LDS Jeffrey Holland's example makes me question LDS commitment to freedom of religion and conscience

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
It's kinda funny given how much the Mormon religion apparently prizes free will and freedom of religion that their leadership sometimes slips up and says things that are diametrically opposed to this publicly tolerant face. Apparently since the LDS religion means everything to their leader Jeffrey Holland, not only is he not going to leave it, he's "not going to let you leave it" (note the quotes), either. Hmm.


Now it would be easy to point out how hypocritical that is, given that if his religion's prophet Joseph Smith hadn't been allowed to leave the traditional Christian religious choices he was given as a youth there would be no Mormonism, and how Mormonism thrives on freedom of religion so as to induce others to leave their own religions for Mormonism (you'll note that no LDS missionaries are ever assigned to Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, or any other place that doesn't really have freedom of religion already enshrined in their society in some way), but it turns out that apostle Holland has an answer for that sort of criticism: basically, because no one is perfect, it is somehow wrong for Mormons to be concerned about hypocrisy in their LDS religious leaders such as himself.


I gotta be honest, I'm kinda curious how people can follow this guy when he wants to take away their freedom of religion if they'd use it to leave the religion that pays his totally voluntary salary :rolleyes: (which I only bring up because it makes it obvious why he wouldn't want to leave it himself), and acts as though people who struggle with some aspects of their (LDS) religion are demanding too much by expecting their leaders to be open and honest with them, because hey, nobody's perfect.

He also seems to be very slippery and even evasive in response to direct questions, as in the BBC interview where he obfuscates his way around a discussion on the nature of the oaths taken in the LDS temple by then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who went through his endowment before the 1990 removal of the offensive portions of the ceremony (well, before the removal of those offensive portions; I have seen other videos by more recent ex-Mormons talking about subsequent changes to the text of the oaths used in the ceremony that supposedly go into effect his year, search for "Mormon Women and the Temple Veil" by Amy Logan on YouTube and you'll see what I mean; I don't want to anger our resident Mormons by directly linking to the video, due to the sensitivity they have about their temple ritual being discussed in detail).


It's enough to make me wonder (and this is a serious question, not an attempt at mockery) if Holland or other leaders who behave similarly might be "un-sustained", in a manner mirroring the sustaining of leaders done by the LDS faithful. (You know, where they vote by raising their arms and such.) Or is being open and honest and not telling people you'd take their freedom of religion away if they'd make a different choice than you would not a part of what qualifies someone to be an apostle in the Mormon religion? Again, a serious question. From looking at his biography, it says that he was called up to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from a lower position, so I'm wondering if there's any such 'sustaining' done at all, or if it's like being tapped by the mob or something: the boss wants you in this position, so you're there and that's it. Maybe it literally doesn't matter how he acts or what he says, and once he's in, he's in. I did post a video a while back of a Mormon atheist in their church education system (Hendricks was his name, I think?), who apparently hadn't been excommunicated for his unbelief as John Dehlin and other public Mormon dissenters have been. Isn't that odd?

It seems pretty lousy to me that the LDS would be stuck with this kind of guy, but maybe (probably) there's something in their religion that prevents it from being otherwise that I don't understand. In all forms of Christianity with the exception of Roman Catholicism (and even there it's only at the very top of the leadership, concerning the Roman Pope himself), there are recognized and formalized methods for removing a leader who may go off the rails. I don't know what if anything there may be in Mormonism that is like that. They don't have synods, y'know? Because they're not a communion to begin with. And searching for info on Mormon disciplinary systems only brings up things like Jeremy Rennel's (sp? -- the "CES Letter" guy) excommunication, or what different levels of disciplinary problems among laity may lead to. Nothing about what they can do with leaders that go off script (not saying that what Holland has said even is; I have no idea, it just makes me wonder).

At any rate, I just wanted to share these few videos because while I believe that the commitment to freedom of religion and conscience is sincere on the part of Mormon individuals (i.e., I kinda doubt that our resident Mormons would be in favor of not allowing people to leave the Mormon religion), Holland's behavior makes me wonder if the same is true about Mormon leadership. It doesn't seem to be so, but I'd rather have people watch the videos and chime in with their own experiences than just come to that conclusion myself based on how things seem to me when comparing Mormonism to Christianity, because that's not really fair.

It's a bit disheartening, at least. Mormons will tell you that they love freedom of religion and free will and all this, and that's good, but if you have leadership saying things like "I'm not going to leave this church, and I'm not going to let you leave it" it totally contradicts that message and makes those individual sincere Mormons look bad, which is probably pretty embarrassing. I know I was embarrassed a few years ago, for instance, when a leader from my own Church, HE Metropolitan Bishoy (who seems to have a case of intermittent foot-in-mouth disease), said that Protestants and Catholics will not be saved. But in that case he was officially disciplined and made to retract that statement, because it is really against our religion to say anything like that, since God is the one who will judge people in the final judgment, not any of our leaders. So I don't start this thread to mock Mormons for having a bad leader in this Holland guy, but I have to be honest that if his statements go unopposed at an official level, it is a cause for concern not so much for myself but for the doubting Mormon, the questioning Mormon, and even the non-Mormon who might be otherwise thinking that Mormonism allows for freedom of religion and conscience when maybe it doesn't. I mean, saying (basically) "You can join, but you can't leave once you've joined because I, the leader, won't allow it" sounds less like freedom of religion and more like a Taliban or ISIS type setup, but this time starring guys from Utah in suits. A million no thank yous to that idea! But then if it's not meant that way, I have questions:

1. Why did he say it?
2. Why was he allowed to say it and not immediately told by his brother apostles or whoever else might oversee him or govern with him that he needs to walk it back? (cf. the Coptic example above, where exactly that happened)
3. What is it supposed to mean?

Because it sounds really bad. Holland makes Mormonism sound really bad.
 
Last edited:

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
It's kinda funny given how much the Mormon religion apparently prizes free will and freedom of religion that their leadership sometimes slips up and says things that are diametrically opposed to this publicly tolerant face. Apparently since the LDS religion means everything to their leader Jeffrey Holland, not only is he not going to leave it, he's "not going to let you leave it" (note the quotes), either. Hmm.


Now it would be easy to point out how hypocritical that is, given that if his religion's prophet Joseph Smith hadn't been allowed to leave the traditional Christian religious choices he was given as a youth there would be no Mormonism, and how Mormonism thrives on freedom of religion so as to induce others to leave their own religions for Mormonism (you'll note that no LDS missionaries are ever assigned to Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, or any other place that doesn't really have freedom of religion already enshrined in their society in some way), but it turns out that 'apostle' Holland has an answer for that sort of criticism: basically, because no one is perfect, it is somehow wrong for Mormons to be concerned about hypocrisy in their LDS religious leaders such as himself.


I gotta be honest, I'm kinda curious how people can follow this guy when he wants to take away their freedom of religion if they'd use it to leave the religion that pays his totally voluntary salary :rolleyes: (which I only bring up because it makes it obvious why he wouldn't want to leave it himself), and acts as though people who struggle with some aspects of their (LDS) religion are demanding too much by expecting their leaders to be open and honest with them, because hey, nobody's perfect.

He also seems to be very slippery and even evasive in response to direct questions, as in the BBC interview where he obfuscates his way around a discussion on the nature of the oaths taken in the LDS temple by then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who went through his endowment before the 1990 removal of the offensive portions of the ceremony (well, before the removal of those offensive portions; I have seen other videos by more recent ex-Mormons talking about subsequent changes to the text of the oaths used in the ceremony that supposedly go into effect his year, search for "Mormon Women and the Temple" by Amy Logan on YouTube and you'll see what I mean; I don't want to anger our resident Mormons by directly linking to the video, due to the sensitivity they have about their temple ritual being discussed in detail).


It's enough to make me wonder (and this is a serious question, not an attempt at mockery) if Holland or other leaders who behave similarly might be "un-sustained", in a manner mirroring the sustaining of leaders done by the LDS faithful. (You know, where they vote by raising their arms and such.) Or is being open and honest and not telling people you'd take their freedom of religion away if they'd make a different choice than you would not a part of what qualifies someone to be an apostle in the Mormon religion? Again, a serious question. From looking at his biography, it says that he was called up to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from a lower position, so I'm wondering if there's any such 'sustaining' done at all, or if it's like being tapped by the mob or something: the boss wants you in this position, so you're there and that's it. Maybe it literally doesn't matter how he acts or what he says, and once he's in, he's in. I did post a video a while back of a Mormon atheist in their church education system (Hendricks was his name, I think?), who apparently hadn't been excommunicated for his unbelief as John Dehlin and other public Mormon dissenters have been. Isn't that odd?

It seems pretty lousy to me that the LDS would be stuck with this kind of guy, but maybe (probably) there's something in their religion that prevents it from being otherwise that I don't understand. In all forms of Christianity with the exception of Roman Catholicism (and even there it's only at the very top of the leadership, concerning the Roman Pope himself), there are recognized and formalized methods for removing a leader who may go off the rails. I don't know what if anything there may be in Mormonism that is like that. They don't have synods, y'know? Because they're not a communion to begin with. And searching for info on Mormon disciplinary systems only brings up things like Jeremy Rennel's (sp? -- the "CES Letter" guy) excommunication, or what different levels of disciplinary problems among laity may lead to. Nothing about what they can do with leaders that go off script (not saying that what Holland has said even is; I have no idea, it just makes me wonder).

At any rate, I just wanted to share these few videos because while I believe that the commitment to freedom of religion and conscience is sincere on the part of Mormon individuals (i.e., I kinda doubt that our resident Mormons would be in favor of not allowing people to leave the Mormon religion), Holland's behavior makes me wonder if the same is true about Mormon leadership. It doesn't seem to be so, but I'd rather have people watch the videos and chime in with their own experiences than just come to that conclusion myself based on how things seem to me when comparing Mormonism to Christianity, because that's not really fair.

It's a bit disheartening, at least. Mormons will tell you that they love freedom of religion and free will and all this, and that's good, but if you have leadership saying things like "I'm not going to leave this church, and I'm not going to let you leave it" it totally contradicts that message and makes those individual sincere Mormons look bad, which is probably pretty embarrassing. I know I was embarrassed a few years ago, for instance, when a leader from my own Church, HE Metropolitan Bishoy (who seems to have a case of intermittent foot-in-mouth disease), said that Protestants and Catholics will not be saved. But in that case he was officially disciplined and made to retract that statement, because it is really against our religion to say anything like that, since God is the one who will judge people in the final judgment, not any of our leaders. So I don't start this thread to mock Mormons for having a bad leader in this Holland guy, but I have to be honest that if his statements go unopposed at an official level, it is a cause for concern not so much for myself but for the doubting Mormon, the questioning Mormon, and even the non-Mormon who might be otherwise thinking that Mormonism allows for freedom of religion and conscience when maybe it doesn't. I mean, saying (basically) "You can join, but you can't leave once you've joined because I, the leader, won't allow it" sounds less like freedom of religion and more like a Taliban or ISIS type setup, but this time starring guys from Utah in suits. A million no thank yous to that idea! But then if it's not meant that way, I have questions:

1. Why did he say it?
2. Why was he allowed to say it and not immediately told by his brother apostles or whoever else might oversee him or govern with him that he needs to walk it back? (cf. the Coptic example above, where exactly that happened)
3. What is it supposed to mean?

Because it sounds really bad. Holland makes Mormonism sound really bad.
OK, if I leave the church will I get a Church of Jesus Christ of LDS sheriff at my door with a letter from Elder Holland that says, "if you leave the church you will be arrested and sent to jail".

Is that what you think Elder Holland was saying. He sits in council all the time with people that have been hurt by situations that arise in the church and I think he was blowing off some steam at these petty situations and the thin skin that people have that have to have everything perfect and how they want it or they are leaving the church.

The idea that he can is not leaving and he can stop anyone from else from leaving is silly.
He said it, but what is he going to do? Did he go out of that meeting and set up a police force to stop people from leaving? Did he go out of that meeting and declare that even if you want to leave you can't leave.

Listen to Jeffery Holland for all that he says about God and the church. And quit the nit picking specialty that you delight in. This post is petty and silly, and is beneath you. This church is and always has been for the freedom of religion and what Holland said here does not inch our church 1 inch closer to the confiscation of freedoms. Not an inch and you know it.

I am glad to see that you listen to Elder Holland, something may strike you as true some day and change your mind about things.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
OK, if I leave the church will I get a Church of Jesus Christ of LDS sheriff at my door with a letter from Elder Holland that says, "if you leave the church you will be arrested and sent to jail".

Is that what you think Elder Holland was saying.

That's precisely the issue, Peter: I don't know what he means until an actual Mormon explains it to me (so thank you for your post :)), so I just know it's a really bad look on a leader of a religion to be saying "I won't let you leave this church". But I have no idea what that means in a Mormon context. I don't think he's setting up a police force, no. It's not like in Joseph Smith's or Brigham Young's days where there were actual militias and battles to fight, thank God. But I'm a curious person, so of course I still want to know why he said that and what it means, since he is as far as I can tell a major leader in your religion, and I care about Mormons' human rights same as anyone else's.

He sits in council all the time with people that have been hurt by situations that arise in the church and I think he was blowing off some steam at these petty situations and the thin skin that people have that have to have everything perfect and how they want it or they are leaving the church.

Okay. Then my question about why he is allowed to speak carelessly when blowing off steam should be answered, please. I don't understand it because, again, in Christian churches speaking carelessly in that manner can get you in actual trouble. You're not allowed to have a tantrum as a bishop, priest, etc., because your words carry weight, so you must choose them carefully, even when you are angry. So why is he allowed to say such things and not be disciplined for it? Can anyone even discipline him for anything, and if so, why are they not doing their job? Does the inaction signify that the LDS religion actually agrees with what he said, or should whoever oversees him be fired?

The idea that he can is not leaving and he can stop anyone from else from leaving is silly.
He said it, but what is he going to do? Did he go out of that meeting and set up a police force to stop people from leaving? Did he go out of that meeting and declare that even if you want to leave you can't leave.

I'm guessing not, but that doesn't mean that his angry 'blowing off steam' ranting doesn't mean anything. What I'm trying to get at is what if anything it says about the LDS religion that this even happened -- particularly what we are to make of it in light of the Mormon reputation for defending religious freedom and free will, which I understand is a strong tradition in your religion. Holland's "blowing off steam" damages that.

Listen to Jeffery Holland for all that he says about God and the church.

I did. That's how I determined that I don't like what he's saying.

And quit the nit picking specialty that you delight in.

It's my thread. If it's too much "nitpicking" for you or you don't like it, you are not compelled to participate in it in any way.

This post is petty and silly, and is beneath you.

I don't think it is, because I think it's important to take the words of religious leaders seriously as a means of trying to understand what the religion is like even if you don't practice it yourself. Like if we were talking about Islam, a Muslim would probably defer to some kind of authority in their religion -- maybe the top religious scholars of Al Azhar (the premier source of Sunni scholarship in Egypt) or the Shi'ite religious scholars and clerics of Qom or another center of Shi'ism. It would then behoove you to listen to that authority because they presented as an authority in that religion by the people who actually practice it.

By virtue of the fact that Jeffrey Holland is a leader, in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (a very high position in Mormonism, I'm told), and giving such talks at various places in an official capacity (i.e., he's not the janitor of the place, thrust up on stage to give his extemporaneous thoughts on XYZ), he occupies such a place in Mormonism. So I listen to him. I think it's good to do so, even if I don't like what he says in this case.

This church is and always has been for the freedom of religion and what Holland said here does not inch our church 1 inch closer to the confiscation of freedoms. Not an inch and you know it.

No, actually I don't know it, as there has been an undercurrent of theocracy in Mormonism since its very early days (see, e.g., the Council of Fifty). The thing is, I thought Mormonism in general (excluding fundamentalist sects) had given that up in the modern day in a manner similar to how your religion now disallows polygamy. Things like what Holland has said make me question my assumptions in this area, hence this thread. It seems like he is all in favor of freedom of religion when it can result in more people joining Mormonism, but then would like it to not apply to people who want to leave Mormonism. That's not being for freedom of religion at all. And since he's a leader of your religion (not some tiny sect of it, like those that practice polygamy), that is very unsettling.

I am glad to see that you listen to Elder Holland, something may strike you as true some day and change your mind about things.

Well, that's not really why I'm listening to him, but I'll listen anyway. I still would like an answer as to how he can say such things and have them be brushed off, as you have done here. Please answer the questions from the OP, if are willing. If not, thank you for providing your view to the degree that you are comfortable doing so. I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
THE MOST WORTHY CHOSEN FOR LEADERSHIP

...the Lord said to Abraham:
These I will make my rulers;
for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. --- Abraham 3:23

There must be leaders, presiding officers, and those who are worthy and able to command. During the ages in which we dwelt in the pre-mortal state we not only developed our various characteristics and showed our worthiness and capability, or the lack of it, but we were also where such progress could be observed. It is reasonable to believe that there was a Church organization there. The heavenly beings were living in a perfectly arranged society. Every person knew his place. Priesthood, without any question, had been conferred and the leaders were chosen to officiate. Ordinances pertaining to that pre-existence were required and the love of God prevailed. Under those conditions it was natural for our Father to discern and choose those who were most worthy and evaluate the talents of each individual. He not only knew what each of us could do, but also what each of us would do when put to the test and when responsibility was given us. Then, when the time came for our habitation on mortal earth, all things were prepared and the servants of the Lord chosen and ordained to their respective missions.
Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, c. 1972, pp. 50-51

It seems that the leaders are a step closer to perfection than the rest of mankind.

Joseph Smith was promised exaltation to godhood.

From Wikipedia [as of March 9, 2011]: In the Latter Day Saint movement, the second anointing, also known historically and in Latter Day Saint scripture as the fullness of the priesthood, is an obscure and relatively rare ordinance usually conducted in temples as extension of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony. Founder Joseph Smith, Jr. cited the "fullness of the priesthood" as one of the reasons for building the Nauvoo Temple (D&C 124:28). In the ordinance, a participant is anointed as a "priest and king" or a "priestess and queen", and is sealed to the highest degree of salvation available in Mormon theology. Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their "calling and election made sure", and their celestial marriage "sealed by the holy spirit of promise". They are said to have received the "more sure word of prophecy".
Second Anointing

D&C 132
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
Doctrine and Covenants 132


The initial second anointing took place on September 28, 1843, when Joseph and his wife Emma Smith received it.
Second Anointing

An informative article from the July 1976 Ensign:
Doctrine and Covenants 132

D&C 132
49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
My bishop got angry with me for telling him I was leaving Mormonism and didn't feel a need to make an appointment with him to discuss my decision. A few years later I was asked to write a letter requesting that my name be removed. Afterwards two Priesthood holders came to my door to deliver my freedom papers which instructed me to repent.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Re: Excommunication

Church members can become candidates for excommunication as they involve themselves in gross iniquity.

Church members become candidates for excommunication as they become involved in or advocate plural marriage.

Church members become candidates for excommunication as they apostatize from the teachings of the Church.

Gross iniquity involves such transgressions as murder, adultery, sexual perversion, or serious civil court conviction such as a felony.

It should also be made clear that an apostate is not an indifferent or an inactive member of the Church but rather one who flatly denies the divine nature of the Church or one who is antagonistic against or unresponsive to his priesthood authority.

“What are the reasons for and the process of excommunication?” - new-era


For the first time in nearly 30 years, the Mormon church has excommunicated one of its top leaders.
Published: August 8, 2017
Updated: August 09, 2017

On Tuesday morning, James J. Hamula was released from his position in the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after disciplinary action.

LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins provided no details about the removal. But the church did confirm Hamula was no longer a member of the church and that his ouster was not for apostasy or disillusionment.
High-ranking Mormon official, who twice spoke in General Conference, is excommunicated; first such ouster in nearly 3 decades

George Patrick Lee (March 23, 1943 – July 28, 2010) was the first Native American to become a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[1] He was a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy from 1975 to 1989, when he was excommunicated from the church.[1][2]
George P. Lee - Wikipedia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Informative
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
My bishop got angry with me for telling him I was leaving Mormonism and didn't feel a need to make an appointment with him to discuss my decision. A few years later I was asked to write a letter requesting that my name be removed. Afterwards two Priesthood holders came to my door to deliver my freedom papers which instructed me to repent.

"Freedom papers"? Is that what they called them? Yikes!

I didn't write to have my name removed from the RCC rolls when I left...I suppose I could have, but after learning that my local diocese was knee-deep in the sex scandals (not the most recent round, but the one before, c. 2008-2009) and had paid something on the order of $3 million to victims of abuse perpetrated by priests of the diocese, I didn't feel that I needed to have any more contact with any RC officials.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
"Freedom papers"? Is that what they called them? Yikes!

I didn't write to have my name removed from the RCC rolls when I left...I suppose I could have, but after learning that my local diocese was knee-deep in the sex scandals (not the most recent round, but the one before, c. 2008-2009) and had paid something on the order of $3 million to victims of abuse perpetrated by priests of the diocese, I didn't feel that I needed to have any more contact with any RC officials.

That's what I called my ex-communication letter! I had walked away, but when I complied and requested in writing that my name be removed, I was told in writing to repent. They had a lot of gall, didn't they? At my suggestion, my mother never wrote a letter. She attended their sacrament meeting (Sunday service) one time after her baptism and never went back.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
That's what I called my ex-communication letter! I had walked away, but when I complied and requested in writing that my name be removed, I was told in writing to repent. They had a lot of gall, didn't they? At my suggestion, my mother never wrote a letter. She attended their sacrament meeting (Sunday service) one time after her baptism and never went back.

Wow. Yeah...I mean, I can understand from the LDS point of view (or what I would assume it would be) that you are jeopardizing your place in the kingdom or whatever, but it does seem a bit much to tell a person who has already left that they must repent after you've excommunicated them! Like "Okay, you're out, but we're still going to try to tell you what to do!" And from what I've seen of the trials they put on for people they are excommunicating, the 'accused' aren't really allowed to reason with the people who will pass judgment over them, or to really defend themselves. I saw Jeremy Runnnells' trial (which they apparently call a "Court of Love", though I didn't detect anything loving about it), and it was horrible. The poor kid asks over and over if they can please discuss the content of the material that got him charged with apostasy (the CES letter), and he is told every time "You are going to make a statement", or "Now is not the time for that." If you ever watch the video or listen to it (it's filmed secretly, so the sound and picture are both not so great, or else I'd link it here), you can hear the exasperation in his voice as he asks the tribunal president "When is the time? I've been trying to get answers for years...when is the time?" And they just shut him down as though they've already decided what's going to happen, and this is all a formality. It's one of the saddest things I've seen connected to Mormonism, period.

Your mother was right to just not go back. And you are certainly right to call them "freedom papers"! :) God bless the both of you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
That's precisely the issue, Peter: I don't know what he means until an actual Mormon explains it to me (so thank you for your post :)), so I just know it's a really bad look on a leader of a religion to be saying "I won't let you leave this church". But I have no idea what that means in a Mormon context. I don't think he's setting up a police force, no. It's not like in Joseph Smith's or Brigham Young's days where there were actual militias and battles to fight, thank God. But I'm a curious person, so of course I still want to know why he said that and what it means, since he is as far as I can tell a major leader in your religion, and I care about Mormons' human rights same as anyone else's.



Okay. Then my question about why he is allowed to speak carelessly when blowing off steam should be answered, please. I don't understand it because, again, in Christian churches speaking carelessly in that manner can get you in actual trouble. You're not allowed to have a tantrum as a bishop, priest, etc., because your words carry weight, so you must choose them carefully, even when you are angry. So why is he allowed to say such things and not be disciplined for it? Can anyone even discipline him for anything, and if so, why are they not doing their job? Does the inaction signify that the LDS religion actually agrees with what he said, or should whoever oversees him be fired?



I'm guessing not, but that doesn't mean that his angry 'blowing off steam' ranting doesn't mean anything. What I'm trying to get at is what if anything it says about the LDS religion that this even happened -- particularly what we are to make of it in light of the Mormon reputation for defending religious freedom and free will, which I understand is a strong tradition in your religion. Holland's "blowing off steam" damages that.



I did. That's how I determined that I don't like what he's saying.



It's my thread. If it's too much "nitpicking" for you or you don't like it, you are not compelled to participate in it in any way.



I don't think it is, because I think it's important to take the words of religious leaders seriously as a means of trying to understand what the religion is like even if you don't practice it yourself. Like if we were talking about Islam, a Muslim would probably defer to some kind of authority in their religion -- maybe the top religious scholars of Al Azhar (the premier source of Sunni scholarship in Egypt) or the Shi'ite religious scholars and clerics of Qom or another center of Shi'ism. It would then behoove you to listen to that authority because they presented as an authority in that religion by the people who actually practice it.

By virtue of the fact that Jeffrey Holland is a leader, in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (a very high position in Mormonism, I'm told), and giving such talks at various places in an official capacity (i.e., he's not the janitor of the place, thrust up on stage to give his extemporaneous thoughts on XYZ), he occupies such a place in Mormonism. So I listen to him. I think it's good to do so, even if I don't like what he says in this case.



No, actually I don't know it, as there has been an undercurrent of theocracy in Mormonism since its very early days (see, e.g., the Council of Fifty). The thing is, I thought Mormonism in general (excluding fundamentalist sects) had given that up in the modern day in a manner similar to how your religion now disallows polygamy. Things like what Holland has said make me question my assumptions in this area, hence this thread. It seems like he is all in favor of freedom of religion when it can result in more people joining Mormonism, but then would like it to not apply to people who want to leave Mormonism. That's not being for freedom of religion at all. And since he's a leader of your religion (not some tiny sect of it, like those that practice polygamy), that is very unsettling.



Well, that's not really why I'm listening to him, but I'll listen anyway. I still would like an answer as to how he can say such things and have them be brushed off, as you have done here. Please answer the questions from the OP, if are willing. If not, thank you for providing your view to the degree that you are comfortable doing so. I appreciate it.
You are making a gigantic mountain out of an ant hill. Did you notice the laughter as he was speaking to this audience. What he said did not mean a thing, other than he is frustrated by people who leave the church for a very small discomfort. He of course cannot stop them from leaving, since we believe in the freedom of religion. And even if we didn't how long would we last as a church if we imprisoned everyone who tried to leave our church.

Bottom line, don't listen to nit pick. I could do the same with any church I wanted and come up with something that would make me uncomforable about that church, yours included.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Wow. Yeah...I mean, I can understand from the LDS point of view (or what I would assume it would be) that you are jeopardizing your place in the kingdom or whatever, but it does seem a bit much to tell a person who has already left that they must repent after you've excommunicated them!

Excommunicated members can prove their repentance of apostasy and be rebaptized.
I'm not sure how that is accomplished but I'm not going to go back.

Like "Okay, you're out, but we're still going to try to tell you what to do!" And from what I've seen of the trials they put on for people they are excommunicating, the 'accused' aren't really allowed to reason with the people who will pass judgment over them, or to really defend themselves. I saw Jeremy Runnnells' trial (which they apparently call a "Court of Love", though I didn't detect anything loving about it), and it was horrible. The poor kid asks over and over if they can please discuss the content of the material that got him charged with apostasy (the CES letter), and he is told every time "You are going to make a statement", or "Now is not the time for that." If you ever watch the video or listen to it (it's filmed secretly, so the sound and picture are both not so great, or else I'd link it here), you can hear the exasperation in his voice as he asks the tribunal president "When is the time? I've been trying to get answers for years...when is the time?" And they just shut him down as though they've already decided what's going to happen, and this is all a formality. It's one of the saddest things I've seen connected to Mormonism, period.

I don't think I'm ready for that today. However, I'm curious...

Your mother was right to just not go back. And you are certainly right to call them "freedom papers"! :) God bless the both of you.

My mother passed away 11 months ago and never indicated to me that she had become a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
The Case of General Authority George P. Lee (see also: George P. Lee)
“The excommunication of the church official, Elder George P. Lee, a 46-year-old Navajo, was announced Friday in a one-paragraph statement. It followed his assertion that Mormon leaders were racist and that the church's president was too feeble to make decisions.
“The excommunication is the first in 46 years imposed against a Mormon general authority, one of 85 men who administer the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“The church's statement said Mr. Lee had been expelled for ‘apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the church.' A church spokesman, Don LeFevre, said he would not elaborate on the statement.
- New York Times, September 3, 1989, p. 29

"After reading in person a 23-page letter detailing his concerns, [George P.] Lee said he was astounded at the speed with which he was ousted.
"Within minutes, two officials came to his office and told him to turn over all church property, including a credit card and a signed pass with which faithful Mormons gain entry to their temples.
“‘I was stripped of everything,' said Lee... ‘It was just absolutely cold.'"

- Salt Lake Tribune, September 10, 1989, p. 14B
Mormon quotes on apostates
 
  • Informative
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Some of those 1800s quotes from earlier Mormon leaders are terrifying.

What do our resident Mormons think of the words from Brigham Young, et al., I wonder? More "blowing off steam", perhaps?

It's hard to see how the LDS system of present-day apostles is supposed to be this great preservation of the restored church when they're allowed to just go on bizarre tirades where they threaten to gut people (Brigham Young's quote about his knife), or take their freedom of religion away (Holland's quote). Why would God restore the Church only to give it to people who don't know how to handle the fact that not everyone is going to receive their message or keep to it forever? Where in the holy scriptures did Christ our God or any of His apostles say things like these? Christ told His apostles to shake the dust from their feet and move on from any place that would not receive them.

The one verse which most anti-Christians seem to cite to show Jesus' 'violent' teachings, Luke 19:27, is clearly said within the context of a parable (read it from verse 11 and it's obvious), which, by virtue of being a parable, is not to be taken literally, and so was not taken literally by the early Church which received and interpreted it (see, e.g., St. Methodius of Olympus' Oration on the Psalms, 3rd century: "Let no one neglect to meet the King, lest he be shut out from the Bridegroom's chamber.— Let no one among us be found to receive Him with a sad countenance, lest he be condemned with those wicked citizens — the citizens, I mean, who refused to receive the Lord as King over them" -- in other words, it's a warning to us about how we should behave, not a threat to literally cut people up!).

From the formation of groups like the Danites and what they did (as described in the John D. Lee quote on the page with quotes about apostates), it seems that the early Mormons did take the words of their leaders very literally. Lord have mercy.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
From the formation of groups like the Danites and what they did (as described in the John D. Lee quote on the page with quotes about apostates), it seems that the early Mormons did take the words of their leaders very literally. Lord have mercy.

You do realize that it was Joseph Smith himself who ordered the Danites out of existence, right?

He allowed them primarily as a defensive militia, and when he realized they'd gone too far he dropped the hammer.

Virtually all allegations about their activities after the Missouri period are derived from a faux confession signed by an excommunicated former member of the church who was staring down the gallows for crimes he'd committed after being given the boot; he figured that if he told a big enough lie, Uncle Sam would put Brigham Young's neck in the noose instead of his own.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
You do realize that it was Joseph Smith himself who ordered the Danites out of existence, right?

You realize that what I actually wrote was about how early Mormons interpreted calls for violence, right? It's not about what Joseph Smith did (just like how responding as Peter did earlier that Holland isn't setting up a police force to keep people in misses the point). That's what the comparison between the LDS situation and the passage in Luke was all about.

Virtually all allegations about their activities after the Missouri period are derived from a faux confession signed by an excommunicated former member of the church who was staring down the gallows for crimes he'd committed after being given the boot; he figured that if he told a big enough lie, Uncle Sam would put Brigham Young's neck in the noose instead of his own.

Virtually all the deflections from what the Danites did that rely on apostates being somehow unable to tell the truth sound like nothing but Mormon waffling on condemning the violence of their early community and the 'blowing off steam' of leaders that come off like threats, but okay. If that's what helps you sleep at night.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Virtually all the deflections from what the Danites did that rely on apostates being somehow unable to tell the truth sound like nothing but Mormon waffling on condemning the violence of their early community and the 'blowing off steam' of leaders that come off like threats, but okay. If that's what helps you sleep at night.

The fellow in question, if you want to look him up, was "Wild" Bill Hickman.

Wild Bill Hickman - Wikipedia

In 1871, Hickman was under arrest on a murder charge when he fired off an "autobiography" alleging that he'd committed several murders at Brigham Young's behest. Uncle Sam was trying to build a case against Young, and so this work was enough to spare Hickman from legal action. The work ended up in the hands of a man named Beadle, who published it publicly; it's a matter of academic debate as to how much of the published work represented further embellishment *by* Beadle, as at the very least he changed the title.

The federal government ultimately abandoned plans to bring any sort of case against Young, but Hickman was allowed to go free anyway. He'd live another 12 years before passing away.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Well there's a fine guy to rebaptize by proxy 51 years after he died! Is that the Mormon way of burying the hatchet?

It's an interesting tale, but I don't see how it does anything to address the quote from John D. Lee's diaries, which as far as I can tell does not come from Hickman's autobiography, and does not concern Young at all aside from the probably irrelevant side fact of Lee's adoptive parentage (since the quote itself mentions Joseph Smith specifically, not Young; unless Lee was really meaning to accuse his own father and just slipped up and said a completely different name for some reason).
 
Upvote 0