Duncan Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I found out our stake and maybe our ward is having a family move in, he has a PH.D., he's a former Mission President to Russia and he got some high falutent job here, like we have never had anyone like that before, we've had Doctorates and University people but a Mission President? wowee zowee!
Rain Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I think it's important to differentiate between "meeting" and fawning. There's a difference. Yes. Or a difference in fawning and gratitude. There is a famous youth speaker whose CDs made a difference to my children. One day I heard him speak and I felt compelled to go thank him. Funny, because I never liked the line up of people to shake hands with a speaker after a meeting and here I was. I felt a little embarrassed by it, but I felt I would be ungrateful by not ssying anything.The leaders of the church give answers to prayers when people are listening in conference etc. It is natural for people to want to meet them because of the gratitude or Spirit they felt when the talk was given.
Rain Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 You are right. the top 15 are appointed from a pool of mormon royalty families. Most of them are related to each other through several lines. Before anyone does a CFR, please read Michael Quinn's Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power. In this book he maps all the family lines and how all the top people are related. These family ties extend past the church hierarchy and extend into not only church owned businesses, but into all areas of Utah business.This idea always makes me laugh. I'm related to a couple of them and my grandma was the first member of the church on my dad's side and it was a great grandparent on mom's side. Definitely no pioneer stock in the family. Strangely, we always knew DH was related to one of them and he could tell how. Later we found out I was even more closely related. So it's no big deal to me that they are related to each other. 2
strappinglad Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 If it wasn't for Genghis Khan and Charlemagne , nobody would be related to anybody, or so I'm told. 2
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 A lot of people say this. Very few mean it.Humans are hard wired to recognize authority and it is difficult to disentangle ourselves from this tendency even when we dislike the authority.In the early 2000s I was at a joint celebration of JS in Nauvoo. I was surrounded by apostles from both LDS and CoC. A friend was carrying on a conversation with Russell Nelson. I addressed him by his first name and said he should do the same. I suggested we forgo trivial titles. I didn't even stop to talk to Gordon Hinckley. I just kept walking. It wasn't to be disrespectful but the fact was that I had nothing I wanted to say to him and he didn't make an impression on me. It would've been boring and awkward. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I also had an opportunity to shake George W. Bush's hand. I stared him in the eye, said no thanks to his face and walked away. The looks from others were comical.
rodheadlee Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 In the early 2000s I was at a joint celebration of JS in Nauvoo. I was surrounded by apostles from both LDS and CoC. A friend was carrying on a conversation with Russell Nelson. I addressed him by his first name and said he should do the same. I suggested we forgo trivial titles. I didn't even stop to talk to Gordon Hinckley. I just kept walking. It wasn't to be disrespectful but the fact was that I had nothing I wanted to say to him and he didn't make an impression on me. It would've been boring and awkward.Surprise, surprise, surprise! 1
Rain Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) In the early 2000s I was at a joint celebration of JS in Nauvoo. I was surrounded by apostles from both LDS and CoC. A friend was carrying on a conversation with Russell Nelson. I addressed him by his first name and said he should do the same. I suggested we forgo trivial titles.I also had an opportunity to shake George W. Bush's hand. I stared him in the eye, said no thanks to his face and walked away. The looks from others were comical.What you are talking about isn't leadership adoration. It is about basic courtesy or lack of it. Edited July 1, 2015 by Rain 1
Jeanne Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The miracle of forgiveness caused you disappointment? Seriously? What was it about learning of Christ amazing gift to us that was so disappointing?That I was better off dead than fighting for my virginity. 2
KevinG Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) You are right. the top 15 are appointed from a pool of mormon royalty families. Most of them are related to each other through several lines. Before anyone does a CFR, please read Michael Quinn's Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power. In this book he maps all the family lines and how all the top people are related. These family ties extend past the church hierarchy and extend into not only church owned businesses, but into all areas of Utah business. And now you see the benefit of plural marriage at the commencement of this dispensation. The same thing happens in any close society. I can show you the extensive connections between the old Atlanta families going back to Generals and Governors of the Confederacy. Edited July 1, 2015 by KevinG 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 What you are talking about isn't leadership adoration. It is about basic courtesy or lack of it.I prefer to be real. I don't adore or hold high regard for office. These are just people. No more, no less. I did nothing wrong in either situation. 2
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I am not sure what we would expect to develop. In Church, unlike this blog, you question something that a GA has said and you will nearly always either attract scowls, or some sermon about sustaining authorities in their callings. The thing is, and I don't mean this as a slur, our position on the Prophet and Apostles is slightly un-American. Americans tend to shy away from the idea that any living person because of the office they hold has a specific pipeline to God. This is despite the fact that many Americans can become very enamored with charismatic individuals and are quite willing to follow them straight off a cliff or drink their kool aid. I could be wrong on this as New England's very early history put ministers in a commanding position, but the Congregation had some say in their calling. We have the sustaining vote, which I believe has very little impression from the outside as having any significant say in who holds what office, but is more in the nature of a manner of reinforcing the idea that you should not "steady the ark". So I suspect that if outsiders say we adore or worship our GAs, on a strictly objective basis involving an observation of how we talk at Church and amongst each other, and our low tolerance of anything that smacks of a critical observation regarding a living GA or a relatively recently deceased GA -- they are probably more correct, than incorrect. With the exception of Joseph Smith, however, we seem to be developing an interesting phenomenon where the farther back in history a modern Prophet stands, the more acceptable it is to throw him under the bus. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Some call it leadership worship. I don't know worship works, even if sometimes the fawning goes so far that it feels like worship. I don't know that's ever anyone's intent.So this is interesting to me. The other day, in discussing with some ex-LDS friends one thing they mentioned as their most troubling aspect of the Church is this leadership adoration. They suggested leadership are men, humans, and though they try to be good, just like everyone else, they probably shouldn't be treated like they are in the church--with such fawning. I tend to agree.I wish we all, in the church, treated each other, even those out of the Church, as well as we treat the leadership. Respect is important for everyone. I wish I could look at everyone with the type of respect many in the Church look at the leaders.If we Mormons were better at treating everyone as we do the leadership. there'd be no distinction to be made in how we treat leaders. No one could reasonably claim we worship our leaders. I consider them first among equals. Their calling may be different than mine, but I bow to no mortal man.
Calm Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Some people are very sensitive about being called by their first name by strangers. It feels intrusive for them. I used to be this way, would probably still be this way in the situation you describe. That aspect imo has nothing to do with leadership or anything like that, but rather having empathy for others and being willing to pay attention to their cues on what they feel is comfortable for them rather than assuming whatever you want to do has total priority.
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I consider them first among equals. Their calling may be different than mine, but I bow to no mortal man.I think this is pretty much the American view, and it is often difficult for non members to observe this from what members do and say.
Rain Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) I prefer to be real. I don't adore or hold high regard for office. These are just people. No more, no less. I did nothing wrong in either situation.But you didn't treat them as "just people". You didn't ask what he preferred to be called (at least you didn't say you did). You told him what you were going to call him. It is not treating a leader as just another person. It is not giving "just a person" a choice to be called by what he prefers.I prefer to be called "Rain". When people call me "Sister Weather" I tell them to please call me "Rain". But if someone were to come up to me and tell me, "I don't believe in this brother/sister mr/mrs/ms stuff. I'm going to call you 'Rain'" then it would bother me that he is trying to take the choice away from me. Again, not a leadership thing. Edited July 2, 2015 by Rain
Rain Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Some people are very sensitive about being called by their first name by strangers. It feels intrusive for them. I used to be this way, would probably still be this way in the situation you describe.That aspect imo has nothing to do with leadership or anything like that, but rather having empathy for others and being willing to pay attention to their cues on what they feel is comfortable for them rather than assuming whatever you want to do has total priority.Reading this I have made an assumption. Because your name is slightly different on the two boards I've called you "Cal" instead of spelling out whichever version it was on the board we were currently on. I'm sorry. I'll do better next time.
Calm Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Cal is fine. They are my initials actually. I used to change my alias quite often for the fun of it. Most of the time it is a variation on Cal. My daughter has asked me not to use my given name and by now this is my name online so I am kind of stuck with it. Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah
Damien the Leper Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 But you didn't treat them as "just people". You didn't ask what he preferred to be called (at least you didn't say you did). You told him what you were going to call him. It is not treating a leader as just another person. It is not giving "just a person" a choice to be called by what he prefers.I prefer to be called "Rain". When people call me "Sister Weather" I tell them to please call me "Rain". But if someone were to come up to me and tell me, "I don't believe in this brother/sister mr/mrs/ms stuff. I'm going to call you 'Rain'" then it would bother me that he is trying to take the choice away from me. Again, not a leadership thing.He could have corrected me but appeared comfortable with my candor. No use speculating hypothetical.
KevinG Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 He could have corrected me but appeared comfortable with my candor. No use speculating hypothetical. At least one of you was being polite. When we first moved to the South a waitress called me "darling". My instinct was to look at my wife and give her the "I don't know this woman" stare. Soon I found out that most everyone in the deep South is very huggy, and call everyone darling, honey or sweetheart. It still freaks me out a bit, but I've found myself doing it after 20 years of immersion. The whole concept of what comprises worship, reverence, and respect is very culturally bound. If a GA got off a plane in New Jersey and was showered with flowers you might suspect something odd was afoot. At the same time it happens in Polynesia and no one bats and eye. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Some call it leadership worship. I don't know worship works, even if sometimes the fawning goes so far that it feels like worship. I don't know that's ever anyone's intent.So this is interesting to me. The other day, in discussing with some ex-LDS friends one thing they mentioned as their most troubling aspect of the Church is this leadership adoration. They suggested leadership are men, humans, and though they try to be good, just like everyone else, they probably shouldn't be treated like they are in the church--with such fawning. I tend to agree.I wish we all, in the church, treated each other, even those out of the Church, as well as we treat the leadership. Respect is important for everyone. I wish I could look at everyone with the type of respect many in the Church look at the leaders.If we Mormons were better at treating everyone as we do the leadership. there'd be no distinction to be made in how we treat leaders. No one could reasonably claim we worship our leaders.It's probably a bit of both, worship and adoration. its weird.
Recommended Posts