There’s a shadow organization in the Church, a cadre of secret leaders who hold positions that sound impressive, like they got a promotion from one of the really important organizations at the ward level into something that should be even more powerful. And yet, what do they even do? Why do they matter? If they were all eliminated in the apocalypse, who would mourn their loss?
This week’s topic is perhaps the first one that many readers will agree feels . . . pointless. I’m talking of course about Stake Auxiliaries:
- Stake YM / YW
- Stake Relief Society
- Stake Sunday School
- High Council (if I may be so bold)
- Stake Presidency itself (if I really want to go out on a limb)
Here are some contenders for why we have these callings and roles.
Straight-up Bureaucracy. Who else would attend all those meetings? Plus, it makes the Stake Presidency seem like he has a staff of department heads if we replicate the callings at the stake level, even though they don’t have a congregation.
Succession coverage. To cover (theoretical) gaps between presidencies at the ward level. This is just a guess. I’ve never actually seen it happen IRL, but it seems like it could be necessary in areas where the Church has less bench strength.
Training for ward leaders. This is one of the functions I’ve actually seen this group do, visiting local wards to make sure people know how to do their callings. Those who can no longer do, teach.
Correlation for wards. It’s easier to implement McChanges when you have layers in between who can oversee ten wards’ implementation plans for new curriculum or meeting changes. I did see this in evidence when we switched to the council format for Relief Society, then back again.
Fake promotions. This sounds like I’m joking, but seriously, where do you put all the former ward leaders when they’ve kind of exhausted their ward leadership run? There are no ice floes, and you can’t put everyone in nursery. So instead, we can “promote” them into this calling that sounds more important but is really a lot easier. They get to feel important rather than feeling put out to pasture. Everyone wins.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Frankly, I fail to see the point of most stake callings. I don’t even know who most of our stake auxiliary leaders are. My experience is that it takes some of the most valuable members of the ward from where they can helpful and useful and places them in callings where their contributions are minimal. (e.g. do we need a stake Sunday School First Counselor? Do we need a Stake Historian?) I live in a predominantly Mormon area and find the drain on ward resources frustrating. I can’t imagine what it must in smaller wards in the “mission field.”
My husband currently serves on our high council and has previously served as stake Sunday school president.
The high council calling seems to involve a lot of work with the branch to which he’s assigned. attending EQP and branch council meetings, attending the branch on at least one Sunday per month, and generally providing support and training for the branch leaders. The stake high council are also used as the behind the scenes staff for stake conferences (the dogsbodies), and get assignments for organising first aid cover, and sound sound systems, and setting up chairs, or car park duty. The high councillors also get speaking assignments in various wards, topic chosen by the stake presidency, so its a way for the stake presidency to have topics of their choice addressed in wards regularly, without being required to deliver it themselves in person. They also do a lot of the work of interviewing for callings within a ward or branch that require stake level approval (clerks, EQ counsellors, exec. sec., that kind of thing), and also conducting stake business in wards and branches on the same day throughout the stake.
The stake Sunday school calling was trickier, as an auxilliary position, with some ward bishops getting very agitated by even a simple enquiry as to who their ward Sunday school president was, and being very twitchy about whether their authority over their Sunday school presidents was being undermined. So that was weird. But again it was primarily a training role.
In our stake the auxilliary presidencies get speaking assignments along with the high councillors, so that there will be both an auxilliary and high council speaker.
I’ll also add that the auxilliary presidents get to sit on the stake council, so it is one way of getting at least some input from female voices at the stake level.
I voted “Other” because there is no “all of the above.” The Stake Presidency does provide some training to bishoprics, but for the rest of the auxiliaries training happens in theory but not in practice.
I think stake auxiliaries are sort of like the contents of the big cabinet with glass doors that we all have at the back of the living room — full of fancy, expensive, treasured items that serve no actual purpose. The glass doors are so we can see these items, but which are never used for anything. Any child who opens the doors and actually touches them gets yelled at. If the child asks what the point of the cabinet and its contents are, they get puzzling non-explanations: We value these items but don’t touch them; we could use them for something but we don’t, ever; if one of them were taken out and broken, mother would cry …
It may vary by stake. Our stake YM/YW plan and organize trek, youth conferences, stake and multi-stake dances, girl’s camp, etc. Our stake SS and RS and Primary presidencies do training with each new ward presidency and at an annual auxiliary training meeting. The training happens in practice, not just in theory. At the “request” of the area authority, 7 stake RS presidents plan an annual activity for the women. Our stake RS presidency does annual luncheons for older sisters…dealing largely with the many who do not receive much attention from the wards. Stake RS presidencies have also been very active in organizing and participating in asylum-seeker services. Our stake activities people organize sport and cultural events — and do a lot of the work themselves. None of these callings are a drain on our small ward; with the 2 hour block, we have trouble finding enough callings to make good use of our people and give them meaningful opportunities to serve in the church.
I guess the church is just not the same everywhere.
I voted “other.” The stake auxiliaries (excepting Stake Presidency/High Council) are mostly just holdover vestiges from the days when “the Stake” was a real, viable thing. There is almost no point anymore.
Absolutely nothing that the 15 (yes 15) Stake Presidency + HC can’t handle. I predict that these ancillary stake level positions will bite the dust in the next year.
The training argument sounds logical and even necessary but I don’t buy it because in almost all aspects of a church calling the people training have no more experience or knowledge than those being trained. Everyone at the ward level has access to the same handbook that stake leaders have, so knowledge is an even playing field. And stake callings are rarely given based on experience. The stake RS 1st counselor or the stake YM President rarely have any more experience than their counterparts at the ward level so what can they teach them?
Most stake positions occupy a weird position in our church government. Correlation made all ward functions report directly to a bishop who reports to the stake president. The stake auxiliaries just float out there in the ether, they are the appendix in the body of Christ.
I voted “Other” for the same reason Hunter did. Stake auxilliary presidencies are vestigial appendages from the pre-corrolation days. I hold the high councils and stake presidencies to be in a different category.
There is some recent movement to remove these useless positions and transfer their responsibilities back to the HC. (The disbanding of stake mission presidencies comes to mind, and individual high councilmen are asked to oversee sunday school, family history, etc. )
In practice, anything done by stake auxiliary positions would be better tackled by a council composed of ward presidencies. (e.g. instead of the stake YM/YW presidencies organizing stake youth activities, have a council of ward YM/YW presidencies do it instead.) Otherwise, it’s a train wreck when stake leaders dream up massive undertakings, but then pass the buck onto the overloaded ward leaders that actually have to carry out the plans.
High councils are useful for church discipline actions, for delivering messages–if only they chose them for public speaking ability!–and checking in to see how wards actually function. Stake presidents have gained significant new powers in the past 50 years (Until the 1970s, the calling, setting apart, and release of missionaries; and calling and setting apart of patriarchs used to be done by apostles).
Stake SS Presidency – I have no idea what they do as SLC drives that.
But on the other end with Stake YW/YM I have seen some benefits with them driving stake level youth activities and a mentor for new ward YW/YM leaders if they feel they are over their heads. They need to tread a bit lightly or the wards can complain that it is taking too much time.
I do remember one of the times my eyes were opened about “how the church works” when I was called into a bishopric. The bishop really went off on the stake “stealing” the people really needed in the ward level. That popped my bubble of “all callings come from the Lord and everyone can get confirmation of such if they ask via prayer.”
In our stake, these stake positions are super involved in both ministering and administering in the stake. The people in these callings tend to have a lot of experience, and are positive and happy people. They provide to ward leaders support, training, a shoulder to cry on (when necessary), a sounding board. They attend ward level presidency meetings from time to time, to provide training and inspiration. They are trained on the latest and greatest by the stake presidency after the stake presidency is trained in coordinating council (a quarterly multi-stake training meeting), so a lot of changes are implemented from general church leaders, through the stake presidency, and then through the stake auxiliary presidencies and high council. For example, in our stake the stake relief society presidency trains all the new ward-level RS presidencies, and then has regular contact with them (monthly or more). If the ward RS presidency has an issue with the bishop she serves with, for example, and can’t resolve it, she can counsel with the stake RS presidency. Our stake RS president conducts some stake-level meetings, meets with the stake presidency once a month, and is a visible and empowered leader in our stake. The high council does a lot of the actual stake work. High councilman are in charge of audits (twice a year), the set up blood drives, arrange for volunteers at the church meat packing plant and farm. A high councilman is in charge of stake emergency preparedness, and along with stake auxiliary leaders plans out stake youth conferences, treks, and other stake YM/YW activities. They handle the “tech” requirement for stake conference and other broadcast. They handle the building maintenance and improvements. They run the stake sports programs. I can’t imagine everything running as smoothly as it does without these stake auxiliaries and the high council.
I’m glad for the female leadership, as it allows me (a primary president) to give input to the stake presidency, albeit indirectly, about ward and primary issues. It also ensures the stake presidency hears from more women — I’d be fine with an equivalent of the high council but for women.
So… Am I correct that Faith Over Fear lives in Utah where there’s a surplus of willing volunteers, and that this individual also IS a stake auxilary leader?
The training argument sounds good and was probably the actual, original purpose, long ago when the distribution of printed and correlated materials was rare. And, of course, long before the materials could be emailed to every member and local leader or downloaded on a smart device. It seems that very little actual “training” is done now, in the same way that our “conferences” don’t involve any conferencing. Now, stake callings serve two related purposes:
1) Virtue pedestalling – it’s a way for the stake to indicate the righteous who currently don’t have an actual calling in a bishopric, stake presidency, or HC, or who will be future leaders in or candidates for such callings, or women who are not eligible for such callings because of gender but are nonetheless seen as exceptional examples.
2) Makework – there are only so many assistant ward hymnbook coordinators needed, and “everyone needs a calling.” Useless but somewhat visible stake callings allow the stake leadership’s pets to do something nominally useful.
Part of me sometimes feels that we should be grateful, since in my experience those called to stake callings are frequently very correlated, very traditionally observant, and very vocal about their opinions in this regard. Having them absent from class discussions is probably a blessing.
I actually do think that the high council can fill a useful purpose if a stake president has the humility to not stack it with yes-men. They should counsel, and provide perspective and redirection for the stake presidency when/if things are taken to excess. It is interesting to me that the Lord states clearly that each stake High Council “form[s] a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the [First] presidency, or to the traveling high council” [i.e., the Q12]. (D&C 107:36; see vv. 21-38.) There’s a revelation we could use a little more understanding of these days.
I once heard the stake leadership described as the “Human Resources” of the stake. While not a perfect comparison, it helped me to see them as less of a higher power level and more of an occasionally, useful tool.
I was in a ward r.s. presidency and attended a stake r.s. meeting where after song, well wishes, we were addressed by the stake president who told us we had our handbook and scriptures…go forth….
In the youth auxiliaries, and YSA, stake leaders help serve social needs by organising stakewide activities. Getting the right balance between ward and stake activities is tricky because everyone has a different idea of how much they want of either. Often stake youth leaders hear both complaints of not enough and too many stake youth activities. As a ward young mens president, I liked having something like quarterly stake youth activities if they didn’t require any prep on our part. I couldn’t handle quarterly dance festivals or performances than take a full quarter to prep for though.
It might not be the main reason for having stake youth or YSA leaders. Certainly wards can and sometimes do organise inter-ward activities. However, while I have been young mens president over the years, I wouldn’t have wanted to organise a stake -level camp on top of all the other stuff I did. In any case, meetings the diverse social needs of youth in the church can me achieved quite well using stake youth leaders. Stake youth dance performances just don’t seem like they would be the same on a ward level.
It’s sort of all of the above, and yes, stake callings help train for leadership. The OtherClark is also right in that many of these callings are left over from earlier times when a stake organization may have been a greater necessity. But I put Promotion Level. The fact is that many members need to feel needed and important somehow and these stake auxiliary callings help make members feel like they are doing something important since they give them the opportunity to meet and tell wards what to do.
The fact of the mattes is that there are only so many actually important (and yes, time-consuming) callings available in any given ward. Outside Utah and Mormon heavy areas, local leaders will take anyone they can find to fill these vital callings, and sometimes burden someone with two or even three callings at the same time. But inside the Mormon belt, there is an overabundance of people who have leadership experience and are willing and wanting to serve in some capacity of importance. So, they get some stake auxiliary calling or temple calling where they join masses of elderly people to perform many unnecessary and perfunctory tasks such as point people in the right direction.
Hedgehog, I have recently been investigating stake callings, and had been feeling some comfort about the stake council meetings, and the fact that at least there were a few women who had a voice at the stake level. Then I read the handbook and discovered that Stake Council takes place only 2-4 times A YEAR, while high council, attended by only men takes place twice monthly. I see no place where women’s voices are valued at a stake level.
One of the effects of Correlation was to eviscerate the authority of the auxiliaries. If you look at them carefully, you’ll realize that both stake and general auxiliary presidencies are not line positions (in other words, they do not really fall in a hierarchical line of authority). Don’t believe me? Does the stake Relief Society president call ward RS presidents? No. Bishops do. Does the General RS President call or set apart stake RS leaders? No. Stake presidents do. So, these functions are really more like consultants than file leaders.Auxiliaries used to be more autonomous. They had their own budgets and a lot more power. Correlation put an end to that.
The Other Clerk: Yes, I live in Utah, yes I am a stake leader.
BeeCee, in our stake the stake council meetings are once a quarter. Yes minimal input, but better than nothing. A foot in the door…
I’m trying to be positive…
I put training, but in theory. The high council go around and read ,some literally, old General conference talks and what’s the point? I used to be the travel companion of 2 high councilors and all we did was give a talk and then we left. No training, No meetings, nothing.About a month ago a high councilor came to our ward and talked about politics and abortion, gratefully one of the stake presidency was there and now he knows what they get when they picked this guy. Our RS stake presidency travel around constantly but it’s more for an ego boost for the president, she is a holier then us person and we should be so grateful she came to our ward and does nothing except say how she is better than us in spiritual matters. So, what they do except gloat I have no idea
Through my eyes, it’s this simple: “To keep as many people as possible, as busy as possible, for as many days as possible, engaged in as many meetings and projects (even if they’re meaningless)as possible – in order to decrease time to themselves (for their own study and life interests) as much as is humanly possible; and to thereby never lose anyone to the world”.
I’ve heard from two stake RS presidents that most of their calling was catering for visiting GAs. When a visiting VIP came around it was the stake RS presidency’s job to prepare hot delicious meals as the GA or VIP did their business.
Every time I was in a ward primary or RS presidency and attended the semiannual stake “training” it had a generally spiritual focus, but never ever have I received actual real training on how to do my calling.
I would like to know why they cater the traveling GA. The church creates this elite status. Why can not they just eat a regular meal and someone home like the missionary. Why put on the big production at the chapel with fancy everything. When I was a TBM I even saw this as hypocritical. The church creates it’s own problems with the way it has created social strata between members. There is no training, it is just a look at me, I am important and you need to be obedient to me.
I’m a ward Relief Society President. The training my Stake relief society presidency provides (twice a year) to ward presidencies is excellent. It doesn’t have to be, but it is. I appreciate them but I do believe they are absolutely necessary.
I meant “I do NOT believe they are absolutely necessary”.
“Our RS stake presidency travel around constantly but it’s more for an ego boost for the president, she is a holier then us person and we should be so grateful she came to our ward and does nothing except say how she is better than us in spiritual matters. ”
Hmmm. Are you telling me women can exercise unrighteous dominion just like men? Go figure.
As cynical as we may all be about whether Faith Over Fear’s description matches reality very often, it does sound like a reasonable explanation for what stake auxiliary leadership could or should be, even in a post-correlation world where their authority is limited. If I were called into one of those positions, I would see my main role as being support and resource for ward auxiliaries, who are doing the front line work, and I would ask myself how can I make their jobs easier and help the programs they are running be richer and more fulfilling for everyone involved.
These positions don’t have to be in a position of line authority to be useful or worthwhile*–imagine how much easier *any* calling would be if you were fully supported by ward leadership but also could turn to stake leadership for active support, guidance and resources.
*The fact that the setup means that even fewer women are in positions of authority is ridiculous and horrible, but that’s a separate question from whether stake auxiliary leaders have to be line authority positions in order to be useful and meaningful.
I have really enjoyed reading the comments on this thread. I think two very good observations that weren’t on the list of options for voting were (1) KLC’s comment: “Correlation made all ward functions report directly to a bishop who reports to the stake president. The stake auxiliaries just float out there in the ether, they are the appendix in the body of Christ.” and (2) Lefthandloafer’s comment: “To keep as many people as possible, as busy as possible, for as many days as possible, engaged in as many meetings and projects (even if they’re meaningless)as possible …”
Training seems like the highest and best use of such experienced people at the Stake level. However: My wife has served in 15 Aux presidencies, 5 times as president (YW:1, RS: 2, Primary: 2). She says the only training the Stake leaders ever attempted was generally a bother that she disagreed with and so would ignore. They could bring ideas they have observed in other wards…but she never wanted them in her meetings observing her (and kibitzing). We have lived in 4 stakes from the East to the Southwest, always in the white collar suburbs of major cities (never Utah, never Mesa, AZ). My experience as a Ward/Finance/Membership Clerk is that jobs with such complex technical aspects could benefit from hands-on training. But, except for a couple of times while I was a Stake Clerk, none was ever offered. Up until about 20 years ago there would be breakout sessions during Stake Priesthood Leadership meetings for YM, Clerks, etc. Some training might occur but usually it was just more rah rah preaching.
So, color me not impressed with “the Stake.”
“I would like to know why they cater the traveling GA. The church creates this elite status. Why can not they just eat a regular meal and someone home like the missionary.”
Culture of hero worship. Some guy who worked as lawyer, doctor, or business exec and got called by the Q15 to be a GA is very, very important. After all, they made a lot of money and therefore must know all the answers to life’s problems by repeating some formulaic, scripted speech of the likes you would hear in a conference talk (maybe with a little more flair, humor, and occasional pulpit pounding for theatrics) before an adoring audience who loves you because….well, you’re a GA.
I cannot speak to what most of the stake people do in their callings as I am not and (other than two short stints as secretary) have not been in ward presidencies. Their world and my world simply do not over lap.
I wish the stake music people did training however. I’ve been playing the organ in some capacity since I was 16. (That was a few decades ago). I have never had one of the stake music people talk to me about music. They organize music for conference (preludes, choirs and so forth) but that’s it. Which is a shame. The vast majority of us organists are really “organists” and in truth are piano players playing piano on an organ. Which is not actually the same thing. Having the stake systematically help newly called pianists learn some of the intricacies of the organ would be useful. It would be nice if the stake level callings actually did training and supported the ward level callings.
The OP and the comments highlight a problem that exists throughout the Church: too many make-work jobs and programs. It is not enough to be busy, it is important to be engaged in a worthwhile cause. The leaderships inability to identify the important issues that confront the Church and the world, is troubling.
I finally voted for training; it’s pretty much the only thing I’ve seen them do. It’s really seems like a vestige from times past, though.
I like the comments above about busy-work. In my ideal world, the church would not have any callings, jobs, or assignments that don’t actually matter. People without church-assigned callings would then do their own soul searching and just start doing the work they truly value. I mean, a lot of people, both in and out if the church, do that anyway. But that’s not what the church culture says. In the church culture, a calling is something assigned to you by a leader. Outside of the church culture, a calling is something that one feels especially motivated and qualifed to do.
I still remember reading and article that quoted orson scott card. He related there are really only 4 callings in the church. There are decision makers (NOT LEADERS), clerks , musicians , and teachers.
Generally someone gets peg holed into one of these groups and never escapes their stereotype. The clerks and musicians are needed, but are not allowed into the other groups. The decision makers get the attention and take all the oxygen from the room. But the most important calling is teacher. We should all be given opportunities to reach and share. Christ was a teacher.
But there is a social strata and cliques that run the wards and stakes. The church only included a few decision makers and usually placed in stake callings. And they act superior to all others. They do not take the role of teacher.
They have meetings…to plan the next meeting…for the next meeting. And then gossip between.
Completely inefficient
So since stake auxiliaries do not teach…they really serve no true functional purpose.
The purpose of stake callings is to keep the “decision makers” light-years away from ministering and teaching. Many, if not most, are not that good at it. Granted, they think they are good, but… you know.
“There are decision makers (NOT LEADERS), clerks , musicians , and teachers. Generally someone gets peg holed into one of these groups and never escapes their stereotype.”
Oh I hope so. They have had me as a teacher for years now and I absolutely love it. I’m such a know it all (it’s a horrible character flaw and I’ll be the first to admit it) and so to be able to not have to sit through someone else’s class and bite my tongue the whole time is a great blessing to me.
Ehhhh, that approach has a whole lot of limitations, to be honest. Not everyone who has a desire to serve also has the bandwidth to build a ministry from scratch, and that’s what you’d be effectively asking people to do.
And I am not speaking hypothetically–I have seen this issue in real time in mainline/evangelical churches.
Conner Bill, I agree. Whether it’s idea or not, it is not practical.
Ward RS president here. Our current stake leadership is pretty great, I think, but even so it seems mainly to be a social/cheerleader type position. The stake provides a couple of nice (i.e., adequately funded) activities each year for the sisters in our stake. The stake RS president is a delightful and lovely woman who brings me little treats and offers encouraging words, which really do help. This is a tough calling!
BUT… it saddens me that, as far as I can tell, this is like the best case scenario in terms of female leadership at the stake level: a nice, encouraging, helpful lady who wants to support the other nice, helpful ladies. I say this because my aunt, who is also lovely, kind, helpful, and absolutely devoted to the church was, until recently, a stake RS president. After a year of spinning her wheels in the position, she finally gathered the courage to go into her stake council meeting and say, “Look, I have all kinds of ideas for things that could help these sisters, but if you aren’t going to allow me to do any of them you might just as well release me because, as it is, I’m not able to do any good for anyone.”
They released her.
One calling that I think can be left up to discretion is Mission President Councilor. Some missions they are kept fairly busy, like in my mission where they did a lot of those second interviews for baptismal candidates, they gave talks in Church and our mission had these monthly meetings that they attended and they gave input and were expected to know policies etc. In this mission here in Canada, I just saw a photo on FB of the councilor playing cards at the mission president’s house when a new senior couple arrived in the mission and they all had dinner together. Dinners, zone conferences that apparently they don’t speak at seems to be the job description and this guy drives our to Ontario to give recommend interviews because apparently the District President doesn’t have the keys-but if you can give them to a councilor why can’t you give them to a local guy? Seems like here it’s throw away calling when his services could be better utilized elsewhere
Abolish all of the above, except keep the stake presidency as is, and turn the high council into a real stake council. The high council would then function a bit like a ward council, with both men and women representatives. Currently, high council members are assigned to work with priesthood quorums, YM/YW, missionaries, etc.., but much of this work is “over site” (i.e. very little) in relationship to what stake officers do. I can envision a stake council that combine a “stake young men’s president” and a “high councilor over the stake young men’s program” into one gig. And sister’s on the stake council would work with YW, primary, and RS; while brothers would still oversee ordinations while working with the priesthood organization. All stake council members would “represent” the stake presidency and speak in wards.
I’m not sure what to do with church disciplinary councils, but having been on a stake high council for 7 years I, personally, hated participating in them and would have much preferred the stake presidency keep that duty to themselves. It’s important to note that members of a high council do not have a “vote” in the matters anyway (nor do stake presidency counselors for that matter), which definitely worked for me.
(I just sent an email to my children, which I entitled “Am I being monitored by The Brethren? You be the judge…”. I thought you might find it amusing):
From this evenings ksl.com article about Elder Cook’s announcement:
“At the stake and general levels, Young Men presidencies will stay intact. A high councilor will be assigned as the Young Men president…”
From a comment by me in a blog entitled “What’s the Point of Stake Auxiliaries?” in early September:
“Currently, high council members are assigned to work with priesthood quorums, YM/YW, missionaries, etc., but much of this work is “over site” (i.e. very little) in relationship to what stake officers do. I can envision a stake council that combine a “stake young men’s president” and a “high councilor over the stake young men’s program” into one gig…”
Of course, I’m not being monitored by the brethren. I’m being monitored by the Russians, who then sell the information to The Brethren.