Today’s guest post is from Faith. This is the third post in a series spotlighting career backgrounds for leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can read the previous post in the series here:
Residency Patterns
Many large international corporations have much of their leadership on the ground at a local level, away from the headquarters. “Despite increasing interdependence across the globe, the world is not necessarily flat. (People) have unique tastes and values, and local knowledge can be a distinct competitive advantage. Anyone who depends on deploying a one-solution-fits-all strategy across cultures and nations will lose.” [1]
The church tries this with the area presidencies. However, the male LDS area presidencies are rarely locals and are typically exported from elsewhere (frequently the Utah/Mormon corridor). All the Q15 (from what I can find), except Uchtdorf who was on overseas assignments as a GA for the 10 years prior to Q12 calling, had lived in Utah prior to their calling.
Of the 134 new LDS mission Presidents called in 2023, approximately 24% are from Utah. 26% are from the 12 other US Western states, 13% are from the remaining US states, and 36% are from the non-US nations. As compared to total church membership, if I did my calculations correct, the percentage of LDS residency is 13%, 16%, 10%, and 61%, respectfully. [2] Again, nearly twice as many Utahans are placed in mission leadership, compared to their ratio of the entire membership. Whereas international LDS mission Presidents are half of their represented membership numbers.
When you look at the individual resumes of the vast majority of Mission Presidents, called from a home stake in the US Western states and remaining US states, over 80% of their biographies lead back to Utah roots.[2] On the other hand, few of the newly called international called Mission Presidents have any ties to Utah. Why is living in Utah a preference and even a requirement for the higher church callings? If speaking English and having an idea of US culture is necessary, there are members with international connections living in Florida, Texas, and the other 47 states, without Utah ties. Also, there are quality members in England, Australia, and the other 192 countries of the world. Why only Utah ?
The Church Ideal
I recall a quote from Boyd Packer, “Giving [members] in Peru what is preferred on the Wasatch Front can be giving [them] less than giving [them] a simpler building and program suited to [them]. And it can cost a lot more.” [3]. I also remember another thought from Packer, “Missionaries are to export the gospel, not the Wasatch front culture”. (No reference to the quote, just my memory). If that is the case, why is it that the church has so much focus on the Wasatch front culture (Pioneer Trek, Utah ties, etc.) when establishing the church. Example: Modern-day Mongolian pioneers re-enact trek? What do Mongolians have to do with Western USA pioneers? This is very difficult to change, when the Area Presidencies are from Utah/Western USA, and living in Utah is nearly a prerequisite of higher callings.
Women Leadership Residency
Are women called in the same pattern as the men? With the recent LDS General Conference, a new Young Women Presidency were called and sustained. When comparing the official photographs of the new YW presidency, with the current RS Presidency, along with the 2017 RS Presidency, there is a glaring pattern. The Second Counselors “look different” and have non-European typical surnames compared to the others. Even the 2017 RS Presidency joked that their hair colors are “different”. This was a signal that this was groundbreaking territory (except for Chieko Okazaki). This is a major improvement from the past and a positive for a global church; having a leadership that reflects its’ international members. However, are these non-“Utah pioneer-stock” born counselors really different than the others?
Let’s take a look at the women’s brief biographies mentioned.
Andrea Muñoz Spannaus is the new 2nd counselor, for the new 2023 Young Women Presidency. Her biography reads that she is from Argentina. She served an LDS mission in Argentina as a young adult, and later a mission in México with her husband. Looking at her husband’s biography, it shows that he graduated from BYU, in Provo Utah in 1992; the same year they were married. They had lived in Utah, but then returned to Argentina. Based on her husband’s CV, it appears they lived in South America until approx. 2012, when it appears they moved back to Utah. Since then, they have worked/served for the church. They currently live in North Salt Lake, Utah. [4] She has lived in Utah for the least years of the provided female examples, 10 years.
Kristin Yee is the second counselor in the 2023 Presidency. Her biography reads that she is from Sacramento, CA originally. She currently lives in Woods Cross, Utah and has been a Utah/Rexburg ID resident since 2000, including her 2 years at BYUI. [5]
Reyna Aburto is originally from Nicaragua. She moved to California and was converted to the church in 1989. She has lived in Utah since 1993. She currently lives in Orem, Utah. [6]
I am happy for them in their service. In a video “Just Like You”, they noted that as a group they have experienced financial problems, infertility, LGBTQ family, family with addictions, chronic illness, divorce, incarcerated loved ones, death of a spouse, and all have been affected by depression or anxiety.[4] “It wasn’t just that they represented many more Latter-day Saint women than previous leaders had, it was that they addressed real issues rather than focusing on idealized identities.”[7] “They provided experiences and examples that lots of Latter-day Saint women “could relate to”, “They spoke women’s language, and didn’t use the ‘Primary’ voice. It was a huge step forward. They showed us what global Mormonism could look like.[7] It is refreshing to read their biographies, compared to the current male leadership and the female presidencies from the prior 150+ years.
However, again, all of their biographies have Utah ties. Even the 2nd Counselors with international heritage still have Utah connections and significant time living in state. After living and continuing to live in Utah over the past 10-30+ years are Spannaus/Yee/Aburto from Utah or not from Utah? Do they still possess the perspective of members that live in South America, Central America, or Asia and a comprehension that international members currently face? I would suspect they bring a different perspective than the “Utah pioneer stock” breed. However, is that sufficient for an international church?
The women are not called to live on International living assignments, just for brief travel and photo ops for the church publications. Why not international living assignments, other than accompanying their husband?
Final Thoughts
Would the YM, RS, and Q15 presidencies be improved, or more truly diverse if its members were called directly from those countries and not after living in Utah for over a decade +? Or, is it better that its presidencies live in Utah, as a requirement, to know how the church works in “Zion” ? Can outsiders (non-Utahans) work with the LDS church bureaucracy ?
The “Racial Minority” men in the Q12 have also prolonged Utah residency. Gong has lived in Utah since 2002, on and off, but frequently was gone on LDS international assignments. Soares lived in Utah 13 years prior to Q15 calling.
What patterns have you experienced in your wards of callings in relationship to importance of being from or having lived in Utah?
For the church to maintain an identity and not diverge into splinter churches, is a Utah residency essential?
Is the one fits all strategy helping the church to win or to lose?
Sources
- https://hbr.org/2012/01/the-best-global-leaders-are-local
- https://www.thechurchnews.com/mission-presidents/2023
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/by-study-and-also-by-faith/chapter-four-go-ye-into-all-the-world-1970-1979?lang=eng
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/relief-society-organization/this-is-your-relief-society/general-leaders/andrea-veronica-munoz-spannaus?lang=eng
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/kristin-m-yee?lang=eng
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/reyna-i-aburto?lang=eng
- https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/03/27/five-years-three-women/
- The map graphic with Utah highlighted was obtained through a Bing search of FamilySearch.org and is utilized here under Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Wheat & Tares 
In my experience an inherent part of calling someone is knowing something about them on some level, and being comfortable with them as a faithful member of the church who has a capacity to do the work involved. So yes, when people doing the calling are from Utah, you will get more people called from Utah because these are the people they know. These are the people that they will understand. These are the people who will come to their mind as someone capable of the work. It’s the same in group out group problem that occurs in wards.
Of course it makes sense for a leader to be comfortable working with someone they have called to a position. However it does exclude many people, just because they don’t know them well enough to be comfortable with them.
Felipe Sostre explains this concept well in his book “Liberated to Engage” pg 24
“Religious leaders are particularly susceptible to an insidious form of prejudice -self-affirming prejudice. This is when pastors and leaders use their spiritual authority and influence to attract, favor, and invest in people who are most like them. Self affirming prejudice is a form of pastoral power abuse that affirms select people based on their ability to reflect the leader’s own persona, preferences, and thinking. Sound familiar? It is a form of religiousity that fosters in-group cohesion at the expense of out-group relationships. It’s like spiritual in-breeding- an exaggerated form of mutual affirmation between leaders and followers who think alike. Consequently, self affirming prejudice in pastors and leaders leads to the necessary exclusion of those who do not think, look, or act like the in group. They use power and control to create an environment where only people who are like minded are affirmed and embraced. This leaves everyone else feeling like second class members or, worse still, like outsiders, even if they occupy a pew Sunday after Sunday. The inherent power and influence that pastors and leaders have puts their unidentified and undifferentiated prejudices on full display to the delight of those who are in and to the demise of those who are out. ”
I don’t mean this in a critical way. I think it’s an automatic and probably necessary thing that happens when we select people to work with us. I was in a primary presidency where the bishop had selected the counselors without the president’s support and just told her to pray for her own confirmation of his selection. She did for two years of conflict and pain before one of the counselors moved.
If I was calling people to staff a ward or presidency I admit you would get a certain type of person I am comfortable with… yes, even if I prayed about it, or especially if I prayed about it.
I would love to hear how an organization can effectively escape this prejudiced and exclusionary pattern, because I cannot think of a way.
Have you ever seen one of those maps that illustrates where different religions are concentrated on a per capita basis? I realize that 50% of LDS membership is now outside of the US. But look at one of those maps and you’ll see clearly that, at least on a per capita basis, this is a Utah / Az / Id church. LDS presence outside of this corridor is statistically insignificant, and this is reflected in LDS leadership.
I agree, it’s very difficult to change this sort of thing. But not impossible.
The first women were ordained to priesthood in the Community of Christ (RLDS) in 1985. This year, 38 years later, the Council of Twelve Apostles now has six women and six men, and seven of the apostles were born outside the USA (one is Canadian, btw). Leadership change requires (1) awareness of a problem, (2) stated intention to do something about it, (3) determined effort to accomplish it, and (4) time. I don’t think an organization can skip any of those four steps, and in many organizations step #1 is perhaps the hardest of all.
Here’s the real problem: Utah hair. These gals need an LA makeover ASAP!
I never really experienced this living outside the jello belt from childhood to well into my 20s. There didn’t seem to be a lot of “Utah Mormons” to pick for leadership positions. Both of my mission presidents were not from Utah and one was from Mexico. (Although I did learn at the MTC for the very first time that if you were not from Utah, you were from the “Mission Field.” ) As Mission-fieldians, our overall impression of Utah Mormons was negative, though. They were either (we believed) “Jack” Mormons, self righteous know-it-alls, or just plain weird – or all three at once. Every summer to there seemed to be some 20 or 30 something named McKay or Spencer slinking into to elders quorum late wearing khakis and Birkenstocks, and glued to his blackberry. Every once in awhile, he would raise his hand, brush his frosted tip hair away from his face and say something like, “well actually, the prophet Joseph Smith taught that we are to BECOME gods, not merely to become like God.”
In terms of who gets picked to be a GA, proximity and familiarity are probably the main factors. The typical GA profile is a man who’s financial and social status, politics and social network are all tied up and in his Mormondom . It seems that you need to have it “together,” and be a rule follower who is lacking prophetic imagination and closed to new ideas or different types of people, in order to meet the minimum qualifications. Sadly ,this tends to limit the “player pool” mostly to Utah.
If you don’t like the phrase “Mission Field”, you won’t like the official name for the geographic subdivisions of the C of C!
I see four options for filling these sorts of callings.
1. Call people already in Utah. They’re close by and can take on this unpaid assignment with “minimal” disruption to their families.
2. Call wealthy people who can move to Utah on their own dime. This is essentially what we do with Mission Presidents right now.
3. Call people wherever they are and let them work remotely. This seems like it would be doable in 2023 if someone wanted to make it happen.
4. Call people from wherever they are and move them and their families to Utah on the churches dime, and either find them jobs or just pay them. This would still be a huge challenge for many people who can’t just tell their employer they’re moving to Utah for a couple of years and could you please hold my job until whenever I get back?
I don’t have high hopes that the church is going to start doing #3 or #4 any time soon, so I guess I’ll take option 1 over option 2. (Though obviously there are many people who might be fabulous for these positions that are currently working two jobs just to survive and could never accept such a calling even if they did live in SLC.)
We were military and so lived in the “mission field” a lot over the 20 years DH was active duty. I had one (arrogant jerk) bishop tell me specifically that he was calling me to be RSP for no other reason than that I was from Utah and “knew how the church SHOULD be run.” He was from Utah, needless to say. I didn’t dare tell him that, no I didn’t because I was not active until I was a Laurel in YW. But I was a seminary graduate and grew up in Provo, BIC, so I fit his definition of someone who knew more than these stupid locals. Needless to say, there was a bad divide between the locals and the military, and especially those of us who grew up in Utah were resented. But our regional rep apparently pushed for Utah natives in all leadership callings because the stake president was a Utah Native, as were many of the stake presidents in near by stakes. My husband was called to the bishopric while in that same ward. So, yes, some people have definite prejudice toward anyone who has not experienced the church in Utah.
Me, I selected counselors from the local area who were not military and had never set foot in Utah and kept insisting when the bishop didn’t like them that I needed locals as my counselors because they knew the local culture while I didn’t.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the church only selected women already living in Utah for COB callings because the church wouldn’t ask a man to relocate for his wife’s job. I wonder what % of the women’s husbands are not also working for the church in some capacity.
I can confirm your recollection’s of BKP. He had a very practical side. I was in a Priesthood leadership meeting with him where he told the story of recently getting back from Mexico where he created a Stake. As part of that organization, the Church dropped off boxes and boxers of forms and manuals and other stuff a Stake needed. As he was flying home, he thought “what have we done with these poor people, addling them with all this extra work!”
As a student in London I recall the then London mission president being British. The current Birmingham mission president is British. The new Europe North area president is Dutch. One counsellor is British, though the other is from Utah. But having the Utahn be counsellor rather than president is definitely an improvement. In Europe we also have International Area Organisation Advisors, who are women:
A couple from my current stake in Britain have served as mission president in a difficult European mission.
Which isn’t to say I don’t agree with your point that too often I have seen Utahns either in those spots, or thinking they know better how things “should” be… but it looks like there’s progress happening..
Correction: it would seem the England Birmingham mission president is not British. Apparently there are mission presidencies now, and the president and his wife who visit our stake aren’t the president but a member of the presidency.. which is a new one for me, but maybe I was just oblivious before…
“financial problems, infertility, LGBTQ family, family with addictions, chronic illness, divorce, incarcerated loved ones, death of a spouse, and … depression or anxiety.”
Ahem… One of these problems is not like the others.
Sincerely,
Your LGBTQ family members who love you despite being listed along with incarceration and substance abuse in every list of challenges you make
@lws329 — I understand that point of view. But where is revelation ? It sounds more like the corporate world than a church led by the Holy Ghost if they always call people in the inner circle. You tried to expand that circle and got push back. The church states callings are by inspiration, but do not practice it.
@joshh–that is the point of the discussion. If callings are only from the concentrated member mass, then you get this culture. Then the church comes back and states “we never taught, such and such”
@richbrown–your example shows the way
@mat–my experience has been distinct, maybe the wards I was in. I have lived in all 4 time zones of USA and seen this pattern in all my wards. Presidents are Utahans, councilors are for locals.
@ReTx– you are correct, almost all the women’s husbands work with the church in a higher capacity when look at the resumes. The exception is Kristen Yee, since she is single. Although some of the Q15 had inactive parents, they would not want to model that with a sister called in a mixed faith marriage; despite many families now in that situation.
@MoHoHawaii– I did not make the list, it was from the church.
Would love to see some stats on US youth who choose Utah or Idaho for college never to return home to places like New Hampshire or South Carolina where the Church presence is comparatively weak.
PS the Church is fortunate to be associated with Camille Johnson who has an impressive professional resume.
Since Chet posted a research wish item, I have one too.
I’d like to know where outside the Jello Belt are the strong YSA / Institute programs. My younger kids are looking at colleges, and we’re trying to find schools for them to consider (academic equivalents to BYU-Provo), but are having a hard time finding schools with much of an LDS population at all. Several have gorgeous institute buildings, but then like only ten kids attending…? Wasn’t that way AT ALL when I was a student.