Elder Holland and Double Digit Stake Creation Weekly

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

I'm sorry if i confused you but no, that's not what I meant.

I mean that there comes a time when the best thing to do is to 'agree to disagree' because continuing in the conversation will only bring negative consequences.  This usually happens when an impasse is reached and everything on both sides has been laid out and examined already and there is essentially nothing left to say.  It also happens when it becomes clear that one side of the conversation isn't sincere in the discussion (for whatever reason), when people get angry or snarky in their replies, when it become obvious that someone isn't listening to what is being said or refuses to engage the other person's points, or someone just wants to argue or 'right fight'.

Sometimes the effort and energy that is expended communicating with someone isn't worth it anymore because nothing positive is gained in the exchange.

[Thinking]

52 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

They are generally uneducated.

[Judd]

56 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 have the answer to cold fusion. I suppose, then, it’s not possible.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

17 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.

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.). 

[Thinking]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But that's different than saying that your bishop stopped communicating with you because you're questions were too tough for him, right?

He stopped trying to answer my questions.

[Amulek]

John 8

     3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

     4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

     5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

     6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

     7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

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.

Oh wait, you were talking about a different guy who didn't lie but also might not have forthrightly "just answered" ever single question that was ever asked of him.

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

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!"

I find this phenomenon far more interesting than another hysterical thread. There is a growing reaction against self-declared "progressive"  exMos who have not set aside their racism, misogyny and double standards even as they declare their superiority. And it isn't the "TBMs" who are complaining, it is those we generally call progressive Mormons and critics. ExMo women have formed their own women's group on Reddit to get away from them. I think the hoax apology has really opened the floodgates of disgust against those who champion this behavior.

Aside from this group, I am seeing more convergence as LDS scholars are freed to research troublesome topics without consequence and  more scholarly critics drop double standards and easy accusations. 

[DBMormon]

1 hour 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.

 

strange because when the BBC guy asked Elder Holland about the Book of Abraham, the Yale Graduate with a PHD stammered and stuttered and said he doesn't know about that and only that what the result was, was scripture.  So I would be careful as another has already pointed out to claim a phd graduate will most certainly be able to deal with tough questions.  if the answers are problematic, weak, implausible, even the smartest of folks will struggle with answering questions

here is the video of Holland stammering over the Book of Abraham question.  

[DBMormon]

41 minutes ago, rpn said:

 

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?

ohhhh I still do.  He just doesn't respond.  LDS leaders are not the easiest people to get face time with.  No Comment seems to be the most used approach by Church PR and Church leadership.  

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 

Oh wait, you were talking about a different guy who didn't lie but also might not have forthrightly "just answered" ever single question that was ever asked of him.

 

From what I can gather, the requirement isn't to be able to answer hard questions, it is a demand that one must answer ALL questions. If one can't, they are a liar or illegitimate. Or just not as cool as the accuser. Or something...anything, really.  As long as it is negative and very, very bad.

[DBMormon]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if i confused you but no, that's not what I meant.

I mean that there comes a time when the best thing to do is to 'agree to disagree' because continuing in the conversation will only bring negative consequences.  This usually happens when an impasse is reached and everything on both sides has been laid out and examined already and there is essentially nothing left to say.  It also happens when it becomes clear that one side of the conversation isn't sincere in the discussion (for whatever reason), when people get angry or snarky in their replies, when it become obvious that someone isn't listening to what is being said or refuses to engage the other person's points, or someone just wants to argue or 'right fight'.

Sometimes the effort and energy that is expended communicating with someone isn't worth it anymore because nothing positive is gained in the exchange.

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.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

ohhhh I still do.  He just doesn't respond.  LDS leaders are not the easiest people to get face time with.  No Comment seems to be the most used approach by Church PR and Church leadership.  

Have you noticed that you can't even gin up this board to answer your "questions" anymore?

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, Judd said:

I don’t have the answer to cold fusion. I suppose, then, it’s not possible.

Bad analogy. Cold fusion has nothing to do with whether the LDS Church is God's church, but then you knew that already.

[juliann]

1 minute 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.

Or, apparently, an offensive and tiring approach.....

[JulieM]

23 minutes 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.). 

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

[DBMormon]

26 minutes 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
 

Quote

 

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.

 

 While the Church has claimed no monetary contribution, it seems it may be more complex than that.  The Church claimed not to be involved
but a leaked document showed clearly it was 

http://www.missedinsunday.com/memes/lgbtq/proposition-8/

When it is understood that it lied about such and in reality worked hard to retrieve members donations toward this cause, it becomes much messier than members donated and we were not directly involved.  Especially when Utah church members maned phones to call Californians on a California issue.   The ethics of such were shady and the Church itself acknowledged that it regrets doing so and won't be doing that again.

 

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

From what I can gather, the requirement isn't to be able to answer hard questions, it is a demand that one must answer ALL questions. If one can't, they are a liar or illegitimate. Or just not as cool as the accuser. Or something...anything, really.  As long as it is negative and very, very bad.

I grasp that LDS leader will not expose themselves to sitting with anyone and having a free conversation where the logic of their position can be exposed as problematic.  They engage as long as they control the narrative of the conversation and when it isn't in their favor they go no further and anything further can not take place or they excuse themselves to end the conversation.  

[carbon dioxide]

20 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". 

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. 
 

My problem with your questions is you are asking US to answer questions regarding statements a particular individual made when it is not possible for one person to answer correctly for another person.  None of use can answer properly for Elder Holland as only he can answer properly for himself.   As the the statement about stake creation who knows what that could mean.  Are they creating smaller stakes today than in past times?  Is the church membership becoming a little more active.  If activity rate is up, then that would lead to more creation of stakes even if the total church membership is not increasing at a high rate.  The answer is none of us know what he means by this because we don't know the numbers behind the statement.   I think it is far easier and of more benefit it ask general questions that we might be able to answer rather than try to get into the mind of a particular individual at any given moment in time.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How about the Book of Mormon he held during his talk "Safety for the Soul" during general conference. I'd read, don't remember where, that the Book of Mormon wasn't the actual one as he said. Have you heard this? If it isn't then maybe it's a faith promoting story. I can't imagine anyone not telling Elder Holland that it wasn't the actual BoM, or telling him that it was. Wouldn't/shouldn't he have made sure before making that kind of statement? Reminds me a little bit of Elder Paul H. Dunn's faith promoting stories back in the 70's/80's. 

This was resolved. There are two copies of the Book of Mormon in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the page dog-eared where that passage stands. The one Elder Holland held up was the one that was present at Carthage. There was an article in the Deseret News explaining that. 

I’m disgusted that anti-Mormons are apparently still purveying this outdated and discredited talking point, and I’m saddened that you are buying into it. 

[DBMormon]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Have you noticed that you can't even gin up this board to answer your "questions" anymore?

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.  FairMormon's response was funny as the sender mentioned having read the issue on my facebook page and so FairMormon proceeded to attack me in their response and claim that such was enough to dismiss the question and they offered no answer for how to reconcile Holland's imposition.  Which If I am not mistaken is the very thing FairMormon assures people it doesn't do (Adhominem and dismissing questions).  My question would be why can't we just acknowledge Holland likely exaggerated and we validate that such is not exactly honest and that we as members do not have to have such sit well with us.  And that we will not attack those who raise valid concerns.  

Sadly this seems to be the one thing defenders can never grant..... but I can see why

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I grasp that LDS leader will not expose themselves to sitting with anyone and having a free conversation where the logic of their position can be exposed as problematic.  They engage as long as they control the narrative of the conversation and when it isn't in their favor they go no further and anything further can not take place or they excuse themselves to end the conversation.  

OK, everybody. Let's just agree with him and get his latest tirade over with. 

They all lie. They steal. They probably traffic in heroin and engage in human trafficking! Sad thing is, I can actually see you building a case for all that....

 

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This was resolved. There are two copies of the Book of Mormon in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the page dog-eared where that passage stands. The one Elder Holland held up was the one that was present at Carthage. There was an article in the Deseret News explaining that. 

I’m disgusted that anti-Mormons are apparently still purveying this outdated and discredited talking point, and I’m saddened that you are buying into it. 

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?

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK, everybody. Let's just agree with him and get his latest tirade over with. 

They all lie. They steal. They probably traffic in heroin and engage in human trafficking! Sad thing is, I can actually see you building a case for all that....

 

I'll get started at once.  Radio Free Mormon is a lawyer and a friend, I am sure he can help.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 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.

I should have read your post before I made mine. But thank you for looking up the article. 

[juliann]

2 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.  FairMormon's response was funny as the sender mentioned having read the issue on my facebook page and so FairMormon proceeded to attack me in their response and claim that such was enough to dismiss the question and they offered no answer for how to reconcile Holland's imposition.  Which If I am not mistaken is the very thing FairMormon assures people it doesn't do (Adhominem and dismissing questions).  My question would be why can't we just acknowledge Holland likely exaggerated and we validate that such is not exactly honest and that we as members do not have to have such sit well with us.  And that we will not attack those who raise valid concerns.  

Sadly this seems to be the one thing defenders can never grant..... but I can see why

Last I was there, individuals respond on a one to one basis. So you were lucky enough to have landed one person who didn't give a response that lived up to your standards. Must have made your day, you can now complain about TWO Mormons! Congratulations! Truly!