Best. Podcast. Ever. Thanks Consiglieri!

[consiglieri]

Wow, Hagoth!

Exceptionally, well put!

Exceptionally!

[blazerb]

When I listen to this story and compare it to the followup where Elder Holland tells us that we should never back down from personal revelation, that we should always trust the Lord and persevere in whatever He tells us, my gut reaction is to consider that Elder Holland might be a dodo. But he has told us in no uncertain terms that he is NOT a dodo. If I take him at his word, which I do, I can only accept that he is, intentionally or not, trying to manipulate me to believe things that even he doesn't believe in order to help me conform to an overall pattern of putting obedience to church leaders above God, reason and personal integrity.

Personally, I don't think Elder Holland is an avian of any type. Is he manipulating us? Absolutely.

[Abinidied]

Epic. I wish there were a stronger word to describe my enthusiasm for this podcast. Love the 'what if' especially at the end.

I couldn't help think of a few more what-ifs - one in particular. What if (insert name of individual who took his/her own life because of same gender attraction policy of the past), the church had ACTUALLY received revelation on this some several decades ago. What . . . God can't see into the future and see this nightmare coming? I think it speaks volumes to the consequences of claiming revelation only to find out later said assertions were wrong to the point said revelator was responsible for said deaths (with the exception of said Holland who appears to be beyond the shame and guilt that the rest of us mere mortals and I expect God, in Hollands mind, are subject to when such devastating and preventable events happen). Sorry for the sarcasm, but it's a powerful expression of the anger I feel when I think about how far-reaching and deeply the wounds go when humans speak for God, not just to him (or her, or it). It's all so just upside down to what I tragically thought for some sixty plus years was otherwise. Crap.

Thanks RFM. Whether you are aware or not, you have walked me through this mine-field of a transition through your in-depth analysis, breadth of research, gripping insights, and as a bonus, a hell-of-a-sense of dead-pan when needed. I also look to Bill, and others, but have to say nobody I've read or listened to could have provided the support you have when I needed it most. Thanks for that. Please start your own church.

[consiglieri]

Thanks RFM. Whether you are aware or not, you have walked me through this mine-field of a transition through your in-depth analysis, breadth of research, gripping insights, and as a bonus, a hell-of-a-sense of dead-pan when needed. I also look to Bill, and others, but have to say nobody I've read or listened to could have provided the support you have when I needed it most. Thanks for that. Please start your own church.

Wherever there's cops beating up a guy, I'll be there.



Thanks so much for the kind words, everybody, and particularly for this, Abinidied.

This totally made my day!

[Hagoth]

...that's not the way the Biblical God works. If an individual is asking honestly and sincerely, they get a straight up answer.

I think you just hit on the solution to this problem, Palerider! We were assuming that Elder Holland was talking about the God of the Bible, but he was really talking about the God of the Doctrine and Covenants. Two entirely different guys. We'll call them God(B) and God(DC).

God(DC) has already set several precedents for the fact that he lies to us frequently. In D&C 19 he admits to Martin Harris that eternal punishment isn't really eternal, he just named it that to scare the sh*t outta people to make them do what he wants. He also lied to us repeatedly in telling us that the Indians are Lamanites, but DNA and the apologists have shown us that we were on the wrong road on that one. And he told the saints to give up on building the Missouri temple because He couldn't deter their enemies and sometimes the things He tells us to do are just too hard (D&C 124:49), something that the Book of Mormon God - God(BM), who is yet another guy - wouldn't stand for (1 Nephi 3:7). God(DC) and God(BM) also have entirely different views about David and Solomon's polygamy Jacob 2:24, D&C 132: 38).

So now it all makes more sense. Elder Holland worships God(DC), the trickster god. We must assume that the rest of The Brethren are also servants of God(DC), although I'm beginning to expect that there is another, even more fickle god hovering out there somewhere: God(Q15)

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

I'm beginning to expect that there is another, even more fickle god hovering out there somewhere: God(Q15)

Snap! That's a sharpened rhetorical sword cutting to the core of the problem as I see it. God(Q15) seems to be a frightened, mean SoB.

[DPRoberts]

Good podcast, consiglieri. What this story was for me when I first heard it in GC a while back, was yet another example of making religious teachings self-protecting. This was a key question for me as I was starting to reexamine my beliefs. Why, I asked myself, does "the truth" need to be wrapped in self-protecting structures.

This story is an excellent example of that type of structure. In this case the teaching that needs protecting is personal revelation as taught by TCOJCLDS. We are taught to seek personal revelation and trust in it. You adeptly pointed out that in many cases that does not work out so well. The contradiction would seem to falsify the doctrine. However, JRH did what religious teachers are very good at by making the teaching non-falsifiable. Logically he using God to prove God. Begging the question? Check.

I have a theory why he did not investigate more carefully why God might have sent him down the wrong road. As a devout Mormon parent he probably saw the same teaching moment he would find in the lost toy of a young child. He expected a faith-promoting outcome and when that didn't happen his first instinct was to get the heck out of there and 1) hope the kid didn't notice the contradiction and 2) think up an excuse if the kid did notice. Investigating the dead end more thoroughly could have reinforced the negative conclusion if they truly found nothing but a dead end. His faith was clouded by his pre-determined objective. Just speculating, of course.

[Hagoth]

He expected a faith-promoting outcome and when that didn't happen his first instinct was to get the heck out of there and 1) hope the kid didn't notice the contradiction and 2) think up an excuse if the kid did notice. Investigating the dead end more thoroughly could have reinforced the negative conclusion if they truly found nothing but a dead end. His faith was clouded by his pre-determined objective. Just speculating, of course.

[Emower]

Great podcast, really loved it. In fact, I already used Holland's story today. A NOM family member asked this morning what I'm going to do when I turn down a calling and the bishop tells me he received revelation I'm supposed to have it. "I'm going to point out that like Elder Holland, the bishop received incorrect revelation so he knows he was wrong to pick me and can pick someone else." I love this - I'm planning to use it all the time.

I listened to this with my wife last night. I was curious what a TBM's take on it would be. She told me that she takes something totally different from the story than I did or than the podcast intended.

She felt that Elder Holland's point was to express that rather than it being a wrong road, it was a different way of being right. She acknowledged that what he said seems incongruous with what he meant. But she expressed that a God who knows us intimately, might send us down a road that seems wrong to us at the time, but that in the long run might benefit us. We had a discussion about what to do when the wrong road appears to be staying in the church. She does not know how to reconcile that with what the church teaches which is to stay in the boat.

She does not view this as God playing head games or being a trickster, rather as knowing what we each need at the time we need it. This is not the type of God I want to believe in and that led to a long discussion on my parsimonious view of God.

It seems that all of our discussions boil down to her being a TBM is OK with punting the football to the next life by saying "Well, we don't understand it now, but maybe later we will understand." Elder Holland's story is an extension of that attitude. I have a hard time respecting that attitude, and it is not one that I can keep.

I don't want to disrespect your wife or anyone else that feels this way, but I don't get it. I don't understand why god would purposely tell you something was right when it was truly wrong. Why is god purposely telling me the church isn't true? Why did he tell someone else it is? Which one is right? If he isn't tricking one of us, then is he telling me I've progressed beyond Mormonism? Is that what I'm learning from this? Did Joseph Smith receive incorrect revelation regarding polygamy so he could learn not to marry multiple women? Did Nephi kill Laban so he could learn killing people was wrong? Was the priesthood denied to people so prophets could learn that doing that was wrong? Where does this end? How do I know it's a wrong revelation and not just a wrong but right revelation? It's a child's argument.

No disrespect taken. I agree, I dont get it either. It is a bad way to look at things in my opinion. But it ultimately comes down to what kind of God you feel like believing in. And you cant rationalize with a choice like that.

[Emower]

I listened to this with my wife last night. I was curious what a TBM's take on it would be. She told me that she takes something totally different from the story than I did or than the podcast intended.

She felt that Elder Holland's point was to express that rather than it being a wrong road, it was a different way of being right. She acknowledged that what he said seems incongruous with what he meant. But she expressed that a God who knows us intimately, might send us down a road that seems wrong to us at the time, but that in the long run might benefit us. We had a discussion about what to do when the wrong road appears to be staying in the church. She does not know how to reconcile that with what the church teaches which is to stay in the boat.

She does not view this as God playing head games or being a trickster, rather as knowing what we each need at the time we need it. This is not the type of God I want to believe in and that led to a long discussion on my parsimonious view of God.

It seems that all of our discussions boil down to her being a TBM is OK with punting the football to the next life by saying "Well, we don't understand it now, but maybe later we will understand." Elder Holland's story is an extension of that attitude. I have a hard time respecting that attitude, and it is not one that I can keep.

Even if we were to give Holland the benefit of the doubt that he's trying to tell us that God sent him down the wrong road because he needed to know for sure which was the right road...that's not the way the Biblical God works. If an individual is asking honestly and sincerely, they get a straight up answer.

If God doesn't change as the Mormons are want to say, then your wife needs to reconcile that....

Are there places where God has promised that he wont play games? I think he has only promised that he will give us what we need in the moment we need it. If this is always how god has operated, then no reconciling is needed. Not saying I agree with her, but this is the argument I see coming out of that.

[Palerider]

I listened to this with my wife last night. I was curious what a TBM's take on it would be. She told me that she takes something totally different from the story than I did or than the podcast intended.

She felt that Elder Holland's point was to express that rather than it being a wrong road, it was a different way of being right. She acknowledged that what he said seems incongruous with what he meant. But she expressed that a God who knows us intimately, might send us down a road that seems wrong to us at the time, but that in the long run might benefit us. We had a discussion about what to do when the wrong road appears to be staying in the church. She does not know how to reconcile that with what the church teaches which is to stay in the boat.

She does not view this as God playing head games or being a trickster, rather as knowing what we each need at the time we need it. This is not the type of God I want to believe in and that led to a long discussion on my parsimonious view of God.

It seems that all of our discussions boil down to her being a TBM is OK with punting the football to the next life by saying "Well, we don't understand it now, but maybe later we will understand." Elder Holland's story is an extension of that attitude. I have a hard time respecting that attitude, and it is not one that I can keep.

Even if we were to give Holland the benefit of the doubt that he's trying to tell us that God sent him down the wrong road because he needed to know for sure which was the right road...that's not the way the Biblical God works. If an individual is asking honestly and sincerely, they get a straight up answer.

If God doesn't change as the Mormons are want to say, then your wife needs to reconcile that....

Are there places where God has promised that he wont play games? I think he has only promised that he will give us what we need in the moment we need it. If this is always how god has operated, then no reconciling is needed. Not saying I agree with her, but this is the argument I see coming out of that.

Actually there are scriptures that indicate that God will permit deception through a false prophet to an individual who is choosing wickedness.

But as a rule, when an honest person is seeking God's help, he cannot deceive because He is utterly Holy and His character will not permit it.

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." Numbers 23:19

[Emower]

Actually there are scriptures that indicate that God will permit deception through a false prophet to an individual who is choosing wickedness.

But as a rule, when an honest person is seeking God's help, he cannot deceive because He is utterly Holy and His character will not permit it.

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." Numbers 23:19

I think most TBM's, my wife included, would push back on the deception word, even though by definition that is what he is doing in this case and many others. I suppose she might acknowledge that God deceives, but that the ends justify the means. What she definitely wont recognize that that kind of belief is dangerous.