Elder Holland's talk at General Conference...

[_Yong Xi]

I was somewhat astounded that he seemed to be taking the position not only that the Book of Mormon enjoys some support from the factual history surrounding it, but that IT IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE AND FOOLISH TO DOUBT ITS TRUTHFULNESS. I found this rather striking. Now, having read the MAD board, they are all taking the same approach--they seem to believe that the critics have been shut down and that because Hyrum read Ether and Joseph testified and they died, the Book of Mormon is true and the case has been made. I am, once again, astounded.

Jeffrey Holland is starting to think like why me. What strikes me, however, is that he mentioned Spalding and Ethan Smith at all. I doubt one out of hundred members know anything about this. Is there growing disbelief among members because of these theories? I wouldn't think so. It seemed so ill advised.

[_Danna]

oooooooh he's good!

But...

...why would Hyrum turn the page down unless he was intending to pick up where he left off at a later point?

JSjr made many statements of persecution and impending martyrdom. It was part of his technique. The weight of evidence supports his and Hyrum's belief that they would get away once again (how many incarcerations preceeded this?). Crickey, he died giving a masonic call for assistance.

[_Yong Xi]

You guys remind me of how Laman and Lemuel saw an angel but still doubted.

Elder Holland's words stand by themselves. I do not need to defend them from your frankly pathetic efforts to crawl over, around, or under them.

I understand that Elder Holland is a believer. Is the Book of Mormon more true now than it was 24 hours ago because of Holland's testimony? Nothing has changed. It still requires faith.

[_Ray A]

J. R. Holland PBS Interview.

What about people who question the history of the Book of Mormon?

There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ...

But:

Talk about the foundational myths of other religions and why you feel the leap of faith in every religion is no greater or less than the others.

In the end, when you push Mormonism, when you push the greater circle of Christianity, Judaism, other religions, ... it always comes to faith. It will forever come to faith, or it isn't religion in any way that I understand religion. So much that we deal with, so much that we count on, so much that we hope for, so much that we pray about is beyond our reach. It is not sensory; it's not scientific; it's not rational. I think nobody's more engaged in reason and science and culture and history than we are. ... We're engaged in that. Nevertheless, ... everybody has a leap of faith. ...

(Latter Emphasis added)

Please note:

It is not sensory; it's not scientific; it's not rational. I think nobody's more engaged in reason and science and culture and history than we are. ... We're engaged in that.

Take your pick, Jeff. Better wording may be "it may well be all a load of BS, but it makes us feel good and we want to believe it."

They're eventually going to have to do serious sorting out of emotional and rational approaches to the Book of Mormon, and eventually concede it's 90% emotional, faith-based and non-rational. This mixing of the two is like putting water and oil together in order to keep the car going.


.

[_Danna]

second try. I was hoping for a summary to read as I am not going to hear the talk...

The DNews link posted earlier has a decent summary:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... .html?pg=1

[_Mercury]

If using blood to seal testimony establishes truth, we are all in deep fudge from Allah, right?

Not to mention Jim Jones, David Koresh and the Heavens Gate Eunuchs.

[_moksha]

What strikes me, however, is that he mentioned Spalding and Ethan Smith at all. I doubt one out of hundred members know anything about this. Is there growing disbelief among members because of these theories? I wouldn't think so. It seemed so ill advised.

Perhaps it is part of a gradual but long term Mormon repositioning on issues and history awareness. By calling attention to them, it signals to many Mormons that this is not a forbidden topic to discuss openly.


###

Did anybody notice that the cadence of the talks was faster? I thought they may have sped up the the teleprompters, but then I realized I didn't know for sure that they used teleprompters. However, some of them seemed to turn their heads and look in a specific direction the same way for the same amount of time.

.

[_Danna]

There's another explanation. If Joseph Smith were not the author of the Book of Mormon, but still believed it was an inspired product, he could have found spiritual comfort therein. Also, if he were the author of the Book of Mormon, but happened to be a narcissist, he would've course find comfort in his own wise words.

It's telling that this is the sort of argument apologists and believers are forced to construct.

Exactly. Something similar to Uncle Dale's scenario wherein, other than Sidney Rigdon, the other participants only know a portion of the puzzle would fit here easily. The participants work together to create a backstory for what they believe to be a real history or a real history channelled through Sidney and/or JSjr - even Oliver has a go. And only Sidney knows its true origin. And pious intentions all of them.

Joseph was certainly good enough to fool himself as well - the Adam-ondi-ahman, kinderhook, and Zelph episodes (a few examples of many)point to narcissistic self-delusion.

I don't think he expected to die though. I think he thought he was bullet-proof by the end. That type of charismatic self-confidence can have a profound effect on followers - as in Jones, Koresh et al.

Holland's argument is only going to have impact on those who already believe.

[_Danna]

Did anybody notice that the cadence of the talks was faster? I thought they may have sped up the the teleprompters, but then I realized I didn't know for sure that they used teleprompters. However, some of them seemed to turn their heads and look in a specific direction the same way for the same amount of time.

Yes, In the longshots during the 'sustaining' session you can see a row of monitors facing the front row. When the focus switches to the apostles, a number of see-through teleprompters can be seen around the main stand. Packer's set-up is particularly interesting. There are several control booths with monitors both in front of and beside the GA seats.

Regretfully, it looks like one of our most entertaining apostles is not doing too well at the moment. BKP has an ear-piece and personal mic - the big microphone set up in front of him looks like a prop since it is too far away from him and he looks pretty well wired up. He has either cabling (or, god-forbid, tubing) running up the right-hand (his RH) side of his seat. He has also been strapped into his seat with some sort of seat-belt around his waist. So the apparent cabling on his seat might even be some sort of metallic stabilising device if his earpiece is RF. When he was 'sustained', he perked up and crossed his arms over his belt/restraint device, but his minder was just too late for the camera.
His camera angles are mainly from the left, with his equipment on his right. There is only a clear view during the sustaining segment.

ETA: I would suggest that a wee RF scanner would pick up a lot of interesting stuff during conference.

[_Dwight Frye]

Holland referred to Hyrum and Joe as "testators." Isn't that simply legalese for someone who has a will? I wonder if he meant to say something else (and I wonder if it will be fixed in the Ensign).