Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[byu71]

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.

I guess also it depends on who his audience was. If it was about firing up the troups against the naysayers, it was the perfect word. They're snakes and as I have said a couple of times if I had just seen the protestors and heard the talk, crawl would have been a great rallying cry.

I was sitting there though thinking of friends of mine who are not avid members and could be struggling. Saying they are in a state of crawling right now, I don't find so endearing.

However, bottom line is I think the bulk of the conservative members of the church loved it and perhaps they are really fired up enough at conference time so this was good.

[beefytee]

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 assume you aren't referring to a "divine" education here.

I've also heard the typical story that Emma was more educated than him.

Where she was transcribing for him, he came to the part talking about Jerusalem's wall and he asked her is Jerusalem really did have a wall. She knew it did and he didn't.

[falafel]

I assume you aren't referring to a "divine" education here.

I've also heard the typical story that Emma was more educated than him.

Where she was transcribing for him, he came to the part talking about Jerusalem's wall and he asked her is Jerusalem really did have a wall. She knew it did and he didn't.

So you're saying Emma was a co-conspirator.

[SoonerCoug]

Where she was transcribing for him, he came to the part talking about Jerusalem's wall and he asked her is Jerusalem really did have a wall. She knew it did and he didn't.

See that makes me wonder how much fact checking he engaged in.

[beefytee]

So you're saying Emma was a co-conspirator.

Forgive me for not putting it in the faith promoting voice.

As he translated the section of first Nephi he came to the 4th Chapter and 4th verse where he recited "Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem."... then he paused and asked. "Emma, there's a wall around Jerusalem?" And Emma answered "Yes, Joseph, my dear, there is!"

[Sleeping in EQ]

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

I do not think the Book of Mormon is divine. Elder Holland is flirting with inerrancy here.

[falafel]

Forgive me for not putting it in the faith promoting voice.

As he translated the section of first Nephi he came to the 4th Chapter and 4th verse where he recited "Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem."... then he paused and asked. "Emma, there's a wall around Jerusalem?" And Emma answered "Yes, Joseph, my dear, there is!"

Don't worry, my faith was sufficiently promoted by your story.

[LA Ute]

I do not think the Book of Mormon is divine. Elder Holland is flirting with inerrancy here.

I guess I am unsure what you mean by "divine." I think E. Holland meant that term as it is commonly understood among Mormons: that Joseph Smith translated the BofM by the gift and power of God, i.e., that what the BofM's title page says is true.

Is that the meaning of "divine" you reject?

[SeattleUte]

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?

Okay, I'll answer this one question. Clearly, he was educated. Abraham Lincoln had 18 months of formal education. Was he educated? Not by today's standards. How could someone with 18 months of formal education have written the Gettysburg address or Lincoln's second inaugural address? He did it, so obviously he was educated. If you ever doubt it go take a look at the above mentioned speeches written in stone at the Lincoln memorial.

Obviously, Joseph Smith was educated. We know this from the King Follett discourse, the Articles of Faith, various other writings including the Docrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham (which he apparently made up out of whole cloth), if not the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was one in ten million; a religious genius and a great leader; he had a fertile, towering intellect. Such men usually transcend formal education anyway. How much education did Shakespear have? Milton? Dante? Muhammad? It doesn't seem that important, does it. You know what? Out of ten million, there has to be one such man.

Alas, however, the Book of Mormon is no Gettysburg Address. For all its significance to the LDS movement, its power to touch human hearts, as a literary work it is often greatly overrated by its apologists. It is also nothing if not derivative. In tone, content and presentation, it apes the King James Bible, even copying it verbatum for vast stretches. The old English seems a too obvious attempt at impersonation. I don't consider the Book of Mormon a great dramatic work. There is nothing that matches even Antony holding up Caesar's bloodied garment and crying out, "I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him!" and cold beads of sweat breaking out on the heads of the conspirators who slammed their daggers through that garment. There is no poetry in the Book of Mormon that approaches "By the Waters of Babylon. . .," "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . .", "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. . . ." You disagree? Give me some examples.

To summarize: 1) Yes, Joseph Smith was educated, most emphatically; 2) he was also a genius; 3) the Book of Mormon could have been written by a lot of people, certainly by someone of Smith's uncommon abilities. Of course! Apparently it was! Anytime someone argues to the contrary I just think they need to read more great books.

Diminishing Joseph Smith and his unique gifts to ascribe divine rather than human origin to his work is the lamest argument in his favor. In my opinion, you can't really love the man and admire him if your attention is at that level.

[falafel]

This is a great SU post. One the one hand, Joseph Smith was a prodigy, genius, intellectual giant, who almost certainly had the ability to craft a 500 page book in 60 days. On the other hand, that book was a piece of crap that doesn't come close to comparing to other great works of literature.

In other words, among the several in tens of millions that are called geniuses, Joseph Smith was the worst one!

[SeattleUte]

This is a great SU post. One the one hand, Joseph Smith was a prodigy, genius, intellectual giant, who almost certainly had the ability to craft a 500 page book in 60 days. On the other hand, that book was a piece of crap that doesn't come close to comparing to other great works of literature.

In other words, among the several in tens of millions that are called geniuses, Joseph Smith was the worst one!

Though educated, as a writer he was not in the class of Lincoln, Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, or the authors of the Bible. But as a leader he surpassed all except Lincoln and maybe the authors of the Bible (who are anonymous). No two geniuses possess the same skill sets or accomplishments.

[UtahDan]

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?

I think there are other good reasons to believe the BOM, and this maybe one for some, but here is why it doesn't work for me.

First, one need not have formal education to have dictated the book. What one would need is an absolute command of the King James Bible and an encyclopedic knowledge of the words that were being said by the great preachers of the day at the tent revivals that occurred in Joseph's area throughout his youth. It is clear that he had the first and there is good evidence that he had the opportunity, at a minimum, to have gained the second.

Albert Einstein did receive a formal education and got the equivalent of a bachelors degree. But with that as a backdrop, he went on to have insights and make connections that had little to do with what he had already learned. He was, as we all know, a genius because he didn't just add to what was known, he added a whole know category of knowledge and way of looking at things that no one had thought of before. One book I read quoted a physicist who suggested that, interestingly, most of the great discoveries of the last two or three hundred years were made at times when multiple people were about to make the discovery. If any one failed, someone else would have figured it out quickly. The exception, in his opinion, was Einstein. Had he not shared his thoughts with us, we would still probably not have anything similar today and might not even have them.

My point? If the population can produce an Einstein as to scientific matters, it can produce one as to spiritual matters and all that is needed is a grasp of the fundamentals, which Joseph had. Could an ordinary man have made up the BOM? I say clearly no. Could a once in a generation type of person (which Joseph was in many ways)? It is at least possible. As I say, I think there are other reasons to believe (Elder Oaks actually articulated the best one of all, IMO, which is the impact it has had on so many).

If Joseph were a less extraordinary man the argument would be much cleaner. I happen to believe both that the BOM was inspired and that Joseph was a singular intellect.

[Solon]

I think this deserves its own thread, and maybe I"ll start one when I get a chance.

I've never liked the "Joseph Smith was uneducated, ergo the Book of Mormon is true" argument. Joseph Smith was clearly a really, really smart guy. Volumes of his writings survive and they're not the scribblings of the uneducated. There are other arguments to be made pro and contra BoM authenticity, but painting Joseph as an ignorant farm-boy is not a very good one, in my opinion.

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, I'll answer this one question. Clearly, he was educated. Abraham Lincoln had 18 months of formal education. Was he educated? Not by today's standards. How could someone with 18 months of formal education have written the Gettysburg address or Lincoln's second inaugural address? He did it, so obviously he was educated. If you ever doubt it go take a look at the above mentioned speeches written in stone at the Lincoln memorial.

Obviously, Joseph Smith was educated. We know this from the King Follett discourse, the Articles of Faith, various other writings including the Docrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham (which he apparently made up out of whole cloth), if not the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was one in ten million; a religious genius and a great leader; he had a fertile, towering intellect. Such men usually transcend formal education anyway. How much education did Shakespear have? Milton? Dante? Muhammad? It doesn't seem that important, does it. You know what? Out of ten million, there has to be one such man.

Alas, however, the Book of Mormon is no Gettysburg Address. For all its significance to the LDS movement, its power to touch human hearts, as a literary work it is often greatly overrated by its apologists. It is also nothing if not derivative. In tone, content and presentation, it apes the King James Bible, even copying it verbatum for vast stretches. The old English seems a too obvious attempt at impersonation. I don't consider the Book of Mormon a great dramatic work. There is nothing that matches even Antony holding up Caesar's bloodied garment and crying out, "I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him!" and cold beads of sweat breaking out on the heads of the conspirators who slammed their daggers through that garment. There is no poetry in the Book of Mormon that approaches "By the Waters of Babylon. . .," "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . .", "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. . . ." You disagree? Give me some examples.

To summarize: 1) Yes, Joseph Smith was educated, most emphatically; 2) he was also a genius; 3) the Book of Mormon could have been written by a lot of people, certainly by someone of Smith's uncommon abilities. Of course! Apparently it was! Anytime someone argues to the contrary I just think they need to read more great books.

Diminishing Joseph Smith and his unique gifts to ascribe divine rather than human origin to his work is the lamest argument in his favor. In my opinion, you can't really love the man and admire him if your attention is at that level.

I would not dare compare my literary or even my general didactic knowledge to yours (I say that without a hint of sarcasm) and would be a fool to try and debate you as to most thing related to that. I'm fairly certain, you know more of Joseph Smith's history and background than I do. So all I can do is relate to my own personal experience. I have read Shakespeare, Lincoln, and begrudgingly some of the earliest philosophers (a school assignment I undertook halfheartedly at best), I have never read the Koran or any apocryphal writings, but I am a fairly avid reader. None of my readings have had the impact on my life that the Book of Mormon has had. Its teachings have made me a better man, I won't be so arrogant to describe myself as a good one. I have felt something different reading its pages than any other book I have read (The Bible has had a similar, but not as profound effect).

There are many questions I don't know the answers to (where are the horses, DNA evidence, etc), but I do know what I feel when I read and apply what I study. So for me the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith represent truth. I respect others who reach different conclusions, my father being one of them. I may one day, presumably after this life, find out I was right or wrong, but until life experiences lead me down a different path I will continue to try and gain insight, knowledge and comfort from a book I truly love.

Sorry for the testimony, but as was discussed in another thread, sometimes the stating of it feels good.

[SeattleUte]

I would not dare compare my literary or even my general didactic knowledge to yours (I say that without a hint of sarcasm) and would be a fool to try and debate you as to most thing related to that. I'm fairly certain, you know more of Joseph Smith's history and background than I do. So all I can do is relate to my own personal experience. I have read Shakespeare, Lincoln, and begrudgingly some of the earliest philosophers (a school assignment I undertook halfheartedly at best), I have never read the Koran or any apocryphal writings, but I am a fairly avid reader. None of my readings have had the impact on my life that the Book of Mormon has had. Its teachings have made me a better man, I won't be so arrogant to describe myself as a good one. I have felt something different reading its pages than any other book I have read (The Bible has had a similar, but not as profound effect).

There are many questions I don't know the answers to (where are the horses, DNA evidence, etc), but I do know what I feel when I read and apply what I study. So for me the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith represent truth. I respect others who reach different conclusions, my father being one of them. I may one day, presumably after this life, find out I was right or wrong, but until life experiences lead me down a different path I will continue to try and gain insight, knowledge and comfort from a book I truly love.

Sorry for the testimony, but as was discussed in another thread, sometimes the stating of it feels good.

Well stated. In response to such an eloquent testimony I can agree to disagree with you (you always play the poster shark; your literary gifts are far greater than you admit, but I'm onto you).