Revisiting Elder Holland's Sermon

[Uncle Dale]

Forgive me if I'm violating copyright law with such a lengthy extract -- but the

following message from Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland's Conference talk, of Oct. 4the

caught my attention. It was e-mailed to me by an auditor of Dr. Craig Criddle's

oral paper on Book of Mormon origins, given today. The same correspondent provided

me with a Google search history for several years back, indicating that during the

last few days Google searches for "Jeffrey Holland" and "Solomon Spalding" spiked:

...for For 179 years this book [boM] has been examined, and attacked. Denied and

deconstructed. Targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious

history. Perhaps like no other book in any religious history, and still, it stands.

Failed theories about its origins have been born, parroted and died. From Ethan Smith

to Solomon Spalding, to deranged paranoid, to cunning genius. None of these frankly

pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination, because there is no

other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young, unlearned translator.

In this I stand with my own great grandfather who said simply enough -- no wicked man

could write such a book as this -- and no good man would write it unless it were true --

and he were commanded of God to do so...

The Apostle appears to be saying that advocates of 19th century explanations for the

book are doing the Devil's work -- that their efforts to textually deconstruct the book's

contents, and to rationally study those contents, are "failed," "dead" and "pathetic."

In what sense is this true? In what sense is this mere hyperbole -- meant for internal

LDS consunption? I guess what I'm really asking, is whether The Brethren are laying down

some sort of warning to writers like Vogel and Criddle, along with their readers. Or was

Elder Holland just talking to Mormons?

Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

If the Book of Mormon is really true and from God, as Elder Holland believes, then those who oppose it are, by definition, opposing something from God. Which means they're opposing God. Which means, in the Abrahamic tradition as it's long been understood, that they're doing the Devil's work. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matthew 12:30 KJV).

[Uncle Dale]

If the Book of Mormon is really true and from God, as Elder Holland believes, then those who oppose it are,

by definition, opposing something from God. Which means they're opposing God. Which means, in the

Abrahamic tradition as it's long been understood, that they're doing the Devil's work. "He that is not

with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matthew 12:30 KJV).

From the viewpoint of the topmost LDS leaders, can there be any

valid, professional discussion of the text, from the pens of non-Mormons?

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

From the viewpoint of the topmost LDS leaders, can there be any

valid, professional discussion of the text, from the pens of non-Mormons?

Sure!

[Uncle Dale]

Sure!

Then can we set down some quidelines -- or at least a short list of dos and don'ts?

Let's say I have a paper ready to submit to the Journal of Biblical Literature

comparing the BoM to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha -- a paper which rejects the book

as being either an ancient text or a revelation from God. The former conclusion is

blatantly explicit in the paper. The latter conclusion is implicit, at least for those

who take the trouble to read the critical apparatus.

Nothing in the paper degenerates Mormons -- the report is purely a textual study.

Any do's and don'ts The Brethren might want to pass on to such a non-LDS writer?

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think the Brethren are trying to control your publishing, or anybody else's.

Plainly, though, it's one thing to assume -- as most of the world that has ever paid even the slightest attention to the subject assumes -- that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, and it's something very different to devote oneself to arguing that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century.

I'm not a Buddhist, and it can be reasonably and correctly inferred from that fact that there are several central Buddhist claims that I reject or, at least, in which I don't share. Were I to devote any substantial amount of time or energy to arguing against central Buddhist claims, though, I would go from being merely a non-Buddhist to being an anti-Buddhist -- and those are quite distinct categories.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I'm not a Buddhist

...

I'd love you just as much if you were. In fact, perhaps a smidgen more.

But, if Elder Holland was mostly talking to Mormons, then I might feel

the hope that I can still produce a refutation of the BoM which an LDS

reader can browse through and smile at. Still, if I catch your drift, that

particular goal cannot be my motivating factor.

I'm a known anti-Mormon, but primarily on such arcane matters as the

July 4, 1838 message of the First Presidency, published at Far West.

The same sort of politico-religious disagreement my ancestors had with

the post-Kirtland leadership. A generally benign critic, perhaps.

So, perhaps a Rigdon book could still make it to your shelves, if I

perform a spiritual-mental balancing act rare in our collective history?

But, under your breath, do I hear you saying "go easy on the Criddle part?"

UD

[Mortal Man]

Or was Elder Holland just talking to Mormons?

Elder Holland was talking specifically to Mormons for their edification. Our bishopric benefited greatly from his talk, as I described here.

[Paul Osborne]

Hi again, Dale, sorry I was too tired to chat last night.

From a worldly nonLDS perspective the Book of Mormon is seen strictly as a religious volume of faith based nature which cannot be proven true either historically or doctrinally. It's all about faith. Frankly, I think elder Holland was harsh to use the word "pathetic" considering that billions of people on this earth have or will reject the Book of Mormon out of hand for whatever reason they conclude. Are the thinking minds of billions of people simply pathetic? Not really. They just won't give into the kind of faith that elder Holland wants them to have.

I think the use of the word "pathetic" was not only offensive but hurtful towards those who don't have faith in an unproven book. I don't see President Monson using that kind of language or tone ever.

Paul O

[Uncle Dale]

Elder Holland was talking specifically to Mormons...

That's a relief. Sometimes the leadership targets a wider audience:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSc.htm#020233

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Hi again, Dale, sorry I was to tired too chat last night.

...

Just as long as you win me a kupi doll at the State Fair.

The Elder was spot-on, when it comes to a goodly share of the

anti-BoM stuff that has been published since 1829. Much of it

has indeed been "pathetic." I elevate Sister Fawn slightly

above that level, but not much.

My childhood dream was to do Brodie "right," if you catch my drift.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

In what sense is this true?

In the sense that even Uncle Dale's prodigious efforts haven't panned out the way he hoped.

[Uncle Dale]

In the sense that even Uncle Dale's prodigious efforts haven't panned out the way he hoped.

All I hope for are things not seen.

Some guy said that once -- I forget who.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually you hope to "produce a refutation of the BoM which an LDS reader can browse through and smile at."

I've smiled at some refutations, but mostly the "pathetic" ones.

[Paul Osborne]

UD,

We can agree that nonbelievers are not pathetic because they reject the Book of Mormon based on their current beliefs or the lack of proof regarding the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is strictly a faith based book given to the world to receive solely on faith through feelings they get while praying. Most people have not received that witness. Therefore, they look to various answers to explain what they consider to be a hoax. I don't blame them. Nor, do I judge them.

Paul O

[Joseph Antley]

Why the need for the Brethren's approval?

[rockslider]

Has or will FAIR review Criddle's work?

[Uncle Dale]

UD,

We can agree

...

More often than naught, it seems. But then again you're an agreeable fellow.

"Pathos," I'm told, is one of the three modes of persuasion in rhetoric --

and involves an appeal "to the audience's emotions."

If I ever publish, that is exactly what I wish to avoid. I just watched

"In the Shadow of the Temple" -- which is indeed "pathetic." But such

stuff preaches to the choir.

My pathway cannot be "pathetic," or it will lead to the same oblivion as all

the previous "Ethan Smith" and "Solomon Spalding" deconstructions that the

good Apostle warned us about.

No -- my method has to somehow get a substantial share of the Mormons

cheering for me, as I demonstrate the theological fallacies in Mosiah.

If only I had Sidney Rigdon here, to help me.

Oh well, I'll keep trying. Life-on-a-plate may be smiling at me some day.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Has or will FAIR review Criddle's work?

I hope that somebody (FARMS?) will at least review the 2009 Jockers'

study -- since he finally uploaded Brother Joseph into his word-print

matrix. Who cares about those other guys, when we have reliable

Smithite word-prints to peruse and ponder?

UD

[Scottie]

But, there ARE anachronisms in the BoM. None of which have been answered. Sure, there are some theories to attempt to address them, but to claim that these anachronisms are "pathetic"... do the apologists here agree with that? I certainly don't. It seems to me that the anachronisms are quite a problem for the BoM.

To me, the talk seemed to do nothing more than give chapel Mormons a warm fuzzy that smart men have tried to disprove the BoM and failed. Therefore, they don't need to know the actual arguments. It's enough to know that a smart apostle says that the arguments are "pathetic".

[LifeOnaPlate]

But, there ARE anachronisms in the BoM. None of which have been answered.

True that there are anachronisms. Such is the fate of almost any translation.

Non answered? False.

[Paul Osborne]

But, there ARE anachronisms in the BoM. None of which have been answered. Sure, there are some theories to attempt to address them, but to claim that these anachronisms are "pathetic"... do the apologists here agree with that? I certainly don't. It seems to me that the anachronisms are quite a problem for the BoM.

To me, the talk seemed to do nothing more than give chapel Mormons a warm fuzzy that smart men have tried to disprove the BoM and failed. Therefore, they don't need to know the actual arguments. It's enough to know that a smart apostle says that the arguments are "pathetic".

Scottie,

Did you crawl over or under the Book of Mormon to get out of your testimony? I take it you did this after you gathered more arguments in order to more closely examine the faith of your original testimony. Further, although elder Holland may be a "smart" apostle that certainly doesn't mean you're a dumb exMormon.

Paul O

[Scottie]

True that there are anachronisms. Such is the fate of almost any translation.

Okay, so do you think that critics are "pathetic" for bringing the anachronisms up?

Non answered? False.

I think you are confusing "addressed" with "answered". There are plenty of theories, but I'd be hard pressed to say a theory equates to an answer.

[Daniel Peterson]

Has or will FAIR review Criddle's work?

Presumably they will. FARMS (the Maxwell Institute) most certainly will.

I can hardly wait.

[Uncle Dale]

But, there ARE anachronisms in the BoM. None of which have been answered. Sure, there are some theories to attempt to address them, but to claim that these anachronisms are "pathetic"... do the apologists here agree with that? I certainly don't. It seems to me that the anachronisms are quite a problem for the BoM.

To me, the talk seemed to do nothing more than give chapel Mormons a warm fuzzy that smart men have tried to disprove the BoM and failed. Therefore, they don't need to know the actual arguments. It's enough to know that a smart apostle says that the arguments are "pathetic".

Looking historically, back over the old files of the Deseret News,

it seems it was very rare that the LDS leadership brought up any direct

reference to BoM challenges, such as Ethan Smith or Solomon Spalding's writings,

unless that particular topic was causing the Church some problems. In other

words, it was very unusual for a GA of the LDS Church to bring these sorts of

things up in a discourse from the podium, unless he had a particular reason

to do so. In the 20th century we find occasional references of these sorts

in the Conference Reports -- but they are infrequent.

I suppose that the Apostle had some special reason, to go so far as mentioning

Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding, rather than something more generic, such as

anachronisms in the BoM.

Possibly the spark for all of this was the DNA controversy -- or something I'm

overlooking in some recent Signature Books offering.

But my guess is that there was a reason for the mentions. Anachronisms in the BoM

could have been addressed -- but they weren't. It was the critics' attempts to

"deconstruct" the text that upset Elder Holland.

I was sitting at my computer that very day, laboriously de-constructing the text

in Mosiah, when the Apostle spoke. So my knee-jerk reaction was to suppose that

he was obliquely referencing current non-Mormon study of the standard works.

But DCP reassures me otherwise.

At any rate, it would have not caught my attention, if the hostility had been

directed at folks pointing out anachronisms in the BoM. It's when my own work

gets lumped in with that of Lucifer's worshipers that I get a mite peeved.

UD