Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[creekster]

I snickered a little because I remembered the mission presidents' saying "if an Apostle does it, you can do it" and he was using a prop in a talk, which we had a letter read in Sacrament meeting saying that we were supposed to stop doing that.

The letter specfied Sacrament meetings and stake conferences, I believe. It ddi not say all meetings.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think that's a fair argument, but I think it misses the mark. Too many here on this thread seem to focus on some of the "trees" in that part of the talk, rather than the forest. It's important to put Elder Holland's comment in context, both in terms of audience and content.

In terms of audience, this was a general conference talk to the faithful, not a court brief or an academic paper. As for content, he was talking about what the Book of Mormon obviously meant to Joseph and Hyrum: When their lives were in serious danger (and Joseph had already said to Hyrum and others, as he left Nauvoo, that he was like "a lamb going to the slaughter") they turned to that book for solace.

Elder Holland held up the actual BofM the two brothers read from, and the TV broadcast showed the turned-down page where the quoted verses appear. He made the inspiring (to most believers) point that the two men themselves sure seemed committed to the Book of Mormon; it was so sacred to them that they turned to it as their lives seemed on the verge of ending. Were they the kind of men who would do that if they knew the book was a fraud? Now that would require an extraordinarily high level of cynicism - or outright lunacy - in the two men. I'll leave the making of that case to Fawn Brodie, or the Tanners, or maybe to my friend Seattle Ute.

In my opinion, that's all there is to that part of Elder Holland's talk on that point. Loudly protesting that Joseph's and Hyrum's behavior "proves nothing" completely misses the point of the story he shared. To me, it was an exceptionally moving and inspirational story: The two brothers' behavior was evidence that they loved the Book of Mormon and believed in it completely. Elder Holland called it "yet one more evidence of [the Book of Mormon's] truthfulness."

You can argue all you want about how much weight to give that evidence (to me, it's just another strand in a tapestry), but to say it is evidence of nothing seems quite a stretch. And to make a big deal over it, as SU and your friend are doing, and to pick away at it so furiously (or even to "wince" over the story -- sorry, El Duderino) seems to me way, way over the top.

First of all, excellent response. I always enjoy your posts.

Second, I said that I very much enjoyed the talk so let's not mischaracterize my response as we discuss this one point.

Looking at the sentence in question:

[A]nd tell me, whether in this hour of death, these two men [JS and HS] would enter the presence of their eternal judge, quoting from, and finding solace in, a book which if not the very word of God would brand them as impostors and charlatans until the end of time. They would not do that! They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Your logic would imply that if there was a fraud, that Hyrum must have been a partner to the fraud. Why are we required to make that assumption? If it was a fraud but HS believed it, why wouldn't they read passages that would provide some solace while sitting in jail? It is easy to imagine with the benefit of hindsight, that they knew they were about to die. But there is no proof of that. Especially given all of the prior times that JS had been in jail.

Finally, the last sentence in the quote implies that denying the divine origin would have saved their lives. That seems like quite a stretch, as Scottie's friend and others have explained.

Again, it was a great talk and I enjoyed the powerful testimony. I just didn't think that this little snippet of questionable logic strengthened the testimony.

[LA Ute]

I would also agree, but I'm tired of people making the same point I was trying to make only making it better and more clearly. I can only admit inferiority once per thread.

I actually thought the same thing when I saw your post. I think we both must have pressed the "submit reply" button at about the same time.

[LA Ute]

Finally, the last sentence in the quote implies that denying the divine origin would have saved their lives. That seems like quite a stretch, as Scottie's friend and others have explained.

I will concede: Taken all on its own, in isolation, that's not the strongest sentence in Elder Holland's talk. It just seems crazy to me to make such a big deal over it.

Not that you are doing so. Rodents of Unusual Size have much more important things to do, including overseeing the Fire Swamp.

Matter of fact, the term "fire swamp" is a startlingly accurate descriptor of this forum . . . .

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will concede: Taken all on its own, in isolation, that's not the strongest sentence in Elder Holland's talk. It just seems crazy to me to make such a big deal over it.

Not that you are doing so. Rodents of Unusual Size have much more important things to do, including overseeing the Fire Swamp.

Matter of fact, the term "fire swamp" is a startlingly accurate descriptor of this forum . . . .

Hey if you are conceding another point to me, shouldn't I be due for an upgrade to a new level beyond ROUS?

[LA Ute]

Hey if you are conceding another point to me, shouldn't I be due for an upgrade to a new level beyond ROUS?

Actually, I never formally elevated you to ROUS status. I hereby do so. Congratulations. SU beat you by one day. However, you're also now Lord Overseer of the Dreaded Fire Swamp,* a title that he will never have.




____________________
*The Foyer

[beefytee]

Is there a legal term for whatever is the opposite of objecting. As the prosecuting attorney could I interrupt the defender with an "I agree" outburst in court?

No wonder SU thinks that silence means agreement!


By the way. Here is what Merriam Webster thinks is the oposite of "object":

approve, sanction; accept; accede (to), acquiesce (to), agree (with), assent (to); comply (with), obey; advocate, champion, defend, maintain, support, sustain, uphold

The word I thought wasn't even there: concur

[Jarid in Cedar]

As read over the bulk of this thread, I kept seeing the image of SU as "Samuel the Lamanite" condemning the Nephites. I then wondered who would be more insulted by that comparision.