The Council of Twelve prayerfully comes to this special World Conference with the testimony that Apostle Stephen M. Veazey is called to serve as the president of the high priesthood, prophet, and president of the church. The process of discernment that has led us to bring to the Conference this recommendation has been blessed with a rich outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Community of Christ is called to be a prophetic people. Throughout our history we have been blessed by an abundant outpouring of God’s Spirit as the church has sought to discern the divine will. At this unique moment in our history, the calling of a new prophet-president for the church has been a process centered on discerning what God would have us do and then, with faith and assurance, bringing that divine call to the church.

The members of the Council of Twelve Apostles feel it important to share with the Conference some perspectives from the history of our faith movement that assisted us in developing the discernment process that led to the selection of Brother Veazey as the prophet-president designate.

In the past few months, as the church embarked together on this journey of discernment, we understood that we were stepping out into territory that was not entirely uncharted. Since 1830, there have been six transitions in the presidential office. During each of these moments, the church has been blessed abundantly. While each presidential transition has been unique, before the present moment the designation of a successor by the former president has always been central to these transitions. Doctrine and Covenants Sections 27 and 43 make clear that any incumbent president has the prerogative to name a successor.¹

However, when President McMurray resigned on November 29, 2004, he chose not to name a successor in office. This left the church’s leading quorums with the task of discerning the will of God concerning who should succeed to the prophetic office. In this task we have looked to the experiences of the past and applied what we learned to the unique circumstances of the present. In so doing, we have tried to be faithful to our history as we have sought to meet the needs of the church today. We believe there has been sufficient precedent to guide the church and its leading quorums as we have sought together to identify the name of the one being called to serve as the prophet-president of the church.

It may, therefore, be helpful to look briefly at each of these moments of presidential transition and see how they have guided the church in fulfilling the divine will.

On June 27, 1844, President Joseph Smith Jr. was assassinated in Carthage, Illinois. What followed was a sixteen-year transition in presidential leadership, by far the longest in church history. In April 1853, at a conference of members of what later became the Reorganized Church, held in Zarahemla, Wisconsin, in response to the direction of the Holy Spirit, a majority of the Council of Twelve Apostles was selected and ordained. Thereafter, from 1853 to 1860, the Council of Twelve served in their role as the second presidency, giving leadership to the church until the Quorum of the First Presidency was reorganized at the ordination of the new president, Joseph Smith III.

As he reached his eightieth birthday in 1912, Joseph Smith III was concerned about his increasing physical frailties and the transition in presidential leadership that would take place upon his death. In 1902, Joseph’s son Frederick M. Smith had been called to serve in the First Presidency, and it was widely believed that he would succeed his father.

Yet Joseph was concerned with more than just who would succeed him as president of the church. Having lived through the uncertainties of the period from 1844 to 1860, he desired to help the church clarify its understanding of the issues surrounding presidential succession. And so in the Saints’ Herald of March 13, 1912, President Smith published a “Letter of Instruction” concerning presidential succession.² This letter has been widely accepted over the years as an authoritative statement by the First Presidency in their role as leading teachers and interpreters of church law.

In this document, President Smith offered the following pertinent instructions concerning the interim after the death, resignation, or incapacity of a church president and the subsequent selection of a successor.

1. The remaining members of the First Presidency should continue to preside over the church as long as a majority of the quorum remains intact and there is no disunity between them.³
2. If no one is designated by revelation to serve as the next president of the church, the leading quorums of the church are to work in harmony with one another, listening to the “spirit of wisdom and revelation.”⁴
3. Further, in such an event, the leading quorums of the church have responsibility for establishing a process through which the name of a successor is discerned and until unity on the matter among the leading quorums is assured.⁵
4. The Council of Twelve should preside over the Conference during its consideration of the selection of a new president of the church.⁶

Following the death of Joseph Smith III in December 1914, the General Conference of April 1915 took action on the recommendation of the Council of Twelve that the provisions of Section 127:8b of the Doctrine and Covenants be fulfilled, and Frederick M. Smith was ordained as the successor to his father on May 15, 1915.

President Frederick M. Smith passed away on March 20,1946. At that time his brother Israel A. Smith was serving as a counselor in the First Presidency. President Smith left no document naming a successor in office. However, the official minutes of a meeting of the Joint Council of the First Presidency, Council of Twelve, and Presiding Bishopric in 1938 includes the following statement regarding President Frederick M. Smith:

Citing the letter of instruction issued by his father, he called attention to the fact that in the event of his passing, Israel would be in line for the office of President . . . .⁷

The ambiguous nature of this statement led to disagreement among members of the leading quorums as to whether Frederick M. Smith had actually intended to designate Israel as his successor. In this moment of indecision, the Council of Twelve met shortly after the death of the president. The first action of the council was to pass a resolution of support for the remaining members of the First Presidency to continue in their role as presidents of the church pending the reorganization of the Quorum of the First Presidency.

The Twelve then gave careful and prayerful consideration to the issue of presidential succession. A committee on procedure was appointed and charged with carefully researching the precedents involved in bringing such guidance to the Council of Twelve as they felt appropriate.⁸ Further, it was determined to be in the best interests of the church for the Council of Twelve to seek the insights of the presiding evangelist, Elbert A. Smith.⁹ He had previously served for many years in the First Presidency and was well loved by the membership of the church.

Within a matter of days, the presiding evangelist brought words of inspired counsel to the Twelve, confirming that Israel A. Smith was to be chosen as the next president of the church. The spiritual insight brought by Elbert A. Smith supported what many in the Twelve had discerned, and so the Council of Twelve brought this recommendation and assurance to the church, and on April 7, 1946, Israel A. Smith was selected and ordained as the next president of the church.

The conference chamber of the Auditorium, in Independence, Missouri, was not completed in time for the regular General Conference originally planned for April 1958. Therefore the Conference was postponed until October. During the interim, President Israel A. Smith was killed in an automobile accident, on June 14.

Because President Israel A. Smith did not wish for there to be any confusion about the matter of succession, he had authored a letter (now Section 144 of the Doctrine and Covenants) in which he named W. Wallace Smith, his half-brother and counselor in the First Presidency, as the next president of the church. This letter was witnessed by President F. Henry Edwards and Presiding Bishop G. Leslie DeLapp and was dated May 28, 1952.

Upon the death of Israel A. Smith, President Edwards brought this letter, addressed to “The Church and the Council of Twelve,” to the attention of the Council of Twelve. Just as in 1946, the first action of the council was to pass a resolution of support for the remaining members of the First Presidency to continue in their role as presidents of the church pending the reorganization of the Quorum of the First Presidency.

The Council of Twelve then took the matter of succession under consideration, and again, in a manner similar to 1946, appointed a committee on procedure to advise them.¹⁰ This committee subsequently conducted extensive interviews with President Edwards and Bishop DeLapp, seeking to ascertain the authenticity of the letter in question.¹¹ The committee recommended to the Council of Twelve that it accept the letter and recommend its approval to the General Conference. When the Conference convened in October 1958, the Council of Twelve brought the recommendation that W. Wallace Smith be approved as the next president of the church.

The processes involved in the selection of Wallace B. Smith and W. Grant McMurray as presidents of the church, in 1978 and 1996 respectively, were quite different from all preceding selection processes in church history. In both of these cases the outgoing president remained in office and guided the process of selecting his successor up to the moment the new president’s nomination was considered by the Conference. In 1978 members of the Council of Twelve presided over the approval process during the Conference. In 1996 President Howard S. Sheehy Jr. presided over the approval process with Paul M. Edwards, president of the Quorum of High Priests, moving approval and A. Alex Kahtava, president of the Council of Twelve, assisting President Sheehy in the presiding function.

As stated at the outset of this report, in many ways the current transition in presidential leadership has no parallel in church history. Yet in other ways there are commonalities with past practice and specific precedents for the church to follow.

On November 29, 2004, Presidents Kenneth N. Robinson and Peter A. Judd called a meeting of the Council of Twelve for the morning and a special joint council of the First Presidency, Council of Twelve, presidents of Seventy, Presiding Bishopric, presiding evangelist, and president of the Quorum of High Priests for the afternoon.

After being officially notified of the resignation of President W. Grant McMurray, the first action of the Twelve was to pass a resolution of support for the remaining members of the First Presidency to continue in their role as presidents of the church pending the reorganization of the Quorum of the First Presidency. As in past presidential transitions, the Council of Twelve appointed a committee on procedure to advise them on processes that should be followed.

Later the same day, the special joint council considered the process of presidential succession and agreed that as in the past, it was the role of the Council of Twelve to confirm a date for the World Conference that would consider the selection of a new president of the church, ¹² to guide the process of discerning the will of God in the matter of who should succeed to the prophetic office, to come to a sense of unity on a recommendation to the church, and to preside over the consideration of this recommendation by the World Conference.¹³

The Council of Twelve subsequently met on November 30, December 1, and December 6–8, 2004. After prayer and reflection, the Twelve received the report of its Committee on Procedure. The committee’s report offered a comprehensive review of the necessary processes in presidential succession. In regard to the fact that no successor to the prophetic office had been named by the last president of the church, the committee offered guidance based on previous experience and a 1975 study conducted by the Council of Twelve.¹⁴ The committee concluded that when no one is designated by revelation as a successor through the preceding president of the church, it is the role of the Council of Twelve “to seek light as to who is God’s designation and to present a name to the conference out of their own deliberations, faith and prayer.”¹⁵

The Council of Twelve spent considerable time in prayerful reflection on the report of the Committee on Procedure and then agreed on a suggested process to be followed in identifying the one being called by God at this time to serve as president of the church.

Seeking to honor its best understanding of the Letter of Instruction while still meeting the unique needs of the present moment, the Council of Twelve felt it necessary that the process of identifying a successor be agreed to by the entire special joint council representing all of the leading quorums of the church. Therefore, an outline of the process developed by the Council of Twelve was then shared with another gathering of the special joint council held on December 14, 2004. After a time of prayer and discussion, this special joint council gave its support to the following process to discern the divine will in the matter of presidential succession.

1. A special World Conference to consider the selection of a new president of the church was set for June 2–5, 2005, in Independence, Missouri.
2. The church was asked to give careful and prayerful reflection concerning the needs of the church and the question of presidential succession, and a special day of fasting and prayer was set for Sunday, February 27, 2005.
3. The members of the special joint council were asked to give prayerful consideration to the question of who is being called by God at this time to serve as president of the church. Each quorum represented in this special joint council was asked to provide an official communication to the Council of Twelve by March 1, 2005. These communications offered spiritual insights and recommendations relative to the selection of a new president of the church.
4. The Council of Twelve met on March 2, 2005. The Twelve gave prayerful consideration to the communications from the leading quorums and from the church, as well as the insights discerned personally by members of the Council of Twelve. The focus of these meetings was to discern the will of God in the matter of presidential succession.
5. Upon receiving the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the Council of Twelve unanimously agreed that Stephen M. Veazey is the one called of God to serve as president of the high priesthood, prophet, and president of the church.
6. The Twelve then presented Brother Veazey’s name to the special joint council, and this council was asked if through the spirit of discernment they were willing to affirm this call as divinely inspired. Thus the critical role in the discernment process played by all of the leading quorums of the church was upheld. The special joint council then unanimously affirmed Brother Veazey’s call as an expression of the spirit of wisdom and revelation.
7. Subsequently, Brother Veazey was informed by the Council of Twelve of his call to serve as the president of the church and he was given the opportunity to accept.
8. After Brother Veazey accepted the call, a letter was prepared from the Council of Twelve communicating this matter to the church. This letter was then shared with the entire church on March 7, 2005.

The foregoing review of history and of the process for discerning God’s will today brings us now to the moment when this special World Conference will give consideration to the unanimous recommendation of the Council of Twelve, affirmed also unanimously by the other leading quorums of the church, to accept the call of Stephen M. Veazey to serve as the president of the high priesthood, prophet, and president of the church. Shortly we will engage in this consideration in the same manner that such recommendations have been considered in the past, beginning with the reports of councils, quorums, orders, mass meetings, and caucuses, and then by the World Conference delegates.

This report describing the process that has led to the designation of a new prophet-president for the church is offered to the World Conference so that all may be assured that great care and much prayer has led the church to this moment. The members of the leading quorums have been assured by the abundant presence of the Divine that Christ continues to lead the church. We believe it has been our solemn duty to guide the church to prayerfully discern God’s will and to bring our best understandings of the divine will to the Conference for its consideration and action.

We have felt an important sense of calling to such a time as this. We now collectively pledge ourselves to prayerfully and actively support our new prophet-president if the Conference should choose to approve his call to service. We ask for the prayers and support of the church for Brother Veazey as together we all seek to fulfill our call to be a prophetic people.

James E. Slauter, secretary
Linda L. Booth
David R. Brock
Bunda C. Chibwe
Mary Jacks Dynes
John P. Kirkpatrick
Dale E. Luffman
Kenneth L. McLaughlin
Gail E. Mengel
David C. Schaal
Leonard M. Young