Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Holland's NAMI talk


Recommended Posts

I thought for sure that this would be removed from the official version. I guess not.

Quote

President Nelson understands fully that renaming “Mormon studies” will be concerning to you. In an email to me he wrote: “Part of the Maxwell Institute problem is its identity, [never more obvious than in the subset titled] ‘Mormon studies.’ [Is this] an institute for studies on the Book of Mormon? . . . or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? . . . or the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ? . . . [We] need to [help them] know who they are and why they exist.”

Also, I'm quite bothered by the dozens of times "Mormon," "Mormonism," and even "Mormon studies" appears in the very same report that Holland declares those words to be cursed.

Link to comment

The new NAMI mission statement:

Quote

“The Maxwell Institute both gathers and nurtures disciple-scholars. As a research community, the Institute supports scholars whose work inspires and fortifies Latter-day Saints in their testimonies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and engages the world of religious ideas.”

Just not sure what that means.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, the narrator said:

........

Quote

So, dear friends, when coming from our own tongues the use of “Mormonism” is anathema and so is “Mormon” as it pertains to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per se.

 

So, perhaps it is O.K. to use "Mormon(ism)" when it does not refer to the CJCLDS.

Link to comment
Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

You mean you feel sorry for the LDS scholar who wants to work for/get published by the Maxwell Institute, right?  Because Elder Maxwell made no such desire known for scholars in general, and that's pretty blatantly obvious, right?

Well, that is who I was talking about.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for the LDS scholar now, Elder Holland wants you to put faith and the church above all else. Even to the point of erring on the side of the church vs. truth. 

yes

Quote

We know you can’t be credible in every circle if you are seen as lacking scholarly substance and categorically defensive all the time. But neither can you afford ever to be perceived as failing to serve the larger, faith-oriented purposes of the Church. All we can ask is that you pray and fast and strive and sweat to find your way through. Then, if there be error, let it be on the side of your covenants and faith convictions. I promise the board won’t return in five years—or ever—and come down on you, saying you made a mistake in doing so.

I've always been uncomfortable with the notion that we should see it as the Church above all.  Truth, goodness and progress should be the goal--and the Church should be able to adapt to truth as we learn it rather than the other way around.  In the end the MI has been forced to create a mission statement that says that their goal is to build faith, or rather, trust in the Church.  

Sad direction, I"d say.  

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for the LDS scholar now, Elder Holland wants you to put faith and the church above all else. Even to the point of erring on the side of the church vs. truth. 

That's not what he said, Tacenda.  Moreover, Joseph Smith said that:

Quote

“L.D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist” (B. H. Roberts, ed., HC, V:215, Sunday morning, Jan 1, 1843).

"One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" (HC, V:499, July 9, 1843].

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, perhaps it is O.K. to use "Mormon(ism)" when it does not refer to the CJCLDS.

Nelson made it clear, which Holland is explicitly mirroring, that it isn't to be used at all when discussing the Church or anything related to it--except for when referring to the Book of Mormon or proper names within int. I've been told that the concession for historical places such as "Mormon Trail" were only made because those are official federal/state names that are not under control of the Church.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for the LDS scholar now, Elder Holland wants you to put faith and the church above all else. Even to the point of erring on the side of the church vs. truth. 

This perpetuates.  What can they do??  Of course, ..stay in that darn boat!  Church above integrity and family always...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's not what he said, Tacenda.  Moreover, Joseph Smith said that:

“L.D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist” (B. H. Roberts, ed., HC, V:215, Sunday morning, Jan 1, 1843).

"One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" (HC, V:499, July 9, 1843].

 

From 27 minutes in, on this youtube put out by the Maxwell Institute, Elder Holland expresses almost the opposite to the quote you provided, IMO. ETA: 48 minutes in as well. But in reality, I see that the church must carry on in faith, like it always has.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for the LDS scholar now, Elder Holland wants you to put faith and the church above all else. Even to the point of erring on the side of the church vs. truth. 

No, just the ones who are purported representing the church, and certainly being paid by it.   I've read other statements where they fully acknowledge differences where scholarship outside the church exists.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, the narrator said:

Nelson made it clear, which Holland is explicitly mirroring, that it isn't to be used at all when discussing the Church or anything related to it--except for when referring to the Book of Mormon or proper names within int. I've been told that the concession for historical places such as "Mormon Trail" were only made because those are official federal/state names that are not under control of the Church.

I've tried parsing the formal rules as published by the LDS Church, but they seem far less clear to me than to you.  I tried to get Scott Lloyd to explain what the limits were, but he could not be baited.  😎

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I feel sorry for the LDS scholar now, Elder Holland wants you to put faith and the church above all else. Even to the point of erring on the side of the church vs. truth. 

Do you know what I would like to see? Some record of miracles based on researched incidences; or the dissemination of data that demonstrates the effects of prayer; or a host of other faith promoting information that is not addressed in our common studies. I find it strange that your perspective is focused solely on the negative connotations of his statements? It is as if anything faith-promoting is evil and bad for the Body of Christ. Why is that?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

From 27 minutes in, on this youtube put out by the Maxwell Institute, Elder Holland expresses almost the opposite to the quote you provided, IMO. ETA: 48 minutes in as well. But in reality, I see that the church must carry on in faith, like it always has.

 

I listened carefully to everything from 26 to 60 and found nothing said that matches your claim.

I take it that you are aware that BYU and its Maxwell Institute are owned and  operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Moreover, Elder Holland himself fulfills the same function as the NT apostles, such as Paul, Peter, John, Jude, et al., whose letters in the NT are focused on preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  If you think that there is something Holland said that was in fact wrong, or in which he advised lying instead of telling the truth, I wish that you would quote it for me.

I note that, during his speech, Holland did call into question some of the previous history of the Maxwell Institute.  We had some searching discussions on this board about that when Dan Peterson was fired.  I personally liked it much better when FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) was a fully independent organization and not owned by BYU and the Church.  I thought that it was far more effective in that form, just as Book of Mormon Central currently is -- as a fully independent organization.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

From 27 minutes in, on this youtube put out by the Maxwell Institute, Elder Holland expresses almost the opposite to the quote you provided, IMO. ETA: 48 minutes in as well. But in reality, I see that the church must carry on in faith, like it always has.

 

I’m beginning to think that church leaders may be feeling compelled to make certain statements on the record, just to appease certain factions, in this case the more conservative and orthodox.  There likely is a balancing act going on here.  

 

At at the end of the day whether MI employees are held accountable for perceived violations of these guidelines is something that will be important to watch to determine if this is just window dressing.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you know what I would like to see? Some record of miracles based on researched incidences; or the dissemination of data that demonstrates the effects of prayer; or a host of other faith promoting information that is not addressed in our common studies. I find it strange that your perspective is focused solely on the negative connotations of his statements? It is as if anything faith-promoting is evil and bad for the Body of Christ. Why is that?

Just want the truth, whether it be useful or not. I thought those days were over.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just want the truth, whether it be useful or not. I thought those days were over.

Are those stories of positive examples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ working in people's lives not the truth? Or, is it that a leader asks that we focus on positive things that is so bad in your opinion?

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Are those stories of positive examples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ working in people's lives not the truth? Or, is it that a leader asks that we focus on positive things that is so bad in your opinion?

I'm only asking for correct history. And like Elder Holland mentions to the scholars sitting in the audience, they are to think of the members faith above else. And if later on if things come out, not his words, then they will not be held accountable, not his words. I'm sure you've read the quote right? Saw it elsewhere, but I read the whole message with Elder Holland afterwards to see it in context. 

Here is the quote below, that has some people a little/lot concerned I guess. 

"We know you can’t be credible in every circle if you are seen as lacking scholarly substance and categorically defensive all the time. But neither can you afford ever to be perceived as failing to serve the larger, faith-oriented purposes of the Church. All we can ask is that you pray and fast and strive and sweat to find your way through. Then, if there be error, let it be on the side of your covenants and faith convictions. I promise the board won’t return in five years—or ever—and come down on you, saying you made a mistake in doing so."

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm only asking for correct history. And like Elder Holland mentions to the scholars sitting in the audience, they are to think of the members faith above else. And if later on if things come out, not his words, then they will not be held accountable, not his words. I'm sure you've read the quote right? Saw it elsewhere, but I read the whole message with Elder Holland afterwards to see it in context. 

Here is the quote below, that has some people a little/lot concerned I guess. 

"We know you can’t be credible in every circle if you are seen as lacking scholarly substance and categorically defensive all the time. But neither can you afford ever to be perceived as failing to serve the larger, faith-oriented purposes of the Church. All we can ask is that you pray and fast and strive and sweat to find your way through. Then, if there be error, let it be on the side of your covenants and faith convictions. I promise the board won’t return in five years—or ever—and come down on you, saying you made a mistake in doing so."

 

When I review this statement again, my mind went immediately to the Bible. I wonder why so much was left out about Jesus' early life. We have very little about that period. Then I thought of the scripture that a prophet is seldom without honor except in his own land. Why do you think that is?  Don't those who know an individual best the better judge? The problem is that those who know the individual best only know the past of the individual. They see no future and are often incapable of seeing their calling.

History and faith are very similar. A faithful person can review history, through the perspective of the calling, and then see building blocks that others may not and seldom would understand. 

The problem that I see with this demand of "the truth" - that with no spiritual perspective is what is really being demanded is for the absence of God, the Holy Spirit; a wholly secular perspective. That is not helpful for the faithful and those who seek after God. Just my two mites. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I've tried parsing the formal rules as published by the LDS Church, but they seem far less clear to me than to you.  I tried to get Scott Lloyd to explain what the limits were, but he could not be baited.  😎

“Would not be” is a more apt verb in this instance than “could not be.”

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...