The Non-Inerrancy Of Mission Presidents

[USU78]

In another thread, there is considerable (over 7 pages now) of discussion on a website that purports to prepare missionary candidates for their missions and to be a resource on dealing with sometimes difficult questions from investigators. In the course of the conversation, certain statements about sometimes arbitrary sometimes silly mission rules has gotten a fair bit of bandwidth.

I would like in this thread to make a serious point: mission presidents are not the prophet. They are also not infallible. They sometimes mess up, big time, but we should be mature enough to forgive their questing towards doing the right when it leads them to places other than Shangri-La. We should also be humble enough to recognize that maybe we cannot see what problem was being addressed with an inexplicable mission rule such that the rule appeared to be (or maybe was) the best way to address it.

Now, that said, I wanted to share a couple of things, one from my own mission (Austria '73-75) and a nephew of mine, now 41, who was in the Wazzu Mission in Eastern Washington back when he was 19-21.

My mission president gave an address at a mission conference in which he accused the missionaries of taking advantage of their parents by wasting their hard-earned money on frivolities, and calling on all of us to tighten our belts, avoid extravagance and live on less. I had been living on $130 a month from my folks up till that point, and I immediately wrote my parents to send me only $100, notwithstanding I didn't see how I could pay the bills. This was how I spent the last 9 months of my mission. I went from 185 lbs (at 6'1/2") to 150 (if that) over those months living on oatmeal and not much else (very few dinner invites in those days). I was also very sick and weak and not very up to working, though I gave it my best shot in a mission where nobody baptized much. As a result, I became somewhat disaffected from the Church because of this enforced starvation (as a missionary could only view the imposition by authority) by a dragnet, global criticism by an incautious Church authority. I became indifferent but not entirely inactive and stayed that way for almost 10 years.

My nephew brought a bicycle with him to his mission. A good one. He was instructed after he got there that he would have to turn that bicycle in to the mission, and buy a standard mission bicycle, and he would be reimbursed the whole price of his bike as long as it was turned back in in good condition. Then the mission president spent the money on something else . . . no reimbursement and no, you may not take the bicycle back home with you to Utah. This caused so many hard feelings that many of the missionaries left the church, including my nephew, who will likely never return.

Now . . . should I have been more adult and forgiving? Yes. My nephew? Same thing . . . get over yourself, you're in your '40s now. Should these two presidents have made different calls? Seems pretty clear they should have.

But why should we be upset or become disaffected when they prove what we already knew? That they are humans, and humans screw up?

[ERayR]

Besides that learning to deal with an errant mission president prepares one to face the future. I have never had the perfect boss. Not even myself.

[Lachonius]

It can be a painful lesson, but an important one, that the Church remains true while the members often are not. I encountered these issues more with members than my mission president, but I became painfully aware of the humanity and fallibility of mission presidents during my time of service. The other side of it was that I took great comfort in the idea that the Lord could do so much with limited individuals, meaning there was hope for me. While individuals (like mission presidents) may offend, and while offense may be justified, it serves to remind us not to lose the prize over what, in hindsight, are small and petty distractions.

[Kenngo1969]

Besides that learning to deal with an errant mission president prepares one to face the future. I have never had the perfect boss. Not even myself.

And here I was, getting ready to send you my resume! (Sound of ripping pages ...)

[Ahab]

But why should we be upset or become disaffected when they prove what we already knew? That they are humans, and humans screw up?

I think the problem is that some people are trying to show that the Church is guided by God... and that's not always easy to show when some leaders of the Church screw up even though that can be explained away by saying they are humans.

Whatshisname, on that other thread, has already caught onto the fact that humans in the Church can screw up, and so now he's giving what may be his best attempt to try to prepare young missionaries of our Church for a mission. What can we say to him now other than point out the fact that those mission presidents may have screwed up because they are human, or that he is screwing up himiself because he is human?

How do we show others the Church is guided by God when the humans in it keep screwing up?

[garza4411]

I would have interpreted the mission president's request to "tighten your belt" and not waste money on frivolities as being directed toward those that were wasting money or asking parents to send more than the mission required....and not myself, if I were following mission rules and budget. I would not interpret this eat less, starve yourself, and ask for $30 less per month. (Why not $10 less? $20 less? $40 less?)

However, I'll admit this different interpretation probably comes from age and experience. A 19 year-old missionary might take the comment seriously or believe the comment was directed toward them, not others that might be abusing their parent's resources. Still, the idea of not being frivolous with precious resources is sound.

I agree, mission presidents aren't infallible because they are human. Sounds like you figured this out over time, too, and might have a different reaction now.

[USU78]

I think the problem is that some people are trying to show that the Church is guided by God... and that's not always easy to show when some leaders of the Church screw up even though that can be explained away by saying they are humans.

Whatshisname, on that other thread, has already caught onto the fact that humans in the Church can screw up, and so now he's giving what may be his best attempt to try to prepare young missionaries of our Church for a mission. What can we say to him now other than point out the fact that those mission presidents may have screwed up because they are human, or that he is screwing up himiself because he is human?

How do we show others the Church is guided by God when the humans in it keep screwing up?

I think your focus is wrong: forgiving screwups and charitably reconstructing what was in the heart of the actor instead of carping on his weakness in fulfilling his calling is part and parcel of "bearing one anothers' burdens," imnsho. We Mormon types assume others' pain and work against a background of others' weakness, or at least we should. How else would G-d's servants act? We are under no obligation to apologize to anyone for our striving for Zion, especially since so few others seem to be doing so.

[Ahab]

I think your focus is wrong: forgiving screwups and charitably reconstructing what was in the heart of the actor instead of carping on his weakness in fulfilling his calling is part and parcel of "bearing one anothers' burdens," imnsho. We Mormon types assume others' pain and work against a background of others' weakness, or at least we should. How else would G-d's servants act? We are under no obligation to apologize to anyone for our striving for Zion, especially since so few others seem to be doing so.

I agree with the main point of your message and I've already forgiven you for not correctly understanding my focus.

My question was simple enough, I thought: What can we do to show others that the Church is guided by God?

Forgiving others for their mistakes is a good thing to do, but since everybody on Earth should be doing that I don't see how that would help someone to see that our Church, specifically, is being guided by God. Isn't there something else we can show to other people, other than the fact that we are 1) human and 2) screw up and 3) forgive those who screw up?

How about a website like Whatshisname has? Do you think might help someone to see that our Church is being guided by God?

[rpn]

I hope in YM and YW we are teaching our young people that when they hear counsel from our leaders, it is our job to consider how it applies to us, even whether it does, and take that interpretation to the Lord for confirmation. And that when we follow a leader's advice and it ends up differently than what we thought, we have a duty to talk with them about what they meant. It is by doing that level of due diligence that we are protected from errors by our leaders. I wonder what that MP would have said if he'd known the missionary was considering food other than oatmeal to be extravagant.

I also can't help but wonder if the nephew would have fallen away if he'd been targeted for harm because of his fancy bike that the MP had allowed him to keep. Or if he'd known he could appeal over the MP head for the return of the bike (or to send it home).

[USU78]

I agree with the main point of your message and I've already forgiven you for not correctly understanding my focus.

My question was simple enough, I thought: What can we do to show others that the Church is guided by God?

Forgiving others for their mistakes is a good thing to do, but since everybody on Earth should be doing that I don't see how that would help someone to see that our Church, specifically, is being guided by God. Isn't there something else we can show to other people, other than the fact that we are 1) human and 2) screw up and 3) forgive those who screw up?

How about a website like Whatshisname has? Do you think might help someone to see that our Church is being guided by God?

1. I think we show we are G-d's followers by emulating His attributes to the best of our abilities. We don't owe anybody an explanation or apology for falling short of our ideals.

2. That sick, miserable, tendentious website? Is that the one you mean? Guess.

[Ahab]

1. I think we show we are G-d's followers by emulating His attributes to the best of our abilities. We don't owe anybody an explanation or apology for falling short of our ideals.

I'll take that as your best answer for what we can do to show that our Church is being guided by God. I was hoping for a better answer than that, since we fall so short of the glory of God, but that's about the best answer I can think of myself, too.

2. That sick, miserable, tendentious website? Is that the one you mean? Guess.

I'll take that as a No. Let's hope he's not really a member, then, huh. I'd hate to think that's the best he can do to follow God.

[USU78]

I hope in YM and YW we are teaching our young people that when they hear counsel from our leaders, it is our job to consider how it applies to us, even whether it does, and take that interpretation to the Lord for confirmation. And that when we follow a leader's advice and it ends up differently than what we thought, we have a duty to talk with them about what they meant. It is by doing that level of due diligence that we are protected from errors by our leaders. I wonder what that MP would have said if he'd known the missionary was considering food other than oatmeal to be extravagant.

I've, of course, long since learned to accept counsel as counsel and not something that never should be questioned. I'm a failed offensive lineman. You don't question the play in the huddle, just make your block on the ensuing play when you're an offensive lineman. You assume competence in coaches and qbs. I'm not that offensive lineman any more. That guy just keeps going and going and going, taking on his considerable shoulders everything that others put there. An admirable quality, but a limited world view.

I also can't help but wonder if the nephew would have fallen away if he'd been targeted for harm because of his fancy bike that the MP had allowed him to keep. Or if he'd known he could appeal over the MP head for the return of the bike (or to send it home).

Who knows? What do you do when you're 19 and people in authority do inexplicably stupid things? You get along, unless you're a smart aleck. Humility in mission presidents is a good thing, imo. A little more in the Palouse back when would have gone a fair bit of the way towards solving the nephew's long-term issues . . . but who knows?

[gtaggart]

USU78 - great post.

[Ahab]

What do you do when you're 19 and people in authority do inexplicably stupid things? You get along, unless you're a smart aleck.

Getting along doesn't mean going along, though. Just wanted to make that clear. As you probably know, most teenagers go their own way and follow someone else ONLY when they believe that other person is giving advice good enough for them to accept as their own idea. Like, Wow, why didn't I think of that before, but anyway now that I have, I claim the idea as my own.

Humility in mission presidents is a good thing, imo.

Eh, it's okay, but I prefer confidence after getting an assurance from God that the idea I have was his idea before it was mine.

[rpn]

Brigham Young said, not long after the Mountain Meadows Massacre, that he was more afraid that people would just follow their leaders without doing their own due diligence, than he was about members who questioned their leaders. I am too. Humility is not the opposite of needing our own spiritual confirmation that our leader's guidance is from the Lord and that we've interpreted that guidance as the leader meant us to do.

[Storm Rider]

This general topic has created a great deal of problems in the Church. We too often lead members to believe that the church that dispenses the ordinances of exaltation is lead by constantly, consistently inspired men. These pedestals are too elevated for mortal men and each can be found lacking. One of the most uninspired men I have ever met was a mission president. I came to pity a life that he obviously found filled with so many challenges. He just seldom chose to listen first before acting. He was a walking source of potential answers without the effort required to follow the Spirit. I wish that each member could only be lead by Jesus himself. Until such time that is possible, we need to learn and to teach follow the Spirit first and God's servants as directed.

[Robert F. Smith]

This general topic has created a great deal of problems in the Church. We too often lead members to believe that the church that dispenses the ordinances of exaltation is lead by constantly, consistently inspired men. These pedestals are too elevated for mortal men and each can be found lacking. One of the most uninspired men I have ever met was a mission president. I came to pity a life that he obviously found filled with so many challenges. He just seldom chose to listen first before acting. He was a walking source of potential answers without the effort required to follow the Spirit. I wish that each member could only be lead by Jesus himself. Until such time that is possible, we need to learn and to teach follow the Spirit first and God's servants as directed.

There are two crucial issues at loggerheads here:

On the one hand, we are the priesthood of God, preparing for the last days, and as such we must be united with a bond that cannot be broken.

On the other, we are in the midst of the days of our probation, being tested on our individual commitment and faithfulness in the face of disappointment with leaders (who are really no less fallible than we).

Are Mormons trained early on to deal with the tensions between those two demands? Are they rewarded for independence of mind and will they stand their ground on principle? Are they prepared to question authority when it seems appropriate, or do they go along to get along? Do they allow group think to take over?

One of Hugh Nibley's complaints about students at BYU was that they didn't ask questions in class. At his alma mater (UCLA), on the other hand, students asked hard questions all the time, thus creating the kind of dialogue which makes for excellent learning and preparation for adulthood and for the real world. Are we preparing young Mormons for the real world? Can a man be saved in ignorance?

[USU78]

There are two crucial issues at loggerheads here:

On the one hand, we are the priesthood of God, preparing for the last days, and as such we must be united with a bond that cannot be broken.

On the other, we are in the midst of the days of our probation, being tested on our individual commitment and faithfulness in the face of disappointment with leaders (who are really no less fallible than we).

Are Mormons trained early on to deal with the tensions between those two demands? Are they rewarded for independence of mind and will they stand their ground on principle? Are they prepared to question authority when it seems appropriate, or do they go along to get along? Do they allow group think to take over?

One of Hugh Nibley's complaints about students at BYU was that they didn't ask questions in class. At his alma mater (UCLA), on the other hand, students asked hard questions all the time, thus creating the kind of dialogue which makes for excellent learning and preparation for adulthood and for the real world. Are we preparing young Mormons for the real world? Can a man be saved in ignorance?

More than anything, I think those in leadership positions, especially over youth, including missionary youth, should remember that there isn't a "one size fits all" model for helping kids along. My mission president, for example, asks a thought-provoking question like "Are we expressing our appreciation for our parents' sacrifice in keeping our mission paid for?" and the thoughtful missionary asks himself tough questions . . . maybe sees his expenditures and his efforts as not in keeping with missionary ideals, maybe makes some changes. If known screwups, on the otherhand, are spendthrifts or wasting time, it seems to me there should be private, one-on-one counseling.

It's a tough job, maybe an impossible one, shepherding 150 or so young folks as mission president, while trying to build the strength of membership infrastructure.

[The Nehor]

In another thread, there is considerable (over 7 pages now) of discussion on a website that purports to prepare missionary candidates for their missions and to be a resource on dealing with sometimes difficult questions from investigators. In the course of the conversation, certain statements about sometimes arbitrary sometimes silly mission rules has gotten a fair bit of bandwidth.

I would like in this thread to make a serious point: mission presidents are not the prophet. They are also not infallible. They sometimes mess up, big time, but we should be mature enough to forgive their questing towards doing the right when it leads them to places other than Shangri-La. We should also be humble enough to recognize that maybe we cannot see what problem was being addressed with an inexplicable mission rule such that the rule appeared to be (or maybe was) the best way to address it.

Now, that said, I wanted to share a couple of things, one from my own mission (Austria '73-75) and a nephew of mine, now 41, who was in the Wazzu Mission in Eastern Washington back when he was 19-21.

My mission president gave an address at a mission conference in which he accused the missionaries of taking advantage of their parents by wasting their hard-earned money on frivolities, and calling on all of us to tighten our belts, avoid extravagance and live on less. I had been living on $130 a month from my folks up till that point, and I immediately wrote my parents to send me only $100, notwithstanding I didn't see how I could pay the bills. This was how I spent the last 9 months of my mission. I went from 185 lbs (at 6'1/2") to 150 (if that) over those months living on oatmeal and not much else (very few dinner invites in those days). I was also very sick and weak and not very up to working, though I gave it my best shot in a mission where nobody baptized much. As a result, I became somewhat disaffected from the Church because of this enforced starvation (as a missionary could only view the imposition by authority) by a dragnet, global criticism by an incautious Church authority. I became indifferent but not entirely inactive and stayed that way for almost 10 years.

My nephew brought a bicycle with him to his mission. A good one. He was instructed after he got there that he would have to turn that bicycle in to the mission, and buy a standard mission bicycle, and he would be reimbursed the whole price of his bike as long as it was turned back in in good condition. Then the mission president spent the money on something else . . . no reimbursement and no, you may not take the bicycle back home with you to Utah. This caused so many hard feelings that many of the missionaries left the church, including my nephew, who will likely never return.

Now . . . should I have been more adult and forgiving? Yes. My nephew? Same thing . . . get over yourself, you're in your '40s now. Should these two presidents have made different calls? Seems pretty clear they should have.

But why should we be upset or become disaffected when they prove what we already knew? That they are humans, and humans screw up?

I am pretty sure that offending missionaries in the service of the Lord by lying to them and cheating them counts as offending the Lord's little ones and your nephew's mission president should find himself a nice millstone,

[Bernard Gui]

But why should we be upset or become disaffected when they prove what we already knew? That they are humans, and humans screw up?

Which is a good lesson in all areas of life from family to work to church to strangers on the street.

[bu11fr0g]

There are some tough lessons I have learned.

1- it is my responsibility to let people know that their directives are harmful to me.

2- go over the head of people that are harming me and check it out.

As a church member, I too often expected my leaders to be inspired without even telling them what was going on.

[Duncan]

I had a companion that was sent home but didn't actually go home. Long story short, the Mission President sent him home but didn't have Area Pres. approval and for who knows what reason didn't get it...but whatever he was off my shoulders by that point. longest two months of my life to that point....

[USU78]

I had a companion that was sent home but didn't actually go home. Long story short, the Mission President sent him home but didn't have Area Pres. approval and for who knows what reason didn't get it...but whatever he was off my shoulders by that point. longest two months of my life to that point....

We had a missionary go walkabout in Europe when I was there. I ended up in a co-senior+greenie arrangement with the neurotic greenie of walkabout guy for about 6 weeks. It was awful. I lost the toss, and my co-senior got the couch. I ended up sharing the bed with neurotic greenie.

[Duncan]

We had a missionary go walkabout in Europe when I was there. I ended up in a co-senior+greenie arrangement with the neurotic greenie of walkabout guy for about 6 weeks. It was awful. I lost the toss, and my co-senior got the couch. I ended up sharing the bed with neurotic greenie.

oh my gosh! you had to share quarters with another one? geez! I had a comp who snored something awful and I slept in another room

[Scott Lloyd]

I was very blessed, in the course of my two years, to have three wonderful mission presidents. Each has had a profound inflence on my life, as a good mission president should. One has passed away, but I still maintain contact with the other two, brothers who served simultaneously in neighboring missions in Sweden and who were recently released as simultaneously serving temple presidents, one in Stockholm and the other in their hometown of St. Louis.

But while I was there (I served in the mid-'70s, roughly the same time period as USU78 although in a different country) there were still stories going around the mission about the "Norrlander's Rebellion" that took place about 10 years prior. (Norrland is a region in the north of Sweden.)

As the story went, the mission president at that time was in the habit of sending missionary companionships cases and cases of Book of Mormon copies, which the missionaries were expected to pay for out-of-pocket and then be reimbursed, in turn, by selling the books to contacts. The boxes of books would arrive unbidden, whether they were needed or not. Reportedly, a number of missionaries went hungry because their food money was tied up in book inventory.

Consequently, some of the missionaries rebelled against this unjust and oppressive practice, registering their protest by willful disobedience of mission rules. Some were sent home early as a result.

I have thought since that it should have been the mission president himself who was sent home. It seems that, at the very least, he was guilty of gross incompetence, endeavoring to practice high-pressure sales techniques in place of true missionary work. Moreover, he scarred a number of lives by provoking missionaries to anger, resulting in their suffering the lasting humiliation of being discharged dishonorably from their missions.

You don't win converts by voluminous book sales. You do it by placing a copy of the Book of Mormon one contact at a time, lovingly and carefully nurturing that contact with prayer, earnest invitation, teaching and love, always honoring the principle of moral agency.

I never knew that mission president. He has long since passed on. I only know of this episode through word-of-mouth. But I get highly indignant whenever I think of it.

I can only hope that such a thing is less likely to occur in this day of the "Preach My Gospel" manual. I would hope that were it to happen, the hue and cry raised by the parents of those missionaries would be such that the Missionary Department would feel compelled to put a stop to it immediately.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd