Jump to content

Talk:Jeffrey R. Holland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed Paragraph on Romney Campaign

[edit]

I removed the paragraph on Holland's meeting with Romney's sons for two reasons. First, the facts of this meeting are widely disputed. Both Romney's campaign advisers and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints deny this being anymore than a courtesy call given to an old friend. Holland has stated that he was clear throughout the meeting the Church and it's resources could not be used for political purposes.

Secondly, and more importantly, this is irrelevant to the life of Jeffrey Holland. It gives no information as to who he is and what his major life accomplishments are. However, if the Wikipedian consensus is that this paragraph should definitely be included I would recommend moving it to a more appropriate location such as the page on Mitt Romney and his campaign. 140.247.237.75 03:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manticore55 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Members of the Church of Latter Day saints often dispute anything that they do not agree that conforms with their point of view of things regarding the church.. However, the source of the article is a mainstream newspaper. You cannot simply say 'it is irrelevant' for your convenience. Furthermore, it is extremely relevant to the life of Jeffery Holland, because Mitt Romney is a direct son of an apostle, of which Jeffery R. Holland is also a member. If Jeffery Holland is the person involved in the meeting, then it is relevant to Jeffery R. Holland's life.[reply]

Finally, and most important of all, the text in question is not stating factually that this is what Mr. Holland intended, it is stating what the newspaper reported as happening. I can begin to add more sources and more information to establish more content and context if you wish, but the fact is, that when a member of the Quorum of the Twelve meets with the son of a Member of the Quorum of the Twelve, who also happens to be a major presidential candidate, then that is important, it is timely, and it is relevant.

First, to clear some apparent confusion. Romney is not the son of any member of the Quorum of the Twelve. It wasn't Romney himself who met with Jeffrey Holland, it was Romney's son. Second, although I still believe that this paragraph would better belong in an article specifically about the Romney campaign, rather than reverting your changes I made an attempt to make it more NPOV. The facts of the meeting between Holland and Romney's son are disputed so I believe we should cite more sources than just the Boston Globe in this issue. I believe that the Deseret News article I referenced does a good job of showing the Church's and Romney's campaign's statements about the meeting.
I removed Mitt Romney's statement about it being obvious that he would seek support from members of the Church because it seems to be taken slightly out of context. There he was referring to his broader campaign strategy not to the meeting between his son and Holland. His other statements are very clear that the meeting was not for political purposes and that he respects the political neutrality of the Church.
You may disagree with me adding the word supposedly to the first sentence of the paragraph. I am trying to balance the opinions. Both sides agree that the meeting did occur but they differ when it comes to the purpose. I cast doubt on the Church's side as well by adding the word "insist" to their opinion.
Something we need to be careful to do is to make sure that we keep this paragraph limited. It should only discuss the part of the meeting relevant to Holland. We shouldn't turn it in an entire discussion of Romney and the church. That belongs elsewhere. We should also be careful to keep it short and succinct. It wouldn't by NPOV it we devoted more than a paragraph to a fifteen minute meeting when the most important aspect of Holland's life is his Church service. I look forward to working on this article with you and making it more NPOV. Heisenberg58 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have to argee.I removed this paragrpah awhile back and then it seemed to get reverted back. But Now with Romney out and the Nomaintion almost certainly going to Mcain. It seems really Insinfance.The problem with wiki well one of the many is that these nerds with nothing better to try and cram any bit of infronmation they can. I Mean seriously is anyone going to gie a hoot about Elder Holland meeting with Romeny, down the line. No one cares that David O.Mckay met with Richard M. Nixon. I mean seriously. Plus the papragraph was written in a way to cast doubt on the church stance of politcaillt neturallity. which if you inssit that meeting has to be in the atricle. I mean we have do something to make this useless website seem like it matters than at least writre from a nertual stand point. Assuming there is such a thing_______Coalhouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalhouse (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 April and October General Conference talks

[edit]

I was originally going to address the October talk. It was a powerful talk, however I think in this case letting time tell will be good. I have read some comments on the Deseret News board of people speaking very highly of the talk, and as evidence that the talk is well recieved it is good. Yet that alone does not make it notable. So I would say, let time tell. However I realized the April talk which seems to have gone viral (the Deseret News ran an article on it doing so) might be worth mentioning. I have never figured out the full issue of talks. However, I guess I am partly responding to the misplaced criticism and reasoning for just removing the reference that existed before. True, netiehr Ethan Smith nor Solomon Spaulding were critics of the Book of Mormon, but the reference to them that was removed reflected the fact that the writer had not understood Elder Hollands reference to them, and the phrases could have been rewritten to reflect what Elder Holland actually said. His point was that the Spaulding and Ethan Smith theories or the origin of the Book of Mormon have so many holes that they colapse on their own weight, and I think since I have held close to the words Elder Holland used I may have unintentionally illustrated the reason the writer of the addition made the mistake. If we speak of the Copernican model of the solar system we speak of what Copernicus developed, and in the same way it might seem that the "Ethan Smith theory" is one developed by Ethan Smith. In this case it is that Joseph Smith was influenced by Ethan Smith, a theory that is so weak that BYU has published Ethan Smith's work because if people are actually confronted with his work and have it to compare to the Book of Mormon the two just do not coincide enough in anyway for Ethan to be a source of the Book of Mormon. My point is, if that were the only issue with the edit, than a rewriting to make it clear what Elder Holland was speaking against would be all that was required. I would however say that the issue of speech notability is the first to takle, and I would say we have to weigh in that Elder Holland made reference to semitic phrases in the Book of Mormon, it was not more than a passing reference, but this leads to the other question, if a speech is notable, how do we decide how to sumerize it, of course to me this takes us straight to the two-edged sword of no original reasearch on one side but no plagerizing on the other, which leads me to say if a talk has not even had its official text published, than maybe we can at least wait a little before mentioning it in wikipedia. There are probably exceptions, but this would not be one.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference to Holland's April 2009 General COnference talk with a clear source. I have also decided that including his October 2009 conference talk is justifiable, but we still need sources on it, and need to make sure we accurattely reflect what he said.Johnpacklambert (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Any way we can update this article with a newer photo of Elder Holland? Why not just use the one from his LDS.org profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.186.125 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from LDS.org profiles are copyrighted by the LDS Church and thus may not be used on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content and, specifically for this case, the LDS.org legal usage guide.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone can snap of photo of him at General Conference or something. The current photo is unrecognizable compared to how he looks today. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey R. Holland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey R. Holland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey R. Holland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

[edit]

Because of the frequent vandalizing and inappropriate additions to this page, has anyone considered semi-protecting it? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This same vandalism/wording has been happening on the article about Quentin L. Cook. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal is a known, long-time abuser User:GeraldFord1980. What makes the vandalism especially difficult is that the troll will copy a reference used in a previous part of the article and duplicate as a citation to the vandalism edit to give it the appearance of legitimacy. It has fooled more than one editor who has stepped in to stop what they think is an edit war over a statement with citation without actually checking the citation. Since most of the sock accounts got blocked, now he just edits from a changing IP address. If one article gets protected, he just jumps to another. Better to just revert, ask for protection if it gets out of hand (the Quentin L. Cook article was a good example), and avoid feeding the troll. He goes dormant at times, other times he's rather prolific. It might be worth adding a report on WP:LTA so IPrange blocks can be appropriately requested. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

There should really be a paragraph about his controversial views on the lgbt community. The man specifically called for 'musket fire aimed at the enemy'. This should be addressed. Controversy should be a common category for any pages about significant figures. Including the good and the bad is the only way to present a topic without bias. And in the interest of bias, I don't trust myself to write the section. 184.146.47.17 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to cite a reliable source verifying he said that. We don't just include inflammatory information about an individual on someone's say-so alone. Aside from that, I have a reliable source, independent of the Church, that referenced the statement in question and concretely verified that "what he [Elder Holland] said is not what they heard." It appears that people who take issue with Holland's statement are basing their ire about the "controversy" on a false narrative that incorrectly interprets the comments. In order for the interpretation of the statement to be accepted as valid for a "controversy" section, there would need to be proof that he actually said what was claimed, which there isn't. That proof would have to be supported by reliable sources, which is also not done. And the cited sources would have to verify malicious intent on Holland's part for the statement to be included as a commentary on his "controversial" language. Right now, we don't have any of that. If you have a source that verifies all three points, then let's see it. Otherwise, we have a source specifically noting that what Elder Holland said is not what the LGBT+ community heard, and misinterpreted statements have no relevant place on Wikipedia, whether the statements are factual or not. Jgstokes (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De facto Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

[edit]

Hello. With the death of M. Russell Ballard yesterday, Holland is now the most senior apostle not in the First Presidency. As such, he is now essentially the de facto Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and is likely to be set apart in that assignment officially at some point after Ballard's funeral services are held. Since a deceased apostle cannot serve in a living apostolic role, what, if anything, should we note on Holland's biography about this? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until it is official. Due to Holland's health, it's possible that another apostle will become Acting President even though he is next in line. Bahooka (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the funeral for the wife of Henry B. Eyring, Holland was actually in attendance, and was looking better than he has in several years. He is making a return to normal functioning and has been seen in several meetings at Church headquarters. There is currently no precedent for the second most senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to become the Acting President instead of the most senior member. But I recognize that there is no source indicating that Holland will be the new Acting President. That may come in time, and I am content to wait, which would be consistent with Wikipedia policies anyways. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 17:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with Wikipedia policy is the best move, and I'm glad to hear Holland is doing better. FYI regarding precedent . . . check out the WP article on Marion G. Romney. It states "Ezra Taft Benson, who had been President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then became the church president and named Hinckley as First Counselor, with Thomas S. Monson as Second Counselor. Romney, as the apostle with the second-longest seniority in the church, became the quorum president. However, "because President Romney’s health [kept] him from taking an active part in Church administration," Howard W. Hunter, the next in seniority, served as acting president." That is what I was thinking with my comment. Best, Bahooka (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter was called as Acting President because the President (Romney) was too ill to actively function. That doesn't indicate any kind of precedent about what happens when the most senior apostle not in the First Presidency is unable to function as Acting President of that Quorum. Since there is no rush, I'm perfectly content to wait until the Church makes an official announcement on this. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 19:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeffrey_R._Holland&oldid=1223245221"