Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[Deborah]

The whole point is about Holland's inappropriate use of the word.

I suppose it depends on one's interpretation whether his use was inappropriate. One dictionary definition of the word crawl is "to move or progress slowly or laboriously." This certainly fits the description of many who leave the church by their own histories. It's a progressive and often laborious task according to them to leave the church where their family and values are.

Others literally try to sneak out without being noticed and hence crawling in the sense of to "move in a prone position with the body resting on or close to the ground" is an apt description of someone trying to leave unnoticed, or just dropping away.

[mfbukowski]

If John won't, I will.

John did not claim as his own view that the Mormons "crawled" out of Missouri. John was responding to the argument that Elder Holland's use of the word "crawl" when talking about Mormons leaving the Church was not pejorative.

To show that the word "crawl" can indeed be reasonably construed to be pejorative, John put the shoe on the other foot, and asked if Mormons would think it pejorative to say that the Mormons "crawled" out of Missouri.

John was not making fun of the persecutions suffered by the Mormons in Missouri.

He was simply pointing out that the use of the word "crawl" to leave a certain place has pejorative connotations.

And the effectiveness of his argument seems to be born out by the fact that you have taken umbrage over his use of the term.

The more you bring it up, lostindc, the more you prove John right.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks for pointing out that John needs all the help he can get in defending himself.

[mfbukowski]

Very well said! I think favorite is the word "umbrage". . . I have rarely even come across that word in conversation. . . great observation.

I prefer to leave umbrage than take it.

[mfbukowski]

Your heart is as black as three feet down a wolf's gullet.

Wolves aren't THAT big. Three feet? Should be getting light again pretty soon...

[John Larsen]

Thanks for pointing out that John needs all the help he can get in defending himself.

ad hominem may be a logical fallacy, but it just feels right, doesn't it?

[John Larsen]

...and John's insistence on being offended by a word which made perfect semantic sense but was spoken by a man whom he already despises.

I have pointed out several times that I wasn't offended. Many were, and I have only been attempting to explain why they were. I don't understand the overzealous urge to try and make this about me. I liked Hollands talk. He used verbiage that many might find offense. That is all.

[Deborah]

I liked Hollands talk. He used verbiage that many might find offense. That is all.

I guess what is kind of hard to understand is why anyone who left the church would take offense at something they don't hearken to anyway. Why do they even bother to listen? It's like they want to pick a fight and will look for any reason to do so. In any case if one worries about all those who will become offended for a word he'd never be able to say anything because people will find offense where they will.

[juliann]

Excellent point! Many saints did indeed literally crawl out of Missouri! They suffered horrifically! And yet, even though the term was entirely physically accurate in its description, the term itself has such nasty connotation that it wouldn't be acceptable to use if even if precisely and factually employed.

Can the distressed reinterpreting possibly get any more lame? Never acceptable? Do you live in an English speaking nation?

The crime scene was crawling with police. We crawled along the rocks until we reached our destination. Traffic slowed to a crawl during rush hour.

[John Larsen]

I guess what is kind of hard to understand is why anyone who left the church would take offense at something they don't hearken to anyway. Why do they even bother to listen? It's like they want to pick a fight and will look for any reason to do so. In any case if one worries about all those who will become offended for a word he'd never be able to say anything because people will find offense where they will.

Most of the "apostates" cannot fully severe relationship with the Church. Most often, very close family members including spouses, parents, and children are still active, participating members. Many times co-workers and bosses, clients and customers are believing members. Often, the lose of faith is accompanied by reputation damaging rumors and innuendos about one's integrity, faithfulness or trustworthiness. Many who leave the Church will find their place in the community damaged and many close relationship severed.

Whenever the brethren say anything that implies that those who leave the church are liars, have low integrity, are not to be trusted or crawl around--many of those who leave the Church will suffer daily because of how they are treated by those who believe they are low and evil.

That is why they get upset. Many of us labor to show that good people can have legitimate differences of opinion on religion and not be liars or agents of the Dark Lord. Comments like Holland's put the dialog backwards and cause many real people real pain.

[John Larsen]

Can the distressed reinterpreting possibly get any more lame? Never acceptable? Do you live in an English speaking nation?

The crime scene was crawling with police. We crawled along the rocks until we reached our destination. Traffic slowed to a crawl during rush hour.

Each and every example you use has a negative connotation except for the second which was literal and not metaphoric. We can therefore draw a conclusion, the metaphoric use of the word crawl is negative while the denoted use may or may not be.

[Pahoran]

I have pointed out several times that I wasn't offended. Many were, and I have only been attempting to explain why they were. I don't understand the overzealous urge to try and make this about me. I liked Hollands talk. He used verbiage that many might find offense. That is all.

Oh, you "liked [Elder] Holland's talk," did you?

You liked it so much that you tried to undermine it with facile remarks about "a hint of desperation."

And you even liked it so much that you trotted over to Shades's Sty -- a forum where, for obvious reasons, you feel much more at home -- and did your best to shred it, to a loud chorus of approving oinks.

(And when called on it in this thread, you insisted upon the right to choose which face you wanted to talk out of when you were posting here; a right which I suppose you do have.)

So tell us, John; how would you have responded to Elder Holland's talk if you didn't like it?

That is why they get upset. Many of us labor to show that good people can have legitimate differences of opinion on religion and not be liars or agents of the Dark Lord. Comments like Holland's put the dialog backwards and cause many real people real pain.

Like that, perhaps?

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Whenever the brethren say anything that implies that those who leave the church are liars, have low integrity, are not to be trusted or crawl around--many of those who leave the Church will suffer daily because of how they are treated by those who believe they are low and evil.

CFR Produce even one article in the Ensign that says anything like this. We are told and even warned to treat everyone with kindness and "the Church" is not responsible for the outliers who do not.

What a despicable accusation.

[juliann]

Each and every example you use has a negative connotation except for the second which was literal and not metaphoric. We can therefore draw a conclusion, the metaphoric use of the word crawl is negative while the denoted use may or may not be.

Ah, moving the goal posts again.

And if you consider a problem area "crawling with police" to be a negative you have a bigger problem than your distress over a word.

[John Larsen]

CFR Produce even one article in the Ensign that says anything like this. We are told and even warned to treat everyone with kindness and "the Church" is not responsible for the outliers who do not.

What a despicable accusation.

Fancy foot work trying to suggest that the only legitimate source of official pronouncement is the Ensign.

[Deborah]

Whenever the brethren say anything that implies that those who leave the church are liars, have low integrity, are not to be trusted or crawl around--many of those who leave the Church will suffer daily because of how they are treated by those who believe they are low and evil.

Give me a break! What an exaggeration. Based on my experience with those who leave the church, and I've had lots, such feelings of "suffering" are of their own making and based on how they perceive what others say or do and not how they are actually treated. There may be a few jerks out there but most members of the church I know are concerned about those who leave and try to treat them with extra thoughtfulness. But then that is probably interpreted as somehow thinking the leave-taker is low and evil and therefore tread softly.

[John Larsen]

Give me a break! What an exaggeration. Based on my experience with those who leave the church, and I've had lots, such feelings of "suffering" are of their own making and based on how they perceive what others say or do and not how they are actually treated. There may be a few jerks out there but most members of the church I know are concerned about those who leave and try to treat them with extra thoughtfulness. But then that is probably interpreted as somehow thinking the leave-taker is low and evil and therefore tread softly.

I have had more experience with those who leave the Church and you are wrong.

[Theseus]

We finally got our Conference broadcasts Saturday and yesterday, and I have now seen Elder Holland's sermon. I kept waiting to hear something, anything, to justify and/or explain the outpouring of vitriol from the apostates. Finally, it struck me. Considering the number of threads one regularly sees on RfM which insist that Church leaders are fully aware of the 'fraud' but forge ahead nonetheless because it advances their personal agenda of greed, power, and position, Elder Holland's testimony either suggests (Heaven forbid!) that some Church leaders actually believe or, more likely, has to immediately be relegated as one more attempt to perpetuate the fraud. They can't leave it alone because it either undermines or beautifully supports their grand assumptions about how things must work. Hence, Danna's desperate and dishonest attempts to show that Elder Holland lied and John's insistence on being offended by a word which made perfect semantic sense but was spoken by a man whom he already despises.

I agree with you, Hamba, that the Elder does appear to earnestly believe what he is saying. I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that he was intentionally lying. The critics may feel sorry that such an intelligent man would believe in such a book, but he would be, at most, honestly fooled.

As far as crawling under, around or over the Book of Mormon, I don't feel the term is offensive, but it is inaccurate. Plenty of people leave the church precisely because of the the Book of Mormon, the hard-to-swallow account of its origins, its anachronisms, unbelievable stories, DNA issues, etc. I suspect if you were to ask any number of exmormons if they found the Book of Mormon to be an impediment to their leaving, you would most likely get a majority concensus of "No" (poll, anyone?). In this sense, the Book of Mormon is not a barrier to exiting the church, but is, instead, a gaping hole through which intellectuals will continue to pour, right next to the even bigger hole that is the Book of Abraham.

Theseus

[Deborah]

I have had more experience with those who leave the Church and you are wrong.

CFR you have had more experience than I have with this. Which you can't because you have no idea what my experience has been.

[John Larsen]

CFR you have had more experience than I have with this. Which you can't because you have no idea what my experience has been.

http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=U1NFLzIwMDcvMDgvMDQjQXIwNDAwMg==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

I have been active in the ex-Mormon support communities for nearly 5 years. I have personal met with 100s of former and current members struggling and have personally corresponded with 100s more. I have a podcast dealing with the transitional issues that is downloaded by several 1000 every week. I have lead discussion forum and seminars for transitioning members and even spent this very weekend traveling to meet with former members.

What is your experience?

[Deborah]

I have been active in the ex-Mormon support communities for nearly 5 years.

This doesn't change the point that what they are telling you is what they think is others' reaction to them based on their own expectations or guilt.

I'd rather take my lifetime experience of friends, acquaintances and family members who have left the church for various reasons and actually observing them and their responses, not just what they want me to hear.

[John Larsen]

This doesn't change the point that what they are telling you is what they think is others' reaction to them based on their own expectations or guilt.

I'd rather take my lifetime experience of friends, acquaintances and family members who have left the church for various reasons and actually observing them and their responses, not just what they want me to hear.

I will ask the obvious question. Why do you think that I am hearing "just what they want me to hear" and you are not.

I have seen the divorce decrees, I have witnessed the custody battles, I have seen the people written out of wills, I know people who have been disowned, who have siblings that refuse to talk. I have seen the notes left on doors and on cars. I know the accusations that have been raised. I guess all of these things are just a matter of seeing what ones wants to see?

[ttribe]

I will ask the obvious question. Why do you think that I am hearing "just what they want me to hear" and you are not.

I have seen the divorce decrees, I have witnessed the custody battles, I have seen the people written out of wills, I know people who have been disowned, who have siblings that refuse to talk. I have seen the notes left on doors and on cars. I know the accusations that have been raised. I guess all of these things are just a matter of seeing what ones wants to see?

None of these things is endemic to the Church.

[John Larsen]

None of these things is endemic to the Church.

Why not? Can a Church that is composed of only its members rightful distance itself from all actions by its members, especially when performed by those acting as an officer for the Church?

[ttribe]

Why not? Can a Church that is composed of only its members rightful distance itself from all actions by its members, especially when performed by those acting as an officer for the Church?

Because of the human factor. I suspect you will find the same, or similar behaviors virtually anytime someone is perceived as abandoning the "group", as it were. That you want to demonize the Church over typical human behavior seems to be a problem unto itself.

[Deborah]

None of these things is endemic to the Church.

Quite correct. And in fact I know many who have left the church who remained married and their spouses remain active in church so this tells me that these things have a different cause rather than just the fact someone left the church. In fact there are most likely other issues which cause such hostility and these things would be present whether one left the church or not.

And no doubt some people are guilty of such discrimination but I'm tired of people blaming this on the church which constantly talks about being kind and understanding with those who have left. I don't suppose the fact that some of those who leave actually become hostile toward the church and actively proselyte against it has anything to do with the hostile reactions.