Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsWealth And Education = Mormon Worthiness?
Wealth Education = Mormon Worthiness - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 21st Sep, 2012 - 6:26pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 15 - Views: 1949
Wealth And Education = Mormon Worthiness?
Something I have noticed in the Church as long as I am a member is that people who are called in leadership positions such as Bishops, Stake Presidents or Mission Presidents seem come from a specific background. They usually are:
1. Wealthy, well off or financially stable
2. Professionals
3. Administrative oriented
I found this article which I thought explains well some of my thoughts (please read all):
QUOTE Here's what I see happening with increasing frequency as the Church fully embraces a more corporate model: Priesthood leadership positions being given to those who are financially better off than most of the congregants over whom they preside. On its face, there may be nothing alarming about this phenomenon. Wealth certainly is not a sin (well, except for maybe for that whole "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" stuff) and should not be a barrier to an otherwise worthy person's service in a leadership position. However, when only the wealthy are moved up the ranks, it sends a clear message to others: wealth = worthiness. This is especially pronounced in a lay clergy community such as ours, where every member, at least on paper, has an equal chance at attaining wealth and position.
We"ve all heard stories of General Authorities dispatched to pick a new Stake President, and who, under the influence of the Spirit, and choose a humble (I.e., non-rich) guy who has been reactivated for a few months. That has not been my experience; my last three Stake Presidents have all been very successful (I.e., rich) attorneys. In fact, when I first moved into the area, the entire Stake Presidency, down to the Executive Secretary, were lawyers. Even in the wilds of Guatemala, where no one was rich by any American standard, leadership positions tended to rotate among the those who had more than others. Thinking back, virtually all of my Bishops have been very successful white collar professionals. The same is true of Mission Presidents.
Why is this problematic? Because it can lead to a virulent strain of classism amongst members. Those with more money (and position) begin to believe themselves to be more favored of God than other, less-blessed members. Once these folks get into power, they may come to believe that, as evidenced by their pocketbooks, they are more in touch with God's will, and thus are entitled to push their interpretation of His will onto those they preside over. Similarly, leaders looking at open ward positions may tend to gravitate to the more affluent, assuming their wealth to be an indicator of their worthiness. At the same time, poorer members believe that their financial situation is a curse from God, leading to lowered self-esteem, lessened spirituality and, potentially, departure from the Church.
A buddy of mine, who is among the few families not to live in the gated community housing the majority of his ward, has told me several times how out of place he feels sitting in Elders" Quorum while CEOs use lessons to swap stories of their latest international adventures. For me, I"ll admit its strange to pull into a parking lot full of sports cars for Stake Conference.
For my money (pardon the pun), I think this is an issue worth examining. The Book of Mormon is rife with examples of harmony within the Nephite community being totally undone by wickedness springing directly from the pride of members as a result of their wealth. The question is, how do we address the problem, apart from advising leaders not to take wealth into account when making callings.
We"ve all heard stories of General Authorities dispatched to pick a new Stake President, and who, under the influence of the Spirit, and choose a humble (I.e., non-rich) guy who has been reactivated for a few months. That has not been my experience; my last three Stake Presidents have all been very successful (I.e., rich) attorneys. In fact, when I first moved into the area, the entire Stake Presidency, down to the Executive Secretary, were lawyers. Even in the wilds of Guatemala, where no one was rich by any American standard, leadership positions tended to rotate among the those who had more than others. Thinking back, virtually all of my Bishops have been very successful white collar professionals. The same is true of Mission Presidents.
Why is this problematic? Because it can lead to a virulent strain of classism amongst members. Those with more money (and position) begin to believe themselves to be more favored of God than other, less-blessed members. Once these folks get into power, they may come to believe that, as evidenced by their pocketbooks, they are more in touch with God's will, and thus are entitled to push their interpretation of His will onto those they preside over. Similarly, leaders looking at open ward positions may tend to gravitate to the more affluent, assuming their wealth to be an indicator of their worthiness. At the same time, poorer members believe that their financial situation is a curse from God, leading to lowered self-esteem, lessened spirituality and, potentially, departure from the Church.
A buddy of mine, who is among the few families not to live in the gated community housing the majority of his ward, has told me several times how out of place he feels sitting in Elders" Quorum while CEOs use lessons to swap stories of their latest international adventures. For me, I"ll admit its strange to pull into a parking lot full of sports cars for Stake Conference.
For my money (pardon the pun), I think this is an issue worth examining. The Book of Mormon is rife with examples of harmony within the Nephite community being totally undone by wickedness springing directly from the pride of members as a result of their wealth. The question is, how do we address the problem, apart from advising leaders not to take wealth into account when making callings.
Source 5
I do understand in extending a calling to someone who can basically "handle" it and to be financially stable is important but is it something they always look for when they need to call a new stake president or Bishop? (Wealth and Education). It seems so. Mind you, I know there are exceptions but the rule seem to indicate otherwise. How do members perceive this? Is the Church sending the wrong message? Are the wealthier and more educated more "Worthy" than the financially poor or less educated in the Church?
General Authorities have expressed that once we live the commandments of God, we will prosper financially and in our business. So are our rich LDS leaders more favored of the Lord hence he chooses them to lead?
Discuss.
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 28th Jan, 2010 - 3:53pm / Post ID: #
Worthiness Mormon Education Wealth
Interesting question. I've noticed that phenomenon too. It just seem rather Calvinistic and not-mormon to me.
From a worldy perspective, it makes lots of sense to call people who have leadership positions in the world, because they have "experience" in what they're doing. Being financially stable is a super-bonus, because they'll more likely do their job in church because they don't have to worry about how they get food on the table.
From a scriptural perspective, this shouldn't have any bearing. In fact I find it interesting just how frequently God specifically called "unqualified" people (Enoch who was slow of speech; Jesus a carpenter; various fishermen and a tax collector; Joseph Smith, a farm boy with little schooling; and many others). It's of course not always true, since Abraham, David, Job, and Solomon were all "loaded" so to say. But it does seem that more often than not God calls the poor, the meek. And that for a specific purpose in Him. Nowadays we don't really see that anymore. Nowadays "proven" people seem to be chosen. In the world, business leaders and professionals are chosen. In servicemen wards, it's mostly the officers who run the ward.
What I also think is interesting is that it used to be that most church leaders had very large families, but from my experience it seems that more and more church leaders have very small families. I find that interesting, since in Timothy it is talked about how being a family man and being able to successfully run a large family was seen as a qualifier for church service. In the scripture there's no mention of worldly success.
It sometimes makes you wonder how many people are truly called of God, and how many are more chosen by the worldly knowledge of the person choosing.
Wealth And Education = Mormon Worthiness? Studies Doctrine Mormon
I think it is more about the process of calling someone rather than what their background entails. In reality the person who is successful or educated does not call themselves, no one can do that, so we must look to the person doing the calling.
It is possible that is far easier to work on logic rather than the Spirit in callings. In other words, and as was mentioned someone who is financially stable is more likely to dedicate time to a calling. If you're a Stake President you will probably look for a potential Bishop like that even if the Spirit might want that Brother who is not quite so well off and you might have to help him out. Therefore it could be largely convenience.
Added to that people are more likely to call people they are in the same circle with, therefore if you are educated and successful it is doubtful you will be looking for the opposite of that.
Worthiness Mormon Education Wealth
The theory behind how the church calls people (besides the inspiration part) is based on both the willingness and means for whatever call they are going to receive. If you are going to be called as a bishop but can hardly feed your family then you won't be a good bishop because you will be worrying over your family more as you should!
Post Date: 15th Aug, 2012 - 5:03pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Worthiness Mormon Education Wealth
Insight: Mormon church made wealthy by donations
"Most of the revenue of the religion is from the U.S., and a large percentage comes from an elite cadre of wealthy donors, like Mitt Romney," said Cragun. " is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion." Ref. Source 1
Post Date: 10th Sep, 2012 - 3:35am / Post ID: #
Wealth Education = Mormon Worthiness
Hmmm. Interesting and touchy subject. I will begin with a quote from Hugh Nibley, from his book Approaching Zion, pp, 469-470:
QUOTE Are we wasting our time talking about the law of consecration? From the days of Joseph to the present, there has been one insuperable obstacle to the plan, and that is the invincible reluctance of most of the Brethren.... Only a few would listen.... The rest announced their intention to follow their own plans and get rich.... [Charles W. Nibley wrote in his journal] "It has become the custom in the church to give the high seats in the synagogue to men who have made 'money.'"
In my part of Southern Utah, the last two visiting general authorities were 70's, and both were lawyers!
I, however, was recently called to the Stake High Council, where everything from doctors, educators, to ranchers, and myself, a humble school bus driver, serve. So, if true, it is not entirely pervasive.
Wealth Education = Mormon Worthiness Mormon Doctrine Studies
QUOTE ...a humble school bus driver, serve. So, if true, it is not entirely pervasive.
I love bus drivers but I think this topic was mostly dealing with bishops and stake presidents. Now if you were a bush driver and a stake president or bishop the first thing I would be questioning is where do you get the time to attend meetings unless you have set hours and not on a shift system.
TOPIC: Wealth And Education = Mormon Worthiness?