Elder Holland Allegedly Responds to Ex-StkPres (updated)

[_Kishkumen]

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.

-JV

I can see the point in that, I suppose. It would be better, I think, if people could be led more gently into thinking for themselves and behaving like full-fledged adults before such catastrophes occur. I haven't liked the leader worship tendencies in LDS culture from the time I was at BYU on. I can respect leaders as a necessary feature of any organization, but I refuse to kowtow to them out of some belief that hey are inherently wiser or better than any good person is capable of being.

[_Drifting]

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.

-JV

I can see the point in that, I suppose. It would be better, I think, if people could be led more gently into thinking for themselves and behaving like full-fledged adults before such catastrophes occur. I haven't liked the leader worship tendencies in LDS culture from the time I was at BYU on. I can respect leaders as a necessary feature of any organization, but I refuse to kowtow to them out of some belief that hey are inherently wiser or better than any good person is capable of being.

Kish, do you think the Leaders are hampered in their ability to show wisdom and honesty by the teachings and requirements of the Church and the expectations given to members about their role within it?

For example, from an early age members are taught routinely to always follow the Prophet. This builds up an inherent expectation that Prophets are, whilst not infallible (although ask a Primary child or Youth member and they will probably say that the Prophet cannot do anything wrong), should certainly display better, more Christlike, more honest and wise behaviour than the best member. I don't know anyone, except perhaps Christ himself, that could possibly live up to this built up expectation.

The difficulty in trying to mitigate this by managing the members expectations on the fallibility of leaders is that it reduces the perceived status of Prophets and Apostles to 'just some good blokes like {insert name of some ordinary good bloke}'.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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



Is that subtle enough for ya?

Similarities shared by these two castles:
-Built by corporations to get money out of peoples pockets
-Both are completely make believe

Huge difference between these two castles.

The bottom one is fun for children and adults.

The top one is scary and boring as “F”.

[_degaston]

I really can't put words in the mouth of Holland (or any of the 14 others in FP/12) on what they might say on any matter. I just know that I spent the majority of my life sustaining them as prophets, seers, revelators and Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. And with that sustaining came an expectation that what they might say on anything bears special weight. Go read D&C 1:14,38 and a whole host of other scriptures/writings throughout this dispensation to see what I mean. And I certainly don't think that anything they say ought to be considered in anything less than the full context on all things every said and uttered.

Now here's where the apologists totally miss the boat:
1. Whatever the apologists might say has zero meaning to anyone but themselves. They have no special calling or keyes. They are just mere mortals. If Hugh Nibley were alive today and he, Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, Jeff Lindsey, and another dozen of the most "respected" apologists were to issue some joint statement on any of the difficult issues they'd just be doing so as men (not as prophets) and their collective opinion would still hold zero meaning in the grand scheme of things immortally.
2. The D&C says "where much is given, much is required". If the Apostles have these gifts of which the teachings speak about then its expected they'll actually give us some "continuing revelation" guidance on these issues. Those who say "the D&C is wrong and the prophets are not required to do anything" simply make themselves look like fools if they're trying to defend the indefensible.
3. The Brethren certainly have said many things over the years which cannot be ignored by anyone honestly trying to look at all these issues in their full context. For example, go read everything Kimball taught about the Lamanites. If you think Kimball is wrong then you are an apostate, period. If you think Kimball is right then you think science is wrong, period. If you try to wiggle your way through this mess otherwise then you are ignorant at best but likely a liar.

[_why me]

3. The Brethren certainly have said many things over the years which cannot be ignored by anyone honestly trying to look at all these issues in their full context. For example, go read everything Kimball taught about the Lamanites. If you think Kimball is wrong then you are an apostate, period. If you think Kimball is right then you think science is wrong, period. If you try to wiggle your way through this mess otherwise then you are ignorant at best but likely a liar.

If you thought that everything that comes out of a GA's mouth is from god, well, what can I say? I would hate to be a GA if that is what people would think. I would probably keep my mouth shut most of the time. I certainly would be skeptical to make an announcement that I need to go to the toilet.

[_Buffalo]

3. The Brethren certainly have said many things over the years which cannot be ignored by anyone honestly trying to look at all these issues in their full context. For example, go read everything Kimball taught about the Lamanites. If you think Kimball is wrong then you are an apostate, period. If you think Kimball is right then you think science is wrong, period. If you try to wiggle your way through this mess otherwise then you are ignorant at best but likely a liar.

If you thought that everything that comes out of a GA's mouth is from god, well, what can I say? I would hate to be a GA if that is what people would think. I would probably keep my mouth shut most of the time. I certainly would be skeptical to make an announcement that I need to go to the toilet.

Which of their words are from god and which are their opinion?

[_Stormy Waters]

Which of their words are from god and which are their opinion?

It's whatever the apologists need them to be.

[_NorthboundZax]

Which of their words are from god and which are their opinion?

It's whatever the apologists need them to be.

To follow the apologetic, Prophets and apostles must be the most inept people to ever walk the planet. They never get anything right when speaking as men.

Brigham Young had the foresight of having wide streets in SLC -> good idea -> inspired!
Brigham Young teaching about the curse of Cain -> embarrassing -> speaking as a man

[_degaston]

If you thought that everything that comes out of a GA's mouth is from god, well, what can I say? I would hate to be a GA if that is what people would think.

There you go building a strawman. That's not what I wrote and you definitely have mischaracterized what I meant. I'd advise you "WHY ME" to try to put things in their full context. Otherwise you are being deceitful, bearing false witness, and potentially becoming a liar. And if you believe in the Book of Mormon then 2 Ne 9:34 teaches you what happens to liars, and it isn't just a gentle push/nudge towards their fate, but a thrust.

[_son of Ishmael]

Did you believe Elder Holland when he said at Conference that he was holding aloft the actual Book of Mormon owned and used by Hyrum Smith? Or did you seek more proof...

I remember that incident. But I also remember that it wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. But I forget the explanation that I read.

I must have miss that incident. What happend?