Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[creekster]

The problem with Holland's argument is he's appealing to common sense. If he's talking about what he's felt or his faith, that's one thing. I'm not interested in debating that with him. But his appeal to common sense asks, "In common experience, what's more likely, that someone like Joseph Smith wrote it, or that he got it in gold book form from an angel?" I guarantee any unbiased rational person would agree with me. He's making a bad argument. I suspect he knows it and he's deliberately trying to beguile you. 100% of unbiased people would agree with me.

As often as I find your assaults on faith and belief to be annoying and ill-founded, I have to agree with you here, on this narrow point. That is not a good argument. Moreover, while it is not likely that someone like Joseph Smith could have written the BoM unassisted, it is not impossible. A firm belief in the supernatural origin of the BoM can only be obtained, IMO, by supernatural means.

[SeattleUte]

As often as I find your assaults on faith and belief to be annoying and ill-founded, I have to agree with you here, on this narrow point. That is not a good argument. Moreover, while it is not likely that someone like Joseph Smith could have written the BoM unassisted, it is not impossible. A firm belief in the supernatural origin of the BoM can only be obtained, IMO, by supernatural means.

Well said. I have no quarrel with you.

[LA Ute]

I suspect he knows it and he's deliberately trying to beguile you. 100% of unbiased people would agree with me.

This is a wonderful pair of sentences. I just can't put my finger on why they attract me so. I suspect you have beguiled me in some manner.

[cowboy]

...But his appeal to common sense asks, "In common experience, what's more likely, that someone like Joseph Smith wrote it, or that he got it in gold book form from an angel?" I guarantee any unbiased rational person would agree with me.

I guess that depends on your definition of rational. It seems that the argument hinges on the probability of the supernatural. If I believe in the supernatural, and specifically that God can and does reveal truth through prophets, does that make me irrational? If not, then the logic-based appeal simply depends on the probability of God revealing the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith versus the probability of him being the savant that he would have to be to bring it forward.

It's now just a numbers game. What's the probability that JS would be capable of making up the Book of Mormon? 1:100 million? 1:1 billion? I don't know that answer, but for the person who believes that God reveals truth to prophets, it seems a much smaller probability that JS was capable of making it up than the probability that God actually did reveal to him a book of scripture that would, for the next 200 years, change lives and inspire millions to be better people.

But maybe I'm just irrational.

He's making a bad argument. I suspect he knows it and he's deliberately trying to beguile you.

Or maybe he just believes it's true.

[RockyBalboa]

So to sum up: SU has called an Apostle of the Lord, Elder Holland, variety of names and made several attacking statements in this thread (calling Holland undignified, windbag, a fool as well as calling Josepsh Smith a egomanaical narcsissist) and that it's okay for him to do this because he said he wasn't really bearing his testimony and spends time doing what he said he doesn't do and that's rip on genuine testimony and that arguments contrary to his trolling are only valid if they meet his paradigm.

Thanks for your non-trolling contributions.

[woot]

So to sum up: SU has called an Apostle of the Lord, Elder Holland, variety of names and made several attacking statements in this thread (calling Holland undignified, windbag, a fool as well as calling Josepsh Smith a egomanaical narcsissist) and that it's okay for him to do this because he said he wasn't really bearing his testimony and spends time doing what he said he doesn't do and that's rip on genuine testimony and that arguments contrary to his trolling are only valid if they meet his paradigm.

Thanks for your non-trolling contributions.

For crying out loud, we get it. You're offended. Being offended isn't an argument. Get over it.

Which way do you want it? Should these ideas be taken seriously and therefore evaluated in the same way any other idea is evaluated, or should these ideas simply be dismissed as the silliness they are? Either way you'll be offended.

[RockyBalboa]

For crying out loud, we get it. You're offended. Being offended isn't an argument. Get over it.

Which way do you want it? Should these ideas be taken seriously and therefore evaluated in the same way any other idea is evaluated, or should these ideas simply be dismissed as the silliness they are? Either way you'll be offended.

I've never once been against talking about sensitive topics or difficult topics. In fact I'm all for it.

What I am against is the constant trolling and attacking towards and of others beliefs. Especially considering he didn't listen to or watch the talk.

Sorry, but I've had enough and if he persists then I will be there at every turn. It's possible to question certain things while being respectful and constructive. He fails miserably on both ends. This isn't exactly new...he's been doing it for YEARS. Literally...for YEARS.

His M.O. is too attack, attack and attack. He uses subterfuge and pulls his "Who me?" B.S. and I simply won't put up with it anymore. If you don't want to see me speak out against, then talk to him, because I'm not going to back down, so you better get used to it if his attacks and behavior persist.

He started a war a long time ago....and I'm not willing to let his terrorism pass anymore.

[SoonerCoug]

I think this video of Elder Holland was another example of him being a very emotional person. Unfortunately, the video has now been set to "private" probably because the Church Office Building gave the Israeli Mormon cameraman an offer he couldn't refuse.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15039&

In this old thread on CG, we were discussing Elder Holland's response to the Israeli Mormon who had asked about the "no dating" policy at the BYU Jerusalem Center and expressed how he felt like this had been detrimental to the Mormon citizens of Israel. Before the Q&A, Elder Holland told everyone that he would not answer personal questions. I don't think this was a personal question at all. It sounded more like a tough question.

Wouldn't it be fun to have frequent tough Q&As with traveling GAs? This Israeli Mormon kid has balls that most American Mormons lack.

[SeattleUte]

I was meditating on this thread and a scenario occurred to me. I pretended there was no Joseph Smith and no LDS Church. Hey, Lebowski used to pretend there was no universe when he was a kid. Compared to that, my little exercise was a snap. So I pretended there was no Joseph Smith and no LDS Church, and that a young man I knew, in his early twenties, brought me a manuscript of a book. The Book of Mormon. And he told me, not that it had been translated by the power of Godfrom golden plates brought by an angel, but that he wrote it. Let's say his name is Joey, and he can read and write well, but has only a third grade education. So I took the manuscript and read it. What would my reaction be?

Some possiblities:

"Joey, this is interesting, I see the King James Bible was an inspiration. What's with the old English? You may want to have some expert edit the book and help you get that exactly right. Why did you copy all those pages out of the King James Bible? If you want to publish this your editor may make you take them out, they really interrupt the narrative flow."

"Joey, this is pretty impressive. Did you do it yourself?"

I could go on and on. I doubt I'd say this:

"Joey, come on. You didn't write this. Fess up. We both know you got this book from an angel of the Lord. No one could write this, least of all you."

My point is not to belittle the Book of Mormon, although Holland's "argument" invites us to analyze it with a critical eye. My point is to illustrate the absurdity--the utter absurdity--of saying it's more likely Joseph Smith got the book from an angel than that he wrote it.

Why don't we say the same thing about Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Shakespeare, Tolstoy? "It's more likely that an angel brought his work from God than that a man wrote it? He's lying that he wrote it."

By the way, it's a proven fact that there's no academic prerequisite for artistic genius (I'm giving the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt calling it a work of genius, as very little literary cricism or exegesis has been done on it, almost none by non-apologists).

[byu71]

I was meditating on this thread and a scenario occurred to me. I pretended there was no Joseph Smith and no LDS Church. Hey, Lebowski used to pretend there was no universe when he was a kid. Compared to that, my little exercise was a snap. So I pretended there was no Joseph Smith and no LDS Church, and that a young man I knew, in his early twenties, brought me a manuscript of a book. The Book of Mormon. And he told me, not that it had been translated by the power of God, but that he wrote it. Let's say his name is Joey, and he can read and write well, but has only a third grade education. So I took the manuscript and read it. What would my reaction be?

Some possiblities:

"Joey, this is interesting, I see the King James Bible was an inspiration. What's with the old English? You may want to have some expert edit the book and help you get that exactly right. Why did you copy all those pages out of the King James Bible? If you want to publish this your editor may make you take them out, they really interrupt the narrative flow."

"Joey, this is pretty impressive. Did you do it yourself?"

I could go on and on. I doubt I'd say this:

"Joey, come on. You didn't write this. Fess up. We both know you got this book from an angel of the Lord. No one could write this, least of all you."

My point is not to belittle the Book of Mormon, although Holland's "argument" invites us to analyze it with a critical eye. My point is to illustrate the absurdity--the utter absurdity--of saying it's more likely Joseph Smith got the book from an angel than that he wrote it.

Why don't we say the same thing about Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Shakespeare, Tolstoy? "It's more likely that an angel brought his work from God than that a man wrote it? He's lying that he wrote it."

By the way, it's a proven fact that there's no academic prerequisite for artistic genius (I'm giving the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt calling it a work of genius, as very little literary cricism or exegesis has been done on it, almost none by non-apologists).

So if I believe the absurdity then what..? I agree with Rocky on your trolling. Paragraphs with something to think about with a key troll word. Unlike Rocky though, I am not mad. If this does something for your ego or strengthens your own belief, so be it.

[SeattleUte]

So if I believe the absurdity then what..? I agree with Rocky on your trolling. Paragraphs with something to think about with a key troll word. Unlike Rocky though, I am not mad. If this does something for your ego or strengthens your own belief, so be it.

I'm not trolling. I really do believe Holland's argument ought to insult your intelligence. In fact, it's probably my no. 2 pet peeve next to the priesthood ban that I had to endure in the LDS Church. I think the absurdity is self-evident. I also think that this type of argument is harmful to LDS.

What you need to realize is he's human, as they all are. He has a vested interest. He's staked his whole life on this institution. He'd probably die for it whatever he thinks he knows about the veracity of the Book of Mormon. To advance the institution, to enhance his standing in it, it's easy for him to be intellectually dishonest. Of course; he's a politician, at bottom.

[Portland Ute]

So if I believe the absurdity then what..? I agree with Rocky on your trolling. Paragraphs with something to think about with a key troll word. Unlike Rocky though, I am not mad. If this does something for your ego or strengthens your own belief, so be it.

As per another recent discussion, he's doing this to re-enforce his own beliefs. He's "bearing testimony" to convince himself.

Before we know it, he'll be bringing little kids to the computer and whispering into their ears what they should type.

What's good for the goose...

[SeattleUte]

As per another recent discussion, he's doing this to re-enforce his own beliefs. He's "bearing testimony" to convince himself.

Before we know it, he'll be bringing little kids to the computer and whispering into their ears what they should type.

What's good for the goose...

I am using what's known as common sense and logic. The day I see an angel I'll reconsider my position.

[byu71]

I'm not trolling. I really do believe Holland's argument ought to insult your intelligence. In fact, it's probably my no. 2 pet peeve next to the priesthood ban that I had to endure in the LDS Church. I think the absurdity is self-evident. I also think that this type of argument is harmful to LDS.

What you need to realize is he's human, as they all are. He has a vested interest. He's staked his whole life on this institution. He'd probably die for it whatever he thinks he knows about the veracity of the Book of Mormon. To advance the institution, to enhance his standing in it, it's easy for him to be intellectually dishonest. Of course; he's a politician, at bottom.

Like I said, these things don't anger me like they used to. I now can appreciate the bulk of your posting and do respect your intelligence, wit and knowledge. That being said, in this area you are in essence calling me ignorant and basicially questionning my intelligence. That's fine. Instead of it being something that should insult my intelligence, IMHO a non troll would have stated it as follows, "I don't understand how an intelligent person believes that". Of course that would indicate you might not understand something.

[RockyBalboa]

I'm not trolling. I really do believe Holland's argument ought to insult your intelligence. In fact, it's probably my no. 2 pet peeve next to the priesthood ban that I had to endure in the LDS Church. I think the absurdity is self-evident. I also think that this type of argument is harmful to LDS.

What you need to realize is he's human, as they all are. He has a vested interest. He's staked his whole life on this institution. He'd probably die for it whatever he thinks he knows about the veracity of the Book of Mormon. To advance the institution, to enhance his standing in it, it's easy for him to be intellectually dishonest. Of course; he's a politician, at bottom.

Yes you are trolling.

You are seeking to hurt, injure, insult and enflame.

This is your same old tired schtick you've been at for years.

I'm making it clear to you that as long as your behavior persists I will from this point forward be here to call you on it.

I've no problem with you engaging in discussion. Never have..my problem is your intent, which has been made abundantly clear through years of your angry and confrontational attacks on those who believe and why they believe. Your behavior is petulant and not befitting a man of your education and intelligence. Shame on you.

If you want to keep your personal war of angry bitterness and subterfuge on-going and taking your constant shots then you will reap what you sow.

It's time for you to re-consider how you approach your attacks. There are other apostates, non-believers and former believers on here who are able to engage in respectful discussion (something you've done on occasion) that don't seek to cause harm and injury that you do.

It's time for your malicious behavior to stop. You're better than this.