‘Revelation and relation’ — For much of LDS history, ‘Mormon royalty’ reigned among apostles

Picking new apostles is a significant and solemn responsibility for presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After all, any of the men (and, in the patriarchal faith, they must be men) selected for this lifetime assignment could one day rise to the presidency of the global religion.

Naming new apostles also represents a way in which Latter-day Saint prophet-presidents can leave their mark on the church long after they are gone — similar to U.S. presidents when they nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

With the recent death of Jeffrey R. Holland, church President Dallin Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice and barely three months into his presidential tenure, has the chance to name his second new apostle.

What kind of man is he seeking? What can we learn from past apostle selections?And what might the naming of new apostles say about the current church and its future?

On a recent episode of The Salt Lake Tribune’s “Mormon Land” podcast, historian Benjamin Park, author of “American Zion: A New History of Mormonism,” discussed those questions and more.

Here are excerpts, edited for length and clarity, from that conversation.

What was apostle selection like in the early days of the church, and when did the process become more like what we see today?

Church founder Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations saw calling apostles as part of the “primitivist impulse,” trying to re-create what was happening in Jesus Christ’s time. Jesus Christ called 12 apostles. But it actually took Joseph five years [from when the church was organized on April 6, 1830] until Feb. 14, 1835 [to assemble a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]. That initial quorum was ordered by age. They were the “traveling quorum,” and their primary duties were outside of church headquarters. They were in charge of the missions abroad. …After Joseph Smith is killed a few years later, Brigham Young takes over the largest contingent of Latter-day Saints by appealing to his position as leader of the quorum. After that, whenever one member of the quorum died, they would call a new one. Once those original apostles were gone, seniority in the quorum was dictated by when you are called into it — [a process the church follows to this day].

How long were apostles chosen from “Mormon royalty” — the Smiths and other pioneer families?

For a long time. J. Golden Kimball, a church leader who was famous for his folkloric statements, once said that there are two primary drivers for calling church authorities — “revelation and relation.” It would be hard to overstate how central “royal families” were in these church positions. Look at the centrality of the Joseph Smith Sr. family that started out with, of course, William Smith, one of Joseph Smith’s brothers, being called to the quorum in 1835 in which he remained until he was excommunicated in 1845 and then you have a little break. And then Joseph F. Smith, one of Joseph Smith’s nephews, and his son, Joseph Fielding Smith and another son, Hyrum Mack Smith, remained in the quorum. Then you have another short break until Russell Ballard is called, and he is a descendant of Hyrum Smith. He serves in the quorum until 2023. Between 1835 and 2023, there were only 25 years in which there was not a descendant of Joseph Smith Sr. in the quorum. But it goes much further than that. Between 1890 and 1910, we have the following second- and third-generation apostles serving in the Quorum of the Twelve: Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young Jr., Francis Lyman, John Henry Smith, John W. Taylor, Abraham Cannon, Abraham Woodruff, Hyrum Mack Smith, George Albert Smith, George F. Richards, Orson F. Whitney and Joseph Fielding Smith. All of them had either an apostolic father or grandfather.

Who were some of the more surprising apostle selections in Mormon history?

In the past century, I would point to two apostles who were genuine surprises at the moment. One was J. Reuben Clark. When he was called to the First Presidency, he was made an apostle in the process. He had never held an ecclesiastical leadership position before that point. He was serving as America’s ambassador to Mexico at the time. He was called in because they wanted someone to help modernize the church, and he certainly did that. He was the architect of modern Mormonism, which is a surprise, given that he was not expected to be called to the quorum. I also think Dieter Uchtdorf can also be seen as a surprising figure. Even though he did hold some leadership positions with the church, he was the first international apostle in quite a while. And you can tell by the way he talks and acts, he is not in the circles from which most church leaders are drawn, which I think continues to cause a bit of friction with some church leadership.

Have there ever been any disputes about choices?

I haven’t seen evidence myself, but historian Matt Harris and other scholars have pointed out that when Ezra Benson was church president, he wanted to appoint his son Reed Benson, who was a very prominent religious and political thinker. Reed taught at BYU in the religion department for a while. He worked for the John Birch Society, and Ezra Benson wanted to place him in the quorum but there was a vehement apostolic reaction. What that looked like, I can’t speak to.

Do we know of any significant church leaders who were seen as likely apostles but were passed over?

There are stories of some prominent church leaders who thought they would become apostles and people around them thought that, too. B.H. Roberts in the early 20th century was one who was seen as one of the foremost church spokespeople. Some felt he deserved to become an apostle, but he had enough conflicts with the quorum and the First Presidency that that never happened. … A poignant example of this is none other than J. Golden Kimball [mentioned above]. He was a descendant of Heber C. Kimball, part of a broader Kimball family who believed that they were running the church. He served as a Seventy, and he always thought he was going to be called as an apostle, because that was his birthright. And he experienced real pain when he wasn’t.

What do presidents generally look for in choosing apostles?

They are often thinking about how to preserve the types of practices and ideas they believe should continue in the future. They probably are looking for apostles who have particular skills and backgrounds that might meet certain needs. It’s not a surprise that when it becomes public that the church has these massive financial reserves, they call Elder [Gary] Stevenson. He has a very successful business background and knows how to work with massive accrual of wealth. They’re probably also thinking about things like international representation. Russell Nelson called three apostles, two of whom were international, and the other was the first Chinese American. Oaks’ first call was Gérald Caussé, who was from France. Now that the church is growing more and more international, it’s likely that we’ll see more and more of these international apostles.

Do you foresee the church ever introducing emeritus status for apostles? If so, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of that system?

Gordon Hinckley answered the question about aging prophets and apostles by essentially saying, “How wonderful it is that we have a leadership that’s not swayed about with every wind of doctrine and culture.” They like the wisdom that comes with that. I think they would see the downside [an emeritus position] as losing that tradition and losing those decades of experience. The upsides, I think, are quite clear — a more vigorous and youthful and energetic leadership. And that’s not even taking into account that younger men coming might mean change would become more common.

Are there bold moves Dallin Oaks could make in picking the next apostle?

I honestly have no predictions on what Oaks could do. It could be a very expected and traditional pick. He might pick Matthew Holland, Jeffrey Holland’s son, continuing this long royal lineage of serving in church leadership. Or he might call someone from the Philippines. Maybe he knows a leader there [since Oaks lived there for a couple of years] and feels inspired to call him. Theoretically, he could call any man, but the true revolutionary pick would be to call a woman.

Note to readers • To hear the podcast, go to sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland. To receive ad-free “Mormon Land” episodes, along with our complete newsletter and access to all Tribune religion content, support us at Patreon.com/mormonland. This story is available to Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.