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

[Tacenda]

40 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?

I think he's made a mistake, like we all do, I'll concede on that.  Maybe he'll apologize one day.  

Another thing, what if, like the video I shared, people leave for better discipleship, or a better way for them to be made whole, or holier or better.  Some do not find that in the church.  They find a lot of things, but for some they don't find the oneness with God they are seeking and they leave to another faith paradigm for that.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you. It's very easy to assume things about the motivation and meaning behind words that ends up only existing in our heads  

I apologize if I have read people wrong. How we come across to others is not always accurate. 

 

[rockpond]

23 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? 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

 

The struggles shared by the best men and women he knows referred to people who had questions and stayed.

The taffy pull was given as the reason people leave.

Two different groups of people.  I know some very good people who have left the church and it was absolutely a matter of thought, prayer, conviction, divine guidance, pain and anguish.  But you don't get that message at all from Holland's talk.  According to him people who leave a willy-nilly taffy-pullers who demanded that things be just their way.

See the difference?

[Storm Rider]

Gads, people can get their panties in a twist when they want to get their panties in the twist.  All this bemoaning about hurt feelings - did someone die of a crushed heart from Elder Holland's talk?  Did someone who has left the Church all of a sudden not return?  Exactly what is the issue?  Your "hurt" feelings?  Grow the heck up!

Each of you watches or reads the news and your feelings, if you choose, can be hurt every day, every hours by the stupidity in the world.  Now we are all supposed to be up in arms because you want to cheery pick a few sentences from an apostle's talk and tell the world you are so hurt.  This is just too much for sane people with an iota of common sense to be worried about.

We have gone on for 14 pages with the same characters ridiculing a man because he told you to buck the heck up.  Do you each need a safe room to protect you from those with a conflicting opinion?  Where does this type of sentimentality come from?  I don't know you; I have not been around people like you; and I cannot understand why you want to have such a hypersensitivity to what other people do and say.  Particularly you who have left the Church or at least running to the door as fast as you can.  Find something to be happy about; grab hold of it and act happy.  Why care about what some old man says?  

Does it matter if an old man is angry that you forfeited your faith for something else?  People have been doing that since there was a religion on earth.  You are following in a long line of those people who have lost their faith.  Nothing is new - you are not unique, much to the chagrin of some - and the sun is still coming up and setting.  

Whining is one thing, but this is something else and it is not pretty. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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...

This quote is in relation to feeling worthy or having questions about a calling, not regarding having doubts and questions or considering leaving the church.  I'm not sure where it applies here.  

 

[bluebell]

2 hours 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.

Not really. 

I want people to understand that it's as easy for an apostle to phrase things badly as it is for you (and me) to phrase things badly. 

Phrasing something badly doesn't mean someone is being unChrist-like, for example. 

Making a mistake is not the same thing as committing a sin. 

[bluebell]

2 hours 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".

 

Of course.  But, that's not an accusation I actually made.

I never said that all those who disagreed with him were the same as all those who implied those things.  That connection honestly didn't even cross my mind.

 

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Gads, people can get their panties in a twist when they want to get their panties in the twist.  All this bemoaning about hurt feelings - did someone die of a crushed heart from Elder Holland's talk?  Did someone who has left the Church all of a sudden not return?  Exactly what is the issue?  Your "hurt" feelings?  Grow the heck up!

Each of you watches or reads the news and your feelings, if you choose, can be hurt every day, every hours by the stupidity in the world.  Now we are all supposed to be up in arms because you want to cheery pick a few sentences from an apostle's talk and tell the world you are so hurt.  This is just too much for sane people with an iota of common sense to be worried about.

We have gone on for 14 pages with the same characters ridiculing a man because he told you to buck the heck up.  Do you each need a safe room to protect you from those with a conflicting opinion?  Where does this type of sentimentality come from?  I don't know you; I have not been around people like you; and I cannot understand why you want to have such a hypersensitivity to what other people do and say.  Particularly you who have left the Church or at least running to the door as fast as you can.  Find something to be happy about; grab hold of it and act happy.  Why care about what some old man says?  

Does it matter if an old man is angry that you forfeited your faith for something else?  People have been doing that since there was a religion on earth.  You are following in a long line of those people who have lost their faith.  Nothing is new - you are not unique, much to the chagrin of some - and the sun is still coming up and setting.  

Whining is one thing, but this is something else and it is not pretty. 

I don't get where you're coming from.  No one here is furious at a whole host of people we don't know because they made a decision that they felt was best for them.  It feels like Elder Holland's mocking was an attempt to breed fear, and shut down open and thoughtful dialogue.  The whole point behind it is we don't need to throw a fit, express our furious outrage at people whom we don't know because we disagree with them.  But that's what he did.  You seem to be twisting it around, not realizing, we're just saying it's a sad position for him to take, not that we can't take see that he disagrees with us.

[SteveO]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The struggles shared by the best men and women he knows referred to people who had questions and stayed.

The taffy pull was given as the reason people leave.

Two different groups of people.  I know some very good people who have left the church and it was absolutely a matter of thought, prayer, conviction, divine guidance, pain and anguish.  But you don't get that message at all from Holland's talk.  According to him people who leave a willy-nilly taffy-pullers who demanded that things be just their way.

See the difference?

No...that's not what I come away with.  People who agonize over leaving the church obviously are leaving something that meant very much to them.  According to him,  the people he was referencing left something that never meant anything to them.  Those people you know that left...they never once had a single solitary moment where they experienced something that was not their own?  If not, why did they dismiss it to the point that they felt they could no longer continue with the church?  There are two distinct moments in my life I cannot seem to shake that bind me to the church.  No matter how low I allowed myself to go in the succeeding years...I just can't seem to ever forget them, and eventually I have to (sometimes begrudgingly) return to church because those are experiences that continue to mean the world to me.  Maybe those are my witnesses that this is where I belong and I should repent and quit seeking for more affirmation...

Anyways, maybe Holland had those type of people in mind when he made those comments?  People who "shelve" their witnesses on the shelf of coincidence and brain chemistry?  

Edited May 2, 2016 by SteveO

[SteveO]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This quote is in relation to feeling worthy or having questions about a calling, not regarding having doubts and questions or considering leaving the church.  I'm not sure where it applies here.  

 

They are the same actually...but I don't have the inclination to argue the point

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The struggles shared by the best men and women he knows referred to people who had questions and stayed.

The taffy pull was given as the reason people leave.

Two different groups of people.  I know some very good people who have left the church and it was absolutely a matter of thought, prayer, conviction, divine guidance, pain and anguish.  But you don't get that message at all from Holland's talk.  According to him people who leave a willy-nilly taffy-pullers who demanded that things be just their way.

See the difference?

It's sad to dismiss anyone's reason for leaving.  We only pretend to know what people are going through when we make such judgments.  We can assume there are some who leave without much thought at all.  I suppose it could be.  But their lives have meaning to them.  God wants them inspired too, even if they leave.  I'm sorry this whole thing sucks.  I find it just as offensive if he were only furious at some who leave. 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really. 

I want people to understand that it's as easy for an apostle to phrase things badly as it is for you (and me) to phrase things badly. 

Phrasing something badly doesn't mean someone is being unChrist-like, for example. 

Making a mistake is not the same thing as committing a sin. 

That's what most of my sins are--making a mistake.  Kind of thoughtless things I say, or do.  It happens.  No one's faulting him if he sees it as a mistake. 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course.  But, that's not an accusation I actually made.

I never said that all those who disagreed with him were the same as all those who implied those things.  That connection honestly didn't even cross my mind.

 

Sorry if I misread.  I thought you were referring to all who disagreed when you stated:

"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."

I apologize if I misunderstood.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It's sad to inismiss anyone's reason for leaving.  We only pretend to know what people are going through when we make such judgments.  We can assume there are some who leave without much thought at all.  I suppose it could be.  But their lives have meaning to them.  God wants them inspired too, even if they leave.  I'm sorry this whole thing sucks.  I find it just as offensive if he were only furious at some who leave. 

Agree 1000 percent, no one knows except the one going through the process.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's what most of my sins are--making a mistake.  Kind of thoughtless things I say, or do.  It happens.  No one's faulting him if he sees it as a mistake. 

Mistakes of the kind I'm talking about are accidents. 

We can't accidentally sin though. That's not how sin works. We are only held accountable for the wrongs that we knowingly commit (or the rights we knowingly don't commit). 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, SteveO said:

They are the same actually...but I don't have the inclination to argue the point

No, they are not at all the same and I think that needs to be clarified.  President Kimball is expressing that he did not feel worthy or ready for whatever calling it was he had just received and wanted a confirmation that his leaders were inspired to call him  He was not having doubts or questions about the truthfulness of the church nor was he considering leaving.

.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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!!

The only person I knew who could really pull taffy was my mom. She was so good at it. And she still has the marble slab for making candy.  She has a bad arm now and so her days of taffy pulling are over. Unfortunately, none of her off-spring have the patience. Such great memories.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, SteveO said:

No...that's not what I come away with.  People who agonize over leaving the church obviously are leaving something that meant very much to them.  According to him,  the people he was referencing left something that never meant anything to them.  Those people you know that left...they never once had a single solitary moment where they experienced something that was not their own?  If not, why did they dismiss it to the point that they felt they could no longer continue with the church?  There are two distinct moments in my life I cannot seem to shake that bind me to the church.  No matter how low I allowed myself to go in the succeeding years...I just can't seem to ever forget them, and eventually I have to (sometimes begrudgingly) return to church because those are experiences that continue to mean the world to me.  Maybe those are my witnesses that this is where I belong and I should repent and quit seeking for more affirmation...

Anyways, maybe Holland had those type of people in mind when he made those comments?  People who "shelve" their witnesses on the shelf of coincidence and brain chemistry?  

If he only had "those type of people" in mind, he didn't express that.  He didn't limit it.  Didn't clarify it.  Your explanation in the first paragraph could have been what meant, but it isn't what he said.

Are you now going to concede that he could have phrased it better or did you not really mean that?

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

Mistakes of the kind I'm talking about are accidents. 

We can't accidentally sin though. That's not how sin works. We are only held accountable for the wrongs that we knowingly commit (or the rights we knowingly don't commit). 

Alright.  I'm not sure I get what you are saying.  Are you saying the way Elder Holland expressed his hostility towards those who left was an accident?  Like he said something on accident?  hmmm...Not sure how the really would work. 

My take is, he genuinely get's furious at people for leaving, most often without knowing those people.  Unless he clarifies, I can't read something else into what he said, right?  That said, I get if he was in a bad mood and wanted to vent about certain people he knows or something-generalizing for effect.  But then, that'd be a mistake, something I think would be wise for him to clarify.  Whatever the case, I tend to think he'll learn from this and not go off characterizing people as something less than they are. 

[SteveO]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If he only had "those type of people" in mind, he didn't express that.  He didn't limit it.  Didn't clarify it.  Your explanation in the first paragraph could have been what meant, but it isn't what he said.

Are you now going to concede that he could have phrased it better or did you not really mean that?

 

He could've phrased it better for people who are looking to be offended

Edited May 2, 2016 by SteveO

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

He could've phrased it better for people who are looking to be offended

Nice.  Well, I was not looking to be offended but I still found his trivializing of loved ones pain and anguish to be offensive.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nice.  Well, I was not looking to be offended but I still found his trivializing of loved ones pain and anguish to be offensive.

One didn't need to be looking to be offended to see that he could have phrased things better or with more love and concern for those members who have left the church.  Anyone should be able to see that. But some simply cannot concede that an Apostle made a mistake or let their frustration get the better of them at the moment.  

Edited May 2, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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?

 

 

The context of Elder Oaks's statement is "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." That is to say, unresolved details.

And there is nothing in the tenor of Elder Oaks's sermon that could honestly be inferred to mean he is going through a faith crisis. The notion is asinine. He is conveying the contrary message: that faith can be relied upon to see one through in the face of opposition, including unresolved questions.

And in any event, to take what Elder Oaks said, misinterpret it and then project it onto Elder Holland is, to use flameburns's phrasing, beyond the pale.

Quote

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

Neither of them shows any cognitive dissonance. That is merely your false and fatuous accusation.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

One didn't need to be looking to be offended to see that he could have phrased things better or with more love and concern for those members who have left the church.  Anyone should be able to see that. But some simply cannot concede that an Apostle made a mistake or let their frustration get the better of them at the moment.  

Yeah, that seems to be an ingrained part of our culture as Mormons:  We'll proclaim that we don't consider the prophets and apostles to be infallible but we also never seem willing to admit that a mistake has been made.  Everything must be justified and explained.  We've seen that now on two threads about Elder Holland over the past week.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, that seems to be an ingrained part of our culture as Mormons:  We'll proclaim that we don't consider the prophets and apostles to be infallible but we also never seem willing to admit that a mistake has been made.  Everything must be justified and explained.  We've seen that now on two threads about Elder Holland over the past week.

To recognize that they are not infallible does not mean we have to concede false accusations, bogus faultfinding and "making a man an offender for a word."

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd