Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[LA Ute]

Without SU my presence here would be meaningless and without purpose. I mean, how can we have a yin without a yang?

[byu71]

Without SU my presence here would be meaningless and without purpose. I mean, how can we have a yin without a yang?

You are actually a token yang. I real yang would be someone telling SU he was leading folks away from the church and his punishment would be everlasting hell.

If we want a real yang in here, I know a couple over on CB. I have gotten board mails from them letting me know where I am headed.

[JohnnyLingo]

A friend of mine says this talk trumps Elder McConkie's farewell address.

I say no way, Jose. Can't beat Bruce.

[Rosebud]

You could be among the many noble and great ones.

many?

[scottie]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Elder Holland says "[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." In other words, why would JS and HS stick with their story, even to the death? Well, my question is this - what the hell were their options? Can you imagine JS all of a sudden saying "you know what guys, this has gone too far. It started off as a scheme of mine, but this is insane. It's not true. I made it all up. I'm sorry for all the problems I've caused, but it's just not true, so let's all just go home and forget it ever happened." Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible. Thousands of people had left their homes, their property, their families and their lives for him. People had dedicated their lives to serve him. People had given their daughters to him. And all of a sudden he's going to fess-up and think he's going to avoid some bad consequences? That's one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard in my life. At some point, JS clearly passed the point of no return with his followers - the point at which he could fess up and not get his ass destroyed by the people he tricked. So, there are good arguments for the validity of the BOM and of the "restoration," but this is clearly not one of them. JS didn't knowingly or freely give his life as a martyr (he was shooting at his captors and jumped out of a window), his conviction at death proves nothing (or else the 911 hijakckers would also have a case) and his refusal to fess up tells us little, because he had no viable alternative. I think it's manipulative to suggest otherwise.

[woot]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Elder Holland says "[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." In other words, why would JS and HS stick with their story, even to the death? Well, my question is this - what the hell were their options? Can you imagine JS all of a sudden saying "you know what guys, this has gone too far. It started off as a scheme of mine, but this is insane. It's not true. I made it all up. I'm sorry for all the problems I've caused, but it's just not true, so let's all just go home and forget it ever happened." Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible. Thousands of people had left their homes, their property, their families and their lives for him. People had dedicated their lives to serve him. People had given their daughters to him. And all of a sudden he's going to fess-up and think he's going to avoid some bad consequences? That's one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard in my life. At some point, JS clearly passed the point of no return with his followers - the point at which he could fess up and not get his ass destroyed by the people he tricked. So, there are good arguments for the validity of the BOM and of the "restoration," but this is clearly not one of them. JS didn't knowingly or freely give his life as a martyr (he was shooting at his captors and jumped out of a window), his conviction at death proves nothing (or else the 911 hijakckers would also have a case) and his refusal to fess up tells us little, because he had no viable alternative. I think it's manipulative to suggest otherwise.

A succinct presentation of many of the same points made in this thread. Good for your friend.

[JohnnyLingo]

Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible.

Maybe by the Danites....

But I have a hard time imagining the rank and file members of the early Church murdering Joseph Smith if he admitted he was a fraud.

I think he could have escaped without major consequences if he'd wanted to. Slip out of Nauvoo in the night, head West, and he'd be gone.

[Pheidippides]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Elder Holland says "[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." In other words, why would JS and HS stick with their story, even to the death? Well, my question is this - what the hell were their options? Can you imagine JS all of a sudden saying "you know what guys, this has gone too far. It started off as a scheme of mine, but this is insane. It's not true. I made it all up. I'm sorry for all the problems I've caused, but it's just not true, so let's all just go home and forget it ever happened." Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible. Thousands of people had left their homes, their property, their families and their lives for him. People had dedicated their lives to serve him. People had given their daughters to him. And all of a sudden he's going to fess-up and think he's going to avoid some bad consequences? That's one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard in my life. At some point, JS clearly passed the point of no return with his followers - the point at which he could fess up and not get his ass destroyed by the people he tricked. So, there are good arguments for the validity of the BOM and of the "restoration," but this is clearly not one of them. JS didn't knowingly or freely give his life as a martyr (he was shooting at his captors and jumped out of a window), his conviction at death proves nothing (or else the 911 hijakckers would also have a case) and his refusal to fess up tells us little, because he had no viable alternative. I think it's manipulative to suggest otherwise.

Leaving the manipulative part out of it, this was my exact thought. The death of one of the witnesses of the BOM for the same reasons would have been more meaningful. But JS of all people was bound to live (and die) with the church/BOM at that point.

[wuapinmon]

many?

I'm getting ready to take my daughter to piano practice; she's sitting right next to me, and she looked at the screen and said, stammering, "does, does that say, wua, wuapinmon sucks? What is that?"

--" It's a joke"

-- Ok

[Jeff Lebowski]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Elder Holland says "[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." In other words, why would JS and HS stick with their story, even to the death? Well, my question is this - what the hell were their options? Can you imagine JS all of a sudden saying "you know what guys, this has gone too far. It started off as a scheme of mine, but this is insane. It's not true. I made it all up. I'm sorry for all the problems I've caused, but it's just not true, so let's all just go home and forget it ever happened." Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible. Thousands of people had left their homes, their property, their families and their lives for him. People had dedicated their lives to serve him. People had given their daughters to him. And all of a sudden he's going to fess-up and think he's going to avoid some bad consequences? That's one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard in my life. At some point, JS clearly passed the point of no return with his followers - the point at which he could fess up and not get his ass destroyed by the people he tricked. So, there are good arguments for the validity of the BOM and of the "restoration," but this is clearly not one of them. JS didn't knowingly or freely give his life as a martyr (he was shooting at his captors and jumped out of a window), his conviction at death proves nothing (or else the 911 hijakckers would also have a case) and his refusal to fess up tells us little, because he had no viable alternative. I think it's manipulative to suggest otherwise.

I enjoyed the talk quite a bit, but that point made me cringe. For the reasons stated by your friend.

[cowboy]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Maybe I'm in the minority as one who wasn't bothered by it. I tried to make the point (but Art made it better because I also tried, but failed, to inject some humor) that this talk was given to an audience of people inclined to believe. In that context, the arguments he made seemed appropriate - not as definitive proof but as further evidence that Joseph Smith believed in the BoM.

As a believer, I heard the quote and had different thoughts than your friend. What I heard, and was struck by, is bolded:

"[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."

While I agree that Joseph Smith had passed the point of no return in denying the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I do find it hard to believe that he would find comfort in reading it when he knew his life was in danger. If I had made up a book and passed it off as scripture, the last thing it would give me is comfort during times when the probability of meeting my maker were substantially higher.

[LA Ute]

A friend of mine just sent this to me in an email, thought I'd share:

Elder Holland says "[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." In other words, why would JS and HS stick with their story, even to the death? Well, my question is this - what the hell were their options? Can you imagine JS all of a sudden saying "you know what guys, this has gone too far. It started off as a scheme of mine, but this is insane. It's not true. I made it all up. I'm sorry for all the problems I've caused, but it's just not true, so let's all just go home and forget it ever happened." Can you imagine what his followers would do to him? He'd be ripped limb from limb and strung up and beaten in every way possible. Thousands of people had left their homes, their property, their families and their lives for him. People had dedicated their lives to serve him. People had given their daughters to him. And all of a sudden he's going to fess-up and think he's going to avoid some bad consequences? That's one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard in my life. At some point, JS clearly passed the point of no return with his followers - the point at which he could fess up and not get his ass destroyed by the people he tricked. So, there are good arguments for the validity of the BOM and of the "restoration," but this is clearly not one of them. JS didn't knowingly or freely give his life as a martyr (he was shooting at his captors and jumped out of a window), his conviction at death proves nothing (or else the 911 hijakckers would also have a case) and his refusal to fess up tells us little, because he had no viable alternative. I think it's manipulative to suggest otherwise.

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.

[Art Vandelay]

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.

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?

Was anyone else impressed by the quality that Book of Mormon still appeared to be in? I was somewhat surprised to see Elder Holland literally thumbing through pages of a 160+ year old text.

[cowboy]

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?

Was anyone else impressed by the quality that Book of Mormon still appeared to be in? I was somewhat surprised to see Elder Holland literally thumbing through pages of a 160+ year old text.

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.

[wuapinmon]

Was anyone else impressed by the quality that Book of Mormon still appeared to be in? I was somewhat surprised to see Elder Holland literally thumbing through pages of a 160+ year old text.

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.