LDS apostle belittles non-LDS in world wide conference broadcast

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant, I honestly don’t get you. You even quoted the qualification:

“it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much”

So no, he’s not “painting with the widest brush possible”, nor is he trying to “paint everyone outside the LDS church”, nor does “he [apply] his caricature of Christianity to everyone”.

He’s just talking about a characteristic of our age. And I agree with him. And apparently half the Catholic posters on this thread agree with him too.

I see you and Rebecca trying to turn this into some club to use against Mormons, but from where I’m standing, you have to assume some pretty uncharitable things in order to do so.

Last word is yours.

“A characteristic of our age” qualifies only the time not the people he is speaking of, so his statement reads "currently there are two kinds of people, people who don’t want gods or people who want undemanding gods.

 

[Mumbles140]

“A characteristic of our age” qualifies only the time not the people he is speaking of, so his statement reads "currently there are two kinds of people, people who don’t want gods or people who want undemanding gods.

But “a characteristic” implies that it is something present in the world right now. He does not assign it specifically to anyone, but is speaking about the world in general. Whether based on past experiences with him or perhaps a personal distrust of the LDS, you are reading this ‘application to everyone who isn’t LDS’ outside of the quote itself. Some of us view the quote as speaking about an aspect of the Zeitgeist, and don’t believe it personally applies to anyone specific.

If I were to say “It is characteristic of Americans today to prefer fast food over steamed vegetables”, would the implication be that this was to all Americans? Or simply a trend that is occurring in America? If one American prefers steamed vegetables over fast food, does that debunk my statement?

 

[PrinceHal]

I think he has a point. I do not think he is belittling those who are seeking truth, but there are many who see God as an “add-on”, take Him or leave Him, but please God do not interfere in our lives unless you are asked. Be a good God until you are called upon.

It is a lesson that I think we should all be aware of lest we too fall into it. For example, for me this morning beating the traffic into work was more important than praying.

Forgive me Lord.

Hal.

 

[iepuras]

zaffiroborant, I honestly don’t get you. You even quoted the qualification:

“it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much”

So no, he’s not “painting with the widest brush possible”, nor is he trying to “paint everyone outside the LDS church”, nor does “he [apply] his caricature of Christianity to everyone”.

He’s just talking about a characteristic of our age. And I agree with him. And apparently half the Catholic posters on this thread agree with him too.

I see you and Rebecca trying to turn this into some club to use against Mormons, but from where I’m standing, you have to assume some pretty uncharitable things in order to do so.

Last word is yours.

Many of the posters on this thread are not overly familiar with Mr. Holland and his previous statements regarding Christianity. If I didn’t know who Mr. Holland is and just read the statement posted, I would be in agreement with him.

But there are those of us who are familiar with Mr. Holland and his previous teachings. Here’s the link to Mr. Holland’s infamous talk on the Trinity where he takes the gloves off against Christians.

lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=trinity

A quote from his talk:
Jeffrey R. Holland:

A related reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as did the ancient prophets and apostles, in an embodied—but certainly glorified—God. To those who criticize this scripturally based belief, I ask at least rhetorically: If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity? Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that.

In this talk, Mr. Holland uses the Transfiguration, Jesus’ baptism, His Intercessory Prayer in the Garden, and St. Stephen’s vision as evidence of the LDS view of a godhead of three separate divine beings and an embodied Heavenly Father. He beats the strawman of modalism throughout his talk, and he also assumes that Christians are all gnostics. He certainly learned his lessons in seminary and BYU religion classes well where the Trinity is described as modalism and gnosticism overtook the early Christian church and caused the supposed great apostasy.

Mr. Holland basically comes out and says in General Conference that Mormons are the true Christians and that traditional Christianity does not worship the true Jesus Christ.

So to answer Mr. Holland’s rhetorical question, the idea of God the Son taking on flesh is by no means repugnant. We are not gnostics, despite what the LDS church teaches about Christians in seminary and BYU/institute religion classes. The Incarnation is evidence of God’s great love for us, His creations. He meets us where we are so that He might redeem us.

 

[Marie5890]

As someone who knew Pres Holland personally when he was BYU Pres I can say he is (or at least was) a very good and decent man.

I still give the benefit of the doubt that he still is, even though his belief system that guides his decision making is very distorted.

He and his wife were always very kind to me. Always.

When it comes to Pres Holland, I always have to err on the side of charity.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I wish someone had let us know that Elder Holland’s talk didn’t apply to Mormons so that our family didn’t waste so much time Monday evening discussing how we could better serve God and keep our covenants with him without softening Him around the edges and reforming Him into a more palatable deity. I wish someone had informed us that we weren’t included among those susceptible to our zeitgeist.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I wish someone had let us know that Elder Holland’s talk didn’t apply to Mormons so that our family didn’t waste so much time Monday evening discussing how we could better serve God and keep our covenants with him without softening Him around the edges and reforming Him into a more palatable deity. I wish someone had informed us that we weren’t included among those susceptible to our zeitgeist.

Obviously LDS are an exception since they (as you show) serve a demanding God.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

No, that isn’t obvious, otherwise our family would’ve rest assured that the distinction did not apply to us… Even though the LDS (or any other group for that matter) were not singled out, and Mormons living today are obviously subject to trends in society.

 

[Mumbles140]

Zaffiroborant,

However you find the context of Mr. Holland’s words, would you not agree that there is a trend in this world that many people who act (and worse, believe) that Jesus was a laid-back guy who would want everyone to love each other and let anyone be married because He was all about love? Or maybe they think that Jesus doesn’t care how much we pray or how often we go to Church because He knows that they believe in Him, and that’s good enough for Heaven? Perhaps that all this dogma is really clouding the issue, and it’s just about knowing that Jesus died for us and saying “Thank you” every now and then for His Sacrifice?

Again, I’m not telling you how to take the argument based on the context of the speech or any past feelings regarding the speaker. I am just asking if, viewed in the light of one person describing a symptom of our times, you find any validity in it?

That’s all I saw - not something belittling my beliefs because I don’t believe God is a “sit back and watch” God. I believe Christ wanted happiness, not by plucking marigolds out of the ground, but by plucking ourselves of this Earth. The only people I imagine who would take offense to what was said are those who believe in a ‘feel good’ God who doesn’t need us to ‘show’ our love, just as long as we are content with how we choose to live our own lives.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

However you find the context of Mr. Holland’s words, would you not agree that there is a trend in this world that many people who act (and worse, believe) that Jesus was a laid-back guy who would want everyone to love each other and let anyone be married because He was all about love? Or maybe they think that Jesus doesn’t care how much we pray or how often we go to Church because He knows that they believe in Him, and that’s good enough for Heaven? Perhaps that all this dogma is really clouding the issue, and it’s just about knowing that Jesus died for us and saying “Thank you” every now and then for His Sacrifice?

Again, I’m not telling you how to take the argument based on the context of the speech or any past feelings regarding the speaker. I am just asking if, viewed in the light of one person describing a symptom of our times, you find any validity in it?

That’s all I saw - not something belittling my beliefs because I don’t believe God is a “sit back and watch” God. I believe Christ wanted happiness, not by plucking marigolds out of the ground, but by plucking ourselves of this Earth. The only people I imagine who would take offense to what was said are those who believe in a ‘feel good’ God who doesn’t need us to ‘show’ our love, just as long as we are content with how we choose to live our own lives.

Can I see it as a symptom of our times, no not really, I see it as a symptom of our fallen state more than of a specific time. Through out our history we have always had those who “create the god they want” this is not a new thing.

Holland’s words were either chosen carelessly or he is painting those outside his group with an ugly color, neither is particularly flattering in such an important address to a world wide gathering of LDS. This is an address that 18 year olds will be advised to read before going on a mission, it will shape the view they have of those they encounter, Mr. Holland understands this quite well thus the black and white duality of the address.
You do realize that Catholicism is a say you’re sorry, feel good, pick marigolds religion don’t you?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Many of the posters on this thread are not overly familiar with Mr. Holland and his previous statements regarding Christianity. If I didn’t know who Mr. Holland is and just read the statement posted, I would be in agreement with him.

But there are those of us who are familiar with Mr. Holland and his previous teachings. Here’s the link to Mr. Holland’s infamous talk on the Trinity where he takes the gloves off against Christians.

lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=trinity

A quote from his talk:
Jeffrey R. Holland:

A related reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as did the ancient prophets and apostles, in an embodied—but certainly glorified—God. To those who criticize this scripturally based belief, I ask at least rhetorically: If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity? Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that.

In this talk, Mr. Holland uses the Transfiguration, Jesus’ baptism, His Intercessory Prayer in the Garden, and St. Stephen’s vision as evidence of the LDS view of a godhead of three separate divine beings and an embodied Heavenly Father. He beats the strawman of modalism throughout his talk, and he also assumes that Christians are all gnostics. He certainly learned his lessons in seminary and BYU religion classes well where the Trinity is described as modalism and gnosticism overtook the early Christian church and caused the supposed great apostasy.

Mr. Holland basically comes out and says in General Conference that Mormons are the true Christians and that traditional Christianity does not worship the true Jesus Christ.

So to answer Mr. Holland’s rhetorical question, the idea of God the Son taking on flesh is by no means repugnant. We are not gnostics, despite what the LDS church teaches about Christians in seminary and BYU/institute religion classes. The Incarnation is evidence of God’s great love for us, His creations. He meets us where we are so that He might redeem us.

The quote you posted is not from the talk he gave that had the audience tittering over the beliefs of Christians is it?

 

[Mumbles140]

Can I see it as a symptom of our times, no not really, I see it as a symptom of our fallen state more than of a specific time. Through out our history we have always had those who “create the god they want” this is not a new thing.

Holland’s words were either chosen carelessly or he is painting those outside his group with an ugly color, neither is particularly flattering in such an important address to a world wide gathering of LDS. This is an address that 18 year olds will be advised to read before going on a mission, it will shape the view they have of those they encounter, Mr. Holland understands this quite well thus the black and white duality of the address.
You do realize that Catholicism is a say you’re sorry, feel good, pick marigolds religion don’t you?

So because mistreatment of the poor has existed throughout history, should we say it is not a symptom of our times? This mindset Mr. Holland discusses may not be new, but it is certainly problematic.

As I’ve stated many times, I do not know Mr. Holland or his history, I do not know anything about the context other than what is contained in the quote, and in looking at it through those glasses, I see a valid point, and others agree with me. At the very least, can’t we find good in the sole fact that it has brought up a public discussion about the issue?

And please explain to me how Catholicism is a picking marigold religion? We are called to feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, educate the ignorant, comfort the sorrowful, give shelter to the homeless, etc. We are called to keep Christ at the center of our lives - not just our prayers or when we are at Church. We do not say “God, I’m sorry about that. But we’re cool since I know you died for me” - we are fortunate enough to experience humility by proclaiming to God in the presence of His priests our sins, for which we receive counseling and, if we are truly sorry, forgiveness.

Truth be told, I took the whole thing as a message to the lukewarm Christians that Christ will spit out, and a way to inform those 18 year old missionaries that it is not militant atheists they will be confronting (because at least those people have passion), but rather people who are apathetic, who assume that they only have to live a life where they don’t go to jail or get sued and that means they’ll be ready for Heaven. If someone is passionate, you can engage them. If someone doesn’t care, it is much harder to move them.

 

[Marie5890]

(Over at another forum someone did the research into Pres. Holland’s marigold comment. Turns out that it comes from the following, as the transcript of his talk has a footnote to it’s source. This is what they found)

The Seven Deadly Sins Now by Henry Fairley. Here’s the entire paragraph:

“It is characteristic of our time that people want to have god but do not want to have the devil. People are inventing gods for themselves, with that I call elsewhere, Do-It-Yourself god kits. But they are gods who do not demand much of them, and they are certainly not gods that punish, although they are allowed to reward. On the contrary, their gods absolve them from conflict and doubt, massage them, pat them on the head, and rather like their parents, tell them to run along, get stoned, if you will, pick marigolds, and love. So easy it is to love! But above all they are gods who will not trouble them with the fact of evil. The problems of evil, suffering, and death are not confronted, but evaded and dismissed. The recipes are too easy. Twenty minutes of transcendental meditation, or of mindless chanting the name of god, or of simply standing on ones head, and god thing is done. One is again made whole, at peace with the world, with ones fellows, and if course with oneself. Universal harmony has never been offered so cheaply before.”

(Knowing this is where Holland got it from, makes it clear to me he was speaking broadly, and not about people other than Mormons. That would be in keeping with the man I knew when I knew him)

 

[Tarquin]

(Over at another forum someone did the research into Pres. Holland’s marigold comment. Turns out that it comes from the following, as the transcript of his talk has a footnote to it’s source. This is what they found)

The Seven Deadly Sins Now by Henry Fairley. Here’s the entire paragraph:…

(Knowing this is where Holland got it from, makes it clear to me he was speaking broadly, and not about people other than Mormons. That would be in keeping with the man I knew when I knew him)

Thanks for that, Marie. I, for one, appreciate the information. However, I know the Mormon concept of God, and I know fairly well how Mormons view apostate Christianity and the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that Holland’s reference to
people who gods who do not demand much (such as obedience, paying a full tithe, keeping your covenants, attending your meetings, holding family prayer, magnifying your callings, etc.), gods who pat us on the head (once saved, always saved, no matter what you do afterwards, unlike Mormonism which requires constant diligence and effort), is a reference to “other” churches. I’ve sat through enough such talks and firesides to know this. "These folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?” A "comfortable God would be one who doesn’t require much. The Mormon God requires much. He was talking about non-Mormons.

However, I don’t feel belittled by his remarks because my faith and my relation to God are not dependent on his beliefs or on what he tells people. Besides, I think his remarks may not be true; and anyway, Mormonism is not the exception to his condemnation that he thinks it is. So, (1) Yes, he was condemning other churches, whether directly to their face, or in vague camouflage, and (2) it doesn’t bother me, and it shouldn’t bother anyone else. Let him believe what he wants, and I’ll live according to what I believe God wants.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Maybe it’s just me, but I think we should be charitable in our interpretation of others’ words and not presume that they said anything more negative than what they actually said.

 

[Marie5890]

. The Mormon God requires much. He was talking about non-Mormons.

)

Having know Pres Holland and his wife personally, and shared conversations with them in their home, etc., I disagree with your thought on this completely.

 

[Marie5890]

Maybe it’s just me, but I think we should be charitable in our interpretation of others’ words and not presume that they said anything more negative than what they actually said.

 

[agnes_therese]

The Mormon God requires much. He was talking about non-Mormons.

Since he didn’t say that, I don’t feel I have a right to put words in his mouth.

There is much truth in his remark.

 

[Porknpie]

But there are those of us who are familiar with Mr. Holland and his previous teachings. Here’s the link to Mr. Holland’s infamous talk on the Trinity where he takes the gloves off against Christians.

lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=trinity

Thank you for the link. One thing interesting here is his comment:

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?7

The truth on the Council of Nicea is that 316 out of 318 Catholic Bishops supported the Nicean Creed. The two that didn’t and Arius were exiled. The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church.A wonderful example of Jesus Christ keeping his promise to lead his Church to all Truth.

Interesting too, this ancient Church from the apostolic age, no matter where the apostles or their descendants went to establish communities of faith, celebrated the Eucharist with bread and wine, believing it to turn into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. We do not see a Church anywhere using (neither) bread and grape juice, bread and water, crackers and grace juice etc. The latter man made traditions made up more than a millennia later.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

We are not gnostics, despite what the LDS church teaches about Christians in seminary and BYU/institute religion classes. The Incarnation is evidence of God’s great love for us, His creations. He meets us where we are so that He might redeem us.

What do you mean by seminary? That’s a foreign concept for LDS… Yes?