Do Mormons have a pecking order of genetic association? Is the male last name more powerful than the female blood?
What is your top 5? I don't have a top 5 yet, but would like to hear yours. Will share mine soon. Is Young more impressive than Smith? What about Phelps, Smoot, Tingey, Snow, Cannon, Flake? What is the Mormon pecking order. Ancient. Modern?
I do have blood to Kirtland and I have blood to the highest levels of leadership. In a culture of authority what is the most elite?
Interesting? Then play.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2015 08:02PM by gentlestrength.
This has bugged me within the last few years. When I realized that all the top authority was basically promoted through nepotism I smelled something fishy.
I know Pratt was big in the start of the religion, but can't recall seeing the name past 1900. Could have missed it, but just don't recall seeing it for over 100 years. Was it big in Utah somewhere?
My father worked for the Morg for many, many years and was pretty high in management, and was asked constantly if he was related to a GA who had the same last name, which he was not. Also, he said the GBH was the biggest horse's a$$ that ever lived.
There has to be some Hansen, jensen, and browns in the mix. They've been in every ward i've ever lived in. They seem to be related to everyone.
Thatcher and Sorenson are also a mormon names.In fact, i've had mormon dentists with all of these last names. Everyone of them had been a bishop at one time or another.
I always thought it was odd that mormons seldom if ever named their kids Joseph. In 50 years i've never met a mormon named joseph smith.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2015 11:51AM by madalice.
That's too funny. I worked with a guy in our Phoenix office with the name of "Joseph Smith." No kidding! And no, he was not mormon, but maybe he once was. Don't know.
I'm wondering, though, if there is any way to gauge the unseen favoritism - not just the seen leadership, but the unseen favors and moneys passed to private construction firms, financial investment firms, legal firms, etc. I suspect that if the truth of that favoritism came out, it would be staggering.
Meanwhile, most of the church limps along on the backs of the middle management - those idealist workhorses who believe, sacrifice, and pay out the nose.
I think these family relations form the real core of Mormonism about which nothing is said, but which is simply accepted by those in power.
Don't forget Hinkley. You could probably put together a chart based just on names of GAs of the past 100 years and map out the web of interconnections. It is a dense web that most members, at least outside of Utah, are unaware of. And this is also what we behind the adoption of adult males and having them sealed to higher status males. One such example was John D. Lee, of MMM infamy, who was adopted by BY.
I would also add Partridge to the list of Mormon royal families, at least they were treated that way in my area, to the point where the boys were among the most arrogant people I've ever met. They really were related to that Partridge who was tarred and feathered with Joe, and whose sisters were in his harem of wives.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2015 09:17PM by adoylelb.
Traditionally, it was the English converts and those who came from Nauvoo that have held church positions. The poor Danes were treated like red-headed step-children, and only brought to Utah to increase the numbers and use them for their labor skills. Even in central Utah towns, the Scandinavians took second place if there were English immigrants in the community.
Sad but true. I think it's a greater American problem though. Look at the east, the south is composed largely of scotch-Irish whereas New-England consists of the Kings English. Scotch-Irish have always been looked down upon for being rednecks and all and reluctant to taking abuse from the King's tribe. This has been going on since like before 1200? and is still the politics of England and America today.
If I were to do a list I think I would use a weighted system.
Assigning the most value to names based on range of influence, cross-generational influence, dependence on Church for money, political presence, and ability to bring their descendants into positions of power.
Some of the names given appear to have had a lot of influence at one time, but no sign of them in the Big 15 for a long time. Others on the rise, recently.
Such a project would also address if the appearance of a culture that is predating on the many for the needs of a few is real or assumed incorrectly.
I have been far enough removed to not have the same sense that others might have, but apart from Smith in 1970's, I can't think of a prophet that had a prophet as a direct relative. There may be some with female bloodlines and certainly Spencer W. Kimball counts as an elite family name.
I look at the 15 and don't rind a Smith or a Young, but I do see a lot of men with a lot in common including passing through Church-owned properties as executives, CES, or having a law degree. Very corporate. On the face there seems to be less promoting within family and more corporatism, securing the central assets with reliable corporate dogs.
These are interesting to me, because although I cannot prove the polygamist power in Utah it seems to exist because of their ability to do business freely in Utah. Someone is profiting off of that relationship, so they are powerful for sure, but the people they are paying are even more powerful.
I don't know of examples of MLM money that has bless into Church leadership, but that would be interesting to know. That might be more of a pay-to-play group, rather than actual authority. The humble Church leader offering up his sheep to the wolves of MLMs, for a small fee.
Don't forget the upper-echelon all live on a church "stipend" that is paid from donated funds. No one knows (well no one is willing to tell) how much that is. BKP was a school teacher and lives in a VERY exclusive neighborhood in a VERY expensive area. I know many retired school teachers and they don't live by BKP.
I am aware of his story and know he started as CES. I think most former Mormons see the wealth of being an LDS church leader.
This question is about how he achieved that position. Was it through merit or relation? If merit, can he leverage his power and transition it beyond just money and his eventual death.
Although not valuable to the general community, being a CES employee is work that justifies compensation from the LDS church. The run of the mill CES employee is not getting wealthy, although some data points from the Canada tax filings, might suggest competitive executive-level pay systems at the highest levels.
Families, spouses, children, extended relatives and in-laws. Neighbors. Deep-pocket political donors. Contractors & vendors. Associated sycophants of varying degrees of closeness. Universities (especially Haaaahvaaahd). Select high-power "non-profits" (Ha!).
Elected offices, judgeships, appointments to boards, commissions, agencies, bureaus. Probation officers. Cops, firemen, Postal Service. Internships. Neighborhood ("ward") political operators and higher campaign managers.
"What can YOU do for me, dear friend?"
Somebody should do a degrees-of-influence chart for such social/familial/financial/religious/political interconnections. It would probably require quite a few colors and varying dotted & dashed lines to diagram out.
I have a cousin who is the 2nd ggson of an apostle, but he has a different last name and I've never heard it mentioned who he is descended from. I only know because I knew his brother. He was a 70.
Two more cousins who were descendants of a guy who was kicked out of the church by BY. The were 70s I think, and one of them, a former BYU pres, was in the running for apostle a while back.
And don't forget that Kimball's wife was Camilla Eyring.
You'd need to do a pedigree chart for every one of them to see who is really related to whom. I suspect there are others from my family--I just don't have time to run them down now.
A good sign of a privileged family would be someone in a position of responsibility that is clearly incompetent or a business that is given an opportunity that receives the opportunity without competing or with a contract that requires behavior that serves a family or an individual more than the business/church interest.