"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_harmony]

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

I'll try to find out why.

I wonder if you're reading what I said. We haven't had the Brethren in over 10 years. We've had assorted 70's, and we've had satellite broadcasts, which I think are simply lame attempts to pacify the members.

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?

If they were reading the letters, and actually considering what they say, we'd see changes. We'd see things like children able to marry civilly hours prior to being sealed in the temple, a simply change that would allow family members, young, old, member, nonmember, to witness the ceremony. We already do it in other countries; there's no doctrinal reason why the same cannot be done in the States, except stubbornness on the part of the Brethren. So... they may read the letters, but nothing changes. We've been stuck in this rut for at least 30 years, and nothing changes.

[_silentkid]

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?

Nope. I'm saying that we all have unique experiences, each of them equally valid. I don't discount Harmony's experience and I don't discount your experience. The only time I've ever mingled with an authority on generality is when I was in the MTC. One of the counselors in the presiding bishopric visited our class and chatted. I thought that was pretty cool of him. I don't know why President Hinckley didn't spend some time with us. If I remember correctly, he was in Tucson to dedicate a statue or something and we were told he was really busy. It was kind of a let down after the weeks of anticipation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

GoodK himself may, it seems, want the futile back and forth on this issue to end, but, for the Rollo Tomasi Department of the Scratch Collective, the topic is lilterally irresistible, like the swinging doors of a tavern to a passing alcoholic. Discussion of it must never end!

[_The Nehor]

Wait a minute. If Elder Ballard is the only one sure to be Mormon Royalty and I'm his Third Cousin two generations down does that mean I'm LDS Royalty.

BOW BEFORE ME UNWASHED MASSES!!!!!!

Now I need to wait for all that embezzled Tithing money Merc insists I should be getting to start flowing into my bank account.

[_Jason Bourne]

(2) BKP (by marriage: his wife is a direct descendant of Apostle Luke Johnson), (4) Oaks (related to Martin Harris),

I think these two are a huge stretch to include as royalty because of these ancestors.

[Guest]

the problem comes when they forget their roots and get caught up in the adulation of the membership.

A problem that hasn't been demonstrated.

At any level, a General Authority's day is taken up with meetings in which ermine robes are not worn but often difficult issues are discussed and actions planned, with often uncomfortable travel to sometimes very distant places where their semidivine status isn't recognized, and, yes, with meetings with rank and file members. It's a rather hellish life that I, for one, envy not at all.

Just a few days ago, a retired Slavic Languages colleague was telling me about a visit by Elder Scott, of the Twelve, to the mission he presided over in Russia some years back. They had planned some sightseeing for Elder Scott during the intervals between meetings, but Elder Scott wanted to meet with the members. My friend remarked that Elder Scott spent many hours sitting backwards in a chair patiently answering basic questions about the Church and its doctrine that might just as easily have been posed to a green missionary. This sort of thing is, from what I've seen, not uncommon.

President Monson doesn't come from Mormon Royalty. Neither does President Uchtdorf.

Agreed, but Eyring certainly does.

As I've said, he comes from a collateral line of your "Mormon royalty." (It's scarcely to be wondered at, incidentally, that a son of the eminent chemist Henry Eyring who, himself born in Princeton, earned a doctorate at Harvard and achieved tenure at Stanford while serving faithfully in the Church, might stand out a bit and exhibit some unusual qualities within the Latter-day Saint community.)

[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.

You're stretching with those.

Neither does President Packer.

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

You're stretching again.

Neither does Elder Oaks.

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

Harris died 133 years ago, holding no position in the Church. How many living relatives does he have today? I don't know. How many of them have served as General Authorities? I don't know, but I'm guessing few, if any.

Do you really seriously imagine that the fact that Dallin Oaks is a fairly distant relative of Martin Harris played any role at all in his call to the Twelve, let alone that it was a more important factor than the abilities he demonstrated as a Supreme Court clerk, acting dean of the University of Chicago law school, local Church leader (he didn't, it's true, serve as a bishop or stake president, but he did serve as a counselor in a stake presidency in Chicago), author of books and studies on Mormonism and Mormon history, president of BYU, and justice of the Utah Supreme Court?

When he was growing up as a son of the widowed Stella Oaks in Provo, I wonder if anybody deferred to him as a prince of "Mormon royalty"? My bet is, No.

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

It would be churlish, I suppose, to ask for actual evidence of this assertion.

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.

No doubt about it. But that's not the question at issue.

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%.

43% is still just a bit over half of harmony's casual 75%.

But your 43% is dubious.

Regarding Elder Oaks, see above. I've granted that President Eyring comes from a good line, though not as clearly as you want to pretend. And, regarding Elder Ballard (whom I already acknowledged as a card-carrying member of whatever "Mormon royalty" may still exist), there can be no question.

But good grief. Do you seriously suppose that the fact that his wife is a direct descendent of Luke Johnson, who resigned from the Council of the Twelve and from the Church in 1837 at the age of thirty (though he was rebaptized in 1846 and ultimately came West, where he died as a bishop near Tooele) propelled Boyd K. Packer to the apostleship?

Do you really imagine that L. Tom Perry was called to the Twelve because of the potency of his relationship with his uncle, Alma Sonne? How many sons of Seventies -- to say nothing of nephews! -- have not been called to the Council of the Twelve?

And I'd like a bit more data regarding Elder Cook. How close a relationship to Spencer Kimball? How many other men share that same degree of kinship? How close a relationship to Heber C. Kimball (d. 1868, as, many think, the most married man in American or even Western history)? How many thousand men share that same degree of kinship?

[_The Nehor]

But your 43% is dubious.

Regarding Elder Oaks, see above. I've granted that President Eyring comes from a good line, though not as clearly as you want to pretend. And, regarding Elder Ballard (who I already acknowledged as a card-carrying member of whatever "Mormon royalty" may still exist), there can be no question.

But good grief. Do you seriously suppose that the fact that his wife is a direct descendent of Luke Johnson, who resigned from the Council of the Twelve and from the Church in 1837 at the age of thirty (though he was rebaptized in 1846 and ultimately came West, where he died as a bishop near Tooele) propelled Boyd K. Packer to the apostleship?

Do you really imagine that L. Tom Perry was called to the Twelve because of the potency of his relationship with his uncle, Alma Sonne?

And I'd like a bit more data regarding Elder Cook. How close a relationship to Spencer Kimball? How many other men share that same degree of kinship? How close a relationship to Heber C. Kimball (d. 1868, as, many think, the most married man in American or even Western history)? How many thousand men share that same degree of kinship?

Quit raining on my parade. I was sure I was guaranteed to be part of the Twelve because of what this board said.....are you saying I might have to settle for being a mere Seventy?

[_moksha]

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 like the fact that they go out to meet less-active and inactive members in an area. That is a good indication that they are still spry.

On my local level, I have seen local leaders meet with these same types of people, but they are invariably more interested in delivering an inspiring message, than actually listening to the concerns of the people. I hope this does not transpire when the Brethren meet with these same type of members. If I remember right, there was an ancient Chinese philosopher that said the best leaders know what the people are thinking. That always made sense to me and what better way to know what they are thinking than to listen to members who will talk candidly about their concerns.

.

[_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?

Nope. I'm saying that we all have unique experiences, each of them equally valid. I don't discount Harmony's experience and I don't discount your experience. The only time I've ever mingled with an authority on generality is when I was in the MTC. One of the counselors in the presiding bishopric visited our class and chatted. I thought that was pretty cool of him. I don't know why President Hinckley didn't spend some time with us. If I remember correctly, he was in Tucson to dedicate a statue or something and we were told he was really busy. It was kind of a let down after the weeks of anticipation.

My harmonyism was something of a joke.

I don't doubt your experience at all. I happen to know that President Hinckley was often very busy and also that he tended to be formal and reserved in some circumstances. Likewise, I happen to know that one of the other apostles -- a very, very powerful one whom I do not think I have a right to name in this context -- is painfully shy and often seeks a backdoor exit. (His calling must be, to that extent, something of an ordeal for him.)

But personalities differ. During the last six months of my mission, Elder Packer and Elder Hunter came through, separately. Each spent several hours with all the missionaries, mainly answering (occasionally rather dumb) questions. I was on the mission home staff during that period, and each also spent quite a bit of time with us, very openly and easily. Elder Hunter, in particular, regaled us with hilarious stories about General Authorities, past and present. Earlier, Elder Monson had come through. He too opened himself up to questions from all of the missionaries for a long time, and I would be surprised if he wasn't at least as friendly and open with the mission home staff as Elders Packer and Hunter. They all spoke to conferences of the Saints, and, both after and before the conferences, were mobbed by "rank and file" members of the Church.

At the very beginning of my mission, President Harold B. Lee dropped through, enroute home from visits to Israel and Greece seeking legal recognition there, in order to set apart a new president of the Swiss Temple. In connection with that, he spoke at the district headquarters adjacent to the temple in Zollikofen. I was shocked at how ill and tired he looked (he died only a few months later), but he made an effort (and it was obvious to me that it was an effort) to chat and shake hands with everybody who wanted to meet him. He probably spent at least an hour after his remarks, both inside the building and out in front, talking with very ordinary "rank and file" members of the Church.

These are only some of my experiences watching the Brethren. They are not consistent with harmony's summary negative judgment on these men.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If they were reading the letters, and actually considering what they say, we'd see changes. We'd see things like children able to marry civilly hours prior to being sealed in the temple, a simply change that would allow family members, young, old, member, nonmember, to witness the ceremony. We already do it in other countries; there's no doctrinal reason why the same cannot be done in the States, except stubbornness on the part of the Brethren. So... they may read the letters, but nothing changes. We've been stuck in this rut for at least 30 years, and nothing changes.

If the Brethren cared what the People think, the Brethren would implement Harmony's demands.

Vox harmoni, vox populi, et vox populi, vox Dei.