Elder Holland Talk on Reconciliation

[Anonymous]

I am trying to think about what a talk would sound like that had the opposite message from this. Would it be one about church abuse symptoms and how to avoid them? Would it be a talk about being my brother’s keeper and ministering to their needs? Would it contain the following scripture? “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Would it be a talk about the fact that we are all volunteers in the church and that we should take care to appreciate, recognize, and cultivate each other’s volunteer efforts?

What kind of talk could someone give that would do a better job of sharing the burden of “not being offended” and “not causing offense”?

[Anonymous]

Roy, great post. I think you hit the nail directly on the head with the idea of using the following thesis: “We are all volunteers in the church and that we should take care to appreciate, recognize, and cultivate each other’s volunteer efforts”. Patience is a lot stronger when we feel that someone else is a member of our own team. I think with that approach, a leader could talk about “try not to offend” and “try not to be offended” in a way that would seem a lot less accusatory. I think this fictional talk could also highlight a few salient points: We are going to have different experiences. Different approaches seem logical to us, even if they might seem illogical to others. No one person shoulders the burden for all getting along. We are going to lose some people in this Church for reasons we don’t understand, so don’t be quick to assume offense, or sin, or lack of desire. We don’t need to kick anyone on the way out. If we make the Church a place that more people want to be, more people will stay or even join us.

[Anonymous]

I just had a thought… I wonder if current Church doctrine is teaching us, especially leaders, to be ashamed of our weakness. In line with current Church doctrine, most Bishop’s and leaders are highly untrained, yet expected to have all the answers the moment they need them. More or less, they are promised that by the Spirit, they will know exactly what they need to say and do, the exact moment they need to say or do it. “…and if ye receive not the Spirit, ye shall not teach.”

If they make a mistake while acting as a leader, that’s a terrible personal reflection on them. They were not listening to the Spirit, or were unworthy of it. With the heaping responsibility a leadership calling places on the individual, this is a huge failure. I’d say this almost places them in a state of denial when it comes to making a mistake. Psychologically, it may be far too painful.

You’ll still hear the leadership say “Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect.” But you will never hear mentioned specific mistakes, for this very reason I think. Also, this is why we haven’t specifically renounced specific doctrines made by certain Church leaders, like polygammy, or systemic racism. All you get is a broad statement that “some members held somewhat racist ideas way back then”.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

I just had a thought… I wonder if current Church doctrine is teaching us, especially leaders, to be ashamed of our weakness. In line with current Church doctrine, most Bishop’s and leaders are highly untrained, yet expected to have all the answers the moment they need them. More or less, they are promised that by the Spirit, they will know exactly what they need to say and do, the exact moment they need to say or do it. “…and if ye receive not the Spirit, ye shall not teach.”

If they make a mistake while acting as a leader, that’s a terrible personal reflection on them. They were not listening to the Spirit, or were unworthy of it. With the heaping responsibility a leadership calling places on the individual, this is a huge failure. I’d say this almost places them in a state of denial when it comes to making a mistake. Psychologically, it may be far too painful.

You’ll still hear the leadership say “Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect.” But you will never hear mentioned specific mistakes, for this very reason I think. Also, this is why we haven’t specifically renounced specific doctrines made by certain Church leaders, like polygammy, or systemic racism. All you get is a broad statement that “some members held somewhat racist ideas way back then”.

This is because they CAN’T. The church was founded on the idea that it’s leaders had seen things that average members could not see, had truth that the rest of the world didn’t, and there is still this leader-on-pedestal mentality. The Church is true implies that its leadership, let by Christ himself, can’t make big mistakes. In fact, they can’t even make little ones at the local level. And people who point them out are apostate — the burden falls on them for not having faith, losing testimony, or being disloyal.

Exacerbating the problem is John Taylor’s statement that if he led the church astray, God would remove him from his place.

That’s why Uchdorft’s statement that our leaders have made mistakes was so refreshing, and in my view, almost revolutionary for a GA.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

That’s why Uchdorft’s statement that our leaders have made mistakes was so refreshing, and in my view, almost revolutionary for a GA.

Uchtdorf wrote:

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I appreciated it too. But it was also apparent to me, that Uchtdorf was veeerrryyy careful in how he said it. He absolutely did not single out “leaders”, instead lumping them in with “members or”. He did not say “There have been [mistakes]”. He said “There may have [mistakes]”. He made no mention of specifics, not of doctrines, leadership positions, nothing. Very general and ambiguous. It was definitely not as “frank” as I think he wanted it to be.

I believe Uchtdorf really is on our side. I think he recognizes some of the problems that the Q15 cannot say. We all knew what he meant. But he was undoubtedly censored (even if by himself). Because the foundation of the Church and its success rests on this being the one and true Church, who’s prophets and leaders cannot lead it astray.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

…My question, which I would have liked to have given, but didn’t, was this. If the experience has you feeling very unsettled about the church, and the experiences therein, why does nothing short of full activity qualify as reconciliation? Why not simply redefine the relationship and seek joy in other ways, while still maintaining a lighter involvement in the church?

I’m sure there would have been a lot of eyebrows raised, and standard Mormon answers given, so I kept it to myself.

So, I (we) keep it to ourselves.

I find that I do this more & more. I see former Bishops, Stake Presidents & High Council Members not coming to PH or SS and if they do,

they say nothing. The standard answers prevail.

We are going to discuss this talk next Sunday.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is the binary paradox at play.

Nephi teaches that there is 1 way to get back to God, and cautions us that it is straight and narrow – if you think about it visually, the path looks like a funnel pulling us together on the path towards God. It reinforces the binary of “being in or out”. Lehi’s dream provides an additional visual that explains what happens to those who don’t join the funnel aspect.

But if we get so busy measuring the maximum diameter of our part of the funnel, we miss the going forward (and cheering/encouraging everyone else along).

I think we also associate the “fruit of the tree” with “the church” – but that is not what the text says. The text describes the fruit as “the Love of God” (also defined as Charity by Moroni). Helping someone to join our church is a very very narrow subset of helping someone feel God’s love, and/or become a more charitable person through self-improvement.

I don’t know the solution(s). I barely recognize the paradox, and am tinkering with how to manage it’s accompanying tension in my life.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

Part of the problem is the binary paradox at play.

Nephi teaches that there is 1 way to get back to God, and cautions us that it is straight and narrow – if you think about it visually, the path looks like a funnel pulling us together on the path towards God. It reinforces the binary of “being in or out”. Lehi’s dream provides an additional visual that explains what happens to those who don’t join the funnel aspect.

But if we get so busy measuring the maximum diameter of our part of the funnel, we miss the going forward (and cheering/encouraging everyone else along).

I think we also associate the “fruit of the tree” with “the church” – but that is not what the text says. The text describes the fruit as “the Love of God” (also defined as Charity by Moroni). Helping someone to join our church is a very very narrow subset of helping someone feel God’s love, and/or become a more charitable person through self-improvement.

I don’t know the solution(s). I barely recognize the paradox, and am tinkering with how to manage it’s accompanying tension in my life.

Was the path “straight” and narrow or “strait” and narrow? The latter is a little used word in modern English but was used at the time of Joseph Smith and is used in both the Bible and Book of Mormon (including Nephi passages such as 1NE8:20, 1NE21:20, 2NE31:18-19, 2NE33:9, 3NE14:13-14, 3NE27:33).

Quote:

strait

/strāt/

noun: strait; plural noun: straits

1. a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water.

“the Strait of Gibraltar”

synonyms: channel, sound, inlet, stretch of water

“a strait about six miles wide”

2. used in reference to a situation characterized by a specified degree of trouble or difficulty.

“the economy is in dire straits”

synonyms: a bad/difficult situation, difficulty, trouble, crisis, a mess, a predicament, a plight; More

adjectiveARCHAIC

adjective: strait

1. (of a place) of limited spatial capacity; narrow or cramped.

“the road was so strait that a handful of men might have defended it”

close, strict, or rigorous.

“my captivity was strait as ever”

Recognizing that in some cases the spelling (and thus the meaning) of straight and strait has gone back and forth as “corrections” have been made to the BoM, it seems that strait is the more correct word. Thus, difficult is the more correct meaning and strait does not mean straight so a strait path could be crooked. There is of course still the narrow part, which fits the funnel analogy, but the funnel could be like Granny Clampett’s (or Hawkeye Pierce’s) still and be windy.

One other little detail I like to point out regarding the path and the tree and Lehi – Lehi apparently didn’t get there by following the path, holding to the rod, etc. because he doesn’t mention them until after he was at the tree looking for his family.

[Anonymous]

We had this discussion in PH yesterday. We got to the end to the lesson & I couldn’t take it anymore.

I raised my hand & asked:

Quote:

Are we saying that this process of reconciliation is easy? Speaking for myself,

it is not. It isn’t easy for either person in the story. Meaning the giving the hug or receiving the hug.

The Stake President was sitting next to me at the time.

I hate shooting my mouth off like that. I always feel bad the next day.

[Author]

Posts