Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

Also good to know.

When I left the Church in 1989, I held several callings.  When I realized I had lost my testimony, I quit my callings.  Was really hard

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I can't find anything pre-2011 from posts on this forum.  how do you do it?  I like reading old stuff. 

When you search it should bring relevant pre2011 posts.  Unless you have something set.  Most (all?) may be down in Misc if you are only searching this forum.  You can set for a custom date as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

When you search it should bring relevant pre2011 posts.  Unless you have something set.  Most (all?) may be down in Misc if you are only searching this forum.  You can set for a custom date as well.

Or you could remember that Google is your friend. 

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, 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.

Perhaps I was not clear.  I have no issue if you are in a leadership position and don't agree with all policy or official doctrine.  And while some of what is official may be tough to define I think most of us know what topics and items may be considered official.  The Book of Mormon being an account of a real people would seem to be among the official doctrine of the church. My point is that if you as a counselor were openly advocating that position say from the pulpit, in one on one meetings with members, speaking at a youth fireside,etc.  your bishop or SP may council you to stop.   If you didn't they may subject you to some form of discipline.  Then my point further was in my capacity as a church leader, say when I was bishop, I could not enforce a policy like the recent one on gay marriage and their children I may feel a need to ask to released.  While I may not always like this aspect of the church and I often don't I understand this is how the church operates.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Teancum

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, 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.

Rockpond..I so admire you.  Your positions on things is because you really care about the people of your ward.  You sustain leaders to best of your ability and without fear you find a realization of true empathy for those in your care and the church in general.  As far as I am concerned, the church needs more people like you.  If I had had someone like you to talk to years ago....who knows.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps I was not clear.  I have no issue if you are in a leadership position and don't agree with all policy or official doctrine.  And while some of what is official may be tough to define I think most of us know what topics and items may be considered official.  The Book of Mormon being an account of a real people would seem to be among the official doctrine of the church. My point is that if you as a counselor were openly advocating that position say from the pulpit, in one on one meetings with members, speaking at a youth fireside,etc.  your bishop or SP may council you to stop.   If you didn't they may subject you to some form of discipline.  Then my point further was in my capacity as a church leader, say when I was bishop, I could not enforce a policy like the recent one on gay marriage and their children I may feel a need to ask to released.  While I may not always like this aspect of the church and I often don't I understand this is how the church operates.

I agree on most counts as long as we differentiate between advocating for a non-historical view of the Book of Mormon vs expressing one's belief in it as something other than a literal history.

As for my calling and matters of policy -- the handbook instructs us to understand the handbook and then use personal revelation and the guidance of the Spirit in determining how to implement the instructions.  I can do that.  100%.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Rockpond..I so admire you.  Your positions on things is because you really care about the people of your ward.  You sustain leaders to best of your ability and without fear you find a realization of true empathy for those in your care and the church in general.  As far as I am concerned, the church needs more people like you.  If I had had someone like you to talk to years ago....who knows.

Thanks, Jeanne.  You flatter me but I appreciate the kind words.

[Guest]

On August 24, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

PaPa, this is not about targeting Elder Holland, LDS Apostles or any other Religious institution or clergy.....per say....

The problem is much bigger that, Elder Holland & other clergy cannot hide behind their empty promises anymore.

 

If not about him...then why so many treads about him here and elsewhere? Also, what empty promises? I have experienced those "empty promises" you claim to be so first hand. Through the Priesthood, I have been able to bless and heal members of my family members, and been healed from certain death myself, just months ago. So again I ask, why is Elder Holland the topic of so many negative threads, and what empty promises are you referring too? 

[UtahTexan]

16 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

If not about him...then why so many treads about him here and elsewhere? Also, what empty promises? I have experienced those "empty promises" you claim to be so first hand. Through the Priesthood, I have been able to bless and heal members of my family members, and been healed from certain death myself, just months ago. So again I ask, why is Elder Holland the topic of so many negative threads, and what empty promises are you referring too? 

There are no empty promises.  There is joy...happiness....and the Love of God

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

If not about him...then why so many treads about him here and elsewhere? Also, what empty promises? I have experienced those "empty promises" you claim to be so first hand. Through the Priesthood, I have been able to bless and heal members of my family members, and been healed from certain death myself, just months ago. So again I ask, why is Elder Holland the topic of so many negative threads, and what empty promises are you referring too? 

In answer to your question, I was going to quote a verse from the Book of Mormom. But even though the verse perfectly answers your question, I decided not to post it out of fear that doing so would likely be get me suspended or banned from the board. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In answer to your question, I was going to quote a verse from the Book of Mormom. But even though the verse perfectly answers your question, I decided not to post it out of fear that doing so would likely be get me suspended or banned from the board. 

How so? Paraphrase if you like...the only scripture I can imagine that might raise eyebrows would be from the "Song of Soloman" (hope I spelled his name right). Otherwise, I cannot see how any scripture would hurt. 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

How so? Paraphrase if you like...the only scripture I can imagine that might raise eyebrows would be from the "Song of Soloman" (hope I spelled his name right). Otherwise, I cannot see how any scripture would hurt. 

Then, at your request, I will prarphrase the verse with the hope I won't get bounced off the board as a consequence.

"Those who lack a sufficient measure of divine inspiration take the truth to be hard." 

Here's to hoping I don't get banned...

Edited August 27, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Jeanne]

Ban her..right now!!

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then, at your request, I will prarphrase the verse with the hope I won't get bounced off the board as a consequence.

"Those who lack a sufficient measure of divine inspiration take the truth to be hard." 

Here's to hoping I don't get banned...

I can't tell if you are serious...from memory it says; "the wicked taketh the truth to be hard". Now I have to ask...who is the wicked? 

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Ban her..right now!!

Last week, I was given a 24 hour suspension --  accompanied by a no-nonsense threat of total banning -- because I suggested one of the reasons why some members of the Church might come out in open rebellion against the teachings and policies of the Church is because of the influence of the adversary. But, like it or not, the fact is (at least according to Mormonism) the adversary does diligently and indefatigably attempt to lead the members of the Church astray, and the fact that he does so is one of the most fundamental and consistently-taught principles of the LDS religion. As a consequence of being censured for drawing attention to this basic Gospel doctrine (that the adversary never stops trying to destroy us) I'm fearful citing basic LDS doctrines on this board, such as this one, can be a dangerous thing to do.

Like the Wicked Witch of the West once said (I'm applying her wry comment to how one is expected to participate on this board), "things these must be handled delicately... delivately". But for good or ill, handling things delicately is not one of my strong suits. Because I'm a passionate member of a Church that's all about right and wrong, it's very difficult for me to not point out when something is wrong. But because all the participants on this board, from the most faithful members of the Church to the most bitter apostates, are supposed to be treated with equal respect, I find not being able to be forthright according to the truth (at least what I most-sincerely perceive to be the truth) taught in the scriptures a difficult thing to do.

So though I believe I'm one of the most zealous and able defenders of the Church on this board (am I being immodest?), it's likely my forthrightness will eventually get me banned. But I will say this: If anyone on this board ever sincerely wants to accuse me of being under the influence the adversary, I wouldn't be the slightest bit offended at the accusation (and I wouldn't even dream of going off like a crybaby and reporting such an accuser to the moderators). Why? because the truth is I have been battling the enemy of men's souls for most of my life (and not infrequently losing battles to him). But I press on in the hope that one day, through my faith in the almighty Savior, I will eventually beat the adversary of my soul and come off triumphant. I perfectly realize that when I point my index finger at someone whom believe is coming under attack by the adversary that I'm also pointing four other fingers right back at me. Nevertheless. when I see a sister or brother whom I believe is coming under attack by the adversary -- and they don't seem to realize it -- I love them too much as fellow members of the Churvh to not want to warn them of the danger they don't see. Anyway, thank God the living prophets of God, like Elder Holland, don't have to communicate restrained from speaking the unvarnished truth by the rules of an online LDS discussion board.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

46 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I can't tell if you are serious...from memory it says; "the wicked taketh the truth to be hard". Now I have to ask...who is the wicked? 

That's the part that will get me banned.

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

That's the part that will get me banned.

I think your message is clear.  I enjoy your posts.....

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Last week, I was given a 24 hour suspension --  accompanied by a no-nonsense threat of total banning -- because I suggested one of the reasons why some members of the Church might come out in open rebellion against the teachings and policies of the Church is because of the influence of the adversary. But, like it or not, the fact is (at least according to Mormonism) the adversary does diligently and indefatigably attempt to lead the members of the Church astray, and the fact that he does so is one of the most fundamental and consistently-taught principles of the LDS religion. As a consequence of being censured for drawing attention to this basic Gospel doctrine (that the adversary never stops trying to destroy us) I'm fearful citing basic LDS doctrines on this board, such as this one, can be a dangerous thing to do.

Like the Wicked Witch of the West once said (I'm applying her wry comment to how one is expected to participate on this board), "things these must be handled delicately... delivately". But for good or ill, handling things delicately is not one of my strong suits. Because I'm a passionate member of a Church that's all about right and wrong, it's very difficult for me to not point out when something is wrong. But because all the participants on this board, from the most faithful members of the Church to the most bitter apostates, are supposed to be treated with equal respect, I find not being able to be forthright according to the truth (at least what I most-sincerely perceive to be the truth) taught in the scriptures a difficult thing to do.

So though I believe I'm one of the most zealous and able defenders of the Church on this board (am I being immodest?), it's likely my forthrightness will eventually get me banned. But I will say this: If anyone on this board ever sincerely wants to accuse me of being under the influence the adversary, I wouldn't be the slightest bit offended at the accusation (and I wouldn't even dream of going off like a crybaby and reporting such an accuser to the moderators). Why? because the truth is I have been battling the enemy of men's souls for most of my life (and not infrequently losing battles to him). But I press on in the hope that one day, through my faith in the almighty Savior, I will eventually beat the adversary of my soul and come off triumphant. I perfectly realize that when I point my index finger at someone whom believe is coming under attack by the adversary that I'm also pointing four other fingers right back at me. Nevertheless. when I see a sister or brother whom I believe is coming under attack by the adversary -- and they don't seem to realize it -- I love them too much as fellow members of the Churvh to not want to warn them of the danger they don't see. Anyway, thank God the living prophets of God, like Elder Holland, don't have to communicate restrained from speaking the unvarnished truth by the rules of an online LDS discussion board.

From the other side of the fence. I DO understand what you are saying..and I will also add that you are not immodest in saying you are one of the most devout here.

That being said, me leaving the church could so easily be just said that "the devil made me do it"...which is not so.  I was just razzing you anyway but I am surprised that you had a suspension.  Best to you.

[Garden Girl]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

From the other side of the fence. I DO understand what you are saying..and I will also add that you are not immodest in saying you are one of the most devout here.

That being said, me leaving the church could so easily be just said that "the devil made me do it"...which is not so.  I was just razzing you anyway but I am surprised that you had a suspension.  Best to you.

Me too... GG

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/26/2016 at 3:21 PM, Pa Pa said:

If not about him...then why so many treads about him here and elsewhere? Also, what empty promises? I have experienced those "empty promises" you claim to be so first hand. Through the Priesthood, I have been able to bless and heal members of my family members, and been healed from certain death myself, just months ago. So again I ask, why is Elder Holland the topic of so many negative threads, and what empty promises are you referring too? 

What empty promises I refer to? Every promise (without exception) made in the Scriptures (all of them) and every promise that any clergy/GA delivered. I realize this is disappointing to hear but before I finally woke up & saw the reality for what it was there was no turning back...... 

Of course this is only my opinion, does it carry any weight? It does for me, ever since I left my faith almost every aspect of my life got better, the best part is I do not attribute my health & success to anything but myself by just simply being here. For reasons unbeknown to me few trillions of cells decided to assemble (from as far as two distant supernovas) made me what I am. If anyone has any evidence to share, I'm all ears.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What empty promises I refer to? Every promise (without exception) made in the Scriptures (all of them) and every promise that any clergy/GA delivered. I realize this is disappointing to hear but before I finally woke up & saw the reality for what it was there was no turning back...... 

Of course this is only my opinion, does it carry any weight? It does for me, ever since I left my faith almost every aspect of my life got better, the best part is I do not attribute my health & success to anything but myself by just simply being here. For reasons unbeknown to me few trillions of cells decided to assemble (from as far as two distant supernovas) made me what I am. If anyone has any evidence to share, I'm all ears.

I don't find it disappointing, I find this comment to be angry and bitter. I am alive today because of these promises. Also, you are right it is just your opinion. You are in my prayers. 

[Bobbieaware]

22 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I think your message is clear.  I enjoy your posts.....

Thanks to your employment of the emoticons, I knew you were ribbing me. I simply used your post as a convenient springboard to do some venting. All the best to you...

[Glenn101]

On 8/24/2016 at 10:38 AM, Buckeye said:

There are many such members. Just like President Hinckely was factually wrong to say in his 1995 interview that "there are no mormon women who want the priesthood" (my paraphrase), 

Do you have a link to that 1995 interview? The only reference that I can find is an interview in 1997 where he stated that there was no agitation for women holding the priesthood. On that point I think that he was correct. There may have been some talk, but it was muted at best. Maybe though you can find some references I have missed.

Glenn

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

I don't find it disappointing, I find this comment to be angry and bitter. I am alive today because of these promises. Also, you are right it is just your opinion. You are in my prayers. 

I'm not angry or bitter, I love Utah and it's culture, I have a place in Park City and spend most of my free time there.....

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I'm not angry or bitter, I love Utah and it's culture, I have a place in Park City and spend most of my free time there.....

Utah, nor the culture are the Gospel. I was speaking of your rejection of "all" scripture, which are the words of God and his Prophets and Apostle. Can you find no good in any of these words and promises?