
John W. Taylor—Reinstatement of—President Brown reported that the
Twelve had yesterday passed favorably upon the reinstatement of John W. Taylor.
He mentioned that the Brethren raised a question which they were not prepared
to answer; namely, in the restoration of John W. Taylor’s blessings the question
was raised as to what Priesthood should be restored to him—in other words,
should he be restored to the Apostleship. I said that he should simply be given
the Melchizedek Priesthood and the blessings of the Temple, and that President
Joseph Fielding Smith should take care of this restoration. (p. 593)
July 1, 1965
First Presidency meeting. We gave further consideration today to the matter of
what instruction should be given regarding the observance of the Fast.
Reference was made to instructions heretofore given that it was not necessary to
abstain from drinking water. Attention was also called to items in the minutes
of the council Meetings held November 19, 1909 and June 29, 1922, in which
meetings it was reported that the Brethren of the Council, in expressing
themselves in regard to this matter, had agreed that there was nothing to the revelations
indicating the duration of the Fast, and that the evident meaning of the Fast
is to abstain from eating and drinking, and it has normally been considered
that a proper Fast consists of refraining from eating two meals on Fast Day,
and the Fast is usually broken after the Fast Meeting. . . .
I stated that in thinking about this subject, it had come to
me quite clearly this morning that in observing the Fast Day, we should refrain
from eating two meals and that a proper Fast is to refrain from eating and
drinking. . . .
I further stated that in consideration [of] the practice of
Fasting, the spiritual element of Fasting and Prayer should go together with
the Fast itself. (p. 600)
April 4, 1968
In accordance with appointment, I met Elder Alvin R. Dyer in
my office in the Hotel [Utah]. I asked him to explain to me again what the
counselors are so concerned about in the sustaining of the counselors at the
coming Conference. He said that the issue in question is whether or not the
counselors, other than the first and second counselors, should be sustained as
counselors “in” the First Presidency or counselors “to” the First Presidency.
Elder Dyer said that he felt that sufficient time had not been given to the
matter yesterday morning at the First Presidency’s meeting to give me a chance
to go into the matter and understand the real significance of the issue, or
what it would mean in operation.
Brother Dyer said that he had not said much in the meeting
yesterday because President [Joseph Fielding] Smith seemed to concur, but that
later, when he learned of President Smith’s true feelings in the matter, he
felt, as did President Smith, that the matter should be considered again. He
said that President Smith had commented that he would like to talk to me about
it if I wanted him to.
I told Elder Dyer to get President Smith on the telephone and
have him come right over. He was attending the Seminar of Regional Assistants
to the Twelve, but excused himself from the meeting and came right over.
President Smith soon arrived and expressed to me his real
feelings in the matter, stating, “I do not know what the Counselors (President
[Hugh B.] Brown and [N. Eldon] Tanner) mean by the word ‘To,’ or any other
word. I feel that any man that the President calls to be a counselor is IN the
First Presidency, and nothing can change that.”
Counselors to be sustained as “In” the First Presidency[:] I
said that the sustaining should be done as it had been done previously when I
called President Brown, President Smith, and President [Thorpe B.] Isaacson—Counselors
“in” the First Presidency. That they will be sustained as such.
After this point I called Joseph Anderson and told him
to come right over, since he is preparing the list of the General Authorities
to be presented for the sustaining vote of the Church, so that he could make
minutes of the meeting and have the list properly prepared.
Just before he arrived, Sister Clare Middlemiss had brought
over the list of General Authorities which previously had been prepared by Joseph
Anderson. On this list Brother Anderson had changed the word “In” to “To.”
I told Brother Anderson to change the word “To” to “In,” and
to notify Presidents Brown and tanner that the change had been made by me this morning. Brother Anderson
was quite upset, and I was displeased with the manner in which he accepted my
instructions. He argued with President Smith and Elder Dyer, taking it upon
himself to say: “I do not agree with your interpretation of Section 107:79; it
is erroneous.”
Elder Anderson at this point asked that Presidents brown and
Tanner be called over to defned the other side, and I said, “It is not
necessary; I have given him instructions as to what he was to do.” (pp. 758-59)
April 6, 1968
I noted with concern that President [High B.] Brown in presenting the names of President
Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Alvin R. Dyer had them sustained by the members
as counselors “to” the First Presidency instead of counselors “in”
the First Presidency as he had been notified to do. This matter will have to be
settled later. (p. 759)
April 9, 1968
Brother [Alvin R.] Dyer reported that my desires had not been
adhered to with regard to the sustaining of President [Joseph Fielding] Smith
and him as Counselors In the First Presidency; that President [Hugh B.] Brown had
presented them as Counselors To the First Presidency. Furthermore, that he,
Elder Dyer, has not been sustained as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
I told Brother Dyer that I am vitally concerned about this,
and asked him to bring the matter up in a meeting of the First Presidency.
As Elder Dyer got up to leave, I said to him: “I want you to
stay close by my side.” I had a good feeling of the spirit of brotherhood as he
came over to shake my hand and to say goodbye to me. (p. 759)
April 11, 1968
Later I read the minutes of the meeting held in the [Salt Lake]
Temple today, and have asked my secretary to include them with my diary of
today so that a record will be made of the discussions the Brethren held
regarding my appointments of additional counselors. …
My decision, after I had time to give more thought and prayer
to the matter, as in the case of President Hugh B. Brown, President Joseph
Fielding Smith, and President Thorpe B. Isaacson when I called them to be counselors,
was that President Smith and Elder [Alvin R.] Dyer be sustained at the April Conference
as counselors “IN” the First Presidency instead of “TO” the First Presidency.
President Hugh B. Brown was so instructed through secretary Joseph Anderson on
April 4, 1968, following a meeting with President Smith and Elder Dyer. (pp.
759-60)
October 8, 1969
[excerpt from Alvin R. Dyer’s minutes of a meeting with Hugh
B. Brown]
When the mantle of President falls upon a man, a change takes
place in him to enable him to fulfill the calling and this could be true with
Joseph Fielding Smith. The order of succession of the President of the Church Is
not merely a tradition, but a tradition based upon basic laws of God pertaining
to this order. I referred to the summarization of these laws in my writings and
that they are inviolate unless a direct revelation is received to make it
otherwise and that such revelations would come to the Senior Apostle or the
Presiding High Priest which, by the death of President McKay, would be the President
of the Quorum of the Twelve and this is Joseph Fielding Smith.
I stated that the only way that this procedure and the
placing of President Smith as head of the Church could be altered would be if
he, himself, refused to accept the calling. Then it would fall to the next in
line of the Quorum of the Twelve. (p. 809)
