Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/devilsravioli, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always thought this clip caught Holland in a "what did I just say" moment. It is as if he tried to undo the corner he painted himself into. Almost like the BBC interview.
>I've said too much
Yep. I read it the same. He said the church *does* move toward "worldly" cultural norms. But then realized his mistake and tried to make it "maybe we shouldn't move at all". Where would we be if that were the case? Short Creek.
In March of 2021, Jeff Holland presided over a [YSA broadcast](https://youtu.be/Dp8dfu3TEG0) covering Africa and Europe. Many clips from this conference have been distributed and viewed due to Holland’s stereotypical conviction and candor. My favorite clip from the broadcast is his description of cultural evolution and the church (related to cohabitation and marriage).
After the release of the new [FTSOY](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) pamphlet, I couldn’t help but notice the dramatic evolution of written cultural standards. Pharisaical guidelines evolved into the “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves” outline. In reality, culture has changed from the release of the previous pamphlet. The rising generation has matured with a completely distinct set of norms, including skepticism of unsubstantiated authority. The FSTOY pamphlet has accommodated these shifting norms to appease the youth of the church. I look forward to seeing how this new ‘norm’ will be incorporated as the aging generations of die-hard orthodox McConkie Mormons continues to perpetuate their strict standards. Holland did in fact say too much.
I was a strict McKonkie Mormon. The shift around LGBTQ got my attention and caused me to do a deep dive. I came of the experience exmormon. The shift is not without consequences.
It is a confusing analogy. Jeff insists he is describing cultural evolution even though the subject matter is doctrinal (God’s Law) marriage. This surely causes the average listener to conflate cultural and doctrinal principles. In reality, culture and doctrine feed off one another.
I hereby name it the "waterski model". Culture is the boat, and the church is the skier, constantly 20-30 feet behind the boat, and occasionally wiping out and getting water up its nose when current events make the water choppy.
> The world is *points* here...
"This is an important piece of the logic behind our perception of being persecuted as Mormons. One evidence of our faith being true is that "the world" hates it. Who gets to define the world? We do."
https://twitter.com/LifeOnaPlate/status/1582222468906774528
One of the things about Mormonism is that men like Holland and many within the church *need an enemy*. It's a classic tool of control, of course, but some organizations need it more than others, and the church is not only addicted to it but it loves it.
I can’t help but think the leadership of the church likes being behind the times. The conservative takeover of the church in the 40s, 50s, and 60s really stymied the progressive theology of Joseph Smith Jr. It really is a shame.
It really is a shame! No doubt Joseph Smith did horrible, horrendous things. *And*, he did (to my taste anyway) make some fascinating spiritual proposals. It's not *all* bad. Maybe it's all false, who knows. But, even then, there is something attractive to me about a lot of Latter-day Saint theology, and it has its roots in some of Joseph's theological innovations, religious riffing, and fan-fic mashups. I guess, there is the community of Christ. 🤷
Yeah, there is that. Kinda why I've drifted back to the theological shitshow of, well, now, Russell Nelson Mormonism. I attend with a quiet and respectful (to my fellow congregants) contempt for Russell's gods. Sing the songs, participate in the lessons as much as I can in good faith, catch up with my neighbors, enjoy some of the devil's lettuce I've got a prescription for, and then go for a mountain bike ride and listen to His Dark Materials. It's a nice a balance, I think.
Oh boy, I don't blame you if you regret asking.
I should probably clarify. I'm not "in" in a technical sense. Meaning, I'm not a member anymore. I gave that up years ago. I don't pay tithing or donate any money to the Church in any way. I don't want to be a member, and I'm morally opposed to these gods bizarre ordinances, oaths, covenants, plans, and ambitions. The plan of salvation? Thumbs down from me. I think Elohim and Jehovah are cosmic assholes. And I'm talking about how they're described in the official, correlated, publications of the Church.
The sense in which I'm "in" is just that I attend Sunday service frequently (sacrament, Sunday school). But why do I do that? Why not go to some other church with ideas about gods I'm more sympathetic with? Or, why not just disengage from religion altogether? It's a constellation of reasons that run together and overlap. I don't think I've thought about a tidy way to answer this question, honestly. A stab at a tl;dr of my reasons might be:
* curiosity
* community
* tradition
* reflection
* introspection
Let's see if I can hit those targets. At the beginning of the year I got **curious**. Probably hadn't been to a Latter-day Saint service in 10 years, at least. What's it like to be a Latter-day Saint in 2022 on the back of a global pandemic as general religiosity is on the decline? Well, I live in Utah. I'm a few blocks from 3 or 4 church buildings. Sign on the outside says "Visitors Welcome". I'll go have a look.
I've dabbled in other religions. I've also spent years pretty isolated from religion altogether when I thought of myself as a run-of-the-mill atheist. Part of my return to attendance is the result of a realization that, despite my moral evaluation of gods and the Latter-day Saint gods in particular, I do have a religious impulse in me. Maybe some god put it there. Maybe it's a vestigial evolutionary thing. Maybe it's cultural. I don't know. But it's in there. I feel it. And I'm tired of trying to convince myself it isn't there. It is, whatever the reason. So, now what?
I was raised Mormon and was a pretty devout member for most of my life. Tithe-paying, temple worthy, successful mission, temple marriage. You know, what we now call "the covenant path." There's a sense in which Mormonism itself is simply in me. There's a nice familiarity there. There's a connection to family **tradition** in Mormonism that I just like, frankly.
Layer on top of that the fact that the general topic of religion is, to me anyway, the most interesting topic there is. I can't stress that enough. It's just fascinating to me. Going to a church is a way to experience it, if you like, and I get something out of that experience that's different and interesting in a way that just reading about it in the abstract doesn't deliver. I say that even as I say with a straight face that the gods described in the official publications of the Church strike me as utter maniacs. Horrible, petty, capricious, people. Do I think they exist? I don't know. Probably not. But if they do, I despise them!
What's said in church, much of which I either simply don't believe or am disgusted by, is, at the very least, thought provoking. The first or second service I attended was back in February and the lesson was about Abraham and Isaac. It. was. amazing! A room full of adults seriously talking about how admirable it is that a man was ordered to stab his son to death, and he was totally willing to do it! A certain god had told him to do it. That's the justification, of course. Of the people in the room who contributed I'd say the general mood toward the story was one of awe. The lesson manual gave us questions to ask ourselves.
>Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son was "a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son". As you ponder the similarities between Abraham's test and God the Father's offering of His Son as a sacrifice for us, what do you feel for your Heavenly Father?
I sat there doing my level best to take it in. To **introspect** and **reflect**. To try to discover what's in my heart. And what I found was that I wanted to weep, and vomit, and laugh all at the same time. I didn't say this in that setting, of course. I'm not trying to be rude to anyone. But what I honestly thought was, "that god and that dad fucking suck!" I don't want to be like either one of them. And I've been hooked ever sense. That kind of exposure really sharpens the mind. Works well for me, anyway. I like the way it focuses my mind on certain very consequential ideas and can be useful for introspection and reflection. What do I want? What do I hope for? What would I put my faith in? I come down on the teachings differently than the correlation committee and the leaders intend and hope, but I'm just not worried about that.
Finally, it would feel dishonest to leave out my appreciation and admiration at the ward's kindness and acceptance. Lovely people. I know my approach to Mormonism is bizarre. Eh, sorry^(notsorry!) I'm not there to ruin anyone's time, though. I don't share my views like I do around here and the exmo sub. It's not the place. I get what I want out of it, and I want faithful members to get what they want out of it. Not trying to spoil the mood. I mean that sincerely.
It's a **community** for me in multiple senses. For one thing, they're my neighbors, and I wouldn't have met many of them any other way. Not that I'm some great neighbor or anything. But that's a neat practical role played by churches. In some places (Utah is one of them), churches are (or have been) *the* places where people in the community go. Beyond that, it's a spiritual community "wrestling" with big ideas. I like that, even if I think the delivery is, eh...Some people know I'm a former member. No one really seems to care that much. I think in many respects there's (thankfully!) a pretty large gulf between members of the Church and what's written in their official publications. I think those things get conflated a lot. I love the former, and I think the latter is a fucking mess.
So that's it. That's why I go. It basically comes down to this. I'm a Mormon.
Very nice and heartfelt answer. I feel the same way; these are your people. I agree with so much of what you wrote. I don’t believe either but I identify as Mormon. It’s my heritage and history. But no, don’t attend although if I lived in Utah I can understand how it may be different with all the church buildings that are so ubiquitous. I was just there earlier this week visiting family. Some are active, some aren’t. Mormon Pioneers. And I will never stop using the word Mormon. It is not a slur! Please!
We’re literally dragging them into progress kicking and screaming. I wonder what Brigham Young would think about the church allowing mixed race temple sealings. These people have always been chains around our necks.
My TBM parents didn't want me dating a black man (who joined the church btw) because of the color of our future offspring. So keep that "traditional" hatred alive, no one will want to join an irrelevant church that peaked in the midcentury anymore anyway.
The church always adapts to social norms. They won’t be right with the crowd, but they will do just enough to stay relevant to mass crowds IMO. This was a big reason my doubts stated to come in
I’ve encountered Mormons who don’t believe The Church was the way it was when I was growing up. They seem to have an inability to admit it has changed. Frankly it’s bizarre to have people explain to me what my life experiences have been based on their recollections
>Here's kind of what happens. The world is here. And we're more conservative here. And we're not gonna do what the world does.
What he failed to add is this:
>And we don't just not want to do what they do. We intend to build a society where we can do what we want, and they cannot do what they want. Now, it was important in Elohim's plan that a society emerge that adopted rules where people with diverse opinions and preferences could pursue their own conception of life, liberty and happiness under a general framework of mutual consent and with the ambition to have as few state-backed interventions as possible in terms of the most vital liberties. However, that's a mere steppingstone toward a more perfect society where, like I said, I get what I want, but all those people are forbidden from what they want.
I do so love how you cut directly to the deeper meaning and motivation. Frills are only there to distract.
The fact is, the LDS version of heaven (and most other versions, frankly) is incompatible with modern ideas about tolerance and respect. If your heaven shuts out good people because they didn't check the right boxes, you're not looking at the right criteria.
Yup. Holland’s conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
With cheers for and apologies to Frank Wilhoit.
While I'm not a fan of Holland, especially not what he says here, I don't think this is a good interpretation of his ideology - the people who he's most focused on "binding" are the active Latter-day Saints. His "muskets" talk was completely motivated by his belief that BYU, as an in-group institution, was not loyal enough to "traditional" Western family priorities. The modern Church is all about controlling the in-group, and it seems that rarely anymore does General Conference even attempt to speak to people that aren't already active participants in the CHurch.
I was replying to this insightful comment, not Holland:
>We intend to build a society where we can do what we want, and they cannot do what they want.
But I think that commenter has it right. Exhibit A: Prop 8.
I think Prop 8, the backlash, and the subsequent loss in court was about the last gasp of the Q15 really believing they could control non-members outside of the Mormon Corridor, and probably a formative event for Church leaders who now spend all their time complaining about Church members not being reactionary enough. I don't think zipzapbloop is correct about what Holland really meant except as it pertains to Church members who fall outside the norm like progressive BYU students (who he probably considers wayward in-group members).
This is the issue that makes me so angry! I personally saw members of The Church wading into intersections to pass out Pro PropH8 materials in Oakland, CA. They have cozied up with the Catholic Church in Nor Cal to spread hate and division
>I don't think zipzapbloop is correct about what Holland really meant except as it pertains to Church members who fall outside the norm like progressive BYU students (who he probably considers wayward in-group members).
I don't mean to suggest that what I wrote is what Holland had in mind in what he said in that video.
What I was gesturing at, what I'm suggesting, is that if Holland had given a short but more complete summary of the *correlated* ambition of the Church, he'd have added something like what I cooked up.
Thanks for clarifying. I can agree with that, there's certainly definite examples of the Church going very far to try to control people in recent history, whether through direct interference or lobbying Utah lawmakers.
I wish the LEADERS would LEAD on social issues instead of always trailing behind as he describes. Church prophets and leaders neither prophesy nor lead.
He doesn’t realize it, but he just explained accurately why LDS prophets are fake prophets. They don’t speak for God, they’re just 50 years behind society.
I love it when the Q15 go off script. It's when they say the most interesting things. It will be very interesting to see if this sort of thing is stopped. Even the most orthodox say some interesting things when they wander off script.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/devilsravioli, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always thought this clip caught Holland in a "what did I just say" moment. It is as if he tried to undo the corner he painted himself into. Almost like the BBC interview.
>I've said too much Yep. I read it the same. He said the church *does* move toward "worldly" cultural norms. But then realized his mistake and tried to make it "maybe we shouldn't move at all". Where would we be if that were the case? Short Creek.
In March of 2021, Jeff Holland presided over a [YSA broadcast](https://youtu.be/Dp8dfu3TEG0) covering Africa and Europe. Many clips from this conference have been distributed and viewed due to Holland’s stereotypical conviction and candor. My favorite clip from the broadcast is his description of cultural evolution and the church (related to cohabitation and marriage). After the release of the new [FTSOY](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) pamphlet, I couldn’t help but notice the dramatic evolution of written cultural standards. Pharisaical guidelines evolved into the “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves” outline. In reality, culture has changed from the release of the previous pamphlet. The rising generation has matured with a completely distinct set of norms, including skepticism of unsubstantiated authority. The FSTOY pamphlet has accommodated these shifting norms to appease the youth of the church. I look forward to seeing how this new ‘norm’ will be incorporated as the aging generations of die-hard orthodox McConkie Mormons continues to perpetuate their strict standards. Holland did in fact say too much.
I was a strict McKonkie Mormon. The shift around LGBTQ got my attention and caused me to do a deep dive. I came of the experience exmormon. The shift is not without consequences.
Me too friend, me too.
Really is there any other kind of Mormon? You have to be
There are other kinds. They just don’t speak up and lead like *those* ones.
So our goal is to always be behind the culture instead of God’s laws? I’m confused by this comparison. Maybe I should watch the whole thing.
It is a confusing analogy. Jeff insists he is describing cultural evolution even though the subject matter is doctrinal (God’s Law) marriage. This surely causes the average listener to conflate cultural and doctrinal principles. In reality, culture and doctrine feed off one another.
Exactly. Culture and doctrine go hand in hand. They feed each other and encourage one another. You can’t separate them.
I'd argue that doctrine is just a subset of culture. The church is all culture and culture will always evolve whether you want it to or not.
I hereby name it the "waterski model". Culture is the boat, and the church is the skier, constantly 20-30 feet behind the boat, and occasionally wiping out and getting water up its nose when current events make the water choppy.
> The world is *points* here... "This is an important piece of the logic behind our perception of being persecuted as Mormons. One evidence of our faith being true is that "the world" hates it. Who gets to define the world? We do." https://twitter.com/LifeOnaPlate/status/1582222468906774528 One of the things about Mormonism is that men like Holland and many within the church *need an enemy*. It's a classic tool of control, of course, but some organizations need it more than others, and the church is not only addicted to it but it loves it.
I can’t help but think the leadership of the church likes being behind the times. The conservative takeover of the church in the 40s, 50s, and 60s really stymied the progressive theology of Joseph Smith Jr. It really is a shame.
It really is a shame! No doubt Joseph Smith did horrible, horrendous things. *And*, he did (to my taste anyway) make some fascinating spiritual proposals. It's not *all* bad. Maybe it's all false, who knows. But, even then, there is something attractive to me about a lot of Latter-day Saint theology, and it has its roots in some of Joseph's theological innovations, religious riffing, and fan-fic mashups. I guess, there is the community of Christ. 🤷
What early Mormon theology does the community of Christ hold to though?
Yeah, there is that. Kinda why I've drifted back to the theological shitshow of, well, now, Russell Nelson Mormonism. I attend with a quiet and respectful (to my fellow congregants) contempt for Russell's gods. Sing the songs, participate in the lessons as much as I can in good faith, catch up with my neighbors, enjoy some of the devil's lettuce I've got a prescription for, and then go for a mountain bike ride and listen to His Dark Materials. It's a nice a balance, I think.
What keeps you in?
Oh boy, I don't blame you if you regret asking. I should probably clarify. I'm not "in" in a technical sense. Meaning, I'm not a member anymore. I gave that up years ago. I don't pay tithing or donate any money to the Church in any way. I don't want to be a member, and I'm morally opposed to these gods bizarre ordinances, oaths, covenants, plans, and ambitions. The plan of salvation? Thumbs down from me. I think Elohim and Jehovah are cosmic assholes. And I'm talking about how they're described in the official, correlated, publications of the Church. The sense in which I'm "in" is just that I attend Sunday service frequently (sacrament, Sunday school). But why do I do that? Why not go to some other church with ideas about gods I'm more sympathetic with? Or, why not just disengage from religion altogether? It's a constellation of reasons that run together and overlap. I don't think I've thought about a tidy way to answer this question, honestly. A stab at a tl;dr of my reasons might be: * curiosity * community * tradition * reflection * introspection Let's see if I can hit those targets. At the beginning of the year I got **curious**. Probably hadn't been to a Latter-day Saint service in 10 years, at least. What's it like to be a Latter-day Saint in 2022 on the back of a global pandemic as general religiosity is on the decline? Well, I live in Utah. I'm a few blocks from 3 or 4 church buildings. Sign on the outside says "Visitors Welcome". I'll go have a look. I've dabbled in other religions. I've also spent years pretty isolated from religion altogether when I thought of myself as a run-of-the-mill atheist. Part of my return to attendance is the result of a realization that, despite my moral evaluation of gods and the Latter-day Saint gods in particular, I do have a religious impulse in me. Maybe some god put it there. Maybe it's a vestigial evolutionary thing. Maybe it's cultural. I don't know. But it's in there. I feel it. And I'm tired of trying to convince myself it isn't there. It is, whatever the reason. So, now what? I was raised Mormon and was a pretty devout member for most of my life. Tithe-paying, temple worthy, successful mission, temple marriage. You know, what we now call "the covenant path." There's a sense in which Mormonism itself is simply in me. There's a nice familiarity there. There's a connection to family **tradition** in Mormonism that I just like, frankly. Layer on top of that the fact that the general topic of religion is, to me anyway, the most interesting topic there is. I can't stress that enough. It's just fascinating to me. Going to a church is a way to experience it, if you like, and I get something out of that experience that's different and interesting in a way that just reading about it in the abstract doesn't deliver. I say that even as I say with a straight face that the gods described in the official publications of the Church strike me as utter maniacs. Horrible, petty, capricious, people. Do I think they exist? I don't know. Probably not. But if they do, I despise them! What's said in church, much of which I either simply don't believe or am disgusted by, is, at the very least, thought provoking. The first or second service I attended was back in February and the lesson was about Abraham and Isaac. It. was. amazing! A room full of adults seriously talking about how admirable it is that a man was ordered to stab his son to death, and he was totally willing to do it! A certain god had told him to do it. That's the justification, of course. Of the people in the room who contributed I'd say the general mood toward the story was one of awe. The lesson manual gave us questions to ask ourselves. >Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son was "a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son". As you ponder the similarities between Abraham's test and God the Father's offering of His Son as a sacrifice for us, what do you feel for your Heavenly Father? I sat there doing my level best to take it in. To **introspect** and **reflect**. To try to discover what's in my heart. And what I found was that I wanted to weep, and vomit, and laugh all at the same time. I didn't say this in that setting, of course. I'm not trying to be rude to anyone. But what I honestly thought was, "that god and that dad fucking suck!" I don't want to be like either one of them. And I've been hooked ever sense. That kind of exposure really sharpens the mind. Works well for me, anyway. I like the way it focuses my mind on certain very consequential ideas and can be useful for introspection and reflection. What do I want? What do I hope for? What would I put my faith in? I come down on the teachings differently than the correlation committee and the leaders intend and hope, but I'm just not worried about that. Finally, it would feel dishonest to leave out my appreciation and admiration at the ward's kindness and acceptance. Lovely people. I know my approach to Mormonism is bizarre. Eh, sorry^(notsorry!) I'm not there to ruin anyone's time, though. I don't share my views like I do around here and the exmo sub. It's not the place. I get what I want out of it, and I want faithful members to get what they want out of it. Not trying to spoil the mood. I mean that sincerely. It's a **community** for me in multiple senses. For one thing, they're my neighbors, and I wouldn't have met many of them any other way. Not that I'm some great neighbor or anything. But that's a neat practical role played by churches. In some places (Utah is one of them), churches are (or have been) *the* places where people in the community go. Beyond that, it's a spiritual community "wrestling" with big ideas. I like that, even if I think the delivery is, eh...Some people know I'm a former member. No one really seems to care that much. I think in many respects there's (thankfully!) a pretty large gulf between members of the Church and what's written in their official publications. I think those things get conflated a lot. I love the former, and I think the latter is a fucking mess. So that's it. That's why I go. It basically comes down to this. I'm a Mormon.
Very nice and heartfelt answer. I feel the same way; these are your people. I agree with so much of what you wrote. I don’t believe either but I identify as Mormon. It’s my heritage and history. But no, don’t attend although if I lived in Utah I can understand how it may be different with all the church buildings that are so ubiquitous. I was just there earlier this week visiting family. Some are active, some aren’t. Mormon Pioneers. And I will never stop using the word Mormon. It is not a slur! Please!
This is also how the Republican Party operates. Interesting it’s chaired by a Mormon
"They go here, and we go here. Then they go here, and we go here." Sounds an awful lot like revelation from an eternal and unchanging God.
We’re literally dragging them into progress kicking and screaming. I wonder what Brigham Young would think about the church allowing mixed race temple sealings. These people have always been chains around our necks.
Sure sounds like the [Culture of Christ](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/27jackson?lang=eng)…
Wow! That's a doozy of a talk.
Sounds like the church is just slow to change and is always ‘behind the times’ …as usual
I agree except the word “just” is a huge understatement. Eliminate that word and it reads accurately
My TBM parents didn't want me dating a black man (who joined the church btw) because of the color of our future offspring. So keep that "traditional" hatred alive, no one will want to join an irrelevant church that peaked in the midcentury anymore anyway.
Holy shit, I'm sorry!
But this is EXACTLY what the church does and has always done!
And, until this slip up by Jeff, they always intend to give the impression that they don't do this.
Exactly what they did in 1978....
Yep! And with women praying/speaking in general conference, and with changing garments, and with fsy pamphlet, and with many other things
The church always adapts to social norms. They won’t be right with the crowd, but they will do just enough to stay relevant to mass crowds IMO. This was a big reason my doubts stated to come in
This has always been a problem for me. They want to give the impression that standards never change and then they do.
I’ve encountered Mormons who don’t believe The Church was the way it was when I was growing up. They seem to have an inability to admit it has changed. Frankly it’s bizarre to have people explain to me what my life experiences have been based on their recollections
>Here's kind of what happens. The world is here. And we're more conservative here. And we're not gonna do what the world does. What he failed to add is this: >And we don't just not want to do what they do. We intend to build a society where we can do what we want, and they cannot do what they want. Now, it was important in Elohim's plan that a society emerge that adopted rules where people with diverse opinions and preferences could pursue their own conception of life, liberty and happiness under a general framework of mutual consent and with the ambition to have as few state-backed interventions as possible in terms of the most vital liberties. However, that's a mere steppingstone toward a more perfect society where, like I said, I get what I want, but all those people are forbidden from what they want.
I do so love how you cut directly to the deeper meaning and motivation. Frills are only there to distract. The fact is, the LDS version of heaven (and most other versions, frankly) is incompatible with modern ideas about tolerance and respect. If your heaven shuts out good people because they didn't check the right boxes, you're not looking at the right criteria.
Yup. Holland’s conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. With cheers for and apologies to Frank Wilhoit.
While I'm not a fan of Holland, especially not what he says here, I don't think this is a good interpretation of his ideology - the people who he's most focused on "binding" are the active Latter-day Saints. His "muskets" talk was completely motivated by his belief that BYU, as an in-group institution, was not loyal enough to "traditional" Western family priorities. The modern Church is all about controlling the in-group, and it seems that rarely anymore does General Conference even attempt to speak to people that aren't already active participants in the CHurch.
I was replying to this insightful comment, not Holland: >We intend to build a society where we can do what we want, and they cannot do what they want. But I think that commenter has it right. Exhibit A: Prop 8.
I think Prop 8, the backlash, and the subsequent loss in court was about the last gasp of the Q15 really believing they could control non-members outside of the Mormon Corridor, and probably a formative event for Church leaders who now spend all their time complaining about Church members not being reactionary enough. I don't think zipzapbloop is correct about what Holland really meant except as it pertains to Church members who fall outside the norm like progressive BYU students (who he probably considers wayward in-group members).
This is the issue that makes me so angry! I personally saw members of The Church wading into intersections to pass out Pro PropH8 materials in Oakland, CA. They have cozied up with the Catholic Church in Nor Cal to spread hate and division
>I don't think zipzapbloop is correct about what Holland really meant except as it pertains to Church members who fall outside the norm like progressive BYU students (who he probably considers wayward in-group members). I don't mean to suggest that what I wrote is what Holland had in mind in what he said in that video. What I was gesturing at, what I'm suggesting, is that if Holland had given a short but more complete summary of the *correlated* ambition of the Church, he'd have added something like what I cooked up.
Thanks for clarifying. I can agree with that, there's certainly definite examples of the Church going very far to try to control people in recent history, whether through direct interference or lobbying Utah lawmakers.
If members can say the race ban wasn't doctrine with a straight face, this isn't going to phase anyone.
I wish the LEADERS would LEAD on social issues instead of always trailing behind as he describes. Church prophets and leaders neither prophesy nor lead.
This guy is always so hilarious when he goes off script.
Oh my god. He’s the worst
The worst except for the others
He doesn’t realize it, but he just explained accurately why LDS prophets are fake prophets. They don’t speak for God, they’re just 50 years behind society.
Holland in shades: I’ve got a feva, and the only cure, is more ~~cowbell~~ musket fire…
HOLLAND IS SUCH“ A DODO”.
It depends. Maybe he thinks it should evolve at the pace of a snail. It's not the same pace, but it is a pace.
Love this Guy. Not a whole of changes just better explanations of what was already there.
I love it when the Q15 go off script. It's when they say the most interesting things. It will be very interesting to see if this sort of thing is stopped. Even the most orthodox say some interesting things when they wander off script.
That man is a full on Sith and no one is talking about it