Years ago I knew a Stake President who told me he didn’t like calling former bishops to the high council because he wound up with a bunch of “yes men”.
On the other hand, my father was on a stake high council, and was released after just two years. He told me that he was usually the only one that would bring up a contrary opinion to any discussion, and the stake president didn’t like that, and released him. The apple does not fall far from the tree!
Do the men we sustain in the Q12 each have the ability to speak up, and say what is wrong, or are they all just yes men?
From the SLTrib Podcast Mormon Land [1], Greg Prince tells of speaking with Tom Christofferson , the gay brother of Elder Tod Christofferson of the Q12. Tom was upset when the policy of exclusion (POX) was announced, and called his brother Todd. Todd told him he learned about the POX only on Tuesday, three days before it was reveled, and four days before he (Elder Christofferson ) gave a response for the policy. Elder Christofferson told his brother Tom that on Tuesday it was “presented to the 12 as an up or down vote without debate”
While Greg Prince’s account is 3rd hand information, lets assume for the purpose of this blog post that it is true, and that neither Greg or Tom, or Todd for that matter is lying about what happened that day in the meeting of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. Also lets ignore that fact that Greg’s version contradicts Pres Nelson’s version of what happened. Lets instead talk about why all twelve voted to sustain the Policy. Was it possible for any of the Q12 to vote no, or was the pressure to conform too great to let their conscious/spirit/common sense guide them?
Have the Q12 been chosen because they conform to what is expected of them? In hindsight even they have acknowledged (via the pulling back) that the policy was bad, and did more harm that good. This being the case, why didn’t one of them stand up to Pres Nelson, or whoever was pushing this through, and say no?
What have you seen at the ward and stake level. Have you seen counselors in Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies disagree with the Bishop/Stake Pres? What were the consequences?
[1] Mormon Land Podcast, SLTrib, April 10th, 2019
Wheat & Tares 
I think you are likely very wrong on your premise.
When I served my mission, I was tagged with the nickname Kicker because I would point out ridicules things the leadership wanted us to do. I would do the ridiculous we were told to do, even though I disagreed. Other missionaries would say great idea and then just not do it. Those missionaries were promoted up the leadership ranks in spite of their disobedience. I was never promoted to any leadership position, presumably because I was a “Kicker”.
I presume things run that same way at all levels of church leadership.
I never went directly against my brethren on the HC but I always felt free to speak against common wisdom. I served under two stake presidents. One called me the Lone Ranger, the other called me the loyal opposition. We were never presented with an -up/down- question. I served (much to my surprise) my full term.
Now that I’m done bragging – discussions with HCs from other stakes lead me to believe my experience is fairly unique.
I once abstained on a vote in the High Council. The counselor in the Stake Presidency running the meeting bulled through with an “ayes have it” kind of expression. The next meeting he apologized, saying he was wrong to proceed over my abstention and should have stopped the voting and continued the discussion, even to another meeting, until we could come to a common understanding on the direction to take.
That model isn’t perfect. It takes some chutzpah to be a holdout in a group of 12 or more. But it has stuck with me as a minimally necessary procedure. I would vote no on principle to ANY “up or down without debate” proposition.
OK, but I can’t resist noting this prophetic statement:
“hawkgrrrl
November 18, 2015 at 9:11 pm
… in the long run, there is zero chance this policy won’t be repealed in a future day…”
I have been a counselor in a bishopric who disagree with the bishop in connection with a disciplinary council. What were the consequences? He thought about it, changed his mind, and acted on what I suggested he do. It seemed to help the person in question. There were no other consequences. We remain good friends.
In a bishopric training meeting I saw a bishop interrupt the stake president to say “Bob [not his real name], that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard!” They had been close friends for decades. There were no consequences other than shock to others present.
I had another bishop who is said to have given up reasoning with the stake president and told him to call a certain older single man to be one of the assistant ward clerks or to find a new bishop the next week.
In the early 70s I listened to a private, first hand (to me) report from a high councilman who disagreed with 14 other men including the stake president in in a church court, as they were then called. It took 3 hours, as I remember, but he persuaded them to his view. There were no consequences other than the decision to take no disciplinary action against the person in question.
From what I have read and heard, no generalization is possible from the experiences I report. Consequences seem to be very much a matter of leadership roulette.
It may be worth noting that there have been reports of significant differences of opinion articulated among the Q12 and FP at times.
Also, that members of the Q12 and FP have a very significantly greater investment in their positions than do bishoprics, high councils, and stake presidencies. There is a tendency among many people to invest their self-concept, their personal identity in their full-time occupations. Also, it seems that we have a much stronger culture of deferring to the Prophet/President of the Church than to bishops and stake presidents. It has been suggested more than once by persons who claim to be “in the know,” so to speak, that the Policy was presented to the Q12 as originating with/or having been approved by the FP. If so, then saying “no” without an opportunity for discussion may have been seen and and may have felt like not “sustaining” the prophet. If as some say the Policy was really pushed by then-president-of-the-Q12 Nelson and President Monson was not at his best, then its being presented for Q12 vote without discussion amounted to a request for a sustaining vote for the next-in-line president of the Church — and/or the next senior apostle whose views on legalization of same-gender marriage and what-will-never-change were very public. This could be particularly significant in view of RMN’s previous talk on sustaining the prophets in their “prophetic priorities.” (“Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities.” RMN, October 2014) Of course, there are other meanings of the word “sustain,” but RMN had made his view quite clear.
I have not read anything suggesting that the manner or timing of the Policy roll-out was presented to the Q12 for discussion or vote. For all I can tell, some of them could have assumed there was time to deal with the matter further after an initial sustain-the-prophet vote or that it could yet be changed prior to implementation.
I don’t think the Q12 are just “yes-men,” but they are human. I strikes me as significant that not one of those then in the Q12 can be publicly found to have supported RMN’s January 2016 characterization of the adoption of the Policy. That silence spoke volumes, particularly as compared to Q12 speaking up after the 1978 priesthood policy change, and as compared to the unfortunate Elder Christofferson “interview”. The certainly didn’t jump on any yes-man bandwagon then.
The November exclusion policy really is a great example of this principle of Yes Men. Even Nelson’s account, which is probably totally made up, evinces apostles falling in line with Monson’s decision.
(For the record, as soon as I heard it, I thought Nelson’s account of this decision was a fairy tale not at all supported by the policy’s botched rollout. When I heard Prince’s account I was relieved to hear an alternate account of what really transpired, sad to think that Christofferson and, for that matter other apostles who disagreed privately with the policy, didn’t have the guts to stand up and say so publicly, and most of all angry to think that Nelson is so loose with the truth that he feels it’s ok to make up malarkey to sell a terrible policy.)
In addition to the typos, I see I failed to note that the single man proposed by the bishop for assistant ward clerk was in fact called and we did not get a new bishop. There were no other consequences of the bishop’s disagreement with the stake president..
“In hindsight even they have acknowledged (via the pulling back) that the policy was bad, and did more harm that good.” I very much disagree with this assumption that leaders eventually saw the policy as bad. It seemed that leaders felt like people were using the policy to attack the Church.
It’s like with the priesthood ban – Church leaders have never come out and said it was a mistake and did harm.
“What have you seen at the ward and stake level. Have you seen counselors in Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies disagree with the Bishop/Stake Pres? What were the consequences?”
When my spouse was serving as executive secretary, the bishop at the time said, “the stake leaders want us to do A , but I don’t believe this works for us so we are going to do
B. This same bishop ended up serving quite a long time in that role. In contrast, my spouse was serving as a counselor in a different bishopric (different area too) during Prop 8 when “Six Consequences” was taught by stake leadership. When my spouse shared his disagreement about the use of such material with the bishop, the bishop replied he was going to follow the leaders and if there be something wrong, then the judgement would fall upon the stake leadership. My spouse shortly after resigned his position in that bishopric.
Leadership lottery plays a big role in how things turn out. It does take a certain amount of courage to speak up when one is holding a minority view. But it is critically important that we hear different viewpoints, especially when making such monumental decisions.
In a bishopric training meeting a bishop and stake president got into a tiff about whose “stewardship” should guide decisions that affected an individual ward. The bishop was released soon thereafter — about a year earlier than expected.
Twice I disagreed with the bishop and other counselor in disciplinary councils. The bishop was a close friend, but i felt he was relieved when i moved. .
I knew a missionary who once disagreed with some parts of a spoken prayer and verbalized this disagreement by saying “50% amen” when the prayer was concluded. He didn’t want to just say amen and have it assumed that he agreed with everything. I chuckle at this now even though at the time I thought he just needed to get in line. At least he had the courage then to verbalize a degree of disagreement.
It would be refreshing for me to know which apostles disagree with which policies, but perhaps the majority of church members appreciate the appearance of unity within the quorum. I enjoy reading about some of the hot disputes that have occurred in the past between the apostles. I like to think perhaps at least Uchtdorf is brave enough to say “50% amen” at times.
“It would be refreshing for me to know which apostles disagree with which policies, but perhaps the majority of church members appreciate the appearance of unity within the quorum”
Didn’t church leaders in the distant past disagree more openly? Personally, I think it would be more healthy if we knew that not everyone agrees all the time with everything—as long as disagreement was done respectfully. History and life is messy. It seems somewhat untruthful to pretend otherwise.
(my guess is that Oaks was a force behind the Pox, it seems his hyper focus on religious freedom arose—and continues—alongside the issue of same-sex marriage).
This might be a bit of a side track, but I think that it’s worth mentioning the second half of yes-men, a.k.a., men. All the decision makers are men or subject to men. This is surely one major factor in discouraging dissent. It’s glaring to me that in the comments here women don’t even have first hand knowledge of whether there has been disagreement or dissent amongst the leadership. They must rely on their spouses in the case of local leaders, or media reports in the case of general leaders.
The token presence of one woman doesn’t change things, either. It reminds me of one of the leaked videos of meetings at church hq a few years ago. If my memory serves, there was one where they were discussing aspects of youth or singles wards, but I’m not sure which. After a lengthy discussion, one of the men asked for input from the sister in attendance. She said something which I thought was insightful and important, and somewhat contrary to the previous speakers, but it seemed like after she finished they continued without discussion, as if she hadn’t said anything at all. I found the exchange disappointing.
I have little experience at the bishopric level, but I’m pretty sure that you’ll find a wide range of leadership styles. At both ward and stake levels.
I’ve never been in such a counseling position at a high level (SP counselor, High Council, bishopric counselor). But my current calling is ward executive secretary, so I attend and participate in bishopric meetings. Our bishop treats the clerk and myself basically as additional counselors for purposes of discussion. I feel perfectly free to weigh in and communicate my views on whatever topic is under discussion (I’m an attorney by profession so the counseling role comes naturally), and my participation and input has always been appreciated and welcomed. I can’t recall having a sharply different view of a local issue, so this hasn’t really been tried in the fire. But I do feel as though my voice and perspective is respected and influential.
I am on the same track as Rockwell. As a woman, I’ve never had final decision making authority in any calling I’ve served in, not even in a presidency. For all the fluffy talk about including women in councils, I don’t see it modeled at the highest levels in the church. Women are sometimes asked for input, but are never given actual authority. The General Relief Society leaders have no authority over any ward or stake Relief Society; the bishops and stake presidents are the final word. Same with Primary and Young Women leaders.
I’m curious how the general auxiliary boards function . Are the women chosen for these boards willing to dissent, or are they called because they’ll simply sustain whatever is handed down from above?
Those who recognize my name and know where I work (BYU Studies) or have read my articles and essays in Dialogue and Sunstone or have visited my blog know that I am a questioner, a nonconformist, and an iconoclast. I have little patience for bad apologetics (that means most apologetics), weak arguments, half-baked history, or benighted organizational ethics. Four years ago next month, I was called to serve on our stake high council. I explained in detail why this was probably a bad idea, but the stake president assured me that they had considered a hundred names but kept coming back to me. They were sure I was the right one for the calling. So I accepted on faith. (And yes, I’m aware that if they had to go through a hundred names, they must have been looking for someone, anyone else.) Well, I’m still there and in fact am now the senior member of the high council. I give talks in the wards that probably make a few people squirm, but I also get expressions of gratitude for my honesty and perspective. Now and then I raise issues in high council meetings and express concerns. But I have felt nothing but full support from the stake president (and his counselors). Maybe he is unique. He is the exact opposite of a micromanager and is more concerned about people than programs. He holds short meetings (and cancels quite a few of them). And he is aware of the questions and concerns facing his stake members, particularly the youngish ones, even if he doesn’t have all the answers. But he doesn’t pretend to have them. He just loves people. I cannot say enough positive about this stake president. He certainly doesn’t want yes men. And I do realize how rare this is. I hear stories from friends and family members and read a few on the blogs. Someday my time on the high council will run out, but at that day I will be able to say with perfect honesty that it has been a wonderful experience.
“Do the men we sustain in the Q12 each have the ability to speak up, and say what is wrong, or are they all just yes men?”
It’s hard to know for sure but the relatively recent talks making a federal case out of calling the church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” instead of “the Mormon Church” lead me believe that it’s the Q12’s job to fully support the sitting prophet in everything, at least in the public eye.
In 1990 Nelson first speaks about the official name of the church but no one really seems to pay it much mind. The church even runs an “I’m a Mormon” campaign and produces a “Meet the Mormons” movie. Then shortly after becoming prophet Nelson lets everyone know how serious he was way back in 1990. It’s his show now, doing things he couldn’t do even as the President of the Q12. Nelson had been “unleashed” (an interesting choice of words by Wendy Nelson).
Maybe the apostles do freely give dissenting opinions in private meetings but on the end that is visible to the public it’s impossible to tell whether those dissenting opinions factored into the final decision because by the time it goes public it’s presented as a united front.
I’ve read on this blog or others that the members of the Q are not to keep journals, probably to keep their true feelings/thoughts and disagreements away from the public eye.
When I watched the first interview w the newly formed 1st P w the Q sitting together, it was obvious by body language that some of them were squirming.
There were so many disagreements in the past. Seems like the Q had a revolving door as criticism flourished in the early years.
Giving a female perspective here, of the sole two occasions I attended a ward council meeting. I gave my opinion in both.
The first occasion I was just 17, and there representing the activities committee. We had been asked by the Bishop to organise a concert during August involving the instrumentalists in the ward. We had already pointed out via the assigned bishopric counsellor that there were already a lot of stake events scheduled in the August, as well as people likely to be away on holiday, so was this really a good idea. The next we knew was that instead of getting back to us, someone else had been asked to organise it, and as one of the instrumentalists I had been approached to take part. Naturally enough I was pretty ticked off that the activities committee had been sidelined, instead of getting a response to the issue we’d raised, and I said so in the meeting. The bishop hit the roof. It wasn’t my job to question him, it was my job to do what I was told apparently. Well, I thought, he only wants yes men! The concert did go ahead, and I did take part. And it was held in September, not August, so we hadn’t been wrong about that.
The second occasion I was in my 30s and there as a member of the RS presidency, standing in for the presidency. The bishop stated he wanted to encourage testimony bearing in fast and testimony meeting, he had asked his family members several months previously to bear their testimonies, and he wanted the ward council members to do the same. I said that I would be very careful about that if I were him, that as a teenager there was a point where it felt like my family were occupying a large portion of the meeting, and that on consequence I had simply stopped getting up myself. The further result being that I very very rarely ever bore my testimony in a fast and testimony meeting (this is true even now that I’m 50). No more was said on the subject that evening and I don’t know what happened subsequently, but I didn’t observe the meeting being dominated by ward council members and their families or even the Bishop’s family after that.
Lois,
I have heard several stories across several stakes like what your husband experienced (Bishop politely not following what a SP advised.) I’ve often wondered how those same bishops should respond if their primary presidents, RS presidents, YWP/YMP treated them the same way they treated their SPs. I suspect the response would vary from Bishop to bishop but these “independent” bishops might have a different reaction when it’s done to them by someone in their ward. Not sure where it stops.
It’s become a cliche but in decision making that involves several (pick a number) people who all share the same opinion, all but one of those people are irrelevant or unnecessary since they’re all going to say or think the same thing.
All church leaders from the top down have blind spot(s) or work off of outdated or incorrect assumptions in some aspect of their ministry. It’s just part of our human side and not a bad thing-perfectly normal in fact. . It is much better to have people around who can respectfully and politely share alternative points of view and expose the blind spots.
Plain to see that while Q12 undoubtedly consists of yes men, RS consists of no men.
RS consists of no men, except the men who choose the leaders, create the lesson manuals, and decide the budget.
It seems to me that the push to be “Yes Men” (or even “Yes Women”) is the strong belief that God guides all interactions in church processes. So if one individual disagrees, then it logically must be that they are the one that God is not getting through to . That pressure can be immense. Just go look at Solomon Asch’s experiments that didn’t even include the dimension of “being in touch with the spirit.”
I’m curious if President Nelson objected to the I’m A Mormon campaign when it was being developed/promoted, or if he went along with it in the name of sustaining the Q12? Of course, we’ll never know because the picture they paint is one of unanimity, and they don’t model healthy debate or dissent.
In the recent Face-to-Face at Women’s Conference, Jean Bingham modeled how women leaders are expected to defer to Priesthood authority. She discounted the value of women’s voices as being shrill, demanding and stubborn, and to question the worth and authority of their own ideas and callings.
Or Russel Ballard telling women not to talk too much in council meetings. “Now, sisters, while your input is significant and welcome in effective councils, you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours. The most successful ward and stake councils are those in which priesthood leaders trust their sister leaders and encourage them to contribute to the discussions and in which sister leaders fully respect and sustain the decisions of the council made under the direction of priesthood leaders who hold keys.”
If you’re not holding keys, well…you get it.
“That pressure can be immense. ”
Yes. Many years ago I was on jury duty and got selected to hear a case involving two men charged with robbing a drug dealer. Seriously.
When we started deliberations, after hearing the case I and one other person were leaning toward “not guilty.” Then the other person caved and it was just me. If I didn’t change my vote not only would we have to take longer deliberating, a mistrial would be declared. Though I really felt the prosecution hadn’t proved beyond “a reasonable doubt, “ I caved, telling myself that I just missed something—that I hadn’t heard or seen something the others had.
I learned something disappointing about myself that day. Though I can be an independent thinker, I wasn’t as strong as I thought I was.
I think the example of Abraham and Isaac and other bible stories loom large in Mormon psyche and for some a church leader is the same as God asking us to do something, such that the question is not “if” they will do what is asked but how “high” will they “jump?”
There are always discussion of options at the levels of leadership I have been exposed to. I have seen bishops who semi-publicly disagree with stake presidents and try to do their own thing. This can go on for quite a while, so obviously the stake president is not too angry about it.
I have also seen some significant deference to female leaders by their priesthood leader. The most telling example was from several years ago in PEC. The stake had sent a letter to all wards specifically for one auxiliary. The bishop read the first part to the PEC and then said: “I know what sort of direction Sister X needs in her calling” He then threw the letter in the trashcan and proceeded to the next item on the meeting agenda. Another bishop had basically given pre-approval for any spending by an auxiliary leader that was within the annual budget.
“you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours.”
Agreed; regardless of gender of the challenger for Alpha.
I can’t remember where for a citation (I think Quinn’s Hierearchy but not for sure)… any ways I recall that at least in the FieldingSmith- Benson eras the younger Q12 members were “encouraged” to vote with the elders of the Q to minimize disagreement.