So I was listening to this Mormon stories podcast and thinking about Abby Huntsman and comparing her to some of the children of prominent Utah families in the past.

She was from the wealthiest family in Utah, G-grandfather was an apostle, grandfather a billionaire, father the governor, she has 70 first cousins. no diversity. Quite a romantic Mormon upbringing! Couldn't find a Mormon boy quite good enough and fell in love with a no-mo and married outside the church.

I recall Brigham Young preaching to build up the "old ship Zion", tame the wilderness. Immigrate to Utah. Attend Mormon schools, where teachers had no qualifications except a testimonies. And at the same time he sent his own children to the east for "real educations." The same is true in the Cannon family. Frank was excused from a mission, polygamy, and instead had a mission to go politicking in Washington. George Albert Smith (and a few other Smiths who were well connected with money etc) were excused from missions under the impression that not all young men needed to go? (Monson and Eyring as well). J Reuban Clark never went to church until he was called as an apostle in the 1930's, if I recall correctly.

All these men, and many others, seem to be well connected to Mormon Exaltation, But if a rank and file member were to live as they lived would they be as honored and held in as high of esteem by the bretheren?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1894955

Well, the elite in Washington, D.C. talk about improving crappy public schools, while sending their own kids to the exclusive fancy-pants private schools. Same with communist politburo mucky mucks.

The elite is the elite...and the rest of us are the rest of us.

Good point it was a certain presidents daughter who said she hoped every American will be able to have as good of education as she enjoyed while she was in Washington. I don't hear about many of the senators children and grandchildren signing up for boot camp to go fight in the middle east.

Didn't Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, the last presidents child to go to public school?

To me Jimmy Carter was a pretty good president, honest and trying to do the best for the country. His biggest road block was he came in as an outsider and the entrenched congress and politicians didn't want him to rock the boat, so they destroyed him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2016 11:58AM by tumwater.

the socialist left do the same in the UK - the champagne socialists accept titles (Sir, lord, or baroness, etc) and they pay for their children to attend selective schools but prevent 'ordinary children' from having the same opportunity that these rather rich faux communists have.

then they have the cheek to say 'in no way am I an hypocrite'.




"all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
george orwell

it describes the mormon hierarchy too.

There are some excellent public schools.

As a teacher, sometimes I think the *main* thing you are paying for with private schools is that you are putting your children into a situation where they are with other children of interested/involved parents. That is why charter schools often work. The parents are interested and involved enough to shop for the best available school.

It also helps if parents highly value education. With children of the upper middle class this is most often the case. They talk to their kids, they read with them, they help them with their homework. They take their children to art and science museums. They clearly communicate every day that school is important. They put their kids into schools (public or private) with the children of parents with similar values. That is why the kids are high performing. It's no secret.

And yes, there are certain charter schools which cater to low-income kids such as KIPP which are successful. KIPP requires heavy parent involvement. It doesn't let parents skate by.

Another thing about private schools is that the tuition money is used to benefit the students. There is no place else for it to go. Too much money in the public schools is used to pay for a bloated administration and who knows what else. Not enough of it reaches the classrooms.

Public schools are also overly concerned about test scores. Everything is oriented to the goal of raising test scores. Private schools instead focus on educating the students.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2016 11:21AM by summer.

When you're working shoulder to shoulder with the SP's wife, cleaning urinals, you'll learn to respect how egalitarian the church really is.

In my independent Baptist church, we rotate various church cleaning assignments around a bunch of volunteers. I'm retired, so I'm usually in every other week. The interesting thing, relative to the Old Cur's insight, as that one lady is a bit of a germophobe and does a very thorough job on the bathrooms--and she's a full professor of chemistry at a major university!

Regarding other remarks about the elite:

"The rich are different from you and me." --F.Scott Fitzgerald
"Yes, they have money." --Ernest Hemingway

There aren't any Mormon "royals" in my book, when they're all running the same racket.

I'm not even sure that term would apply to today's Mormon hierarchy.

Some/many of the apostles did/do rise through the ranks of the lay membership. In fact they all did at some point.

With the dwindling numbers as people are leaving faster than new members are joining, the concept of a Mormon "elite" is as subjective as the shaky foundation the church is built on.

For me, I see the church hierarchy as a pyramid scheme since its inception. The money flows up, and the sheeple at the bottom are supporting them in that lifestyle through forced volunteerism ie, tithes/offerings/donated hours and lives to church service needed to support the old lechers.

Mormon royalty? I think not. More like pompous, self-exalted self-worshiping God makers. Being legends in their own minds is another sign of their delusion.

After all the idol worship of Joseph Smith and the "prophets" that followed in his stead, I loathe that idea of anything to do with Mormon royalty. They are neither prophets, seers, or royalty. For people who worship them is no different to me than pagan worship or idolatry.

The royals are alive and going strong.

I see a royal as someone who has:
1) a recognizable name, that get's them instant recognition. Like the late Eldridge Smith, He use to be able to sit on the stand anywhere he went, just because he was related to someone special.
2) They have to have money, usually old money, somehow tied to pioneer Utah when all the natural resources and wealth were divied up.
3) They have connections to the COB. They can walk right in and when the need arises they can get personnel loans/gifts from Mormon Bankers.
4) They also on a whim get their resumes put on the top of the stack when they want a white collar jobs or church contract with the COB.
5) They marry young and to those with upward mobility like the Romneys, Huntsmans, the Smiths (and all their relatives), and others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2016 08:33PM by poopstone.

But they are NOT ROYALTY!

That's just a gross misrepresentation of who these people are; what they stand for; and what they represent.

There isn't anything "royal" about them! Seriously.

Why give them a status or title that isn't even a REAL one?

If they have position and title in the "status quo" of the Mormon hierarchy or society, then deal with that.

Calling them "royalty" ascribes a status they really haven't earned and aren't entitled to, except in YOUR EYES. It's a faulty perception, in other words.

Mitt Romney *isn't* Mormon royalty. Mormon prophets are false prophets and running a profiteering scam and racket, as do their apostles and the GA that gets paid big bucks to serve their self-interests. But they are not royalty.

I don't get the title thing at all. The "royalty" in American society is typically associated with Hollywood and political families who create dynasties. Like Henry Fonda did (think Peter and Jane.) Or the Kennedy family. Mitt Romney may come closer than some in the GA by virtue of his family being a political dynasty, moreso than his being LDS. Guess his being LDS makes him a "twofer" but it also cost him because of his beliefs in a cult religion.

Not effing Mormons! They weren't "royalty" to me when I was a Mormon. And they sure as hell aren't now. They belong to a CULT for gosh sakes. A CULT. That makes them effing delusional. I don't give credence to anything that smacks of their delusion.

As for your OP, I don't mean to detract from your premise that the upper echelon do have different rules for themselves than the rank and file. To me they will NEVER be ROYALTY. Oh golly no! They can kiss my ass.

I believe that the phrase 'mormon royalty' is used by exmos to express the status enjoyed by certain old line within mormonism.

Exmos share your opinion about their lack of Real World status, but that's not the same as comprehending that mormons DO treat them as royalty.

Also, calm down!

I'm very calm.

Speak for yourself.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm very calm.
>
> Speak for yourself.

There are people in Great Britain who claim there is nothing special about their "royalty." There term is only what a person makes of it, and is as genuine or as unreal as a person wants it to be. It can even be construed to be an epithet.

scmd Wrote:

> There are people in Great Britain who claim there
> is nothing special about their "royalty." There
> term is only what a person makes of it, and is as
> genuine or as unreal as a person wants it to be.
> It can even be construed to be an epithet.

They're royal pains in the butt too. They are Britain's headache, not ours.

As for Mormon "Royalty," I never once heard that term or phrase used before visiting RfM.

As ex-Mormons I don't see the point in giving Mormons any more honor or title than they're due. Certainly not the title of royalty. They're a royal den of thieves if you really want to know.

The higher they climb up the pedestal, is more proof of their mania and obsession with the fixings of Mormon worldliness. But they were never royalty in either a regal sense of the word, or a royal sense of overseeing a kingdom that maintains royalty, such as Great Britain does.

To confuse a title of church position or a family of high ranking church officials as "royalty" just adds to elevating them instead of keeping them in check. Because in fact, they have absolutely zilch power over us, if they ever did. We don't bow to them, curtsy to them, or pay taxes to them, nor call them their royal highnesses.

Why give them an honor or title they've neither earned or been awarded? It's misplaced adulation, including from an ex-Mormon perspective. Phony and disingenuous at best.

To call any Mormons "Mormon royalty," is a misnomer, and mischaracterization of who they really are.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2016 11:03AM by Amyjo.

They don't live under different expectations. They live under different laws. See Ed Smart

Day, boarding, or both? Schools where college preparatory courses, with available AP classes, where high school kids are groomed for selective, competitive colleges?

I expect the usual swipes at BYU. Are there high school tracks that aim Mormon kids towards Stanford, Michigan, the Ivies, MIT?

The schools on the "east side" and into Alpine school district are for the well connected. They have lots of AP classes. and have after school programs aimed at getting kids ready for the ACT test. But all the public schools aim at getting kids ready for State Colleges, as far as I know.

Last I checked the best school in Mormon Utah (according to the "sage test" mathematics stats) is Mountain Crest High (Hyrum, Mendon, Providence). They are the feeder school for USU, where all the gentrified suburban farmers live. Ogden high and West High was pretty dismal as was many other urban schools where minorities are.

But USU still ain't Cal Tech.

Although I was just thinking my kids got a really good education at Mountain Crest. The best school around here is Millville Elementary and they went there. I loved the teachers for the most part and the principal. My kids had Scott Carles (who is over mormonthink.com now I believe) for 4th and 5th grade. He was an excellent teacher and in their lives at a time they really needed him.

I can't complain about the education my kids got. My daughter did really well in college. I know my son would, too, if he chooses to ever go.

Now the middle school they went to was another story. I was just glad to get them through it.

Oh, and, yes, those in higher places in mormonism live different. Just find some of Steve Benson's old posts. There is a list somewhere on this web site about "mormon royalty." When I talk of mormon royalty, I don't think in terms of royal. I think in terms of it being a negative, just like many people think apostate is a negative term. I love calling myself apostate.

(High on cold medicine so don't mind the errors.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2016 11:02PM by cl2.

Only ever met one. Eldon Tanner. Kind of a shirt tail relative through marriage to my dad. Got no special vibe off the man. His family sure thought his shit didn't stink though.

RB

The same could said of those running our nation. While we deal with Common Core etc..they don't have to deal with it!!

Oh, please tell us all about your extensive experience with Common Core. You dislike it so much, you must have some awful stories about being in those terrible Common Core classrooms, right?

We're waiting.

You got a mouse in yer pocket?

We can let him speak for himself… any reason not to?

While we're waiting for him to answer the previous question, I can certainly answer yours. (See? I'm no hypocrite. No double standard here.)

The only mouse near me is on the mouse pad where it belongs. My car keys are in my pocket, so I don't need Elohim for anything (to bring it back on topic).

I was trying to imply to you that either you are royal (the royal we) or that you were possibly incorrect about others having any interest in an answer to your pleasant phrased question regarding Common Core. I have the very vaguest notion that it has something to do with public education, a topic that is both tedious and alarming.

You are obviously someone with an axe to grind against Common Core, which seems to me to be a futile endeavor; none of us peons has the ability to change this or any other program foisted on its 'victims'.

I am a fan of laughter. And survival. and yes, I can yak it up with the best of them!

I'm afraid you have it backwards, sir. I have nothing against CC. It's Anon 2 that has the axe to grind, as he rags on it when the opportunity arises. (Feel free to do a search.) Since CC was developed only 6-7 years ago, and Anon 2 is 40+, he's never been personally affected by it. I was merely asking him for the basis of his obvious animus.

In any event, I have no expectation that he'll actually provide any kind of answer. But I do estimate a 55% chance that this post will be deleted.

I'm a public school teacher. As far as I am concerned, Anonymous2 can hate Common Core on my behalf. At a recent teacher training, we were asked, in all seriousness, "If it's not in Common Core, why are you teaching it?" Oh I don't know, maybe because it's interesting, valuable, and worthwhile?

We're noticing that kids, even young kids, are starting to hate school.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2016 01:56AM by summer.

I absolutely agree as well. Common core is one step further into creating a society of mediocre performance. We are developing into a society that doesn't encourage different levels of ability. If a kid is advanced he is held back. If a kid (and there are many) is not ready to learn she is forced to learn. Because we just have "no child left behind" The whole notion of making everyone "discover" the same thing instead of lecturing is ridiculous as well. It plainly doesn't work. The well connected parents will figure out a way to get around the system.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2016 05:19AM by poopstone.

So far, I'm having a pleasant experience with CC. My child is in grade 2, so I haven't dealt with all the testing yet. However, math is really good at teaching why you got the answer and not just memorizing.

hausfrau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So far, I'm having a pleasant experience with CC.
> My child is in grade 2, so I haven't dealt with
> all the testing yet. However, math is really good
> at teaching why you got the answer and not just
> memorizing.

The idea of teaching multiple methods of arriving at answers and of conceptualizing how an answer is reached is not new or unique to common core.

It really doesn't matter the group of people in most cultures in society today they all will form a hierarchy. Mormonism is no different. The only thing that makes them "royal" is people thinking they are. It stupid. It's the realm of the sheep-ape to think people are somehow special without thinking about what is coming out of their mouths, and applying sound logic to their ideas. Our society is stricken with this idiotic notion of hero worship being they think the elite are on their side politically when in reality they don't give two effs about the common folks.

I like how you guys touched on education. That is an important part of the mix. Common core should be called "Commoners Core". Our whole education system is modeled after the Prussia education system which was designed to make a non-thinking moldable work force. You are told what to think, but not how think. Thus, a scarcity of people with real critical thinking skills are let into society. Too many thinkers upset the power structure and pose a risk to its support. The classical education system was used for a couple millennia before the industrial revolution which forced the need to have the population able to read and write. Makes one wonder why throw out the system that produced the great thinkers for the system which produced a population what would go with Hitler? Then look at our current state of politics, economy, and general public's understanding in the world they live in.

The net result is what is called the psychological condition called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Too stupid to know your stupid. A catch 22 of stupid. It's been this way for at least a couple thousand years with small windows of enlightenment. The elite have been able to sustain wealth, by their position and a deeper understanding of the world. Without rational thinking skills people always run away from what seems bad, run towards good, and are always looking for authority to save them. Even though authority probably caused the problems in the first place, and driving them to bidding by fear or by manipulation. This is why the church or the government doesn't like to be transparent. We'd figure out how little of what they offer we really need, and the ivory tower would crumble.

What do you see as the outcome, at this point?

Can we be 'pacified'?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you see as the outcome, at this point?
>
> Can we be 'pacified'?

We are at a point economically speaking where economic pacification is no longer working for more and more people. The establishment is no longer believable, and people are looking for answers that make sense. This is the first time in my life, where I've thought this house of cards is getting really shaky. For God's sake over 60% of people have less then $1000 in their checking account while being the most indebted in world history.

The problem with public education is the parents. Schools cannot be responsible for educating children. Parents are responsible for educating children, the schools can only assist.

In Utah, the parents insist on having five, six, seven, and more children. Utah County is outrageous. Then pay 10% of your income to tithing, and rail against other taxes. Set up the schools to get funding from property tax and is it a surprise that Alpine School District fares better than Nebo? Add to this the state income tax deduction for dependent children--the more you have the less you pay, and is it any wonder there's not enough money for public education?

The parents aren't really serious. But sports? They're serious about that. I really don't know what they think their kids will be qualified to do for a living.

It is true that private schools don't have to operate under the same constraints as public schools. They can pick and choose their students/parents. If the private schools are successful in keeping both happy, they make lots of money. The alumni of these schools are often very generous, and the money is used to improve the production facilities, the programs and the product.

Public schools on the other hand are dependent on politicians for their funding, facility maintenance, program decisions, hiring priorities and testing requirements and decisions. And needless to say, if the politician ever attended (or never attended) a school, he/she is an expert qualified to interpret, evaluate and codify information and studies related to learning. The politician's seat-of-the-pants decisionmaking trumps the wisdom, experience, and research of educators.

Public education is charged with accepting and educating all students, as it should be. But private schools also should be charged with accepting all categories of special needs students in the same percentages as these students are represented in the population at large. There are very good public schools, and if possible, I would choose that my child attend a school whose student body reflects the diversity of this country.

One of the best books I've read on education is by John Taylor Gatto. He was teacher for 30 years in New York. The book is called, The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling.

He is a brilliant man that gets to the heart of the problem. I'd recommend the book, or at the very least googling his name and reading some of what he says. He answers the WHYs to the reasons behind failing education in a very reasonable manner. It defiantly made be revaluate how I look at education.

Yup they all do. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the best books I've read on education is by
> John Taylor Gatto. He was teacher for 30 years in
> New York. The book is called, The Underground
> History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s
> Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern
> Schooling.
>
> He is a brilliant man that gets to the heart of
> the problem. I'd recommend the book, or at the
> very least googling his name and reading some of
> what he says. He answers the WHYs to the reasons
> behind failing education in a very reasonable
> manner. It defiantly made be revaluate how I look
> at education.



A century ago:


"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply…The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm." - General Education Board, Occasional Papers, No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) p. 6


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Education_Board

______________________


"We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity,..." -


"The great triumph of Humanity I had dreamed of took a different shape in my mind. It had been no such triumph of moral education and general co-operation as I had imagined. Instead, I saw a real aristocracy, armed with a perfected science and working to a logical conclusion the industrial system of today. Its triumph had not been simply a triumph over nature, but a triumph over nature and the fellow-man."

H.G. Wells, The Time Machine

Eloimock, you get it. Social engineering at its most depraved. Mental slavery is the worst form of slavery. It gives you the illusion of freedom, makes you love trust and defend those who oppress you while making enemies out of those wanting to open your eyes to your bondage.

"The Marching Morons" comes to mind.

In that novella, it wasn't planned...

What if The Illuminati, or whomever, are just sitting back and waiting for the bottom 90% to thin the herd? After all, with the available technology, the 10% can be kept happy with a 'herd' population of way under a couple of billion.

ROFLMAO.

That's the funniest thing I've read ALL freaking day.

Illuminati, yeah, right.

You're not delusional. Just keep telling yourself that.

LOLOLOLOL.

Fascinating!

Hormones. Gotta love em.

Sexist are you?

Queen Helena wants to make America Great Britain again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUXNqM5K5Vk

Sent from a Big Political Honcho to an even Bigger Political honcho, 03/13/16

"...we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking..."

That's as much as Ill divulge, lest I get too political for the Board. But the overall context is that Big Political Honcho #1 doesn't think "unawareness" is a problem, the "obviously fading" (compliance) is. Blast those revolting peasants with their pitchforks and torches!

****************************************

AmyJo, if the term "Mormon Royalty" strikes you as annoyingly inaccurate, go with "Mormon elite" or "privileged Mormon caste" or something. Semantic wrangling only distracts. There's also the term "first families," but people with pioneer stock may not necessarily be connected to the LDS Upper Crust.

Edited for note to AmyJo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2016 10:08PM by caffiend.

Caffiend, looks like you get it. A while back a read a book written by the father of Public Relations (Propoganda), Edward Burnays. Probably, one of the most unknown and most influential people in history. Understanding this in the context of history through a lot of study, and looking how things operate today everything makes sense. Granted, it makes it hard to ignore the staggering about of BS which appears from being aware. They want emotionally driven sheep-apes to buy into staggering amounts of lies because it feels secure.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

What are your thoughts, if any, on the Tytler Cycle?

Although a bit more detailed (or complicated?) it seems to resemble the spiritual cycle seen in the Old Testament, especially the Book of Judges:

Opportunity
Spiritual Obedience & advancement (prophetic call)
Prosperity and Spiritual complacency
Spiritual decay and a lessened economy
Adversity (foreign invasion or local rebellion)
Bondage (foreign) or dictatorship (national) & destitution
Repentance and Renewal (prophetic call)
Resistance and Repulsion (of invaders)
Freedom & New (or at least Renewed) Opportunity

"Rinse and repeat..."

Of course, the cycle that I have oversimplified above involves the relationship of the Hebrews with their God, Yahweh, and I understand you're likely to be dismissive of that, ElderOldDog. Not wanting to get distracted with a theism/atheism tangent, I think it will suffice to say that there does seem to be some similarities with the Tytler Cycle.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I occasionally fill in at the pulpit, and I might utilize that sometime.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2016 01:03AM by caffiend.

If something is true, its source should not be an issue.

For instance, I appreciate mormonism for keeping me from smoking anything and drinking hard liquor. (Love me some beer!)

But it's hard to grasp that the way of life I've enjoyed may be cycling towards harder and harder times.

After the suffering of bondage, people eventually wake up to the fact the world is a lot nicer place if you get along with each other, treat others with kindness, and live honestly. There are some societal lessons in the 7 deadly sins which are a hallmark things are getting out of balance. I'm not a Bible thumper, but I recognize good information no matter the source. It's what empires go through because material gain is the ultimate goal, and the only way to do that is via oppression. Humanity takes a back seat. I think societies runs of some kind of natural law and when it gets too far out of balance, too far away from what humans really yearn for (real love and belonging rather than manufactured) it comes crashing down.