Of course a thousand people could comment on how they’ve had leaders who weren’t millionaires, but really I think that one of the key points, that’s already been mentioned is stability. I remember hearing that one of the first questions asked in an interview for a calling like Stake President is “Are you in any debt?” It is vital that a person called to one of these positions is financially stable.

I’d also like to point out that wealthy people don’t get wealthy by working a 9-5 at the local department store. They aspire for something greater and they achieve. I believe that especially in the church, where theoretically all this wealth is gained honestly, that these people are hardworking, innovative, and motivated in general. Anybody can be wealthy, most just don’t realize it right in front of them. (Fun fact: You could become wealthy working at the local department store. )

One more thing, in regards to the thought that wealth people called to leadership positions may believe that they are better because they are wealthy. Well, I thought it was a fairly commonly known fact that power tends to corrupt. I don’t think this would only be true for wealthy people, it could just as easily be somebody else who for whatever reason believe a certain attribute they possess makes them better.

Our current stake president is an educator with a PHD, travels a considerable amount and I think that earns a decent wage but I would not call him extraordinaly wealthy. He will be released in two weeks and although we live in a very affluent part of California I am thinking of all of those that will likely be interviewed (myself included) and I do not know any that are off the charts wealthy. There are many whose wealth give them more flexibilty with their time and this I believe is a key factor in many such decisions.

#6 — I’m glad to hear this may not a be a Church-wide phenomenon. Trying to figure that out was was one of my reasons for posting. Thanks.

#17 — “Even the mildest competence at getting by in life distinctly shoves one towards the wealthier side of the spectrum. There are few professions, public education perhaps being one of the glaring exceptions, where by the time you’re getting towards your late 40’s you have to be at least a mild screw-up not to be making a good deal of money and have accumulated significant capital.” Are you serious? Either you’re pulling my leg, have a much looser definition of “significant capital” than I do, or you are not living the real world.

#18 — great thoughts. I agree.

The stake president is very well off, while his counselors are upper middle class. The High Council is made up of a mid-level manager (with a large, young family, so relatively poor), a mid-level accountant (relatively poor), an upper/mid-level manager (solid middle class), three retired military officers (well-off but not rich), a general manager of a small company (relatively poor), two bank executives (very well off), a recruiter (middle class, and married to a non-member – just fyi), a handyman (moderately well off due to being incredibly frugal) and one whose professional background I don’t know but who is at least upper middle class.

Honestly, I think that is representative of the Church in general. My current stake president is the only one of the Stake Presidency and High Council whose job makes him travel extensively, while all of the others have at least a degree of control over their schedules – at least being available most weekends and evenings for their required meetings. Most of them are “more well off” than the “average” member, but I believe only 1-3 of them are in the top 5% of the church members in this area economically – and at least 5 of them (33%) are in the bottom half. Also, only one bishop can be considered “rich”, and two of them (at least) are not “well off” by any stretch.

In my current ward, the bishop is an accountant whose wife had to work to help finance their son’s and daughter’s missions – even with “only” three children. His counselors are a school teacher who has had some very rough times financially, and a handyman who worked three jobs prior to being called into the bishopric. At one time, our ward organist was two people – a 13-year-old deacon who was the regular organist (and an amazing musician) and the President of a fairly large company (one of the richest men in the ward) who played the prelude music and then turned over the organ to the deacon. He is a rich, articulate, influential, intelligent, humble man who has never been a bishop or stake president. A local college dean has been a bishop and a SP Counselor – and now is a counselor in the YM Presidency. Our most recent bishop owns a small business and barely makes anything from it – and served for a time as a co-nursery leader after he was released as bishop.

General stereotypes might be accurate in broad brush strokes, but they certainly don’t constitute “the rule”, based on my decades in the Church – in two countries and four states. If you are worthy and can commit the necessary time without undue pressure on your family, I don’t believe your relative wealth will play much of a role in your callings – and sometimes the latter condition is waved when nobody else is available.

At least as I review the areas I have lived, Salt Lake, Canada and England. Your post fits the model perfectly and my stake now it’s a spot on resemblance.

I was discussing this with a friend who just got back from Australia and he thought this article was the clone of his stake over there and his current one here.

I went to a ward conference in a stake near by when it was over all the stake officers, high council men pulled away in Jags , Mercs and BMers. I felt awkward pulling away in our family Peugeot estate (kind of made sure we were one of the last to leave.)

When wealth gets to certain level its not like the richest millionaires get the Stake Presidency position. Being just a humble millionaire may be enough. It becomes irrelevant.

A similar thing you may notice with wealth is if your income in comparison to a friend stays static and their wealth increases they tend at least in their minds eye to become more of an authority on all issues i.e. health, relationship advice, the economy etc.

Could be a similar phenomenon going on with leaders of the Church. Their secular life is succeeding and gives them more confidence in their spiritual lives.

Over the 10 years I’ve lived here, we’ve had a mix of socioeconomic classes represented. There’s greater variability for the other leadership roles, and many economic stripes have been called, but less well-off people eventually ask to be released. The people who work 60-70 hour/wk and weekends to make ends meet end up getting released so they can spend their few waking free moments with their families, or heck even attending church.

I’m glad I don’t suffer from wealth=worthiness culture in my ward/stake.

The quote isn’t exact, I’m sure, but the central point is vital, imo.

But it seems like you’re also making the assumption that holding a leadership position implies that a person is more “worthy” than everyone else for that position. Given the definition of “worthy” that you set forth in the post, most active LDS are equally “worthy” to serve in leadership positions – meaning this type of worthiness is a pass or fail type – either you’ve got the temple recommend in your pocket or you don’t. If this is our standard of worthiness, then worthiness is not what determines who will be bishop – because anyone with a temple recommend is “worthy” to be bishop (or president of the church).

Since leaderhsip positions in our church are largely administrative in nature (as opposed to ministrative), it’s not surprising that those who have been successful in business are given leadership positions.

you may appreciate the work of justin peters. see the overview of his seminar at http://www.justinpeters.org for more on the heretical word of faith movement.

All I can say about my current high priest’s group is that the leader makes less than the first assistant who makes less than the second …

I think it varies, though I do agree that we have a strain of neo-calvinism running through the Church, and have written about it from time to time.

That said, Stake Presidents have to handle a lot of administrative tasks. Generally, that particular skill comes with a particular background.

I think the “bright-line” demarcation is that someone who is struggling to feed and clothe and support self and family is not is a good position to do so for others. “Righteousness”, in the end, has little to do with leadership. That is misunderstood by many, but they really are very different qualities.

The problem isn’t so much that the doctrine of stability (so-called) is incorrect as it is allowed to be an independent principle without being checked by other doctrines (I see this often within the church). By letting this principle have free reign (or any other principle, for that matter), we equate it with righteousness. The same could be said of temple work (he who goes to the temple regularly is “righteous”)…or even of other principles (patience, gentility, inquisitiveness)…all our true principles provided that they exist together. Otherwise, we end up with strange ideas about money, temple work, or tithing equating righteousness.

AdamF said: “Jesus routinely slams the wealthy UNLESS they give it all to the kingdom/serving others.” Jesus told the rich young man that, and the rich young man went away sorrowing. Does that mean you have to actually give it all away or that you should just not place your heart on the things of this world?

If wealth does not equal worthiness, I don’t think we should assume it equals unworthiness either. Wealth is a temptation, whether you have it or don’t. The prideful rich think they are better than the poor; the prideful poor think they are better than the rich. The wealth is not the issue; the pride is.

One thing that came to mind (and it isn’t always the case), but besides being financially stable, wealthy people are hard workers and usually pretty influential people (remember, not always the case). Our stake president does seminars for a living and is an amazing speaker. He is very driven, and thus, so is the stake.

This is just one point to consider, but I actually feel the same way as Shawn. I have seen how money can make people feel spiritually “above” others. It can be frustrating.

ACTION ALERT: Tell the Right-Wing Consultants NO to Prop 8!

As a people, if we are obedient to God, we will prosper financially; but individually, we have no such promise. Some individuals will be rich; some will be poor; but our general focus on education and stable families will lift us and future generations financially.

AdamF said: “Jesus routinely slams the wealthy UNLESS they give it all to the kingdom/serving others.” This is a good point that I have to ponder.

It’s been a while since I checked on the lengths of senior missions, but it was 18 months when I was a missionary. Since a mission president serves for twice as long, it kind of makes sense that more affluent people are called to that type of position. This argument of course ignores any spiritual aspect of the call… but so does the post.