Elder Holland and Double Digit Stake Creation Weekly

[drums12]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read that it wasn't the actual book, and in my post mentioned not being sure about if it was true or not. 

from http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-speaks-out-on.html

Some critics have howled about the horrific, cynical dishonesty of Elder Holland in holding up a book that they think is not the real book. The confusion is understandable since it appears that the Church owns two similar books, one that is the original and one that is a similar edition that had the same page dog-eared like the book that Hyrum had. This was made clear in a Deseret News story on the talk and the book. The vitriol and name calling in this case says much about some of our critics. Such anger, such anxiousness to criticize, such unwillingness to even wonder if it was just a mistake. But the mistake appears to have been an earlier Church news story that showed the copy, not the original that Elder Holland was holding. I think it's fair to grant that Elder Holland asked for the original to be brought to him, and whether it was the original or not, I think it's fair to accept that he was not knowingly lying about the book. The story is true and the point he makes about Hyrum and Joseph turning to it in their final moments still adds to their witness of the Book of Mormon, regardless of which of the two similar books Elder Holland had on the pulpit with him.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

It matters to tell the truth.  We ask that of our youth and of all members if they desire to remain worthy.  

I don’t know if the book was what he said it was or if he knew it was the wrong one or was just mistaken maybe.  But truth does matter.

We don't asked if they ever got an answer wrong on a test (You think that disqualifies someone from being worthy?)

Dishonesty is different from getting a fact wrong, otherwise the temples would be empty.

I work with people all of the time who are accused of  getting facts wrong, the government does not accuse them of being dishonest unless they have evidence that the person knew the truth and then deliberately told something else.

Even after they sign a jurat.

That is the standard for fraud, not that a fact given was incorrect.

Accusing someone of Fraud (dishonesty) is a serious accusation, much more serious than accusing someone of being factually incorrect. 

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We don't asked if they ever got an answer wrong on a test (You think that disqualifies someone from being worthy?)

Dishonesty is different from getting a fact wrong, otherwise the temples would be empty.

I work with people all of the time who are accused of  getting facts wrong, the government does not accuse them of being dishonest unless they have evidence that the person knew the truth and then deliberately told something else.

Even after they sign a jurat.

That is the standard for fraud, not that a fact given was incorrect.

Accusing someone of Fraud (dishonesty) is a serious accusation, much more serious than accusing someone of being factually incorrect. 

I’m not doing that.  You asked why does it matter and the answer for me is that telling the truth definitely matters.  And when you’ve even mistakenly misled or not told the truth because what you believed wasn’t the truth and you repeated it to a group who trusts you (and may repeat the story or information as fact), just own up to it and admit you were mistaken.  But make it right and tell the truth.

Isn't that what we teach our youth to do?

Edited June 9, 2018 by JulieM

[SouthernMo]

It seems to me that we have a couple of options here:

A) Take every word that comes out of an apostle’s mouth as a thoughtful and literal ‘truth.’

OR

B) Allow some degree of latitude for mistakes, exaggerations, and maybe lies to make a point or build faith. We don’t always have to hold leaders to their exact words.

The implications of the former position is that when an inconsistency disproven, it de-legitimizes the messenger, and has the opposite effect intended: it diminishes faith.

The implication of the latter position is that it opens the door to the possibility that the commandments or instructions given may not be accurate, or are exaggerated.  “Don’t always take the messenger literally” is a sword that cuts both ways.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Elder Holland is really . . .

A Human Being!  (Shocking, I know)

The Mormon Formula:

• When a GA does or says something positive, he is credited with being inspired.
• When a GA makes a mistake, he is excused because he's just a man.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The Mormon Formula:

• When a GA does or says something positive, he is credited with being inspired.
• When a GA makes a mistake, he is excused because he's just a man.

The same standard is generally applied to non apostles by those who believe God inspires those who do good, so I don’t see the problem.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

If it will make you feel better, I will happily send you just as many dollar bills as the church turned into the Prop 8 campaign. 

You'd owe him quite a large sum.

Quote

 

Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC

According to CAH, a spokesman for the Mormon Church, Don Eaton, said in an interview with KGO-TV (ABC San Francisco) prior to the election, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this.” 

It was eventually learned that the Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar Yes on Prop 8 campaign, as well as contributing non-monetarily to the campaign by sending Mormon campaign volunteers through the Church's "mission" program and offering use of church ward (parish) properties throughout the state. 

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/mormons-found-guilty-13-counts-prop-8-malfeasance-fined-fppc

 

At the very least:

Quote

Mormon church involvement 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has been criticized for strongly encouraging its members to support Proposition 8, for the first time assigned a dollar value of nearly $190,000 to its role in getting the initiative passed.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission has been investigating the Mormon Church for allegedly underreporting its spending on behalf of Proposition 8.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985504/ns/us_news-life/t/more-million-spent-prop/#.WxvZNe4vyM8

 

[DBMormon]

13 hours ago, rpn said:

So why don't you write him and give him the evidence and ask how he reconciles it, and counsel him to be more accurate in his speaking.

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Danzo said:

We don't asked if they ever got an answer wrong on a test (You think that disqualifies someone from being worthy?)

Dishonesty is different from getting a fact wrong, otherwise the temples would be empty.

Elder Holland wasn't giving answers on a test that would only affect him.  He was speaking with authority to a group of members and gave out inaccurate numbers and information as if it was factual.  He never corrected the wrong impression he gave when he was corrected, so many members quite possibly still believe the inflated numbers he quoted.  I am one who believes he was confused or misspoke, but he should have made sure the error was corrected.   As others have pointed out, this is what would have been expected from other church members as a matter of honesty and worthiness and this is most especially emphasized with the young men and young women.

I remember that some corrections were made in the story that he told about the missionary and his brother that ended up not being completely truthful, but I don't know if it was Elder Holland who admitted it wasn't true and made sure the truth was told.  I hope it was.

[DBMormon]

13 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? 
 

I agree That Holland is speaking in the present condition. But he’s being deceptive he’s giving a correct answer but to a different question. When we deceive others intentionally we are being dishonest. He knows what the guy is asking but he’s trying to deflect and dismiss and answer a different question In an effort to avoid the actual question.  Believers like to focus on the fact that he didn’t actually lie, but by not being forthright with the guy in answering the question that was asked, he actually did lie and deceive.

Edited June 9, 2018 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

In terms of the double digits stake growth. It seems odd to dismiss this as he must’ve been misinformed. Seeing as he’s at the meeting every Thursday week after week where he is in the room when they are approving double digits stake creation every week of our lives.  In other words it’s hard to plead ignorance or being misinformed when you are in the room every single week when 1.6 stakes are approved to be created And somehow week after week you hear 10+ being created.  Once you understand that dynamic his being dishonest becomes the most logical rational reasonable go to.

Edited June 9, 2018 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

I thought so and was going to say something. Do you still have his contact information? Or did he contact you?

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, drums12 said:

from http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-speaks-out-on.html

Some critics have howled about the horrific, cynical dishonesty of Elder Holland in holding up a book that they think is not the real book. The confusion is understandable since it appears that the Church owns two similar books, one that is the original and one that is a similar edition that had the same page dog-eared like the book that Hyrum had. This was made clear in a Deseret News story on the talk and the book. The vitriol and name calling in this case says much about some of our critics. Such anger, such anxiousness to criticize, such unwillingness to even wonder if it was just a mistake. But the mistake appears to have been an earlier Church news story that showed the copy, not the original that Elder Holland was holding. I think it's fair to grant that Elder Holland asked for the original to be brought to him, and whether it was the original or not, I think it's fair to accept that he was not knowingly lying about the book. The story is true and the point he makes about Hyrum and Joseph turning to it in their final moments still adds to their witness of the Book of Mormon, regardless of which of the two similar books Elder Holland had on the pulpit with him.

Pretty sure Elder Holland can take the truth. That the book he was given was the book. If it wasn't the one, it shouldn't have been described as such, IMO. I guess you're taking the we'll never know approach from the sound of it. 

I have a problem with stories that aren't factual, if a leader wants to share a made up story or something to help those people understand better, than do as Jesus did and speak it as a parable. It works just as well, IMO.

But the minute a trusted leader veers off, even a little, is when I lose trust. Because they are in positions that should strive even more because they are representing God, if they cannot do that, they should step down. 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I agree That Holland is speaking in the present condition. But he’s being deceptive he’s giving a correct answer but to a different question. When we deceive others intentionally we are being dishonest. He knows what the guy is asking but he’s trying to deflect and dismiss and answer a different question In an effort to avoid the actual question.  Believers like to focus on the fact that he didn’t actually lie, but by not being forthright with the guy in answering the question that was asked, he actually did lie and deceive.

In that instance I agree that Elder Holland was not being fully truthful and left the wrong impression.  It was at least a lie by omission as he knew that those oaths were at one time a part of the endowment and were when Mitt Romney went through the temple.  He could have just responded that the endowment ceremony is something that is sacred to members and something we don't discuss or something similar and then asked that this be respected.  At least that would have been completely telling the truth.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

We've all heard posters say the same thing on here when someone decides not to continue to engage with them.  When it's happened to me, it has never been because their questions were too tough.  It's always been because it became apparent that there was nothing to be gained by continuing the conversation.  

It's ego that causes someone to assume that the reason communication was cut off was because the other person couldn't handle it.

[theplains]

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

The Mormon Formula:

• When a GA does or says something positive, he is credited with being inspired.
• When a GA makes a mistake, he is excused because he's just a man.

"It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, Follow the Rule,
speeches.byu.edu).

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We've all heard posters say the same thing on here when someone decides not to continue to engage with them.  When it's happened to me, it has never been because their questions were too tough.  It's always been because it became apparent that there was nothing to be gained by continuing the conversation.  

It's ego that causes someone to assume that the reason communication was cut off was because the other person couldn't handle it.

So we only speak and communicate our perspective and answer questions when we feel the other can be brought to agree with us?  

On this board we do it respectfully and without shrieking LIAR! Your behavior has put you on limited.

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

This is one of the funniest comments I've read in a while. "When my questions got too tough he stopped responding." Elder Holland has a Ph.D from Yale. I think he can deal with tough questions.

When it becomes apparent that you are talking with someone who is tone deaf to the nuances of Mormonism, Mormon history, etc., or is simply trying to entrap you, you end the conversation. To continue is pointless. But it would be a mistake to assume this is because the questions "got tough".

 

 

[Thinking]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's ego that causes someone to assume that the reason communication was cut off was because the other person couldn't handle it.

The last time I had an official meeting with my bishop, he told me that he didn't know the answers to my questions but that he was sure it would all be worked out in the next life.

[Thinking]

6 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

This is one of the funniest comments I've read in a while. "When my questions got too tough he stopped responding." Elder Holland has a Ph.D from Yale. I think he can deal with tough questions.

If the tough questions don't have answers, it wouldn't matter if he had founded Yale.

[bdouglas]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

It is also true that there are some questions, questions dealing with spiritual matters, that cannot be answered, i.e., a materialistic explanations cannot be provided. And the so the ex-Mo says, "Elder Holland [or whoever] cannot answer my question! He turned and walked away."

I have encountered this response 5-6 times in the last six months alone among ex-Mo acquaintances, family members. There are a couple of things that characterize such ex-Mos. (1) They are generally uneducated. (2) They think they know a lot, but really they know very little. (3) They have a funny idea that, having ditched the "cult", they are now enlightened, and that they dwell on a higher plane of wisdom than their former TBM friends and family. (4) Now that they are newly emancipated, they love to tell these former TBM friends and family how wonderful coffee, beer, etc., are. "I am happier today than I have ever been!"

Edited June 9, 2018 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

If the tough questions don't have answers, it wouldn't matter if he had founded Yale.

Is there any religion that has ALL of the answers? (And I include the religions of Atheism, Agnosticism i.e. Materialism in the list of religions.) If you expect to get answers to ALL of your questions, right now——well, good luck with that.

[rpn]

 

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Elder Holland and I used to communicate a little bit back-and-forth. When my questions got too tough he stopped responding

Shouldn't stop you from writing him.

And wasn't it after you'd begun sharing whatever he replied with others without his permission or knowledge?

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The last time I had an official meeting with my bishop, he told me that he didn't know the answers to my questions but that he was sure it would all be worked out in the next life.

I don't doubt it.  But that's different than saying that your bishop stopped communicating with you because you're questions were too tough for him, right?  Obviously we all have questions that have no answer right now and there's nothing wrong with that.  

And hopefully no one thinks that someone should be able to answer every spiritual question they've ever had or have, that wouldn't be reasonable.

[Thinking]

34 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Is there any religion that has ALL of the answers?

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?