- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s a great example of egocentrism at work. In Stake Priesthood meeting, we had a member of the SP who did the same thing about people who asked to be released from their priesthood callings. His answer was for the member to simply “tell the SP their situation” and let the SP decide. But he was angry about the fact that brethren would ask to be released from their callings. No consideration for privacy issues, no concern for issues like I faced (health issues), only concern that the rank and file members did not appear to be committed to their callings. And heaven forbid if they put the SP to any extra work!!! Holland’s statement “infuriates” me too. Because he doesn’t take into account things that deter people that are within the control of the church if only they opened their mind and approached the situation with a little more compassion. Even the BoM says that Corianton’s father indicated “when people saw your behavior they wouldn’t believe my words”. The behavior of rank and file members, and definitely leaders DOES impact commitment, and for that, the institutional church has to take responsibility to maintain its crediblity as an institution with a divine commission.
Here is JRH’s statement:
Quote:“At 2:10 – “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.”
Not an apostolic moment in my view, and he partly seems to admit it.
I agree that comments that are compassionate tend to be inclusive and coax people back to the fold. Light a warm fire, keep the door open, and avoid banishing us into the naughty room. Angry, unempathetic statements like this only alienate us further and confirm perceptions that a common code produces the unwanted side effect of judgmentalism.
hawkgrrrl wrote: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.
Amen. Very succinctly put.SilentDawning wrote:comments that are compassionate tend to be inclusive and coax people back to the fold. Light a warm fire, keep the door open, and avoid banishing us into the naughty room. Angry, unempathetic statements like this only alienate us further and confirm perceptions that a common code produces the unwanted side effect of judgmentalism.
I can’t let that go without an “amen” also.Roy wrote:
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?
I think it is his tone. First, he is angry about people leaving. That shows an implicit lack of compassion and understanding for people who grow dissaffected, particularly when the triggers are leadership abuse, policies that back you into a corner where you are “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, and so many other things the church should at least take SOME responsiblity for.
Second, it’s his position — he even admits that being angry about this may not be apostolic. We can attribute harsh attitudes at the local level to the odd overzealous, unempathetic renegage leader, but when the people at the top start making statements like this, it becomes an “institutional system”.
Third, there is a tremendous lack of charity in his statement, and he appears to violate principles of kindness, longsuffering, and patience in his commentary. In addition to some arrogance.
In a mere paragraph, he’s done what some local leaders do, but to the power of 10. I’ve only seen this twice in my lifetime on this scale. Further, although many leaders have the same judgmental attitude as JRH, they often don’t say it unless it’s in a meeting or behind closed doors. Some are savvy enough to say nothing at all. And others reach out with understanding (a few, in my experience — very few).
So, combine his negative emotion, his position, and his lack of charity and empathy, you have the antithesis of Uchdorfts “there is room for all” talk that presented a kinder, gentler, more inclusive church than the one JRH has implied here. I think I could probably open up to Uchdorft on some of my dissafection reasons (if I knew he wasn’t going to run my SP with it), but JRH? No way. He’s closed the door on any helpful discussion with this kind of statement.
The other thing to be mindful of is the perception of cultism by onlookers in the church. Although I know we are not a cult, his statement “don’t you dare leave” gets a bit too close to the kind of confining attitudes that bona fide cults use. I would be very careful of saying anything that even broaches or hints that Mormon leaders have similar attitudes toward their members. I would much rather he said how saddened he is when people leave, but ultimately it’s our choice — that God paid a big price for the gift of agency to mankind, that we want to retain people, and want them to find joy in active membership in the kingdom.
Old-Timer wrote: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.
Point taken. Naturally, as a likely stone thrower, I have a response. First, we are on the “short end of the stick” as disaffected members. We can’t express ourselves openly to local leaders without censure, loss of priviledges, ostracization and sometimes, even negative impact on our marriage. Leadership roulette, and cultural values like the one Holland promulgated above prevent this. Apostles don’t seem to have the same consequences for openly “calling us to repentance”. In fact, the scriptures justify leaders reproving with sharpness, or rebuking the “unrighteous:. It’s clearly not a level playing field so I’m not convinced the same standards apply to both leaders and the struggling rank and file members.
Further, the mission of the site is to help people StayLDS, so if leadership behavior presents an obstacle, there is often a period of grieving and angst when true feelings are shared. I know in my own case, it took a few months of saying the same thing in various shades of anger, disillusionment, and hurt, over and over, before I realized it was old news. Fatigue set in and I grew ready to sit down and problem solve how I might cope — and found this was the place to get advice and make plans because the people here accepted me. So, people in our shoes need that outlet now and then, and sometimes, it means sharing naked, raw feelings to get past that point. I am not convinced General Conference is a fitting place for an Apostle to do the same.
Second, our comments are directed to interested readers on this forum, and not directly to the apostles. And as you know there are strict site rules about whether we can actually speak directly to the leaders who have given offense (and for good reason). So our comments are not aimed directly at the leaders, and therefore, not as inflammatory as direct statements made by leaders like JRH to people like us. So, I see the inflammatory quotient as much smaller from the stone throwers on this site than the words that come from an Apostle that are aimed right at us, publicly, reinforcing some of the very situations to the TBM members that landed some of here in the first place.
Third, we hold no position power, so, some might argue that we are held to a lesser standard than an apostle.
Also, without the ability to express our angst now and then, how are we any different than apologist sites? What is unique about this site is that it is both supportive, yet accepting of contrarion and sometimes critical ideas. It creates an alternate community (“new ways to stay connected”) that allows you to keep your mouth shut at church, and then come home and share those things you can’t say locally, here. This benefits the local membership who become insulated from contrarion ideas the leadership would not appreciate, while supporting the unorthodox member in a way the locals cannot normally do. You feel part of a Mormon community, but one that understands you and counterbalances the local one at which you feel like an outsider. I don’t know about everyone else, but it helps me stay in the normally uncomfortable middle ground between outright name removal and full activity — with relative comfort these days. Take away the ability to express anger or disapproval with leadership at all levels, these benefits will not likely exist to the same extent as when you can share what you think, openly.
At the same time, I realize the need to temper criticism of leaders with kindness and charity. If I had more time, I would quote Professor Mauss’s paragraph or two on his attitudes toward leaders. The essence of his message is that it’s a mixed bag, that in general, he thinks most leaders are well-meaning, are trying to do the right thing, and some are even trying to mediate between directives from higher leaders (which they may not agree with), and the obligation they have to obey them. At the same time, he’s appreciated some of the leadership far more than others.
Personally, I try to see the virtue in the leaders we have, and to empathize with them, but I have to confess, I’ve experienced some leaders that even the TBM membership has a hard time staying quiet about given their many leadership errors and abuses. And there is no where to talk about it openly, and get candid feedback, in a balanced way, than here (that I’m aware of).
I have listened to the longer context of this talk, and I just do not hear it the same way. In the Army, especially in combat, this sort of bold-chested rhetoric is frequently used to shore up the flagging courage of fighting men, to bolster and to embolden them in the heat and sound and fury of battle.
“
C’mon you slugs! Forward! What are you? afraid of a few little bullets? Scared of a couple bombs? Come! On! you little sissies! Fight! Did you think you was gonna live forever? Jodie done stole yer girlfriend, ain’t nothin’ waiting fer ya back home! C’mon! Let’s make some of the Enemy die fer their country! C’mon!”That IMHO, is what Elder Holland was intending. It’s how I hear him. Your mileage may vary.
SilentDawning wrote:I think it is his tone. First, he is angry about people leaving.
Frustrated, more than simply angry, IMO. I can understand it to some degree, too. There’s a real epidemic of inactivity, and no amount of pounding the pulpit is going to change that until local leaders and members get on board with a comprehensive program to address it effectively. From what I’ve seen, that’s going to take a flat out “thus saith The Lord, now reissue D&C with this exceptionally detailed commandment in it” level of pronouncement.
If you look through the comments on blog posts by people who are struggling to stay active, and threads on at least one other forum where I’ve seen people posting their struggles, there’s a lot of “quit whining and have some faith” and “it’s your problem; deal with it yourself instead of complaining to us.” There’s also a lot of what I see in person with Priesthood leadership and other members; cut the person off with a canned response as soon as you can categorize the issue enough to pick a canned response. It sends a strong message of “I don’t really care about your problem, I just want you to shut up about it.” As I said in the other forum, if scripted answers worked, psychiatrists would just memorize scripts and utterly eliminate depression within a month. Heck, if they worked even a tenth of the time it would be a major breakthrough in mental health treatment methods.
There needs to be a real, consistent effort to understand each individual’s concerns, and address them with personalized counsel. Yes, that’s a tall order with tens of thousands of inactives out there, but that’s why we have bishoprics, HTs, missionaries, etc. It’s not like the First Presidency has to go see all of them themselves. Maybe there should be some RS/Priesthood lessons dedicated to teaching everyone the nuts and bolts of
howto “comfort those in need of comfort and bear one another’s burdens that they may be light.” Reasons why people “bail”, according to JRH: 2:06 – “weak kneed”
2:07 – “willy nilly”
2:31 – lack of “conviction”
2:36 – seeing things in a “patty-cake, taffy-pull” way (I take this to mean ‘childish’).
2:47 – selfish needs
2:51 – selfishly wanting answers to questions
2:54 – wanting more out of life than the LDS Church
3:07 – “This… Church… means… everything to me” (implying that it never has for those who now leave)
3:30 – “This Church means everything to me” (again… implying that it was never that way for those who have left)
4:21 – sarcasm about those wanting to leave in troubled times, derisively describing people who feel like “nobody cares”, culminating with “that’s the dumbest thing you can do”
It’s pretty obvious that JRH sees me in a MUCH different way than I see myself. It’s funny. I try very hard to have empathy and compassion for faithful members of the Church, and even for the Church itself. I try to give the benefit of the doubt as much as I am able and try to be slow to find fault. These are things I learned in the Church itself.
On Own Now wrote:Reasons why people “bail”, according to JRH:
2:06 – “weak kneed”
2:07 – “willy nilly”
2:31 – lack of “conviction”
2:36 – seeing things in a “patty-cake, taffy-pull” way (I take this to mean ‘childish’).
2:47 – selfish needs
2:51 – selfishly wanting answers to questions
2:54 – wanting more out of life than the LDS Church
3:07 – “This… Church… means… everything to me” (implying that it never has for those who now leave)
3:30 – “This Church means everything to me” (again… implying that it was never that way for those who have left)
4:21 – sarcasm about those wanting to leave in troubled times, derisively describing people who feel like “nobody cares”, culminating with “that’s the dumbest thing you can do”
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if he slept through his own talk on depression back in 2013, or if he simply can’t wrap his mind around the concept that a fair number of the people going inactive are doing it because of depression and/or anxiety issues compounded by the Church’s “man up, shut up and get back to work” attitude, not the mention the tendency of bishops to be reluctant to recommend professional counseling for various reasons.
I’m not, of course, saying there aren’t people who need to man up, shut up and get back to work. There certainly are some of those. However, there are people who need professional help and aren’t getting it because their Priesthood leadership is encouraging them to believe that their only problem is lack of faith. Then there are the vast majority of the troubled, IMO, who are somewhere in between. They need some degree of help getting back to work, whether that’s an occasional meeting with a professional counselor and a few close, patient friends to help them daily, or just a friend to listen with compassion for as long as it takes to get everything out in the open and deal with it. Lumping everybody into any one of the three categories is a disservice to all. If one must initially assume a category for anyone with a complaint, the “in between” one is far safer than the “man up” category, as a professional counselor (and hopefully a compassionate friend) will recognize if the person needs a psychiatrist or a swift kick in the butt, after listening to the whole issue. Like I said, I didn’t like the way he said it – the words he chose or the tone. However, I know he is an emotional person, so I kind of expect it. I’m just saying I have read rants with the same general tone and message here many times. The opposite side of the coin still is part of the same coin.
We need to recognize the issue with what he said and strive to make sure we aren’t reflecting the same thing back through our own looking glass.
Elder Holland doesn’t have any power to stop even one person from leaving (wasn’t there a lawsuit back in the early 80s dealing with people’s ability to leave the LDS Church?) and he knows it, and we all know he knows it. So I think you have to cast everything he says into the light of that empty threat. If “I won’t let you leave” is provably false, then “people only leave because they are lazy quitters” is probably untrue as well. Although I’m hoping to stay in the church, its absolutely important to me that people are able to leave for whatever reason they choose. Being lazy, being offended, ecclesiastical abuse, not wanting to participate in celestial polygamy, wanting to choose your own underwear, you name it. We don’t check our agency at the door when we enter the waters of baptism. And a church that you can never ever leave once you join it… well, that sounds more like a four-letter word that starts with a “C.”
Joni wrote:We don’t check our agency at the door when we enter the waters of baptism. And a church that you can never ever leave once you join it… well, that sounds more like a four-letter word that starts with a “C.”
Naturally, JRH is not suggesting that we can’t leave, although he seems pretty frustrated he can’t make us stay. I do remember a talk from BKP a long time ago in which he commented that he gave his agency to God voluntarily… and in priesthood, a wise member of the quorum made the comment that “God wants you to GIVE him your agency, while Satan wants to TAKE IT from you”.
At one time, I thought it was incredibly virtuous to be self-sacrificingly obedient and pliable and to do things you didn’t understand out of obedience — obedience to “promptings” and what I thought was inspired advice from leaders — to give up agency. I am not so sure anymore. I wouldn’t want my children to do that. I want them to be free thinking agents. And that line of thinking runs counter to the JS adage “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves”.
I observed this talk and was taken back by it . These are not the words of a man of God !!!!! He is no more of an apostle than I am . where is his compassion for people struggling with their faith. He should be kicked out of the 12. Jesus never talked to people struggling with faith like that !!! I think he is just a Jerk and can’t help it. Here is where I think what JRH did is a GOOD thing. He knocked himself off the pedestal that members put him on as “larger than life”. As soon as you get these guys off the pedestal, you can enjoy a more peaceful relationship with the church than you did when they were ON the pedestal. As soon as you recognize that all of these guys have weaknesses, that they are NOT larger than life, then they can make mistakes like JRH did, and you can still feel at peace with that aspect of Mormonism. It’s the unrealistic expectations of apostles and leaders in general that screws up our thinking. When you become disenthralled with them, they can make all kinds of mistakes and it doesn’t phase you.
I had to go through that process so although I am not pleased with the message JRH sent (including his assumption that people who leave are “bailing” — an irresponsible thing to do), it doesn’t change the nature of my relationship with the church because I have low expectations anyway, as I would of any human leader in any religious or temporal organization.
I feel odd defending this but I think JRH was only talking about people that leave the church because they were lazy. I’m not saying this to justify his position, I’m just saying that we might have taken the phrase “people who leave this church” and thought of all our family and friends that have left for other reasons. Maybe we even thought about the reasons why we might be compelled to leave. I would hope that JRH’s fury wouldn’t extend to the people that left the church because they felt crowded out, because they had a FC, or because the church causes them pain. I think he’s only talking about the people that from his perspective weren’t committed enough. I can’t read JRH’s mind, I’m guessing he knows that people leave the church for more reasons than being lazy. I’m not justifying the anger directed towards even them, I’m just trying to step deeper into his shoes.
flameburns623 wrote:In the Army, especially in combat, this sort of bold-chested rhetoric is frequently used to shore up the flagging courage of fighting men, to bolster and to embolden them in the heat and sound and fury of battle.
I agree, and when I reflect back on the past JRH served that role. JRH was a cheerleader for this orthodox member that was on the edge of despair because he thought that salvation was forever out of his reach. I’d rather not see judging other people’s convictions but JRH felt like one of those that would stick with you to make sure you “made it.” That’s what made this tough for me, it was mostly in character for him (but IMO a slight deviation from his normal course) but finding his words a little jarring underscored a big change that has occurred in me over the years.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.