Posted on 01/27/2012 12:18:49 PM PST by mitchell001
Yes.
My own family's Lds roots go back 150+ years. With all of the polygamy that occurred, Mormon families are more interconnected relationally (at least by marriage) than most people imagine.
Joseph Smith's nephew, a "prophet" of the Mormon church -- Joseph F. Smith, married his cousin, a 16 yo when he was 22.
What's interesting is that Mitt Romney is the direct ancestor of two [count 'em two] Lds "apostles" -- both brothers Parley P. and Orson Pratt, four generations previous!
This was possible because Mitt's grandparents were cousins! (Gaskell Romney and Ann Amelia Pratt). Gaskell Romney's grandfather was Orson Pratt; Ann Pratt's grandfather was Parley P. Pratt.
For those wanting to see it on a brief generational chart, go here: Pratt-Romney family -- and then scroll down to the bottom.
(Now you see where the fLDS got the idea of intermarriage?)
Saw the Huntsman Romney generational chart. Could you find it and post it for me.
“He is a senior cleric...”
Actually, my understanding is that LDS bishops are pretty low on the totem pole in the LDS hierarchy. A bishop leads a local ward. A group of wards comprise a stake, which is led by an area president. Above these folks (or at the same level - I'm not exactly sure) are the Quorums of the 70, which include stake presidents in their leadership. Above that is the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Then there is the First Presidency, comprising the president and two counselors.
As you can see, bishops are more or less near or on the bottom rung of the organizational leadership ladder.
sitetest
He’s also a member of an elite circle called the Melchizedek priesthood (of the LDS). Please feel free to lecture me on how this doesn’t rank as a senior position in the LDS hierarchy.
My understanding is that the “Melchizedek priesthood” is open to devout Mormon males age 18 and up, generally. Here's a little bit from wiki:
“In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the largest Latter Day Saint denomination, the Melchizedek priesthood is one of two governing priesthoods, which is typically given as a matter of course to worthy male members 18 years and older.”
In fact, being a bishop is actually a higher ranking in the LDS church in that one must be a “Melchizedek priest” to be a bishop.
I'm not a Mormon, I'm a Catholic, but my impression is that being a member of the “Melchizedek priesthood” is perhaps a little less exclusive than being a Catholic altar boy.
sitetest
By the way, this part of what I previously posted was inaccurate:
“A group of wards comprise a stake, which is led by an area president.”
Actually, a stake is led by a stake president. Then there are folks called area presidents. I’m a little bit iffy about how they fit in hierarchically, but they appear to be above stake presidents, which are above bishops (one source also refers to bishops as “ward presidents”).
Actually, a stake is led by a stake president. Then there are folks called area presidents. I’m a little bit iffy about how they fit in hierarchically, but they appear to be above stake presidents, which are above bishops (one source also refers to bishops as “ward presidents”).Yes, what I understand you to say is that you don't know what you're talking about yet you're still willing to lecture others on what you don't know. Do you teach at a junior college or something?
I don't know much, but it's clear that I knew more about this than you. Five minutes of googling verified my hazy understanding of the “Melchizedek priesthood” (it's not all that an "exclusive elite" - practically all church-going adult male Mormons hold the "Melchizedek priesthood") and the role of the “bishop” in the LDS church (it's not a "senior cleric," in fact, it's one of the lower levels of office in the LDS church). Which was far from your wildly inaccurate assertions.
“Do you teach at a junior college or something?”
LOL! Good one! No, I haven't taught anywhere in years, although the first time through graduate school, I did teach a few sections of labs to undergrads at my university.
sitetest
I don't know much, but it's clear that I knew more about this than you.This is precisely what you have failed to establish. I wrote "senior cleric". You confirmed "cleric" but took issue with "senior" even as you quoted to me a text that calls the M. priesthood the higher of the two whatever priesthoods. You're a perfect case of how some sub-literates confuse search engine returns with knowledge. This was precisely Socrates' critique of the written word in Pato's Phaedrus, that it could make "fools appear wise"--well, in some cases. Not yours.
“This is precisely what you have failed to establish.”
I disagree.
“I wrote ‘senior cleric’. You confirmed ‘cleric’ but took issue with ‘senior’ even as you quoted to me a text that calls the M. priesthood the higher of the two whatever priesthoods.”
If by “cleric,” you mean folks with formal ecclesiastical positions, in roles of leadership within the organization, the conferring of “priesthood” doesn't really qualify. The conferring of “priesthood” is more of a rite of passage for young Mormon males. It strikes me as analogous to confirmation in most Christian bodies.
“Bishop,” on the other hand, is a formal leadership position. The bishop of a ward is the leader of the ward. The ward is similar to a parish church. Calling a ward bishop a “senior cleric” is analogous to calling the pastor of a Catholic parish a “senior cleric” in the Catholic Church. I doubt most folks would agree with you that Fr. O'Reilly down at St. Anthony's quite qualifies as a "senior cleric" of the Catholic Church.
As for the use of the Internet versus knowledge derived elsewhere, we're talking about fairly basic, elementary facts that are easily ascertained on-line. No one here is trying to argue particle physics or neurosurgery. However, it happens that I've known a few Mormons personally over the years, including a fellow with whom I went to graduate school (the second time), and who was actually a Mormon bishop (and actually held higher offices than that).
But, I'm getting old, and I try not to rely too much on my memory when trying to offer more accurate information, and I will resort to a quick google to make sure I'm remembering accurately.
The rest of your post is merely insult and deserves no response. Insults hardly substitute for reason.
If you would like to argue that a Mormon ward bishop is a senior cleric in the LDS church, then make your case - making ad hominem attacks doesn't quite do it.
sitetest
If you would like to argue that a Mormon ward bishop is a senior cleric in the LDS church, then make your case - making ad hominem attacks doesn't quite do it.I don't have to "make my case" as my case is established as you yourself admit between your spits and sputters--wards and stakes are administrative-geographical units larger than a parish, or a meeting hall in the language of Mormonism; they would be more comparable to a diocese to use the language of Catholicism or other episcopal Christian sects (I mean small-e "episcopal" in its literal meaning of "rule by bishops," a form of Church government shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and otehrs). So I stand by "senior cleric" and no amount of google-search casuistry on your part can do anything other than confirm my claim, which you have done again and again even as you insist otherwise.
“I don't have to ‘make my case’ as my case is established as you yourself admit between your spits and sputters—wards and stakes are administrative-geographical units larger than a parish, or a meeting hall in the language of Mormonism; they would be more comparable to a diocese to use the language of Catholicism or other episcopal Christian sects (I mean small-e ‘episcopal’ in its literal meaning of ‘rule by bishops,’ a form of Church government shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and otehrs).”
That isn't what I said. Here's what I actually said:
"The ward is similar to a parish church."
Wards, like parishes, are the primary, basic, and most immediate congregational unit in the LDS. Typically, wards have a few hundred members. My understanding is that most wards are split up once they get much past 500 or so members. A ward is presided over by a bishop. That makes the bishop analogous to a parish priest.
A small ward is called a branch, which is a congregation that isn't quite big enough to be a full-fledged ward. It's similar, I guess, to a mission of a parish in the Catholic Church - an outpost of the parish. Branches, when they grow big enough, become wards.
Interestingly, most wards are geographical and territorial in nature, more like how Catholic parishes once were. Although each Catholic parish still has a territory, one may freely move from parish to parish, even registering in the parish of one’s choice. In the past, one was required to register in one’s territorial parish, unless one had permission to do otherwise. My understanding is that for the most part, the LDS still functions in that way - you go to the ward in which you live.
A stake comprises a number of wards (I've read that it's typically about five to eight, sometimes as much as a dozen - the max, I've read, is 16 wards). It's somewhat analogous to a Catholic diocese, but smaller, typically, in terms of congregants and congregations. A stake is presided over by a stake president. That position is somewhat analogous to a Catholic bishop. Or maybe a stake might be more comparable to the vicariate or deanery of a Catholic diocese, presided over by vicar or dean, typically of the rank of an ordinary priest or possibly a monsignor.
I think the level above the stake is area, which has an area president, and which may be more analogous to a diocese.
Unlike the Catholic Church, there a couple of layers of hierarchy above that of the area, from what I can tell. But it seems that the area president actually is a pretty senior cleric in the LDS, unlike a bishop.
Thus, an LDS bishop is more like a parish priest, and not like a senior cleric.
Further weakening the bald assertion that an LDS bishop is a senior cleric is the fact that LDS bishops are unpaid volunteers, not full-time, paid administrators of a congregation and its assets. That means that the LDS bishop isn't even quite as high up the LDS ladder as a Catholic parish priest in the Church.
sitetest
Thus, an LDS bishop is more like a parish priest, and not like a senior cleric.Thank you for the fresh burst of hot-gas flatulence though I imagine you have lots of time on your hands so this is no big thing for you. But you still haven't established anything other than administrative scope. You can be a senior pastor, or priest, or rabbi (in my own tradition), you super genius graduate student. Do try again, OK?
Thus, an LDS bishop is more like a parish priest, and not like a senior cleric.Thank you for the fresh burst of hot-gas flatulence though I imagine you have lots of time on your hands so this is no big thing for you. But you still haven't established anything other than administrative scope. You can be a senior pastor, or priest, or rabbi (in my own tradition), you super genius graduate student. Do try again, OK?
“But you still haven't established anything other than administrative scope.”
In churches with significant hierarchies, “senior cleric” refers to where you are in the organizational chart.
As an example, in the Catholic Church, a parish priest isn't a senior cleric. Even the dean of a deanery isn't quite a senior cleric. Maybe an auxiliary bishop. Certainly the ordinary of a see is a senior cleric.
If you're talking about the local, independent Bible church down the road, or an independent megachurch, then “senior pastor” might apply to someone at the congregation level.
But for ecclesial communities with significant formal hierarchies, “senior cleric” means someone not at the bottom rung of the hierarchical ladder.
No matter how long he might have served, no matter how revered he might be, no matter how old he is, no matter how much seniority he may have, even if in some cases he is referred to as a "senior priest," the local parish priest who is just a parish priest isn't going to be called a “senior cleric.” LOL.
In ecclesial communities that aren't as hierarchical, I guess anything goes. I'm Catholic, so my experience is with the Catholic Church. The LDS church is also a hierarchical ecclesial community, and in that way, is more analogous to the Catholic Church than to, say, an independent Bible church.
You still haven't established why an LDS ward bishop, presiding at the lowest organizational level, is somehow a “senior cleric” of the LDS church.
sitetest
You still haven't established why an LDS ward bishop, presiding at the lowest organizational level, is somehow a “senior cleric” of the LDS church.Well, yes, of course, because I tend not to try to establish the claims that exist only in the muddled heads of my less gifted interlocutors, or less talented trolls in this case. I said Romney is a senior cleric, which he is as he served his term. So unless you're trying to hold me accountable for some risible misinterpretation of the term "senior" you're still just blasting hot gas for no other reason then you're unemployed and have nothing better to do then troll random social news sites.
“I said Romney is a senior cleric, which he is as he served his term.”
Here is what you originally wrote:
“Romney’s proper title is Bishop Romney. He is a senior cleric...”
You hang the appellation of “senior cleric” from his title, “bishop.” If you're now saying that you meant “senior” as in superannuated, that fails.
As was explained, in hierarchical ecclesial communities, “senior cleric” is tied to status in the hierarchy. A parish priest, as an example, would never be called a “senior cleric,” even if he'd been a priest for 50 years, and was 75 years old.
Of course, Mr. Romney, apparently, isn't even quite analogous to the Catholic priest who has been a priest for 50 years and is 75 years old. As he is a former bishop, I suppose he is more roughly analogous to a former priest. I know a few former Catholic priests. Some of them are pretty old - in fact, older than Mitt Romney. The former principal of my high school is a former priest. I guess he must be over 70, now. But even though he's a senior citizen, he isn't a senior cleric, LOL.
Again, you said:
"He is a senior cleric..."[emphasis added]
As far as I know, Mr. Romney isn't a cleric of any sort in the LDS church. I believe that it would be more accurate to say that he is a former cleric of the LDS church.
You go on to say:
“He is a senior cleric in the Mormon tradition as evidenced by his vile hatred of the conservative movement and the candidates who support it.”
This means that Mormon senior clerics have a vile hatred blah blah blah blah. Are you now suggesting that younger, less experienced Mormon clerics do NOT have a vile hatred, so on and etc.? It's only Mormon clerics who have been at it for a very long time who have a vile hatred, yada yada?
That hardly seems like the best reading of what you wrote. What you wrote strongly implies that it is clerics who are senior in authority, which is determined by hierarchical rank, who have a vile hatred, etc. Which of course, has connotations and overtones of dark conspiracies by top people in the Mormon organization. But you're suggesting now that what you meant was more about dark conspiracies in the Mormon retirement homes. LOL. Sure. Whatever floats your boat.
As to my employment status, yes, I'm unemployed. Have been since 1991. That's when I started my current business enterprise. Since I'm the owner, I haven't had a W-2 for a couple of decades, now. So, I figure that makes me unemployed, right? I'm no Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Or even Mitt Romney. But the company has kept body and soul together for 21 years, as well as the bodies & souls of all my employees over the decades, too.
Be well.
sitetest
“Romney’s proper title is Bishop Romney. He is a senior cleric...”Yes, this is what I wrote, that Romney is a senior cleric, as the "he" is a deictic (or anaphor or pronoun) that resolves to "Romney", as in ROMNEY is a senior cleric, just as an ex-president is a SENIOR statesman. See how that works? What I said was literally, on its face,true in the most trivial sense of the word "true," and true on your own terms despite your many wasted keystrokes for no good reason other than to satisfy your wounded vanity at the expense of your diminished dignity.
That was unacceptably rude. Shame on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.