Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[gmormon]

I, too, have yet to see Dana acknowledge any mistakes, though she has made many and shifted the goal posts several times throughout the discussion.

But you don't understand....according to another site Dana is giving you your what fors and you are crawling away, (or is that slithering?,)wondering what happened to you

[SteveO]

I would like to paint a picture for you as I see the incident, in addition to what I said above. It is only an idea, but please consider it.

As they left for Carthage, Joseph knew that he and perhaps those around him were about to die. Hyrum had been Joseph's close companion for many years, and had stood and testified of the authenticity of the Mormon Church through thick and thin. Hyrum's testimony was powerful, and Joseph could count on his brother to back him up in everything. If he had let Hyrum know any time before his death that the work was unauthentic, it would very well have proved the ruin of all of Joseph's plans for the church.

As the time of death drew closer, his motives for allowing Hyrum to continue to believe in the work may have changed or been added upon. According to accounts, Joseph had a special place in his heart for his brother, and when death was apparently imminent, perhaps he decided not to tell Hyrum that it had all been a lie so that Hyrum could die nobly rather than in shock and humiliation. Or maybe he didn't tell him because he didn't know who would die besides him, and therefore wanted to die without bringing shame on himself. If the book and the church were untrue, it would have been excruciatingly difficult for him to bring himself to say so at this final hour. It wouldn't have helped his position either. If he had declared the Book of Mormon wasn't true while he was in Carthage, it is probable that the Saints in Nauvoo would have joined the mob that was forming. (Sad thought...I hate violence)

It may have even been touching for Joseph to hear his brother read the words of the Book of Mormon in those last hours - a sign that Hyrum still believed and was not going to experience the pain that his devotion to his brother had been for naught and/or that Joseph could take his secret to the grave. In addition to this, Joseph may have desired the companionship and consolation of his brother during these last days before his death, not intense animosity that would have likely ensued had the Church been declared as untrue. Joseph had many reasons to keep Hyrum and the Saints believing, before, during, and at the end of Carthage, and even testify at his brother's side that the work was true while they were in the jail. Knowing death was imminent, Joseph had to choose if he was going to die considered by those he knew to be a liar or a martyr.

Just an idea...

What I'm saying is that there is not sufficient evidence of Joseph taking solace in the Book of Mormon. Hyrum could have read the words to John Taylor and Joseph, and taken solace in them, but Joseph did not necessarily find solace in the Book of Mormon. Joseph could have had other reasons for allowing Hyrum to continue to believe and to continue keep up appearances about his religion even (especially?) when death was imminent. Joseph knew he was going to die, and it wouldn't have helped him much to declare the Church wasn't true at that point. Not like it would have saved him... Poor Joseph!

And I see that I was mistaken that Holland was offering it as ultimate proof. Thank you!

You know, desperation doesn't even begin to describe this dribble.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sigh,

as I said above, I was quoting Elder Holland. I never assumed he meant a literal hour. My confusion related to the wierd assumption on this board that I would assume a common phrase was to be taken literally.

It has been explained to you exactly why multiple people understood you to be making that argument. Perhaps a little more self-awareness would help you. Go back and look at what you said and what people said in response. It will give you a good idea.

Also, care to correct yourself for calling Elder Holland a liar regarding the copy of the BoM he held up? It's been explained where the confusion was.

[ps, I am in angry hysterics right now]

[Danna]

Yes, I did so yesterday morning. That is how I found the evidence that directly contradicts your uninformed claim that: "John Taylor never said they read the Book of Mormon in jail. There is no record of a Book of Mormon in the jail." I have yet to see you acknowledge your flagrant mistake. (I freely admitted that I misread D&C 135 as countering your claim, though the historical record clearly does.)

I admit my flagrant mistake. There is a secondary, unattributed, account in the History of the church. If anyone can identify the primary source(s), great, see above for my response.

So, I see that you have conveniently decided to slither away from claiming the Book of Mormon was not read in the jail and that there is no record of the Book of Mormon in jail, to now straining credulity by dismissing the exculpitory evidence as "uncontextual and vague anecdote"--as if this should matter in the least with literary license.

eh?

But, I can understand your desparation. You have some major face to save--not only in terms of your initial irrational reaction to Holland's talk, but your demonstrably false openning claim, and now your near comical obfuscations.

It is clear to me that you are preparred to go to any inane lengths to preserve, at least in your own mind, the crumbling thread of your opposition to the speech (including the loss of what little credibility you may have had with us to begin with), and that there is little value in any attepts to disabuse you of your insipid position, since nothing seems to work.

Your point is...?

So, I will take leave of your little tempest in a teapot, and allow others to decide for themselves if they wish to get sucked deeper into this counterproductive mini-drama.

And, as if that wasn't enough, we now have thinkaboutit fussing mightly over the word "solace"....causing me to wonder if there is a bottom to the pool of naysayer banality?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have a nice day!

[ttribe]

[ps, I am in angry hysterics right now]

Not to mention slinking away from the argument with your tail between your legs, right?

[Pahoran]

Crickey!

You have not been reading my posts!

I actually said that Holland said Hyrum read and dog-eared the book before leaving for Carthage! Go back and see!

As to the 'hour of their death' quote I was quoting Elder Holland. Whose talk I have listened to a number of times, and I have transcribed portions of it.

My point was, that given only D&C 135 claims to be eyewitness testimony, the assertion of Book of Mormon study in Carthage Jail is not supported! (along with the consequential assertions that this is 'proof' that Joseph's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon is correct)

And you are wrong!

It is supported!

And you quoted the supporting material yourself!

9:15.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I admit my flagrant mistake. There is a secondary, unattributed, account in the History of the church. If anyone can identify the primary source(s), great, see above for my response.

You seem to like homework on this issue. Get back to us with it?

Dismissing the entire collection of the History of the Church is a little irrational.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not to mention slinking away from the argument with your tail between your legs, right?

Yes, angry and slinky, yes.

[ttribe]

You seem to like homework on this issue. Get back to us with it?

Dismissing the entire collection of the History of the Church is a little irrational.

C'mon...it's only 7 volumes of thousands of pages of information. Methinks Danna is likely to cite the HoC when it supports her position though.

[wenglund]

Re-read the last several pages.

I am pretty confident that my quotes won't suffice. I suspect that for some inexplicable reason Danna has restricted the evidence to that which she, as a PhD Behavior Analyst, and a teacher of Psychology of Evidence as part of a Police Studies program, deems "primary".

Someone really needs to clue her in to the fact that we aren't talking about the rules of evidence in a secular court of law, but rather about recorded history and a General Conference talk.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

As to the 'hour of their death' quote I was quoting Elder Holland. Whose talk I have listened to a number of times, and I have transcribed portions of it.

Are you dissembling or just hoping we have short memories? You said:

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 did not say that. It is not a quote. It is you trying to change "final hour" into a the exact hour they died. At least make a minimal effort to be honest yourself when you attack others.

[wenglund]

Are you dissembling or just hoping we have short memories? You said:

Elder Holland did not say that. It is not a quote. It is you trying to change "final hour" into a the exact hour they died. At least make a minimal effort to be honest yourself when you attack others.

This is the second time Danna's initial post has come back to bite her in a major way. But, I wouldn't look for her to break stride, or take pause to reconsider her position, or acknowledge her flagrant mistakes (unless pressed). It is about as likely as the peanut gallery at the other board seriously questioning whether she has carried the day or spanked the apologists soundly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

This is the second time Danna's initial post has come back to bite her in a major way. But, I wouldn't look for her to break stride, or take pause to reconsider her position, or acknowledge her flagrant mistakes (unless pressed). It is about as likely as the peanut gallery at the other board seriously questioning whether she has carried the day or spanked the apologists soundly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What, all 11 of them? Let's just say they spanked us and get back to what is of much greater interest.....why they are so viscerally upset by a talk they reject made by someone they do not respect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good question. Danna seems to have wasted a good deal of time on it, even though it's been demonstrated that she has wrongfully accused people of lying, shifted positions, avoided admitting fault in former points, and continued to disregard whatever evidence doesn't fit her view as unreliable.

[Daniel Peterson]

Good question. Danna seems to have wasted a good deal of time on it, even though it's been demonstrated that she has wrongfully accused people of lying, shifted positions, avoided admitting fault in former points, and continued to disregard whatever evidence doesn't fit her view as unreliable.

Which, translated into one of the loonier idiolects prominent over on the Dahesh board, means that Danna has pulverized the Mopologists, who have been reduced to quivering with desperate anger and to comparing critics of the Church to Nazis. (I'm not making this up.)

[ERayR]

Which, translated into one of the loonier idiolects prominent over on the Dahesh board, means that Danna has pulverized the Mopologists, who have been reduced to quivering with desperate anger and to comparing critics of the Church to Nazis. (I'm not making this up.)

Why would anybody pay for comedic entertainment when they have all that slapstick comedy going on over there?

[mfbukowski]

Someone really needs to clue her in to the fact that we aren't talking about the rules of evidence in a secular court of law, but rather about recorded history and a General Conference talk.

This is the central point imo. Someone needs to clue her in to the nature of historical evidence in general! She really has no credibility or understanding whatsoever in this area.

[wenglund]

What, all 11 of them? Let's just say they spanked us and get back to what is of much greater interest.....why they are so viscerally upset by a talk they reject made by someone they do not respect.

....or why they cannot see that the emporess Danna has no cloths.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Good question. Danna seems to have wasted a good deal of time on it, even though it's been demonstrated that she has wrongfully accused people of lying, shifted positions, avoided admitting fault in former points, and continued to disregard whatever evidence doesn't fit her view as unreliable.

That is what is remarkable about the knee-jerk reactions to Holland's talk. In their highly strained and failed attempts to find even the least flaw, they ironically ended up commiting flagrant mistakes, themselves.

For normal people, who are capable of self-reflection, this would have given them serious pause to reconsider.

But, not so with these critics. Instead, they continue to blithly dive deeper into the abyss of inanity.

As such, and now that we realize this, the compassion within us ought to dissuade us from enabling or encouraging them further by inadvertantly implying that their insipid hues and cries are worthy of a response. I think it best to ignore it and, as Julian suggests, leave them to their delusional victory party. That way, we can help minimize whatever embarrassing harm they may unwittingly inflict on themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is the central point imo. Someone needs to clue her in to the nature of historical evidence in general! She really has no credibility or understanding whatsoever in this area.

But she has a PhD!

(The more school I attend the less impressed I am with credentials. Good grief, they're thinking of giving me a degree!)

*he said, frothing with inexpressible rage.

[Deborah]

(The more school I attend the less impressed I am with credentials. Good grief, they're thinking of giving me a degree!)

And you probably deserve it more than a lot of others I've seen!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But she has a PhD!

(The more school I attend the less impressed I am with credentials. Good grief, they're thinking of giving me a degree!)

*he said, frothing with inexpressible rage.

You had to go to school to figure that one out. J/K

I agree with Deborah.

Actually what blows me away is that she does have a PHD

[Danna]

Are you dissembling or just hoping we have short memories? You said:

Elder Holland did not say that. It is not a quote. It is you trying to change "final hour" into a the exact hour they died. At least make a minimal effort to be honest yourself when you attack others.

Ummm,

I suggest you listen carefully to Elder Holland.

[Danna]

This is the second time Danna's initial post has come back to bite her in a major way. But, I wouldn't look for her to break stride, or take pause to reconsider her position, or acknowledge her flagrant mistakes (unless pressed). It is about as likely as the peanut gallery at the other board seriously questioning whether she has carried the day or spanked the apologists soundly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

eh?

[Danna]

But she has a PhD!

(The more school I attend the less impressed I am with credentials. Good grief, they're thinking of giving me a degree!)

*he said, frothing with inexpressible rage.

Yup, OK,

As soon as I hit the 'submit' button, I thought that that was a really immature way to respond to an argumentum ad verecundiam, score one for the young history student. Keep the lad/lass on!