Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is the thread.

You have to go quite deeply into it to get to the point where Danna comes on with her attacks (she had already been posting on Mormon Discussions). And she moves the goal posts quite a bit.

But I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience today to pinpoint precise posts.

I tried, read through the thread, but got bored. 

It sounded like she was questioning whether there was any reading from the Book of Mormon at all while they sat in Carthage Jail.  Seems like a silly point to battle over and to critique Elder Holland's talk over if you ask me. 

With that said, and I'm probably mistaken, it felt like the sides were more definitive even back in 2009 on this board and others.  And that people were far more willing to do battle on what amounts to minor things.  But I'm probably wrong.  It's probably about the same today.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saying it's "a great start" implies that you want more. If that means turning over pulpits and classrooms to them to propound their false and misguided conceptions, I'd say that goes way beyond the pale.

Maybe I've lost track of the sub-thread in all the replies, but are you suggesting that belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a requirement for serving in church callings?

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I tried, read through the thread, but got bored. It sounded like she was questioning whether there was any reading from the Book of Mormon at all while they sat in Carthage Jail.  Seems like a silly point to battle over and to critique Elder Holland's talk over if you ask me. 

Danna was all over the lot with her criticisms. She did at one point accuse Elder Holland of holding up the wrong book. When she was shown to be wrong on this point, she moved on to other things.

Quote

With that said, and I'm probably mistaken, it felt like the sides were more definitive even back in 2009 on this board and others.  And that people were far more willing to do battle on what amounts to minor things.  But I'm probably wrong.  It's probably about the same today.

I think you are not far off in your observation.

For one thing, some regular personalities no longer post here.

And one or two leopards in the meantime have changed their spots more-or-less dramatically (I won't mention any names).

And I do perceive that this board has become somewhat overrun of late with in-house critics of the Church (again, not mentioning any names).

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe I've lost track of the sub-thread in all the replies, but are you suggesting that belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a requirement for serving in church callings?

I can only speak for myself, but I would not want my son or daughter being taught in Primary or Young Men or Young Women or Sunday School or seminary by anyone who would be apt to teach that the historicity of the Book of Mormon was not literal. And if I learned of it happening, I assure you I would not be quiet about it.

 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can only speak for myself, but I would not want my son or daughter being taught in Primary or Young Men or Young Women or Sunday School or seminary by anyone who would be apt to teach that the historicity of the Book of Mormon was not literal. And if I learned of it happening, I assure you I would not be quiet about it.

 

I get where you are coming from.  A year or two ago each ward was required to address homosexuality and the Church's position on it to adults and the youth, as you might recall.  It came and went for the adults without notice in our ward.  Then my son came home all upset one day from Church.  The youth leaders, from the sounds of it went way out of bounds when discussing the issue, suggesting many things that were not advocated by the Church, with youth and leaders making a number of mocking inappropriate comments.  I wasn't silent when I took issue with the handling of it.  It resulted in our bishop promising to re-address the issue with the youth, accompanied with his idea, which we supported, that my son would go tandem with him in address the topic with the rest of the youth.  He decided not to do that, but we were pleased he was open to discussing the issue. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can only speak for myself, but I would not want my son or daughter being taught in Primary or Young Men or Young Women or Sunday School or seminary by anyone who would be apt to teach that the historicity of the Book of Mormon was not literal. And if I learned of it happening, I assure you I would not be quiet about it.

 

Better dust off your megaphone because, from where I sit, we've got a growing number of members who don't believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I suspect that they keep that to themselves for the most part... for now.  But I think that those days are coming to an end.  Non-orthodox members are a growing minority in the church and, propelled by the Church's own essays along with Bushman/Mason/Hardy/Givens/Reel/Pearson/etc, they are unlikely to keep their beliefs bottle-up over the long-term.

I figure it is something that the church will have to address within the next decade.

[stemelbow]

Just now, rockpond said:

Better dust off your megaphone because, from where I sit, we've got a growing number of members who don't believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I suspect that they keep that to themselves for the most part... for now.  But I think that those days are coming to an end.  Non-orthodox members are a growing minority in the church and, propelled by the Church's own essays along with Bushman/Mason/Hardy/Givens/Reel/Pearson/etc, they are unlikely to keep their beliefs bottle-up over the long-term.

I figure it is something that the church will have to address within the next decade.

I'd say what you describe is quite possible.  But I hate to see the non-orthodox get to the point of shouting out orthodoxy.  I would hate such dogmatism and closed minded-ness just as I do when it goes the other way.  I think someday we'll see the question openly asked at Church. 

[carbon dioxide]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe I've lost track of the sub-thread in all the replies, but are you suggesting that belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a requirement for serving in church callings?

Probably not a requirement but I would hope that if the calling involves teaching from the Book of Mormon that the teacher has a view of it being "historical" over something on the lines of a Harry Potter with inspired teachings.

Edited August 24, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Probably not a requirement but I would hope that if the calling involves teaching from the Book of Mormon that the teacher has a view of it being "historical" over something on the lines of a Harry Potter with inspired teachings.

I think many have taught classes teaching from the book and no one knew they thought the book was not historical.  The whole suggestion that one can be a faithful member and not think the book historical would carry with it that notion that such a member actually still treat it as scripture. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Probably not a requirement but I would hope that if the calling involves teaching from the Book of Mormon that the teacher has a view of it being "historical" over something on the lines of a Harry Potter with inspired teachings.

Well, we currently have no such litmus test.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Scott Lloyd: Your supposition is wrong This was hashed over at the time the talk was given.

The earlier article in the LDS Church News was inaccurate. That was not the book that Hyrum had in Carthage Jail.

As I recall, Blair Hodges, who is currently posting on this message board, started a thread about it. Perhaps he will see this post and help me out in locating that thread from back then.

Edited to add:

Please see this follow-up article that was in the Deseret News quoting Richard E. Turley Jr. of the Church History Department clarifying the matter about the separate books.

Quote

While its historical significance adds to its value, Turley said there is a second volume the church owns that is "almost identical." The book's original owners even bent the same page after hearing the Hyrum Smith story.

And bear it in mind before you dredge this matter up again.

Thanks Scott...I'm more than willing to give Elder Holland the benefit of the doubt...I do not think this was an intentional act at all.  The story of Joseph that Elder Holland shared remains a strong positive witness for the Book of Mormon among believers.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Scott Lloyd: Please see my subsequent post. Johnnie Cake is ill-informed.

My supposition was wrong on stating that it was the color of the book that gave it away...its been 7 years so cut me some slack...but the premise remains intact that he presented the wrong book at conference as "the Book".   And now I learn that the Cartage incident may not have occurred at all...

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My supposition was wrong on stating that it was the color of the book that gave it away...its been 7 years so cut me some slack...but the premise remains intact that he presented the wrong book at conference as "the Book".   And now I learn that the Cartage incident may not have occurred at all...

Wait... I'm confused.  Was Elder Holland's Book of Mormon in Gen Con *not* the same book that was read in Carthage by the Prophet & Co?

[Johnnie Cake]

 

Quote

Rockpond: Wait... I'm confused.  Was Elder Holland's Book of Mormon in Gen Con *not* the same book that was read in Carthage by the Prophet & Co?

I think I might be the one that is confused and I'm more than happy to admit that I am wrong if I am.  From reading the DesNews article it appears that there were 2 "black" Book of Mormon's each with the same page turned down but only 1 with the signatures.  But I'm still confused as to whether Elder Holland presented the correct book that aledgedly was read from in Carthage jail or not.  Can someone clarify please.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I get where you are coming from.  A year or two ago each ward was required to address homosexuality and the Church's position on it to adults and the youth, as you might recall.  It came and went for the adults without notice in our ward.  Then my son came home all upset one day from Church.  The youth leaders, from the sounds of it went way out of bounds when discussing the issue, suggesting many things that were not advocated by the Church, with youth and leaders making a number of mocking inappropriate comments.  I wasn't silent when I took issue with the handling of it.  It resulted in our bishop promising to re-address the issue with the youth, accompanied with his idea, which we supported, that my son would go tandem with him in address the topic with the rest of the youth.  He decided not to do that, but we were pleased he was open to discussing the issue. 

I sympathize with your feeling of consternation.

Avoiding such things is one of the purposes of the much-maligned Correlation effort in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Better dust off your megaphone because, from where I sit, we've got a growing number of members who don't believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I suspect that they keep that to themselves for the most part... for now.  But I think that those days are coming to an end.  Non-orthodox members are a growing minority in the church and, propelled by the Church's own essays along with Bushman/Mason/Hardy/Givens/Reel/Pearson/etc, they are unlikely to keep their beliefs bottle-up over the long-term.

I figure it is something that the church will have to address within the next decade.

"Growing minority" or not, the only proper way to address it is to expect them to continue to keep false or erroneous beliefs to themselves, since the promulgation of false doctrine never has and never will be tolerated in the Church of Jesus Christ. Doing so would hinder its power to lift and to save.

By the way, when I said I would not remain quiet, I didn't mean I would be loud or disruptive.

What I had in mind would be voicing my objection to the bishopric and perhaps the stake presidency and, if it came to it, removing my son or daughter from a particular Church class and doing the gospel equivalent of home school for him or her. Church auxiliaries ought to be at most an adjunct to the teaching that goes on in the home. Certainly it should not contradict true, authoritative gospel teaching that transpires there.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

I think I might be the one that is confused and I'm more than happy to admit that I am wrong if I am.  From reading the DesNews article it appears that there were 2 "black" Book of Mormon's each with the same page turned down but only 1 with the signatures.  But I'm still confused as to whether Elder Holland presented the correct book that aledgedly was read from in Carthage jail or not.  Can someone clarify please.

First - a nit-pic.  It is Book's of Mormon not Book of Mormon's.  At least that was the way a I was taught in school a few decades ago. 

Second - What difference does it make which book was held up aren't the pretty much identical?

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

I think I might be the one that is confused and I'm more than happy to admit that I am wrong if I am.  From reading the DesNews article it appears that there were 2 "black" Book of Mormon's each with the same page turned down but only 1 with the signatures.  But I'm still confused as to whether Elder Holland presented the correct book that aledgedly was read from in Carthage jail or not.  Can someone clarify please.

The impression I get from the Deseret News article -- and my dim memory of when  I looked into it after Blair made the inquiry of me -- is that the book Elder Holland held up is the book from which Hyrum read the passage and turned down the leaf not long before the martyrdom. The one highlighted earlier in the Church News article was actually another copy possessed by the family and one in which they dog-eared the same page after reading the incident in the announcement of the martyrdom.

This was indicated by Richard E. Turley who, at the time was managing director of the Church History Department.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Probably not a requirement but I would hope that if the calling involves teaching from the Book of Mormon that the teacher has a view of it being "historical" over something on the lines of a Harry Potter with inspired teachings.

I think it would be very, very difficult if not impossible to teach a class on the Book of Mormon and testify to its divinity without the underlying assumption that the claims made about the origin of the book are true. It would be, as I and others have said lately, logically incoherent. As a parent, I would be constantly wary that such a teacher would be allowing insinuations or implications denying the historicity of the book to creep into his/her lessons. And parents in the Church ought not to have to worry about such things.

Many Church callings carry with them some minimal prerequisites for qualifications to carry them out. For example, I don't think I could effectively or properly perform my current calling without some modicum of understanding and facility with music. One would expect that a person called to a clerical calling would have some facility with records or numbers or computers.

By that same token, it seems to me that one qualification for someone teaching in the Church about the Book of Mormon is that the person accept the book as being indeed a true historical record brought forth in latter days by divine power.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Growing minority" or not, the only proper way to address it is to expect them to continue to keep false or erroneous beliefs to themselves, since the promulgation of false doctrine never has and never will be tolerated in the Church of Jesus Christ. Doing so would hinder its power to lift and to save.

By the way, when I said I would not remain quiet, I didn't mean I would be loud or disruptive.

What I had in mind would be voicing my objection to the bishopric and perhaps the stake presidency and, if it came to it, removing my son or daughter from a particular Church class and doing the gospel equivalent of home school for him or her. Church auxiliaries ought to be at most an adjunct to the teaching that goes on in the home. Certainly it should not contradict true, authoritative gospel teaching that transpires there.

I know that you didn't mean loud or disruptive.  I would never suspect you of such in a church environment.  The megaphone was just a metaphor.

As I indicated earlier, a belief in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a requirement of any member.  So I don't know how you would tell someone that they can't share their own testimony regarding the Book of Mormon.

That said, I certainly understand a desire to teach your kids at home.  There are certain things I don't really want my kids to be taught at church either.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know that you didn't mean loud or disruptive.  I would never suspect you of such in a church environment.  The megaphone was just a metaphor.

As I indicated earlier, a belief in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a requirement of any member.  So I don't know how you would tell someone that they can't share their own testimony regarding the Book of Mormon.

That said, I certainly understand a desire to teach your kids at home.  There are certain things I don't really want my kids to be taught at church either.

Even a sharing of testimony ought not be laced with false doctrine. In fact, if I remember correctly the persistent teaching of false doctrine (after one has been duly corrected) is grounds for Church discipline.

Belief in the historicity may not be a requirement for membership, but by my way of thinking it is or should be a requirement for holding certain callings in the Church.

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Better dust off your megaphone because, from where I sit, we've got a growing number of members who don't believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I suspect that they keep that to themselves for the most part... for now.  But I think that those days are coming to an end.  

Where do you sit to find out these things.  

You say they keep that to themselves, then how do you know?

Is it people in your ward?

Your friends?

 

I'm just curious, because I have never met an active member in person who questions the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon.  The only place I hear about it is here.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That said, I certainly understand a desire to teach your kids at home.  There are certain things I don't really want my kids to be taught at church either.

The point is that what is taught at Church ought to be authoritative doctrine, and parents have the right to expect that from teachers of their children and youth.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even a sharing of testimony ought not be laced with false doctrine. In fact, if I remember correctly the persistent teaching of false doctrine (after one has been duly corrected) is grounds for Church discipline.

Belief in the historicity may not be a requirement for membership, but by my way of thinking it is or should be a requirement for holding certain callings in the Church.

 

Well, it isn't a requirement for holding certain callings.  I'm confident you'd find people at all different levels of callings who don't believe in the historicity.

Nor is lacking a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon equivalent to "false doctrine".  Maybe tone down the rhetoric.

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is an interesting question.  Certainly, there was a vacuum left after the death of President Packer, so that might be part of it.  And Elder Holland certainly speaks with clarity, certainty and force that make him very visible.  And his direct criticisms of doubters and disbelievers from the pulpit would make him a natural target.  If all he talked about was Temple work and loving others, no one would care.

I have noticed this as well. From my perspective it is common to go after the person one feels most threatened by