Elder Holland and Double Digit Stake Creation Weekly

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wasn’t the church found guilty and fined for not disclosing all their donations?  Or am I remembering wrong?

Not really. It wasn't that the church didn't disclose all of their donations - they did. However, during the final weeks of the campaign, not all of the church's in-kind donations were submitted in a timely manner (see, e.g., here). 

After investigating the church's reporting, the state assessed a penalty for the error and that was that. It really wasn't a big deal - though many anti-mormons tried to make it out to be much more than it really was.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I accept the Church claims such.  Such does not make it true.  can you provide me with a historical source that shares that more than one copy was read by Hyrum and more than one copy had the same corner of the page turned down?

Did you read the Deseret News story that Drums12 linked to?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Not really. It wasn't that the church didn't disclose all of their donations - they did.

And, how much were "their donations"?

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

maybe because a faithful answer that is also logical and reasonable doesn't exist?

For instance someone recently sent FairMormon the same question I posed.  

What was the question?  (Maybe you already posted it here, but I missed it?)

[DBMormon]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What was the question?  (Maybe you already posted it here, but I missed it?)

the holland double digit growth

 

[bdouglas]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

the holland double digit growth

 

I have a question for you, DBMormon. What have you found to replace your former faith (Mormonism)? What were you before? A Baptist? An Evangelical? Have you returned to that? What new religion have you found that supplies you with ironclad answers to ultimate questions (questions of life and death, sin and redemption, etc.)?

One thing about Sandra and Gerald Tanner that has been pointed out by others (and that also applies to almost every ex-Mormon I know) is that they never turned that bright light they used to shine on Mormonism and Mormon history———they never turned this bright light on themselves and their own silly assumptions and shallow thinking.

If they had, what would they have found?

[DBMormon]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you read the Deseret News story that Drums12 linked to?

you mean this = https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335296/A-chain-of-testimony-1841-copy-of-Book-of-Mormon-stays-preserved.html

I did but the problem still exists.  There is a claim that Elder Holland had a similar second copy and that such a copy stays protected more so than the more worn and tattered copy seen as "other copy" from which the discrepancy exists.  The issue is that I still am not convinced.  The article indicated has two images for the inside of the book as well as Holland holding it up in Conference.  The trouble is the article is still not doing several things that allow this to still be in question.

1.) Show pictures of the outside of the book so one can compare with the one Holland is holding.  The one he is holding appears to be in near mint condition.  The one opened in the photos seems to have a worn and tattered edge from the little that can be seen.  In otherwords the images seem to indicate still this copy being different from the one Holland held and I see no evidence other than all of us making assumptions that two copies exist and that either copy is the copy Holland is holding. 

2.) Historical evidence of multiple copies read by Hyrum on the day he goes to Carthage and turns corners down seem to be non existent

3.) This article seems to avoid discussing "multiple copies" and we are left to assume that all their talk belongs to this second copy that Holland is holding and fails to address the connection to the other copy (the worn and tattered one in which the discrepancy is caused)

I await more information that actually gives someone enough info to be able to discern that there is actually more than one copy that seems to be involved in the same chain of events (read by hyrum on the day he and Joseph are taken to Carthage along with having the same corner of the page turned down)

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

the holland double digit growth

 

Oh, ok....I misunderstood and thought you were referring to another question submitted.  Do you have a link to how FAIR responded?  

Also, weren't you associated with FAIR at one time or am I confusing you with someone else?  I'm just trying to figure out the history here between you guys because there seems to be some pretty strong feelings coming back at you.  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I have a question for you, DBMormon. What have you found to replace your former faith (Mormonism)? What were you before? A Baptist? An Evangelical? Have you returned to that? What new religion have you found that supplies you with ironclad answers to ultimate questions (questions of life and death, sin and redemption, etc.)?

One thing about Sandra and Gerald Tanner that has been pointed out by others (and that also applies to almost every ex-Mormon I know) is that they never turned that bright light they used to shine on Mormonism and Mormon history———they never turned this bright light on themselves and their own silly assumptions and shallow thinking.

If they had, what would they have found?

I actually think quite highly of the Tanners and feel your thoughts on them are unfair.  I don't agree with all their conclusions, but I found them to be of high integrity and honesty in their treatment of most topics and how they've even stuck up for the church in the past.  

What "silly assumptions and shallow thinking" are you speaking of?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

He stopped trying to answer my questions.

Yes, you said that. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

snarkiness and frustration when it deeply feels like you are being dismissed and when one feels the other is using obfuscation to avoid where the facts lead should never be confused with a lack of sincerity or a lack of desire to know the truth.

Ok. 

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Let's do a little experiment. Make a list of every ex-Mormon posting on every ex-Mormon blog or website, and then make a list of every active believing Mormon engaging in apologetics or writing for the Neal Maxwell Institute, FAIR, etc.

Once you have this list, in two columns labeled “Believing Mormon” and “Ex-Mormon”, mark the names in blue that are credentialed i.e. they are practicing historians, archaeologists, linguists, populations geneticists, etc., etc. Then mark the ones in blue that, although they may be not practicing historians or archaeologists (for example) nevertheless have Ph.D, MA or MS degrees. Mark these in yellow. Do this for both sides, Believing Mormon and Ex-Mormon, and then compare them.

There is very little coming out of the ex-Mormon world that would pass any kind of muster in scholarly or academic circles; but there is a lot coming from believing Mormons that does.

 

[bdouglas]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually think quite highly of the Tanners and feel your thoughts on them are unfair.  I don't agree with all their conclusions, but I found them to be of high integrity and honesty in their treatment of most topics and how they've even stuck up for the church in the past.  

What "silly assumptions and shallow thinking" are you speaking of?

Read this. (Author is not LDS, by the way).

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_37.pdf

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

Holland said speaking of the present condition "we do not have penalties in the temple". Which is true. Then the person asking the question said "you used to" and Holland agreed "We used to". In the original answer Holland was referring to what is done in the temple now. 
There are also some obvious cuts in the conversation where it looks like things were removed for the final video.  What else was said that they cut out? 
 

What do you mean there are no penalties?  What happens if one reveals secret names signs and tokens?  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Why do faithful LDS sometimes appeal to the fallacy of other religions (you know, those that are all wrong...all their creeds are an abomination...those professors are all corrupt) to justify the fallacy of the alleged restored gospel?

Usually it’s done to illustrate that a poster is being unreasonable in their conclusions. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Wrong. I would own nothing.  

The church, meaning the institutional church, donated exactly zero "dollar bills" to the Prop 8 campaign.

Individual members donated significant amounts of money, but the institutional church only made in-kind donations (e.g. server space to host advertising, staff time, etc.). 

be careful as such is a little foggy
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/mormons-found-guilty-13-counts-prop-8-malfeasance-fined-fppc

Not really. There's nothing in that link that shows the church made monetary contributions to the Prop 8 campaign.

You know...because they didn't.

 

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

While the Church has claimed no monetary contribution, it seems it may be more complex than that. 

As far as monetary contributions go, no, it isn't more complex than that.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints only made non-monetary contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign.

But you don't have to take my (or the church's) word for it. The California Secretary of State's website lists all of the participants in Proposition 8, and the donors for each committee are still available online, here:

      http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1302602&session=2007

It's super easy to search through the donors and find the church listed (multiple times, in fact). You'll notice that for "Payment Type" they are all listed as "NON-MONETARY." 

If you can find a single, monetary contribution from the church, please feel free to post it and prove me wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

 

Quote

The Church claimed not to be involved but a leaked document showed clearly it was 

Give me a break. The church never "claimed not to be involved." 

We weren't running the show, but everybody on the planet knew the church was involved. 

 

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I have a question for you, DBMormon. What have you found to replace your former faith (Mormonism)? What were you before? A Baptist? An Evangelical? Have you returned to that? What new religion have you found that supplies you with ironclad answers to ultimate questions (questions of life and death, sin and redemption, etc.)?

your question is two-fold.  What has given me answers to the great questions of life and what have I replaced my Mormon spirituality with.  Thank you by the way for asking.  I hope your looking to understand me better but will be vulnerable none the less as that is what I ask others for.

So grasping that most religions have capitalized on imposing myths as literal and that Mormonism is no different, We simply have to get comfortable that hard and fast answers to the biggest of questions does not exist.  That all religions are an attempt to get closer to those answers but which all fall short.  Coming to grips with that has been uncomfortable but I have in fact gotten more and more comfortable with it.  I am agnostic/spiritual in that I accept and appreciate mystery in the universe but find every religion to fall deeply short at explaining and defining it.

As far as my personal spirituality.  I deeply believe that our ability to wrestle with our own consciousness is enjoyable life venture.  Grasping what consciousness is and what tools exist to further explore one's consciousness provide a very fertile ground for me.  Meditation & Contemplation for example.  I also have read things such as the"stoned Ape" theory as well as books on mushrooms and ayahuasca that seem quite interesting in terms of diving deep into one's consciousnesses in new ways along with inducing real and therapeutic spiritual experiences and grasping what is consciousness and how did humans develop it and am open to exploring such in the future or at least not closed off to such if used as therapeutic and not recreationally.  One good book explaining such is Michael Pollan's Book "How to change your mind" a book I recommend to all.  It is easy to judge another experience that is different from yours as less than valid and assume any spiritual experience under different conditions than yours is negative or at least less authentic.  I truly appreciate the spiritual and the mystery wherever it is found.  I am surrounded by a good circle of friends who walk with me on this journey and are always asking ourselves the big questions and welcoming the mystery of the journey and willing to sit with others and hold space for their trauma and hurt and help each other out.   I find developed individuals who demonstrate real vulnerability to be a spiritual experience unto itself.  I find that as a group of friends, such as I have, push each other to grow and to develop and welcome and honor each others truth, that I have benefited by continued learning and appreciation for new spiritual practices that have served me better than Mormonism.  

I also have to say that my relationship with my kids is ten fold better (happy to have anyone interested to talk to them directly).  Our relationship is more real and involves more authenticity and vulnerability and such was a direct correlation to letting go of Mormon activity/orthodoxy/literal belief in the Church.  Same with my wife.  Happy to have you talk to her as well.  I am a better person on this side of the journey.  I may be more critical of institutional Mormonism, but such has little to do with all the other aspects of my life.

I have learned that the social constructs that define much of how we behave are very much man made and were created over hundreds of thousands of years but that other possibilities exist and one simple need to create new social constructs and an awareness of such seems spiritual to me.

Lastly - some things have remained that I learned from Mormonism but which existed long before Mormonism and in fact are bigger than Mormonism.  In Mormonism all good aspects are tribal meaning that almost always have more value inside the tribe than outside.  Family, Service, Community are all still appreciated by me but are lose the Mormon in-group dynamic to them so that I experience such things with people very different than me and whether in my tribe or without makes little difference.

 

[DBMormon]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, ok....I misunderstood and thought you were referring to another question submitted.  Do you have a link to how FAIR responded?  

Also, weren't you associated with FAIR at one time or am I confusing you with someone else?  I'm just trying to figure out the history here between you guys because there seems to be some pretty strong feelings coming back at you.  

yes I was.  I was the main person in their podcast work the last year they won the podcast awards (2013 I believe)

Let me ask the person if he will share the text of the response he received and if he will share I will post here

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

The main example I want addressed is the following 

Elder Holland in a Regional meeting claims that the Church is growing in such a rate that it is creating Double Digit NEW Stake creation "every week of our lives". 

his quote is
 

The Problem is that the Church every year tells us the number of stakes in the Church at year end of the previous year.  Elder Holland made this claim in April 2016 And from 2015 through 2017 the church consistently averaged around 1.6 new stakes per week.   It is not even double digits each month.  

Subtract the previous years # of stakes by the following years total and you get the number of additional stakes in the Church from the previous year.  

RESOURCES:
- 2015 LDS membership report
- 2016 LDS membership report
-  2017 LDS membership report

- The Youtube video of his claim
- response from a blogger trying to reconcile - The owner of this blog is trying to reconcile the claim and as you will see relies on anectdotal data as he struggles to have any real source for the claim further showing how much of a stretch the claim seems to be to reconcile
- Data exploration on this issue

I grant one possibility is that the Church closes 8.5 stakes for every 10 it creates but that also makes Elder Holland's imposition of the magnitude of the growth of the Church deceptive and dishonest.

This example above is the one I want to see addressed here

But I also want to establish that  I see a pattern of dishonesty coming from Elder Holland and happy to take comments on these as well.  I agree that a few of these have wiggle room to one degree or another but the for a few it feels to me to be deceptive behavior unless one is simply dead set on making excuses for him.

 

Ive thought holland was speaking out of his bottom as he’s done before (think of the 100,000 missionaries by 2019).  He seems to play fast and loose with numbers; particularly as the embellishments makes the church look good.  I find this as a form of deception for sure—exaggerating numbers while speaking in his capacity as a church leader.  

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 

==============================================================================

1.) Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith wife, had in her possession from which Hyrum Smith the prophets brother read to her and had turned the corner of the page down from where he read.  The problem is that the copy Elder Holland holds up in his hand at General conference is distinctly different from the copy in the Church History department claimed to be the same book.  I have heard argument that several family members had copies with corners turned down and hence both books could be the very copy with the corner turned down.  I would love historical evidence of such and not just a claim.
RESOURCES:
- in depth run down of the issue
- Safety for the Soul conference Talk
- http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/prophets/jeffreyrholland/

There’s really onlt one way around this.  He was misinformed.  It’s possible he was.  

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

2.) Elder Holland when asked about the Church's contribution to Prop 8 says that the Church did not give "One Red Cent" to the fight against Same Sex Marriage in California.  Problem is it gave a reported amount of almost $200,000.  Some want to debate over whether it was cash or in kind donations but to battle over rhetoric seems to be a sly way to find a loophole when someone seems to be asking about the Church's direct involvement and donations and contributions.  The question becomes one of what is a person asking and are we being deceptive in how we answer them.  
RESOURCES:
- https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormongate----the-churchs_b_163016.html
- http://www.missedinsunday.com/memes/lgbtq/proposition-8/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html
- https://www.dailydot.com/irl/mormon-church-gay-marriage-prop-8/

 

It Is possible he was misinformed. If so it’s too bad he was acting as if he knew that which he apparently did not know.  That is minor deception, much like the first point.  

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

3.) Elder Holland tells a faith promoting story about a missionary who out on his mission is led by the spirit to his older brother who had severed his relationship with his family years earlier.   Elder Holland had told this story for years and other General Authorities before him had shared it.    The problem is the story was a false faith promoting narrative.  Each telling contained different contradicting details and too far fetched to believe of a story-line.   Many including myself called BS before it was retracted.  Soon after the Deseret News picked up on the story, the far fetched details began to be questioned by Mormons and critics alike who sensed this tale was too big to hold water.  Hence Elder Holland through the Deseret News and Church PR quickly distanced himself from the story.   But even his side of how he came to learn the story was inaccurate is problematic and left many details void that would help his side of the story hold up.
RESOURCES:
-  Cache of Original Story
- https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html
- http://kuer.org/post/mormon-apostle-withdraws-embellished-story#stream/0

 

I dont don’t see a reasonable way to see this except as outright deception.  He certainly was not in touch with the family before his retraction as he claimed.  He learned it was A fabricated story when called on it.  Yet did not admit that he did not know the family was not in touch with them.  

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

4.) Elder Holland when asked directly whether Mitt Romney would have made penalty oaths in the temple answers NO.  Problem, such is a flat untruth.  When called on it he stammers and stutters in an effort to regain balance in the conversation.  
RESOURCES:
- Youtube Clip showing the lie
- https://www.cityweekly.net/BuzzBlog/archives/2012/06/05/bbc-interview-with-lds-leader-earns-controversy
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/7c2tuq/did_holland_lie_semantic_analysis_of_jeffrey_r/
- Jonathon Streeter's dissection of this event
 

Again I see no legit excuse here.  It was outright deception.  I’m sure he felt justified because he doesn’t feel like nonbelievers need to understand or can understand the temple ceremonies.  I think there remains penalties in the temple today though.  They simply aren’t as explicit.  

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Not really. It wasn't that the church didn't disclose all of their donations - they did.

And, how much were "their donations"?

The institutional church's donations? The church itself made non-monetary donations valued at $225,085.29 (see, e.g., here and here). 

 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The institutional church's donations? The church itself made non-monetary donations valued at $225,085.29 (see, e.g., here and here). 

 

So you give a pass because as far as you see the church while donating the equivalent of 225,000, did not give other moneys?  Ok.  

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean there are no penalties?  What happens if one reveals secret names signs and tokens?  

Nothing. It's mostly just a promise we make that we will not talk about the sacred details of the endowment ceremony outside the temple.  
I suppose those who do talk about it will have to answer to God later on. 

[Thinking]

49 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Let's do a little experiment. Make a list of every ex-Mormon posting on every ex-Mormon blog or website, and then make a list of every active believing Mormon engaging in apologetics or writing for the Neal Maxwell Institute, FAIR, etc.

Once you have this list, in two columns labeled “Believing Mormon” and “Ex-Mormon”, mark the names in blue that are credentialed i.e. they are practicing historians, archaeologists, linguists, populations geneticists, etc., etc. Then mark the ones in blue that, although they may be not practicing historians or archaeologists (for example) nevertheless have Ph.D, MA or MS degrees. Mark these in yellow. Do this for both sides, Believing Mormon and Ex-Mormon, and then compare them.

There is very little coming out of the ex-Mormon world that would pass any kind of muster in scholarly or academic circles; but there is a lot coming from believing Mormons that does.

Since it's your idea, you should do it.

By the way, why did you leave out BS and BA? Are those people not educated enough for you?

Also, if an argument is valid, it doesn't matter what letters are attached to the author's name.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Thinking

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

you mean this = https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335296/A-chain-of-testimony-1841-copy-of-Book-of-Mormon-stays-preserved.html

I did but the problem still exists.  There is a claim that Elder Holland had a similar second copy and that such a copy stays protected more so than the more worn and tattered copy seen as "other copy" from which the discrepancy exists.  The issue is that I still am not convinced.  The article indicated has two images for the inside of the book as well as Holland holding it up in Conference.  The trouble is the article is still not doing several things that allow this to still be in question.

1.) Show pictures of the outside of the book so one can compare with the one Holland is holding.  The one he is holding appears to be in near mint condition.  The one opened in the photos seems to have a worn and tattered edge from the little that can be seen.  In otherwords the images seem to indicate still this copy being different from the one Holland held and I see no evidence other than all of us making assumptions that two copies exist and that either copy is the copy Holland is holding. 

2.) Historical evidence of multiple copies read by Hyrum on the day he goes to Carthage and turns corners down seem to be non existent

3.) This article seems to avoid discussing "multiple copies" and we are left to assume that all their talk belongs to this second copy that Holland is holding and fails to address the connection to the other copy (the worn and tattered one in which the discrepancy is caused)

I await more information that actually gives someone enough info to be able to discern that there is actually more than one copy that seems to be involved in the same chain of events (read by hyrum on the day he and Joseph are taken to Carthage along with having the same corner of the page turned down)

Richard Turley Jr., who directed the Church History Department at the time and who, if memory serves, was Assistant Church Historian then, gave the provenance of the book Elder Holland held up in conference, evidenced by signatures of the owners. It was the Church History Department who provided the copy to Elder Holland and advised him he wouldn’t need gloves if his hands were clean; he didn’t dredge it up himself. 

I regret that you are “unconvinced,” but your doubt is not probative, nor in the least impressive to me. If you assert that Elder Holland or Turley or the Church History Department are lying or in error, or if you claim someone is lying about the book pictured in the article being the same one Elder Holland held,  the burden is yours as the accuser to prove it. 

And the article doesn’t say that the second book in the possession of the Church History Department (not Elder Holland) was also read and dog-eared by Hyrum. I don’t know where you are getting that. What it said is that the owners of the book heard the story and dog-eared the page in their own copy. 

Your understanding of essential facts in this matter appears to be garbled — too garbled for you to be making the issue of it that you are making. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So you give a pass because as far as you see the church while donating the equivalent of 225,000, did not give other moneys?  Ok.

I"m not sure what you mean. "[G]ive a pass" on what? To whom?

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Amulek