I very much enjoyed the NYT article about the disaffected member from Sweden and I commend the man for his quest for truth. However I find the comment that he is the highest ranking official to disaffect a little amusing.

Both counselors in the first presidency of Joseph Smith went AWOL, William Law very much went public about his disaffection.

As far as the SL Church is concerned, there were early apostles and seventy, but George P Lee of the 1st Quorum of the 70 (which is a high ranking full time paid position) was the highest ranking official to become disaffected and openly rebel in my lifetime.

Third Quorum aka Area Authority is not a General Authority and should not be confused with Area President which is always a member of the 1st Quorum. Area Authority is a temp part time calling and the position is filled by a local member who has shown a little spark of leadership ability. It is not a full time paid position like the general authority position is, they don't quit their full time employment to fill the calling. They are not usually inculcated with Utah Mormonism or culture and so it's not surprising to find them leaving or going inactive on occasion. There have been instances where area authorities have gone inactive almost immediately upon being released from this temp calling, offended when they were not promoted to general full time status. The area authorities I've known were status climbers expecting the promotion. In the hierarchy of the Church not a particularly powerful position, they do not preside over mission presidents for example, but work with local members located within the confines of a geographical "area", hence Area Authority.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2013 04:33PM by SLDrone.

That kind of stuck in my craw too. But other than that, it was a nice read!

Thanks for that clarification. We need to have our facts straight in this discussion.

So, would a mission president or temple president be a little higher up the chain than an area authority? I have a relative who has been both. I often wondered where he was in the hierarchy.

They are just in different chains of command, and as far as temple president, it depends on what temple. Temple Pres of a big temple like Salt Lake or San Diego or DC, that's a big job, temple pres in Uganda not so much.

Neither Area Authorities or Temple President have any authority over a mission president and I would dare say most Area Authorities would defer to a mission president in the same area. Mission President and Temple Presidents just don't have much occasion to run into each other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2013 10:57PM by SLDrone.

Area Authority is definitely considered higher up than Mission President. They usually choose people that have already been a Mission President to be an Area Authority.

You could argue Area Authority is higher up than Temple President too, since the guy was saying the Temple President used to report back to him in meetings that he presided over.

Most of the general membership don't understand the difference between an Area Authority and a General Authority. The guy was saying in an interview that he was treated pretty much like a General Authority by most members. I think they hear the word "Authority" or find out that he's in a Quorum of the Seventy and just start worshipping him.

I've only personally known 5 area authorities, none of them had or have been mission presidents and only one of them had been a Stake President, although he presided over a stake with maybe 200 active members.

Both mission presidents and area authorities report to the area president (a member of the 1st Quorum), although in my experience Area Authorities have been less experienced in church mechanics than most mission presidents and would look to a MP for advice. Not that it matters but I don't consider area authority to be a calling superior to mission president at all, not on paper or in practice.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2013 08:09AM by SLDrone.

While I am sure that some go inactive after their release due to taking offense at a lack of promotion, I'd imagine it is more often either burnout, or they see too much to keep the faith once the responsibility is over.

It's not a particularly demanding calling, it's a weekend Sunday calling. Being the bishop of a full fledged ward in Mordor is a much more demanding calling. As far as them "seeing too much", they don't really have that level of frequent access.

Again, a lot of them are fantastic individuals, but I'm trying to keep the significance of disaffection in perspective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2013 04:47PM by SLDrone.

Thanks for the clarification. He had been a Bishop and Stake President before his calling to Area Authority. How many former Stake Presidents lose their faith?

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/07/news-of-the-church/gteborg-sweden-a-second-harvest?lang=eng

A relative of mine is a former Stake President and has left the church.

No, I don't mean they get inside info, but they do see the next level of authority outside the public view. Interacting with GAs who have their guard down could be disconcerting.

Christ, who the f*ck cares what kind of GA he was? IMO, this point is just another example of splitting hairs over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bottom line is that the story is g*dd*mned f*ck*ng amazing.

"The bottom line is that the story is g*dd*mned f*ck*ng amazing."

Isn't it?

"Honey, we're in the New York Times. Front page."

"Mitt Romney again?"

"No, talking about Joseph Smith bein' a pedophile. F*ck, we're late for church."

I agree. Thirty million viewers a month plug themselves into the N.Y. Times, and I think Sundays are one of the biggest days for readership.

The average reader doesn't know or care about where this guy falls on the hierarchy chain -- they just know he is an unhappy Mormon who has the cojones to question a church about its bigoted and polygamous past [and present].

He's not a GA at all. He's an AA (Area Authority).

I agree, it's still amazing though.

Mattsson would have had the Second Anointing, wouldn't he?

I'm under the impression that that ordinance is given to people at the Stake President/Mission President level. I'm not sure whether it comes before or after such service, and perhaps it is more likely for people who are called to serve as Mission Presidents--extra authority as they go out into the world--but I'd think that an Area Authority who'd been a Stake President would probably have received that anointing.

Does this sound right?

The vast majority of Stake Presidents don't get one.

Most Mission Presidents are former Stake Presidents, and most Area Authorites are former Mission Presidents. So maybe at Mission President or Area Authority level is where is becomes common to have one. I'm not sure, but it's definitely not common for Stake Presidents to get one.

It is not common for stake presidents, not even for mission presidents. A returning mission president received his at the same time as me and I think that was more to do with his relationship with a particular GA than the fact he had just finished as mission president. Also, it is not essential to be a stake president or whatever. One of my nominees had not been a stake president although he had served in a stake presidency as a counsellor.

Area Authorities do not necessarily receive it as age is usually taken into account. Ideally a couple should be at least in their fifties and have been 'tried and tested'. Some AAs are called in their forties so do not necessarily receive it then. Hans was in his fifties so I am pretty sure he will have had it. I would also assume all GAs (1st and 2nd Q of 70) receive it.

Let's also remember the Presiding Bishopric They are powerful men overlooked generally by the membership. They meet weekly with the FP and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop owns billions of church assets.

Reminds me of how people like to trot out the line that the president of the church has no more priesthood than the rank and file members.

Little do they know. Though technically I guess it's true, since the second anointing doesn't appear to actually be any increase in priesthood level, just in political level.

My brother and his wife had the "mysterious visit" to Salt Lake just after his mission presidency and at the start of his calling as Area Seventy. It was pretty obvious he and his wife had the second anointing. I know he travels a lot, almost weekly around his area, but I don't know much else what he does.

I think area seventies are the ones who fly under the radar and do the bidding of the FP so it can't officially be traced back to them.

Years ago us Minions were given the line that all callings were equal in the eyes of the Lord...but when I truly began studying Mormonism I quickly understood that some callings are more equal than others.

Mission President and Temple President are testing grounds for General Authorities. If you come out of those callings with a belief in the Church then you can be considered "Church Broke" meaning you're a submissive and are therefore safe for higher office.

The significance of his disaffection is that he was born into the church, spent his life believing in and serving the church, and discovered that the church has deceived him. It's been a cruel hoax.

It's not a new story, but it's powerful nonetheless.

I wish him and his family all of the best.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2013 10:11AM by ellenl.

without the hair on my arms standing up on end.
First of all, it's so creepy as to be, well...creepy!

Second:

All my life I've read about the "calling and election" of certain righteous individuals--those who, obviously, are unconcerned whether or not their good works are trumpeted. Obviously, because "callings and elections" are supposed to be secret, never spoken of, never revealed to anyone except the anointed.

I pictured the widow's mite person....or maybe the nursery leader who did a great job with 25 kids in a tiny room next door to the Stake President and his minions sitting around a big polished oak table on cushioned chairs.

Or maybe the scout master who never achieved great status in the church because he had to care for his ailing mother, or his wife was a non-member.

But, no! We now find out that the "Calling and Election" annointments are routenely given to the great high and mighty leaders in the church.

I'm sorry, but I think I'm going to be sick.

Good points.

I'm just not into this "Who's the most important" muckety muck. I find it all a tad offensive.

the Stake President crashed my mother's funeral and marched up to the stand to sit with the family members. Ug!

Or the "STAND" itself. Why do the "Important" people get to sit on the stand?

You're exactly correct. Often times lowly members like to refer to them as general authorities because it sounds better. An area authority, or member of the 3rd, 4th or 5th quorums (or however many additional quorums there are) are only there to support the area president who is always a GA. Similar circumstances with a mission president and his two counsellors. Most mormons don't even know who the mission president's two counsellors are in their area even though they are usually locals.

The actual concocted title that this dude has is less important than the fact he made the front page of the NYTimes. This has the ability to start the national conversation that so many of us are making popcorn to watch.

I think LDS Inc should be more like the Catholics and have the hierarchy of their executive leadership displayed with brightly colored hats. Tommy and Boyd should have the big tall caps, the long white dresses, and of course, the bright red Wizard of Oz slippers.

SLDrone,

I always enjoy your postings, thanks for posting this. I wouldn't have searched it otherwise.

I do disagre with someting you said. You said:

"Area Authority is a temp part time calling and the position is filled by a local member who has shown a little spark of leadership ability. It is not a full time paid position like the general authority position is, they don't quit their full time employment to fill the calling. They are not usually inculcated with Utah Mormonism or culture and so it's not surprising to find them leaving or going inactive on occasion. There have been instances where area authorities have gone inactive almost immediately upon being released from this temp calling, offended when they were not promoted to general full time status."

With all due respect, the above sounds to me like a very Utah mormons thinking statement. As a convert in a far away land I "took offense" when Utah mormon implied that "locals" were not mormon enough and therefore they'd leave the church because they'd get offended when released or when not "promoted". I tried hard to believe this but the very good people who leave the church often demonstrate the type of character that is not easily offended.

I left the church after being released from a calling. I had found out the truth about the church and I knew it would be my last calling in the church. I stayed because I enjoyed it and I was going to fulfill it until the end. Many suspected that I left because I got offended that I was released. I just want to share my response to one of these stake leaders who suggested that much and said how he didn't understand why members in so called high leadership positions and/or long-standing would leave when and because of being released. I asked, has it ever occurred to you that these people left because they spoke their dislike about church policies and got released or perhaps they found an uncomfortable truth about the church and decided to fullfill their last calling before leaving?

Sadly, and gladly, this site has helped me realize and confirm that we could never be mormon enough, no matter how faithful we were. The lds church just wanted our free labour and money. Or so it seems to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2013 11:18AM by deconverted2010.

I don't know a lot about it, but I do remember my mother asking the rest of my siblings if they raised their arms to the square and swore to support my brother when he was announced as an area seventy in General Conference. I would hesitate to inform my mother that he was not indeed a general authority, believe me.

Your post is sad but true. I think that the blue-blood pioneer-stock Mormons in SLC do have a tendency to treat converts, especially converts from other countries as less pious.

It was either the podcast or in the transcript, where the Church historian referred to a Swedish Mormon as a "Viking" or some such nonsense.

That reminds me of the same paternalistic bullshit when a church elder pats you on the shoulder and calls you a special Lamanite sister. Or if you're a Latino brother, your called "amigo."

It's still away as setting you apart as "foreign, other, not part of us."

Hi deconverted, sorry if I offended you. I didn't quite mean it that way. What I meant is that they are not paid clergy, but are deployed at home, locally. They remain in their own home, keep working at their same job and are not on any church payroll. That's what I was getting at when I said local.