Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And what is the colour of the book in the photograph?  I assume that you are aware of what happens to a photograph as it ages.

They look identical to me, except for how the book is tinted, which happens in an old photograph.  I have many old photographs which have aged and show an identical tenting to the clothing and obscures the actual colors of those clothes.

This is truly sad when someone throws away their testimony based on a tinting of a photograph.  Surely you can tell us about the Mall, or Mountain Meadows, the Book of Abraham, but a the tinting of an old photograph?????

I have indeed decided for myself.

Please see my subsequent post. Johnnie Cake is ill-informed.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I'm not so sure of that. As members with such belief become more numerous and open, I expect that most leaders will come to accommodate them just fine. 

I agree if you mean by "accomodate", they will not lose their membership in the church.  Would you extend that definition to accepting them as a General Autority, or stake president?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your supposition is wrong This was hashed over at the time the talk was given.

The earlier article in the LDS Church News was inaccurate. That was not the book that Hyrum had in Liberty Jail.

As I recall, Blair Hodges, who is currently posting on this message board, started a thread about it. Perhaps he will see this post and help me out in locating that thread from back then.

Edited to add:

Please see this follow-up article that was in the Deseret News quoting Richard E. Turley Jr. of the Church History Department clarifying the matter about the separate books.

And bear it in mind before you dredge this matter up again.

 

Cool

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not that old of a photo:

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/50543/Fabric-of-history-Geo-A-and-Bathsheba-Smith-artifacts-donated-to-Church.html

Please see my subsequent post citing the follow-up Deseret News article quoting Rick Turley. There are separate books in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the same page dog-eared. The one Elder Holland displayed is the one Hyrum Smith had at Carthage. The other is not.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

So I ask. Why is he above most Apostles, become the target of so much scrutiny among various website, including this one? (My Question) 

It is an interesting question.  Certainly, there was a vacuum left after the death of President Packer, so that might be part of it.  And Elder Holland certainly speaks with clarity, certainty and force that make him very visible.  And his direct criticisms of doubters and disbelievers from the pulpit would make him a natural target.  If all he talked about was Temple work and loving others, no one would care.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think we need to get away from the notion that criticizing a leader's words is criticizing that leader personally.  To suggest we can't criticize our leader's words only creates a place where the market place of ideas is limited and in effect goes away.  I fear we've lost as a Church community because of such thinking.  We can do better and there's always room to grow. 

It's my observation that the criticism of Elder Holland can get very personal (veering into his appearance, speaking manner etc.)

[Calm]

Quote

As I recall, Blair Hodges, who is currently posting on this message board, started a thread about it.

Maybe he blogged on it. (see below)

added:  Never mind, will look again now I know the date better.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/few-comments-on-elder-hollands.html

Edited August 24, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Cool

If this matter keeps resurfacing as it did here, perhaps Wiki Wonka could be persuaded to do a piece at the FairMormon website giving the facts.

Or perhaps he already has. I haven't checked yet.

 

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my subsequent post. Johnnie Cake is ill-informed.

To be fair, shouldn't we place the blame on the Church News?

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/50543/Fabric-of-history-Geo-A-and-Bathsheba-Smith-artifacts-donated-to-Church.html

 

 

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, 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. It was OK in the past the age of No_Information....Now the Mankind created something so monstrously big information Netz, almost every information we desire is on the tip of our pinkie finger....

No amount of prayers, rituals, well wishes can stem this tide....Just this morning I was looking at the World papers; "Die Welt" , it is reporting hat 15thousand members of a Norwegian disappeared owernight; http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article157837936/15-000-Norweger-verlassen-innerhalb-von-vier-Tagen-die-Kirche.html . And this church has gender equity, female bishops.... 

The Religion served it's purpose in human culture. I'm not writing this wishing all the Churches would go away, I have a notorious apathy what is going to happen with them.....      It's just that writing is on the wall as we humans en mass left our hunting & gathering habits for farming and crop sharing culture 15 thousand years ago.

 

And you don't think that this church having gender equity, female bishops, and performs gay marriages, has anything to do with it?

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's my observation that the criticism of Elder Holland can get very personal (veering into his appearance, speaking manner etc.)

fair enough.  I forget how petty criticisms can get.  And no doubt not only Elder Holland but other LDS leaders have been criticized for petty personal things which I find unfair. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, cinepro said:

To be fair, shouldn't we place the blame on the Church News?

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/50543/Fabric-of-history-Geo-A-and-Bathsheba-Smith-artifacts-donated-to-Church.html

 

 

For getting the facts wrong in the story, yes. Apparently, the sources the writer relied on at the time were misinformed as well.

But critics deserve blame for dredging things up and making assumptions without taking cognizance of clarifications that are already on the record. If one can dig up an old Church News story, it is certainly within his capability to find a more recent Deseret News article that sheds light on the matter.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[waveslider]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If this matter keeps resurfacing as it did here, perhaps Wiki Wonka could be persuaded to do a piece at the FairMormon website giving the facts.

Or perhaps he already has. I haven't checked yet.

 

You can edit Wikipedia yourself.... anyone can.

[Calm]

Not the FairMormon wiki.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

So I ask. Why is he above most Apostles, become the target of so much scrutiny among various website, including this one? (My Question

When you agree with someone's POV and they use bold language to proclaim their beliefs, you'll probably not notice it or even become more aligned with their thinking.   Conversely if you disagree with someone's POV, when they use bold language it turns those people off to a greater degree than if they delivered their speech in a more kind and persuasive manner.  

Holland used to be a favorite of mine when I had orthodox beliefs.  Now that I scrutinize what he says, and find myself disagreeing with some of his positions, I find that he often comes across as arrogant and dismissive.  I've changed, perhaps Holland has remained the same, but I'm not entirely sure.  He has come across poorly as of late from my perspective.  I think he might be getting older and crankier as well.  

Edited August 24, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my subsequent post citing the follow-up Deseret News article quoting Rick Turley. There are separate books in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the same page dog-eared. The one Elder Holland displayed is the one Hyrum Smith had at Carthage. The other is not.

This may be the thread you referred to in an earlier post, linking to what search says is the first mention of Bathsheba, but the conversation about the specific book may have started before, haven't looked at it close enough to tell:

 

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your supposition is wrong This was hashed over at the time the talk was given.

The earlier article in the LDS Church News was inaccurate. That was not the book that Hyrum had in Carthage Jail.

As I recall, Blair Hodges, who is currently posting on this message board, started a thread about it. Perhaps he will see this post and help me out in locating that thread from back then.

Edited to add:

Please see this follow-up article that was in the Deseret News quoting Richard E. Turley Jr. of the Church History Department clarifying the matter about the separate books.

And bear it in mind before you dredge this matter up again.

 

So did Hyrum or Joseph have the book in question in Carthage?  or does it matter? 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe he blogged on it. (see below)

added:  Never mind, will look again now I know the date better.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/few-comments-on-elder-hollands.html

Perhaps what I am remembering is his blog post.

I do know he contacted me personally to get some information about the Church News article that the critics had dug up. I wasn't able to tell him much, as the writer had long since retired and he wasn't around to ask about it. It was very shortly thereafter that the Deseret News piece appeared quoting Rick Turley.

And I do remember contributing to a thread on the subject. I thought it was here, but perhaps it was over on the Mormon Discussions board, where someone had raised a stink about it, criticizing Elder Holland.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So did Hyrum or Joseph have the book in question in Carthage?  or does it matter? 

According to Doctrine and Covenants 135, the official announcement of the martyrdom, it was Hyrum who read the passage and turned down the leaf of the page:

Quote

 

 4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a ^alamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a ^bconscience ^cvoid of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.”—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:

 5 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been ^afaithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made ^bclean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I … bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the ^cjudgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood. The ^dtestators are now dead, and their ^etestament is in force.

 

 

[Thinking]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I believe his "I'm not a dodo" interview received much more scrutiny than his conference address. 

This.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

This may be the thread you referred to in an earlier post, linking to what search says is the first mention of Bathsheba, but the conversation about the specific book may have started before, haven't looked at it close enough to tell:

 

Here is the thread.

You have to go quite deeply into it to get to the point where Danna comes on with her attacks (she had already been posting on Mormon Discussions). And she moves the goal posts quite a bit.

But I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience today to pinpoint precise posts.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's your paraphrase, why did you put it in quotation marks? Quotation marks indicate a direct quote, not a paraphrase. No exceptions.

And by the way, I think your "paraphrase" is just enough off the mark that you owe it to the reader to give a direct cite or link so that the actual words can be examined in context.

Incidentally, it is not being unkind to those who view the Book of Mormon as fantasy to tell them they are wrong, even as you welcome them to remain within the fold until they can overcome their unbelief.

Fantasy is not the same as fiction. See Jane Eyre. And try to embody in your comments the kindness you demand of others.

I agree is not unkind to tell someone they are wrong, but it is unfair and inaccurate to say that such people do not exist.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I agree if you mean by "accomodate", they will not lose their membership in the church.  Would you extend that definition to accepting them as a General Autority, or stake president?

Allowing them to be members is a great start. As you can see, some on this board would deny that. As for becoming GAs and SPs, I would sustain them. Heck, like Nibley, I would sustain Judas. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Elder Holland is one of my favorites. Just like McConkie and others who were bold. I appreciate the boldness because it helps us to get to the real issues quicker. Yes, mistakes will be made along the way. Mormon Doctrine had (has) errors. So too some of the things that Holland says. But IMO, so long as everyone is acting in good faith, it's better to speak ones mind, and then fix errors, than to couch everything in wishy-washy language.

As for the BOM talk, I remember this one vividly. I think the main problem is not Holland's boldness in declaring his personal belief, but his inability to comprehend that some members could view the BOM to be ahistorical and still "true."  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), Elder Holland is simply factually wrong on this point. He sacrifices a lot to meet with the members. I've been blessed by just such a meeting in my region a year ago. I'd encourage him to seek out and listen to such members. They exist and they are a great blessing to the church.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's your paraphrase, why did you put it in quotation marks? Quotation marks indicate a direct quote, not a paraphrase. No exceptions.

And by the way, I think your "paraphrase" is just enough off the mark that you owe it to the reader to give a direct cite or link so that the actual words can be examined in context.

Incidentally, it is not being unkind to those who view the Book of Mormon as fantasy to tell them they are wrong, even as you welcome them to remain within the fold until they can overcome their unbelief.

 

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Fantasy is not the same as fiction. See Jane Eyre.

 

Here is an online definition of fantasy:

Quote

a book, movie, etc., that tells a story about things that happen in an imaginary world

This strikes me as a pretty good description of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon say it actually is.

Quote

And try to embody in your comments the kindness you demand of others.

I haven't demanded that anyone be more kind than I was in my post that you quoted. Could it be that you are projecting?

Quote

I agree is not unkind to tell someone they are wrong, but it is unfair and inaccurate to say that such people do not exist.

Where did Elder Holland do that?

Edited to add:

Significantly and coincidentally, Smac97 just posted this quote from Elder Holland over on the "Grant Hardy Inflection Point" thread:

Quote

“I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to [the origins of the Book of Mormon], who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: 'This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.' … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.”

Is this the same Elder Holland that you are criticizing for allegedly saying that "such people do not exist"?

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Allowing them to be members is a great start. As you can see, some on this board would deny that. As for becoming GAs and SPs, I would sustain them. Heck, like Nibley, I would sustain Judas. 

Saying it's "a great start" implies that you want more. If that means turning over pulpits and classrooms to them to propound their false and misguided conceptions, I'd say that goes way beyond the pale.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd