Some Hinckley sermons were more effective than others.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think financially stability matters more than personal wealth. One of the hats the bishop wears is steward of the ward's finances. He has to be a man of good and frugal judgment.

More than one bishop has lost his membership over misuse of funds. The same question is also considered of those who become clerks.

I think I've heard before that a past bankruptcy disqualifies someone as a candidate for Bishop. Is that true?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Brian

I bet they are also:
1- Clever
2- Persistent
3- Hard working (at least during the wealth bulding phase)

I think these have more to do with wealth aquisition than being charitable.

Or they inherited it...

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by danimal

While I don't doubt this general trend, how on earth does the church track things such as gambling, porn, etc? They have no systematic way of gathering data on these behaviors. This may be church leaders' subjective opinions based on confessions, but who knows what the truth is about behavior.

I was curious about this as well. For all I know, the principals in the original conversation were relying more on anecdotal evidence, or even personal hunches, than good, hard data. But the conclusion doesn't surprise me. Looking beyond the Church membership, American society saves far less than it did in the relatively recent past, while the consumption of nonessential goods has increased significantly. It's unfortunate that, apparently, a substantial part of the Church population is no different, and perhaps even worse, than the country as a whole.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by scottie

I think I've heard before that a past bankruptcy disqualifies someone as a candidate for Bishop. Is that true?

I'm not aware of that stipulation.

[MikeWaters]

my current bishopric:

furniture distributor salesperson, finance guy, school teacher

current SP:

corporate lawyer, accountant, physical therapist

that's not a bad mix.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by danimal

While I don't doubt this general trend, how on earth does the church track things such as gambling, porn, etc? They have no systematic way of gathering data on these behaviors. This may be church leaders' subjective opinions based on confessions, but who knows what the truth is about behavior.

That's easy. They just trend the number of letters coming in to GAs from disgruntled wives.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Agreed--availability IS important. So add that to administrative ability. And note that I don't necessarily have a problem with the fact that most of our leadership is wealthy. The problem I have is the trickled-down idea (that's there, even if unspoken) that wealth is a sign of virtue.

The membership is getting that "trickled-down" idea precisely because the wealthy are in the leadership positions. So yes, Mike is somewhat correct when he states that church leadership has contributed to the rise of materialism. You can't say "don't be materialistic" and then have a majority of your church leadership being rich guys who drive around in mercedes and live in huge houses on the bench.

[bluegoose]

Just so we can have some more data to go by for the sake of the discussion, I thought back on the past several bishops in my current ward, extending even before I moved here.

They were - Engineer, Engineer, Nurse, School Administrator, Photographer, Real Estate Agent. We don't live in an extremely wealthy, so these people were secure, but certainly not wealthy. Bishops of my previous two ward were a physician, a public school IT tech and a small airport Air Traffic Controller.

Past 3 Stake Presidents were an Attorney, a Construction company President and an FBI agent. Again a good mix, but not an overwhelming amount of wealth.

I tend to follow UtahDans way of thinking in that wealth isn't a requirement, and financial security is but a consideration for local leadership. I think its the attributes that qualify someone to be a competent Bishop in todays church also predispose him to be successful in his chosen profession.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

The membership is getting that "trickled-down" idea precisely because the wealthy are in the leadership positions. So yes, Mike is somewhat correct when he states that church leadership has contributed to the rise of materialism. You can't say "don't be materialistic" and then have a majority of your church leadership being rich guys who drive around in mercedes and live in huge houses on the bench.

You don't happen to have some data to back up this claim do you?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't happen to have some data to back up this claim do you?

Successful lawyer or businessman seems to be the resume of most newly called American GA's. No, I don't have hard data to back that up, and I doubt it's in the church almanac.

My intent is not to bash wealth, because I don't have a problem with it, and I don't care that much who they call (although I think there are alot of Idaho farmers of modest means who'd do a bang up job). I'm just saying, it's hard to decry materialism when alot of the church leadership isn't exactly living a modest lifestyle.

GBH was definitely not guilty of this, but others are. MP's are notorious for this. I've had (and have talked to many others who had) some rich, hard-nosed businessman type (a-hole) MP. These men can make a definite impression on young missionaries and solidify the wealth = sign of a good mormon ideal that some folks have.