Drifting wrote: 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?
When I was a naïve believer with some doubts, I always thought the apostles/prophet knew all the answers to this stuff, from their personal visits with Jesus, but couldn't share with the rest of us because it's too sacred.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Chap wrote:Your last comparison does not seem very germane to me. Maybe others will think differently.
It was merely meant as an illustration of why implicit permission sometimes doesn't work. It was an attempt to illustrate the point, not provide an exact comparison.
In any case, had explicit permission been given, there would be no need to make guesses about what Holland was doing when he gave his implicit permission and why he worded the response they way he did. Explicit permission would have established that Holland thought his reply was appropriate for public consumption.
Oh well, at least you aren't saying this any more:
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 am a bit puzzled quite why you are still making posts that suggest there is something vaguely wrong about Anointed One publishing Holland's reply, when he had told him precisely and in terms that he would do just that.
Now your point has morphed, so far as I can see, into the regret that Anointed One failed to ask something like this:
"Elder Holland - I would like to have your explicit permission to publish your reply in company with my letter to you. And could you kindly make it clear whether your reply is addressed to me personally, or to a more general audience?"
I don't see that second question as being likely to draw any meaningful response.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Oh well, at least you aren't saying this any more:
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.
Aristotle Smith wrote: No, I am absolutely still saying that. As for the rest, we are obviously not communicating on this issue.
Well, we have obviously reached that well-known point where we must leave it to our readers to decide which of is making more sense -assuming anyone cares, that is.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
According to the original letter sent to Elder Holland (which can be found here), Mr. Phillips stated that he would post Elder Hollands response on two or more bulletin boards. Here is the exact quote:
"As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented."
Did he tell him that he was going to post it on exmo boards for all there to mock and bash? I don't think so. The person who received the email showed bad faith by his actions. In fact, it was terrible. He betrayed someone's trust. And I do believe that the sender knew exactly what he was doing and waited for a response to do it.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Drifting wrote: When I was a naïve believer with some doubts, I always thought the apostles/prophet knew all the answers to this stuff, from their personal visits with Jesus, but couldn't share with the rest of us because it's too sacred.
You were wrong which is why you are where you are now. I never believed that they had all the answers. I did believe that they had their own trials and problems to overcome. But I did believe that they felt the spirit first hand and knew that the church was true because of it.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Buffalo wrote: When I was a naïve believer with some doubts, I always thought the apostles/prophet knew all the answers to this stuff, from their personal visits with Jesus, but couldn't share with the rest of us because it's too sacred.
You were wrong which is why you are where you are now. I never believed that they had all the answers. I did believe that they had their own trials and problems to overcome. But I did believe that they felt the spirit first hand and knew that the church was true because of it.
So you're saying that a more nuanced viewpoint is the key to getting to where you are now (a never-Mo anti-Catholic who defends the church he doesn't attend on the internet while at the same time creepily harassing women on both sides of the debate)?
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 29, 2012 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
MsJack wrote: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.
BINGO! Thanks, Jack. You put it so much better than I did.
I basically agree with all this, but it's worth noting that Holland, in making his apologetic arguments, chooses to engage his audience in very personal ways that seem geared at alarming believers and therefore sowing conflict within heterodox families and marriages. He has a talent for that. Hearing his "campfire of the Lord" speech was the first time I ever felt a threat coming at me and my family from over the pulpit.
Jeffrey Holland, in General Conference, wrote:I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such—whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us—I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime. No, sadly, some elements of this can be a kind of profligate national debt, with payments coming out of your children’s and grandchildren’s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be.
...no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to “the will of the Lord, … the mind of the Lord, … the word of the Lord, … and the power of God unto salvation.” In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word.
...“Sometimes some parents mistakenly feel that they can relax a little as to conduct and conformity or take perhaps a so called liberal view of basic and fundamental things—thinking that a little laxness or indulgence won’t matter—or they may fail to teach or to attend Church, or may voice critical views. Some parents … seem to feel that they can ease up a little on the fundamentals without affecting their family or their family’s future. But,” [Elder Richard L. Evans, in a warning] observed, “if a parent goes a little off course, the children are likely to exceed the parent’s example.”
To lead a child (or anyone else!), even inadvertently, away from faithfulness, away from loyalty and bedrock belief simply because we want to be clever or independent is license no parent nor any other person has ever been given. In matters of religion a skeptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart, and analytical deconstruction in the field of, say, literary fiction can be just plain old-fashioned destruction when transferred to families yearning for faith at home. And such a deviation from the true course can be deceptively slow and subtle in its impact. As one observer said, “[If you raise the temperature of my] bath water … only 1 degree every 10 minutes, how [will I] know when to scream?”
Holland's more recent Book of Mormon rant -- again, aimed at dividing believer from non-believer (which, of course, often exist in the same family) -- continues his emotionally manipulative, intimidation-heavy approach to "christian" ministry.
With that in mind, getting Holland down, in print, with nothing substantive to back up his rhetoric, could be a useful tool in repairing the family relationships he has manipulated into disarray.
why me wrote:Did he tell him that he was going to post it on exmo boards for all there to mock and bash? I don't think so. The person who received the email showed bad faith by his actions. In fact, it was terrible. He betrayed someone's trust. And I do believe that the sender knew exactly what he was doing and waited for a response to do it.
To me, not specifying which boards he was going to post the response on is a non-issue. He was clear with his intentions and if Elder Holland was concerned where his response would be posted, he could have asked or not responded. Given the confrontational tone of the original letter, I would expect Elder Holland to have enough intuition to not fall into the trap, if that indeed was the intent.
why me wrote:Did he tell him that he was going to post it on exmo boards for all there to mock and bash? I don't think so. The person who received the email showed bad faith by his actions. In fact, it was terrible. He betrayed someone's trust. And I do believe that the sender knew exactly what he was doing and waited for a response to do it.
To me, not specifying which boards he was going to post the response on is a non-issue. He was clear with his intentions and if Elder Holland was concerned where his response would be posted, he could have asked or not responded. Given the confrontational tone of the original letter, I would expect Elder Holland to have enough intuition to not fall into the trap, if that indeed was the intent.
And whyme can still whimper about 'betrayal' after you quoted Anointed One's actual words to Holland:
"As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented."
There are some people who just can't stand the fact that, to non-Mormons, Holland's reply is so empty as to be ludicrous. So they have to complain about the fact that it was published at all. Or, even more ludicrously (as in this case), that it was published on a non-church board devoted to the discussion of Mormonism. What is Holland supposed to have expected? Publication on a board devoted to truck maintenance?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
