Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I ask the following questions with great respect: Do you believe the scriptural accounts of the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ could also be "inspired fiction?" In other words, could the testimonies of the apostles and prophets concerning the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ be purely fictional (I.e. the two events never actually occurred) but that that there is some kind of saving power in the fictional accounts?

I don't like using the word fictional when discussing scripture because of the immediate negative association that word brings for some.  The authors of the NT books weren't recording history according to modern historical standards.  They were telling narrative stories for theological purposes(these stories often disagree with each other).  We are absolutely too far removed from that time and place to make any absolute judgments about historical accuracy, but I do think there is enough evidence say that Jesus was a person who lived during that time and place.  I don't believe we have enough evidence to prove the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

As for the saving power of these accounts, this is a matter of faith, and I'm not going to argue that you or anyone else can't or shouldn't have faith in the saving power of these narratives.  That's a very personal question, and one that can't be objectively proved or disproved.  

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I didn't specifically say that. But I gave resounding support for him.

 

Depends on how you define "resounding," I suppose.

Quote

But here you go.  It was crummy to dredge up a a false accusation against him when the accusation was already discredited almost as soon as it surfaced.   And I do think it was crummy.

Well, better late than never, I suppose.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, I think the accusation about the book was silly.

Thanks for that.

But it was worse than silly; it was false.

 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for that.

But it was worse than silly; it was false.

 

I want to thank you again for sending me the link to the talk.  It was so interesting to hear it from a member's perspective as opposed to an anti's perspective.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for that.

But it was worse than silly; it was false.

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

all this demeaning talk could have been handled privately......

I agree. It strikes me as passive-aggressiveness.

It's like gossiping about someone who you know is in the room and is within full earshot of what you are saying.

 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. It strikes me as passive-aggressiveness.

It's like gossiping about someone who you know is in the room and is within full earshot of what you are saying.

 

Oh my heck..I can't believe you blame me for this.  O'well.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, what it comes down to is that you and I apparently disagree with the idea of the Book of Mormon as a literal history being doctrine.

Well, if you think it's not doctrinal, then we do indeed clash. I think such a notion is problematical in the extreme.

[Teancum]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course you can't prove a negative. So don't claim to have proven that Mormonism is false.

I don't claim to be able to prove it through physical evidence. My only claim is to have received a spiritual witness of its truthfulness. So I have no such burden as you claim.

You, on the other hand, have the burden to prove it if you assert the book is falsifiable by physical evidence. This you have failed to do.

 

I don't claim Mormonism or any other religion is true or false.  But I do claim that the evidence to prove Mormonsim as true or most other religions as true is lacking. 

Your spiritual witness is fine for you and you only  I have no reason to trust your claim without evidence to back it up.  In spite of Mormonsims claim that nothing trumps a testimony that position is weak and borders on silliness. 

So you are Wring again. Supernatural and fantastical claims of truth are on the burden of the truth claimer.  But I understand the dodge and duck and obsfucation.  You are fighting a losing battle. 

I can claim anything is true. I can claim now that a supernatural being claiming to be God has visited me personally and told me Mormonism is false as are all other religions and I need to tell the world the true religion to follow.  

Would you accept it just because I tell you go pray about it?  I think not.  

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Depends on how you define "resounding," I suppose.

Well, better late than never, I suppose.

I suppose I can never satisfy you Scott and I suppose I really don't care. 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I don't claim Mormonism or any other religion is true or false.  But I do claim that the evidence to prove Mormonsim as true or most other religions as true is lacking. 

Your spiritual witness is fine for you and you only  I have no reason to trust your claim without evidence to back it up.  In spite of Mormonsims claim that nothing trumps a testimony that position is weak and borders on silliness. 

So you are Wring again. Supernatural and fantastical claims of truth are on the burden of the truth claimer.  But I understand the dodge and duck and obsfucation.  You are fighting a losing battle. 

I can claim anything is true. I can claim now that a supernatural being claiming to be God has visited me personally and told me Mormonism is false as are all other religions and I need to tell the world the true religion to follow.  

Would you accept it just because I tell you go pray about it?  I think not.  

What it really boils down to is how much evidence is enough?  And then, how much of each kind of evidence is enough?  Only you can answer these questions, but are you holding the Church up to a higher standard of evidence than, say, friendships?  Or buying a car?  Or anything.

And if you are, why?  

Is there a value to religion?  To church?  to the relationships with God and people?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, if you think it's not doctrinal, then we do indeed clash. I think such a notion is problematical in the extreme.

The notion of the Book of Mormon as a history is problematic in the extreme.

Edited August 25, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

Actually, I don't.  Have not posted there since you all started really blasting members here.  BTW.....Calm is not Nemesis.  But thanks.

 

No, Calm is not Nemesis.

And I don't have any special "protected" status here with the moderators.

They really do get zany over there on that board. The zaniness is exceeded only by the vitriol.

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I was like that for 26 years.

I wish the best for you

Thanks. I know we have crossed swords here a bit but my guess is you are pretty good guy and someone I would love to sit down and have a meal with and discuss or own faith journeys, compare notes and see how we could help each other out.

I have said it here before and I will tell you.  I pray. I pray harder and more fervently now than I did as a full believing Mormon.  I am willing to go where God, if God is there, leads me. 

 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, Calm is not Nemesis.

And I don't have any special "protected" status here with the moderators.

They really do get zany over there on that board. The zaniness is exceeded only by the vitriol.

lol....you, Nemesis and Calm are bashed almost as much as I am.

[Teancum]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just want to reiterate here that I was not denigrating John's experience or using it against him. I only raised the question when he indicated he didn't think Elder Holland's "recent" talks were very powerful. I knew for a fact what he had said about the talk given seven years ago, so I raised the question.

It is also to his credit that he grasps my intent when it seems others refuse to.

So let's hear it for John!

Ok.  Then I apologize and retract my comments that what you did was crummy. Thanks for clarifying.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thanks. I know we have crossed swords here a bit but my guess is you are pretty good guy and someone I would love to sit down and have a meal with and discuss or own faith journeys, compare notes and see how we could help each other out.

I have said it here before and I will tell you.  I pray. I pray harder and more fervently now than I did as a full believing Mormon.  I am willing to go where God, if God is there, leads me. 

 

My problem is, I suck at boards...lol.  I am not a patient typist.  So, I do not use words to soften anything.  In public, I am much.  I could not have won three city council elections if I did not have some redeeming qualities....but I could not get elected to dog catcher on a debate board.

Do you live in SLC area?

I used to pray the same thing.....I was sooooo anti-LDS but I would say I am willing to go where God wants to be

Edited August 25, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't claim Mormonism or any other religion is true or false.  But I do claim that the evidence to prove Mormonsim as true or most other religions as true is lacking. 

Your spiritual witness is fine for you and you only  I have no reason to trust your claim without evidence to back it up.  In spite of Mormonsims claim that nothing trumps a testimony that position is weak and borders on silliness. 

So you are Wring again. Supernatural and fantastical claims of truth are on the burden of the truth claimer.  But I understand the dodge and duck and obsfucation.  You are fighting a losing battle. 

I can claim anything is true. I can claim now that a supernatural being claiming to be God has visited me personally and told me Mormonism is false as are all other religions and I need to tell the world the true religion to follow.  

Would you accept it just because I tell you go pray about it?  I think not.  

I woudn't accept it, but I wouldn't claim to have proven it false either.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, if you think it's not doctrinal, then we do indeed clash. I think such a notion is problematical in the extreme.

There is no question that the position of those whose job it is to lead the church and define doctrine and keep that doctrine pure, whatever that means, is that the BoM is historical. So Rockpond, while you may not hold that position the Church does and if you preach differently I think you will be in trouble.  And rightfully so given the position of the church. 

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is no question that the position of those whose job it is to lead the church and define doctrine and keep that doctrine pure, whatever that means, is that the BoM is historical. So Rockpond, while you may not hold that position the Church does and if you preach differently I think you will be in trouble.  And rightfully so given the position of the church. 

I know I am responding to my own post.  But here is the deal.  I was near the end of my time as a bishop when I had serious questions about the church.  I discussed these with my SP.  For whatever reasons he wanted me to continue to serve and I was willing.  But I can tell you even with my questions and concerns I kept my approach to the positions the Church promoted and held.  Why?  Because that was my job and if I could not have done that I damn well would have stepped down. 

A few months after my almost 6 years as a bishop I was called to the stake high council.  I was torn but I accepted.  I actually quite enjoyed that calling.  But again, even thigh I had severe doubts I still held to the official church positions on doctrine and never would I have openly deviated.   

Rockpond, I respect your positions.  But if you hold a calling of influence and can't support the official church positions you should ask to be released. 

[jkwilliams]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. It strikes me as passive-aggressiveness.

It's like gossiping about someone who you know is in the room and is within full earshot of what you are saying.

I have nothing against CB, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was denigrating him. That was not my intent.

[UtahTexan]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know I am responding to my own post.  But here is the deal.  I was near the end of my time as a bishop when I had serious questions about the church.  I discussed these with my SP.  For whatever reasons he wanted me to continue to serve and I was willing.  But I can tell you even with my questions and concerns I kept my approach to the positions the Church promoted and held.  Why?  Because that was my job and if I could not have done that I damn well would have stepped down. 

A few months after my almost 6 years as a bishop I was called to the stake high council.  I was torn but I accepted.  I actually quite enjoyed that calling.  But again, even thigh I had severe doubts I still held to the official church positions on doctrine and never would I have openly deviated.   

Rockpond, I respect your positions.  But if you hold a calling of influence and can't support the official church positions you should ask to be released. 

I absolutely love knowing this about you....it makes things sooo much easier to understand.....thank you so much for sharing

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know I am responding to my own post.  But here is the deal.  I was near the end of my time as a bishop when I had serious questions about the church.  I discussed these with my SP.  For whatever reasons he wanted me to continue to serve and I was willing.  But I can tell you even with my questions and concerns I kept my approach to the positions the Church promoted and held.  Why?  Because that was my job and if I could not have done that I damn well would have stepped down. 

A few months after my almost 6 years as a bishop I was called to the stake high council.  I was torn but I accepted.  I actually quite enjoyed that calling.  But again, even thigh I had severe doubts I still held to the official church positions on doctrine and never would I have openly deviated.   

Rockpond, I respect your positions.  But if you hold a calling of influence and can't support the official church positions you should ask to be released. 

I had much the same experience. I was an assistant to the high priests group leader when I finally acknowledged that I no longer believed. I talked to my bishop about it, and he encouraged me to continue in the calling, as I was still trying to regain my belief. I stayed in that calling for more than a year. It was tough, and when they asked me to teach lessons I wasn't comfortable teaching, I just got someone else to do it. I didn't feel like I was being dishonest because the bishop and the high priests group leader knew what was going on, but it really tore me up inside feeling like a total hypocrite. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is no question that the position of those whose job it is to lead the church and define doctrine and keep that doctrine pure, whatever that means, is that the BoM is historical. So Rockpond, while you may not hold that position the Church does and if you preach differently I think you will be in trouble.  And rightfully so given the position of the church. 

I get what you are saying but, as a bishop's counselor, if such a situation came up in my ward, I don't know what grounds we might use to put someone "in trouble" (whatever that means).

 

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know I am responding to my own post.  But here is the deal.  I was near the end of my time as a bishop when I had serious questions about the church.  I discussed these with my SP.  For whatever reasons he wanted me to continue to serve and I was willing.  But I can tell you even with my questions and concerns I kept my approach to the positions the Church promoted and held.  Why?  Because that was my job and if I could not have done that I damn well would have stepped down. 

A few months after my almost 6 years as a bishop I was called to the stake high council.  I was torn but I accepted.  I actually quite enjoyed that calling.  But again, even thigh I had severe doubts I still held to the official church positions on doctrine and never would I have openly deviated.   

Rockpond, I respect your positions.  But if you hold a calling of influence and can't support the official church positions you should ask to be released. 

Given how my personal beliefs and viewpoints differ from current LDS orthodoxy, I think I've done pretty well in my years as a counselor to two successive bishops in holding to "official church positions" (as difficult to nail down as those might be).  You won't find me testifying of things that I don't believe but you also won't find me testifying of anything that would contradict the Brethren.  For example, one of the toughest things I had to do was conduct sacrament meeting and bear my testimony on that Fast Sunday that immediately followed the leaking of the policy change last November.  There was even a SP member on the stand with us that day.

As for "suppor[ing] official church positions" or "ask[ing] to be released"... it's up to my leaders if they want to release me.  Since I don't recognize anyone's ownership of church positions, I don't see a need to go out and asked to be released when it isn't what my Bishop wants.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rockpond said:

I get what you are saying but, as a bishop's counselor, if such a situation came up in my ward, I don't know what grounds we might use to put someone "in trouble" (whatever that means).

Given how my personal beliefs and viewpoints differ from current LDS orthodoxy, I think I've done pretty well in my years as a counselor to two successive bishops in holding to "official church positions" (as difficult to nail down as those might be).  You won't find me testifying of things that I don't believe but you also won't find me testifying of anything that would contradict the Brethren.  For example, one of the toughest things I had to do was conduct sacrament meeting and bear my testimony on that Fast Sunday that immediately followed the leaking of the policy change last November.  There was even a SP member on the stand with us that day.

As for "suppor[ing] official church positions" or "ask[ing] to be released"... it's up to my leaders if they want to release me.  Since I don't recognize anyone's ownership of church positions, I don't see a need to go out and asked to be released when it isn't what my Bishop wants.

There's no right answer except to do what is best for you and your family. And that's between you and God.