Fwiw, I have said many times that I want to be judged by what I actually say, not by what people assume I have said based on their emotional reactions. I am a parser by nature, but I also am a parser because I want to be charitable and have others be charitable to me. I tend to read and edit my comments at least three times before submitting them, and it has been more than that with this one. That’s the main reason I went back and reviewed this talk – to see what he actually said, since so many people reacted differently to it. I listened sentence-by-sentence so I could understand the actual context of each line that was being dissected – how they applied to the statements before them and after them – to what and whom each one applied. In the end, I came to a simple conclusion:

Andrew’s post is spot-on – and just about everyone (on all sides of this issue) heard what they thought they would hear – what they assumed he was saying. The talk was sound-bited by people who reacted very differently, and few people realized how they were taking statements out of the overall context of what I saw as a very narrow focus. I don’t think Elder Holland said what his most ardent and vocal critics are claiming he said, but I also don’t think he said what his most ardent and vocal supporters are claiming he said.

“And I am sure that Elder Holland and others would basically consider me in apostasy.”

I think you a bit hard on your self here. Apostasy is really open opposition to the truth as we define it. I didn’t think that was your issue, only that you have not received a strong testimony of certain things. As you read the blog, you can tell the difference between those who are questioning and unsure and those who have gone way over the line into apostasy.

I appreciate your insight and absolutely don’t think you are “overstepping”. It has been very strange as I was born and raised LDS with the notion that this is the “only true Church” and all that that implies (ie. even taken to McConkie’s extreme interpretation). I certainly don’t think that the LDS church is false by any means, any have never been convinced by all of the anti-Mormon things floating around out there. However, I have come more and more to the realization that there is a lot of truth out there, that there are a lot of very good people of all faiths who I am absolutely convinced have every chance of returning to God as I do, and that I have much yet to learn on this journey through life.

As you state, perhaps that is the answer to my dilemma with the BofM. I am sure that many, many people have felt “confirming” feelings by reading it. And if that and the Bible are all one reads, I can see how that would “confirm” the truth of it. I wonder how many people have also truly studied the Qu’ran, the Gita, etc. as well. How can someone truly say those are false, unless they’ve given them the same test as the BofM? As Paul said, “prove all things…”

I don’t know where my quest for truth will end up. I don’t know the path that God would have me travel. I have become much less dogmatic about people of other faiths over the past few years. I have seen much more good in everyone around me. And perhaps this will ultimately be my answer. It it a quite unorthodox viewpoint for a Mormon, probably to the point where I will never be called to any future leadership positions if I am honest with myself. And I am sure that Elder Holland and others would basically consider me in apostasy. But it is what it is. I think that if God wants me to return to the “TBM” path, He has the power to answer me in a different way, a way that I can understand.

Coming from a Restoration tradition where we’ve given up the notion of being “the one and only” true church to simply being “a true church”, I looked at your recitation of the “confirming feelings” you get from many world religious scriptures with some interest. Maybe that IS your answer as to what is true, and the next question is exactly the one you began to frame: “Then where do You want me?”

I think the question was meant to illustrate your dilemma, and probably does exactly that. Maybe that’s purposeful, too.

I hope I’m not overstepping by pointing that out.

I certainly don’t cheer any attempt to close the door to “less traditional” ideas about the Book of Mormon. I, too would have been uncomfortable with the talk had I understood him as saying that. I just didn’t hear it, and I was certainly listening for it. It really didn’t take any strained analysis of each sentence; that’s just how I heard the talk. I find myself as baffled by your reaction as you are of mine. I can only imagine that to some listeners, a fervent testimony equals a traditional testimony, regardless of the words used. To me, his failure to actually testify or even mention historicity speaks volumes.

I guess whatever message Elder Holland intended to convey, it didn’t get through to all of us.

A: Hickory Dickory dock,
B: The mouse ran up the clock,
B: The clock struck one, the mouse ran down,
A: Hickory Dickory dock.

~Fin~

I listen to the talk again this evening as I tried to not be reckless in writing my impressions. I’m going to say this as gently as I know how without sparking another round of debate. I don’t know how anyone can watch his talk and then make some of the statements you’ve made about it. In my opinion, (which is worth about what you’re paying for it) he leaves no room for anyone who doubts the books origins to still accept it as divine. No offence to Andrew and his post, but EH couldn’t have been much clearer when taken with the emotion he put behind it, his body language, and sum of his words. Now I guess you could analyze each sentence and come away with some strained belief that he was leaving room for those who think the book can still be viable scripture and not be literal, but I can’t. But then again, I wasn’t willing to see both of Hyrum’s copies of the BoM as the same either while so many were…

I apologize for my pointed remarks. I agree that there are any number of reasonable explanations for the Book of Mormon. As to which of the two books is authentic, I don’t really have a dog in that hunt. Like you, I initially assumed that the book in the CN article was authentic, since we knew nothing about the book Jeffery Holland presented. But once we had additional information on the book, it became apparent that Elder Holland had every reason (the certification of Joseph F. Smith and presumably the assurance of the Church Historian’s Office) to believe that he had the correct book. He may not even have been aware of the other book’s existence. What got my dander up was that even in light of the new information, you seemed (until now) unwilling to back away from the claim that Elder Holland knew he had the wrong book, and was deliberately lying about it. Again, I apologize.

It is remarkable that different people can hear the same words and yet understand such different things. I loved the talk for precisely the opposite reasons you didn’t. I loved it because to me it so obviously steered clear of any attempt to box anyone into “traditional” interpretations of the Book of Mormon.

I didn’t (and still don’t) see any attacks against people who honestly come to other ideas. He didn’t apply the word “pathetic” to to any humans. As to “deceived,” “crawl,” “foolish,” or “misled,” those terms were explicitly *not* applied to people who approach the book honestly, but to those who do so dishonestly. If he intended to affirm historicity, he could easily have done so, and given the strident nature of the delivery, it is difficult to imagine him shying away from a direct affirmation of historicity if that had been his intent. Given his emphasis on “divinity,” the complete absence of any reference to historicity, and his previous PBS comments, I find it difficult to believe that he didn’t deliberately leave the door open for those who find themselves not able to go all the way to the traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon. I absolutely loved that about the talk. I am all about leaving doors open.

When going back to review the content of the talk, I was particularly struck by this line:

“I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies.”

Notice that he doesn’t insist on historicity. He doesn’t even insist on acceptance of divinity. He only states that a full testimony and comfort come from accepting the divinity of the book. As to those unable to fully accept the book’s divinity, I have no sense that he’s pushing them into a corner. To the contrary, it sounds to me like he’s just fine with partial faith, or even no faith, though he obviously feels we would all do well to come to a “full faith.”

I don’t see him making any argument that any empirical evidence compels belief in the Book of Mormon. In fact, I see the opposite. In my first comment in this thread, I tried to make the point that the question of “divinity” that he emphasizes does not lend itself well to any conclusions based on empirical study. We accept (or not) the divinity of the Book of Mormon (or the Qur’an) for ineffable subjective spiritual reasons. He wisely avoids casting the Book of Mormon in terms of historicity or science, and instead places matters of faith squarely in the arena they belong: namely as a matter of faith. We hardly expect Muslims to pussyfoot around the Qur’an, engaging with alternative authorship theories and the like. Muslims accept their holy book precisely because it is holy to them–because they regard it as divine–hardly a position that can be challenged on empirical grounds. I liked that Elder Holland proudly and forcefully did the same with the Book of Mormon, and left all issues of historicity as firmly secondary to the question of divinity.

I would say you and MikeS are entitled to a strong witness. I can’t answer as to why you have not had that. I don’t know you. And I won’t, as I said before, offer the trite reasons and/or remedies because we are all different. I believe Moroni’s promise, it worked for me, even though i was converted by reading the Doctrine and Covenants, not the Book of Mormon. My reading reading of the Book of Mormon was as confusing, boring and otherwise unintelligible as anything I had experienced. But, in time, it came. but that was for me, the way it transpired.

What I mean is that I can conceive of examples where a person’s opinions can fairly be presumed to be the result of willful ignorance, likely motivated by malice. Denial of the Holocaust is one example.

The evidence, spiritual and temporal, of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is so much more indefinite that there’s no comparison — and so no obvious reason to condemn a person for reaching one conclusion rather than another.

If a person is honestly convinced that he has had a spiritual witness of such power and clarity that it tilts the weight of the evidence in the Book of Mormon’s favor, by all means, follow that witness where it leads. Only recognize that what you feel, and the conclusions you drew from it, are unique to you.

“And so we damn as “fools” those who “wish to disbelieve” the Book of Mormon — as if its authenticity were so self-evident that you’d have to be on a moral par with a Holocaust denier to doubt it.”

Waxing a bit eloquent there, aren’t we?

As Thomas mentioned, just feeling inspired or closer to God from reading the BofM doesn’t really give me a testimony for a very simple reason. I have read the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, and many of the fundamental Buddhist texts. There are a great many things in there that have also drawn me closer to God. There are precepts in Buddhist texts that have helped me deal more with various issues than anything I have read in the BofM. And while I have felt good feelings reading the BofM, I have felt exactly the same feelings reading these various other things. I interpret this as the spirit confirming truth, wherever it may be, but this could be my own interpretation. So feeling that doesn’t confirm the BofM to me any more than it confirms the Qu’ran or the Gita. To me, there is a difference between the BofM containing truth with all that the Church tries to hang on the BofM (ie. BofM -> Joseph Smith -> only true Church to the exclusion of everyone else -> following the current teachings unquestioningly, etc.) It therefore seems like I (or anyone) should be able to get a testimony of the BofM as what Elder Holland implies, the keystone of our religion, the book that ties it all together, proof that this is God’s only true church, etc.

Instead, I have for decades tried to take Moroni’s promise to heart. I have prayed for an answer of some sort that I would understand that the BofM is everything it is claimed to be. I have prayed about it in the temple. I have prayed about it alone in nature for hours on end. I have fasted about it. I promised investigators they would know it is true. I realize that everyone has different ways of getting answers. I am to the point where I don’t really care in what way the answer comes. I would just expect that I would be able to have some way of knowing that I would understand was an answer to my prayers.

Unfortunately, after all these decades, I still can’t say that I have received that answer. I feel good feelings when I read the BofM. I feel good feelings when I read the Qu’ran. I feel good feelings when I read the Bible. I feel good feelings when I read the Gita. If these good feelings alone are enough, then should I be Mormon, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist?

“The above notwithstanding, I think your ultimate hypothesis and it’s basis are largely incomplete. While you have reasoned an explanation for the state of the two books, one that supports your position, you have not ruled out reasonable alternative explanations.”

You are absolutely correct with this statement. To be honest, the note put here from the MADB caught me completely off guard. Just when I think I’ve made my point, someone throws in a new twist. I shouldn’t have resorted to a knee jerk reaction and posted another comment without thinking it through.

I also should have known better than trust anything that comes from an approved church publication. Left Field has made it his mission to attack me personally largely because I trusted the “Church News” story over Elder Holland. It doesn’t even dawn on him that I shouldn’t have been put in that situation in the first place. It’s not like I got the information about the book from some obscure anti-mormon site…

Elder Holland’s talk was offensive to me and many like me as it was delivered with such arrogance and venom, that he incited anger in my initial response here toward him. I should be above that and realize that they’re getting there back up because many good people in the church are starting to doubt the origins of the BoM. Unfortunately the spirit of contention spreads like wildfire. Left Field feels justified in sharp remarks to me and I responded in a way that’s equally unkind. I’m going to put aside my anger with EH and Left Field and simply state that I for one believe there’s plenty of reasonable explanations for the origins of the BoM that don’t involve divine help. I also believe that members will need to crawl, climb, and go under the archeological, linguistic and DNA evidences that are missing from this esteemed volume…

In other words, do we hold our church to the same standards we hold others? If not, why not?

One fundamental problem with Elder Holland’s reasoning (as with virtually all LDS apologetics) is that it’s hard to see how any person’s alternative speculations about the Book of Mormon’s origins would be considered “honest.” Elder Holland just swept every such attempt into the “frankly pathetic” category. It’s hard to avoid the sense that the challenge to “honestly attempt to account” for the Book of Mormon’s origin isn’t made in good faith: Elder Holland makes no bones about his contempt for the “crawlers” who do so. No alternative theory will *ever* satisfy his faction, no matter how objectively well-reasoned and plausible.

Jeff @224: I’m in more of less the same situation as MikeS. I don’t believe I’m “looking beyond the mark.” I believe I am entitled to “come boldly to the throne of grace,” and if I ask my Father in Heaven for a fish (or spiritual guidance), He won’t give me a stone. The Book of Mormon promises that the Holy Ghost will provide a witness of the book’s truth, such that I can *know* of its truth. I have not had any such infallible witness. I know it, and I know God knows it, and I am not impressed with well-meaning people (not including you here) trying to tell me that maybe I’ve gotten a witness and just haven’t noticed it. I’m not selling God so short as to believe that what I’ve experienced is as good as it gets. The visions and blessings of old, this isn’t.

The fact that the book may draw me closer to God (on its own, or as a part of the whole Mormon package) is useful, but “assists in drawing people closer to God” does not equal “literally true.” (In 1978, the First Presidency declared that Muhammad and other religious leaders outside the LDS or larger Christian religious traditions “philosophers “received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations.” If the Koran can draw people closer to God without being literally true (which it can’t be, if the Book of Mormon is, and vice versa), then the reasoning that “inspiring = literally true” must fail.

Could Joseph have written the book himself? Nobody knows. The Church makes the case (based on accounts written long afer the fact) that he was too ignorant to have done so. Maybe he was, and maybe he wasn’t. I see in the Book of Mormon a fascinating mix of sophistication and crudity, of profundity and melodrama, and I am honestly convinced that an honest reader ought to spot instances of both. Maybe Muhammad (as the Muslims say) was likewise too ignorant to have written the Koran. Again, if an argument works as a defense for two conflicting religious traditions, it’s a poor argument. Do I know for certain that religious genius can’t emerge as a diamond in the rough? I can’t say for certain that I do.

What gives me the greatest cause to doubt the Book of Mormon’s literal authenticity is its preaching the very doctrine Elder Holland emphasized in his talk: God judges us based on what we believe, even about things for which the evidence is ambiguous enough that reasonable people will draw different conclusions. I see that kind of sectarian religion — “Believe as I do, never mind the evidence, or be damned” — as the font of virtually all religious conflict. That kind of conflict may not be quite the primary evil that secularists make it out to be (their secular orthodoxies have a much higher body count over the last few centuries), but it’s not chopped liver, either. If “pride is enmity,” as Ezra Taft Benson wisely quoted C.S. Lewis, that which creates enmity without a good cause is unlikely to be of God.

Mormons have an unusually high level of spiritual conviction. Part of it is achieved, I fear, by defining themselves, and their righteousness, in contrast to a constructed “reserve army of the damned.” To reduce the sphere of the righteous enough to make us feel special (after all, when everybody’s special, nobody’s special!), we have to define “righteousness” much more narrowly than “common decency.” We have to include assent to our tribe’s sectarian doctrines as one of the critical characteristics of a truly good man. And so we damn as “fools” those who “wish to disbelieve” the Book of Mormon — as if its authenticity were so self-evident that you’d have to be on a moral par with a Holocaust denier to doubt it.

In other words I would like to give it a try. My theory is that someone wrote The Book of Mormon, similar to how other stories like it have been written. Some quick examples for me are, Star Wars (I know technically movies), or Lord of the Rings. Someone with a creative imagination wrote the stories, be it Joseph Smith or some else, though personally I tend to favor the some else position. They likely borrowed, at least, concepts from surrounding authors and or literature, as well as taking advantage of the contemporary Christian issues, including speculations on the American Indians. If I don’t believe that The Book of Mormon is an actual record, should the above justification be a reasonable enough explanation to “crawl” away with? I think so.

The other side to the pendulum, is The Book of Mormon research. After all, if the non-believer or non-member/investigator “should” be under the obligation to explain how The Book of Mormon came into being, isn’t the Church under a much heavier obligation. Shouldn’t this also entail anthropology, archaeology, and geography – and all of this particularly in light of Prophecy? As of the late the official position has been no official position, relative to The Book of Mormon geography. If they can’t explain the clear dearth in these areas, no objective evidence exists as of yet – that would satisfy a non-Mormon, should they also crawl over, under, and around that.

It seems clear, when you really analyze Elder Hollands comments, it was a power play and nothing more. Whether you fall in the believing camp, or the non-believing camp, I think we can all agree that every side generally has validity for it’s various reasons and positions – regardless of which one turns out to be true. I would think that Elder Holland knows this, so I can only assume therefore that his comments were more intended to exert authority than to frankly address the issue.