Comments on: Sunday Afternoon in a Nutshell http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/ Truth Will Prevail Fri, 25 May 2012 15:39:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: KM http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300701 KM Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:47:09 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300701 There's a black and white thinking here that dismisses other, legitimate paths through life. It's a temptation, when finding something true and right for you, to extrapolate that to the rest of humankind. As such, I think Holland's anger was misplaced. There’s a black and white thinking here that dismisses other, legitimate paths through life. It’s a temptation, when finding something true and right for you, to extrapolate that to the rest of humankind. As such, I think Holland’s anger was misplaced.

]]> By: Jack http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300687 Jack Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:38:13 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300687 Elder Holland: "I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity..." Notice the HUGE qualifier here: "...without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–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..." He continues: "...if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit." He makes it clear that if we have not *honestly* attempted to account for those things that he states in his qualifier it is *then* that we have been deceived. That's putting it rather mildy, I think. Of course, I'm one to believe that even those who do honestly account for those things and still reject the BoM are probably deceived. But then Elder Holland's a lot nicer guy than I am. Elder Holland:

“I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity…”

Notice the HUGE qualifier here:

“…without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–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…”

He continues:

“…if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.”

He makes it clear that if we have not *honestly* attempted to account for those things that he states in his qualifier it is *then* that we have been deceived. That’s putting it rather mildy, I think. Of course, I’m one to believe that even those who do honestly account for those things and still reject the BoM are probably deceived. But then Elder Holland’s a lot nicer guy than I am.

]]> By: Mike http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300671 Mike Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:00:49 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300671 Ok chaps, now that we got all of that settled; An intelligent and well educated member of my family once had a strong testimony of the BofM, held numerous ward callings and even taught early morning seminary for several years. But about 5 years ago, went off the Mormon reservation and attends an evangelical church now and thinks Joseph Smith made it up, with lots of help from the Bible, Ethan and perhaps others. Share this Elder Holland talk or not? Assume an attention span limited to maybe 2 or 3 conference talks, if that. Ok chaps, now that we got all of that settled;

An intelligent and well educated member of my family once had a strong testimony of the BofM, held numerous ward callings and even taught early morning seminary for several years. But about 5 years ago, went off the Mormon reservation and attends an evangelical church now and thinks Joseph Smith made it up, with lots of help from the Bible, Ethan and perhaps others.

Share this Elder Holland talk or not?

Assume an attention span limited to maybe 2 or 3 conference talks, if that.

]]> By: Matt Evans http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300670 Matt Evans Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:29:52 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300670 Frank, I think the talk would have been better had he not presented the gaining or losing a testimony in the Book of Mormon as an intellectual exercise. I disagree with him on that and I'm confident that I could find quotes showing other Apostles who agree with me and disagree with Holland on this point. And of course if it is an intellectual exercise, and we're to weigh the probabilities of the possible origins of this book of 531 pages, etc., the intellectual issue isn't whether it teams with literary and semitic complexity, or any other argument in favor of Book of Mormon historicity, but whether the arguments in favor overcome the arguments against, such as anachronisms, modern language, King James bible, lack of archeological record, etc. I agree that it's very unlikely that he uses this tone when talking to people who struggle with or even reject the Church's position about the origins of the Book of Mormon, but I'm not as confident as you are that missionaries and members won't take this as signalling that its time to throw down the gauntlet and raise their voice about the foolishness of ignoring chiasmus. Frank, I think the talk would have been better had he not presented the gaining or losing a testimony in the Book of Mormon as an intellectual exercise. I disagree with him on that and I’m confident that I could find quotes showing other Apostles who agree with me and disagree with Holland on this point.

And of course if it is an intellectual exercise, and we’re to weigh the probabilities of the possible origins of this book of 531 pages, etc., the intellectual issue isn’t whether it teams with literary and semitic complexity, or any other argument in favor of Book of Mormon historicity, but whether the arguments in favor overcome the arguments against, such as anachronisms, modern language, King James bible, lack of archeological record, etc.

I agree that it’s very unlikely that he uses this tone when talking to people who struggle with or even reject the Church’s position about the origins of the Book of Mormon, but I’m not as confident as you are that missionaries and members won’t take this as signalling that its time to throw down the gauntlet and raise their voice about the foolishness of ignoring chiasmus.

]]> By: Brad Kramer http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300668 Brad Kramer Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:10:48 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300668 I think you're overstating the scope of the case in your second paragraph, Eric. But, overall, point taken. It is a delicate balance. That said, strong speech does not necessarily require the particular kinds of confrontational and combative comments with which I and others here have taken specific issue. I have personally seen Elder Holland use strong speech in ways that promoted inclusiveness made space for the less orthodox. Still strong speech. And, still, perhaps divisive in that it might make people who have negative attitudes toward the unorthodox or toward inclusiveness feel marginalized. Like I said, a tough balance to strike. It just felt to me that in this particular speech, Elder Holland made more of an effort at balancing it at some times than at others. I think you’re overstating the scope of the case in your second paragraph, Eric. But, overall, point taken. It is a delicate balance. That said, strong speech does not necessarily require the particular kinds of confrontational and combative comments with which I and others here have taken specific issue. I have personally seen Elder Holland use strong speech in ways that promoted inclusiveness made space for the less orthodox. Still strong speech. And, still, perhaps divisive in that it might make people who have negative attitudes toward the unorthodox or toward inclusiveness feel marginalized. Like I said, a tough balance to strike. It just felt to me that in this particular speech, Elder Holland made more of an effort at balancing it at some times than at others.

]]> By: Eric Russell http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300666 Eric Russell Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:44:21 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300666 Brad, I think your #2 is a natural consequence of strong speech. In Oct 98 Elder Holland spoke in similarly strong terms – if not stronger – about the gravity of the law of chastity. I had never thought about it until now, but using your lens to approach the talk, I imagine it could have been read as encouraging members to take condescending attitudes towards those who fail to uphold it. The notion that one should never say anything that could, “engender or deepen hostility on the part of some believers toward either toward nonbelievers or toward those believers who publicly express sympathy toward non-believers” means that no one speaks in strong language about anything ever. Brad, I think your #2 is a natural consequence of strong speech. In Oct 98 Elder Holland spoke in similarly strong terms – if not stronger – about the gravity of the law of chastity. I had never thought about it until now, but using your lens to approach the talk, I imagine it could have been read as encouraging members to take condescending attitudes towards those who fail to uphold it.

The notion that one should never say anything that could, “engender or deepen hostility on the part of some believers toward either toward nonbelievers or toward those believers who publicly express sympathy toward non-believers” means that no one speaks in strong language about anything ever.

]]> By: Brad Kramer http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300665 Brad Kramer Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:41:04 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300665 Being neither a mind-reader nor omniscient, I offer the following very carefully worded statements of my overall impressions of the talk: 1) If Elder Holland's purpose (or one of his purposes) was to bear impassioned witness of the divinity of the Book of Mormon and have that witness move other believers, I think he succeeded. 2) If Elder Holland's purpose was to engender or deepen hostility on the part of some believers toward either toward non0believers or toward those believers who publicly express sympathy toward non-believers, I think he succeeded. (If this was not one of his purposes, then this outcome has been an unintended consequence of the talk). 3) I consider the outcome of #1 to be positive. 4) I consider the outcome of #2 to be negative. 5) Whether or not the positive outweighed the negative is not, for me, a particularly relevant question, since I believe outcome #1 is not dependent on outcome #2. Which is to say, (and clearly there are some who disagree with me), I believe that the apostolic witness of the Book of Mormon could have been just as powerful (if not more so) had it not sown division and hostility between believers and non-believers or between believers with differing degrees of sympathy toward persons with non-orthodox positions. That is all. Being neither a mind-reader nor omniscient, I offer the following very carefully worded statements of my overall impressions of the talk:

1) If Elder Holland’s purpose (or one of his purposes) was to bear impassioned witness of the divinity of the Book of Mormon and have that witness move other believers, I think he succeeded.

2) If Elder Holland’s purpose was to engender or deepen hostility on the part of some believers toward either toward non0believers or toward those believers who publicly express sympathy toward non-believers, I think he succeeded. (If this was not one of his purposes, then this outcome has been an unintended consequence of the talk).

3) I consider the outcome of #1 to be positive.

4) I consider the outcome of #2 to be negative.

5) Whether or not the positive outweighed the negative is not, for me, a particularly relevant question, since I believe outcome #1 is not dependent on outcome #2. Which is to say, (and clearly there are some who disagree with me), I believe that the apostolic witness of the Book of Mormon could have been just as powerful (if not more so) had it not sown division and hostility between believers and non-believers or between believers with differing degrees of sympathy toward persons with non-orthodox positions.

That is all.

]]> By: Jack http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300655 Jack Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:50:59 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300655 Ah, that was kind of a crummy thing for my to say. But thanks for responding anyway. No I can't find a specific assertion. But I'm as good as anyone else around here (ahem) at digging up "subtext." Ah, that was kind of a crummy thing for my to say. But thanks for responding anyway.

No I can’t find a specific assertion. But I’m as good as anyone else around here (ahem) at digging up “subtext.”

]]> By: Kristine http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300654 Kristine Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:40:12 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300654 Yes. Yes.

]]> By: Jack http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/sunday-afternoon-in-a-nutshell/#comment-300653 Jack Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:35:25 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9872#comment-300653 Can you say that he was? Can you say that he was?

]]>