Elder Holland Allegedly Responds to Ex-StkPres (updated)

[_Kishkumen]

Here is my single photographic comment on nuance and subtlety in Mormonism:



Is that subtle enough for ya?

[_Drifting]

Hate to differ with so many here, but I find the whole thing pretty tasteless. What did this guy think he was going to hear from Elder Holland? Holland is not a DNA expert or an ancient historian. He is a committed believer in what he finds to be the uplifting message of the Mormon gospel. He speaks on the level he operates on. Obviously the former stake president no longer has use for that. So, OK.

Hang on a minute, Holland is not a Dodo. He's read a few books, been to a good school...etc.

[_Kishkumen]

Hang on a minute, Holland is not a Dodo. He's read a few books, been to a good school...etc.

Yep, he is not a dodo. He is an apostle in the LDS Church with a PhD in English. Smart guy with limitations like most of the rest of us here.

[_Drifting]

Hang on a minute, Holland is not a Dodo. He's read a few books, been to a good school...etc.

Yep, he is not a dodo. He is an apostle in the LDS Church with a PhD in English. Smart guy with limitations like most of the rest of us here.

I agree, but you wouldn't expect a lack of knowledge on Church History, where the Lamanites came from etc to be one of his...

[_Kishkumen]

I agree, but you wouldn't expect a lack of knowledge on Church History, where the Lamanites came from etc to be one of his...

I think you have to assume that he accepts the standard apologetic responses to these problems as decent ones. You should also assume that most people who are already inclined to believe something are more easily convinced by even shaky defenses of those things.

I certainly don't think he is stupid or necessarily to be faulted for believing what he is predisposed to believe.

[_Drifting]

I agree, but you wouldn't expect a lack of knowledge on Church History, where the Lamanites came from etc to be one of his...

I think you have to assume that he accepts the standard apologetic responses to these problems as decent ones. You should also assume that most people who are already inclined to believe something are more easily convinced by even shaky defenses of those things.

I certainly don't think he is stupid or necessarily to be faulted for believing what he is predisposed to believe.

I think the issue is that, even if he disagree's with standard apologetic mantra on these subjects, he offers no alternative explanation beyond "we don't know". Shouldn't we be expecting him to know?

[_Kishkumen]

I think the issue is that, even if he disagree's with standard apologetic mantra on these subjects, he offers no alternative explanation beyond "we don't know". Shouldn't we be expecting him to know?

The only thing I think we should fault him for is participating in a culture in which it is acceptable to inculcate inflated expectations in the laity.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I think the issue is that, even if he disagree's with standard apologetic mantra on these subjects, he offers no alternative explanation beyond "we don't know". Shouldn't we be expecting him to know?

The only thing I think we should fault him for is participating in a culture in which it is acceptable to inculcate inflated expectations in the laity.

Here is where I part company. At some point participation in a culture becomes one's own responsibility, and I think Holland, and all of the other GA's have reached that point. When John Q. Mormon says something unintelligent and misinformed, I can let it slide and think nothing of it. It's the same with something like racism. The reflexive racism of the Appalachian hillbilly is one thing, Bull Connor is another; at some point one becomes not merely a passive participant in the culture, one starts making the culture.

I do want to register my disgust that private communications were made public, this is bad form no matter how good one's intentions are. All this does is make GA's more insulated and less likely to communicate in the future. It provides a good "Gotcha!" moment, but in the end probably hurts the cause of those seeking more openness in LDS culture. The GA's really need to rethink their unwillingness to engage the rank and file church member in an open way. While this incident is not justifiable on those grounds, it is a symptom of the underlying problem.

It is simply ridiculous that the leaders of the LDS church either can't or won't engage on these issues at an intellectual level.

[_harmony]

It is simply ridiculous that the leaders of the LDS church either can't or won't engage on these issues at an intellectual level.

They don't have time for those who live at an intellectual level.They have temples to dedicate, talks to prepare, meetings to attend, press conferences to speak at, far flung stakes to visit. They're very busy earning their paychecks.

[_MsJack]

I do want to register my disgust that private communications were made public, this is bad form no matter how good one's intentions are.

I generally feel the same way about private communications being made public. However, in this case, at least anointed one gave ample warning that he intended to make the communications public. If someone warns you that they intend to make the correspondence public, then you have implicitly consented to such by responding.

That said, I did find anointed one to be a bit of a bore, and his tone was unnecessarily bellicose. I don't think there was anything that he could have said that would have extracted a more substantive response from Elder Holland, but the whole exchange might have had a more congenial tone had he been a bit more diplomatic about raising his concerns. I realize that it was a partial response to Holland's 2009 conference talk, which was itself on the inflammatory side towards struggling members and ex-members, but still.

There's really nothing about Holland's response that surprises me. Even if he had tried to engage anointed one's concerns substantively, it would not have been any different than what can be found on LDS apologetics Web sites. So what exactly was he expecting? Did he just want to prove that Mormon apostles have no answers to these issues?

I could have told you that without ever having to write a letter to one.