The last time my home teachers came, one of them asked my opinion about “term limits” for Church leadership. She ((My home teachers are husband and wife, so yes, “she.”)) expressed compassion for President Monson in his illness, and we talked about the burden that Church leadership might be on any man due to age, health, the loneliness of a widower, and other factors that might weigh personally on any leader.
Although these concerns did not come up in that conversation, others online and in the print and broadcast press have discussed both before and especially since President Monson’s death whether the Church is well served by a “gerontocracy” – Can mostly elderly men devote the hours, the mental faculties, the presence that leadership takes? Are we doomed to an endless number of “placeholder” administrations, with presidents who are mere figureheads unable to fully function, and apostles who “go rogue” to fill a perceived leadership gap?
I’m going to pass over my strongly negative response to most claims or speculations about a failure of leadership due to age, and comment on one point I don’t see included in all these wise-in-their-own-eyes discussions:
The Church isn’t led by a man, and hasn’t been, at least since the earliest days of Joseph Smith. We sustained President Monson as the President of the Church, but he didn’t lead alone, didn’t speak for himself, wasn’t a solo act.
He was a member of a quorum, the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Doctrine & Covenants 107:21-22:
21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
Church presidents don’t act alone, without the cooperation and agreement of their counselors. (Neither do apostles, for that matter, “go rogue” and promote their own agendas contrary to the support and unanimity of their quorum.) The First Presidency acts as a body when possible, and not as individuals; when the quorum is incomplete, the remaining members act on behalf of that body. The only time an incomplete quorum ceases to function is at the quorum’s dissolution upon the death of the senior president.
When have you ever seen any president of the Church act alone? The three of them don’t stand at a podium and recite a talk in unison, that’s true, and they aren’t joined at the hip when one wants to go to a basketball game or another goes on vacation with his family. But in all announcements and pronouncements and proclamations and official statements, they act as a quorum, not as individual men with their own agendas and reasonings and purposes. The recent letter about youth and temple baptisms, for example, was signed by all three men, functioning together as a quorum; it was a quorum action, not the pronouncement of President Monson alone.
When an individual member of the First Presidency is unable, for whatever reason, to function, the other two still function as a quorum. This was driven home to me in a rather mundane way when I once read through thousands of letters written by the First Presidency as they conducted both extraordinary and day-to-day business through much of the 20th century. The signature blocks of those letters took these forms:
1. Letters signed by all three members of the First Presidency, with the label “First Presidency” below their signatures, or a label “By the First Presidency:” above their signatures.
2. Letters signed by two members of the First Presidency when one was out of town, and always with the designation “On behalf of the First Presidency.”
3. Personal letters, signed by any one of the men, without the “First Presidency” marker in any form, and not claiming to act for the quorum.
I laugh at the memory of one letter, permission given for the Eastern States Mission to reupholster six dining room chairs at the Church’s expense, which required the signatures of all three presidents and their formal authority as the First Presidency ((Following an efficiency study and best-practices reorganization in the 1950s, this kind of trivia no longer requires personal attention of general authorities, thank goodness!)) — even that was a quorum action. Although those letters suggest that they always tried to wait for the return of an absent member when matters more serious than dining room chairs were under discussion, they did not hesitate to take action on behalf of the quorum when President Joseph F. Smith was in Santa Monica or President Heber J. Grant was in New York. You may find the distinction between “By the First Presidency” and “On behalf of the First Presidency” to be trivial, but to me it was not. It was so consistent as to reinforce my understanding that these men act together, as a whole, as a quorum, on even the smallest of decisions that fall within their stewardship; but at the same time, when conditions warrant, no urgent matter is left untended if the president is not available to act.
Individual apostles do not “go rogue.” They, too, act as a quorum. The Council of the two quorums (the First Presidency and Twelve), who meet every Thursday, also works together in unanimity in their leadership of the Church, regardless of whether one or more may be temporarily absent, or incapacitated for the long term. No Church president is a “placeholder,” because Church governance doesn’t cease to function when the president is ill.
Those who speak and write as though there is a vacuum of leadership, as though the Church cannot function, or function well, without the active day-to-day direction of its president, are, I think, doing a disservice to the Church and its role in the world and its authority from the Lord. Such beard-stroking pontificating casts doubt on the spiritual capability of leaders, and on the authority of their statements. If there’s a problem, it’s that, and not the absence of any individual leader. The “confidence, faith and prayer of the church” upholds the Presidency, and anything that weakens that confidence is, in my opinion, a failure to fill our appointed role in the organization.
“When have you ever seen any president of the Church act alone?”
Yes, I think this is right. But doesn’t that also tend to undercut the vein of emphasizing the singular role of the Prophet?
I don’t see how. Even in the most extraordinary revelatory event of our lifetime (well, mine, I don’t know how old you are), OD2 reads “In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that …” That is, although the revelation had come to President Kimball, it was the united First Presidency, not SWK alone, who presented that to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then to the Church as a whole.
You could argue that had President Kimball been incapacitated to the point where he could not have received that revelation, neither of his counselors, nor the two together, could have received it and announced it. But I’d have to come back to ask what but speculation can back up such an argument? A suggestion that we’ve missed some revelation the Lord wanted to give us because President Monson was unable to receive it is a hypothetical you just can’t support with any kind of evidence. And to push it, or anything like it, must have the effect of weakening people’s confidence in the divine direction of the Church.
I think I agree with this, Ardis.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it doesn’t matter whether we have a functioning president as long as we have two functioning counselors (and I don’t you do either), but I think you’re right to point out that the First Presidency is quorum, not a single president with a couple of assistants that can only act when he acts.
I think when a president is too unwell to effectively function, the church may suffer from a lack of leadership, but I think it’s important to remember that even then it’s not like we’re completely bereft of leadership.
I guess a lot depends on how the counselors see their role. If they see it as you describe it, that covers a lot. If they see themselves as assistants that must defer to the President and can’t do anything significant without him, that makes a difference.
“beard-stroking pontificating,” Ha!
Then there’s Jesus Christ, who as a resurrected being presumably enjoys perfect health and eternal life. I’m sort of counting on hims to keep all of us messy mortals more or less on track.
Part of the problem, of course, is that few have a sense of history. If something hasn’t happened in their memory than it hasn’t happened at all. Those who remember, or at least look back at, the final years of President McKay’s stewardship know that adjustments can be made if circumstances warrant it. Alvin R. Dyer, ordained an apostle and serving in the First Presidency as an additional counselor but never as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, is a case in point. Telling the self appointed experts of Thorpe B. Isaacson’s service as a counselor while not an apostle might even cause them to stutter.
Five counselors in the first presidency may not be the pattern but a pattern is not the garment. Accommodations can and will be made if needed. I know of a military branch, serving recruits going through training in the Marine Corp where, recently, the branch president had seven counselors because that’s what was needed for him to fulfill his calling and meet the needs of those being served.
Interesting detail about the signatures!
The last big major announcement, in my estimation, was the change in temple practices and the youth. That came via a letter from the First Presidency, and during a time when Pres. Monson was supposed to be not functioning.
Yes, to Ardis and also LauraN– that’s what keeps running through my mind, too. 🙂
I’m not sure I understand how the idea that the brethren work on consensus (and are extraordinarily hesitant to go rogue) opposes the idea that an incapacitated president can leave somewhat of a leadership gap. It is precisely *because* they work by consensus on councils that having someone with the broad deep respect that is unique to the Presidency is necessary to move changes through with any kind of speed. It takes energy and active engagement to have persuasiveness necessary to herd a council towards consensus and to rope in those last couple holdouts on one side or the other. As I said in my post, I’m sure the spirit can do some of the heavy lifting there, but I think observed experience—across many presidencies—shows that individuals in leadership do matter in the process. It is also precisely *because* apostles are extraordinarily hesitant to go rogue or do anything other than maintain a status quo holding pattern while a president has stepped back from active service that a gap in leadership is felt.
Hope that makes sense of what I was trying to say. ~cheers
I apologize, Cynthia, that this appears to be in direct response or opposition to your post. I did write it immediately after reading yours, but yours was the latest in a long line of articles and discussions and broadcasts looking at the past ten years and what had or had not been put on hold during President Monson’s illness. As a whole, those pieces suggested that progress in the Church was at a standstill during the past few years; some go so far as to hint that had it not been for this supposed failure of leadership, his empty mass standing in the way of progress, we would have women priests and temple marriages for gay couples by now.
I am very seldom the first blogger to comment on current events. I only comment when I have a perspective from history to add to the discussion, or when I think other commentators are too extreme in one direction or another, and I think it would be helpful to offer what I hope is a cooler perspective, especially for Keepa readers who don’t necessarily follow all the arguments and might think that the one side they did read represents a consensus.
Of course I think it is better when the full organization of the Church, or a quorum, is functioning as it was outlined. The absence of one or more officers can’t help but be a handicap in some way, if only because it increases the load that has to be shared among others.But the work of the Kingdom doesn’t grind to a stop while we sit around waiting for someone to die so that someone else can finally begin to act — and some of the commentary online suggests exactly that.
This week, what I was reading everywhere implied that because President Monson was not there to take the lead in calling for this or pushing for that, nothing much was being done. (What I think was really being said in many cases is that what the commenter wanted to have happen had not been done — not because what the commenter wanted was not right, but rather because President Monson was not able to act; had he been able to act, of course he would have enacted the desired changes.)
So the purpose of my post is not to say that everything was just fine and dandy without a fully functional president, but rather to point out that Church affairs didn’t screech to a halt, waiting for President Monson to have a good day when he could attend to something or other. He had counselors to whom much of the burden was shifted, and the work of the Church continued. The Church is led by the First Presidency, not by one man, not matter what honor and respect we give to that one man.
Mostly, I fear that too much talk about what “is necessary to move changes through with any kind of speed” — with its implication that in fact changes are required and that it is imperative that such changes happen now — can weaken a member’s acceptance of the leadership structure of the Church, and respect for the authority of those who are carrying the weight the president may not personally be able to carry. That doesn’t actually weaken the Church, but could very well damage individual members’ trust in and relationship with the Church. I hoped that by reminding readers that the Church is not dependent upon a single man and his physical and mental health at the end of his life, I could inspire confidence in the First Presidency and counteract some of the doomsday mood permeating these discussions.
Thank you, Ardis. Happy new year!
Ardis, that all makes a lot of good sense. Anyone who thinks the state of every one of their pet issues would be radically different but for Monson is engaging in fantasy and not very bright (worry, I know we try to be nice here on Keepa haha!). The church structure is indeed very resilient and adept at keeping the ball rolling in times of the absence or semi-absence of a particular leader. But as you note, there’s an “all else equal, of course it would always be better to have all the leaders at full steam than not” that’s pretty undeniable. I worry that with the advancing average age, we may start to see a little more of the hairline cracks in the system under the strain of more frequent and lengthy absences.
But you are correct to re-center the discussion around the main point, which is not the one-offs of “may start to see” and the “hairline cracks” and instead is that overall the structure is remarkably resilient.
Wonderful article and great comments, especially Ardis’ comment in #11.
I generally agree, so don’t take this question as any kind of rebuttal.
I’m vaguely remembering one particular episode from the 1950s, wherein Henry D. Moyle had an assignment over Church buildings and/or missionary work, and singlehandedly managed to create some problems with overspending/overbuilding and missionary practices. I wouldn’t say he “went rogue” but he does seem to have been able to carry out his assignment in a way the rest of the Quorum would have had serious problems with, and without oversight.
Have the structures changed since then in a significant way? How does this fit into the paradigm? Or am I significantly misremembering details?
There was a time when the building program moved so fast and so far that it stretched Church resources to the breaking point. But no one person could possibly be single-handedly responsible. At no time could one person approve projects or write checks or bind the Church financially on his own, without oversight and bureaucracy. From early in the 20th century, the PBO required title documents, and before they were signed, the PBO reviewed them for legalities (the name in which the property was held, assurances of title availability). The First Presidency personally approved expenditures for purchase/construction of buildings and the costs of remodeling, renovation, furnishing, etc. — even the president of the European Mission did not have authority to approve such purchases on his own. By the mid-’40s, there was a purchasing department that reviewed and approved every last penny (not for real estate, necessarily, but for everything that was used to construct and furnish a building), often turning down requested purchases or requiring that a different size or model or vendor be substituted. Correspondence about such expenses from at least the 1890s is rubberstamped with a small form that was signed — not just initialed, but personally signed — by whichever member of the First Presidency happened to sign off on it, with the dollar amount filled in by him.
I don’t know the process that got us in so deep with building expenses in the 1950s (and heaven knows, we needed the buildings, because most of the Church outside the stakes was still meeting in dark, dirty halls in unsavory parts of town, especially in Europe), but it just isn’t possible for one man to have burdened the Church without the awareness, participation, approval and cooperation of a whole lotta other men.
Kathleen Flake makes much the same observation in an interview on Morning Edition
Here