Tacenda Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't think I've ever had a bishop I didn't like. Me too, the counselors on the other hand... In fact, becoming bishop did wonders for a couple of them. One of them from being an irritating Gospel Doctrine teacher, to being a very genuine, great guy. Edited July 18, 2016 by Tacenda
Rain Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I don't think I've ever had a bishop I didn't like. You have to remember that was from Duncan and he has some odd things in his area.
carbon dioxide Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 If it is true that more wealthy tith payers are called to positions like bishop and stake president, I find that to be a good thing. That means the odds of me being called to such positions are about zero which is just peachy to me.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) I cannot, of course, contradict Brother Arrington that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have used tithing payment figures as one criterion in determining who should be called to certain positions. With that in mind, any reader is welcome to take this for what it's worth ... or not. My brother has been a bishop's counselor, a bishop, a high councilor, and a stake president. While, during this time, he has been a vice-president and then president of a financial institution, the institution's assets are modest, and I'm sure his salary has been correspondingly so. He's had, I'm sure, more lucrative offers from other institutions, institutions which I suspect, frankly (lucrative offers notwithstanding), are neither as stable nor as well-run as his current employer. If he were inclined to do so, I'm sure he could have used those offers in attempts to leverage more lucrative compensation from his current employer. If he was supposed to be raking in the dough, I don't think his employer's directors got the memo. I'm sure other professionals in the stake (doctors, lawyers, etc.) earn far more and, thus, pay more tithing. I'm told that current bishops, high councilors, and so on are "polled" as to who they think would make a good stake president when a presidency is being reorganized. I fail to see the utility of such a procedure if it simply amounts to "going through the motions," since, allegedly, those responsible for the reorganization simply look at tithing figures. My $0.02, and one man's experience. As I said, take it for what it's worth ... or not. Your mileage likely varies. Edited July 18, 2016 by Kenngo1969 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 5 hours ago, cinepro said: In Greg Prince's recent bio of Leonard Arrington, he includes a list that Arrington made in his personal journal entitled "Things I Don't Like About the Church." The most interesting one being #2... If this is from Arrington's "personal journal," and if the context of it was a list of complaints, I wonder how accurate it was as opposed to it being hyperbolic and overwrought venting. And did he ever anticipate that it would be widely published?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 4 hours ago, ALarson said: I agree as far as High Counselmen. Even if this were the correct term (it's actually high councilor) you misspelled it. The correct spelling (assuming correct terminology) would be councilman. The concept is that he serves on a council, not a counsel. A counselor to a president, on the other hand, is spelled the way it is because it stems from the concept of him providing counsel to the president.
Jeanne Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) Huh..I thought God made these callings...what a job! Going through all those tithing receipts I doubt He even gets Sunday to rest! All my bishops have been relatively middle class..gov't.. workers or farmers. The SP's I remember had their own business or were doctors. Edited July 18, 2016 by Jeanne 1
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 18, 2016 I'll add, to inject some much-needed levity into the thread, that after my brother and his family moved, someone from his new ward visited him and inquired what he'd done in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, calling-wise. He said, "Well, I was president of the priests quorum for awhile, then, after that, I was president of the high priests quorum ..." His sense of humor is much more low-key than mine. Often, it's so subtle that, sometimes, even he doesn't know whether he's serious or joking ... But he can be pretty funny, when he wants to be. 8
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I'll add, to inject some much-needed levity into the thread, that after my brother and his family moved, someone from his new ward visited him and inquired what he'd done in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, calling-wise. He said, "Well, I was president of the priests quorum for awhile, then, after that, I was president of the high priests quorum ..." His sense of humor is much more low-key than mine. Often, it's so subtle that, sometimes, even he doesn't know whether he's serious or joking ... But he can be pretty funny, when he wants to be. Did the person who asked him catch on to what he was saying? 1
Duncan Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don't think I've ever had a bishop I didn't like. I'll switch places with you! No, I mean these guys don't call themselves obviously but some just don't get people or they don't get something
BCSpace Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 6 hours ago, cinepro said: In Greg Prince's recent bio of Leonard Arrington, he includes a list that Arrington made in his personal journal entitled "Things I Don't Like About the Church." The most interesting one being #2... I've seen some SP examples where it's plain that he was not among the top tithe payers in the Stake. In the other hand, why would this not be a legitimate factor for developing a list of potential candidates? For starters, we know from the scriptures that wealth can be an indication of the Lord's blessings upon an individual and could that not indicate righteousness? Not automatically so of course; that is where the Spirit and interviews etc. play a role. 1
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even if this were the correct term (it's actually high councilor) you misspelled it. The correct spelling (assuming correct terminology) would be councilman. The concept is that he serves on a council, not a counsel. A counselor to a president, on the other hand, is spelled the way it is because it stems from the concept of him providing counsel to the president. So assuming the Bishop is out of town and his counselor is in charge, the Ward Council gives counsel to the counselor, possibly with the input of the high councilor. Edited July 18, 2016 by mfbukowski 5
Thinking Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 If level of income had anything to do with being called to a position of leadership, my Dad would never have been called to be a bishop. 2
Freedom Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 5 hours ago, JulieM said: If you've read or studied Arrington's life, you'd know this does not describe him at all. He was definitely not an "underachiever". My point is that these type of comments sound like he is. I acknowledged his credentials, but just because he knows a lot about history, this does not mean he knows anything about economics or the rigors of church administration.
Calm Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) You might want to read this to see his extensive academic study in economics: https://westernhistoryassociation.wildapricot.org/Resources/Documents/President Profiles/arrington.pdf He started out as an economics historian and then expanded his interest into other areas. Edited July 18, 2016 by Calm 3
Nevo Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, Freedom said: I acknowledged his credentials, but just because he knows a lot about history, this does not mean he knows anything about economics or the rigors of church administration. Maybe you should go back and re-check those credentials. You're embarrassing yourself. Also, Arrington died in 1999. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did the person who asked him catch on to what he was saying? Eventually, I'm sure. It might've taken a minute.
cinepro Posted July 18, 2016 Author Posted July 18, 2016 5 hours ago, Rain said: That's a link to the book on Amazon. Did you read the book? If not, where did you find this? I have the book. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 FWIW, I'm a former bishop and a school teacher. The recent bishops in our ward have been a doctor, a cabinet maker, an engineer, a retired Air Force officer, a building maintainance supervisor, a self-employed salesman, and a computer tech. On the other, our stake presidents have been a doctor, a dentist, two lawyers, and a retired Army major. I notice in the Church News that doctors, lawyers, CEOs, CFOs, prominent businessmen and sales execs, supervisory level corporate men, and CES employees are the lion's share of new temple, stake, and mission presidents. Very seldom a tradesman, blue collar guy, teacher, farmer, or lower level businessman who does not own the business...and then usually outside the US. But maybe that's what's required to do the job. On the other hand, I've heard the saying,"Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies." But what do I know? Not much. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: So assuming the Bishop is out of town and his counselor is in charge, the Ward Council gives counsel to the counselor, possibly with the input of the high councilor. We shall have to take that under counsel. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: We shall have to take that under counsel. Do you mean take it under advisement (counsel) or make it a topic of deliberation by an appointed group (council)?
Freedom Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Nevo said: Maybe you should go back and re-check those credentials. You're embarrassing yourself. Also, Arrington died in 1999. I am familiar with his credentials. I stand by my comments. He is completely out to lunch on how a stake president is called, and completely out to lunch on the type of person that is required to run a stake. There is no truth to his claims.
rongo Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 Anecdotally, Arrington's comment is nonsense. I'll throw my stake president in among the other anecdotes. He is a rather poor local truck driver with 8 children. He is an outstanding stake president whose shoes will be nearly impossible to fill when he's released. He recently felt me out for how my parents are affording their mission to Poland on just their social security. He found that fascinating, and it gave him hope that he and his wife will be able to serve a mission. Overall, though (outlier anecdotes aside), his comment is quite accurate. For the most part. The vast majority of stake presidents are quite wealthy. And 100% of 70s and apostles are very, very wealthy. I attribute this, not to the GA making the choice having a list of tithing statistics before him (they don't), but rather, usually the most "impressive" men who stand out happen to be men of means. And frankly, a lot of it has to do with exactly who the GA is making the decision. Wealth is an important factor with some, and much less so with others. GA roulette . . . I remember how excited the members in Germany were in the mid 1990s when an area authority was called who was simply a shoemaker, and not a doctor, lawyer, or businessman.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) Many, if not most all, of the "men of means" I have known in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be exactly the same person, in terms of humility, without those means as they are with those means. Particularly as a full-time missionary in Southern California, despite my own rather blue-collar background, I had a chance to interact with some leaders who, plainly, were rather well-to-do. They didn't check my or my family's W2s at the door or otherwise emphasize any class distinctions between us before granting me admission to their homes (although, perhaps I received special treatment in the form of an exemption because I was a full-time missionary ). What if they were to lose all of those means tomorrow? The ones I know would simply shrug and invoke Job: "The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." Edited July 18, 2016 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) On 7/18/2016 at 0:26 AM, Bernard Gui said: ... I've heard the saying,"Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies." But what do I know? Not much. Ud. sabe bastante, Hno. Bernardo. Ud. sabe bastante. Heck, while I'm at it: https://discursosud.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/sabes-lo-suficiente/ https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/you-know-enough?lang=eng Edited July 19, 2016 by Kenngo1969 Add Links to Address by Elder Neil L. Andersen
Recommended Posts