When I was called as a General Authority, I was blessed to be tutored by many of the senior Brethren in the Church. One day I had the opportunity to drive President James E. Faust to a stake conference. During the hours we spent in the car, President Faust took the time to teach me some important principles about my assignment. He explained also how gracious the members of the Church are, especially to General Authorities. He said, “They will treat you very kindly. They will say nice things about you.” He laughed a little and then said, “Dieter, be thankful for this. But don’t you ever inhale it.”
That is a good lesson for us all, brethren, in any calling or life situation. We can be grateful for our health, wealth, possessions, or positions, but when we begin to inhale it—when we become obsessed with our status; when we focus on our own importance, power, or reputation; when we dwell upon our public image and believe our own press clippings—that’s when the trouble begins; that’s when pride begins to corrupt.
General Conference Talk
Conference made me reflect on what diverts me from loving and taking care of others and this talk came to mind. It also made me reflect on Matthew 25:40.
So I thought I’d ask our readers:
What do you think diverts us from loving and caring for others?”
Is there much more important?
Wheat & Tares 
The voices we listen to and the choices we make. Every choice has a consequence. Some more permanent than others.
Don’t inhale the gushing but don’t inhale the criticism either.
That “Don’t inhale” quote really sums up one of the differences between the Hinckley/Monson presidencies and Nelsons Presidency. Hinckley and Monson didn’t seem to get swallowed up in the leader worship to the same extant as Nelson does
I agree that people like general authorities …well, … and politicians, especially politicians should be taught not to believe the hype, but I don’t think it is the biggest problem for most members of the church and is not what keeps most members from loving and giving to others.
The much more common problem for us lowly members of the church is the “lowly” bit. We think we are less. We feel shame and insecurity, and feel unloved. It is very hard to love others when you don’t feel loved in return, and it is impossible to love others if one doesn’t love oneself. It is impossible to love yourself when you have been shamed since childhood, whether it is parents, teachers, or religion teaching you shame. I think these are much bigger problems in the church than inflated egos and pride. Especially among women.
I don’t think inhaling all my praise and adulation is keeping me from loving and serving others 😉
But it may be hindering several of the Brethren. Things such as:
(paraphrasing) “I have my calling and election made sure and so does br. and sis. So-and-So”.
Telling us to equate the Church with Jesus as far as policy and doctrine decisions.
Refusing to give apologies. Why? Because it might give the impression that they make mistakes?
The current worship of Russell M Nelson by the other brethren. And his acceptance of it. My opinion: It’s sickening.
I think it’s better for me to focus on what I need to do, using prayer and inspiration. I can’t really change the things that I find extremely damaging.
Unfortunately, in my experience, when a man becomes a bishop, stake president, or receives other high or powerful callings, it can feel very affirming of their wisdom, worthiness and value to their community. Suddenly everyone wants their opinion, and they have the opportunity to make all sorts of decisions, including whether to delegate or micromanage, or whether to try to push church members to exactly obey whatever their agenda is. After they inhale they aren’t interested in hearing what a woman has to say, with her lowly position in church hierarchy. After all, they actually have been shown clearly by their community that they know better than her, and she should be silent and do as she has been told. So yes, I do think this creates ongoing problems for church members.
If male leaders really didn’t inhale, and listened carefully to women as if we were actually equal in the hierarchy, the church would be in a different position today in many ways. Unfortunately the systemic structure of the hierarchy deceives male leaders about their value. It also teaches women, and men who aren’t affirmed as part of the hierarchy, that their inspiration and thoughts are less valued than others, and they ought to be quiet and obedient. This imbalance, in two directions, can divert us from the real power we each have to minister to others. We get so wrapped up in the hierarchical duties of telling others what to do, or waiting for directions from leaders, that we fail to use our own power and inspiration.
What diverts us from loving others?
Numbers.
Sometimes in the church people talk a good game about “people not numbers”, and they are right, but the church bureaucracy keeps wanting to track numbers. The most insidious form of number tracking in the church is in missions. The degree to which a mission president chooses to focus on and incentivize numbers has an outsize effect on the experience that the missionaries have, which can affect their church experience for better or worse for the rest of their lives.
lws329, I agree that men can easily get puffed up and inhale but I’ve also seen it with women. The bishop’s wife, the Relief Society President, the Gospel Doctrine teacher, or the seminary teacher can each inhale as a woman. It’s sad but I think inhaling is an equal opportunity obsession.
I also agree that sometimes men don’t listen to women but it goes the other way too. Finally, you said it well about how we get wrapped up in our “duty” to tell others what to do. I think that’s the whole point of inhaling. We need to take care of ourselves and allow others to find their own ways.
I’ve always appreciated that “don’t inhale” quote. It’s something I’ve heard and read in leadership books all over the place, not at all unique to Mormonism. It’s always weird to me that Mormons feel the need to appropriate every good idea and assign it to an LDS source, but whatever people have to do to bolster their faith, I guess (Benson stealing C.S. Lewis’ Pride ideas is pretty egregious, for example).
One leader I heard in a business conference said it just a little differently, referring to it as “sniffing your own fragrance.” It was a twist on the “don’t inhale” idea that adds to the analogy. When you become so enamored of your own power and your ideas, you stop questioning whether your ideas really are the best, and you start assuming they are or you wouldn’t be in your newfound position of power. You surround yourself with your own thoughts and ideas. You want those ideas and thoughts to be mirrored back to you. You elevate those who don’t pollute your pure ideas with their own input. You cut yourself off from the “fresh air” of other ideas.
Instereo,
In basic principle I agree with you. Women can also inhale if given actual power. However, I think you fail to understand the effects of the basic hierarchy of the church on women. Relief Society presidents genuinely have little or no power. It is a women’s organization run by men. Anything she decides can be vetoed by the bishop. To even change the ministering routes, the bishop has to review and approve her choices. She is appointed by the bishop (the sisters do not elect her as they did Emma). He may even tell her who he wants to be her counselors and teachers even though this is contrary to the handbook. Because she knows he has to approve her choices, and because she is taught to passively defer to men (priesthood leaders), she may just say okay to whoever he picks for her. (He may even say, the Spirit told me this, pray for your own confirmation.) Any budget she needs is controlled by the bishop (this was changed with correlation in the 1960s, originally RS presidencies held their own fundraisers and ministered to the poor with that money as Joseph originally directed Emma in the first RS meeting). Today RS presidents may work with poor families, but every inch of it directed by the bishop. No food is dispersed without the bishop’s signature. This applies to primary and young women presidencies as well. They have power IF the bishop listens to them. Often if they are the kind of woman who speaks up, they are quickly released. It all depends on bishop roulette.
Gospel Doctrine teachers can be quickly released too, if they say anything the bishop disagrees with. They have no real power.
Bishop’s wives have no real power. They have whatever influence people give them, including the bishop. If the bishop is a conservative man who married a woman with the expectation that she defer to him as he presides, she may say very little, because that is the terms of their marriage.
Ward councils are presided over by bishops. The bishop makes the final decision. I had a bishop that micromanaged everything thing down to the ground including hymn selection. The chorister and other leaders just had to do as they were told. Structurally in the ward hierarchy that is a bishop’s right.
Some of these concerns with this bishop were taken to the stake president (who is of course a former bishop). He encouraged us to talk to the bishop about our concerns, which accomplished no change. The bishop remained in office nearly 6 years. I think eventually he learned a lot. But those lessons of leadership were all his. The rest of us had to learn to submit.
The power to inhale you attribute to women in the church rests entirely on the benevolence of a male leader to allow it. Structurally it doesn’t have to happen if the male leader has already inhaled.
lws329,
I totally see and understand your perspective. I’ve had this very conversation with my wife many times and she’s right. The church is set up to be male-dominated. Some leaders are more “tolerant” than others but ultimately it does boil down to his decision. But we all have a perspective. I’d hear things in my ward like “the man may be the head but the neck is a woman and it turns the head” or men talking about how their wife was the righteous one and they spent all their time trying to keep up with her. Personally, I think both of these things are hogwash. I guess what I’m really trying to say is that men and women share equally in their righteous/unrighteousness or ability to inhale and exhale. I also believe women are at a disadvantage in the church because of the leadership structure and that the statements I shared that men may make are justifications for their own bad behavior but it ignores the fact that we all have problems.
I’m sorry you had to put up with that bishop for 6 years. I had a boss at work for a similar time, a woman, who was impossible to talk to and had all the answers and made sure she was in charge, period. While it wasn’t in church, it was in Utah, and it seems all of that is related here.
The bottom line is personality type not sex that determines if someone is inhaling or not.
Another question I have is why most societies developed with male hierarchy but some societies were matriarchal and do they have similar problems?
Thanks for the conversation. Great points!
I think there’s no doubt that women sometimes do bad things as a boss in the workplace. My husband and son have had those situations. So at church I am not saying women can lead better. I am saying, give us the same chances to speak up, to lead and to make mistakes that the men have.
I do think personality is a big part of the equation. I have a naturally strong personality whether I like it or not. I can be intimidating, and as a mom of special needs kids, I have had to stand up to authority to get their needs met. You can’t blame my bishop for being uncomfortable that, but it isn’t my fault either. People are very individual in their needs and the church isn’t well set up for that.
As far as matriarchal societies I also don’t know enough. However, sometimes it’s matrilineal following the mother’s line and/ or bringing the man to her home, but yet the men may still make the decisions.
It would be a great topic to study and do a post on.
Gordon Monson from the Salt Lake Tribune wrote a piece about changes he’d like to see in the LDS Church. Several of his changes had to do with his women are treated in the church. Here’s an excerpt from his article:
*…”how women are treated” not “…his women are treated.” 🤦♂️ Sorry for the typo
Ask any random, regularly participating member of the church if the prophet is infallible, and they will say no. Then ask them to identify something the prophet has done as the prophet that they think was a mistake or not in line with the will of God. They either won’t do it, or they can’t do it because they never thought about it. Regular members and leaders alike have their cake and eat it too.
I think leadership in the church definitely inhales sometimes, and some leaders more than others, but the real problem is what the members spit out into the air to be inhaled. It is a self perpetuating downward spiral. The leaders are raised in a culture that idolizes these men, and then when they become those men they think of themselves as idols too – they consider themselves with the same reverie that they were conditioned to believe someone in their position should have. So it is not a surprise that their conduct and teachings as a leader end up being consistent with that belief, albeit sometimes unwittingly. Those teachings and conduct then reinforce the culture of leader-worship and continue the cycle of conditioning our next leaders.
I don’t have any evidence to show that it gets worse and worse with every generation because I’m not really in a position to see enough of the church, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I know locally I see it happen all. the. time. I also don’t know if this is a great explanation for the different outlooks of Faust and Nelson on the subject because they were pretty close in age and for all intents and purposes probably grew up in the same church culture; seems it’s more likely attributable to personality differences. Faust was a Democrat, so maybe that was it. 😉
I think some of the bad behavior seen in women in the church is kind of the opposite of the inhaling we are talking about here. No doubt it is just as hard to put up with. But women sometimes feel so powerless and worthless that they get defensive about their position or authority. They come across as arrogant and controlling, but it is based in insecurity rather than over confidence. They demand more respect than they deserve because they are over compensating for feeling walked on. I have run into so many Mormon women this applies to. They are touchy about their “territory” at church. They are touchy about their knowledge. They are self righteous and judgmental. They are so afraid of being seen to be wrong that they go overboard proving they are right. Not over confidence, but defensiveness about proving to themselves and everybody else they are NOT worthless., because inside they are feeling they really might be. They are often somebody like a bishop’s wife, who feel outshone by their husband. Or a gospel doctrine teacher who trades off with “the best teacher in the world” who is a guy and she feels like second best. Or one who blew up at me for stepping on her toes about a misstatement by the bishop when I tried to clarify what he said was a junior Sunday school president back in the days before the block and boy am I showing my age.
I am not saying women can’t get big headed in a situation where they are looked up to and praised, but in the church women more often get treated a second class, so they react defensively. I mean, I *could* name some women who inhale, as in the current prophet’s wife or her best friend, but I won’t name them although, you know, I could.
Regarding the comment above comparing Nelson to Hinckley/Monson, I’m struck by the differences between Marjorie Hinckley, Frances Monson and Wendy W.
Marjorie and Frances didn’t inhale. Practical as ever, they plodded along in obscurity and modesty. They only became GA’s
wives after decades of sacrifice and service. Marjorie felt no need to change when she became the President’s wife.
I met her once, during a temple dedication. She wasn’t someone to hang on her husband’s arm- oh she was far too independent for that. I spied her after she ditched the security detail (who were circled around her husband) to mingle at the back of the room with a group of fellow white- haired sisters. They chatted in a low mumble *while* President Hinckley
delivered his speech and posed for a photo op with the press. She quipped about the practicality, necessity, and appropriateness of her sneakers with her Sunday dress. JC penny skirts and cotton blouses were enough for her, and she chuckled at the youngsters in the room who she knew would someday come to their senses and ditch high heels and scratchy dresses to run faster- with all-day- orthopedic-sneakers and no-iron blouses. Life was too busy and short to mess with fancy clothes.
Let’s contrast this with Wendy W., who is never seen without Gucci scarves and Nordies suits, keeps her skin tight with plastic surgery, and always hangs on her husband’s elbow as his silent lieutenant. As a love bird who found her companion during their golden years, she takes her newfound calling with dead seriousness and utmost reverence. She always gushes over his sacred role, their destiny, and the changes planned for his administration.
She inhales like a 4 pack a day chain smoker. Even if he weren’t predisposed to inhaling (and yes, he is), there’s no way to be in the room without inhaling copious amounts of second-hand smoke. She sits at her place on his right side, and would chastise anyone in any setting who didn’t hang on the Prophet’s every word. Sheri Dew, their close friend, treats him the same. This attitude has intensified over the past 20 years.
I’m not saying spouses should be responsible for their partner’s attitudes. I’m just saying that they certainly dish up a great deal of peer pressure (to inhale or not inhale). Flipping gender roles, Cheiko Okazaki always said her husband Edward kept her grounded as a GA with his example, humble ways, and service-mindedness.
Maybe we need to start a “Marjorie’s Sunday Sneaker’s Club” aimed at creating an anti-inhaling culture. (And unlike Wendy’s “Not Even Once Club” everyone is always welcome.)
Cut Nelson a break. He comes by it professionally. Many physicians have a god complex.
Some of the down votes to the comments in this OP are a real head scratcher.
I have plenty of complaints about Wendy Nelson, but I honestly also have empathy. I’m sure it’s very hard to give up a successful career of her own to instead be only someone’s wife while also being in the spotlight. I don’t think she has negotiated that transition very successfully, but it has to be incredibly difficult.
If you want a church where women are seen and heard then don’t criticize Wendy Nelson for simply doing that.
If we want a church where women are seen and heard , then consider not criticizing them when they make themselves known, like Wendy Nelson.
This immediately reminded me of a paragraph from a recent Jana Riess column in Religion News on the Kimble Diaries. I had read about this before somewhere –
“At times there are intriguing comments concerning other church leaders. One eagle-eyed sleuth already discovered a passage that adds details to the character of Russell M. Nelson, current president of the church. According to the diary, Nelson approached Kimball in early February 1979 asking the prophet to write a foreword for a forthcoming book about Nelson’s life.
Or rather, as a later diary entry made clear, to approve a foreword Nelson had already written that would appear under Kimball’s name. The foreword spoke of Nelson’s “perfect family,” “sweet Spirituality,” and “skill as a surgeon,” and noted that “long will his children and their posterity honor this great man.”
I couldn’t help but 😂
@Di: I just wanted to second this comment. This entry from Kimble’s diaries is real. It’s released by the same group that did the Joseph Smith Papers. Kimble did actually write that RMN asked Kimble to put his name on a forward that Nelson wrote himself.
This just sparked something else. I couldn’t remember the name of the book from the Kimble story, and was looking through books written by RMN when I noticed “Teachings of Russel M Nelson.” The cover looks suspiciously similar to the “Teachings of the Presidents” series written and published by the church…except the author on this one was RMN himself and published in September 2018, just eight months after he took first chair.
The church didn’t even release Hinckley’s teachings book until 2016 – eight years after his death. Monson’s wasn’t published until just last year. Did RMN really have the audacity to publish his own “teachings” book just a few months into his presidency?! If so, that’s a verrrry fast publishing cycle to assume that the writing only started only after he became president.
This would seem to be in character with what Kimble wrote in 1979, but please fact check me if I’m missing some context here.
@ Pirate Priest
That sounds about right. I know I’ve seen the quote before and wonder if it was included in post or comment in W&T before? I’ve long not been a fan of RMN and think he’s probably quite narcissistic – not unusual for a heart surgeon perhaps. I find it rather incredulous that he would provide such a self serving prideful piece for Kimball to sign as his own.
Thinking celestially.
When I realized Monson was recycling talks, I knew God was on vacation.
When Wendy “unleashed” her testimony of the prophet, I knew she was blowing (papal) smoke and I lost my testimony immediately. No offense to the Catholics – I am often tempted to join them.