Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 No, I haven't. You're missing the point. Holland is standing in judgement of others, just as is almost everybody on this forum who's attempting to defend his remarks with their "blame the victim" arguments.elder Holland is not standing in judgment of you or anyone else. It's quite the opposite going on.
The Nehor Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 No, I haven't. You're missing the point. Holland is standing in judgement of others, just as is almost everybody on this forum who's attempting to defend his remarks with their "blame the victim" arguments. So what? That is part of his job.
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) And here is the crux of the matter. As you've acknowledged in your question, historical data do not speak for themselves; rather, they must be interpreted. And the simply reality is that the same data can be slotted into competing interpretations. For example, a person can look at what we know about the beginnings of Latter-day Saint polygamy and fit the data into a narrative that paints Joseph Smith as a lecher. At the same time, another person can look at the same information and fit the data, just as easily, into a narrative that paints Joseph Smith as a prophet who did his mortal best to carry out complex revelation. Which of these two interpretations a person will be inclined to favour is not a function, however, of a superior ability to access the 'truth' of the past. We all face the same limitations in this regard, and you have no more access to the mind of Joseph Smith (or any other prophet) than I do. The pool of data in both cases is identically shallow. So what explains the choices people make when choosing which interpretation they prefer? When I teach first-year history courses (here at Onion University!), we discuss how scholars and others gravitate towards interpretative frameworks that align with the usually unspoken and often unrecognised assumptions they bring to the historical enterprise. In most cases, these assumptions arise from -- and at minimum are informed by -- our personal experiences. And this means that the interpretation a person is inclined to favour tells us far, far more about the personal experiences of the person than it does about the past. Latter-day Saints who recognise their own personal experiences in more 'faithful' historical narratives will feel drawn to embrace those narratives as 'true'. Latter-day Saints who find 'faithful' interpretations alien to their own personal experiences will feel drawn to other, competing narratives. In other words, the 'more likely historical interpretation of these events' is the one that feels most familiar to the individual answering your question. And that's why, as I asserted previously, the Saints who live below their privileges almost inevitably conclude that the prophets of God have been living below theirs. Historical data often does speak for itself, not in the literal sense but certainly in the practical sense. The confidence interval may not be 100%, always some subjectivity, but it's often quite high. Arguing that the church's mistreatment of blacks is better explained by the divine will and commandment of God as opposed to the racist attitudes of 19th century men has a confidence interval that would be comparable with the historical interpretations that the moon landings were a hoax or 911 was an inside job perpetrated by the federal government to create a justification for war. In terms of probability, the mathematical basis for a decision, there are clear winners. Yes, the data can be "fit" mathematically in different ways, but it would not be true to say "just as easily." Some regressions require impressive mental gymnastics or very very large shelves (more like walk in vaults) to fit the data in such absurd ways. I agree with you however that there is no function, well, there is, but it's different for us all. It's more like a semi-supervised algorithm, relying on both training data and uniquely formed logical rules which have evolved around the time varying series of data that it (read "we") has been exposed to. And I also agree with Holland in the sense that faith and spirituality should be a data point that's given consideration in that learning process. I'm not here arguing that personal revelation should be rejected, the very opposite. I'm arguing that people need to work really hard to increase the confidence interval, and that also demands a humble starting point that recognizes true epistemological limitations. Related to the OP, I'm arguing that it's unreasonable for Elder Holland to respond to questioners and their questions in the manner in which he so callously does. People who reject certain foundational "truths" of the church often do so for very good reasons. They are reasonable people. Their conclusions are reasonable and sound. Holland's attitude is self-serving and arrogant, hypocritical, uncharitable, just plain asinine, and easily flipped on him and other "unquestioning" members of the church. Questioners and their questions are a mystery to Holland, seriously? Holland's words could be rephrased something as follows: I have a question. What conceivable belief or emotion or spiritual experience that may arise among any member of the church could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming intellectual curiosity regarding the observed world around them, their own self existence, reality, human ingenuity and invention, individuality, sense and reason, the head on their shoulders, senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, the advancement and acquisition of knowledge, the beauty of art and philosophy, scientific observation and inquiry, the soul shaping capacity to love, empathy and charity, selfless devotion, integrity, sorrow and remorse? It is a mystery to me – talk about a question – it is a mystery to me how common sense reason, inquisition and creativity, observed reality, the very essence of human nature, that which springs from free will, can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over dogma and tradition, sentimentality, emotional feelings designed to pull our heartstrings or moisten our eyes, conflated with supernatural providence, both unintelligible and completely common among adherents of every single religion that has ever existed in the history of the world. To me, this is in the words attributed to Kurt Vonnegut truly being trapped in the amber of the moment. Or, more to the point, something like this could be asked also. (copied from MD forum) I would love to see Holland as a car salesman. After taking you for a test drive and asking you how it feels on the road, and showing you the shiny paint job, and telling you to breathe deeply take in the new car smell, and then you dare to start asking him tough questions like, what's the gas mileage? how does consumer reports rate it? what was that knocking noise I heard during the test drive? and can I see the carfax? I can just see his face turn red, his jowls tremble as he pounds his fist and says "Well, Mr. Questioner, I have a question for you. What conceivable mechanical issues or unsatisfactory carfax report could ever overshadow or negate the wonderful feelings you experienced driving this beautiful vehicle down the road?" Edited February 14, 2015 by wtrdog
canard78 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 you said you were praying in the Celestial room of the Preston Temple"Ironically I reached the conclusion that institutional revelation was unreliable and rare while praying in the celestial room of the Preston Temple."I know. So where in that statement do I say there's nothing special about temples?
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 So what? That is part of his job. Advertisement for Prophet, Seer, Revelator, Special Witness of Christ Job Requirements:Never Prophesy AnythingNever See AnythingNever Reveal AnythingNever Witness Anything "Special"Ignore First and Second Great CommandmentsShow No Love or Empathy To QuestionersDon't Understand Questions - Act Like They're a MysteryDon't Attempt To Answer QuestionsChastise Those Who Have QuestionsJudge Others UnrighteouslyObfuscateDistract With Shiny ObjectAppeal To Emotion and SentimentalityCryThreaten Suicide if Questions are Too HardCry More 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Advertisement for Prophet, Seer, Revelator, Special Witness of Christ Job Requirements:Never Prophesy AnythingNever See AnythingNever Reveal AnythingNever Witness Anything "Special"Ignore First and Second Great CommandmentsShow No Love or Empathy To QuestionersDon't Understand Questions - Act Like They're a MysteryDon't Attempt To Answer QuestionsChastise Those Who Have QuestionsJudge Others UnrighteouslyObfuscateDistract With Shiny ObjectAppeal To Emotion and SentimentalityCryThreaten Suicide if Questions are Too HardCry MoreIt's a shame you'd rather mock than eat of the tree of life. You would be far happier. And if you studied the word of God you'd see far more prophesy than you realize. When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon through?
canard78 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 So this was a personal revelation?It was a personal conclusion reached through several years of study, pondering, prayer. I had extensively "studied it out in my mind" and then prayed about certain key questions and conclusions. I felt peace, confidence and a sense of resolution in my questions and felt a sense of conclusion. I had a "burning in the bosom." Based on my Mormon upbringing and compared to other spiritual experiences, yes, I would say it was personal revelation.Is it possible that I was reaching conclusions based on personal and cultural influences? Was it possible that my own opinions and questions were shaping both the questions I was willing to ask and therefore the answers I was able to receive? Absolutely! That's exactly what I consider to be happening with regards to "institutional revelation" so I don't pretend for a second that I am also immune to it. To paraphrase Elder Holland's talk from April 2015... we all (including him) create descriptions and perceptions God(s) in our own age and based on our own perceptions, preferences and bias. Perhaps that's revelation. Or perhaps it's simply our individualism.
The Nehor Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Advertisement for Prophet, Seer, Revelator, Special Witness of Christ Job Requirements:Never Prophesy AnythingNever See AnythingNever Reveal AnythingNever Witness Anything "Special"Ignore First and Second Great CommandmentsShow No Love or Empathy To QuestionersDon't Understand Questions - Act Like They're a MysteryDon't Attempt To Answer QuestionsChastise Those Who Have QuestionsJudge Others UnrighteouslyObfuscateDistract With Shiny ObjectAppeal To Emotion and SentimentalityCryThreaten Suicide if Questions are Too HardCry More Wow, that is definitely not for the LDS Church's position but whatever church it is for you should definitely apply. You seem like an ideal candidate.
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 It's a shame you'd rather mock than eat of the tree of life. You would be far happier. And if you studied the word of God you'd see far more prophesy than you realize. When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon through? Mocking is what Holland was doing. It's what you're doing now with your condescension. 1) Why do you presume that I'm not eating of the tree of life? 2) Why do you presume that I am unhappy? 3) Why do you think I don't study the word of God? You've got a lot of very false assumptions here. Last time I read the BOM or last time I sat down and did nothing but read it cover to cover? It's interesting that you put the condition "through" on there, implying there is a proper way to read it. I've read the BOM a lot, far too many times to count. I haven't done cover to cover in a over a year though, but I've read portions of it as recently as a few days ago. Truth be told, the more I read the BOM the less inspired LDS leaders seem to me. I see the formation of similar patterns of spiritual dependence which ultimately resulted in apocalypse. I see the BOM as teaching a very beautiful and deep interpretation of the atonement which church leaders don't at all seem to understand. When's the last time you visited a non-LDS church and talked with their members about their spiritual experiences? When's the last time you objectively studied and analyzed a certain aspect of the church or its history, or the gospel? Have you ever read a book like An Insider's View of Mormon Origins and then prayed to know whether Joseph's practice of polygamy was actually inspired or not? Did you get a strong answer from God, a very clear and unmistakable answer that yes, God really did send an angel with a flaming sword ordering Joseph to secretly bed other men's wives? Has God told you he really wanted that? 2
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Wow, that is definitely not for the LDS Church's position but whatever church it is for you should definitely apply. You seem like an ideal candidate. Whenever you're ready to deal in substance let me know, I'm just biding time...
Bobbieaware Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Historical data often does speak for itself, not in the literal sense but certainly in the practical sense. The confidence interval may not be 100%, always some subjectivity, but it's often quite high. Arguing that the church's mistreatment of blacks is better explained by the divine will and commandment of God as opposed to the racist attitudes of 19th century men has a confidence interval that would be comparable with the historical interpretations that the moon landings were a hoax or 911 was an inside job perpetrated by the federal government to create a justification for war. In terms of probability, the mathematical basis for a decision, there are clear winners. Yes, the data can be "fit" mathematically in different ways, but it would not be true to say "just as easily." Some regressions require impressive mental gymnastics or very very large shelves (more like walk in vaults) to fit the data in such absurd ways. I agree with you however that there is no function, well, there is, but it's different for us all. It's more like a semi-supervised algorithm, relying on both training data and uniquely formed logical rules which have evolved around the time varying series of data that it (read "we") has been exposed to. And I also agree with Holland in the sense that faith and spirituality should be a data point that's given consideration in that learning process. I'm not here arguing that personal revelation should be rejected, the very opposite. I'm arguing that people need to work really hard to increase the confidence interval, and that also demands a humble starting point that recognizes true epistemological limitations. Related to the OP, I'm arguing that it's unreasonable for Elder Holland to respond to questioners and their questions in the manner in which he so callously does. People who reject certain foundational "truths" of the church often do so for very good reasons. They are reasonable people. Their conclusions are reasonable and sound. Holland's attitude is self-serving and arrogant, hypocritical, uncharitable, just plain asinine, and easily flipped on him and other "unquestioning" members of the church. Questioners and their questions are a mystery to Holland, seriously?Holland's words could be rephrased something as follows:I have a question. What conceivable belief or emotion or spiritual experience that may arise among any member of the church could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming intellectual curiosity regarding the observed world around them, their own self existence, reality, human ingenuity and invention, individuality, sense and reason, the head on their shoulders, senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, the advancement and acquisition of knowledge, the beauty of art and philosophy, scientific observation and inquiry, the soul shaping capacity to love, empathy and charity, selfless devotion, integrity, sorrow and remorse? It is a mystery to me – talk about a question – it is a mystery to me how common sense reason, inquisition and creativity, observed reality, the very essence of human nature, that which springs from free will, can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over dogma and tradition, sentimentality, emotional feelings designed to pull our heartstrings or moisten our eyes, conflated with supernatural providence, both unintelligible and completely common among adherents of every single religion that has ever existed in the history of the world. To me, this is in the words attributed to Kurt Vonnegut truly being trapped in the amber of the moment.Or, more to the point, something like this could be asked also. (copied from MD forum)Historical data often does speak for itself, not in the literal sense but certainly in the practical sense. The confidence interval may not be 100%, always some subjectivity, but it's often quite high. Arguing that the church's mistreatment of blacks is better explained by the divine will and commandment of God as opposed to the racist attitudes of 19th century men has a confidence interval that would be comparable with the historical interpretations that the moon landings were a hoax or 911 was an inside job perpetrated by the federal government to create a justification for war. In terms of probability, the mathematical basis for a decision, there are clear winners. Yes, the data can be "fit" mathematically in different ways, but it would not be true to say "just as easily." Some regressions require impressive mental gymnastics or very very large shelves (more like walk in vaults) to fit the data in such absurd ways. I agree with you however that there is no function, well, there is, but it's different for us all. It's more like a semi-supervised algorithm, relying on both training data and uniquely formed logical rules which have evolved around the time varying series of data that it (read "we") has been exposed to. And I also agree with Holland in the sense that faith and spirituality should be a data point that's given consideration in that learning process. I'm not here arguing that personal revelation should be rejected, the very opposite. I'm arguing that people need to work really hard to increase the confidence interval, and that also demands a humble starting point that recognizes true epistemological limitations. Related to the OP, I'm arguing that it's unreasonable for Elder Holland to respond to questioners and their questions in the manner in which he so callously does. People who reject certain foundational "truths" of the church often do so for very good reasons. They are reasonable people. Their conclusions are reasonable and sound. Holland's attitude is self-serving and arrogant, hypocritical, uncharitable, just plain asinine, and easily flipped on him and other "unquestioning" members of the church. Questioners and their questions are a mystery to Holland, seriously?Holland's words could be rephrased something as follows:I have a question. What conceivable belief or emotion or spiritual experience that may arise among any member of the church could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming intellectual curiosity regarding the observed world around them, their own self existence, reality, human ingenuity and invention, individuality, sense and reason, the head on their shoulders, senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, the advancement and acquisition of knowledge, the beauty of art and philosophy, scientific observation and inquiry, the soul shaping capacity to love, empathy and charity, selfless devotion, integrity, sorrow and remorse? It is a mystery to me – talk about a question – it is a mystery to me how common sense reason, inquisition and creativity, observed reality, the very essence of human nature, that which springs from free will, can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over dogma and tradition, sentimentality, emotional feelings designed to pull our heartstrings or moisten our eyes, conflated with supernatural providence, both unintelligible and completely common among adherents of every single religion that has ever existed in the history of the world. To me, this is in the words attributed to Kurt Vonnegut truly being trapped in the amber of the moment.Or, more to the point, something like this could be asked also. (copied from MD forum)The things of God always have been and always will be foolishness to the natural man. The natural man will inevitably find himself in a state of perplexity and utter incredulity as he observes what he sincerely believes to be the nonsensical antics of those who in reality are being led by the Spirit of God. The natural man will always champion rationality and reason over faith and hope. And so with sneering contempt he will decry from the window of a large and spacious building what he is certain is the childish gullibility of those who in truth have learned for themselves that the improbable is the probable in the kingdom of God. The natural man will confidently play the odds, certain of victory because the laws of probability are so very much in his favor. But just as the enemies of the Son of God confidently played the odds that a man named Jesus, from an insignificant backwater Galilean town called Nazareth, was just another charlatan in a long list of Messianic pretenders, so too the natural man of the 21st century will confidently play the odds that a man named Jeffery R Holland, from an "irrelevant" town called Salt Lake City, speaks only for himself and not for God. But like the proverbial starving man who devours a sumptuous feast in his sleep, the natural man of the 21st century will awake from his delicious and satisfying dream as one dissatisfied, famished and desolate. Edited February 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 The things of God always have been and always will be foolishness to the natural man. The natural man will inevitably find himself in a state of perplexity and utter incredulity as he observes what he sincerely believes to be the nonsensical antics of those who in reality are being led by the Spirit of God. The natural man will always champion rationality and reason over faith and hope. And so with sneering contempt he will decry from the window of a large and spacious building what he is certain is the childish gullibility of those who in truth have learned for themselves that the improbable is the probable in the kingdom of God.The natural man will confidently play the odds, certain of victory because the laws of probability are so very much in his favor. But just as the enemies of the Son of God confidently played the odds that a man named Jesus, from an insignificant backwater Galilean town called Nazareth, was just another charlatan in a long list of Messianic pretenders, so too the natural man of the 21st century will confidently play the odds that a man named Jeffery R Holland, from an "irrelevant" town called Salt Lake City, speaks only for himself and not for God. But like the proverbial starving man who devours a sumptuous feast in his sleep, the natural man of the 21st century will awake from his delicious and satisfying dream as one dissatisfied, famished and desolate. Oh good grief. You know I think acid is against the word of wisdom. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/057-14-19.pdf
Bobbieaware Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Oh good grief. You know I think acid is against the word of wisdom.https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/057-14-19.pdfA classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Par for the course, as they say.Your linked article stands in stark contrast to the inspired simplicity of the Book of Mormon and it's and promise of obtainable spiritual clarity and surety before God by the reception of personal revelation. The essay cleverly attempts to persuade the believer to allow the camel's nose of doubt to enter into his heart in pursuit of the supposed logical necessity for an intellectual to keep an open mind to all possibilities. This approach amounts to nothing more than the shifting sandy foundations against which the Lord warned his followers. While keeping the door open to the possibility that the restored gospel is true, equal weight is given to the possibility that it isn't. There is nothing in holy writ that encourages this washy washy approach to the discovery of truth, but by following this uncertain and murky path a semi-converted member of the LDS church can at least hope to partially placate the worldly wise mockers who stand at the windows of the large and spacious building. Heaven forbid that any man should say he knows the restored gospel is true -- what will the mockers at the windows say? If the devil can't persuade a believer to disbelieve in a God all at once, he's perfectly satisfied with being able to successfully minister doubt in the believers mind on the way to ultimate unbelief. The adversary of men's souls is happy to fight on any battleground found along the continuum of sure knowledge to abject unbelief. In fact, by choosing to fight on the battlefields located closest to the place of sure knowledge the devil to is able to wage war against otherwise invulnerable testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints. But while fighting on those battlefields closest to sure knowledge he must be very careful to persuade the followers of a Christ that they don't have to give up on the truth altogether, just that they should entertain the possibility of the idea. As Nephi warned, the devil knows he can hope to lead the souls of valiant believers down to hell only by the application of clever cunning and the exercise of exceeding great care. All this helps to explain why some are so angry with a Elder Holland: The last thing in the world an intellectual semi-convert wants to hear is the voice of prophetic certainty. This is why, either figuratively of literally, intellectual religionists throughout the ages have stoned the living prophets. Truth hurts. Edited February 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) People who reject certain foundational "truths" of the church often do so for very good reasons. They are reasonable people. You'll note, I hope, that I have never once suggested that those who reject the truth claims of the Church are unreasonable. In fact, I'm quite certain I've argued that such people are making the choice that seems most reasonable to them based on their personal experiences. You, on the other hand, seem determined to label anyone whose personal experiences have led them to a conclusion different to your own as being irrational -- subject to 'confirmation bias', incapable of 'objectivity', unthinking, judgmental, unintellectual (working for The Onion), etc. Edited February 14, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Mocking is what Holland was doing. It's what you're doing now with your condescension. 1) Why do you presume that I'm not eating of the tree of life? 2) Why do you presume that I am unhappy? 3) Why do you think I don't study the word of God? You've got a lot of very false assumptions here. Last time I read the BOM or last time I sat down and did nothing but read it cover to cover? It's interesting that you put the condition "through" on there, implying there is a proper way to read it. I've read the BOM a lot, far too many times to count. I haven't done cover to cover in a over a year though, but I've read portions of it as recently as a few days ago. Truth be told, the more I read the BOM the less inspired LDS leaders seem to me. I see the formation of similar patterns of spiritual dependence which ultimately resulted in apocalypse. I see the BOM as teaching a very beautiful and deep interpretation of the atonement which church leaders don't at all seem to understand. When's the last time you visited a non-LDS church and talked with their members about their spiritual experiences? When's the last time you objectively studied and analyzed a certain aspect of the church or its history, or the gospel? Have you ever read a book like An Insider's View of Mormon Origins and then prayed to know whether Joseph's practice of polygamy was actually inspired or not? Did you get a strong answer from God, a very clear and unmistakable answer that yes, God really did send an angel with a flaming sword ordering Joseph to secretly bed other men's wives? Has God told you he really wanted that?Because a trained chimp couldn't read your posts without recognizing the condscension and mocking tone of your posts. While elder Holland has absolutely none of that spirit in his sermon.If you were familiar with the Book of Mormon you would know exactly why the spirit you are manifesting is contrary to the tree of life and thus contrary to the principles of happiness.Though I am happy to read that you recognize it as the word of God. I'm not sure how you expect to learn from it if you haven't read it in over a year.I go to other churches frequently. In fact I was at one last night. I see no reason not to support any person in the honest search for the truth even if they arent ready for the fullness yet. And I certainly wouldn't sit them and mock them in their fsith 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Whenever you're ready to deal in substance let me know, I'm just biding time...You're complaining about him not dealing in substance? Did you read the post he was responding to?
Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 You'll note, I hope, that I have never once suggested that those who reject the truth claims of the Church are unreasonable. In fact, I'm quite certain I've argued that such people are making the choice that seems most reasonable to them based on their personal experiences. You, on the other hand, seem determined to label anyone whose personal experiences have led them to a conclusion different to your own as being irrational -- subject to 'confirmation bias', incapable of 'objectivity', unthinking, judgmental, unintellectual (working for The Onion), etc.Unfortunately idont think he cares
Duncan Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) I know. So where in that statement do I say there's nothing special about temples? you told Bluebell you weren't talking about Temples but you think they are special places-is where the confusion came in "What are you talking about? I've said nothing about temples. I consider them to be very special places." Edited February 14, 2015 by Duncan
carbon dioxide Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 I see the formation of similar patterns of spiritual dependence which ultimately resulted in apocalypse. I see the BOM as teaching a very beautiful and deep interpretation of the atonement which church leaders don't at all seem to understand.I see you making a judgment against "church leaders" that you can not possibly make. Who are you to say what another person understands or does not understand? Perhaps it is very possible that someone like Elder Holland has a far deeper understanding of the atonement than you. 1
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 You'll note, I hope, that I have never once suggested that those who reject the truth claims of the Church are unreasonable. In fact, I'm quite certain I've argued that such people are making the choice that seems most reasonable to them based on their personal experiences.You, on the other hand, seem determined to label anyone whose personal experiences have led them to a conclusion different to your own as being irrational -- subject to 'confirmation bias', incapable of 'objectivity', unthinking, judgmental, unintellectual (working for The Onion), etc.The mistake you're making is thinking this thread is about you or my opinions of your conclusions, which it's not. It's about Holland and what he said. I think what this discussion has become is an object lesson on how "unquestioners" misunderstand and defensively react to "questioners." Hmm, I wonder why? Support for my thesis that Holland's podium pounding is a psychologically-driven coping mechanism that manifests in response to his not having any good answers. It would not be possible for me to say anybody who hasn't reached the same conclusions as me is irrational, that would require me to first state what those conclusions are, which I haven't done. This thread isn't about any question or answer in particular.
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 I see you making a judgment against "church leaders" that you can not possibly make. Who are you to say what another person understands or does not understand? Perhaps it is very possible that someone like Elder Holland has a far deeper understanding of the atonement than you.Because I see and hear what they teach. Tired analogies about penal substition, stay in the boat, be a passenger in a vehicle driven by another, follow the prophet (that doesn't prophesy or even claim to be a prophet), when leader speaks thinking has been done, prophet can't lead astray (in scriptures nowhere), letter of the law obsession over institutional busy work, etc. I see messages that teach people to be skeptical of personal revelation. And then on the receiving end I see a widespread dependence on leaders. I see robotic "I know" recitations and talks and lessons that are conference regurgitations. And then I see anybody who raises their hand and asks an uncorrelated question threatened with discipline or otherwise dog piled.
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 You're complaining about him not dealing in substance? Did you read the post he was responding to?it's a troll war between me and him
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 ... recognizing the condscension and mocking tone of your posts. While elder Holland has absolutely none of that spirit in his sermon.If you were familiar with the Book of Mormon you would know exactly why the spirit you are manifesting is contrary to the tree of life and thus contrary to the principles of happiness....I'm not sure how you expect to learn from it if you haven't read it in over a year.(Face Palm)
Recommended Posts