"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_Jason Bourne]

It's been 30 years since the ERA, 30 years since the priesthood was revised... 30 years! And the same men are in charge. They still see through a glass darkly. They still live by the lamp of their own conceit. And they still don't see that they are part of the problem. They point their finger at the members, never acknowledging their part, their lack of true leadership and vision.

Meaningful change will not happen in my lifetime, Ray, and I cannot tell you how that hurts my heart.

Armaund Mauss has written and spoke about this. I heard an interview that John Dehlin did of Mauss. It was really opened my eyes to why the Church is like, and run and led like, a very large ship. It does not move its rudder easily and when it does it changes very slowly. Mauss talked about how the Church came out of the 19th century labeled as an odd off beat sect and cult with extreme and odd ideas. In only 50 years it went from such to a main stream mom and apple pie religion in many ways. But it seems that many in the top leadership was skittish about this an with correlation and other things moved more conservative in many ways.

Mauss discusses how the top leaders have to weigh decisions in such a way as to how many people will they alienate and cause to become disaffected. If they make to liberal a move those LDS that are more conservative become upset and may leave. And of course if they make moves that are more controlling and conservative a certain group of more liberal will leave. As a result they tend to play it safe and do things that tend to please most the active and play it in the middle. Don't rock the boat too much seems to be the mantra.

And think about it. I think in my life I have seen a dumbing down of the things the Church teaches in lessons, in the magazines and from the pulpit in General Conference. Stick to the basic, play it safe. Don't wander in your lessons from the approved manual and so on.

In the long run I do not think this is health for the organization. I could be wrong. I am not sure I will be around long enough to tell.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In other words, your doctrinal views would be much more in line with, say, the Community of Christ or even one of the smaller schismatic sects (say, the Church of Christ, Temple Lot) than with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Right?

I think my doctrinal views are completely in line with God.

I hope my doctrinal views are in line with God, but I can't affirm they always are. Harmony, I am still wondering about this because you say Joseph Smith basically brought the Book of Mormon and after that it is a crapshoot. Joseph certainly didn't think that was the case. And again, you are a member of the Church led by men who received keys from men who received keys etc. to Brigham and the 12 who received them from Joseph after you say he had fallen. So again, I'm confused as to why you think the current leadership are any different than any other people in the world in terms of authority as prophets of God.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, they don't spend their lives with the rank and file.

Yes they do.

They spend their lives on elite pedestals, constructed with their knowledge and consent by the rank and file's unwavering hero worship.

No they don't.

Most of them are related to prior general authorities, which makes them Mormon Royalty.

Some are. Many aren't.

President Monson doesn't come from Mormon Royalty. Neither does President Uchtdorf. Neither does President Packer. Neither does Elder Oaks. And so forth.

So most of them have never been part of the rank and file.

They all have been. They've been elders quorum presidents and ward bishops and home teachers and missionaries. They've worked on welfare farms and ward road shows. Pretty standard stuff.

And how often do they visit their home wards?

Not nearly, I'm sure, as often as they would like.

And are all of their home wards in the same general area? And where would that general area be? Oh, yeah. SLCentral.

LOL. "SLCentral"?

Well, yes. And all congressmen live in Washington DC and all of the leaders of Australia live in or near Canberra and members of the Vatican Curia live in Rome and the leaders of Microsoft live in or near Redmond.

But the First Presidency and the Twelve come from backgrounds in places like Oak Ridge and Rexburg and Boston and Chicago and Little Rock and Frankfurt and St. George and San Francisco and Durham, with service as missionaries and mission presidents and area presidents in places like Brazil and England and Argentina and Germany and Canada and Chile and the Philippines and Mexico, and, on any given weekend, they're likely to be in Virginia or Japan or Panama or Nigeria or Sweden.

Let me know when half of the Brethren's home wards are in El Paso Texas or Biloxi MS or Searsport ME. You know... out here in the hinterland usually known as Outer Zion (or the mission field, depending).

Considering all of the committees they chair and the meetings they must attend when they're not out traveling among the Saints, El Paso and Biloxi and Searsport would require pretty intimidating commutes.

That is exactly what we're talking about: an elite, rigidily segregated clerical caste to which the rank and file members have no access.

That's simple nonsense.

In other words, your doctrinal views would be much more in line with, say, the Community of Christ or even one of the smaller schismatic sects (say, the Church of Christ, Temple Lot) than with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Right?

I think my doctrinal views are completely in line with God.

I'd be shocked if you didn't.

But the interesting fact remains that, doctrinally, you're much more closely aligned with the Church of Christ, Temple Lot, than with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[_moksha]

The Brethren spend much of their lives out among the rank and file.

They come from the rank and file.

And they have parents and brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and wives and children and grandchildren and in-laws and home wards and home teachers and cousins and friends.

We're not talking, here, about a rigidly segregated clerical caste.

In my experience, too, they're always asking questions and seeking input.

Don't the Brethren usually only see the rank and file that stand to attention and admire them whenever they enter the room? I am not implying that they are only surrounded by sycophants, but what mechanism do they have to learn about the concerns of rank and file members who are not standing and admiring them in their travels?

.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't the Brethren usually only see the rank and file that stand to attention and admire them whenever they enter the room? I am not implying that they are only surrounded by sycophants, but what mechanism do they have to learn about the concerns of rank and file members who are not standing and admiring them in their travels?

It's true that, when they visit stake conferences, alienated members who don't attend stake conferences aren't typically there, and, when they speak with rank-and-file members of the Church, members of the Church who refuse to speak with them don't generally speak with them.

I am not implying that they are only surrounded by sycophants, but what mechanism do they have to learn about the concerns of rank and file members who are not standing and admiring them in their travels?

They not uncommonly go out to meet less-active and inactive members in an area. (I believe that an example of this was cited above.) And, in fact, they do receive letters and e-mails from such members, as well as from non-members. That's the whole point of the request that members not write to them. Members are writing to them, and in such quantities that they're being buried by such communications.

I know for a fact, from personal and direct knowledge, that they receive letters from disaffected members, anti-Mormons, and the like.

As an illustration of Dieter Uchtdorf's lifetime elite status as a member of a separate Mormon clerical caste, incidentally, I just thought of the story he told in the most recent general conference about a group of brethren struggling a number of years back to move a grand piano from the chapel to the cultural hall in his home ward in Darmstadt, Germany. Moving pianos has always seemed to me a very elite activity. I've been blessed to help move several, and, each time, I've clearly sensed that I was an aristocrat. (In my case, that sense has been heightened when we've had to move the piano up or down a flight of stairs.)

[_harmony]

I hope my doctrinal views are in line with God, but I can't affirm they always are. Harmony, I am still wondering about this because you say Joseph Smith basically brought the Book of Mormon and after that it is a crapshoot. Joseph certainly didn't think that was the case.

Joseph most certainly knew that, else there was no reason to go back and change the verse. He had one gift and one gift only: the Book of Mormon. That revelation was canonized in the Book of Commandments (the forerunner of the Doctrine & Covenants):

Book of Commandments, March 1829 {in the 1833 edition} chapter IV, verse 2, has,

"...and he [Joseph Smith] has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift."

And the changed version:

D&C 5:4 (1981 edition), dated March 1829, on the exact same subject reads significantly different. It says,

"And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished."

And when were the changes made:

The 1835 D&C (Section XXXII, verse 1, page 158) reads the same as the 1981 edition, showing that the changes were made while Joseph Smith was alive, thus were made by him or with his approval.

"He should pretend to no other gift" being changed to "this is the first gift", on the sly, without a vote? Changing a revelation? This is the act of a man who has God's ear and is God's mouthpiece? What happened between Mar 1829 and 1835? Fanny.

Did you think I didn't know, Plate? Or did you not know?

And again, you are a member of the Church led by men who received keys from men who received keys etc. to Brigham and the 12 who received them from Joseph after you say he had fallen. So again, I'm confused as to why you think the current leadership are any different than any other people in the world in terms of authority as prophets of God.

Just because Joseph fell doesn't mean the others did. He wasn't the only one who had the keys.

blip


blip


blip

[_harmony]

It's true that, when they visit stake conferences, alienated members who don't attend stake conferences aren't typically there, and, when they speak with rank-and-file members of the Church, members of the Church who refuse to speak with them don't generally speak with them.

The only times we've had any of the Brethren here in the last decade, they were whisked in and out, without ever meeting with the rank and file at all... not even an opportunity to shake their hand (which doesn't exactly give enough time to speak to them about any concerns one may have.) They are treated like the rock stars they are (complete with limo and security guards), and the rank and file member has about as much opportunity to actually talk with them as we do with Kenny Chesney. (Actually, in my case, less... I know people who know Kenny, and if I wanted to badly enough, I could probably get some one on one time with him).

I am not implying that they are only surrounded by sycophants, but what mechanism do they have to learn about the concerns of rank and file members who are not standing and admiring them in their travels?

They not uncommonly go out to meet less-active and inactive members in an area. (I believe that an example of this was cited above.)

That's not what he's saying, Daniel. And I am not "less active" or "inactive". I am a member in good standing with a TR, multiple callings, and a testimony. They don't even stay with the stake president anymore. They fly in, attend the meeting, and fly out.

And, in fact, they do receive letters and e-mails from such members, as well as from non-members. That's the whole point of the request that members not write to them. Members are writing to them, and in such quantities that they're being buried by such communications.

So their response is to tell the members to not write them? So they ignore the petitions of the members? And those they do answer, they send it to the bishop, with instructions for the bishop to not show the letter to the member?

I know for a fact, from personal and direct knowledge, that they receive letters from disaffected members, anti-Mormons, and the like.

And the responses? Just because they receive them doesn't mean they read them, doesn't mean they are disturbed by what is behind them, doesn't mean they seek the Lord about them.

As an illustration of Dieter Uchtdorf's lifetime elite status as a member of a separate Mormon clerical caste... snip...

Elder Uchtdorf isn't Mormon Royalty.

[_harmony]

Armaund Mauss has written and spoke about this. I heard an interview that John Dehlin did of Mauss. It was really opened my eyes to why the Church is like, and run and led like, a very large ship. It does not move its rudder easily and when it does it changes very slowly. Mauss talked about how the Church came out of the 19th century labeled as an odd off beat sect and cult with extreme and odd ideas. In only 50 years it went from such to a main stream mom and apple pie religion in many ways. But it seems that many in the top leadership was skittish about this an with correlation and other things moved more conservative in many ways.

Mauss discusses how the top leaders have to weigh decisions in such a way as to how many people will they alienate and cause to become disaffected. If they make to liberal a move those LDS that are more conservative become upset and may leave. And of course if they make moves that are more controlling and conservative a certain group of more liberal will leave. As a result they tend to play it safe and do things that tend to please most the active and play it in the middle. Don't rock the boat too much seems to be the mantra.

And think about it. I think in my life I have seen a dumbing down of the things the Church teaches in lessons, in the magazines and from the pulpit in General Conference. Stick to the basic, play it safe. Don't wander in your lessons from the approved manual and so on.

In the long run I do not think this is health for the organization. I could be wrong. I am not sure I will be around long enough to tell.

This does not reassure me that our leaders are in daily contact with God, or that God is leading this church. All it does is reinforce that we are led by men who are trying hard, but failing in too much of their stewardship, because they are living as JFS and HBL said, "by the lamp of their own conceit," rather than thinking outside of the cement box they've built around themselves.

[_harmony]

No, they don't spend their lives with the rank and file.

Yes they do.

No, they don't.

They spend their lives on elite pedestals, constructed with their knowledge and consent by the rank and file's unwavering hero worship.

No they don't.

Yes, they do. They have security personnel, bodyguards, and limos when they visit here the last two times. They have not been within 10 yards of any rank and file member, as the lines of security kept the unwashed masses at bay.

I know what happens here, Daniel. You don't. What happens in Utah is obviously not what happens here.

Most of them are related to prior general authorities, which makes them Mormon Royalty.

Some are. Many aren't.

President Monson doesn't come from Mormon Royalty. Neither does President Uchtdorf. Neither does President Packer. Neither does Elder Oaks. And so forth.

That's 4 out of 15. So what you're saying is 3/4 of our leaders are Mormon Royalty. That does nothing for your argument.

So most of them have never been part of the rank and file.

They all have been. They've been elders quorum presidents and ward bishops and home teachers and missionaries. They've worked on welfare farms and ward road shows. Pretty standard stuff.

No, Daniel. No matter how you slice it, if a member has access to Mormon Royalty/the Brethren, at any time in their life, it doesn't matter that they started out as a Deacon passing the sacrament. They were never the rank and file. I know what the rank and file is... it's converts, it's members who had no connection with the leaders, it's common folk who trust their leaders and their leaders return the favor so much, they refuse to allow the members to view the financial records. In other words: the leaders don't trust the members at all.

Well, yes. And all congressmen live in Washington DC and all of the leaders of Australia live in or near Canberra and members of the Vatican Curia live in Rome and the leaders of Microsoft live in or near Redmond.

And when we start talking politics, business, or the Catholic church, this will have meaning. But we're not talking those subjects. We're talking about an elite groups that is out of touch with the members, and strives to keep it that way.

But the First Presidency and the Twelve come from backgrounds in places like Oak Ridge and Rexburg and Boston and Chicago and Little Rock and Frankfurt and St. George and San Francisco and Durham, with service as missionaries and mission presidents and area presidents in places like Brazil and England and Argentina and Germany and Canada and Chile and the Philippines and Mexico, and, on any given weekend, they're likely to be in Virginia or Japan or Panama or Nigeria or Sweden.

And 3/4 of them are from Mormon Royalty.

Let me know when half of the Brethren's home wards are in El Paso Texas or Biloxi MS or Searsport ME. You know... out here in the hinterland usually known as Outer Zion (or the mission field, depending).

Considering all of the committees they chair and the meetings they must attend when they're not out traveling among the Saints, El Paso and Biloxi and Searsport would require pretty intimidating commutes.

My point exactly. They live in the heart of Zion. They only get outside of the heart of Zion when they zip in and out of a meeting place. So they know the members in Outer Zion like I know the people in Vegas or Phoenix or Denver, where I zip in and out for meetings.

That is exactly what we're talking about: an elite, rigidily segregated clerical caste to which the rank and file members have no access.

That's simple nonsense.

Actually, it's your phrase, and it's the truth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

Yes, they do.

No, they don't.

They have security personnel, bodyguards, and limos when they visit here the last two times. They have not been within 10 yards of any rank and file member, as the lines of security kept the unwashed masses at bay.

You must live in a war zone, because, where I've seen them -- out of state, abroad, in Utah -- they've mingled with the rank and file reasonably freely.

I know what happens here, Daniel. You don't. What happens in Utah is obviously not what happens here.

I'm familiar with some of the rules at Utah State Prison, but it's true that I'm unfamiliar with what happens in yours.

And 3/4 of them are from Mormon Royalty.

Lessee. There are fourteen living members in the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

Of them, Elder Ballard could reasonably be considered to be from a Mormon "royal family." President Eyring could be argued to be from a collateral line of such a family. The others don't really appear to come from Mormon aristocracy. In other words, whereas you claim that 75% of them are from "Mormon Royalty," the actual figure -- granting for the sake of discussion that such a concept has any real meaning or relevance at all -- is somewhere between 7% and 14%.

They only get outside of the heart of Zion when they zip in and out of a meeting place.

Except when, say, they preside over the Church in Chile or in the Philippines or in Germany. And between the time they zip into and zip out of a meeting place they're in intense meetings with local leaders about local issues and speaking and interacting with local members.

it's the truth.

No it's not. It's arrant nonsense.