Changing Patterns of Mormon Financial Administration

Introduction

In the twentieth century, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relies heavily on two kinds of bishops—Presiding and ward—to help manage its temporal affairs. In the nineteenth century, traveling and regional bishops also played an important role in financial administration. These “other bishops” assume a prominent place in the economic structure of the Church between 1851 and 1888.

The Church administration in the nineteenth century needed to supervise the tithing on income and increase, as well as other religious donations of the membership. The common practice of donating “in kind” (such as pigs, eggs, or butter) rather than in cash compounded the difficulty of the task, since such tithing not only had to be accounted for but also fed or kept from spoiling. The Presiding Bishopric relied on a storehouse system and on traveling and regional bishops to assist them in caring for these resources.¹

As the chief administrator of voluntary donations, Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter used traveling agents from 1851 to 1888 in administering the temporal affairs of the Church. These agents included traveling bishops and regional presiding bishops between 1851 and 1877, and bishop’s agents from 1877 to 1888.

Traveling Bishops, 1851–77

At the fall 1851 LDS general conference John Banks, Alfred Cordon, and Nathaniel Felt were approved and ordained as assistant presiding traveling bishops. They were sustained at each subsequent general conference until October 1853. In the April 1852 general conference five additional men were selected as assistant presiding traveling bishops: Seth Taft, David Pettigrew, Abraham Hoagland, David Fullmer, and Daniel Spencer. How long the eight men served as traveling bishops remains unknown, except for Seth Taft, who was formally released at the 1858 general conference.²

The duties of the assistant presiding travelling bishops were an extension of the temporal duties assigned to the Presiding Bishopric. The travelling bishops were to settle accounts periodically with the various bishops and then report to the Presiding Bishop. They were to see that the local bishops were faithful in gathering and forwarding tithing to the General Tithing Office. They also taught the local bishops acceptable tithing methods—how to keep accurate records and how to fill out the required reports. Also, as implied by their title, the traveling bishops traveled.³ Nathaniel H. Felt, for instance, visited practically every Utah settlement in fulfilling his duties.⁴ A. Milton Musser, probably the Presiding Bishopric’s most influential traveling agent or traveling bishop,⁵ wrote in 1868: “Since I commenced traveling I have seen to the tithing business and all of its ramifications. Some years I’ve visited all the largest settlements twice & many of them oftener.”⁶

Bishop Musser was a traveling bishop from 1860 to 1876. As early as 1861 he set out to establish a uniform, simple method of book-keeping among the bishops. By 1868 he was satisfied that he had succeeded. Early in 1869, he mailed to President Brigham Young a detailed report of twenty settlements that he had evaluated in terms of the number of families, the poor, day schools, sabbath schools, sheep, cooperative stores, gristmills, sawmills, carding machines, machine shops, and Relief Societies.⁷ This account was only part of an even larger report which he later mailed to President Young. In 1875 Bishop Musser sent a letter to the First Presidency reflecting his eye for detail and also his desire to improve local resource management. Reporting on what he considered to be gross neglect by a certain local bishop. A. Milton Musser provided a summation of the bishop’s negligence figure down to the last penny: “The aggregate losses of tithing produce” during the decade in which that man had been bishop, he complained, totaled $12,804.91.⁸

In 1871 the First Presidency called Musser’s brother-in-law, Elijah F. Sheets, as a traveling bishop. In their letter of appointment to Brother Sheets, Brigham Young and his counselors assigned him to assume general supervision of donations in Utah, Juab, Sanpete, and Millard counties, as well as in other areas which might be assigned to him later. The First Presidency instructed Bishop Sheets to see that the tithing was forwarded to the General Storehouse at Salt Lake City and authorized him to counsel and advise local members on temporal matters. In his brief autobiography, Elijah Sheets did not specify clearly if or when he was ever formally released as a traveling bishop, but his tenure must have ended by the 10 October 1880 conference, when Orson Pratt remarked that the Church at that time had no traveling bishops.⁹

Regional Presiding Bishops, 1851–77

During the Brigham Young administration a number of “presiding bishops” helped direct the temporal interests of the Church.¹⁰ Unlike Presiding Bishop Hunter, whose jurisdiction encompassed the entire Church, these presiding bishops possessed only regional authority. To distinguish them from the Presiding Bishops, the terms regional presiding bishop or regional bishop will be used.

At an 1852 “bishop’s meeting” held in Salt Lake City, the bishop of American Fork, Leonard E. Harrington, suggested the need for a regional bishop in his area when, after asking about storehouses and the disposition of tithing produce, he “wanted to Know if a Sectional organization Could not be entered into where a number of the neighboring Bishops Could not assemble and make reports to an individual that might be appointed to preside.”¹¹ In an 1865 letter to Brigham Young, Traveling Bishop Musser suggested stepping up the use of regional presiding bishop:

It has seemed to me that the interests of the Tithing office and the people would be promoted by making the following blendings and appointed presiding Bishops over them. It would certainly lessen the labor of the Genl. Tithing office & by having central places of deposit for tithing produce instead of so many small ones, the losses also would, I think, be materially abridged.

Bishop Musser then detailed the “blendings” he had in mind and recommended seven men for Brigham Young to consider as regional bishops.¹²

In his letter appointing Samuel F. Atwood as a regional bishop in Summit County, Brigham Young instructed him to oversee tithing collection, care for public property, counsel with the local bishops, “and generally to attend to, and transact business pertaining to the temporal interests of the Church” in the settlements under his charge.¹³

Use of regional bishops became widespread but not universal in the Mormon West. By July 1877 about three of every five Mormon settlements or wards came under supervision of a regional bishop. This does not include Salt Lake County wards (twelve percent of the total), which apparently required no regional bishop because of proximity to the Presiding Bishopric and the General Tithing Office.¹⁴

The era of the regional presiding bishops closed with an official pronouncement by the First Presidency in an 11 July 1877 circular:

In consequence of it having been thought more convenient in some of the Stakes for the tithing to be concentrated in one place, and for one bishop to receive reports from others and keep charge of the tithing, &c., the idea has grown up that such a bishop is a presiding bishop, and in many places he has been so regarded. This idea is an incorrect one. Brother Edward Hunter is the only one who acts as presiding bishop in the Church.¹⁵

Certainly members of the First Presidency were aware that the regional presiding bishops had not simply evolved independently in their area in response to a desire for more efficient tithing administration; Brigham Young himself had promoted the idea by calling men to serve as regional bishops. The First Presidency’s later rejection of the idea of regional presiding bishops seems to have been a reaction to the exaggerated importance some Mormons had ascribed to their regional leaders. The 1877 circular, part of a general priesthood reorganization,¹⁶ limited the power of the regional bishops while clarifying and enhancing the authority of the Presiding Bishopric.

Bishop’s Agents, 1877–88

In abolishing the presiding bishops, Brigham Young did not create an administrative void. Although he rescinded the idea of regional presiding bishops, he perpetuated the use of regional bishops. Only four days after the 11 July 1877 circular, George W. Bean was selected as a regional bishop of Sevier Stake. Bean’s journal account of his call seems to link the emergence of the bishop’s agent system to Brigham Young’s 1877 reorganization movement. Bean’s description also demonstrated some confusion over terminology.

In July, President Young and Counselors directed the more perfect organization of Sevier Stake, and many changes and additions were made in the governing Priesthood. Apostles Orson Hyde and Erastus Snow came and set everything in working order. . . . I was ordained and appointed Bishop Edward Hunter’s financial agent for this Stake with instructions to see that all tithing matters such as grain, hay, and all kinds of produce shall be more properly cared for. I was set apart by Apostle Orson Hyde as a Stake Presiding Bishop, in this special calling.¹⁷

The imprecise use of titles also occurred in Beaver Stake where William Fotheringham was sustained at various conferences as “traveling Bishop and General Church Agent for Bishop Hunter,” “traveling bishop,” and “Traveling Bishop of Beaver Stake.”¹⁸

In January 1878 the Deseret Evening News published the minutes of a “bishop’s meeting” at which John Taylor explained a new system of bishop’s agents. In a manner recalling Brigham Young’s objection to the misuse of the term presiding bishop, President Taylor stated that the bishop’s agents were not to preside over the other bishops in their stakes but were, as their title implied, agents of the Presiding Bishop, or Presiding Bishop’s agents.¹⁹

The bishop’s agent system provided the most extensive and uniform overseeing of regional tithing matters that the Church had ever enjoyed. Between 1877 and 1888 the Presiding Bishop depended on his agents to solve problems on a decentralized level, communicate necessary information, provide accurate financial reports, care for tithing resources, and even act as loan officers and sales representatives.²⁰ For example, in Sevier County a problem arose which involved the financial interests of the Church as well as those of a man who had complained in a letter to the Presiding Bishopric. In response to this complaint, John R. Winder of the Presiding Bishopric wrote Bishop’s Agent George W. Bean, asking him to find a solution to the problem, and another letter to the man involved notifying him that the whole matter had been placed in the hands of Agent Bean.²¹ In 1884 Bishops Leonard W. Hardy and Robert T. Burton of the presiding Bishopric asked Bishop’s Agent George Osmond of Bear Lake Stake to help a new family of German immigrants with food and shelter when the family arrived in Paris, Idaho.²²

The Presiding Bishopric looked to the bishop’s agents to help provide the effective communications needed to direct the Church’s temporal affairs. Frequently the Presiding Bishopric sought information regarding the tithing resources available in various regions. “How many car loads of well assorted potatoes do you think you will have in your stake?” was typical of the nature of the Presiding Bishopric’s questions to their agents.²³

The bishop’s agents were also a central part of the Presiding Bishopric’s efforts to maintain accurate financial records. These agents imparted instructions to local bishops relative to tithing matters and book-keeping. The bishop’s agents settled accounts with the ward bishops, a duty made more difficult by “in kind” donations and at times by the local bishops’ inadequate record keeping and tithing management practices. The agents were also responsible to keep abreast of stake tithing matters and to report periodically to the Presiding Bishopric. But by 1882 many agents neither received nor disbursed tithing.²⁴

Regional tithing administration led the bishop’s agents into other related areas of work. The Presiding Bishopric seemed especially willing to allow loans to the “worthy” poor. Consequently, in some cases the bishop’s agents assumed the roles of loan officers or sales agents for the Presiding Bishopric. For example, in 1884 Bishops Hardly and Burton of the Presiding Bishopric²⁵ instructed Morgan Stake’s agent, Charles Turner, to loan a man ten tons of tithing hay, take the man’s “obligation” for the amount allotted, and then expect repayment the ensuing fall.

In Territorial Utah most Church members paid their tithing “in kind,” and what cash they did donate was so badly needed to pay for consumer goods, immigrant transportation fares, and farm supplies that most monetary donations quickly left the Territory. The challenge of converting “in kind” items to cash became a major concern. In 1884 Presiding Bishop William B. Preston asked Bishop’s Agent Francis Gunnell to forward to him samples of wheat from three different settlements so that the central office could present them to a prospective buyer.²⁶ A letter from the Presiding Bishop to Agent George Osmond demonstrates the advantages of a centrally coordinated sales network: “You had better sell the Wool at home if possible. The Highest price here is 15^¢. If you can get 14^¢. or near that in Cash you had better sell, if not send it to this Office.”²⁷

Between 1887 and 1889 stake tithing clerks replaced bishop’s agents. This change was to prevent stake presidents from acting in a dual role as president and agent as well as to allow the Presiding Bishopric to interact with bishops and stake clerks directly. Capacity to do this had increased with railroad development. Bishop’s agents were discontinued first in regions located sufficiently near railroad lines to allow the Presiding Bishopric to attend to stake business personally. On 24 December 1887, the bishop’s agents in Cache, Box Elder, Weber, Morgan, Summit, Wasatch, Davis, Tooele, Utah, San Juan, and Salt Lake stakes were discontinued. On 1 March 1888, the Council of the Twelve chose to discontinue all bishop’s agents.²⁸

Defining Priesthood Administrative Jurisdictions

The discontinuation of the bishop’s agents spelled the end to an era in which centrally appointed bishops served as regional administrators for the Presiding Bishopric. By abolishing their regional agents and assuming more direct responsibility for ward and stake tithing matters, the Presiding Bishopric increased centralization. Yet simultaneously they promoted the decentralization of tithing administration by allowing regional church leaders to select their own “stake tithing clerks” to replace the centrally appointed agents.²⁹

The decision to abolish the bishop’s agents may have been part of an ongoing redefinition of the relationship between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods within the Church. The administrative systems used by Church leaders between 1851 and 1888 were part of a larger administrative framework consisting of the all-encompassing Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith’s statement that this priesthood was subdivided into two branches—the Melchizedek over the spiritual and the Aaronic over the temporal—influenced the nature of Church government in the Mormon West. During the presidency of Brigham Young, a division of priesthood duties occurred on the general, regional, and local levels. On the general level the President of the Church presided over the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Presiding Bishop over the Aaronic. On the regional level an Apostle or stake president served at times as the Melchizedek leader while a regional presiding bishop headed the Aaronic Priesthood. Even on the local level a president and bishop sometimes functioned side by side as Melchizedek and Aaronic leaders.³⁰

When John Taylor became President of the Church, Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood leaders functioned jointly at only the general and regional levels; the use of local presidents and bishops had been discontinued. During the Wilford Woodruff administration, the office of bishop’s agent was abolished. Its replacement, the stake tithing clerk, was basically an agent of the stake president, not of the Presiding Bishop. The only Melchizedek-Aaronic relationship to survive the 1851–88 period was of the President of the Church and the Presiding Bishop. An administrative balance had been achieved by 1889. The President and the Presiding Bishop balanced each other at the general level, while the stake presidents and ward bishops balanced each other in the various regions. The stake Melchizedek Priesthood leaders—the stake presidents—emerged as the spiritual and temporal heads of their regions, while the local Aaronic Priesthood leaders—the bishops—exercised both spiritual and temporal leadership in their wards.³¹

Conclusion

Between 1851 and 1888 the Presiding Bishopric relied on traveling bishops, regional presiding bishops, and bishop’s agents to help keep the storehouse system running smoothly, to assist ward bishops with financial matters, and in general to assist the Presiding Bishopric in directing the temporal affairs of the Church. The various agents of the Presiding Bishopric were ordained bishops because of their dealings in temporal matters, but unlike ward bishops, their jurisdiction extended beyond a single ward. Traveling bishops served during the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s. Regional presiding bishops functioned during those same decades and were replaced beginning in 1877 by bishop’s agents. The traveling bishops, regional presiding bishops, and bishop’s agents played leading roles in Church financial administration, and awareness of their existence and functions allows us to better understand how the Presiding Bishopric managed the temporal affairs of the Church during its first four decades in the West.

Traveling Bishops

Banks, John

Cordon, Alfred

Felt, Nathaniel H.

Fullmer, David

Hoagland, Abraham

Musser, A. Milton

Pettigrew, David

Sheets, Elijah F.

Spencer, Daniel

Taft, Seth

Regional Presiding Bishops

Bishop’s Agents

The author expresses appreciation to D. Michael Quinn for assistance in the formulation and completion of the M.A. thesis upon which this article is based and to Keith W. Perkins for his helpful suggestions concerning both substantive and stylistic matters in the thesis.