I recently posted a brief statement by an incoming general Relief Society president about the evolving length of service in Church offices, and we had a few comments about the shift from lifetime callings to the much shorter terms that are currently filled by all but the most senior General Authorities.
Here’s an illustration from 1902 of the difficulties in releasing a man from his calling when that man was not ready to relinquish his position. In this case, a mission president in one of the U.S. missions was releasing a branch president who was then in his late 70s. This branch president had served several European missions, had been one of the presidents of his Seventies quorum, and had been asked by Church leaders to establish the Church in the region where he lived, which he had done about five years before this exchange of letters. The mission president had been in office about two years at the time of these letters.
I am not identifying either man, not because I think either needs to be shielded, but because the branch president has a large posterity very active on Family Search and who might see this, and I’d rather keep the focus on the issue of extending and accepting releases gracefully, not on whether or not the branch president had a right to keep his position.
The mission president extended the release in this letter:
I have been thinking for some time that I would write you, for there is a subject that I have been thinking about which I think should be brought to your attention, but of which I have not had the time to write you before as I desired. Our reports have taken up all the spare time that we have had, and so I have written only those letters that I was compelled to. But we are nearly done with them now and my time can be placed upon other things and therefore I shall write you as I said.
The subject that I wish to write you about is the branch at Q— and the condition of yourself respecting the same. I know that you have done much to bring the branch to its present position in the mission and I feel very thankful to you for your aid that you have given me in my labors for the advancement of the mission in general. I know that we have all been greatly blessed of the Lord in our efforts and that the mission has grown under His protecting care. The Q— branch is a sample of what has been done in other parts and I feel that it has been through the united efforts of all concerned that we have been so blessed.
Your labors have been greatly appreciated by all who are interested and we know that if you will prove faithful to the end that God will continue to abundantly bless you in your every effort to advance the work of truth. I feel that I could not show my appreciation to you, for your support, better than by saying to you that I deem it wise to release you from the duties that you have placed upon you at the present time, so that you will be able to give your attention to matters beyond the grave.
I am sure that you have many ancestors who are waiting for you to perform a labor for them here that they too may receive the benefits of eternal life. We are sent here upon the earth to do the will of the Father and to perform the duties that are placed upon us and I feel that the matter of looking after our dead is one of the grand duties we have been called to.
I know that all men, when they have performed a mission, and the same has been accepted of the Father, that it is their right to be released therefrom, that they shall not be burdened with the responsibility after they have reached the age when it is a burden to them. You are getting along in years and cannot be with us many more at the most, and so I think that your remaining days should not be taxed but should be spent in peace and quiet and that some younger man should have the responsibility that you are carrying at present. I have been much pleased with what you have done so far and in saying that I anticipate that some other will be placed in the position soon. I do not do so with any ill feeling toward you but with love in my heart and concern for your welfare in the future.
I do not know how soon this will take place, but I anticipate that it will be in the near future, but in the meantime I should like to have you still go on as you have been doing and preside in the branch with wisdom.
You may think that we are trying to get rid of you in this way but we appreciate your labors and should be pleased to always have your fatherly counsel, for I know that you have had a long experience in the church and are in a position to give much wise counsel.
I feel that the same Lord is over all of us and that we are placed here upon earth for a wise purpose and that if we will be faithful to the end great will be our reward, and that is my only desire. I have a constantly struggle with myself all the time and I am the only one that I fear for; the Lord has promised to take care of us if we would only do his will. I am very pleased with the reports that we have to make to the general authorities this time for it shows that something has been done for the cause of truth. The people are all waking up to realize that they should do their duty and are beginning to see that blessings would be theirs by obeying.
I pray that the Lord will abundantly bless you in all that you undertake to do for the advancement of the great work of the Lord, that you may always have his spirit to guide you in the path of duty that you may be able to counsel in wisdom, and that when you have filled out the measure of your creation that you will receive the great word, “Well don, thou faithful servant.”
Okay, it’s an awkward letter, and one that suggests to me that there may have been some difficulties between the two men in the past. The awkwardness shows up in the way the writer had to ease into his letter after a period of procrastination. Does he know the branch president well enough to know whether he desires to spend the rest of his life doing temple work, or is that a stereotypical assumption, or is it even an excuse? And heavens! who writes to a man and says that he’s likely to die soon?!
On the other hand, he acknowledges the good that the branch president has done. He thanks him for his service. He even sends this letter early, giving the branch president time to adjust to the idea of his release, rather than immediately dismissing him. The writing feels a bit stilted to me, but the essential courtesies are all there.
But did the branch president take his release in stride. Oh, not on your life! He did not! His reply:
Your letter dated [1902] came to hand, and to say I was astonished is putting it mild.
You talk of releasing me from presiding here and the excuse you give is that I may do work for my dead. In the first place I have done such work in days past to the number of hundreds and perhaps more than you will ever do this side of your grave. Then in the second place I don’t believe your excuse as it was told around here that if I was released the Elders would have an easier time.
I refuse to accept my release from you as I am sure it is not the desire of the president of the church, in proof of which I forward you a letter I received from [member of the Presiding Bishopric] yesterday in which he said that they thought I was making excellent progress and that they were going to allow me $8 a month besides my percentage through the year 1902.((By “percentage,” he refers to the portion of tithing collected that was allowed to be kept by a branch president or bishop, to cover his expenses to hire a clerk and his time in accounting for, storing, and disbursing what was then largely tithing-in-kind.)) Showing plainly the president expected me to preside this year as last weak I got a letter from the bishop in regards to the eight $ saying he was going to see President J.F. Smith to see if he could get it for me.
Now Elder ––, look the thing square in the face and see wherein it will benefit you. You are as likely as anyone to be called home at any time while I expect to remain in Q— [personally identifying information removed] … Now last year as you know I had sickness and death all the year which run me in debt very bad. Now as I was feeling thankful to God my Father that the president had been so kind as to allow me the $8 and that by the end of 1902 I should with the blessings of God be out of debt.
You send and try to crush me but I shall await your answer and if you persist in trying to do this dirty trick I shall take your letter and take also a petition which the Saints here are getting up to Salt Lake on the first train and lay the matter before the president and will then explain the way the Elders have imposed on the poor Saints here and just how much work they have really done to help the work of the Lord on. What have I done to you that I should receive such treatment at your hands? You saw the vote of the people here for me at the conference and the voice of the people is the voice of God and as Apostle Taylor said when he set me apart, “I want you Brother I— to preside here as long as you live in Q— .”
Why were you not man enough to speak your mind when you were in Q— last? No, you knew very well that the Saints knew I was doing my duty faithfully to help the work of my Father along not to make a big name for myself but to help roll forth this work in sickness and health. I may say it is strange President Smith should have chosen a man so much older than me for his counselor but President Smith has the work of the Lord at heart and knows it takes experience to run it as it should be. I cannot express my feelings. I did start to get a ticket to Denver but thought I would write now. I want your answer right away, also send back [Presiding Bishopric member’s] letter.
Okay, he didn’t like the suggestion that he should engage in temple work. And he didn’t like the suggestion that he was too old to serve as a branch president, noting that Joseph F. Smith had selected a counselor even older than the branch president was. Both were perhaps reasonable responses, although the branch president’s venom in the way he rejected those two points is not what we might expect in the ordinary course of releases today …
But doesn’t it seem to you that the branch president is concerned more than anything else with the loss of the income that was associated with being branch president? and doesn’t it seem that he believes that “robbing” him of this income is the mission president’s primary motivation in issuing the release?
There is no reference whatsoever to serving in a pastoral role, in watching over the Saints in Q— or extending the missionary work there. Nothing but, in essence, “I reject your release, you thief, and I’m going to get it overturned!”
I do not know exactly when the branch president was removed from his office, but do know that he was living in another state in 1907 – so much for his intention to spend the rest of his life at Q—. His autobiography passes over this episode altogether, except in its reference to his having served at Q— “until they released me,” not “until I was released.” He considered it something that was done to him.
This is possibly the most extreme rejection of a release I have come across, but it is by no means the only one. More often, men take their releases much more calmly, even if they do wonder privately in their letters to leaders whether people are going to think they have done something wrong to merit a dismissal. It took a generation or so for Church members to take it for granted that callings were for a finite period.
For some reason, this post is receiving hundreds of spam attempts, so I am closing it to comment. If you’re a real live legitimate sentient life form with something to say, you can email me at AEParshall at aol dottt com, and I will add the comment for you. Thanks for your understanding.
Ah, things do get more complicated when money is involved.
Which made me think of an analogous situation that arose down in Provo at what the old-timers used to call “the BY.”
There was a time when appointments to administrative positions–department chairmen, deans, vice presidents, even president–seemed to be effectively lifetime appointments. That did lead to some restiveness among the faculty when certain administrators seemed to have outlived the period of their usefulness. (It also led to some serious mixed emotions during the fall of 1964, regarding the outcome of the election for US Senator from Utah.)
So, when changes at the top finally came, changes to people occupying the next levels in the administration were made vastly more difficult.
I encountered one man on my mission who had served as bishop in the city’s ward when it still belonged to a stake based 100 miles away; the transfer of ecclesiastical power to less-experienced, younger men (including the new district president, whom Bro. Ex-Bishop noted had been baptized under his watch) he took as a personal affront. All this came out when my companion and I asked why he didn’t attend the branch — and later in the conversation he threatened to “destroy” us “with the scriptures.” Easily one of the worst experiences of my mission.
Nor does he think the local members are very impressed with “the way the Elders have imposed on the poor Saints here and just how much work they have really done to help the work of the Lord on.” Plus ça change!
Sometimes men don’t even wait to be called. A member of the last branch I served in as a missionary felt that he should have been called as the Branch President not some senior missionary from California (California!). He began holding his own meetings and acting in every way as the branch president, just not the one with a key to the (phase one) chapel.
Sometime after I came home the mission president had to wade in and clean up the mess. It was so bad the only stake in the mission, about 50 miles away, had refused to include the branch within their stake boundary. The branch reported directly to the mission president with no district intermediary.
It’s still just a branch 42 years later but at least it’s under the stake umbrella.
I was impressed by the sheer length of the awkward letter. You can tell the mission president is really trying hard to be gentle about it. Not necessarily succeeding, what with the implications about the branch president being near death and over-burdened, but still really trying.
When the branch president said “You are as likely as anyone to be called home” it took me a while to realize he was talking about the mission president being released, not using “called home” as a euphemism for death and saying “hey, any one of us could die at any time.”
Yet one (actually two!) more examples of why some things should never be put in writing. I just got released from my multi-stake position and the Area Seventy (and his wife, with mine also present) did it over a very expensive dinner. Definitely left a good taste in my mouth.
What an interesting read. It reminds me of the conflict between members and missionaries I ocassionally saw on my mission. There was, at times, the suggestion that while some things seemed like a great idea to the missionaries they would be gone shortly and not need to deal with the aftermath.
There’s also the insistence of the branch president that the general authorities will back him up. I think that was his main reason for bringing up the percentage, as in “the presiding Bishop clearly expects me to continue in this position, otherwise he would not have increased the percentage.” It does come across as him being a bit concerned about money though.
Doing a little outside reading (although I doubt anyone would find this story searching for either man, there is enough information to identify both) I get the impression the branch president was sent as part of a colonization effort rather than purely missionary work. I think that helps account for why he seems rather dismissive of the Elders, and certain that the members of the branch support him.
It was definitely a colonization effort, Seth — you have a good eye. I wouldn’t particularly mind mentioning the names of the men, but these letters are a bit unflattering and I didn’t want to get bogged down in what could have been a debate over whether or not the branch president should have been released, based on outside sources.
The major theme that stuck out to me in the rebuttal was not money, but a power struggle between “locals” and “missionaries.” (This theme has already been noted by Alison and others.) I read the appeal to the GA’s as a trump card to get above the “silos” of member work and missionary work. A hundred years on, that one’s still not resolved.
I also noted that newness (in 1902) of family history work implied in the mission president’s letter.
My great-grandfather was a professional genealogist in SLC, and although I don’t know when family history research really started to move beyond writing down who you know and breaking out the family Bible, I do know that some people were hiring genealogists to do more in depth research. When my grandma was born in 1922, this was the profession that kept her family afloat, although they always struggled and even lost their house at one point. My ggf felt really called to do the genealogy work, and after he died my great-grandmother continued his work.