LDS apostle belittles non-LDS in world wide conference broadcast

[FabiusMaximus]

Jeffery Holland member of the quorum of the quorum of the twelve apostles in the LDS church had this to say about non-LDS people who are seeking God.

Tell me again how LDS never mock or belittle other believers, because I’m finding it impossible to believe it when things like this are said by their highest leaders, to all LDS members, in a meeting that every member is expected to watch, and will be republished by the church in it’s magazines and published in perpetuity on their website.

What he says is true. Perhaps you might be colored by a personal distaste for Mormonism?

 

[Marie5890]

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

LDS seminary is like CCD classes for Catholic teenagers.

 

[iepuras]

LDS seminary is like CCD classes for Catholic teenagers.

Yes, for those in Utah, they are usually released for one period of school and they go across the street for seminary class each day. For those of us who were raised outside Utah, we had early morning seminary before high school classes. Mine started st 5:45 am and it was exhausting. I had a pretty demanding high school schedule, so I was always sleep deprived. I hated it.

Real seminary where future priests and ministers learn and get actual degrees is thoroughly foreign to Mormonism.

 

[Tarquin]

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.

What! “Completely”!? If there is something in your personal conversations with Holland that will shed light on this, that will show he was talking about Mormons seeking an easy God, one who grants salvation by grace rather than one who grants exaltation as payment for services rendered – a “full” tithing, home teaching, going on a mission, going through the temple, storing food, obeying the prophet, wearing special clothing – as Mormonism teaches, you should not keep it a secret; you should share it for the sake of correct understanding of his remarks.

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

Basically, you’re calling me a liar: as in, ‘Tarquin is saying Holland said something that Tarquin knows Holland did not say. Tarquin is knowingly putting false words in Holland’s inerrant mouth.’

It’s hardly putting words in a person’s mouth, to parse his meaning based on prior knowledge of Mormon teachings and Mormon jargon. For example, You have no right to put words in my mouth, because I “didn’t say that” he “said” that. If we only accept what he “said,” then he didn’t say anything about anybody, because he did not “say” who they are.

I was explaining the meaning of his words, and the unspecified referents, in the context of the Mormon religion. If we cannot do that, all we can do is repeat a person’s words over and over, mumbling “how terrible” or “how nice” or whatever.

By the same token, if saying he was talking about non-Mormons is “putting words in his mouth,” then what is it when others say he was talking about Mormons? Why aren’t you criticizing them for “putting words in his mouth” that have the opposite meaning, but which he also did not say?

Marie and Agnes Therese, I welcome your interpretations of Holland’s meaning, provided it is in harmony with Mormon beliefs and teaching. Especially, Marie, since you know Holland personally, and can therefore presumably argue as an authority on the man’s thinking and meaning. You will be able to provide clarification for his public remarks, to clearly identify for us which Mormons or type of Mormon Holland meant by “if people want any gods at all” – is there a large number of Mormons in that iffy stage, where they might not even want any gods at all?

“. . . these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’” who “makes us giggle.” That reminds me of the movie of Jesus based on Matthew, I think it was, where Jesus was smiling and laughing all the time.

I suppose some would argue that Holland’s comment, “gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it,” refers to that large number (2, maybe 3?) of Mormons who believe God is not in charge of His Providence, nor even of His “only true Church.” Remarkable. As one blogger has said, “the irony … obviously escaped him. Mormon prophets these days appear to have a great deal of time on their hands – perhaps to open temples and shopping malls – as BYU and amateur Mormon apologists do most of the doctrinal heavy lifting.”

Considering Mormonism’s injunctions against “much laughter,” which Mormons did Holland say he was referring to when he said people are looking for God to “make us giggle”? (“And inasmuch as ye do these things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, but not with much laughter, for this is sin . . ” D&C 59:14) What is wrong with giggling? What is wrong with God having a sense of humor and making me giggle? God has made me laugh, sometimes “much” so. Is that worse than a god who makes us shake hands to get into heaven?

I would prefer exact quotes, but I would be satisfied with faithful paraphrases of his personal words to you that relate to his talk. To satisfy Agnes Therese, however, they will need to be exact quotes if you are not to risk being accused of “putting words in his mouth.” I realize Holland may say different things privately than he says publicly. The problems with that are obvious. Nonetheless, it would be of great worth to know his personal explanation for his remarks.

“Sadly enough, my young friends, 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, comfortable gods and smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds. Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes — and this seems the greatest irony of all — these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of ‘comfortable’ God. Really?”

 

[Tarquin]

I have been searching for comments on Holland’s remarks. I became disheartened. Most of the comments I read do not agree with the Mormon apologetic that Holland was describing Mormons when describing people looking for easy gods to follow. I know the majority is often wrong in politics. But when it comes to language, if the majority understands your words differently from how you intended them, the onus is on you to express yourself in words they can understand. Maybe office clerks, tax collectors, college professors, and presidents can’t always do this. But shouldn’t an Apostle of God, of all people, high and low, be able to get his point across clearly.

But if the ambiguous excerpt presented in the opening post, plus personal conversations with Holland are insufficient to identify (for some) exactly who it is who is looking for easy gods to follow, perhaps other remarks Holland made will make his meaning more clear. At the very least, the paragraphs preceding the excerpt quoted in the opening post should put the excerpt in context. In context, Holland is speaking to missionaries – Mormon missionaries and potential missionaries.

And therein lies a message for every young man and young woman in this Church. You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion

He is speaking to “every” young man and woman in the Church, not just the faithful ones. He is not speaking about the way they represent their church while they are in church. He is speaking about the way they represent their church in school where they deal with non-Mormons every day, and on their mission where they will deal directly with even more non-Mormons.

So here we have the burden of those called to bear the messianic message. In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship).

He is not talking about Mormons dealing with other Mormons, but with Mormons bearing the uniquely Mormon “messianic message,” teaching “people” (not “members” or “fellow saints”).

Unfortunately, messengers of divinely mandated commandments are often no more popular today than they were anciently, as at least two spit-upon, potato-spattered sister missionaries can now attest.

Mormon messengers entrusted with divinely mandated commandments are not sent to Mormons but to non-Mormons. Further, it is in non-Mormon communities, not in Mormon communities, that these Mormon messengers will be “no more popular than they were anciently.” It is not Mormons who will spit on and throw potatoes at each other while screaming obscenities. It is non-Mormons enjoying an easy lunch on a smooth bench who do this.

Holland then references Isaiah and a Book of Mormon prophet. Holland quotes the words not of people who believed the prophet Isaiah but people who wanted to be left alone, who were categorically opposed to what Isaiah was saying: “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits. Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” Not fellow believers, but unfriendly disbelievers. Then comes the quote in question:

Sadly enough, my young friends, 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, comfortable gods, smooth gods

Holland is telling the missionaries what kind of people (i.e., non-Mormons) they will encounter on their mission, what kind of responses they will see in people (i.e., non-Mormons) whom they want to be “teaching, encouraging, and cheering on.” Sometimes, the responses of non-Mormons – the ones who scream and throw potatoes might deserve the label “anti-Mormons” – might make these young Mormon missionaries in non-Mormon communities “weep (that is the painful part of discipleship)” – of “discipleship,” not of “fellowship.”

The marigolds and giggling don’t seem to connect to Isaiah and the Book of Mormon. I think those are one metaphor and one juvenility which failed individually and jointly.

Mormon leaders are learning to couch their language more carefully, but they still look down on apostate and un-restored Christians.

 

[Marie5890]

Yes, Tarquin. Completely.
And no, I am not going to get into some breakdown of conversations I shared with them.

I stand by what I have said. Completely.

I’ll let God judge the rest.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have been searching for comments on Holland’s remarks. I became disheartened. Most of the comments I read do not agree with the Mormon apologetic that Holland was describing Mormons when describing people looking for easy gods to follow. I know the majority is often wrong in politics. But when it comes to language, if the majority understands your words differently from how you intended them, the onus is on you to express yourself in words they can understand. Maybe office clerks, tax collectors, college professors, and presidents can’t always do this. But shouldn’t an Apostle of God, of all people, high and low, be able to get his point across clearly.

But if the ambiguous excerpt presented in the opening post, plus personal conversations with Holland are insufficient to identify (for some) exactly who it is who is looking for easy gods to follow, perhaps other remarks Holland made will make his meaning more clear. At the very least, the paragraphs preceding the excerpt quoted in the opening post should put the excerpt in context. In context, Holland is speaking to missionaries – Mormon missionaries and potential missionaries.
Quote:

And therein lies a message for every young man and young woman in this Church. You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion

I agree the context of this speech and Holland’s history of the same (as pointed out by iepuras, Holland’s speech where he mocks others beliefs and the audience is laughing at at the beliefs of others) shows a distinct contempt for the beliefs of others.

 

[Marie5890]

God will judge, ultimately.

We humans tend to really be bad at discerning another’s soul.
Thankfully, God is very good at this.

 

[Marie5890]

Hopefully Tarquin is not a cyber drive-byer here on CAF.

That would be unfortunate.

 

[Tarquin]

Yes, Tarquin. Completely.
And no, I am not going to get into some breakdown of conversations I shared with them.
I stand by what I have said. Completely.
I’ll let God judge the rest.

Then you will be comfortable with my saying your understanding of his conference talk is completely wrong. I have read the entire speech more than once and have read as many intelligent discussions on it as I could find. Whatever he may have told you in secret has no bearing, since (1) it was secret, (2) you refuse to share it - I suspect he said nothing on the subject to you personally, and (3) it was not official. His conference presentation is public, broadcast universally, and official.

If you believed he was not addressing the types of encounters with non-Mormons that missionaries may expect to experience, you would be able to clarify what he was addressing. If you have read the speech in question, rather than a select excerpt.

Claiming private knowledge is completely unconvincing.

We humans tend to really be bad at discerning another’s soul.

Except when you discern Holland’s good soul, and Tarquin’s drive-by soul?

I’ll let God judge the rest.

The other seven billion two hundred twenty-seven million.

Hopefully Tarquin is not a cyber drive-byer here on CAF.
That would be unfortunate.

So now I’m a drive-by troll as well as a liar? Because I give my understanding of some Mormon’s public speech, and don’t agree with you about how wonderful he is? It’s not that hard to discover how long I have been reading Catholic forums, nor to read my posts. Not that a troll would go through that much trouble, unfortunately.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hopefully Tarquin is not a cyber drive-byer here on CAF.

That would be unfortunate.

Why would you think he’s a drive byer?

 

[zaffiroborant]

God will judge, ultimately.

We humans tend to really be bad at discerning another’s soul.
Thankfully, God is very good at this.

No one is “discerning” Holland’s soul, just judging his words, you do do that don’t you, like when you decide to cast a vote or make a purchase or investment.

 

[Marie5890]

Tarquin,
Secret? No.

Do you go around sharing conversations you had with others? I try to be mindful of things like gossip, detraction, etc etc. Esp when it comes to public figures, Pres Holland being one.

You certainly are free to maintain your POV.
Like I said in a previous post, based on when I knew him years ago, I prefer to err on the side of charity.

 

[Marie5890]

Why would you think he’s a drive byer?

With a peek at his posting history, I thought if that possibility existed, that would be sad.

 

[Marie5890]

No one is “discerning” Holland’s soul, just judging his words, you do do that don’t you, like when you decide to cast a vote or make a purchase or investment.

That’s great.
Pres Holland, when I knew him, certainly was a decent man who took discipleship seriously. Good, joyful, happy man with a great deal of personal integrity .

And that is what I would tell the Lord, or anyone else, if they asked me about my experiences with he and Pat, his wife.

 

[Marie5890]

Tarquin,

I apologize for offending you. That was not my intent.

My intent was only defend and act justly about a man that I knew to be a good and decent man who has come under attack for a talk he gave by people who didn’t/ don’t know him. Esp during Lent and going into Holy Week. I felt I needed to give witness to the goodness that I knew in him

Maybe it’s because of having known him, I didnt find his talk to be “belittling of non-LDS” as the topic of this thread suggests.

His address would be in regards to anyone, including Mormons, who take the easy path. And to point out that his marigold comment comes from a book that I noted in an eariler post.

So, my intent was one of giving more context to 1)the man and 2)the book that the marigold reference come from.

A blessed Easter to all, and may the God of all Living have Mercy on all of us.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hopefully Tarquin is not a cyber drive-byer here on CAF.

That would be unfortunate.

I see Tarquin’s posts as rational and using critical thinking, which is not characteristic of an internet troll.

 

[agnes_therese]

Basically, you’re calling me a liar: as in, ‘Tarquin is saying Holland said something that Tarquin knows Holland did not say. Tarquin is knowingly putting false words in Holland’s inerrant mouth.’

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how you missed the part where I said I don’t feel qualified to put words in his mouth. Especially when you took the trouble to quote me. But you must have, or you wouldn’t have accused me of saying something I obviously did not say, now, would you? I certainly can’t find the phrase “Holland’s inerrant mouth” in anything I have ever said anywhere. Or even thought, for that matter.

Sorry my very simple little one sentence wasn’t clear to you.

 

[Marie5890]

I see Tarquin’s posts as rational and using critical thinking, which is not characteristic of an internet troll.

Fair observation.

I was going by posting frequency/pattern.

To get back to the OT, my comments are based on bearing just witness to a man whom I have known in the past.

My conscience demanded it of me. Esp during Lent/Holy Week, when our Lord was unjustly accused.

My gut knows that in many respect, Pres Holland is being unjustly accused by those who dont know him. I can at least in truth say that, in the past, I have known him.

So I bear witness to the man I have known in the past. It’s the just thing for me to do.

 

[iepuras]

So Marie, were you LDS when you had personal interactions with Mr. Holland? Have you interacted with him since your disaffection from the LDS church and conversion to Catholic Christianity?

I ask because since I left the LDS church, my LDS friends and family have changed their treatment of me. I am now anathema. My so-called friends from my last ward barely say hi to me and act uncomfortable when they see me. I have not said anything publicly other than that I no longer believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have been respectful of their beliefs, but they now act like I have two heads.

I have also learned that my very LDS mother does not love me unconditionally as a mother should. I had a good relationship with my parents before I left the LDS church but apparently a good relationship is only possible with their children who are LDS. Since then, my mother taught my young children about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon behind my back. She knew that was a line not to be crossed, but she did it anyway and lied about it when confronted. Since I left the LDS church, my mother became very intrusive into our marriage and family and tried to manipulate us to get what she wanted (access to our children to teach them about Mormonism so she could save them from the evil Catholic Church). I constantly gave her the benefit of the doubt until I found out what she did with my children. We knew something was up when our children were acting out and when we talked to them, we found out what was going on. My mother had the gall to tell me that my children were mistaken and didn’t know what they were talking about! Fortunately, my siblings have not followed my parents’ lead in how to treat me.

As you know, many of us who have left the LDS church have experienced first hand how LDS friends and family can change in their behavior towards those who leave.
Tom Phillips, who was managing editor of MormonThink for a time, experienced this with Mr. Holland when he asked him via email regarding the truth claims of the LDS church, especially concerning the Book of Mormon. Mr. Phillips published his emails to Mr. Holland on the MormonThink website. He did not publish Mr. Holland’s entire response to his initial email on questions related to the truth claims of the LDS church due to a very corporate legal warning at the bottom of his response to Mr. Phillips; however, he did include select quotations from Mr. Holland’s email in his response. Link is below:

mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm#letters

In full disclosure, Tom Phillips was involved in the UK lawsuit against Thomas Monson. While I do not agree with what he did in that case, Mr. Phillips nonetheless has done good in spreading truth about Joseph Smith through MormonThink and other venues.