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

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Let me try to clarify, Bluebell.

I am not trying to prove a point.

All I am doing is trying to connect the dots of Elder Holland's various expressions and propose a possible reason for them.

I am not saying I am right.

I am just entertaining it as one possibility.

And it is a possibility that seems to fit the evidence. 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

I wish he had brought that up and integrated it in the talk and distinguished better on the many reasons, not just the patty cake reasons.  For all we know there are members who join to get that family they never had, or that can get monetary support etc.  There are a whole host of reasons people join & leave.  

A list of why they leave below: 

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Why-Mormons-Leave-Comprehensive-List-February-2014.pdf

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not thinking like that is better, in my   opinion. I assume you'd agree. 

But that isn't the point.  She is sharing her experience.  And I don't think her experience is inconsistent with much of our culture, do you?

 

This is true Rockpond.  What I meant is it would have been better as a young person to not have thought of myself as better than any other person.  This doesn't make me a better person now..it just makes me more Christlike (IMO).  This doesn't take away from the doctrine I was taught..that we have the true church, but it puts in a perspective that we can believe that without looking down on others.  Basically, it is called..growing up.  Taking experiences and applying them to loving more.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

We can say things in anger and despair, and still be civil and honest at the same time. 

I agree that in hindsight (and in an environment with a completely different spirit) his words can come across badly. 

It's the expectation that we have that an apostle would never say such a thing unless he has some serious character flaws, has lost the spirit, or has lost his testimony (that last one is just crazy) that I find really silly.

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Let me try to clarify, Bluebell.

I am not trying to prove a point.

All I am doing is trying to connect the dots of Elder Holland's various expressions and propose a possible reason for them.

I am not saying I am right.

I am just entertaining it as one possibility.

And it is a possibility that seems to fit the evidence. 

 

No, it doesn't. 

[Gray]

21 minutes 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.

Anything is possible, but I don't think anyone can read his mind. He comes off as defensive, but it doesn't follow that he is therefore experiencing a faith crisis. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I feel bad for him too.  I don't envy the positions these Elders hold. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

We can say things in anger and despair, and still be civil and honest at the same time. 

Oh, I agree.  It was the "falling apart" that I mainly disagreed with as I haven't seen anyone do that here (but again, I haven't read every post).  

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Anything is possible, but I don't think anyone can read his mind. He comes off as defensive, but it doesn't follow that he is therefore experiencing a faith crisis. 

I will clarify once again that I am not saying that Elder Holland is experiencing a faith crisis.

I merely put it forth as one possibility that seems to fit the evidence.

Elder Holland is the one who has proclaimed that he has read a few books and went to a pretty good school.

He is not an unintelligent man.

It is clear Elder Holland is upset over people leaving the Church.

It is also clear that Elder Holland knows at least some of these people are leaving because of questions they are not getting answered.

It is also clear that Elder Holland knows of some of those questions, and has stated that no amount of study will answer them.

Would it not be natural for Elder Holland to have an emotional reaction over the fact he is unable to answer these basic questions relating to Mormonism?

And that due to his inability to answer those questions, many are leaving the Church?

Is it likely that Elder Holland's inability to answer those basic questions is strengthening his personal testimony of the LDS Church?

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can say things in anger and despair, and still be civil and honest at the same time.

But n-o-o-o-o-o-o, can't do that once baptized into the the Church of Internet Outrage!

[Abulafia]

My point has probably already been  covered. But, I would rather have someone show care that I left (according to their own worldview), than tell me to walk out the door, not forgetting to shut it on the way out.   I believe that Elder Holland utterly believes that I was wrong to give up on church belief and activity.  I can accept that.  What I think is more problematic is his inability to emphasize with why I took the course I took and why it was right for me. 

 

I much preferred Elder Uchtdorf's talk on this subject which showed some semblance of empathy and understanding.  

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the expectation that we have that an apostle would never say such a thing unless he has some serious character flaws, has lost the spirit, or has lost his testimony (that last one is just crazy) that I find really silly.

Has someone said that they have such an expectation?

[mtomm]

45 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 this is an apt analogy and I think it is what @bobbieaware was trying to convey with her commentary.  Still not sure it's the best approach for Elder Holland especially when incorporating humor. 
 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Has someone said that they have such an expectation?

All those who have made (or implied) those accusations against Elder Holland have intimated they have such expectations. 

But I think it goes even beyond that. All those who have taken him to task for being unChrist-like, for example, show that they equate his talk with a failure of his apostle-ship. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All those who have made (or implied) those accusations against Elder Holland have intimated they have such expectations. 

But I think it goes even beyond that. All those who have taken him to task for being unChrist-like, for example, show that they equate his talk with a failure of his apostle-ship. 

I think you are reading far too much into comments in assuming that they are intimating such things.  For example, I have spoken out against what he said but I don't think any of those things.

[mtomm]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All those who have made (or implied) those accusations against Elder Holland have intimated they have such expectations. 

But I think it goes even beyond that. All those who have taken him to task for being unChrist-like, for example, show that they equate his talk with a failure of his apostle-ship. 

So you want us to lower our expectations of apostles? No problem for me. I'm trying to get others to agree with me on that. I don't expect any apostle to be perfect, I expect them to have flaws IN EVERYTHING THEY DO AND SAY. It's the people who think they are perfect that cause me angst.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So you want us to lower our expectations of apostles? No problem for me. I'm trying to get others to agree with me on that. I don't expect any apostle to be perfect, I expect them to have flaws IN EVERYTHING THEY DO AND SAY. It's the people who think they are perfect that cause me angst.

Whoa... be careful mtomm:  They can be wrong when it comes to having said something overly harsh.  They cannot be wrong when it comes to, for example, LGBT issues.

[mtomm]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Whoa... be careful mtomm:  They can be wrong when it comes to having said something overly harsh.  They cannot be wrong when it comes to, for example, LGBT issues.

Cue the lecture and calling me unfaithful in 1..2..3...

Edit to add: there are so many good things that Elder Holland says I'm willing to forgive him some statements I would not agree with. I see nothing wrong with not agreeing with everything that comes out of an apostle's mouth. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by mtomm

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All those who have made (or implied) those accusations against Elder Holland have intimated they have such expectations. 

But I think it goes even beyond that. All those who have taken him to task for being unChrist-like, for example, show that they equate his talk with a failure of his apostle-ship. 

That's a pretty extreme statement and I know it's not true for me at least.

We all agree that none of our leaders are infallible, correct?  If so, then why is it a problem to discuss when we feel a mistake was made?  That doesn't mean "all those" who disagree with what Elder Holland stated are making "accusations" or are even "implying" that he has "serious character flaws" or has "lost the spirit" or has "lost his testimony".

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by JulieM

[SteveO]

I just finished listening to the entire thing.  All 44 minutes of it.  I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of people outraged by Holland's remarks haven't listened to the entire thing.  They say they have, but I'm not convinced they really have.  

From the talk, which he made before the remarks that have caused so much outrage:

"I know what it's like to walk the floor at 3 o'clock in the morning, and believe it will be 3 o'clock in the morning forever.  I know what it's like to look out of the window to the east, and never see a single, solitary sign of the rising sun.  Day after day, week after week.  And so do the best men and women I know.  Start with Thomas, go to Henry, go to Dieter, go to Russell...and so it goes in this dispensation, and every dispensation. You, nor I, nor anybody out there has any corner on grief; has any full mortgage, holding it tightly on tears, and travails, and sorrow.  Everybody I know--especially here--everybody I know has looked out the window and thought it was going to be 3 o'clock in the morning forever..." (emphasis mine)

 

The questions that have been asked by some that have led to their exit from the church have been asked by those who have chosen to stay.  I'm not one to say which is more noble, or the more difficult.  But some posters seem to think the former--and that is I think a source of frustration for Elder Holland.  Intellectual integrity seems to be warranted only for those who left the church--but what of those who have faced the exact same questions, tears, despair, doubt, and paralyzing fear--and chosen to keep going?  And that takes just as much courage as it takes to leave.  In my opinion, Elder Holland has been blessed for his faithfulness to know that the sun--actually does eventually rise, and eradicates all those fears and doubts.  Because of that, I think he desperately wants others to not bail, and not give up.  Hence his bold remarks that followed shortly after the quote above.

Yes, taken without the whole talk, the remarks in question may seem a bit harsh.  But I am floored by those who can listen to the entire 44 minutes and not hear tremendous love and desire for the listener's happiness at every word. 

 

  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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?

 

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Let me try to clarify, Bluebell.

I am not trying to prove a point.

All I am doing is trying to connect the dots of Elder Holland's various expressions and propose a possible reason for them.

I am not saying I am right.

I am just entertaining it as one possibility.

And it is a possibility that seems to fit the evidence. 

 

Your "evidence" itself appears to be invented out of whole cloth (see the bolded portion in my quotation of your first post above).

CFR that Elder Holland made the statement in general conference you attribute to him.

I'll make it convenient for you. Here's a link to his talk.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Your "evidence" appears to be invented out of whole cloth (see the bolded portion in my quotation of your first post above).

CFR that Elder Holland made the statement in general conference you attribute to him.

I'll make it convenient for you. Here's a link to his talk.

Oops, looks like I was thinking of Elder Oaks' talk, where he said the following:

Quote

As another example, there are many things in our early Church history, such as what Joseph Smith did or did not do in every circumstance, that some use as a basis for opposition. To all I say, exercise faith and put reliance on the Savior’s teaching that we should “know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. That is the Church history version of “opposition in all things.” Some things can be learned only by faith (see D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng

My guess, however, is that the basic questions Elder Oaks has that he cannot resolve by study would likely be similar to the basic questions Elder Holland has that cannot be resolved by study.

Otherwise Elder Holland could just tell Elder Oaks the answers and save everybody a lot of trouble. 

 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I just finished listening to the entire thing.  All 44 minutes of it.  I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of people outraged by Holland's remarks haven't listened to the entire thing.  They say they have, but I'm not convinced they really have.  

From the talk, which he made before the remarks that have caused so much outrage:

"I know what it's like to walk the floor at 3 o'clock in the morning, and believe it will be 3 o'clock in the morning forever.  I know what it's like to look out of the window to the east, and never see a single, solitary sign of the rising sun.  Day after day, week after week.  And so do the best men and women I know.  Start with Thomas, go to Henry, go to Dieter, go to Russell...and so it goes in this dispensation, and every dispensation. You, nor I, nor anybody out there has any corner on grief; has any full mortgage, holding it tightly on tears, and travails, and sorrow.  Everybody I know--especially here--everybody I know has looked out the window and thought it was going to be 3 o'clock in the morning forever..." (emphasis mine)  

Yes, but that quote is not leading into what he stated or even related to this (from what I could tell, but I'll listen again as I'm just going from memory).  At what point in his talk is the above quote from, do you know?  Is there a written transcript of this talk yet?  

But even if this remark was right before the quote in the OP, why wouldn't he have simply said something like:

"Since we've all been through painful times like these, we can empathize and try to understand our family members or friends who are struggling right now with questions and doubts,  Let's put our arms around them in love and try to help them stay in the fold."?

Instead of:

Quote

"I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?"

.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I just finished listening to the entire thing.  All 44 minutes of it.  I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of people outraged by Holland's remarks haven't listened to the entire thing.  They say they have, but I'm not convinced they really have.  

From the talk, which he made before the remarks that have caused so much outrage:

"I know what it's like to walk the floor at 3 o'clock in the morning, and believe it will be 3 o'clock in the morning forever.  I know what it's like to look out of the window to the east, and never see a single, solitary sign of the rising sun.  Day after day, week after week.  And so do the best men and women I know.  Start with Thomas, go to Henry, go to Dieter, go to Russell...and so it goes in this dispensation, and every dispensation. You, nor I, nor anybody out there has any corner on grief; has any full mortgage, holding it tightly on tears, and travails, and sorrow.  Everybody I know--especially here--everybody I know has looked out the window and thought it was going to be 3 o'clock in the morning forever..." (emphasis mine)

 

The questions that have been asked by some that have led to their exit from the church have been asked by those who have chosen to stay.  I'm not one to say which is more noble, or the more difficult.  But some posters seem to think the former--and that is I think a source of frustration for Elder Holland.  Intellectual integrity seems to be warranted only for those who left the church--but what of those who have faced the exact same questions, tears, despair, doubt, and paralyzing fear--and chosen to keep going?  And that takes just as much courage as it takes to leave.  In my opinion, Elder Holland has been blessed for his faithfulness to know that the sun--actually does eventually rise, and eradicates all those fears and doubts.  Because of that, I think he desperately wants others to not bail, and not give up.  Hence his bold remarks that followed shortly after the quote above.

Yes, taken without the whole talk, the remarks in question may seem a bit harsh.  But I am floored by those who can listen to the entire 44 minutes and not hear tremendous love and desire for the listener's happiness at every word. 

So much of what Elder Holland had to say is beautiful, doctrinal, and inspiring.  It's the constant references to don’t panic, don’t cut and run, don’t bail, weak-kneed, willy-nilly, etc.

Couldn't he make his point without trivializing the real life anguish of our friends and loved ones?

 

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, but that quote is not leading into what he stated or even related to this (from what I could tell, but I'll listen again as I'm just going from memory).  At what point in his talk is the above quote from, do you know?  Is there a written transcript of this talk yet?  

 

It absolutely leads into it.  Listen to it again.  Right after his remarks I quoted, he assures that the sun does rise, and wishes he could make it rise immediately for everyone--but in the meantime, he encourages members not to bail...and then he makes his statements that are in question.  I quoted as I listened, I am unaware of any transcript available at the moment.