Today we have a guest post from Faith. This is the first in a planned series of posts about the professional backgrounds of general authorities for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
Growing up as a 6th generation LDS member, I was exposed to the process of church leadership callings at an early age. Every week, the Church News would arrive on the doorstep with updates of the hierarchy callings. Included, for members to get to know the new leaders, was their biography. I always noticed a pattern, that every one of those called into Stake Presidencies, new Mission Presidents, or the highest General Authorities, each had a professional employment. This would be in one of three categories: the upper echelon of a corporate board, self-employment, or working for the church. Also, they typically had a post-graduate degree.
In recent years, the church has truncated Stake Presidents resumes, by only printing the job title, but not the company; like as previously done. Once the men (and a very few women) are placed in positions of decision making, we are expected to follow their lead on every subject and topic. As LDS members, we are expected to obey their every word, as if God were speaking directly to us. However, how much do we really know them? In other areas of life from our employment, friends, discretionary purchases, etc. we learn who we are dealing with and their backgrounds. Sometimes in life we change employment, friends, or frequented businesses because they are not what we thought they were, as presented, and we make a better choice. Sure, we look at the G.A. biographies and think they are good men/women, and willing to serve the Lord for his kingdom. For the top G.A.’s we get a longer resume and for the Q15, we get a faith promoting book to purchase at Deseret Book.
Still, I would ask, what do we really know about them? When we do learn a new fact, how does it affect our view of the church and its leadership?
I understood back in the 1980-90’s, prior to the recent Faith Crisis’ experienced the past 15+ years, the quickest way to lose your testimony is to work at 50 North Temple. Now in a series of blog posts, what I am going to attempt will not be a in depth fact-finding historical inquisition. However, I would like to invite discussions on what a particular decision maker has done in the past (of what we know from superficial facts) or said that for myself personally created cognitive dissonance (Long before I was aware of the term or how it works).
Now, all of us have our personal issues. If any one of us had a deep dive into our lives, we would not come out clean pure white. However, outside of our own children, most people have boundaries and do not go around telling people how to live their lives (for our children it is parental advice and should not be controlling). Keep in mind, as Greg Prince states, that the LDS leaders “it’s not white hats vs. dark hats; it’s all different shades of gray.”[1] Also, as John Dehlin says “we want to be tougher on systems than we are on people.”[2] However, someone is still a decision maker creating the system. The “leader” tells other people about how to proceed with life choices. When the leader’s past reflects other choices, what are we to think and how are we to act?
I had mentioned in a prior post, which has led to this guest blog, some superficial facts known about Kevin Pearson.
Kevin Pearson, as CEO of Medicode, managed a merger to create Ingenix.[3] Ingenix was a company that manages health care data. Ingenix then changed its ‘ name to Optum health care; they are now a subsidiary of United Health Care (UHC). Pearson did leave the company in 2005, to be called as an LDS Mission President, then 3 years later he was placed as an LDS General Authority. However, he was on the ground floor of UHC dominating the market and of events that led to government investigations. FYI, the CEO of UHC earned $142M last year.[4] Also, UHC is the largest insurance company in the USA by revenue and membership.[5,6] In 2006, Ingenix/UHC was charged in a government investigation of fraudulent practices for their actions of the prior 10 years. UHC engaged aggressively with medical billing fraud that drastically increased out of pocket costs for their health insurance buyers.[7] Kevin Pearson left the company as these investigations were initiating.
To put the Ingenix fraud into perspective, NY Governor Cuomo described a typical scenario. An out-of-network doctor who charges $200 for an office visit is told that the “going rate” is only $77. The insurer would then normally pay only 80 percent of that figure, leaving the patient responsible for the difference of about $138. The number is derived from a database of claims data created and maintained by Ingenix and then sold to other insurers. “When insurers like United create convoluted and dishonest systems for determining the rate of reimbursement, real people get stuck with excessive bills and are less likely to seek the care they need.”[8] In 2006, the SEC began investigating UHC’s management, along with the IRS, the AMA, and prosecutors for the New York U.S. attorney’s office. There was “deception, manipulation of data and outright fraud.”[9]
Pearson was CEO from 1998-2005, when thousands of clients were defrauded by his company. His legacy still permeates the health care field with medical providers being underpaid, unpaid, or using insurance delay tactics. Most heartbreaking is that patients were/are being denied necessary care. UHC paid $50 million to settle out of court for their actions.[10]
Now with Kevin Pearson’s recent talks of abundant life stating, “Our determination to center our lives on Christ, therefore, must be consistent—not conditional, situational, or superficial.”[11] Living during a time when many people seem to pick and choose what commandments are important, Elder Pearson emphasized how important it is to follow all of God’s counsel. He said, “The Lord expects us to be ‘all in’ all the time.”[12] Does Kevin Pearson’s business dealings match his recommendations for LDS church members?
I cannot put these two pieces together: How someone should live their life as recommended by the clergy, when the preacher lived a different life. When LDS members attain a temple recommend it is an audit of our own actions. Should our life be audited, and if so by who? Should have Ingenix undergone audits ?[13] I do not wish to be overly critical of Kevin Pearson. What do you think?
Sources and Additional Reading
- Mormon Stories. Episode 660. 1:21:40
- Mormon Stories Episode 1630 4:50
- https://www.thechurchnews.com/2008/6/14/23231589/elder-kevin-w-pearson-biography
- https://www.startribune.com/former-unitedhealth-ceo-made-142-2m-last-year/600171979/
- https://www.valuepenguin.com/largest-health-insurance-companies
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/828436/largest-health-insurance-companies-in-us-by-membership/
- https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/unitedhealth-probe-reveals-history-of-pricing-questions-10407478
- https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2008/cuomo-announces-industry-wide-investigation-health-insurers-fraudulent
- https://www.startribune.com/unitedhealth-settles-ingenix-suit/37638584/
- https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/consumer-protection/unitedhealth-group-ingenix-billing-database-fraud-case-settled-for-50-million-redefining-reasonable/
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/33pearson?lang=eng
- https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-w-pearson/the-abundant-life-2/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/ingenix-scandal-points-to-need-for-database-auditors/
Wheat & Tares 
Holy moley!
I can’t wait to read more.
This is not particularly pertinent to the topic of this post, which I think is quite important, at least to me, but…
Elder Pearson was dispatched to a stake conference at my stake years ago when I was transitioning out of the church. As part of the conference festivities, he and my Stake President visited a few people in the stake, (I can only assume that they were all in a similar situation to mine) and they came to my home for that meeting. I was given notice by the Stake Executive Secretary, so we were ready to entertain. I was somewhat excited to be visited by a GA, a little nervous.
The meeting started out pretty smoothly, getting to know each other. Then Pearson jumped in and asked some questions about why I wasn’t going to church. I was honest about my concerns, and stayed calm. Elder Pearson, however did not. His frustration at my unwillingness to bend when he shared his thoughts and testimony just kept growing. I was confused at how the tension kept elevating.
Eventually, my Stake President jumped in and suggested that he and I talk outside, while Elder Pearson was to stay in with my family. Elder Pearson was NOT happy with that, but my SP was smooth enough about it that he couldn’t argue without looking foolish. My SP and I had a good talk, and Elder Pearson pretty much had to behave himself with my wife and kids. When we were finished and they were leaving, he shook my hand and wouldn’t let go. Just kept looking me in the eyes and gripping my hand. It felt like he was trying to use the force on me to make me believe. Unfortunately for him, the meeting kind of backfired, as it didn’t help me stay in the church. Probably hastened my exit.
All in all, a very uncomfortable experience, but an interesting story to tell. And sorry for the off topic comment!
I wonder if the Brethren know about this history? The last thing they want to do is to call someone who could bring embarrassment to the church either directly or indirectly. So what should one do? Write the 1P and cc Pearson with the know information you have uncovered. The question in these things is how much the CEO and management knew and if it reaches the level of personal liability. I’d be cautious making claims of criminal conduct without knowing the facts. As a litigator I can say that I have handled many, many cases that the public perception of a case can be very different than the reality. I’m not giving anyone a pass because of their position. My SP as a kid was exed for embezzlement and there have been plenty of excommunications for the myriad of Ponzi schemes in UT. I’ve had limited dealings with Elder Pearson and found him to be very open minded and not at all a rigid soldier simply following orders.
Looking forward to more of these posts!
Growing up, GA’s were practically deified, it came as a bit of a shock when, as a teenager, I started to notice some people have criticisms of GA’s for things they did and said both before becoming a GA and as a GA (I remember most of this criticism being aimed at Packer). It was even more of a surprise when on my mission in northern Utah and eastern Idaho to hear plenty of members have criticism of GA’s for doing things such as: having their employees work Sundays, being general jerks with members when running into them in public, etc.
Generally heard bad things about Bednar, Packer, Cook, Stevenson, Gong, etc. Never heard anything bad about Uchtdorf though, seems like a genuinely good guy
Lawrence: I think I disagree. If Pearson has experience with corporate activities that resulted in a $50m settlement, this might be just the kind of background the Church needs these days (SEC). Ok, I’m being a little sarcastic but do you see my point?
I can accept that church members and leaders earn a living selling products and services the people of Babylon desire and selling them using the best methods Babylon teaches. Truth is much of us gain our monetary substance and wealth playing by the rules of Babylon.
The problem is the church leaders are very selective in their criticism of what is an unacceptable profit making scheme. They give lip service to attacking explicit scams and schemes but they are reluctant to call out the fraud that permeates the methods of “big business”. These are the practices condemned in the scriptures that empower the few to profit greatly by exploiting the powerless.
A Zion people would not tolerate the collusion and profiteering that permeates modern business practices. And yet profiteering is how one succeeds in today’s world and the LDS church has a preference for promoting successful people to leadership. No surprise then that these leaders are very tolerant of the world’s business practices and why not? Being good at using these methods is how they got elevated to church leadership!
Don’t forget, ZCMI – the church’s then pioneer retail business – was a cut throat competitor to businesses run by fellow members, as well as those run by “gentiles”.
“Brigham Young was elected president of the ‘People’s Store’ or ZCMI. Its initial directors were also church leaders. The store’s goal was to offer lower prices than the enemy Gentile businesses while promoting church unity. Not all LDS merchants joined the new institution at first. In fact, some of ZCMI’s early opponents were excommunicated.”
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/54/Zion-s-Cooperative-Mercantile-Institution.html
@keithm, comments completly relevant. That is the whole purpose of this. We need to tell our stories. Thank you!
@adisciple great history lesson.! New facts about ZCMI, I had not heard before
Thanks for sharing, I had no idea.
It is unfortunate the alliance that the church organization has made with scam artists. Pearson is not the only one, I can guarantee that. Many GAs have had lucrative careers before accepting high church leadership callings. Rich people, I find, are often hard to trust. Sure, some of them came about their wealth fair and square. But what corners did they cut to acquire so much wealth and who did they screw over are things that often weigh on my mind? And yet the rich are idolized in church culture. Didn’t Jesus denounce the rich and stand up for the poor? He had good reason to then and the reasons still apply today.
Somewhat off topic, but where are the barbers, artists, craftsmen, teachers among the general authorities? I had one mission president who was a jr high teacher. I don’t think that happens anymore.
@Faith, thank you for writing about this topic.
Few have caught my attention recently more than Kevin Pearson. I have commented several times on W&T about his unhinged and angry-faced rant aimed at young men and other adults who attended a fireside he gave not long ago in the Alpine Tabernacle. I’m going to review those prior comments here. My apologies for the redundancy. In his talk–and I’m obviously paraphrasing and condensing–he told the young men they were obligated to serve a mission, that it was a part of the covenants they made at their baptism, and there was no need for them to ponder or pray about serving because they had already committed themselves. These are stunning assertions. I’ve heard few GA’s give more manipulative talks than this one. Pearson failed to provide any kind of argument for such a whopper of an assertion or any prior citations to establish precedent.
In that same talk, his data analytics background poured out. His other major premise for young men serving a mission was the difference it would make to producing tithing payers generations after the young man had served. In other words, serving a mission means more of your posterity will pay tithing than if you fail to go, and according to his analysis it’s a big difference. So, Pearson’s logic to serve included: (1) Serve because you covenanted to do so at your eight-year-old baptism (am I the only one whose bishop overlooked explaining this?), and (2) serve because our predictive analytics shows it positively impacts tithing receipts in the future. I’d never paid attention to Kevin Pearson before hearing that talk and it jarred me so badly I immediately thought this is a man I do not trust because he is not being forthright.
@Lawrence said we should be cautious about making claims of criminal conduct without knowing the facts. I agree with this. Lawrence also said he wonders if the brethren know about his history? I will assert he was called *because of his history* and not in spite of it and certainly not because it was unknown.
When you read the church’s data privacy policy (which you were presented with when–or if–you created your member account on lds.org) it is clear the church is actively using session data and other site and browsing data. It is less clear if the church is using it in aggregate (in commonly used website analytics) or for member-level analytics. The last time I read the policy (six months ago) it said user data can be employed in a variety of ways, including to determine church callings. This stunned me and implies they can use collected data at an individual level. What does that mean? I don’t know. Our secretive and non-transparent church never explains itself. I can’t find any source that explains how the church is analyzing member data, including browser data, session data or cookie data. The church’s technology group has expanded dramatically over the past 20 years and has taken the church from being technology laggards to operating at the cutting edge. Profiling members based on money contributions could be a snap, and that data could be analyzed in a number of ways that includes geography (area, stake, ward), age, gender, family size and can be correlated with other data the church has, including mission service, mission region, priesthood status, temple marriage status, etc. And these are the more simple analytics the church can perform if it wishes. A decade ago these analytics would have been difficult if not impossible for the church to conduct. Today, it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg of what the church can and is doing with member data and other passively collected data.
So back to Kevin Pearson, a former data analytics CEO, he would know how to manage and guide these predictive analytical and big data efforts. I don’t know if he has been involved with the church’s analytics pursuits, but he is qualified and capable of leading this work, or contributing to it as an advisor. I’ll argue again, they called Kevin Pearson because of his prior business experience. It fits an important, current church need, even if we as members have no idea how our data is being used. (I also noticed a while back that I know have to login using my church account credentials to access my church library application on my iPhone–more activity tracking, more data for analytics.) The church’s prior displayed ethics tells me the church could easily look past the ways in which Pearson and his former company may have damaged healthcare for individuals or caused harm to what many of us consider to be a basic human right and public good. (And as a church professing the name of the Savior, I think this is deplorable if true.)
I know some of you might think I sound a little paranoid talking about what the church may be doing with our data. I am not. I am a rational thinker and appropriately critical. I also know I belong to a church with a history of not being transparent, of misrepresenting its history to its members, and of hiding other important things from its members (as well as from the SEC) for reasons of institutional self-interest.
I am guessing those who are called to be GA’s today more than ever before are tapped because of the value they can add to the church, organizationally. They likely need to meet a threshold of having checked all of the church’s other boxes that signal they are a member in good standing. But being a spiritual leader is no longer the primary consideration (if it ever was) for being called as a GA. Those with business and legal acumen have become more attractive to the Brethren when selecting men to join the ranks of general authorities. In my opinion, this is so very unfortunate. But how else could a former CEO like Kevin Hamilton be called to be a GA, and give such a clownish talk that equated Christ and The Church as being perfect substitutes, of being perfect equals?
I live in the Utah Area, and we recently had our ward conference, in which we had the annual sustaining of church leaders. For the first time that I can remember, they also asked us to sustain the Area Presidency. Kevin Pearson is of course the president of the Utah Area.
I’m pretty old, and for the first time in my life, I just couldn’t raise my hand to sustain a leader. I didn’t raise my hand to vote against him, but I just sat there until they named the next batch of people (at the stake level), who I could support. Maybe someone noticed what I’d done, maybe not.
I am deeply, deeply troubled by this man. Before ward conference, I was already aware of his infamous history at Ingenix, and his bizarre rant at the missionary meeting last year, as well as other times that he’s flown off the handle. (And since our ward conference, his high pressure tactics to guilt older couples into serving TWO senior missions.) And as Keith M has mentioned, he’s no better in “real life”.
If Kevin Pearson is ever called to be in the Q12 (a position he really seems to be gunning for), I will be sorely tempted to — for the first time in my life — vote in opposition. At an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level, this man seems truly dangerous to me.
“However, he was on the ground floor of UHC dominating the market and of events that led to government investigations.”
I’m guessing that questionable things were happening a while before the investigation began in 2021. Even so, Kevin Pearson left the company in 2005–and that means (IMO) there was plenty of time for things to go south after his departure.
If they are former business execs they need to share and implement what they have learned about customer retention because the market for mass consumption of Mormonism is shifting.
My favourite memory of Elder Pearson was when my wife and I were asked to MC a ward activity. Between items, I spoke into the mic: “Elder Pearson, do you know why all the Lamanites had such sore knees?” He looked uncomfortable being put on the spot but replied “No.”. When I told him “It was because of all the knee-fights”, he didn’t really laugh, just looked relieved that it was over. Too dry maybe. Somehow though, this made it even funnier to me and sent me down the dark path of dad jokes.
We attended the same ward in New Zealand for about a year, but never really got to know each other well. We can’t have talked in person more than a few times, and always about as brief as my joke. I didn’t know what his profession was, but in truth, most of the time, I think even my own family doesn’t really have a good idea of what I do, so it’s not so surprising. I’ve really enjoyed learning the professional background of apostles and other church leaders and seeing connections to how they operate their ministries. It often makes sense of a lot of things they do well, or overlook. Looking forward to more posts.
Faith, this is a great post. It raises a number of questions, most importantly the one you ask at the post’s conclusion about the tension (contradiction?) between what’s expected of a supposedly divinely called member of the clergy and that member’s previous/concurrent so-called private or professional life. I think we make an unfortunate habit of separating them when we shouldn’t, especially when the leadership position (and therefore the stakes) are this high. I’m with BigSky on this; the selective ethical blindness of the church means they probably see calling someone like this as a net positive. While the church has always leaned hard right politically, I think that it’s also gotten more and more tone deaf as time has gone on. This can be seen with the latest ridiculousness involving things like the Wilcox issue, various pronouncements from the pulpit about obedience, the financial scandals (that have involved verifiable dishonesty and criminal behavior), the POX debacle, etc.. And I think the general rule in leadership, whether religious, corporate or academic, is to admit as little as possible and retrench. That’s clearly what the church is doing. And that’s clearly reflected in this leadership choice.
>> Every week, the Church News would arrive on the doorstep with updates of the hierarchy callings. Included, for members to get to know the new leaders, was their biography.
>> In recent years, the church has truncated Stake Presidents resumes, by only printing the job title, but not the company; like as previously done.
I’ve always thought that it would be interesting to see how many of the stake presidents (and counselors) were employed by the church at the time of their call. We trumpet the idea that there is no “paid clergy” in the church. But in some areas of the world (e.g. South America, Africa), it seems that a high percentage of stake presidents are also being paid by the church for their “professional” employment.
A year or so ago, I downloaded 10,000+ new stake presidency announcements from the Church News from 1988-2022, and started counting to see how many of these people were employed by the church. Here’s a copy of that data:
Editor note: **See corrected link in next comment**
(Note that not all stake presidencies are listed. For example, only two of the four changeovers in my stake since the 1990s were ever listed at the Church News. I’m not quite sure why this is.)
My best guess is that from about 1990-2020, at least half (perhaps two thirds) of all people called to stake presidencies in some “developing” areas of the world were being paid a (relatively) good salary by the church.
So much for not having a paid clergy.
Sorry, correct URL:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vT4tmlORFybiTZ0WHUdUE7QXIuNfo5W8q09qmCSZPF9_-gfxsgJMrfVAVONpZv-w2_CCfxQFHM8XQU0/pubhtml
I’d like to make a counter argument to the issue of so many leaders being employed by the church, or having some social/professional connection to the church:
The people selecting new leaders can only select from the pool of people they actually know exist…and it’s not a stretch that church leaders would know a lot of people who work in the church, and thus skewing the selection of new leaders toward people who work there.
“Discernment…blah blah blah.” I’m sure there’s some stories about a GA feeling inspired to select a before-unknown person for a leadership position…I don’t really have an issue with that. But realistically, if there are 10 or 100 good candidates in a particular stake to become a stake president, and one or two of them are personally known from their work at the church, it’s very reasonable to pick the person they already know. Afaik there are no crystal balls in church HQ.
Now, we should absolutely have some transparency…but there’s no inherent surprise (or even issue) with expecting leaders to select from people they actually have met.
The same holds true for non-church stuff. If you work really really hard at your job and do spectacular work, but you also sit in a dark cubicle in the corner alone and are invisible to the head of the department, it’s very unlikely they’ll give you a promotion. The manager will likely skew towards the group of people with desks right outside their office that they say hello to every day.
heterodoxcl,
Are you saying that because they’re employed by the church — as teachers or executives or what-have-you — while serving as stake presidents that they’re paid clergy?
Jack, Where did you get the information that the investigation began in 2021. Genuinely curious, because this is what the article says:
In 2006, Ingenix/UHC was charged in a government investigation of fraudulent practices for their actions of the prior 10 years.
Re. “paid clergy”
The data shows pretty clearly that many of the members of the stake presidencies (especially in the developing world) receive a salary every month from the church.
Of course it’s not a *direct* payment for being a member of the stake presidency. But they do receive a significant amount of money every month from the church, for the support of their families. Make of that what you will.
PWS,
I might be confused. I can’t remember exactly where I read about it. It’s all over google though–a big settlement in 2021-2022.
Whatever it was that happened in 2006–I don’t think anyone was sued or held liable. Though Ingenix apparently put up a lot of money to revamp their database.
heterodoxcl,
That’s a huge file to sift through–so I’ll have to take your word for it. Even so the few entries that I looked at — of those who were employed by the church — looked like they worked for the church in a different capacity than their calling as a stake president.
Pirate Priest,
I understand what you are saying about selecting people one knows — yes, that happens in the workplace and the selecting official owns the decision as his or her own — but in the church, the selecting official disclaims ownership of the decision but attributes it to revelation — when revelation occurs, shouldn’t it be entirely possible (and even likely?) for the unknown person in the corner to be selected?
@heterodoxcl, I’m glad you bring light to the issue of unpaid clergy. It seems to be a dominant practice only in NA; however, when I lived in Utah I noted how many CES employees (mostly seminary and institute employees) were called to be bishops and called into stake presidencies. They are an over represented class in my former northern Utah County stakes. They seem to be our shadow paid clergy.
Like you, I have kept informal track of stake presidency members abroad who are employed by the church. While I haven’t tracked this as data, anecdotally it seems to me the proportion of church employees called ranges from about a third to a half, especially in parts of South America, West Africa and the Philippines. This isn’t openly acknowledged, so whenever I hear someone in the church talk about the miracle of our unpaid clergy I cringe because it’s not entirely true. Just like stake presidents are called by inspiration. No they aren’t. They are elected by a small group of their peers (the high council, bishops in the stake and the outgoing stake presidency).
PWS, I think this is the most recent settlement:
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20210812
It looks like there may be several others actually. So I don’t know if UHC has a particularly bad track record or if a couple of settlements a decade is par for the course. You know how insurance companies and lawyers are always at each others’ throats.
>> looked like they worked for the church in a different capacity than their calling as a stake president.
Yes, obviously. As I mentioned, they don’t get paid *directly* for being stake president. They have another job that provides monthly income from the church.
But I imagine that it would be kind of hard for them to turn down a calling like stake president, or carry out any actions that aren’t 100% in support of “the Brethren” — when they know that this might indirectly their monthly paycheck as institute teacher, physical facilities director, FamilySearch coordinator, “temporal welfare”director, etc.
And sorry if this issue looks like “threadjacking” of the blog post about Kevin Pearson (although it’s nice to have something to think about other than him and his shady past). But I suspect that it might be relevant for some GA’s that we discuss in the future, who have been employed by the church before their calling as GA.
Growth of the Church in Africa is interesting when combined with BYU-Pathway and the church self-reliance courses in light of this discussion of paid clergy.
On a personal note, I wonder how the Church views me since my wife earns more than I do…
There is a caste system developing in the Church. The elite class does not reflect the rest of the Church. Lawyers, CEOs, CFOs, and CES employees are in the upper caste. Even at the Stake level in my area there is a harsh pecking order. I challenge anyone to simply photograph the homes of church elites in Salt Lake. The photos alone would make a fair case that something is wrong when church hierarchy largely mirrors a socioeconomic pattern. Wealth matters. Gone are the days when Spencer Kimball lived in a humble home and flew coach. There is a reason that the church hides its billions. A significant percentage of the Church are common people, struggling to pay the children’s tuition, utilities, mortgages, etc. Most of their children will never see the doors of BYU. Some of these live in near poverty around the world. If the law of consecration is about equality in any way we are light years from it.
As much lip service the church gives to establishing strong families, it does not support the families of non-elites. For example, high priest ordinations are only now for the elite, Non-elite fathers who raise successful children will never stand in the circle and ordain their sons. That doesn’t happen to Utah elites. “Commoner” members are rarely asked to serve in high profile callings. In my area, they are not even encouraged to serve in the temple. There is an scarcity of callings. It really is about connections and who you know. Utahns are asked to volunteer for two missions and wait hand and foot on the elite (Trust me, I know.) The Church has successfully ended the idea of a lay clergy and the glorification of the common man. Amazing women are ignored unless they have family/spouse connections or are directly connected to the corporation in some way (Sharon Eubank, Sherri Dew). Even if one believes in the faith, how can one proselytize for an organization run by economic elites?
@ji – This holds true regardless of church or workplace…or literally any other organizational setting. There may be inspiration involved, but it’s just not that deterministic (i.e., “one true” stake president for the stake is generally a myth). It’s a similar myth to finding your one soulmate…it’s pure fallacy.
IN reality it’s a spectrum between practicality and divine inspiration…sometimes the choice is almost purely practical, and other times the dial points more towards inspiration. Most of the time there’s probably at least a few people who would do the job well.
In a decent-sized stake the assigned GA shows up, interviews the outgoing stake presidency about how things are going in the stake and asks for any recommendations on people to interview. Other local leaders go through the same until a pool develops. The GA does a lot of praying/interviewing to try to narrow it down…the (still very human) GA then makes a call and tries to seek divine confirmation that it’s a good choice. Barring divine intervention, they move forward.
In a small district (often in a country with a small church presence), there may only be one viable person that can hold the leadership role from a practical perspective. In this case the decision is almost entirely practical…luckily for them, there’s also the church doctrine that God will elevate the person to the position.
Is it possible that God could point a finger at one individual who should THE choice? Sure, possible (and there are stories told of this sort of thing). It’s certainly not the norm or only way though…we’re meant to use our brains and best judgement too.
My first job after my post graduate work in 2002 was with Ingenix (worked at their Eden Prairie campus) and I worked there until 2005. I was a newly minted data scientist before the profession became fashionable. The OP misrepresents what went down between Ingenix and the government. In summary, a bunch of hospitals (not private practice doctors) complained about our data model and that we ignored their rack rates when we developed our RandC model. Those hospitals cried foul. We told them to bring data and demonstrate our model was flawed from a market perspective. They couldn’t do it so they whined to Medicare (the same department that actually brought down Theranos). Medicare could not prove any malfeasance but with rural hospitals threatening to stop seeing Medicare patients the department kept inquiring. The $50M settlement was a cheap resolution which would allow Medicare to put a faux pelt on its wall and free up Ingenix from having to deal with the nuisance complaints. Full stop. That is it.
This sort of nonsense is commonplace when people don’t understand math and stats. And yes, your typical MD does not understand math and stats. It says nothing of Bro. Pearson’s character.
Pirate Priest — right — you are solidly making the case for the norm that callings come from men (and not from God) and that even at church the person who “work[s] really really hard at [Christian holiness and service] and do[es] spectacular work, but [so to speak] also sit[s] in a dark cubicle in the corner alone and are invisible to the [church leader],” will not be called. Revelation may not be as omnipresent nor as deterministic in callings as some church members may want to believe, or as much as some church leaders may want to teach. I think you are presenting this as a simple truth, but I am not sure it will be broadly accepted within the church as a simple truth.
Yeah I’m with you there. In my (admittedly unholy) opinion, I see it more as “do your best to use your head to make a thoughtful decisions, try to prayerfully check in and be open to inspiration…do that, and you can expect that God will have your back.”
Supernatural crystal-ball style inspiration may be possible…Can’t say it’s something I’ve experienced or witnessed (especially given my skeptical nature). But I really don’t think it’s the norm by any stretch…or even remotely common.
I see your point, but the LDS Church definition of clergy is distinct from many other religions because of the idea of priesthood authority and keys. In the church, the seminary teach is paid by the church to teach, but has no keys of authority over anyone being taught…so while the argument could be made that they are a form of paid clergy, the church considers them outside the church government structure and therefore not really defined as clergy.
Even the idea of a stake president, etc. receiving money in some poor countries doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. Taking the position as Stake President could very readily mean giving up part or all of the income required to feed themselves and their family. It’s entirely reasonable to make an exception to the rule of paying clergy when accepting the calling might cause real physical harm in their specific circumstances. I see no issue here at all.
This was in response to heterodoxcl and BigSky, forgot to add that
Would you please include Jack N Gerard in your investigations. Gerard was a lobbyist for big oil, to prevent legislation to save the planet. He did not just lobby. If a legislator did not agree to vote as requested, he would have groups (supposedly grass roots) set up to disrupt his campaigning, who were paid for by big oil through him. His tactics were underhanded.
His net worth is $75 million v Pearson at $25 m.
re Geoff-Aus entry: here is a snatch from LDS Church’s website’s bio of Jack Gerard: ” Elder Gerard completed both his undergraduate and juris doctor degree from George Washington University. During his career, he has worked as president and CEO for several entities, including McClure, Gerard & Neuenschwander, Inc.; the National Mining Association; the America Chemistry Council; and, most recently, the American Petroleum Institute. “
At the same event at Morehouse College n April 13 where President Nelson received his peace prize, Elder Gerard was inducted into the Martin Luther King Jr. Board of Preachers, Sponsors and Collegium of Scholars as part of the College of Ministers and Laity.
Released time seminary teachers possess an enormous amount of clout in many communities. They frequently hold positions at the ward and stake levels, can now dabble in politics, and some are members of right-wing parent organizations fighting what they call “woke” policies in public schools. They also have area presidencies on speed dial. A friend who teaches public school in Davis County Utah has noted that seminary teachers visit the classes of their children and lodge complaints about teachers with rainbow flags or who discuss political issues in ways the seminary teachers and political conservatives don’t appreciate. So there is that.
I confess that I would like to see fewer lawyers, business executives, physicians, and rich people in leadership positions in the Church. Jesus called fishermen, tax collectors, and other plain people, and many of the early Church leaders were actually fairly common people. Some of the best fathers and husbands and men that I know aren’t numbered among the financial elite, and they’ll never hold a position at or above stake president (unless they’re a Church employee overseas). I am not denigrating Church leaders, many of whom are fine people, but the Church (I think) is being run too much today like a for-profit corporation, with hierarchies and lines of command and control that we didn’t see in earlier times, but that’s a topic for another day. Why can’t an apostle be a retired car mechanic or a school teacher or policeman? Perhaps because we’re running an organization following business principles, with focus on returns on investment, risk management, and public relations. Can’t people of good faith but modest means be spiritual leaders? Or maybe business proof and wealth is proof of spiritual capability?
“Why can’t an apostle be a retired car mechanic or a school teacher or policeman?”
Unfortunately, I think one of the reasons may be that we’d believe them less than we already do.
Thanks, PaulM, for your insider’s perspective. A peek behind the veil of misinformation can change the entire landscape of the argument.
“Can’t people of good faith but modest means be spiritual leaders? “
I think they can, on an exception basis and at the local level — but they won’t be promoted. I really don’t like to think of our church organization in terms of promotions and hierarchy, but everyone else does and I need to follow my leaders. I wish for more spiritual strength and spiritual guidance from those selected for promotion rather than organizational and managerial capability, and more spiritual insight and shepherding and ministering in our council meetings rather than administering, but in reality today our church is an organization so maybe that’s how it has to be. I think one has to find spirituality within him/herself and his/her own interactions with the Holy Spirit, and our current church president seems to be saying something along these lines although it hasn’t gotten much traction among us, and maybe also in interactions with the scriptures and one’s family and neighbors.
@paulM
We would love your insight at working at Ingenix. We only know what is reported in the news. You can enlighten us what happened with Ingenix and the government, from your point of view. From what we know it is not positive, what is missing?
However, I am a doctor in private practice and for you to state doctors do not understand math and stats is completely untrue and condescending. Working with all the various commercial insurance companies, UHC is the worst of any of them! They pay the least and daily lie and cheat our practice. UHC had a period of 9 months where they paid zero of our clean claims. They only paid after we turned them into the state insurance commissioner. We got so tired of their run around, we left their network, after 18 years in network, to avoid their games and dishonesty. We used to have to see 2 UHC patients to equal the reimbursement of a single BCBS or Humana patient.
UHC is not an honest player. Sure that does not create a direct correlation of Bro. Pearson’s character. However, when he was the one who set up the system of the problems that medical providers are dealing with today. It does reflect something, about him.
I agree there is always more to the story. You can add your prospective. You need to know the reality of a clinicians prospective.
Watching ward conference on zoom and we were just asked to sustain Kevin Pearson as our area president. I guess this a new procedure.
I’m a lazy learner because I only live three minutes away from the chapel so that probably tells you how I voted as well.
This post and comments gets my thumbs up, even the tangents were pertinent. Although Brother Pearson wasn’t solidly on my radar, I appreciate being edified by the facts, factoids, anecdotes, and enjoyed the exchange examining the foundations of his sketchy former career. FWIW I’m on Team Shark. Though the 50M settlement was smallish, his association with developing the forerunner of what has become the worst player in an industry of grift against the sick, which has contributed heavily to the health care crisis we’ve been navigating for so long (decades,) that I’m not gonna give the guy a pass as a victim of misinformation. He’s no victim. Still, I appreciate the instructive exchange regarding the foolishness of insurance companies and hospitals (another bad player in the declining health care system— another discussion for another time)
I noticed my own cynicism as I was reading comments, my trust that I formerly had for church leadership is thoroughly trashed, and yet continues to take blows from a distance. I will own my complacency in that former trust, however, but that’s gone too. I don’t like the feelings dredged up by this cynicism, but it’s authentic, and reminds me to stay far away from those guys and the damage they’ll do.
And in my search for safety, I felt again the paranoia of the church snooping into our digital footprints, and wonder if maybe I should delete the Library app, or check my privacy settings around it. Every time I notice that god-awful logo on my screen, I get a cynical booster.
For the record, I have done some work to keep the cynicism from running amok. I don’t feel a blanket contempt towards all GAs, and I still remember their good qualities I have admired at times. Nor do I seek out contempt towards people I know and love. When it comes to real-life relationships I actively work at cleansing my feelings toward the corporate church. It’s exhausting and I do fall short, but I try.
I don’t have anything juicy to add really. My only anecdote is when the Uchdorfs visited my old ward a few years ago, to renew their friendship with a longtime OG couple in that ward, who I know to be good people, the best. That carried a lot of ballast with me. Also, Harriet wore pants.
Mostly I just worry about those in the church who are good people, like some of my relatives, old friends, and excellent people whose talents and work I admire, that seems lost and waning, wasted by the corporate church ignoring and erasing them, denying them their due recognition and destroying their platforms. Many of these are great women. Behind my cynicism is a well of sadness.
When I read comments from those of you who have this sadness, I feel a tinge of that old connection. Thanks.
Here’s an interesting survey on the top ten health care insurance companies:
https://www.insure.com/best-health-insurance-companies/
My mother-in-law would give UHC a zero
MDearest: You made my day and also broke my heart, all in one comment. Bright spot: Harriet wearing pants (!). But your low points hit me as well. It’s sad to see the good people whose sacrifices have been essentially for naught.
And I resent my tithing dollars being spent on political causes that hurt my family and the dignity of others, all while I’m being told to obey the people doing these things. Jesus would not have donated to Prop 8. Jesus would have nothing to do with the World Congress of Families. Jesus had less ego and hubris (despite having more merit) than the majority of human leaders.