Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[ttribe]

The fact is simply that Hyrum read to Joseph from the BoM. Whether Joseph found consolation in the reading is anyone's guess.

To presume to know the thoughts of Joseph Smith is silly. It's like assuming that a professor of Islamic studies can read the mind of a deranged kidnapper.

Let's see, the critics frequently claim they can read Joseph's mind all the time...you mean we don't get to play too? Nice DCP cheap shot thrown in for good measure...you must be feeling especially surly tonight.

BTW, do you intend to respond to my CFR, or are you going to retract your statement?

[LifeOnaPlate]

And we all know that the dread pirate B.H. Roberts was the most vicious of all anti-Mormons.

No one would claim so, but your mischaracterization of B.H. Roberts is duly noted. Some have tried to exploit some of Roberts's writings regarding the Book of Mormon, most notably the book published by Signature which people have taken to indicate Roberts had doubts about the authenticity of the BoM and so forth. I?ve done a significant amount of primary source digging on Roberts and am unconvinced by the theory that in private he didn't believe in BoM historicity. I should add, I went into it trying to get the best view possible, not to vindicate the BoM using Roberts. Had I found significant evidence to show Roberts struggled privately I would not mind allowing him that struggle. His own opinions don't vindicate or repudiate the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps more interesting is the fact that Roberts may be the last actual believer in the Book of Mormon who critics will appeal to regarding BoM scholarship. Why is this so? Especially when Roberts's analysis is badly dated? It is because they are not interested in the best scholarship, only the best scholarship that provides them justification to dismiss the book as a "pious fraud" or forgery. But since Roberts's time a lot has been done, a lot has been found. So take this as a reminder to all the critics who (mis)use Roberts: Many of the problems which drew Elder Roberts?s attention in his studies on the Book of Mormon have now been solved as more information about the ancient world has become available.

However (and here is the interesting part that every critic citing Roberts seems to have overlooked), rather than making Roberts look out of step, it actually vindicates him further. Roberts expressed faith that this increase in understanding and scholarship would be the case, and has thus been vindicated:

"We who accept [the Book of Mormon] as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph? ("The Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era (April 1906): 435-436).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Such as?

And, can you refute the FAIR link I provided?

robuchan hasn't proven particularly willing to provide actual quotes and evidence in my experience. [take this as another challenge, rob!]

[ttribe]

robuchan hasn't proven particularly willing to provide actual quotes and evidence in my experience. [take this as another challenge, rob!]

I've noticed....

[LifeOnaPlate]

The fact is simply that Hyrum read to Joseph from the BoM. Whether Joseph found consolation in the reading is anyone's guess.

Maybe they were just doing some spell-checking of that particular edition of the Book of Mormon, yeah? It isn't like they were men up against the wall facing death, or that this would be an opportune time to find encouragement or solace.

But more to the point, Elder Holland wasn't just making things up or speculating, he was basing his observation on actual sources. So we can ask: How did Elder Holland know the passage was read? And did his source provide any more info as to how the men handled the reading? [this is a hint as to why I believe you are somewhat off base in this criticism]

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nice DCP cheap shot thrown in for good measure...you must be feeling especially surly tonight.

At least he provided the requisite emoticon, methinks that was a gesture of him just ribbing.

[paulpatter]

So you are saying he was indignant? Interesting.

Your statement is a close cousin to the argumentive fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi, which occurs when a debater thinks he is proving one thing, but argues beside the point and reaches a different conclusion.

BTW, I note you left "righteously" out of the quote, which raises the question (trying for a little leverage, were you?): What's wrong with being righteously indignant? Did Christ err when, on two occasions, he cleansed the temple?

[ttribe]

At least he provided the requisite emoticon, methinks that was a gesture of him just ribbing.

I get the joke...just thought it was in poor taste.

[robuchan]

robuchan hasn't proven particularly willing to provide actual quotes and evidence in my experience. [take this as another challenge, rob!]

You guys really crack me up. Like whether or not I want to refute a FAIR article on B.H. Roberts' final testimony of the BOM has any relevancy to anything.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You guys really crack me up. Like whether or not I want to refute a FAIR article on B.H. Roberts' final testimony of the BOM has any relevancy to anything.

No one has asked you to refute anything. We have asked you to substantiate a claim you made. That is entirely different.

[lostindc]

You guys really crack me up. Like whether or not I want to refute a FAIR article on B.H. Roberts' final testimony of the BOM has any relevancy to anything.

wow, you made it rather easy to throw any arguments you construct (very poorly) into the toilet. At least attempt to prove a point if you are going to pass one off as fact even though the majority of the board finds it rather silly.

Perhaps the time has come for you to clock out and call it a night, I think you must be tired hence the dribble that keeps pouring...

[Bill Vincent]

I love this secular parsing of Elder Holland's talk, and whether or not Joseph Smith was actually feeling "consoled" in his last minutes before he was murdered. Suppose Elder Holland has received special revelation from the Lord, leaving him absolutely no doubt about the veracity of what he said in his talk?

[ttribe]

No one has asked you to refute anything. We have asked you to substantiate a claim you made. That is entirely different.

To be fair, I did also ask him to refute the FAIR link I provided, but it was within the context of his statement regarding BH Roberts and Ethan Smith.

[ttribe]

You guys really crack me up. Like whether or not I want to refute a FAIR article on B.H. Roberts' final testimony of the BOM has any relevancy to anything.

Does this mean that you are convinced B.H. Roberts lost his testimony of the BoM, but won't consider any counter-evidence?

[noel00]

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification - Literary and linguistic computing - 2008, vol. 23, no4

"Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased)."

Let the debate roll on

[Bill Vincent]

Welcome to the board, Bill Vincent!

Thanks! Fascinating board, topic.

I served my mission 34 years ago. 2 months after I began my mission, we had a special mission conference about the Savior. Elder Holland (Bro. Jeffrey Holland back in the day!) was a CES employee/Institute instructor/administrator, and was the featured speaker. He gave an amazing talk about the Savior. We had someone perform "O Divine Redeemer" at the same conference. I never had the opportunity to thank him then. Some 30 years later, I was in Santiago, Chile on business, and ran into him at Church headquarters there. He remembered the talk. Incredible guy. And his talk this afternoon was so stirring that my wife and I replayed it 3 times.

[lostindc]

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification - Literary and linguistic computing - 2008, vol. 23, no4

"Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased)."

Let the debate roll on

And the aliens have landed

[robuchan]

No one has asked you to refute anything. We have asked you to substantiate a claim you made. That is entirely different.

Which claim did I make that you need substantiating?

Instead of being a jerk and doing a cat and mouse BS thing you like to do. I'll just answer the question for you.

MM's logic was that you shouldn't call all BOM critics anti-Mormons. (You should have just let him make that point, because it was a fair point which you agree with I'm sure). He used BHR as the example.

You wanted to refute the BHR example by saying he had no alternate authorship theories, implying Elder Holland would have no problem with anyone that brings up BHR logic.

I responded "he had plenty to say about Ethan Smith". That's a claim. And it's correct. And you and everyone in this thread know he said a lot about Ethan Smith. No reason to CFR that, correct? If you want to read in any additional claim more than what I said literally, you can read in this: "When Elder Holland threw out the names Spaulding and Ethan Smith, he probably would include anyone arguing any of BHR's points on Ethan Smith, therefore, MM's original logic was pretty sound." It's not OK to read in any claim that anything in that FAIR article on BHR's testimony of the BOM at time of his death would refute.

[lostindc]

Which claim did I make that you need substantiating?

Instead of being a jerk and doing a cat and mouse BS thing you like to do. I'll just answer the question for you.

MM's logic was that you shouldn't call all BOM critics anti-Mormons. (You should have just let him make that point, because it was a fair point which you agree with I'm sure). He used BHR as the example.

You wanted to refute the BHR example by saying he had no alternate authorship theories, implying Elder Holland would have no problem with anyone that brings up BHR logic.

I responded "he had plenty to say about Ethan Smith". That's a claim. And it's correct. And you and everyone in this thread know he said a lot about Ethan Smith. No reason to CFR that, correct? If you want to read in any additional claim more than what I said literally, you can read in this: "When Elder Holland threw out the names Spaulding and Ethan Smith, he probably would include anyone arguing any of BHR's points on Ethan Smith, therefore, MM's original logic was pretty sound." It's not OK to read in any claim that anything in that FAIR article on BHR's testimony of the BOM at time of his death would refute.

Hopefully we do not need a larger diaper to contain more of these posts in this thread.

In other news, the talk was great

[robuchan]

Hopefully we do not need a larger diaper to contain more of these posts in this thread.

In other news, the talk was great

I guess you'd rather me not post that, so you could all do the victory dance at my failure to answer irrelevant CFR's?

[ttribe]

I guess you'd rather me not post that, so you could all do the victory dance at my failure to answer irrelevant CFR's?

So it was irrelevant for me to ask you what B.H. Roberts had to say about Ethan Smith? What was wrong with that?

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps the best talk of the entire Conference. It was everything that burns in my heart and I felt like Alma when he said he wished he had the voice of an angel to shake the earth! Amen and Amen to what Elder Holland said! For those who think the apostles and prophets of our day are too "milktoast" or timid I point to Elder Hollands bold and heartfelt talk filled with the spirit. One that can make the Saints cheer for joy and make the demons from hell howl and all hell boil over! The predictable responses here are only a pale reflection of the power of the spirit that broke through into the hearts of the righteous during that wonderful talk.

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I too thought it was a great talk. I was frankly stunned that he mentioned Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith by name, since that runs the risk of alerting otherwise unquestioning members to those theories. I was truly intrigued when he held up Hyrum's book with the turned page. I give the talk an A for delivery and an A for props.

On the other hand, the gushing reviews on this thread have confirmed my theory that how people speak is vastly more important than what people say.

Yes, Elder Holland delivered a powerful testimony of the BoM in a deep resonant voice. But did he:

1) offer a single piece of evidence to refute either of the two theories he mentioned?

2) explain how they stored all the food for the flocks and herds that did sail with the Jaredites?

or

3) present one new piece of evidence in favor or the books historicity?

It is easy to speak in generalities and make bold declarations.

It is far more difficult to specifically address the points of difficulty.

Additionally, his assertion that those who find the BoM a to be stumbling block "wish not to believe in this work" is not true in most cases.

I bet that most of the apostates, of whom he spoke, were not looking for excuses to leave the church but rather left reluctantly after finding too many difficulties with the book.

[robuchan]

So it was irrelevant for me to ask you what B.H. Roberts had to say about Ethan Smith? What was wrong with that?

I guess it's not irrelevant but it's pretty lame, considering we both know what he wrote about Ethan Smith, and I'm not making any outrageous claims about it.

P.S. That's not the reason I posted in this thread. It's a tangent that is taking away from the point I made earlier. I don't think the fact Hyrum took solace in BOM's teachings of Christ at a critical time of his life is compelling evidence for anything. Frankly I don't believe the BOM is an actual historical record, but I still read it for comfort in critical times in my life.

[ttribe]

I guess it's not irrelevant but it's pretty lame, considering we both know what he wrote about Ethan Smith, and I'm not making any outrageous claims about it.

"We" do?

Nevertheless, I'm interested in finding out what you THINK he was saying about Ethan Smith insomuch as yours was a response to my (as yet unanswered) CFR request to Mortal Man regarding B.H. Roberts and alternative theories for authorship of the BoM. You see, I think the interpretation of Bro. Roberts' statements may be worth discussing in the open forum.

[e=mc2]

I thought his talk was very powerful and wonderfully delightful listening.