Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[Zakuska]

I want to help out with the bump, though I believe that Danna may have retreated to the more congenial climate of the Dr. Dahesh board.

Incidentally, are you still burning with rage?

I certainly am. In fact, I believe it can be properly said that I'm seething with wrath.

How about...

Bubbling with Gas?

[Lightbearer]

Thank you for insulting me. I never said that "I am Right, and how dare you for being wrong" You did, so who's the bomb thrower?

It's none of your business, but I am here to see what I was. My comparisons are to illustrate my point of sameness in all religion. I'm pretty sure however disgusting it is, many more people in this world regard Bin Laden as a hero. I do not. I am making a point.

Your welcome, but I was describing your behavior on this board. Bin Laden is not a hero except to maybe someone who would strap on a bomb and kill themselves along with hundreds of innocent people. The point you were making was that you were comparing an apostle to a terrorist. That was my reason for returning in kind. Although the definition of a "bomb thrower" (on this board at least) is someone who makes attacks on the church in a hostile and unsupported manner.

There you go again accusing me of not trying hard enough. Maybe I should elaborate. When I was 11, I was molested. I felt so guilty about letting it happen to me I pulled out and ate most of my hairline, instead of getting therapy, my mother and bishop suggested I turn to the Lord. and I did. Believe me, I wanted to find peace and comfort more than anyone I have ever known. I was in anguish that it never came. Somehow, having to see the perpetrator on a daily basis didn't help. Aparantly, Bishops aren't legally obligated to report things like this, so he never was punished, save 3 months w/o the sacrament.. Funny... I've been studying apostate 101 and I couldn't find that chapter...

If true, and I am not saying it is not, a message board is not the best place to go for seeking validation. I am sorry to hear this occurred to you and as has already been stated I encourage you to seek help. This talk may be helpful to you: Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse I offer this link sincerely and am not downplaying you pain or suffering. Please accept it in the way it is intended.

it seems kind of funny, but in my head, all I hear is "I've got more peace than you-u dooo, I've got more comfort than you'll e-ever ha-ave" this is the tone in which I take that

Not how it is intended. But I do know that there is a fullness of peace to be had in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My "open rebellion" came years after my real intent.

Just remember with such a painful injustice and trial you cannot "overcome it" alone, you need the Lord's help and yes you should seek counseling.

Thou doth protest to much!

I read that talk too...not so much help to me.

I protest because I am serious about the Gospel and my knowledge is sure. There is no way to judge completely and perfectly on a message board. If you feel I unduly attacked you, I am sorry, but that is how I felt. As many others here as well. But even if what you say about your situation is true does that give you the right to attack the faith of innocent people? The entire church did not molest you. One evil monster did, and if I had my way such monsters would be put to death. As it is we must repair our lives the best we can and hope that justice (if not in this life) may be done. All I can say is may God bless and help you in your trials.

Lightbearer

[a_little_taller]

I've always loved Elder Holland's talks, from the first one I heard him give as a freshman at BYU to his latest. He is the king of alliteration and can weave several themes together, mating them perfectly in the end.

As President at BYU, he gave a talk entitled, "However Long or Hard the Road." And I think he used the same theme in a book of the same title that he published later. But I can't tell you how much that devotional talk meant to me at the time. A young university freshman, a thousand miles away from home, struggling to get the hang of university academic expectations, trying to manage a slight case of home sickness, feeling very much like whatever I'd accomplished to that point in time had been completely erased (at least the crutch of reputation had been taken away). But as Elder Holland spoke of the daunting tasks that faced the Prophet Joseph, Winston Churchill and the English during WWII, and his journey toward his own personal goals, I took comfort. His counsel that nothing much of value comes without a significant amount of blood, sweat, toil, and tears inspired me. He encouraged us to hang on and keep pulling. He compared the 40 years it took to build the Salt Lake Temple to us and our efforts to build our own lives.

His speech can be read here (http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider1/type1/Holland_JeffNPat_01_1983.pdf), but it is only half as good in print.

Later, on my mission, a friend sent a tape of that talk to me. It arrived at a difficult time. I had just left my trainer and was made a senior companion opening an area that had been closed to missionaries for years. We had no members in the area. We tracted 6 to 8 hours a day. It was just turning to winter and my companion was not as dedicated to living the mission rules as I was. As I listened to Elder Holland's words again, I was filled with the Spirit almost to the point of being overwhelmed. His words rang so true and they lifted me greatly.

His closing remarks: "I love you and believe in you. This morning I have wanted to encourage you. You are laying the foundation of a great work

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks, a_little_taller.

[Danna]

Danna believes the History of the Church is not a reliable or primary source. Granted, the HC does not conform to all current standards of historiography (which themselves are contested and applied in broad ways). Modern standards appeared on the American academic scene at the tail-end of the 19th century, decades after the compilation of the HC. Nevertheless, the HC is still a valuable source on church history and certainly doesn't deserve the terse dismissal Danna subjects it to.

We have proved Danna with quotes regarding JS and Hyrum reading from the BoM at Carthage. For some reason she believes these accounts were created from whole cloth. I don't accept that dismissal, given that several of the men who were in the jail the entire time were directly involved in the compilation of the HC. The accounts for that section in vol. 6 of the History of the Church regarding Hyrum and JS reading from the BoM and testifying of it appear to have come from these men. Willard Richards took notes at the jail and wrote letters for JS to others. Richards and Taylor were involved in the compilation of the History. They would both have to be lying about it. Why would they?

Further, George A. Smith, then-Church historian and also cousin to the prophet Joseph Smith, interviewed several of the jail occupants (Dan Jones, John Fullmer, John Taylor and others) as they compiled this section of the HC.

But more importantly for our purposes here, (and for Danna's satisfaction) Dan Jones wrote his own statement about his time at the jail with the brothers before the martyrdom. (Incidentally when I was staying at the MTC I was quartered in Dan Jones dormitory.) Joseph Smith prophesied at the jail that Jones would fulfill a mission to Wales, which he later did. But this is besides the point. We have his eyewitness, firsthand account from 1855, about a decade after the martyrdom. Jones testified that Hyrum read "copious extracts from the Book of Mormon

[ttribe]

In case it is not obvious, the earliest version of an eyewitness account is always preferred.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to state, specifically, why John Taylor's account is unacceptable to you...other than the fact that you don't like it, of course. You do know he was in the room, don't you?

BTW, in case you just can't get over the idea that John Taylor's account has preeminence over all others, perhaps you should consider Mark Taylor's book on the subject...most of which was pulled from John Taylor's personal journals, etc. - Link

[Danna]

So Elder Holland said, "In this their greatest

[LifeOnaPlate]

In case it is not obvious, the earliest version of an eyewitness account is always preferred.

I'm not sure what school of historiography you are appealing to for this bald assertion, but it's flatly false. We aren't talking about court depositions or responses to interrogation. Your attempt to point out shortcomings in witness testimony is duly noted but insufficient. You said:

I have given extracts from two accounts, the first written in 1847 which provides no support for the bible study and testimony meeting on the last night, the second of which repeats The HoC almost word for word!

That's because the similar statement in the HC account is based directly on the statement of Dan Jones.

Are you suggesting that John Taylor and Dan Jones both made up the reading from the BoM from thin air because they don't repeat the same details in any given account they wrote about the martyrdom? Or that the idea was "suggested to them" somehow by each other but is, after all, false though neither of them realized it was false?

Danna, the fact that you don't know that the DJ account was directly used in the HC tells me you have not read the sources I already advised you to read. This hasn't helped your case, it has put more egg on your face.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The transcript wasn't available then. I mis-heard 'Hour of need' when I was transcribing myself. I don't think it changes anything - people were trying to tell me I was taking 'hour' literaly, which I wasn't. Hour of Need, Hour of Death - whatever - was a descriptive phrase for the imprisonment and impending martyrdom.

Actually your earliest claims did interpret more of a literal hour, though you have since changed your position.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Looks like Danna opted for option 3: "or she could come back and equivocate over what she meant or try to malign Dan Jones's testimony as she has Elder Holland's and John Taylor's."

[Danna]

Yeah, she hopped from the "wrong book" argument to the "lying about other stuff" argument pretty quickly. It has been interesting to watch this anti-Mormon argument go from birth to death, only to see the creator of the myth refuse to acknowledge the deficiency of the myth when it is made as plain as day. And then to see her arguments crop up on other forums.

It reminds me of that scene in the film Doubt where the priest talks about the woman who gossiped. She was advised to go on a roof and cut open a pillow and watch the feathers fly in the wind. Then she was to gather them up...

They were two separate issues - He produced a book and made a claim. The same claim had earlier been made in a church newspaper for a different book, see:

Bathsheba's copy of the Book of Mormon was the one that Hyrum Smith read shortly before the martyrdom, with the corner of the page still turned down, as mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.

No mention of dog-ear in honor of the first book or whatever, although some people seem to be expert at reading with half an eyeball and only seeing what they want to see. And Gearge A., Bathsheba's husband was the church historian at the time the accounts making up the HoC and D&C 135 were being compiled.

Obviously something strange was going on.

LoaP and friends kicked-off damage-control. The GC conference book is the accepted 'true-book' as confirmed by a modern historian (I assume a living church historian takes precedence over a dead one). The matter is over.

Then, I thought it may be interesting to check other factual claims from the speech. And found little-to-no support for the claims that the Prophet and his brother studied, quoted, and testified of the Book of Mormon the night before, or the morning of the martyrdom. The provenance of the physical book has nothing to do with support for Elder Holland's claims of what happened in Carthage.

D&C 135 also speaks of events in Nauvoo, not Carthage, and a plain reading of it does not have Hyrum reading to Joseph.

[LifeOnaPlate]

They were two separate issues - He produced a book and made a claim. The same claim had earlier been made in a church newspaper for a different book, see:

No mention of dog-ear in honor of the first book or whatever, although some people seem to be expert at reading with half an eyeball and only seeing what they want to see. And Gearge A., Bathsheba's husband was the church historian at the time the accounts making up the HoC and D&C 135 were being compiled.

Sure, but the claim that Bathsheba's book was the one Hyrum read from isn't George A's. You did see the handwritten note in the back of Hyrum's book from Joseph F. Smith on the book's provenance, right?

No mention of a dog-ear in the first book? False. It's in the photo I linked to that pre-dates the second book's donation.

Obviously something strange was going on.

LoaP and friends kicked-off damage-control. The GC conference book is the accepted 'true-book' as confirmed by a modern historian (I assume a living church historian takes precedence over a dead one). The matter is over.

Actually, Danna's marked photos and gleeful hypothesizing seemed a little more strange to me.

Then, I thought it may be interesting to check other factual claims from the speech. And found little-to-no support for the claims that the Prophet and his brother studied, quoted, and testified of the Book of Mormon the night before, or the morning of the martyrdom. The provenance of the physical book has nothing to do with support for Elder Holland's claims of what happened in Carthage.

Also false. You just dismissed out of hand anything that contradicted your preconceived conclusion that Elder Holland was making things up.

D&C 135 also speaks of events in Nauvoo, not Carthage, and a plain reading of it does not have Hyrum reading to Joseph.

I explained my reading. Your terse dismissal doesn't even approach it.

[Wiki Wonka]

No mention of a dog-ear in the first book? False. It's in the photo I linked to that pre-dates the second book's donation.

LoaP, I think you misread Danna's comment. She said, "No mention of dog-ear in honor of the first book or whatever." She's referring to the Bathsheba book being dog-eared in honor of the original. I think that this statement was in the newspaper article that discussed the two books. As I recall, I hadn't heard about this explanation for the dog-ear in the second book until then.

[David Bokovoy]

Just rewatched the talk again on Youtube. Speaking personally, this may be my all-time favorite talk given at General Conference. I loved both the message and the passionate way Elder Holland delivered his inspired sermon. Made me want to start writing about the Book of Mormon again.

[Danna]

I'm not sure what school of historiography you are appealing to for this bald assertion, but it's flatly false. We aren't talking about court depositions or responses to interrogation. Your attempt to point out shortcomings in witness testimony is duly noted but insufficient. You said:

That's because the similar statement in the HC account is based directly on the statement of Dan Jones.

Are you suggesting that John Taylor and Dan Jones both made up the reading from the BoM from thin air because they don't repeat the same details in any given account they wrote about the martyrdom? Or that the idea was "suggested to them" somehow by each other but is, after all, false though neither of them realized it was false?

Danna, the fact that you don't know that the DJ account was directly used in the HC tells me you have not read the sources I already advised you to read. This hasn't helped your case, it has put more egg on your face.

So you claim that a statement a decade or so after the fact will be more accurate than one 3 years later. Even though tha later report has obvious confabulations, and has enlarged over time (check out 'imagination inflation' research). Good luck mate. Anyway, lets see if I can find similar phrasing to the second Jones report (and/or the History of the Church account) published earlier than the date of his letter. Any interested lurkers, please join in. The question is which account concerning Joseph's testimony of the BoM to the guards, and Book of Mormon study with Hyrum (as claimed by Elder Holland) is the earliest. Dan Jones' 1855 letter, or an unattributed 'faith-promoting' version.

Also, why am I getting beaten up for disregarding John Taylor's account. Here is one that I have found :

An Eyewitness Account

by Elder John Taylor

THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 27, 1844.

[Danna]

LoaP, I think you misread Danna's comment. She said, "No mention of dog-ear in honor of the first book or whatever." She's referring to the Bathsheba book being dog-eared in honor of the original. I think that this statement was in the newspaper article that discussed the two books. As I recall, I hadn't heard about this explanation for the dog-ear in the second book until then.

Thankyou, yes - I said 'Dog-ear in honor'! referring to the cause of the dog-ear, not its existence per se.

LoaP, use your WHOLE eyeball.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So you claim that a statement a decade or so after the fact will be more accurate than one 3 years later.

Never said that. You seem to believe (fallaciously) that proximity of time is always the only and best way to accurate first-hand eyewitness testimony. There are benefits and drawbacks to the passage of time and the way we remember events. Further, in no way do I reject the earlier account of Jones. You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. I think that makes no sense.

Even though tha later report has obvious confabulations, and has enlarged over time (check out 'imagination inflation' research). Good luck mate. Anyway, lets see if I can find similar phrasing to the second Jones report (and/or the History of the Church account) published earlier than the date of his letter. Any interested lurkers, please join in. The question is which account concerning Joseph's testimony of the BoM to the guards, and Book of Mormon study with Hyrum (as claimed by Elder Holland) is the earliest. Dan Jones' 1855 letter, or an unattributed 'faith-promoting' version.

No need to look up "imagination inflation" research, I'm seeing plenty of it in your conclusions. Feel free to dismiss first-hand testimony (or to claim it isn't first-hand because it was given at a later date, which is simply an incoherent claim), but it's simply unreasonable. Not only unreasonable, but completely unwarranted. It is basically built on your assumption that Mormons lie. Thus Jones is lying, Taylor is lying, they are all lying. Or Jones is dumb. Or deluded. Or some other excuse. You seem to think that only the specifics mentioned in the earliest known accounts can be reasonably accepted as having occurred. This is an absurd conclusion. Your theory that Jones was somehow tampered with as a witness is baseless. Memories aren't perfect, but a detail like this would be a strange thing to invent out of whole cloth.

As you can see, John Taylor's report makes no mention of the events claimed by Elder Holland.

John Taylor doesn't mention that he or Joseph Smith were breathing throughout their stay in Carthage but it is safe to assume they were. He doesn't mention if any of the men were wearing shoes; this does not indicate they were barefoot.

Taylor doesn't mention this momentous event at all.

Who said anything about it being "momentous"? Sitting in a jail with Joseph Smith and seeing him read from scripture likely wouldn't have seemed to "momentous" at the time. That's how much of what we witness happens. We don't know we are witnesses at the time. Further, Taylor's account to which you referred makes it explicitly apparent that it is not comprehensive. The conversations, according to Taylor, included the topics of:

the devising for legal and other plans for deliverance, the nature of testimony required; the gathering of proper witnesses, and a variety of other topics, including our religious hopes, etc.

Further still, by your logic we should doubt Taylor's claim that "one ball entered a little below the left knee, and never was extracted; another entered the forepart of my left arm" because it is not mentioned in the Dan Jones account. Maybe these bullets were just some psychological false memory or something? Clearly, since Taylor does not mention this aspect of the situation in every account it must not have occured, but must be some sort of false memory.

As for Jones, his earlier account, as you noted, says:

The Prophet, Patriarch, and their friends took turns preaching to the guards, several of whom were relieved before their time was out, because they admitted they were convinced of the innocence of the prisoners. They frequently admitted they had been imposed upon, and more than once it was heard, "Let us go home, boys, for I will not fight any longer against these men."

How does this prove the Book of Mormon was never used or made reference to? Your argument is completely weak; it is an argument from silence.

People have been acting as if the History of the Church were John Taylor's eyewitness account. Obviously it is not - the account switches back and forth to events he could not have seen, and even events he states he did not take in given his injuries and location (see the link above). Here is what FAIR have to sayabout the History of the Church, when they address an account in it derived from no less than 6 eyewitness accounts. FAIR have doubts as to the reliability of the History of the Church, should I be less rigourous than FAIR?

I'm not talking about "what FAIR have [sic] to say." It's not a perfect history. In regards to the accounts surrounding the martyrdom, however, even more care was taken to get the best and most accurate possible account recorded. (This can be seen in the sources I have already referred you to). The events we are talking about are part of a composite account constructed by eyewitnesses including Taylor, Willard Richards Dan Jones, and others. I provided one very particular primary eyewitness account. Dismiss at your peril; it's historically irresponsible to call it mere "false memories" or some other unfounded assertion. Jones's letter was written, by the way, to Thomas Bullock. Why Bullock? Because he was assisting with the production of the HC. Jones was sending what he wished to be on record. Are you saying Bullock wrote to Jones and said "Hey, we need some great story about JS and the Book of Mormon at Carthage. We're all in on it, so send us a letter and we can put it in the archives so our story checks out in a few decades when people are looking into things."? Jones had already mentioned that the men preached at the jail. In a foreign newspaper to an audience that included many non-Mormons who hadn't yet heard of the Book of Mormon. Why would he mention it at that point? And the fact that he didn't mention that particular detail, again, is not evidence that they didn't read from the BoM. His later assertion that they did is an added specific detail that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence against.

Thankyou, yes - I said 'Dog-ear in honor'! referring to the cause of the dog-ear, not its existence per se.

LoaP, use your WHOLE eyeball.

Sorry I misread that comment.

For what it's worth, the "in honor of" idea came directly from one of the people who donated the Bathsheba W. Smith book. She explained to me it was not the book read by Hyrum Smith. Like we said all along.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, yeah, "Crikey!"

[LifeOnaPlate]

dbl

[Wiki Wonka]

People have been acting as if the History of the Church were John Taylor's eyewitness account. Obviously it is not - the account switches back and forth to events he could not have seen, and even events he states he did not take in given his injuries and location (see the link above). Here is what FAIR have to sayabout the History of the Church, when they address an account in it derived from no less than 6 eyewitness accounts. FAIR have doubts as to the reliability of the History of the Church, should I be less rigourous than FAIR?

Actually, the Zelph wiki article you linked to isn't passing any sort of judgment on the History of the Church. The article makes the following points about the story of Zelph:

1) "It should be noted...that the History of the Church version was created by amalgamating the journal entries of several people."

2) "The accounts were published after the death of Joseph Smith, and the text has a convoluted history."

3) "LDS scholars have differed about the reliability of the accounts, and their relevance for Book of Mormon geography."

4) "Thus, it is unclear exactly what Joseph said."

Now, if you look at a different FAIR Wiki article, Authorship of History of the Church, you see that FAIR draws the following conclusion:

"It is important to realize that the content of the History of the Church is likely largely accurate, though it can of course be supplemented with other material to expand or correct it. Areas which may be less accurate are the precise wording attributed to Joseph Smith, or the 'personality' of some of the entries, especially the later ones written after his death. Though the History of the Church speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's 'personality' in the History are less likely to be accurate."

So it seems that the point being made by FAIR regarding HoC is that, because much of it is written in the first person as if Joseph himself were speaking, that these may not represent Joseph's exact words. In the case of Zelph, this certainly applies - we don't have a direct quote from Joseph on Zelph. FAIR is not trying to state that the Zelph incident did not occur...it obviously did. FAIR is stating that there is some ambiguity regarding what exactly was said.

[Scott Lloyd]

I want to help out with the bump, though I believe that Danna may have retreated to the more congenial climate of the Dr. Dahesh board.

Incidentally, are you still burning with rage?

I certainly am. In fact, I believe it can be properly said that I'm seething with wrath.

May I join the club? I learned a few days ago that I'm "boorish and childish."

Add on: If the above doesn't make me eligible, perhaps this will: I've just learned from one of the commentators over there -- he, himself, a model of serenity -- that someone here has been "obliterating" Juliann and me "into angry little pebbles."

[ttribe]

May I join the club? I learned a few days ago that I'm "boorish and childish."

I can't even say what I found out about me this week: Post Link

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't even say what I found out about me this week: Post Link

He called you that for pointing out that this is a debate forum? I think he's right: This isn't the place for him.

[ttribe]

He called you that for pointing out that this is a debate forum? I think he's right: This isn't the place for him.

Uh yeah...it was an interesting one.

[mfbukowski]

I can't even say what I found out about me this week: Post Link

Congratulations!

It's amazing that got through the good old automatic asterisk system! That guy should be outa here.

Edit: oops I guess he is! There is a Mod!