As pointed out by sunnynomo there are mormons from pioneers but to refer to a bunch of uneducated shit-kickers as royalty just shows the delusions that mobots possess.

If farmers are royalty then all of America who have pioneer ancestors (probably 50%) should all be called Sir and Lady.

No mos who document their background to pioneers (have to say that in Maryland, the only people who did this were from the mid-west) have a few pictures but they don’t put them on a pedestal. No big deal, their ancestors were pioneers, that just happened to be what they were. Mobots get all teary about their brain-washed ancestors who followed a con man and became sheeple.

Ah, the delusions of mobots. They really have NO idea how they are perceived. No, no one admires them for their self righteousness. And no one give a flying f-k if they don’t smoke or drink. And people either don’t think of them at all or think they are weird once they find out about their silly and stupid beliefs.

Mormons: gawds gift to impotence and irrelevance

Quoth the Raven Nevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormons: gawds gift to impotence and irrelevance

So true to me personally. I of all my sibling prefer to see our family's "stock" as worthless.

We are descendents of both people who were at Plymouth Rock and people who rocked polygamy and it don't mean diddly squanto.

My brother dropped out of Mormonism and graduated from UC Berkeley. His son is a Scientist at Santa Barbara University. Their success is not recognized by the rest of the family. They are considered "astray" by people who aren't fit to tie their shoes, because of Mormonism. Post-mormon the curse of ignorance and mediocrity is lifted along with the curse of superstition.

Mormon Royalty keeps a fool's court, if any.

Honestly, I was born into Mormonism, so it was not something I chose. But when I think about those who joined this church in it's inception, I think of fools and idiots. I'm sorry, but come on!

Yes, I used to hear that nonsense all the time. In reality, they were a bunch of fools.

How about Anti-Mormon royalty?

Descendant of 'nits make lice' Haun's Mill killer, the infamous 'hair lip, Ira Glaze'.

A royal pain in the backside.

To borrow the Queen's English.

Joseph seized on the notion of 'every man a sovereign' from the recent revolution and then carried it to an extreme for his own ends.

Poor Joe could never imagine the furtherest extremes to which his phallic followers would carry this potent new principle.

Mormon Royalty = royal suckers

Isn't it true that the original converts were sought among the poorest of Industrial England from cities like Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool and were, actually, far from royalty, much less nobility or gentry in their origins.

onlinemoniker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't it true that the original converts were
> sought among the poorest of Industrial England
> from cities like Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool
> and were, actually, far from royalty, much less
> nobility or gentry in their origins.


Well exactly.

That's what appealed to these hapless rubes who accepted the gospel back then, they were seduced by the notion that in America, every man was king.

What comeuppance for the downtrodden...... God fook the King, I'm outta here.

Too bad no one told them to bring matches and extra blankets for what awaited them.

While the rank and file converts were poor, not so the leaders such as Rigdon, Harris, Young, Wells, Law, Marsh, Bennett, Kimball, and others. For example, Wells was a lawyer and a descendant of an early governor of Connecticut, and by far the largest landholder in Commerce, which became Nauvoo. Bennett was a doctor. The others were men of means and/or education. Even the Mayflower leaders were men of education and of means, except for the hired keg-maker, John Alden and the hired Captain, Myles Standish. That Alden became important to the Plymough Colony was a matter of necessity due to the deaths the first winter.

Many, if not most, of the early leaders eventually rebelled and left TSCC. Part of the idea of polygamy was for the leaders to breed, not to increase the families of the rank and file.

Among the people of Boston were the "Boston Brahmans" and the old line:

"Here's to dear old Boston,
the home of the beans and the cod,
where the Cabots speak only to Lowells
and the Lowells speak only to God."

Remember even in recent time one remembers Henry Cabot Lodge.

You see, royalty is only in the eyes of the beholder and, hence, we have the term: "Mormon royalty".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2014 04:06PM by rhgc.

That's right!

And the Lees are descendants of the Lee family (think Francis Lightfoot Lee signer of the DofI and of course Robert Edward Lee.)

One of them made it to Senator from Utah.

Mutts make the best dogs.

They do have some things in common with real royalty...like inbreeding, and...um...yeah, inbreeding is all I could come up with.

Well.

That's true, but.

The advantages of pharaohonic inbreeding were that out of dozens of gorks, there inevitably arose one exception: a genius who assumed the reigns of power by his/her superior intellect.

The analogy breaks down when you compare the Mormon system of 'last man living who still has a pulse' with the system of true selective breeding as practised of old.

Heart of gold, old Brigham.

He sent wagons alright but not to rescue the Wiley-Martin stragglers but to bring his SIX TONS of whiskey plus flour.

Oh and that goddamm thirty ton steam engine which the Lard needed so desperately.

Pure heart of gold I tellya.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 03:05PM by Shummy.

I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but I have a differing of opinion since ever since studying my mormon geneology.

Sure, my ancestors were from the lowest of the lower classes of England. My ancestors obviously weren't that bright because they bought into Joseph Smith's crazy stories and that tells me their lives in England must have really sucked. I understand wanting to improve one's life, so I can see why they wanted out.

Some of my mormon ancestors adventures as pioneers and settlers are simply amazing. And I don't mean the boyscout hike known as 'zion's camp' or being 'chased out of Nauvoo crap'.

They sold everything they had and crossed the Atlantic knowing they would never return to their homes and then walked across 2000 miles of prarie to settle out West. My mormon ancestors had one-on-one gun battles with outlaws, had to go into hiding for wacky plural marriage and almost died many times by indian attacks. A couple of them were actually murdered and several lost limbs.

These adventures make me proud of my Western ancestors. Having read many of their journals, they have some AMAZING stories of survival, luck, danger, near-misses, etc. That being said, I am not proud they were early members of the church. They were definately not to bright in the religious arena.

So here I am a fifth-generation, proud Utahn due to my gr-gr-grandparents following a crackpot faith--and It still amazes me at their bravery for leaving their euro-trash lives behind for more exciting white-trash lives in Utah.

Anyways, I think we can all be embarrased that our ancestors were dumb enough to join the LDS church but we can still be proud of their pioneering efforts.

I listened to the audio version of the story of a woman who traveled by ox team from Virginia to California just after the Mormons had come to Utah and her experiences were really interesting. She traveled with her husband and a small child and was pregnant with her second when she left. She was definitely tough, but it wasn't quite as harrowing as stories I'd heard from Mormons about how terrible it was and they only went from the Mississippi river to Utah!

https://archive.org/details/byoxteamtocalifo00port

I do think it's interesting that people had come from Europe to try to make a go of it in America. But I think that just shows that they had few opportunities for a good life in Europe at the time.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I listened to the audio version of the story of a
> woman who traveled by ox team from Virginia to
> California just after the Mormons had come to Utah
> and her experiences were really interesting. She
> traveled with her husband and a small child and
> was pregnant with her second when she left. She
> was definitely tough, but it wasn't quite as
> harrowing as stories I'd heard from Mormons about
> how terrible it was and they only went from the
> Mississippi river to Utah!
>
> https://archive.org/details/byoxteamtocalifo00port
>
>
> I do think it's interesting that people had come
> from Europe to try to make a go of it in America.
> But I think that just shows that they had few
> opportunities for a good life in Europe at the
> time.

I do know that all the handcart parties nearly starved. They were met with food from SLC, which they then had to work off/pay for if they survived....probably family members had to pay off for those who subsequently died).

As for the other mobots, I don't know the history but anyone who trusts a profit to determine your needs when they will be traveling in relative luxury, is just not that smart. I would not trust in god to provide food and water for a journey, I would want someone with solid experience to determine what is needed and then add more for emergencies.

> Devoted Exmo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> I do know that all the handcart parties nearly
> starved. They were met with food from SLC, which
> they then had to work off/pay for if they
> survived....probably family members had to pay off
> for those who subsequently died).
>
Starving members of the church had to PAY for the food that saved them? Nice.

Ditto!

"and then walked across 2000 miles of prarie to settle out West."

so? an awful lot of people walked even further and settled Oregon, Washington and California - and guess what? a lot of people died on that trail, too

aside from a random road sign or two or maybe a small annual celebration most west coasters just don't make a big deal out of it

Actually, none of my ancestors were dumb enough to join TSCC. I did it on my own. Actually, I knew it wasn't true when I joined.

You made me chuckle...thanks!

But many immigrant stories include such adventures.

Leaving the old country to blindly come to the new one might be less about how important their faith is, rather how bad conditions in the old country were.

The stories are not much different than the homesteaders that settled the western US, except for the batsh!t crazy religious angle.

One could argue we are seeing the exact same thing happening on the southern US border now. I would expect that if LDS Inc extended a promise of a helping hand to these kids, they would get a lot of takers.

It is not so much a question of faith, but rather an acceptance of opportunity.

deco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> One could argue we are seeing the exact same thing
> happening on the southern US border now. I would
> expect that if LDS Inc extended a promise of a
> helping hand to these kids, they would get a lot
> of takers.
>
> It is not so much a question of faith, but rather
> an acceptance of opportunity.

I heard Glen Beck is organizing a major relief effort for these "children" (*intense sarcasm*) who are streaming across the border. Could the ulterior motive be that this foreshadows a major proselytizing effort?

Incidentally, he's getting a fair bit of grief from the political right for this.

used to describe any Mormon with pioneer ancestry. It describes the members of the leading families of the church - the Smiths, Youngs, Romneys, Cannons, Kimballs, Smoots, etc. The present-day members of these families tend to be educated, fairly wealthy, and reasonably sophisticated. They also tend, today, to be somewhat removed from and "above" the day-to-day management of the LDS church, which increasingly has been left to second-tier hirelings such as Thomas Monson and many of the other present-day general authorities.

Keyser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> used to describe any Mormon with pioneer ancestry.
> It describes the members of the leading families
> of the church - the Smiths, Youngs, Romneys,
> Cannons, Kimballs, Smoots, etc. The present-day
> members of these families tend to be educated,
> fairly wealthy, and reasonably sophisticated.
> They also tend, today, to be somewhat removed from
> and "above" the day-to-day management of the LDS
> church, which increasingly has been left to
> second-tier hirelings such as Thomas Monson and
> many of the other present-day general authorities.

They are not the day-to-day managers of LDS Inc...they are the shareholders...

When I was young, somebody did a family tree which purportedly showed that my lineage went back through the Mayflower to William the Conqueror, and several generations before that. Boy, did I feel proud!

Years later, this didn't interest or impress me so much. As an American, I believe it's not where you come from which counts, but what you're doing with your life and where you are taking yourself. When I became a Christian, this was reinforced with the perspective of Eternity: not just what you're doing with your life, but whether you're following the Lord and if your name is in the Book of Life.

Later, an uncle told me that that genealogist, years back, was popular because he had a knack for finding exotic family histories for people. So am I a Mayflower descendant?

Don't know, and don't care. Very often, the horsethieves, swindlers, claim-jumpers, pirates, and blackguards of a couple of centuries' back are seen as noble forebears from today's perspective.

Good chance of being a Mayflower descendant. I have the same line. I have multiple lines. That and a dollar will get me a cup of java at Mickey D's.

I was in the church my whole life (granted, in CA not in the morridor) and I never heard the term "Mormon Royalty" until I started reading exmo forums. Unlike real royalty, I don't think it has so much to do with heritage as attitude. Whether your pioneer ancestor was educated and rich or poor and stupid - it doesn't matter. It's the attitude of entitlement, arrogance and self-righteousness that the member holds today. They may justify it by being a descendent of Joseph Smith or Parley P. Pratt and think they are better than everyone else because of this ancestor. But it's the "royal" attitude they are copping that is the problem. And honestly, real royalty has much better manners, if the same sense of being "special."

While I never heard the term, I certainly saw the behavior. When I lived in Salt Lake City back in the 90s I'd get attitude from uneducated women who married as teenagers and never did much with their life except BE Mormon but somehow thought they were better than everyone else because they'd been born in the covenant. Even a real royal who does nothing with their life isn't going to be respected. Respect isn't a birthright. It has to be earned by everyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 03:20PM by CA girl.

I always thought Otis had the best response when he was being presented an award for being the descendant of the town founder, Nathan Tibbs. "Gosh, a person can not take any credit for just being born".

I feel the same way with all the nonsense of any type of royalty.