|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"JEFFERY R. HOLLAND".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
JEFFERY R. HOLLAND
Total Articles:
29
Mormon Apostle Jeffery R. Holland.
|
|
| Mormon Leader Tells BYU-Idaho Grads God Is First Friday, Apr 29, 2005, at 07:40 AM Original Author(s): Anonymous Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
It is sad how modern day leaders still emphasize that Satan is fear, that Satan will try and "get you". Mormons then attribute anything that they fear to Satan rather than experience feelings of fear for themselves and understand it. I find it sad that modern day religions still use Satan to scare the masses into behaving. Oftentimes you will find those who commit crimes blaming the act on Satan rather than taking responsibility for the act themselves. Mormon leaders today continue to embrace doctrine of intimidation. "Satan will get you if you don't keep paying your tithing!"
From BYU-Idaho:
Elder Jeffery R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, encouraged graduates of Brigham Young University-Idaho to show gratitude to God, have faith in the future and to put service and God above worldly things.
Elder Holland began his talk, “I want to leave with you, from the bottom of my heart, just three items even though there is so much more I would like to say.”
He instructed students to be grateful. “My request of you today is to show your gratitude to God for the blessings of a wonderful life, including a magnificent experience at BYU-Idaho,” Elder Holland said. He encouraged students to take the time to thank those that have provided those blessings. “Gratitude is something that costs you nothing and means everything to those who receive it.”
The second thing Elder Holland encouraged graduates to have was faith in the future.
“We live in sobering, even dangerous, times but actually life in this world has always been a little dangerous. We cannot and must not be paralyzed by fear,” Elder Holland said.
He continued to challenge graduates, “Never, in any age or time or circumstance, let fear and the father of fear, who is Satan himself, divert us from our faith and faithful living.”
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| | Holland Rededicates Boyhood Chapel Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 07:23 AM Original Author(s): Anonymous Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
PINE VALLEY - A ''fun-loving, active, mischievous boy'' from St. George used to sneak in and ring the bell at the Pine Valley Chapel during meetings.
The boy, now grown and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, returned to the chapel Sunday and again he rang the bell.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland had permission this time as he rang the bell to conclude the rededication of the recently restored 137-year-old chapel, possibly the oldest, continually operating chapel in the church.
The restoration began in 2003, about the time the congregation became a year-round branch presided over by Branch President Wendell Gray.
The foundation was augmented, new siding and shingles were added and the interior was restored. Heating, air conditioning and insulation were added.
The small building could not accommodate all those attending the rededication. About 100 people sat inside the main chapel, while a few hundred more sat in other rooms or outside the building, watching the meeting live on closed-circuit television.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| | Jeffery R. Holland's Edict On Women And Appearance Thursday, Dec 1, 2005, at 12:01 PM Original Author(s): Anonymous Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Look at this:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/dis...
"Elder Jeffrey R. Holland urged women to not be preoccupied with their physical appearance"
“In terms of preoccupation with self and a fixation on the physical, this is more than social insanity; it is spiritually destructive, and it accounts for much of the unhappiness women, including young women, face in the modern world. And if adults are preoccupied with appearance – tucking and nipping and implanting and remodeling everything that can be remodeled – those pressures and anxieties will certainly seep through to children.”
OK LADIES - what say you??? Jeff is now advising against boob jobs. It's official - - -
| | Stipend Sucking Seers - The Day Jeffrey R. Holland Rode Into Town Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 07:52 AM Original Author(s): Grey Matter Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Hi Folks
Did you ever feel that our supposed "prophets, seers and revelators", or special witnesses of Christ", as they like to call themselves, were lacking in some ways?
I mean, when did you ever hear any of them give any detail of their so-called special witness? Never. Right? When did you hear them give an original prophecy? Never. Right? When did you ever hear them pronounce a revelation? Never. right? And the seer stuff? Never. Right.
Unlike the prophets of the old, our specials keep their lips tightly shut, except when they are sucking their swollen stipends from the cult's coffers.
The only thing the prophets seem to be good at is preaching a gospel of hopelessness. If there is a loving God in the heavens above, you won't hear him talked about by any of these suspect seers. They prefer the God of gloom and despair.
Anyway...
I remember some years ago, Mr. Holland decided to bless our lives by attending a ward re-dedication. The building had been tarted up a bit, and was almost as good as new. It's a pity the inspired cult admin-folks who dreamed up the changes ordered that the maple flooring in the cultural hall should be replaced by carpet, but these things happen - the church never has had the reputation of employing clever people. The cult has to take the dregs that would never get jobs in the real world (FARMS may be a case in point).
Back to Holland.
He rode into town, and wondered into the building. During his brief appearance, he was completely out of touch, and somewhere else. There was an absolute disconnect between Holland and the cult-members who were there to adore him.
I remember he talked about his wife, and bragged about a priesthood blessing he gave her, quoting scripture to her as he went along. It was a complete bore. Nothing he actually said meant anything to anyone. And then, he spluttered his glorious apostolic blessing.
This apostolic blessing was such a prophetic success that, uh, come to think of it, numbers in the ward have actually dwindled since then.
He couldn't have cared less, and it showed.
So, I guess, based on that experience, I took an instant dislike to Holland.
| | Jeffery R. Holland's Book Of Mormon Talk Monday, Oct 5, 2009, at 07:45 AM Original Author(s): AxelDC Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
In this talk, Holland uses a lot of emotion to make up for lack of substance. He gets angry, cries, calls unbelievers "fools".
This looks like the speech from a politician falling behind in the polls with the elections nearing.
He is very defensive and goes on the attack against church critics. Message: the church knows it is losing and is desperate to refute this. Citing Ethan Smith and Spaulding was a huge tactical risk, since a quick Google search will lead curious Mormons to find loads of info on theories on the BofM.
Notice how he conveniently ignores the DNA evidence that pretty much condemns the BofM to a 19th C. invention?
As for JS and HS as martyrs: utter BS. JS had no idea he was going to die, or else he would have clarified the church's succession. He intended for his young son to become leader, meaning that he thought he had many years left.
They were in prison because they had illegally destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor. The paper was established by disaffected Mormons who had lost money in JS's banking debacles. They were going to publish testimony of women that JS et al. tried to seduce, exposing polygamy to the unsuspecting Nauvooites. Sydney Rigdon, JS's 1st Counsellor, left the church because JS tried to rape his 14 yo daughter after hours in JS's General Store.
They didn't die to preserve and seal their testimony of the BofM. They died because the victims of their fraudulent schemes wanted revenge. JS was Bernie Maddoff and Jim Jones rolled into one. Charismatic leaders typically die violent deaths at the hands of their disaffected followers.
Clearly, the church is losing it if they spend time in GC tacitly acknowledging that Exmos are eroding their base. The missionary movement has dried up because of the Internet. The number of missionaries going out is shrinking. DNA has denounced the BofM as a fraud. Bad investments like the White Elephant Mall are sucking up their vast fortunes.
What a mistake this speech was. It's like a cornered politician making impassioned but unconvincing denials of the scandals flying around him. For all the pomp and fury, Holland is saying, "We get it. We are losing, but we won't go down without a fight!"
Hollan stated that Joseph and Hyrum stood by the Book of Mormon even though their children would have to cross frozen rivers to migrate after their (certain) deaths. The Smith family didn't go with Brigham as there was a power struggle for ownership of the Church.
The copy of the Book of Mormon Holland was waving clearly states that Africans are cursed and American Indians are "filthy and loathsome".
| | Holland's Rhetorical Speaking Skill Monday, Oct 5, 2009, at 07:49 AM Original Author(s): Benjiman Luther Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
A few of you have commented on Mr. Holland's display of emotion when talking about the BoM. That kind of intensity is part of his speaking style. I don't think it's out of the ordinary. I heard him at a mission conference in Leicester England back in 2000, and he made a very similar emotional display. Shouting during rhetorical climaxes, and crying (faked or not I don't know) during tender moments. I always thought Holland was one of the better speakers among the GA's because of his rhetorical skill.
Regarding Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding, I'm not sure how risky that was. I ran across some references to them in pro-church materials during my mission, accepted the arguments at face value, and never researched any further at the time. I forgot about them until I read Fawn Brodie last year. The way he worked them in ("from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding...") was a textbook example of Holland's rhetorical style.
I don't think Holland was trying to be subversive, or that he goofed. I think he was preaching to the choir. I also think he made a calculated decision hoping to innoculate his listeners against the Smith and Spaulding theories. In effect, he has implanted a trigger so that The TBM's who heard him are now Smith and Spaulding-proof. When those arguments are brought up, something in their brains will say, "Elder Holland said that theory was debunked a long time ago. There's nothing new to learn here." and they will mentally shut down.
When I was a TBM, I probably would have said that talk was "powerful and convincing." Back then, arguments really didn't matter. My "testimony" was based on programming and emotional experiences, and I cherry-picked arguments to support it. I was a master of ignoring and shelving anything that didn't support the church.
Oddly, I still enjoyed Holland's rhetorical style, even while I mentally picked apart his arguments.
As to whether the names will disappear when the talk is published, I couldn't say. I'm curious to see what happens. Pass the popcorn please. ;-)
| | Link To Book: Ethan Smith's View Of The Hebews Or Tribes Of Israel In America; Thanks Holland Monday, Oct 5, 2009, at 07:51 AM Original Author(s): Stuck Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/doc...
Background: Ehtan Smith was a pastor in Vermont. In 1823, he published a book which claimed that American Indians were descendants of Israel.
According to letters from Church Historian B.H. Roberts to Heber J. Grant and other church officials,similarities between the Ethan's book and the Book of Mormon translated by Joseph Smith, a Vermont native, include:
- extensive quotation from the prophecies of Isaiah in the Old Testament
- the Israelite origin of the American Indian
- the future gathering of Israel and restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes
- the peopling of the New World from the Old via a long -journey northward which encountered "seas" of "many waters"
- a religious motive for the migration
- the division of the migrants into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized
- the assumption that all native peoples were descended from Israelites and their languages from Hebrew
- the burial of a "lost book" with "yellow leaves"
- the description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them
- a change from monarchy to republican forms of government
- the preaching of the gospel in ancient America
Link is to BYU library. See for yourself and decide for yourself.
| | Jeffrey R. Holland Just Lost His Mind Monday, Oct 5, 2009, at 08:09 AM Original Author(s): J Hume Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
I watched that talk with my wife. I was in the other room, but when I heard yelling, I had to check it out.
A few things that should be pointed out to old Jeff:
1. Raising your voice does not make your right.
2. The fact that many people believe something does not actually make that thing true. (Example: Tupac is dead. Really.)
3. Name calling makes you seem desparate.
4. Joseph Smith could not have saved his life in Carthage by denying the Book of Mormon. It is a very dramatic premise -- "Deny your testimony or die!" -- however, it does not reflect what actually happened."
5. If theBook of Mormon is so important, why do we ignore the parts that contradict current church practices? (For example, Moroni 8:22-23 which say that baptisms for the dead are a "mockery before God.")
6. There are 'alternate' accounts of how the Book of Mormon came to be which are at least as compelling as the official LDS account.
I have lived in the margins of the Church for a long time now -- not believing but seeing no reason to leave an organization that many of my friends and family belong to. I don't wear garments or pay tithing, but I participate in the service activities and I think home teaching is a nice concept.
The hard-line, "you're-either-with-us-or-you're-against us" stance that I'm noticing in this conference is just going to drive people like me out. Maybe that's okay with the leadership of the church. Maybe they're trying to clean house prior to the second coming or something. But this new tough stance seems very risky. If they push me...I will leave.
| | Holland Becoming "Unhinged" In General Conference : Religious Addiction On Display And Mormons Don't Realize It Monday, Oct 5, 2009, at 08:10 AM Original Author(s): CdnXMo Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
In his masterful book, "When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse", Father Leo Booth explains the stages of religious addiction. One of the symptoms is increasing desperation, as manifested by displays of authoritarianism (e.g., verbal abusing others), an intensification of polarized (i.e., all-or-nothing) religious thinking, and psychological clinging (at all costs) to beliefs that are demonstrably nonsensical.
Mormon 'profits' are losing control, particularly of members, thanks to the Internet, and at some level of awareness, they know it. In centuries past, religiously-addicted men ordered people to believe or suffer torture and/or death. In 2009, the best LDS apostles can come up with is to threaten Latter-day Saints with punishments from God, the 'Holy Ghost' leaving them, 'Satan's buffetings', and 'eternal damnation' if they don't 'repent'.
Whether centuries ago, or today in Mormonism, authoritarian church leaders, who have been 'programmed' to feel the fear inherent in the religion, in turn use it to try to make members do what they believe is 'the will of God'. Fear has been foundational to Mormonism from the beginning and was again employed in Gen. Conference this past weekend. Such is the 'spiritual' enlightenment of the 'one, true' church.
Holland gave an interview prior to PBS airing the documentary film, "The Mormons", in 2007 in which he said:
"I dismiss out of hand the early criticism that somehow this was a book that Joseph Smith wrote. The only thing more miraculous than an angel providing him with those plates and him translating them by divine inspiration would be that he sat down and wrote it with a ballpoint pen and a spiral notebook. There is no way, in my mind, with my understanding of his circumstances, his education, ... [he] could have written that book. My fourth great-grandfather -- this goes back to my mother's pioneer side of the family -- said when he heard of the Book of Mormon in England, he walked away from the service saying no good man would have written that, and no bad man could have written it. And for me, that's still the position.
So I disregard the idea that Joseph Smith could have written it."
(ref. http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews...)
However, the first (1830) edition of the BoM identified Joseph Smith as the book's author (the digital photograph of the title page is online at http://www.inephi.com/1.htm) and since the mid-19th century, there has been a growing 'mountain' of historical and scientific evidence proving that the BoM is a work of fiction.
Holland is not a stupid man. He worked and got bachelor's degree in English, a master's degree in religious education, and a master's degree and Ph.D. in American studies. He was president of BYU for a no. of years. He's had to employ his rational mind and critical thinking in order to administer programs and departments.
Critical and rational thinking are two aspects of the real Jeffrey Holland, the man psychologically buried beneath many, many layers of cultic Mormon 'programming', yet still alive.
From my website about how cultic Mormonism 'programs' people:
"The many historical and scientific facts that do not support foundational aspects of the LDS religion cause Mormons to feel confused because of their strong emotional connection to Mormonism. However, despite what Latter-day Saints feel about their church and faith, the facts that do not support both are never going away. Mormons' psychological health depends on them fully acknowledging and accepting those facts. Why? Because no one can ignore the truth, diminish their awareness by avoiding or trivializing the facts, betray their rational mind in the process, and not pay the price psychologically.
Our mind is our principal tool of survival. We need to have full confidence in our mind and its cognitive processes (e.g., our critical and rational thinking) as well as our judgments not only to survive, but to ensure the quality of our lives. If a Latter-day Saint does not fully trust their mind and judgments, it doesn't matter how much money they make or have, their position in the LDS Church, how many generations of their ancestors were Mormons, etc. They are psychologically in need of repair."
(ref. http://members.shaw.ca/blair_watson/)
Holland's 'unhinged' behavior at Gen. Conf. was indicative of a man in need of psychological repair. Holland's 'soul' (if you will), the real Jeffrey R., wants to be whole, something that Mormonism impedes every day. His dysfunctional Mormon self is desperately trying to maintain the status quo ('faithfulness', a lifetime of strong Mormon ego/identity resulting from several ego-massaging church 'merit badges' over the decades, etc.). Meanwhile, Holland's true self, which includes his critical and rational thinking, continues to fight to come to the surface of his being/person.
Jeffrey R. Holland does not understand the significance of what's written in the New Testament: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
| | Crawling Under The Book Of Mormon Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 08:54 AM Original Author(s): John Larsen Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
First of all, let us set aside the inflammatory metaphor that apostates crawl out of the church on their bellies with its obvious overtly implied insult.
Belief in the Book of Mormon in no way entails belief in the Salt Lake Branch of the Mormon Church. In fact, today, the liberal Community of Christ and the fundamentalist FLDS branches of Joseph's restoration movement both accept the book. It is entirely possible to walk right out of the Church (not crawl) with your Book of Mormon in hand. Most of what defines the Church today and its hierarchy and structure are absent from the book. The ideas that apostates do tend to struggle with, such as the degrees of glory, eternal families, work for the dead, seal to children and spouses, etc. are all missing from the book.
If one were to find a copy of the Book of Mormon and knew nothing of Mormonism, that individual could no more reconstruct Mormonism than use the book to make a sufflee. Suppose that the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is exactly true as related by the Church today. Well, that doesn't mean that the First Vision is true, the later edits to the Book are true, or all of the later theological innovations by both Joseph and those who followed after are true. A Book published in 1830 can do nothing to validate the truth or falsehood of what came after.
I have personally met 100s of ex-Mormons. I have read the story of 100s and 100s more. It is very rare (although not unheard of) for an apostate to struggle with the Book as an obstacle to their leaving the Church. Whenever they talk of the book, it is the opposite problem--they tend to find it un-compelling.
| | Possible Missing Piece In The Puzzle Of Jeff Holland’s Behavior Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 12:57 PM Original Author(s): BobbiesPath Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
As I read about Jeff Holland's passionate defense of the Book of Mormon, and his emotional dismissal of its critics in this conference, a story came to my mind about an episode in Holland's life many years ago.
A family member of mine, who I'll call Greg, told me this story a year or two after Jeff had been named to the Council of the Twelve Apostles. "Greg" was a member of the stake leadership in Holland's stake in Bountiful, Utah, at the time of his appointment to the Twelve.
One evening, a short time after Holland had been made an apostle, Greg was leaving some meetings in his stake center and saw a man stumbling along the sidewalk outside the church. The guy caught Greg's eye because he almost appeared to be drunk. As Greg peered through the semi-darkness, he realized the man was Jeff Holland.
Jeff's suit hung on him as if he had recently lost a lot of weight, and he seemed completely distraught. He staggered through the doors to the stake offices, and Greg followed him, curious. Greg had been a close associate of Holland's for many years, and had never seen Jeff look or act like this.
Greg stepped into the stake president's office and found Jeff Holland sitting in a chair by the stake president, weeping his eyes out. Jeff said he was in the deepest, darkest depression he had ever been in, and didn't know how to get out of it. Between sobs, he lamented that he couldn't think straight--couldn't make even the most insignificant decisions. He blubbered that, as president of BYU, he had issued unequivocal edicts involving millions of dollars on a daily basis; now he couldn't even choose which socks to put on in the morning.
The stake president listened to Jeff and offered to give him a blessing. I think Greg assisted in the blessing, but I'm not sure. I didn't hear any follow-up of the story, but Holland must have recovered because he seems more or less functional today. One wonders if some prescription anti-depressants weren't also prescribed.
As I have thought back on this incident since I have left the church, it seems possible that Holland may have been in a serious state of cognitive dissonance over his appointment to the Twelve. He is a smart man and has no-doubtedly been exposed to the real truth of LDS church history and the dichotomies of many of the doctrines. But I suppose it was unthinkable to him to refuse the kind of honor, glory and prestige afforded him as one of God's annointed special witnesses for Christ. The momentum of his life propelled him to this position, but deep down, he may have known it was all a fraud.
Holland's over-the-top defense of the BoM and the church is telling. He seems to be over-compensating, kind of like someone who is caught in a lie, or some other nefarious deed, will vehemently proclaim his innocence. (Think: Rod Blogojevich).
Anyway, just my take on the situation, with a tidbit of added information.
| | They Stand At The Pulpit To Deceive Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 07:45 AM Original Author(s): Danna Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
At General Conference, Elder Jeffery R. Holland told a moving story of how, before leaving for Carthage and eventual martyrdom, Hyrum Smith read from the Book of Mormon. This story is related in the DandC 135:4 and 5
With heavy emotion and, at times, tears in his eyes, Elder Holland related how Hyrum read from Ether,“words of comfort to the heart of his brother” before they departed. What does Holland mean by this? I, and everyone I know of assumed that Hyrum read to Joseph that morning. And Holland continued to support this quite logical inference through his speech. Ah ha. Are these weaselly words, for when someone calls him out over his manipulative deception?
The apostle relates how the two men went to their martyrdom pondering the truths of the Book of Mormon. “In the hour they died”, Holland tells us, they were “quoting from and finding solace in” the Book of Mormon. How, asked Elder Holland, could anyone believe that Joseph wrote the book either himself or as part of a conspiracy to defraud, when he went to his death believing and acting upon the book? Would these “men BLASPHEME before God by continuing to fix their ...eternal salvation... on a book they fictitiously created out of whole cloth”.
Indeed we apostates are perverse to disbelieve, given the blood sacrifice of Joseph and Hyrum for the truth of the book. To make our exit from the church we must crawl over, under, or around the Book of Mormon.
Holland's premise is utterly false.
His implication that Hyrum read to Joseph, and his assertion that Joseph quoted, or pondered, or even mentioned in passing the Book of Mormon is deliberately deceptive.
There is nothing to indicate that Hyrum read the passage to Joseph, or that they were even together that morning before departure to Carthage, or that Joseph had any interest in the Book of Mormon at all during that period. The events leading down the road to Carthage had everything to do with concealing Joseph's (and others') illicit sexual relationships with multiple women.
In spite of his frequent pessimistic predictions of his impending martyrdom (the sort of statements he had made in many similar situations in the past), the weight of evidence indicates that Joseph expected rescue by the Nauvoo Legion. He and Hyrum were armed. The group drank wine, smoked tobacco, and sang songs to keep their spirits up. In no sense were Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths any sort of testament of the Book of Mormon. No current theory of the production of the Book of Mormon implicates Hyrum. Indeed the misbehavior for which Joseph was ultimately incarcerated is condemned by the Book of Mormon – had he actually followed it, he would not have found himself in that predicament.
Holland is myth-making in the tradition of Paul H. Dunn (as has been noted on another board). He even had the nerve to bolster his myth-making with false evidence:
The Book of Mormon read by Hyrum and mentioned in DandC 135 has been previously identified in the LDS Church news as belonging to Bathsheba Smith, the Wife of Geo. A. Smith.
See: http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles...
The book has her name inscribed on the front:
And Hyrum's dog-ear folds over about four lines of type:
Holland's copy has no inscription, and the dog-ear turns over about ten lines of text:
When an Apostle states: "I hold in my hand, that book!, the very copy from which Hyrum read. The same corner of the page, turned down, still visible!" Wouldn't you think he would be telling the truth? If he didn't want to risk the real book, why claim to be waving it around? Why the emotional weeping over the book?
I don't know which, if any, book has the genuine Hyrum Dog-Ear. Chances are the events related in DandC 135 are simply an earlier attempt at creating a faith-promoting myth – maybe several dozen books may exist with dog-ears at the end of Ether. But given the context of Holland's manipulative speech (and the lack of care with which he treated the supposed precious relic), I don't have any reason to believe anything he says.
| | Jeffery R. Holland Didn't Mention Why Joseph Smith Was In Carthage Jail Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, at 01:28 PM Original Author(s): FreeAtLast Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Holland didn't mention why JS was in Carthage Jail, his wine-drinking and pistol-shooting there, and many other facts about his final days and hours.
In his Gen. Conf. talk this past weekend, Mormon Apostle Jeffrey Holland talked about the so-called 'martyrdom' of Joseph Smith. Not surprisingly, he left out crucial details about JS' final days and hours.
From the Wikipedia entry about Joseph Smith (I've included the numbered references from the Wiki entry that are relevant to this post):
"Smith faced growing opposition among his former supporters in Nauvoo, and he "was stunned by the defections of loyal followers." Chief among the dissidents was William Law, Smith's second counselor in the First Presidency, who was well respected in the Mormon community. Law's disagreement with Smith was partly economic. But the most significant difference between the two was Law's opposition to plural marriage. There is even evidence that Smith propositioned the wives of both Law and his associate Robert D. Foster.[137]
Law and others gave testimonies at the county seat in Carthage that resulted in three indictments being brought against Smith, including one accusing him of polygamy. [138] On May 26, just a few weeks before his death, Smith spoke before a large crowd of the Saints in front of the uncompleted temple and once again denied having any more than one wife."[139]
(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_S...)
[137]: Ostlings, 14; Brodie, 369-72. Brodie repeats the testimony of another dissenter, Joseph H. Jackson, that Smith had vainly tried for two months to win the "amiable and handsome" Jane Law-and that Emma suggested that she be given William Law as a spiritual husband.
[139]: Smith stated "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."Address of the Prophet-His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo, History of the Church, Period I, 6:408-412. Referring to Law, Smith stated "This new holy prophet has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this". History of the Church, 6:410-411. Bushman argues that, while to Smith's enemies "the speech was blatant hypocrisy", in Smith's mind "priesthood plural marriage was based on another principle than polygamy." Bushman (2005), 538
"Unlike earlier dissenters Law had enough money to buy a printing press and publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its only edition, published on June 7, 1844, contained affidavits testifying that the signers had heard Smith read a revelation giving every man the privilege of marrying ten virgins. The paper also attacked the attempt to "christianize a world by political schemes and intrigue" and denounced "false doctrines" such as "doctrines of many Gods," which, the paper said, Smith had recently revealed in his King Follett discourse. The newspaper also refused to "acknowledge any man as king or lawgiver to the church."
Smith declared the Expositor a "nuisance." On June 10, the Nauvoo city council passed an ordinance about libels; and Smith, as mayor, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper.[141] Press, type, and newspapers were dragged into the street and burned. Smith argued that destroying the paper would lessen the possibility of anti-Mormon settlers attacking Nauvoo; but as Richard Bushman has written, he "failed to see that suppression of the paper was far more likely to arouse a mob than the libels. It was a fatal mistake."
(same Wiki entry link as above)
One of the men on the Nauvoo city council was Mormon George Harris. "As "Acting Associate Justice" in Nauvoo, George presided over the city council meeting on June 10, 1844 when the claims of the dissenting newspaper, the "Nauvoo Expositor" were discussed. The minutes of the meeting record: "Alderman Harris spoke from the chair, and expressed his feelings that the press ought to be demolished.". The city council passed a resolution that directed the destruction of the press."
(I'll provide the reference for this quote in a minute.)
Other than being a member of the church founded by JS, what was George Harris' connection to the 'Prophet of the Restoration'? JS had married his wife, Lucinda, in 1838.
"In early 1838, amidst growing dissent and legal problems, Joseph Smith fled Kirtland, Ohio for Far West, Missouri. A leader in Far West, George Harris met Joseph and Emma upon their arrival. Joseph wrote: "We were immediately received under the hospitable roof of George W. Harris who treated us with all kindness possible. here we refreshed ourselves with much satisfaction after our long and tedious journey.". The Smiths lived in the Harris home for two months before moving into a home of their own.
The date of the marriage between Joseph and Lucinda is uncertain. Sarah Pratt, a friend of Lucinda's (and wife of Apostle Orson Pratt), indicated that the wedding occurred sometime during Joseph's stay in Missouri."
Here's the reference for these quotes: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/03-...
One wonders if George Harris advocated that the Nauvoo Expositor's printing press be demolished because he knew that doing so would create serious legal trouble for Nauvoo's mayor (JS), who would surely sign the press destruction order (he did) because of what the publication had said about JS' practice of polygamy.
By introducing the idea of the press' destruction to the council, Harris set off a chain of events that led to charges being laid against JS for violating the US Constitution's First Amendment (guarantees freedom of the press) and his incarceration. Was Harris' objective to get JS locked up and away from his wife? Possibly. Was George Harris one of the men with blackened faces that went to Carthage Jail and killed JS? There is no historical evidence that he was, but one wonders how many men in the group, if any, were the husbands of women whom JS had made his plural wives.
What happened to George and Lucinda Harris after JS' death? "Lucinda later divorced George Harris and according to one biographer, "Mrs. Harris afterward joined the (Catholic) Sisters of Charity, and at the breaking out of the civil war, was acting in that capacity in the hospitals at Memphis Tennessee..."." (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/03-...)
The LDS Church does not teach, not did Mormon Apostle Jeffrey Holland mention in his talk in Gen. Conference this past weekend, that during the last few days of JS' life, he did a complete reversal on the 'restored' doctrine of polygamy (which the Nauvoo Expositor had exposed and one of the indictments against JS was related to) and ordered the destruction of his written 'revelation' on polygamy (on July 12, 1843).
Historian D. Michael Quinn, Ph.D., recounted the last days of JS' life in his book, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power" (the link for the following references is below):
"Smith was, in fact, willing to destroy the original manuscript of the 1843 polygamy revelation [which could be used against him in court]. Based on "Many (some of whom are now living)" in Utah, Joseph F. Smith wrote that the prophet "consented for her [Emma Smith] to burn the paper containing the original copy of the revelation." An obscure 1853 publication also reported that the original text of the polygamy revelation "by Joseph Smith's command was burned."" (Quinn page 147) Quinn references Letter of Joseph F. Smith to William E. McLellin, 6 Jan. 1880, fd21, box 5, Scott G. Kenney Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library.
"Emma Smith remembered that the prophet did more than consent to the revelation's destruction. According to her 1847 account, while alone in their Mansion House bedroom, Smith "told her that the doctrine and practice of polygamy was going to ruin the church" and then he burned the revelation. Clayton's diary shows just before the prophet returned to Emma [that night], he told his secretary to burn the Council of Fifty's minutes. It makes sense that while he was alone with her the night of 23 June 1844, only hours before surrendering for trial, he directed his attention to destroying the written evidence of polygamy." (Quinn page 147) For the Emma quote, Quinn references William E. McLellin letter to Joseph Smith III, 10 Jan. 1861 and July 1872, archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the Clayton reference, Quinn refers to Clayton diary 22 June 1844 with an explanation referring to other Clayton journal entries."
The church doesn't teach nor did Holland mention that JS ordered the apostles to get rid of their garments (a violation of the temple oath they had each taken to always wear them except when bathing, and presumably, having sex).
"Heber C. Kimball said Smith sent word to the apostles on the east coast to destroy their garments they had received in the endowment since 1842." (Quinn page 147) Quinn references History of the Church 6:519 which mentions the letter, and Heber C. Kimball's diary, 21 Dec. 1845, found in the book "Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, page 224"
JS removed his temple garments and ordered others to do the same, thus removing the 'divine' protection they afforded (according to the temple endowment ceremony 'restored' through JS).
"Smith removed his own endowment "robe" or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, "When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments."" (Quinn page 146) Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives."
In Carthage Jail, the senior leadership of the Mormon Church drank wine:
"Before the jailor came in, his boy brought in some water, and said the guard wanted some wine. Joseph gave Dr. Richards two dollars to give the guard; but the guard said one was enough, and would take no more. "The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail soon after the jailor went out. Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as brother and the Doctor, and the bottle was then given to the guard, who turned to go out." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 616)
"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing,; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards." (John Taylor, in History of the Church, Vol. 7, page 101)
JS sent an order to the Mormon Nauvoo Legion to attack Carthage jail to free him:
"The morning of 27 June, Smith sent an order (in his own handwriting) to Major-General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a military attack on Carthage "immediately" to free the prisoners. Dunham realized that such an assault by the Nauvoo Legion would result in two blood baths - one in Carthage and another when anti-Mormons (and probably the Illinois militia) retaliated by laying siege to Nauvoo for insurrection. To avoid civil war and the destruction of Nauvoo's population, Dunham refused to obey the order and did not notify Smith of his decision. One of his lieutenants, a former Danite, later complained that Dunham "did not let a single mortal know that he had received such orders (from Smith)."
"[Later that same day] Around 5 p.m., more than 250 men approached the Carthage Jail. When informed of this by the panicky jailer, Joseph Smith replied: "Don't trouble yourself, they have come to rescue me." (Quinn, Page 141) Smith quickly discovered that the mob wasn't his rescue army. After exchanging gunfire with the mob, Smith was killed."
(ref. http://www.i4m.com/think/history/fall...)
For those who haven't done so, I recommend watching "The Untold Story of the Death of Joseph Smith", which is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSo0at...
Joseph Smith, Jr., effectively caused his own death because of his abuses as Mormon 'prophet' and church president, particularly of females. No Mormon woman or teenage girl in Nauvoo was safe from his unwanted advances and the pressure he applied to marry him. William Law and others had enough of all the disruptive, traumatizing, high-drama that JS caused and took legal action against him. Other men simply wanted the Mormon 'prophet' dead and made sure he would never leave Carthage Jail.
| | Dogger Dog's Five Biggest Hang-Ups With Holland's Rant... Er, Talk. Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, at 07:43 AM Original Author(s): Dogger Dog Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
1. Self-sacrifice = veracity. With a good display of water-works, Holland mentioned that Joseph and Hyrum would not have given their lives had they been faking it. By the same reasoning, why doesn't Holland convert to Islam? Were the highjackers of 9/11 any less self-sacrificial than JS/HS (conspiracy theories aside)? Wouldn't one say THEIR self-sacrifice was more macabre, more well-known, and more celebrated by the faithful constituents of their respective religions? Moreover, I would beg to differ - I think JS and HS actually believed the "revelations" and other hallucinations represented objective truth, no matter how false they were. There is new research which might affirm this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551 (thanks to my cousin's wife for pointing this out)
Subjective feelings do NOT equal objective truth in cases such as these.
Just because they died for the book (and, by extension, its message) doesn't make it true. This is fallacious.
2. Strength in numbers = veracity. Classical fallacy. Just because a large group of people believe in something doesn't automatically make it true (Our Lady of Fatima, anyone?). So why doesn't Holland convert to one of the Far Eastern religions, where billions of people worship "false god(s)?" This is concomitant with the fallacy of the elect: just because a small group of politically powerful (read: rich, white and delightsome) people believe something doesn't make it true either (ala Skull and Bones). On a global scale, the active and believing Mormons are not a great number anyway.
3. "...endured 179 years of attacks..." = veracity. Why doesn't Holland worship the gods of Olympus? Nobody has ever proved their truthiness or falseness, and they are far older than Jesus. (In fact, the writers of early Christianity borrowed much from the tales surrounding Apollo, Dionysus, Hades, and other Olympic gods). Their sacred texts are widely available today. This the fallacy of duration. Just because something has been around for what seems like a long time doesn't make it true (Flat Earth Theory anyone?). This proves nothing.
4. "...has withstood attack after attack... from Solomon Spaulding to Ethan Smith..." = veracity. This one had me frothing at the mouth more than he was. I did my graduate-level study on ancient Hebrew texts - canonical and non-canonical. I know what they read like, even from the era in which Nephi would have existed (ala Ketef Hinnom amulets, etc.). The BofM fails as an ancient text on nearly every page (google the evidence if you want this). The fulcrum upon which Holland's argument rests is whether or not he and others like him *choose* to believe the evidence presented, and that's the problem. They simply don't *believe* in the evidence. (Hat tip to Craig Ferguson - "...[Mormons] don't believe in DNA testing."). In the world of religious faith and belief, one chooses what one believes prejudicially. The evidence against the BofM is quite damning from *my* viewpoint, and was the catalyst for my own departure from the Morg. Holland has seen the evidence and chooses not to believe in it. I wonder what colorthe sky is in his world...
5. "My great-grandfather believed it..." = veracity. Fallacy of Legacy. Do I really need to point out the fallacy here?
In summary, if this book is so clearly true, where is the academy? Why isn't the academy interested in it? Why haven't the scholars of the world look at the so-called evidence that YOU see and arrived at the same conclusions? Is the purported evidence really that clear? How could the smartest minds of the world in ancient Semitic scripts like P. Kyle McCarter, David N. Freedman, Frank Moore Cross and others pick this book up, which is "laced with Semiticisms" as you called it, and then throw it aside if it is so evidently true? Holland also said that for those of us leaving the church, we have to "crawl over, under, or around" the BofM when we head for the door. Fine. In my opinion, Mr. Holland, I walked right *through* the BofM on my way out. That's because I chose to (fairly and objectively) examine the evidence against it, and I found it overwhelmingly convincing. I even tried defending it after the fact, but could no longer live a double life. Your "sacred" text has more holes in it than a brick of swisscheese. Unless, of course, you don't believe in holes...
| | Holland On Sunday: "Now, If I Can Speak, I'll Try To Do So." He Was Pathetic. Friday, Oct 9, 2009, at 08:02 AM Original Author(s): Prof. Plum Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Holland began his talk by thanking the Mo-Tab choir, then said, "Now, if I can speak, I'll try to do so." (ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld0_7f...). He looked like he was in good health, not somebody who had a medical condition that made speaking difficult. Perhaps his problem was (is) mental/psychological! "Please pass the container of GA martyr water. I need a glass!"
It's hilarious being out of the Morg and seeing this kind of dysfunctional behavior from a grown man on video/TV. Imagine if a relatively healthy 69-year-old politician or business leader said the same thing at the beginning of his address to the nation or shareholders. Everybody in the audience would think, "Gee, maybe he's sick and we haven't been told. It's odd, though - he seems OK."
I contrast Holland's wimpy behavior with President Franklin D. Roosevelt during WWII.
"Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt's appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that "It doesn't matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he'll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months" (which he did, five months later)."
After the Yalta Conference in Feb. 1945, FDR "returned to the United States, he addressed Congress on March 1 about the Yalta Conference,[108] and many were shocked to see how old, thin and frail he looked. He spoke while seated in the well of the House, an unprecedented concession to his physical incapacity. (He opened his speech by saying, "I hope that you will pardon me for this unusual posture of sitting down during the presentation of what I want to say, but...it makes it a lot easier for me not to have to carry about ten pounds of steel around on the bottom of my legs." This was his only public mention of his disability.) But mentally he was still in full command."
(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin...)
By contrast, Holland, who was clearly in satisfactory health (he had no problem standing at the podium and delivering his talk), came across as pathetic. I also contrast Holland with Ezra T. Benson, who had considerable difficulty giving talks in Gen. Conf. during the last few years of his life due to his age (nineties) and failing health (blood clots in his brain, dementia, strokes, and heart attacks). I think Benson (in his healthier years before his dementia set in) would've been miffed, if not disgusted, with Holland's performance.
| | A Final Comment On Elder Holland's Opus Monday, Oct 12, 2009, at 07:37 AM Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Over on the aptly named MADboard, it seems that "Scotty Dog" Lloyd is making a very serious accusation:
As I said to you on another thread, the the now-obvious error two years ago in the Church News and the understandable confusion hardly justify the contemptible, reckless and boderline-libelous accusations by the mob on the Shades board that Elder Holland was lying. Danna and cohorts ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Daniel C. Peterson replied:
I can forgive them for being confused. Anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons are, by definition, confused, and I'm an exceptionally charitable fellow. And I suppose I can forgive them for accusing Elder Holland of deliberate lying, too. But only because I'm exceptionally charitable. (To the best of my knowledge, they haven't thus far asked for forgiveness, nor even conceded their "error.")
These are some serious accusations. Now, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the critics here on this board were primarily asking about the provenance of Elder Holland's BoM. Did somebody come directly out and say, "Holland must have been deliberately lying," as DCP and Scott Lloyd are suggesting? (Neither of them provided a verbatim quote, so I have to wonder.) I mean, it would be truly unfortunate if they themselves turned out to be guilty of serious, "borderline-libelous" accusations themselves. I hope they have the gumption to pony up a verbatim quote proving their characterization/accusation.
To my mind, the real issue of import vis-a-vis Holland's brandishing of the BoM is rhetorical. Since I am a Professor of Mopologetic Studies, what interests me is the apologetic purpose that Elder Holland's Opus serves. To me, it doesn't matter in the least whether he was lying or not. More important is the sheer lengths he and other Church employees went to just to score an emotional point. Consider everything that had to happen:
- The BoM had to be retrieved from the Church archives
- Research had to be done to establish the book's provenance
- Consultation took place to determine whether or not Holland ought to wear protective gloves while brandishing the book (mentioned in (IIRC) the Des. News article)
- Articles appeared in Church news outlets in order to assure everyone that this was indeed the real McCoy
- Serious effort had to be made to correct an old screw-up in an issue of Church News
- "Scotty Dog" Lloyd had to send an email to Richard Turley in order to make absolutely sure that the book was legit
- Holland himself had to summon up an emotional wavering in his voice as he spoke
And so on. In the end, it does not matter whether the book was really the one pulled by Hyrum or not. The embarrassing fact of the matter is that this General Authority--and by extension the apologists--are astonishingly desperate to score points. I have to wonder: how much time, money, and breath was wasted just on the piddling issue of this book? And what do the apologists come away with in the end? Nothing. The argument in favor of the BoM is just as weak as it was to begin with, though, hey---at least they can weep along with Elder Holland. After all--by golly, it's the real book! Whoop-dee-do! If he had been holding up a non-authentic BoM, my point would remain the same: he is still bending over backwards to reassure the masses to and deliver what is, in essence, a Mopologetic harangue against critics. Thus, the sheer effort, and the fundamental silliness of the gesture (what, at heart, did it add in terms of content to the talk?) reveal just how desperate the apologists are on this matter.
| | Holland Is A Very Smart Man, Too Smart For Mistakes Like This Monday, Oct 12, 2009, at 07:43 AM Original Author(s): Danna Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Well, there were two issues that I addressed. The first one was the existence of the two books.
Remember that at the point I posted, there was an 2007 LDS Church article that unequivocally stated:
Bathsheba's copy of the Book of Mormon was the one that Hyrum Smith read shortly before the martyrdom, with the corner of the page still turned down, as mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.
The official version is now that Bathseba's copy was turned down in honor of Hyrum etc etc. A MAad poster also claimed that Hyrum's family claimed that Hyrum had dog-eared a number of books in the family to leave a testimony for them all (which hints to me that the family were aware of multiple books, and developed this faith-promoting way of explaining this).
So, my comment was:
So... either Holland is telling porkies,
or...there are several 'last book' relics in existence, and Holland needs to sack his researcher.
Surely he should have held the book in a gloved hand if he thought it was real, and the extra shots would have shown gloved hands? It would have made the book seem even more precious.
So maybe the whole thing is just a Mormon myth and once the martyr-making verse was written, a number of people went and dog-eared their BoMs.
I have no opinion at all on which is the original book - only noting that official church sources identified Bathsheba's copy first. I would not at all be surprised if all over Utah, Smith relatives are looking at their bookshelves thinking "but Uncle Jedediah said OUR book was dog-eared by Hyrum!". The incident is interesting from the folklore/myth angle, and I really don't want to dwell on it!
Now,
I did call Holland 'deliberately deceptive' over a separate issue.
Holland related how Hyrum read from Ether,“words of comfort to the heart of his brother” before they departed. Whatever that actually means, the very strong implication is that Hyrum read to Joseph. (The phrasing is really weaselly - if he didn't trip over his tongue the strong suspicion is that the odd phrase has been crafted as deliberate 'escape' - increasing the sense of deliberate misleading). And Holland continued to support this quite logical inference throughout his speech.
The apostle relates how the two men went to their martyrdom pondering the truths of the Book of Mormon. “In the hour they died”, Holland tells us, they were “quoting from and finding solace in” the Book of Mormon. How, could anyone believe that Joseph wrote the book either himself or as part of a conspiracy to defraud, when he went to his death believing and acting upon the book? Would these “men BLASPHEME before God by continuing to fix their ...eternal salvation... on a book they fictitiously created out of whole cloth”.
Indeed we apostates are perverse to disbelieve, given the blood sacrifice of Joseph and Hyrum for the truth of the book. To make our exit from the church we must crawl over, under, or around the Book of Mormon.
This is deliberately deceptive.
Holland makes two main claims:
1. Hyrum read to Joseph before leaving for Carthage - This is recorded in DandC 135:
The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go–shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was–he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it.
A plain reading of this does not support Holland's statement that Hyrum read “words of comfort to the heart of his brother” from Ether. Although the last time I checked the MAaD board, there were some interesting attempts at reading between the lines to place the brother's together comforting each other. They were both staying, apparently, at the Mansion House (not called a Mansion for nothing – it was a functional hotel), but John Taylor gives no hint that they were studying the BoM together.
Then the second claim:
2. While in Carthage Jail over the last two days (my reading of 'in the hour they died'), both men were “quoting from and finding solace in” the Book of Mormon.
My detailed analysis :
LoaP has clarified the situation with the two Hyrum Dog-Ear Book's of Mormon. And there may even be more of them! Apparently Hyrum, having an idea of his impending martyrdom went around his family and dog-eared all their Books of Mormon at the same point.
The book Holland was holding belonged to Joseph F. Smith (six at the time his father was martyred). Through inspiration apparently, this book is the book designated as being THE book mentioned in DandC 135. But his habit of visiting family and dog-earing their books of mormon kind of reduces the impact of his actions on the morning he went to Carthage.
Wade E. and LoaP found the the History of the Church, does indeed contain two passages referring to testimony bearing and/or the Book of Mormon, during the time at Carthage. a) is the night before the martyrdom, and b) is the morning of the martyrdom. However, The History of the Church is NOT a collection of promary sources. It is a posthoc construction containing primary sources and inference, opinions, conjecture, and rumor.
The statements relating to both the a) scripture reading and discussion on the last night, and b) the testimony bearing on the morning of the martyrdom are devoid of the rich contextual detail which is found in surrounding text, and any reference as to their actual origin. By contextual detail, I mean words and phrases using spatial and temporal details linking the testimony to the environment in which the events occurred, observations from a first person experiential perspective (as opposed to inference, or conjecture).
With that in mind, it is easy to show the likelihood that both a) and b) are almost certainly posthoc faith-promotiong insertions into the record, and not part of the actual record of events.
Look at the sentences before and after the statement on Page 600 of the History of the Church, I have marked contextual detail to show its importance. Probable later insertions are in blue. (purple stuff is just interesting!)
9:15.A.M. Elder John Taylor prayed. Willard Richards, John Taylor, John S. Fullmer, Stephen Markham, and Dan Jones stayed with Joseph and Hyrum in the front room.
The Last Night in Carthage Prison.
During the evening the Patriarch Hyrum Smith read and commented upon extracts from the Book of Mormon, on the imprisonments and deliverance of the the servants of God for the Gospel's sake. Joseph bore a powerful testimony to the guards of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, restoration of the Gospel, the administration of angels, and that the kingdom of God was again established upon the earth, for the sake of which he was then incarcerated in that prison, and not because he had violated any law of God or man.
They retired to rest late. Joseph and Hyrum occupied the only bedstead in the room, while their friends lay side by side on the matresses on the floor. Dr. Richards sat up writing until his last candle left him in the dark.
The small sentences either side show the impact of contextual detail. Now for b) the events of the morning. The detail here covered pages so I have done a semi-synopsis of events:
After Joseph wrote a letter to Emma (time noted on the letter as 8.20am), and Fuller returned to the Jail at 8.30am, Wheelock returned from his errands. Then Wheelock:
- Took orders for the Nauvoo legion;
- Listened to a lengthy and detailed oration by Joseph which included the statement: "Our lives have already become jeopardized by revealing the wicked and bloodthirsty purposes of our enemies...";
- Discussed and took down a list of witnesses to fetch from Nauvoo for the trial;
- Listened to so many personal messages to take to Nauvoo that Dr Richards thought he should write them down, but Hyrum stared him down and told him to remember them;
- Listened to Joseph tell, in lengthy detail, of a dream about his farm in Kirtland,
- And then we find this squeezed in after Wheelock's activities -
"Both Joseph and Hyrum bore a faithful testimony to the Latter-day work, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and prophesied of the triumph of the Gospel over all the earth, exhorting the brethren present to faithfulness and persevering diligence in proclaiming the Gospel, building up the Temple, and performing all the duties connected with our holy religion".
In contrast to the incredible detail accompanying the other activites, which consume a number of pages. The wee faith-promoting statement is vague and devoid of contextual detail. Josephs opinion on handling adverse PR, and his description of his dream are lengthy records of Joseph's actual words. The faith-promoting bit is exactly what you see here!
All that took place before the return of the lawyers at about 9.40am which is the time on the P.S. on Joseph's letter to Emma which included the information his lawyers brought to him.
As an example of the detail and context of other passages, even where they are recorded only briefly, the last few hours in Carthage are detailed thus (all refs from Church History Vol 6):
3:15 P.M.The guard began to be more severe in their operations, threatening among themselves, and telling what they would do when the excitement was over.
Elder Taylor sang The Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief [lyrics omitted]. (p 614)
When he got through, Joseph requested him to sing it again, which he did.
Hyrum read extracts from Josephus.
4 P.M. The guard was again changed, only eight men being stationed at the jail, whilst the main body of the Carthage Greys were in camp about a quarter of a mile distant, on the public square. (p 615)
4:15 P.M. Joseph commenced conversing with the guard about Joseph H. Jackson, William and Wilson Law, and others of his persecutors.
Hyrum and Dr. Richards conversed together until quarter past five.
5 P.M. Jailor Stigall returned to the jail, and said that Stephen Markham had been surrounded by a mob, who had driven him out of Carthage, and he had gone to Nauvoo...
Shortly after the account continues with the men sharing a bottle of wine, and the attack by the mob. Just before Joseph was shot, Taylor's watch was struck and stopped at 5 o'clock, 16 minutes, and 26 seconds
Why go to the bother of leaving a detailed oration of his views on dealing with adverse PR? And his detailed account of his dream about the farm at Kirtland in Joseph's own words. They bothered with noting that Hyrum was reading Josephus, and who was yakking to whom. And who went where, and who slept on the bed and who slept on the floor.
But no-one thought it might be important to record the last testimony of the prophet. Or the words he used when addressing the guards with his powerful final rebuke. Rather we hear who paid for the wine, and who drank.
The two, small, faith-promoting paragraphs on a) the evening before, and b) the morning of the martyrdom are unconvincing and generic. There are no actual primary sources mentioned and the accounts contrast markedly with the narrative as a whole. They also differ from the 'eyewitness' account left by John Taylor in DandC 135.
LoaP asked me some questions, here are my answers:
Did JS and Hyrum read the Book of Mormon in their final hours?
There is no credible eyewitness evidence which indicates this occurred at all in Joseph's case. In Hyrum's case, John Taylor makes the claim as an eyewitness that Hyrum read Ether in Nauvoo several days before. This event is not related in the History of the Church except in the DandC excerpt at the end of the document. The two key documents vary on this matter.
Did they read a passage from Ether that would have given them encouragement?
Joseph – No primary evidence available. Hyrum may have read Ether prior to travelling to Carthage. The History of the Church provides no additional evidence here. According to your sources, Hyrum may have visited his relatives, dog-earing their books of Mormon in Ether. This would reduce the significance of the incident related in DandC 135.
Did they testify to the jailers that the book was true?
I doubt it, for reasons stated above
Did they read from the Book of Mormon at Carthage Jail?
I doubt it, for reasons stated above.
In summary, the historical record provides no evidence supporting the assertions made by Holland in his GC speech. The existence of two or more Hyrum Dog-Ear Books of Mormon (and TBM uncritcal acceptance that they are BOTH genuine) is illustrative of the episode as a whole, a stunning example of faith-promoting myth making.
In brief, the History of the church gives a blow-by-blow account of the last days in Carthage, which (unless John Taylor is omnipresent) has been compiled from a variety of sources: eyewitnesses, documents, and third parties. It also contains opinion, conjecture, and rumor. So the History of the church is not a primary source (particularly after the point where Joseph ceased to be its 'author') Information sourced from eyewitnesses is obvious from the quality of detail they give. Statements made by Joseph on the day he died have been carefully recorded and preserved. Then there are two starkly indirect and unattributed statements in faith-promoting prose (please see the longer post above to see this demonstrated), which claim BoM reading and testimony bearing by Joseph and Hyrum.
As I stated earlier - why go to the bother of leaving a detailed oration of his views on dealing with adverse PR? And his detailed account of his dream about the farm at Kirtland in Joseph's own words, taken down as they were spoken. They bothered with noting that Hyrum was reading Josephus, and who was yakking to whom (including Joseph gossiping with the guards about his accusers). And who went where, and who slept on the bed and who slept on the floor.
But no-one thought it might be important to record the last testimony of the prophet. Or the words he used when addressing the guards with his powerful final rebuke. Rather we hear who paid for the wine, and who drank.
The two statements can only be described as unsupported third-party statements. (The rest of the Carthage-period HoC is also vague about sources, but at least most of the rest of the text is consistent with having come from an eyewitness and/or notes recording events as they occurred) The third-party statements do not provide any basis for Holland's claims. Holland is using 165 year-old conjecture to support his present conjecture.
So, yes, I did use the phrase 'deliberately deceptive'. Holland was asserting, as absolute fact (go watch the speech again if you want to argue that point), that Joseph went to his death preaching and studying and testifying of the Book of Mormon. Based on this premise he forced the conclusion that apostates have no grounds for questioning the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
Not only is the conclusion a non sequitur. But the premise is false in the first place. And Holland is a very smart man, too smart for mistakes like this. This wasn't Brother Doe's little liberty with a Gospel Doctrine lesson. This was a PSR speaking at General Conference.
Nuff said.
| | Holland's Book Of Mormon Rant Is Nothing New Monday, Oct 12, 2009, at 07:59 AM Original Author(s): Deconstructor Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
It appears Elder Holland has taken it upon himself to champion the literal historicity position towards the Book of Mormon. His rant last week at General Conference wasn't the first time he has argued this cause.
In 1994, Elder Holland declared:
"Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church..."
"To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church – everything – rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."
"Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, [1] after seeing the Father and the Son, [2] later beheld the angel Moroni, [3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually [4] receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which [5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God–or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."
"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."
- Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64 (Excerpted from a CES Symposium address given at Brigham Young University on August 9, 1994.)
What's fascinating about both cases is Apostle Holland doesn't list actual doctrinal teachings from the Book of Mormon that make it vital to Mormon theology. He's basically saying that it's a matter of credibility. If the book is not what Smith and the church say it is, then Smith is a fraud and the church is a hoax.
So it's not about what the book actually teaches, it's the credibility of the book that counts. If church can get people to accept the book as what the church says it is, then they will accept the rest.
Couldn't the same thing be said for the DandC and the Book of Abraham? If those are not what they claim to be, doesn't Smith and the church itself fall just as hard as frauds?
Also, if as Holland says, the Book of Mormon really is "do-or-die" then you can't be a good Mormon and not accept the historical truth of the Book of Mormon. If dedicated, sincere members decide the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then they almost have to leave the church even if they still feel strong social ties. There's hardly any middle ground where you can reject the Book of Mormon claims but still be an accepted, active Mormon.
I think both of Holland's talks are attempts to "circle the wagons" and protect the credibility and authority of the church.
It's the same thing Orson Pratt was doing back in 1851:
"This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason..."
"But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true ... the American and English nations ... should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2
| Elder Holland, even in my apostate ways, is perhaps my favorite orator. His talk, when he gave it, made me uncomfortable with my apostacy. The man knows how to write and deliver stirring rhetoric that appealed strongly to emotion. This past Sunday his conference address was taught in Priesthood. It wasn't until later when I had a chance to read the talk that I saw it for what it was.
And I sat their and couldn't believe how they lapped it up and didn't see the blatant falacious material. So I provide my arm-chair anti-Apology for Elder Holland talk.
The lynchpin argument of the lession was Elder Holland's comment.
"Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.8 Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators.
As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, 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?"
The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite(of Heaven's Gate fame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%2..., Jim Jones. It makes the assumption that no man would blaspheme God. It is a falacy by ridicule and plays to the bias of the faithful -- that Joseph Smith was who he said he was.
Then another talking point:
Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died–from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”
Again, this statement is fallacious. It is falacy by ridicule. It ignores the latest scholarship on the Book of Mormon. It ignores the DNA analysis.
Ah yes. More falacy by ridicule. And how about that straw-man argument. Elder Holland holds up Ethan Smith, Solomon Spaulding, ridicules the argument and then proposes that since all these arguments fail, which he does not explain how they fail, and then proposes the faith-afirming story.
The whole tone of the articule is basically an attack on people who don't believe in the Book of Mormon. It plays to the idea that no one wants to be the fool.
In short, his conference address, was nothing more than a well-written appeal to emotion. He appeals to the believers while setting up those who don't believe as fools, and thus he builds up the unbelievers. It appears to be scholarly while ignoring it.
| | Why Did We Have To Wear White Shirts? Monday, Aug 9, 2010, at 01:49 PM Original Author(s): Infymus Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Holland said:
“May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions”
“This Do in Remembrance of Me,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 68.
| | Holland's Vision Of Fatherhood Tuesday, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:30 AM Original Author(s): Doctor Faustus Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
I'm not a conference watcher but just happened to hear a few minutes of somebody talking about his dead brother and then Holland's latest. Holland said something that bothers, if not surprises, me.
After speaking a while he started talking about Monson. He said that Monson's wife and children had gone without their father's involvement for fifty years, experiencing all the trials and tribulations, the bumps and bruises, the setbacks of life, without his active support.
Wow, I thought, Holland's finally going to acknowledge the sacrifices imposed on Church leaders' families; he's going to express empathy for the wife and children who never had the love and encouragement of a father figure. But I was wrong. What Holland went on to say were words to the effect that "through all of his children's suffering President Monson never wavered in his commitment to the Church. We must respect and honor him for his wholehearted dedication." In other words, Holland offered no sympathy for the pain and deprivation of those people who had the foremost right to their father's time, love and protection. He asked us to feel sorry for MONSON because of the pain his choices had caused his children.
If Holland had asked us to feel sorry for himself because he had harmed his children, we would have grounds to wonder if he is a narcissist or even a sociopath. And perhaps that was one of his purposes: to make his audience respect him, Holland, for choices and a lifestyle he shares with Monson. But whether or not that was the case, Holland's speech appears to me further evidence of the Church's institutional narcissism: its implicit contention that we should respect priesthood leaders because of the moral and ethical obligations they fail to fulfill.
The Church does not acknowledge or apologize for its errors. Church leaders do not repent--confess and offer restitution--of their sins. They choose not to serve as fathers to the children whom they have spawned. And rather than feel regret for this lifestyle, they demand that we honor them for it.
| | Jul 2011 Ensign Article By Jeffrey R Holland Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011, at 08:30 AM Original Author(s): Truthseeker Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Jul 2011 Ensign article by Jeffrey R Holland states searching for lost sheep can only be done "wisely and well" when the other 99 are "safely folded"
This seems a little at odds with his god's admonition to leave the ninety and nine to search for the lost sheep. It's not surprising though.
In the article he also states that the "single strongest indicator of devotion and loyalty in this Church continues to be the presence of strong family ties".
The takeaway message? Loyalty and devotion to "this Church" is of utmost importance to the leadership. Forget Jesus or god, loyalty to the church is the most important thing.
I'm glad that they are finally coming clean and not cloaking their agenda in the shroud of worhsipfulness for god.
| | Apparently, The Brilliant Apostle Holland, Former President Of BYU Is Really Bad At Math Monday, Oct 3, 2011, at 07:31 AM Original Author(s): rodolfo, Gorspel Dacktrin Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Here is how he computes:
From the LDS.ORG site:
"In his visit to Mongolia, Elder Holland said he was pleased to see the many people who have joined the Church since its inception in the country in 1992.
"'To come here and see the Church in Mongolia – born in a day in a sense – 10,000 strong [and] nearly one in every 10 citizens in Ulaanbaater are members of the Church, I was just unprepared for this,' Elder Holland said."
http://newsroom.lds.org/article/apost...
Now, note that the total number of members of the Church in all of Mongolia is approximately 10,000 (probably a bit less).
From that, Holland extrapolates that the number of members of the Church account for 10% of the population of Ulaanbaatar alone. But, but, but.... Ulaanbaatar has a population of over 1 million.
Holland says, "I was unprepared for this." Well, so are a lot of people--especially the people of Ulaanbaatar, who have just been informed that there are now fewer than 100,000 people remaining in their city. Is Holland the angel of death? What happened to the other 900,000 plus residents? This is terrifying!! Please don't let Holland ever visit your home city. It's genocide. And yet Holland sits there and smiles about his accomplishment. He just wiped out 90% of Ulaanbaatar's population and he thinks it's a good thing. Just watch out for that guy!!
So is LDS using Mongolia as a stepping stone to move into China eventually and converts lots of them?
The church is currently outlawed in China.
China allows the church to maintain and operate congregations in major cities to serve the ex-pat communities. No proselyting is allowed and church meetings are closely observed by Chinese security to see if citizens wander in there.
It has a status not unlike the Falun Gong movement.
The Chinese government, due to its concern about a stable population (and due to the fact that it is a very controlling entity itself) happens to be very educated about cults and their dangerous influence and subversive methods.
Mormonism has nearly zero chance of being allowed in China IMO. China will never allow any organization that:
1. Requires tithing-tax only for the benefit of the cult.
2. Requires an oath swearing allegiance to the cult before all else.
3. Requires belief in a false conspiracy story of worldwide proportions (the so-called apostacy).
4. Requires literal belief in numerous, easily proven falsehoods.
The church has been salivating over China for many decades and lds officials have been over there often kissing up to government officials. The only, possible chance I would see for the church to gain approval would be for them to split the tithing take with the government of China, or something like that.
Generally speaking mormonism is a complete FAIL in Asia for the most part. Mormon membership in most Asian countries has been stagnant or shrinking for 3 decades. Ask any returned missionaries about attendance in weekly meetings. Only the Philippines has any growth at all, and this is because the Philippines is already heavily christian and because many people are not connected to the internet with access to facts about mormonism.
As far as Mongolia, even Cumorah.com reports that the number of active Mongolians is less than 3500. Holland is LYING again and merely quoting a membership number out of church records, and he knows damn well he is lying his ass off.
There is no way Mongolia has 10k active members. If there were 10k active members there would be over 20 Wards operating. However, the church reports less than 20 branches so the 3k member numbers seem accurate, and the 10k number impossible!
The one missionary I knew who went to Mongolia told me that weekly attendance was often less than 50.
| | Jeff Holland - God Will Not Be Mocked Monday, Oct 3, 2011, at 07:48 AM Original Author(s): Gorspel Dacktrin Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
We hear that ALL the time....what the hell does that even mean??
That's exactly what he means. All things Mormonoidal have come to us from GA's...
This is how it's put on the Church's own website:
"Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are committed to honor and follow God’s will, which comes through His Prophet and Apostles."
In other words, Mormons only know God's will second hand through the GA's, by what the GA's tell them is God's will and Mormons do this because the GA's were specially appointed and selected by God for this purpose. And if you doubt that, all you have to do is ask a GA and he will confirm to you that this is God's will. And if you start getting dizzy from the round-and-round circularity of it all, you'll have to buy your own medicine because the GA's have confirmed that it is God's will that the Church should not spend money on such things...
So indeed, the GAs are really claiming to be God's special representatives and if you don't do everything they say, you're "mocking God."
http://mormon.org/church/
"Supporting Our Leaders"
| | What About Mongolia? Monday, Oct 3, 2011, at 07:50 AM Original Author(s): anagrammy, grubbygert, dagny Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Did you hear the General Conference presentation say that one in ten citizens in Mongolia is a Mormon? They showed the Mormons in sacrament meeting and posing for a photo outside, all the men and boys in Western business suits instead of their absolutely wonderful cultural garb.
After seeing "Babies" and having had a lifelong fascination with their culture, it almost brought me to tears to see them all lined up in American . I felt like Donald Sutherland in "The Body Snatchers" viewing a city where everyone has been replaced.
Also, this statement is in stark contrast to the Mongolia mission site, which said they couldn't even keep the missionaries active once they had served in Mongolia.
Anybody know the truth?
-----
What about Mongolia?
Haha - they said that?
It's been a long time since i was a missionary there (95-97) and im not in touch with anyone from that part of my life but a quick look at wikipedia confirms what i remember - they're almost all buddhists and atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia#Religion
A very large amount of the converts during my time were young girls.
Getting baptisms was easy - keeping them around was the hard part.
It was such a problem that in some of the branches you'd have a list of 200 members and the missionaries still had to have multiple callings - i was literally everything from clerk to primary president - for a very short time i was even (i can't make this up!) a young women's teacher.
Of course, part of the problem with callings is that we had literally nothing in mongolian so we couldn't just throw a manual at a new member and ask them to 'teach' from it... hence the elder teaching young women's.
Those were strange times haha.
I'm sure things have changed but i doubt very much that mormonism will thrive there in the long term - we were just a novelty.
-----
I think maybe they were pulling that "fact" out their rear.
Depending on what google source you pick, the population of Mongolia is, say around 2.5 million. Idaho, by comparison has about 1.5 million.
So if 10% are Mormons, then the church has 250,000 members from Mongolia? Idaho has around 268,060 Mormons or around 6% of the population.
If they had that many Mormons, they would have had about 5 temples already. :-)
Something isn't adding up. A Mongolian site I looked at stated that 94% are Tibetan Buddhism and 4% are Muslim. That only leaves 2% for other religions- let alone 10% Mormon.
Plus a pro Mormon site that brags about Mormon members worldwide doesn't even mention Mongolia. With 10% of Mongolia LDS, it should have been near the top of the list.
I must be missing something here.
http://www.allaboutmormons.com/number_of_mormons.php
| | Science Whopper: Natural History According To Jeffrey Holland Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011, at 10:29 AM Original Author(s): DrW Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
In 1976 we lived in Europe and for several pleasant years had no Ensigns laying around the house. So I guess I missed this gem in print that was pointed out by cinepro over on MDD.
Jeffrey Holland in the Ensign in 1976:
Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.
To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.
This is supposedly and educated man. He claims to hold a Ph.D. from Yale for goodness sake. Yet he tells the faithful that the continents of the Western Hemisphere separated from the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere soon after the waters of a global flood of Noah receded as recounted in the OT.
The break-up of the Pangaea super continent and the positioning of the present continents of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres began something like 100 million years ago. The continents of the Earth were essentially in their present positions by about 30 million years ago.
So the Atlantic basin into which the "ocean rushed" (as Holland describes it) was actually formed over more than 100 million years (not exactly a rush) and was essentially as we see it today by about 30 million years ago. It did not occur in a cataclysmic (renting of the Earth) event 4,000 or so years ago as Holland claims.
Two of my sons loved dinosaurs and paleontology when they were young and I would guess they had this basic geologic timeline in their heads by the time they were in Middle School. And Holland, as a supposedly responsible adult, does not know or believe this yet today?
This is not a matter for interpretation or discussion. This is a geological and scientific fact. And Holland must know this. If he does not then he is willfully ignorant and has no business as an apostle of the Church, or an individual to whom people look to for the truth.
If a Church leader is willing to publish well considered truth claims that any high school kid can show are false in less than 5 minutes, why should anyone believe anything he says?
This was not an off-hand comment. This was crucial to the main theme of the article.
I wonder if Holland would stand by this ridiculous made-up piece of bovine scatology today. I would love to hear what he would say if confronted with this nonsensical article in public.
| | Elder Holland Was Ambushed Wednesday, Mar 28, 2012, at 02:17 PM Original Author(s): sherlock Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
The church was clearly very unhappy with the BBC documentary 'The Mormon Candidate', hand delivering a letter of complaint to the BBC, which mentioned that Elder Holland had been ambushed and then putting up the defensive on Facebook.
So as far as I can recall, these were some of the key approximate questions Holland was asked by John Sweeney:
- the book of Abaraham papyri don't correspond with Joseph Smith's translation. How do you explain that?
- does the strengthening church members committee still exist? What is its purpose? What is its secondary purpose?
- does/did the church do throat slitting in the temple? So would Mitt Romney have done this and sworn secrecy to it?
- does the church shun members who leave?
- is the church a cult?
While the throat slitting question would probably make for uncomfortable viewing for any TBM old enough to have gone through the temple pre-90, the questions as a whole were perfectly reasonable and valid.
If Holland found these intrusive, difficult or sensitive, then perhaps he needs to look more closely at the religion he purports is headed by JC.
He floundered on a couple of questions, did ok on some others, but overall I think that any neutral observer would think that these were good pertinent questions to ask and that he came across as a smartly dressed and well fed corporate suit, but not at all an apostle as he claims.
I also think he could have been asked some other equally challenging and embarrassing questions like City Creek, JS polygamy and polyandry etc.
Church PR will no doubt be in overdrive to inoculate the flock and claim how unfair this portrayal was. I say that the chickens are finally coming home to roost and the church doesn't like it one little bit.
| | Holland Says "We're Not A Cult" Tuesday, Apr 17, 2012, at 08:05 AM Original Author(s): kimball Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
I just listened to Elder Holland's comments on "The Mormon Candidate" for the first time, and was treated to quite a number of gems, among which was this statement:
"...we're not a cult. I'm not an idiot, you know. I've read a couple of books and I've been to a pretty good school, and I have chosen to be in this church because of the faith that I feel and the inspiration that comes. I've met people, and if people want to call us a cult, they can call us a cult and you can call us a cult, but we are 14-million and growing, and I'd like to think that your respect for me would be enough to know that this man doesn't seem like a dodo."
If I'm not mistaken, the following reinforces the idea that this guy is in a cult:
- His appeal to reverse-ad-hominem by refering to his education and acquaintances
- His use of the euphemisms "faith" and "inspiration" to justify his position (to those who look favorably on such terms, which is most people)
- His appeal to the inflated membership number to make his church look good
- Trying to make all people who respect him offended that anyone outside of that circle would consider him a "dodo"
Remember, Holland, nobody who has ever been in a cult has ever realized they were in a cult. Your appeals don't help your case, and it would be much better if you started using logic.
| | My Letter To Elder Holland Re Book Of Mormon Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012, at 07:24 AM Original Author(s): anointed one Topic: JEFFERY R. HOLLAND -Guid- | ↑ | |
Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon I will also post his response.
2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States
Dear Elder Holland,
Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon
After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.
Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.
I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).
A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.
Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.
The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.
Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
"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."
Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.
This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’.
First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.
Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.
Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True
1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).
2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in DandC section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).
3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).
4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5).
5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).
6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (DandC 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (DandC 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)”
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote
“The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.”
Evidence the Book of Mormon is True
Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-
‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?
The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.
As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.
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 Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.
None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.
Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’.
“No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books.
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.
How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).
After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?
You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.
Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.
As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.
Sincerely,
Tom Phillips
Notes referenced in this letter
Note 1 – “Sudden Death” Proposition re Book of Mormon
In 1994, Elder Holland declared: "Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church..." "To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church – everything – rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward." "Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, [1] after seeing the Father and the Son, [2] later beheld the angel Moroni, [3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually [4] receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which [5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God–or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those." "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 ofMormon. 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." - Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64 (Excerpted from a CES Symposium address given at Brigham Young University on August 9, 1994.)
Note 2 No Death before 6k years ago is a doctrine of the Church
BIBLE DICTIONARY DEATH
Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2: 22; Moses 6: 48). The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Rights and use information. Privacy policy.
“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.” (2Ne 2:22)
“And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death…
And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death…” (Alma 12:23, 24)
This means to me that there was no death on this earth prior to the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago (D and C 77:6-7). To confirm that I have understood this doctrine correctly I quote the following from a priesthood lesson manual for 1972-73 :-
“In that condition the earth and all upon it were not subject to death until Adam fell. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the same judgment was placed on the earth and all things upon it. Therefore every living thing, including the earth itself, is entitled to death and the resurrection.”
The above quote is from page 54 of “Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1972-73 Selections from the Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith” Tenth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” published by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I mention this source lest any excuse the teaching as Joseph Fielding Smith’s own personal view and not that of the Church as has been done with some of the teachings of Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie etc. This was (in 1972) official church doctrine and accepted as such very emphatically by my stake president in 2004.
Also from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith :-
“NO DEATH ON EARTH BEFORE FALL. The Lord pronounced the earth good when it was finished. Everything upon its face was called good. There was no death in the earth before the fall of Adam. I do not care what the scientists say in regard to dinosaurs and other creatures upon the earth millions of years ago, that lived and died and fought and struggled for existence. …..All life in the sea, the air, on the earth, was without death. Animals were not dying. Things were not changing as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come……….
BOOK OF MORMON TEACHES TRUTH ABOUT FALL. We Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God. We have the assurance that the Lord placed the stamp of approval upon it at the time of the translation…The truth is the thing which will last. All the theory, Philosophy and wisdom of the wise that is not in harmony with revealed truth from God will perish. In regard to the pre-mortal condition of Adam and the entire earth, Lehi has stated the following :
And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (2Ne. 2:19-26).
Is not this statement plain enough ? Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?” ( pages 108-9 Doctrines of Salvation volume1 by Joseph Fielding Smith published by Bookcraft 1954 - states in the preface by Bruce R. McKenzie “Joseph Fielding Smith is the leading gospel scholar and the greatest doctrinal teacher of his generation. Few men in this dispensation have approached him in gospel knowledge or surpassed him in spiritual insight.”)
The clear message from the above is that church doctrine, based on Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Genesis and statements by latter-day prophets is THERE WAS NO DEATH ON THIS EARTH PRIOR TO APPROX 6,000 YEARS AGO AND SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTRADICTING THE WORD OF THE LORD.
Note 3 – Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-Columbian archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the pictureof a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-Columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian. Richard Packham.
Note 4 – American Indians are ‘Lamanites’
“And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.” – Spencer W. Kimball/Ensign July 1971 “The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.” – Spencer W. Kimball /Ensign July 1971
Note 5 – The Book of Abraham a translation of some papyri
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith A translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. -- The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. See history of the church, vol. 2. pp.235,236,348-351 1974 edition of triple combo -- pub. LDS church I quote this because apologists , accepting Joseph’s translation as completely different to those of Egyptologists, try to re-define the word ‘translate’ and maintain Joseph did not actually translate but used the papyri as a catalyst to receive direct revelation. This is contrary to official statements by the Church and what has been taught all my Church life.
Note 6 – Answers from my Priesthood Leaders
As an example of the answers I have been given by my Priesthood Leaders I will give a brief summation of their answers regarding the teaching in the Book of Mormon that there was no death (of any kind, human, animal, fowl etc.) on this earth prior to the Fall of Adam which occurred (according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77) approximately 6,000 years ago. Established science (many different disciplines confirming the same) says there has been death on this planet for billions of years. So, either the Book of Mormon is true on this topic or science (in its many disciplines) is. They can’t both be true, it is one or the other. If science is true, the Book of Mormon is false (and a fraud by your own words). If the Book of Mormon is true then science is mistaken on this topic. How is that for a ‘sudden death’ proposition?
Here is a brief summation of the answers I have been given to this one question:-
President Tony Arnold (Stake President) – the Book of Mormon is true and science is wrong, no death occurred prior to 6,000 years ago. The scientists are wrong.
Elder Harold G. Hillam (Member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy and Area President, Europe West Area) stated words to the effect “Obviously there has been death on this planet for millions of years otherwise we would not have oil and gas. Also, as part of my training as a dentist and orthodontist I have held skulls in my hand that are more than 6,000 years old. The way I reconcile it in my mind is Adam was the first man made in the image of God”. When I asked him the obvious follow up question, what happened to the other hominids that were alive at the time of and prior to Adam, he said “I don’t know”. Clearly he had not thought through the ramifications of his reconciliation of these conflicting “truths”.
Bishop David Cook – first answer he gave me was that he did not read the scripture to mean that, but failed to tell me how he interpreted it. This was a great surprise as David, you know, spent his whole career in CES (Church Educational System) and had, in fact, been an Area Director for CES overseeing full time CES instructors. It was surprising to me that he chose to be unaware of something that was very clearly taught in both seminary and institute manuals. To me it was a sign of incompetence or trying to bend the truth. Later, in the company of the then Area President, Elder Gerald N. Lund, he agreed with Elder Lund that the doctrine of the Church is that there was no death of any kind on this earth prior to 6,000 years ago and science is wrong to say otherwise. He did, therefore, read the scripture “that way” contrary to what he said on his first (unaccompanied) visit to me.
Elder Gerald N. Lund (Area President, successor to President Hillam) - in his first meeting with me tried to side step this and other issues by posing the question “what is church doctrine ?”. He also proudly admitted to being a ‘wordsmith’. On his second visit to my home he clearly confirmed that the doctrine of the Church, based on the Book of Mormon and statements by the prophets, was that there was no death of any kind, human or other, on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago and science had it wrong.
So, all 4 of these priesthood leaders admitted it was the official doctrine of the Church that there was no death of any kind (human, animal, fowl, fish etc.) on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago. 3 of them also stated science was wrong to say otherwise. Elder Hillam confirmed science was not wrong, there had been death on this planet for millions of years but he “reconciled” the disparity in his mind by offering an illogical and deeply flawed viewpoint.
I agree with all of them that this is the official doctrine as it is taught in the standard works as well as by prophets from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith (see the 1972 Priesthood lesson manual) also in seminary, institute, Sunday School etc. and First presidency statements. I also agree with established science on the matter, that this planet is over 4 billion years old and death has occurred for most of that time. Therefore, I conclude that the Book of Mormon is wrong regarding this doctrine, as are the prophets who also advocated it (including Joseph Fielding Smith), and recent General Authorities, namely Elders Hillam and Lund not to mention Elder Russell M. Nelson in a conference talk. This is but one example of statements made in the Book of Mormon that are untrue. The book cannot, therefore, be true and your ‘sudden death’ proposition must mean it is a fraud. It is a work compiled by Joseph Smith and possibly other 19th century authors containing the erroneous views of 19th century Americans.
Reply from Elder Holland to my letter
JRH Response and my reply
Elder Holland sent me an email in response to my letter but, being the bully and coward that he is, the following prohibition notice was appended to the email
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
This may, however, be a “corporate” notice and not intended by Elder Holland. If, so my apologies for calling him a coward and a bully. It is only his church that is a coward and bully.
I shall, however, publish my response to him and permit him and his church to copy and forward it as often as they like provided it is copied in its entirety and is in no way misrepresented nor used to misrepresent me. In my response I will have to, necessarily, quote from his email but I will do my utmost to protect private information such as the references he makes to my wife and his wife (including stating her whereabouts at a certain time – shame on you Jeff).
Dear Jeff,
You absolutely amazed me with your email. You are a highly educated, articulate and well read person with a PhD from Yale. Yet, you do not address one issue in my letter. Instead, you sent me a mindless rant. I was caught off guard. No way could I have imagined such a response. I expected you to justify your claims (such as Joseph Smith gave his life because he was not willing to deny the Book of Mormon) and refute the facts I put to you as evidence the Book of Mormon was not true.
I assumed you would honour your “sudden death” challenge that you have so often used. That it, the Book of Mormon, is either true or it is a fraud, there is no middle way. I would put it another way, it is either the word of God, as claimed by you, or it is a work of fiction put together by an author or authors in the nineteenth century. I believe my letter explains why I consider it to be the latter. Where is your refutation of such an opinion and justification for public statements you have made concerning its truthfulness? If you could not do this I expected a kindly brush off type of reply, not a rant full of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks and insinuations.
I tried to defend your reputation when people were calling you a “dodo” and a liar. No, he’s not like that, the Elder Holland I knew, loved and respected. Well, it seems you have proven me wrong in that respect. I recently watched your interview with Mr. Sweeney for a BBC programme entitled “The Mormon Candidate” and I could not believe your attempts at lying. Jeff, you are supposed to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why lie to a reporter? Oh, I forgot, that is perfectly acceptable since Gordon B. Hinckley did it with Larry King, Mike Wallace etc.
Why not just answer my specific questions? I am sure, with your vast knowledge and experience, it would have taken less time than your mindless rant against me. You could have even handed it over to a BYU professor or another of your minions to draft a reply. You need only have taken the time to sign (even that could have been done by a signature machine or, in fact an email response could have been sent under your name without you even seeing it). That would have saved you time and the so called pain I have inflicted upon you. Get over it, If I have caused you pain by reminding you the church is not true, that is not my fault. The cause of your pain lies with you and the church.
As an apostle where is your ‘Christlike’ love? You have opportunity of going after the ‘lost sheep’ yet you choose to criticise and say “I don’t care what you do”. How Christian of you. In your BBC interview you offered to sit down with a group of ex-mormons to discuss their issues. Yet, when someone wrote to you and offered for a group to come and meet with you at any time and venue convenient for yourself, you did not reply. If you had replied appropriately to my letter thousands of ex-mormons may have been reclaimed by the church. Instead, you have proven to them most conclusively that the church is not true and you must be aware of that or you would not be feeling the pain. Some have observed you as having a ‘meltdown’. I now understand why they should come to such an observation.
Of course, another explanation could be you are not in ‘meltdown’ but this is a very clever ploy by you to get the truth out without actually saying it. It’s like a ‘hidden parable’ that only those with ears to hear can hear. Perhaps your response to me could be translated “Tom, you are absolutely right, the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. However, I cannot say that because of sworn allegiance to my ‘Brethren’ and all that I will lose. I have never seen Christ yet I always thought an apostle would. My ranting, crying, pounding the podium, prevarication with journalists etc. is my way of getting the message out subliminally. Of course, it’s false but I cannot state that”.
Now, to respond to your email. You asked me three specific questions and, although I have no obligation to reply because none of those questions have anything to do with claims I have made in public, I will respond. Unlike you, of whom I have asked specific questions pertaining to your published statements which you refuse to answer. Quotes from your email are in a different font to my reply or comments thereon.
"Tom, I love you but you absolutely break my heart. I have seldom met anyone during my years in England–unless it was your son Alan–in whom I saw greater potential. ......... You have a remarkable family. And that, of course, only adds to the immense pain I feel."
Why do you feel pain and how have I caused that pain? I wrote respectfully to you and asked questions based on factual information. Why should that cause you pain?
..................
" Oh, my! Tom, I weep over you and where you now find yourself. Don’t you realize that I have been reading stuff like you sent since I was 25 years old? But, I am sad to say, never in all those years with such disappointment."
Firstly some of the “stuff” I sent you was not available when you were 25 years old e.g. DNA studies confirming origins of American Indians, Book of Abraham papyri ( 1967 I believe) etc. Also, if you figured out the answers when you were 25 (you are now 70+) it should be easy for you to answer my questions, if there were any credible answers. So, why weep over me? If I am wrong in my facts or conclusions, show me in a loving way. Don’t refuse to address the issues and scold me for causing you pain. I suggest your pain comes from a lifetime of trying to be a valiant defender of that which indefensible.
"Tom, the Book of Mormon is true. It was delivered by and translated through the gift and power of God."
All I asked was how such a book, being the word of God, could contain so many falsities which you refuse to answer.
"Alongside this statement you can post on the bulletin board my General Conference talk on the subject. Now, may I ask you just a few questions?"
Yes, I will reply even though you refuse to reply to my questions.
"(1) Have you ever had a spiritual experience in your entire life? "
You know perfectly well I have had thousands of so called spiritual experiences. In my opinion they are equal to any of those that Joseph Smith had.
"Are you having any in recent days, or weeks, or months?"
Every day of my life (perhaps even every waking hour) I experience joy in the wonders and beauty of this planet and those people I love. By the way, weeping during a public address is not a “spiritual experience” it is an emotional experience
"No discussion of the Book of Mormon or the Church or the Gospel of Jesus Christ has any ultimate meaning at all without that experience."
Logical fallacy Dr. Holland? As well as being untrue.
"(2) How does your family feel about your views?"
What views? I have merely stated factual information from either church or school sources. They are not my views but those of so called prophets, seers and revelators and academic experts in specific disciplines. My family’s response is exactly the same as yours. They refuse to answer or discuss the issues and hurl personal insults against me. My ‘sweet angel’ of a wife, as you call her, has repeatedly said it would have been better for her if I had died while a faithful member of the church rather than live to ‘lose my faith’. My son Alan is the only one who eventually made known his ’views’ regarding some of my statements. He agreed there were errors in the Book of Mormon such as the doctrine that there was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago; that Joseph Smith was wrong (i.e. not commanded by God) to have more than one wife; that the church is wrong to campaign against same sex marriage (this was during the California proposition 8 fiasco); however, he still believes Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees! Alan. As you know, is a stake president and has views (the first 3 of the 4 I mentioned) that are in direct opposition to the church. Of course, from the pulpit he will toe the party line.
"Are those views helping them?"
My views, if I were permitted to explain them, would help my family considerably and stop grandchildren being brainwashed into believing something which “you know ain’t so” in the words of Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain with whom you are familiar through your post graduate work. My views would help them be more compassionate of others, less judgemental and use their time to genuinely help others instead of promoting the aims of a church based on a fictional book. By contrast, by following and adopting the views of your church they ought to be (but fortunately are not) racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hate the Catholic Church (whore of the Earth per Book of Mormon), hate Protestant churches ((the Lord told Joseph Smith their creeds were an abomination to Him per JS History), anti Semitic (Mormons teach that the inhabitants of this earth and particularly the Jews are the only people who would have killed the Son of God). I could specify many other groups the church is intolerant toward despite your protestationsto the contrary. Even in my own case your views are nasty and intolerant. According to church literature if someone like me who, as you know, has received the Second Anointing (made my exaltation basically unconditional) ,denies the Holy Ghost (interpreted as denying the church is true) they will be sons of perdition, cast out into outer darkness with Satan and his followers. Whereas, a man such as Adolf Hitler can inherit the Telestial Kingdom, still a kingdom of glory. So a man who kills 6 million Jews and countless others gets a better reward in the next life than I do according to Mormon theology (if there is such a thing). Does that sound like a just, loving God to you? No wonder there is shunning in the Mormon Church.
"Are people happier, prospering more, doing better following your lead?"
Yes, those that do are much happier and grateful to me for whatever small measure of help I have been to them. If you are referring to my family, however, well I have already told you that they have refused to take my lead in trying to establish what is true. Truth obviously means nothing to a true, devout Mormon!
"(3) Who are you trying to convince? Surely not me. Is it yourself or others?"
I am not trying to convince anyone. I merely wrote to you outlining specific information which appeared to contradict your claim/declaration that the Book of Mormon is true. You have chosen not to answer any of those evidences and resort to a personal attack on me. Who are you trying to convince? It would be easy to convince me if you had credible answers, but you don’t. Are you content with convincing gullible church members who dote on your every word? Or, are you trying to convince yourself Jeff? Methinks this may be the case and would certainly explain your outbursts.
"You can do what you want about the Church, so do it. Stay. Leave. Hide. Run. Burn the Book of Mormon. Bury your temple covenants. Do anything you want. As the very book you reject says–truthfully–“you are free to act, and not be acted upon.”
"Tom, my heart is broken as I write this. I wish I hadn’t begun."
Why is your heart broken? If it is out of concern for me why not lovingly and kindly correct my misconceptions if there are any? If it is because I have challenged your beliefs, you need to examine them. If they are based on truth you will be able to explain that to me as I am not a “dodo”. Why do you wish you hadn’t begun? Do I not deserve a reply? Of course, you haven’t even replied to the issues in my letter merely attacked me and ranted.
"I was raised without the Gospel in my youth and now I have it, so I am manifestly the wrong man to talk to about whether to go or whether to stay, whether the Book of Mormon is true or whether it isn't."
But you are wrong. You are exactly the right man for this task. You are the one who has spoken on television, written books and articles and declared solemnly to the world that you KNOW the Book of Mormon is true. Also, from an academic point of view did you not gain a master’s degree for a dissertation on changes to the Book of Mormon? Weren’t your Yale master’s and doctorate degrees on American Studies? Are you not, as an Apostle, a special witness of Jesus Christ? You are the very man to give me credible answers. You must know the truth so why don’t you share it instead of resorting to emotion filled drivel?
I say to you, Jeff, put up or shut up. Answer the considerable and overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction or, if you can’t, stop trying to convince people it is true.
"The Book of Mormon changed my life more dramatically that any book could change any young man of whom I know–before or since– This does not make it true."
Millions of young men have had their lives dramatically changed by reading the Qur’an, the writings of Confucius, of Marcus Aurelius, of Plato, Aristotle, “Harry Potter”, the writings of Karl Marx, the writings of Mao Zedong, also translated as Mao Tse-tung and thousands of other books.
I know a couple of Christian evangelists who were both alcoholics and had their lives transformed by the Bible. They now spend all their time spreading their Christian beliefs. They have been told by the Holy Ghost the Book of Mormon is not from God and Mormons are not Christian. They could claim the truthfulness of their beliefs by your same argument, a book changed their lives that no other book can (including the Book of Mormon).
"it was first and foremost the Book of Mormon that taught me that Jesus is the Christ and filled my soul with lightning." Again, I ask you how can a book so full of falsities teach you that? You should have addressed my issues but, obviously, you cannot I am also aware of very many people who claim their “soul has been filled with lightening” or similar experiences and they have never read the Book of Mormon or have discarded it as false.
Consider this, by your own assertions if the Book of Mormon is not true then the Church is not true. However, if the Book of Mormon is true, it does not follow that your church is true. There is the Community of Christ and 50 or more “Mormon” churches who claim the divinity of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. In fact, those others appear to follow more closely the teachings of the Book of Mormon and those of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. So which would be the true Mormon Church if the Book of Mormon were shown to be true? Those who say Joseph Smith went astray in his polygamy (The Community of Christ) or those who maintain Wilford Woodruff went astray in trying to stop polygamy (the FLDS etc.). Indeed, it would appear that Warren Jeffs is more of a prophet like Joseph Smith than Thomas S. Monson is.
"So do what you want, Tom, but don’t embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy or archeology or horses. The discussion about the power and promise of the Book of Mormon went light years beyond that a long time ago."
Again you amaze me with such a statement. When and how precisely did this go “light years beyond science and history”. Jeff, you are either deliberately holding back information vital for mankind to understand the true nature of this planet and the universe or you are blowing smoke in the air. Which is it? Do you have knowledge our scientists would die for or are you mad?
"I love you and pray God you will be open to some spiritual indication of what is at stake here."
I see no evidence in your email nor in your works that you love me. You have refused to help and tried to blame me for some mysterious pain you feel, and you deride me. Which god will you pray to? The one depicted in a facsimile in the Book of Abraham who Joseph Smith said was God sitting on His throne. The figure has an erect penis which is rather a disturbing image of someone you pray to. It is, of course, quite normal if you understand the truth about the image, that it is a fictitious Egyptian fertility god. Don’t bother Jeff, I desire no supplication to such a being.
"I do love you and I will pray through this very night for you, more so than I will for the man who has cancer whom I now leave to bless. Yours is the more serious circumstance."
How offensive! You are saying I am in a worse condition than a man dying of cancer. Have you gone completely mad? How can you say, let alone think, such a thing? I am so sorry for that man, for anyone suffering a terminal illness, particularly a painful one. I have witnessed many friends and family going through such agony. How cruel and offensive of you to say such a thing!. I am in remarkably good health and associate with friends who love me. I consider myself very blessed or fortunate and would hate to have any illness let alone a terminal one which, I understand, could happen to any of us. How awful of you, I cannot believe you capable of such a thought. You certainly are not the man I considered you to be and, in no way, do you demonstrate the compassion you profess that Jesus Christ taught.
"With immense sorrow but unfailing love,
Jeff"
Your sorrow is self inflicted. I have done nothing except tell the truth. That should not cause you sorrow. The truth should not be your enemy. As for your unfailing love – where is it? You have failed to give me a response, to justify your extraordinary claims and have tried to belittle me with your ravings. How is that ‘unfailing love’?
Jeff, please do not reply to this email unless you have anything of true substance to say. You will be wasting time for both of us. As i said earlier, either put up or shut up. I would like you to be man enough to substantiate that which you claim to be true or stop being a part of the brainwashing of innocent children such as my grandchildren.
Sorry, but unless you are man enough to do this I have lost all respect for you. If I can ever help you to seek truth and understanding I am willing to take whatever time you require,
I mean this in all sincerity,
Tom
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2013
Compiled With: Caligra 1.117
HOSTED BY
| | |
AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.
If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.
AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.
And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.
Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.
Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.
|
|
|