Jump to content

The Elder Holland I Know


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I am reasonably confident Elder Holland regrets that his speech was so easily construed to misrepresent his intentions. While I don't know him personally, the article below conveys what I believe to be true. 

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/racial-healing/the-elder-holland-i-know/

Thank you for sharing this.  A poignant excerpt:

Quote

These two, pernicious lies about Elder Holland—that he does not want people publicly discussing their sexual orientation, and that he has so little care for people like me that he wants us shot—break my heart. My own eyes are getting a little watery at the outrageous calumny against a dear man whom I have watched, loved, and interacted with over more than three decades. I am ashamed to confess that I do not, at this moment, have very much love in my heart for those who would so baselessly and unfairly denounce this man. Elder Holland, I apologize for that. I am in this moment falling short of that loving example you have so beautifully set for me over these several decades of observation of your inspiring words and actions.

I am overwhelmed with sadness and anger that those who themselves who have been victims of misunderstanding and rejection, would so thoroughly and unkindly misunderstand and reject this good, good man. How many times friends in similar circumstances to mine hoped that the Church would talk about this more openly, more frequently? Elder Holland did that, repeatedly and lovingly for decades. But now this man should be damned because some don’t like the metaphor he used? My heart breaks. Not only is it a betrayal of the man, worse, it is a betrayal of the very principles we profess to uphold. For people like us who have been so misunderstood, I would expect we would seek a little more carefully to understand. For people who have been so often unfairly rejected, I would expect us to be a little more hesitant before rejecting someone else. In a few decades, after I’ve seen them show similar love and acceptance and courage that I have observed in Elder Holland, maybe then they’ll have earned the right to counsel him on word choices. For now, it seems that too many have learned nothing and forgotten everything from this great man who has richly blessed my life and countless others.

Well, I'm glad Jeff Bennion wasn't on this board in the last few days, as he would have seen HappyJackWagon's overtly vicious version of the second lie, that Elder Holland was inciting members of the Church to murder gay people.  

So we can look at Elder Holland's decades of service and public remarks, and also consider the foregoing testament to his overarching decency and love for his fellow (gay) sons and daughters of God.

And then we can contrast that with the accusation from HappyJackWagon and his compatriots that Elder Holland wants Latter-day Saints to murder gay people.

Which is more likely the better measure of Elder Holland's character and intent?  We report, you decide!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm glad Jeff Bennion wasn't on this board in the last few days, as he would have seen HappyJackWagon's overtly vicious version of the second lie, that Elder Holland was inciting members of the Church to murder gay people.  

So we can look at Elder Holland's decades of service and public remarks, and also consider the foregoing testament to his overarching decency and love for his fellow (gay) sons and daughters of God.

And then we can contrast that with the accusation on this board by HappyJackWagon and his compatriots that Elder Holland wants Latter-day Saints to murder gay people.

Which is more likely the better measure of Elder Holland's character and intent?  We report, you decide!

Meh.  He should have and could have chosen his words more carefully.  I don't feel to bad about how his words are being understood. Sure he used muskets metaphorically.  But it was a stupid and unnecessary illusion. What is clear is the Church leaders don't want to show much verbal support for the gay community.  They try to have it both ways. That typically does not work out to well.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Meh.  He should have and could have chosen his words more carefully. 

Ergo . . . publicly accusing him of inciting Latter-day Saints to murder gay people is okay?

I think . . . not.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't feel to bad about how his words are being understood.

I think you would have a different perspective if your words had been grossly misrepresented, and if your character had been publicly slandered.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ergo . . . publicly accusing him of inciting Latter-day Saints to murder gay people is okay?

I think . . . not.

I think you would have a different perspective if your words had been grossly misrepresented, and if your character had been publicly slandered.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh come on. How any are accusing him of inciting people to murder?  I know embellished drama plays well into the LDS persecution process however.  Holland had to know what he was going to say was going to cause controversy.  So live with the repercussions.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you would have a different perspective if your words had been grossly misrepresented, and if your character had been publicly slandered.

A powerful tool of the adversary is to portray one uncharacteristic remark as if it represents the person. It is the nature of this method to be evil.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh come on. How any are accusing him of inciting people to murder? 

I don't understand your question.  Are you disputing that this is what HappyJackWagon did?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Let's not rehash the issue that got the other thread shut down, please. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Meh.  He should have and could have chosen his words more carefully.  I don't feel to bad about how his words are being understood. Sure he used muskets metaphorically.  But it was a stupid and unnecessary illusion. What is clear is the Church leaders don't want to show much verbal support for the gay community.  They try to have it both ways. That typically does not work out to well.

And, if pretty much anyone else causes hurt and pain because of their poorly chosen words, they are expected to clarify what they meant and apologize to those they hurt--unless you're an apostle of Jesus Christ. They have nothing to apologize for.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chum said:

A powerful tool of the adversary is to portray one uncharacteristic remark as if it represents the person. It is the nature of this method to be evil.

And a powerful example of how quickly we fall into 'the natural man' is how easily we accept such ideas, when someone says something we don't like.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, the narrator said:

And, if pretty much anyone else causes hurt and pain because of their poorly chosen words, they are expected to clarify what they meant and apologize to those they hurt--unless you're an apostle of Jesus Christ. They have nothing to apologize for.

That was litigated to death on another thread which was closed. Let’s not do the same here , please. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for sharing this.  A poignant excerpt:

Well, I'm glad Jeff Bennion wasn't on this board in the last few days, as he would have seen HappyJackWagon's overtly vicious version of the second lie, that Elder Holland was inciting members of the Church to murder gay people.  

I hadn't read that other thread and I did so because of your shocking accusation that HappyJackWagon did this.

For the record, HappyJackWagon did not accuse Elder Holland of "inciting members of the Church to murder gay people." He accused Elder Holland of using an inappropriate metaphor and not being careful in the use of language. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Chum said:

A powerful tool of the adversary is to portray one uncharacteristic remark as if it represents the person. It is the nature of this method to be evil.

I don’t see the remark as particularly uncharacteristic — or particularly evil. The imagery of a trowel in one hand and a musket (or, using the Old Testament version, a sword) in the other very effectively conveys the concept of defending what is good and right, even as one goes about building and promoting what is good and right. I would hate to see this scripture-based expression sacrificed on the alter of political correctness, which has already done too much to corrupt our discourse. 
 

My impression is that the howls and moans are emanating chiefly from the quarter who resent it that the Church will not capitulate on essential doctrine and that homosexual behavior, which has always been denounced as sin, will never, ever become part of the Lord’s law of matrimony. They are angry at Elder Holland for underscoring this, so they seek to make him an offender for a word. If the trowel-and-musket thing hadn’t been present in his speech, they would have seized on some other excuse to vilify him. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For the record, HappyJackWagon did not accuse Elder Holland of "inciting members of the Church to murder gay people." He accused Elder Holland of using an inappropriate metaphor and not being careful in the use of language. 

Specifically HJW said

Quote

what should a member of the LGBTQ community or ally think? They should think that Holland has declared them an enemy to the church to the point that Holland urged people to grab a musket.

This seems like HJW was using over the top rhetoric, to criticize someone he felt was using over the top rhetoric. Well, okay. We should strive to be better.

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see the remark as particularly uncharacteristic

Some folks saw a harmful message and that perceived message would certainly have been uncharacteristic of Elder Holland.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see the remark as — particularly evil.

I didn't say it was. I offered that - pretending one uncharacteristic remark represented a person - that is an evil method.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I hadn't read that other thread and I did so because of your shocking accusation that HappyJackWagon did this.

For the record, HappyJackWagon did not accuse Elder Holland of "inciting members of the Church to murder gay people."

Yes, he did.  And I've documented it.

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He accused Elder Holland of using an inappropriate metaphor and not being careful in the use of language. 

Nope.  He did more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

One of the things that this incident illustrates very clearly is how being an upper middle-class, hightly educated, cisgender, married, white, male allows me to the right and privilege to not be offended when others say things I don't like.

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.  Are you disputing that this is what HappyJackWagon did?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry for the typo.  How many?  Happy Jack is one dude on a message board.  In other words your hyperbole about people accusing Holland of encouraging murder is over the top.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I hadn't read that other thread and I did so because of your shocking accusation that HappyJackWagon did this.

For the record, HappyJackWagon did not accuse Elder Holland of "inciting members of the Church to murder gay people." He accused Elder Holland of using an inappropriate metaphor and not being careful in the use of language. 

Let’s not get this shut down, please. Start a new thread if you want to pursue this. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chum said:

Some folks saw a harmful message and that perceived message would certainly have been uncharacteristic of Elder Holland.

 

I didn't say it was. I offered that - pretending one uncharacteristic remark represented a person - that is an evil method.

Got it. 
 

But some people, both here and elsewhere, are portraying the scriptural imagery used by Elder Holland as evil. It’s not. That’s what I’m responding to. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Nofear said:

I am reasonably confident Elder Holland regrets that his speech was so easily construed to misrepresent his intentions. While I don't know him personally, the article below conveys what I believe to be true. 

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/racial-healing/the-elder-holland-i-know/

I was too physically worn out to deal with the initial hullabaloo that filled my FB streams. I read my childhood friend's reaction (she's lesbian, married to her wife, and excommunicated) because I care about her. I saw others reposting stuff or commenting from what I know are more of my advocate oriented friends. I saw a couple middle ground people say something positive about it that was disagreed with. But through most of these I just scanned and said "yeah, I don't got energy for this."   

So when my curiosity won out and I decided to listen to the actual talk (speech?) in question, I had...mixed feelings that honestly weren't amplified by any one voice or side. There were points I disagreed with Holland, there were points I generally agreed even if I would have likely presented it differently or emphasized more points to give a better balance, IMHO. But mostly I found the speech...meh. It was sandwiched in with a TON of byu love. Which is fine. I liked BYU, but it had it's problems. My husband hated his experience for a very legitimate reason (they made him basically redo his entire major with little guidance on at least some of the loopholes they have to somewhat reducing that). I appreaciated a lot of things at BYU and seeking out certain professors that were more academic/advocate oriented was actually helpful for me in my faith to make it more robust. 

 This doesn't mean I feel less or more towards Holland himself. I think that is more tied to our tendency to seek out more affinity to a person because we appreciate or admire them. In short we seek out simplified hero stories. So when our heroes fall short it hurts. BUT I also think, from what I'm seeing from some of my more advocate oriented friends, that's amplified by the actions that AREN'T actually Holland's but others who use his voice to shame or pontificate to others. A FB friend of mine made a reference to some people's taking it upon themselves to reprimand her own views or experiences using Holland's meme'd quotes. I doubt Holland would appreciate that and on that note I'd also be reasonably confident Holland would be pained to hear said experiences. 

I wondered after the talk if I had given the talk what would have happened. To note, I agree with the underlying message: our walk with certain issues will likely differ from the larger society's because of gospel beliefs. I have still not found a comfortable working ground for my love and care and pain that I've seen with those that I work with who are LGBT and my love faith and honest beliefs around marriage in the gospel. I believe it's probably there, but I don't think it'll look exactly as it has (because we've already changed messaging on this over the last 20-40 years...sometimes pretty drastically) nor exactly as some of my more advocate friends picture it will be one day. But I could be wrong...and I'm really okay with that. What I do know is that based on my own experiences I likely would have emphasized points differently, iterated more my concerns with those who hold a very conservative or inflexible version of mormonism having too big of a presence on byu's policies/and church communities at times and some of the damage I've seen that cause in therapy as people struggle with questions I simply don't because their world was shaped by this view and their experiences (most not LGBT related, BTW) run counter to this. And then I would likely find said conservative folks frustrated with me while some pieces and quotes were used by more liberal oriented folks to score a point. I don't see either end all that different from each other on that note. Both assume they're more right. And both are trying to have the core of the church match their image of what it should be at times. And both of those who are most certain about this image struggle more when an edict or policy or talk etc does not match their preferred interpretation of the gospel. So I likely would have been just as in trouble as Holland ended up being with his talk as I would mine...because no matter how you shake it, it's touching on issues that are tender and complicated and often painful within the church. One with camps that are strongly convicted that their vision of what the church should be is better than the other. 

 

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be hashed out. It does. I just don't know if we'll have a talk in the near future that will find a comfortable consensus. 

With luv,

BD  

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...