PBS: Is Holland 180 degrees out of phase from the old man?

[_Polygamy Porter]

The Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, look at his statement:

... The Book of Mormon is ... a matter of faith, but it's there.

Yet his beloved old geezer, Hink says otherwise.

Perhaps Holland is a top change agent in this new silent reformation?

[_The Nehor]

Can anyone else read the whole interview and agree with Porter, I can't.

[_Gazelam]

The full interview can be read here: http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/holland.html

Heres the rest of what was said there:

... The Book of Mormon is ... a matter of faith, but it's there. It's readable. It sits on the table, and it won't go away. ... For me it is ... another testament of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the single most [important] piece of evidence, the declaration that Joseph Smith was a prophet. ...

I've thought about it a lot, read it often. ... I wrote a book about the Book of Mormon, partly just because I wanted my own conviction, my testimony, to be in print, even if only for my children's sake. 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. I certainly disregard that somebody more articulate or more experienced in ecclesiastical matters could have written it, like [Smith's close friend and adviser] Sidney Rigdon. Rigdon doesn't even come to the church until the Book of Mormon is out and in circulation for eight or nine months. ...

Now, in terms of more modern theories, there are those who say it's more mythical literature and spiritual, and not literal. That doesn't work for me. I don't understand that, and I can't go very far with that, because Joseph Smith said there were plates, and he said there was an angel. And if there weren't plates and there wasn't an angel, I have a bigger problem than whether the Book of Mormon is rich literature. ... I have to go with what the prophet said about the book, about its origins, about the literalness of the plates, the literalness of the vision -- and then the product speaks for itself.

I don't think we're through examining the depth, the richness, the profundity, the complexity, all of the literary and historical and religious issues that go into that book. I think we're still young at doing that. But the origins for me are the origins that the prophet Joseph said: a set of plates, given by an angel, translated by the gift and power of God. ...

Porter is like a windsock, anchored in ignorance and twisting in the wind of the gospel that blows over him like the powerful force that it is.

[_Yong Xi]

Why can't Holland just testify that as a special witness for Jesus Christ, he has seen the savior, in essence confirming his standing as an apostle in the church Joseph Smith restored.

Joseph was not afraid to declare his intimate knowledge of God and Jesus. Why can't Holland go there?

It sounds as though he has no more knowledge of the historicity of the Book of Mormon as anyone else. All he is saying is "I can't figure out how a man could have written that book, therefore it must come from God."

I think he is saying that he believes it to be historical.

[_moksha]

Why can't Holland just testify that as a special witness for Jesus Christ, he has seen the savior, in essence confirming his standing as an apostle in the church Joseph Smith restored.

Joseph was not afraid to declare his intimate knowledge of God and Jesus. Why can't Holland go there?

I for one appreciate it when they don't just make stuff up.

[_Yong Xi]

Why can't Holland just testify that as a special witness for Jesus Christ, he has seen the savior, in essence confirming his standing as an apostle in the church Joseph Smith restored.

Joseph was not afraid to declare his intimate knowledge of God and Jesus. Why can't Holland go there?

I for one appreciate it when they don't just make stuff up.

Are you referring to Holland or Joseph Smith?

[_The Nehor]

Joseph avoided talking about the First Vision. That is my opinion as to why the accounts are confusing. When Missionaries went out in the beginning the story started with Moroni's visit. Joseph did tell some family and friends and the story got distorted a lot and the two accounts were confused. The account we have in the PoGP says in the beginning in essence: "I'm tired of dealing with all the warped versions of my story, here's what actually happened."

Apostles avoid saying these kinds of things to prevent rampant speculation. I have heard two Apostles testify of seeing the Savior, both in smaller meetings. Elder Holland does talk about one in experience and says:

"Was it a physical sensation?

It was almost so powerful as to be physical. ... I'm not telling you about other experiences, but in this case, I can't say I heard a voice or that there was some appearance; in this case it was not that. But it was so powerful and so unequivocal that it was nearly debilitating physically. ... I was left with nothing more, and I got up, told Pat we're going home. ... I should have had some hint, some foreshadowing of returning to be the commissioner of that educational system or being the president of the principal university in it, or even being an authority in its governing ranks. I didn't have any of that. I wasn't given to know that. I wasn't told the end of the story. All I was told is "go home." ... "

Not the 'in this case' he didn't hear a voice. I think they avoid sharing too much to avoid a cult of personality. We are promised that the same things are open to us so why rely on them?

[_harmony]

Not the 'in this case' he didn't hear a voice. I think they avoid sharing too much to avoid a cult of personality. We are promised that the same things are open to us so why rely on them?

Finally! Someone who gets it! That's the secret to the whole sheband: there is no reason to rely on them (our leaders, the prophet, anyone else) because we can have that same manifestation! And some of us have. We don't brag about it, we don't push it, but we've had it. And we don't feel obligated to follow anyone whose advice plainly shows they haven't had it.

[_Blixa]

That's an extremely provocative position, harmony. I mean that more in the sense of "thought-provoking" than attempt at being coy ; ).

The strucuture of authority in Mormonism, or rather the history of its reformulations, is interesting to me. The position you outline: every member can recieve personal revelation and thus spiritually is the equal of church leaders, speaks to what is at least a populist, if not radically democratic, thread in the Smith's thinking. And I don't know that any other LDS president or prophet after him entirely endorsed that position and its possibiities (and I think that Joseph Smith himself didn't at times either).

As an institution, the church really took the form we now know it in under BY---and his rule was authoritarian (whether you want to explain at born of practical necessity in "the wilderness," personal nature, or doctrinal understanding). The massively hierarchical institutional structure of the church (both on earth and apparently extending to the hereafter) displays the contradictions inherent in "Mormon authority:" every man (emphasis on man) has his own bit of the pie, but as much as he rules over that, he too is ruled over by somebody else (who is ruled over by...).

And yet still the idea of personal revelation survives---usually accomodated to the institution (god/the spirit gives witness to "the truth" but only on small personal issues (lost car keys) or to endorse the truth of the GAs), yet sometimes not, as in harmony's postion or Juanita Brooks's ("Its as much my church as it is J. Reuben Clark's).

[_harmony]

That's an extremely provocative position, harmony. I mean that more in the sense of "thought-provoking" than attempt at being coy ; ).

The strucuture of authority in Mormonism, or rather the history of its reformulations, is interesting to me. The position you outline: every member can recieve personal revelation and thus spiritually is the equal of church leaders, speaks to what is at least a populist, if not radically democratic, thread in the Smith's thinking. And I don't know that any other LDS president or prophet after him entirely endorsed that position and its possibiities (and I think that Joseph Smith himself didn't at times either).

As an institution, the church really took the form we now know it in under BY---and his rule was authoritarian (whether you want to explain at born of practical necessity in "the wilderness," personal nature, or doctrinal understanding). The massively hierarchical institutional structure of the church (both on earth and apparently extending to the hereafter) displays the contradictions inherent in "Mormon authority:" every man (emphasis on man) has his own bit of the pie, but as much as he rules over that, he too is ruled over by somebody else (who is ruled over by...).

And yet still the idea of personal revelation survives---usually accomodated to the institution (god/the spirit gives witness to "the truth" but only on small personal issues (lost car keys) or to endorse the truth of the GAs), yet sometimes not, as in harmony's postion or Juanita Brooks's ("Its as much my church as it is J. Reuben Clark's).

The church is inherently contradictory on several issues, not just this one. The whole "prophet infallibility" thing, yet the prophet cannot lead us astray? Totally contradictory. And don't even get me started on how women are viewed...

The concept of personal revelation is the only thing that keeps me in this church. If they kicked that to the curb, and demanded instant obedience, I'd be turning in my membership card. I can't live that way. I have difficulty with things like Pres Hinckley's demand for loyalty to the church. My loyalty to and my deepest relationships with are not to and with the church. They are to and with God and my family. My oaths are to God and my spouse. My obedience is to God and myself. I see no need for a prophet, for GA's, for my SP, for my bishop, except in their capacity to take care of the administrative needs of the church as a body for believers. I see them as administrative staff, nothing more, nothing less. Necessary to get the job done here, but unnecessary for my own personal salvation. When I bow my head and accept an oath in the temple, I do not make it with the church as the other party of the covenant. I make my oath with God. My covenant is with God, not the church. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. This puts me sideways with many of the prophet-following members on this and other boards. It does not put me sideways with God.