We get a new bishop in my ward in a few weeks. The old one is moving, the only sure way of getting released before 5 years that does not involve a disciplinary council. As has been noted many times on Mormon blogs and forums ( I hate the word “bloggernacle”), Bishops and Stake Presidents usually have well-paying white collar jobs. Notice I said usually. Everybody knows a bishop that does not fit the mold, is a farmer or a carpenter or a “refuse technician” (aka garbage man!). But if you live in an urban area, dentists, medical doctors, and business owners are over represented in leadership callings compared to the statistical makeup of the members in the area.
It is obvious that the type of person that becomes a doctor has the organizational skills that would also make him a good bishop or SP. But what I find interesting and somewhat paradoxical, is that it is not the type of person that is currently converting to the church.
So what is it that draws the best and brightest to high local leadership positions, yet does not attract the same caliber of new members as converts? This got me thinking about the type of people I baptized as a missionary many years ago.
In my mission to Southern Chile in the mid 1970’s, we used an interesting method in assigning areas to companionships. The Zone leaders, which were the most senior leaders in a particular town/city, were assigned to the wealthiest area. For Chile, this meant people with automobiles, college educated or business owners. The reason I was told this was done was that these wealthy people were the hardest to teach, so the ZLs, being the “best” in the Zone, were given the hardest assignment for proselyting. One of the perks of this was that because the missionaries rented a room from a family in their area, the ZLs usually get a very nice room with a well-to-do family. The downside was they had a lower baptismal rate than the rest of the Zone.
So why are rich people less likely to join the church? The line we get at church is that these people are proud, hard hearted, and are “so called intellectuals”. But I didn’t see this at all when during the last 6 months of my mission I was a ZL, and taught these “rich” people. What I saw were people that were very friendly, inquisitive, intelligent, educated, and had analytical skills to evaluate what we were teaching them.
I also see this in my current ward. The convert baptisms of adults over the last few years have been single people on the low end of the income scale. The one family baptized about 5 years ago are inactive. About ten years ago we had an emergency room physician marry a nurse that was in our ward, and he converted. He left before the year was up.
While there is not a hard correlation between incomes and intelligent, these wealthy people I taught in Chile had better organizational skills, better analytical skills, and spoke a little better Castellano (they would conjugate their verbs correctly).
So why do poor people join the church at a higher rate than wealthy people? Are they looking for a way ahead, and see the church (particularly people outside the US) as a wealthy organization that they can hitch their wagon to? Or are they really just more humble and open to the “promptings of the spirit”?
Wheat & Tares 
My previous Bishop quit his calling after 3 years, he is a retired pharmacist but has HORRIBLE people and organizational skills. Nice guy to talk to but working with him is a terrible affliction
Who feels the need for change and community more vs who already has community and doesn’t need change?
The recent converts in our ward are all very low income compared to the ward members. It does seem like there is an element of improving one’s life. But (and this may be cynical of me), there also seems to be a bit of liking to be included in the social framework of people of higher social class. We have 15 – 20 baptisms a year and none of these people last more than a couple of months. About the time it takes to realize church members wanted to baptize them, but not actually bring them into their middle-class circle of friends and that Mormonism requires a lot more commitment than they were aware of? This is all guess work on my part of course; it would be interesting to see empirical evidence.
What is it that draws the best and brightest to high local leadership positions?
Other local leaders, aka stake presidents. Bishops don’t apply for callings, as you know. The higher echelons of leadership feature successful businessman, lawyers, and doctors, so it makes sense that they would hire (or call, if you’re less cynical) similar leaders. Even the general authorities from third-world countries are very successful vocationally.
Great questions! I do not think it is a simple , single reason why more influential are not as easily influenced by missionaries knocking on their door. I certainly found this to be the case on my mission. I do not think it is the standard church line of being prideful.
I also think the Church should look away from the typical white collar bishop. This may help with a cultural shift that could lead to positive results.
I think it’s very clear that the church is a hard sell to people with analytical skills and free access to a lot of independent information about the church. Especially now that New Name Noah has made videos of the temple rites available on YouTube.
There’s no dancing around that. People who have always believed that their loved ones would share the eternity with them are not going to be dazzled by “families are forever” and it’s very possible that they do are will have a much more accurate and unadorned view of church history than the church wants to dole out in degrees of “milk before meat”. In fact, the whole idea that someone should subscribe to part of something before being admitted to the entire set of beliefs and practices is antithetical to the way a successful and intelligent person would approach any other area of their life.
Our Stake Pres is an Institute director in his 30s (his father was an area authority, mission pres etc), our Bishop is a school teacher also in his 30s.
We have very few converts, but more move ins. many from NZ. It will be interesting to see how this changes with NZ now having an ex mormon Prime Minister .
I served my mission in Ireland in 1968- 70, where there was a war between the Catholics and Protestants, generally the war was conducted in the poorer suburbs. The response in the wealthier suburbs was usually, “we can see what religion does for you, why would we get involved.
I could never understand why on my mission we took van loads of poor people, to the mission home for firesides. The mission home was a mansion.
Generally the poor seem to be more gullible.
Interesting and useful post. However, based on my experience I must disagree with one of your statements: “It is obvious that the type of person that becomes a doctor has the organizational skills that would also make him a good bishop or SP.”
In the 25 years I have lived in the same house (Phoenix metro area) 5 of the 7 bishops have been doctors (lots of ward boundary changes) and most of them had at least one other doctor as a counselor. All work(ed) in medical specialty groups (not in a GP-type setting where they see numerous patients and have a support staff). All seemed quite capable at the “spiritual” stuff but very poor in organizational skills. They usually didn’t delegate as much as I thought best and details were very often left unattended to. They also tended to call “spiritual” rather than “detail” types as their clerks and Exec Secretary–so no help there.
Being a detail-oriented guy and a bit of a troll, I had been looking for a place to voice that criticism for years. Thanks. 😉
Well, when your church is authoritarian and demands total commitment / obedience, it’s mostly going to attract people who either want to give everything up and be told what to do or who don’t have all that much to lose.
That’s assuming that people are going in knowing everything, though. A simpler explanation is that people with money and free time know more about you guys to begin with. While people who don’t may attend for a few months, before realizing it’s super-unhealthy for them and excludes all the people and experiences they care about most.
I agree with the tendencies you mention bishop Bill. I have had the privilege a while back being in a suburban ward that encompasses quite a bit of “country folk”. I was able to see a few breaks from the nor, including a humble quiet “working man”. He was a great bishop and had lots of love (and there was lots of need). But it does seem to be the exception.
Something that I do not see discussed is what kind of quality physicIan does a LDS bishop make.
In my large metropolitan area, the LDS providers I run into professionally are not well-regarded by their peers. They are often the weaker links of their groups. I have wondered if larger families and huge church commitments take away from their abilities to stay ahead professionally.
Yes, financially they are successful. Yes, LDS people make sure to support their own and so their practices are busy. But when talking to other people in the industry about who to refer someone to and those LDS names come up, too often, someone is shaking their head no.
Being a physician and a bishop? One of those roles is being neglected.
Damascene – that’s a very interesting observation. I wonder if any evaluation from Rate My Doctor sites would yield a statistical difference. Sounds like a great post idea . . . [hint, hint].