People leaving the church: Is it a "patty-cake" lack of conviction (Holland) or "more complicated than that" (Uchtdorf)?

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have no problem with Elder Holland expressing righteous indignation.  What bothers me is his misrepresentation of so many church members. 

Representation in general is a complicated and captivating issue. I strongly suspect that many figures portrayed in the writings of the prophets in the scriptures would have considered their portraits therein to be misrepresentations.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Representation in general is a complicated and captivating issue. I strongly suspect that many figures portrayed in the writings of the prophets in the scriptures would have considered their portraits therein to be misrepresentations.

It's not that complicated.  Holland didn't have to generalize in that way.  I get it, he's upset.  Does speaking out in a way that hurts others make it better?

Do scriptural examples of the same justify what Holland did?

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I find it amusing how some people on this board continually misconstrue the plain meaning of words. 

This is the third time I've asked you to supply a quote by Elder Holland from this talk where he expressed his great "love and concern" for those who have left the church.  Where are those words?

You claim that if we'd listen to the entire talk those words are in there and that the quote in the OP has been taken out of context.

Once again, I ask for a quote to back up your claim here.  If you just ignore this again, I'll assume you are mistaken.

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not that complicated ... Does speaking out in a way that hurts others make it better?

Considering that entire academic disciplines treat the subject of representation, I'm not sure that the issue is as simple as you seem to wish it to be: never say anything that offends me.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why the need to distort my position and statements?  You have not denied a single statement that I made concerning the actions the church has taken against gays.  I have acknowledged the church not opposing institutionalized discrimination against gays in housing and employment in the state of Utah when it was brought up.  

When it is brought up?  It must always be part of the overall assessment, along with allowing homosexual children to be boy scouts -- in addition to any other accommodations of which you  may be aware (and should mention, so as to encourage more of the same).

I also acknowledge that the church allows a member to be gay as long as they remain single their whole lives. (a future most humans would find un natural and depressing) Is there more that the church has done for the LGBT community?

There are many anchorite or monastic communities associated with various religions, which do not find such practices unnatural or depressing.  Why do you insist on insulting all religious practices with which you don't agree?  Nobody said it was easy.

Why don't you present your reasons why the church is not hostile towards gays. 

Are LDS Church leaders and members actually "hostile" toward homosexuals (active or passive)?  Are Church leaders and members actively "hostile" towards others whom they class as making immoral commitments and decisions (adulterers, prostitutes, alcoholics & other drug abusers, domestic abusers, etc.)?  Or are they genuinely concerned for the eternal welfare of such people, in a Christlike manner?

Geese do you have an ax to grind or what.  At some point, you have managed to push me just a little too far in distorting what I have actually said. So I am going to be quite candid and clear with you.  Where did I exhibit any hatred towards the church?  I may not like the actions of the church, but there is no hatred towards the church or it's leaders.  Even so, I have always acknowledged that the church can do what ever it wants against the gay community.  But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.  When you attack a community as much as the church has done, one can hardly expect some kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for the churches actions.

WHERE did I insult anyone's religious beliefs????  Just because there are some monastic communities that also practice celibacy does not change the fact that I think celibacy is unnatural and depressing.  Are you seriously suggesting that humans were naturally meant to be celibate?  That they are hardwired NOT to connect with someone and share their life with them?  Darn right, a celibate life is unnatural.  Do you insult others beliefs when you got married?  Or is it just gays that are insulting others religions by wanting to marry.  Getting married is a core belief of the church and has been since it's beginning.  You certainly are not going to deny that are you?  It is just gays that the church has decided it would be more natural for them to not marry.  For everyone else the law of chastity is no sex outside of who one is legally and lawfully married.  For gays, it is no sex for ever.  Fine.  the church can teach what it wants.  Not being allowed to share my life with someone I love and am deeply committed to would be VERY depressing.  You really find that insulting?  Give me a break.

Yes LDS Church leaders are hostile towards homosexuals.  I will once again post my reasons for having this belief.

Quote

Oh pleezzze. Mounting a 40 million dollar campaign to take away gays civil rights. Not letting children being baptized for the sole reason that their parents are apostate gays. Do they name call couples not married apostates and prevent their children from being baptized?  You really don't get a message loud and clear that gays are not welcome?  Not allowing scout leaders that are gay.   This all goes WAY beyond how the church treats others in sin. The church may have always viewed homosexual relations as sin but the church has launched a full scale attack on gays and their families.  Do you seriously not see how the church treats gays?

 Every single one of those things the church has done, and you have not disputed a single one.  The church is aggressive against gays even when they are not members of the church. Go figure.  While I acknowledged that the church did not oppose non discrimination laws in Utah, one could hardly make the case that the church is fighting for non discrimination laws in other areas.  There has been no statements opposing the actions of North Carolina or Missouri from church leaders for example.  You seem to think the church has treated LGBT with some kind of love and respect, yet you have not been able to come up with a list of actions that have shown such love or respect for the LGBT community.  Can you point to any political campaign aimed at adulterous, alcoholics, and other drug abusers, domestic abusers where the church has spent 40 million dollars and 70% of the ground force passing laws against them?  I think not, but I may be wrong.  Have they barred their children from membership in the church?  So this time, instead of calling me a hater of the church, show me where the church has been aggressive in the areas YOU mentioned to the degree the church has towards the gay community.  Is all you have managed to do is chastise me for my reason why I think the church is pretty aggressive in attacking the LGBT community.

You also have continually labeled my attitudes towards the church as hatred.  This is a big lie.  I have been posting on this board for 10 years.  I have stated over and over again including in this very thread that the church has a lot of good in it and that it is for some people a great place for them to find peace and joy.  I have also stated over and over again that I have always supported my children's activity in the church.  You want to deflect the issues against the gay community towards me, yet in order to do that you have to make statements against me that have no basis in fact simply because you can not dispute the aggressive action the church has taken towards the LGBT community.  If you think this is somehow just my own perception of the church, then you gotta get out a little more.  There are a LOT of people that think the Mormon church is hostile towards gays.  If you want proof of that, I would be more than happy to present it to you.

This thread is about reasons why people leave the church and how much thought and prayer go into such a decision.  How the church has treated the gay community is a BIG part of many leaving the church.  Just look on this board of the number of people who have left and are considering leaving in part because of the church's aggressive actions towards the LGBT community.  Read the thread on the rock star, and how he wanted to stay active in the church until the latest volley against gays.  The church simply doesn't care.  I don't expect to see any lessening of these aggressive actions towards the LGBT community. 

 

 

 

 

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I find it amusing how some people on this board continually misconstrue the plain meaning of words. I causes me to wonder how often that misconstrual is caused by an inability to think critically,...

Yes, without you here to clarify what Elder Holland meant, we'd never know exactly what his message was:

On 5/1/2016 at 7:43 AM, Bobbieaware said:

In a nutshell, his message is grow up and stop being cry babies.

Do you even recognize that many members who love the church and have been faithful members their entire lives are painfully struggling with questions and doubts?  They want to continue being active and want to stay in the church with their families.  

My Bishop's office is becoming more and more filled with members like this from our ward who are coming in for help.  I'll just tell him that his best response is to give them the "message" that they need to "grow up and stop being cry babies".  Yes, that will help.  Thanks for your great words of wisdom, Bobbieaware.

,

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

I find President Uchtdorf's approach more helpful and better considered. I understand that passion that Elder Holland is expressing, but I think it's ultimately less helpful. 

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could it be that Holland was addressing those who do in fact leave for patty-cake reasons.  There are plenty of those, and one can meet them in the blogosphere or in person.  There is little doubt that it is not simply serious, thoughtful people who leave, but some very silly billies

If that's the case, and Elder Holland was just addressing the few who have left for silly reasons, then in hind sight, he may wish now that he had clarified rather than painting with such a broad brush.  I'd also imagine that he hears more detailed stories that I do and knows of some who left without much thought, but I honestly have not known anyone who I'd classify as "silly billies" or who have left for "patty-cake reasons".

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 All have a right to leave, and it is inevitable that some people will leave any religious group, perhaps switching to another religion, or to no religion at all.  Either way, we should not be scandalized by it.  It is nothing new and is a concomitant fact of life.  In my opinion too much can certainly be made of it, as we seem to be doing in this thread.

I think this thread is an expression by some here who have gone through this.  Many (like myself) struggled for a few years and came back to full activity.  Some here did not return, but still have family members in the church, so they are still involved and are still members.  It's hard enough to go through this painful experience without hearing an Apostle get up and make light of what we have gone through or may still be going through. It's painful for them to know that their family members are hearing Elder Holland's words too.  These are the same family members who are also trying to understand and help bring them back.  

I think a little understanding and empathy from both sides would be a great way to handle this topic.  I know I could do better too.

.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If that's the case, and Elder Holland was just addressing the few who have left for silly reasons, then in hind sight, he may wish now that he had clarified rather than painting with such a broad brush.  I'd also imagine that he hears more detailed stories that I do and knows of some who left without much thought, but I honestly have not known anyone who I'd classify as "silly billies" or who have left for "patty-cake reasons".

I think this thread is an expression by some here who have gone through this.  Many (like myself) struggled for a few years and came back to full activity.  Some here did not return, but still have family members in the church, so they are still involved and are still members.  It's hard enough to go through this painful experience without hearing an Apostle get up and make light of what they have gone through or still are going through. It's painful for them to know their family members hear Elder Holland's words too.  The same family members who are also trying to understand and help bring them back.  

I think a little understanding and empathy from both sides would be a great way to handle this topic.  I know I could do better too.

One would hope there was as much concern over people joining the church over "patty cake" reasons. The historical lack of concern over that explains why so many converts are now inactive. Join on a whim, leave on a whim. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Gray

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

One would hope there was as much concern over people joining the church over "patty cake" reasons. The historical lack of concern over that explains why so many converts are now inactive. 

Very true.  Thus the very poor retention rate regarding new baptisms out in the mission fields.  I am amazed at how fast missionaries try to commit a person to baptism and then are very disappointed or surprised when the person doesn't stay in the church.  I am sure Elder Holland is concerned about this too.

[mtomm]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Funny how ill-wishers are always creating that straw man.

You are wrong to call me an ill-wisher. I don't equate apostles with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or God The Father. They have a calling, they do their best within their own limitations. I don't need a lecture telling me that God gets angry sometimes and so that makes it okay for the apostles to disparage those struggling with the Church.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well, fortunately you don't believe that any more. Doesn't that make you so much better than them?

Poster suspended this time

 

Thank you, mods.

[stemelbow]

Furious at people?  What's the good in that?  He should be more upset the Church has made people feel like they are trash, that upon scrutiny many reasonable people find the Church lacking.  This feels less about all these people Elder Holland doesn't know and more about himself.  I wonder if he's feeling frustrated he can't figure out how to help them.  That seems like it'd illicit such contempt. 

This makes me feel badly for Elder Holland.  I'm sure it's a tough uphill battle he feels he's engaged in. 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have no problem with Elder Holland expressing righteous indignation.  What bothers me is his misrepresentation of so many church members. 

So now I'll have to explain myself again: When fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, Church Leaders, prophets of God, and even God himself feel righteous indignation from time to time, it is because the love that they feel that righteous indignation. In fact, righteous indignation is an EXPRESSION OF LOVE, just as it is in that small portion of of Elder Holland's wonderful devotional address that has those on this board who are wavering in their faith twisted in a knot. When my father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, Church leaders, and prophets (yes, on two separate occasions I was sternly rebuked by apostles of the Lord) have expressed their righteous indignation toward my misdeeds and wrong choices, I knew they rebuked me BECAUSE they loved me, not because they didn't love me -- or because they were jerks. 

Just before beginning this post, I listened to Elder Holland's address once again, and I must say it is filled with love for everybody and anybody -- but it is a tough love. It is a love that says the test of life and the trial of faith were deliberately designed by divine wisdom to be extremely difficult, gut-wrenching experiences. By divine design the trial of faith is supposed to leave many questions unanswered (except when answered by personal revelation through the Holy Ghost) and cause many many challenging perplexities of mind, heart and spirit, just as it was for the Savior in Gethsemane. Elder Holland is lovingly telling us that the apostle Paul was all too correct when he said we will not be be glorified with Christ until we learn how to successfully suffer with him. For those who think the Lord is asking too much of his people, Elder Holland is saying there is no other way to succeed in mortality but to stop wishing for a reality and universe where things aren't so hard. Like it or not, our reality is based on a total diametric opposition in all things, ant the sooner we stiffen our spines and accept that reality the better off everybody will be.

Just as the Savior had his questions answered and fears conquered by appealing one on one with his Father a not to any man, many of you who are wavering in your faith are going to have to learn to do the same thing yourselves, or fall. The leaders of the Church are deliberately not answering many of your questions because they know it is meant to be that you learn how get the answers on your own through personal revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Considering that entire academic disciplines treat the subject of representation, I'm not sure that the issue is as simple as you seem to wish it to be: never say anything that offends me.

We aren't talking about the entire subject of representation.  We're talking about how a man, speaking publicly as an apostle, chose misrepresent those who leave the church.  It's now twice in as many Sundays that Holland has chosen to either speak in blatant hyperbole or outright falsehood to make a point.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So now I'll have to explain myself again: When fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, Church Leaders, prophets of God, and even God himself feel righteous indignation from time to time, it is because the love that they feel that righteous indignation. In fact, righteous indignation is an EXPRESSION OF LOVE, just as it is in that small portion of of Elder Holland's wonderful devotional address that has those on this board who are wavering in their faith twisted in a knot. When my father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, Church leaders, and prophets (yes, on two separate occasions I was sternly rebuked by apostles of the Lord) have expressed their righteous indignation toward my misdeeds and wrong choices, I knew they rebuked me BECAUSE they loved me, not because they didn't love me -- or because they were jerks. 

Just before beginning this post, I listened to Elder Holland's address once again, and I must say it is filled with love for everybody and anybody -- but it is a tough love. It is a love that says the test of life and the trial of faith were deliberately designed by divine wisdom to be extremely difficult, gut-wrenching experiences. By divine design the trial of faith is supposed to leave many questions unanswered (except when answered by personal revelation through the Holy Ghost) and cause many many challenging perplexities of mind, heart and spirit, just as it was for the Savior in Gethsemane. Elder Holland is lovingly telling us that the apostle Paul was all too correct when he said we will not be be glorified with Christ until we learn how to successfully suffer with him. For those who think the Lord is asking too much of his people, Elder Holland is saying there is no other way to succeed in mortality but to stop wishing for a reality and universe where things aren't so hard. Like it or not, our reality is based on a total diametric opposition in all things, ant the sooner we stiffen our spines and accept that reality the better off everybody will be.

Just as the Savior had his questions answered and fears conquered by appealing one on one with his Father a not to any man, many of you who are wavering in your faith are going to have to learn to do the same thing yourselves, or fall. The leaders of the Church are deliberately not answering many of your questions because they know it is meant to be that you learn how get the answers on your own through personal revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

I have no doubt that Elder Holland is filled with love towards church members.  I even believe he is filled with love for many of those who leave (though his quote certainly didn't indicate that).  He's a great man who serves tirelessly.

None of that, and none of what you have written above, changes the fact that he took a group of people and trivialized their real life experience and trials.  It's hurtful and, frankly, beneath him.  I've listened to him enough that I know he most often speaks extemporaneously for large portions of his addresses in these settings.  I assume what the OP quote was off the cuff and I imagine that he'd like to go back in time and revise it if he could.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So now I'll have to explain myself again: When fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, Church Leaders, prophets of God, and even God himself feel righteous indignation from time to time, it is because the love that they feel that righteous indignation. In fact, righteous indignation is an EXPRESSION OF LOVE,

Righteous Indignation: "anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way"

Aw yes, feel the love.

This line of reasoning is not at all effective.  How about you just admit there are better ways to express love and empathy and understanding?  Again I know I can do better at this myself.  Especially regarding these types of discussions on here that are very personal and emotional for many.

You also keep saying that Elder Holland expressed his love and concern throughout the talk for those who have left, but others have asked for specific quotes and you have supplied none.  

Since you've now listened to his entire talk at least twice, I hope you wrote some of those quotes down and will be posting them here.

.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

An Evening With A General Authority

Is it really fair to call that a rant though?  If feeling strongly about something we are talking about is the same as ranting, then we are all ranting multiple times a day on here.   This whole thread is full of rants if that's the definition we are using.

A rant is defined as speaking or shouting in a wild and impassioned way.  I'm thinking that you misspoke in your characterization of Elder Holland's words because of your emotional state.  It's not a big deal, but it does show how hard it is to be completely accurate and fair when emotions are involved.

In fact, this whole thread is an example of how it's literally impossible to speak freely and openly without also allowing for the possibility of mis-speaking on the part of the speaker and misunderstanding and offense taking on the part of the listener. 

We want our leaders to speak openly and honestly and from the heart without teleprompters or edits later but When one of them does we all fall apart in anger and despair at every imperfectly expressed emotion or thought. 

Elder Holland once said that imperfect people are all that God has to work with and that it must be very aggravating for Him but He handles it and so can we.  The reaction to elder Holland's imperfections show that no, we REALLY cannot handle it. 

We demand that other people handle our imperfections, but we have little ability or desire to handle theirs. 

[flameburns623]

 have listened to the longer context of this talk, and I just do not hear it the same way.

In the Army, especially in combat, this sort of bold-chested rhetoric is frequently used to shore up the flagging courage of fighting men, to bolster and to embolden them in the heat and sound and fury of battle. 

"C'mon you slugs! Forward! What are you? afraid of a few little bullets? Scared of a couple bombs? Come! On! you little sissies! Fight! Did you think you was gonna live forever? Jodie done stole yer girlfriend, ain't nothin' waiting fer ya back home! C'mon! Let's make some of the Enemy die fer their country! C'mon!"

That IMHO, is what Elder Holland was intending. It's how I hear him.

And yes, there is a great deal of love and concern in that voice, the hard words notwithstanding.  

What can be more loving than to try to project enough courage and strength into another that they are enabled to pour out their last ounce of courage, that they themselves may live, or at least save the lives of others?

Your mileage may vary.

Edited May 2, 2016 by flameburns623

[consiglieri]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 3:45 PM, Tacenda said:

Oh boy, you nailed it Jeanne, thank you.  I did feel like a bad seed for awhile.  This board literally saved my life...well, it got close.  That's why statements like Elder Holland's comes off terrible to people like me.   

Having given Elder Holland's remarks a lot of thought over the weekend, the idea occurred to me that his anger may be a sign that Elder Holland is going through a faith crisis.

He has already said just a month ago in General Conference that there are some questions about Church history that no amount of study will answer.

I hear Elder Holland saying by this, "I have some questions about Church history that no amount of personal study has answered.  And I am convinced that no amount of additional personal study will answer them."

Elder Holland returns to the issue of the unanswered question in his most recent remarks, where he derides those who leave because they didn't get their questions answered.

It is important to note that Elder Holland is not belittling the questions themselves; although he acknowledges their existence, he does not mention any specifically.

Instead, Elder Holland focuses his anger on the "commitment" of those who are leaving the Church because, among other things, they didn't get their questions answered.

These are not just the questions of the members who are leaving, these are the questions Elder Holland has himself.

Questions for which he has no answer.

And so now he expresses how "furious" he is that members are leaving the Church over the questions for which he himself has no answers.

For all intents and purposes, Elder Holland appears to be a man who is experiencing severe cognitive dissonance, and this is the real source of his anger.

The right half of Elder Holland's brain is beginning to come into contact with the left half of his brain, with the result that he is approaching critical mass.

[thesometimesaint]

Mind reading again I see.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Having given Elder Holland's remarks a lot of thought over the weekend, the idea occurred to me that his anger may be a sign that Elder Holland is going through a faith crisis.

He has already said just a month ago in General Conference that there are some questions about Church history that no amount of study will answer.

I hear Elder Holland saying by this, "I have some questions about Church history that no amount of personal study has answered.  And I am convinced that no amount of additional personal study will answer them."

Elder Holland returns to the issue of the unanswered question in his most recent remarks, where he derides those who leave because they didn't get their questions answered.

It is important to note that Elder Holland is not belittling the questions themselves; although he acknowledges their existence, he does not mention any specifically.

Instead, Elder Holland focuses his anger on the "commitment" of those who are leaving the Church because, among other things, they didn't get their questions answered.

These are not just the questions of the members who are leaving, these are the questions Elder Holland has himself.

Questions for which he has no answer.

And so now he expresses how "furious" he is that members are leaving the Church over the questions for which he himself has no answers.

For all intents and purposes, Elder Holland appears to be a man who is experiencing severe cognitive dissonance, and this is the real source of his anger.

The right half of Elder Holland's brain is beginning to come into contact with the left half of his brain, with the result that he is approaching critical mass.

I think that attempting to psychoanalyze people's motives is against board rules. 

Besides that issue, I have a hard time taking this post seriously. Isn't assigning impure motives for people's actions what everyone is so mad at elder Holland for doing?

Are you trying to do the exact same thing to him to try to prove a point?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

 have listened to the longer context of this talk, and I just do not hear it the same way.

In the Army, especially in combat, this sort of bold-chested rhetoric is frequently used to shore up the flagging courage of fighting men, to bolster and to embolden them in the heat and sound and fury of battle. 

"C'mon you slugs! Forward! What are you? afraid of a few little bullets? Scared of a couple bombs? Come! On! you little sissies! Fight! Did you think you was gonna live forever? Jodie done stole yer girlfriend, ain't nothin' waiting fer ya back home! C'mon! Let's make some of the Enemy die fer their country! C'mon!"

That IMHO, is what Elder Holland was intending. It's how I hear him.

And yes, there is a great deal of love and concern in that voice, the hard words notwithstanding.  

What can be more loving than to try to project enough courage and strength into another that they are enabled to pour out their last ounce of courage, that they themselves may live, or at least save the lives of others?

Your mileage may vary.

I think "bold-chested rhetoric" to "shore up the flagging" members could be what Holland was going for.  And perhaps it helps certain members who were there.  But at what cost?  And does honesty matter? 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We want our leaders to speak openly and honestly and from the heart without teleprompters or edits later but When one of them does we all fall apart in anger and despair at every imperfectly expressed emotion or thought. 

I agree with much of your post above, but I have not seen anyone falling "apart in anger and despair" here (maybe I missed it).  I've seen an open discussion and for the most part, it's been civil and honest.

I do believe that this was a glimpse at the anger and frustration that Elder Holland (and maybe other leaders too) are feeling right now.  Again, I can understand them feeling this way.  But, I do think he could have expressed it with more love and concern or with not such a broad brush stroke.  But hey, he's human.  We all say things that in hindsight we admit we could have said in a much better manner.  I think it just felt like he was poking fun at or making light of member's very real pain.

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well, fortunately you don't believe that any more. Doesn't that make you so much better than them?

Poster suspended this time

 

I would like to register my objection over Russ getting suspended.

While Russ can be pointed and personal in some of his comments, I believe he brings a valuable perspective to the discussions on this board.