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
(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.