- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We recently got a new SP (yes I do miss the old one and I’m not a huge fan of the new guy). I do know him somewhat, and I know both of his counselors somewhat. None of them are native to here, they are all transplants from other places, apparently for work. I’ve lived here for over 30 years and as I thought back I realized all of our stake presidencies from that time have also been transplants, from mostly the Mormon Corridor or California (there were a couple counselors along that way that I really don’t know their background except they aren’t from here). Indeed there’s not much to keep our young people here and none of my own children live here, although there are professional jobs (hence the transplants). There are some people here who are native tough, even some very TBM types. I am native, but I did not grow up in the church. So in this 30 years there have been five stake presidencies (some which had some counselor turnover) and among the 20-odd guys none have been native to here. So in the US (and maybe Canada) outside the Mormon Corridor, is this unusual? Is this Sodom and Gomorrah where there aren’t any righteous men?
In the stake I grew up in down in California, most of the guys in the stake presidency were more than just native. They had lived there for a long time and were notable members of the community (the town’s former police chief, owner of a veterinary clinic, a millionaire who owned a lot of things around town and beyond, etc.) An unofficial requirement of being in that stake’s leadership was being successful. And the same guys were usually getting shuffled around in leadership, from being in a bishopric, then up to the stake level and then back down to a bishopric. That stake had very interesting politics. For my current stake (closer to Utah, but thankfully not in it), I know very little about them. I remember the stake president mentioning in a talk that he had grown up in this town. But I’m far less involved here than I was in California, so I know almost nothing of what goes on in this stake or who anyone is.
How long does someone have to be in an area to be considered a native? 🙂 I’m assuming that being from the same state is enough to be considered a native.
That’s a tough question to answer where I live because there are more transplants than natives. It’s semi-rare to run into someone that was actually born here.
This may be another topic entirely but most people come to my area looking for jobs. Bishops and stake presidents often end up being a guy in the area with a high paying job, so there’s even more of a chance of them being a transplant in my area.
All that said, my previous two SPs were from California and Utah. I don’t know my current SP from Adam (he’s new) but I’m pretty sure he’s native to the state.
I think that with LDS leadership positions it helps: 1) who you know and who knows you. If you are known to current leadership then you are top of mind.
2) if you are successful. part of this thinking goes that if you have money you will be less tempted to embezzle from church funds. I also think that the prosperity gospel also tends to assume that if you are successful that you must have earned those blessings by being righteous.
3) If you are from a multi-generational LDS family. You have deep roots in the LDS church and are fulfilling a family legacy. Bonus points if you come from a family that is important in the history of the church.
PazamaManX wrote:
In the stake I grew up in down in California, most of the guys in the stake presidency were more than just native. They had lived there for a long time and were notable members of the community (the town’s former police chief, owner of a veterinary clinic, a millionaire who owned a lot of things around town and beyond, etc.) An unofficial requirement of being in that stake’s leadership was being successful. And the same guys were usually getting shuffled around in leadership, from being in a bishopric, then up to the stake level and then back down to a bishopric. That stake had very interesting politics.
I would indeed expect that in heavily Mormon areas where the church has been established a long time. Those areas in my experience and observation tend to be akin to oligarchies – the same few (often related) people always in charge, just in different positions.
nibbler wrote:
How long does someone have to be in an area to be considered a native?🙂 I’m assuming that being from the same state is enough to be considered a native.
When I initially composed the question I was of the mindset of fairly hyperlocal – within maybe 50-100 square miles. I was in fact thinking native to the stake area, noting that where I live stakes are geographically very large (it would take nearly two hours to drive from the east to the west boundary of my stake). But your question did inspire some reflection and noting that my stake is not necessarily typical. So, yes probably, depending on the state, from the same state/region might be considered native (also noting that in a state like New York someone from NYC is quite different from someone from Niagara Falls or the Adirondacks). And by native I was also considering “born and raised” although not necessarily born into the church.nibbler wrote:
That’s a tough question to answer where I live because there are more transplants than natives. It’s semi-rare to run into someone that was actually born here.Fair point. I won’t totally out either of us on where we live, while you live in an area with general population growth and church growth as well, I live in an area that is exactly opposite. We’ve been bleeding population for many years and church growth has been at a snail’s pace. My ward has shrunk significantly and continues to do so. There are jobs here, including major corporations, universities, and relatively large hospitals and the people who do move here come for those professional jobs. Among the general population though there are far more natives (born and raised here, often multi-generational) than transplants. I trace my local ancestry to the early 1800s and I was born at the same hospital as my mother and my children were born there as well. My grandparents were born before hospital births were the norm.
Church population is different though, but that is a little dependent on the individual ward/branch. Looking through the active membership of my own ward, somewhere over a third but not half are natives (most of the inactives are natives). In our bishopric, two are transplant (but longtime) residents and one is a native but born in the church. The RSP is a transplant, both counselors are native. In the 30 years I can recall only one bishop who was native, but a neighboring unit has mostly natives and mostly native leadership (very much like PMX’s allusion). On the stake level, I really don’t have stats/anecdotes because I don’t know everyone as well – but my perception is most of the active members of the stake are transplants as are most of the professional types. But there are still plenty of natives, some of who are also successful professionals.
nibbler wrote:
This may be another topic entirely but most people come to my area looking for jobs. Bishops and stake presidents often end up being a guy in the area with a high paying job, so there’s even more of a chance of them being a transplant in my area.True here too. The transplants are for the most part professionals who are among the upper socioeconomic population of the stake.
Roy wrote:
I think that with LDS leadership positions it helps:1) who you know and who knows you. If you are known to current leadership then you are top of mind.
This is certainly true of local callings (stake/ward). I also think this applies in upper level church callings (GAs, general presidencies). In general I think the past few SPs have been unknown to the General Authorities who called them (prior to the GA coming here). The calling of a SP in the Corridor is likely different than way out here where visits by GAs is somewhat rare and we’re mostly unrelated to GAs.Roy wrote:
2) if you are successful. part of this thinking goes that if you have money you will be less tempted to embezzle from church funds. I also think that the prosperity gospel also tends to assume that if you are successful that you must have earned those blessings by being righteous.3) If you are from a multi-generational LDS family. You have deep roots in the LDS church and are fulfilling a family legacy. Bonus points if you come from a family that is important in the history of the church.
Also generally true, as noted above these guys tend to be in the upper socioeconomic bunch with “successful” families (children served missions, etc.) and as far as I can recall they all (at least the presidents) seem to have come from multigenerational church families. But although fewer in number, there are such native members here as well.
Arizona – but they were all from the area or had been for at least 30+ years. I think one of my SPs family was here since the territorial days. And the socieconomic backgrounds varied quite a bit. One SP owned a lot of land, and came from wealth. Another made a modest living, and lived within his means. Modest car, regular house. And they both had counselors who came from different backgrounds too. And while I don’t want to stroke animosity towards members from geographic regions, my stake really began to suck when members from Utah began moving in in large numbers. Just glad I’m no longer there. The current SP is due to be released soon. However I’m sure it will be someone who is not “native” so to speak. The current SP is a good guy, but the guy before him was pretty amazing. Always ephasized knowing every single member by name, and emphasized tolerance and acceptance. However that has all gone down in flames now since he left.
Our former SP was very much like yours, KOTM. He has a couple very inactive children, one which just married her girlfriend. Very open minded, very much individual oriented, and sincerely inclusive. The new guy is very TBM. In our area, it generally has been 50/50.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.