Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[Canadiandude]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I did actually read what you said, and I still don't see how Cicotte is relevant to a talk focused on BYU administration. @smac97 is right, you could play this game all day.

 

What does Easton’s valedictorian speech have to do with administration?!?

Again you seem to ignore the fact that you need to also establish why Easton Is relevant, while Deznat is not.

Deznat is indeed relevant to administration. I already shared in previous posts that they’ve attacked faculty/students or are attempting to radicalize/goad them.

You are also conveniently ignoring the game you yourself are playing.

[OGHoosier]

Just now, Canadiandude said:

What does Easton’s valedictorian speech have to do with administration?!?

Again you seem to ignore the fact that you need to also establish why Easton Is relevant, while Deznat is not.

Easton is relevant because his speech was approved by the administration and he spoke at an event which was under the responsibility of BYU administration. Does DezNat? 

2 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Deznat is indeed relevant to administration. I already shared in previous posts that they’ve attacked faculty/students or are attempting to radicalize/goad them.

Elder Holland's talk focused on BYU paying more attention to the voices coming from inside the university, which DezNat is not. Is BYU responsible for everything its alumni ever say? 

You are unilaterally inflating the scope of Elder Holland's talk beyond what was intended and using that discrepancy to attack it. Your strawman is nicely crafted, but a strawman it remains.

[Canadiandude]

15 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Easton is relevant because his speech was approved by the administration and he spoke at an event which was under the responsibility of BYU administration. Does DezNat? 

Elder Holland's talk focused on BYU paying more attention to the voices coming from inside the university, which DezNat is not. Is BYU responsible for everything its alumni ever say? 

You are unilaterally inflating the scope of Elder Holland's talk beyond what was intended and using that discrepancy to attack it. Your strawman is nicely crafted, but a strawman it remains.

Deznat is absolutely coming from and is present at BYU!

They are absolutely having an influence on present faculty and students.

Or are you conveniently ignoring the Hank Smith incident I spoke of prior?

Get your head out of the sand.

 

Edit: 

What was harmful about Easton’s speech according to church policy?

Just say it.

Even if you know it actually has no bearing and makes you look like a bigot.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Canadiandude
further clarification

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, Canadiandude said:

Deznat is absolutely coming from and is present at BYU!

They are absolutely having an influence on present faculty and students.

"Coming from" and "is present" are different things. DezNat does not have its origin at BYU and is not an agenda item at BYU events. It's fallacious to act like it is. 

I'm well aware of the Hank Smith incident and the circumstances surrounding it. I'm also aware that he retracted his statement and was widely condemned for it. That's hardly the smoking gun you think it is. Also, passionately disagreeing with someone to the point of using unwise language is hardly the province of DezNat...unless you are using "DezNat" as a catchall term for a set of attitudes as opposed to a group. 

9 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Get your head out of the sand.

So that's how it's going to be, huh?

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

What was harmful about Easton’s speech according to church policy?

Just say it.

I actually didn't have a problem with Easton's speech. Never did. I do, however, have a problem with you manipulating the subject of Elder Holland's speech to draw fallacious comparisons, and of your unilateral arrogation of authority regarding what an Apostle is and is not allowed to address. 

14 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Even if you know it actually has no bearing and makes you look like a bigot.

The ease and speed with which you tar others who offer resistance to your righteous cause strips your condemnations of all weight. Rhetorical inflation is a real pain. 

Toss around whatever words you like. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

Meanwhile, I'm over here scratching my head wondering when Elder Holland became the second coming of Boyd K. Packer.  It's like critics are divorcing these remarks from the larger context of a 30+ year ministry of love and understanding and genuine outreach.   

Strange.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

FWIW, here are the threads I have started or participated in about DezNat, going back to 2019:

September 2019: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?

November 2020: Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy

December 2020: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2

April 2020: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3

June 2021: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 4

July 2021: Alaska Assistant Attorney General in "DezNat" Trouble

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Perhaps some will go. I suspect some will stay.

When I was pursuing my master's degree in the American Midwest, I had a flatmate whose elder brother was a lecturer at BYU and fighting a losing battle over dismissal. In talking to A---, it became clear that his brother completely rejected the truth claims of the Church. At first I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to work at BYU if that was the case, but as became clear in further discussions, it was his brother's desire to help steer students in a more 'progressive', less believing direction, and he was angry that his plan was being foiled. There will be others like him, no doubt.

Personally, I have zero investment in BYU. It made perfect sense to me when my mission president said that Pres Hinckley had told him that they would get rid of it if they could figure out how. Considering how many bitter apostates it seems to pump out, I have a hard time seeing it as a reasonable return on investment.

At the same time, it seems dystopian/totalitarian to me that an educational institution owned and operated by a faith community may not be allowed to train people in say, mechanical engineering, unless it submits to a competing orthodoxy.

Why do you think BYU is pumping out bitter apostates?  What are they doing to cause so many to turn so bitter and against the church?

[Duncan]

I don't know if Deznat and "Keeping Faith at BYU" are connected with each other but KFABYU are keeping tabs on BYU. They were doing something of a witch hunt to see what profs. lived up to their standards, I don't know if anything ever came of it

[Duncan]

20 years ago the threats or problems for the Church came from without, I remember as do other when the Southern baptists came to Utah to convert them. Now, forget other churches, it's all these people that are in or came from within the church that are the big issues-Mormon leaks had that chart with "issues and ideas leading people away from the Gospel" and they had mentioned three people, John Dehlin, Robert Norman and Denver Snuffer. Mind you Robert Norman was probably a blip on the radar screen and certaintly you could add others like the CES letter fellow, but regardless all former members. None of the "issues and ideas" were other churches, it's all stuff that came from within.

[Nofear]

"Judgment must begin at the house of God first, and we are perfectly willing it should." -- Brigham Young

I fully expect the Church is going to (continue to) face some challenging trials.

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Why do you think BYU is pumping out bitter apostates?  What are they doing to cause so many to turn so bitter and against the church?

Well, I went to BYU twice.  So did my wife (one degree).  So did my oldest brother (2 degrees), my other older brother (2 degrees) and his wife (2 degrees), my younger sister (2 degrees), three brothers-in-law (one degree each).  All but one of these people are active and observant members of the Church.  And the one who isn't has a fairly cordial relationship with the Church (he does some work for the Church, even).  I also live in Provo and work with many, many graduates of BYU who are observant and faithful Latter-day Saints.

I think Hamba's point may have more to do with the quality of the bitterness than the actual quantity of individuals with it.  Or perhaps not.  I'll let him address it.

But if this really is a problem, I wonder if it is because some admin and faculty are facilitating it.  Maybe things have changed a lot (I graduated in 1998, and again in 2004, so I've been gone a while).

I had wonderful experiences at BYU.  Two of my favorite law professors were Brett Scharffs (Business Associations) and James Gordon (Contracts).   Both of them infused their substantive course instruction with practical, clear guidance on ethical and moral considerations that a lawyer should take into account.  Looking back both of these good men had a significant impact on how I practice law.  

As an undergrad, I took a biology class from William Bradshaw during my first semester at BYU (as it happens, I met my future wife in that class).  His class was both demanding and interesting.  His approach to evolution was really helpful.  He was clear about the science, and also offered guidance on reconciling it with religious faith.  I later read with interest this 2004 article regarding his research about the biological components of homosexuality.  Interestingly enough, an ex-mormon forum also praises Dr. Bradshaw, both for his intelligence and teaching ability, and also because they think he was "planting seeds" of doubt amongst students (which they thought was great).  

How is it that I view Dr. Bradshaw as having strengthened and enhanced my appreciation for the Restored Gospel, while others appreciate him for purportedly planting seeds of doubt?  Perhaps the answer to that is similar to your question above ("What are they {BYU} doing to cause so many to turn so bitter...").  We are, in the end, agents unto ourselves.  I think the vast majority of people who graduate from BYU appreciate their time there.  I can't help but think that the "many bitter apostates it seems to pump out" are disproportionately loud in expressing their views.  That is the way of things with faultfinding, I guess.  

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited August 25, 2021 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

IMO there are many problems with Elder Holland's talk to BYU faculty and staff;  "love the sinner, hate the sin" dribble, veiled threats to faculty if they don't toe the line, a seeming willingness for BYU to lose accreditation, and general anti-LGBTQ sentiment.

But the worst part of his talk was the violent metaphor of "musket fire". I can't understand how, in today's culture and climate it is OK to use violent references as a call to action. This is really unacceptable to me. Yes, I understand violence and war metaphors have been used often throughout history, but especially when they are used as a metaphor for how to combat ideas and beliefs of others who have been violently attacked in the past, seems like a very inappropriate and hurtful way for an apostle to speak. Elder Holland is a very smart man. He should know better and I believe he does. Which makes me question why he actually would choose such a metaphor.

I don't believe he wants harm done to anyone or any group of people, but I also think he may be trying to "rally the troops" by throwing them some red meat. Seems more like a political move than a religious one.

[bluebell]

I haven't read this thread all the way through but my take away from all of this--and everything on social media--after reading the talk, is that we as a society are way further gone than I thought we were.  We are losing our ability to understand and work with nuance, we can no longer process metaphors accurately, we seek out ways to indulge in self-righteous indignation, and it's going to be the downfall of our society.

Our inability to interpret what people are saying correctly, and then how quickly we react to our bad interpretations, is what is going to hurt us the most.  Not metaphors about muskets.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, who is involved, who thinks they are the moral players in the conversation, the outcome will be the same.  A society that can no longer communicate effectively (and is addicted to moral outrage) is a society that is on it's way out.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read this thread all the way through but my take away from all of this--and everything on social media--after reading the talk, is that we as a society are way further gone than I thought we were.  We are losing our ability to understand and work with nuance, we can no longer process metaphors accurately, we seek out ways to indulge in self-righteous indignation, and it's going to be the downfall of our society.

Our inability to interpret what people are saying correctly, and then how quickly we react to our bad interpretations, is what is going to hurt us the most.  Not metaphors about muskets.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, who is involved, who thinks they are the moral players in the conversation, the outcome will be the same.  A society that can no longer communicate effectively (and is addicted to moral outrage) is a society that is on it's way out.

So you think musket metaphors are appropriate for an apostle to make about an oft-maligned and attacked population, all while decrying divisiveness?

 

[JAHS]

Utah State School Board investigating member for social media post about LGBTQ youth

The Utah State Board of Education announced Tuesday it's reviewing a controversial social media post made by board member Natalie Cline for "potential board bylaw violations" after receiving complaints.

In the now-deleted post in question from earlier this week, Cline shared a photo of a sign from a Utah seminary that read: "If you are LGBTQIA+ welcome to seminary."

Cline called out the seminary program at Layton High School as she wrote: "Time to make some phone calls" and "the world is too much with us."

Seminary is a private institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Students are able to attend classes there in Utah during their school day on a release program. The state school board does not have authority over its curriculum or management.

This week's incident isn't the first time Cline has received widespread attention for her social media activity. An online petition in February called for Cline's removal over her social media posts that the petition claimed called for patrons to support "xenophobia, racism, homophobia and cultural regression" as part of Cline's ongoing protest against the potential teaching of critical race theory in schools. State School Board bylaws do not provide for removal of a board member or censure. However, they allow a board member to be stripped from a board position or assignment by vote of the full board.

The comment in Smith's now-deleted post appeared to reference a talk given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at Brigham Young University on Monday, Williams noted in a statement Tuesday.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Meanwhile, I'm over here scratching my head wondering when Elder Holland became the second coming of Boyd K. Packer.  It's like critics are divorcing these remarks from the larger context of a 30+ year ministry of love and understanding and genuine outreach.   

Strange.

Well, hate to break it to you, but all around the internet I'm seeing people that want to resign over it, much like when Pres. Packer said what he did during general conference a few years ago. “Why would our heavenly father do that to anyone?” asked Elder Boyd K. Packer. “Remember, he is our father.”

Words are powerful, and both of them have caused and could cause the LGBTQ members to do something devastating over it. Trying not to use the "S" word here.

It's such a delicate subject and one that the church needs to lay very low on. Sure keep their doctrine, do their firing if need be at BYU but keep it quiet as to not affect those that would take it to mean that they aren't wanted or aren't okay just being who they are.

Elder Holland using Easton as an example was probably the lowest thing I've seen him do. And even mentioning muskets is another low. Christ like love is hard to find in that devotional.

The dam is broken, the LGBTQ crowd are able to say who they are and it's up to us to love them and not let them ever feel like they have to hide in a closet again.

Holland almost set this church back to the day the former BYU president, Wilkinson, said that homosexuals need to leave the campus, IMO. http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoitukset/private_pain_odonnell.shtml

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, hate to break it to you, but all around the internet I'm seeing people that want to resign over it, much like when Pres. Packer said what he did during general conference a few years ago. “Why would our heavenly father do that to anyone?” asked Elder Boyd K. Packer. “Remember, he is our father.”

Words are powerful, and both of them have caused and could cause the LGBTQ members to do something devastating over it. Trying not to use the "S" word here.

It's such a delicate subject and one that the church needs to lay very low on. Sure keep their doctrine, do their firing if need be at BYU but keep it quiet as to not affect those that would take it to mean that they aren't wanted or aren't okay just being who they are.

Elder Holland using Easton as an example was probably the lowest thing I've seen him do. And even mentioning muskets is another low. Christ like love is hard to find in that devotional.

The dam is broken, the LGBTQ crowd are able to say who they are and it's up to us to love them and not let them ever feel like they have to hide in a closet again.

Holland almost set this church back to the day the former BYU president, Wilkinson, said that homosexuals need to leave the campus, IMO. http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoitukset/private_pain_odonnell.shtml

Rep Point!

I've seen/heard a lot of resignation talk as well.

I've also heard of a couple of people being called in to speak with their SP's in response to their social media push back of Holland's talk.

Another self-inflicted wound by the church and its leaders. So unnecessary, short-sighted, and foolish.

Edited August 25, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

I’ve read very little of this thread thus far, but I just now took occasion to view the replay of Elder Holland’s magnificent address. How grateful I am for apostles such as he who have the courage as well as the eloquence and gifts to say what must be said at a time when it should be said!

Edited August 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Nofear said:

"Judgment must begin at the house of God first, and we are perfectly willing it should." -- Brigham Young

I fully expect the Church is going to (continue to) face some challenging trials.

Oh, me too.  I think we are in the midst of a period of turbulence and controversy within the Church not seen since the 1890s and the Manifesto.  I think we're in a refining phase, in a few different ways.

The Church is being "refined" in that it has been improving and clarifying its treatment of issues pertaining to sexual ethics, gender identity, etc., while simultaneously maintaining the doctrines of the Church, particularly pertaining to marriage, family and the Law of Chastity.

Individual members are being "refined" in that we are being forced to examine and re-examine what we believe, and why we believe it, and whether and why we should continue to exercise faith in Jesus Christ and in the Restoration.  Going along to get along, social/familial expectations, etc. are becoming less and less sufficient reasons to stay.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" that we are increasingly being pressured, and in some ways even punished, for our religious beliefs.  Look at all the threats about BYU's accreditation.  It's not like the Church or BYU have substantively changed.  Accreditation has become weaponized.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are, in increasing measures, unpopular.  The easy thing would be for the Church to capitulate.  To bend the knee.  To knuckle under.  Instead, the Church is working hard to be kind and accommodating, while also following divine mandates.  Meanwhile, individual members are, to an extent, are feeling that they face and either/or dilemma.  Either A) you ratify, celebrate and endorse homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, or B) you are a bigot, a homophobe, a horrible person.  That is what we are being told over and over again.  It's a false dilemma, a Sophie's Choice, but one that is being foisted on us every day.

The individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are not only broadly unpopular, but can be unpalatable to us as individuals, and yet we are asked - even commanded - to accept these things anyway.  Our day is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

The hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising.  To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  

So yeah, we're in the midst of challenging times.  Very much so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Utah State School Board investigating member for social media post about LGBTQ youth

The Utah State Board of Education announced Tuesday it's reviewing a controversial social media post made by board member Natalie Cline for "potential board bylaw violations" after receiving complaints.

In the now-deleted post in question from earlier this week, Cline shared a photo of a sign from a Utah seminary that read: "If you are LGBTQIA+ welcome to seminary."

Cline called out the seminary program at Layton High School as she wrote: "Time to make some phone calls" and "the world is too much with us."

Seminary is a private institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Students are able to attend classes there in Utah during their school day on a release program. The state school board does not have authority over its curriculum or management.

This week's incident isn't the first time Cline has received widespread attention for her social media activity. An online petition in February called for Cline's removal over her social media posts that the petition claimed called for patrons to support "xenophobia, racism, homophobia and cultural regression" as part of Cline's ongoing protest against the potential teaching of critical race theory in schools. State School Board bylaws do not provide for removal of a board member or censure. However, they allow a board member to be stripped from a board position or assignment by vote of the full board.

The comment in Smith's now-deleted post appeared to reference a talk given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at Brigham Young University on Monday, Williams noted in a statement Tuesday.

Cline’s post was then retweeted by Gregory Smith in a now deleted post saying:

”Time to get out our muskets.”

But of course- it must be those that are ‘morally outraged’ at the metaphor that are at fault.

🤨

Also, If people on here don’t have a problem with Easton coming out in his valedictory address than why does the faculty or the kid need a reprimand for the occurrence?

Furthermore, why do those problematizing Elder Holland’s reprimand require reprimand? 
 

Who gets to be angry.

 

Edit: just noticed you did mention Smith. 
 

Also the latter stuff isn’t in reference to you mate. I appreciate your insight.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Canadiandude
Clarification and acknowledgement

[Stormin' Mormon]

My wife has been running herself ragged lately arranging school carpools among a large group of families, trying to maximize the efficiency and convenience for as many people as possible.  In the midst of this stressful endeavor, she has said some things that could be seen as uncharitable or uncompromising.  But no one in the car pool has taken offense.  Why? 

Because they know her.  Many of them have worked with her in various capacities for over a decade.  They weigh things she says today against the totality of who she has demonstrated herself to be over a long period of time.

I can't fathom the mindset that would contemplate resignation over a single talk from a single apostle.  I would hate for the totality of my life to be judged on the work of a single day.  That seems short-sighted and uncharitable. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My wife has been running herself ragged lately arranging school carpools among a large group of families, trying to maximize the efficiency and convenience for as many people as possible.  In the midst of this stressful endeavor, she has said some things that could be seen as uncharitable or uncompromising.  But no one in the car pool has taken offense.  Why? 

Because they know her.  Many of them have worked with her in various capacities for over a decade.  They weigh things she says today against the totality of who she has demonstrated herself to be over a long period of time.

I can't fathom the mindset that would contemplate resignation over a single talk from a single apostle.  I would hate for the totality of my life to be judged on the work of a single day.  That seems short-sighted and uncharitable. 

Have you considered that for many people, this was the proverbial last straw?  I highly doubt people are having the level of knee-jerk reaction you're inferring here.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO there are many problems with Elder Holland's talk to BYU faculty and staff;  "love the sinner, hate the sin" dribble, veiled threats to faculty if they don't toe the line, a seeming willingness for BYU to lose accreditation, and general anti-LGBTQ sentiment.

But the worst part of his talk was the violent metaphor of "musket fire". I can't understand how, in today's culture and climate it is OK to use violent references as a call to action. This is really unacceptable to me. Yes, I understand violence and war metaphors have been used often throughout history, but especially when they are used as a metaphor for how to combat ideas and beliefs of others who have been violently attacked in the past, seems like a very inappropriate and hurtful way for an apostle to speak.

"Combat ideas and beliefs?"

Combat:

Quote

verb (used with object), com·bat·ed, com·bat·ing or (especially British) com·bat·ted, com·bat·ting.

 

to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously:to combat crime.

 

verb (used without object), com·bat·ed, com·bat·ing or (especially British) com·bat·ted, com·bat·ting.

 

to battle; contend:to combat with disease.

 

noun

 

Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.

 

a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

If Elder Holland is prohibited from using purely metaphorical references to "muskets," why is it okay for you to use purely metaphorical references to "combat?"

Seems inconsinstent and unreasonable.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Holland is a very smart man.

So are you.  And yet . . . "combat?"  Yeesh!  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My wife has been running herself ragged lately arranging school carpools among a large group of families, trying to maximize the efficiency and convenience for as many people as possible.  In the midst of this stressful endeavor, she has said some things that could be seen as uncharitable or uncompromising.  But no one in the car pool has taken offense.  Why? 

Because they know her.  Many of them have worked with her in various capacities for over a decade.  They weigh things she says today against the totality of who she has demonstrated herself to be over a long period of time.

I can't fathom the mindset that would contemplate resignation over a single talk from a single apostle.  I would hate for the totality of my life to be judged on the work of a single day.  That seems short-sighted and uncharitable. 

For a long time Elder Holland has been viewed as "the" empathetic, gentle apostle. So the thought process goes like this: If "the" empathetic, gentle apostle is harsh and non-empathetic for a people who really would benefit from his support and empathy, and he uses violent metaphors to call for action, then what hope is there for the church to change.

IOW- If Holland is this bad, what hope is there? Answer- none.

So if those who have been holding on, hoping for change that allows them to maintain affiliation, but have that hope crushed, then why not just get out. If they can't morally can't accept the church's position on LGBTQ issues and see that position persisting I think some people just give up. It's exhausting holding on by ones fingertips just to have an apostle, the empathetic and gentle one, step on their fingers. They just let go.