DiscussMormonism.com

In a DesNews op-Ed that discussed efforts to have Holland removed as a commencement speaker, a petition was mentioned, which is asking the school to retract their invitation to have him speak. It's a topic all on its own, but I found this comment intriguing for different reasons:

First, LGBT activists are well organized and it is simplicity itself for them to quickly come up with huge numbers of alleged signatures on some online petition. So their numbers don't really reflect reality, just organization.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/3/ ... university

I understand why an LDS supporter would say this, it's been the mainstay of their religion for a very long time. You'd be hard pressed to find another large group that more obviously replaces 'reality' with 'huge, alleged numbers' than the Mormons.

If they're unimpressed by or skeptical about big numbers in an online petition, someone at DesNews should hold a mirror up to the Church's "17 million members" claim.

More to the OP, Matt Easton had the most delicious comeback on Twitter, quoting Holland to Holland.

https://Twitter.com/easton_matty wrote: Hey Elder Holland, looks like it’s your turn to give a graduation speech!

Make sure not to mention anything about your faith, family, or personal convictions—wouldn’t want you to commandeer the podium from all those graduates who worked so hard to get there!

https://Twitter.com/easton_matty wrote:Make sure not to mention anything about your faith, family, or personal convictions—wouldn’t want you to commandeer the podium from all those graduates who worked so hard to get there!

That is just perfect.

My problems with this article begin with the title, "Elder Holland Deserves to Be Heard." I'm sorry, excuse me?

Why does Elder Holland deserve to be heard? That's a pretty bold claim to make. I would question anyone who asserts that any person deserves to be heard, and I would like to hear an argument backing that assertion up.

Instead we get a story about Joseph Smith allowing a Methodist minister to address his people, so long as he could add a word or two afterward if he felt it was necessary. I am not seeing the parallel here. Nauvoo was effectively a theocracy, and that the chief theocrat would deign to allow a minister from another faith to address his people, so long as he could add further remarks if he felt it were necessary, is not the same thing as having an LDS leader speak at the convocation ceremony of a public university.

I don't see how this story carries the argument of Elder Holland's deserving to be heard.

On the other hand, I do agree that an open petition is not all that meaningful. Unless the petition is targeted to members of the SUU community, I have to be cautious in jumping to conclusions about its applicability. If thousands of LGBTQIA+ activists around the country who have no connection to SUU protest the decision to have Elder Holland speak, my reaction is to shrug. If thousands of SUU students sign such a petition, that is something to take seriously.

Elder Holland has made himself a divisive figure, and I think he can carry the responsibility and consequences for having done so. I am not at all unhappy that such a discussion is taking place because I take exception to his expressions of anger and hostility at the podium. Elder Holland does not deserve to speak at the graduation ceremony of a public university. That said, it should be up to the university community to decide who they want to have speak at these celebrations. The wise thing to do, in my view, is to choose speakers who broadly appeal to the whole student body, not pick someone who has gone out of his way to express anger and exclusion on notable occasions.

I used to really like Elder Holland, and I think he is a decent person, overall, but his decision to march in time with his peers in angry endorsements of certain views does not reflect well on him, and I think it is not at all unfair that he should pay a price for those decisions. He is in a small way because this conversation has arisen. That's good. Those who think it is unfair do not really understand the nature of the world we live in. This is no longer a world in which LDS people can do whatever they want in their isolated enclaves. The world is too connected, and Elder Holland has to take that into account.

Holland has had a terrible track record with public relations. I would have thought the BBC interview would have taught the church to put a leash on him. Instead we get a never ending series of gaffes. Tom Phillips showed how church broke Holland is and his defense of Prop 8 show how far he will go to defend them. Strangely instead of a leash they have given him a megaphone.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:14 pm

Instead we get a story about Joseph Smith allowing a Methodist minister to address his people, so long as he could add a word or two afterward if he felt it was necessary. I am not seeing the parallel here. Nauvoo was effectively a theocracy, and that the chief theocrat would deign to allow a minister from another faith to address his people, so long as he could add further remarks if he felt it were necessary, is not the same thing as having an LDS leader speak at the convocation ceremony of a public university.

Ha! The article puts this event as happening in the Spring of 1844. Joseph Smith's purported willingness to accommodate voices of dissent came a just couple of months before June of that same year, when the Prophet of the Restoration ordered the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor for its intent to publish the truth about polygamy. Perhaps Smith wasn't as willing to entertain other opinions as the article suggests.



edit with a little help from my friends