Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

No he is not.

On this particular point, he was. That has been well-established at this point. He was unaware of a clarifying article that came out in the Deseret News at the time the denizens at Mormon Discussions were making an issue of this. That made him ill-informed.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours 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. 

You seemed to feel differently, at least about his Book of Mormon talk, when it was the subject of a thread seven years ago on this board. This is what you said in that thread:

Quote

I watched this talk while I was helping my daughter make bread in the kitchen. Elder Holland's talk made me want to believe more than I have in a very long time. I wouldn't say I've crawled over the Book of Mormon, as it was years before I left the church that I'd made my peace with its not being an actual historical record, but then that's beside the point. I really did ache for that faith I once had, and I felt keenly the loss of it.

After the talk was over, I went into my bedroom, where my wife had been watching conference. She was weeping, and I put my arms around her and held her and told her how sorry I am for putting her through what I had. She said that she was crying because she hadn't felt the spirit that strongly in a long time. But she did acknowledge how much it has hurt to see me take the path I have taken.

So, apparently you thought then that the talk was powerful, though it didn't sway you to return to the faith you had forsaken.

And, by your own account, it was powerful enough to bring your wife to tears.

 

0

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours 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? 

Pa  Pa, please follow the thread through. When Johnnie Cake posted this he was unaware that, back when this issue was raised, there was a Deseret News article clarifying that there are two separate books in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the same page dog-eared, but that the book Elder Holland held up during his talk was indeed the book that Hyrum Smith read prior to the martyrdom.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seemed to feel differently, at least about his Book of Mormon talk, when it was the subject of a thread nine years ago on this board. This is what you said in that thread:

So, apparently you thought then that the talk was powerful, though it didn't sway you to return to the faith you had forsaken.

And, it would seem, your wife thought it was powerful as well.

 

0

Holy cow.

How did you do that?????

I am so glad I have had nothing to do with this thread 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, it isn't a requirement for holding certain callings.  I'm confident you'd find people at all different levels of callings who don't believe in the historicity.

Nor is lacking a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon equivalent to "false doctrine".  Maybe tone down the rhetoric.

Lacking a belief is not equivalent to teaching false doctrine; promulgating one's lack of belief definitely is.

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

We should debate important stuff within the church, I think a lot could be gained by an honest evaluation and prioritization of the important stuff. 

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seemed to feel differently, at least about his Book of Mormon talk, when it was the subject of a thread nine years ago on this board. This is what you said in that thread:

So, apparently you thought then that the talk was powerful, though it didn't sway you to return to the faith you had forsaken.

 

Maybe he was referring to more recent talks than this one from 9 years ago? (Or did John specifically mention this one talk in his comments?  I haven't read this entire thread....).

I just saw where he stated this:

"I don't know what to make of his recent passionate talks."

Edited August 25, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lacking a belief is not equivalent to teaching false doctrine; promulgating one's lack of belief definitely is.

So if I tell people I lack faith, it's teaching false doctrine? "..help thou my unbelief. "

I don't buy it, Scott. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

"When Elder Holland wanted to use the book in his General Conference address, he asked church historians how he should handle the aging text. Because gloves can make hands less nimble, sometimes leading to accidental tears, Elder Holland was simply told to make sure his hands were clean, said Richard E. Turley Jr., assistant church historian and recorder.

The book is exquisite — leather-bound with gold filigree on its edges and stamped into its cover and sides. But it's the inside that is truly incredible, said Turley, who is considered an expert on the book.

In the front cover are the names of those who have owned the book since it was printed in Liverpool, England, in 1841. On one side of the back cover, there are signatures of LDS Church leaders, including Heber J. Grant, James E. Talmage and Orson F. Whitney. On the other is an account written by Hyrum's son, Joseph F. Smith, of his father's last days.

Inside the book, page 610 remains as marked by Hyrum Smith the day he and Joseph Smith left for Carthage Jail, where they would later be shot and killed by a mob. In his note on the back cover, Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum's son who would later become president of the church, said his father took the book from a shelf two or three days before going to Carthage and read the marked passages on the day of his departure....

While its historical significance adds to its value, Turley said there is a second volume the church owns that is "almost identical." The book's original owners even bent the same page after hearing the Hyrum Smith story.

But Turley said the significance of the actual book and the testimony it bears cannot be overstated."

As I recall, the critics over at Mormon Discussions were complaining that if it were an actual historic artifact, he would be wearing gloves while handling it. Hence, the comment from Rick Turley about him not being required to wear gloves, just to make sure his hands were clean.

[Teancum]

Scott noted that Elder Holland was a personal favorite of his. Not to shock Scott or anyone else but he is a favorite of mine as well. He was president of BYU during the couple years I attended there.  I had a personal correspondence with him when I was going through a very difficult personal time and bless his heart he reached out to me personally in a most tender and loving way. I still have his letter and hold it dear.  In my letter to him I mentioned how inspiring Elder Maxwell was to me.  Elder Maxwell who taught so well about tribulation was going through his own battle with cancer.  I had great empathy for him as I was a recent cancer survivor at the time.  Elder Holland shared my comments with Elder Maxwell and to my amazement Elder Maxwell sent me a tender short hand written personal note.

Elder Holland had given some stronger than what has been norm talks over the past few years.  So what?   I still admire him even if I may disagree sometimes.  I do think the leaders of the Church are sincere, believe with all their hearts and are doing the best they can even though again these days I may disagree with them. They are decent humans.  I would not want their jobs ever.  They work hard and do it till they die.  I don't think it is as cushy as some think either.

[jkwilliams]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seemed to feel differently, at least about his Book of Mormon talk, when it was the subject of a thread nine years ago on this board. This is what you said in that thread:

So, apparently you thought then that the talk was powerful, though it didn't sway you to return to the faith you had forsaken.

And, it would seem, your wife thought it was powerful as well.

 

0

I hadn't remembered that. Apparently, that talk did make an impression on me at the time, but I guess it hasn't so much in the intervening six years. I was thinking more in terms of the more recent "I'm furious with you" talk, but I am happy to acknowledge that talk had an effect on me when it was first given. 

Believe it or not, I still have moments when I wish there were a reason to believe again. As I said back in 2009, it's mostly when I think of how much it has hurt my wife to watch me lose my faith. But sometimes I really do miss that feeling of certainty, and apparently, Elder Holland's address made me nostalgic for it. 

ETA: I am trying to remember why I got banned that time. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe he was referring to more recent talks than this one from 9 years ago? (Or did John specifically mention this one talk in his comments?  I haven't read this entire thread....).

I just saw where he stated this:

"I don't know what to make of his recent passionate talks."

I guess John would have to be the one to answer that. But the opening post by Pa Pa did make specific reference to that talk on the Book of Mormon. So that talk is part of the context of this thread.

By the way, it wasn't nine years ago, it was seven years ago. I made an error. (I think I've acknowledged before that math isn't my strong suit -- especially when I'm dashing off posts on a message board!)

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So if I tell people I lack faith, it's teaching false doctrine? "..help thou my unbelief. "

I don't buy it, Scott. 

Telling people you lack faith is not the same thing as staking out a false position (such as the Book of Mormon being fiction) and advocating that position from the pulpit or in the classroom. Surely you can see the difference!

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Didn't Elder Holland say one can maintain that the BoM is non historical and still be a member in good standing?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Telling people you lack faith is not the same thing as staking out a false position (such as the Book of Mormon being fiction) and advocating that position from the pulpit or in the classroom. Surely you can see the difference!

I can imagine a situation in which acknowledging you don't believe in a literal Book of Mormon wouldn't be inappropriate in a church setting. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Telling people you lack faith is not the same thing as staking out a false position (such as the Book of Mormon being fiction) and advocating that position from the pulpit or in the classroom. Surely you can see the difference!

 

Well that feels like a far cry from saying to promulgate one's lack of belief.  To promulgate one's lack of belief is to tell people you lack belief.  But, I get ya now. 

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seemed to feel differently, at least about his Book of Mormon talk, when it was the subject of a thread nine years ago on this board. This is what you said in that thread:

So, apparently you thought then that the talk was powerful, though it didn't sway you to return to the faith you had forsaken.

And, it would seem, your wife thought it was powerful as well.

 

0

You know Scott this may sound harsh.  But I think it was really crummy of you to search the board and dredge up something that John shared that was very personal in order to seemingly simply score a point.  John is a wonderful person who is very transparent.   I think this is a good example of why, on boards like this, it is better NOT to share personal feelings and thoughts.

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking more in terms of the more recent "I'm furious with you" talk, but I am happy to acknowledge that talk had an effect on me when it was first given. 

That's how I read your comment (when you stated "his most recent passionate talks").

.

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You know Scott this may sound harsh.  But I think it was really crummy of you to search the board and dredge up something that John shared that was very personal in order to seemingly simply score a point.  John is a wonderful person who is very transparent.   I think this is a good example of why, on boards like this, it is better NOT to share personal feelings and thoughts.

I didn't realize my old posts were still available. Going through some of them reminded me of some of the more unpleasant experiences I've had. Beats the heck out of me why I keep coming back.

And I don't mind Scott dredging that up. It's not like I was lying about how I feel about Elder Holland. Mostly that personal experience was about feeling guilty for hurting my wife and feeling nostalgic for certainty. I found another post where someone used a crime that victimized my daughter as an opening to suggest I never had a testimony at all of the gospel. That was a cheap shot. Scott's reposting my old post not as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow.

How did you do that?????

I am so glad I have had nothing to do with this thread 

We have our ways.

Actually, I had already searched out that thread yesterday when I was trying to recap the history of the false accusation seven years ago that Elder Holland had held up the wrong book or lied about it being the right book when he gave his talk on the Book of Mormon. In the course of reading through that thread after I found it, I ran across the post from John Williams about his impression of Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk.

So, when I read his post today saying he didn't think Elder Holland's recent addresses were particularly powerful, I thought it would be interesting and relevant to return to that thread from seven years ago, find his post, and present it here for consideration.

So, sad to say, I may not be as awesome as you thought I was.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's how I read your comment (when you stated "his most recent passionate talks").

Pretty much. For the record, I don't think I crawled over, under, or around the Book of Mormon. I just finally acknowledged to myself that I couldn't rationalize things I didn't believe and/or things that bothered my conscience. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have our ways.

Actually, I had already searched out that thread yesterday when I was trying to recap the history of the false accusation seven years ago that Elder Holland had held up the wrong book or lied about it being the right book when he gave his talk on the Book of Mormon. In the course of reading through that thread after I found it, I ran across the post from John Williams about his impression of Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk.

So, when I read his post today saying he didn't think Elder Holland's recent addresses were particularly powerful, I thought it would be interesting and relevant to return to that thread from seven years ago, find his post, and present it here for consideration.

So, sad to say, I may not be as awesome as you thought I was.

Well, I'm glad he enjoyed that.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I hadn't remembered that. Apparently, that talk did make an impression on me at the time, but I guess it hasn't so much in the intervening six years. I was thinking more in terms of the more recent "I'm furious with you" talk, but I am happy to acknowledge that talk had an effect on me when it was first given. 

Believe it or not, I still have moments when I wish there were a reason to believe again. As I said back in 2009, it's mostly when I think of how much it has hurt my wife to watch me lose me faith. But sometimes I really do miss that feeling of certainty, and apparently, Elder Holland's address made me nostalgic for it. 

ETA: I am trying to remember why I got banned that time. 

I have a longing at times for that simple faith and testimony.  But putting the genie back in the bottle can be difficult.  Once the blinders are off there is a lot to see.  On the other hand there are many things I see (and much of it from many here on this board) that convince me I would never want to be like I was before my faith transition journey.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Telling people you lack faith is not the same thing as staking out a false position (such as the Book of Mormon being fiction) and advocating that position from the pulpit or in the classroom. Surely you can see the difference!

 

It is not a false position that the book of Mormon is fiction.  It is truth telling.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well that feels like a far cry from saying to promulgate one's lack of belief.  To promulgate one's lack of belief is to tell people you lack belief.  But, I get ya now. 

Promulgate, according to an online dictionary, means "promote or make widely known (an idea or cause)." That sounds like advocacy to me.

But I can see where I could have been more precise in my phrasing. I beg your pardon.