Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[Deborah]

except for those who were indifferent about their friends and family to begin with.

Which Joseph never was. He pleaded with his brother and his friends not to go with him to Carthage. They were willing to lay their lives on the line to go in his place, as were many of his other followers. Whatever else Joseph was, he was a good and loyal friend and loved his people and they loved him. Somehow this just doesn't seem to fit the profile of a fraudster who is usually out to get gain for himself. Joseph never got any gain so I just do not get the fraud description.

[robuchan]

Let me clarify then, since you are intent on splitting hairs. I have seen no evidence to suggest that those who engage in large-scale pious frauds are fundamentally different than any other fraudster.

And there's that split hair. You don't see a difference between telling my kids that Santa's on his way to get them to go to bed before midnight on Christmas Eve and starting a large-scale religion which ultimately requires the sacrifice of both possession and even life from some its followers?

I don't think you're looking at any actual evidence to compare Joseph to, so this really isn't going anywhere.

And I don't think Joseph thought it was a large scale fraud. The fraud was a means to justify the end. The end was building up God's kingdom on earth. That's a pretty important task. The fraud paled in comparison to the importance of the mission.

[Deborah]

Often times with great risk comes great reward. For Joseph, his family and friends in many ways that risk paid off

Seriously, do you know anything about the history? Please explain how Joseph and his friends were rewarded. Do you not understand that the persecutions continued after his death and his friends were driven from their homes, suffered all sorts of privations traveling west, with many losing their lives. It was many years before the church began experiencing prosperity. So please explain the rewards.

[ttribe]

I don't think you're looking at any actual evidence to compare Joseph to, so this really isn't going anywhere.

I'm trying...do you have evidence that I haven't considered?

And I don't think Joseph thought it was a large scale fraud. The fraud was a means to justify the end. The end was building up God's kingdom on earth. That's a pretty important task. The fraud paled in comparison to the importance of the mission.

Your sentences here seem to contradict one another. Building Zion was a HUGE undertaking and he knew it. If such a goal is built on the foundation of a fraud, then the entire thing is a fraud.

[robuchan]

Do elaborate. I'd like see how easy this scenario is, as you do. A few questions to start with..

How does it begin?

Who is involved (in the know) if anyone?

If there are plates, where did they come from? Who made them? From what? Did he pay someone to make them?

What did the witnesses see?

If not plates, what?

If they were in-the-know, What did they get in return for not spilling the beans (especially after turning against him)?

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

Was it a collaborative effort?

Did someone else write it so that Joseph Smith could take all the credit?

Did Smith, knowing it was somebody else's fraud, claim authorship so that he could take all the blame?

How much time did it take?

At what point did Joseph convince himself that the Book of Mormon really was scripture? (Before he told his family about the Angel Moroni and the plates? Once he (or someone else) started writing it? After it was published? 1835? 1943?)

How did he maintain his confidence at being a prophet while consciously "stretching the truth" as you stated?

___________________

I am Bic Pentameter

Sure, it's easy. I'll give you one scenario. There are dozens. This is not what I believe, but it's a plausible scenario.

Starts out, scheme to make money, quickly moves into a chance to bring about God's restored gospel.

Oliver's involved.

No plates.

Witnesses don't see anything except through their spiritual eyes. They're manipulated like in a seance.

They weren't in the know, except for Oliver. Oliver's religiously motivated as well.

Joseph wrote the BOM.

Maybe Oliver contributed, maybe not. Doesnt' matter.

No

No

Few years

While he was writing it. (Maybe he was even inspired to write it and/or some of what he wrote was inspired)

He was a very confident person. He felt led by God. There wasn't much of an issue at lacking confidence.

[Luigi]

In many cases - yes. Consequences are not at the forefront of many fraudsters' minds.

I suppose that depends but in certain cases that is certainly evident.

Actually, I like Kahneman and Tversky's research, from a testable model standpoint anyway.

Well for the record I don't completely buy into the economic rationalist model either. I think we are wired by evolution and that doesn't always follow the strict rationalist models used in economics.

And there went any semblance of civility. Grow up.

While I was obviously being facetious there is some truth to what I said. Mormon belief suggests that as you follow the path of Satan you become more ensnared to Satan's power and less receptive to the 'light of Christ' and consequently begin to reject love and concern for others. I would assume you accept this Mormon belief.

While I think there are no invisible demons we become entrapped to I do think this process can be a metaphor for something that does happen. As we engage in practices which alienate us from a social group we benefit less and less from social conformity. Also the less we engage in positive reciprocity the less we develop interdependence which is, in my opinion, where the emotion of love comes from. Consequently we can sadly lose love and concern for others if we fail to engage in acts which cultivate positive reciprocity and the more we engage in acts which alienate us from our social group (such as disobey the law) the more likely we are to engage in other such behavior.

[paulpatter]

I won't do you the disservice of reconciling the two perceptions for you - as it might be more beneficial for you to do so on your own.

I think I just caught a whiff of ad hominem.

[ttribe]

I suppose that depends but in certain cases that is certainly evident.

As in most things, strict definitions and assertions often have exceptions.

Well for the record I don't completely buy into the economic rationalist model either. I think we are wired by evolution and that doesn't always follow the strict rationalist models used in economics.

So, were you just testing me to see if wasn't just making crap up?

While I was obviously being facetious there is some truth to what I said. Mormon belief suggests that as you follow the path of Satan you become more ensnared to Satan's power and less receptive to the 'light of Christ' and consequently begin to reject love and concern for others. I would assume you accept this Mormon belief.

In the broadest possible sense I suppose you could say that I accept that belief.

While I think there are no invisible demons we become entrapped to I do think this process can be a metaphor for something that does happen. As we engage in practices which alienate us from a social group we benefit less and less from social conformity. Also the less we engage in positive reciprocity the less we develop interdependence which is, in my opinion, where the emotion of love comes from. Consequently we can sadly lose love and concern for others if we fail to engage in acts which cultivate positive reciprocity and the more we engage in acts which alienate us from our social group (such as disobey the law) the more likely we are to engage in other such behavior.

On the face, I don't see any problems with your outline here.

[Anijen]

Just watched it again and he starts off in a very emotional spiritual felt state and ends the same. He never loses his temper. He bore a strong testimony and after watching it again I looked for the anger described by critics(and never found). Again he testified to me of the courage and truth of Josep Smith and of Book of Mormon.

[Luigi]

As in most things, strict definitions and assertions often have exceptions.

Yes, I was going to go into those exceptions since I think there are a lot but I'd rather not open that can of worms.

So, were you just testing me to see if wasn't just making crap up?

No. I really was interested in which model of behavior you accepted so thanks for sharing.

In the broadest possible sense I suppose you could say that I accept that belief.

I admittedly shouldn't have called it what I did which I admit was rather insulting. Please feel free to make a similarly reduced and insulting name for evolutionary biology's models of human behavior any time-I won't be offended.

On the face, I don't see any problems with your outline here.

Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

Never occurred to me to think of them that way. I think of it as the six periods of creation leading up to the final creation of man....

This sounds like a whole thread.

The problem with your interpretation is that the "stage" is ascribed to the individual causing it - it is in present tense, third person singular.

Who else but the individual be the "subject" of that clause?

[mfbukowski]

I think people weigh the cost/benefits of Joseph very poorly. To be considered a prophet, the mouthpiece of God, for a group of people-even if that group is small-is an incredible benefit. Certainly, one has to use such power with some restraint as to not undermine the ability to maintain or grow one's power but it is something well worth maintaining for selfish purposes even at great risk and at great cost.

Yes, perhaps, but once your life is over, so is that benefit! Who would maintain the pretense of prophethood to the point of death at the age of 38?

As far as his family and friends- are you really contending that he chose almost certain death "for them"- somehow to maintain face for them?

I think that anyone callous enough to carry out a fraud of this magnitude - the duping thousands of people out of their lives, money and devotion, - people actually dying for your false cause, not to mention his "evil polygamous liaisons" -- would not for a moment be worried about anything but his own skin. He already demonstrated (if a fraud) that others meant nothing to him, the would have been mere pawns to be used for his evil ambition -- why would he suddenly get a conscience and worry about his family and friends?

His death was totally inconsistent with the character of the kind of person who would perpetuate such a fraud. It just would not happen.

[mfbukowski]

I think the problem here is that you all are attaching too much negative meaning to the term "fraud". A pious fraud is not a negative swindling kind of fraud. I can easily see a scenario where despite stretching the truth about the BoM, BoA, 1st vision, and some of the other revelations, that he truly believed he was a prophet of God and that he was fulfilling God's will. In this case, he would not deny his testimony of God because to him it was real.

In such a case he was "deluded" and lacked the intent to be a "fraud".

[Daniel Peterson]

Who are Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith Btw? What do they have to do with Mormonism? Where they early member who opposed the work or something?

LOL. It turns out that the question above was posed by one of those who are "recovering" on the quaintly-named "Recovery" board: "I asked that question for fun that DCP responded to," he has now revealed in the safety of the Compound.

Wow. I'm stunned. How cunningly we were tricked! The names of Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith were actually mentioned on this board. The virgin eyes of the faithful have been violated. The Church, I fear, is now doomed.

Incidentally, Rev. Spalding is mentioned even more extensively in this relatively recent article:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

And more is on its way.

[rockslider]

Wow. I'm stunned. How cunningly we were tricked! The names of Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith were actually mentioned on this board. The virgin eyes of the faithful have been violated. The Church, I fear, is now doomed.

Steady there Dr. P. your bordering on humor

[Danna]

I posted this on the poll thread, but after working through this one, I feel inspired to post here as well.

John Taylor never said they read the Book of Mormon in jail. There is no record of a Book of Mormon in the jail.(Edit to add. I should have said I find the evidence for having a BoM in jail very unconvincing, as I explain later in the thread. It was wrong of me to make such a conclusive statement here) But many have conflated two issue, so I do not retract subsequent statements

Hyrum read the Book of Mormon before departing to Carthage and if you listen carefully to Elder Holland, he states this clearly.

D&C 135:4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: ?I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer?s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME?HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.??The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go?shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was?he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:

Which is why Elder Holland's subsequent statements are a puzzle:

The apostle relates how the two men went to their martyrdom pondering the truths of the Book of Mormon. ?In the hour they died?, Elder Holland tells us, they were ?quoting from and finding solace in? the Book of Mormon. How, could anyone believe that Joseph wrote the book either himself or as part of a conspiracy to defraud, when he went to his death believing and acting upon the book? Would these ?men BLASPHEME before God by continuing to fix their ...eternal salvation... on a book they fictitiously created out of whole cloth?.

His conclusions are somewhat mysterious. None of the 'theories' of the production of the Book of Mormon that Elder Holland mentioned implicate Hyrum. And there is no evidence that Joseph read, or discussed, or listened to the Book of Mormon at all in the weeks between the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and his death. I stand by this as explained leter in the thread.

Their deaths simply had little-to-nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Then, the book he was holding up bears little resemblence to the book earlier identified in the LDS Church News as the one dog-eared by Hyrum and belonging to Bathsheba Smith, the Wife of Geo. A. Smith.

See: http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/50543/Fabric-of-history-Geo-A-and-Bathsheba-Smith-artifacts-donated-to-Church.html

The book has her name inscribed on the front, and Hyrum's dog-ear folds over about four lines of type:

Holland's copy has no inscription, and the dog-ear turns over about ten lines of text:

But Elder Holland states: "I hold in my hand, that book!, the very copy from which Hyrum read. The same corner of the page, turned down, still visible!"

And yes, I do think this book could be a simple mistake, but the context of the entire speech is unfortunate and this doesn't help. History has been rewritten. Elder Holland should fire his researcher.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Danna, the copy Elder Holland used has been in possession of the Church since before the recent Bathsheba W. Smith donation. This appears to be a case of mistaken lore attached to a book. Whether it be the first or second I don't know absolutely yet, one would have to trace the provenance more precisely. However, I have reason to favor one over the other. The church news article on the copy you mention is from 2007. The picture of the copy used by Elder Holland predates it by a long, long time, and the copy he had came from Hyrum's own son , Joseph F. Smith. I favor that book as the correct one. The newly donated one I do not believe is the book in question based on its provenance.

See here: http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/few-comments-on-elder-hollands.html

and here: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/RelEd&CISOPTR=6463&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0

You should fire your researcher.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Elder Holland seems to have really struck a cord with Danna and company, though.

[Danna]

Danna, the copy Elder Holland used has been in possession of the Church since before the recent Bathsheba W. Smith donation. This appears to be a case of mistaken lore attached to a book. Whether it be the first or second I don't know absolutely yet, one would have to trace the providence more precisely. However, I have reason to favor one over the other. The church news article on the copy you mention is from 2007. The picture of the copy used by Elder Holland predates it by a long, long time, and the copy he had came from Hyrum's own son , Joseph F. Smith. I favor that book as the correct one. The newly donated one I do not believe is the book in question based on its providence.

See here: http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/few-comments-on-elder-hollands.html

and here: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/RelEd&CISOPTR=6463&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0

You should fire your researcher.

I prefer provenance to providence.

The link your site refers to indicates that the book is traced back to Joseph F. Smith, who was under six when he tragically lost his father. There is no evidence other than speculation that the book was ever at Carthage, or that it left the Smith household.

As I noted earlier, I would not be surprised to find dozens of old Books of Mormon carry the Hyrum Dog-Ear.

Just after about 7:15sec into the MP3 of Elder Holland's talk, he notes that after Hyrum did his reading on the morning they left for Carthage, and dog-eared the book, "later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph turned to the guards....." This accords with D&C 135:4.

I have just been taking a look at ?Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith? by Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill. From June 7 when ?the Mormon seceders published the first issue of the Nau"oo Expositor, charging Smith with bringing innocent females to Nauvoo under the pretext of of religion to add to his harem" through to June 27 when Joseph wrote to Emma "reassuring her that if there was an attack some of the militia would remain loyal" and also armed himself with a smuggled-in pistol, there is no mention of the Book of Mormon at all.

Littlefield's 1882 book ?The Martyrs?, which provides such a faith-promoting idealized view of the martyrdom that the author gives an eyewitness account of lightning preventing the mutilation of Joseph's body after death, repeats the D&C account but makes no mention of Joseph having anything to do with the BoM or bearing a testimony to the guards concerning the Book of Mormon.

Where is the evidence of Carthage Book of Mormon readings, discussions and testimonies? All I can find are preparations to fight back, smuggled firearms, and wine, tobacco, and singing to raise the spirits.

[Danna]

Elder Holland seems to have really struck a cord with Danna and company, though.

Probably not for the reason you would prefer.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I prefer provenance to providence.

LOL! thanks, I'll adjust it. I'm surprised I was as cogent as it was, I was supposed to be sleeping.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I prefer provenance to providence.

The link your site refers to indicates that the book is traced back to Joseph F. Smith, who was under six when he tragically lost his father. There is no evidence other than speculation that the book was ever at Carthage, or that it left the Smith household.

How is that any different than your provenance? What seems more reasonable or likely: that Hyrum's son had the book, or that the wife of one of Hyrum's cousin had it?

As I noted earlier, I would not be surprised to find dozens of old Books of Mormon carry the Hyrum Dog-Ear.

That's fine, neither would I, but it's about as speculative as we can get.

I have just been taking a look at Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith by Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill. From June 7 when "the Mormon seceders published the first issue of the Nauoo Expositor, charging Smith with bringing innocent females to Nauvoo under the pretext of of religion to add to his harem" through to June 27 when Joseph wrote to Emma "reassuring her that if there was an attack some of the militia would remain loyal" and also armed himself with a smuggled-in pistol, there is no mention of the Book of Mormon at all.

So? It isn't mentioned in several accounts surrounding the details of the martyrdom. This is the result of what historians call "selection."

But it is mentioned by John Taylor, who was present at each instance referred to, and who was shot in the jail with the brothers.

Littlefield's 1882 book The Martyrs, which provides such a faith-promoting idealized view of the martyrdom that the author gives an eyewitness account of lightning preventing the mutilation of Joseph's body after death, repeats the D&C account but makes no mention of Joseph having anything to do with the BoM or bearing a testimony to the guards concerning the Book of Mormon.

So? It isn't mentioned in several accounts surrounding the details of the martyrdom. This is the result of what historians call "selection."

But it is mentioned by John Taylor, who was present at each instance referred to, and who was shot in the jail with the brothers.

Where is the evidence of Carthage Book of Mormon readings, discussions and testimonies? All I can find are preparations to fight back, smuggled firearms, and wine, tobacco, and singing to raise the spirits.

Where is the evidence? Eyewitness testimony of John Taylor in D&C 135. You seem sort of desperate to dismiss this story. None of the accounts mention that Joseph and Hyrum were wearing shoes. Shall we suppose they were barefoot?

[lostindc]

I prefer provenance to providence.

As I noted earlier, I would not be surprised to find dozens of old Books of Mormon carry the Hyrum Dog-Ear.

Who cares? I did not realize that providing 100% concrete evidence that it was the same book as used by Hyrum in the jail is a requirement.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Probably not for the reason you would prefer.

Based on your arguments so far, the reason is less interesting than the results.

[Jaybear]

Where is the evidence? Eyewitness testimony of John Taylor in D&C 135. You seem sort of desperate to dismiss this story.

Can you be more specific and cite the specific language. I took a look at D&C 135, and didnt see it.

Why call him desperate? He made a specific request for a reference for a key factual assertion underlying this notion that Smith took solace in the Book of Mormon. Apologists do that all the time.