Comments on: Elder Holland’s talk at general conference

By: Max T Elliott

Max T Elliott — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:45:16 +0000

Yea, I saw and heard this talk, it was very moving and powerful then, but as I reread his words. I could not help myself from crying and declaring to myself that I also know that the Book of Mormon is true, and can only be the word of God. And those that have known this and have fell away need to reconsider their position with the church. Nothing in the world is worth losing this beautiful truth, I know because i walked away 20 yrs ago, and the Lord God in his mercy has brought me again back into the fold,and I can never lease again or I will lose my eternal soul to Satan. Thank you for reminding of me of this powerful testimony. I also know tht this book is true in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ amen

By: Elder Holland’s “Safety for the Soul « Irresistible (Dis)Grace

Elder Holland’s “Safety for the Soul « Irresistible (Dis)Grace — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:13:37 +0000

[...] This is the topic that many people, if they took only one talk home with them, took. And so, in light of the many bloggers who have addressed this topic in detail or in short, I wonder if I can do so [...]

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:51:25 +0000

Andrew: I must respectfully disagree. I have yet to read the text of his talk, but my recollection is that he denounced the “inspired fiction” theory rather plainly. He may not have used the word-choices some may have wanted, but I thought it was plain enough.

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:57:19 +0000

I left a comment on Andrew’s post at Mormon Matters, but it is in moderation. If it doesn’t get approved, I might post it here.

By: Andrew Ainsworth

Andrew Ainsworth — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:25:57 +0000

I just posted at Mormon Matters my explanation of why, after careful examination of Elder Holland’s address last Sunday, I believe he was not denouncing the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon, but rather, was carefully avoiding it. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments at the MM site:

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did … on-theory/

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:56:02 +0000

Clark, I wouldn’t call his talk strident. Passionate would be a better adjective, in my opinion.

By: Elder Holland’s Book of Mormon Talk « Symphonyofdissent

Elder Holland’s Book of Mormon Talk « Symphonyofdissent — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:28:52 +0000

[...] many (Here are some more links) I was struck by Elder Holland’s Sunday Afternoon talk (Video and Mp3 Link) on [...]

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:15:58 +0000

I think Elder Holland stayed with his written talk. I don’t think he spoke off the cuff. It will be interesting to see if there are any differences in the written version that should come out on Thursday.

By: R Biddulph

R Biddulph — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:12:27 +0000

I was interested in the Spanish translation of Elder Holland’s talk. In my view, the translator did a good job of translating – so I believe Elder Holland did stick to the script. Every new sentence was started on time. What do others think?

By: m&m

m&m — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:11:02 +0000

Thomas, I think one of Elder Holland’s main points is that anyone looking for physical or archaelogical evidence either for or against the Book of Mormon is looking for the wrong thing.

That’s the way I see it as well. And that isn’t a character attack in my view, but an invitation to seek for truth. It’s not that some proofs haven’t been or might not be found – but they are not sufficient to carry us through the storms and challenges to faith that come.

And I still think that ultimately, that is a message filled with love, because of the urgency of the desire to have people KNOW for themselves. For all that I care about people who struggle, I don’t want to encourage them to spend their time seeking for a conviction in physical ‘proof’ — I want them to know, as I know, through faith and the Spirit, that the book is indeed divine.

I think that talks like this, too, need to be kept in context with the big picture. Any talk given by a leader is not something in isolation — it always has its place in the larder context of the gospel, of past messages, of the spirit of love and truth that is part of what we believe.

I am always disappointed when talks are analyzed so much at the individual level (usually when people are upset for some reason) that the speaker is given all the blame for possible misunderstandings or offense — as though they could anticipate or prevent all the possible reactions anyway, which is bordering on ludicrous to expect — when it is as much our job as the listeners to receive their messages with the Spirit and with a spirit of charity.

I have had times when talks or articles have stung, but invariably, as I look back on those times, it reflects more of where *I* have been. And invariably, with some help from the Spirit and some time and thought, I can engage the words in a way that helps me see more how things really are.

I am reminded of something Elder Anderson said about repentance — that God’s voice isn’t one that comes at us with criticism. Sometimes WE process words and counsel and yes, even rebukes, and hear that, but I think that shows as much about our mortalness as anything. We often hear and see through our fight-or-flight-like reflexes, rather than letting the Spirit settle in and help us hear what God’s voice is saying to us. In the end, even the imperfections of others — which will always exist, even with the best of talks — don’t have to be a barrier to us hearing God’s voice. But we have to get past blaming, hiding in shame, or retaliating in anger (or other such ‘fight-or-flight’ kinds of responses) in order to feel the Spirit. (Now Elder Scott is coming to mind…how he talked about how strong emotions can get in the way of revelation.)

Anyway…lots on my mind about all of this right now, obviously.