Elder Jeffrey Holland--PM session Sunday


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

About which we care very little. Holland's talk had the kind of passion and emotional intensity that the faithful love to see, which is great. However, the rest of us, RfM'er and live-and-let-live'er alike, have already made up out minds on the issue. Many people leave and go on to attack the Book of Mormon. The rest of us have moved on with our lives. Either way, we've done the best we can to put the Church and its teachings behind us. Regardless of whether or not we examined the veracity Book of Mormon like Holland said, the fact remains that we no longer believe it to have any authority in our lives. Continuing to preach about and testify to its divine authority is an excercise in futility. And the more passionate and headstrong the attempts to reclaim us are, the more resistance there's going to be in many cases.

It all boils down to whether the LDS Church is true or not (as do most things of this nature).

If it is true, then the prophets are required to preach the Gospel of repentance to all- including those who have chosen to reject the word. Throughout the Book of Mormon, efforts were made to reclaim the wayward- a combination of testifying of their wickedness (to humble those who would be humbled) and then preaching the redemptive power of the Atonement was what was usually used.

To an ex-Mormon who had softened their heart and humbled themselves (or were compelled to be humbled) who heard this talk may very well be struck because of the "harshness" of the talk- because the wicked take the truth to be hard. If, in their pain, they turn to the Lord their God, they will return to the strait and narrow path.

However, I don't see this as an attempt at reclamation as much as a testament to all- the faithful and the unfaithful- about the truth of the matter. Having that reminder of things as they really are is helpful to the members.

Of course, there are always those who find fault with the manner in which the Lord works. It's not a coincidence that many who are most vocal about their opinions have left the Church.

I find it interesting that many ex-Mormons who claim to have "moved on" still hold some sort of contacts with the LDS church. To this day, I've yet to hear about a "recovery group" for ex-Catholics, ex-Muslims, ex-Buddhists, or ex-[Enter any religion except Mormonism here]. There might be some out there, but I've yet to hear about them. (That's not to say that you claim to have severed all ties with the Church, Godless- your comments merely reminded me of the fact)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I don't see this as an attempt at reclamation as much as a testament to all- the faithful and the unfaithful- about the truth of the matter. Having that reminder of things as they really are is helpful to the members.

That is what I think, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

It all boils down to whether the LDS Church is true or not (as do most things of this nature).

If it is true, then the prophets are required to preach the Gospel of repentance to all- including those who have chosen to reject the word. Throughout the Book of Mormon, efforts were made to reclaim the wayward- a combination of testifying of their wickedness (to humble those who would be humbled) and then preaching the redemptive power of the Atonement was what was usually used.

To an ex-Mormon who had softened their heart and humbled themselves (or were compelled to be humbled) who heard this talk may very well be struck because of the "harshness" of the talk- because the wicked take the truth to be hard. If, in their pain, they turn to the Lord their God, they will return to the strait and narrow path.

Understood. But while there may be a few soft hearts who are open to this sort of ministry, I think it's safe to say that these methods mainly just push people further away once they've left. It leaves open an interesting question of how you reach the fence-sitters without further alienating those who have made up their minds.

However, I don't see this as an attempt at reclamation as much as a testament to all- the faithful and the unfaithful- about the truth of the matter. Having that reminder of things as they really are is helpful to the members.

I agree for the most part. And again, I take no issue with GA's bearing powerful testimony to the faithful. It becomes hairy, however, when the faithful try to push those messages onto their non-member and apostate friends and family. I can't help but cringe whenever I see my mother send an email or post a Facebook update gushing about a General Conference talk, knowing that she sees my apostasy as a hurdle in her plans for having an eternal family, and that she'll do anything to bring me back. I think that's the root of the controversy here. Martybess mentioned his concern over alienating his apostate sons, and those concerns are very well-founded. More than anything, I think its important for members to respect the boundaries of their friends and family members and take the GC talks as what they are, a message to the faithful for their benefit.

I find it interesting that many ex-Mormons who claim to have "moved on" still hold some sort of contacts with the LDS church. To this day, I've yet to hear about a "recovery group" for ex-Catholics, ex-Muslims, ex-Buddhists, or ex-[Enter any religion except Mormonism here]. There might be some out there, but I've yet to hear about them. (That's not to say that you claim to have severed all ties with the Church, Godless- your comments merely reminded me of the fact)

As I've mentioned on these forums before, LDS culture is a very difficult thing to break away from. Heck, I was an East Coast mormon and yet it was still hard. I can't begin to imagine what apostates in Utah go through. Since you brought it up though, I went ahead and did a Google search (which is how I found RfM, btw) and found multiple websites for and about ex-Muslims. That makes sense since Islam seems to be one of the few religions outside of Mormonism with its own deep-rooted culture. Catholicism is a big contender as well, but it seems to me that Catholics have loosened up a bit in recent years.

The point I'm trying to make is that mormonism is one of the more difficult religions to break away from, right up there with Islam. Islam is hard because of its tight-knit marriage of the religion with local cultures, and mormonism is hard because of the sheer volume of emotion that people put into it and the strong sense of community that many mormons share. I was one of the lucky ones who was able to maintain a healthy relationship with my LDS family and many of my LDS friends back East. Not everyone is so lucky, and that can be devastating when you hardly know anyone outside of the LDS culture.

BTW, you're absolutely right about apostates holding ties to the Church. The RfM crowd illustrates that perfectly, whether they want to admit to it or not. And yes, I'll admit that I am guilty to some degree as well. I enjoy the interaction with LDS folks, which is why I'm here. Outside of my immediate family and this website though, my ties with the Church are virtually non-existant.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

really? naming names of specific anti's, calling them pathetic, deranged paranoid!!??? you don't often hear that kind of language and name calling from a GA at GC.

I don't think Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding were "antis" per se, but writers of books which might have formed the basis for the BoM. Spalding's case involved a lost manuscript for a novel which was claimed to have fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith. I believe the manuscript was eventually located and turned out to be entirely different from the BoM. I know very little about Ethan Smith except that he wrote a book suggesting that the Native Americans might be descended from Jews - but I think that was quite a common belief at the time.

As for Jim Jones, he was just nuts. AND, he'd already killed a US Congressman and knew that the 'one stuff' was about to hit the fan. He also took lots of people with him when he died. Joseph and Hyrum did neither of these. So I think his point has validity, in that, as Joseph said, they went willingly 'as a lamb to the slaughter'.

The first account of Joseph Smith's death I ever read (it was in a little book by Gordon B. Hinckley lent to me by a sister missionary) gave the impression that he went willingly to his death after singing "A poor wayfaring man of grief". That leaves a lot of the story out. Some uncharitable people will tell you that Smith "died in a gunfight", which is arguably true but also rather misleading. However, from other accounts it seems that Smith did put up quite a spirited resistance, and shot several of his attackers before they got him!

Of course, I'm not suggesting there's any real comparison between Jim Jones and Joseph Smith.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think they saved this (and the other) Sunday PM talks for all those non-stalwart just get in the last session members who only watch the Sunday PM talks?

I think perhaps so.

The "happy happy joy joy Love, love love" talks were Saturday morning - for all those valiant members who devote their Sat to GC... then the "righteous indignation" for all those who just show up at the last minute to watch the last Sunday PM talks :D

I hope NOT! Sure, you can save the best for last, but that would mean all of Europe would miss the best... Sun PM Mountain Standard time is almost Sunday midnight Central European time. I dodn't know any stake center or ward that shows the sun pm session. Only chance would be to watch it on byu.tv and stay up late. And i bet thats not the ones, who need to hear the message.

As there has been discussion, to whom his talk was directed: I believe it goes straight to the general membership. There are so many leaving the church these days. Taken from our wards home teaching assignments, there are about 2/3 less active. If thats a worldwide figure, that would boil down active members to somwhere around 4 to 5 million. I've seen many who were baptized and left a few weeks or months later. I've seen lifelong members asking their names to be taken off the records. Not all is well in Zion...

So I feel it was about time for an apostle to speak up. And boy, he did well! There is no doubt he believes what he said. He even spoke directly to those about to leave. Something to the effect that if they want to leave they have to crawl around, beneath or across the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need an occasional strongly-worded talk by an apostle. A few years ago in a stake priesthood leadership meeting, Elder Holland spoke to us about the need to set our pulpits ablaze with the Spirit. We need strong teachings and testimonies to light fires in people's lives. I think this was his motivation for this speech.

Just as many are moved by the evangelical preacher's animated and powerful sermon, I hope that Elder Holland's talk will move many people to ponder the importance of the Book of Mormon, and the witness Joseph and Hyrum gave with their own lives. They showed their belief in the Book of Mormon by dying for that belief. Charlatans would not have returned to their deaths in Carthage, but would have fled to the west. So, we must know that they believed in their testimony of the Book of Mormon; otherwise, their deaths make no sense.

And the Book of Mormon is needful for our salvation and exaltation. We cannot become perfected without it. A man can get closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Why? Because its precepts are clear: Christ is our Savior; Miracles and angels still visit mankind; The heavens are open, ready to pour out knowledge, mysteries, and wisdom upon mankind; God speaks to all nations; we can become like God is. These are extremely important messages that you will not easily find in the Bible (at least, most Christians today do not understand such messages from the Bible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not go that far to state that the BoM is the only source for salvation and exaltation. Remember, it is only a book but the importunacy of any scripture, whether it is scrolls, Old or New Testament, or any true revelation given, is the testament of one person that really matters here, that is Jesus is the Christ.

I was not converted by ancient dealings of men and the Savior of the past but one that was received in our current dispensation and how we can achieve eternal state with our FATHER – namely Doctrine and Covenants and other resources/ordinance/temple buildings of our time. This is no way putting a negative statement on the book itself. But my salvation is not rested on this book. Now I do love and read any historical records, which speak and touches truths with the dealings between man[woman] and the Godhead. What provides us salvation and helps to become perfect is the ‘restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ and this is not merely a book itself that both of these men sacrificed for... just added thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to some friends that live in another state that I haven't seen in 20 years, they are in the 80's now and have really been through some trials. He has served as a bishop and in leadership callings and have many children that are way ward including one which struggles with homosexuality. I mentioned the talk to them and I was surprised by their response. Extremely passionate folks as I remembered but the sister said "oh Hollands talk hmmmmmm I liked the talks on love" and the brother said "you did hah hmmmmmm". Really surprised me just knowing them but all these trials as I thought about it came later in their lives so life has changed them a bunch. So though it was my favorite talk and one of my all time fav's it still hurts many with tender hearts. Maybe a bit like daggers to the tender hearted as Alma would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preciously...it will offend those who are not faithful and feel like daggers to the body. Now, I would not call it 'tender hearts' here, if it was, they will be humbled and follow the admonition of the prophets [Apostles and Prophets].

Elder Holland is a man a passion and can be seen as a modern day Elijah. I could also add here, is Elder Boyd K. Packer. :)

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood. But while there may be a few soft hearts who are open to this sort of ministry, I think it's safe to say that these methods mainly just push people further away once they've left. It leaves open an interesting question of how you reach the fence-sitters without further alienating those who have made up their minds.

If someone has left the church, why would they listen to GC? Obviously, someone as yourself who frequents an LDS community (lds.net) has heard of it and it may pique their curiosity. But someone who truly has left, why would they take time to listen to something they don't believe anymore?

I agree for the most part. And again, I take no issue with GA's bearing powerful testimony to the faithful. It becomes hairy, however, when the faithful try to push those messages onto their non-member and apostate friends and family. I can't help but cringe whenever I see my mother send an email or post a Facebook update gushing about a General Conference talk, knowing that she sees my apostasy as a hurdle in her plans for having an eternal family, and that she'll do anything to bring me back. I think that's the root of the controversy here. Martybess mentioned his concern over alienating his apostate sons, and those concerns are very well-founded. More than anything, I think its important for members to respect the boundaries of their friends and family members and take the GC talks as what they are, a message to the faithful for their benefit.

As a faithful member, I would never give this talk to a non-member or someone fence sitting. Especially if I had absolutely no stewardship. However, I can see how a relative who believes so strongly, was affected so strongly to this, would try to "push those messages" to someone they care about. I think what we, faithful members, should remember is to be guided by the Spirit. If I felt the Spirit tell me to share this with a friend, then I should. And for those who may receive such from loved ones, I hope that you would remember it comes from love.

As I've mentioned on these forums before, LDS culture is a very difficult thing to break away from. Heck, I was an East Coast mormon and yet it was still hard. I can't begin to imagine what apostates in Utah go through. Since you brought it up though, I went ahead and did a Google search (which is how I found RfM, btw) and found multiple websites for and about ex-Muslims. That makes sense since Islam seems to be one of the few religions outside of Mormonism with its own deep-rooted culture. Catholicism is a big contender as well, but it seems to me that Catholics have loosened up a bit in recent years.

The point I'm trying to make is that mormonism is one of the more difficult religions to break away from, right up there with Islam. Islam is hard because of its tight-knit marriage of the religion with local cultures, and mormonism is hard because of the sheer volume of emotion that people put into it and the strong sense of community that many mormons share. I was one of the lucky ones who was able to maintain a healthy relationship with my LDS family and many of my LDS friends back East. Not everyone is so lucky, and that can be devastating when you hardly know anyone outside of the LDS culture.

I suppose coming from a non-LDS background, that's why it's difficult for me to understand this. Certainly if one's family and all friends are LDS it would be difficult to break from that. But for those who have little/no family who are LDS, I would think it would be easier.

BTW, you're absolutely right about apostates holding ties to the Church. The RfM crowd illustrates that perfectly, whether they want to admit to it or not. And yes, I'll admit that I am guilty to some degree as well. I enjoy the interaction with LDS folks, which is why I'm here. Outside of my immediate family and this website though, my ties with the Church are virtually non-existant.

FWIW, I consider someone an "apostate" when they openly and passionately rebel against the Church and her members. You, Godless, I consider a former member, not apostate. BTW, I'm glad you're here--I like having your thoughtful opinionis on issues (even if you are a left wing commie....:P)

Edited by beefche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preciously...it will offend those who are not faithful and feel like daggers to the body. Now, I would not call it 'tender hearts' here, if it was, they will be humbled and follow the admonition of the prophets [Apostles and Prophets].

Elder Holland is a man a passion and can be seen as a modern day Elijah. I could also add here, is Elder Boyd K. Packer. :)

The tender hearts I was referring too are those like the wife's and mothers of the wicked husbands and fathers Alma was talking too. In a way it hurts the faithful to hear harsh words to the ones they love knowing full well it's to their damnation.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QFT. Elder Holland's talk really didn't sit well with many apostates. The RfMers in particular have been having a field day with it. Personally, I wasn't bothered much by it. If he wants to speak passionately about a book which he strongly believes is true, then that's his prerogative as a person of authority in the Church. However, I wouldn't recommend using his talk to try to bring back lost sheep. It'll probably do more harm than good.

it most definitely spoke to me. Edited by LDSpunkrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

If someone has left the church, why would they listen to GC? Obviously, someone as yourself who frequents an LDS community (lds.net) has heard of it and it may pique their curiosity. But someone who truly has left, why would they take time to listen to something they don't believe anymore?

Most would fall into one or both of two categories.

1. Antis who are looking for all of the ammo they can get to use against the Church. Believe it or not, they're not above using GC talks to fuel their hatred of the Church. Personally, I think it's amusing to think that many antis have seen more of GC than I have. Happy healing!!! :rolleyes:

2. People who, like me, saw their email and Facebook accounts flooded with GC-related material. Were I not a member of this site, my news feed on Facebook alone probably would've been enough to pique my curiosity.

As a faithful member, I would never give this talk to a non-member or someone fence sitting. Especially if I had absolutely no stewardship. However, I can see how a relative who believes so strongly, was affected so strongly to this, would try to "push those messages" to someone they care about. I think what we, faithful members, should remember is to be guided by the Spirit. If I felt the Spirit tell me to share this with a friend, then I should. And for those who may receive such from loved ones, I hope that you would remember it comes from love.

Very well-put. Our friends and family members know us far better than the GAs do. And while I may not like them trying to push the Gospel on me, I at least have the comfort of knowing that I will always have their love and ultimately they will respect my decisions even if they don't agree with them. The GAs don't have that sort of connection to the less active and inactive members of the Church.

As for those who are struggling in their faith, I think some simple missionary work could work wonders, both from the active members and the full-time missionaries. Heck, I had a few elders stumble upon me completely by accident a couple of weeks ago while they were tracting. Even though they weren't able to sway me, we were still able to have a very pleasant discussion. If they were to have that same discussion with someone who was a little bit less set in his/her ways, I have no doubt that a lot could come from it.

I suppose coming from a non-LDS background, that's why it's difficult for me to understand this. Certainly if one's family and all friends are LDS it would be difficult to break from that. But for those who have little/no family who are LDS, I would think it would be easier.

I agree. I think the majority of people who struggle with the transition are those who were born and raised in the Church and those who spent many years as active members after converting. Those who leave after a few short years of joining probably have a much easier time of it, though I won't presume to speak for them. Unfortunately, the former group makes up a very large portion of the Church membership. They are the bread-and-butter of the LDS culture, and it can be quite an ordeal when of them leaves.

FWIW, I consider someone an "apostate" when they openly and passionately rebel against the Church and her members. You, Godless, I consider a former member, not apostate. BTW, I'm glad you're here--I like having your thoughtful opinionis on issues (even if you are a left wing commie....:P)

Aww, shucks!!! Posted Image Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for those who are struggling in their faith, I think some simple missionary work could work wonders, both from the active members and the full-time missionaries. Heck, I had a few elders stumble upon me completely by accident a couple of weeks ago while they were tracting. Even though they weren't able to sway me, we were still able to have a very pleasant discussion. If they were to have that same discussion with someone who was a little bit less set in his/her ways, I have no doubt that a lot could come from it.

You hav a great point here. I remember when on my mission, our mission president encouraged us to teach the discussions to members, especially inactive members.

The problem that I find is that most people don't share their doubts or struggles with other members of the church. Very few people actually rely on VT or HT to minister to them in this regard. They'll call them to move a couch or bring a meal, but if they are having a crisis of faith, they will simply rely on prayer, scripture study, or nothing at all. They try to solve any difficulties on their own. I'm guilty of this as well. Perhaps it's the fear of judgment? The fear of appearing to be less than perfect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God doesnt work the way men do. God sends His Spirit with those that testify boldly. And it that spirit that will convince all men of the truth. Not the choice of words, not special persuasion techniques, no method used by man would convince a person of the truth. Only the Holy Spirit can testify in power and convince men that the Book of Mormon is true.

The Spirit is what is making us rejoice. and He will testify to all men that the Book of Mormon is true. And those who reject the witness of the Spirit will never be convinced by one of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen.

I was told once that Joseph Smith had a gun with him and actually got off a few shots as the mob was coming in. Somewhere I read that two people died from his shots. But I'm not sure if that is true or not. I wish I could remember the source. Seems to me if they did die it would be a big deal and pretty easy to confirm. Anyway, it is pretty much not a matter of dispute that he did go down fighting though.

This is 100% true. There was no "Lamb to the Slaughter"

The death occured based on a lawless mob reacting to the lawless action of Joseph by ordering the destruction of "The Expositor" that was about to expose Joseph's polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is 100% true. There was no "Lamb to the Slaughter"

The death occured based on a lawless mob reacting to the lawless action of Joseph by ordering the destruction of "The Expositor" that was about to expose Joseph's polygamy.

This is exactly the same story I've read (though "faith promoting" histories tell it rather differently). The Smith brothers together with other leading Mormons were arrested for interfering with the freedom of the press (to wit an anti-Mormon newspaper) and held under house arrest in Carthage. Learning that an angry crowd was on its way, Smith's supporters smuggled guns into the house so that when the mob arrived it met with stiffer resistance than expected. A number of people were killed on both sides.

I'm not saying Smith wasn't a martyr, but it was more a case of "Heroic Last Stand" than "Lamb to the Slaughter".

According to some sources Joseph Smith was shot while trying to escape via the roof, and his last words were "Who will help a poor son of the widow?" (The traditional Masonic distress call.) I suspect this is probably an anti-Mormon slur.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share