THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
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
"JEFFREY 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.
|
| |
JEFFREY R. HOLLAND
Total Articles:
32
Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland.
|
|
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.
| 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.
| 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 - - -
| 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.
| 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".
| 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: JEFFREY R. HOLLAND -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | 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.
| 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: JEFFREY R. HOLLAND -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | 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."
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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 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: JEFFREY R. HOLLAND -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | 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.
| 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"
| 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
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| Holland's Emotional Blackmail Towards Apostates: "I Say That I Fear You Face A Lot Of Long Nights And Empty Nets"
Monday, Oct 8, 2012, at 07:43 AM
Original Author(s): Alice
Topic: JEFFREY R. HOLLAND -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Anyone watch Holland's talk on Sunday morning? It was all about the Apostles Jesus appointed (you know the one's who met Jesus, not the one's who make vague comments today to convince people of their authority!)
It included two bits of emotional blackmail for apostates:
1. Quote 'To those who were once with us, but have retreated, preferring to pick and choose a few cultural ordoeuvre's from the smorgasbord of the Restoration and leave the rest of the feast, I say that I fear you face a lot of long nights and empty nets' - reference to the talk the passage was on, and how the Apostles failed without Jesus' help. Basically, life outside the Morg will be dreadful so come back
2. He explicitly mentioned returned missionaries and reminded them of the statements they made when baptising converts, how they raised their arm to the square and declared their authority in the name of Jesus. Clearly he is creating a link back to this event as a way of turning them back to TSCC
Wow, Holland. Calm down.
"I say that I fear you face a lot of long nights and empty nets"
That is definitely a threat! My bishop, the stake president, and my home teacher all made the exact same threats to me when I became inactive. They used their self-imposed authority and mutually-appointed positions to intimidate me. They showed up at my door late at night, on three separate visits, and always in two's or three's to outnumber me.
1. They said, outright, that God would withdraw His blessings, and that I would suffer for it.
2. They said that my children would fail.
These statements were made with the air of prophetic authority, just as Holland probably made his statement.
They all had the gall to offer to pray with me, and leave the spirit of the priesthood in my home, before they left. I said, "I have a personal relationship with God, and I will say my own prayers." Part of my prayer when they left, was to exorcise any spirit of hatred and prejudice these awful men left in my home and in my heart.
Obvious cult fear tactics!
Wow, Holland. Keep it up, and drive nice people away!
| Holland is releasing a book, For Times of Trouble, Nov 23 for the Christmas shopping season. As a ramp up to this, he has made some infomercials.
He is up to all his old tricks and as if that is not enough, he has a studio audience that looks like they are witnessing the most important event of their lives.
This might be the worst thing I have ever seen an apostle do.
It looks like they used a professional actress for the emotional response, nodding in agreement with his points. http://youtu.be/bWWNxQf7yW8
There were at least SEVEN different shots of her! I thought that was really, really weird:
0:21, 0:32, 1:12, 1:25, 1:40, 2:47, 3:31
The one shot of the guy in the yellow shirt wiping away a tear - I had no idea what was being said - thank goodness for the mute button. :)
Holland is following a simple, well used, proven recipe for making money - I certainly wouldn't say he's the "king of scam," far from it, but among the Q15, he's probably better at generating financial revenue than the rest of them.
Another speech about how suffering leads to exaltation and that there has to be a suffering to some degree to obtain eternal life. I say life is hard enough without inviting suffering to permeate every cell of a person's being. The martyrdom that is so abundant in the church is perhaps the most damaging long-term effect on the church as a whole. As a result we see old people unhappy and unfulfilled trying to muster enough strength to declare the gospel is true. But deep inside in places they don't talk about you can see their unhappiness. It's evident when you talk to them and you mention life is great when I do all of these things and none of them are tied to TSCC. They almost seem to levitate with your excitement only to quickly self-extinguish their joy with the cold water of martyrdom. Indeed there is no redemption without suffering even as christ did.
Holland's jowls: is it me, or have they grown in the last year? I'd say they have reached the level of Droopy the Dog.
The supposed actress who was frequently on camera - she seemed intent on licking her teeth behind her lips during the first couple of minutes. Maybe she had some food stuck in there.
Most of the audience members had their scriptures open with a note pad on top, and would take notes in unison at various points. Almost as if they did it on cue.
Holland's quavering voice while talking about his testimony being strenghtened in his darkest moments. It didn't even look or sound sincere to me, but it could be the confirmation bias talking here.
Overall the production oozes the feeling of mediocre stagecraft that panders to Mormons, presumably to make them buy JRH's book.
| This is a four minute theater-in-the round produced infomercial about faith and struggle. Staged tears, doubting the sunrise, and embracing faith through hardship.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yo...
I wonder if his struggles have been his own recent abilities to successfully deceive in a less controlled environment.
Jeff, I don't even know what it is you are selling anymore. Is Mormonism the One True Church still? If I say that's not True, I've heard you tell others it's best they move along then.
Where's the conviction and fire, find your Bruce R. and let go of Droopy Dog. You can be a prophet too, but you need to get over being wrong, and just keep insisting in light of all Truth and Knowledge, that Mormonism has always been and always will be The One True Church and that all 7 billion human beings on planet earth will embrace Mormonism or be found unworthy of Celestial glory.
The disappointed academic just isn't going to stop the deceived former Mormons. We know you and we know your tactics, we see you. Oppress the TBMs, they like that stuff.
| Jeffrey R Holland vs "Book Of Mormon And DNA Studies" - Jeff Is Thrown Under The Bus
Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Bazooka
Topic: JEFFREY R. HOLLAND -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland wrote in June of 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 fulfilment of God's special purposes.
With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord's solemn declaration ringing in their ears: "Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them." (Ether 2:8.)
A Promised Land - Jeffrey R. Holland, The Ensign, June 1976, See: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/a-p...
President Newsroom on the new LDS Essays wrote:
The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups
See: http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mor...
What's unusual here is that the Church usually waits until the Apostle is dead before they throw them under the bus.
Holland is still very much alive and yet here we have an updated historical essay, published by the Church, making him out to be a Dodo.
That's got to be a source of much, behind-the-hand- apostolic-snickering at the weekly meeting.....
The Church has done 'a McConkie' on him.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-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 © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
