Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[Surfah]

Elder Holland has given me food for thought, and I'm grateful for that.

Thanks for sharing. I think this is why this talk and Oaks' talk have received so much attention. They are indeed food for thought with plenty to chew on.

[SoonerCoug]

While you're certainly right about that, SU's been around long enough and performed his schtick long enough that his is especially obvious.

I think trolling implies that he is posting merely to get a reaction rather than to express an honest opinion. SU is sincere.

[TripletDaddy]

E-Holl's talk was great. I have a feeling that Sunday School and EQ teachers will cull lessons from it for months to come, as there was a lot of meat on those bones. While listening to it, I had a few different lesson ideas come to mind, in fact.

One thing that popped into my mind....I have been thinking about my old roommate lately, esp on the heels of Elder Oaks's talk......can someone please differentiate or explain Elder Holland's point for me? He seemed to suggest the following (paraphrased): why would these guys die for this book if they had simply made it up?

The second he offered up that rhetorical, I was a bit frustrated for a second. I can remember countless times when I have asked some..."why would people who are gay subject themselves to all of this crap if they had a choice in the matter?" The Texonian response has always been, "people do all sorts of things that make no sense or that are harmful."

I guess I didn't find that aspect of Elder Holland's talk to be persuasive. "Why would they die for something they made up?" In fact, it bothered me a bit. I really enjoyed the rest of the talk, but that part.....no so much.

Maybe I misunderstood his point. Can anyone offer some insight to help clarify for me? Obviously it is always possible (and likely...) that I have misinterpreted.

[byu71]

I'm with Utah Dan that Elder Holland's "if you're dumb enough to reject this evidence, you've been deceived" argument is a little unfair to the conscientious and studious critic, but it's probably fair retaliation to the "if you're dumb enough to believe this Book of Mormon, you're a mindless sheep" rhetoric that anti-mormons spout all the time.

Good post. I wondered myself if Elder Holland hadn't come accross a very annoying situation with some anti's recently. I think if I had seen the news accounts of the protestors outside the conference center just prior to Elder Hollands speech, I probably would have been much more receptive to the speech as a whole.

I remeber last fall I was wishing Romney would tell Huckleberry to go F himself. However, in hindsight that probably wouldn't have been a good thing to do. I would have felt better though.

[RockyBalboa]

I think trolling implies that he is posting merely to get a reaction rather than to express an honest opinion. SU is sincere.

Couldn't disagree more.

[SoonerCoug]

Couldn't disagree more.

So you think SU is a true believer at heart?

[RockyBalboa]

So you think SU is a true believer at heart?

No I don't. I think he uses every chance he gets to troll, mock, disparage and disrespect.

History is on my side here. Quite frankly it's not even debatable.

[scottie]

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.

Rocky, you can't say, "well, we see it differently," and then in the very next sentence, use terms like "Any way you slice it." Obviously the way some people slice it is different than yours. That's okay, though. It's okay that we all have different views. It's a community of different-minded people! It's fine that we all slice things differently. There's no "Any way you slice it" here, since obviously a number of people don't feel the discord that you're referring to. If they all did, then yes, it would be an absolute. This thread has shown, however, that it's NOT an absolute, and that there are other ways of viewing it that don't equate to yours, and that those views are just as valid and right as yours are.

No more "Any way you slice it talk," otherwise it makes you look like the one who's trying to cause discord. That's not your intention, though, I don't think, so it's better to just avoid that kind of wording.

Again you're welcome to your opinion, and I completely disagree with you and I'll just leave it at that. Also please don't tell me which kind of wording to avoid, because like you insist..it's just opinion...right?

If you're comfortable with mocking opinions, so be it.

To try to help maybe clarify what Tim is saying, when you post something like, "we see it differently", it seems you're acknowledging that people can have different opinions/interpretations of something, which is good. However, you then say, "Anyway you slice it, it was disrespectful" -- can there be any other interpretation of that statement from you other than there's only one acceptable interpretation of what SU said (that it was disrespectful)?

Unless it's your position that your interpretation is the only valid one.

[RockyBalboa]

To try to help maybe clarify what Tim is saying, when you post something like, "we see it differently", it seems you're acknowledging that people can have different opinions/interpretations of something, which is good. However, you then say, "Anyway you slice it, it was disrespectful" -- can there be any other interpretation of that statement from you other than there's only one acceptable interpretation of what SU said (that it was disrespectful).

Unless it's your position that your interpretation is the only valid one.

Twist it however you wish, but it doesn't take away from the fact that SU is a constant troll in this forum.

He's been doing it for years. It's not exactly a breaking news flash to anybody.

[JohnnyLingo]

The bad part is some members of the church (Glen Beck types) though will take the talk and under the cover of an Apostle will point fingers at other members. Already happening on CB. That is too bad.

The hypocrisy here is entertaining.

I was not really a fan of Elder Holland's talk. Impassioned testimonies are fine, but you can't empirically prove the Book of Mormon true or untrue.

[Pheidippides]

No I don't. I think he uses every chance he gets to troll, mock, disparage and disrespect.

History is on my side here. Quite frankly it's not even debatable.

Rocky, with all due respect, this is precisely the problem here and elsewhere today. Your use of language indicates that you do not even acknowledge or validate the viewpoints of others as worth considering - or even existing. Statements like "I was clear" or "it's not even debatable" are subjective statements presented as absolute fact. It IS debatable - or it would be debatable if the debate wouldn't be greeted with the Brick Wall of Eff You with regularity. There is no exchange of ideas; only a presentment of one opinion and complete and utter rejection of all others, with perhaps a promise to shut up about it if enough people tell you to.

I don't know if you really feel this way. But you language seems to indicate you do.

As far as SU goes, sure, he is consistent in his approach. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I also do not doubt the fun he has in stirring the pot. However, I have shared some of the most intimate and special spiritual and religious experiences I have ever had here, in full view of the Red Fox, and he has never, not once, done anything to make me regret doing that or commented in a way that has made me feel uncomfortable about doing so. Doubtless he thinks I am a brainwashed ninny, but that's fine. I think SU is notable, not for what he says, but for what he doesn't.

[LA Ute]

I guess I didn't find that aspect of Elder Holland's talk to be persuasive. "Why would they die for something they made up?" In fact, it bothered me a bit. I really enjoyed the rest of the talk, but that part.....no so much.

Maybe I misunderstood his point. Can anyone offer some insight to help clarify for me? Obviously it is always possible (and likely...) that I have misinterpreted.

I think it was just circumstantial evidence, and probably more persuasive to those who are already familiar with, and admirers of, Joseph and Hyrum. It really isn't proof of anything, just another reason to believe. At least that's how it came across to me. It was not the most riveting part of the talk to me, either, but I liked it.

[Non Sequitur]

Twist it however you wish, but it doesn't take away from the fact that SU is a constant troll in this forum.

He's been doing it for years. It's not exactly a breaking news flash to anybody.

I don't pretend to know SU's motivation, but the truth is made some interesting, reasoned points. Whether he made those points in an appropriate venue or at an appropriate time may be debatable, but his points were interesting.

I'll also add that SU has toned the derision quite a bit. He is much more civil with those with whom he disagrees. I see no reason why people can't respectfully offer opposing points of view.

[TripletDaddy]

I think it was just circumstantial evidence, and probably more persuasive to those who are already familiar with, and admirers of, Joseph and Hyrum. It really isn't proof of anything, just another reason to believe. At least that's how it came across to me. It was not the most riveting part of the talk to me, either, but I liked it.

I dug the rest of the talk. That one line didn't sit well with me. Maybe it wasn't meant as anything more than anecdotal discussion fodder. thanks.

[SeattleUte]

Let me remind PAC and Rocky that LA invited dialogue over the Holland talk. I responded to his explicit invitation. He even helpfully provided quotations for critique.