Here's the Holland quote the TBMs on the blogs seems to delight in the most:

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit." 

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

". . .if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit." 

 

 Um . . . who crawled?  I walked, head up, happy, and never looked back.

ClearThoughts:

Here's the Holland quote the TBMs on the blogs seems to delight in the most:

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teaming with literary and semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit." 

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

 

 Oh for heaven's sake.

 

"teeming with literary and semitic complexity" - a meaningless phrase. What the heck is semitic complexity? Really, really technical Middle Eastern stuff? I mean, really what a silly thing to say! And the literary complexity claim is made without support. Let's begin by stripping out all direct quotes - what does that do, drop the size of the book by 1/3? More? Now remove all clearly derivated stories (conversion of Paul etc) which excises another chunk. For the sake of the reader we should probably take out all those 'and it came to pass' bits which could lower the word count by half (okay, exaggeration, but still!). Move anything that is just silly or illogical to one side (cutting off all those arms, removing Laban's head without getting blood everywhere, sea voyages in sealed dishes etc). What's left, really? 

 

"tens of millions of readers" - since the church claims, what, 13 million members? And is now at its peak then what is he saying? If tens of millions of people have had profound spiritual experiences from reading the BoM then the vast majority of them have then chosen not to join which implies the profound spiritual impact was to say the BoM was not true. Either that or he's exaggerating for effect in a sort of ridiculous way...

 

"crawling over, under or around the BoM" - he's forgotten through. Prepositional phrases are fun! But this is just another rather stupid phrase when you study it - what is the image he's presenting? A bunch of non-believers sort of writhing around on a small book. It's not a 2001 Space Odyssey monolith - it's a little paperback. 

 

Poor rhetoric which apparently counted on passionate delivery and a context of heightened vulnerability on the part of listeners. I don't think it's going to translate all that well in text, particularly to anyone who isn't already convinced.

ClearThoughts:

Here's the Holland quote the TBMs on the blogs seems to delight in the most:

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teaming with literary and semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit." 

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

 

Foolish and crawling?

 

 

The folks I've met on this site have, as a group, been characterized by greater intelligence, sincerity and integrity than any other group I've had the pleasure to know.

 

Mr. Holland's Opus, indeed....

JillOut:

Mr. Holland's Opus, indeed....

 

Best title for Holland's rant!

 

   

 

ClearThoughts:

Here's the Holland quote the TBMs on the blogs seems to delight in the most:

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teaming with literary and semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit." 

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

This is what one does when they don't have a rational argument on their side.  Their only defence is to throw insults and personal attacks because that is how they feel, like their beliefs are being weakened and attacked.  Personal attacks are usually the result of not having a rational explanation for all of the questions that are brought up by the opposing side. It really is sad, and I have sympathy for JH and any mos still stuck in this cognitive disonance state.  It's not a fun place to be.

mikeutah:
This is what one does when they don't have a rational argument on their side.  Their only defence is to throw insults and personal attacks because that is how they feel, like their beliefs are being weakened and attacked. Personal attacks are usually the result of not having a rational explanation for all of the questions that are brought up by the opposing side. It really is sad, and I have sympathy for JH and any mos still stuck in this cognitive disonance state.  It's not a fun place to be.

 

 

And this is what they've done from the beginning. Anyone who left the church or criticized JS had their reputation tarred and feathered to the point that these same old slander is repeated as fact to this day (Thomas Marsh to name one).

ClearThoughts:
...

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

 

There's a method to the madness.

 

By tossing out not-so-subtle insults, he's making an invidious distinction between insiders and outsiders, which ceremonial organizations need to remain relevant.  This banal distinction gives insiders an identity and reinforces that identity by contrasting it to outsiders.  Outsiders are feared, hated, dehumanized, and (most of all) pitied.  Insiders have the truth, the light, and the way.  It's blatant emotional manipulation.

 

BTW, I like your saying at the end.

 

Clio:

 Oh for heaven's sake.

 

"teeming with literary and semitic complexity" - a meaningless phrase. What the heck is semitic complexity? Really, really technical Middle Eastern stuff? I mean, really what a silly thing to say! And the literary complexity claim is made without support. Let's begin by stripping out all direct quotes - what does that do, drop the size of the book by 1/3? More? Now remove all clearly derivated stories (conversion of Paul etc) which excises another chunk. For the sake of the reader we should probably take out all those 'and it came to pass' bits which could lower the word count by half (okay, exaggeration, but still!). Move anything that is just silly or illogical to one side (cutting off all those arms, removing Laban's head without getting blood everywhere, sea voyages in sealed dishes etc). What's left, really? 

 

"tens of millions of readers" - since the church claims, what, 13 million members? And is now at its peak then what is he saying? If tens of millions of people have had profound spiritual experiences from reading the BoM then the vast majority of them have then chosen not to join which implies the profound spiritual impact was to say the BoM was not true. Either that or he's exaggerating for effect in a sort of ridiculous way...

 

"crawling over, under or around the BoM" - he's forgotten through. Prepositional phrases are fun! But this is just another rather stupid phrase when you study it - what is the image he's presenting? A bunch of non-believers sort of writhing around on a small book. It's not a 2001 Space Odyssey monolith - it's a little paperback. 

 

Poor rhetoric which apparently counted on passionate delivery and a context of heightened vulnerability on the part of listeners. I don't think it's going to translate all that well in text, particularly to anyone who isn't already convinced.

I'm thinking he wants the mind to go to cockroaches or some other insect or small animal (rats).  What else crawls over, under and around small objects.  He specifically chose that word for the image it brings to mind..IMO  Not fall over, not stumble, not jump, but 'crawling over, under or around'.

 

{crawl: a slow mode of locomotion on hands and knees or dragging the body.

Crawling is a form of animal locomotion generally involving slow movement along the ground, such as that seen in snakes, snails and earthworms. (of an insect or small animal) move slowly along the surface.}

 

Your post is exactly why I'm looking forward for the entire text version of his speech to come out on Thursday.  It's so full of fallacies and misrepresentations, it will be like Christmas.  

 

mikeutah:

 

It really is sad, and I have sympathy for JH and any mos still stuck in this cognitive disonance state.  It's not a fun place to be.

 

mikeutah, I just wanted to say, I agree with you all the time, so I hardly ever bother to say so anymore, I just figure it goes without saying. I hope you are aware of that!!

ClearThoughts:

I'm thinking he wants the mind to go to cockroaches or some other insect or small animal (rats).  What else crawls over, under and around small objects.  He specifically chose that word for the image it brings to mind..IMO  Not fall over, not stumble, not jump, but 'crawling over, under or around'.

It almost makes me think of the kind of pep talk a coach might give to a team before a game, or a general to troops before battle. Trying to dehumanize the "enemy," so followers will want to beat them -- NOT join them.

ClearThoughts:

 

Your post is exactly why I'm looking forward for the entire text version of his speech to come out on Thursday.  It's so full of fallacies and misrepresentations, it will be like Christmas.  

 

I wonder if the Morgots at the COB have any idea how much the LDS.org site gets used by non-faithul personnel -- anti's, exMo's, PostMo's, etc. They probably just see the hit count and say, "oh, lookie how many people are oh, so interested in us!"

 

I used the scripture site all the time. So easy to copy and paste their words to use against them.

 

 

ClearThoughts:

 

I'm thinking he wants the mind to go to cockroaches or some other insect or small animal (rats).  What else crawls over, under and around small objects.  He specifically chose that word for the image it brings to mind..IMO  Not fall over, not stumble, not jump, but 'crawling over, under or around'.

 

{crawl: a slow mode of locomotion on hands and knees or dragging the body.

Crawling is a form of animal locomotion generally involving slow movement along the ground, such as that seen in snakes, snails and earthworms. (of an insect or small animal) move slowly along the surface.}

 

Your post is exactly why I'm looking forward for the entire text version of his speech to come out on Thursday.  It's so full of fallacies and misrepresentations, it will be like Christmas.  

 

 

 You're absolutely right. It's really basic rhetorical practice, and not very subtle. The problem is that while this sort of imagery works when you've got a live audience and people listening to the words, the cold hard text has a much different feel. What he has done, unintentionally, is throw the BoM to the ground and covered it with vermin. Yes, we evil, horrible apostates are the vermin, but look where the BoM is! It's a terrible image and I'm rather surprised the pre-conference editors didn't caution him about it. I think it was a gamble that will have short term benefits but long-term problems.

 

 Mwa ha ha ha... I know! It's so wrong of me but I do look forward to some juicy textual analysis... maybe color coded logical fallacies...

JillOut:

mikeutah:

 

It really is sad, and I have sympathy for JH and any mos still stuck in this cognitive disonance state.  It's not a fun place to be.

 

mikeutah, I just wanted to say, I agree with you all the time, so I hardly ever bother to say so anymore, I just figure it goes without saying. I hope you are aware of that!!

 

Well thank you.  Glad something I said is on track with all of you brilliant people!

Clio:

 

 You're absolutely right. It's really basic rhetorical practice, and not very subtle. The problem is that while this sort of imagery works when you've got a live audience and people listening to the words, the cold hard text has a much different feel. What he has done, unintentionally, is throw the BoM to the ground and covered it with vermin. Yes, we evil, horrible apostates are the vermin, but look where the BoM is! It's a terrible image and I'm rather surprised the pre-conference editors didn't caution him about it. I think it was a gamble that will have short term benefits but long-term problems.

 

 Mwa ha ha ha... I know! It's so wrong of me but I do look forward to some juicy textual analysis... maybe color coded logical fallacies...

 

I doubt he was following his pre-written script during the emotional upheaval parts of his talk.  He was in the heat of desperation and cognitive disonance.  He was flinging arms, hands, fingers and eyes all over the place.  Try muting the video to see just how much his body language reaks of desperation, anger and irrationality.

Philosophe Roi:

ClearThoughts:
...

 

Clearly, he's belittling those who have left the church.  I've already seen a couple references from TBMs referring to anti-mormons 'crawling' out of the woodwork to discredit his powerful speech.  Is this what they've come to these days?  Name calling and insults for those who have left?  Sad, very sad.

 

I guess this quote rings true:

 

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

 

There's a method to the madness.

 

By tossing out not-so-subtle insults, he's making an invidious distinction between insiders and outsiders, which ceremonial organizations need to remain relevant.  This banal distinction gives insiders an identity and reinforces that identity by contrasting it to outsiders.  Outsiders are feared, hated, dehumanized, and (most of all) pitied.  Insiders have the truth, the light, and the way.  It's blatant emotional manipulation.

 

BTW, I like your saying at the end.

They know what they're doing.  You could take his speech as well as Oaks and highlight the control techniques used to keep members in the 'fold'.  From Steve Hassan's Cult Characteristics:

7. Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside" of the group
b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.
c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group's perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

 

 

mikeutah:

Clio:

 

 You're absolutely right. It's really basic rhetorical practice, and not very subtle. The problem is that while this sort of imagery works when you've got a live audience and people listening to the words, the cold hard text has a much different feel. What he has done, unintentionally, is throw the BoM to the ground and covered it with vermin. Yes, we evil, horrible apostates are the vermin, but look where the BoM is! It's a terrible image and I'm rather surprised the pre-conference editors didn't caution him about it. I think it was a gamble that will have short term benefits but long-term problems.

 

 Mwa ha ha ha... I know! It's so wrong of me but I do look forward to some juicy textual analysis... maybe color coded logical fallacies...

 

I doubt he was following his pre-written script during the emotional upheaval parts of his talk.  He was in the heat of desperation and cognitive disonance.  He was flinging arms, hands, fingers and eyes all over the place.  Try muting the video to see just how much his body language reaks of desperation, anger and irrationality.

Mike, look again at him reading off of the teleprompter as he says the quote above.  It was all calculated.  Someone at NOM even spoke about his speech and topic days before.  I wouldn't be surprised if had given this exact speech to some smaller group as practice before hand.    

 

ClearThoughts:

Mike, look again at him reading off of the teleprompter as he says the quote above.  It was all calculated.  Someone at NOM even spoke about his speech and topic days before.  I wouldn't be surprised if had given this exact speech to some smaller group as practice before hand.    

 

 

 Interesting - wonder if this is a test run for a new kind of GA talk? We've had the holy-hush version for so long and this might be an expansion to try to get people passionate again. It's a risk I think, particularly with YouTube as this sort of thing tends to look pretty ridiculous to outsiders and they can't control comments there the way they can on church owned sites.

 

I'm reminded of how Winston Churchill used to do his parliamentary speeches - he had them on small cards written out in a sort of blank verse format and would include stage directions to himself: 'pause, grasp for word' for example or 'stutter, correct self.' I quite like the idea of a little GA drama school where they learn to do 'spontaneous' shows of emotion!

It is extremely insulting to hear his tone when he is directly addressing those of us who are leaving the church.  Does he not understand that people who are leaving the church have reasons for doing so (very often BECAUSE of the BoM or BoA) and more than likely they have considered what he’s saying and come to a different conclusion?   What about the 11th article of faith Jeffrey?  Hypocritical.

 

 This talk comes off as an ‘innoculation’ to the believers that they’d better believe in the BoM for X, Y, and Z reasons or else they’re going to have a tough time leaving.   What really bothers me, apart from his insulting tone, is the double standard he’s setting up.  He’s stating that we, the non-believers, have to “honestly attempt to [account] for” 1. supposed literary and semitic complexity and 2. the profound impact it has had on TENS millions of readers.  

 

 

 I wanted to shout RUSSELL’S TEAPOT when I first heard this.  He wants all us exiting the church to account for any little similarity or possibility of literary device the BoM has, but where is his accountability?  Where is the accountability for all the problems the book of mormon has?  There are huge problems with the book of mormon, and the audacity he has to call non-believers foolish, misled, and deceived is disgusting.  Ignoring the failure to fully account for its origins doesn't do anything to show that something is true.  (this is the logical equivalent of "Nobody knows what went into my deposit in the toilet this morning, so if you don't believe it was pure gold then you're a fool.") How about you at least try to prove your book to be true to those of us who don’t believe in it, then we’ll talk.  Again, RUSSELL’S freakin TEAPOT, the burden of persuasion is on the person making the allegation.  A person could say the same thing he said about the catholic church, or people who believe in evolution, or anyone.  

So here I go, using his stunning logic, to prove anything, it’s like a Jeffrey R. Holland mad lib: 

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject [insert number of pages in current English version your text] of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with [insert whatever scant evidence you have and ignore its faults], without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of [insert deity] and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now [insert grossly inflated number] of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the [insert text title] to make their exit."  

 

 

 

In fact, Islam must be more true than Mormonism because more people probably read the Quran everyday than have ever looked at the book of mormon.  It has undoubtedly had a bigger impact on more people (in the billions).  Plus, we know that Islam has a lot of people who’ve died in its cause as martyrs, and the prophet Muhammad himself died still professing that his work was legitimate.  Do really think the founder of Islam went to his death blaspheming?  It works for JS and Hyrum, why not other religions Jeffrey?

Like I've said, they need to pick one side or the other.  They can't claim to have scientific or logical legitimacy from a thread of semitic language but ignore the mountains of scientific and logical evidence against them, and fall back on everything being about the spirit.  Just stick to praying and feeling the Spirit, but don't try to tell me about how linguistics or anything else is actually evidence of the BoM's historicity, you're just going to get laughed at. 

Logic is not your friend Jeffrey, because logic, like Shooter McGavin, eats pieces of $hit like you for breakfast.

He's actually speaking to those TBMs who are listening to their errant relatives/friends and have begun to write letters to the "home-office" questioning themselves. He is trying to staunch the bleeding....that talk didn't exactly do that.

Holland said, "that it [the BOM] came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days."

 

If that's the case, if the book "was given to bring happiness and hope," then it has failed in its mission as much as or more than it has succeeded.  The book has not brought just "happiness and hope."  Far from it.  Because of its bogus and questionable provenance, the book has been a source of despair and cynicism.  In the wider society, the book has been an exemplary mockery of the faith and hope it was supposed to champion.  There is little else that one could condemn the book of beyond that, and in its ever-troubling inception lies a worm of evil that eats at the heart of true faith even today.  For every person who has bought into the book's message, how many have "smelled a rat" and stepped away from its "too good to be true" proclamation on the ministry of Jesus? 

 

Because of the well warranted doubts surrounding the book's origin, the book has been a source of mischief historically, of people giving themselves to it but then turning around and finding their prophets engaged in polygamy and other forms of unrighteous dominion.   These same people then being forced to question the whole edifice and its origin in one particularly damnable book.   

 

How many people are in the church now because they HAVE to be, because to do otherwise, to leave the church, to trust their own reason and discount the BOM, they would be cutting themselves off from family and friends?  In Utah, the cutting off could easily include one's employment as well. 

 

How many good, faithful people have struggled against the doubt imposed by the book, hoping against hope that the book was true, only to have the scales fall from their eyes as they girded themselves and studied up on the real history of the book and its prophet?  Many people have left the church broken-hearted that it was all a sham, wishing that it wasn't. 

 

Because the church still has many cult-like structures in place, a key feature of which is to erect barriers between family members, many people have had to give up their families in order to maintain their integrity, walking away from a lie but unable to move or wake up their family members to the dangers of an organization that asks of its true believers to throw off spouses and children rather than disengage from the church and the supply of its money vaults and coffers. 

 

People don't give up their families because they lightly blow off the BOM.  They studied, they got their own witness, and they figured it out against their best hopes!  They cast off an accursed book like a monkey from one's back, and, if they're like me, damned its existence as a fraud and life-wrecker.  The devil, should he exist, could not be happier than with such a pernicious book.   

He just totally blew off Tom Monson's appeal for members to come back to the church. Wonder if he got called into the principal's office after that talk? Probably not.

 

Winyan:

He just totally blew off Tom Monson's appeal for members to come back to the church. Wonder if he got called into the principal's office after that talk? Probably not.

 

 

 i think they do this on purpose.  If anyone tries to say the leadership belittles people who leave they can point to Monson's talk.  If the religious zealots try to say the leadership is being too soft they can point to Holland's talk.  i think they want the message to be confusing.

I think Holland achieved his objective WELL beyond what he might have hoped.  He was not talking to us, he was talking to the dwindling number of faithful, and doing just as Philosopher Roi indicated: drawing a line in the sand, and assuring those who remain faithful that their sacrifices are warranted. 

 

His energy and passion were devices that effectively shook the membership out of their traditional General Conference induced glazed state, and awakened in them a heightened sense of superiority over all the "little ones" who couldn't keep the faith, who "crawled on their belly" (not unlike Satan in the Garden of Eden) as they fled.

 

His talk will likely go down as one of the most successful conference talks in modern history, because the members HEARD it.

 

He couldn't care less what we think.  We are not his concern.  We are already lost.  It's his job to help stop the hemorrhaging, and the only thing he CAN do is push the faithful further back from the edge.  He does that by demonizing us, and by instilling fear in the faithful.

 

The net effect, however, will be interesting.

 

I've been of the opinion for years that the church is headed for division, with the "blind faithful" defining one camp (loyal to SLC), and everyone else defining the other camp.  I've modified that opinion lately, and no longer hold that the church will split in the conventional sense.  Rather, it is already splitting, and we are representative of that split--the two camps are the core, and those who left, and the demarcation between the two is widening.  The core of the church is what it must protect, and they have decided that they can afford to jettison the fringe (look out Rock Waterman) in order to salvage the core.  The core is who pays tithing and serves in all the leadership callings anyway...it's easier on everyone if the fringe is split off. 

 

Holland strengthened the core in his talk, and was willing to push a few people off the edge if need be to accomplish his objectives.  The canyon between us just grew considerably.

 

So it seems to me...

peter_mary:

I think Holland achieved his objective WELL beyond what he might have hoped.  He was not talking to us, he was talking to the dwindling number of faithful, and doing just as Philosopher Roi indicated: drawing a line in the sand, and assuring those who remain faithful that their sacrifices are warranted. 

 

His energy and passion were devices that effectively shook the membership out of their traditional General Conference induced glazed state, and awakened in them a heightened sense of superiority over all the "little ones" who couldn't keep the faith, who "crawled on their belly" (not unlike Satan in the Garden of Eden) as they fled.

 

His talk will likely go down as one of the most successful conference talks in modern history, because the members HEARD it.

 

He couldn't care less what we think.  We are not his concern.  We are already lost.  It's his job to help stop the hemorrhaging, and the only thing he CAN do is push the faithful further back from the edge.  He does that by demonizing us, and by instilling fear in the faithful.

 

The net effect, however, will be interesting.

 

I've been of the opinion for years that the church is headed for division, with the "blind faithful" defining one camp (loyal to SLC), and everyone else defining the other camp.  I've modified that opinion lately, and no longer hold that the church will split in the conventional sense.  Rather, it is already splitting, and we are representative of that split--the two camps are the core, and those who left, and the demarcation between the two is widening.  The core of the church is what it must protect, and they have decided that they can afford to jettison the fringe (look out Rock Waterman) in order to salvage the core.  The core is who pays tithing and serves in all the leadership callings anyway...it's easier on everyone if the fringe is split off. 

 

Holland strengthened the core in his talk, and was willing to push a few people off the edge if need be to accomplish his objectives.  The canyon between us just grew considerably.

 

So it seems to me...

 

By all of the gushing from TBMs over this talk, I have to agree with it being successful towards the target audience.  But also agree that it will likely push the fence sitters and fringe people the rest of the way out.  It's "circle the wagons time and you're either with us or against us".

Holland's quote regarding the latter-day destruction of which the Savior warned, that we'd be "deceived by the enemy of truth," was essentially what my bishop said to me when I met with him about my resignation letter. 

 

I too have no doubt that Holland's talk served as a rallying cry for the faithful, and quite frankly, he's a pretty damn good speaker    if you like that sort of evangelical fervor.  I don't.  Too much like the deep south where I grew up.  I kept thinking that if he had a southern accent, he could be at Liberty University or Bob Jones U.

  

On another note, did I see that Holland's son is the new president of UVU.  Does anybody know much about his personality? 

 

 

mamapajama:

Holland's quote regarding the latter-day destruction of which the Savior warned, that we'd be "deceived by the enemy of truth," was essentially what my bishop said to me when I met with him about my resignation letter. 

 

I too have no doubt that Holland's talk served as a rallying cry for the faithful, and quite frankly, he's a pretty damn good speaker    if you like that sort of evangelical fervor.  I don't.  Too much like the deep south where I grew up.  I kept thinking that if he had a southern accent, he could be at Liberty University or Bob Jones U.

  

On another note, did I see that Holland's son is the new president of UVU.  Does anybody know much about his personality? 

 

 

 

My friends at UVU who have met him say he is a nice enough guy who would like to be considered an academic/intellectual, but he doesn't have the credentials for it.  He certainly isn't qualified to run a university.  My friends who were present at the announcement of Holland's selection say there was an audible gasp of shock when his name was announced.  Even several TBMs reacted with "is this the best we could do?" 

 

My friends think UVU will eventually go to the president/provost system.  Holland as president, public face, and fund raiser with a provost in the background running the show.

 

Eventually he'll move on the GAhood.

 

I finally watched Holland's talk.  He struck me as a man of deep conviction facing something that perplexed and worried him--many people turning away from the church he holds most dear.  His energy and anger must have originated from something significant to him; it was too congruent to be mere theatrics.  Being completely committed to the LDS view, he had no alternative: just assert, affirm, and attack.  For the most part, I thought he emphasized honoring those of his faith, with only a short segment dedicated to dishonoring those who leave.  Even so, there was some sting from it.  I'm sure that all members of my family watched his talk.  Most of them probably thought of me.

 

It bothers me that Holland thinks the doubters are obligated to have an airtight account of how else the Book of Mormon came to be.  The version that Holland favors is horribly flawed and unconvincing to me.  Shifting the burden of proof is a deceptive tactic.

 

Holland shifted the debate in his favor by another subtle tactic.  I personally suspect that any single-source accounts are doomed.  From what I can tell of Joseph Smith, he fabricated his material in a variety of ways: plagiarizing, inventing, enlisting help, distorting facts, and letting current events seed his active and self-promoting imagination.  There won't be one compelling theory to account for it all because several distinct methods were used to create the Book of Mormon.  It's a mongrel with multiple blood lines, rendering it difficult to trace.

 

It's interesting, though, how Holland is sort of right.  I read the Book of Mormon twice.  I really tried to "get it" and build a testimony.  I never really believed in Joseph Smith as a prophet, but I did have some powerful feelings while reading 3rd Nephi, in particular thinking how sublime it would all be if only it were true.  I loved the idea of Jesus coming at the last minute, comforting, and bringing light and hope.

 

Much of my life was spent trying to bend my logic and understanding enough that I could see the Book of Mormon as true.  I never succeeded at that, although for years I suspected the the book was true.  In a way, Holland was right: in order to leave, I did first crawl over, around, and under the Book of Mormon, looking at it from different perspectives, never able to see it as the beautiful truth others assured me that it was.

 

--Garyatrics

 

StepfordWife:

Winyan:

He just totally blew off Tom Monson's appeal for members to come back to the church. Wonder if he got called into the principal's office after that talk? Probably not.

 

 

 i think they do this on purpose.  If anyone tries to say the leadership belittles people who leave they can point to Monson's talk.  If the religious zealots try to say the leadership is being too soft they can point to Holland's talk.  i think they want the message to be confusing.

 

I agree; I think it's a good cop/bad cop thing.

peter_mary:

I think Holland achieved his objective WELL beyond what he might have hoped.  He was not talking to us, he was talking to the dwindling number of faithful, and doing just as Philosopher Roi indicated: drawing a line in the sand, and assuring those who remain faithful that their sacrifices are warranted. 

My wife has a good friend who is a member of the church, but finds Joseph Smith to be, as she put it, "creepy." Her family gave her some materials to read to help get her through her crisis of faith, but she said it just made everything worse. She told the RS that she would no longer teach if JS was the subject.  I'm not sure where her testimony lies otherwise and I haven't seen or spoken to her since conference.

 

I just have to wonder if this talk would reach someone like her or not. By her use of the word "creepy" I have to think that her problems with JS have to do with polygamy. If that's the case, she may believe in the BoM. I don't know, but I wonder if the talk was enough to knock her back into compliance or if it pushed her the other way.

Zim:

My wife has a good friend who is a member of the church, but finds Joseph Smith to be, as she put it, "creepy." Her family gave her some materials to read to help get her through her crisis of faith, but she said it just made everything worse. She told the RS that she would no longer teach if JS was the subject.  I'm not sure where her testimony lies otherwise and I haven't seen or spoken to her since conference. 

 

Uh, so she's not going to teach again ever then, right?  

Gilgal:

Zim:

My wife has a good friend who is a member of the church, but finds Joseph Smith to be, as she put it, "creepy." Her family gave her some materials to read to help get her through her crisis of faith, but she said it just made everything worse. She told the RS that she would no longer teach if JS was the subject.  I'm not sure where her testimony lies otherwise and I haven't seen or spoken to her since conference. 

 

Uh, so she's not going to teach again ever then, right?  

Isn't JS the foundation of TSCC?  Or what is it, Gawd waited all those years only to chose a scoundrel to restore the gospel back to Earth?  No one else was available I suppose.  

 

 

ClearThoughts:
Isn't JS the foundation of TSCC?  Or what is it, Gawd waited all those years only to chose a scoundrel to restore the gospel back to Earth?  No one else was available I suppose.    

 

He is and I'm not sure what her exact issues with him are, but if I had to guess, I'd say she might think he restored the church (saw Jesus, translated the BoM), but then fell into error when he came up with polygamy.

Zim:

ClearThoughts:
Isn't JS the foundation of TSCC?  Or what is it, Gawd waited all those years only to chose a scoundrel to restore the gospel back to Earth?  No one else was available I suppose.    

 

He is and I'm not sure what her exact issues with him are, but if I had to guess, I'd say she might think he restored the church (saw Jesus, translated the BoM), but then fell into error when he came up with polygamy.

 

But since mormons believe that Gawd is:

• He is all powerful.
• He knows all things, past, present and future.
• Through the power of his Spirit he can be everywhere.

He chose JS knowing he would "fall into error".  If that is their belief, Gawd chose poorly.  He should of went with someone of high moral character like Abe Lincoln or every other person alive at that time.

 

If she has a problem with polygamy, it's going to be a long mormon eternity for her.   That everlasting covenant is first prize in the tournament of righteousness.

ClearThoughts, I just have to say that we must have been separated at birth!  The Mr. Holland's Opus title for that rant on Sunday came to mind for me independently when I posted yesterday.  I plagerized your quote about the insults for my facebook status yesterday.  Geez, I'd love to meet you! 

Holland's quote via ClearThoughts:

 

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow, especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers, if that is the case, then such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived and if they leave this church, they must do so by crawling over, or under, or around the BoM to make their exit."

 

Well, don't feel bad fellow PoMos. Obviously 99% of Americans are "foolish enough or misled enough" to reject those 531 pages as a joke. Brother Holland, considering your reference to "tens of millions" of readers feeling the spiritual impact of the BofM, you had maybe better check your meds?

ginarec:
ClearThoughts, I just have to say that we must have been separated at birth!  The Mr. Holland's Opus title for that rant on Sunday came to mind for me independently when I posted yesterday.  I plagerized your quote about the insults for my facebook status yesterday.  Geez, I'd love to meet you! 

The always brilliant JillOut came up with Mr. Holland's Opus (on this thread), great minds (you two) think a like.

 

If you are referring to the quote: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." I should of added it's author, which is Elbert (don't hear that name much anymore) Hubbard.

 

It would be so great to meet you (and the others) IRL as well.  I'll have to sneak away next time I visit family in zion....which unfortunately is not very often.  

Why is poor Richard Dryfeuss' movie being used as something against Holland?

 

"Mr. Holland's Opus" was a lovely film...and not relative at all to the disgusting rantings of a Mad Monk of Mormonism.....

 

Holland-speak is much closer to Gregory Rasputin...than the mild school teacher who faught to keep music in his school.

Tessa:

Why is poor Richard Dryfeuss' movie being used as something against Holland?

 

"Mr. Holland's Opus" was a lovely film...and not relative at all to the disgusting rantings of a Mad Monk of Mormonism.....

 

Holland-speak is much closer to Gregory Rasputin...than the mild school teacher who faught to keep music in his school.

or John Lithgow's character in Footloose.  Isn't there always 6 degrees of separation from GC to Footloose?    

 

Tessa:

Why is poor Richard Dryfeuss' movie being used as something against Holland?

 

"Mr. Holland's Opus" was a lovely film...and not relative at all to the disgusting rantings of a Mad Monk of Mormonism.....

 

I was trying to be all ironical and stuff.

 

Bringitdown:

It is extremely insulting to hear his tone when he is directly addressing those of us who are leaving the church.  Does he not understand that people who are leaving the church have reasons for doing so (very often BECAUSE of the BoM or BoA) and more than likely they have considered what he’s saying and come to a different conclusion?   What about the 11th article of faith Jeffrey?  Hypocritical.

.......

Yes, ironically, Holland seems to see the BoM as some kind of solid wall that nonbelievers have to get around somehow.  Yet if one examines it objectively, it's more like a stepping stone than a wall.