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

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We have a subset of people that have an agenda, a rationale, for making decisions.

And should anyone dare challenge that rationale, the perpetrator needs to be labelled un-Christlike -- because, of course, as we all know, the Saviour never, ever said anything to challenge people or to urge them to reconsider their rationales -- and then hounded into contrite retraction or demonised. It really speaks volumes about the fragility of certain positions.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And should anyone dare challenge that rationale, such a person needs to be labelled un-Christlike -- because, of course, as we all know, the Saviour never, ever said anything to challenge people or to urge them to reconsider their rationales -- and then hounded into contrite retraction or demonised. It really speaks volumes about the fragility of certain agendas.

Nobody has said Elder Holland is un-Christlike.  Someone might say, what he said is un-Chirstlike or sounds un-Christlike.  It's a pretty big difference, really.  We all do and say un-Christlike things.  of course apostles are going to slip up.  It happens.  But, it's too bad so many others weren't seemingly considered when Elder Holland said what he said, or prepared his speech.  But again, it happens.  No one seems to be nearly as condemning of him as he is of a whole host of others whom he doesn't know--makes your condemnation of other's agendas seem empty. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[california boy]

On May 2, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

 

[california boy]

Duplicate

 

[NEDRA]

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those are interesting to read through. (By the way, your link doesn't work as I think you've added a letter to "Kolob").

There is no doubt that Elder Holland is passionate.  He's given some very forceful talks in General Conference as well.  I will never forget his talk on the Book of Mormon.

I should say, though, that this is more than just passion. It would be accurate to describe some of these behaviors as alarming. When he yells in a young woman's face and "strangles" more than one missionary, it seems like unacceptable behavior and could be seen as abusive. Several missionaries recounting these events seem to think it was "cool" and that they learned a lot from Elder Holland's shouting, slapping them on the cheek, and putting his hands on them, but there are probably many others who were taken aback or even traumatized, especially if this behavior was triggering for them.

I'm not surprised when he raises his voice in firesides or conferences. In both cases, many members seem okay with the behavior and see it as a teaching moment from a beloved apostle. Some apostles have a different teaching style. At least Elder Holland keeps things interesting. Opposition in all things.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And should anyone dare challenge that rationale, the perpetrator needs to be labelled un-Christlike -- because, of course, as we all know, the Saviour never, ever said anything to challenge people or to urge them to reconsider their rationales -- and then hounded into contrite retraction or demonised. It really speaks volumes about the fragility of certain positions.

That's quite the exaggeration!  I have not seen anyone label Elder Holland as "un-Christlike" or anyone "demonize" him.  I think some have said the manner that he seemed to make light of other's pain and then people reacting with laughter wasn't something Christ would have done, but most have also stated that they understand his frustration and anger.  Just because some felt he misspoke or could have worded something better, doesn't follow that they are labeling him a person who is "un-Christlike".

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you somehow have a clear vision of all the various ways that Pres Uchtdorf has approached the topic of apostasy -- say, in General Conference, in stake conferences, in leadership training meetings, one-on-one with priesthood leaders who try to help those who struggle, one-on-one with those who genuinely struggle but wish to preserve their faith, one-on-one with those who pretend to be struggling but really just want to take the Church down, etc. -- and all of the cumulative ways that Elder Holland has done so, or do you really mean just to try to contrast two cherry-picked 'approaches' for rhetorical effect?

Well, here's the thing. You seem to think people are upset at Elder Holland because he wasn't "validating" their apostasy. But the same people upset at Elder Holland seemed to like President Uchtdorf's approach to the subject (quoted in the OP). Which is why I asked you if you thought President Uchtdorf was validating apostasy. 

My question was aimed specifically at the two examples quoted in the opening post of this thread. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, NEDRA said:

I should say, though, that this is more than just passion. It would be accurate to describe some of these behaviors as alarming. When he yells in a young woman's face and "strangles" more than one missionary, it seems like unacceptable behavior and could be seen as abusive. Several missionaries recounting these events seem to think it was "cool" and that they learned a lot from Elder Holland's shouting, slapping them on the cheek, and putting his hands on them, but there are probably many others who were taken aback or even traumatized, especially if this behavior was triggering for them.

I agree.  If these accounts are true, this should stop.  No one should be grabbing or slapping anyone, but most especially the young missionaries who are out in the field serving.  It is troubling that there are so many reports of Elder Holland doing this (I just read another one on another forum the other day that was quite alarming).  I was hoping it was someone with a wild imagination, but now that I read there are other accounts, it is troubling, IMO.

[Thinking]

Quote

Don’t you dare bail. 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!

I'm sorry Elder Holland, but no longer believing the truth claims of the LDS Church is NOT what I wanted. I agonized for years because I wanted IT to be true. Calling my experience patty-cake is insulting to the relationships I had with 3 different bishops who tried to answer my questions but eventually had to settle on the it will all be worked out in the next life solution. Leaving something behind does not mean that it didn't matter. We all have to judge what we think is the truth by whatever means we think is valid. It's even harder to leave behind when it DID matter. That's why some of us take years to make a decision.

[NEDRA]

Then again, maybe his audience of single adults was laughing because they know what "taffy pulling" means as a slang term in today's vernacular. Let's just say it's something they're not allowed to do as singles and keep their recommends. Someone should tell Elder Hollsnd so he doesn't unintentionally say something embarrassing next time! I know the Tabernacle Choir always checks for unintended double-entendres; maybe speakers should as well.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

I suppose that if you agree with Elder Holland, it doesn't sound like a rant. If you don't agree...

I don't know about that.  People often describe their own opinions as 'rants' so agreeing or disagreeing doesn't seem to be the measuring stick that most people use when defining that term.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Nobody has said Elder Holland is un-Christlike.  Someone might say, what he said is un-Chirstlike or sounds un-Christlike.  It's a pretty big difference, really.  We all do and say un-Christlike things.  of course apostles are going to slip up.  It happens.  But, it's too bad so many others weren't seemingly considered when Elder Holland said what he said, or prepared his speech.  But again, it happens.  No one seems to be nearly as condemning of him as he is of a whole host of others whom he doesn't know--makes your condemnation of other's agendas seem empty. 

So if Elder Hollands's words are not un-Christlike, woould you be satisfied with describing them as insensitive? And if you would describe his words as being insensitive, is spiritual insensitivity all that far from being un-Christlike?

I believe part of the problem here may lie in the fact that many Church members may not be reading and pondering the scriptures as they should. I say this because if they were studying their scriptures It might dawn on them that the word of God is chock-full of so many prophetic pronouncements that liberal/ progressive Latter-day Saints would likely consider to be un-Christlike, or at very least spirituallly insensitive, that they might wake up to the fact that though God is loving he is also very strict. Hopefully, after familiarizing themselves with the way the Lord's prophets phrase things, they might stop complaining everytime God's living servants lay the truth on the line without sugar-coating or minimizing their message.

The following "un-Christlike" or "spirituallly insensitive" (take your pick) words of condemnation are from the prophet Mormon. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how the fault finders of this thread would modify Mormon's language to make what he has to say more pleasing to the ear and palatable?

 1 And thus we can behold how false, and also the unsteadiness of the hearts of the children of men; yea, we can see that the Lord in his great infinite goodness doth bless and prosper those who put their trust in him.

 2 Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trampleunder their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.

 3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.

 4 O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world!

 5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to walk in wisdom’s paths!

 6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.

 7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth. (Hellman 12)

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

So if Elder Hollands's words are not un-Christlike, woould you be satisfied with describing them as insensitive? And if you would describe his words as being insensitive, is spiritual insensitivity all that far from being un-Christlike?

Say what?  I didn't say his words were not un-Christlike.  I didn't say they were Christlike either.  I don't think they were very considerate.  Some might characterize them as either Christlike or unChristlike.  That doesn't matter to me.  All I do know is no one is saying Elder Holland himself is un-Christlike. 

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe part of the problem here may lie in the fact that many Church members may not be reading and pondering the scriptures as they should. I say this because if they were studying their scriptures It might dawn on them that the word of God is chock-full of so many prophetic pronouncements that liberal/ progressive Latter-day Saints would likely consider to be un-Christlike, or at very least spirituallly insensitive, that they might wake up to the fact that though God is loving he is also very strict. Hopefully, after familiarizing themselves with the way the Lord's prophets phrase things, they might stop complaining everytime God's living servants lay the truth on the line without sugar-coating or minimizing their message.

I believe the issue is more about Elder Holland's words as not being truth.  They are condemning many people he doesn't know.  I don't see why he's so furious at people who leave.  Sure, I think that's his issue.  Not mine.  I'm not upset at him about it.  I'm not even all that concerned.  I think he spoke from the heart, let his emotions get a little bit the best of him. I think he's human.  I don't condemn him for that.  I hope he doesn't really have all that anger inside him.  I hope he truly sees people with a heavier dose of charity than that.  But if he doesn't, he doesn't.  He is, after all, just a human like the rest of us. 

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

The following "un-Christlike" or "spirituallly insensitive" (take your pick) words of condemnation are from the prophet Mormon. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how the fault finders of this thread would modify Mormon's language to make what he has to say more pleasing to the ear and palatable?

 1 And thus we can behold how false, and also the unsteadiness of the hearts of the children of men; yea, we can see that the Lord in his great infinite goodness doth bless and prosper those who put their trust in him.

 2 Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trampleunder their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.

 3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.

 4 O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world!

 5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to walk in wisdom’s paths!

 6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.

 7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth. (Hellman 12)

To be fair Mormon lived in a totally different time and place.  Culture and tradition have to play some factors in communication, no?  You act as if you know that if Mormon were here he'd say everything the same as he did way back when.  If he did, he'd likely be thought of as a wacko in our day and age.  There are people on street corners yelping out things that sound similar and we don't give them much listen at all. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If you return to the LDS Church and you're genuinely at peace with that choice, I strongly suspect you won't much care how any Catholic leaders or members might choose to frame your decision, and I suspect even more strongly that you won't be howling in protest online about how they may choose to represent their understanding of the situation.

What if his spouse, parents, and children were still catholic, and let's further suppose that his spouse, parents and children all respected their catholic leaders opinions very much and used their words to condemn his decision. Perhaps then he might care.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We have a subset of people that have an agenda, a rationale, for making decisions.  They seek out with a fine toothed comb anything that builds their agenda so that they can feel comfortable for leaving the Church of Jesus Christ.  We have spent 17 pages on a 45 minute talk that has been completely reduced down to 110 words that he spoke. They have thrown out 98% of his talk and with laser focus take offense at 100 words.  Why would someone do that?  Because they are desperate to only look for that which supports their agenda.  

It does not matter what he said or what the Church says - it is wrong and they are right.  There is no argument, there is nothing that could be said or done they have made a choice and now want everyone else to validate their choice.

This is a red herring.  There are many of us here who are active, faithful church members and feel that what Elder Holland said was hurtful and inappropriate.  Are we not allowed to say such things?  Does Elder Holland need to be put on a pedestal where his addresses are not to be questioned?

Further, I am not aware of anyone here how has "thrown out 98% of his talk".  It is you who has taken a valid discussion point and is trying to reduce it to something else.

Go back and read the OP.  He took two statements from apostles and asked us to compare and contrast the approaches.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Quote

Part of the problem here may lie in the fact that many Church members may not be reading and pondering the scriptures as they should. I say this because if they were studying their scriptures It might dawn on them that the word of God is chock-full of so many prophetic pronouncements that liberal/ progressive Latter-day Saints would likely consider to be un-Christlike, or at very least spirituallly insensitive, that they might wake up to the fact that though God is loving he is also very strict. Hopefully, after familiarizing themselves with the way the Lord's prophets phrase things, they might stop complaining everytime God's living servants lay the truth on the line without sugar-coating or minimizing their message.

I agree. As Isaac Asimov famously said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." 

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

They could be, but not necessarily.

 

And that's the crux of what everyone's being saying in defence of what Holland said (you, @Hamba Tuhan and @Robert F. Smith for example).

Imagine I wrote a blog post or comment on this forum saying:

"I'm furious when people leave their former faith tradition and join Mormonism. What sort of patty cake, taffy pull commitment did they have before?"

Would you all agree with my statement or would you instead say that I was being unfair to the majority of those who join the church. Would you point out that there are a few who join for trivial reasons (missionary crush for example) but that many, perhaps most, join for deeply considered, sincere reasons. 

Might you also point out that my broad, generalising statement was not just uncharitable but also not representative?

If I then replied that others had talked about the other reasons people joined (at different times, to a different audience) and that my statement stood, unchanged, might you point out that my statement was not representative and that I should, at least, put clarifying words into my statement to make it clear that I was taking about a very specific minority. 

Or would the fact that I have an Irish great-great grandfather absolve me of needing to do anything like that. 

Robert, you have definitely called me out (often quite rightly) for making unsubstantiated generalisations. Is there really a difference. 

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, canard78 said:

And that's the crux of what everyone's being saying in defence of what Holland said (you, @Hamba Tuhan and @Robert F. Smith for example).

Imagine I wrote a blog post or comment on this forum saying:

"I'm furious when people leave their former faith tradition and join Mormonism. What sort of patty cake, taffy pull commitment did they have before?"

Would you all agree with my statement or would you instead say that I was being unfair to the majority of those who join the church. Would you point out that there are a few who join for trivial reasons (missionary crush for example) but that many, perhaps most, join for deeply considered, sincere reasons. 

Might you also point out that my broad, generalising statement was not just uncharitable but also not representative?

If I then replied that others had talked about the other reasons people joined (at different times, to a different audience) and that my statement stood, unchanged, might you point out that my statement was not representative and that I should, at least, put clarifying words into my statement to make it clear that I was taking about a very specific minority. 

Or would the fact that I have an Irish great-great grandfather absolve me of needing to do anything like that. 

Robert, you have definitely called me out (often quite rightly) for making unsubstantiated generalisations. Is there really a difference. 

If you were talking to a friend would you assume they meant to generalize universally or would you be charitable and assume they're not? 

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, canard78 said:

But what about the other question?

When a person leaves their previous belief or faith tradition and joins Mormonism, are they patty cake taffy pullers?

Good Question!

[Bobbieaware]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Good Question!

Generally speaking the answer would be no. The widespread unpopularity of the LDS Church, coupled with the extraordinary expectations of commitment, personal responsibility, moral worthiness and level of activity the Church desires it's new converts to fully embrace, most definitely puts the LDS Church in the non-patty-cake category. Like Elder Holland said, being a fully believing and participating member of the LDS Church isn't for the faint of heart. Isn't this obvious?

Edited May 3, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Generally speaking the answer would be no. The widespread unpopularity of the LDS Church, coupled with the extraordinary expectations of commitment, personal responsibility, moral worthiness and level of activity the Church desires it's new converts to fully embrace, most definitely puts the LDS Church in the non-patty-cake category. Like Elder Holland said, being a fully believing and participating member of the LDS Church isn't for the faint of heart. Isn't this obvious?

For all the commitment required by the LDS Church, one would think its top leaders could at least answer a few "basic questions" about Mormonism on behalf of its departing membership.

[Bobbieaware]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

For all the commitment required by the LDS Church, one would think its top leaders could at least answer a few "basic questions" about Mormonism on behalf of its departing membership.

Each member of the Church needs to become a prophet or prophetess in hi or her own right. Until that happens, no answer will ever suffice. The problem is that most of those who are leaving never really had the spirit of revelation to begin with; there shallow-rooted testimonies were growing on nutrientless sand.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Generally speaking the answer would be no. The widespread unpopularity of the LDS Church, coupled with the extraordinary expectations of commitment, personal responsibility, moral worthiness and level of activity the Church desires it's new converts to fully embrace, most definitely puts the LDS Church in the non-patty-cake category. Like Elder Holland said, being a fully believing and participating member of the LDS Church isn't for the faint of heart. Isn't this obvious?

So we want to send the "faith of heart" packing now?  That may cause the membership to drop 50% of what it is.  no offense to any members, but lacking courage to some extent or another is a problem most of us deal with. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Each member of the Church needs to become a prophet or prophetess in hi or her own right. Until that happens, no answer will ever suffice. The problem is that most of those who are leaving never really had the spirit of revelation to begin with; there shallow-rooted testimonies were growing on nutrientless sand.

Well that's a silly judgment.  maybe we need to stop seeing the church as the only means of revelation, since God inspires and can inspire people even outside the Church.  The Church is not God, after all. 

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The problem is that most of those who are leaving never really had the spirit of revelation to begin with; there shallow-rooted testimonies were growing on nutrientless sand.

CFR for the bolded statement above.