I was not offended by Elder Holland’s talk. I love and revere the man, even when I prefer some talks (his address last April on Christ’s lonely journey is pure scripture to me) over others (this most recent conference address.

As to “theoretical” investigators, I live in a community where there are very few Latter-Day Saints. I have invited many non-LDS friends and family members to various meetings, and am understandably sensitive to what is often their one-and-only LDS experience. No apologies on this end for worrying about conduct that is more likely to repulse rather than to attract my cherished friends and family outside the Church.

God bless Elder Holland. He is a Latter-Day treasure, and I hope that he lives to be 120.

Screeching to the choir?

Captive audiences are easily chastened, as I’m sure most former missionaries can attest.

Aren’t we reaching really, really hard to find something to be offended by?

I can’t believe I’ve spent as much of the last two days as I have defending the right of an apostle to bear his testimony in a meeting — a conference, a “coming together” — of believers, and my right to appreciate that testimony. What is going on here?

Your account of Elder Holland chastizing at length Priesthood holders for their lack of revernce makes me cringe, as I am imagining the investigators who surely must have been present, and their reaction to a worship service that includes a religious leader railing against men who have enough faith to get off of their couches to attend a church meeting. I hold Elder Holland in the highest possible esteem, and am going to assume for the sake of my affections for this wonderful man that there is more to the story than him being P.O.’d because people were making noise.

I am not sure I agree that we should all live in a state of feeling “devastated” because so-and-so decides at a particular time in their lives not to read the Book of Mormon. We live in complex times, where pluralism is the norm. I don’t want my Jewish friends to be devastated because I am not reading the Torah. I don’t want my Evangelical friends to be devastated because I am not attending Billy Graham crusades. We all are called to share in meekness and humility the light and knowledge that we have. From that point on, we should trust that that the Lord will use our efforts for His glory and for the joy of the recipient. For me to be “devastated” because someone declines at a given point to read the Book of Mormon seems to require me to pass judgment on that person’s status with the Lord, which is a task that I leave exclusively for the Lord. (Unless, of course, someone on bycommonconsent.com responds rudely to one of my posts. In such instances, I reserve all rights to judge and condemn the wrongdoer . . .)

There’s a quote by him in Preach My Gospel that I read today, on p. 8. Another that gives the feeling of how deeply he feels about the Book of Mormon…basically saying that if someone doesn’t read it, we should be devastated. This MATTERS. This is eternal life we are talking about, he basically says.

The Book of Mormon is a big deal. I ache for people to know it is true, through the Spirit. There really is no other way.

Could be. I was not there. But I was in my stake when we were counseled to be especially reverent when Elder Holland came, and when I asked why, I was told the above story by a couple of people who had attended that earlier regional meeting with Elder Holland. Whether it was a 20 minute chastising or not (it probably seemed that way to them), the message was clear that Elder Holland feels passionately about reverence.

I recount the story not to disparage him, but to emphasize that he, like many of us (including me) can get carried away in his emotions. There is nothing wrong with being a human being subject to emotion and needing to learn to bridle one’s passions and to make amends when we should.

On the other hand, I personally prefer to follow the example of Jesus, who showed patience and forbearance for those struggling, and saved his anger for those who should (or claim to) know better. Outright hostility and public rebuke was reserved for those select times (like moneychangers in the Temple) when deceit and hypocrisy were at work.

This is usually understood as the result of morality, but there is value in it even if understood merely as good rhetoric and pedagogy: the fragile need a gentler hand, the self-righteous need deflating, and the self-serving need to be relieved of command. This distinguishes the preacher from the teacher. I respond much better to the latter.