Pres Holland has died

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Making fun of Holland's jowls is not cool, Bill4long.

https://youtu.be/xIIjCjRfeUI?t=2

[bill4long]

Making fun of Holland's jowls is not cool, Bill4long.

https://youtu.be/xIIjCjRfeUI?t=2

Hehehehe

[I Have Questions]

Remembering Jeff…

In April of 2019 Brigham Young University valedictorian Matt Easton came out as a faithful gay Mormon during his valedictorian address, which was pre-approved by the LDS Church. Matt’s speech received very positive national media attention, including an appearance on the Ellen Show. Matt is currently attending U.C. Berkeley as a Political Science Ph.D. student.

Note that the Church had pre-approved Matt’s talk.

Last week, Mormon apostle Jeffrey R. Holland publicly “called out” Matt Easton, accusing him of “commandeering” the 2019 graduation ceremony. His exact words were:

“If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have? And we already have too much everywhere.”

Jeff was a bit of a bully. I knew a Stake President that was wrestling with a specific dilemma. In a general catch up conversation with Holland, this Stake President mentioned the dilemma and his thinking on the subject. Holland offered some advice on the topic. The Stake President thank Holland for the advice and said he’d consider it, but was likely to go down a different route. To which Holland said “when an Apostle makes a suggestion, it’s not a suggestion…”

[Equality]

Not really, all I'm asking is for MG (or anybody else who cares) to find character attestations like Everybody Wang Chung did, except positive endorsement rather than negative. Surely on Facebook or some Mormon site somewhere, there are folks relaying their stories about how Holland blessed their lives or the lives of others. Then again, maybe there aren't.

Do his three children count? I listened to the funeral today. The kids loved their dad and gave their own witness of his goodness and loving kindness over many years. It seems as though they would know him as well as anyone.

Regards,
MG

Meadow Soprano thought Tony was the bee's knees.

[Doctor Steuss]

“If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have? And we already have too much everywhere.” ~Holand

Yes, I'm sure there's never been a single valedictorian, or other notable speaker at BYU graduation, who thanked or mentioned their spouse in their speech. Matt was most certainly the very first person to ever announce their personal sexual orientation.

Often the Ven Diagram of bigotry and idiocy is just a singular circle.

Twenty bucks that ole vagina cheeks used the euphemism of "shoving it down our throats" with Freudian regularity.

[Philo Sofee]

Remembering Jeff…

In April of 2019 Brigham Young University valedictorian Matt Easton came out as a faithful gay Mormon during his valedictorian address, which was pre-approved by the LDS Church. Matt’s speech received very positive national media attention, including an appearance on the Ellen Show. Matt is currently attending U.C. Berkeley as a Political Science Ph.D. student.

Note that the Church had pre-approved Matt’s talk.

Last week, Mormon apostle Jeffrey R. Holland publicly “called out” Matt Easton, accusing him of “commandeering” the 2019 graduation ceremony. His exact words were:

“If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have? And we already have too much everywhere.”

Jeff was a bit of a bully. I knew a Stake President that was wrestling with a specific dilemma. In a general catch up conversation with Holland, this Stake President mentioned the dilemma and his thinking on the subject. Holland offered some advice on the topic. The Stake President thank Holland for the advice and said he’d consider it, but was likely to go down a different route. To which Holland said “when an Apostle makes a suggestion, it’s not a suggestion…”

On another thread I have been exploring J. R. R. Tolkien's moral universe and I do believe this Jeffrey Holland concept right here is a God-given perfect example of why I keep turning to Tolkien. Allow me to elaborate.

The moral pattern this reveals is clearly not about sexuality first. It’s about authority redefining morality after the fact.

An action is allowed and even praised, then the action gains public moral weight or symbolic power. Authority later redefines it as improper, disruptive, or dangerous. The individual is blamed not for disobedience, but for having exercised moral agency at all.

That’s the “moral shortcut” I've been talking about in another thread that Tolkien absolutely abhors. Institutional authority retroactively overrides conscience, context, and cost. This clashes with Tolkien because in his world no authority gets to erase moral cost after the fact. No leader reframes faithful action as rebellion simply because it complicates order. Moral weight is carried by the individual and respected, even when it causes discomfort. Frodo refusing to kill Saruman comes to mind in the scouring of the Shire. Think of mercy that makes leaders uneasy. Tolkien never allows whaqt Jeffrey R. Holland put out as true and real. “This was acceptable when we approved it but now that it unsettles us, it was wrong all along.” That move is entirely foreign to Tolkien's moral universe and here is precisely why it is. Holland’s argument isn’t really about order. It’s about control of meaning.

He’s saying:
Individual moral expression must yield to institutional dignity. Authority decides when conscience is appropriate. And once authority speaks, dissent is no longer moral it’s disorder. That’s exactly what Tolkien refuses. And it's true that it is not because Tolkien hates institutions either.
It is much more strongly suggested because he refuses to let institutions absorb moral responsibility.

What strikes me is that Tolkien never allows authority to retroactively redefine faithful action as misconduct simply because it complicates order. Once an action is taken in conscience, its moral cost remains real and it can’t be erased by later discomfort from those in power. That’s a very different moral logic than one where obedience ultimately outranks lived responsibility.

And we all feel this, literally feel it in our bones instinctively. Victims feel it as do former apologists, and including careful believers too. Skeptics even feel it. And I am not at all saying the Church is evil. I'm saying this moral structure asks individuals to surrender something Tolkien insists they must never surrender: responsibility.

[I Have Questions]

Remembering Jeff…
Note that the Church had pre-approved Matt’s talk.Jeff was a bit of a bully. I knew a Stake President that was wrestling with a specific dilemma. In a general catch up conversation with Holland, this Stake President mentioned the dilemma and his thinking on the subject. Holland offered some advice on the topic. The Stake President thank Holland for the advice and said he’d consider it, but was likely to go down a different route. To which Holland said “when an Apostle makes a suggestion, it’s not a suggestion…”

On another thread I have been exploring J. R. R. Tolkien's moral universe and I do believe this Jeffrey Holland concept right here is a God-given perfect example of why I keep turning to Tolkien. Allow me to elaborate.

The moral pattern this reveals is clearly not about sexuality first. It’s about authority redefining morality after the fact.

An action is allowed and even praised, then the action gains public moral weight or symbolic power. Authority later redefines it as improper, disruptive, or dangerous. The individual is blamed not for disobedience, but for having exercised moral agency at all.

That’s the “moral shortcut” I've been talking about in another thread that Tolkien absolutely abhors. Institutional authority retroactively overrides conscience, context, and cost. This clashes with Tolkien because in his world no authority gets to erase moral cost after the fact. No leader reframes faithful action as rebellion simply because it complicates order. Moral weight is carried by the individual and respected, even when it causes discomfort. Frodo refusing to kill Saruman comes to mind in the scouring of the Shire. Think of mercy that makes leaders uneasy. Tolkien never allows whaqt Jeffrey R. Holland put out as true and real. “This was acceptable when we approved it but now that it unsettles us, it was wrong all along.” That move is entirely foreign to Tolkien's moral universe and here is precisely why it is. Holland’s argument isn’t really about order. It’s about control of meaning.

He’s saying:
Individual moral expression must yield to institutional dignity. Authority decides when conscience is appropriate. And once authority speaks, dissent is no longer moral it’s disorder. That’s exactly what Tolkien refuses. And it's true that it is not because Tolkien hates institutions either.
It is much more strongly suggested because he refuses to let institutions absorb moral responsibility.

What strikes me is that Tolkien never allows authority to retroactively redefine faithful action as misconduct simply because it complicates order. Once an action is taken in conscience, its moral cost remains real and it can’t be erased by later discomfort from those in power. That’s a very different moral logic than one where obedience ultimately outranks lived responsibility.

And we all feel this, literally feel it in our bones instinctively. Victims feel it as do former apologists, and including careful believers too. Skeptics even feel it. And I am not at all saying the Church is evil. I'm saying this moral structure asks individuals to surrender something Tolkien insists they must never surrender: responsibility.

A very insightful parallel. Superbly articulated, thank you. Your words highlight all that is wrong with the SLC LDS church institution - which is all about authority and protecting the institution regardless of the cost to morality. Take the SEC findings for example - a decades long illegal shell company scheme was not set up because it was morally the right thing to do. Wade Christofferson’s red flag was not removed because it was morally the right thing to do. The Church helpline is not set up to proceed with the morally correct thing to do. Jeff’s public shaming of a valedictorian was not done because it was morally the right thing to do. Acknowledging the KJV Bible plagiarism is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so be cause it perceives doing so will undermine authority. Removing all racism from the Book of Mormon is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so because it perceives doing so will undermine authority. The Church institution, its leadership, is all about protecting authority regardless of the morally correct thing to do.

This conflict is at the heart of all that is wrong with the SLC LDS Church.

[Philo Sofee]

On another thread I have been exploring J. R. R. Tolkien's moral universe and I do believe this Jeffrey Holland concept right here is a God-given perfect example of why I keep turning to Tolkien. Allow me to elaborate.

The moral pattern this reveals is clearly not about sexuality first. It’s about authority redefining morality after the fact.

An action is allowed and even praised, then the action gains public moral weight or symbolic power. Authority later redefines it as improper, disruptive, or dangerous. The individual is blamed not for disobedience, but for having exercised moral agency at all.

That’s the “moral shortcut” I've been talking about in another thread that Tolkien absolutely abhors. Institutional authority retroactively overrides conscience, context, and cost. This clashes with Tolkien because in his world no authority gets to erase moral cost after the fact. No leader reframes faithful action as rebellion simply because it complicates order. Moral weight is carried by the individual and respected, even when it causes discomfort. Frodo refusing to kill Saruman comes to mind in the scouring of the Shire. Think of mercy that makes leaders uneasy. Tolkien never allows whaqt Jeffrey R. Holland put out as true and real. “This was acceptable when we approved it but now that it unsettles us, it was wrong all along.” That move is entirely foreign to Tolkien's moral universe and here is precisely why it is. Holland’s argument isn’t really about order. It’s about control of meaning.

He’s saying:
Individual moral expression must yield to institutional dignity. Authority decides when conscience is appropriate. And once authority speaks, dissent is no longer moral it’s disorder. That’s exactly what Tolkien refuses. And it's true that it is not because Tolkien hates institutions either.
It is much more strongly suggested because he refuses to let institutions absorb moral responsibility.

What strikes me is that Tolkien never allows authority to retroactively redefine faithful action as misconduct simply because it complicates order. Once an action is taken in conscience, its moral cost remains real and it can’t be erased by later discomfort from those in power. That’s a very different moral logic than one where obedience ultimately outranks lived responsibility.

And we all feel this, literally feel it in our bones instinctively. Victims feel it as do former apologists, and including careful believers too. Skeptics even feel it. And I am not at all saying the Church is evil. I'm saying this moral structure asks individuals to surrender something Tolkien insists they must never surrender: responsibility.

A very insightful parallel. Superbly articulated, thank you. Your words highlight all that is wrong with the SLC LDS church institution - which is all about authority and protecting the institution regardless of the cost to morality. Take the SEC findings for example - a decades long illegal shell company scheme was not set up because it was morally the right thing to do. Wade Christofferson’s red flag was not removed because it was morally the right thing to do. The Church helpline is not set up to proceed with the morally correct thing to do. Jeff’s public shaming of a valedictorian was not done because it was morally the right thing to do. Acknowledging the KJV Bible plagiarism is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so be cause it perceives doing so will undermine authority. Removing all racism from the Book of Mormon is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so because it perceives doing so will undermine authority. The Church institution, its leadership, is all about protecting authority regardless of the morally correct thing to do.

This conflict is at the heart of all that is wrong with the SLC LDS Church.

Yep. But, and here is the uncomfortable part for many, it's an institution of authority, so it can't help it. It succors its own needs and wishes first, all else is secondary unto that.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

A very insightful parallel. Superbly articulated, thank you. Your words highlight all that is wrong with the SLC LDS church institution - which is all about authority and protecting the institution regardless of the cost to morality. Take the SEC findings for example - a decades long illegal shell company scheme was not set up because it was morally the right thing to do. Wade Christofferson’s red flag was not removed because it was morally the right thing to do. The Church helpline is not set up to proceed with the morally correct thing to do. Jeff’s public shaming of a valedictorian was not done because it was morally the right thing to do. Acknowledging the KJV Bible plagiarism is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so be cause it perceives doing so will undermine authority. Removing all racism from the Book of Mormon is the morally correct thing to do, but the Church won’t do so because it perceives doing so will undermine authority. The Church institution, its leadership, is all about protecting authority regardless of the morally correct thing to do.

This conflict is at the heart of all that is wrong with the SLC LDS Church.

It is almost like the Q15 reads the New Testament in NOT mode.