Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[SCcoug]

I realize this doesn't belong in this thread, but the lookalike thing made me think of this:

No more like this:

[Tim]

I didn't know what to expect, but I really loved the talk. It was an excellent testimony of the Book of Mormon. I'm not going to nit-pick this one.

[RockyBalboa]

Holland seems a more than a little defensive, like he's trying to convince himself. He should be beyond making this type of an "evidenciary" case for the Book of Mormon's truth. The truth of the Book's claims should be an unstated predicate of everything he says, not something he goes on about ad nauseum.

I think it's beneath his dignity to go to such lengths to establish the foundation. Should he be talking about Historical Jesus in his next talk, or just go right to quoting from the Sermon on the Mount?

His assumption that people reject the Book absent deep thought and study is also offensive.

Rereading his statements, though, I see he's really addressing the progressive Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon can be accepted as strict allegorical truth.

Please refrain from committing acts of terrorism in this thread and try exercising some self control by not taking a dump on our lawn.

Your co-operation is appreciated.

[LA Ute]

My wife is convinced the tan is from a cream/spray. I think he eats a healthy amount of carrots.

Everyone who speaks in GC is made up for television. This is common. Without makeup, we all look pasty on TV. So everyone you see on every news show, from "Today" to "Meet the Press" to General Conference, has TV makeup on. Just something to take into account as you evaluate the critical question of why Pres. U. looks the way he does in conference.

[LA Ute]

Holland seems a more than a little defensive, like he's trying to convince himself. He should be beyond making this type of an "evidenciary" case for the Book of Mormon's truth. The truth of the Book's claims should be an unstated predicate of everything he says, not something he goes on about ad nauseum.

I think it's beneath his dignity to go to such lengths to establish the foundation. Should he be talking about Historical Jesus in his next talk, or just go right to quoting from the Sermon on the Mount?

His assumption that people reject the Book absent deep thought and study is also offensive.

Rereading his statements, though, I see he's really addressing the progressive Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon can be accepted as strict allegorical truth.

Have you watched the video of his talk?

[PaloAltoCougar]

...The truth of the Book's claims should be an unstated predicate of everything he says, not something he goes on about ad nauseum...

In a thread, forum, and LDS-centric board in which your tiresome attacks against the Church are as predictable and enduring as the everlasting hills, this shot (taken at a single, fifteen minute talk which I suspect you didn't actually hear) is one of your funniest ever.

[Surfah]

In a thread, forum, and LDS-centric board in which your tiresome attacks against the Church are as predictable and enduring as the everlasting hills, this shot (taken at a single, fifteen minute talk which I suspect you didn't actually hear) is one of your funniest ever.

Probably because he is guilty of that which he accuses Elder Holland:

Holland seems a more than a little defensive, like he's trying to convince himself.

[Tim]

Please refrain from committing acts of terrorism in this thread and try exercising some self control by not taking a dump on our lawn.

Your co-operation is appreciated.

Rocky: What Seattle wrote was completely respectful. He didn't attack anyone. He just shared his opinion in an open thread. Is his the type of post you're referring to when you say that people in The Foyer are making it difficult for people to share faith-promoting stories?

[DU Ute]

Probably because he is guilty of that which he accuses Elder Holland:

Well played.

[RockyBalboa]

Rocky: What Seattle wrote was completely respectful. He didn't attack anyone. He just shared his opinion in an open thread. Is his the type of post you're referring to when you say that people in The Foyer are making it difficult for people to share faith-promoting stories?

I completely disagree.

He ripped on Joseph Smith, then he ripped on Elder Holland. He alluded to Joseph being an egomaniacal narcissist and Holland undignified.

It was anything but respectful. It was another one of his drive-by trolling efforts. But if you feel the need to defend that, by all means that's your right.

Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that way by the other comments that followed his trolling shot. He clearly enjoys doing this.

He was also clearly asked if he watched the talk, to which he has not responded. Why troll and take a shot at something you haven't watched or listened to?

[byu71]

I completely disagree.

He ripped on Joseph Smith, then he ripped on Elder Holland. He alluded to Joseph being an egomaniacal narcissist and Holland undignified.

It was anything but respectful. It was another one of his drive-by trolling efforts. But if you feel the need to defend that, by all means that's your right.

Far be it from me to defend SU, but I found it to be redundant, I knew what his opinion would be. I didn't find it trolling. That being said, I am sure we all have different tolerance levels and thus a troll to one person may not be to another.

[RockyBalboa]

Far be it from me to defend SU, but I found it to be redundant, I knew what his opinion would be. I didn't find it trolling. That being said, I am sure we all have different tolerance levels and thus a troll to one person may not be to another.

You're welcome to your opinion, but just because something is redundant doesn't mean he's any less of a troll. Course he's already achieved the desired victory and effect he wants just by being the subject of this.

[Tim]

I completely disagree.

He ripped on Joseph Smith, then he ripped on Elder Holland. He alluded to Joseph being an egomaniacal narcissist and Holland undignified.

It was anything but respectful. It was another one of his drive-by trolling efforts. But if you feel the need to defend that, by all means that's your right.

Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that way by the other comments that followed his trolling shot. He clearly enjoys doing this.

He was also clearly asked if he watched the talk, to which he has not responded. Why troll and take a shot at something you haven't watched or listened to?

I see no rip on Elder Holland. I see someone disagreeing with Elder Holland, but not attacking Elder Holland.

I agree that he should watch the talk before completely formulating an opinion, but as you know, it's quite normal for all of us to formulate an opinion based on reading passages not unlike the ones LA Ute posted.

[byu71]

You're welcome to your opinion, but just because something is redundant doesn't mean he's any less of a troll. Course he's already achieved the desired victory and effect he wants just by being the subject of this.

I really like how you and I welcome each others opinion.

As far as his achieving victory, I wouldn't have gotten involved if you hadn't.

[RockyBalboa]

I see no rip on Elder Holland. I see someone disagreeing with Elder Holland, but not attacking Elder Holland.

I agree that he should watch the talk before completely formulating an opinion, but as you know, it's quite normal for all of us to formulate an opinion based on reading passages not unlike the ones LA Ute posted.

Well then we see it differently.

Anyway you slice it, it was disrespectful. It was his intent to troll and cause discord as it almost always is.

He quite simply hasn't earned the right to be taken seriously in any religious forum because of endless amounts of historical evidence that is against him in that regard. He enjoys and takes pride in mocking. He is hubristic and disingenuous in his approach. It's rather obvious Tim.