Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

You are kind John. I still think it was pretty crummy of Scott to do that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

But he didn't say one could promote or advocate such a position and still remain so.

I hope by now the distinction is clear.

 

[Teancum]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But he didn't say one could promote or advocate such a position and still remain so.

I hope by now the distinction is clear.

 

Yes I would agree someone promoting or peaching such a position is problematic for the position the Church has on the topic.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are kind John. I still think it was pretty crummy of Scott to do that. 

I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's not the worst thing that's happened to me.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

My wife has always had a very simple faith and testimony, as you say, and I've always been sort of jealous of that. If I could undo the last 10 years, I might think about it for a while, but I think I'm a better person for having experienced what I did, and I know our marriage is stronger now because we had to fight for it. And I like myself a lot more than I did when I was a believing Mormon. But yes, there is a definite nostalgia for the old days of feeling safe and secure in my faith. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

But that's not the same thing as promulgating/advocating/promoting a position that the Book of Mormon is fiction. Surely  you can see the distinction!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But that's not the same thing as promulgating/advocating/promoting a position that the Book of Mormon is fiction. Surely  you can see the distinction!

Of course, I can. I'm reminded of the case of David Wright. To me, his acknowledging that there are textual issues with the Book of Mormon doesn't even come close to warranting church discipline, and I'm still shocked that he was subjected to such. I think he did the right thing in not dignifying the whole thing with his attendance.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are kind John. I still think it was pretty crummy of Scott to do that. 

I don't accept your criticism.

We, each of us, ought to understand that when we post something on the internet, we are publishing it to the world, and it is apt to remain accessible for many years. It is not unreasonable for someone to come along later and cite it. The author can clarify later, as John did here when I gave him the opportunity to do so.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

21 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.

 

I think John has missed what really happened here.

Obviously, the post from 2009 shows a recollection of John's made shortly after the talk, before he had time to fully process what he had heard and what occurred with his family.  

Now, years later, his memory of the event is more fully formed, and he can share a more accurate picture with us in a way that is more relevant to the conversation at hand.  So his recollections in this thread should be the more accurate and dependable version.

I would also point out that I don't see any contradiction between the two posts in the first place.  Sure, the wording is a little different, but the post from 2009 seems to focus more on his wife and daughter and their reactions to the talk, whereas the more recent post is more about how he himself relates to the talk, and what that means to the conversation at hand.  

It's just different points of emphasis in telling the same, consistent story.

Edited August 25, 2016 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept your criticism.

We, each of us, ought to understand that when we post something on the internet, we are publishing it for all to see, and it is apt to remain accessible for many years. It is not unreasonable for someone to come along later and cite it. The author can clarify later, as John did here when I gave him the opportunity to do so.

I didn't mind you citing it. I wouldn't have remembered it at all had you not posted it. I wish I still had that moniker, as it still seems weird to have people refer to me as "jk." 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think John has missed what really happened here.

Obviously, the post from 2009 shows a recollection of John's made shortly after the talk, before he had time to fully process what he had heard and what occurred with his family.  

Now, years later, his memory of the event is more fully formed, and he can share a more accurate picture with us in a way that is more relevant to the conversation at hand.  So his recollections in this thread should be the more accurate and dependable version.

I would also point out that I don't see any contradiction between the two posts in the first place.  Sure, the wording is a little different, but the post from 2009 seems to focus more on his wife and daughter and their reactions to the talk, whereas the more recent post is more about how he himself relates to the talk, and what that means to the conversation at hand.  

It's just different points of emphasis in telling the same, consistent story.

I saw what you did.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes 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 search the board specifically for that. As I've indicated, I had already found the thread yesterday when I was endeavoring to reconstruct the history of the accusation against Elder Holland, and I happened to run across that particular post from John. I remembered it when I saw his post today about not thinking Elder Holland's recent talks are powerful. I thought it relevant so I produced it here.

John, to his credit, doesn't seem to think it as big a deal as you are making of it; neither do I. He has clarified, and I accept his clarification. Let the matter end there.

Incidentally, I've not seen you weigh in on how "crummy" it is to dredge up an old accusation against an apostle of the Lord, an accusation that was almost immediately discredited at the time it was made.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ERMD]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think John has missed what really happened here.

Obviously, the post from 2009 shows a recollection of John's made shortly after the talk, before he had time to fully process what he had heard and what occurred with his family.  

Now, years later, his memory of the event is more fully formed, and he can share a more accurate picture with us in a way that is more relevant to the conversation at hand.  So his recollections in this thread should be the more accurate and dependable version.

I would also point out that I don't see any contradiction between the two posts in the first place.  Sure, the wording is a little different, but the post from 2009 seems to focus more on his wife and daughter and their reactions to the talk, whereas the more recent post is more about how he himself relates to the talk, and what that means to the conversation at hand.  

It's just different points of emphasis in telling the same, consistent story.

Personage, Personages, angel, whatever.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept your criticism.

We, each of us, ought to understand that when we post something on the internet, we are publishing it to the world, and it is apt to remain accessible for many years. It is not unreasonable for someone to come along later and cite it. The author can clarify later, as John did here when I gave him the opportunity to do so.

True, but you weren't even sure if John was referring to that specific talk (and it appears now that he wasn't).  How about err on the side of decency when you weren't sure?  

And even if he was speaking specifically about that one talk (he wasn't), feelings can change over the years.  

.

Edited August 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, I can. I'm reminded of the case of David Wright. To me, his acknowledging that there are textual issues with the Book of Mormon doesn't even come close to warranting church discipline, and I'm still shocked that he was subjected to such. I think he did the right thing in not dignifying the whole thing with his attendance.

Whatever.

I'm not acquainted with the case of David Wright.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever.

I'm not acquainted with the case of David Wright.

Well, I won't derail into a discussion of that. 

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, ERMD said:

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.

 

Gotcha and I knew that.  Thanks.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True, but you weren't even sure if John was referring to that specific talk (and it appears now that he wasn't).  How about err on the side of decency when you weren't sure?  

I'll take Scott at his word that it wasn't a "gotcha" post. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll take Scott at his word that it wasn't a "gotcha" post. 

That's kind of you to err on the side of decency 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's kind of you to err on the side of decency 

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt unless they give me reason not to do so. 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Exhibit A: Black and White thinking.  

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.    

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My wife has always had a very simple faith and testimony, as you say, and I've always been sort of jealous of that. If I could undo the last 10 years, I might think about it for a while, but I think I'm a better person for having experienced what I did, and I know our marriage is stronger now because we had to fight for it. And I like myself a lot more than I did when I was a believing Mormon. But yes, there is a definite nostalgia for the old days of feeling safe and secure in my faith. 

FWIW, I've never cared for the expression "simple faith." The connotation is that the faith is ill-informed or naive. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My wife has always had a very simple faith and testimony, as you say, and I've always been sort of jealous of that. If I could undo the last 10 years, I might think about it for a while, but I think I'm a better person for having experienced what I did, and I know our marriage is stronger now because we had to fight for it. And I like myself a lot more than I did when I was a believing Mormon. But yes, there is a definite nostalgia for the old days of feeling safe and secure in my faith. 

Our situations are similar.  Spouses with simple faith and testimony as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

No, its not.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

FWIW, I've never cared for the expression "simple faith." The connotation is that the faith is ill-informed or naive. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

I don't see it that way at all. My wife is neither ill-informed nor naive. What I mean is that she has an untroubled faith that doesn't need to have all the answers and know all the details. There is not the least bit of condescension or criticism in calling my wife's faith "simple."