Moksha wrote:Here is something I always wondered about. Twice when I was growing up our ward built two new Churches within its boundaries. Twice after these buildings were completed and after only a years use, our ward was shunted away to a much older Church, one of them was five miles away and each time the building was given to members from a higher economic area. Obviously, economic circumstance does enter the picture as to who gets what in the Church. This is not an item I blame on the Church however. I think it falls within Joseph Smith's admonition that unrighteous dominion can be rampant with its leaders. It is probably a combination of leaders untrained in equity and fueled by a conservative belief in the rightness of upper classes.
...
So, does that continue to this day?
No, once the folks in the more expensive sections of the Stake had newer buildings of their own, we were able to return to the Church in our own Ward boundaries.
Why are you mentioning it? Doesn't it tend to embarrass the Church?
No, the Unrighteous Dominion of men does not constitute the Gospel of Christ. Besides, if we fail to acknowledge it, using a class system favoring the wealthy to decide who gets what will continue unabated. That is contrary to the Gospel of Christ on many levels.
Your post is a good example of inverse arrogance. Arrogance that you are better than weak men who value success. Your arrogance is no better than theirs. The fact that you can barely write the King's English makes it all the worse.
Carry on.
P, you and Jason attacked the messenger, not the message. Could you please stick to the subject and cease and desist with the personal attacks? I know you both have a great deal to add to any discussion, so please try, okay?
Your post is a good example of inverse arrogance. Arrogance that you are better than weak men who value success. Your arrogance is no better than theirs. The fact that you can barely write the King's English makes it all the worse.
Carry on.
P, you and Jason attacked the messenger, not the message. Could you please stick to the subject and cease and desist with the personal attacks? I know you both have a great deal to add to any discussion, so please try, okay?
Yea well my first post did but not after that. But I am mulling this over a bit and am trying to explore the history of my local area somewhat. I think there may be more to this then I thought.
What you're talking about is Mormon Royalty, vegas. It drives leadership calls from GA's on down to the local ward level. There is a heirarchy in the church:
#1. related to early church leaders through direct line
#2. related to early church leaders through marriage
#3. related to a current GA, no matter how obscure the relationship
#4. friends with current GA
#5. etc etc etc... on down to the last one:
#786. convert
A convert is on the very bottom of the Mormon Royalty food chain. Occasionally an individual can skip up or down a level or even two because of personality or social position unrelated to church membership (like if a convert is related to a high ranking public official), but those on the bottom of the totem pole are never going to move very far up that hierarchy.
The networking you're talking about is also a fact of Mormon culture. Those at the bottom of the socio-economic status will not get the same perks, promotions, or business contacts as the member at the top of the Mormon Royalty food chain. An elitist attitude, superficial worthiness, and myopia guide both Mormon leadership choices and many Mormon business decisions.
My own experience is much the same. I am a convert, one of the unblessed, if you will. I have royal American blood (through a relative who signed the Declaration of Independence), but I don't have royal Utah blood, so I am a nobody in the church. I even managed to bring down my hubby's status (his family lays claim to #1 above), due to my lowly convert status. Due to orneriness and a generally outspoken pithy attitude, I do not have ward or stake leader potential. This no longer bothers me, though. I now find myself pitying those who only see the outward appearance of wealth and success based on the culture of Mormon royalty. In some politically-charged circles, I am nationally known, well-respected, and looked upon as a gentle wise woman. My opinion is sought at the highest levels for some subjects (mostly youth, women's health issues, and some aspects of Native American life). I serve on state and national committees and focus groups. That my ward and stake still see me as a lowly convert tells me more about their lack of discernment than anything else.
If I believed God cared, or that my exaltation was predicated on Mormon culture's view of my worth, I'd be upset. But I don't think God cares, and my exaltation is not at all connected to Mormon culture, so I can ignore their intended slights, knowing they cannot hurt me anymore. I used to care. When I was deep on the inside, it mattered that I wasn't acceptable, and neither was my family because of me. I no longer care. I know that Mormon culture is not God's. It's simply men and women trying to make themselves be more than what they are.
moksha wrote:Here is something I always wondered about. Twice when I was growing up our ward built two new Churches within its boundaries. Twice after these buildings were completed and after only a years use, our ward was shunted away to a much older Church, one of them was five miles away and each time the building was given to members from a higher economic area. Obviously, economic circumstance does enter the picture as to who gets what in the Church. This is not an item I blame on the Church however. I think it falls within Joseph Smith's admonition that unrighteous dominion can be rampant with its leaders. It is probably a combination of leaders untrained in equity and fueled by a conservative belief in the rightness of upper classes.
...
The same thing happened to me in North Las Vegas. The Hidden Canyon ward was told to go to a building in the ghetto while literally 2 blocks away the priveledged got to attend church in a new building right next to Cheyenne High School. It stopped when MormonCorp sold the building to a baptist congregation.
Isn't that odd?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Your post is a good example of inverse arrogance. Arrogance that you are better than weak men who value success. Your arrogance is no better than theirs. The fact that you can barely write the King's English makes it all the worse.
Carry on.
P, you and Jason attacked the messenger, not the message. Could you please stick to the subject and cease and desist with the personal attacks? I know you both have a great deal to add to any discussion, so please try, okay?
Its their MO harm, can't teach a retarded dog new tricks.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
It is sillier to argue that it is intent and design that creates this.
Who said anything about intent? It's quite natural for social structures to evolve that way. Of course, there's more denial about this one because the kingdom of God is not supposed to operate this way.
I've said before that there are two kinds of people in the church: the users and the used. Most of the real work is done by the used, those who really believe in it. Most of the higher-level leadership, in my experience, consists of the users, those who understand how to take advantage of the system.
I think I was born of blue blood somewhere down the line but I never had the time or desire to trace the line back far enough that is would have mattered
oh well....no I have Bitch Blood which is much better actually
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........
Your post is a good example of inverse arrogance. Arrogance that you are better than weak men who value success. Your arrogance is no better than theirs. The fact that you can barely write the King's English makes it all the worse.
Carry on.
P, you and Jason attacked the messenger, not the message. Could you please stick to the subject and cease and desist with the personal attacks? I know you both have a great deal to add to any discussion, so please try, okay?
"Your post . . . " is attacking the messenger?
You have no clue about rhetoric. You are a clueless person. There, I am attacking the messenger. See the difference.
I'm sure there is an element of class to all people who have money or don't in this country. It did seem to me on the surface that G.A. children and grandchildren are sent to missions all over the world, not just ones that are easier to live in.
However, I did hear a story of a young man going on his mission who was approached by one of his bigwig relatives who told him he had connections with the people who decided where you go. He offered him to choose his mission, anywhere in the world. The young man said he didn't want any special treatment. Yet I wonder how much of this goes on behind the scenes. Do you think rich peoples children serve in the same places that poor peoples children serve? Or maybe a better question is who is really making these decisions on where to send missionaries and how do they do it?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.