Model for priesthood leadership advancement

[jay santos]

This is something I've been thinking about lately with the discussion of not enough diversity in priesthood leadership and in the issue of intellectuals being discriminated against for leadership positions.

Let's identify a good candidate for bishop.

1. College educated
2. Good organizational/administrative skills
3. Diligent and faithful in preparatory callings: EQ/Young Men's/Bishopric
4. Married, wife doesn't work, at least three kids, kids are active and relatively successful
5. Never divorced, never been disciplined
6. Financially stable
7. Avoids contention with priesthood leaders and in church settings
8. Wears a white shirt, dark suit, and conservative tie to church
9. Faithful home teacher
10. RM
11. Good people skills
12. Relates to the youth
13. Eloquent speaker and teacher
14. Comfortable in a leadership setting
15. No facial hair

You can argue any of these, and some bishops don't have all of these, but especially in the stakes I've lived, this is the criteria.

Let's say if you meet this criteria, you have a 50% shot at becoming a bishop. Probably higher if you live outside of Utah and lower if you live in Utah or strong areas of the church.

Once you're bishop, let's say you have a 1/15 shot at becoming a stake president.

Once you're stake president you have a 1/20 shot at becoming an area authority.

Once you're an area authority you have a 1/50 shot at becoming a GA or similar level church administrator (high level CES or church corporate position).

Once you're a GA, you have a 1/200 shot at becoming an apostle.

So if you find me 100 intellectuals that meet requirements 1-15, I would expect to find 30 or more bishops, 2 or 3 stake presidents, but chances are nothing higher. Keep in mind, you might identify some intellectuals that fit this category that are in their 30's that might still be called as a bishop or stake president in their lifetime. So with this model in mind, is it reasonable to say intellectuals are being discriminated against? Or at least being discriminated in an unfair proportion compared to other professions outside of lawyers, MBA's, and CES administrators?

The problem that I see is the overreliance on the "non-spiritual" factors such as financial stability and administrative talent. If it's very difficult to differentiate a prospective stake president or area authority based on spirituality, then the non-spiritual factors will push the lawyers and MBA's up to the top.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This is something I've been thinking about lately with the discussion of not enough diversity in priesthood leadership and in the issue of intellectuals being discriminated against for leadership positions.

Let's identify a good candidate for bishop.

1. College educated
2. Good organizational/administrative skills
3. Diligent and faithful in preparatory callings: EQ/Young Men's/Bishopric
4. Married, wife doesn't work, at least three kids, kids are active and relatively successful
5. Never divorced, never been disciplined
6. Financially stable
7. Avoids contention with priesthood leaders and in church settings
8. Wears a white shirt, dark suit, and conservative tie to church
9. Faithful home teacher
10. RM
11. Good people skills
12. Relates to the youth
13. Eloquent speaker and teacher
14. Comfortable in a leadership setting
15. No facial hair

You can argue any of these, and some bishops don't have all of these, but especially in the stakes I've lived, this is the criteria.

Let's say if you meet this criteria, you have a 50% shot at becoming a bishop. Probably higher if you live outside of Utah and lower if you live in Utah or strong areas of the church.

Once you're bishop, let's say you have a 1/15 shot at becoming a stake president.

Once you're stake president you have a 1/20 shot at becoming an area authority.

Once you're an area authority you have a 1/50 shot at becoming a GA or similar level church administrator (high level CES or church corporate position).

Once you're a GA, you have a 1/200 shot at becoming an apostle.

So if you find me 100 intellectuals that meet requirements 1-15, I would expect to find 30 or more bishops, 2 or 3 stake presidents, but chances are nothing higher. Keep in mind, you might identify some intellectuals that fit this category that are in their 30's that might still be called as a bishop or stake president in their lifetime. So with this model in mind, is it reasonable to say intellectuals are being discriminated against? Or at least being discriminated in an unfair proportion compared to other professions outside of lawyers, MBA's, and CES administrators?

The problem that I see is the overreliance on the "non-spiritual" factors such as financial stability and administrative talent. If it's very difficult to differentiate a prospective stake president or area authority based on spirituality, then the non-spiritual factors will push the lawyers and MBA's up to the top.

The church is pragmatic. There are a ton of logistical concerns that a bishop has to deal with. The practical experience you get in the work place with managing people, delegating responsibilities, short and long term planning, managing budgets, reporting functions, etc. all dovetail nicely into the day to day responsibilities of a bishop.

A bishop that is financially stable just has one fewer distraction they have to deal with in their life when they are challenged with balancing their work, family and church responsibilities.

I agree that administrative talent and financial stability shouldn't be some statutory requirement, but I can easily understand from a pragmatic standpoint why the leadership of the church usually possess those skills/attributes.

[RockyBalboa]

Excellent topic Jay, I've often wondered sometimes about this myself.

I think a lot of your criteria is pretty close. Of course like you'd mentioned there are exceptions in some things, and this doesn't fit every Bishop that's been called to a tee. As I'm sure we all know Bishops in our lives who didn't fit some or even many of those criteria, but as far as general guidelines go I think you're close here.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Excellent topic Jay, I've often wondered sometimes about this myself.

I think a lot of your criteria is pretty close. Of course like you'd mentioned there are exceptions in some things, and this doesn't fit every Bishop that's been called to a tee. As I'm sure we all know Bishops in our lives who didn't fit some or even many of those criteria, but as far as general guidelines go I think you're close here.

Do I have the right to take back what I say if Rocky tells me it's a good post?

[UtahDan]

I think that is a very good list. I think it is a lot like other "hiring" processes.

You see who is available and of those who look good on paper (score high on your list) you do some investigating, maybe some interviewing. Some people will come across better in person than others. Sometimes the recommendation of someone whose judgment you trust will be a factor that weighs very heavily. Certainly success in other areas of that person's life are good indicators of more success.

My experience has been that all things considered that the church through is leaders does a fantastic job finding the right people to fill these callings. This bolsters my testimony that inspiration is at work. I have also had the experience of seeing a couple of Bishops called who it became clear were really bad fits and was surprised to see how quickly that was corrected, and usually with a soft landing for that person (who was doing the best they knew how) by immediately calling him to the high counsel or in one case the stake presidency.

[danimal]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The church is pragmatic. There are a ton of logistical concerns that a bishop has to deal with. The practical experience you get in the work place with managing people, delegating responsibilities, short and long term planning, managing budgets, reporting functions, etc. all dovetail nicely into the day to day responsibilities of a bishop.

A bishop that is financially stable just has one fewer distraction they have to deal with in their life when they are challenged with balancing their work, family and church responsibilities.

I agree that administrative talent and financial stability shouldn't be some statutory requirement, but I can easily understand from a pragmatic standpoint why the leadership of the church usually possess those skills/attributes.

True. the truth is that being a bishop is more about being a manager than being spiritual. If I had to chose between someone who managed really well but wasn't overly spiritual, and somebody who managed poorly but was really spiritual, the easy answer is the manager.

this is why I'm safe. I'm neither spiritual nor a manager.

[SteelBlue]

I don't believe that #8 or #15 really figure into the equation at all.

[BlueHair]

I'm glad you said the candidate wouldn't have to have all of these qualities, because #9 would disqualify most of the church.

[BlueHair]

I think the church would be better off with a paid clergy. I'm not saying all church positions should be paid. Bishops could be paid full-time salaries and his counselors could be part-timers. This would give Bishops time to have the proper training in the counseling and teaching aspects of their jobs. It would also make it possible for them to be able to preside over weddings, funerals, service projects, etc. They would also have more time with their families, which usually get neglected because of the time demands on a Bishop. There's not much family time left when you have to work a full-time job and spend the evenings during the week and all day Sunday at the church. The other possibility would be to only call Bishops that are 50+ years old with their families already raised. Generals Authorities could be called without ever being Bishops or Stake Presidents. This would alleviate the need to call young Bishops.

[Archaea]

In balance, lay clergy works fine.