Elder Holland Allegedly Responds to Ex-StkPres (updated)

[_Shulem]

I actually spent a couple hours and read all that stuff. I think it's legit.

I can't stand elder Holland. He is a bastard in my book. He can take the Book of Mormon and shove it.

Don't even get me started! Jesus.

Paul O

[_why me]

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.

[_why me]

The extreme plausibility of this message is such that the only reasonable response is to presume it to be true until it is proven otherwise.

Still, it is a surprise that a GA would fall for this trick by an exmember. Lets put it this way: a person writes an email to a GA in what seems to be good faith. The emailer gets a response. The emailer then posts it all on an exmember board to gloat and seek acclaim for a job well done. And then the exmo peanut gallery chirp in with bashing and mocking of the person who answered the email. Nice souls over there on the postmo.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Says the Catholic.

[_hobo1512]

Says the Catholic.

He ain't no Catholic!!

You can have him.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_Shulem]

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.

Beg to differ. Holland is at the top of the church and should have the facts and be able to discuss them on an intelligent level. He is a faith promoting bastard and a liar as are all the apostles of Mormonism who continue to spread Joseph Smith's lies. I have no mercy for that bastard.

Paul O

[_Tim the Enchanter]

why me,

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."

Unless this is all an elaborate internet hoax, Mr. Phillips was not tricking Elder Holland into a response to have some red meat for the exmormon/postmormon peanut gallery.

The extreme plausibility of this message is such that the only reasonable response is to presume it to be true until it is proven otherwise.

Still, it is a surprise that a GA would fall for this trick by an exmember. Lets put it this way: a person writes an email to a GA in what seems to be good faith. The emailer gets a response. The emailer then posts it all on an exmember board to gloat and seek acclaim for a job well done. And then the exmo peanut gallery chirp in with bashing and mocking of the person who answered the email. Nice souls over there on the postmo.

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

I see the position that you are coming from Kishkumen and I understand why you would view it as tasteless.

If it is true that he warned Elder Holland that his response would be disseminated on the web, then that significantly alters my view.

I think I have a different opinion just because from what this man is saying his family relationships have been affected by the fact that he has left the LDS Church and rejected the truth claims of the LDS Church. If the LDS Church was open to people leaving for those reasons and acknowledged leaving because of issues in the the history and claims of the LDS Church then I would say that his message to Holland was probably extreme. In this case though Holland has stood up at the podium and effectively claimed in extremely emotional language that only idiots don't accept the Book of Mormon which according to him has stood every criticism against it. That creates problems in families where someone leaves for the legitimate reason that it is all ridiculous and made up and has as much to do with Native Americans as wild west films.

I can understand the hurt and frustration. I am sorry that his family is being very difficult. I have been lucky in that my immediate family has not reacted too poorly to my lapse in activity. I will say, though, that I have not tried to "enlighten" them on the problems with LDS claims.

Holland's message was extreme, true. I wasn't pleased with it, and at the time it really set me off. He lost his cool, and expressed a great deal of passion about a problematic subject. It seems to me to be a counterproductive way of approaching the larger problem. Elder Holland is human and he clearly responded in a flawed way. At the same time, it must be difficult, from his position, to see a number of disgruntled critics and naysayers taking potshots at something he holds so dear.

I think in those circumstances with family members regurgitating garbage like Holland's Book of Mormon talk, then it is fair for someone who is dealing with family members who are judging him in that way to expect an alleged apostle to give a response to the issues or to tone down the language when talking about people who come to a different conclusion. Also if he's going to stand up and claim no criticism thrown at the Book of Mormon has stuck then he should be able to address criticisms that have been made especially those made before that talk was given. Otherwise he isn't being honest and he's putting down those who disagree because his argument is weak. That is unacceptable. If someone has an issue with talking snakes or Adam and Eve then the leaders of a religion that contains those stories as scripture should be able to justify their claims and it is the same with leaders of religions that claim that Native Americans ancestors had pet horses and are from the lost tribes of Israel. It even includes religions that claim that we are all infested with space parasites due to the actions of the Intergalactic Lord Xenu. Holland didn't even bother, and didn't show any evidence of having any knowledge of on the subject in which case he was either lying in that conference talk, or at the most generous talking about something he knows nothing about. Judging by his record though lying would fit his pattern of behavior.

I don't think that Elder Holland was lying. I think he was representing things as he believes them to be. Mormonism works for him. He has no reason to question it, in his view. And he doesn't think any of the criticisms really stick. He has a bunch of PhD apologists telling him so. And he figures they are smart guys, he is a smart guy, and so what's the problem? There may not be a great explanation for everything, but there is at least some explanation that can settle some of the doubts of those who are not really all that inclined to doubt anyways.

What I think a lot of "rational critics" don't understand is that for millennia people flourished with all kinds of unusual myths. The real tough thing is to train yourself to avoid them. Personally I think it is impossible. I think myths are part of human nature. We are narrative creatures who mythologize our world in one way or another. The best we can do, I believe, is to find an approach to myth that is as humane as possible. I think it is possible to do this as a believing Mormon. Some of the finest people I know are believing Mormons.

So, I don't know about Holland. He is probably not a bad guy in the end. He has to be upset about all the people who are attacking and leaving this gospel he is 110% invested in and works so well for him. If you really believe it all the way, leaving it has to seem like madness. I think it does seem like tragic madness to him, and it makes him angry to see others throwing it all away or trashing on it.

If the LDS Church took a more nuanced approach to those leaving the LDS Church or even remaining and rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon or other issues, then I would say that it was harsh. However, with the approach that Holland took in that talk in my opinion he invited the kind of criticism that he received in the message.

Fair enough. It was probably inevitable blowback in response to his harsh words. Someone was bound to jump on his case over it, and if the guy gave Holland fair warning that he would be publishing the response online, it is all good. Should the Church have a "more nuanced approach"? I think it would be beneficial to all involved. I have not known Mormon culture in general to be about nuances, but there certainly are subtle minds in the group who should be capable of it. I am not sure these subtle minds are in the leadership, but certainly some scholars out there are capable. My view is that the leaders are smart guys, but not necessarily nuanced or subtle guys. There is a difference.

Most of them are businessmen, professionals, etc., who have spent long years in the service of an organization that has a culture as subtle as an atomic explosion. I think it would do better to remind itself of the subtle side of Joseph Smith, but it is too dazzled by the wowzers side of the bombastic boaster Joseph Smith with his wild claims. I hope new scholarship on the cultural milieu of Mormonism may help correct that, but change will take a long, long time.

Ciao, Hasa. It is a pleasure to have thoughtful people like you on the board.