The presidents of most of the European Missions gathered in Berlin for a conference in the summer of 1936, reporting on conditions in their missions, discussing new proselyting techniques, and generally counseling with each other. Elder Joseph F. Merrill, president of the European Missions and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, presided.
The following questions were debated by the group, with agreed upon answers recorded in the minutes. Anything stand out to you?
QUESTION: Should returning Elders from European Missions be allowed to marry their fiancees in New York while enroute home?
ANSWER: Some have done this. In certain cases the First Presidency has assented to this, but does not approve it as a rule. Returning Elders should be encouraged to marry in a temple.
QUESTION: Should non-tithe-payers be given charitable help from church funds?
ANSWER: The policy recommended by the P.B.O. is that only those in full fellowship should receive aid from Church funds. If they have had tithable incomes, they should have been tithed. Cases other than these should be referred to the public relief agencies.
QUESTION: Should members with tithable incomes who do not pay tithing be appointed to positions of trust and presidency in the branches or districts?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Should all missions adopt the plan devised by the Swiss-German Mission of making and reporting the assignments of the local Priesthood?
ANSWER: This is optional with the missions.
QUESTION: How should the traveling expenses of the mission president’s wife e paid when there is no appropriation in the budget for this item?
ANSWER: The Mission Mothers do untold good by visiting in the districts and branches. They should visit at least one conference in each district each year. President Merrill plans to discuss that matter with the authorities at home. The P.O.B. authorized the Netherlands Mission to charge this item to the Mission President’s Traveling Expense account, if the auxiliaries could not pay it.
QUESTION: Why do we not ordain Seventies and High Priests in the Mission Field?
ANSWER: It is done occasionally, but there is no real need for it as the Priesthood in these lands is not functioning on a quorum basis.
QUESTION: Should the Priesthood be given to members who are not living the Gospel as they should, with the thought that it will strengthen them and enable them to overcome their weaknesses?
ANSWER: No. The Priesthood in and of itself is no strength. That comes only through magnifying the calling. Otherwise it may become a condemnation instead of a blessing.
QUESTION: Should the Priesthood be given to boys when their parents object to it?
ANSWER: No, unless the circumstances are very exceptional. Try to overcome parental objections for worthy boys.
QUESTION: Is there a psychological time to urge baptism, and should we use some “judicious crowding” on our investigators?
ANSWER: Do not urge, but invite worthy believers to apply. We should plan baptismal services, announce them and thus present them with the opportunity of asking to be baptized.
QUESTION: Should local District Presidents refuse baptism to those recommended by the branch presidents, as has been done in the German-Austrian Mission?
ANSWER: No, except for good reasons held valid by the supervising Elder.
QUESTION: May missionaries baptize their converts without first securing the sanction of the local branch and district presidencies?
ANSWER: Yes. such a policy has been followed in the California Mission for years where missionary work is independent of the control of ward bishoprics. To avoid conflicts, such matters could better be discussed before the baptism by the Elders and local presidencies.
QUESTION: Should missionaries pay fast offerings?
ANSWER: Yes. If they fast, they save, and therefore should pay as other members of the Church should do.
QUESTION: Where should mission presidents pay the tithing on their allowances?
ANSWER: Preferably in the wards at home in which their recommends are located. On request Brother Winter’s office and the P.B.O. will attend to this.
QUESTION: Is there a clearing house for information or new methods developed and tried in the various missions?
ANSWER: Such things should be reported to the European Mission office that they might be sent to all in the form of circular letters. Such things as new plays, pageants, etc., should be sent to other missions as all mission presidents appreciate having them.
QUESTION: Should Elders purchase their own projection machines?
ANSWER: There is no objection to this if the Elders do it from extra funds in their possession and with the consent of those at home who supply the money. It should not be done in any case in which it can be construed as a requirement of the mission. This wold place a heavy burden upon the parents.
QUESTION: Should the auxiliary supervisors be in the office or out in the field?
ANSWER: Some office work is essential, but they can probably do their greatest good out in the field.
QUESTION: In view of the appointment of local district presidencies in many places, cannot we have a revision of the booklet “District supervision”?
ANSWER: This matter will be taken under advisement.
I wonder what this was about.
It’s hard to know, isn’t it, whether this idea to use “judicious crowding” was an isolated thing, or a program urged more broadly. 10 or 15 years later you do start to see mission leaders saying that you should not allow investigators to linger forever, but should challenge them to move forward — but even then, investigators were supposed to ask to be baptized; missionaries were not supposed to invite them. But I haven’t seen any of that as early as 1936.
I liked the shift from “mission president’s wife” in the question to “Mission Mothers” in the answer. I don’t love that particular title, but it’s nice to see the conference recognizing that the position should have duties that extend beyond familial obligations, and a title (and budget) to match.
I was struck by this one:
Q: “Should local District Presidents refuse baptism…”
A: “No, except for good reasons…”
So, was there some problem where district presidents were refusing baptism arbitrarily, without any good reason?
It really makes you wonder what the backstory is, doesn’t it? I don’t know any way to find out — but just as today you sometimes hear things in Conference or in letters read from the pulpit that sound like they’re responding to some problem you weren’t aware of, these old questions carry the same feeling.
(Complete speculation, without any evidence to support it: We know that missionaries often work/worked with people on the edges of society, because sometimes they’re the only ones who will listen. I wonder if sometimes branch presidents objected to baptisms because branch leaders would then be responsible for visiting or financing or otherwise supporting people they thought would be a burden on the branch? Again, I don’t have historical evidence to support that speculation.)
Interesting that only tithe payers could recieve welfare assistance
Based on other materials I’ve read, Sally, they went back and forth on this. Discussions like this always reflect a moment in time, not necessarily an unvarying practice. I guess there would be no need to ask the question if there had been a long-established policy? Dunno.
1936, and they’re buying “projection machines”? I thought that wouldn’t happen until the 50s, at least.
Surprising, isn’t it? There was some kind of projector they took to South America in the 1920s that didn’t require electricity, even. Somebody ought to take a look at the whens and hows of technology in Church activities — if somebody does, I could provide a few examples.
I remember from researching for my grandfather’s mission journal commentary that the “Magic Lantern” of 1902~ was lit by kerosene — probably kind of dim, but it worked for mot-too-large audiences.