With all the responsibilities placed on the shoulders of mission presidents – especially when they didn’t even have counselors until the post-World War II era, and knowing that they had to act in the best interests of the Church even when distance and communication delays might make it difficult to consult with the First Presidency – you might expect their written commissions as mission presidents to contain complex, detailed instructions. (Or maybe you wouldn’t.)
But they didn’t contain elaborate instructions. For the entire first half of the 20th century (and I don’t know how many years before and after; my familiarity with the process doesn’t extend beyond the administrations of Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and the early months of George Albert Smith), letters calling mission presidents were extremely brief and general. A typical letter read:
Dear [Incoming President]:
You are hereby appointed to preside over the [such-and-such] Mission, succeeding Elder [Outgoing President], your appointment to take effect when the affairs of the Mission are turned over to you by Brother [Outgoing President].
It will be in order for you to take full charge and oversight of the Mission, to direct all its affairs, according to the light which the Lord through His Spirit endows you, and in keeping with the instruction of the First Presidency. It will be your duty to make appointments and changes from time to time as in your judgment may be deemed advisable for the welfare of the work of the Lord and the people among whom you are appointed to preside.
We pray our Heavenly Father to bless and sustain you by the power of His Spirit that you may be abundantly qualified to discharge all the duties devolving upon you to His honor and glory, and that through diligent, harmonious, and united labors of yourself and those associated with you in the work of the Mission, the Saints may be blessed and strengthened and many others brought to a knowledge of the Truth.
Sincerely yours,
[signatures of entire First Presidency]
Sometimes the call might suggest a certain date by which the incoming president should make himself available to begin his service – but I have never yet seen a call that suggested even an approximate date of a man’s expected release. Such mission assignments might last three years, or five, or even decades. There was no conventional date to begin such a mission, like today’s standard July 1; instead, a new president was called when the First Presidency decided to release the former one.
I don’t recall seeing any letter that instructed the new president to call at the First Presidency’s office to be set apart; somehow, I suppose, they just knew they should do this, perhaps from their own earlier experiences as young proselyting missionaries. From clues I’ve picked up here and there, a new president might spend an hour or two with one or more members of the First Presidency, to receive what counsel and instruction could be given during that time, and to be set apart. More often than not, new mission presidents’ wives were set apart at the same time.
There were also many instances where the First Presidency might write to a potential new president asking whether his business affairs would allow him to take a leave of absence for several years, or inquiring about the health of a family member or some other circumstance known to the First Presidency that might be an obstacle to service. Such letters always cautioned the potential mission president that this was an extremely confidential letter of inquiry, to be shared with no one but the recipient’s wife, and that it did not constitute an actual call to the mission field unless the First Presidency were to write again. Such letters of inquiry were by no means universal, however, and some acceptance letters by newly called presidents often express surprise or otherwise indicate that they had not in any way been thinking of such a call.
I think I like the fact that these calls were so general and did not spell out specific responsibilities or the limits of a president’s privileges. Mission presidents – who directed the entire work of the Church within their missions, presiding over members as well as missionaries – were “ministers plenipotentiary,” ambassadors with extensive portfolios, empowered to do what needed to be done, where and when it needed to be done.
“I don’t recall seeing any letter that instructed the new president to call at the First Presidency’s office to be set apart . . . ” My question — was there pages following the call that outlined instructions concerning reporting to Salt Lake and getting set apart, etc, that just didn’t get filed along with the mission call in a person’s personal papers? When I was called as a missionary back in the 70’s all the paperwork that came with my call wasn’t bound together like today’s calls, and the only piece of paper I kept was the actual call itself. (It’s in my mission photo album.) Could it be the same situation?
Also I am wondering — what kind of handbook did mission president of the era have? If they did, it have to be huge, having both missionary and member responsibilities!
Those brave men may not have had priesthood bearers called as counselors, but let me quote my first mission president: “My wife is the smartest, bravest, and wisest counselor any mission president can hope for.” He said that when they were set apart, he was admonished to councel with her, and she was admonished to counsel with him. I fully believe that the many, many “Mission Moms” are some of the greats among the unnamed women in the church. I’d love to see some of their stories in your “She Shall Be an Ensign.”
Quite a lot of change has taken place. Our recently released stake president was interviewed via video call with his wife by a member of the 70, asking a lot of the same questions about financial status, employment plans, etc. Then a few weeks later, via another video call, his wife was called to be a missionary in the Singapore mission. Then he was called to preside over that mission.
About three months later, as we were attending our monthly empty nester’s FHE, they got a telephone call that changed their assignment to the Jakarta Indonesia mission, where he had actually served his own mission forty years ago.
Based on what he has said, they have been given some general instructions, but not a lot. They have now been in Utah for their brief formal training, and will depart shortly for Indonesia. Quite a change from just getting a letter in the mail.
Bruce, no, there is no sign of additional paperwork, nor, under the circumstances, would I expect there to be. For most of the first half of the 20th century, there were fewer than 20 missions, and often one or two years would pass when no new mission president needed to be called. It would hardly have occurred to them to have preprinted packets of instructions. The need just wasn’t there. And in none of the tens of thousands of pages of mission correspondence that I have read has any letter hinted at such preprinted instructions having been furnished. I have, on the other hand, read letters from struggling new presidents saying that they wished there had been more time to receive instruction, but since there wasn’t, what should the new president do about this, that, and the other problem?
No handbook for mission presidents. None. They’d get letters of instruction from Salt Lake once in a while, but given where I find those letters of instruction — in the personal papers of former mission presidents — succeeding mission presidents had no access to instructions that had been given earlier. I see the same routine questions being asked over and over and over (Will the Church contribute anything toward building a chapel here? Can I appoint local men as branch presidents? How long can I keep elders before having to release them?) by presidents who have no idea that the topic had ever been addressed by the First Presidency.
kevinf, even a letter in the mail was an improvement, I’ll bet, over hearing your name read at General Conference! At least you could compose your face in private so that your first reaction wasn’t witnessed by everybody within sight!
The first time my uncle was called as a mission president he and my aunt initially thought it was just a fund raising telephone call for BYU. Later on another mission while walking down the street in Madrid he received a telephone call changing their assignment from Spain to Guayaquil, Ecuador, to serve in the temple presidency there. When can you leave?
I suspect there is a standard that everyone is expected to adhere to. It also gives them something to compare to when actual practice deviates from the standard.
I know that at general conference, at least April Conference AFAIK, mission presidents(the ones in the US i’m guessing) would come to Salt Lake for some kind of a testimony/training meeting. I was reading about how at one meeting at the April 1916 General Conference an unnamed Mission President tried to philosophize about the Atonement of Christ and Elder James E. Talmage of the Twelve got after him for it. In the Pres. Joseph Robinson diaries, (California Mission President) he talks a bit about it but also Elder Melvin J. Ballard told Elder Harold B. Lee about this episode and he related it as well. I would love to know who that Mission President was and what was said!
About ten years ago, a man in my ward (North Idaho) was called as mission president via Skype with Elder Uchtdorf. The meeting was arranged via phone, and took place in a building at the county fairgrounds, as it was one of the few places that had high-speed internet at the time.
Of the 20 missions that existed in the early 20th century, how many were overseen by apostles or a member of the Council of the 70? (Elder Callis, Elder Ballard, B.H. Roberts, and Heber J Grant come to mind immediately) I suppose that if you’re a General Authority at the time of your call, you’d be given a fairly free hand on how to lead.