Elder Holland the Apostle, or Elder Holland the Target?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.  

Family members.

Ward members (I'm a bishop's counselor so I do a lot of temple recommend interviews).

Friends.

Online communities.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

Yes, it was.

The Church History Department has another book, with the same page dog-eared, but it is a separate book. That's the one that was highlighted in the earlier Church News article, where it was misidentified as the book that Hyrum had a Carthage.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

It ought to be. Yes.  That's why we use the manuals.  But teaching from the manual isn't necessarily going to change someone's lack of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, it was.

The Church History Department has another book, with the same page dog-eared, but it is a separate book. That's the one that was highlighted in the earlier Church News article and the one that was misidentified as the book that Hyrum had a Carthage.

Okay.  I understand now.  Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It ought to be. Yes.  That's why we use the manuals.  But teaching from the manual isn't necessarily going to change someone's lack of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Then the person ought not be put in that position.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

 

ERayR: 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. 

 

I would expect nothing less

Quote

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

I agree, In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a difference at all...but keep in mind that it was Elder Holland who threw down the gauntlet at the feet of those who dare leave the church...and this is why, in my humble opinion, anything was made of him holding up the wrong book.  Its been 7 years since his address...so its even hard for me to remember what the whole kerfuffle was over...but Elder Holland brought this upon himself due to his fiery rhetoric directed at those who leave.  He makes it hard on us with our TBM family members who love his talks and believe in his rhetoric that we leave over trivial matters...and that is just not the case

Edited August 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then the person ought not be put in that position.

So here's the challenge, Scott:

My ward is large and we have an activity rate that hovers close to 80%.  And yet, we find it increasingly difficult (if not downright impossible) to staff every teaching and leadership position with someone who is entirely "orthodox" in their beliefs.  That's the reality we're in now.  And I only see it headed in one direction.

Furthermore, my lived experience is that I'm more concerned with finding an auxiliary president who won't send her secretary home from church in tears.  And a HP group leader that won't create so many new "requirements" for ward families that they throw their hands up in exhaustion.  Not that I'm perfect, far from it.  But my point is that I'm more concerned with our ability to live the gospel of Christ, to put it into practice in our ward, than with the particulars of each and every testimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

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. 

 

I will nit-pick yet further and say it is properly neither "Book of Mormons" nor "Books of Mormon." It is copies of the Book of Mormon. There is only one Book of Mormon with unlimited copies thereof.

Quote

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

Except that the Church History Department has identified which book is which, and it is well-established that the book Elder Holland held up during his talk is the book that Hyrum had at Carthage.

 

[ERayR]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will nit-pick yet further and say it is properly neither "Book of Mormons" nor "Books of Mormon." It is copies of the Book of Mormon. There is only one Book of Mormon with unlimited copies thereof.

 

I will stand corrected.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So here's the challenge, Scott:

My ward is large and we have an activity rate that hovers close to 80%.  And yet, we find it increasingly difficult (if not downright impossible) to staff every teaching and leadership position with someone who is entirely "orthodox" in their beliefs.  That's the reality we're in now.  And I only see it headed in one direction.

Furthermore, my lived experience is that I'm more concerned with finding an auxiliary president who won't send her secretary home from church in tears.  And a HP group leader that won't create so many new "requirements" for ward families that they throw their hands up in exhaustion.  Not that I'm perfect, far from it.  But my point is that I'm more concerned with our ability to live the gospel of Christ, to put it into practice in our ward, than with the particulars of each and every testimony.

I would appear that your experience in your ward is much different than mine.

I guess the church is not homogeneous; It might not be possible to extrapolate ones experience in their ward everywhere. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So here's the challenge, Scott:

My ward is large and we have an activity rate that hovers close to 80%.  And yet, we find it increasingly difficult (if not downright impossible) to staff every teaching and leadership position with someone who is entirely "orthodox" in their beliefs.  That's the reality we're in now.  And I only see it headed in one direction.

Furthermore, my lived experience is that I'm more concerned with finding an auxiliary president who won't send her secretary home from church in tears.  And a HP group leader that won't create so many new "requirements" for ward families that they throw their hands up in exhaustion.  Not that I'm perfect, far from it.  But my point is that I'm more concerned with our ability to live the gospel of Christ, to put it into practice in our ward, than with the particulars of each and every testimony.

I don't doubt for a minute that you have your fair share and more of challenges to deal with. (I've never been in a bishopric, and I hope if I say my prayers and practice clean living, I'll be able to get through mortality without it.)

I'm just saying that maintaining the purity of the doctrine ought to be a priority among them.

[Johnnie Cake]

This whole matter started because Elder Holland said:  "I hold in my hand, that book!, the very copy from which Hyrum read. The same corner of the page, turned down, still visible!"  and he wasn't

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

This whole matter started because Elder Holland said:  "I hold in my hand, that book!, the very copy from which Hyrum read. The same corner of the page, turned down, still visible!"  and he wasn't

Yes he was! That's what I've been trying to get through to you all day.

[Jeanne]

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I would expect nothing less

I agree, In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a difference at all...but keep in mind that it was Elder Holland who threw down the gauntlet at the feet of those who dare leave the church...and this is why, in my humble opinion, anything was made of him holding up the wrong book.  Its been 7 years since his address...so its even hard for me to remember what the whole kerfuffle was over...but Elder Holland brought this upon himself due to his fiery rhetoric directed at those who leave.  He makes it hard on us with our TBM family members who love his talks and believe in his rhetoric that we leave over trivial matters...and that is just not the case

My feelings exactly.  It just doesn't affect the said "disaffected". It affects entire families and their relationships with each other.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Scott Lloyd: Yes he was! That's what I've been trying to get through to you all day.

There is an entire thread on that other board that I can't link to that brings all of this into question...including pictures of both books...both the one in Elder Hollands hands, the dog eared pages of both books etc.  From this information it appear that Elder Holland was NOT holding the book he claimed but I'm more than willing to eat crow if wrong.  Also included in that thread is a lengthy analysis of the 2, yes there are 2 conflicting claims of the events in question.  According to one the reading of the BoM took place in the morning...in the other account it took place in the evening.  However of most importance is that both appear to be posthoc faith promoting additions to the History of the Church added years after the event allegedly took place...which was a common practice then and not part of the historical record as recounted by Elder Holland.  Those interested can search the "Seen At General Conference" thread. the thread was contemporary to the events in question, dated Oct 7, 2009

Edited August 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

Read the article Scott linked to correcting the original error of the first DN article.  The brown book was wrongly identified.  The oneused in conference was the right one.

[Calm]

Here is the link again:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335296/A-chain-of-testimony-1841-copy-of-Book-of-Mormon-stays-preserved.html?pg=all

[Calm]

"When Elder Holland wanted to use the book in his General Conference address, he asked church historians how he should handle the aging text. Because gloves can make hands less nimble, sometimes leading to accidental tears, Elder Holland was simply told to make sure his hands were clean, said Richard E. Turley Jr., assistant church historian and recorder.

The book is exquisite — leather-bound with gold filigree on its edges and stamped into its cover and sides. But it's the inside that is truly incredible, said Turley, who is considered an expert on the book.

In the front cover are the names of those who have owned the book since it was printed in Liverpool, England, in 1841. On one side of the back cover, there are signatures of LDS Church leaders, including Heber J. Grant, James E. Talmage and Orson F. Whitney. On the other is an account written by Hyrum's son, Joseph F. Smith, of his father's last days.

Inside the book, page 610 remains as marked by Hyrum Smith the day he and Joseph Smith left for Carthage Jail, where they would later be shot and killed by a mob. In his note on the back cover, Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum's son who would later become president of the church, said his father took the book from a shelf two or three days before going to Carthage and read the marked passages on the day of his departure....

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.

But Turley said the significance of the actual book and the testimony it bears cannot be overstated."

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is an entire thread on that other board that I can't link to that brings all of this into question...including pictures of both books...both the one in Elder Hollands hands, the dog eared pages of both books etc.  From this information it appear that Elder Holland was NOT holding the book he claimed but I'm more than willing to eat crow if wrong.  Also included in that thread is a lengthy analysis of the 2, yes there are 2 conflicting claims of the events in question.  According to one the reading of the BoM took place in the morning...in the other account it took place in the evening.  However of most importance is that both appear to be posthoc faith promoting additions to the History of the Church added years after the event allegedly took place...which was a common practice then and not part of the historical record as recounted by Elder Holland.  Those interested can search the "Seen At General Conference" thread. the thread was contemporary to the events in question, dated Oct 7, 2009

I'm aware of the thread on the Mormon Discussions Board and have even made reference to it here. The accusation was in error, and that was established very soon after that thread appeared.

The accuser(s) on that thread saw the earlier Church News story that misidentified the book as Hyrum's book and immediately accused Elder Holland of holding the wrong book. The question was cleared up very soon with a Deseret News article that referred to both books but affirmed that the one Elder Holland held up was indeed the one that Hyrum had at Carthage.

Read the two posts by Calm above this one and subsequent to your own post. They give a good recap of what I have been trying to explain to you all day.

I remember these events very well, because Blair Hodges contacted me to ask about it, and I looked into the matter. It was after this that the Deseret News article appeared that I have linked to and that Calm has quoted above.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

What was the name of that talk?  I remember watching it as an anti and thinking, "wow"  It was the first time I had ever heard him talk.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I remember that conference talk.  He was loud and blustering, but I don't call that powerful.  IMO there was no substance in what he said beyond belittling people who no longer believe as he does.  As far as making people angry, I know of none.  I believe his "I'm not a dodo" interview received much more scrutiny than his conference address. 

I guess it is a matter of taste. Having grown up listening to this type sermon, it was indeed powerful and filled with the Holy Spirit. Although I see the need to make light of it for those who disagree with the message. As the saying goes, if you can't kill the dream, kill the dreamer. Having met the man and having heard him speak in a small gathering...I testify he believes what he says and he is a man of honor and conviction. Also it is clear that many want to belittle him in an effort to cause others to dismiss his sermons, especially to keep those who feel disenfranchised to continue to fell this way. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

PaPa, this is not about targeting Elder Holland, LDS Apostles or any other Religious institution or clergy.....per say....

The problem is much bigger that, Elder Holland & other clergy cannot hide behind their empty promises anymore. It was OK in the past the age of No_Information....Now the Mankind created something so monstrously big information Netz, almost every information we desire is on the tip of our pinkie finger....

No amount of prayers, rituals, well wishes can stem this tide....Just this morning I was looking at the World papers; "Die Welt" , it is reporting hat 15thousand members of a Norwegian disappeared owernight; http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article157837936/15-000-Norweger-verlassen-innerhalb-von-vier-Tagen-die-Kirche.html . And this church has gender equity, female bishops.... 

The Religion served it's purpose in human culture. I'm not writing this wishing all the Churches would go away, I have a notorious apathy what is going to happen with them.....      It's just that writing is on the wall as we humans en mass left our hunting & gathering habits for farming and crop sharing culture 15 thousand years ago.

 

What empty promises and what tide? I am sorry for you "apathy", but those of us who believe, and the believing of all faiths will be around until the coming of Christ. There are things I believe and things I know, and I "know" there is a God, and I know he will come again. I also "know" the scriptures are the word of God. I am worry that you are wrong, but you just are. I do not wish you to be, nor the I take pleasure in it. 

[Bobbieaware]

22 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

It seems that after Elder Holland powerful conference address concerning the BoM he has become a target in the cyber world. His impassioned sermon about the Book of Mormon and the final hours of Joseph and Hyrum' final hours has offended many, making him a target of criticism each time he speaks. When he dared utter the words (with force), "Those who leave the Church, must crawl under, over or through the Book of Mormon on their way out". (Too paraphrase) He did so well n a "fire and brimstone" manner, which made many angry. In fact his forceful delivery in each of his talks has upset many we have left the Church or,those who feel disenfranchised within the Church. 

It seems that many who used to occupy themselves with Elder McConkie, now have a living Apostle to dominate their thinking, and their postings. Having had a chance to actually meet him and listen to him in close quarters, I find him a breath of fresh air. He reminds me of the Pastors with who I grew up with, strong in belief and filled with the confidence to express themselves forcefully. His sermons break up and shake upi the monotonous delivery that can and does occur. I love the man and I love the delivery of the humble Apostle. I always look forward  to hearing him speak. If I miss his sermons, I always make sure they are recorded so,that I can see him later 

When I met him and the address he gave at a Stake meeting, he pointed out the difficulty of travel and being away from wife and family as the hardest part of his calling. And he noted that it would be almost (if not) unbearable, or even impossible where it not for the knowledge and testimony of the Gospel and souls that needed that be saved. But he noted, that none of the Apostles could hardly wait to return hom, to be with wife's or grandchildren...because that is the stuff of heaven. 

So I ask. Why is he above most Apostles, become the target of so much scrutiny among various website, including this one? (My Question) 

If Elder Holland ever participates on this board anonymously, and remains true to who and what he is in his comments, he would likely be reported to the moderators on a regular basis. People have been proudly and boldly denouncing prophets of the Lord since the dawn of man -- why should we expect things to be any different in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times? 

[Rivers]

Give Brother Jeffrey a break 

[Johnnie Cake]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm aware of the thread on the Mormon Discussions Board and have even made reference to it here. The accusation was in error, and that was established very soon after that thread appeared.

The accuser(s) on that thread saw the earlier Church News story that misidentified the book as Hyrum's book and immediately accused Elder Holland of holding the wrong book. The question was cleared up very soon with a Deseret News article that referred to both books but affirmed that the one Elder Holland held up was indeed the one that Hyrum had at Carthage.

Read the two posts by Calm above this one and subsequent to your own post. They give a good recap of what I have been trying to explain to you all day.

I remember these events very well, because Blair Hodges contacted me to ask about it, and I looked into the matter. It was after this that the Deseret News article appeared that I have linked to and that Calm has quoted above.

Despite our oft times differences of opinion...I believe you Scott...with respect to which book was held I accept he held the correct book. However I have my doubts that the claimed events surrounding the book took place as claimed...but that's just me ...I'm skeptical...and it feels and looks like an post hoc insertion into the historical record. Thanks for your patience with me ( at least im interpreting it as patience)