Sharing My Answer to a Recent Question

Hello again, everyone! I need to get on my soapbox for a minute. As some of you may know, the Church has been doing more Face-to-Face events for youth and Young Adults. We recently learned that the September 9 Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults would combine with another Face-to-Face event for Young Adults, and would feature Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, along with two representatives from the Church History Department. Set to originate from Nauvoo Illinois, the devotional and Face-to-Face event will showcase a new narrative history of the Church, which is anticipated to be a four-volume set and will be published in coming years.

Now we come to the reason I am getting up on my soapbox. I personally have a problem with one of the question that one young adult asked in preparation for that event. The question posed was why the members of the Quorum of the Twelve no longer serve as missionaries as they did in the early days of the Church.

To me, the question suggests both a misunderstanding of the current evolution of the missionary program, to say nothing of modern Church procedures and the ministry of the apostles. As often as these Brethren can, they are committed to being out among the people of the Church, to finding out what their needs and concerns are, and to using that information to mold the opinions they offer on Church doctrine and policy.

From 2002-2005, we had three members of the Quorum of the Twelve assigned to serve as Area Presidenfots in Chile (Elder Holland) and the Philippines (then-Elder Oaks; both assignments lasting 2 years between 2002-2004) and Europe (Elder L. Tom Perry, for one year). This gave them the chance to observe first-hand day-to-day needs and issues in those areas, which molded their ability to contribute to discussions on policy matters specific to those areas. Also, the Church News recently shared this article, which I have previously mentioned on this blog, about how the ministry of the apostles and the missionaries of the Church have a connection in their worldwide ministry.

With that background in mind, here is the problem I have with that question: First, it used to be very common for the apostles to be missionaries in the early days of the Church, but that was simply because the Church is not as global as it is now. Second, although the apostles were commonly sent out on missions for the first 40-50 years or so of Church history, it was not uncommon for these Brethren to have to leave their families to serve in that way. Recognizing the toll this had taken on the early Brethren, in a revelation to Brigham Young (what we now know as Section 126), this is what the Lord said to him at that time:

"Dear and well-beloved brother, Brigham Young, verily thus saith the Lord unto you: My servant Brigham, it is no more required at your hand to leave your family as in times past, for your offering is acceptable to me.

"I have seen your labor and toil in journeyings for my name.

"I therefore command you to send my word abroad, and take especial care of your family from this time, henceforth and forever. Amen."

So the new direction to the President of the Quorum at that time (which extends to the apostles today) is to send the word abroad (which implies that should be done through the ministry of others), and to take especial care of their families (which would be harder to do if they were involved in full-time missionary work).

That does not, of course, excuse these Brethren from their duty to share their apostolic witness with the world, but when we combine the words of this revelation with what the article cited above shared about the connected and shared role the apostles and the missionaries have, it should be plain that the apostles sending the missionaries (by being inspired about which missionaries should serve in which areas of the world), the extension of a mission call is the Brethren's best way to follow the mandate of sending the word abroad.

But it also comes back to the fact that, with the Church being so much more global now than it was in the early days of the Church when apostles were more easily able to serve long-term as missionaries, if the apostles were to devote more time to doing more missionary work themselves, there would be little or no opportunities to do much else, including seeing to the day-to-day administration of the Church.

This is the same reason that, as I have noted a few times before, apostles could, during the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, meet personally with those opposing a vote to sustain any general Church leader, but why that would not be possible now. The Church has moved much more fully in the direction of placing more trust and responsibility on local leaders, who at this time, would be better suited to understanding why a local member of their congregation might have a problem sustaining anyone.

The apostles are divinely mandated to share their witness of the Savior with the world, which does involve extensive traveling. But due to the increasingly global nature of the Church, if the apostles took more time than they now do to serve missions, or to meet with those who dissent a sustained proposal, their ability to administer the affairs of the global Church, and to make all the decisions and go through the deliberations pertaining thereunto would be greatly hampered, which in turn would slow to a halt the Church's ability to remain global.

That said, one other major obligations the apostles hold is to unlock the doors of nations to the preaching of the gospel, and in every prayer of dedication relating to such events of which I have read, special mention is made of the missionaries that will serve and the members who will come into the Church in that nation, which means that the prayer of dedication serves as both an extension of their apostolic mandate to take the gospel to the world, in addition to providing the Lord's blessing on the missionaries that current and future apostles will send to such lands.

I apologize if the way I approach such questions come across as insensitive of the individuals who ask them. But what would be practical for a Church that is only present in a handful of nations no longer becomes feasible or wise when the membership of the Church and its' day-to-day administration is on a more global scale.

That said, I recognize that I do not speak for Elder Cook (to whom this question was addressed) or for any of the Brethren, for that matter. They speak for the Lord, while I only ever speak for myself. If that question is one that Elder Cook elects to answer, his answer will likely be given with far more understanding of the one asking the question, the question itself, and how best to answer it.

I appreciate the chance to address this personally, but again, I speak only for myself, and the analysis of the question I provided here may not be in accord with the answer that might be officially provided. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to do so, please feel free to subscribe to stay informed of new content. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.