Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk

[Mortal Man]

I think it extremely unlikely that he would have gone willingly to his death for the scam

Your point would almost make sense if the mobs were demanding that Joseph and Hyrum deny their testimonies of the BoM.

Sadly, the Nauvoo Expositor had much more to do with the situation in Carthage than Joseph's activities 14 years prior.

[rockslider]

It seems I've read/heard of stories, but they dealt with animals not authorship. I'd like a CFR also so I can go read this for myself.

I'm also a great fan of his final work and second what I believe his dying testimony was.

[robuchan]

"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.

It might be a good topic to discuss. I don't have a horse in the race, so I'm the wrong guy to discuss with you. I already explained why I threw it in the discussion.

P.S. I'm pretty sure you know where to read what BH said about Ethan Smith if you don't already know.

[Mortal Man]

And the argument I think also has implications for all of Joseph's "translations" - even the Book of Abraham.

I would really like to hear him give the same talk on the Book of Abraham.

Do you think it would be just as powerful?

[structurecop]

Rockslider, this is an intervention. Your non-standard font is driving me crazy. Sorry. If you don't change it, you're kicked out of the Fifth-Columnist club.

[Bill Vincent]

Newbie, without form, and void? LOL!!!!!

[Mortal Man]

CFR that B.H. Roberts provided an alternative candidate of authorship.

Perhaps you should read up: FAIR Link

There's a lot of misdirection in the FAIRwiki on this subject. For example, the quote in reference 1 applies only to his preliminary study, which he presented to the church leadership and not to his later studies, which were far more exhaustive and damaging and which he kept to himself for completely understandable reasons.

Have you actually read Roberts' essays or just what FAIR says about them?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Ah, missed that. Well try to remember that with robuchan we are still trying to get him to substantiate one of his own actual claims.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

And herein is your problem. Calling B.H. Roberts a "critic of the Book of Mormon" in the same way that say, Howe, or Metcalfe, or Craig Criddle are critics of the Book of Mormon is completely off-base. There is a huge difference between considering alternate theories and advocating them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Given the context of Elder Holland's address none of these things were even directly relevant. I suggest reading it over and trying to find out the internal logic of the thing before imposing expectations upon it Elder Holland had no intention or indication of fulfilling. He bore an apostolic witness. He pointed out two examples of theories that have floundered. He noted the power and the relevance of the Book of Mormon for today's members of the Church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There's a lot of misdirection in the FAIRwiki on this subject. For example, the quote in reference 1 applies only to his preliminary study, which he presented to the church leadership and not to his later studies, which were far more exhaustive and damaging and which he kept to himself for completely understandable reasons.

Have you actually read Roberts' essays or just what FAIR says about them?

Speaking of misdirection, I see you overlooked my direct response to you back on page 8. Here it is again:

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).

[markwhannig]

I'm not aware of any...but I'd be interested in reading whatever you find.

"pious fraud" is a misnomer. JS is either who he says he is, or the central figure in one of the world's greatest conspiracies.

[rockslider]

Rockslider, this is an intervention. Your non-standard font is driving me crazy. Sorry. If you don't change it, you're kicked out of the Fifth-Columnist club.

1. 2007 Word default Calibri (Body) 11 (MAD unknown size 3)

2. 2007 Word Verdana 11 (MAD Verdana size 3)

3. MAD Verdana 2

4. 2007 Word Verdana 9

interesting, before a preview, the MAD editor showed the fonts as listed above. After doing a preview the auto-reformat occurs and the MAD editor now shows the size, when I select a character on a line, but does not recognize the font type anymore. However, in the previewed text (and my final posts), the minor size difference is apparent, but the fronts appear to all be the same with nothing nasty looking at it with the latest version of Internet Explorer.

Is there a given item number above that is driving you nuts, or all characters of this post bad? Is it a size issue, or font? What browser are you using? Is this a problem for others?

[rockslider]

2007 word Verdana 9 - with no other fonts

edit: in my browser the above line looks like item 2 in the previous link

[structurecop]

2007 word Verdana 9 - with no other fonts

edit: in my browser the above line looks like item 2 in the previous link

Interesting. It looks good to me now. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it. It could be that I am using Linux... if that is the case, I apologize for making you change!

[dblagent007]

I agree with Mortal Man above that Elder Holland delivered a powerful testimony of the BOM (although his delivery seemed a bit over the top to me), but I didn't find his evidence particularly persuasive. Since his job is to bear witness and not engage in apologetics I think he was effective.

However, I am surprised at how much I really enjoyed President Monson's talks (and Uchtdorf's). They really resonated with me. Excellent, excellent messages that if followed will create lasting change in many peoples' lives.

[rockslider]

Interesting. It looks good to me now. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it. It could be that I am using Linux... if that is the case, I apologize for making you change!

ya spooked me there for a second, all those threats of banishment and all

[Mortal Man]

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:

I have not mischaracterized Roberts.

My AP English teacher used to say that discerning an author's tone was the hardest thing for her to teach. She once had the class read A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift and everybody thought it was a serious essay about eating babies. It is Roberts' tone that, for me, provides the strongest evidence that he became convinced that VotH provided structual material for the BoM. I'm sure you noted his numerous exclamation points, which he used to drive home the absurdity of apologetic positions.

If I can find the time, I would like to have a more in-depth conversation with you regarding Roberts' work in another thread.

[Mortal Man]

I really enjoyed President Monson's talks (and Uchtdorf's). They really resonated with me. Excellent, excellent messages that if followed will create lasting change in many peoples' lives.

Ditto that. I also enjoyed Christofferson's talk about internal vs. external controls.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You've essentially side-stepped my other points. And you also seem to think Roberts ceased thinkong or writing after he wrote about BoM and VotH, your tone argument notwithstanding.

[why me]

He always speaks with passion. But it is driven by love, not anger.

He was also choking up when he was speaking. If I am correct, it shows a lot of passion and caring for those who leave or who are contemplating leaving because of what they read about the book of mormon on the Internet.

[why me]

I agree with Mortal Man above that Elder Holland delivered a powerful testimony of the BOM (although his delivery seemed a bit over the top to me), but I didn't find his evidence particularly persuasive. Since his job is to bear witness and not engage in apologetics I think he was effective.

However, I am surprised at how much I really enjoyed President Monson's talks (and Uchtdorf's). They really resonated with me. Excellent, excellent messages that if followed will create lasting change in many peoples' lives.

He was speaking from a passionate heart about this subject of the book of mormon. I thought that it was a great change from the more subdued speakers. We need more fire from the GAs to get people to think and question what they may be reading from the Internet. I also think that he has the inside track on why people may be leaving the lds church. I am sure that there are letters that relate how the Internet and what they have read about the book of mormon as the reason for leaving.

[why me]

Your point would almost make sense if the mobs were demanding that Joseph and Hyrum deny their testimonies of the BoM.

Sadly, the Nauvoo Expositor had much more to do with the situation in Carthage than Joseph's activities 14 years prior.

At the end of the day, they did bear their testimony to the guards. What they could have done was to turn yello belly and related on how it was all a scam and demand better protection from the governor. But they didn't. We also need to remember that when Joseph was in prison for treason and more or less facing the death penalty, this would have been a great time to come clean. After all JS had no idea what the witnesses were now saying about what they saw. That would have been a fine time to deny what they saw since JS was in prison. But all kept silent. It does seem to defy human nature and logic that all would remain silent and that JS would die for his fraud and take his brother with him.

[why me]

I didn't think Elder Holland was angry. He was decisive and firm and unwavering and forceful.

Is he aware of "Jockers" study? I am not sure.

I had the impression that he was aware of many issues and this is why he was so passionate about the subject. I still believe that he has he inside track on why people are leaving and he knows that the internet is somewhat successful in convincing certain members that the book of mormon is a 'fraud'. The Internet with the critics at the helm, can be very convincing and misleading.

He spoke with these people in mind: the ones who left or who are considering leaving. The best way to fight it is to see the human angle behind the book. His case was strong that JS and Hyrum would not die for a fraud and leave their loved ones behind. And how no witness ever denied what they experienced or saw.

Human nature would have dictated otherwise if it were all a fraud. I think that that was his point.

[Avatar4321]

Note: Dying for one's belief does not prove its truth. Though it was a nice point.

Maybe not, but it sure as heck is a strong indication whether the dying person sincerely believed it or not.