"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

harmony wrote: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.

There must be some reason why your area is so completely blighted and avoided.

I'll try to find out why.

harmony wrote: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.

I know from direct personal knowledge that at least one member of the Twelve not only reads such letters but takes them quite seriously.

As someone whose entire region, it seems, is studiously ignored by every member of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and, even when visited, is visited only in the metaphorical equivalent of biological warfare armor, do you have any direct personal knowledge that the others refuse to read such letters and/or don't consider what they say?

harmony wrote:Elder Uchtdorf isn't Mormon Royalty.

That, of course, was my point.

And he's counselor to a president of the Church who also doesn't come from "Mormon royalty."
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Jason Bourne »

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.


This has not been my experience at all. The only time I ever saw any security, autos ( not limos) that were used especially for transportation of the leader and any isolation was when Pres. Hinckley and Monson were in our area for a groundbreaking for a temple and later when Pres. Hinckley returned to dedicate this temple. And in these cases I think it made sense, especially for President Hinckley. Years before, when he was younger, he was in our area and then did a priesthood meeting where he was totally accessible. We have had many other apostles visit and there has been nothing of the sort that you describe. They have spent time with members and made contact with them. I am not saying that it did not happen but this has not been what I have seen. I already related a recent visit we had from Pres. Uchdorf. He was on vacation. There was no security. He was with his wife and grandchildren and was totally on his own. He mingled with members then took a bunch of the youth into a room and let them ask him questions for an hour. After that meeting I was able to ask him a direct question from a youth that was to nervous to ask his question as it was about a very personal issue.

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


I do not live anywhere near Utah.


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.

Pres Monson is not "Mormon Royalty." Nor was Pres. Hunter by the way. Elders Packer, Perry, Holland (I could be wrong on that one) Oaks, Uchdorf, Christoferson, Bednar, Nelson, Cook... who am I missing? Wirthlin, Ballard and Eyring perhaps yes.

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



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.



Your standards are silly if I understand them. So because I have met GAs or received replies from two apostles I am not rank an file? Because when I was a bishop in a ward and sat next to a visting GA a few times does that make me not rank and file? Because one of my friends is now an area 70 does that make me not rank and file? If I were called ( I never will be) to some GA position would I not have come from rank and file? This is an impossible standard.

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.


And a number of the top leaders come from such background.

And 3/4 of them are from Mormon Royalty


If I was accurate above it is more like 3/4 are not.

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.


These men really need to live where they do much of their work. I think most weekends they are out of town at stake meetings.
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _silentkid »

Daniel Peterson wrote:[hyperbole]...they've mingled with the rank and file reasonably freely.


President Hinckley visited my mission and gave a talk. We all gathered in a stake center in Tucson, AZ for the momentous event. He didn't mingle before or after his brief remarks. He didn't field any questions. He left without shaking a single hand. :confused:
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Where I've seen them -- out of state, abroad, in Utah -- they've mingled with the rank and file reasonably freely.

Are you saying (adopting Harmony voice) that my experience isn't valid, that my reality isn't real?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Lamanite wrote:I would've told your Dad.

At least you're showing your true colors.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:You call it "snitching." I call it pointing something out to a friend that, had the situations been reversed, I would have wanted to know.

You butt into the personal relationship between GoodK and his father, and that relationship is the worse off for it. Rationalize all you want, dear bishop, but what you did was despicable.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:They come from the rank and file.

Many come from what has been referred to as "Mormon nobility" (i.e., they are related to past GA's or other prominent Mormons). It's better than it used to be, but it still exists. And they may have come from "rank & file" years ago, but the problem comes when they forget their roots and get caught up in the adulation of the membership.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.

David Whitmer held this same opinion (and backed it up with a revelation in the Book of Commandments that was later revised for the D&C to allow Joseph to do more than bring forth the Book of Mormon).

Joseph certainly didn't think that was the case.

Joseph was never very clear about the whole succession thing. Perhaps even he was confused on this point.

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.

A lot of members go forward with faith on this issue. I've never been certain that BY and the 12 had the authority they claimed after Joseph's murder. I hope they did, and I have faith they did, but the evidence has always been murky to me. There was a huge power play going on at the time -- Strang had his letter purportedly from Joseph giving Strang that authority, and it apparently was good enough for many stalwart saints (including the 3 witnesses and some apostles and others) to follow him for a time. Rigdon took his group, and nearly all of the Smith family rejected BY and ended up with the RLDS. All of these folks lived with Joseph and had better and first hand information, and they didn't believe BY and the Brighamites had the authority. It's just not an easy issue, in my opinion.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:President Monson doesn't come from Mormon Royalty. Neither does President Uchtdorf.

Agreed, but Eyring certainly does. And Pres. Monson recently named his daughter as a quasi-GA (to one of the gen'l presidencies), and Eyring's 38-year old son was recently named an Area Authority Seventy.

Neither does President Packer.

True, but BKP's wife is, and their oldest son was recently named a GA.

Neither does Elder Oaks.

He's related to Martin Harris, one of the 3 Witnesses (hence the "H." in Dallin H. Oaks).

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 I'm sure they all fart, too, but their familial connections helped them move up the ladder.

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.

Piece of trivia: Dallin Oaks never served a mission as a young man (instead, he married at 19); he never served as a bishop, stake president, or mission president. He just sorta jumped up the ranks.

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.

And which one is more closely aligned with God? Many different answers, I suspect.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: "Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote: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%.

It's closer to 50% (and it would have been 50% until a few weeks ago when Joseph Wirthlin died (his father was presiding bishop, and he was a 1st cousin to GBH)). The current list: (1) Eyring, (2) BKP (by marriage: his wife is a direct descendant of Apostle Luke Johnson), (3) Perry (he's the nephew of 70's president Alma Sonne), (4) Oaks (related to Martin Harris), (5) Ballard (on both sides), and (6) Cook (related to SWK and Heber Kimball). So that's 6 of the current 14, or 43%.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Post Reply