"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_Runtu]

Most of the GAs I have known have been good and kind men, and they seem to have been sincere in their desire to serve God. But it is part of human nature to get a little "puffed up" as the scripture says, and a sense of entitlement can develop. So, we have President Kimball showing nothing but kindness and humility against the apostle who sent a letter ahead of a visit dictating the number, size, and variety of flowers acceptable in a flower arrangement; the direction of the A/C vents (away from the podium). Or apostles screaming at underlings because the phone isn't working, or profanely berating an ice cream delivery man for using the wrong hallway. Or demanding that the milk be kept at a specific temperature.

These things are human nature. I think where we get into trouble is expecting church leaders to be above such human frailty.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... that converts are to be despised and regarded as second-rate Mormons.

No one has made that claim.

There is always a human tendency to take excessive pride in lineage ....

I think it's particularly acute among Mormons, perhaps a byproduct of their oft-seen persecution complex.

But the First Presidency and the Twelve have never advocated such a thing.

Agreed. It seems more like a natural occurrence in a society that, in the early days, was isolated and had an 'us vs. them' mentality.

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.

I'm sure today's GA's could (and probably do) get help answering their mail. Telling members, across the board, to just stop writing (i.e., bothering them) comes across as elitist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

harmony's claim isn't merely that the Brethren are human. It's that there is a long-standing and consistent message coming from "the Brethren" that converts are to be disdained as second-class members of the Church and that the Brethren have no respect for the rank-and-file membership.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

harmony's claim isn't merely that the Brethren are human. It's that there is a long-standing and consistent message coming from "the Brethren" that converts are to be disdained as second-class members of the Church and that the Brethren have no respect for the rank-and-file membership.

I don't think harmony is suggesting there is some sort of tacit policy that converts are not as good or that the rank & file is not worthy of respect. As Runtu pointed out, this type of frailty is typical for any mere human put in a position that lends itself to quasi-idol worship, which is often the case in the Church.

[_Daniel Peterson]

... that converts are to be despised and regarded as second-rate Mormons.

No one has made that claim.

I've given harmony several openings to nuance or moderate her claim. She's more than welcome to do so at any time.

Telling members, across the board, to just stop writing (i.e., bothering them) comes across as elitist.

If it had been phrased that way, I would agree.

I do, however, strongly feel that local matters should be handled as locally as possible, and that people should, to the extent that they're able, handle their own affairs.

Sick people don't have to have blessings from apostles. Not every question (should I give Billy an allowance?) needs to go to the First Presidency.

As a bishop, I would appreciate it if certain members of my flock didn't feel the need to involve me in their every issue. Some while back, one of my ward members called me at 2 AM, wondering what I thought about his idea of inviting a certain girl in the ward out on a date. Early on Friday morning, just last week, another ward member summoned me at 3:06 AM because her thermostat was broken and she was afraid that she was going to freeze to death. It turned out that the temperature in her apartment was 65 degrees Fahrenheit, and the heater just needed to be turned on. I have people who want me to micromanage their lives, to run them to their routine doctor appointments, to drive them to their classes, etc., etc. This is inappropriate, and yet, at some points, since I'm trying to be a good bishop, it has worn me down so much that I've had little energy left with which to conduct my own affairs, let alone to deal with the truly serious serious issues that other ward members face.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

... that converts are to be despised and regarded as second-rate Mormons.

No one has made that claim.

Your claim is that there is some underlying disdain for converts in the Church. harmony said "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." You responded "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. "

Again, I've never heard of such a thing or seen it encouraged, taught, etc.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I've given harmony several openings to nuance or moderate her claim.

That's fine, but don't embellish what she said.

I do, however, strongly feel that local matters should be handled as locally as possible, and that people should, to the extent that they're able, handle their own affairs.

I agree that should be encouraged, but there's no need to institute a policy cutting off the rank & file from communicating with GA's. It just adds to the 'ivory tower' perception, in my opinion.

Sick people don't have to have blessings from apostles. Not every question (should I give Billy an allowance?) needs to go to the First Presidency.

Agreed, but there is no reason to stop them from asking. Such requests can always be politely declined.

As a bishop, I would appreciate it if certain members of my flock didn't feel the need to involve me in their every issue.

You'd love me in your ward ... I don't bother the bishop about anything. Unfortunately, Mormon culture/tradition has imbued the office of bishop and other high office with an aura of "discernment," such that members have naturally placed too much importance on leaders' ability to discern the 'mind and will of the Lord' for them on the matter. The Brethren created a monster that leaders would rather not have to deal with.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Your claim is that there is some underlying disdain for converts in the Church.

I wouldn't call it "disdain" (which suggests to me a type of intentional malice); I would call it more like a natural evoluation within Mormon culture and tradition.

harmony said "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." You responded "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. "

These were examples of intentional disdain, but I'd say the broad culture and mentality is more subconcious. It's a natural byproduct of the early isolation of LDS saints and their persecution complex (which still, in my opinion, exists to some degree today).

Again, I've never heard of such a thing or seen it encouraged, taught, etc.

I've never heard it "encouraged" or "taught," at least not conciously, but it certainly exists.

[_harmony]

harmony's claim isn't merely that the Brethren are human. It's that there is a long-standing and consistent message coming from "the Brethren" that converts are to be disdained as second-class members of the Church and that the Brethren have no respect for the rank-and-file membership.

Um. Well. Sorta. The message comes from the Brethren that pride in pioneer ancestors is to be encouraged. Converts don't have any pioneer ancestors.

Let's do a short survey, so I can see if my idea is correct.

How many of the Brethren are converts?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

The pride in pioneer heritage isn't just about pride. It's about status. And it trickles down to local level behaviors that unfortunately are often more concentrated, simply because people think if some is good (as in the pride of the Brethren in their pioneer heritage), then more is better (as in the excessive pride that results in the line in the sand).

In a related note, our Area Authority was just released. Prior to his last calling, he was the stake president. Guess what his current calling is now?... Librarian? Sunday School teacher? Deacon's quorum advisor? No... he's our newest High Councilman. (It's almost like they think there are no other men in the whole flippin' stake that are worthy to sit on the High Council.) Oh, and yes... he can trace his lineage as far back as church history goes and is extremely proud of it. He's not my favorite person; he's the one who wanted to excommunicate my son as an example to other youth in the stake for an unexcommunicatable offense. He was willing to sacrifice my son on the altar of his hubris, and the only thing that stopped him was my bishop at the time. Thank God for good bishops!

See #6!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Your claim is that there is some underlying disdain for converts in the Church.

I wouldn't call it "disdain" [...]
These were examples of intentional disdain, but I'd say the broad culture and mentality is more subconcious.

Well let's be consistent. Kinsissin, as Charles Barkley would say.