Elder Jeffrey Holland--PM session Sunday

[sixpacktr]

I was in awe. It was the closest I have ever seen a GA get angry in a conference session, and I would call it righteous anger. There is more to that story somewhere that got him to be so passionate about making sure that it was known that HE knows that the BoM is what it claims to be.

I loved conference. I was taken in from Elder Scott's talk on responding to promptings from the Spirit. Conference was a spiritual feast that I will reflect on many times in the next 6 months until the next one...

[Guest Godless]

The full audio is already up on LDS.org. I listened to it last night because all the discussion of it had made me curious.

[Hemidakota]

Wow. That is why he is my favorite speaker and has been since he was president at BYU. Powerful testimony.

Actually, they were all great talks. yet, I amazed how many of the twelve gave talks this conference.

[rameumptom]

I liked his talk with one exception: the "proof" that the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum show the BoM to be true.

David Koresh and Jim Jones both died for their causes, also.

I think the point to be made comes from the New Testament, and what should be done with the Jesus. If he dies and the sect dies, then it wasn't anything to worry about. But if he dies and the sect grows after his death, THERE is the witness of its truthfulness.

The difference between Joseph Smith's and David Koresh's deaths is that Mormonism has gone on to flourish as a continued witness of truth.

[sixpacktr]

While I agree somewhat Ram about your point, David Koresh didn't go willingly to his death. He was off'd by the government after holing up in his compound.

As for Jim Jones, he was just nuts. AND, he'd already killed a US Congressman and knew that the 'one stuff' was about to hit the fan. He also took lots of people with him when he died. Joseph and Hyrum did neither of these.

So I think his point has validity, in that, as Joseph said, they went willingly 'as a lamb to the slaughter'.

[cougarfan]

I liked his talk with one exception: the "proof" that the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum show the BoM to be true.

David Koresh and Jim Jones both died for their causes, also.

I think the point to be made comes from the New Testament, and what should be done with the Jesus. If he dies and the sect dies, then it wasn't anything to worry about. But if he dies and the sect grows after his death, THERE is the witness of its truthfulness.

The difference between Joseph Smith's and David Koresh's deaths is that Mormonism has gone on to flourish as a continued witness of truth.

I kind of thought the same thing. But I didn't find his argument very persuasive. There are a lot of people who die for the Quran all the time, does that prove it is true? Not really. Muhammad went to his grave testifyng that the Quran was divine. I don't think that proves it is true. The other thought I had when Elder Holland was speaking was that Joseph Smith denied that he was practicing plural marriage just before he was killed. Does that mean he didn't really practice plural marriage? Of course not.

With regard to your second point, I'm afraid that Islam has gone on to flourish since the death of Muhammed. Is that a witness of its truthfulness? Not so sure.

[hordak]

While I agree somewhat Ram about your point, David Koresh didn't go willingly to his death. He was off'd by the government after holing up in his compound.

As for Jim Jones, he was just nuts. AND, he'd already killed a US Congressman and knew that the 'one stuff' was about to hit the fan. He also took lots of people with him when he died. Joseph and Hyrum did neither of these.

So I think his point has validity, in that, as Joseph said, they went willingly 'as a lamb to the slaughter'.

While Joseph didn't take people down with him he did go down fighting.

I don't think it's a good idea to base ones beliefs on the founders reputation, or it's popularity .As shown in previous posts.

Edited October 5, 2009 by hordak

[cougarfan]

While Joseph didn't take people down with him he did go down fighting.

I don't think it's a good idea to base ones beliefs on the founders reputation, or it's popularity .As shown in previous posts.

Amen.

I was told once that Joseph Smith had a gun with him and actually got off a few shots as the mob was coming in. Somewhere I read that two people died from his shots. But I'm not sure if that is true or not. I wish I could remember the source. Seems to me if they did die it would be a big deal and pretty easy to confirm. Anyway, it is pretty much not a matter of dispute that he did go down fighting though.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think Elder Holland's point wasn't necessarily that Joseph's death--willing or otherwise--demonstrated the Book of Mormon's truth; but the fact that he read and (apparently) found spiritual solace in the book at a time when death appeared to be imminent demonstrates Smith's own personal belief in the book.

Cougarfan, Joseph and Hyrum were both packin' heat that day in Carthage. I think the guns are on display at the Church History Museum along with Markham's cane and Taylor's watch. My understanding is that Joseph did hit two or three people, but they all recovered.

[martybess]

I do think he may have alienated folks with this talk and I'm saddened and happy at the same time. I have 2 sons who are wayward and I'm sure this did not help bring them closer so as a parent I take the advice given by Elder Oaks who talked about law but said sometimes as parents we have to make a decision that's in the best interest of a lost child and show love. The law still stands but love is the only thing that may help in my case. I shout AMEN but I hope it does not alienate. :) I am torn.

Marty

[Danite]

In the New Testament Hebrews 9 16 -17 says that a testimony is not effect until after the death of testator. I not sure why some have to die for the cause of truth but it seems that's the price for some of the Lords prophets.

[Just_A_Guy]

Paul is using the example of a Last Will and Testament. Even today, legally, your will is of no legal import until you die.

[Moksha]

Wow!

I can't wait for a video of Elder Holland's talk to be published on you tube so I can link it for many non-members on this forum who did not see it.

What would non-mormons gain from it? Would they want to have an affirmation that we have truth and they don't? Elder Holland's message that not believing everything he does is foolish, may not be taken well by non-mormons.

Of course, you may have meant that they should hear a a ringing endorsement for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. That sounds fine.

:)

[ttribe]

I kind of thought the same thing. But I didn't find his argument very persuasive. There are a lot of people who die for the Quran all the time, does that prove it is true? Not really. Muhammad went to his grave testifyng that the Quran was divine. I don't think that proves it is true. The other thought I had when Elder Holland was speaking was that Joseph Smith denied that he was practicing plural marriage just before he was killed. Does that mean he didn't really practice plural marriage? Of course not.

With regard to your second point, I'm afraid that Islam has gone on to flourish since the death of Muhammed. Is that a witness of its truthfulness? Not so sure.

I believe that this is missing the point of Elder Holland's talk altogether. Let's piece it together this way - 1) Joseph and Hyrum are frequently accused of fraudulently writing the Book of Mormon; 2) they had strong reason to believe that going to Carthage would result in their deaths; 3) they found solace regarding their predicament in the words of the Book of Mormon; and 4) they wouldn't find such solace if they KNEW the Book of Mormon was a fraud.

Your Quran comparison falls apart insomuch as the Islamic martyrs to which you refer are not the alleged authors of the Quran.

[ttribe]

Amen.

I was told once that Joseph Smith had a gun with him and actually got off a few shots as the mob was coming in. Somewhere I read that two people died from his shots. But I'm not sure if that is true or not. I wish I could remember the source. Seems to me if they did die it would be a big deal and pretty easy to confirm. Anyway, it is pretty much not a matter of dispute that he did go down fighting though.

Yes, Joseph got off a couple of shots (undoubtedly diversionary to draw fire from his remaining friends), and yes, the word is two individuals later died when their wounds refused to heal and their flesh began to rot. Read more here: FAIR Topical Guide: Martyrdom of Joseph & Hyrum

[Guest Godless]

What would non-mormons gain from it? Would they want to have an affirmation that we have truth and they don't? Elder Holland's message that not believing everything he does is foolish, may not be taken well by non-mormons.

Of course, you may have meant that they should hear a a ringing endorsement for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. That sounds fine.

:)

QFT. Elder Holland's talk really didn't sit well with many apostates. The RfMers in particular have been having a field day with it. Personally, I wasn't bothered much by it. If he wants to speak passionately about a book which he strongly believes is true, then that's his prerogative as a person of authority in the Church. However, I wouldn't recommend using his talk to try to bring back lost sheep. It'll probably do more harm than good.

[ttribe]

QFT. Elder Holland's talk really didn't sit well with many apostates. The RfMers in particular have been having a field day with it. Personally, I wasn't bothered much by it. If he wants to speak passionately about a book which he strongly believes is true, then that's his prerogative as a person of authority in the Church. However, I wouldn't recommend using his talk to try to bring back lost sheep. It'll probably do more harm than good.

Why would it "do more harm than good"?

[Guest Godless]

He's talking about a book in which apostates put no stock whatsoever. That in and of itself is fine, but the following remark could easily put a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has left the Church:

"If anyone is foolish enough or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers. If that is the case, then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit. In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of a fence, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work." [emphasis mine]

Let's face it, this kind of language isn't going to bring a single soul back to the LDS church.

[Maxel]

He's talking about a book in which apostates put no stock whatsoever. That in and of itself is fine, but the following remark could easily put a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has left the Church:

"If anyone is foolish enough or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers. If that is the case, then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit. In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of a fence, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work." [emphasis mine]

Let's face it, this kind of language isn't going to bring a single soul back to the LDS church.

Apostates are already in serious spiritual jeopardy, according to LDS theology.

Elder Holland was speaking the truth to counteract a lot of falsehoods spreading. The simple fact is that, if someone wants to leave the Church and thereby personally declare it untrue, then that person has to grapple with the question of the Book of Mormon's veracity.

I loved this talk (though I only saw the first half and the last two minutes). There was a LOT of truth conveyed in it. I think its purpose is partially a rebuke of those who have left the Church and attack the Book of Mormon, and partially to fulfill Holland's role as an apostle of Christ: to proclaim the truth of the Gospel. There are times when straight forward truth is preferred to sugar-coated situations- this was one of them.

There's also the fact that members who view the Book of Mormon as mostly or completely allegorical and deny its historicity are growing in number. This talk speaks to them, too.

I'm really not surprised there are apostates who are "having a field day" with this- the wicked take the truth to be hard. Those who left the Church with an adequate understanding of the Book of Mormon can't hear their actions rebuked by a prophet without getting riled up or becoming uneasy.

[ttribe]

He's talking about a book in which apostates put no stock whatsoever. That in and of itself is fine, but the following remark could easily put a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has left the Church:

"If anyone is foolish enough or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers. If that is the case, then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit. In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of a fence, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work." [emphasis mine]

Let's face it, this kind of language isn't going to bring a single soul back to the LDS church.

By itself, I suppose I can see your point on the sentence you bolded. However, that sentence was not stated by itself. The first sentence, the introductory sentence, puts that statement into context.

[beefche]

Actually, they were all great talks. yet, I amazed how many of the twelve gave talks this conference.

Am I missing something? The 12 always speak at GC.

[beefche]

I attended BYU with Elder Holland was president. What I remember from him was his passionate way of speaking. He is very articulate and chooses his words carefully.

I think as he has matured in the apostleship, his talks get more passionate. I didn't think he was angry, but I felt his disgust (? not sure of the word to use) as he spoke.

Reminded me of his fabulous talk at BYU when he was president, Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments." He uses plain language and his tone reflected his words.

[mytha]

Where I think it would do more harm than good is for someone who does wish to believe, but can't. The impression I was left with was that if you don't believe in the BoM you're either stubborn or stupid. For those who desperately wish to believe and who pray and receive no witness, the talk will likely instill guilt or shame.

[beefche]

I'm closing this thread as there is already one regarding this talk.

[Guest Godless]

This is being carried over from the thread that was just closed.

He's talking about a book in which apostates put no stock whatsoever. That in and of itself is fine, but the following remark could easily put a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has left the Church:

"If anyone is foolish enough or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers. If that is the case, then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit. In that sense, the book is what Christ himself was said to be, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of a fence, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work." [emphasis mine]

Let's face it, this kind of language isn't going to bring a single soul back to the LDS church.

Apostates are already in serious spiritual jeopardy, according to LDS theology.

About which we care very little. Holland's talk had the kind of passion and emotional intensity that the faithful love to see, which is great. However, the rest of us, RfM'er and live-and-let-live'er alike, have already made up out minds on the issue. Many people leave and go on to attack the Book of Mormon. The rest of us have moved on with our lives. Either way, we've done the best we can to put the Church and its teachings behind us. Regardless of whether or not we examined the veracity Book of Mormon like Holland said, the fact remains that we no longer believe it to have any authority in our lives. Continuing to preach about and testify to its divine authority is an excercise in futility. And the more passionate and headstrong the attempts to reclaim us are, the more resistance there's going to be in many cases.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Godless