- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/video/elder-holland-tempe-arizona-devotional-dont-you-dare-bail http://rationalfaiths.com/malcom-gladwell-elder-holland-and-the-legitimacy-of-authority/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/malcom-gladwell-elder-holland-and-the-legitimacy-of-authority/ Oops. I just posted a link above without seeing this first.
I have said over and over here that my biggest issue is with the current leadership. This just added to my distance with them. “I will NOT LET YOU LEAVE”. I don’t feel love. He does not get it – or if he does he has no way to combat it.
I did just listen to the talk. He mentions about the apostles being scared when on the boat and the storm comes. I couldn’t help but think, “Sounds about like right now.” I much prefer when the leadership speaks with compassion and loving words saying that it makes them sad when we leave or things similar to that, that communicate genuine concern for people who are struggling with the church. It sounds a lot more Christ-like to me. Saying ‘I will not let you leave’ or that he doesn’t care what we’re dealing with, we should stay anyways, does not sound Christ-like whatsoever. Eta: he sounds so intimidating. After saying he wouldn’t let people leave then he says he wants to talk to any investigators afterwards and get them in the church, if I was investigator I’d be running for the doors!
Whoa. Ordinarily I’d say it’s classic Holland, where he gets super animated and emotional to drive home his message but this sounds like taking it to a new level. Holland tends to get “fired up” and make extremely definitive statements about
hisbeliefs. This really resonates with many members, it’s why he is some people’s favorite apostle, and why the devil checks under his bed to make sure Holland isn’t lurking there. This one took it a little too far IMO. Here he’s not pulpit pounding over the Book of Mormon or a literal Adam and Eve, he’s pulpit pounding on our brothers and sisters. The people laughing. I wonder if some of that is an uncomfortable laughter, because Holland feels threatening. Some of it may have been jokes, jokes at the expense of fellow citizens with the saints, but Holland seemed to feed on the laughter to give him permission to ratchet up the anger.
I think members leaving must be forefront on the minds of the apostles. It’s a difficult challenge and maybe they have seen their efforts only result in more people leaving. That part of his talk where he talks about Jesus being tired and frustrated with people coming to him with their problems all the time. Might that be Holland talking about himself? Maybe he’s worn down by the calling, perhaps even by the problem of attrition, so he becomes “furious” for a spell.
! I never had a problem with him until a couple yrs ago and his rant in Gen Conf abt the turned down page of Hyrum Smith’s BofM from Carthage. That hurt. Now Elder Jeffrey B says he is angry bcz I (we) have legitimate questions??? He never answers any questions … He only rails against those who have them. Grrrrr!
It’s hard to understand why you cannot have an honest and civil discussion with Jeffrey Holland without getting castigated. Of what use is that? His style of declarationism never solves a thing.
In general, I think the leadership has difficulty relating to members that are “Inactive”. When I was Inactive, we had Bishops that were our HT. They kept us at “arms length”.
As though we were contagious. Some of them I considered close friends when I was active.
Not once did they say “what’s going on…?” or “what can I do…?” or “I miss not seeing you on Sunday”
My overall vibe was: I’m really uncomfortable being around you when you’re “inactive”.
That attitude comes from the top (GA) down to the local leadership.
It’s the attitude that has to change not the hierarchy.
I think he thinks that this kind of bluntness takes people into his confidence. Let’s all be insiders. But something backfires for me. What he’s been doing lately feels very different from Pres. Uchtdorf’s consistent, dignified, respectful outreach. Another in a series of self conficted wounds… Glad I wasnt at the meeting. I am not having the same reaction as you. I want to be clear that my reaction in no way delegitimizes your reaction. I do however hope that some of you that have been offended can help me understand the nature of the offense. bridget_night wrote:I never had a problem with him until a couple yrs ago and his rant in Gen Conf abt the turned down page of Hyrum Smith’s BofM from Carthage. That hurt.
I went back and read this talk. He essentially states that if the book were false Hyrum and JS would not have turned to it for comfort before imprisonment. I do not buy into the argument – but it doesn’t particularly surprise me that he makes it. Is this offensive because he acts like the BoM is obviously the word of God and that those with doubts are just not thinking about the issue clearly? Is the issue that he delegitimizes honest questions and observations about the BoM?
Quote:“Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?! Well, there’s too much Irish in me for that.”
bridget_night wrote:It really upsets me and insults those who went through hell with their faith crisis before they left the church.
I listened to the talk and I assume that this is the portion that is causing the concern. He seems to be saying that if the church is true then you should not abandon it no matter the cost. That if the church really does point to the ultimate reality, really does watch over the only true path to eternal fruition, really does have the only authority to administer essential ordinances – then one should be willing to sacrifice their first born child if necessary (just like Abraham) to weather the “storm” and ensure their continuation with the organization.
To do otherwise (i.e. to leave the church) would suggest that the whole time we were just playing at church and playing at religion and playing at knowing God’s purpose for our lives. I looked up the words “patty-cake” and “taffy pull,” They both seem to indicate a somewhat meaningless activity. Because Elder Holland is confident that the church really does safeguard the exclusive path to exaltation – he sees people who turn away as people who have surrendered their rudder and will now be tossed to and fro.
Yes, it is condescending and generalizing. However, it is not terribly different from what I might expect an LDS church leader to say. I don’t see it as so much as an attack against me and my viewpoint as I see it as an emotionally defensive position around HIS viewpoint. He cannot validate me without diminishing himself.
I respectfully ask for someone to explain how this kind of declarations are all that different from what church leaders say all the time?
Honestly, I have the same reaction as Roy, even though I dislike the word choices – but for a different reason: I have been part of this forum for seven years. Frankly, I have read statements here (and still do, sometimes) that are no different than what he said, only from the other side of the issue.
We can be the ones holding the stones or the ones protecting the woman on the ground – but we lose all moral high ground when we are throwing stones back at the stone throwers.
Roy wrote:I respectfully ask for someone to explain how this kind of declarations are all that different from what church leaders say all the time?
It probably isn’t different than things leaders regularly say but I find that to be a sad commentary on the types of messages that leaders share. I think we’re reaching the point where people are beginning to stand up and say “this is wrong and I don’t want it to continue anymore, I expect better of my ecclesiastical leaders.”
I don’t feel like transcribing so I’ll paraphrase some portions of the talk:
“What on earth kind of conviction is that?” :: The implication is that people that leave the church have no conviction. I don’t want to put words into her mouth but maybe this is where bridget_night feels like he insults people that have gone though hell to navigate a FC prior to leaving the church. Compare this to Uchtdorf’s:
Quote:Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.
There are better ways to say the same thing without challenging people’s conviction.
Later he says “I’ll get up here and do a half-gainer over the side. That’s a terrific performance. I can tell you’re in for a good experience.” Here he employs sarcasm and trivializes people’s pain. How much are people suffering if they feel like jumping off the boat is preferable to remaining?
It’s hard to sugar coat the phrase “I’m so furious with people who
“. He backs off that statement a little then comes back to it. I think it mostly comes down to tone. His tone didn’t help me feel love, even when I don’t feel like I’m a part of the group of people in his cross-hairs. That said, pre FC I felt like Holland’s pulpit pounding style recharged my batteries, post FC it comes across as anger. For me it’s important to remember that Holland still fills the role of battery recharger, it’s just that he no longer fills that role for me. Still, it’s one thing to pound the pulpit over Adam and Eve and the BoM having to be literal and pounding the pulpit over contemporary
peoplethat leave. Adam and Eve probably aren’t going to be discussed over Thanksgiving dinner in the same way that a family member leaving the church will. Ray, you mention throwing stones. When someone in a
leadershipposition (apostle no less) throws a stone I think it sets a bad example for followers, they might be more inclined to do the same with family and friends. Is believing someone threw a stone another way of throwing a stone? “I’m not going to let you leave it (the church)” :: I guess it’s important to remember he
ispreaching to the choir. Maybe this is interpreted by people in attendance as Holland is going to help me to ensure that I don’t fail (a good thing). From the outside looking in it might feel like Holland is guarding the exit like a pack of rabid dogs. 
“STAY IN THE BOAT”
👿 :: He said this with so much emotion/force that it almost came across as a threat. Broken record, I feel this is Holland’s style. He hasn’t changed, I have. The style that used to be a source of strength is now a turn off. Funny how we can do a 180 like that.“The only thing dumber is for someone else to follow you.” :: Implies people have made a dumb decision. I’m sure it probably looks that way from a believing POV.
Paraphrase time: “Did it ever dawn on you, does it ever dawn on me or anybody that god might be tired, Christ might be tired. Certainly in his mortality he’s tired. He’s sleeping through this storm. … Everywhere he goes he’s tired, it’s people, people, people, problems, problems, problems.” ::
This is where I felt Holland was projecting. It’s interesting to go back and listen to this portion in the context of Holland being Christ and the storm being the problem of people leaving the church. Heck, that may be how he intended it to be interpreted.
Roy wrote:I don’t see it as so much as an attack against me and my viewpoint as I see it as an emotionally defensive position around HIS viewpoint.
Yeah, for the most part this is where I am with this talk.
I agree nibbler. I do believe that the less formal nature of the talk and perhaps the audience laughter allowed Elder Holland to get more hammy in his caricatures of people leaving the church as without convictions and taking ill advised “half-gainers” into stormy sees.
It is ironic that the imagery that he uses is of a storm battered vessel and people choosing to jump ship in the middle of the voyage. It is obvious that they are in for an exhausting battle of storm and surf until they finally succumb to be drown in the depths.
From another perspective, Perhaps some of those that leave were treading water withing the boat itself. They were drowning. Once they left they might find that the outside world was not the horrible death they had been warned about. The whole menacing and ominous storm that had everyone so worried was just a tempest in a teacup.
I find myself less concerned by his words in part because I do not expect anything different. Elder Uchtdorf is the exception that proves the rule. In another part I am not terribly offended because I have some emotional distance from the church. Elder Holland’s opinion has no power over me.
nibbler wrote:“I’m not going to let you leave it (the church)” :: I guess it’s important to remember he is preaching to the choir. Maybe this is interpreted by people in attendance as Holland is going to help me to ensure that I don’t fail (a good thing). From the outside looking in it might feel like Holland is guarding the exit like a pack of rabid dogs.
I remember an apostle making a similar statement at an MTC devotional . He stopped his message and said that he had an impression that some of those present might be considering going home and leaving the mission. He said that if he could he would tear the cables from the sound booth to tie them down if it would help to keep them there. Such was the importance he felt serving a mission would be for their own personal growth and salvation. At the time it felt like genuine concern and caring – dare I say love. The context of a statement and the audience that it was intended for can add perspective to what is said.
You and I are on the same page on this one.
I just don’t know what happened. I recall considering him an elegant speaker in his BYU president days. And I’ve wished (probably in vain I’m thinking now) that he would develop and express some of the thoughts from his 2007 PBS interview about the church having a place for non-literal believers in the Book of Mormon.
He seems to have changed, but, like Nibbler says, so have we all.
This feels like par for the course for E. Holland. He so often speaks through thinly veiled anger. I do struggle to see him as a great example of Christlike behavior as a result, although he is frequently emotional about the atonement also. This talk falls into a trap that I really dislike–going for the cheap laughs at others’ expense. Why our congregations go along with it, I do not know. Respect for the mantle? The uncomfortable silence they want to fill? It’s not right behavior. I feel for the leaders who are bewildered and tired and feeling betrayed by those leaving. But it’s also important that they acknowledge their role in this departure, and that the church has not been perfect or wise in all its actions. I understand being weary of complaints, but when those complaints fall on systematically deaf ears, when leaders brag about never apologizing (even when it’s beyond obvious to every casual observer that some of the policies we’ve enacted have caused great harm), then it’s time to quit pointing fingers at those leaving and time to take a look in the mirror. Members who rejoice in cutting out so-called apostates will be emboldened by this type of speech. Are some of those leaving weak disciples? Sure. So are
plentyof those who are staying and pointing fingers at those who are leaving. And some of those leaving feel every bit as weary, heartbroken and betrayed as E. Holland seems to feel. It’s easy to call others childish for leaving when they don’t get their way, but it’s a bit unsavory when the one saying it is one of the only ones who actually does in fact always get his way (or on the council that does) when it comes to setting policies. For example, gay people leaving due to the policy (and their allies) isn’t due to lack of conscience but rather because of conscience.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.