Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The most virulent critics of the Church on this board 20 years ago were almost all from other religions. Now those are non-existent, having been replaced by our fellow Saints. 

Saints?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The most virulent critics of the Church on this board 20 years ago were almost all from other religions. Now those are non-existent, having been replaced by our fellow Saints. 

What are your thoughts about why the church is breeding so many internal critics?

I wonder if you view the church/leaders as having any kind of responsibility or contribution to the high levels of disaffection or if it is just an expected sign of the times

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. Use of catchwords like "paradigm" and "holistic."

And “systemic.” And “existential.”

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saints?

Do you want to be one of those who accuses a saint of being a sinner?  If someone is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is to say whether he is a saint or a sinner and if having sinned redeemed and sanctified while repenting?

[bOObOO]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What are your thoughts about why the church is breeding so many internal critics?

Some people seem to have a natural ability to find things to criticize more than some other people, almost as if the ability is in their jeans.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if you view the church/leaders as having any kind of responsibility or contribution to the high levels of disaffection or if it is just an expected sign of the times

The people who leave the Church are the ones responsible for leaving the Church.  Everyone is supposed to know that not even members of the Church are perfect yet so leaving the Church because people aren't perfect is not a good excuse.

Edited August 26, 2021 by bOObOO

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What are your thoughts about why the church is breeding so many internal critics?

I wonder if you view the church/leaders as having any kind of responsibility or contribution to the high levels of disaffection or if it is just an expected sign of the times

1 Nephi 8:24-25

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you think some malevolent “gun collector” who is out to hurt or kill somebody, one who presumably has a diverse arsenal at his disposal (he is, after all, a “gun collector”) is going to choose the most out-dated, least effective, least efficient,  presumably the oldest and least reliable piece in his collection to do his dirty work? 
 

😂 😆 😝 

Reason has been stretched so far in this thread that it is on the verge of snapping. 

Ariana Grande had an explosion at her concert, anything is possible. Reminds me of Elder J. Golden Kimball's quotation, "We can come up with embezzlers, grave robbers, cross dressers, plagiarists, forgers and if you need someone who can recite the protocols of Zion while hanging from his knees on a flying trapeze, we can probably oblige you"

I think there are too many crazies already in the church and out, churches get burned by ex members or delusional members

“

H

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The most virulent critics of the Church on this board 20 years ago were almost all from other religions. Now those are non-existent, having been replaced by our fellow Saints. 

 

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saints?

 

19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Do you want to be one of those who accuses a saint of being a sinner?  If someone is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is to say whether he is a saint or a sinner and if having sinned redeemed and sanctified while repenting?

I’ve not called out anyone by name. 
 

But one who chooses to become a “virulent critic” of the Church of Jesus Christ is, by definition, not a saint. That should be transparently obvious to you. 
 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Some people seem to have a natural ability to find things to criticize more than some other people, almost as if the ability is in their jeans.

The people who leave the Church are the ones responsible for leaving the Church.  Everyone is supposed to know that not even members of the Church are perfect yet so leaving the Church because people aren't perfect is not a good excuse.

Is this a new phenomena that people have a natural ability to criticize? Or is that part of the natural human condition? Unless it's new, I don't know why there would be so many more critics today than there were 20 years ago.

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1 Nephi 8:24-25

Quote

24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, ^aclinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the ^bfruit of the tree.

25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ^aashamed.

Same question I asked BooBoo. Is this new? If not, what has changed that there are more internal critics today than 20 years ago?

 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Nope. Why? Is there some kind of secret enclave of flintlock musket / black powder aficionados living there that I never knew about? If so, maybe I should visit.

 

I know some nutters from there, I wouldn't be surprised what they have

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The most virulent critics of the Church on this board 20 years ago were almost all from other religions. Now those are non-existent, having been replaced by our fellow Saints. 

exactley

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

anything is possible.

That’s not an answer. I was asking what’s plausible. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Same question I asked BooBoo. Is this new? If not, what has changed that there are more internal critics today than 20 years ago?

 

If Lehi and Nephi saw it in vision, it is scarcely new. It’s archetypal. The mocking from the inhabitants of the great and spacious building causes them to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and they join in the mocking. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

I’ve not called out anyone by name. 
 

But one who chooses to become a “virulent critic” of the Church of Jesus Christ is, by definition, not a saint. That should be transparently obvious to you. 
 

Indeed. The brethren are tired of dodging musket fire from those critics. Those flag waiving, and parade holding critics at BYU. One such critic even had the gall to say “I am a gay child of God” in the holy Marriott center. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Lehi and Nephi saw it in vision, it is scarcely new. 

So what has changed that there would be more internal critics today than 20 years ago?

Is there anything the church can do to turn the tide or is it an inevitable fulfillment of prophecy?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. The brethren are tired of dodging musket fire from those critics. Those flag waiving, and parade holding critics at BYU. One such critic even had the gall to say “I am a gay child of God” in the holy Marriott center. 

Lame. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So what has changed that there would be more internal critics today than 20 years ago?

Is there anything the church can do to turn the tide or is it an inevitable fulfillment of prophecy?

I don’t know that there ARE more internal critics today than before. More visible and vocal, perhaps, because of advancements in technology.  
 

But yes, they are in fulfillment of prophecy and archetypal. See Lehi’s dream and the parable of the sower. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What scares me is what different people consider "justified violent action". Armed insurrection at the nation's capital is still fresh in my mind. It seemed unthinkable...yet... The person giving the speech urging people to march up to the capital said he didn't mean it literally, so it's all cool, even though some people did take it literally. (I'm not trying to start a political fight. I'm just trying to give some background as to why I'm viewing things the way I am)

I have a problem with the idea that anyone can say whatever they want, including a call to arms, and then just writing it off as hyperbole or metaphor. It's kind of like me walking up to you and saying "you're ugly"... "just kidding. It was only a joke. Why are you upset?"

Metaphors are chosen for a reason and they do reflect the person using them. I expect more from an apostle than a poorly chosen metaphor or hyperbole calling people to take up arms in defense of the church. I think we all should, but I realize that's just my opinion. Some on this board seem to really like religious leaders using such rhetoric, but I think it's beneath his position and reflects badly on both BYU and the church.

Can you post the part of the quote you are referring to? I think I missed it in the Deseret article. Trying to catch up on the convo. 

[Duncan]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not an answer. I was asking what’s plausible. 

you didn't even say the word plausible! 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Can you post the part of the quote you are referring to? I think I missed it in the Deseret article. Trying to catch up on the convo. 

Quote

Three years later, 2017, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, not then but soon to be in the First Presidency where he would sit, only one chair — one heartbeat — away from the same position President Nelson now has, quoted our colleague Elder Neal A. Maxwell who had said:

“In a way[,] [Latter-day Saint] scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think,” Elder Maxwell went on to say, “this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”[10]

Then Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.”[11] He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Little did he know that while many would hear his appeal, especially the School of Family Life who moved quickly and visibly to assist, some others fired their muskets all right, but unfortunately didn’t always aim at those hostile to the Church. A couple of stray rounds even went north of the point of the mountain!

My beloved brothers and sisters, “a house divided against itself . . . cannot stand,”[12] and I will go to my grave pleading that this institution not only stands but stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and to the Church that sponsors it. We hope it isn’t a surprise to you that your Trustees are not deaf or blind to the feelings that swirl around marriage and the whole same-sex topic on campus. I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.

If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have — and we already have too much everywhere.

In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

But it will assist everyone in providing such help if things can be kept in some proportion and balance in the process. For example, we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.

Musket fire? Yes, we will always need defenders of the faith, but “friendly fire” is a tragedy — and from time to time the Church, its leaders and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly — wounding students and the parents of students who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means. Beloved friends, this kind of confusion and conflict ought not to be. There are better ways to move toward crucially important goals in these very difficult matters — ways that show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine. My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire, which I have endorsed yet again today.

I find it ironic that he is advocating for the careful use of language and symbols in an effort to diminish divisiveness, yet uses a musket fire metaphor. IMO that is not a very careful use of language and symbols.

I also find it ironic that Elder Holland is so concerned about the feelings of students and parents who are confused and wounded by "so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue" while failing to empathize with the LGBTQ community who are so marginalized in society and especially the church, perhaps by these same students and parents.

[Peacefully]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find it ironic that he is advocating for the careful use of language and symbols in an effort to diminish divisiveness, yet uses a musket fire metaphor. IMO that is not a very careful use of language and symbols.

I also find it ironic that Elder Holland is so concerned about the feelings of students and parents who are confused and wounded by "so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue" while failing to empathize with the LGBTQ community who are so marginalized in society and especially the church, perhaps by these same students and parents.

I agree it was a poor choice of metaphor, especially in today’s environment. Do I think he was advocating violence? No, I don’t. It just sounded like an emotionally-driven speech, where he did not consider the impact of his words. At least, I hope that is the case. 
 

My daughter asked me about this last night. She is no longer active but apparently the talk is making its rounds around her group of friends so I told her I would look into it more when I had time today. One thing she said to me was “I guess I just still don’t understand why lgbtq people even want to be a part of the church or go to byu.  Why fight against it when there are plenty of spaces that are fully accepting.  Seems masochistic.”  I  just said that some think there is something for them in the church. Pretty lame answer, but it’s got to be hard to stay in a church where the leaders on one hand profess love and compassion and on the other hand call you a sinner even if you are in a monogamous same-sex marriage, and following all other commandments.

I told the counselor, who did my temple recommend interview, that I question women not being in leadership roles like Bishop or Stake President and why people in same sex marriages aren’t able to have full fellowship in the church. He did not seem at all surprised and said those types of questions are how things change. Wow, refreshing, and I got my recommend:)

Maybe we are in for a holistic and existential paradigm shift to systemic equality;)

 

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Maybe we are in for a holistic and existential paradigm shift to systemic equality;)

 

I do not know, but it sure seems of making God in our image  rather than the other way around. 

If we accept that the Bible represents the word of God, and that the words attributed to Jesus are the words of the Son of God, does Matthew 20:1 - 16 fit into your perception of equality?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Should he be censured?

I think you misjudge those you believe “who here will [be] digging against all things homosexuality.”

Censured, Never.  It’s information though. 
 

It’s likely I misjudge, and also that at the same time that I observe an absence of demonstration of the things I’m looking for is simply a fact. I don’t want to be a judgmental person, but I fail. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by MustardSeed

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What scares me is what different people consider "justified violent action".

If it helps clarify, I was talking about legally justified actions, not merely what people might personally feel justified in doing.

 

Quote

Armed insurrection at the nation's capital is still fresh in my mind. It seemed unthinkable...yet... The person giving the speech urging people to march up to the capital said he didn't mean it literally, so it's all cool, even though some people did take it literally. (I'm not trying to start a political fight. I'm just trying to give some background as to why I'm viewing things the way I am)

I have a problem with the idea that anyone can say whatever they want, including a call to arms, and then just writing it off as hyperbole or metaphor. It's kind of like me walking up to you and saying "you're ugly"... "just kidding. It was only a joke. Why are you upset?"

For the record, I wouldn't be upset if you called me ugly. I've got a very high sense of self worth.

Bur I understand what you are saying. Thanks for sharing where you are coming from.

 

Quote

Metaphors are chosen for a reason and they do reflect the person using them. I expect more from an apostle than a poorly chosen metaphor or hyperbole calling people to take up arms in defense of the church. I think we all should, but I realize that's just my opinion. Some on this board seem to really like religious leaders using such rhetoric, but I think it's beneath his position and reflects badly on both BYU and the church.

I don't mind a bit of fiery rhetoric here and there, regardless of its source (e.g., apostles, political figures, civil rights activists, etc.). 

But I don't think Elder Hollands comments come anywhere close to being being considered fiery rhetoric.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts though. I appreciate it. 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All the revelation I have seen (you don’t provide any to the contrary), Old and New Testaments, BoM, D&C, modern revelation since the Restoration began. They are crystal clear. And you want more?

Many leave the Church for a variety of reasons.
They, you, and I will account to God for our choices. 

Crystal Clear on what? Whether the Law of Chastity that requires sex only in marriage applies to only straight couples and forbids same sex marriages?

Or are you just assuming that God doesn't recognize gay marriages