31 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
That is very interesting about people’s contempt for the familiar. My dad grew up in a small farm town in southern Idaho and his Dad was a Stake President for a long time so they had many many GAs of that era stay at their house or come for Sunday dinner. It is interesting to hear him talk about “famous” people so familiarly. It is not an experience most Mormons have anymore. |
I have to agree with you, Elder Holland’s talk was excellent. |
Annegb — I like that, despite your “current frame of mind,” you took the time to share that something good hit you during General Conference. This is a good pattern for life, methinks. Thanks for that. |
I was very impressed when he talked about how the Book of Mormon should never be ignored when someone decides to join or leave the LDS Church. It was also a powerful priority statement, in my view, for current members to keep their copy handy and well-worn. |
I loved when he said “An evil man couldn’t have written this book and a good man wouldn’t have.” |
Anne, That’s a bummer to hear about Southern Utah and Elder Holland… What’s that phrase? A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country… or something… |
I think the power and fervor of this talk equalled the power and fervor of his previous talk where he declared the divinity of the Savior and his testimony of the Godhead: very clear and bold statements. Because he is at least 8 years younger than all the Brethren who are ahead of him in seniority, there’s a good chance he will be president of the church some day. |
Ryan, it’s not all of southern Utah, just a few people who have a chip on their shoulders. He’s well thought of generally here. I certainly think well of him :). Bookslinger, but think of all the great apostles who never did become prophets. Maybe he’s just come for such a time as this. I recall Joseph F. Smith was prophet longer than Harold B. Lee, who was younger. |
Oh no Anne, don’t try and back out of it now. Your words have condemned the whole region as apostates, the lot of them!! A broad brush cannot be unpainted. :) |
Been reading some negative reactions to the Holland talk over at BCC. Regardless of how you felt about the substance of the talk – can we all agree that its absolutely refreshing to here a GA (especially an Apostle) break out of teleprompter mode and show some fire-y emotion? Some of his word choices made me cringe – but who cares? The man laid the smack down and spoke from his gut – I welcome it. |
[...] many (Here are some more links) I was struck by Elder Holland’s Sunday Afternoon talk (Video and Mp3 Link) on and [...] |
We’re not apostates, Ryan, southern Utah Mormons are a breed apart. Not always in a good way, that’s for sure LOL. I’m going over to BCC right now. I can’t believe there was anything to criticize in that talk. |
I love the force with which Elder Holland expresses himself. He is such an inspiring apostle. |
Knowing how Anne likes a bit of dissent, being from the south of Utah and all, perhaps the message the good Elder Holland is trying to make with this and the discussions on the Godhead etc. is that we should all go back to the teaching of the Book of Mormon and set aside all the ‘add-ons’ that have come subsequently. That way we get closer conformity with the Bible and sort of, you know, get closer to the old time religions like the Baptists. It is my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, that there is little difference in the spiritual message of the Book and the Bible. What say you Anne? |
I just posted at Mormon Matters my explanation of why, after careful examination of Elder Holland’s address last Sunday, I believe he was not denouncing the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon, but rather, was carefully avoiding it: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did … on-theory/ |
I just posted at Mormon Matters my explanation of why, after careful examination of Elder Holland’s address last Sunday, I believe he was not denouncing the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon, but rather, was carefully avoiding it. http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did … on-theory/ |
I don’t know. I’m not smart that way. I love the Bible. When I was a dirty little girl, wandering into whatever church was closest, I loved Bible stories and I feel familiar with it. More than the Book of Mormon. I’ve read the Book of Mormon many times–no clue how many. But it doesn’t feel a part of my soul the way the Bible does. I do believe I feel a different spirit when I make reading the Book of Mormon part of my daily routine. It’s sort magical that way. When Bill, for the first time, mind you, decided to take the prophet’s challenge and read the book and I was reading it as well, there truly was a better spirit in my home. I believe in the Book of Mormon. I don’t know what kind of dissent you’re looking for, McCoy, but I think they are entirely different books, just from a literary standpoint. The Book of Mormon’s message is much more clear than the Bible. The Bible is sort of a great story. The Book of Mormon is more of a manual, if that makes sense. Both testify of Christ; both give us good instructions for life. I’m good with both of them. For different reasons. But I tell you, Jeffrey Holland is a great man. |
Fair enough – thanks for the reply, Anne! |
Elder Holland’s talk, and his last one on the Godhead, both had that “old time religion” flair and passion. I wonder how recent converts from Protestant churches saw those two talks. |
Mostly by watching them on TV. |
Bookslinger, I thought the same thing! We need more of that celebration of good news in our meetings. Maybe even a little Motown. Nothing like Motown to make you feel the spirit. McQ: :). But Bookslinger has a point. It had to be invigorating to non Mormons as well. |
[...] with them, took. And so, in light of the many bloggers who have addressed this topic in detail or in short, I wonder if I can do so adequately. I wonder if I can provide anything new, or if I can find [...] |
I guess a very powerful emotional, even angry testimony of the BOM will always trump open and truthful discussion (among Latter-Day-Saints) about the “real” issues surrounding the historical literalness of the BOM. These real issues will not go away (i.e. North American Indians are not the decedents of Lamenites) and strong language and emotional bull-horning will only temporarily delay the inevitable reconciliation of the historical literalness of the BOM (or the Book Of Abraham for that matter). |
I tend to agree with Chris on this one. Elder Holland gave a very emotive talk but without much substance. He avoided the historical issues of the BOM, the lack of archeological evidence, horses metal etc. Instead he promoted the idea of the BOM being proven through literary complexity. If thats what it takes I’ll believe in the Valor, Tolkien works are far more complex. |
Hi, Annegb! I enjoyed your comments here about Elder Holland and will have to read the talk again thanks to you. Well, I am online for now but not sure how long this rebuilt computer will last. I am not set up to send out emails yet. As it is not very easy to comment on a lot of sites unless you have a google account I want to say hello to some of our mutual friends while I have a chance here. Hope all is going well for Stehen(Ethesis), Bookslinger, Silus Grok, Lisa M., Sarebear(Sara)(read some of her blog but had trouble with my computer or something to post.) I will be reading to catch up on friends. Everything is going well for me. I am still working from home, which I enjoy. Love to all and thanks for friendship and acceptance! Also, hello to DKL! |
Barb!! Woohoo! I’ll keep my fingers crossed for your computer. Thorn50, I don’t think he needed to provide all the stuff you refer to. His statement that “an evil man couldn’t have and a good man wouldn’t have” was all I needed to hear. I’m a believer, but I thought that was an excellent argument. |
Annegb, Unfortunately, the stateÂment “an evil man couldn’t have and a good man wouldn’t have†is only an exercise in logic; but in no way a valid scientific or historical offer of evidence. Again, it’s probably fair to draw the distinction between historical literalness vs. spiritual value/truth. I find most orthodox LDS are satisfied (at least outwardly) with apologetic arguments of this sort. i.e. Literary/spiritual complexity. However, the BOM isn’t necessarily a perfectly polished work of literary/spiritual complexity. Take for example the over use of old-English scriptural phrases such as: • And/for it came to pass • Behold -or- • Liberal and frequent use of the name Jesus and Christ prior to his coming. -or- Very common use of New Testament / Christ taught phrases and concepts (sometime almost word-for-word) -or- The fact the Names with the letter “J” are often used for Hebrew peoples. The letter “J” has never been a part of Hebrew language. (i.e. Jacob, Jesus). If Nephi and Lehi were translated (correctly) why not the true and original name of Jesus: Yahshua? As an active member of the church (over my many years) I’ve found it hard to dance around these nagging bungles. Though I mostly keep it to myself as I suspect many do. But if the church (leadership) were to finally face these issues, we may be able to progress even farther. (i.e. Black/Priesthood, unpleasant Temple practices removed, etc.). I think it’s only a matter of time before the Church adopts a more official “spiritual” acceptance of the BOM. Some leaders already have eluded to this as a result of DNA findings. In fact the introduction to the BOM was recently changed to adapt to this issue. Only, these real changes aren’t always visible to the orthodox Latter-Day-Saint (who only obtains information from LDS.org.. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just the way it is. Regards, |
Hi again, Annegb! I made comments today under your post about running away. I hope it is okay that I expressed feelings there as I don’t know when I would have a chance again with computer problems and no working email. Take care! |
I thought you might be interested in reading a reference to Elder Holland’s Apostolic Witness. |
So elder Holland is very wrong the proof is not inconclusive it is lacking in any real evidence that could be possibly accepted by rational scientific methods. Rational scientific methods are fairly limited in adequacy when it comes to things of faith. |
This was conclusive to me: “An evil man couldn’t have written it and a good man wouldn’t have.” All the conclusion I needed. |