Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Nepotism in the Church/Henry J. Eyring new president of BYUI


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

"It is not what you know but who you know"

In my opinion,  the practice among those with authority or influence of giving jobs to friends or relatives is everywhere. It is in our jobs, our churches, our politics, in our military, in our culture. It is neither bad nor good. We, generally, love our friends and we love our families and we want them to be successful. If those who are bosses, presidents, politicians, etc., have an opportunity to assist those we love and if they are qualified we naturally will choose them over someone we do not know. We will give them the job because we know them, we love them and we can help them succeed. 

Is this appropriate? Again, in some cases, yes, it is, but in some cases it is not. Lets take Mathew Hollands (to me) an obviously leap frogging type promotion. I do not believe at all that Elder Holland had a hand in his promotion. However, it would not surprise me that those who made the decision to elevate him knew of his progeny and perhaps did not want to offend any church leadership. Having said that, I still believe Brother Holland has the knowledge, skills, abilities, talents and qualities worthy of that promotion (even though he did skip over a few levels). I believe there will be no harm with him obtaining that position.

Leaders in our church's, in our politics, and in our culture tend to breed leaders. The apple does not fall too far from the tree, so to speak. This can be good, (sometimes, I admit it could be bad). Good examples of this are Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith were very worthy of the positions they held, and Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith as well were well suited for the positions they were called to (IMO, by Heavenly Father and not by their earthly fathers). President Hinckley, worried so much about his son coming into the 70, he even publicly remarked on it, which caused his son to say; "I believe I am the first 70 to come with a disclaimer" (paraphrased).

Church is true! 

Remember God chose his Son to be our Redeemer.

I think you're right on these points.  I've seen a ton of this type of stuff on local level Church administration as well.  Connected families get benefited.  I'm not sure there's much we do about it.  People love those who they are close to, trust them and that's our best explanation.  Companies tend to hire those whom there is some inside connection or at least connection with those who know the candidate and vouch for him/her.  The Church tends to promote and hire those with whom there is connection in the same way. 

Link to comment
Just now, Anijen said:

"It is not what you know but who you know"

In my opinion,  the practice among those with authority or influence of giving jobs to friends or relatives is everywhere. It is in our jobs, our churches, our politics, in our military, in our culture. It is neither bad nor good. We, generally, love our friends and we love our families and we want them to be successful. If those who are bosses, presidents, politicians, etc., have an opportunity to assist those we love and if they are qualified we naturally will choose them over someone we do not know. We will give them the job because we know them, we love them and we can help them succeed. 

Is this appropriate? Again, in some cases, yes, it is, but in some cases it is not. Lets take Mathew Hollands (to me) an obviously leap frogging type promotion. I do not believe at all that Elder Holland had a hand in his promotion. However, it would not surprise me that those who made the decision to elevate him knew of his father and perhaps did not want to offend any church leadership. Having said that, I still believe Brother Holland has the knowledge, skills, abilities, talents and qualities worthy of that promotion (even though he did skip over a few levels). I believe there will be no harm with him obtaining that position.

Leaders in our church's, in our politics, and in our culture tend to breed leaders. The apple does not fall too far from the tree, so to speak. This can be good, (sometimes, I admit it could be bad). Good examples of this are Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith were very worthy of the positions they held, and Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith as well were well suited for the positions they were called to (IMO, by Heavenly Father and not by their earthly fathers). President Hinckley, worried so much about his son coming into the 70, he even publicly remarked on it, which caused his son to say; "I believe I am the first 70 to come with a disclaimer" (paraphrased).

Church is true! 

Remember God chose his Son to be our Redeemer.

why would they be worried about offending Elder Holland? would be even be offended? I wonder if people in family businesses promote others to look good so they get promoted, scratch my back and i'll scratch yours-don't know if that is what is happening here but. I have an easier time believing prophets who's sons didn't become a leader in the Church when they say anything about nepotism, LOVE Pres. Hinckley but actions speak louder than words.

Link to comment

In my experience, the 'nepotism' happens not because of favoritism, but because leaders have limited knowledge of who is available for callings and so tend to fall back on those they already know and trust. In my stake, about 30-40% of the high counsel comes from my ward. As such, when stake positions need to be filled, the stake presidency asks the HC for recommendations and invariably a greater-than-average proportion of those recommendations come from my ward. As such, members of my ward now occupy about 30% of stake positions too. And the cycle continues. It's not intentional, but it is systemic. 

Edited by Buckeye
Link to comment
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're right on these points.  I've seen a ton of this type of stuff on local level Church administration as well.  Connected families get benefited.  I'm not sure there's much we do about it.  People love those who they are close to, trust them and that's our best explanation.  Companies tend to hire those whom there is some inside connection or at least connection with those who know the candidate and vouch for him/her.  The Church tends to promote and hire those with whom there is connection in the same way. 

That is the ONLY way my husband could have got his job with his current company. Many companies use computers now days to read resumes. My husband does not have a master's degree so the computer kicked him out. He is fairly well known in the circle of what he does. He got his job because someone who had worked with him on something knew his abilities and asked for him. We are grateful that he was connected. He is currently getting his MS just in case he should be in the need again.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

In my experience, the 'nepotism' happens not because of favoritism, but because leaders have limited knowledge of who is available for callings and so tend to fall back on those they already know and trust. In my stake, about 30-40% of the high counsel comes from my ward. As such, when stake positions need to be filled, the stake presidency asks the HC for recommendations and invariably a greater-than-average proportion of those recommendations come from my ward. As such, members of my ward now occupy about 30% of stake positions too. And the cycle continues. It's not intentional, but it is systemic. 

I never noticed this before till last year when in stake conference they  sustained people while also mentioning what ward they came from. I looked up all the stake callings and found that a huge amount came from one ward. It is possible that others had more stake callings, but weren't listed (I wasn't) -these callings would not have been high profile though. 

One other thing I have noticed in this stake. I have visited Sunday School (with everyone, but primary attending) twice in all the wards in the stake. This same ward very clearly had 3-4 times the number of people attending than most of the other wards in the stake. If leaders are coming from church families it may also have something to do with the number of family members actively attending the church. They stick out better. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Are we saying that being in a leadership position in the church is some sort of benefit? Let's see, we are calling you to be Bishop. Please be aware that , in addition to your regular day job, you will be required to put in another 10-20 hours a week and expected to hear the troubles of members and DO something about them. Your decisions will be second guessed by ' faithful' members and some will even show up on worldwide forums. Be prepared to spend a bit of your own money to cover minor costs from time to time. You know, extra travel etc. Oh, and your own family will get to see less of you. But think off all the perks !

So true.  I think there are a lot of people who do see it as a benefit, or at the very least some kind of honor, and that's why it bugs them.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps Brother Holland's surname doesn't hurt.  I certainly don't know enough to know for sure (I'll grant that you, as a member of the academy, are in a much better position to know much more about such things than I do) but (notwithstanding that I will concede that there are probably a fair number of Latter-day Saint faculty, staff members, and administrators at UVU), as a state-sponsored institution, UVU can ill afford to consider itself "BYU-Orem" and to operate accordingly.  Yes, Elder Holland (Jeffrey Holland, that is) is a Latter-day Saint. Yes, if he were not a Latter-day Saint, his chances of being named president of BYU-Provo would have been absolutely nil.  Yes, Elder Holland's history in higher education leadership probably hasn't hurt his sons.  But what strings do you suppose were pulled (and by whom?) to get David F. Holland, formerly a lowly assistant professor of history at U N L Freaking V, of all places, :o an endowed full professorship at Harvard? :blink::shok: 

Perhaps I'm simply grossly underestimating Elder Holland's reach and influence, and the nepotism that results, throughout the insular higher education community.  (Though I find it hard to believe that someone who last was active in the higher education community 37 years ago, and at such an educational backwater as BYU-Provo, at that, continues to wield such vast influence over such a wide sphere, or that the many of the powers-that-be at, e.g., Harvard, don't consider BYU-Provo to be something of an educational backwater, or that a Harvard administrator told his secretary, "What's that? Jeff Holland, former president of BYU-Provo from a lifetime ago, is on the phone asking about a potential full, endowed professorship for his son?  Hold my calls!"

Still, maybe the explanation actually is much simpler than that.  Perhaps "the apples don't fall far from the tree," and perhaps the Hollands really are that impressive.  

Has anyone alleged nepotism or family influence in the Harvard Holland hiring?  His hiring seemed like a natural progression of an accomplished and successful academic.  To clarify... He was an award winning tenured associate professor at UNLV (with two grad degrees from Stanford) before taking an associate professor position at a more prestigious institution.  After being there for a while, he was promoted to full professor.

I don't know anything about the other Holland son who is now the UVU president.  From all accounts it appears he's doing a great job.  However, it is highly unusual to go from associate professor to university president.  It might happen on rare occasions, but that's something that I've never seen. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Are we saying that being in a leadership position in the church is some sort of benefit? Let's see, we are calling you to be Bishop. Please be aware that , in addition to your regular day job, you will be required to put in another 10-20 hours a week and expected to hear the troubles of members and DO something about them. Your decisions will be second guessed by ' faithful' members and some will even show up on worldwide forums. Be prepared to spend a bit of your own money to cover minor costs from time to time. You know, extra travel etc. Oh, and your own family will get to see less of you. But think off all the perks !

I get what you're saying, but I think church leadership would argue that callings are a net blessing. We commit a disservice when we build up callings as net burdens, such as women who say "why would I ever want to be a bishop?"

Personally, I don't recommend that anyone seek out a calling. However, in retrospect, I have seen that most all of my callings have been a net benefit to my personal growth. So I'm glad to have had them. And I desire for those I care about (e.g., my children) to have similar growth experiences. Because of this, while I would not petition for my children to have any specific calling at any specific time, I would be troubled by a practice or policy that generally prevented them from receiving a call. As one example, the current church policy that requires YW to wait another year to serve a mission bothers me because it delays blessings and gets no reasonable benefit in return.

Also, consideration should be given to how groups, as opposed to individuals, are treated with respect to callings. When I lived in Chicago, 1/2 our ward were transient student families (white, middle and upper class). The other half were permanent locals (most black and lower class). Our bishopric did a good job of including both of these groups within ward council and leadership positions. That was a great strength to ward unity and, IMO, the revelatory process the ward leadership engaged in. I would have been greatly bothered if one of the groups was systemically excluded from leadership roles, even if the exclusion was not intended. As a group, the "locals" would not have been better off if they were excluded from ward council positions. That's the same fallacy put forth by Professor Botts when he argued to the Washington Post that blacks who'd been denied the priesthood were better off because they couldn't commit higher sins. Priesthood has burden, but it's a net benefit. So too with callings. We shouldn't belittle either of them. 

Also, FWIW, this thread is not directed to callings, but to an employment position at a church school.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I don't know anything about the other Holland son who is now the UVU president.  From all accounts it appears he's doing a great job.  However, it is highly unusual to go from associate professor to university president.  It might happen on rare occasions, but that's something that I've never seen. 

I think UVU probably saw the advantage of having a highly recognizable, strong LDS man at the helm of their institution.  Wise move for UVU.  I can't blame Holland for that.  If someone wanted to give me a great job because my last name would benefit the entity, I'd do it.

And I don't think that is nepotism (unless there happens to be someone related to Holland on the Board of Trustees).

Link to comment
15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't know if it's a concern but the church does have a long history of nepotism when it comes to employment and callings. But that doesn't mean they aren't qualified nor even the best person for the job.

Elder J. Golden Kimball once quipped that while others were called by revelation, he was called by “relation,” adding: “If I hadn’t been related to Heber C. Kimball, I wouldn’t have been a …  thing in this church.”

Other 19th century examples of apparent nepotism: 

Abraham O Woodruff,  apostle (age 24)  … died at 31 
Hyrum M. Smith, apostle (age 29)           … died at 44
Abraham H Cannon, apostle (age 30)    …  died at 37
John W. Taylor, apostle (age 25)    …  resigned at 46; died at 58

 

I can imagine the following scenario: 

“Son, good news: I pulled a few strings to get you into the 12.”

“Gee… thanks … Dad.  … But, all things considered, couldn’t you just get me sent on a mission to the Congo instead?  Considering their recent malaria outbreak and their ongoing civil war,  they probably could use all the help they can get.”  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Elder J. Golden Kimball once quipped that while others were called by revelation, he was called by “relation,” adding: “If I hadn’t been related to Heber C. Kimball, I wouldn’t have been a …  thing in this church.”

Other 19th century examples of apparent nepotism: 

Abraham O Woodruff,  apostle (age 24)  … died at 31 
Hyrum M. Smith, apostle (age 29)           … died at 44
Abraham H Cannon, apostle (age 30)    …  died at 37
John W. Taylor, apostle (age 25)    …  resigned at 46; died at 58

 

I can imagine the following scenario: 

“Son, good news: I pulled a few strings to get you into the 12.”

“Gee… thanks … Dad.  … But, all things considered, couldn’t you just get me sent on a mission to the Congo instead?  Considering their recent malaria outbreak and their ongoing civil war,  they probably could use all the help they can get.”  

Continuation of the scenario....

"On second thoughts Dad, the $120,000 plus benefits for life will come in handy."

Link to comment

This isn't nepotism, but it did create some ill feelings on the part of some:

When we moved to Arizona in 2002 from Salt Lake, we moved into my parents' ward. The new bishop had just been released from the stake presidency, and he had never been a bishop before. They replaced the bishop of a year to put him in (which broke his heart --- he was outstanding and really threw himself into it, and the release for no reason other than to put the former SP counselor in really hurt his feelings), and he called my dad as HP group leader, my mom as RS president, and me as EQP (after being WML briefly). That raised some eyebrows. I joked once to someone who was complaining that when my brother got off of his mission, the takeover would be complete, but they didn't find that funny. ;) 

We weren't related at all to anyone in that ward.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Has anyone alleged nepotism or family influence in the Harvard Holland hiring?  His hiring seemed like a natural progression of an accomplished and successful academic.  To clarify... He was an award winning tenured associate professor at UNLV (with two grad degrees from Stanford) before taking an associate professor position at a more prestigious institution.  After being there for a while, he was promoted to full professor.

I don't know anything about the other Holland son who is now the UVU president.  From all accounts it appears he's doing a great job.  However, it is highly unusual to go from associate professor to university president.  It might happen on rare occasions, but that's something that I've never seen. 

No, and with all due respect, that's exactly my point, sir.  It has been implied that Matthew Holland was awarded his current position at Utah Valley University because of his family connections.  David Holland seems to be a roughly analogous case because he is from the same family and occupies a prestigious position elsewhere in academia, so if, indeed, it is true that Matthew Holland got his position based less on what he knows and what his capabilities are than on whom he knows, what, then, do we make of David Holland?  Are the same forces at work all the way across the country in Cambridge, Massachusetts?  When Jeff Holland calls (assuming he called, which is a big "if"), the President and the members of the faculty hiring committee in David's department at Harvard all jump?  I doubt it. :huh::unknw:  That's exactly my point.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reemphasize it. :)  

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 2/7/2017 at 3:20 PM, bsjkki said:

When reading this announcement that Henry J. Eyring is the newly announced president of BYU-I, I noticed in my facebook stream, there were concerns about nepotism in church leadership. Is this a valid concern? From the article, it seems clear he is qualified for the position. Do you think the family name hurts or helps people when seeking employment in the church? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865672792/Henry-J-Eyring-announced-as-new-president-of-BYU-Idaho.html?pg=all

Even a casual student of Church history couldn't fail to notice how many smiths, ballards, bensons, hinckleys, etc are in church leadership positions.

 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, and with all due respect, that's exactly my point, sir.  It has been implied that Matthew Holland was awarded his current position at Utah Valley University because of his family connections.  David Holland seems to be a roughly analogous case because he is from the same family and occupies a prestigious position elsewhere in academia, so if, indeed, it is true that Matthew Holland got his position based less on what he knows and what his capabilities are than on whom he knows, what, then, do we make of David Holland?  Are the same forces at work all the way across the country in Cambridge, Massachusetts?  When Jeff Holland calls (assuming he called, which is a big "if"), the President and the members of the faculty hiring committee in David's department at Harvard all jump?  I doubt it. :huh::unknw:  That's exactly my point.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reemphasize it. :)  

You're welcome.  I agree with what you say except that the two scenarios are 'roughly analogous'.  David Holland's career trajectory is not unusual for a successful academic.  I agree that Jeff Holland would not be likely to influence or persuade a Harvard selection committee.  However, Matthew's unusual career trajectory happened to occur in a location where his family's name and reputation could make an impression on a hiring committee.  'Apples and oranges' in my opinion. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

My husband got his start in his career because of personal connections as well.  It is incredibly hard to get work in this day and age without any connections.  People hire who they know.

Sometimes they don't hire who they know because of what they know.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Even a casual student of Church history couldn't file to notice how many smiths, ballards, bensons, hinckleys, etc are in church leadership positions.

 

File = fail?  Freudian slip, I'm sure!  In your line of work, one definitely shouldn't fail to file one's required filings on time!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...