“In Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat denotes the transitional socialist State between the capitalist class society and the classless communist society. During the transition, the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] thus the term refers to the Classical Roman dictatura concept — republican and constitutional — whereby the proletarian government would replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”.”

I’m sorry that you didn’t understand the reference and felt the need to make your remarks. Sometimes it’s best to educate yourself before seeking to educate others.

Lower-echelon Mormon leaders do often tend to come from economic elites — doctors, lawyers (accounting for my last 3 stake presidents) & merchant chiefs. Don’t know much about the breakdown of the Quorums of the Seventy, but suspect they’re similar.

But as for the Twelve, they do seem to come from less wealthy backgrounds. I wonder if that comes from that small, select caste being groomed from an early age for leadership, with the result that they are less likely to rise to the upper echelons of business or the professions.

In reality, they are past the point where they have much personal, one-on-one impact in the lives of real members. They don’t even want to get letter directly but want us to address it through our local leaders. So once you get past essentially a bishop in the hierarchy, you are basically just an administrator or a bureaucrat in many ways. Therefore, people who get promoted to those areas generally have 2 main characteristics:

1) Don’t rock the boat: The days of someone like J Golden Kimball or similar being promoted in the Church are long gone. Loyalty is valued above all. You have to be willing to bury your own personal opinion for the opinion of someone above you in the hierarchy for the sake of the organization.

2) Corporate mentality: This is somewhat related to #1, but you have to be someone who thrives on policies and handbooks and organizational charts. You have to be adept at handling “office politics”. For an excellent discussion on this, read the section in McKay’s biography on what went on for years behind the scenes just in order to get to the point where the revelation on blacks and the priesthood was even possible.

Given these 2 characteristics, it becomes more apparent why “successful” people from a worldly sense also get promoted up the “ladder” in the Church. Wealth probably isn’t the primary causal factor (ie. wealth = promotion), but both wealth and promotion likely come from someone who is good at AND is willing to “play the game”. Someone successful at managing people in the workplace is probably going to also be successful in managing people in the Church. Someone who isn’t quite as skillful at managing people in the workplace, or someone who doesn’t really care for all of that anyways, probably isn’t going to be successful in the hierarchy.

All that being said, I don’t really see why it’s that big of a deal. Perhaps it’s because I live in Salt Lake, but I don’t equate hierarchal position with spirituality. I have seen too many “highly ranked” leaders be absolute crooks when it comes to business. I think at the end of the day, the truly concerned YW advisor who helps a single girl become closer to God is going to do much better than someone in the “Upper echelon”.

And I certainly wouldn’t want to be there myself.

Lots of wealthy people are not promoted. My first mission president was a BYU professor, very modest means, the second was the executive vice president for Marriott Corporation. The BYU prof ended up going further, so to speak, than the multi-millionaire.

However, it is true that the lack of representation of the poor in leadership positions–major leadership positions to the extent you are talking positions that involve significant executive work, very few poor people have that kind of experience. But Robert Oaks, for example, walked away from wealth as a Stake President (he retired from the military, moved for a job where he could expect to make some real money, got called as a Stake President, decided that the calling needed him full time and resigned from his job, to live off his military retirement). Dallin Oaks did not make that much money as an academic or serving on the Utah Supreme Court. (We had Robert Oaks in a branch with us, I took a class from Dallin Oaks). Gordon B. Hinckley was not wealthy, very much working class in income and wealth. I don’t know about Thomas S. Monson.

I remember driving by Spencer W. Kimball’s house, it was modest, I think it was plaster and around a small three bedroom in size.

Jeffrey R. Holland has had a career as a an academic. Not a great path to wealth.

Airline pilots are solidly middle class in Europe.

Marvin J. Ashton was not wealthy.

Hmm. Lots I don’t know about. deJager’s kids were humble, if he had money, they were not getting to spend it, though he had a successful business career, it was on the European side, where the executives at his level did not make a significant multiple of the workers.

“The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” — that is a matter of having a named entity to hold property, issue checks and solve a number of transmission issues. It is an artifact of trust law and anti-catholic legislation in many states. I do not see it as having deeper significance.

David Allan Bednar is also an academic.

Well, I’m off to bed, but that offers some perspective.

Ursula le Guin used anarchism as the basis for one her her novels, “The Dispossessed”. For a long time after reading it it was common for my kids to caution each other about being propertarian.

Sorry to be long winded. It was a popular movement during the 17 and 1800s and spoke to the working class’s desire to take control of their lives. What you see now days is a bunch of snot nose kids trashing Starbucks in the name of freedom.

Deep brathe so GBSmith won’t be offended. Remember, we all must take a breath so this doesn’t become name calling.

I thought I’d offer a little dictionary to help decipher GBSmith’s previous post.

Dictatorship: autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual
Proletariat: the entire lower social class
Anarchism: chaos and/or disorder or absence of a political state
Cooperative: getting along in an attitude absent of chaos and disorder
Religious Moral Framework: (I’m assuming that you are referring to the early theocracy of the Mormon church) Political state, not absence of a political state, but a religious and moral political state

I noticed the intitials too, GB. Only if I was a conspiracy theorist would I want to say that two people with the same initials who also make weird nonsensical word choices relating to political ideaologies were in fact the same person or had at least earned the privilege of being mentioned in the same breath.

My premise was that wealthy people are promoted. Period. I gave a small list of examples. If that’s flawed, okay. But I cited more solid evidence than you were able to cite.

“…anarchism where people work cooperatively…” Huh? You lost me. Anarchy is the polar opposite of cooperation.

I think my posts have been rather conciliatory based on the vehemence with which I was misquoted, misunderstood and accused, quite frankly. But that’s me. I am trying to bridge the gap of understanding. I expected a little more from readers of Mormon Matters. I expected an acknowledgment of the lack of representation of the poor in leadership positions–major leadership positions. Instead, inconsequential things in my comments were focused on, taken out of context and personalized.

Finally, consider the Name That Shall Not Be Named (although your initials ARE quite suspect…) stricken from my vocabulary and never again shall I state said name within the breath of yours.

Peace

As far as communism and the united order goes communism is supposed to morph through a dictatorship of the proletariat with centralized planning and control until the state can “wither away”. The united order is more like anarchism where people work cooperatively for the benefit of the group, much like the cooperative efforts in Brigham City but within a religious/moral framework.

As for name calling I promise not to do it again if you agree not to mention my name in the same breath with Glen Beck.

Lastly, Ulysseus, I didn’t feel I was being reproved by someone that was moved by the spirit and afterwards shown forth an increase in love. I saw it as an angry outburst by someone with issues about the LDS church. And as someone who’s been there, done that, and bought the T shirt it just seemed all too familiar.

You must read Homer.

Read any Joyce?

Adam, I didn’t find this blog through you, so you don’t have to repent. And if you de-friend me on FaceBook, I’d be surprised. You have a mind that’s a little more broad than most.

As for the “poor” of the Church I was advocating for them, not disparaging them. My point was that the Church chooses it’s leadership based, in part, by their pocketbooks. THAT, friends, was my one and only point. All other points were conflated and misconstrued. No one doubts there are many good, poor members in your Church. And you’re right, kuri, those jobs are probably more important than a GA position. I know being a visiting teacher or YW adviser can be the most influential callings of them all in people’s personal lives.

Again, at the risk of belaboring the point, no disparagement was meant toward the poor of your Church. Only the criticism of the LACK of poor representation among the upper echelons.

I see I will have to step lightly on these threads. I believe Elder Ballard warned members to avoid being defensive in recent conference remarks. I think he gave some very sound advice that everyone can agree upon.

It seems so appropriate that you call my argument on your alleged patriarchal bluster as “hogwash” when I said as much myself– but I also had called your argument hogwash, although I believe my words, if I may quote myself, were “deeply flawed.” And you just did it again. This is cafeteria feasting at its most finite and internet blogging refined, selecting portions of posts and totally missing the thread of the argument. I was attempting to stop the pissing contest by actually looking at what was being said in totality and it was you who brought us back to the urinal.

From what I read JulieAnn was speaking passionately about how she felt on the entree of religious heirarchy of the wealthy and its fundamental conflict with the wine of Christian charity to continue the poetic metaphor.

One particularly delicious morsel from the cafetria of Mormonism is D&C 121:43. JulieAnn illustrated this scripture perfectly in how she has dealt with you in this comment thread, although you will have to make the concession that her initial outburst of reprovement with sharpness came from the Holy Ghost. After the disagreement sprouted up, she showed an increase of love by apologizing for misunderstandings, asking for peace and a safe place to discuss and dissent, lest you be deemed as her enemy. Classic Momonism done by the self-professed heathen, simply lovely. Maybe you should worry less about how she disagrees with you and more about what she might teach you about your own beliefs.

I must address the issue of the poor. In my opinion, JulieAnn’s viewpoint was the only one so far that has been compassionate, concerned and focused on treating the poor with the respect they deserve. By stating the poor are under represented in leadership positions, she was asking why more people weren’t chowing down on the brussel sprouts (United Order) and brocolli (Law of Consecration) of Mormonism.

And GBSmith #36 and #39 — My initial reaction was “How do I know that GBSmith is not Ray?” Come on, if misquoting and diversion are Ray’s modus operandi, then GBSmith’s is name calling and emulating talk radio ditto-heads.

Communism and the United Order have much more in common than the United Order and Capitalism.

D&C 42:30 and 32 [T]hou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them. . . . that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

Karl Marx: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property” and this gem that I think he stole from Joseph Smith or God depending on how you view Joseph’s revelatory abilities: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

Wing-nut? No, just surveying the buffet of contradiction that is contemporary Mormonism.

That said, I’m not quite sure what to make of such disparagement of lower level callings. That’s where, IMO, the true “Christian service” in the church takes place. In general, I’d therefore say that those positions and the work performed through them are far more valuable than the work done by General Authorities.

It’s pretty diabolical.

Ulysseus =/ Odysseus

adamf, I thought you were one of those guys who defriended people for not being LDS and making them weep, in duplicate?

(1) why are some people so darned concerned about whether other people are cafeteria Mormons (especially in light of Christ’s teachings to “judge not” and to worry about the beams in our own eyes rather than the motes in others’ eyes); and (2) why do self-described cafeteria Mormons even care whether other Mormons approve or disapprove of their choices? Worrying about this sort of social disapproval seems to display a lack of spiritual independence and personal conviction in the path one has chosen to take.

I know, I’m responding to comments out of order, but they sure grabbed me in that order, so to speak.

Ray, I apologize. She and I are facebook chums now and she found the blog through me. You have to get a feel for her style and see through all the vinegar.

I am bowing out of this pissing contest and accusation fest, since it’s not going anywhere and I really don’t like this kind of verbal one-upmanship that doesn’t reflect reality in any way. Call it what you will, but it’s just not worth it.

I simply will repeat what I’ve said previously:

All I have to evaluate are the words on the screen. I know nothing about you but the bitterness and extreme stereotyping of your words. I didn’t take anything out of context; I quoted the entire context of each statement and simply parsed the actual meaning of the words. Discredit my response any way you want to do so, both you and Ulysseus. Just realize you are doing so by twisting your own words that I simply quoted.

As you said, “Peace.” I truly do wish it for you, but I won’t stand silent while you disparage the poor who serve in the LDS Church.

As to the cafeteria Mormons who have replied to me directly, I can only say that your replies are very supportive of the fact that people simply choose to gather evidence to support what they believe. Not much room for growth here, folks.

Sincerely,

JA “Wing-Nut”

PS: Look up the definition of communism. It isn’t a bad thing, just an ideal emulated by the early Church. But I suppose you and Glenn Beck see Communism as the same thing.

Sounds like hurt and anger to me.

“Speaking of, why would you assume I am not a woman? Know many male JulieAnns, do you? Or is it possible that a person of strong opinion can only be male in your world?”

I don’t even know if your name is JulieAnn, why would I assume you’re a woman. And FWIW my world is made up almost entirely of women, all of whom have strong opinions and none are the least threatening.

“I think relying on logic and fact is an interesting idea coming from a professed member who has been taught to obey solely on faith.”

Professed member? Member of the LDS church, how about episcopalian, or maybe just a burned out agnostic pew occupier. You never know. As far as the obey comment are we talking the Ten Commandments, loving your neighbor, believing in faith and repentance or is it something more sinister like the atonement.

“In the process of winnowing, I can only assume from these facts and your statement that poor LDS folks do not perform well in their callings, thus only the rich are capable enough to have them.”

Actually there’s as good a chance that the men you named beat out richer but less well qualified persons. Or there have been those that were less well off that weren’t as capable. That doesn’t show up on lds.org but if it suits you to believe otherwise, be my guest.

Lastly as regards communism and the united order, yes you are a wingnut.

You’ve really no idea if I nurture hurt or anger and after perusing my written words, the only emotion I glean from them is slight indignation. If you want to redress that as hurt and anger, be my guest, but it’s still an assumption. Speaking of, why would you assume I am not a woman? Know many male JulieAnns, do you? Or is it possible that a person of strong opinion can only be male in your world?

I think relying on logic and fact is an interesting idea coming from a professed member who has been taught to obey solely on faith. But since you seem to think you are correct in your facts, (facts which suspiciously resemble your opinion, allow me to share some recent facts from this year.

Here are some recent callings extended to the many blue-collared lay people you so vehemently assert get the same chances as the wealthy. And these are relatively humble callings; 2nd Quorum of the 70, Sunday School General Presidency etc.

“Elder Craig C. Christensen, 46…. A Utah native, he attended Brigham Young University (BYU), graduating with a degree in accounting and economics. He later earned an MBA from the University of Washington. He has worked as a business executive and is currently self-employed, overseeing his own real estate development and auto dealership businesses…”.

“Elder James M. Dunn, 62,…Born in Pocatello, Idaho, he attended BYU, graduating with a degree in Latin American Studies. He later earned a law degree from the University of Utah. Early in his legal career he worked as a deputy county attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney. Now retired, he was a founding partner in the law firm of Jardine, Linebaugh & Dunn….”.

“Elder Daryl H. Garn, 63…. Born in Tremonton, Utah, he and his family now live in Mesa, Arizona. An orthodontist by profession…”.

“Elder D. Rex Gerratt, 66… served as an Area Authority Seventy for the Idaho Area before his call to the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Born in Heyburn Idaho, he and his family now reside in Burley. He attended USU and makes his living as a dairy farmer. He has been inducted into the Idaho Dairy Hall of Fame and the Southern Idaho Livestock Hall of Fame, and in1994 he was recognized as Conservation Farmer of the Year…” (I admit, I was pleasantly surprised to see a dairy farmer until I noticed that he is THE dairy farmer of all dairy farmers.).

“Elder Spencer V. Jones,…. he attended BYU where he earned a degree in animal science. A long-time resident of Orem, Utah, and a businessman by profession, Elder Jones has been involved in a variety of businesses including a furniture company, a cattle company and a mobile home park.”

“Elder Andersen …was serving as the senior member of the Presidency of the Seventy prior to his calling to the Quorum of the Twelve….He graduated from Brigham Young University, where he was a Hinckley Scholar, and earned a masters of business administration from Harvard University. After completing his education, he settled in Tampa, Florida, where his business interests included advertising, real estate development and health care.”

I gathered this information on lds.org.

Facts are not difficult to check, GB. In the process of winnowing, I can only assume from these facts and your statement that poor LDS folks do not perform well in their callings, thus only the rich are capable enough to have them. Would that be a fair assessment of your beliefs?

Love,

Websters Dictionary