Why I am not a Mormon

[_harmony]

Well, the rest of us, it's relevant.

You might find it interesting, or appalling, or whatever, but it's not logically relevant to what I said.

The approachability of our leaders is relevant to all members. My experience is different than yours. You live in Utah and you have an exalted position as both a BYU professor and the head of the apologetic arm of the church. Of course you know our leaders; of course I do not. You are in no position to know how approachable our leaders are to the general membership; I am.

You aren't in a position to comment on the efficacy of our leaders' supposed approachability; I am. And said approachability doesn't exist.

BS. I live in a normal ward, attend stake conferences, etc., just like any other member of the Church.

You are only able to judge what happens in Utah. The church outside of Utah may be the same, "normal" as you call it, but we don't have access to our leaders like members in Utah do. In Utah, Pres Monson dedicates a library at a state university and shakes hands with students who work at WalMart. That doesn't happen here.

I know no one who can claim to know any of our leaders personally, let alone most of them.

I don't claim to know them intimately, nor to know all equally well. But I've met with and spoken with all of them more than once, and with some of them quite a few times.

So? What does that have to do with their nonexistent approachability or their nonexistent accessibility?

Nothing. Are you really so incapable of following a conversation?

If it had nothing to do with the conversation, why'd you bring it up?

So yes, the SP will meet DHO. My ward's webmaster won't.

In every stake conference I've ever attended -- unless there was an urgent plane to catch, or some such thing -- if somebody really wanted to go up and shake hands with the conference visitor, somebody could go up and shake hands with the conference visitor.

Keep in mind it's been 20 years since we had an apostle. Shaking hands with a Seventy is entirely possible. The last time we had an apostle, we were warned that there would be no hands shaken that day and security was in place to make sure none of us got close. Been there, done that. The implication was quite clearly understood. We were the ones he was speaking to, and we were the ones he was protected from.

Am I supposed to be equally impressed that your son spoke with Elder Bednar?

No. Try to follow the discussion. My son is simply one missionary among hundreds. Yet he (along with many other missionaries, and many Japanese members) was easily able to shake hands with Elder Bednar and to speak with him. The point isn't that such a thing is unusual. The point is that it's not.

The point is, he's a missionary serving in a foreign mission. So was my son when he had his conversation with Elder Packer. I don't live in a foreign mission. If a general authority has ever visited the mission in which I live and we were invited to hear him speak, I've never heard about it. And I would hear, since I'm the ward webmaster (every activity and announcement goes through me before it gets to any of the members). So, we as members have never had an opportunity to meet whatever general authority visits this mission, if any ever do. So pardon me if I think your comment is only superficially attached to the point of my posts.

Elder Perry has a sister in my home ward. So, once every year or two, if he has no assignment on a weekend, he drops by our ward. He's always very friendly and approachable. Once, before I had gotten to know him at all, he dropped by to visit one of my sons, who was his sister's junior home teacher, just to have a chat with him because his sister and her husband had said some nice things about my boy. He's a very nice man.

You're missing the point again, Daniel. You live in Utah. Our leaders, Elder Perry included, are interwoven into your world, but they are not interwoven into mine. I live in a stake that nobody cares about, as manifested by the apostles somehow missing us for every stake conference in the last 20 years.

I'm sure they're nice, friendly, and great guys in your world. The point is, they are surrounded by security when they come here, and they are neither approachable nor accessible to the average member, on the rare occasion when they come here. Your initial post made it sound like they were the same everywhere, friendly and approachable like they are in Utah; they aren't. They don't visit wards here, they don't dedicate libraries at state universities here, they aren't friendly approachable guys here. They're here rarely, they speak, they're surrounded by security, and they leave.

How many of the leaders, the FP or the 12, actually live among the members, out here in the mission field? None. Zero. Nada. They live in Utah. All of them.

That's true. But it's a consummately silly objection. How many cabinet officers live in your neighborhood? How many of the senior Vatican Curia live within your stake boundaries?

You said they spend their lives among the people. I was pointing out that that's patently untrue. They live in Utah. The vast majority of the Saints don't live in Utah. Just because they travel all over the world doesn't mean they spend their lives among the people. Not one of them lives outside of Utah.

I work for an organization that has millions of volunteers... members, if you will. We're headquartered in Atlanta, but our leaders live all over the US. They telecommute, they conference call a lot, they webcast, and occasionally they fly in for meetings. It can be done; the church just doesn't do it, which isn't surprising, since the church has never been on the cutting edge of anything, let alone technology.

You said they "spend their lives" meeting with the members. You said they were "approachable". Now you're backing away from that statement, since they're old and illness is making travel difficult?

They do travel constantly, until they wear themselves out. In their eighties and nineties, some of them tend to slow down a bit. I find it rather odd that you seem to take their aging and their illnesses as a personal insult to your dignity.

I'm pointing out that you made a statement that you're now qualifying because of age or illness. Their age and illnesses are another subject altogether. When we start talking about their age and illnesses, then you'll know my thoughts; until then, you have no foundation for commenting on insults to my dignity.

Well, I agree. that was an exceptionally pissy remark for me to make. I'm just sorry it appears to be justified.

I'm sorry, too, that it appears to you to be justified.

I've long found it amusing to watch you set yourself up, despite your virtually complete cluelessness regarding relevant fact, as a hanging judge of Church leaders (and of me), often in the very midst of denouncing others as "judgmental." In its own weird way, it's one more comical displays of behavior I've ever seen on a message board.

I make poke holes in your hot air balloon, but I also defend you here. And I don't hang our leaders either; I comment on their seeming inability to figure out that what's good for downtown SLC isn't necessarily a good use of church dollars. And I comment when they're done something exceptionally stupid, like give talks connecting earrings to righteousness.

You claim that it's been twenty years -- twenty years!!!! -- since an apostle has visited your stake. But think of it: There are roughly 3000 stakes, which means that there are approximately 6000 stake conferences annually. That's five hundred per apostle. That's ten per week. And, of course, if any of the apostles are incapacitated, the per-apostle number rises. And to think that apostles haven't been at every one of your stake conferences!

You claimed they lived among the people and were approachable. I pointed out that your comment was incorrect.

*edited to fix quote.

[_Gadianton]

Question for Dr. Peterson:

Take the confidence level you had prior to receiving the email communication from Fatherk you shared here that you did the right thing by telling Fk what GoodK did online some months ago. Let's call that x.

Obviously, the fact that Fatherk was not offended by your decision and felt based on your friendship for years along with many other factors that you did the right thing increased your confidence in your decision. Let's call that y. And let's make a new x = x+y.

Now let's take specifically the revelation in his recent personal email to you that he teaches ethics at a college level, and based on his own authority as an ethicist, guarantees you did the right thing. Let's call the added confidence that you received from this specific assurance z.

Is x + z greater than, less than, or equal to x?

[_GoodK]

No, it wasn't ok to leave GoodK's sins to the imagination, either, but GoodK explained that, anyway. Knowing Mormons, it wasn't hard to figure out what GoodK's father meant. Given GoodK's own comments, it isn't difficult to figure out some of FatherK's own wrong-doings, too. But I hope I didn't imply it was ok for GoodK's father to do it, either. I thought I responded to him vigorously.

I agree with the main gist of your post. I just really dislike it when people say "I know something horrible about this person but can't tell you the details". It really isn't fair to that person.

I think marg is alluding to something I have mentioned on the board briefly before, the Mormon gulag I was sent to when I was 15.
There is a documentary in the works, so I'm not going to share any more details about that place at this time. But don't worry, you all will be the first to know when it is finished.

P.S

Dan, if the GA's are as approachable as you say, why not pull some strings so I can meet Monson? All I want to do is shake his hand.

[_marg]

I think marg is alluding to something I have mentioned on the board briefly before, the Mormon gulag I was sent to when I was 15.

Thanks GoodK. Yes, Beastie that is what I was referring to.

[_Some Schmo]

Surely, even you can't be this stupid.

An excellent point.

I'm not.

You and your non-evidence based beliefs.

Here's a news flash for you: we aren't all as stupid as the people who read and are convinced by your apologetics.

Wow. That's a relief. If there weren't at least some people here at your level of brilliance, who would write such meaty and substantial posts?

Surely not you; that much is clear.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, the rest of us, it's relevant.

You might find it interesting, or appalling, or whatever, but it's not logically relevant to what I said.

The approachability of our leaders is relevant to all members.

Sigh. Of course it is.

You completely missed the point. This conversation is a bit like the mirrors in a carnival funhouse.

My experience is different than yours. You live in Utah and you have an exalted position as both a BYU professor and the head of the apologetic arm of the church. Of course you know our leaders; of course I do not. You are in no position to know how approachable our leaders are to the general membership; I am.

I am not "the head of the apologetic arm of the Church." Nor am I even the head of the Maxwell Institute or of FARMS.

In any case, President Monson didn't shake hands with student-members of my ward because I'm a BYU professor and an apologist. Elder Bednar didn't chat with my son and with other missionaries and members in Osaka because I'm affiliated with the Maxwell Institute and BYU. Elder Perry didn't stop by to talk to my son because of my connections to BYU and FARMS. Elder Nelson didn't shake hands with probably two hundred members of my student stake at our stake conference late last year because I'm a BYU professor and a director of the Maxwell Institute.

Your grossly unfair criticism of the Brethren as arrogant and elitist is wholly out of sync with my own personal knowledge of them. Here's a column that I wrote for Meridian Magazine back on 31 July 2004 that expresses something of my feeling toward two recent apostles:

After the longest period of stable membership since its founding in early 1835, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has lost two of its members to death within the space of ten days.

My wife and I first heard that Elder Neal A. Maxwell had been appointed to the Twelve (and Elder Gordon B. Hinckley called into the First Presidency) when we ran into a pair of missionaries near the train station in Lucerne, Switzerland, in July 1981. Coincidentally, it was during another visit to Switzerland (my old mission field), that we learned of his death, which occurred on the anniversary of his call as an apostle. The flag on the temple grounds in Zollikofen was at half staff, and two temple missionaries provided the saddening explanation.

In the twenty-three years that intervened between his call and his passing, my wife and I both came to know and love Elder Maxwell, first from a distance and then more personally. He was an interested and informed friend of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and a committed, even indispensable, supporter of the Islamic translation projects with which I’ve been involved at Brigham Young University. Much more importantly, of course, he was an eloquent special witness of the Lord Jesus Christ, and one of the kindest, most thoughtful men we have ever known.

A friend tells me of meeting him once, and telling him that he was a favorite of hers. “Oh,” he replied, “but you deserve so much better.” His response was entirely in character, but it was also utterly untrue. Consistently concerned about the welfare of others rather than his own (most strikingly so on one memorable occasion just a day or two after his release from a lengthy stay in the hospital, following some of his first leukemia treatments), he seemed entirely unimpressed with his own high status. He would call and identify himself as “Neal,” sometimes merely to compliment on an article that he had read, or a videotaped talk that he had seen. He cannot have realized how deeply honored I was by such gestures. And, over the course of his own surprisingly long struggle with the disease that finally took him, he opened up a whole new ministry to fellow sufferers from cancer. How completely predictable that was.

Elder Maxwell was deservedly well known for the care with which he attempted to communicate his thoughts. One little known example: A number of years ago, he was assigned to the Christmas lighting ceremony at the grounds of the Washington D.C. Temple. Knowing that the person who would actually flip the switch was the ambassador of a leading Arab country, he asked me if there might be an appropriate Arabic phrase that he could use during his remarks. I suggested a passage from the Qur’an: Allahu nur al-samawat Washington al-‘ard (“God is the light of the heavens and the earth”). We worked on getting the pronunciation right, and he incorporated it into a discussion of how the lights on the temple grounds reflected the far greater light and splendor of divinity. (Long afterward, he still remembered the phrase, with perfect accent.) The episode eloquently illustrates Elder Maxwell’s liberality, in the best sense of that word, and the liberality of the restored gospel of the Savior. I’m told that Muslim diplomats in the audience and on the stand were deeply impressed that one of the highest leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respected them enough to cite their holy book, in Arabic.

They were able to be impressed by Elder Maxwell on other occasions, as well. In February 2000, for instance, following his after-dinner remarks to nearly fifty ambassadors at the United Nations in connection with BYU’s Islamic Translation Series, one of the ambassadors approached me and whispered, “There is something very special about that man.” Indeed there was, and is.

My contacts with Elder David B. Haight were much fewer and far less sustained. (Like many other members of the Church, I loved his self-deprecating humor.) But one encounter stands out. Years ago, a couple of colleagues and I were driving Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the international editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls, up to Salt Lake City for a press conference at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. We had, we thought, allowed plenty of time for the journey, but a freeway accident created a serious traffic jam and we were late. So, a bit desperate, we pulled up to the curb, dropped Professor Tov off with instructions on how to reach the meeting room, and then began unloading some of the books, visual aids, and handouts that he planned to use. As I was pulling boxes out of the van, I heard a voice behind me ask, “Can I help?” I turned and saw Elder Haight, then already roughly ninety. He explained that he was waiting for a ride, but that he had a few minutes. “Load me up!” he said. Obviously, I was not about to let a nonagenarian apostle carry my boxes for me, so, despite his repeated offers, I thanked him and carried them myself.

I thought of that experience years later, when I heard that members of the Twelve had been assigned to live and preside in the Philippines and in Chile. I’m told that, while the council was discussing whom to send, Elder Haight, by then even older than when he had offered to carry my boxes for me and, practically speaking, almost blind, kept reminding his fellow apostles not to forget about him. If they needed him, he was willing to go.

Of such is the Kingdom of God.

You are only able to judge what happens in Utah.

I grew up in California and earned my doctorate in California, and I've spent almost precisely half of my life outside of Utah. My family still lives in California, my wife is from Colorado, and I travel continually (Nevada and Oregon this next week). I've met with the Saints on every inhabited continent, and lived on four of them.

I'm scarcely a provincial Utahn.

The church outside of Utah may be the same, "normal" as you call it, but we don't have access to our leaders like members in Utah do. In Utah, Pres Monson dedicates a library at a state university and shakes hands with students who work at WalMart. That doesn't happen here.

Obviously, President Monson will probably never be asked to dedicate a library at Rutgers or even at Washington State. But that's irrelevant. The particular venue doesn't matter.

The fact is that he and other members of the First Presidency and the Twelve travel extensively, that they routinely participate in regional and stake conferences, and that -- unless you seriously believe that they're welcoming and approachable within Utah but somehow turn cold and unfriendly at the state border -- they're relatively easy to approach.

I'm sure they're nice, friendly, and great guys in your world. The point is, they are surrounded by security when they come here, and they are neither approachable nor accessible to the average member, on the rare occasion when they come here.

I was at a luncheon with Elder Ballard a couple of months ago, and, by chance, found myself at the table with the fellow from Church Security who had accompanied him. (I'm not sure how this one individual is able to "surround" Elder Ballard. I should have watched more closely, I guess.) I was interested to learn that, while Church Security frequently accompanies members of the Twelve within Utah (e.g., as their drivers), Church Security personnel rarely if ever accompany them out of state, let alone internationally.

A friend who is a stake president in Las Vegas hosted Elder Bednar there a few months ago. When he picked him up at the airport, he was struck by how lightly Elder Bednar traveled. Essentially, he had his computer and a small briefcase-like carry-on. No security. No escort. No real luggage. That's how Elder Maxwell traveled, too. I know, because I traveled with him once to Washington DC and then on to New York.

Your initial post made it sound like they were the same everywhere, friendly and approachable like they are in Utah; they aren't.

They change from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde at Stateline, Nevada?

Sorry. Implausible on its face, and flatly contradicted by my personal experience.

They don't visit wards here

Oh yes they do.

Of course, they're typically on stake assignments when they travel. (Remember that there are roughly ten stake conferences per week for each member of the Twelve.)

they don't dedicate libraries at state universities here

Which, I suppose, is because, owing to their arrogant unfriendliness toward non-Utahns, they routinely turn down letters inviting them to dedicate such libraries?

they aren't friendly approachable guys here.

Maybe they just hate the state of Washington and its people?

How many of the leaders, the FP or the 12, actually live among the members, out here in the mission field? None. Zero. Nada. They live in Utah. All of them.

That's true. But it's a consummately silly objection. How many cabinet officers live in your neighborhood? How many of the senior Vatican Curia live within your stake boundaries?

You said they spend their lives among the people.

No I didn't. Not in the sense you're trying to foist on me. Here is what I said: "The Brethren are constantly traveling around the world meeting with members. . . . I never said that they spend their lives in your neighborhood. I said that they spend their lives traveling and meeting with the Saints around the world."

President Uchtdorf was in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom over the past week or two. I presume that members of the Quorum of the Twelve were scattered around various places at the same time. I would judge that, at any time of the year other than April and October conference season, a substantial number of the Twelve are traveling either abroad or domestically.

They live in Utah. The vast majority of the Saints don't live in Utah. . . . Not one of them lives outside of Utah.

Yes, the First Presidency and the Twelve, who work at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, live in Utah. Usually.

I work for an organization that has millions of volunteers... members, if you will. We're headquartered in Atlanta, but our leaders live all over the US. They telecommute, they conference call a lot, they webcast, and occasionally they fly in for meetings. It can be done; the church just doesn't do it, which isn't surprising, since the church has never been on the cutting edge of anything, let alone technology.

The leaders of my Church, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, live all over the world. They telecommute, they conference call a lot, they webcast, and they fly in to Salt Lake City at least twice a year for meetings. It not only can be done, it's being done.

[_Droopy]

Of course, since all of us, as we live the teachings of Jesus Christ, have the same access to the Holy Spirit, and have received the same gift of the Holy Ghost, why is personal access to the leaders of the Church so imperative?

[_Jason Bourne]

On the brethren:

I once wrote and apostle-Elder Holland-an email about a very troubling issue for me. Something deeply personal. I received back a tender reply that I keep and cherish. In that note to I asked him to also express my love and admiration for Elder Maxwell. Even though I did not know him I felt an infinty to him. His writings helped me through this very troubling time. I also have had cancer and so did Elder Maxwell. Elder Holland must have passed my comments on to Elder Maxwell because about two weeks later I received in the regular mail a personal hand written note thanking me for my comments. This is another item I keep and cherish. Recently our area was visited by a President Uchdorf. I was able to chat with him one on one for a few minutes and was able to ask a question for a friend who is struggling with something. He asked me to bring this up if I had a chance to speak to President Uchdorf. He knew given a number of reasons that I may have more opportunity to ask this directly. I was able to and the comments and advice he gave were tender and heart felt.

One member of the 70 I count as a close friend having come to know him when he was an MP in our area. I can contact him any time.

I think the brethren get a bad wrap often more than they deserve. While there may be this official position I have seen them interact with members whenever they are able.

Oh, and I do not live in Utah. I am about as far from Utah as one can get and still be in the USA.

[_harmony]

My experience is different than yours. You live in Utah and you have an exalted position as both a BYU professor and the head of the apologetic arm of the church. Of course you know our leaders; of course I do not. You are in no position to know how approachable our leaders are to the general membership; I am.

I am not "the head of the apologetic arm of the Church."

Horse manure. If you aren't, who is?

Nor am I even the head of the Maxwell Institute or of FARMS.

In any case, President Monson didn't shake hands with student-members of my ward because I'm a BYU professor and an apologist. Elder Bednar didn't chat with my son and with other missionaries and members in Osaka because I'm affiliated with the Maxwell Institute and BYU. Elder Perry didn't stop by to talk to my son because of my connections to BYU and FARMS. Elder Nelson didn't shake hands with probably two hundred members of my student stake at our stake conference late last year because I'm a BYU professor and a director of the Maxwell Institute.

This conversation isn't all about you, Daniel. It's about access to church leaders; you have it simply because you live in UT and you are who you are. Others who live in UT may not have as easy access as you have, but they still have more access than those of us in the mission field, as evidenced by the students you mentioned.

Your grossly unfair criticism of the Brethren as arrogant and elitist is wholly out of sync with my own personal knowledge of them.

Where did I say that? I don't recall saying anything of the sort (well, maybe with the exception of Packer, but at least I didn't call him a grizzly bear). What I said was... they are not approachable or accessible to the general membership.

You are only able to judge what happens in Utah.

I grew up in California and earned my doctorate in California, and I've spent almost precisely half of my life outside of Utah. My family still lives in California, my wife is from Colorado, and I travel continually (Nevada and Oregon this next week). I've met with the Saints on every inhabited continent, and lived on four of them.

I'm scarcely a provincial Utahn.

You live in UT. That makes you a Utahn. Provincial? I don't know. You aren't the topic of the discussion; our leaders are.

The church outside of Utah may be the same, "normal" as you call it, but we don't have access to our leaders like members in Utah do. In Utah, Pres Monson dedicates a library at a state university and shakes hands with students who work at WalMart. That doesn't happen here.

Obviously, President Monson will probably never be asked to dedicate a library at Rutgers or even at Washington State. But that's irrelevant. The particular venue doesn't matter.

You're the one who used his latest experience in Orem as the example; that makes it relevant.

The fact is that he and other members of the First Presidency and the Twelve travel extensively, that they routinely participate in regional and stake conferences, and that -- unless you seriously believe that they're welcoming and approachable within Utah but somehow turn cold and unfriendly at the state border -- they're relatively easy to approach.

I didn't say that either. Please try to at least pay attention to what I actually say, instead of what you wish I'd say. I said they are not approachable nor are they accessible, to the average member of the church in the mission field. They don't dedicate libraries here; they don't visit wards here; they don't meet with ordinary members here, and they're surrounded by security when they are here.

Years ago, probably 35 years or more, we had an apostle come and dedicate the addition to our building. It was LeGrande Richards. He was awesome. He talked to everyone, shook hands with the smallest child, patted a very pregnant woman on the back (that was me). He was approachable. He had no security with him; he wasn't afraid of us and no one was afraid of us for him. That was 35 years ago. Things change. And it's a shame that my children will not be able to shake an apostle's hand or be patted on the back and given some sympathy for being so very pregnant.

I was at a luncheon with Elder Ballard a couple of months ago, and, by chance, found myself at the table with the fellow from Church Security who had accompanied him. (I'm not sure how this one individual is able to "surround" Elder Ballard. I should have watched more closely, I guess.) I was interested to learn that, while Church Security frequently accompanies members of the Twelve within Utah (e.g., as their drivers), Church Security personnel rarely if ever accompany them out of state, let alone internationally.

A friend who is a stake president in Las Vegas hosted Elder Bednar there a few months ago. When he picked him up at the airport, he was struck by how lightly Elder Bednar traveled. Essentially, he had his computer and a small briefcase-like carry-on. No security. No escort. No real luggage. That's how Elder Maxwell traveled, too. I know, because I traveled with him once to Washington DC and then on to New York.

So? Here they're transported in limos with security in cars ahead and behind. They don't stay any longer than they have to. And they don't interact with anyone they don't have to.

Your initial post made it sound like they were the same everywhere, friendly and approachable like they are in Utah; they aren't.

They change from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde at Stateline, Nevada?

Sorry. Implausible on its face, and flatly contradicted by my personal experience.

Again, I didn't say they changed. I said they are not approachable nor accessible here. Were I or any other ordinary member to approach them, security would step in and we'd be escorted out. We were warned of what would happen, were we to approach them. I don't see them as arrogant (well, at least not most of them); I see them as scared. As if someone somewhere thinks we'd hurt them or soil them.

They don't visit wards here

Oh yes they do.

No, they don't.

Of course, they're typically on stake assignments when they travel. (Remember that there are roughly ten stake conferences per week for each member of the Twelve.)

You said your ward gets visited by Elder Perry. I've been a member of this stake for 37 years, and as gossipy as this stake is, if a general authority had visited a ward within these boundaries, I'd have heard about it. That would be B-I-G news. It would make the newspapers.

You said they spend their lives among the people.

No I didn't. Not in the sense you're trying to foist on me. Here is what I said: "The Brethren are constantly traveling around the world meeting with members. . . . I never said that they spend their lives in your neighborhood. I said that they spend their lives traveling and meeting with the Saints around the world."

No, they're constantly traveling the world meeting with local leaders, not the members.

President Uchtdorf was in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom over the past week or two. I presume that members of the Quorum of the Twelve were scattered around various places at the same time. I would judge that, at any time of the year other than April and October conference season, a substantial number of the Twelve are traveling either abroad or domestically.

And this has what bearing on anything to do with this conversation? For every bishop they meet with, they don't meet with what.... 400 members?

They live in Utah. The vast majority of the Saints don't live in Utah. . . . Not one of them lives outside of Utah.

Yes, the First Presidency and the Twelve, who work at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, live in Utah. Usually.

I'm almost speechless. It is so rare that you concede that I'm right.

I work for an organization that has millions of volunteers... members, if you will. We're headquartered in Atlanta, but our leaders live all over the US. They telecommute, they conference call a lot, they webcast, and occasionally they fly in for meetings. It can be done; the church just doesn't do it, which isn't surprising, since the church has never been on the cutting edge of anything, let alone technology.

The leaders of my Church, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, live all over the world.

No, they don't. You just said the FP and the 12 live in Utah. Now if some of them actually moved out of Utah into the mission field, you might have a point. As it is, you don't. Our leaders don't live with or even near the vast majority of the Saints.

[_harmony]

On the brethren:

I once wrote and apostle-Elder Holland-an email about a very troubling issue for me. Something deeply personal. I received back a tender reply that I keep and cherish. In that note to I asked him to also express my love and admiration for Elder Maxwell. Even though I did not know him I felt an infinty to him. His writings helped me through this very troubling time. I also have had cancer and so did Elder Maxwell. Elder Holland must have passed my comments on to Elder Maxwell because about two weeks later I received in the regular mail a personal hand written note thanking me for my comments. This is another item I keep and cherish. Recently our area was visited by a President Uchdorf. I was able to chat with him one on one for a few minutes and was able to ask a question for a friend who is struggling with something. He asked me to bring this up if I had a chance to speak to President Uchdorf. He knew given a number of reasons that I may have more opportunity to ask this directly. I was able to and the comments and advice he gave were tender and heart felt.

One member of the 70 I count as a close friend having come to know him when he was an MP in our area. I can contact him any time.

I think the brethren get a bad wrap often more than they deserve. While there may be this official position I have seen them interact with members whenever they are able.

Oh, and I do not live in Utah. I am about as far from Utah as one can get and still be in the USA.

Jason... you're a bishop. You aren't one of the unwashed masses, one of the general membership. You're a local leader. You have access.