Elder Holland's talk at General Conference...

[_Dr. Shades]

Has anyone else read the posts of "Mortal Man," and can anyone tell me the specific thread in which he's posted?

[_Gadianton]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... e__st__140

as an example:

The fact is simply that Hyrum read to Joseph from the Book of Mormon. Whether Joseph found consolation in the reading is anyone's guess.
To presume to know the thoughts of Joseph Smith is silly. It's like assuming that a professor of Islamic studies can read the mind of a deranged kidnapper.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LoaP is hiding in rather cowardly fashion over on the aptly named MADboard. (He's trying rather desperately to joke about not being "angry." Boy, I'm convinced.) Look at his silly reply:

As to point (1), the TBMs have clearly won, because we all know this is a big battle rather than an attempt to get the best view of the situation. The best we've been able to come up with a more reasonable (and charitable) reading of Elder Holland's "last hour" statement. Only one wishing to push a metaphor into literalness to make a man an offender for a word would struggle accepting this, in my opinion. It's clear that he was not twisting the truth in order to score an emotional point.

???? It's a simple matter of rhetorical goals vs. clarity and accuracy. Elder Holland's whole purpose was essentially propagandistic: he set out to "prove" the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, or at least to argue (passionately) on its behalf. In order to do this, he threw out the well-trodden, clichéd phrase, "in their last hour." The phrase is well-worn because it connotes immanent death, and Holland obviously used it because it makes it sound as if Joseph Smith and his compadres were all huddled together just moments before they were attacked. Is that the case, though? No; not really. Would it have hurt the power of Holland's talk if he had said, instead, "They read from this great book the night before"? I don't think so. It certainly would have been more accurate. It seems to me that he was just trying to "juice up" his talk. The goal, as I've already said, was propagandistic. Let's not try and deny this, LoaP.

Here is LoaP's defense for the claim that the Book of Mormon in Holland's hand was the same one that Joseph Smith & Co. read from:

As to point (2), we have a tip from an anonymous informant who explained that they believe their copy was read at the same time Hyrum read from the copy Holland held in his address. We also have a statement from a Church archivist through Robin Jensen that the Church News "got it wrong," and was incorrect about the book in the 2007 story. Again, what is the more likely book, the one owned by Hyrum's son or the one owned by Hyrum's cousin's wife? I'm going with the former.

Does this really seem like a very good rebuttal to Danna's images? No; of course not. I think LoaP owes her an apology for his hostility, and his out-of-control TBM temper.

[_The Dude]

I don't think the little fudges Danna has pointed out are quite as bad as the main argument Holland was making or where he took those conclusions in relation to apostates. OTOH, I think there is a danger for little embellishments gotten away with to become habitual, until eventually you've got yourself another Paul Dunn fiasco. Maybe something for LoaP to consider.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Look, I realize some secularists say that killing children is wrong because it makes us onlookers feel bad. They're wrong. If things were wrong because they cause revulsion in onlookers, then having sex with fat people would be morally wrong. Don't take this silly intuitionism to be representative of the best morality that atheism has to offer.

Then what's the answer. Why is it wrong to torture puppies? Is it wrong to eat meat? Why or why not? Feel free to start another thread or use game theory.

In any case I still believe that emotion is neither superior nor inferior to logic and that both serve our species well. What emtion does, it does very well. Actually it's not as simple as emotion vs logic. It's more like new brain vs old brain and logic vs emotion is a rather innacurate portrayal of it although still somewhat true. At least if the book Kludge (about our brains) is worth anything.

I started a new thread on this topic, per your request.

[_Gazelam]

John,

What evidence do you have that it was written by his lawyer? Much of the information in that book has been collaborated by other sources.

Van Hale did a whole show, actually a few shows, all about the Mountain Meadows stuff. One show was all about the investigation into the guilty parties. The Government sent a whole party of One to find out who dunnit.

Anyway, John Lee got to hold the bag on the whole thing, and it was a big event. His lawyer was barely scraping by and worked with Lee on a book about all that went on. Word has it that he embellished parts to make the book more sensational. that's what I recall from the show. Its available on itunes under Mormon Miscellaneous.

Its also on his website under "Mountain Meadows Massacre 2: The Aftermath" from June 13 2007, Its an interview with Bob Crockett.

Link: Click Here

[_Gadianton]

Does this really seem like a very good rebuttal to Danna's images? No; of course not.

In fact, in a way it totally screws them. It doesn't matter which one is the original, somewhere a long the line a TBM in an act of brazen deceit, earmarked the page of the other one .

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think the little fudges Danna has pointed out are quite as bad as the main argument Holland was making or where he took those conclusions in relation to apostates. OTOH, I think there is a danger for little embellishments gotten away with to become habitual, until eventually you've got yourself another Paul Dunn fiasco. Maybe something for LoaP to consider.

No, no, Dude---the "little fudges" are highly significant in a Mopologetic context. One of the MAD apologists' biggest goals has always been to defuse the charge that the Church whitewashes or spins facts pertaining to Church history. Thus, if Elder Holland was stretching the facts a bit to make the story more emotionally powerful...well, that is a big problem for the apologists. I'm sure this helps explain why LoaP was so upset and edgy over all of this, pounding out dozens of posts, staying up past his bedtime, and trying to laugh off his obvious anger and discomfort.

[_Paul Osborne]

Thus, if Elder Holland was stretching the facts a bit to make the story more emotionally powerful...

He was caught in the act. Publish it for all the world to see. He made a mistake and will regret it. He gave into anger and it showed. It was not a talk given in love and the Holy Ghost fled. It was really bad. Yuck!

I think President Monson was not happy about it.

Paul O

[_Trevor]

He gave into anger and it showed. It was not a talk given in love and the Holy Ghost fled. It was really bad. Yuck!

I watched the talk, and I tend to agree with Paul O. The bit about "crawling" was over the top. It suggests to me that, instead of being filled with love and regret over the departure of former believers, Elder Holland looks upon these folks with disgust. Not pretty.

I don't get the anger, really. If one values the witness of the Spirit, then there is no need to repair to fireworks over these historical arguments. The value of the Book of Mormon is in the experience of it as a sacred text. You either choose to accept that, or you don't. While touching, the image of Joseph and Hyrum reading the Book of Mormon before the martyrdom does little to move me concerning its authenticity one way or the other. You accept the witness of the Spirit, or you don't (maybe because it doesn't move you that way).

There was some inspiring material in the talk otherwise. Too bad it was buried in dross.