I learned in church today

[Omaha 680]

OK. Let's scratch the word buttkissing and even positioning. The question is whether someone in an active ward in Utah who would get called to bishop would ever view the bishop calling as something they wouldn't want. I don't believe that happens.

Depends on your definition of "want". One of the best Bishops I had was in my ward in Orem right after I got married. He had purchased his parents' house, so he was Bishop of the ward he grew up in. If anyone "put in the time", it was him. I would say he "wanted" the calling after he got it because he believed that's where the Lord wanted him to serve at the moment. But he was also really looking forward to being released.

[byu71]

I know several bishops/former bishops who would have prefered to not do it, but they accepted when asked.

I have too. I have also known some people that I wonder why they haven't been called as Stake Presidents, High Councilors or even MP's. All of them have been Bishops, but do not have butt kissing personalties or connections to the hierarchy.

[smokymountainrain]

Depends on your definition of "want". One of the best Bishops I had was in my ward in Orem right after I got married. He had purchased his parents' house, so he was Bishop of the ward he grew up in. If anyone "put in the time", it was him. I would say he "wanted" the calling after he got it because he believed that's where the Lord wanted him to serve at the moment. But he was also really looking forward to being released.

Even for the ones that may have "wanted" the calling initially, I'd say the bolded is true of about 90% of bishops, if not more.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Even for the ones that may have "wanted" the calling initially, I'd say the bolded is true of about 90% of bishops, if not more.

So what is the point of calling their character into question? Or implying that virtually every bishop in Utah is a glory-seeking ass kisser?

On top of all of the time they have to put in and all of the crap they have to deal with on a weekly basis, they get the added bonus of having their motives questioned. Nice.

[smokymountainrain]

So what is the point of calling their character into question? Or implying that virtually every bishop in Utah is a glory-seeking ass kisser?

On top of all of the time they have to put in and all of the crap they have to deal with on a weekly basis, they get the added bonus of having their motives questioned. Nice.

You're preaching to the choir. I don't have a problem with guys who enjoy serving in the church "wanting" to be bishop. Some guys might "want" to be scoutmaster - just like wanting to be bishop, that is incomprehensible to me, but if that's how they roll, I have no problem with it.

[Mrs. Funk]

So what is the point of calling their character into question? Or implying that virtually every bishop in Utah is a glory-seeking ass kisser?

On top of all of the time they have to put in and all of the crap they have to deal with on a weekly basis, they get the added bonus of having their motives questioned. Nice.

At this point in my life, a paid ministry makes the most sense to me. We put too large a burden on bishops and many other people who work and raise families. GAs receive a stipend. Why not bishops and people in time-intensive, resource-intensive positions?

[Jeff Lebowski]

At this point in my life, a paid ministry makes the most sense to me. We put too large a burden on bishops and many other people who work and raise families. GAs receive a stipend. Why not bishops and people in time-intensive, resource-intensive positions?

I wouldn't have a problem with that in principle. But if it became a career-type position we might end up with CES-type people running the church. That would not be a good thing.

[Mrs. Funk]

I wouldn't have a problem with that in principle. But if it became a career-type position we might end up with CES-type people running the church. That would not be a good thing.

You're right. I suppose I envision more of a stipend arrangement when members of the congregation are called.

[TripletDaddy]

lol @ jay santos for being jealous that he has never come close to being a bishop.

[Uncle Ted]

At this point in my life, a paid ministry makes the most sense to me. We put too large a burden on bishops and many other people who work and raise families. GAs receive a stipend. Why not bishops and people in time-intensive, resource-intensive positions?

I wouldn't have a problem with that in principle. But if it became a career-type position we might end up with CES-type people running the church. That would not be a good thing.

I think it should go back to where the bishop gets a percentage of the tithing take. Then they might enjoy tithing settlement a bit more.

[Mrs. Funk]

I think it should go back to where the bishop gets a percentage of the tithing take. Then they might enjoy tithing settlement a bit more.

Well, it's not insane given that a stipend would come from tithing. Transparency is probably the biggest issue there.

[byu71]

I think it should go back to where the bishop gets a percentage of the tithing take. Then they might enjoy tithing settlement a bit more.

Many Bishops believe they are blessed financially and spiritually if they fulfill their callings as Bishops. Even if they lose their jobs, they think it would have been even worse had they not been the Bishop.

I just don't know. This possibly could be true that they are blessed both financially and spiritually beyond what they would have been if they had not been Bishop. Or there has been a great sales job done through the years.

I prefer to believe it isn't a sales job.

[Uncle Ted]

Well, it's not insane given that a stipend would come from tithing. Transparency is probably the biggest issue there.

And transparency in church finances is not a problem now? Personally I don't like the fact that any non-profit doesn't have to have open books. If they want the tax break then they should have to disclose how the money is generated and spent.

[Goatnapper'96]

Well, it's not insane given that a stipend would come from tithing. Transparency is probably the biggest issue there.

I think most, if not all, progmos would complain at a pitch much higher than the piercing shrills of the women of Srbrnca if local LDS Church leaders got a stipend. Look at the newfound devotion to the widow's mite most found over the sexy new mall. Now, in all honest I think part of being progressive is to whine and whine and whine. When there isn't something legitimate to whine about then find something illegitimate and whine and whine and whine. So I am not what one might call a real objective prediction maker in this lane, but I just think if Bishops were getting enough cash to make the job, as presently defined, worth their while and a portion of those pre-disposed to whining are cut out of ever getting the job because their outlooks on enough issues are at odds with the majority of the decision makers, that strikes me as a very fertile ground for those pre-disposed to whining and questioning to whine like noone else. Besides all that, I think it would make the Church much worse. If the issue is to somehow lift the burden off of Bishops better to change the expectations and demands rather than to create incentives. However, I think Bishop's duties have developed culturally and IMO that is much of what is such a burden for them to deal with.

[Mrs. Funk]

And transparency in church finances is not a problem now? Personally I don't like the fact that any non-profit doesn't have to have open books. If they want the tax break then they should have to disclose how the money is generated and spent.

I meant transparency about using the ward's tithing funds as a bishop's stipend prospectively. It seems to me that ward members should know that's where part of their tithing money is going, if that was how it was done. The church has big issues with financial transparency right now, of course. I completely agree with your statement.