Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Despite our oft times differences of opinion...I believe you Scott...with respect to which book was held I accept he held the correct book. However I have my doubts that the claimed events surrounding the book took place as claimed...but that's just me ...I'm skeptical...and it feels and looks like an post hoc insertion into the historical record. Thanks for your patience with me ( at least im interpreting it as patience) 

If we can agree that he did hold the correct book, I can be content with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Despite our oft times differences of opinion...I believe you Scott...with respect to which book was held I accept he held the correct book. However I have my doubts that the claimed events surrounding the book took place as claimed...but that's just me ...I'm skeptical...and it feels and looks like an post hoc insertion into the historical record. Thanks for your patience with me ( at least im interpreting it as patience) 

If we can agree that he did hold the correct book, I can be content with that.

[Guest]

10 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. 

I was not speaking of one sermon, but the multiple threads here and on other website attacking his words and the man. Also the phenomenon that occurs when a GA speaks forcefully, and the many who are offended with the mindset of "how dare he". That coupled with the need to post regarding his every comment he makes to ease their hurt feelings. So we have the many posts here  to air their misgivings and on other sites to call him a false Prophet and Apostle. This post was not made by me over a single thread, or a single post. Many of the responses make a clear the anger over this Apostle. 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

What was the name of that talk?  I remember watching it as an anti and thinking, "wow"  It was the first time I had ever heard him talk.

"Safety for the Soul." Here's the link.

And it was a very powerful talk. Many of us thought so, as reflected in the thread I linked to earlier today in a post on this thread.

 

[UtahTexan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

"Safety for the Soul." Here's the link.

And it was a very powerful talk. Many of us thought so, as reflected in the thread I linked to earlier today in a post on this thread.

 

Thanks...it was powerful for me...and I was anti.  Would love to hear it now that I have returned

[UtahTexan]

Wow.

I will listen to this more than once.  Awesome talk.  Wow.

[Atheist Mormon]

55 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

What empty promises and what tide? I am sorry for you "apathy", but those of us who believe, and the believing of all faiths will be around until the coming of Christ. There are things I believe and things I know, and I "know" there is a God, and I know he will come again. I also "know" the scriptures are the word of God. I am worry that you are wrong, but you just are. I do not wish you to be, nor the I take pleasure in it. 

Where does apathy come from PaPa? From you or from me? It's clear that it doesn't come from us, in our own way we deliver our promises daily basis..When you say "I know there's a God, and he will come again".....Well, I spent half a century out of twothousand years of the promises. I finally know it's not going to happen anytime soon. So, I've made myself the center of Universe, I'm enjoying this free gift of life.....

I don't doubt your sincerity for minute but you should realize by now, it's futile.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Other than the inflammatory charge that "Those who leave the Church, must crawl under, over or through the Book of Mormon on their way out"....which is kind of ridiculous as we just leave through the front door, but I believe that the point of criticism was that he held up a copy of a Book of Mormon that he claimed was the exact copy Joseph read from the night before he was murdered.  Well guess what "It wasn't" so he made a false claim in his address and this is what caused much of the stir from critics. Here are actual pictures of the book Elder Holland held up and the actual one that was with Joseph the night before he died...so you decide...was he telling the truth when he held up the wrong book? I'll give him some slack however...maybe someone grabbed the wrong book and Elder Holland didn't know that he was holding up the wrong book when he made the false claim.

and here's a better picture so that you can see that it is a black book he is holding up...

So your argument is that he may have been mislead as to the actual book is why people leave? When he spoke of the Book of Mormon and those who leave, he meant "that book"! His point was the Book of Mormon as a document as scripture. Are you suggesting that he meant tha cop You? Splitting hairs are we not? All I can say is, Wow! What is next, he had on the wrong tie for that suit? 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Elder Holland seems to have been criticized more frequently recently, but I'm not sure it's a trend. I think Elder Oaks and Elder Bednar have gotten just as much criticism. 

Not here and on other sites. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

When a person has strongly held beliefs, it he has integrity he holds fast by them. He is or she will sm " not tossed to and fro, by every wind and doctrine". Is that not how we want our leaders to be? 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't doubt for a minute that you have your fair share and more of challenges to deal with. (I've never been in a bishopric, and I hope if I say my prayers and practice clean living, I'll be able to get through mortality without it.)

I'm just saying that maintaining the purity of the doctrine ought to be a priority among them.

Got it.  And you see a belief in BoM historicity as required for doctrinal purity.  I do not.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

So your argument is that he may have been mislead as to the actual book is why people leave? When he spoke of the Book of Mormon and those who leave, he meant "that book"! His point was the Book of Mormon as a document as scripture. Are you suggesting that he meant tha cop You? Splitting hairs are we not? All I can say is, Wow! What is next, he had on the wrong tie for that suit? 

Not at all

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

No he is not.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

When a person has strongly held beliefs, it he has integrity he holds fast by them. He is or she will sm " not tossed to and fro, by every wind and doctrine". Is that not how we want our leaders to be? 

There is something to learn from the tossed to and fro comments in the scripture.  But perhaps the assumptions brought to the interpretation of that scripture are part of the problem. Ephesians 4:9-16

Quote

9(When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

Being tossed to and fro is likened to being a child, and not being persuaded by trickery and deceit.  Instead the scripture points to speaking the truth in love and growing up, maturing into a Christlike person having the whole body joined and knitted together.  To me this means the whole body of Christ or the body of the church.  Which seems to have a great emphasis on unifying everyone in love.  Earlier it talks about God giving gifts to all people for the mutual benefit of the ministry and building the body of Christ.  So if you have a group within the body of Christ who've through their faith journey and study, have found meaning in the BoM, but not as a literal history, but as a figurative telling and a 19th century text.  It would seem that Holland isn't following the spirit of these verses with the way he treats those who are part of the body of Christ and have something to contribute to the benefit of all.  

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is something to learn from the tossed to and fro comments in the scripture.  But perhaps the assumptions brought to the interpretation of that scripture are part of the problem. Ephesians 4:9-16

Being tossed to and fro is likened to being a child, and not being persuaded by trickery and deceit.  Instead the scripture points to speaking the truth in love and growing up, maturing into a Christlike person having the whole body joined and knitted together.  To me this means the whole body of Christ or the body of the church.  Which seems to have a great emphasis on unifying everyone in love.  Earlier it talks about God giving gifts to all people for the mutual benefit of the ministry and building the body of Christ.  So if you have a group within the body of Christ who've through their faith journey and study, have found meaning in the BoM, but not as a literal history, but as a figurative telling and a 19th century text.  It would seem that Holland isn't following the spirit of these verses with the way he treats those who are part of the body of Christ and have something to contribute to the benefit of all.  

We are so much better off with a diversity of thought, a place to share those thoughts and an openness to consider them, than we are otherwise. 

[ERMD]

On 8/23/2016 at 9:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't say what drives a critic's mindset, but I do want to say that Elder Holland is a personal favorite of mine. I have met and conversed with him on a number of occasions. He has made me feel I am his personal friend. I have come to understand he has that effect on most everyone who meets him. 

We had a priesthood leadership meeting with him several years ago--bishops, stake presidencies.  He, Elder Clayton, and Bishop Causse taught us for about 5 hours.  Afterward, he wanted to greet each of us individually and shake our hands.  He took the time to visit briefly with each of us, and there were many embraces exchanged.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, ERMD said:

We had a priesthood leadership meeting with him several years ago--bishops, stake presidencies.  He, Elder Clayton, and Bishop Causse taught us for about 5 hours.  Afterward, he wanted to greet each of us individually and shake our hands.  He took the time to visit briefly with each of us, and there were many embraces exchanged.

My experience with Elder Holland has been the same.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

My experience with Elder Holland has been the same.

I met him many years ago at BYU. Very nice man. I don't know what to make of his recent passionate talks. Maybe I'm hard-hearted, but I didn't find them particularly powerful. But I'm glad they are to others. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I met him many years ago at BYU. Very nice man. I don't know what to make of his recent passionate talks. Maybe I'm hard-hearted, but I didn't find them particularly powerful. But I'm glad they are to others. 

I'm of the same feeling, I think.  I certainly do readily acknowledge that these talks can come from a good man.  I just find myself differing, at least a bit. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

There is something to learn from the tossed to and fro comments in the scripture.  But perhaps the assumptions brought to the interpretation of that scripture are part of the problem. Ephesians 4:9-16

Being tossed to and fro is likened to being a child, and not being persuaded by trickery and deceit.  Instead the scripture points to speaking the truth in love and growing up, maturing into a Christlike person having the whole body joined and knitted together.  To me this means the whole body of Christ or the body of the church.  Which seems to have a great emphasis on unifying everyone in love.  Earlier it talks about God giving gifts to all people for the mutual benefit of the ministry and building the body of Christ.  So if you have a group within the body of Christ who've through their faith journey and study, have found meaning in the BoM, but not as a literal history, but as a figurative telling and a 19th century text.  It would seem that Holland isn't following the spirit of these verses with the way he treats those who are part of the body of Christ and have something to contribute to the benefit of all.  

The operative word in yor post is "seem," as employed in the last sentence. It is completely and utterly ludicrous to entertain the notion that an apostle of the Lord could ever say it's acceptable for some members of the Church to adopt a position that the Book of Mormon is some sort of "inspired" work of fiction, for by accepting this so-called "inspired fiction" position the prophet Joesph Smith is made either a total liar or a mentally ill delusionsary. Either way the entire foundation of Restored Gospel is irreparably damaged and the complete superstructure of the Restored Church comes crashing down in ruin and ignominy. A God of truth would not allow his latter-day kingdom to be set up on an elaborate foundation of lies, for God IS the truth and the light and in him there is no darkness at all.

The "inspired fiction" position places those who believe it in the untenable position of having one foot in the good ship Zion and the other precariously dangling without. Sooner or later the center of gravity of one so dangerously positioned will shift either back into the safety of the good ship Zion or they will fall out into the stormy, devouring sea.

I believe if some "inspired fantasy" adherents want to remain in the Church they should be allowed to do so. But each individual who thinks this way needs to be open and transparent about it by letting both bishops and stake presidents know exactly how they think and feel. By this means, the leaders will be able to have the necessary information they need to be able to decide what kinds of callings, if any, would be proper for such people to hold. It's likely that sooner or later this notion of inspired fantasy will become  part of worthiness interviews, so those who are surreptitious about holding such views will no longer be able to hide out within the Church incognito-- that is unless some decide to lie about it. Given the ethereal nature of the whole inspired fiction position, it's possible some could lie and justify doing so by saying their lie is an inspired fantasy version of the truth.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[ERMD]

18 hours ago, ERayR said:

First - a nit-pic.  It is Book's of Mormon not Book of Mormon's.  At least that was the way a I was taught in school a few decades ago. 

Second - What difference does it make which book was held up aren't the pretty much identical?

To nit-pick (not "pic") even more, it isn't "Book's" since there is no contraction or possession.  Simple plural form adds the "s" without the apostrophe.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The operative word in yor post is "seem," as employed in the last sentence. It is completely and utterly ludicrous to entertain the notion that an apostle of the Lord could ever say it's acceptable for some members of the Church to adopt a position that the Book of Mormon is some sort of "inspired" work of fiction, for by accepting this so-called "inspired fiction" position the prophet Joesph Smith is made either a total liar or a mentally ill delusionsary. Either way the entire foundation of Restored Gospel is irreparably damaged and the complete superstructure of the Restored Church comes crashing down in ruin and ignominy. A God of truth would not allow his latter-day kingdom to be set up on an elaborate foundation of lies, for God IS the truth and the light and in him there is no darkness at all.

The "inspired fiction" position places those who believe it in the untenable position of having one foot in the good ship Zion and the other precariously dangling without. Sooner or later the center of gravity of one so dangerously positioned will shift either back into the safety of the good ship Zion or they will fall out into the stormy, devouring sea.

Exhibit A: Black and White thinking.  

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe if some "inspired fantasy" adherents want to remain in the Church they should be allowed to do so. But each individual who thinks this way needs to be open and transparent about it by letting both bishops and stake presidents know exactly how they think and feel. By this means, the leaders will be able to have the necessary information they need to be able to decide what kinds of callings, if any, would be proper for such people to hold. It's likely that sooner or later this notion of inspired fantasy will become  part of worthiness interviews, so those who are surreptitious about holding such views will no longer be able to hide out within the Church incognito-- that is unless some decide to lie about it. Given the ethereal nature of the whole inspired fiction position, it's possible some could lie and justify doing so by saying their lie is an inspired fantasy version of the truth.

All members have different opinions and beliefs, this church is not a monolithic entity.  The level of transparency that each member has with his/her leaders is a personal choice.  But in some ways I think it would be a positive step for those with divergent beliefs to not feel afraid to share their beliefs with local leaders.  I would also encourage people to share these beliefs in Sunday School and over the pulpit.  Brene Brown's great work on vulnerability in her book "Daring Greatly" comes to mind.  In order for us to have more authentic relationships and to build trust, we need to be vulnerable.  

I acknowledge the great risks and fear that come with vulnerability, and this isn't easy, but it is important for the maturation of the church body as a whole.  I believe the greatest damage that occurs when a member chooses to separate him/herself from the group, is to the church body itself, and not to that individual member.  The church body loses out on the diversity and uniqueness of that person which is a much greater loss than what that member loses individually by leaving the church.    

Edited August 25, 2016 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

We are so much better off with a diversity of thought, a place to share those thoughts and an openness to consider them, than we are otherwise. 

Yes, this just rings true doesn't it.  Why we have such a lack of diversity of thought occurring at church is so bizarre and sad.  Elder Oaks talk about no loyal opposition in the church at the last conference was such an unfortunate talk.  And a sign of immaturity, this inability to have a respectful conversations with a diversity perspectives.  This message board attempts to do this, but its still often falls short as our human nature kicks in.  

This is one of the reasons I choose to be involved in this message board.  I try to force myself to engage with others that I may have strong disagreements with, because I have a hope that in the process of doing this, that I learn to be a better person.  

Edited August 25, 2016 by hope_for_things

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, this just rings true doesn't it.  Why we have such a lack of diversity of thought occurring at church is so bizarre and sad.  Elder Oaks talk about no loyal opposition in the church at the last conference was such an unfortunate talk.  And a sign of immaturity, this inability to have a respectful conversations with a diversity perspectives.  This message board attempts to do this, but its still often falls short as our human nature kicks in.  

This is one of the reasons I choose to be involved in this message board.  I try to force myself to engage with others that I may have strong disagreements with, because I have a hope that in the process of doing this, that I learn to be a better person.  

I think as long as we agree on the important stuff slight differences of opinion are a good thing. I would hate to be lock stepped into the Celestial Kingdom.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Got it.  And you see a belief in BoM historicity as required for doctrinal purity.  I do not.

It is the prophets and apostles, acting under revelation, who define doctrinal purity. It's not subject to opinion polling.