Holland

Popularity Is a Terrible God—and Jeffrey R. Holland Knew It

What happens when doctrine collides with status? Jeffrey Holland risked goodwill to stand for Jesus Christ and His teachings.

When I was a missionary in Paraguay in 2002, I met a Catholic man who wasn’t particularly interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But he did have one positive memory related to the Church. Several years earlier, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland visited Paraguay, and the man heard him speak. “His talk was really good,” the man said.

Few Church leaders have been as well-liked as President Holland, who recently passed away at age 85. He had a talent for connecting with nearly everyone: old and young, rich and poor, academic and practical, believers and skeptics, people within the Church and people outside of the Church, and just about everyone else.

This is why I think his 2021 talk, “The Second Half of the Second Century at Brigham Young University,” is particularly noteworthy. In this talk, President Holland defended the unique mission of Brigham Young University (BYU) and said the University should be willing to forgo some “professional affiliations and certifications” rather than renege on its core commitments. The talk attracted particular ire for discussing LGBTQ issues and suggesting that BYU professors provide “musket fire” in favor of the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality.

I have discussed President Holland’s talk in more detail elsewhere, but what I want to focus on here is what the talk says about his character. President Holland likely knew that his talk would be unpopular. He knew that many people would (falsely) accuse him of hatred and insensitivity. He knew that his standing as the apostle that everyone liked, as a leader that everyone could relate to, would be seriously threatened.

President Holland was willing to stand up and be counted

 

It’s also noteworthy that President Holland gave this talk at the peak of Progressive confidence about issues related to gender and sexuality. The Church’s views were castigated as false and harmful; members of the Church were constantly told that they were on the “wrong side of history” for holding to the views expressed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. At a moment when the forces of political, social, and academic respectability were all blowing in the opposite direction, President Holland was willing to stand up and be counted as someone who was committed to the Church’s teachings.

Of course, Church leaders (as well as the rest of us) are not supposed to care about what the world thinks of us. We are repeatedly warned in scriptures about loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. Popularity can become an idol, distracting and deflecting us from commitment to God. But Church leaders are human, and humans like to be liked. President Holland knew that this talk would put his reputation and public standing in jeopardy. He gave the talk anyway.

Jesus taught: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). He also taught: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26). Though a message of peace, the gospel is also “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (1 Peter 2:8) to those who do not believe. Perhaps by design, the gospel can never be made completely respectable by worldly standards.

To me, President Holland’s 2021 talk demonstrated his ultimate allegiance. He was willing to give up his worldly popularity and respectability to stay true to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe he gave the talk with great eloquence and sensitivity, but that is not how many people received it. He was criticized by people within and without the Church; even some national publications took notice of the talk and criticized it. But this was a price he was willing to pay. Perhaps there is not better way to end than with President Holland’s own words about courageously defending the gospel:

“Be strong. Live the gospel faithfully even if others around you don’t live it at all. Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them . . . In courageously pursuing such a course, you will forge unshakable faith, you will find safety against ill winds that blow, even shafts in the whirlwind, and you will feel the rock-like strength of our Redeemer, upon whom if you build your unflagging discipleship, you cannot fall.”

About the author

Daniel Frost

Daniel Frost is the Director of Public Scholarship in the School of Family Life at Brigham Young University and Editor-in-Chief of Public Square Magazine. He has a Ph.D. in Politics from Princeton University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

When Did We Stop Trusting the Media? A Review of “September 5”

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January.