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

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.

Ok, I did listen to the minute or so before he made the remark in the OP and I didn't hear this. He seemed to be talking about "line upon line" and being patient for attaining Godhood.   I'll try to listen again.  Can you give me where it is (time wise)?  I didn't hear this stated just prior to what is quoted here.

(Thanks, no problem if you're not where you can do this.  I'll try to listen later...)

ETA:

(rockpond posted the transcript and I found your comment, Elder Holland made it about 10 minutes in his talk before he stated what is quoted in the OP, so don't worry about looking for it  )

.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

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.  

Oh...Amen!

[rockpond]

I searched for a transcript, got this...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1809298

I haven't sat down and read through this transcript while listening so I can't verify it's completeness but in glancing through it looks accurate.  I was able to find the parts that have been quoted on this thread and they match.

 

[Tacenda]

These two didn't seem to have left willy nilly.

 

[stemelbow]

31 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. 

 

  

DOes anyone here question whether Elder Holland is or is not concerned about his listeners' happiness?  I thought the concern was his level of contempt for those who leave.  He's furious at many whom he doesn't know all because they leave for their own reasons. 

I contrast that with the notion that God can indeed inspire people to leave because Maybe God has a course for them and duty for them that we don't understand, and I'm perplexed at his hostility. 

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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".

 

Elder Holland doesn't know me or any of my expectations..and yet, here I am..pulling taffy.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

Yes, this is my point too.  Even if he did state what SteveO quoted right beforehand, there are loving ways to deal with family and friends who are struggling.  The example he gave with his comments is not the way to reach members who are having issues and questions.  I imagine Elder Holland knows this too, but is frustrated and I do understand.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I searched for a transcript, got this...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1809298

I haven't sat down and read through this transcript while listening so I can't verify it's completeness but in glancing through it looks accurate.  I was able to find the parts that have been quoted on this thread and they match.

 

Thanks, rockpond.

ETA:

(I didn't go back far enough to find SteveO's comment...it was about 10 minutes before the quote in the OP.  Thanks again)

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

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

 

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. 

 

So, just as I suspected, you actually had in mind something Elder Oaks said, but rather than verifying, you recklessly attributed it to Elder Holland.

Trouble is, what Elder Oaks said was not indicating a "faith crisis" on his own or anybody else's part. It was merely a candid acknowledgement that there are some questions that cannot at present be resolved one way or the other with available information and, therefore, some measure of faith will always be required. That one can have faith in or a certainty about the truthfulness of the restored gospel without being able to answer every little unresolved detail. If anything, Elder Oaks's intended meaning is just the opposite of how you are spinning it.

So what it boils down to is this: In your ignorant and ham-handed effort at amateur psychoanalysis, not only did you twist the words of one apostle, but you attributed them to another apostle who didn't even say them.

Has there ever been a clearer example of bearing false witness?

So based on all of the foregoing, I think we can  conclude that your opinion about Elder Holland "going through a faith crisis" is worth pretty much what we paid you for it.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[SteveO]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

 

17 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?  

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:

.

 

 

I take it as a sign that this man truly believes in what he is saying.  That he knows the light that eventually comes to all who stay true to the faith and weather the storm of doubt.  I take it as a man who is desperately pleading for others to not make--in his eyes--a grave mistake.  

Again, I  would point out that there is hardly a seasoned member of the church who hasn't struggled with these questions and doubts.  At some point, people need to stop preaching about faith and actually exercise it.  Nobody can do it for you.  That's a terrifying concept in any time, but especially in our day and age.  Just last night I laid awake in bed terrified at the thought that after everything is said and done, I may never get the divine assurance I'm waiting for---that I'll have to live my whole life hoping that everything I'm doing is correct.  So yes, I sometimes roll my eyes when people complain that they don't get answers to their prayers.  I get a little short on patience when people complain that church history is irreconcilable with rational thought--that there's too many unanswered questions...but is it because I lack empathy???  No, its because I've been fighting that battle for years and still have hope that the sun will rise eventually.  Does Elder Holland lack empathy or understanding?  Or is he a man who truly believes in what he is saying, and looking back doesn't believe that any doubt he had really amounted to much when placed next to the light he currently possesses?  A man who desperately wants the same for others? 

 

[flameburns623]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Elder Holland doesn't know me or any of my expectations..and yet, here I am..pulling taffy.

Hey, my wife loves taffy.

Can I get some off of you for her for Mother's Day?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I take it as a sign that this man truly believes in what he is saying.  That he knows the light that eventually comes to all who stay true to the faith and weather the storm of doubt.  I take it as a man who is desperately pleading for others to not make--in his eyes--a grave mistake.  

Again, I  would point out that there is hardly a seasoned member of the church who hasn't struggled with these questions and doubts.  At some point, people need to stop preaching about faith and actually exercise it.  Nobody can do it for you.  That's a terrifying concept in any time, but especially in our day and age.  Just last night I laid awake in bed terrified at the thought that after everything is said and done, I may never get the divine assurance I'm waiting for---that I'll have to live my whole life hoping that everything I'm doing is correct.  So yes, I sometimes roll my eyes when people complain that they don't get answers to their prayers.  I get a little short on patience when people complain that church history is irreconcilable with rational thought--that there's too many unanswered questions...but is it because I lack empathy???  No, its because I've been fighting that battle for years and still have hope that the sun will rise eventually.  Does Elder Holland lack empathy or understanding?  Or is he a man who truly believes in what he is saying, and looking back doesn't believe that any doubt he had really amounted to much when placed next to the light he currently possesses?  A man who desperately wants the same for others? 

I don't doubt that Holland believes what he is saying.  And wants others to have what he has.

I believe Elder Holland has empathy and understanding... he just didn't express it in this talk.

But, as I asked and I don't think you really answered:  Couldn't he make his point without trivializing the real life anguish of our friends and loved ones?

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Hey, my wife loves taffy.

Can I get some off of you for her for Mother's Day?

You bet!!!  We used to do this at grandma's house for FHE.  Still do it!!

Just wanted to add...hey..grandma doesn't do this with us anymore..A scary thought as she died 30 years ago..but we still pull taffy!!

Edited May 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[SteveO]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Elder Holland doesn't know me or any of my expectations..and yet, here I am..pulling taffy.

Again, I'll point out that I doubt Elder Holland probably DOES know you and your expectations and your troubles...probably more than you know or would even like to admit.  Again, you guys are talking like your circumstances are somehow unique and unknowable by other members of the church.  I'm sorry, but you simply are not unique.  I'm not trying to be condescending, but rather point out that your burdens of doubt are widely shared by members of the church.

[flameburns623]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, just as I suspected, you actually had in mind something Elder Oaks said, but rather than verifying, you recklessly attributed it to Elder Holland.

Trouble is, what Elder Oaks said was not indicating a "faith crisis" on his or anybody else's part. It was merely a candid acknowledgement that there are some questions that cannot at present be resolved one way or the other with available information and, therefore, some measure of faith will always be required. That one can have faith in or a certainty about the truthfulness of the restored gospel without being able to answer every little unresolved question.

So what it boils down to is this: In your ignorant and ham-handed effort at amateur psychoanalysis, not only did you twist the words of one apostle, but you attributed them to another apostle who didn't even say them.

Has there ever been a clearer example of bearing false witness?

So based on all of the foregoing, I think we can  conclude that your opinion about Elder Holland "going through a faith crisis" is worth pretty much what we paid you for it.

I thought Consig's random speculation went a tad beyond the Pale.

But a mistaken conclusion bolstered by an erroneous citation does not, methinks, rise to the sinful level of "bearing false witness".

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Again, I'll point out that I doubt Elder Holland probably DOES know you and your expectations and your troubles...probably more than you know or would even like to admit.  Again, you guys are talking like your circumstances are somehow unique and unknowable by other members of the church.  I'm sorry, but you simply are not unique.  I'm not trying to be condescending, but rather point out that your burdens of doubt are widely shared by members of the church.

Then why is he so mad at me??   Or at least sounds like it.  I am not unique of course..there are many who are like me.  If he knows me and my heart,,he wouldn't quite put things this way.

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't doubt that Holland believes what he is saying.  And wants others to have what he has.

I believe Elder Holland has empathy and understanding... he just didn't express it in this talk.

But, as I asked and I don't think you really answered:  Couldn't he make his point without trivializing the real life anguish of our friends and loved ones?

That is why I quoted his lead in.  He DID express empathy and understanding in his talk.  

I don't believe the anguish of our loved ones was included in his "pulling taffy" point.  I just read, literally five minutes ago, a post by a member on FB who is "taking a break from the church" because the doctrine of Bernie Sanders (of which he is a scrupulous follower) doesn't square with that of the church (I guess the church isn't charitable enough?)...THAT is my idea of taffy pulling and a pathetic lack of conviction.  And it is increasingly along those lines of nonsense that I see people continue getting angry with the church over.  I believe that's what Holland had in mind as well..although I will concede that Holland's phrasing can be taken by those truly struggling to include them as well--but again, the lead in I quoted, doesn't seem to suggest that is the case IMO.  

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Again, I'll point out that I doubt Elder Holland probably DOES know you and your expectations and your troubles...probably more than you know or would even like to admit.  Again, you guys are talking like your circumstances are somehow unique and unknowable by other members of the church.  I'm sorry, but you simply are not unique.  I'm not trying to be condescending, but rather point out that your burdens of doubt are widely shared by members of the church.

Actually, each of us is a unique son or daughter of God, so you are incorrect there.  And, Elder Holland does not know me personally.  I believe Jeanne when she says that Elder Holland doesn't know her, either.

What I suspect you mean is that Holland is likely familiar with others who have had similar (not the same) experiences. I imagine he has spent a great deal of time counseling with people who have passed through similar experiences or have similar thoughts (though, still, not the same).  He probably speaks with other church leaders who have worked with people who are similar to Jeanne, and myself, and you.

The problem we've highlighted here is that his address given last week in Tempe doesn't reflect those experiences.  Instead, to make his point, he trivializes pain and anguish suffered by members and former members of the church... pain and anguish that is oft times caused by that very church.

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, SteveO said:

That is why I quoted his lead in.  He DID express empathy and understanding in his talk.  

I don't believe the anguish of our loved ones was included in his "pulling taffy" point.  I just read, literally five minutes ago, a post by a member on FB who is "taking a break from the church" because the doctrine of Bernie Sanders (of which he is a scrupulous follower) doesn't square with that of the church (I guess the church isn't charitable enough?)...THAT is my idea of taffy pulling and a pathetic lack of conviction.  And it is increasingly along those lines of nonsense that I see people continue getting angry with the church over.  I believe that's what Holland had in mind as well..although I will concede that Holland's phrasing can be taken by those truly struggling to include them as well--but again, the lead in I quoted, doesn't seem to suggest that is the case IMO.  

Holland's phrasing can be taken by some as including them because IT DID include them.  He didn't limit it.

[consiglieri]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, just as I suspected, you actually had in mind something Elder Oaks said, but rather than verifying, you recklessly attributed it to Elder Holland.

Trouble is, what Elder Oaks said was not indicating a "faith crisis" on his or anybody else's part. It was merely a candid acknowledgement that there are some questions that cannot at present be resolved one way or the other with available information and, therefore, some measure of faith will always be required. That one can have faith in or a certainty about the truthfulness of the restored gospel without being able to answer every little unresolved detail. If anything, Elder Oaks's intended meaning is just the opposite of how you are spinning it.

So what it boils down to is this: In your ignorant and ham-handed effort at amateur psychoanalysis, not only did you twist the words of one apostle, but you attributed them to another apostle who didn't even say them.

Has there ever been a clearer example of bearing false witness?

So based on all of the foregoing, I think we can  conclude that your opinion about Elder Holland "going through a faith crisis" is worth pretty much what we paid you for it.

Au contraire, mon ami.

I think there may be more to this analysis than you are willing to admit.

As suggested by your rephrasing of what Elder Oaks actually said.  He did not refer to "every little unresolved detail," as you would have it.

Rather, Elder Oaks spoke of "basic questions that cannot be resolved by study."

Sounds a little deeper than you portray, doesn't it?

Maybe Elder Holland isn't the only apostle with cognitive dissonance . . .

 

 

[SteveO]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Holland's phrasing can be taken by some as including them because IT DID include them.  He didn't limit it.

IF you take the quotes as they are, outside the context of the rest of the talk.  Why would he compare his own struggles and those shared by some of the "best men and women [he] knows" to that of pulling taffy? That's something that you will have to explain to me...otherwise I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

edit to add: that if you can explain that to me, I'll admit to his use of poor phrasing/choice of words

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by SteveO

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Au contraire, mon ami.

I think there may be more to this analysis than you are willing to admit.

As suggested by your rephrasing of what Elder Oaks actually said.  He did not refer to "every little unresolved detail," as you would have it.

Rather, Elder Oaks spoke of "basic questions that cannot be resolved by study."

Sounds a little deeper than you portray, doesn't it?

Maybe Elder Holland isn't the only apostle with cognitive dissonance . . .

 

 

You know what?  I was the most defensive of the church when I was going through my faith crisis.  I fought hard for church and I was more than angry.  So this is interesting to me and unlike others here..I think this has more possibility than we think.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

IF you take the quotes as they are, outside the context of the rest of the talk.  Why would he compare his own struggles and those shared by some of the "best men and women [he] knows" to that of pulling taffy?

Do you believe this is Elder Holland admitting that he's had questions and doubts regarding the church?

When I read the portion of his talk that you quoted, I understood it as him stating that life is hard, we all have challenges and rough times/nights to get through.  Not that he was struggling with issues that would cause him to bail or leave the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I thought Consig's random speculation went a tad beyond the Pale.

But a mistaken conclusion bolstered by an erroneous citation does not, methinks, rise to the sinful level of "bearing false witness".

In this, I am inclined to apply the definition given by Bible commentator Matthew Henry:

Quote

Matthew Henry taught that the prohibition against false witness concerns our own and our neighbor’s good name. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” forbids: “1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both). 3. Bearing false witness against him, laying to his charge things that he knows not, either judicially, upon oath (by which the third commandment, and the sixth and eighth, as well as this, are broken), or extrajudicially, in common converse, slandering, backbiting, tale-bearing, aggravating what is done amiss and making it worse than it is, and any way endeavoring to raise our own reputation upon the ruin of our neighbor’s."^[59]

(Emphasis mine)

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe this is Elder Holland admitting that he's had questions and doubts regarding the church?

When I read the portion of his talk that you quoted, I understood it as him stating that life is hard, we all have challenges and rough times/nights to get through.  Not that he was struggling with issues that would cause him to bail or leave the church.

That is how I understood it yes.  I'll quote again President Kimball:

July 14, 1943:

“No peace had yet come, though I had prayed for it almost unceasingly. … I turned toward the hills. I had no objective. I wanted only to be alone. I had begun a fast. …

“My weakness overcame me again. Hot tears came flooding down my cheeks as I made no effort to mop them up. I was accusing myself, and condemning myself and upbraiding myself. I was praying aloud for special blessings from the Lord. I was telling Him that I had not asked for this position, that I was incapable of doing the work, that I was imperfect and weak and human, that I was unworthy of so noble a calling, though I had tried hard and my heart had been right. I knew that I must have been at least partly responsible for offenses and misunderstandings which a few people fancied they had suffered at my hands. I realized that I had been petty and small many times. I did not spare myself. A thousand things passed through my mind. Was I called by revelation? …

“If I could only have the assurance that my call had been inspired most of my other worries would be dissipated. … I knew that I must have His acceptance before I could go on. I stumbled up the hill and onto the mountain, as the way became rough. I faltered some as the way became steep. No paths were there to follow; I climbed on and on. Never had I prayed before as I now prayed. What I wanted and felt I must have was an assurance that I was acceptable to the Lord. I told Him that I neither wanted nor was worthy of a vision or appearance of angels or any special manifestation. I wanted only the calm peaceful assurance that my offering was accepted. Never before had I been tortured as I was now being tortured. And the assurance did not come. …

“I mentally beat myself and chastised myself and accused myself. As the sun came up and moved in the sky I moved with it, lying in the sun, and still I received no relief. I sat up on the cliff and strange thoughts came to me: all this anguish and suffering could be ended so easily from this high cliff and then came to my mind the temptations of the Master when he was tempted to cast Himself down—then I was ashamed for having placed myself in a comparable position and trying to be dramatic. … I was filled with remorse because I had permitted myself to place myself … in a position comparable, in a small degree, to the position the Saviour found Himself in when He was tempted, and … I felt I had cheapened the experiences of the Lord, having compared mine with His. Again I challenged myself and told myself that I was only trying to be dramatic and sorry for myself.

“… I lay on the cool earth. The thought came that I might take cold, but what did it matter now. There was one great desire, to get a testimony of my calling, to know that it was not human and inspired by ulterior motives, kindly as they might be. How I prayed! how I suffered! How I wept! How I struggled!” (Edward L. Kimball and Andrew E. Kimball, Jr., Spencer W. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1977, pp. 192–95.)

Funny enough, I got this quote from a talk given by Elder Holland...