harmony wrote:Now, it looks like Rollo has established a tendency for those Brethren who actually can establish a connection to the founding fathers to publicize that connection, somewhat to Daniel's chagrin.
I feel no chagrin whatsoever. None.
Nor do I see any dishonorable "publicizing" of ancestors going on among the Brethren.
I'm proud of my non-Mormon non-royalty father's achievements, of his life, and of his character. I speak of him from time to time, not only to my children but even to others. I'm trying to ensure that knowledge about him will survive in the family. I enjoy visiting places associated with his life. I see nothing wrong with this. If I had a great-great-grandfather of any note -- as it is, I know only dates and names -- I would make every effort, as part of a family legacy, to pass something about him on to my children. I've spent considerable time tracking down information about my mother's early life in St. George, talking to people who know the history of the town, etc. I've visited the farm in Norway that my paternal grandmother came from, and have met with the relatives who still own it and with the other relatives who live around that alpine lake (Jølstervatn). A photograph of the Lutheran church she attended as a little girl hangs on a wall in my house, as do handicrafts from the area and reproductions of landscape paintings by a prominent Norwegian artist who grew up and worked there,
I think that a certain degree of piety toward one's ancestors is not only not bad, but positively good.
That Elder Oaks takes a special interest in Martin Harris is, to my mind, both understandable and harmless. In fact, I find it commendable. That Elder Ballard is proud of his family connections and of the achievements of his ancestors also seems to me perfectly normal and fine. And, since both Elder Ballard's ancestors and collateral relatives and Elder Oaks's relative are of general interest to believing, mainsteam members of the Church, I see nothing wrong with their talking about those relatives from time to time. Quite the contrary.
But I find it simply absurd to suppose that Elder Oaks owes his position in the Twelve, in any degree whatever, to a recognition on the part of the Brethren that, through his mother, he's a distant relative of Martin Harris.
harmony wrote:People who are connected with Mormon Royalty are proud of it... and those who aren't are reminded often of their lack.
If that was ever significantly true as a general rule -- I don't doubt for a moment that it was occasionally so -- it's far less common now. I don't believe that I've ever in my life encountered any suggestion that I'm less of a Mormon because my father converted only late in his life and my mother wasn't of Mormon aristocratic stock.
And in a Church led by such people as Thomas Monson, who grew up in a very non-royal family in a non-elite neighborhood of Salt Lake City, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who was born in Nazi-occupied Bohemia and whose family converted to Mormonism when his grandmother met a Church member in line at a soup kitchen, it isn't clear that connections to old elite Mormon families are growing in importance.
harmony wrote:This is the kind of "culture" I'd like to see squashed and squashed hard from the GC pulpit. Being reminded of my lack of familial connections to the founders repeatedly by my local ward family every summer when we bring out the ancestor worship in July is bad enough
I'm beginning to understand why the Brethren avoid your region like the plague. It sounds very evil.
harmony wrote:being reminded of it by my leaders from the GC pulpit is an insult.
I listen to the same sessions of General Conference. I think you're
seeking insults.
harmony wrote:I am a convert. There are thousands, if not millions, like me. Without me and people like me, this church dies. Yet I have my nose rubbed in the fact that I am a first-generation member, that I am somehow LESS because I have no connection to the founders, by my leaders?
You seem to be asking a question. The answer is No. You don't.