Jump to content

The Elder Holland I Know


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

So should have his accusers.  If only others could have approached his speech with the same nonchalance that you demonstrate here!    

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

If you knew him personally, as this gay author did, maybe you would care more.  Would you not feel bad if a personal friend was dragged through the mud as Elder Holland is over a simple poor choice of words? Simple decency should cause us to defend the name of an innocent and good man. 

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

From the article:

Quote

After this week, if what some people are saying about him is to be believed, I am not sure even the Methodists would take him. In some of the more excitable quarters of the Internet, it appears he should be exiled from polite society and tried for attempted murder.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

So should have his accusers.  If only others could have approached his speech with the same nonchalance that you demonstrate here!    

If you knew him personally, as this gay author did, maybe you would care more.  Would you not feel bad if a personal friend was dragged through the mud as Elder Holland is over a simple poor choice of words? Simple decency should cause us to defend the name of an innocent and good man. 

From the article:

I read to and listened to his words.  They deserve to be dragged through the mud in my opinion.  Looks the guy is at the top of the top 15 pretty much.  People are going to react to his words.  Some will jump with joy over them, some may use them to justify hate and bigotry, some may find then harmful and hurtful and struggle unnecessarily over them.  It is the last group I worry most about.  But he knew that his words were going to be reacted to and he still choose to make them.  And i think it is pretty silly to call it a simple poor choice of words.  He knew what he was saying and likely wanted to say it.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And i think it is pretty silly to call it a simple poor choice of words.  

I was quoting you.  "Meh.  He should have and could have chosen his words more carefully."

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He knew what he was saying and likely wanted to say it.

If he realized that some would interpret it the way they have, I guarantee that he would have chosen different words.  The last thing the brethren want is to stir up controversy and hurt feelings over this issue.

Link to comment
Just now, pogi said:

I was quoting you.  "Meh.  He should have and could have chosen his words more carefully."

If he realized that some would interpret it the way they have, I guarantee that he would have chosen different words.  The last thing the brethren want is to stir up controversy and hurt feelings over this issue.

You really think so?  I think the brethren are quite adept at stirring up controversy.  Just look at the November 2015 policy and later flip flop.  Sheesh look at the FP statement on the Covid vaccine.  Lots of controversy there.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Fether said:

Can I just say that there is one phrase he said that I REALLY appreciate… but no one is talking about:

 

“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.”

- ELDER HOLLAND

I wonder and have wondered for a while if any of them will explicitly say it is okay and good to love people of the same sex as one's self, as well as the opposite sex.  That there is nothing wrong with loving others regardless of what sex they are.  Also specifying where the line is regarding how we should express our love to others, and the bounds the Lord has set regarding sexual relationships, further specifying what is good and what is not good.  Some people act as though they don't know what the proper boundaries are and should be, so maybe some explicit clarification would help everyone know exactly what we believe is right and wrong regarding expressions of affection.

Edited by bOObOO
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Hold up. 

Lots of controversy...over the COVID-19 vaccine?

The Brethren issue an statement encouraging people to get a life-saving vaccine...and you choose to see this as evidence that the Brethren are agents provocateur?!

Please tell me how to interpret this charitably, because right now it looks like manifest evidence that @Teancum will look at a First Presidency mandate to save lives and see in it only "controversy." Make of that fact what you will. 

@Teancum can speak for himself, but it seems to me that he misread Pogi, and you are misreading him. Teancum is saying the brethren have no issues stirring up controversy when they want to. (I.e. they say what they want to say regardless of the controversy it may cause - for example, I’m sure the brethren know a significant portion of the membership in the United States is anti mask and anti vaccine). This could still be true even if Pogi is correct (on the fact that the brethren do their best not to stir up controversy on this issue). 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fether said:

Can I just say that there is one phrase he said that I REALLY appreciate… but no one is talking about:

 

“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.”

- ELDER HOLLAND

I mentioned it before but the underlying message being that God hasn't said jack squat about it 

Link to comment

The only problem I have with Holland is that he needs to understand we live in a hyper sensitive time when people can be triggered by the smallest things.  Once one speaks on a sensitive subject, it is almost a given some people will be offended.  People do not understand sarcasm, hyperbole,  or anything else in these times.  I have had it done to me before in my life.   I have compared two different things in an argument and have had complaints something on the lines of "are you saying A is the same as B" when all I was saying is if the logic regarding of A is correct, then why not apply it to B?  People get emotional on their issues that are personal to them and are quick to find offense.  Slow to find understanding and why a person is saying what they are saying.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The only problem I have with Holland is that he needs to understand we live in a hyper sensitive time when people can be triggered by the smallest things.  Once one speaks on a sensitive subject, it is almost a given some people will be offended.  People do not understand sarcasm, hyperbole,  or anything else in these times.  I have had it done to me before in my life.   I have compared two different things in an argument and have had complaints something on the lines of "are you saying A is the same as B" when all I was saying is if the logic regarding of A is correct, then why not apply it to B?  People get emotional on their issues that are personal to them and are quick to find offense.  Slow to find understanding and why a person is saying what they are saying.

snowflakes.jpg.47615cf0b1c7aaced2b372ae3600cb26.jpg

Link to comment
13 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 think what many people are missing here also is that his words were not necessarily directed at the students, but mostly directed at the faculty and staff of BYU, some of which were organizing or encouraging the protests that have been going on.

Link to comment

I think Elder Holland’s words were abhorrent. He knew exactly what he was saying…

faculty support for LGBT, diversity, etc should be met with musket fire, swords made from steel plows, and pitchforks….but we love you.
Sounds more like Donald Trump’s call to destroy democracy and attack the national capital than it does an apostle of the lord to preach love God and love thy neighbor.

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would hate to see this scripture-based expression sacrificed on the alter of political correctness

Oh, thank you, Scott. You are human after all! I have been waiting decades to be able to do this! 😉

On the other hand, this is also a brilliant pun. If intentional, my hat is off to you. I am not worthy. 👏

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.

Would you explain what consensus might look like?

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you explain what consensus might look like?

Something that most everyone who believes in the gospel generally agrees on with this specific topic. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD

Link to comment
12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The only problem I have with Holland is that he needs to understand we live in a hyper sensitive time when people can be triggered by the smallest things.  Once one speaks on a sensitive subject, it is almost a given some people will be offended.  People do not understand sarcasm, hyperbole,  or anything else in these times.  I have had it done to me before in my life.   I have compared two different things in an argument and have had complaints something on the lines of "are you saying A is the same as B" when all I was saying is if the logic regarding of A is correct, then why not apply it to B?  People get emotional on their issues that are personal to them and are quick to find offense.  Slow to find understanding and why a person is saying what they are saying.

 

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I think Elder Holland’s words were abhorrent. He knew exactly what he was saying…

faculty support for LGBT, diversity, etc should be met with musket fire, swords made from steel plows, and pitchforks….but we love you.
Sounds more like Donald Trump’s call to destroy democracy and attack the national capital than it does an apostle of the lord to preach love God and love thy neighbor.

 


https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/beating-ploughshares-into-swords/

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Duncan said:

I mentioned it before but the underlying message being that God hasn't said jack squat about it 

Well, there’s this…

Quote

D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

132:

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

In my opinion… those seeking to change or expand the LDS definition of marriage would have to refute or rewrite this foundational doctrine. If we keep it, there would needs be a redefinition of “increase,” “husband,” “man,” “he,” “she,” “wife,” “her,” etc., but since much of this change has already been accomplished in our general culture, it would just be a matter of the Brethren imposing the new meanings on our doctrine. Anything short of this will not give satisfaction.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Something that most everyone who believes in the gospel generally agrees on with this specific topic. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD

Could you share some examples?

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, there’s this…

In my opinion… those seeking to change or expand the LDS definition of marriage would have to refute or rewrite this foundational doctrine. If we keep it, there would needs be a redefinition of “increase,” “husband,” “man,” “he,” “she,” “wife,” “her,” etc., but since much of this change has already been accomplished in our general culture, it would just be a matter of the Brethren imposing the new meanings on our doctrine. Anything short of this will not give satisfaction.

do you really want to go down the road about section 132?! it's problematic to put it mildly. Let's say though, for argument sake, what has God said what will happen to gay people in this section? again, nothing, he has said nothing. Why? he doesn't seem to want to reveal anything about what will happen to them. What purpose does homosexuality even serve? If God will fix gay people in the next life, as we have been shared without any scripture to back it up, what the vitriol against them here and why not let them be who they are if it will out come out in the wash anyways?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, there’s this…

In my opinion… those seeking to change or expand the LDS definition of marriage would have to refute or rewrite this foundational doctrine. If we keep it, there would needs be a redefinition of “increase,” “husband,” “man,” “he,” “she,” “wife,” “her,” etc., but since much of this change has already been accomplished in our general culture, it would just be a matter of the Brethren imposing the new meanings on our doctrine. Anything short of this will not give satisfaction.

D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

How is it possible for a gay person ever enter into celestial glory?  Did God decide in the pre existence that spirit will not be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom, so He made them gay?  Is that the narrative?

Link to comment

It’s possible Elder Nelson is anticipating a coming persecution because the Church, its believing members, and its education system (at least under the current leadership) are not willing to make the demanded changes. Thus they will be found deserving of marginalization, isolation, cancellation, and dismantlement. This has its precedents…

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s possible Elder Nelson is anticipating a coming persecution because the Church, its believing members, and its education system (at least under the current leadership) are not willing to make the demanded changes. Thus they will be found deserving of marginalization, isolation, cancellation, and dismantlement. This has its precedents…

It certainly does. Plural marriage, and the church’s stance on its members of African descent come to mind. What did the church do in the face of persecution for those?

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...