text:
Talk:Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

Untitled
See Archive for Priesthood offices, patriarchal priesthood, Hierarchy, Org Structure

Major Generic Changes
Just did a quick read through of the changes in this page referenced on Talk:Melchizedek Priesthood. Overall, the information is good, but there are doctrinal issues/clarifications that need to be fixed. I'll work on as soon as I get a few minutes. I'm still not sure on the wisdom of having a separate Melchizedek Priesthood and Aaronic Priesthood pages, as other religious denominations also claim to have one or both of these authorities, and the article as it stands is too Mormonsim-centric for NPOV. See comments on Talk:Melchizedek Priesthood. Visorstuff 14:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Regarding the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood pages, I think there should be separate pages for each, but the pages that exist now should probably be moved to Aaronic Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) and Melchizedek Priesthood (Latter-day Saint), and made NPOV. There should also be separate Aaronic Priesthood (Mormonism) and Melchizedek Priesthood (Mormonism) with "generic Mormonism" information on each, including the history of their restoration and other pre-1844 history. COGDEN 07:43, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I created a Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) page, and moved the LDS-specific material there.COGDEN 00:27, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recombining the (Mormonism) article with the (Latter-day Saint) article
Per the directive of the [Latter Day Saint movement project] regarding articles ending (Mormonism), (Latter-day Saint), (Community of Christ), (Strangite), etc., this article has been combined with the former Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) article. --John Hamer 05:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And/Or
In the artcle it says "In Mormonism, priesthood is considered to be (1) a power, or (2) an authority." Shouldn't "or" be replaced with "and"? --Parlod 18:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It should - I went ahead and made the change - almost all quotes I remember (and could find) say "power and authority to act in God's name". Are there any objections Trödel| talk 20:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Church Leadership, Quorum Organization and Filling Vacant Callings
Not sure I quite get the intent of the latest rewrite -- always a good idea to fill in the edit summary by way of giving at least a hint. (I'm also very puzzled by it being flagged as a 'minor' edit.) Isn't the total of 15 apostles rather more than "typical"? I'd have thought it was, at least, of "traditional" standing, and perhaps one might be more specific still. Not that I any deep-rooted objections to the new content as such... Alai 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry about the minor edit - I accidentally clicked it after I hit the submit button - I also know I need to do a better job of summaries - As for your question, there have been times in Mormon history when there were more than two dozen men ordained to the office of Apostle at the same time. Even today, there are strongly-supported rumor of some 70 holding the office of Apostle. The difference is that only twelve are set apart as member of teh Quorum of the twelve. Only three men (only one of which needs to be an apostle) are in the first presidency, so "typically" there are 15, but there has been as few at 13 and as many as 26. Typical is better word than traditional, as it has fluctuated to 16 as recently as the early 80's, and as low as 14 in the late 40s.

 * Easily done. Thanks for the clarification.  Interesting extra information there, but I suppose more than is necessary for this particular article.   Alai 22:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the most senior member of the group (in years served as an apostle)

Isn't that seniority since (first) joining the Qot12A, according to earlier discussion, rather since ordination as an apostle? Alai 22:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chart
Very nice work, Trodel - however, I hope you kept the original file - it needs some minor doctrinal corrections - the presiding bishopric is not independant of the twelve - the arrow should go from the twelve and first presidency to them. Same with Auxilliary boards and committees (I'd put a solid line from 12 and dotted line from 70 to Auxiliaries)(also, if you do auxilliaries on the general level, you should on teh stake and ward level as well - as they are all auxilliary to the priesthood). Then the 70s need to have solid to 12 not First presidency - remember they are to work "under the direction of the twelve."

Under missions, I'd put "Elders Quorum, Melchizedek Pristhood Group Leader or Aaronic Priesthood Group Leader" (maybe an asterisk would suffice, but this is important distrintion in may developing areas of the Church - and actually my own ward). I'd do teh same under branch on the stake chart level.

Under Stake, I'd put a dotted line under bishop to both quorum/group leaders -- he is the presiding high priest, and in practice is typically much more involved with directing their work than the Stake presidency is (also should add in auxilliaries and Aaronic Priesthood, see below).

Lastly, due to the "Latter Day Saint (not CoJCoLDS) slant to these pages, we'll need to add in the Aaronic priesthood quorum leadership. In other denominations, these play a much bigger role, and typically the culture in the CoJCoLDS does not give them the respect they should get (mainly because of age). The Teacher's quorum president, not an elder, would preside over a ward meeting in absence of a bishop, EQP or delegated responsibility to a HP. He holds keys and as such is in the hierarchy, and will play a much larger role in the winding up scene than most Mormons believe (think big meeting with people who hold keys). But in practice instruggling areas (for example, Russia) the Aaronic Priesthood may take a much more prominent role in the leadership of a Branch than in the established places like the United States.

The arrows could also be confusing - the green is to signify that the calling must be apprvoed by the 1st presidency - however, their direct reports are not in green. Also, I'm not sure that a Branch President needs 1st presidency apprvoal - a number of missionaries have served as this - not sure if the - does anyone know? For some reason, I'm not sure if this is correct....

This is an excellent chart - only focuses on CoJCoLDS perspective and cultural interpretations, rather than doctrinal interpretations (which is pretty common) - would like to see similar ones for other confusing tables in our pages. Let me know if you can still make the changes -Visorstuff 18:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments - I considered this a first pass and was planning on making adjustments. I used the arrows for who "calls" whom - rather than reporting relationships. Though often they are same thing. Also the stakes are directed by the Quorum of 12 but the seventy often receive assignments to do things and actually diret stakes when on those assignments. I am not sure how to show this on the chart. I was unsure about Branch Presidents but since they were analogous to Bishops I put the arrows in green - I know that missionaries serve as Branch presidents and that is not approved by anyone but the Mission president though I would guess the decision to use missionaries in that role would hvae to be approved by the First Presidency. Thoughts? Trödel| talk 19:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. That explanation makes the arrows even more confusing, as all bishops are "called" by the First Presidency (much the same as a EQP is called by the Stake president after a "recommendation" from the bishop). I'd recommend doing reporting structure. In regard to how the stakes report into the twelve/70, think of the 70 as the high counsel to the stake presidency. The Stake President looks to the advice and counsel of the 70 assigned to him who acts for the twelve, in exacly the same way that the EQP looks to the high council assigned to him, although he reports to the stake president. The High Council and the 70 have no true jurisdiction over the presidencies named. So show the 70 in the same as you show the High Council. Still not sure on Branches. -Visorstuff 22:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...... stuff moved to Archive I'd still remove temple jurisdiction stuff - not relevant to "Priesthood" (mormonsim) unless you start discussing patriarchal priesthood, which is only brushed upon in the article.

-Visorstuff 00:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that this Heirarchy was specific to CJCoLDS because it is under that section of the document (rather than higher in the article under general Mormonism stuff). So I am putting together a different chart for the priesthood organization as it applies to Mormonism in general - and will move it higher in the article. I think there is a need for more than one chart in the different Mormonism articles. So I will keep this one as is for adjustment and placement in an org structure for the LDS Church - note that it is very LDS centric with the inclusion of the structure and how it parallels the 3-fold mission of the Church - inclusion of 6 Quorums of Seventy, etc. Trödel| talk 01:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Impressive-looking stuff, though waaaaay over my head. I agree that one needs to be both careful about where the 'arrows' go, and as explicit as possible as to what they represent. If it represents the 'in practice' reality of who makes appointments 'for all intents and purposes', rather than the doctrinal position of who is called by whom, or whose formal approval is required, say so as clearly as possible. Alai 00:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Priesthood (Mormonism) Chart
I made a new chart that I tried to create based on D&C 107 without regard to the way the revelation has been implemented at any of the Latter Day Saint movement churches. BTW - I left the First Presidency, the Quorum of Twelve both as HP in the chart because they are described as the three Presiding High Priests - and councilors to the presiding High Priests - but think they should probably be in a different color and listed as Apostles. Ditto Seventys. Though it is unclear from 107 only if the First Presidency must also be apostles. Comments? Trödel| talk 04:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I just checked out the chart. I think that there should be (at least) two charts; church-wide and stake-wide.  Also, in the existing chart, the Teachers Quorum is limited to twenty-four members per quorum.  Also, I think that the bottom ellipse was meant to be a Deacons Quorum which is limited to twelve members per quorum.

 * Sorry about the Teachers and Deacons - it was getting late - a copy and paste issue. Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In the ward hierarchy, hometeachers should be included. But as far as I know, hometeachers have some responsibility for the families they are assigned to visit.  With the responsibility comes the ability to receive revelation within the scope of ones responsibilities.  This would presumably only be relevant if (and only if) revelation had been (or tried to be) given to the head of the household.  Following the line of responsibility up, assuming that it was important enough and there was time enough, the EQP could receive revelation, etc.
 * The ward chart should also show the auxiliary organizations too, but that would be in a different article. Val42 05:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was thinking this chart should only show relative assignments and quorums, etc - see below. Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your reading of D&C 107 is slightly different than mine - plus it ignores other revelations such as D&C 20, 88, 84, 68, 110, 128, 10 and many others, including specific instructions in the History of The Church by Smith about revelations he recieved that were not recorded that discuss hierarchy. I believe your other chart was much closer. Let's work on the previous version, rather than address the problems with this one.
 * I know re 20... thought I would have time last night to read them, but didn't and threw the chart up as is. Basically what I did is read 107 and draw - trying to ignore what my preconceived ideas and undestanding. Like you I am less happy with it than the first one; however, I think it shows more clearly how there could be some confusion on whether the twelve was the proper body to lead the church after Joseph Smith died resulting in the Succession Crisis. I have an account on some web-meeting software - perhaps we could use that to do some of the design work real time while on the phone - it would be faster I think. Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The First Presidency does not need to all be apostles - on the presiding high priest needs to also be an apostle, holding all keys. His counselors may be any high priest from the church. Remember that Bishops and Elders are appendages to the High Priesthood (D&C 107), so once you are a high priest, you always are a high priest - this is why patriarchs and bishops are part of the high priest's quorum, although they are also other offices in the priesthood. Once a high priest always a high priest - they hold two priesthood offices at once. So the apostles are also high priests and apostles. Same with 70. This was all part of the discussion above (perhaps not so irrelevant after all). Let's fix the other chart in reference to Mormonism since it is closer. Also, due to the scholarly debates over the meaning of "equal in authority" we should not include that - too hard to explain the different sides of the debate.
 * BTW - see the Archive re our discussion above. I do think we should put the wording in maybe quoting with some * or something the verses - we could mention the debate as to what it means in the text - Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On another note, Val42 - home teachers 'should' fit under the duties of a teacher in the aaronic priesthood and therefore are already included in the hierarchy under that office (D&C 20). No need to include them twice, but your point should be emphasized - it is a good one. Again, I think we take the offices and responsibiliites of the AP too lightly in The CoJCoLDS.
 * Agreed re taking aaronic priesthood responsibilities too lightly. Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trodel - you may want to see if you can pick up a copy of 'Priesthood and Church Government' by John A. Widstoe. This is the best "Latter Day Saint" work on the priesthood organization, and then discusses how it is practiced in the post-Smith Church. Another resource from excerpts of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism can be found at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/organization/index.htm
 * My biggest worry is that the original chart (and clarifying it based on the Encylopedia of Mormonism and Widstoe's work) is just too CJCoLDS - I know some about other Latter Day Saint churches and they vary from the LDS Church in how they implement the 70s, elders, and aaronic priesthood, as well as in the relative importance/authority of the First Presidency and Twelve (such as the current continuation of the First Presidency sans its president continuing as the leading body in the Community of Christ). Plus the pre-1844 Church treated what we call Stake High Councils differently and there was some debate on how they related to each other and the traveling High Council. I am thinking this now:
 * Start with a general Quorums and offices and relationship picture chart that is here - add adjustments according to sections other than 107.
 * Have another picture that includes the administrative quorums and the full org as used in CJCoLDS, and I could do Community of Christ too I think - I picked up some info about them when I was in Independence summer 2001.
 * Have a chart for Auxillaries/Boards that goes with the Heirarchy chart above
 * Have a picture for a Stake/Ward Organization with showing more detail about the auxillaries and how they are organized in relation to the priesthood - as well as more detail on Stake/Ward reporting - EQ Pres/HP Group leader get direction from the Bishop, etc.

Thoughts (sorry if comments seem harsh)? -Visorstuff 17:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * no offense taken - more thoughts? Trödel| talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't believe it's been two weeks since Iw orked on this - should have some time this weekend. Trödel| talk 04:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article for quite some time, and I like the idea of having a chart, but if we do this, I think we might need more than one chart. The church organization during the early church underwent a number of changes through the years. For example, in 1830, there were just Elders, Priests, and Teachers, with Smith being the First Elder. (And some have argued, controversially, that Elder was originally an Aaronic Priesthood office.) The chart should also reflect more prominently the office of Patriarch, which was a much more important and independent position when it was held by Hyrum Smith. Also, I have a problem with the hierarchical nature of the chart. The hierarchical relationships implied by the arrows are generally the contribution of Brigham Young, rather than Joseph Smith. CO GDEN  18:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

notation
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prefers that notation. "Latter Day Saint", "Latter-Day Saint", etc, is incorrect. The correct notation is "Latter-day Saint".

 * The article is not just about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but Mormons in general. As such, "Latter-day Saints" is generally incorrect usage here.  The Jade Knight 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Priesthood Chart
-I noticed in the chart, under Deacons Quorum, it says "(12 Teachers)" instead of "12 Deacons", a blatant typo perhaps? --Lord Spade 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mormonism
Merge with Mormonism

Only Mormons seem to deem themselfs worthy of a Temple page and a Priesthood page. Where is the Cathedral (Catholic) or the Priesthood (Catholic) or other religions. I think this page can live on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impending (talk • contribs)

I have removed the merge tag per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. There are plenty of precedents for articles on the clergy of various religions and Mormonism is no exception. Kafziel Talk 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc observations
I am posting these here prior to making any edits in order to get feedback from prior editors of the page.

1. In the first part of the article I feel a bit of a cynical tone. Over use of phrases such as "...is considered to be...", excessive use of quotation marks around terminology, along with repeated use of the phrase "...ritual ceremony..." make me feel a cynical slant.

2. In various places the phrases "There is some disagreement..." and "Many Latter Day Saints believe..." implies that there is debate or significant disagreement within established Latter Day Saint denominations. While there is disagreement among denominations, I think within any given denomination there is little or no disagreement on most (not all) of these matters. I think these statement should be reworded a bit to indicate disagreement between denominations of Latter Day Saints.

3. In some places the term "Latter Day Saints" is used, in others the term "Mormons" is used. Is there some shade of meaning to 'Mormons' that is different from "Latter Day Saints"? 74s181 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine with first two obs. for point 3, Mormons typically refer to a couple different groups. Those who self-identify as Mormons (LDS, FLDS, Strangite, others); the shared culture, hisotry and doctrines associated with those who came from Joseph Smith's teachings (ie, although CoC don't identify as Mormons, they have many Mormon history commonalities, and their earlier publications embrace them, and they still own some mormon items, sites, etc); and those latter day saints who are of the Brighamite or Strangite traditions. See also Latter Day Saint and Mormon Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing faith
Why does this faith confuse me so much? - Osi Osi Osi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.107.212 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * We are attempting to convey the beliefs of this faith the best that we can on this and related pages. There are several different branches, what you may call denominations, in the Latter Day Saint movement.  This talk page is meant for the discussion of the improvement of this article.  Perhaps you could read this and related articles, and give us specific information about what you don't understand and we could use this information to improve this article. — Val42 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First time comment on wikipedia. I was looking over the 'order of priesthood' section. and my first reaction was there is not three orders of priesthood only two. (The Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods. (Reading over the whole article also gives this impression as the 3rd order is not supported in the same way as the first two). There are things is this article that are expressed as if there is some confusion which I do not have confusion (nor do I believe other members have confusion on these topics). I belong the the 'denomination' that is head quarters in salt lake city and has temple square in the middle of salt lake city.  Also reading over the section of "Calling by faith and good works" I am concerned that someone who is learning about the church would think someone could do going works and call themselves to a calling which is not true. They need to be called by god through the priesthood authority already established.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.152.106 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 * If you think this is confusing, you should try reading Summa Theologica sometime. One potential issue is that the article seems to generally be written with the assumption that the reader will have at least a passing familiarity with many terms that are either unique to the various Book of Mormon-using sects, or are used by them in an idiosyncratic way. This isn't necessarily "bad", but it does render portions of the text rather murky if you don't have such a familiarity. Two specific contrasting examples may help illustrate the issue: while "quorum" is defined in its first appearance (in the first paragraph of the article), "keys" is eventually defined ... sort of, mostly by implication ... about halfway through the article, after being used multiple times. The casual reader might reach the impression that some kind of physical master key is being referred to.Ptorquemada (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I don't see why these two pages are separate (Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) and Priesthood (LDS Church)). There appears to be significant duplication of information, and I percieve that it is confusing for non-LDS to get why there are two articles on apparently the same subject. Why not put them into one article, and where differences between denominations exist, they can be spelled out in the article itself.
 * Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose — Merging would make a rather large article considering that you'd also (by the same logic) have to merge Priesthood (Community of Christ). This article has an overview, basically up until the Succession Crisis.  Each of the other two articles (Priesthood (LDS Church) and Priesthood (Community of Christ)) provides details of this concept in each of these denominations. However, I could possibly be convinced otherwise. — Val42 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - I see your point, and didn't know there was another article for the Community of Christ. By the same logic in my original proposal, I have added Priesthood (Community of Christ) to my proposal.  I skimmed the Community of Christ article and I don't see how it is any different from the LDS movement article.  I suspect that considerable consolidation could occur from the merge, and the resulting article won't be as long as you think it will be.  That having been said - perhaps we can find some of the differences to highlight that might make a better argument for keeping the articles separate.  I don't know much about the Priesthood in the Community of Christ myself so I don't know what they would be. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support There is considerable overlap in all 3 articles which is extremely confusing for the general reader. Plus the Priesthood (Community of Christ) article is completely unreferenced, so I think the merger will create a better standard of article. Kristmace (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Overlap has never been a problem in similar articles. There is nothing wrong with having a hierarchy of general to specific articles about the same general subject matter. It's like the hierarchy conservatism --> neoconservatism --> Neoconservatism in the United States. CO GDEN  17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Yes indeed time needs to be spent on this article - I agree - but simply because it is not adequately referenced or detailed at the moment is no reason to lump it together with the priesthood page of a completely separate organization & church. Obviously there will be overlap when considering the historical basis for all Latter Day Saint movement organizations, but frankly sticking it together in a catch-all is like sticking Catholics with Anglicans - sure they started as one organization, but the split is so intricate, and in the case of CofC, arguably 148 years of divergent ethos & thoughts on the subject of priesthood from their distant Utah cousins. There are certainly still similarities in the councils and structure, which comes from that 14 year genesis, but things kind of evolve out from there. I mean no disrespect in this comment, either. If I could sit here 24 hours a day, I'd work on the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Clearly, the "Latter Day Saints" article could be significantly expanded to include the positions of other groups, which would then lead to a situation where the "LDS Church" article is entirely justified. However, we don't seem to be there yet and a merge could help reduce confusion until there's something more added on other denominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This generic article should be about the priesthood as it existed at various times during the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., and will eventually be a very substantive, meaty and long article. I don't want it to devolve into what it used to be a couple years ago: a mish-mash of different denomination-specific tables about different priesthood offices and their age and sex requirements, etc.  The differences between the denominations are substantial, and a lot can be written about each denomination. CO GDEN  17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename from Priesthood (Latter Day Saint) to Priesthood (Mormonism)
It becomes increasingly clear that the Community of Christ is no longer part of Mormonism, and rather is simply an idiosyncratic part of Protestantism. Therefore, I think it becomes increasingly fictitious to pretend that the LDS Church and the Community of Christ share some common theology or ecclesiology. There is certainly a shared history, and there are a lot of similarities. For example, the two denominations have roughly the same offices, and believe in two orders of priesthood. However, the fundamental understanding of priesthood is different.

The Community of Christ, for example, maintains a rather charismatic Protestant view of priesthood, reflective of Mormonism as it existed in roughly the 1830s and in the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church, on the other hand, has a more hierarchical, successionistic view of priesthood probably more in common with Catholicism. I think there is a fundamental difference there that this article tries to ignore. So I don't think it makes sense any longer to have an article broader than Priesthood (Mormonism) that includes the Community of Christ. I'm sure that members of the Community of Christ would be quick to agree. Besides, both the LDS Church and the Community of Christ have their own specific Priesthood articles.

Therefore, I propose that we rename this article from Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) to Priesthood (Mormonism). We can simply cross-reference between the articles in the "see also" section. (Ultimately, I think we can incorporate material from the Priesthood (LDS Church) article into this article, and turn the former into a list article describing LDS priesthood offices, whereas this article would describe the meaning, history, and origin of priesthood within Mormonism.) CO GDEN  22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I think it could probably be argued that the CoC was never really a part of "Mormonism," per se; just call one a "Mormon," and you'll find out (I live in Independence, their HQ's, so I know!)!! Personally, I don't think "Priesthood (Mormonism)" would be the best title for this proposed article; furthermore, there are smaller factions that also believe more along the LDS lines of Priesthood, even if they differ from the Utah church in matters of doctrine, history, succession, etc.  What might be best is instead of folding Priesthood (LDS Church) into this article, I would suggest folding most of the info in this article into that one, instead.  Then leave this article named as it is, but instead of a detailed description of LDS, CoC, etc. priesthoods, it could be a simple summary, which providing "main article" links to LDS and CoC-specific priesthood articles (a CoC Priesthood article might have to be written; not sure if one even exists, but this could be done), with just a short summary in this one on each, plus maybe a bit on the smaller factions.  In other words, don't get rid of this article, rather make it a summary article, and a point-of-departure in the case of LDS and CoC churches to larger, individual articles on each church's priesthood.  But that's just my opinion, for whatever it may be worth. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting getting rid of this article at all. I'm saying just to focus this article on Mormonism rather than on some broader conception of priesthood shared by Mormons and the Community of Christ, which hasn't existed since the 1830s. There does exist Priesthood (Community of Christ), which covers their view. It is different enough from the subject matter of this article that all this article can do is briefly summarize the different CoC view in a small section at the end. Lets call this article "Mormonism", delete that section, and let the CoC article stand on its own.
 * Also, I think that moving this content to Priesthood (LDS Church) would be a mistake, given that Mormonism is the standard parenthetical expression for Mormon doctrinal issues, and the fact that the latter article is basically a list as it now stands, and its subject matter is more suitable to being a Wikipedia list. Really, the Priesthood (LDS Church) article should be renamed to something like List of Latter Day Saint priesthood offices, and expanded to include analogous office from more denominations than the LDS Church. CO GDEN  01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Power and Authority?
Should the be a small section detailing the different between power and authority? For instance the apostles have the same power in the priesthood as the prophet, but the prophet only has the authority and keys to use them all. Likewise, an Elder may have authority to confirm the holy ghost, but through transgression no longer has the power. Thanks Superbuttons (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)


text:
Brian Cowen

Brian Bernard Cowen (born 10 January 1960) is an Irish former politician who served as Taoiseach and Leader of Fianna Fáil from 2008 to 2011. Cowen served as a TD for the constituency of Laois–Offaly from 1984 to 2011 and served in a number of ministerial roles between 1992 and 2011, including as Minister for Finance from 2004 to 2008 and Tánaiste from 2007 to 2008.

Cowen was elected leader of Fianna Fáil in May 2008, upon the resignation of Bertie Ahern, and was nominated by Dáil Éireann to replace him as Taoiseach. Weeks after taking office, his administration faced the Irish financial and banking crises. He received substantial criticism for his failure to stem the tide of either crisis, ultimately culminating in the Irish Government's formal request for financial aid from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, which was widely regarded in Ireland as a national humiliation. His leadership subsequently saw public support for Fianna Fáil plunge to record lows, and Cowen set a record for the lowest approval rating in the history of Irish opinion polling, at one point reaching an approval rating of 8 percent. In January 2011, following a failed attempt at a cabinet reshuffle, and facing growing political pressure, Cowen resigned as Leader of Fianna Fáil, but remained as Taoiseach until after the general election held the following month; Cowen stood down from politics at that election and left office as Taoiseach a fortnight later.

The Sunday Times described Cowen's tenure as Taoiseach as "a dismal failure". In 2011, the Irish Independent called Cowen the "worst Taoiseach in the history of the State".

Early and private life
Brian Cowen was born to a Catholic family, in Tullamore, County Offaly, on 10 January 1960. He was raised in Clara by his parents, May and Bernard Cowen, a Fianna Fáil TD and Senator. The family owned a public house, butcher shop and undertaking business in Clara, beside the family home. His father also worked as an auctioneer. Cowen often worked as a barman in his father's pub when he was growing up. He has two brothers, Christopher and Barry. Barry Cowen is a TD for Laois–Offaly since 2011.

Cowen was educated at Clara National School, Árd Scoil Naomh Chiaráin, in Clara and the Cistercian College of Mount St. Joseph in Roscrea, County Tipperary. He was twelve years old when he entered Mount St. Joseph College, as a boarder. After secondary school, he attended University College Dublin where he studied law. He subsequently qualified as a solicitor from the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, Dublin.

He is a member of the Gaelic Athletic Association and continues to serve as president of Clara GAA club, for whom he played in the early 1980s. He also played with the Offaly Gaelic football team at this time, having previously played with their minor and under-21 teams. Cowen likes to socialise with his constituents in some of the local pubs in his native Offaly. In May 2003, he took part in a charity CD project organised by The Brewery Tap pub in Tullamore. The CD featured 28 songs, including Cowen singing the Phil Coulter song, "The Town I Loved So Well".

In May 2007, Cowen told Jason O'Toole of Hot Press that, as a student: "I would say there were a couple of occasions when marijuana was passed around – and, unlike President Clinton, I did inhale. There wasn't a whole lot in it really."

Cowen is married to Mary Molloy and they have two daughters. In 2017, Cowen was conferred with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree by the National University of Ireland.

Early political career
Cowen was elected to Dáil Éireann in the 1984 Laois–Offaly by-election, caused by the death of his father Bernard Cowen. At the time Cowen, at the age of 24, became the youngest member of the 24th Dáil. He was also elected to Offaly County Council in the same year, taking over the seat vacated by his late father. He served on that authority until 1992.

Cowen remained on the backbenches of Fianna Fáil for the next seven years. Following the 1989 general election when Fianna Fáil formed a coalition government, with the Progressive Democrats, for the first time, Cowen was one of a number of TDs who were vehemently opposed to the move. Two years later in November 1991, the then Minister for Finance, Albert Reynolds, challenged Charles Haughey, for the leadership of the party. Cowen firmly aligned himself behind Reynolds and quickly became associated with the party's so-called "Country and Western" wing (Reynolds's supporters earned this nickname due to the fact that the vast majority were rural TDs and that Reynolds had made a lot of money in the dance hall business in the 1960s). Reynolds became leader on his second attempt, when Haughey was forced to retire as Taoiseach in 1992.

Reynolds appointed Cowen, aged 32, to his first cabinet position as Minister for Labour. In spite of being a member of the cabinet, Cowen was openly hostile toward the PDs. This was evident at the Fianna Fáil party's Ardfheis in March 1992. In the warm-up speech before the leader's address, Cowen remarked, "What about the PDs? When in doubt, leave them out." He fought with the PDs, being furious at their interference with Fianna Fáil's view that, as majority partner, they should have wielded the power.

The 1992 general election produced a hung Dáil and resulted in negotiations between all the main parties. Cowen, along with Noel Dempsey and Bertie Ahern, negotiated on behalf of Fianna Fáil in an attempt to form a government with the Labour Party. A deal was reached between the two parties, and Cowen was again appointed Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. In that role, he implemented the controversial decision to relax the so-called stopover at Shannon Airport, which allowed limited direct trans-Atlantic flights from Dublin Airport. The decision proved divisive and saw one Fianna Fáil TD, Síle de Valera, resign from the party in protest.

In October 1994, it was revealed that Cowen had 1,000 shares in Arcon, a company to which he was in the process of awarding a mining licence. He quickly sold the shares and apologised in the Dáil for causing himself and his colleagues "some embarrassment".

Later in 1994, Albert Reynolds resigned as Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil. Bertie Ahern became the new leader, and initially appeared set to replace Reynolds as Taosieach. However, Labour chose to end the coalition with Fianna Fáil and took part in a new coalition with Fine Gael and Democratic Left, consigning Fianna Fáil to opposition. Cowen was appointed to the front bench, first as Spokesperson on Agriculture, Food and Forestry (1994), and later as Spokesperson on Health (1997).

Minister for Health and Children
When Fianna Fáil returned to government following the 1997 general election, Cowen was appointed as Minister for Health and Children. He described his period there as like being in Angola because administrative "landmines" could detonate without warning. During his tenure, he had to deal with problems of bed shortages and overcrowding in hospitals, as well as a prolonged nurses' strike in 1999.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
In a cabinet reshuffle following the retirement of David Andrews in January 2000, Cowen was appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs. His tenure saw extensive negotiations continue regarding the Northern Ireland peace process and other international activities, particularly when Ireland gained a place on the United Nations Security Council. In 2003, he was the subject of a personal attack by the leader of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, Ian Paisley. In front of a crowd of party supporters and in the presence of television cameras and radio reporters, Paisley uttered a diatribe about Cowen's personal appearance and also insulted his mother. In 2004, Cowen played a key role during Ireland's Presidency of the European Council, during which and the European Union expanded from 15 to 25 member states.

Minister for Finance
Following the departure of Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy, upon his nomination as Ireland's European Commissioner in September 2004, Cowen was appointed as Minister for Finance. On 1 December 2004, he announced his first budget, one that was viewed as a give-away budget in which spending was increased by 9%.

Cowen's second budget in 2005 was dominated by a new childcare package, and measures to take 'tax-free millionaires' back into the tax net from 2007 by restricting tax breaks. A readjustment of income-tax measures were designed to take 52,000 low earners out of the tax net and remove 90,000 middle earners from the higher tax band.

Cowen's third budget in 2007, in anticipation of the 2007 general election, was regarded as one of the biggest spending sprees in the history of the state. The €3.7 billion package included increases in pension and social welfare allowances, a marked green agenda, as well as a reduction in the top rate of income tax from 42% to 41%. Cowen has been criticised for alleged complacency during the economic turmoil in January 2008.

Leader of Fianna Fáil

During his ministerial career, Cowen was often identified in the media as the front-runner to succeed Ahern as leader of Fianna Fáil. Cowen's position was strengthened when he succeeded Mary O'Rourke as deputy leader of the party in 2002. In 2004, he was appointed Minister for Finance. Following the 2007 general election, Cowen became Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) in a coalition between Fianna Fáil, the PDs, and the Green Party.

On 4 April 2008, two days after Ahern announced his intention to resign as Taoiseach and Leader of Fianna Fáil, Cowen was nominated by Brian Lenihan and Mary Coughlan to be his successor. The following day he was confirmed as the sole nominee for the position. He was acclaimed as the seventh leader of Fianna Fáil on 9 April 2008, and assumed office upon Ahern's resignation becoming effective on 6 May 2008.

On 7 May 2008, Cowen was nominated by Dáil Éireann as Taoiseach, by 88 votes to 76, and was appointed by President of Ireland Mary McAleese.

On 22 January 2011, despite winning a secret confidence motion the week before, Cowen announced he was stepping down as leader, in advance of the 2011 election, in order to put the party in "the best possible position".

Taoiseach (2008–2011)
Upon appointment, Cowen formed the 28th government of Ireland, a coalition between Fianna Fáil, the Greens and the PDs, which initially had the support of three independent TDs. His choices of Mary Coughlan for Tánaiste and Brian Lenihan Jnr as Minister for Finance were criticised as inappropriate by The Irish Times for their "distressing" lack of experience.

Treaty of Lisbon
The Irish electorate's rejection of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon on 12 June 2008, was viewed by some media and political observers as a protest against Cowen and his government. The Irish Independent called the failed referendum's aftermath the government's "biggest political crisis in decades". Columnist Brendan O'Connor called the outcome "a humiliating failure for Cowen and the people who put him there". The Taoiseach himself arguably dealt a damaging blow to his own side when, on 12 May 2008, he admitted in a radio interview that he had not read the Treaty of Lisbon in its entirety. The treaty was eventually approved by Irish voters when the successful Twenty-eighth Amendment of the constitution was approved in the second Lisbon referendum, held in October 2009.

2009 Budget
Cowen delivered the Irish government budget for 2009 on 14 October 2008, brought forward from its usual December date due to the global financial crisis. The budget, labelled "the toughest in many years", included a number of controversial measures, such as a proposed income levy and the withdrawal of previously promised HPV vaccines for schoolgirls. Other results of the budget included a new income levy being imposed on all workers above a specified threshold and the closure of a number of military barracks near the border with Northern Ireland.

Public outcry arose over the proposed withdrawal of medical cards and the reinstatement of university fees. A series of demonstrations ensued amongst teachers and farmers, whilst on 22 October 2008, at least 25,000 pensioners and students descended in solidarity on government buildings at Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin and outside the Department of the Taoiseach in Merrion Street. Some of the pensioners were even seen to cheer on the students as the protests passed each other on the streets of Dublin. Changes to education led to a ministerial meeting with three Church of Ireland bishops over what was viewed as a disproportionate level of cuts to be suffered by Protestant Secondary schools. Separately representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were assured by O'Keeffe that it would continue to be able to provide religious instruction to pupils in primary schools not under the patronage of the Church.

Rebellion within the ranks of the government led to a number of defections of disenchanted coalition members. County Wicklow TD Joe Behan, resigned from the Fianna Fáil party in protests at the proposed medical card changes. He, alongside two other government deputies, later voted against his former colleagues in two crucial Dáil votes on medical cards and cancer vaccines. These defections reduced the Irish government's majority of twelve by one quarter. Finian McGrath, an Independent TD, who agreed to support the government after the 2007 election, also withdrew his support from the government. A senior political source said: "The Budget was an accident waiting to happen."

Under the European Union stability and growth pact, EU states are required to keep their budget deficit-to-GDP ratio below a three percent limit and maintain a debt-to-GDP ratio below 60 percent. On 31 October 2008, the European Commission opened an excessive deficit procedure against the Government of Ireland, for allowing its budget deficit to exceed the required EU deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3 percent. The Irish deficit was expected to be 5.5 percent in 2008, and 6.5 percent in 2009. This response forced reversals of proposed changes in several areas, contributing to perceived weakness in his Government.

2008 Pork crisis
On 6 December 2008, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland ordered the recall, withdrawal and destruction of all Irish pork products dating back to 1 September, due to the discovery of toxic levels of dioxin in a small percentage of the pig stock. Cowen additionally approved a five-day withdrawal of Irish pork from the market. Within days thousands of jobs were either lost or under threat at pig processing plants across the country, as processors refused to resume slaughter of pigs until they received financial compensation; the crisis ultimately cost taxpayers approximately €180 million. Cowen's government received heavy criticism for overreaction in its handling of the incident, with Leader of the Opposition Enda Kenny calling the government's response as "an unmitigated disaster".

Anglo Irish Bank
The heavy exposure of Anglo Irish Bank to property lending, with most of its loan book being to builders and property developers, meant that it was badly affected by the downturn in the Irish property market in 2008. On 15 January 2009, after attempting to salvage the Bank by injecting €1.5bn into its coffers, the Government announced that it would take steps that would enable the Bank to be taken into State ownership. The Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act, 2009 provided for the transfer of all the shares of the Bank to the Minister for Finance and was enacted under Irish law on 21 January 2009. On the same date, the Bank was re-registered as a private limited company. Observers at the time commented that the government had been slow to respond to the collapse of the Bank, with The Sunday Times stating that "Nationalisation was good enough for other European governments, but Brian Cowen's administration avoided the inevitable until its back was to the wall. Too frequently, it is seen to be reacting to events, not controlling them."

2009 Emergency budget
In a second emergency budget, delivered in April 2009, a fiscal deficit of 10.75 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) was addressed. The budget's initiatives included a doubling of the previous year's income levy to 2%, 4% and 6%; increases on the excise duties on a regular packet of cigarettes (25 cents) and a litre of diesel (5 cents); a new "asset management agency" established to remove bad loans from Irish banks; the gradual elimination of early childcare supplement by 2010, to be replaced by a subsidy towards pre-school for 3- and 4-year-olds; and no further increases in social welfare for at least two years. Cowen defended the emergency measures as necessary.

First no confidence vote
National and international press reactions to the budget were largely favourable, with the economics editor of the BBC reported that there were lessons for the United Kingdom to learn from this emergency procedure and the European Commission hailing the budget as a form of "decisive action". However, it did little to revive the political fortunes of Cowen's government. After Fianna Fáil performed badly in the elections of 5 June 2009, losing half its European Parliament seats, Fine Gael tabled a motion of no confidence against Cowen on 9 June. He survived the vote by a margin of 85–79. Support for the government continued to fall: on 3 September 2009, an Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll, opinion poll  reported that Cowen's satisfaction rating had dropped six points to 15 percent, with 77 percent of voters saying they were dissatisfied with the way he was doing his job.

2010 Budget and NAMA controversy
Cowen's government's third budget within 14 months, delivered on 9 December 2009, saw the government facing the reality of the country nearly becoming insolvent. The 2010 Budget was described by commentators in Ireland and around the world in unusually harsh terms as €4 billion was removed from the country's national deficit; The Irish Times labelled it "the most austere Budget in the history of the State". It was characterised by pay cuts for public sector workers and cuts in social welfare. According to the BBC, social welfare cuts had not been implemented by the country since 1924. The cuts prompted at least one angry outburst in Dáil Éireann.

In February 2010, Cowen defended his claim that the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) would increase the supply of credit into the economy despite the International Monetary Fund (IMF), saying it would not lead to any significant increase. "People should contemplate what level of credit accessibility we'd have in this economy without NAMA," he said. "It's not just sufficient in itself obviously for credit flow, it's certainly an important and necessary part of restructuring our banking system, of that there's no doubt, in terms of improving as a location for funding of banking operations," said Cowen. He previously said that the Government's objective in restructuring the banks through NAMA was to "generate more access to credit for Irish business at this critical time". In September 2009, the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, expressed a similar view, saying it would lead to more lending for business and households. Cowen was responding to reports published on 8 February, that the IMF had told Brian Lenihan in April 2009, that the NAMA would not lead to a significant increase in lending by the banks.

The comments, which appear in internal Department of Finance documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, were made by senior IMF official, Steven Seelig, who was to join the board of NAMA in May 2010. Minutes of a private meeting at the department between Brian Lenihan and IMF officials on 29 April 2009, state that the "IMF (Mr. Seelig) do not believe that Nama will result in significant increase in bank lending in Ireland". The Government has maintained that NAMA's purchase of bad loans from the banks with State bonds would increase the flow of credit in the economy since the plan was unveiled April 2009. Speaking at the publication of the NAMA legislation in September 2009, Mr. Lenihan said it would "strengthen and improve" the funding positions of the banks "so that they can lend to viable businesses and households". The IMF estimated in their published report that domestic banks would face losses of up to €35 billion, though the department pointed out this would be partly funded from operating profits and provisions already taken against some loan losses.

Second no confidence vote
Speaking on RTÉ on 15 May 2010, Cowen said that, in hindsight, he should have introduced a property tax to cool the property boom. Responding to the Taoiseach's defence of his actions as minister for finance, Leader of the Opposition Enda Kenny accused him of "washing his hands" of his role in Ireland's economic crisis. Speaking during a front bench meeting in Cork, Kenny also claimed Fianna Fáil was spreading fear by considering cuts to the old age pension. "Sorry is a word that Fianna Fáil do not recognise, they don't understand," Kenny told party colleagues. Kenny said Taoiseach Cowen, in defending his own personal handling of events, was refusing to acknowledge that he drove the economy "up on the rocks" for four years when he was Minister for Finance. "He expects everybody else to accept responsibility for it but not him. It's another example of hands being washed by those in charge, a refusal to accept responsibility for their part in destroying the Irish economy and heaping economic woes . . . upon so many people." The Fine Gael leader said the best thing the Taoiseach could do was to hold the three pending by-elections, or a general election, so the people could have their say.

On 15 June 2010, Cowen faced his second no-confidence motion in just over a year, tabled by Fine Gael after the publication of two reports that criticised government policies in the run-up to Ireland's banking crisis. He again survived the motion, 82–77.

EU and IMF rescue
On the evening of 21 November 2010, Cowen confirmed that Ireland had formally requested financial support from the European Union's European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after long resisting pressure from other eurozone nations, particularly France and Germany. On 28 November 2010, the European Commission agreed to an €85 billion rescue deal of which €22.5 billion from the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), €22.5 billion from the IMF, €22.5 billion from the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and bilateral loans from the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden. The remaining €17.5 billion will come from a state contribution from the National Pension Reserve Fund (NPRF) and other domestic cash resources.

The bailout was widely seen in Ireland as a national humiliation, and by some as a betrayal of the long-fought struggle for Irish independence whose legacy forms a major part of the Irish identity. The Irish Times editorialized:

whether this is what the men of 1916 died for: a bailout from the German chancellor with a few shillings of sympathy from the British chancellor on the side. There is the shame of it all. Having obtained our political independence from Britain to be the masters of our own affairs, we have now surrendered our sovereignty to the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

On 24 November 2010, Cowen unveiled a four-year plan to stabilise the economy by 2014. The plan was met with great protest as it included deeply unpopular elements, including drastic cuts in social welfare, the lowering of the minimum wage, and an increase in the value added tax while maintaining the state's low corporate tax rate. In recognition of the political disaster this would inflict on his government, Cowen indicated that the election would take place in early 2011, after the 2011 budgetary process has been completed, though at the time he would not set a specific date.

Meeting with Seán FitzPatrick
It was revealed following the publication of the book, The Fitzpatrick Tapes by Tom Lyons and Brian Carey, that two previously undisclosed meetings had occurred between Seán FitzPatrick, the Chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, and Brian Cowen.

The first was a telephone call in March 2008, while Cowen was overseas in Vietnam and when Cowen was then Minister of Finance. The second meeting took place on 28 July 2008, at Druids Glen, County Wicklow.

At that time Anglo Irish Bank was badly affected by the downturn in the property market. On 28 September 2008, the Irish government made the decision to introduce a bank guarantee to cover Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Seán FitzPatrick was forced to resign in January 2009, over the Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy. The meeting, over a seven-hour period, took place over a round of golf and a subsequent dinner with Fitzpatrick and two other directors of Anglo Irish Bank.

During a heated Leader's Question session in Dáil Éireann, which ran over the allotted time considerably, Cowen denied that Anglo Irish Bank had been discussed. However, when questioned by the Sinn Féin Dáil leader Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (who had been attending a wedding at the hotel and by chance had encountered Cowen and Fitzpatrick), Cowen was forced to admit that there were two other people at the meeting, Gary McGann, a director of Anglo Irish Bank and Alan Gray, a director of the Central Bank and currently managing director of a consultancy company Indecon. Brian Cowen has claimed that the meeting was a social event, while Gray has stated that he was invited to provide economic advice on stimulating the economy. Tánaiste Mary Coughlan, described the purpose of the meeting as a fundraiser for Fianna Fáil.

Cowen subsequently threatened to sue Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, if he repeated the accusation outside the Dáil. Ó Caoláin responded by repeating the accusation in public and inviting Cowen to take him to court.

January cabinet reshuffle
In the stir created by the revelations of Cowen's meetings with Fitzpatrick, Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore, announced his plan to table a third motion of no confidence in Cowen's government. At the time, however, Cowen's more immediate concern was pressure from within his own party to step down as leader of Fianna Fáil. Cowen announced on 16 January 2011, that he would not resign as party leader of his own accord; however, he would put down a motion of confidence in his leadership at Fianna Fáil's parliamentary party meeting on 18 January 2011, to be decided by secret ballot. Foreign Minister Micheál Martin, publicly announced that he would vote against the motion, effectively presenting himself as a challenger to Cowen's leadership. On the evening of 18 January 2011, Government Chief Whip John Curran, announced that Cowen had prevailed in the confidence vote, although the exact counts were to remain secret and the ballots had been shredded. Cowen also announced that he had "reluctantly" accepted Martin's resignation from his government.

The following day, however, Cowen forced the resignations of four more Ministers, Noel Dempsey, Dermot Ahern, Tony Killeen and Mary Harney; the day after that, another Minister, Batt O'Keefe, resigned. The Ministers who resigned had already declined to contest the 2011 general election. The resignations were engineered to allow Cowen to appoint new Ministers, who might strengthen his party's position for the election. However, the junior coalition partner, the Green Party, expressed outrage that they had not been consulted about the reshuffle. The Greens accordingly refused to endorse Cowen's intended replacements, forcing Cowen to reassign the vacant portfolios to incumbent Ministers. The Green Party also threatened to pull out of the government unless Cowen set a firm date for the general election; Cowen subsequently announced it would take place on 11 March 2011. When Cowen addressed the Dáil to announce the reshuffle, the Green Party were absent and had not taken their seats in the Dáil that day. The Independent later concluded that the failed reshuffle left Cowen "an isolated, hugely damaged figure".

Moreover, Green Party leader John Gormley publicly stated that trust between the coalition parties had been greatly eroded, perhaps irreparably. At that point, members of Fianna Fáil, including many of those who had previously announced support for Cowen in the party's confidence motion, began questioning his leadership and pressing for his resignation from the leadership of the party before the election. The press, meanwhile, compared the attempted reshuffle and its fallout to the GUBU political disaster of the early 1980s Charles Haughey government, up to that point the most sensational political scandal in the history of Ireland. Fianna Fáil, already at a record low 14% approval rating, slid in the wake of the botched reshuffle to 8%.

Resignation as leader
Faced with a fractured coalition, rebellion within his own party, and an acknowledged public relations disaster, Cowen announced his resignation as leader of Fianna Fáil on 22 January 2011. He insisted, however, that he would continue as Taoiseach, until the election, in order to complete legislation for the 2011 budget.

The resignation did not quell the consequences of Cowen's actions. Labour leader Eamon Gilmore announced that he would go forward with his no-confidence motion on Wednesday, 26 January 2011. Leader of the Opposition Enda Kenny also announced that if Cowen did not ask President Mary McAleese for an immediate dissolution of the Dáil, his own party would table a no-confidence motion in the Taoiseach on Tuesday, ahead of Labour's motion. Then, on Sunday the 23rd, less than 24 hours after Cowen announced his resignation, the Greens tore up the coalition agreement and pulled its two ministers, Gormley and Eamon Ryan, from the government. Cowen accepted their resignations. This left Cowen at the head of a minority government, with seven Ministers (the absolute minimum mandated by the constitution of Ireland), and facing two consecutive no-confidence votes in the Dáil.

Finance Bill, dissolution and retirement
On 24 January 2011, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan met with delegations from Fine Gael, Labour, and the Greens, striking a final deal. Labour and Fine Gael agreed to drop their no-confidence motions in exchange for an agreement that the finance bill would be finalised in the Dáil by Friday the 28th (with the Seanad to finalise on Saturday), upon which Cowen would immediately request that President McAleese dissolve the Dáil.

The Dáil passed the finance bill on 27 January 2011, with the Seanad following on 29 January. Accordingly, Cowen asked McAleese to dissolve the Dáil on 1 February 2011. In accordance with Irish constitutional practice, McAleese duly granted the dissolution. Cowen subsequently confirmed that the general election would be brought forward to 25 February 2011. Cowen also announced that he would not contest his Dáil seat. He said he would retire from politics, after 27 years.

The pent-up resentment at Cowen's government resulted in a debacle for Fianna Fáil at the general election. The party suffered the worst defeat of a sitting government in the history of the Irish state, falling to only 20 seats for third place—the first time since 1927 that it was not the largest party in the chamber. Cowen was succeeded by Leader of the Opposition Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, leading a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, which took office on 9 March 2011. As Cowen was no longer a TD when the new Dáil convened, he was unable to preside over the opening, and Fianna Fáil Leader Micheál Martin and outgoing Finance Minister Brian Lenihan appeared on the government front bench in his place.

Public image
Cowen was often referred to in Irish satirical and tabloid media as BIFFO, a nickname applied to people from Offaly. BIFFO is an acronym for "Big Ignorant Fecker /Fucker From Offaly". Cowen has said that BIFFO stands for "Beautiful Intelligent Fellow From Offaly'. An unnamed journalist described Cowen "as subtle as a JCB".

WikiLeaks cables from Ireland to the US revealed, that US diplomats in Ireland reported that the nickname BIFFO applied "especially well" to former Taoiseach Brian Cowen, as described in leaked US embassy dispatches.

In a candid profile from WikiLeaks, of Cowen as the  Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil leader, then US Ambassador Thomas Foley described Cowen as "burly and brusque" saying that he had "a reputation of not being much concerned with his public image."

The Ambassador also described Mr Cowen's fondness for frequenting pubs and singing, saying he would likely be more approachable than his predecessor Bertie Ahern.

Cowen was accused of "conduct unbecoming", over comments he made in the Dáil when, at the end of a heated exchange, he sat down and spoke to Tánaiste Mary Coughlan; Dáil microphones picked up the Taoiseach using the word "fuckers", though he was not referring to any opposition politician. He later apologised for his remark.

Cowen has been openly criticised by his parliamentary party colleagues including one who said in an interview that Cowen has suffered from "poor communications and consultation" and expressed concern about the emergence of a perceived "triumvirate" (comprising the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Finance) within the Cabinet.

In a novel criticism, artist and teacher Conor Casby placed unflattering nude portraits of Cowen in the National Gallery of Ireland and the gallery of the Royal Hibernian Academy. The pictures were reported in a television news bulletin and caused considerable debate in the media.

Cowen was criticised as being inept during the approach to the third budget, in December 2009. He said, "our priority is to stabilise the public finances", a year after the Irish public was told that this was the priority for 2008.

Morning Ireland interview
On 14 September 2010, after an interview on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Cowen was described by Deputy Simon Coveney of Fine Gael as sounding as if he was intoxicated or hungover. The interview was on the morning of day two of his party's annual pre-Dáil meeting held at the Ardilaun Hotel in Galway. Cowen rejected the allegations, describing them as "pathetic". However, this incident has been unfavourably commented upon by the international press, and dubbed "Gargle gate" by the domestic media. A brief sketch about Cowen that appeared on a subsequent episode of the American talk show The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, in which host Jay Leno described Cowen as a "drunken moron" and acted with incredulity towards his status as Taoiseach, received coverage in the Irish media and further damaged Cowen's public image.

He apologised for his interview performance the following day saying, "It wasn't my best performance and I would like to apologise for that. I would hate to think the reputation of the country or the office of Taoiseach would in any way be affected by what I had to say." He claimed that there was a hoarseness in his voice and denied that he had been hungover. His version of this event was substantiated in 2017, by his interviewer who stated that Cowen was weary and not drunk or hungover.

Approval ratings
Although Cowen's satisfaction rating had sunk to 18% in Ireland, by August 2010, he was listed as one of the top ten leaders in the world by Newsweek magazine, which praised his handling of the Irish economy. While The Wall Street Journal stated that "Cowen has presided over the worst economic crisis in modern times", Newsweek ranked him fifth in the world after David Cameron, Mohamed Nasheed, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Wen Jiabao.

According to TheJournal.ie, Cowen was "the least popular incumbent in the history of [Irish] opinion polling," with approval between 8 and 10 percent of the electorate. As of January 2011, Fianna Fáil's popularity had fallen to a record low and was tied with Sinn Féin on 14% in joint third place.

Legacy and later life
Cowen became leader of Fianna Fáil and Taoiseach without ever facing an election in either capacity; he is the only Fianna Fáil leader to have left the post without ever taking the party into an election. Under his stewardship of the country, his party Fianna Fáil, saw its electoral support base diminished by 75% in the general election of February 2011, as a reaction to the intervention, in the running of the Irish economy, of the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank in November 2010.

Cowen was criticised for being a poor communicator and for his perceived failure to connect with the electorate. Historian Diarmaid Ferriter described Cowen's "appalling communication skills and self-destructive stubbornness" as inflicting most damage to Fianna Fáil.

As the scale of the party's electoral defeat became evident, Cowen accepted responsibility for decisions taken in government. "'From my point of view as Taoiseach and as a Minister in the past I take full responsibility. I've never quibbled or suggested otherwise.'"

In November 2011, a review of Cowen's governance was broadcast on RTÉ television over two episodes entitled Crisis: Inside the Cowen Government. Cowen did not contribute to the series, but many of his former ministerial colleagues critiqued his performance as Taoiseach. On 21 March 2012, Cowen delivered a speech at the BMW Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., entitled "The Euro: From Crisis to Resolution? Some Reflections from Ireland on the Road Thus Far". In his first public comments since leaving office, he defended his government's blanket bank guarantee in 2008, but admitted that his government should have increased taxes and cut spending. He also admitted that his government should accept some blame for Ireland's economic downfall. He compared the start of the 2008 economic crisis to a series of plane crashes, all taking place at the same time and each for different reasons. He receives annual pension payments of over €150,000.

In May 2014, Cowen became part of the board of Topaz Energy. He was appointed to the board of Beacon Hospital in February 2015.

In April 2015, Cowen was attacked by protesters in Dublin, in which he was called a "scumbag" and a "traitor".

In July 2017, Cowen was conferred with an honorary doctorate from the National University of Ireland, an honour bestowed on all but two former Taoisigh. During his 50-minute acceptance speech he criticised the EU for its behaviour towards Ireland during the financial crisis and expressed regret that so many jobs were lost during the recession. Following the conferring ceremony, the NUI faced considerable public criticism for deciding to make the award to Cowen. Former (and founding) President of the University of Limerick, Ed Walsh, announced that he would hand back his own honorary doctorate in protest, and did so on 14 November 2018.

On 5 July 2019, Cowen was admitted to Beacon Hospital after suffering a major brain haemorrhage. He was then transferred to St. Vincent's University Hospital where he spent five months before transferring to a physical rehabilitation facility. As of late 2020, while Cowen was still in hospital following a stroke the previous year, he had been making steady progress. Cowen returned home in 2021 and has made a recent public appearance in a wheelchair.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Brian Cowen


text:
Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon

Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, GE (16 January 1675 – 2 March 1755), was a French soldier, diplomat, and memoirist. He was born in Paris at the Hôtel Selvois, 6 rue Taranne (demolished in 1876 to make way for the Boulevard Saint-Germain). The family's ducal peerage (duché-pairie), granted in 1635 to his father Claude de Rouvroy (1608–1693), served as both perspective and theme in Saint-Simon's life and writings. He was the second and last Duke of Saint-Simon.

His enormous memoirs are a classic of French literature, giving the fullest and most lively account of the court at Versailles of Louis XIV and the Régence at the start of Louis XV's reign.

Peerage of France
Men of the noblest blood (in Saint-Simon's view) might not be, and in most cases were not, peers in France. Derived at least traditionally and imaginatively from the douze pairs (twelve peers) of Charlemagne, the peerage of France was supposed to be, literally, the chosen of the noblesse, deemed thereafter to incarnate the French nobility par excellence. Their legal pre-eminence derived from hereditary membership in the Parlement of Paris, the highest of France's judicial and quasi-legislative assemblies. Strictly speaking, a French peerage (usually attached to a dukedom) was granted in favour of a designated fief rather than upon the titleholder per se. His lifelong ambition was the conversion of France's peers into a Great Council of the Nation. The family's principal seat, where Saint-Simon's Mémoires was written, was at La Ferté-Vidame, bought by his father shortly after his elevation to the dukedom. The castle brought with it the ancient, entailed title, Vidame de Chartres, borne as a courtesy style by the Duke's only son until he was eighteen: As it had been attributed to an elderly character in the well-known court novel La Princesse de Clèves, published in 1678, just three years after Saint-Simon's birth, his arrival at court as a young man may have been less inconspicuous than otherwise.

Life
His father, Claude, the first duke, was a tall and taciturn man who was keen on hunting. Louis de Saint-Simon was the opposite; garrulous, much shorter, and preferring life indoors. His father had been a favourite hunting companion of Louis XIII. King Louis had appointed his father as Master of Wolfhounds before granting him a dukedom in 1635 at a relatively young age; he was 68 when Louis was born. Saint-Simon ranked thirteenth in the order of precedence among France's eighteen dukes. His mother, Charlotte de L'Aubespine, daughter of François, marquis de Hauterive by his wife, Eléonore de Volvire, marquise de Ruffec, descended from a distinguished family, noble since at least the time of Francis I.

She was a formidable woman whose word was law in the family, and became more so in extreme old age. Her son Louis, of whom Louis XIV and Queen Marie-Thérèse were godparents, was well-educated, largely by her. After further tuition from the Jesuits, he joined the Mousquetaires gris in 1692, serving at the Siege of Namur and at the Battle of Neerwinden. Then he embarked upon his life's mission by pronouncing upon the precedence among French peers, much against the orders and interests of François-Henri de Montmorency, duc de Luxembourg, his victorious general.

In 1695 he married Marie-Gabrielle de Durfort, daughter of Guy Aldonce Durfort, Duke of Lorges, a marshal of France, later serving under the Duke's command. He seems to have regarded her with a respect and affection unusual between husband and wife in that era; and she sometimes succeeded in suppressing his pompous ideals. As he did not receive further promotion in the army, he resigned his commission in 1702, thereby incurring Louis XIV's displeasure. He kept his position at court but only with difficulty, and then immersed himself in court intrigue at Versailles, tapping a collection of informants, the likes of dukes as well as servants, which later yielded him the benefit of an extraordinary amount of privileged information. Saint-Simon, for his own part, appears to have played only an intermediate role in court life. He was nominated as ambassador to Rome in 1705, but the appointment was cancelled before he departed. At last, he attached himself to Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, Louis XIV's nephew and the future regent. Though this was hardly likely to ingratiate him with Louis, it at least gave him the status of belonging to a definite party and it eventually placed him in the position of a friend to the acting chief of state. He also allied himself with Louis, Duke of Burgundy, the Dauphin's son and next heir to the French throne. Saint-Simon loathed "the bastards", Louis XIV's illegitimate children, and not, apparently, entirely because they were accorded ceremonial precedence above France's peers. The Saint-Simon that is revealed through the Mémoires had many enemies, and a hatred reciprocated by many courtiers. However, it should be remembered that these reminiscences were written 30 years after the facts, by a disappointed man, and that Saint-Simon had maintained congenial or at least courteous relations with the majority of his fellow courtiers.

The death of Louis XIV seemed to have given Saint-Simon a chance of realizing his hopes. The Duke of Orleans became regent and Saint-Simon was appointed to his Regency Council. But no steps were taken to carry out his "preferred vision" of a France ruled by the noble élite, exposing how little real influence he had with the Regent. He was somewhat gratified by the degradation of "the bastards" in 1718 and, in 1721, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Spain so as to facilitate the marriage of Louis XV and Infanta Mariana Victoria of Spain (which, however, never took place). Whilst in Spain he did, however, secure a grandeeship (which later devolved upon his second son) and, despite having caught smallpox, he was quite satisfied with his efforts there: two ducal titles (grandees were recognised in France as dukes). Saint-Simon was not eager, unlike most other nobility, to acquire profitable functions, and he did not use his influence to repair his finances, which were even further diminished by the extravagance of his embassy. After his return to France, he had little to do with public affairs. His own account of the cessation of his intimacy with Orléans and Guillaume Dubois, the latter having never been his friend, is, like his account of some other events of his own life, rather vague and dubious. But there can be little doubt that he was eclipsed, and even expelled from the Château de Meudon by Cardinal Dubois. He survived for more than thirty years, but little is known of the rest of his life. His wife died in 1743, his eldest son a little later; he had other family troubles, and he was loaded with debt; the dukedom in which he took such pride ended with him, and his only granddaughter was childless.

He died in Paris on 2 March 1755, having almost entirely outlived his own generation and exhausted his family's wealth, though not its notoriety: a distant relative, Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, born five years after the Duke's death, is remembered as an intellectual forerunner of socialism. All his possessions, including his writings, were seized by the Crown on his death. His Mémoires were kept under sequestration and only circulated through private copies and excerpts until the restitution of the manuscript to his heirs in 1828. While its appendices and supporting documents were dispersed, this sequestration was ultimately credited for the preservation of his memoirs.

Fame as a writer

Posthumously he acquired great literary fame. He was an indefatigable writer, and he began very early to record all the gossip he collected, all his interminable legal disputes over precedence, and a vast mass of unclassified material. Most of his manuscripts were retrieved by the Crown and it was long before their contents were fully published: partly in the form of notes in the marquis de Dangeau's Journal, partly in both original and independent memoirs, partly in scattered and multifarious extracts; he had committed to paper an immense amount of material.

Saint-Simon believed he could improve upon Dangeau's dry chronicling of events with his own vivid narrative style. According to Charles Henry Conrad Wright, "taking Dangeau as foundation, he goes over the same ground, sometimes copying, more often developing or inserting additional information, the result of more acute observation."

Saint-Simon's Mémoires strike a most realistic note. On the one hand, he is petty, and unjust to private enemies and to those who espoused public views contrary to his as well as being an incessant gossip. Yet he shows a great skill for narrative and for character-drawing; he has been compared to the historians Tacitus and Livy. He is not a writer who can be sampled easily, inasmuch as his most characteristic passages sometimes occur in the midst of long stretches of quite uninteresting diatribe. His vocabulary was extreme and inventive; he is deemed to have first used the word "intellectual" as a noun, and "patriot" and "publicity" are also accredited as being introduced by him in their current usage.

A few critical studies of him, especially those of Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, are the basis of much that has been written about him. His most famous passages, such as the account of the death of the Dauphin, or of the Bed of Justice where his enemy, Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine, was degraded, do not give a fair idea of his talent. These are his celebrated pieces, his great "engines", as French art slang calls them. Much more noteworthy as well as more frequent are the sudden touches which he gives.

The bishops are "cuistres violets" (purple pedants); "(M. de Caumartin) porte sous son manteau toute la faculté que M. de Villeroy étale sur son baudrier" (Caumartin holds under his cloak all the power that Villeroy displays on his scabbard); another politician has a "mine de chat fâché" (appearance of a disgruntled cat). In short, the interest of his Mémoires is in the novel and adroit use of words and phrases.

In A Short History of French Literature, the memoirs are described as "vast and rambling...one of the least-read masterpieces of the age" which "provide us not only with a picture of the squalor and pettiness which often lay behind the glittering façade of the court, but also with the precise angle of perception of a senior courtier. This is prose narrative on a monumental scale; how much of it is fiction is hard to tell, but in this area the distinction is not paramount, since what matters is the imaginative reconstruction of a lost world (Proust owes not a little to Saint-Simon)."

He had a profound influence on writers including Tolstoy, Barbey d' Aurevilly, Flaubert, Valle-Inclán, Proust, Mujica Láinez, and many others.

Family
Saint-Simon married Marie-Gabrielle de Durfort (daughter of Guy Aldonce de Durfort, duc de Lorges), on 8 April 1695, at the Hôtel de Lorges in Paris. They had three children:
 * 1) Charlotte de Rouvroy (8 September 1696 – 29 September 1763) married Charles-Louis de Henin-Liétard d'Alsace, "Prince of Chimay"; they had no children; He was the brother of Cardinal d'Alcase.
 * 2) Jacques Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Ruffec (29 July 1698 – 15 July 1746) married, in 1727, Cathérine Charlotte Thérèse de Gramont (died 1755), daughter of the Duke of Gramont (widow of Philippe Alexandre, Duke of Bournonville), leaving no children;
 * 3) Armand-Jean de Rouvroy (12 April 1699 – 20 May 1754) married Marie Jeanne Louise, daughter of Nicolas Prosper Bauyn d'Angervilliers; they had one daughter.

His granddaughter Marie Christine, Mademoiselle de Ruffec (daughter of Jacques Louis) married a son of the Princess Louise Hippolyte of Monaco in 1749 becoming the "Countess of Valentinois".

Memoirs
Extensive publication of Saint-Simon's Mémoires did not proceed until the 1820s. The first and greatest critical edition was produced in the Grands écrivains de la France series. The most accessible modern editions consist of huge nine volumes in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade and the eleven volumes in Carrefour du Net edition, prefaced by Didier Hallépée.
 * 1) 1829-1830 edition under the Restoration
 * 2) 1856 Edition by Adolphe Chéruel at Hachette
 * 3) 1879 Edition by Arthur de Boislisle
 * 4) Jean-Claude Lattès Edition (20 volumes)
 * 5) The first Pleiade edition edited by Gonzague Truc (1947-1961) published by Gallimard
 * 6) The second Pleiade edition edited and annotated with an Introduction by Yves Coirault (1983-88, 1993) published by Gallimard (8 volumes) - contains variants and Additions to the Journal of Dangeau. The volumes are:
 * 7) 1691-1701
 * 8) 1701-7
 * 9) 1707-10
 * 10) 1711-14
 * 11) 1714-16
 * 12) 1716-18
 * 13) 1718-21
 * 14) 1721-23
 * 15) Memoir on the interest of princes of the blood in preventing any enlargement of the legitimised children of kings (pages 621-752 in Political Treatises and Other Writings) (1993)
 * 16) Materials for use in a memoir on the present occurrence (August 1753) (pages 438-439 in Memoirs (excerpts) and various works) (1993)

Other writings

 * 1) Unpublished Papers of the Duke of Saint-Simon: Letters and Dispatches on the Spanish Embassy (1880) - published Paris, A. Quantin with a preface by Édouard Drumont
 * 2) Political Treaties and Other Writings - Pleiade edition edited and annotated with an Introduction by Yves Coirault (1983-88, 1993) published by Gallimard
 * 3) Drafts of projects
 * 4) Marriage of the son of the Prince of Rohan
 * 5) Project for the Restoration of the Kingdom of France
 * 6) The Collection of the late Lord Dauphin
 * 7) Views on the future of France
 * 8) Brief memoir on the formalities
 * 9) Memoir on the interest of princes of the blood in preventing any enlargement of the legitimized children of kings
 * 10) Preamble to the Houses of Albret, Armagnac and Châtillon
 * 11) On the social elites of the kingdom
 * 12) Light Notions of Commanders, Knights and Grand Officers of the Order of the Holy Spirit
 * 13) Great Charges
 * 14) Materials on the qualities assumed by M. de Soubise of prince and serene highness
 * 15) Parallel of the first three Bourbon kings
 * 16) Centuries and Days. Letters (1693-1754) and Note "Saint-Simon" from the Duchies-peerages, etc., (2000) (ISBN 978-2-7453-0251-9), texts collected and commented by Yves Coirault, preface by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, published Paris, Editions Honoré Champion
 * 17) Letters of Saint-Simon and Appendices I and II
 * 18) Anonymous letter to the King (April 1712)
 * 19) Note on the House of Saint-Simon
 * 20) Notes on all the duchies-peerages (Extracts)
 * 21) The Funeral of the Dauphine-Bavaria
 * 22) Father Anselme's Continuation Project
 * 23) Farewell to the Century
 * 24) Hierarchy and mutations: Writings on the social kaleidoscope - texts compiled and commented by Yves Coirault, published by Paris, Éditions Honoré Champion ,2002, 424 p. (ISBN 978-2-7453-0545-9)

Abridged and partial English-language translations of the Mémoires
There are a number of English-language translations of Selections of the Mémoires:
 * Memoirs on the Reign of Louis XIV, and the Regency. Abridged by Bayle St. John. London: Chapman, 1857.
 * The Memoirs of the Duke of Saint-Simon on the reign of Louis XIV, and the Regency. 2nd edition. 3 volumes. Translated by Bayle St. John. London: Swan, Sonnenschein, Lowrey, 1888.
 * Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon on the Times of Louis XIV, and the Regency. Translated and abridged by Katharine Prescott Wormeley. Boston: Hardy, Pratt, 1902.
 * Louis XIV at Versailles: A Selection from the Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon. Translated and edited by Desmond Flower. London: Cassell, 1954.
 * The Age of Magnificence: The Memoirs of the Duke de Saint-Simon. Edited and translated by Sanche de Gramont aka Ted Morgan. New York: Putnam, 1963.
 * Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon. Edited by W.H. Lewis. Translated by Bayle St. John. London: B.T. Batsford, 1964.
 * Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, volume 1 1691-1709. Edited and translated by Lucy Norton. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1967.
 * Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, volume 2 1710-1715. Edited and translated by Lucy Norton. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968.
 * Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, volume 3 1715-1723. Edited and translated by Lucy Norton. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1972.
 * Saint-Simon at Versailles. Edited and translated by Lucy Norton. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1980. Includes selections omitted from the three longer volumes, which together include about 40% of the whole work.

Studies of the Mémoirs in English

 * Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. (Chapter 16, "The Interrupted Supper")
 * Cioran, Emil Michel. "Drawn and Quartered". New York: Arcade Publishing, 1998.  (Section II)
 * Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Saint-Simon and the Court of Louis XIV. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. ISBN 0-226-47320-1
 * De Ley, Herbert. Saint-Simon Memorialist. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975.
 * Ruas, Charles. The Intellectual Development of the Duc de Saint Simon. Princeton University, 1970.

title: Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon