A New Relationship between Relief Society and Bishopric, 1920

There is a common narrative that Correlation killed the independence and vigor of the Relief Society circa 1970, particularly when the Church’s women were stripped of the right to raise and control their own finances. After all, women were the ones charged by Joseph Smith with relieving the poor, which required means. One of the major purposes of the early visiting teaching program was to collect goods and money for the Society’s work; the first major practice of the Society was to sew clothing for, first, workmen building the Nauvoo Temple, and then later for all the needy of the ward.

I’m not going to dispute that, but I am going to try to complicate it a little. Long before Correlation as we know it, the Relief Society and Priesthood had danced around the issue of Relief Society funds and Priesthood oversight. The first semi-public awareness of those negotiations appeared in 1920, when the First Presidency sent a circular letter to stake presidencies, bishoprics, “and all Church Authorities,” which read:

Dear Brethren. – Your attention is directed to the instructions in the following pages, compiled and prepared by the Presiding Bishopric to aid you in transacting the business of the Church within your jurisdiction.

We heartily approve the precepts, regulations and rules set forth in this “Circular of Instructions” and desire that, as Presiding Authorities of stakes, wards and missions, you will observe them and make them known to the priesthood and others affected, with a view to concerted action, unity and harmony in the labors of the priesthood.

With sincere appreciation of your faithful efforts and helpful cooperation in the past in looking after the spiritual and temporal interests of the people under your care, we remain, Your brethren,

Heber J. Grant, Charles W. Penrose, Anthony W. Ivins, First Presidency

With that introduction, the First Presidency put the entire Church on notice that this was a plan endorsed by them; it was not optional, it was not an unauthorized power play by a lower body.

Having received the First Presidency’s stamp of approval, the Presiding Bishopric – the body charged with general temporal matters in the Church – explained the purpose of the changes they were making. Writing to the same Church officers, they said:

Dear Brethren. – In order to insure uniformity in the method of conducting the business of the stakes and wards, as it pertains to the officers of the Presiding Bishopric, we direct your attention to the instructions contained on the following pages; and we hope that those having business with the Presiding Bishopric will become familiar with these instructions; and preserve the book for reference.

We commend the authorities of the stakes and wards for their diligent service in conducting the temporal affairs of the Church, and we trust that we shall continue to have their faithful cooperation and assistance in this important department of Church activity.

Your brethren,

C.W. Nibley, David A. Smith, John Wells, Presiding Bishopric

An obvious question – and one I don’t have an answer for, yet – is how the new policies were drafted. Did the leaders of the Relief Society have any voice in developments? We can hope so, but I suspect there was little to no consultation. We’ve seen before and since 1920 instances where changes were presented to the Relief Society as “done deals.” There have been recent signs that this pattern is changing, but in 1920 I suspect it was very much as it had been earlier in the century when male authorities “repurposed” the building lot and the funds raised by the Relief Society, turning the women’s building into the Bishop’s Building without consulting the Relief Society.

As the women had done in that earlier instance, with Relief Society leaders loyally acquiescing, Relief Society leaders in 1920 announced the changed procedures to the sisters of the Church. Well, somebody had to do it – you’ll note that neither the First Presidency nor the Presiding Bishopric addressed the sisters! This time, though, the Relief Society announcement barely masks some disappointment, even defensiveness, perhaps even the wee-est portion of outrage, in the way they look for “comfort” in the situation, and note how long and how diligently the women had accepted the Prophet’s charge to do charitable work, without, they seem to say, their achievements being adequately recognized:

The New Circular. – It is comforting to the faithful officers and teachers of the Relief Society to find their position and relationship to the bishops clearly and generously recognized in the new circular just issued by the Bishop’s Office to all the bishops in the Church.

Our women have labored for over three-quarters of a century in the cause of “charity pure and undefiled.” The star of their devotion will not only glorify them, but it will form one of the most original and potent chapters in the history of the world and of the Church of Christ ever written or experienced.

There comes a time, after great men have pioneered a great country or a great movement, when lesser men sit down and tell people all about it. The history of the charity work of the Relief Society will never be fully written; but when even partially done all students and honest thinkers will agree that so far as is recorded, no other such pure, unselfish, intelligent organized devotion has ever before been manifest.

We may learn some things from modern efficiency experts, but we will never improve on the faithful and gentle sympathy extended regularly from neighbor to neighbor by the unselfish women of the Relief Society system.

And finally, let’s look at the instructions issued by the Presiding Bishopric, to see what the new division of responsibility between Priesthood and Relief Society was:

CARE OF THE WORTHY POOR

Fast Offering

The first Sunday in the month is set apart as a day of fasting and prayer. Upon this day, the Saints should remember the poor, and make contributions for relieving their needs. The Saints should make their offerings, even though there are no poor in the ward to which they belong. In wards in which the Fast Offerings are not needed for the poor, the amount collected should be remitted to the Presiding Bishop’s Office. In wards in which the Fast Offerings and Relief Society donations are not sufficient to keep the worthy poor from want, the Bishop may apply to the Presiding Bishop’s Office for authority to uses the tithes. Charity funds should be used, under the direction of the Bishopric, exclusively to assist the worthy poor.

Care of the Poor

The Bishop of each ward should be personally acquainted with the conditions of the poor in his ward, and the Relief Society should cooperate with the Bishop and act under his direction in caring for them.

The Bishop should use his influence to secure opportunities for persons to obtain a livelihood in his ward; to provide homes for newcomers; in fact, to help members to become self-supporting. The care and relief of the poor is not so much a question of giving charities to assist them as it is to help them to become self-supporting. This labor should be done on a well defined plan, outlined by the Bishopric of the ward and in consultation with the Relief Society officers. Each individual case should be treated according to its necessities.

The agencies to labor in the ward as aids to the Bishopric are the ward teachers, Relief Society Presidency and the Relief Society visiting teachers. The ward teachers should promptly notify the Bishop of any case of sickness, distress or need that they may discover while visiting the Saints. The Bishop will see that proper relief is given.

The Bishopric should invite the Relief Society officers to meet with them monthly, or oftener if necessary, to consider general relief work, and to discuss plans for looking after the poor, the sick and those in distress.

There is in operation in the states of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, a law known as the Widow’s Pension Law, which authorizes the Probate Judge or County Commissioners to provide allowances for widows having dependent children. where there are widows with dependent children, the Bishop should take the necessary steps to see that they obtain the benefits of this law.

Relief Society

The ward Relief society will labor under the direction of the Bishop and will be his chief aid in caring for the poor and unfortunate. The Relief Society teachers should visit every family once a month, or oftener if necessary, and report immediately to the President of the Society cases of need, poverty, distress or sickness. The President, under the direction of the Bishop, will see that relief is promptly given.

In large centers of population there may be some advantage in cooperating with local charity organizations for the purpose of preventing the duplication of charity work, but no organized affiliation of any kind whatever should be effected without permission first being obtained from the Presiding Church Authorities.

When charitable help is given regularly, records of the same may be kept, providing the Bishopric of the ward so desires. where temporary aid or charity is rendered, the present form of records will be sufficient.

Charity Funds

Funds for charity purposes should be derived from the Fast Offerings, the Relief Society Poor Fund, private benevolence, and, when conditions render it necessary, from the tithing funds.

All charity funds should be disbursed under the direction of the Bishopric; funds collected by the Relief Society may be disbursed by the Relief Society officers for emergency and other purposes, and reported to the Bishop.

The practice of making drives or public collections for our poor should not be followed in Latter-day Saint communities, except when specifically directed by the First Presidency.

Immediate attention should be given to each case of need. Publicity should be avoided in dealing with the poor. Confidences of those in distress should be held inviolate; and the use of names should be avoided, unless absolutely necessary.

The work of the Relief society is not merely in disbursing means in a charitable way, but the very important part of their work is visiting the sick, comforting the poor and those who are in distress, praying with them and administering such spiritual comfort as the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone provides.

While the Correlation reforms of the early ‘70s certainly did modify the Relief Society’s operations, including the raising and disbursing of its own funds, it would be a mistake to believe that the Relief Society, prior to that time, had been an autonomous body, independent and operating fully under its own prerogatives. The process of bringing the Relief Society completely within the direction of priesthood quorums has a long history.

Cite Keepa

Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:

MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "A New Relationship between Relief Society and Bishopric, 1920." Keepapitchin.org, 03 Dec 2014, https://keepapitchinin.org/2014/12/03/a-new-relationship-between-relief-society-and-bishopric-1920/.

APA: Parshall, A. (2014, Dec 03). A New Relationship between Relief Society and Bishopric, 1920. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2014/12/03/a-new-relationship-between-relief-society-and-bishopric-1920/

HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2014/12/03/a-new-relationship-between-relief-society-and-bishopric-1920/">A New Relationship between Relief Society and Bishopric, 1920</a>

8 thoughts on “A New Relationship between Relief Society and Bishopric, 1920”

  1. Not to threadjack, but I couldn’t help noticing how similar the tenor of these instructions are to the current instructions to Bishops regarding welfare.

    As for your overall point, I think you have made your case. And I think any seasoned historian would know that a too-simple narrative is likely hiding some kind of complication.

    Its great to have this additional piece to the puzzle of the history of Relief Society-Priesthood relations.

  2. “a law known as the Widow’s Pension Law”

    I saw some of those records yesterday and wondered what they were, but they were tangential to my research, so I didn’t look it up. Nice to know, and nice to know that the Grant administration suggested using this program, since this also provides some complexity to the simplistic “evils of the dole” narrative of Church welfare.

  3. The decline of autonomy accelerated with the tensions between RS General President Amy Lyman (1940 -1945) and First Presidency member J. Reuben Clark. I think this is covered in the Spring 2010 Journal of Mormon History. Most of the directives here are similar to the current directions, except that excess fast offering funds from the wards are available by use at the stake level, and from there, excess is now forwarded on to church HQ.

    And the sweet compliant tone of the Relief Society Presidency announcement is peppered with a little chafing, perhaps even sarcasm, and a fear that the work they had done for decades might be forgotten. Thank goodness we have at least started to reexamine the contributions of the Relief Society and better understand the history.

  4. “We may learn some things from modern efficiency experts…” I certainly don’t know the full history of how the RS and bishops were handling welfare needs up to this point. It could have been there was some overlap in effort, and someone figured a coordinated effort under the eyes of the bishop, as the presiding officer, was the best route to go. I can’t tell from the cold words of the letter if RS leaders were ticked off or not. I do like the note in the instructions that the RS is to be the bishop’s “chief aid in caring for the poor and unfortunate.” It was true then, and certainly is true (and appreciated) now.

  5. Fascinating stuff, Ardis. I greatly appreciate your research on this topic. By coincidence, I’ve been thinking about Amy Lyman this week, as we have a post on her coming up soon at BCC. I’m interested to learn more, so keep up the good work.

  6. Like Amy (#3) I find the reference to government aid at least as fascinating as the RS-Priesthood relationship.

    In the early days of the Church (John Taylor’s Administration) seeking insurance or emergency from outside bodies (such as Odd Fellows halls) was explicitly condemned as a lack of faith.

    As recently as the 1976 Rexburg Flood, members were encouraged to decline government disaster assistance and instead rely on the Church.

    Today, of course, members are encouraged to get as much help from outside organizations as they can legally qualify for. It’s a shift I’d like to learn more about, if anyone knows of a published source.

  7. That’s something I’m actively trying to figure out, TOClark; I’m not there yet.

    You’ve probably realized that I read a huge amount of correspondence for my day job. I like correspondence as a source because you get lots of input from lots of sources, and often lots of the background reasoning while people are still sorting out their responses to problems. Much of that variety and explanation disappears when a final, unified document or program is announced. Anyway, I’ve noticed two points that appear in correspondence — I can’t justify this by citing a single letter; it’s the totality that suggests these to me:

    We’ve heard a lot about the “evils of the dole” rhetoric from the Depression years, and usually think Church leaders are referring only to what dependency does to the morale of a person who is not working for his own support. But the “evils of the dole” seem to have included, in Mormon thought, to a significant extent, the fear that civil government could not keep up welfare payments for very long, and just as the people began to depend on those payments they would end, plunging the people into a worse situation than ever. The Church plan was designed to create income- or commodity-producing units, which could be more stable than cash welfare and could survive any collapse of a government welfare system. So I think some LDS encouragement to refuse government relief, even as late as the 1970s, is a sort of warped memory of that old “lean on the Church, not on the government” sentiment of the ’30s as quasi-doctrinal, without remembering the reasoning behind it. (This is my current working hypothesis, anyway.)

    Also, a number of correspondents pointed out that they had been/were being taxed to support old age assistance and other welfare programs, while being instructed by local church leaders that they should not draw on those programs even when they were eligible. That didn’t make sense to anybody, and I think that commonsense idea of “you’re paying the cost, you should reap the benefits” has led to the current stand.

    But I can’t point you to anything to read, and it’s all tentative in my mind. Just sharing my own thoughts here.

Comments are closed.