Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[SeattleUte]

Oh, come on. We're talking about religious belief here. That Joseph was uneducated and yet came up with this book in 60 days or so is also circumstantial evidence. It's not conclusive proof, simply a factor to take into consideration as one prayerfully reads the BofM and asks oneself, "Could any man have written this book? (or, in your and my mission language, "¿Pudo haber escrito este libro hombre alguno?")

It proves NOTHING. I refer you to Fawn Brodie's discussion of this defense of the Book of Mormon. I think this "could a rube like Joseph have written such an amazing book" is the lamest possible argument in defense of the Book of Mormon; I would first start by dismantling the predicates. But that's all I'm going to say because I have a policy against engaging in this type of debate.

[LA Ute]

It proves NOTHING.

Read carefully:

I am not talking about proof. As I just said, proof and religious belief in the miraculous are mutually exclusive, at least in this lifetime.

Joseph's background is a factor I take into consideration. Brother SU and Sister Brodie disagree with me on what that factor means. It's a free country and we all have free will when it comes to belief. But seemingly you cannot abide that, for some reason.

[SeattleUte]

Read carefully:

I am not talking about proof. As I just said, proof and religious belief in the miraculous are mutually exclusive, at least in this lifetime.

Joseph's background is a factor I take into consideration. Brother SU and Sister Brodie disagree with me on what that factor means. It's a free country and we all have free will when it comes to belief. But seemingly you cannot abide that, for some reason.

Evidence=facts that tend to advance proof of a proposition. If it proves nothing it's not evidence. Also, "proof" and evidence are often used as synonyms, as I have in this thread.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm going to be minimalist here:

I think this talk was both heartfelt and apologetic.

I don't think this talk deals with issues in a scholarly way, and that it wasn't meant to. The Spaulding Theory deserves the kind of dismissal it received, but Ethan Smith is a doorway to Adair and to topics that a serious researcher would investigate (as BH Roberts did all those years ago).

I enjoyed Elder Holland's enthusiastic delivery. We need more like it. The dry-as-a-bone corporate style is stifling.

[SeattleUte]

I'm going to be minimalist here:

I think this talk was both heartfelt and apologetic.

I don't think this talk deals with issues in a scholarly way, and that it wasn't meant to. The Spaulding Theory deserves the kind of dismissal it received, but Ethan Smith is a doorway to Adair and to topics that a serious researcher would investigate (as BH Roberts did all those years ago).

I enjoyed Elder Holland's enthusiastic delivery. We need more like it. The dry-as-a-bone corporate style is stifling.

Well stated.

It has occurred to me that the Brethren can't catch a break here. Exhibit A: last week they were criticized for limp wristed GC intonations. This week, "WHY IS ELDER HOLLAND YELLING AT US!"

[byu71]

Evidence=facts that tend to advance proof of a proposition. If it proves nothing it's not evidence. Also, "proof" and evidence are often used as synonims, as I have in this thread.

Evidence=facts. Is that really true. For instance I hear that someone can be convicted on "circumstantial evidence". To me that very statement would indicate a lack of fact. Since we know people have been convicted on the "evidence" who later were proven to be innocent, again that would indicate evidence presented does not always have to be proven fact.

JS smith did die and did not renounce his testimony in order to save himself. That is factual evidence. How much weight you want to put on that fact as evidence the book of mormon is true is up to each individual. I find other evidences much more compelling myself, evidences you would probably say are not fact.

[LA Ute]

Evidence=facts that tend to advance proof of a proposition. If it proves nothing it's not evidence. Also, "proof" and evidence are often used as synonims, as I have in this thread.

That does it. Despite your inability to spell "synonym," you are hereby designated a Rodent of Unusual Size.



You are the first to achieve this honor here on CUF, and have bypassed Warthog-Faced Buffoon and Miserable Vomitous Mass status, which are vaguely honorific. (You have not been awarded those.) I haven't decided whether R.O.U.S. status is honorific or not, but I'll get back to you on that. Given the context in which the creatures first appeared in modern mythology, I'd say you are the perfect first designee.

It was either this, or challenging you to a duel, and I abhor violence. Besides, I don't think I could get wuap to agree to be my second, and I wouldn't think of attempting it without him.

[Portland Ute]

Well stated.

It has occurred to me that the Brethren can't catch a break here. Exhibit A: last week they were criticized for limp wristed GC intonations. This week, "WHY IS ELDER HOLLAND YELLING AT US!"

I'm sure your heart just aches for them.

[Maximus]

It proves NOTHING. I refer you to Fawn Brodie's discussion of this defense of the Book of Mormon. I think this "could a rube like Joseph have written such an amazing book" is the lamest possible argument in defense of the Book of Mormon; I would first start by dismantling the predicates. But that's all I'm going to say because I have a policy against engaging in this type of debate.

Out of curiosity, I would like to see what you would say in reaction to such an argument. Do you disagree that JS was uneducated, or that an uneducated man could not have written the book?

[LA Ute]

All the discussion about evidence aside, this was the most compelling part of the talk for me:

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of faith and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies.

If anyone is foolish enough, or misled enough, to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that's the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.

Regarding the italicized sentence, the BofM is either what it claims to be on its title page or it is a fraud. It can't be moderately true. Anyone considering Mormonism's claims has to deal with the book.

In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be: a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work.

We certainly have abundant evidence of the truth of that last sentence.

[byu71]

All the discussion about evidence aside, this was the most compelling part of the talk for me:

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of faith and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies.

If anyone is foolish enough, or misled enough, to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that's the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.

Regarding the italicized sentence, the BofM is either what it claims to be on its title page or it is a fraud. It can't be moderately true. Anyone considering Mormonism's claims has to deal with the book.

In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be: a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work.

We certainly have abundant evidence of the truth of that last sentence.

I certainly found that part to be very compelling myself, with one exception. What is the crawling reference. Do people who leave the church crawl? Can not someone walk over or around the truthfulness of the BOM. There just seems to be element of a very pissed off man whose rhetoric at times seems more appropriate for the CUF forum.

I have missed meanings before, so can you clear up "crawl".

[beefytee]

I certainly found that part to be very compelling myself, with one exception. What is the crawling reference. Do people who leave the church crawl? Can not someone walk over or around the truthfulness of the BOM. There just seems to be element of a very pissed off man whose rhetoric at times seems more appropriate for the CUF forum.

I have missed meanings before, so can you clear up "crawl".

The way I see it. The crawling has to do with it being a very small space to get through and the BOM is in the way.

[LA Ute]

I certainly found that part to be very compelling myself, with one exception. What is the crawling reference. Do people who leave the church crawl? Can not someone walk over or around the truthfulness of the BOM. There just seems to be element of a very pissed off man whose rhetoric at times seems more appropriate for the CUF forum.

I have missed meanings before, so can you clear up "crawl".

My guess is that he used the word "crawl" for emphasis, but it seems to me that whether one walks, jumps, crawls, runs or slithers out of the Church, he/she has to get around the BofM. SU himself seems to have devoted a fair amount of energy to doing so.

[SoonerCoug]

Out of curiosity, I would like to see what you would say in reaction to such an argument. Do you disagree that JS was uneducated, or that an uneducated man could not have written the book?

Was JS really uneducated? I had BYU religion professor who argued that JS was actually quite well educated in some ways (although it was not formal education).

[WashingtonCoug]

Was JS really uneducated? I had BYU religion professor who argued that JS was actually quite well educated in some ways (although it was not formal education).

I think that would lead into the street smart discussion. Through Joseph's youth if I remember right he only had about two years of formal education. His family moved so often when he was young due to poverty that he never really had a chance to go to school. However Lucy and Joseph owned business, peddled stuff that Lucy made and had many other odd jobs. I think Joseph was able to see many different facets of life in general.