- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I recently discovered the following quote: “Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically”. – Jeffery R. Holland
https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=eng What do you make of this? He’s explicitly stating that it’s black and white, that the mental gymnastics a lot of us here go through constitute “an unacceptable position to take”.
Perfect example of a prophet speaking as a man. He is welcome to his opinion. Mine is that it’s not that black and white and that such black and white thinking is what leads some to a crisis of faith. This is why some leave the church. I almost hear Elder Holland say, “Terryl and Fiona Givens – please leave the church as you thinking are not black and white enough.” This is why some people leave when having a faith crisis – because they were TOLD to do so if they found some item they could not fully believe in. That’s quite the jenga tower. It was 20 years ago – and is it radically different, in general tone, than things he has said more recently.I would chalk it up to someone whose understanding has evolved over time and use it to show THAT point.
deleted Also, just to say it, I think he was wrong then and is much closer to being right now in the different ways he has talked about it since 1995. Seriously, if we hold this against him as his actual view, when he has expressed it very differently since then, we are MUCH more at fault than he is.
Sure, too many members would say it that way still . . . but he isn’t saying it that way anymore.
Elder Holland is becoming my Bruce R. McConkie – I cherry pick his talks and keep only what resonates with my heart. mom3 wrote:Elder Holland is becoming my Bruce R. McConkie – I cherry pick his talks and keep only what resonates with my heart.
Same here. There are some that I really love, others … meh. But other than DFU, there are more of his that I like than I don’t like.This is from notes that someone took in Elder Holland’s UK talk last week: Quote:Undeniable spiritual conviction. Church stands or falls on authenticity of BoM and how it came forth. Not everything in life is black and white but this is. BoM is quick and powerful like a two edged sword in getting to the issue. BoM had withstood withering scrutiny. Can’t be rivaled/reproduced or explained away. People gave up future and fortune and lives for it. Never been discredited by combined weight of 200 years of analysis and academia. If JS did not translate the BoM I would move heaven and earth to meet the man who wrote it. No one ever came forward to claim authorship, no one could have. The witnesses stood by their claims, even when disaffected. No other account of the BoM can truthfully be given.
No ghost writer is still waiting in the wings. To have fabricated the BoM would be a greater miracle than divine translation.
50 scholars took 7 years on the KJV. JS translated at White hot speed. John Taylor “JS had done more for salvation of men…”
I would be in Carthage then now or ever to defend JS and the gospel.
I have read many books, attended three universities, presided in the church. I know profundity when I see it. I testify just as surely as if I’d been one of the 3 witnesses. I offer you the BoM as safety for your sole and the antidote to wavering convictions. Cling to the iron rod. I am a witness. If you approach my coffin as I enter the next world you’ll hear my last breath whisper “This is God’s truth”.
I assume all of this is in defense of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient record of real people.
Not going to quote – just comment on the UK address Yes – that was his purpose, securing a testimony of the BofM. All the accounts I have read support each other. It is now a large brick wall. I wish he had chosen other words and style to state it – my heart crumbled a bit because some sensed that he was saying, “If you don’t believe or see it the same way you are free to leave.” If that was said it goes directly against the Savior’s words in 3 Nephi 18:22
Quote:And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not; But ye shall pray fr them, and shall not cast them out; and if is so be that they come unto oft ye shall pray for them unto the Father in my name.
My question then is, which is more important a pronouncement of the details of the book or the application of it’s words. Now I admit, I didn’t attend or hear the meeting, so I can only go by others statements, because of that, I am going to let this one go. I know Elder Hollands opinion of the BofM, we have a GC talk to support it. He is extremely passionate about it. My response is, “Bless His Heart.”
The ones I keep close are his “Are We Not All Beggars”, and his GC on Depression. It’s my brussel sprouts agreement. He likes them, I don’t.
…and I know he is really not saying “here’s the door” to people who don’t believe literally. He said so in the 2007 PBS interview. So I really don’t understand why he doesn’t include more of those sentiments in his talks to us. Why only for outsiders? Because a lot of insiders need that invitation and acceptance of their non-literal beliefs. Pres. Hinckley had said something similar. I believe that these men see some of the progression/evolution in the church and it scares them. They are comfortable with some changes but not with others and they are not the ones in charge of all the changes. The article on the other thread about “Are Mormons Christian?” is a case in point. The author observes a gradual evolution or softening in Mormon thought – to the point that it could possibly become christianized some day ( as the reorganized church did).
I think that some of the men in church leadership view this evolution as the frog being boiled slowly. So they may attempt to raise the stakes and paint a picture of impending doom for every degree of tempurature the water raises. They may believe that for individual people to leave the church would be tragic – but for the entire church to soften on some of its founding principles could be catastrophic (offering no harbor for TBM’s). How much can the true church change before it is no longer the true church?
Dichotomous thinking at best. Life is not usually that simple. If I can draw an analogy to JS, and reflect on how God isn’t necessarily black and white Himself — I was in a hotel in Utah and in the drawer of the hotel was a couple novels by an author I had never heard of. I read the first book and it was GREAT fiction. I loved it!
I then read the author’s biography in the back (the book was part of a series), and it described the man’s life — how he was an author, had been in the navy, military etcetera, and then “turned his efforts to humanitarian interests”. He’d written scores of popular fiction books.
I later found the author — L. Ron Hubbard — was the founder of Scientology, which was the “humanitarian interest” he directed the latter part of his life. I guess the biographer didn’t want to mention Scientology specifically, lest this biographer compromise the interest of the readers prematurely…
I have often wondered if both JS and LR Hubbard have the same religious DNA — the ability to write convincing fiction, strong imaginations, and the ability to convince others of a logical kind of “truth” on which religion is based.
And, does God in his infinite appreciation of the diversity of mankind, bless with the Spirit any religion that he thinks will create a net benefit to humanity in some way?
If so, Holland’s black and white statement doesn’t fly.
I have often wondered why I had spiritual confirmation when I asked specifically if the LDS Church was true 30 years ago.
There has been a lot of pain associated with that decision — a lot. But would my life have been worse off if I had’ve NOT joined the church — maybe — I could list benefits I received — and the deficits — is is possible that this path of Mormonism, although not literally true, produced a net benefit in my life that no other path would have produced? Did I avoid a nasty divorce? A lifetime of unemployment (one of my LDS contacts encouraged me to go to school and even helped me get admitted to a first tier school in another country).
So non-black/white-thinking people could leave the church – become outsiders and potential candidates for reactivation or rebaptism – at which point they’d be welcome to return with non-literal, “nuanced” views? Because missionaries and devoted home teachers don’t say that you can’t join/rejoin the church if you’re not sure Nephi was a real person? (Or do they?) I just don’t see where this is heading.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.