General Conference Discussion

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Peaceandjoy, I would read Elder Holland’s talk slowly – focusing carefully on parsing exactly what he said and, most importantly, to whom he said it. Frankly, you weren’t his target audience. It’s really, really easy to feel attacked when some of the statements are isolated, but the overall talk was addressed to those who 1) don’t even try to understand the BofM on a spiritual level but dismiss and attack it anyway and 2) those who intentionally twist its words to attack Joseph as a fraud.

This is one talk that comes actoss VERY differently when it is read and parsed carefully than when many people initially listened, since it’s hard when listening to remember what he said along the way when a particularly blunt statement is heard. MANY people think he was talking to them when he just wasn’t.

My wife was commenting on things like this in regards to many of the conference talks. Sometimes because we struggle with things, we tend to take it seriously when the brethen or the scripture comment on those things. If we are sincerely trying to follow God and seek his will, then most of these warnings don’t really apply to us. They are directed to those that are working to destroy the works of God. Like Elder Holland speaking directly to the detractor of the BOM and not necessarily to those that are just having a hard time developing a testimony of it. I had never thought of conference talks this way before, but it was a good thought. The idea is that maybe we are harder on ourselves than God is at times.

[Anonymous]

It’s true. I’m sure that I was a bit defensive when listening to Elder Holland’s talk. I am struggling right now so just ignore me. I talked to my husband last night. My youngest daughter is still at home so I will continue to fake it until she is on her own. I don’t want to take her out of her happy place! After that? Hopefully I will have figured out what to do.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, bad day yesterday. I was feeling sorry for myself. So just ignore the last post! I’m much better today!

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone for your comments on Elder Holland’s talk.

I felt (when I listened to it) and still feel that the talk was a put down to those like me who have sincere, grounded doubts about the church. However, I recognize, particularly after reading these posts, it is not viewed of as a universal put-down. Two sides to every coin and all that.

I think he did sound angry, and instead of feeling the Spirit (which apparently most TBMs did, since I have heard multiple comments on how powerful and undeniable Elder Holland’s talk was), I felt sick and heartbroken. I think that feeling was really triggered by this quote:

“I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?”

I recognize that some detractors to the church do try to play the “intentional fraud card.” I for one am more than willing to believe that Hyrum and Joseph believed the Book or Mormon was true, but does that really provide “evidence of its truthfulness”?

I was watching Conference alone, since my spouse no longer believes the church is true, and when he heard this quote, he was especially upset: “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands.” It seemed to him (and I admit to me as well) that it only “stands” to those who are determined it is true. The fact that it stands is of course very important to those that believe the church is True, and perhaps should be lauded, but the statement seems, overly optimistic, or possibly even disingenuous. (But then, he believes it, so I guess “disingenuous” can’t be strictly true). I assume Elder Holland means that the Book of Mormon stands solidly in the religious community, because I don’t actually know of any non-Mormon scientists or archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon to be history.

I guess this talk just hurt so much because it gave me the same feeling I had when my BYU Book of Mormon teacher told us that The Simpsons was an evil show, and when he heard it, he could “feel the spirit drain out through my feet.” Then he proceeded to say that he might offend some by saying that, but “the wicked taketh the truth to be hard.” I know that Elder Holland (instead of my teacher) as a General Authority has WAY more right to speak powerfully about the Book of Mormon (rather than a television show) since it is an important part of the gospel. But the feeling I got from both was the same, which at least explains why the talk rubbed me the wrong way.

As an individual who fluctuates in her certainty that it’s really a good idea for me personally to “Stay LDS,” take my words with a grain of salt.

Mostly, I just wanted a place to be able to state what I thought of the talk without being reprimanded for it (as I would be if I had mentioned this in church today). I appreciate the thoughtfulness and openness of this board so much.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the comments on Holland’s talk. I need to go back and reread. But upon first reading it, the talk made me feel very alone. Every once in awhile I think I should confide some of my doubts about the church to people – to help them know that I and others struggle… for reasons that are important to us. Even more than before, that talk made me feel like any TBM I might try to share that problem with would never hear what I was saying – they would only be thinking I was foolish and trying to trample on the BOM. It is nice to know that I’m not alone. I’m glad forums like this internet group exist. But sometimes I wish there were more tangible people around me that I could talk to. I’m glad Holland has a strong testimony of the BOM. I just wish he could express it without demeaning people who are not sure about it.

[Anonymous]

CrazyCatWoman wrote:

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and openness of this board so much.

Thanks, CCW, for this post. Yes, the talk was, to say the least, controversial.

Almost ironically, there was a presentation this past weekend by Stanford Professor Craig Criddle on recent word-print analyses that probably, more than ever, shows compelling evidence of where the Book of Mormon comes from. I won’t start the discussion here…I’ve been following his work for the last year, and it is being debated in the Mormon blogosphere…but I just wanted to bring that up because when I heard Elder Holland say that the BoM has not been sufficiently challenged, and that anybody that does not believe the book to be historical is just naive (paraphrasing), it does raise the hair on the back of my neck!

I’m one of those rare people that believe that the church is, and will continue to be, a positive, supportive, spiritually uplifting organization without the BoM being historical. I have many reasons for that conclusion, but what Elder Holland said serves to divide many scholars of the church, and is sad that we can’t be inclusive of various approaches, given the scientific information available to many members today.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t weighed in here but I can’t help but recognize that those of us that felt that cold, draining feeling when listening to the talk are valid in these feelings. This is a form of emotional abuse, whether intended or not. Just like when you say to your naughty child, “Why can’t you be more like your brother?”

Holland was preaching to the choir. Why divide and conquer? His statements could be meant for someone else but those someone elses would never be listening/watching conference. Ann Coulter has made a career out of demonizing the opposition while preaching to the choir. “Liberals are stupid”. What gain does anyone get from putting someone else’s thoughts or ideas down? If you’re attacking ideas than your own aren’t strong enough to stand on their own.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

If you’re attacking ideas than your own aren’t strong enough to stand on their own.

swim, I have to disagree with this. ANY assertion is an “attack” on an opposite assertion. The only difference is whether the attack is explicit or only implied. I believe most assertions can leave the attack implied and not appear to be an attack (and I generally prefer this type), but sometimes an explicit attack can’t be helped if the point is to refute something explicitly – and explicit refutations are critical sometimes. Jesus certainly used both types, as did Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

On the Mormon Matters thread about this talk, someone complained that all answers should be “defenses” only, based on a verse from 1 Peter. I just can’t accept that.

[Anonymous]

I get what you’re saying Ray, and honestly, when I wrote that I thought for a very long time about how Christ handled this kind of thing. He did “attack” the hypocrisy he saw in the Pharisees and even the money-changers. But that hypocrisy was not an idea, rather a type of action, in this case rhetoric. He was making a value judgment on an expressive action, which in that case was actually enforced by law. Even the Pharisees couldn’t arrest Jesus for claiming to be the son of God, but rather for a codified law violation.

And, I guess that’s where I see this “war of ideas”. Even the Pharisees had to retreat from attacking Christ’s ideas and focus on His actions. As an example, the current health care debate. You hear so much on the right about how horrible single payer would be. Attacking that is hollow when there’s not presented a better alternative. If the alternative really is better, why not demonstrate point by point why that alternative would be better. That does not feel like an attack, rather an option seen as better to an alternative. The best idea, free from bias, will always emerge. It may be at the expense of the other ideas but not because the other ideas were beaten down but rather that the best idea just rose to the top.

And, when it comes to things spiritual, there are no “wrong” ideas. They may not be the best idea but that doesn’t mean they need to be beaten down so your idea emerges as the best. As a political strategy, that may work. As a spiritual journey, that’s coercive. imo

[Anonymous]

I would just like to say that I totally echo the words of mistercurie( if I was that clever) and the sentiments of crazycatwoman regarding Jeffery R Holland’s talk.

I would add that the talk didn’t offend me. What bothered me was that intentionally or not every TBM that was listening that might have had any sympathy or understanding for my position once hearing stuff like that just falls back into believing that we have all been ‘got’ by satan. It perpetuates an incredibly divisive mentality and promotes unchristian behavior. It also plays up to the pride of the Tbm’s who believes they are somehow superior, more blessed,more spiritual or more favored of the Lord because they have the strength to avoid the mist of darkness. To illustrate my point two members of our ward who know of our struggles have emailed the link for the talk. I just see it as a bit of back to square 1.

That said, just to prove how totally screwed up I am there were points in the talk when i really wanted to fall back into that stage three way of thinking and lap it all up but my brain would not allow me. I especially liked the bit where he quoted his grandfather an evil man could not have written something so good and a good man- well I cant actually remember the end bit, but I did like the sentiment! Preferred it to the whole Hyrum story actually.

[Anonymous]

1topen wrote:

I would add that the talk didn’t offend me. What bothered me was that intentionally or not every TBM that was listening that might have had any sympathy or understanding for my position once hearing stuff like that just falls back into believing that we have all been ‘got’ by satan.

Well said, 1topen.

I think there were many things I agree with Elder Holland, but also see how some of his words could have made some people feel attacked. His talk didn’t bother me, and I’ve gone back to relisten and reread several times. I felt he was very bold in expressing what he thinks and what the church teaches, and that will be reassuring for some to hear such words boldly. I actually think it makes listening to conference better for me rather than monotone all the way through for fear of offending anyone. In some respects, I agree with Elder Holland that remarkably, despite the countless hours of research and debate on proving the BoM is a fraud…it just can’t be proven one way or another…it just comes down to personal testimony and Elder Holland believes it is true. So the challenge to everyone else is to figure that out spiritually…because history has shown it can’t be proven false (OR CORRECT) any other way.

But like you said, 1topen…I don’t think that should turn into judgements on those who don’t believe it as they are just wrong and just don’t get it. More important than is it “right” or “wrong” – what is the value of the teachings on the pages?

[Anonymous]

This post is a continuation of the discussion from over at the “Holland’s Middle Way” topic. The discussion is being moved over here as it has drifted to a discussion over EH’s talk on the BoM.

I am not the resident parser. That’s Ray’s job. But I felt like I should offer my own analysis/parsing of the talk just to offer another POV to Ray’s. I just re-read the talk, and here’s what I think:

1. Up until the paragraph beginning “I testify…” I don’t see anything that anyone should be upset about. He mentions that the very elect will be led astray, and clearly this is a setup for his topic, namely the truthfulness of the BoM. It’s fair to associate those who leave the church with “the very elect [who would be] deceived by the enemy of truth.” No big shocker here.

2. EH then discusses the dream of the tree of life. He alludes to the mist of darkness descending on everyone and belabors that point to drive home the idea that those who are “successful travelers” are the ones that hold onto the rod of iron. Whether or not you agree with this is another issue, but I don’t see anything to be offended over.

3. Then there is a message of hope. Christ is the center of the BoM, as well as the beginning and end. And certainly I am thankful for, and agree with the message of love and hope that the BoM brings.

4. EH then dives into the martyrdom. In the plainest sense, EH uses the martyrdom, together with their (Joseph and Hyrum’s) last testimony, together with an appeal to our rational senses to argue that they would not have done such a thing if it were not exactly what they said it was. Again, whether or not you agree with this argument is another issue.

5. EH then makes another argument about the veracity of the BoM by indicating that for 179 years it has been attacked, and excused away without success. He specifically mentions (which I think, in an of itself, is rather interesting) Ethan Smith, Soloman Spaulding, cunning genius, and deranged paranoid as failed theories. He calls these answers pathetic and concludes there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave.

6. This is where I think the “offensive” stuff begins. Let’s break this paragraph beginning “I testify…” down a little more closely.

a. He says that one cannot come to “full faith in this latter-day work” including full peace and comfort without embracing the divinity of the BoM and Jesus Christ. I suspect there will be a lot of differing opinions over such a statement, but I think it has merit. It is, admittedly, significantly more difficult to be involved in the church to the extent that many TBMs are when you let the divinity of the BoM slip away from your belief system. Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of opinion, but I think his statement is pretty reasonable. People like me who are carving out a heterodox niche are going to have our peace and comfort challenged quite significantly.

b. Here’s the hard statement:

EH wrote:

If anyone is foolish enough or misled 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—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.

Here’s how I read this: a person is misled, foolish, or deceived if he/she rejects the BoM, which is complex, spiritually powerful for millions, and testifies of Christ, without attempting to account for origins. Further, if such an one (who has rejected the BoM without attempting to account for its origins) leaves the church, he/she would have to dismiss the BoM to make that exit. Understand here that he is talking about people who reject the BoM without attempting to account for its origins. Personally, I don’t know of many who were strong TBMs, simply read anti-Mormon literature, believed every word, and left the church. But I think it’s them to whom he is speaking. Most disaffected that I am aware of are leaving precisely because they have (in their mind) thoroughly accounted for the origins of the BoM. Personally, I don’t find any explanation of the origin that I feel adds up, or holds up to scrutiny, so I am open-minded. So, I don’t feel that EH is talking to me at all, nor to many disaffected who leave after reading unsanitized church history. Now it might be that some reject the BoM based on its contents. I can think of Jews, Muslims, perhaps Hindus who might reject it completely without even an attempt at understanding its origins. I think that’s fair from their point of view given that we don’t give this same level of scrutiny to their holy books.

c. EH concludes that paragraph by validating the testimony of the 8 and 3 witnesses. Again, it is a bit polemic as he is appealing to our rational senses by indicating that these witnesses, even some of which were hostile to Joseph, never denied their witness. That’s completely fair, and true (as far as I know). You might question whether it was “physical” or “spiritual” or their mental state, or their magical worldview, but neverthess, his claim stands in my mind.

7. EH then bears powerful witness with great emotion. Nothing shocking here.

Of course one needs to consider the tone of a message when interpreting it. If someone bears witness of the BoM but does so sarcastically, it surely would mean something different than if a TBM does it. EH’s tone was loud, emphatic, confident, and bold in a way only EH can do. And, if I recall properly, during the time he started “I testify…” paragraph, he was really speaking boldly. Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel that he wasn’t condemning those who question, although he certainly gave his own testimony of its truthfulness. If he condemned anyone, he condemned those who reject the BoM without having satisfactorily examined the origins of the book.

Here’s my own thoughts on the talk:

1. I actually found myself more questioning the reasoning and logic of what he was saying rather than being offended. For example, does a man who testifies of what he did even to his death, make what he did valid, or reasonable, or the “very word of God”? I think this could apply to many religious leaders with whom we do not agree.

2. There is one point in his talk that I actually guffawed. He says “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history.” I can’t understand this claim except to puff up the influence of the BoM in the minds of members. Clearly, and I mean, very clearly, the Bible, and the Quran have been around much much longer and been put up to much much more scrutiny than the BoM. I mean there are many entire colleges dedicated to scrutiny of the Bible and only the Bible. And, even in modern religious history, those two books have far far wider audiences than the BoM. The polemics for the Quran simply dwarf anything we have in Mormonism. We are a bit shielded from it in the west, but if you look for it, you’ll find plenty.

3. I didn’t like the analogy with the tree of life. I think the implication here is that everyone has faced, or faces challenges to their testimony of the BoM but the “successful travelers” are the ones who hang onto the rod. This feels like ammunition to TBMs to me. Have most TBMs actually examined the real church history and concluded it’s true? Or have they merely stayed away from any controversial material and therefore blindly held onto the rod? I dunno, and I have no problem with those who have examined the issues and choose to hold on to the rod. But I don’t think it’s fair to equate someone who has not seriously examined those issues and hung on as successful, and one who has examined those issues but fell away as unsuccessful. In fact, in this vein, we could turn his later argument on its head and say that “If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to accept 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—even while accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived;” To me, this argument works both ways. If it is the accounting for the origin that is important, then blindly accepting the church’s history as true just because they say so is just as invalid as rejecting it.

Sorry for the long post!

[Anonymous]

Fabulous stuff, eu!! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Wow! What a way to bump a thread, Eu! I think that your analysis is very interesting, and I find no problem with it.

As you know, I am also an engineer. But I’ll repeat my own perspective that historicity, origin, etc. are nearly insignificant to me next to message and spirit. And Brother Holland’s spirit simply seemed to me far too close to General Moroni’s spirit with Zerahemnah in Alma Chapter 44:

Quote:

But now, ye behold that the Lord is with us; and ye behold that he has delivered you into our hands. And now I would that ye should understand that this is done unto us because of our religion and our faith in Christ. And now ye see that ye cannot destroy this our faith.

4 Now ye see that this is the true faith of God; yea, ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are afaithful unto him, and unto our faith, and our religion; and never will the Lord suffer that we shall be destroyed except we should fall into transgression and deny our faith.

5 And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—

6 Yea, and this is not all; I command you by all the desires which ye have for life, that ye deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us.

7 And now, if ye do not this, behold, ye are in our hands, and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you, and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct; and then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.

8 And now it came to pass that when Zerahemnah had heard these sayings he came forth and delivered up his sword and his cimeter, and his bow into the hands of Moroni, and said unto him: Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an boath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer.

9 Behold, we are not of your faith; we do not believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands; but we believe that it is your cunning that has preserved you from our swords. Behold, it is your breastplates and your shields that have preserved you.

10 And now when Zerahemnah had made an end of speaking these words, Moroni returned the sword and the weapons of war, which he had received, unto Zerahemnah, saying: Behold, we will end the conflict.

11 Now I cannot recall the words which I have spoken, therefore as the Lord liveth, ye shall not depart except ye depart with an oath that ye will not return again against us to war. Now as ye are in our hands we will spill your blood upon the ground, or ye shall submit to the conditions which I have proposed.

And with Pahoran in chapter 59:

Quote:

And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and grant unto them food for their support, behold I will leave a part of my freemen to maintain this part of our land, and I will leave the strength and the blessings of God upon them, that none other power can operate against them—

26 And this because of their exceeding faith, and their patience in their tribulations—

27 And I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct.

28 Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss.

29 Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter destruction.

As someone once said,

Quote:

Ye know not what spirit ye are of.

[Anonymous]

Well, as usual, Eu put so well how I felt about it. I agree on pretty much every point, and there were times I too LOL’d during the talk – the puffery of the importance of the BOM is one. The arguments seemed facile (some straw man arguments) and emotional, two things that aren’t terribly appealing to me, but I know they are effective for talks, especially when the audience agrees.

Quote:

Personally, I don’t know of many who were strong TBMs, simply read anti-Mormon literature, believed every word, and left the church. But I think it’s them to whom he is speaking.

I don’t necessarily think he was talking to strong TBMs who left so much as weak TBMs who left, and they are probably the majority of people who leave for this kind of reason. Either that or the term “strong TBM” is an oxymoron (another distinct possibility that occurs to me). The more firmly we hold onto something intangible, perhaps the less grasp we can have of it. And anti-Mormon lit is persuasive (even though many of its arguments have as many loopholes as they point out in the claims of the church) to those who have undeveloped criticial thinking skills. I used to enjoy poking holes in the various anti-Mormon brochures that came my way when I was a teen growing up in PA (these somehow pop up everywhere – especially in the areas of the church restoration sites), most of which were a transparent attempt of a minister to protect his flock and thereby his livelihood.

[Author]

Posts