Elder Holland, Part II

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Pretty sure that we are told that we can "weary God" with our prayers.  Elder Holland may just have been extending the thought:

Isaiah 40: 28 ¶ Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

but

Isaiah 43:  24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

2 Nephi 17:13 And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

"Weary the Lord Until He blesses you" - Joseph Smith

Hey JLHProf,

I appreciate the contribution.  I wonder if we will ever get back to discussing things straight up, as you are prone to do, with all the people starting to really lay into each other about their level of faithfulness because of questions and concerns they raise, viritually ignoring their concerns and dismissing them. 

It seems the passages you quote as it pertains to God being wearied suggest God get's wearied because of our iniquity.  Joseph Smith seems to almost suggest the opposite of Elder Holland, whereas it feels like Elder HOlland is cautioning us against taking all of our troubles to God, wherein Joseph seems to suggest we ought to not worry about wearying Him at all.  I feel like I'm missing something, for sure.  I'm just not sure what. 

[rodheadlee]

 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed. These threads are becoming so pervasive, perhaps a separate "Pat-a-Cake/Taffy Pull" forum could be established on the board, where those driven to apoplexy by Elder Holland's latest commentary could indulge in unrestrained venting of their mutual indignation. 

The quote in the opening post was of interest to some and I also thought it was interesting when I first read it (in Elder Holland's talk).  I see nothing wrong with wanting to discuss something an Apostle has related in a public speech. There's no need for you to make fun of those who wanted to discuss it, just because it's of no interest to you.

Just where has there been "unrestrained venting" or "mutual indignation" here?

For some to post that wanting to discuss this shows "hatred" or that people are "demonizing" Elder Holland is ridiculous and a huge exaggeration.  No one has done that here.

I loved what Nevo wrote and it helped bring understanding to what was stated by Elder Holland.  I've also enjoyed JLHPROF's contributions as part of this discussion which has led to some other questions that are of interest to some here.   IMO, any discussion that has both Nevo and JLHPROF participating is a great discussion.  I don't always agree with them, but I love reading anything they post here.    

 Again, just don't participate in these discussions if they upset you this much.

.

Edited May 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The quote in the opening post was of interest to some and I also thought it was interesting when I first read it (in Elder Holland's talk).  I see nothing wrong with wanting to discuss something an Apostle has related in a public speech. There's no need for you to make fun of those who wanted to discuss it, just because it's of no interest to you.

Just where has there been "unrestrained venting" or "mutual indignation" here?

.

Yes, I am making fun of this thread and its sister thread; I tend to do that with things that don't merit the serious consideration or discussion some seem to want to give them. Hyperbolic phrases like "unrestrained venting," "mutual indignation" and "driven to apoplexy" are part of making fun, you see.

 

Quote

Again, just don't participate in these discussions if they upset you this much.

Oh, I'm not really upset, just interested in them enough to exploit them for their entertainment value. Again, all part of the fun making.

 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Of course I understand that, I was just asking where we have written or recorded that this office is to be a life time of active service rather than some lifetime priesthood offices  (Seventy, Patriarch, etc.) where these men serving go onto emeritus status.  It's not a big deal to me, I was just asking the question.

.

Tradition. I can find no scriptural reference for this, except of course as far as we know Christ's Apostles served until they died. It is simply a policy decided on by the early church leaders that has endured throughout the history of the church; although the President has the authority to release an Apostle if he chooses to; but that would most likely be on account of some disciplinary action.

[mtomm]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I found that section to be quite disappointing as well.  Elder Holland sounded like the tired one to me. I think he was expressing his personal journey in that section.  

I actually feel bad for the guy, and for all the Apostles.  They should have emeritus status.  They should be able to spend the sunset years of their lives with their families, not in these demanding roles.  Sure its an ego boost, and they enjoy a celebrity status of sorts, but I'm sure it can be exhausting.  

All of this. Nothing wrong with considering emeritus status for apostles IMO.  I would suggest they ask God for a revelation on such on a thing but that might just be adding to the exhaustion of both them and God. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Tradition. I can find no scriptural reference for this, except of course as far as we know Christ's Apostles served until they died. It is simply a policy decided on by the early church leaders that has endured throughout the history of the church; although the President has the authority to release an Apostle if he chooses to; but that would most likely be on account of some disciplinary action.

I think JLHProf had a point though.  Apostle is something someone is ordained to and you can't be released from being ordained to an office in the priesthood.  You can lose the priesthood thru sin but I think that's the only way, isn't it?

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I am making fun of this thread and its sister thread; I tend to do that with things that don't merit the serious consideration or discussion some seem to want to give them. Hyperbolic phrases like "unrestrained venting," "mutual indignation" and "driven to apoplexy" are part of making fun, you see.

 

Oh, I'm not really upset, just interested in them enough to exploit them for their entertainment value. Again, all part of the fun making.

 

Not every topic posted here is of interest to me.  I get that and I just don't participate in those.  But I do respect other's right to participate in those if they are interested in the topic.

Many found the quote in the OP interesting and wanted to discuss its meaning.  I see nothing wrong with doing this on a discussion forum.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think JLHProf had a point though.  Apostle is something someone is ordained to and you can't be released from being ordained to an office in the priesthood.  You can lose the priesthood thru sin but I think that's the only way, isn't it?

 

I understand that as well but I am responding to the question as to why an Apostle can't be put on emeritus status; still an Apostle, but "retired" from active service.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sheesh.  We can discuss.  If we have a problem with what someone says, then point out the issue, stop complaining about the individual.  Tha'ts all I'm trying to do with what Elder HOlland said.  I have nothing against him.  I don't think anyone has explained my misreading to the point of resolution.  If I've misread I misread.  But it seems to me Nevo is not addressing my concern.  he only suggested that Elder HOlland is speaking about Christ's mortal life.  He clearly is not.  He clearly is asking if in the present God and Christ are tired, no? 

You sound tired; tired of people misrepresenting you and finding fault with your fault finding threat. Oh the irony.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It seems the passages you quote as it pertains to God being wearied suggest God get's wearied because of our iniquity.  Joseph Smith seems to almost suggest the opposite of Elder Holland, whereas it feels like Elder HOlland is cautioning us against taking all of our troubles to God, wherein Joseph seems to suggest we ought to not worry about wearying Him at all.  I feel like I'm missing something, for sure.  I'm just not sure what. 

Given the context of Elder Holland's words (speaking about a passage of scripture where Jesus was literally tired), helped me to see his words differently than i did without the context.  I don't think Elder Holland is talking about not bugging God, but about having more faith.  In that context, both he and JS are suggesting good and proper things.  There are times when we do need to have more faith and not panic so easily.  It's a sign of spiritual growth and maturity to develop trust in God to that degree and it should be something that we are all aiming for.

That doesn't mean that we don't take our troubles to God though.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I understand that as well but I am responding to the question as to why an Apostle can't be put on emeritus status; still an Apostle, but "retired" from active service.

Wouldn't it be because the senior apostle is called as the prophet, and if he was retired that would be a problem?

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think JLHProf had a point though.  Apostle is something someone is ordained to and you can't be released from being ordained to an office in the priesthood. 

My uncle was ordained to the office of Patriarch and it's for life.  He's now on emeritus status.  Same thing happens with the 70's, isn't that correct?  These are also offices in the Priesthood.

I think the answer that it's just tradition or it has always been done this way makes a lot of sense.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

You sound tired; tired of people misrepresenting you and finding fault with your fault finding threat. Oh the irony.

I'm not tired.  I'm curious about the topic.  I'm wondering why no one is willing to discuss it.  It seems like Elder HOlland is suggesting that God gets tired.  I get that Christ got tired in his mortal life.  That's obvious.  I won't even worry about that.  But it feels like to me that Elder Holland is telling us beleivers that God is tired of having to deal with us.  That's odd, wouldn't you think? 

I guess if you are Scott and company just want to mock me that's fine.  I honestly don't care.  But I'm still lost needing help.  My questions still remain.  I'm just searching for some conversation, sure respectful, from someone. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given the context of Elder Holland's words (speaking about a passage of scripture where Jesus was literally tired), helped me to see his words differently than i did without the context.  I don't think Elder Holland is talking about not bugging God, but about having more faith.  In that context, both he and JS are suggesting good and proper things.  There are times when we do need to have more faith and not panic so easily.  It's a sign of spiritual growth and maturity to develop trust in God to that degree and it should be something that we are all aiming for.

That doesn't mean that we don't take our troubles to God though.  

Thanks for the response by the way.  I'm curious what Elder Holland meant when he asked if it ever has occurred to us that God might be tired, and that Jesus might be tired.  I get that he went on to explain that Jesus did get tired in mortality.  That's fine and understandable.  just curious about the present tense of asking if they are too tired for us? 

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

My uncle was ordained to the office of Patriarch and it's for life.  He's now on emeritus status.  Same thing happens with the 70's, isn't that correct?  These are also offices in the Priesthood.

I think the answer that it's just tradition or it has always been done this way makes a lot of sense.

No it doesn't because that answer would be wrong.

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Wouldn't it be because the senior apostle is called as the prophet, and if he was retired that would be a problem?

I guess they would just take the next senior Apostle in line to fill the position. We are talking about "what ifs", which would probably never happen and since there is no precedence for this, all we can do is guess. I would bet if you were to ask any of the Apostles if they wanted to "retire" they would laugh and vigorously refuse. When they become too weak or ill to perform their duties they are in effect put on a form of emeritus status anyway, but no one is called to fill their position until they die and they continue to be involved as much as they can.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not tired.  I'm curious about the topic.  I'm wondering why no one is willing to discuss it.  It seems like Elder HOlland is suggesting that God gets tired.  I get that Christ got tired in his mortal life.  That's obvious.  I won't even worry about that.  But it feels like to me that Elder Holland is telling us beleivers that God is tired of having to deal with us.  That's odd, wouldn't you think? 

I guess if you are Scott and company just want to mock me that's fine.  I honestly don't care.  But I'm still lost needing help.  My questions still remain.  I'm just searching for some conversation, sure respectful, from someone. 

I think this topic is very interesting.  As I posted earlier, I wondered about the quote when I read Elder Holland's talk.  I was glad to see that you posted it and asked some questions.. Those who didn't wonder about it or want to discuss it, don't need to but I don't understand the mocking or making fun 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No it doesn't because that answer would be wrong.

Ok.  It made sense to me.  What is the answer then and do you have a source stating the reason?

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

My uncle was ordained to the office of Patriarch and it's for life.  He's now on emeritus status.  Same thing happens with the 70's, isn't that correct?  These are also offices in the Priesthood.

I think the answer that it's just tradition or it has always been done this way makes a lot of sense.

I do get that, but there's no chance that your uncle is going to be called to come out of retirement after a 10+ years and function as the next prophet and president of the church.  I think that's where the idea of emeritus status for apostles get's tricky, because the senior apostle would be the next prophet and coming in to run a church after years of having no clue as to what's been going on and what is planned for the future wouldn't be a very wise way to handle a change of leadership.   I'm not saying that that would be impossible to overcome, but it is different than the other emeritus positions.

I do think it's funny though that we are all talking about how these men should be able to retire as if we have a clue as to whether or not any of them would ever even want to.

[Tacenda]

I don't blame Elder Holland's being mad.  What if one day so many drop out of the church, what will happen to the beautiful temples built in the world?  That would be a sad day, or maybe they could be put them to good use.  This may sound crass, but it does have some truth, if the church is not true.  But I don't think that day will come.  

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do get that, but there's no chance that your uncle is going to be called to come out of retirement after a 10+ years and function as the next prophet and president of the church.  

No, but he was not ordained to that office.

He could be called upon to give more Patriarchal blessings though, I would imagine, since that's the office he was ordained to and it's for life. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

My uncle was ordained to the office of Patriarch and it's for life.  He's now on emeritus status.  Same thing happens with the 70's, isn't that correct?  These are also offices in the Priesthood.

I think the answer that it's just tradition or it has always been done this way makes a lot of sense.

Area Seventies are not given emeritus status; they are simply released from their callings.

Until very recently, that was also the case for General Authority Seventies who had served in the Second Quorum of the Seventy.

I've never heard of a stake patriarch being given emeritus status. The only patriarch I know of who received that status was the late Eldred G. Smith, who was the last man to hold the position of Patriarch to the Church.

It's true that patriarch is a priesthood office and that once a man is thus ordained, he holds that office for life. But a man can be relieved from active service as a stake patriarch and can be a non-functioning patriarch, which happens quite often in the case of a patriarch who moves out of his stake. Having thus served, such a man can be called again to the position of stake patriarch in the stake where he is residing. In that instance, it would not be necessary for him to be re-ordained to the office of patriarch, since he would already be holding that office.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the response by the way.  I'm curious what Elder Holland meant when he asked if it ever has occurred to us that God might be tired, and that Jesus might be tired.  I get that he went on to explain that Jesus did get tired in mortality.  That's fine and understandable.  just curious about the present tense of asking if they are too tired for us? 

My feeling is that he's talking about God getting tired so that we appreciate just how much love and mercy God has for us.  It's like with any regular parent.  When we understand everything that a mother or a father sacrifices for their children (like rest-both physically but also emotionally), we appreciate more how much they must really love us.  We also treat them better and don't take them for granted as much.  

I think it's the same with our relationship with God and Christ.  When we understand their condescension better maybe that makes it easier for us to trust their love for us and to try love them better in return.

Edited May 4, 2016 by bluebell
clarity

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

maybe they could be put them to good use.

As opposed to the uses to which LDS Temples are presently put?