"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_Trevor]

In my old ward, we knew some folks who were descended from early leaders of the Mormon Church, and they never put on airs. See this picture of them in the ward house parking lot:



Just nice, regular folks.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I just don't think that being married to a descendent of the third cousin twice-removed of the great-great-grandfather of an 1830s Seventy makes one a Mormon aristocrat.

I never said it did. My examples were of much closer relations.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I don't disagree with any of this (although Ballard sometimes grates with his ongoing obsession with his Smith family line; his Ballard line seems to get lost sometimes).

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.

I never said Oaks owes his position in the 12 to his being related to Martin Harris. I was simply pointing out he was among the current 43% of the top 14 who have famous Mormon ancestors, which was the question at hand. Frankly, I think the Church has gotten better at not engaging in nepotism (it was rampant less than a 100 years ago), although there's been a recent spike since GBH called his daughter to a gen'l auxiliary presidency and his son as a GA (which TSM has continued by calling his daughter to a gen'l auxiliary presidency, Packer's son as a GA, and Eyring's 38-year old son as an Area Authority). Whether one is called primarily due to who they know or are related to can never really be known, but just the appearance of nepotism is unfortunate and should be avoided, in my opinion.

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 agree.

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.

Nor did it hurt Richard G. Scott (whose father converted very late in life -- and I think perhaps David Bednar's father did as well, although I'm not sure).

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.

I agree with this, and am heartened by folks like Dieter Uchtdorf (who I admire very much) being put in the hierarchy (and I hope more non-Americans break into the top 15). For a time it seemed like any form of nepotism was dying out, but then under the Hinckley and Monson presidencies we seem to have a sort of resurgence (a minor one, but still alarming, in my opinion).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

When I got married, one of the Mormon Royalty in my ward told my intended husband he could do better than marrying a convert, his family having been in the church almost since the beginning. A fine welcome to the ward, yes?

The same happened to my father when he married my mother (who converted shortly after their marriage). My father was born and raised in Utah by very strict LDS (his father left Norway to go to Zion), and his marrying a Catholic girl from the East was considered a form of apostasy by many of his neighbors (and family) in Utah. Even though my mother was a faithful member the remainder of her life, the 'taint' of convert never really disappeared among my father's Utah family and friends. It didn't really bother us kids because we never lived in Utah (just visited). But converts are a special breed when it comes to Mormonism -- because they aren't raised in the Church, they do not have some of the habits that come from growing up in Mormon culture (like obeying their leaders without question), causing them to be viewed (and even admired) as rabble-rousers who have a life. My wife is also a convert, and is very similar to my mother in that way. In my own biased opinion, they are more faithful disciples of Christ than any 'born in the covenant' Mormon I've ever known (including myself). And I don't mean to sound overly sappy, but harmony (based solely on her writings here) reminds me of them.

[Guest]

In my old ward, we knew some folks who were descended from early leaders of the Mormon Church, and they never put on airs. See this picture of them in the ward house parking lot:



Just nice, regular folks.

Hey, if it isn't the Smith family! They used to visit our ward occasionally. (And by visit I mean they drove past in a limo and waved through the half-opened tinted window, threw a few coins to the feet of us paupers, and sped away.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

When I got married, one of the Mormon Royalty in my ward told my intended husband he could do better than marrying a convert, his family having been in the church almost since the beginning. A fine welcome to the ward, yes?

The same happened to my father when he married my mother (who converted shortly after their marriage). My father was born and raised in Utah by very strict LDS (his father left Norway to go to Zion), and his marrying a Catholic girl from the East was considered a form of apostasy by many of his neighbors (and family) in Utah. Even though my mother was a faithful member the remainder of her life, the 'taint' of convert never really disappeared among my father's Utah family and friends. It didn't really bother us kids because we never lived in Utah (just visited). But converts are a special breed when it comes to Mormonism -- because they aren't raised in the Church, they do not have some of the habits that come from growing up in Mormon culture (like obeying their leaders without question), causing them to be viewed (and even admired) as rabble-rousers who have a life.

Color me honestly astounded; I've literally never heard of such a thing in my life. I grew up in Utah.

[_harmony]

Color me honestly astounded; I've literally never heard of such a thing in my life. I grew up in Utah.

Perhaps you simply weren't paying attention. I've noticed a remarkable position among many of my Utah and Southern Idaho friends and relatives: head in the sand.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps you simply weren't paying attention. I've noticed a remarkable position among many of my Utah and Southern Idaho friends and relatives: head in the sand.

I simply don't think that's it. I'm pretty social and involved. Have been for quite a long time. Unless the "Mormon Royalty" craze was most predominant during part of my my junior year of High School, or perhaps along the Wasatch Front from 2001-2003, I don't think I would have missed such a notion.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps you simply weren't paying attention. I've noticed a remarkable position among many of my Utah and Southern Idaho friends and relatives: head in the sand.

I simply don't think that's it. I'm pretty social and involved. Have been for quite a long time. Unless the "Mormon Royalty" craze was most predominant during part of my my junior year of High School, or perhaps along the Wasatch Front from 2001-2003, I don't think I would have missed such a notion.

In my experience members living in 'the Corridor' seem pretty oblivious to it; those of outside 'the Corridor' seem to notice it more.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I grew up outside "the Corridor," earned my doctorate there, return there often (will be there later this week, perhaps, and certainly next week).

While there has always been considerable -- and justifiable -- pride in the pioneers, and, among those who descend from them, in pioneer ancestors, I, as the son of a non-member, never, ever, experienced anything like the message from the Brethren that we're hearing about here, that converts are to be despised and regarded as second-rate Mormons. Never. Period.

Have some members of the Church held such an attitude? Undoubtedly. Members of the Church have also embezzled, murdered, defrauded, fornicated, posted on this board, and consumed Coca Cola.

There is always a human tendency to take excessive pride in lineage, just as there is a human tendency to abuse everything else. But the First Presidency and the Twelve have never advocated such a thing. And the day of the ascendency of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers, just like that of the Daughters of the American Revolution, is long in the past and receding rapidly. (Not to say that the DUP -- or the DAR -- were always and everywhere, or even often, arrogant and elitist.)

On another note: Earlier this morning, for entirely unrelated reasons, I was browsing in Edward Kimball's book-length account of his father's tenure as president of the Church. I don't believe I've ever encountered anybody who accused Spencer W. Kimball of cold and arrogant elitism or of being distant from ordinary members of the Church. Yet a recurrent theme in the book is President Kimball's ultimately losing struggle to cope with the correspondence that came to him from the membership of a significantly smaller Church. He simply couldn't read, let alone answer, all of the letters that came to him, much as he wanted to do so. Was this because he disdained Church members -- and, perhaps, especially new converts? It seems unlikely.