Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[TripletDaddy]

These stormtroopers don't know how to deal with your Jedi mind tricks. If they would simply agree with you that Elder Holland's rhetoric might not have been the best literary choice, then you have no more bullets in your gun anymore.

You are correct: that Joseph Smith died is not, in and of itself, proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon (I think several here have already stipulated such). In fact, there is no proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon outside of what we are asked to do in Moroni 10. Since Moroni 10 basically requires divine intervention on an individual level, I don't think there will really ever be anything to debate. You either have felt it or you have not. Such is unfortunate, because an academic debate is generally much more interesting.

I am curious about your references today to exegesis (perhaps it is the ghost of ChinoCoug that has given rise to sleeping demons....). I am sure you would agree that in terms of proving or disproving the BoM, lack of exegesis is a red herring. There has been exegesis of the Bible since the written word....and we are still at no great consensus on that book, either.

[byu71]

These stormtroopers don't know how to deal with your Jedi mind tricks. If they would simply agree with you that Elder Holland's rhetoric might not have been the best literary choice, then you have no more bullets in your gun anymore.

You are correct: that Joseph Smith died is not, in and of itself, proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon (I think several here have already stipulated such). In fact, there is no proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon outside of what we are asked to do in Moroni 10. Since Moroni 10 basically requires divine intervention on an individual level, I don't think there will really ever be anything to debate. You either have felt it or you have not. Such is unfortunate, because an academic debate is generally much more interesting.

I am curious about your references today to exegesis (perhaps it is the ghost of ChinoCoug that has given rise to sleeping demons....). I am sure you would agree that in terms of proving or disproving the BoM, lack of exegesis is a red herring. There has been exegesis of the Bible since the written word....and we are still at no great consensus on that book, either.

So you agree he is trolling and those of us who respond are fish. OK

[SeattleUte]

These stormtroopers don't know how to deal with your Jedi mind tricks. If they would simply agree with you that Elder Holland's rhetoric might not have been the best literary choice, then you have no more bullets in your gun anymore.

You are correct: that Joseph Smith died is not, in and of itself, proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon (I think several here have already stipulated such). In fact, there is no proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon outside of what we are asked to do in Moroni 10. Since Moroni 10 basically requires divine intervention on an individual level, I don't think there will really ever be anything to debate. You either have felt it or you have not. Such is unfortunate, because an academic debate is generally much more interesting.

I am curious about your references today to exegesis (perhaps it is the ghost of ChinoCoug that has given rise to sleeping demons....). I am sure you would agree that in terms of proving or disproving the BoM, lack of exegesis is a red herring. There has been exegesis of the Bible since the written word....and we are still at no great consensus on that book, either.

Yes, the only object of my criticism is Holland's rhetorical devices, to wit, i) he died for it, hence it came from Moroni and golden plates; and ii) a man of JS's alleged limited abilities could not have written such a marvelous work as the Book of Mormon.

My reference to exegesis is born of the second rhetorical device. He even references all the complicated "theology" or some such thing that he perceives as redolent in the Book of Mormon, and far beyond JS's understanding. This of course invites serious criticism and exegesis of the Book of Mormon. Actually, Brodie does quite a bit of this, but much more could be done.

EDIT: Also, lack of exegesis suggests that real scholars don't take it serously as a substantial literary or possible ancient work.

[creekster]

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.

My pet peeve is that you cannot be dispassionate in your analysis. It is one thing to evaluate an argument and assert it is not a winning argument. You did so above and assuming, as we did, that one removed the effect of a spiritual witness, I agreed with you.

This is not enough for you, of course. So you post again, and again, and you say things like Elder Holland is intellectually dishonest, or impugn Elder Holland's integrity by asserting that he is lying to protect his vested interest in his career. You apparently do this simply to be annoying and without any hint of irony, which is remarkable given that the argument you are employing to reach such a conclusion is as baseless here as the argument you are trying to criticize, if not more so. Indeed, you see people take the non-winning argument all the time in your job. I suspect you have taken a non-winning argument in order to advance an interest in which you believe, in order to attempt to aggregate support for your position.

As Cowboy said, you simply ignore that he probably believes what he says, even as you conceded that faith or belief is something that you will not debate. And while you may be willing to go mano a mano with Elder Holland on this issue, I am sure that promise would not frighten him in the least. Surely you must concede that by any measure he is intelligent and accomplished and the most likely explanation for his position is that he DOES believe it. So a little more discretion and acknowledgment of the other side would be appreciated.

[TripletDaddy]

So you agree he is trolling and those of us who respond are fish. OK

No, actually I don't. I get why some would not love him (which is a sin, btw...), but SeattleUte is an admitted apostate that does not believe that which we believe. Also, we spend much of our time here talking about the Gospel or things related to the LDS church. What else does everyone expect him to say? To expect him to say nothing is not realistic. We are all registered users here because we want to post.

I also don't believe that SeattleUte has the hate in his heart for the Church that he wants everyone to think he possesses. His brand of apple-cheeked apostasy is charming!

[Portland Ute]

Yes, the only object of my criticism is Holland's rhetorical devices, to wit, i) he died for it, hence it came from Moroni and golden plates; and ii) a man of JS's alleged limited abilities could not have written such a marvelous work as the Book of Mormon.

My reference to exegesis is born of the second rhetorical device. He even references all the complicated "theology" or some such thing that he perceives as redolent in the Book of Mormon, and far beyond JS's understanding. This of course invites serious criticism and exegesis of the Book of Mormon. Actually, Brodie does quite a bit of this, but much more could be done.

EDIT: Also, lack of exegesis suggests that real scholars don't take it serously as a substantial literary or possible ancient work.

Your avatar needs to have his left shoulder reduced. That looks painful

[byu71]

No, actually I don't. I get why some would not love him (which is a sin, btw...), but SeattleUte is an admitted apostate that does not believe that which we believe. Also, we spend much of our time here talking about the Gospel or things related to the LDS church. What else does everyone expect him to say? To expect him to say nothing is not realistic. We are all registered users here because we want to post.

I also don't believe that SeattleUte has the hate in his heart for the Church that he wants everyone to think he possesses. His brand of apple-cheeked apostasy is charming!

We will just have to agree to disagree. If you would like, you can have the last word.

[SeattleUte]

My pet peeve is that you cannot be dispassionate in your analysis. It is one thing to evaluate an argument and assert it is not a winning argument. You did so above and assuming, as we did, that one removed the effect of a spiritual witness, I agreed with you.

This is not enough for you, of course. So you post again, and again, and you say things like Elder Holland is intellectually dishonest, or impugn Elder Holland's integrity by asserting that he is lying to protect his vested interest in his career. You apparently do this simply to be annoying and without any hint of irony, which is remarkable given that the argument you are employing to reach such a conclusion is as baseless here as the argument you are trying to criticize, if not more so. Indeed, you see people take the non-winning argument all the time in your job. I suspect you have taken a non-winning argument in order to advance an interest in which you believe, in order to attempt to aggregate support for your position.

As Cowboy said, you simply ignore that he probably believes what he says, even as you conceded that faith or belief is something that you will not debate. And while you may be willing to go mano a mano with Elder Holland on this issue, I am sure that promise would not frighten him in the least. Surely you must concede that by any measure he is intelligent and accomplished and the most likely explanation for his position is that he DOES believe it. So a little more discretion and acknowledgment of the other side would be appreciated.

I'm tempted to aplogize to appease you, because you're a friend. But ironically, personally I like Holland better as I characterized him. I have no problem with him being intelligent and possessing the human attributes of ambition and loyalty. He's doing his job, and apparently doing it well. In fact, I remember him as my favorite LDS orator by far. I much prefer this characterization to his being over-emotional or not very thougtful. "Intellectually dishonest" is, I will admit, a little harsh. Let's say he's an advocate, okay?

[SeattleUte]

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.

You're phony as a plastic Christmas tree. That's all I have to say to you.

[creekster]

I'm tempted to aplogize to appease you, because you're a friend. But ironically, personally I like Holland better as I characterized him. I have no problem with him being intelligent and possessing the human attributes of ambition and loyalty. He's doing his job, and apparently doing it well. In fact, I remember him as my favorite LDS orator by far. I much prefer this characterization to his being over-emotional or not very thougtful. "Intellectually dishonest" is, I will admit, a little harsh. Let's say he's an advocate, okay?

Sure. I agree with that. So why you gotta do all that other stuff?

[SeattleUte]

Sure. I agree with that. So why you gotta do all that other stuff?

71 was trolling me, so my prose got a little purple. It happens. Sorry.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes, the only object of my criticism is Holland's rhetorical devices, to wit, i) he died for it, hence it came from Moroni and golden plates; and ii) a man of JS's alleged limited abilities could not have written such a marvelous work as the Book of Mormon.

My reference to exegesis is born of the second rhetorical device. He even references all the complicated "theology" or some such thing that he perceives as redolent in the Book of Mormon, and far beyond JS's understanding. This of course invites serious criticism and exegesis of the Book of Mormon. Actually, Brodie does quite a bit of this, but much more could be done.

EDIT: Also, lack of exegesis suggests that real scholars don't take it serously as a substantial literary or possible ancient work.

Well, I will agree with you on both counts. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if pressed, Elder Holland would likely acknowledge that his belief in the veracity of the BoM is not based in the death of Joseph Smith, nor in his precociousness at the time of translation. As LA Ute pointed out, these are simply factors of curiosity that make interesting discussion points in support of that particular point of view.

My guess is that Elder Holland's belief stems from Moroni 10. And that he may have been overly enthusiastic in offering up some hyperbolic rhetoric regarding the Martyrdom of the Joseph Smith as it pertains to the veracity of the BoM.

Today in class we came to the end of 1 Ne 18 and the infamous verse that mentions horses. I actually thought of you in class and chuckled to myself a bit. Over the past several weeks, we have culled lessons on integrity, love, family, obedience, faith, diligence, parenting, brotherly kindness, evil, temptation, courage, fear, honor, piety, and a slew of other life topics. And yet there are those that get hung up on whether domesticated horses actually roamed meso-america at or near 592 BC. Ha! "Hey you, thousands of trees!...Have any of you seen the forest around here anywhere?"

I am glad you are here, hermano. You are a good friend.

[SoCalCoug]

I think it is an excellent argument that the person believed it was true. Why indeed would they give their lives if they didn't believe it? (I guess one reason would be they didn't know they were going to Cathage to die, but still).

He did try to climb out the window before they killed him.

[RockyBalboa]

You're phony as a plastic Christmas tree. That's all I have to say to you.

Coming from the guy who probably keeps a box of wine on tap in his fridge.

Start being more respectful of others beliefs and why they believe and you won't have much to worry about it. However, if you persist with your carpet bombing tactics then we will be enemies and I will be there at every turn to battle your arrogant narcissism.

The choice is entirely up to you.

[SoonerCoug]

Coming from the guy who probably keeps a box of wine on tap in his fridge.

Start being more respectful of others beliefs and why they believe and you won't have much to worry about it. However, if you persist with your carpet bombing tactics then we will be enemies and I will be there at every turn to battle your arrogant narcissism.

The choice is entirely up to you.

Disagreeing with beliefs or having a unique opinion is not the same as being disrespectful.

Hyrum was disrespectful. SU simply disagrees with Mormon claims. I think SU expresses his thoughts very maturely.