My good friend GDTeacher has kindly allowed me to post his in-depth analysis of Elder Holland's recent General Conference address titled "Safety for the Soul."  I commented on the address myself in a recent entry.  GDTeacher's analysis is more detailed and thorough than mine, and I think it complements well my thinking on the sermon.  Also included in GDTeacher's analysis are two appendices.  Appendix A contains the full text of Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream of the tree of life, which I mentioned in my comments and which is eerily similar to the dream that Book of Mormon character Lehi had, as mentioned by Elder Holland in his talk (without, of course, mentioning Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream, which predated the publication of the Book of Mormon).  Appendix B contains the full text of the Wikipedia entry on the possible Solomon Spaulding connections to the production of the Book of Mormon.  Elder Holland mentioned Solomon Spaulding (and Ethan Smith) in his talk.  Many Mormons likely are unfamiliar with the theories concerning the production of the Book of Mormon that Elder Holland dismisses as "frankly pathetic" in his talk.  This appendix will provide more background for those whose curiosity was piqued when Elder Holland mentioned their names.

Unfortunately, when I pasted GDTeacher's words into my post editor, all the footnote references were lost.  If anyone would like a copy of the essay with footnote references included, simply email me (equalitytime@gmail.com) and I will send it to you. Now on to GDTeacher's cogent analysis:

During the Sunday afternoon session of the October, 2009 LDS General Conference, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave an uncommonly impassioned and emotional talk, “Safety for the Soul. ”  This talk was unusual in delivery and content for General Conference.  It left many feeling proud and vindicated in their belief and conviction in the Book of Mormon.  It left many feeling satisfied and spiritually fed.  Yet others it left feeling confused and still others it left feeling discouraged, hurt, or betrayed.  This paper presents an analysis of Elder Holland’s talk in an attempt to help adult members and those in church leadership positions understand why some members were confused or otherwise adversely impacted by this powerful talk.

Elder Holland’s talk was a passionate defense of the divinity of the Book of Mormon.  The range of emotion that flowed during delivery was broad and deep.  He portrayed undeterred conviction, barely contained anger, deep sadness, and utter disdain.  The content of the talk covered obscure references, conventional LDS wisdom, historical facts, historical claims, and LDS fable.  The address left many wondering, “Why this talk?  Why now?”  Many were confused by the unusual delivery, the obscure references, the anger of an apostle of God, the prolific use of rhetorical devices, and the selective use of facts. 

Elder Holland: Prophecies regarding the last days often refer to large-scale calamities [A1] such as earthquakes or famines or floods. These in turn may be linked to widespread economic or political upheavals of one kind or another.

But there is one kind of latter-day destruction [A1] that has always sounded to me more personal than public, more individual than collective, a warning, perhaps more applicable inside the Church than outside it. The Savior warned in the last days even those of “the covenant,” the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth. [A2] If we think of this as a form of spiritual destruction, [A1] it may cast light on another latter-day prophecy. Think of the heart as the figurative center of our faith, the poetic location of our loyalties and our values, and then consider Jesus’s declaration that in the last days, “men’s hearts [shall fail] them.” [A1]

A1 – Destruction.  Elder Holland uses the comparison of earthquakes, famines, and floods, which can and do result in tremendous carnage, to individual “spiritual destruction.”  The use of this physical metaphor emphasizes the carnage he perceives when members of the church are deceived by Satan, the enemy of truth.  This rhetorical device paints a grotesque picture illustrating the consequences of the deception, yet its nature remains undefined.  The notion that members are deceived, in this case by Satan, carries with it a grave warning of the potential Satanic influence associated with a reasoned and informed study and analysis of the Book of Mormon origins.

A2 – The Deceived Elect.   In Matthew 24:24, we read, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”[emphasis added]  Elder Holland’s talk does refer to the elect being deceived, but does not refer to false Christs or false prophets.  He eventually arrives at the idea that members may be deceived by what he claims to be false theories of Book of Mormon authorship.  Since no proponents of the various non-canonical theories of Book of Mormon authorship claim to be Christs or prophets, the reference is confusing and possibly even inapt.  Given the context in his talk, it can be understood that “those of ‘the covenant,’ the very elect,” is meant to mean faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The deception to which he refers is the members’ acceptance, in whole or in part, of one or more non-canonical theories of the Book of Mormon authorship.

Elder Holland: The encouraging thing, of course, is that our Father in Heaven knows all of these latter-day dangers, these troubles of the heart and the soul, and has given counsel and protections regarding them.

In light of that it has always been significant to me that the Book of Mormon, one of the Lord’s powerful “keystones” in this counter-offensive against latter-day ills, begins with a great parable of life, an extended allegory of hope vs. fear, of light vs. darkness, of salvation vs. destruction, an allegory of which Sister Ann Dibbs spoke so movingly this morning.
 
In that dream, Lehi’s dream, [B1] an already difficult journey gets more difficult when a mist of darkness arises obscuring any view of the safe but narrow path his family and others are to follow. It is imperative to note that this mist of darkness descends on all the travelers: the faithful and the determined ones (the elect we might even say) as well as the weaker and ungrounded ones. The principal point of the story is that the successful travelers resist all distractions, [B2] including the lure of forbidden paths and jeering taunts from the vain and proud who have taken them. [B3] The record says that the protected “did press their way forward, continually [and I might add tenaciously] holding fast” to a rod of iron that runs unfailingly along the course of the true path. However dark the night or the day, the rod marks the way of that solitary, redeeming trail. [B4]

B1 – Lehi’s Dream.  Given that Elder Holland is raising a defense of the divinity of the Book of Mormon against alternate theories of its authorship, it is startling that he selected the story of Lehi’s dream to help build his case.  Proponents of alternate theories of the Book of Mormon’s authorship use this specific story as evidence against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.  In 1811, Joseph Smith, Sr. had a dream  extremely similar to the story contained in the Book of Mormon about Lehi’s dream of the Tree of Life (see Appendix A).  Since this story was already held and retold in the Smith family lore for 19 years prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, the inclusion of this story in the Book of Mormon text is evidence that the Book of Mormon was written using, in part, the life experiences of Joseph Smith as foundational material.

B2 – Resisting Distractions.  Elder Holland’s point on resisting distractions suggests the idea that holding to the iron rod includes only focusing on LDS church approved materials regarding the authorship claims of the Book of Mormon.  This implies that to investigate other theories of authorship is to invite distractions and to consider them is to let go of the iron rod.  This is confusing to many members who find spiritual, moral, and intellectual strength and fulfillment in engaging their minds in their spiritual studies.  These members take to heart the idea that they should “…seek learning even by study and also by faith.”   They also give heed to the instruction given to Oliver Cowdery through Joseph, “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

B3 – Taunts from the Vain and Proud.  Using the vain and proud from the “great and spacious building” in Lehi’s dream, Elder Holland takes this extremely negative rhetorical device to paint an unflattering picture of honest scholars seeking to develop a defensible naturalistic explanation of Book of Mormon authorship.  The unstated characterization is that those who propose alternative theories of authorship are vain and proud.  This is presumptuous on the part of Elder Holland and it acts as a blanket condemnation of those holding differing views.  Moreover, he marshals no evidence to support the assertion that those whose opinions differ from his own necessarily must be vain and proud.  Additionally, the use of these labels constitutes an ad hominem attack and also name-calling, a common propaganda technique employed to artificially discredit and minimize the impact of those being labeled.

B4 – Solitary Redeeming Trail.  The idea of a solitary redeeming trail, meaning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is accepted by many members of the LDS church.  Further, the idea that all other churches are an abomination in the sight of God is canonized in the Pearl of Great Price.   This same idea of the solitary trail paints an uncomfortable picture of pride and arrogance in the hearts of other church members.  To them it strains credulity to imagine that a loving God would be so random as to create a path that less than one percent of his currently living children have a realistic opportunity to follow.  This concept paints a picture of a fickle, uncaring, ethnocentric God.  This concept hurts their hearts and souls. 

Elder Holland: “I beheld,” Nephi says later, “that the rod of iron... was the word of God, [leading]...to the tree of life;...a representation of the love of God.” Viewing this manifestation of God’s love, Nephi goes on to say: “I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world...[who] went forth ministering unto the people…. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits;.... And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.”

Love. Healing. Help. Hope.  The power of Christ to counter all troubles in all times—including the end of times.  [C1]  That is the safe harbor God wants for us in personal or public days of despair. That is the message with which the Book of Mormon begins and that is the message with which it ends, calling all to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him.” [C1]  That phrase taken from Moroni’s final lines of testimony, written one thousand years after Lehi’s vision, is a dying man’s testimony [C2] of the only true way.

C1 - Love, Healing, Help, Hope.  Most members of the LDS church accept this message as it is expressed in the Book of Mormon.  They believe in the power of Christ to counter troubles in their daily lives and strive to “come unto Christ. ”  This is fundamental to their testimony of Christ and his mission.  As presented in Elder Holland’s talk, this is the first element of a three stage rhetorical device .  The testimony of Christ, as stated by Moroni in the Book of Mormon , is shared by most members of the LDS church.  They feel a personal connection to Moroni’s testimony.  This connection amplifies the effect of the second and third stages of the rhetorical device.  Informed listeners or readers may have identified this emerging rhetorical device and are troubled by its use by a revered leader of the Church because such devices are typically used to mask poor arguments.

C2 – Dying Man’s Testimony.  The use of the phrase, “dying man’s testimony,” with regard to Moroni’s testimony of Christ at the close of the Book of Mormon, is the second element of the rhetorical device.  The implication is that a person close to death will not lie or otherwise exaggerate as he or she will shortly meet God and stand to be judged.  This is a presumptuous, if not irrelevant, logical leap for many.  It is unclear whether or not dying persons are actually more truthful than men not expecting to die soon , but Elder Holland’s assumption is clearly that a dying person’s testimony can be trusted implicitly.  The third element of this rhetorical device occurs in the following paragraph.

Elder Holland: May I refer to a modern “last days” testimony? [D1]  When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage to face what they knew would be imminent martyrdom, [D1]  Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. “Thou hast been faithful; wherefore,…Thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I, Moroni, bid farewell...until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ.”

D1 – Imminent Martyrdom.  The notion of the dying testimony of Joseph and Hyrum is the third element of the three stage rhetorical device.  The prior two elements amplify the effect of the third in the hearts and minds of the listeners and readers.  The stretch from Moroni’s testimony of Christ to a dying testimony of Hyrum and Joseph strains the limits of logic for some. 

Elder Holland has characterized Hyrum’s reading out of the Book of Mormon prior to his and Joseph’s journey to Carthage as a “last days” testimony that is their dying testimony because they knew they would be imminently be killed.  It is not clear why Hyrum’s reading several verses from the Book of Mormon constitutes a dying testimony more than any other readings or declarations in those circumstances, but Elder Holland declares it to be so, perhaps because it is implied in the Doctrine and Covenants by the use of the word, ”testators. ”  This is a confusing non sequitur, and a logical fallacy.  It is true that it is recorded that Joseph said, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter .”  This seems to indicate that Joseph knew that he and Hyrum would be killed, or at least believed that it was highly likely.  It is unclear whether Hyrum actually thought the same thing , further calling into question the characterization that Hyrum’s reading could constitute a “dying testimony.” 

However, other significant evidence suggests that Joseph did not believe he was facing imminent death.  While not an exhaustive list, several of these evidences will be considered.

•    Joseph removed his temple garments and told others to do the same.    One has to wonder why he would do this if he were preparing to meet God imminently.
•    Joseph destroyed the original revelation of plural marriage (now D&C Section 132) [leaving a copy with Newel K. Whitney] just prior to going to Carthage .  One has to wonder why he would do this if he were preparing to meet God imminently.
•    Joseph had guns smuggled into the Carthage jail for protection.   If he knew that he was going to die a martyr’s death, why would he make this preparation to defend himself and to live?
•    In direct violation of the Word of Wisdom, Joseph, Hyrum, and others present in the Carthage jail, drank wine and smoked tobacco.    Why would they do this if they were preparing to meet God imminently?
•    Joseph requested that the Nauvoo Legion march on Carthage jail and rescue both Hyrum and him.   Why make this preparation for life if he knew he was imminently going to die?
•    When the mob that killed him first came toward Carthage jail, he calmed the jailers saying, “Don't trouble yourself, they have come to rescue me, ” thinking the mob was the Nauvoo Legion, coming at his command.
•    As shots were fired and after Joseph emptied his gun shooting down the jail stairwell , he ran to the jail window in a last desperate attempt to save his own life, attempting the Masonic distress call, “O Lord My God! Is there no help for the widow's son?”  This Masonic distress call would presumably invite help and assistance from fellow Masons.   Why would he call for help if he knew he was going to die?

Elder Holland: A few short verses from the 12th chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon. Before closing the book, Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. [E1]  I hold in my hand that book, the very copy [E1] from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down still visible. 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. Shortly thereafter pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators.

E1 – The Very Book.  Elder Holland claims that Hyrum’s turning down the corner of a page after reading it marks an everlasting testimony.  Following previously made points, reading from a book does not constitute a testimony, unless the testator stated it was.  The use of the phrase, “everlasting testimony,” suggests an equivalent to a “dying testimony,” although it is not stated directly as such.  Additionally, it is unclear whether Hyrum thought he was going to die imminently.  It is clear that Joseph is reported to have said he was going to die, but other concurrent actions suggests that he had no intention of dying while traveling to, being rescued at, or returning from Carthage. 

Elder Holland’s holding and displaying what he claims to be the very book from which Hyrum read just prior to their death, while interesting and engaging, is irrelevant.  This is an effective oratory rhetorical device.  However, whether Elder Holland was holding the very book from which Hyrum read does not change the meaning or the validity of his argument.  Holding the very book may influence people to think and believe his overall argument is more factual and compelling, when in fact, it is exactly the same, with all of its inherent strengths and weaknesses.  Separately, while there are valid questions regarding the provenance of the specific book which Elder Holland was holding, the actual provenance is irrelevant.  The use of such props is a known technique for emphasizing the emotional impact of an address as well as de-emphasizing critical thinking and analysis.

Elder Holland: 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. [F1]  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? [F2]

F1 – Evidence of Truthfulness.  Elder Holland has suggested that his linkage of Moroni’s testimony of Christ to Hyrum’s reading a few verses from the Book of Mormon just prior to traveling to Carthage where he was killed constitutes a powerful dying or everlasting testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  He claims this to be strong evidence for that proposition.  This series of non sequiturs is a confusing linkage of events, which does not constitute strong evidence of the truthfulness, or the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.  Suggesting it is strong evidence is a logical fallacy, an appeal to his own authority as an apostle.  Although it is a heartrending story, it is difficult to understand why Elder Holland would claim this series of events, tenuously linked only in a talk, is evidence which he would submit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

F2 – Blaspheme before God.  Elder Holland carries forward the confusing non sequitur that Hyrum’s reading a few verses from the Book of Mormon prior to traveling to Carthage constitutes an everlasting testimony of a dying man.  It is not clear whether Joseph and Hyrum firmly believed that they were going to die.  Even if they did, reading a few verses from the Book of Mormon hardly constitutes a dying testimony, unless Hyrum specifically stated it as such.  He did not. 

Elder Holland suggests that Hyrum and Joseph were given the opportunity to recant their story regarding the origins of the Book of Mormon in exchange for their lives.  There is no evidence that this ever occurred.  This suggestion is yet another non sequitur from which he draws the questionable conclusion that they chose not to blaspheme God by denying the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. 

He also extends the argument by implying that because they did not deny the divine origins of the Book of Mormon, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s true church. 

One further issue with this line of reasoning is that none of the naturalistic theories regarding Book of Mormon authorship suggest that Hyrum had any part, nor knew anything about the authorship of the Book of Mormon, aside from the canonized version of its authorship.  As such, pulling Hyrum into the equation is a logical fallacy. 

Additionally, a review of other religious leaders who died without recanting their respective positions would suggest that there are many religious texts (e.g. Qu’ran, Book of the Law of the Lord), and by extension, religious faiths that are equally as valid as the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder Holland:  Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, homeless and friendless” and that their children will leave “footprints of blood” across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor. Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of the earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true.   [G1] Disregard all of that and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? [G2]  They would not do that! [G3]  They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  [G4]

G1 – Never Mind.  Elder Holland’s impassioned portrayal of a series of heart-rending events that are known after the fact, as if Joseph and Hyrum would have known them before the fact, as a consequence of a fictional deal which they were never offered is another rhetorical device intended to draw out emotions from the listener or reader but is not grounded in either logic or historical fact.  The careful listener or reader could question why Elder Holland would present this troublesome line of reasoning.

G2 – Hour of Death.  As has been discussed previously, it is far from certain that either Hyrum or Joseph believed that they were near the hour of death.  It is clear that they understood that they were endangered, but their death was not a foregone conclusion.  If the actual origins of the Book of Mormon were other than divine, there are no authorship theories which suggest Hyrum would have known.  Suggesting, again, that Hyrum’s reading from the Book of Mormon was his and Joseph’s dying testimony of its truthfulness, so they would not offend God is rather presumptuous of Elder Holland.  The harsh words, “imposters and charlatans,” are another rhetorical device, specifically a false dichotomy, that accentuates the emotional response to the idea of these men standing before their “Eternal Judge.”

G3 – They Would Not.  With emphasis, Elder Holland proclaims, with absolute certainty, that Hyrum, and presumably Joseph, just prior to traveling to Carthage, would not read from the Book of Mormon if either one of them knew that the Book of Mormon was not of divine origin.  That he knows the will and mind of these men at that point in time is dressing his speculations in the robes of certainty.

G4 – Rather Die.  Elder Holland again reiterates the deal for which there is no evidence.  His portrayal of the situation is that Hyrum and Joseph were given a choice of denying the divine origins of the Book of Mormon or being killed.  Of that choice, he said they were willing to die.  This is a red herring.  It is a distraction used as a powerful rhetorical device that emerges from a series of fallacious non sequiturs.  This red herring is offered as firm proof and evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  This rhetorical device is fraught with assumptions and broad license to interpret circumstantial evidence to create a heart-rending tale.  By this point in Elder Holland’s talk, the careful listener or reader may be so confused by the array of rhetorical devices, logical fallacies, and non sequiturs, he or she has difficulty ascertaining the actual meaning and validity of what Elder Holland is saying.

Elder Holland: For one hundred and seventy-nine years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born, parroted and died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. [H1]  None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination [H2] because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator.  [H3]  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.” [H4]

H1 – Failed Theories.  Stunningly, Elder Holland labels four naturalistic theories of Book of Mormon authorship as “failed theories.”  One wonders if observers with no vested interest would consider them failed.  Since he does not analyze them in his address, one wonders by what criteria Elder Holland judged each of these theories to be failed.  One can’t help but wonder if Elder Holland has objectively subjected the canonized description of the divine origins of the Book of Mormon to the same criteria of judgment.  A very brief summary of each theory mentioned by Elder Holland will be offered here, with a more extensive description for the first two given in Appendix B.  It should be noted that these theories are deemed by proponents as plausible or probable, not certain.

•    Ethan Smith published a book, View of the Hebrews, in 1823, which LDS church General Authority, Elder B. H. Roberts, said contained striking parallels in content and storyline with the Book of Mormon.   The theory is that Joseph and perhaps others could have used this book as foundational material for creating the Book of Mormon.
•    Solomon Spaulding wrote a manuscript, which went missing from a Pittsburg print shop which Sidney Rigdon frequented in the 1812-1816 time-frame.   This manuscript is purported to be foundational material for the Book of Mormon to which Sidney Rigdon added his Campbellite doctrines.  Rigdon met Oliver Cowdrey when Cowdrey was working in Ohio in the district in which Sidney was a circuit preacher.  Oliver, Joseph’s second cousin, introduced Sidney to Joseph as both were interested in bringing forth a book regarding the origins of the Native Americans.  Current scholarship suggests an overlap of the Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding theories.
•    Deranged paranoid is Elder Holland’s label to describe a range of theories surrounding Joseph’s presumed mental illness.  Altered mental states created scenarios in which Joseph purportedly wrote the Book of Mormon.
•    Cunning genius is Elder Holland’s label to describe the theory Joseph Smith was a genius con man who wrote the Book of Mormon by himself in order to rescue his family from financial destitution.

H2 – Frankly Pathetic.  The use of the rhetorical propaganda technique of “name-calling,” while effective with unsophisticated listeners and readers, does not impact the facts behind any of these theories.  It also distresses informed listeners or readers.  Elder Holland’s calling alternate theories of Book of Mormon authorship “frankly pathetic,” does not make them any more or less valid.  The impact is the same as if someone called the canonized version of the story given by Joseph Smith “frankly pathetic.”  Name- calling is not proof and, to the informed, doing so tends to weaken the arguments of those who do it.  The reality is the theories identified by Elder Holland and other naturalistic theories are still being investigated.  For many of these theories, there is a growing body of evidence each year. 

To suggest that they have not withstood examination is to suggest that apologetic dismissals are valid, factual, and verifiable arguments.  These apologetic dismissals are not as compelling as some would hope, being founded on plausible denials and speculative supports. 

Hugh Nibley was the late 20th century prototypical LDS apologist.  His views and pronouncements were and are viewed with awe, reverence, and respect by many members of the church.  Although he was and is held in respect by many LDS church members, those more fully aware of his techniques and approaches tended to be much more critical.  Fellow BYU professor, Kent P. Jackson, decried the validity of Nibley’s methods and conclusions.   Additionally Bergera and Priddis noted, “[a]s a former BYU history professor observed in 1984, '[Nibley] has been a security blanket for Latter-day Saints to whom [cognitive] dissonance is intolerable....His contribution to dissonance management is not so much what he has written, but that he has written. After knowing Hugh Nibley for forty years, I am of the opinion that he has been playing games with his readers all along....Relatively few Latter-day Saints read the Nibley books that they give one another, or the copiously annotated articles that he has contributed to church publications. It is enough for most of us that they are there.'”  

Informed members are aware of the humble confidence expressed by earlier leaders of the LDS church and wonder where Elder Holland’s humble confidence is or if he even has any regarding the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.  It seems to some that if he has to resort to name-calling, his case must be very weak.  They recall the comment of George A. Smith, who said, “If faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak. ”  They also recall the comment by Parley P. Pratt, “. . . convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. ”  Also, J. Reuben Clark, when he said, “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. ”  Finally, specifically with regard to the Book of Mormon, Elder Orson Pratt had confidence that a full and critical inquiry into the Book of Mormon would vindicate the claim of its divine origin.  He said, “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….If after 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…. ”  Many Church members are hurt by Elder Holland’s seeming lack of humble confidence in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. 

Is the church afraid of real scholarly critique and investigation?  Is the Church really afraid of “failed theories” that are “frankly pathetic?”  If not, why resort to common propaganda techniques in an attempt to discredit them?

H3 – No Other Answer.  Not surprisingly, Elder Holland states with certainty that there is no other answer aside from Joseph’s canonized description of the origins of the Book of Mormon.  This claim is a false dichotomy.  Extraordinary claims, however, require extraordinary evidence.  The church has put forth no objectively and independently verifiable evidence that suggests the canonized version is correct. 

To suggest that a supernatural explanation and a supernatural verification of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the only explanation for its origins requires that the same criteria be used when assessing other sacred texts including, for example the Qu’ran, The Book of the Law of the Lord, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. 

If the Church would accept the claim that the other sacred texts are of divine origin, it calls into question the validity of the church’s claim as God’s one and only true church.  If the Church calls into question the divine origins of these sacred texts, it must submit the Book of Mormon to the same standards of judgment to which it would submit other sacred texts for verification.  Troubling to some members is why Elder Holland seemingly would subject the Book of Mormon to one set of criteria and all other sacred texts to a completely different set of criteria.

H4 – No Wicked Man.  There is no reason to doubt Elder Holland’s sincerity when he said he agrees with his grandfather in saying, “[n]o 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.”  This is honorable, understandable, and acceptable for what it is.  He is not ambiguous in his position, conviction, or belief.  However, Elder Holland uses this conviction as evidence of an irrefutable fact.  This type of conviction is commonplace in the realm of religious claims, including within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint (now Community of Christ) had a firm conviction that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy and polyandry because he publicly stated that he didn’t.   But their conviction was not supported by facts.   Islamic suicide bombers have a conviction that they will be received into heaven as martyrs.  But their conviction is unsupported by any objective evidence.  Religious convictions do not equal objective fact, despite the fervor of the conviction. 

Interestingly, Elder Holland opens up for possibility yet another commonly held Book of Mormon authorship theory.  In saying, “…no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so,” he opens the credible possibility that Joseph perceived that he had received a commandment from God to write the Book of Mormon, and, therefore, he did so, creating what may be called, an “inspired fiction.”

Elder Holland: I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter day work [I1] —and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort for our times [I2]—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon [I3]and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text [I4] teeming with literary and Semitic complexity [I5] without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow [I6]—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’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived [I7] and, if they leave this Church, they must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.   In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be—“a stone of stumbling,...a rock of offence,” a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. [I8]  Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.” [I9]

I1 – Full Faith. Assuming that Elder Holland is referring to the Restoration, it is reasonable to assume that a lack of belief in the foundational stories of the Book of Mormon would equate to a lack of full faith in the latter-day work as it is currently portrayed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I2 – Fullest Measure.  Given the peace and comfort many outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel in their lives, it seems presumptuous of Elder Holland to suggest that unless one accepts the Book of Mormon people cannot find the fullest measure of peace and comfort.  At the same time, Elder Holland is clear and direct in his conviction regarding his view.  Some members view the world around them and are confused by the contradiction between this claim of Elder Holland and what they actually observe empirically.

I3 – Embracing the Divinity.  Embracing the divinity of the Book of Mormon as a requirement for full peace and comfort in this life is presumptuous on the part of Elder Holland.  Many people live in a peace and comfort far greater than members of the church while they do not accept the divinity of the Book of Mormon.  Many members of the church do not accept the divine origins of the Book of Mormon, yet acknowledge the inspiration and good that they have received by reading the Book of Mormon.

I4 – Foolish Enough.  Calling people “foolish” again underscores the argument-weakening use of name-calling, which is a propaganda technique meant to elicit negative emotion and to demean the value of those being called names.  Calling someone foolish and misled for not accepting the divinity of the Book of Mormon is a common propaganda ploy having no effect on the truthfulness of falsity of anyone’s position.

I5 – Semitic Complexity.  Elder Holland presumably here refers to the Hebraic (and according to many, the human) tendency to chiasmus in writing.  The Book of Mormon has sections which fit the criteria for chiasmus.  This point is often overemphasized, given that Dr. Seuss books have a greater tendency towards chiasmus than the Book of Mormon.  No one claims that Dr. Seuss books have Semitic complexity or divine origins.  Informed listeners and readers understand this and wonder why Elder Holland would highlight this point.  Uninformed listeners and readers may perceive that “Semitic complexity” is somehow firm evidence of the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.

I6 - Accounting for the Origin.  Elder Holland seemingly forgets or is unwilling to accept that there are honest attempts to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon from a naturalistic point of view.  These, and others, are the theories that he says are “frankly pathetic.”  By inference, he is labeling all efforts to research, develop, and put these theories forward for discussion as “dishonest.”  How he reaches this conclusion is unknown; some may view it as arrogance.  An honest examination of these theories underscores and highlights that the vast majority of proposed authorship theories are grounded in honest inquiry and honest scholarship.  It is difficult to understand why Elder Holland would effectively characterize them all as being founded in dishonesty.

I7 – Been Deceived.  With much passion and conviction, Elder Holland, without trial and without putting forward any real evidence, condemns as deceived anyone who honestly holds the view that the Book of Mormon’s origins are not entirely congruous with his understanding of the stories published in the scriptural canon.  This is astonishing to many members.

I8 – Crawling Around the Book of Mormon.  Elder Holland has characterized the Book of Mormon as a barrier to those who “wish not to believe.”  There are several problems with this characterization.  The first problem being the suggestion that those who leave the LDS church simply wish not to believe.  The reality is that the reverse is more often true.  People who leave the church most often fervently wish to believe. 

To members who know people who have left the church, Elder Holland’s characterization is confusing at best, and dishonest, hurtful, and disparaging at worst.  It highlights to them that Elder Holland either does not understand why people leave the Church, or does not care. 

Many who choose to leave have held onto the Book of Mormon as their last bastion of hope that the church is true before that hope finally gives way.  Elder Holland uses a variety of prepositions, “over or under or around,” to suggest the physical maneuvering required for someone who “wish[es] not to believe,” to leave the church.  Interestingly, he neglects to use the preposition, “through.”  Many who ultimately leave the church would characterize their process with the Book of Mormon as going “through” it on their way out of the church.  A representative but poignant recounting of a journey was relayed to me by an anonymous woman: 

When people have been willing to actually sit down with me and ask me why I left the church, I have told them, ‘If the Book of Mormon is true, then the current church isn't practicing what's in it, and if the current church is true, then they don't need the Book of Mormon 'cause it doesn't have much in it to support the current practices.’

About 7 years ago, I bought a paperback copy of the Book of Mormon and I used a red pencil to underline everything in the text that I felt was a "...Testament of Jesus Christ" My intention at the time was to show a friend who had been well taught that Mormons aren’t Christians that we did indeed hold up Christ as our Savior.

About 6 years ago, following the advice of someone I considered to be a wise and spiritual man, I gathered together all the ‘Teachings of...’ the prophets that I could find and I started reading backwards from Gordon B. Hinckley. I got a very good picture of the workings of the church and what the leaders feel is important (confession/repentance of sin, tithing, temple work/sealing power) and I started to see the church as a very Old Testament kind of organization. By then I was reading the D&C and found it to also be very Old Testament-y.

And then I got to spend all those months in [quiet contemplation]. I decided that the Book of Mormon would be the most comforting and useful to my heart so I was back to reading it almost exclusively and I really believe that that is where my testimony came apart.

Trying to find justification in the Book of Mormon for the current practices of the church is really hard to do. It is now used as a validation for Joseph Smith. "He translated it. It's good. He's good. We're good."

It really is true that I went THROUGH the Book of Mormon on my way out of the church. 

Many people have gone through the Book of Mormon on their way out of the church. After careful, prayerful and considered study and searching, they have determined that from their perspective they do not see that the Church teaches the fullness of the gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon.  They perceive the inconsistency to be stark, irreconcilable, and real.  Is the honest searching of these people that leads them right through the heart of the Book of Mormon irrelevant and not worthy of honest, sympathetic consideration, and open, frank discussion within the church? 

Additionally, the Book of Mormon is often a barrier to those who actually do wish to believe.  Many have prayed fervently, believing that Moroni’s promise  would provide them with a correct knowledge of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  They are discouraged when they do not receive a recognizable answer.  This becomes a barrier to belief.  For Elder Holland to present only one side of the story and ignore the other, equally legitimate side, is yet another rhetorical device, and a logical fallacy of card stacking, aimed at creating an emotional response in the audience.

I9 – Witnesses Testified.  Elder Holland presents elements of the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses as included in the Book of Mormon.  He represents that none ever denied their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.  The picture he paints is disheartening to those members who are informed, expecting that he would paint a more complete picture if he chose to focus on the 11 witnesses.  The testimonies were written, presumably by Oliver Cowdery, but possibly by Joseph, and presented to the witnesses to sign rather than the witnesses collaborating and writing of their own, presumably shared experiences.  Martin Harris reported that the eleven witnesses hesitated to sign the statements for this reason.   This is important in that while none of the witnesses ever publicly denied their testimony, many of them publicly clarified their testimony and there is evidence that at least two privately denied their testimony.   Three of the eleven witnesses clarified that their seeing the plates was not with their physical, but their spiritual eyes, while Harris claimed that none of the witnesses viewed the plates with their physical eyes.  

Additionally, if we accept as evidence of the divinity of the Book of Mormon the testimonies of the 11 witnesses, as Elder Holland suggests, by like reasoning and logic we should accept the testimonies of the 11 witnesses to The Book of the Law of the Lord as evidence for the divinity of that work. 

Upon Joseph’s death, church member James J. Strang presented a letter to Church leaders in Nauvoo, presumably from Joseph, in his handwriting.  The letter indicated that the mantle of prophet should be passed to Strang.   Strang and some his followers were led to some metallic plates, which they dug up.  The plates had curious writings, which Strang translated using the “Urim and Thummim,” resulting in The Book of the Law of the Lord.  Like the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, the 11 witnesses of the Book of the Law of the Lord signed their testimonies of its divine origin.   None of these 11 witnesses are reported to have denied their testimony of this book.  Of the 11 witnesses, two had belonged to the LDS church in Nauvoo, Ebenezer Page and Jehiel Savage.  Using the same reasoning Elder Holland uses for the Book of Mormon witnesses, The Book of the Law of the Lord must stand as an equal text, divine in origin. 

Moreover, if we were to accept the logic of the validity of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, we should also accept the validity of the testimony of the seven independent witnesses that individually, separately, and legally testified that Solomon Spaulding wrote the core part of the Book of Mormon.

Elder Holland: Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared in crossing an ocean and settling in a new world. I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek nor witness the fiery death of innocent believers. I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the Resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them “I give my name unto the world, to witness unto the world that which I have seen.” And like them, “I lie not, God bearing witness of it.” I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my own oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my “last days,” but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world, in the most straightforward language I could summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, [J1] and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days.

J1 – The Book of Mormon is True.  Elder Holland’s conviction and belief is clear and unequivocal, but conviction does not necessarily equate to fact.  Allowing that there can be a gap between conviction and fact should allow honest members of the church to explore and understand the facts and “study them out in their own minds,” as the Lord had commanded, and make an honest assessment of those facts.

Elder Holland: My witness echoes that of Nephi who wrote part of the book in his “last days”:
 
“Hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ [you shall believe] these words, for they are the words of Christ,...and they teach all men that they should do good.

 

“And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day….” [K1]

K1 – Hearken unto These Words.  A quotation from the Book of Mormon is not proof of its validity, particularly given the circular logic required to believe that it is.  Similarly, it is not proof of its invalidity, but that is not the question.  The supposition is that these words are true.  Many believers in Christ would be astounded by this logic.  For many of them, belief in Christ is the foundation for their dismissal of the Book of Mormon as a 19th century work of fiction.  The emphasis and use of logic which is circular is unpersuasive to careful listeners and readers.

Elder Holland: Brothers and sisters, God always provides safety for the soul. And with the Book of Mormon He has again done that in our time. Remember this declaration by Jesus Himself, “Whoso treasureth up my word shall not be deceived” ---and in the last days neither your heart nor your faith will fail you. [L1]  Of this I earnestly testify, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

L1 – Shall Not Be Deceived.  Many religious people believe that if they treasure up the word of God from their respective sacred texts, they will not be deceived.  They sincerely treasure the words that they believe to be of God, and therefore feel like they have the truth and are not deceived. 

While it is true that they may have a deep conviction of the truthfulness of their scripture, this does not account for the discrepancies and contradictions among and between the various sacred texts that religions around the world hold dear.  Many people of a wide variety of religious traditions would say that by treasuring up their sacred texts, “…neither your heart nor your faith will fail you.”  This is a primary purpose behind each sacred text, meant to bring a closer connection between man and God.  Supposing that the Book of Mormon somehow transcends this and stands alone as a unique, sacred text, is problematic to many LDS church members who would expect humble confidence with respect to their treasured Book of Mormon.


Summary

While many members of the Church found Elder Holland’s talk to be thrilling, exciting, and vindicating, others were disheartened by this talk.  The confusion spans many areas throughout the talk.  Elder Holland’s display of passion and emotion is very uncommon at General Conference.  To see Elder Holland passionately sad, angry, defiant, happy, and resolute through the course of the talk was disquieting to many.  The pervasive use rhetorical devices throughout the talk detracted mightily from Elder Holland’s core message of his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon.  Logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, and non sequiturs stitched together a talk that, while having emotional impact, was largely devoid of logic.  These rhetorical devices and communication techniques caused many to wonder why in the world Elder Holland would abandon his intellectual background and stoop to the trade of a rhetorician.  Many lost hope in the one apostle who seemed to hear and at least attempt to understand the marginalized intellectual segment  of the Church population.  Many were deeply saddened as they watched Elder Holland as he stood at the pulpit during General Conference and trammeled honest scholarship and marginalized the spiritual, emotional, and psychological need that many have to learn, understand, evaluate and study aspects of the Church unavailable in the standard Church curriculum. 

The hope and intent of this analysis is to provide local leaders with the opportunity to understand that many are confused, hurt, and even distraught over Elder Holland’s talk.  There are real and identifiable reasons within the talk why these people feel the way that they do.  These people need comfort, compassion, and acceptance, not blanket condemnation.  Please reach out to these people even if you perceive them to be the “lost sheep.”  As Christ said, “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4)  Thank you for your service as shepherd or stewards over the members of the church in your area.  God bless you.
 
APPENDIX A

Joseph Smith Senior’s Dream of the Tree of Life

    I thought...I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in thereat."

    Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, "I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me." Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed.

    While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.

    I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. "No," he replied, "look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also." Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls.

    After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, "It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility."

    I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.  (Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, 1845.)

 
APPENDIX B


Summary of Two Alternative Book of Mormon Authorship Theories


Ethan Smith – View of the Hebrews

This summary is taken in whole from Wikipedia.

View of the Hebrews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View of the Hebrews is an 1823 book written by Ethan Smith (December 19, 1762–August 29, 1849) which argues that Native Americans were descended from the Hebrews. Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine, from LDS Church general authority B. H. Roberts to biographer Fawn M. Brodie, have discussed the possibility that View of the Hebrews may have provided source material for the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe was translated from ancient golden plates by Joseph Smith, Jr. [1]

Biography of Ethan Smith

Ethan Smith, unrelated to Joseph Smith, was a New England Congregationalist clergyman. Born into a pious home in Belchertown, Massachusetts, Smith abandoned religion after the early deaths of his parents.[2] After a prolonged inner struggle he joined the Congregational Church in 1781, and shortly thereafter began training for the ministry, graduating from Dartmouth College in 1790, though finding "but little of the spirit of religion there."[2]

After serving congregations in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts, Smith accepted an appointment as "City Missionary" in Boston and also served as a supply pastor for vacant pulpits. "He was a warm friend of what he accounted pure revivals of religion; though he was careful to distinguish the precious from the vile" in matters of religious experience. Smith enjoyed a "robust constitution and vigorous health" and continued to preach until within two weeks of his death. At eighty his sight "became very dim, and he was no longer able to read, though he never became totally blind. So familiar was he with the Bible and Watts, that it was his uniform custom to open the book in the pulpit, and give out the chapter and hymn, and seem to read them; and he very rarely made a mistake, to awaken a suspicion that he was repeating from memory."[2]

Besides View of the Hebrews, Smith published A Dissertation on the Prophecies (1809), A Key to the Figurative Language of the Prophecies (1814), A View of the Trinity, designed as an answer to Noah Webster's Bible News (1821), Memoirs of Mrs. Abigail Bailey, Four Lectures on the Subjects and Mode of Baptism, A Key to the Revelation (1833), and Prophetic Catechism to Lead to the Study of the Prophetic Scriptures (1839). Ethan Smith died in Royalston, Massachusetts in 1849.[2]

Smith lived in Poultney, Vermont, the same town as Oliver Cowdery, who later acted as Joseph Smith's scribe for the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith also pastored the Congregational church that Cowdery's family attended from 1821 to 1826 while he was writing View of the Hebrews.[3]

Thesis of View of the Hebrews

The first edition of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews was published in 1823, and a second expanded edition appeared in 1825.[4] Ethan Smith's theory, not uncommon among theologians and laymen of his day, was that Native Americans were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, who had disappeared after being taken captive by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE.[5] Terryl Givens calls the work "an inelegant blend of history, excerpts, exhortation, and theorizing."[6]

Smith's speculation took flight from a verse in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras 13:41,[7] which says that the Ten Tribes traveled to a far country, "where never mankind dwelt"—which Smith interpreted to mean America. During Smith's day speculation about the Ten Lost Tribes was heightened both by a renewed interest in biblical prophecy and by the belief that the aboriginal peoples who had been swept aside by Europeans settlers could not have created the sophisticated burial mounds found in North America. Smith attempted to rescue Indians from the contemporary mound builder myth by making Native Americans "potential converts worthy of salvation."[8] "If our natives be indeed from the tribes of Israel," Smith wrote, "American Christians may well feel, that one great object of their inheritance here, is, that they may have a primary agency in restoring those 'lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"[9]

Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

It has been argued that there are significant parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In 1922 B.H. Roberts (1857–1933), a prominent LDS apologist and historian,[10] was asked to answer a non-believer's five critical questions by LDS Apostle James E. Talmage. It is unclear when Roberts first learned of the View of the Hebrews or what motivated him to make the comparison, but he produced a confidential report that summarized eighteen points of similarity between the two works.[11]

In a letter to LDS Church president Heber J. Grant and other church officials, Roberts urged "all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world."[12] Roberts' list of parallels included:

    * 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.[13]

Roberts continued to affirm his faith in the divine origins of the Book of Mormon until his death in 1933, but as Terryl Givens has written, "a lively debate has emerged over whether his personal conviction really remained intact in the aftermath of his academic investigations."[14]

Fawn Brodie, the first important historian to write a non-hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith,[15] believed that Joseph Smith's theory of the Hebraic origin of the American Indians came "chiefly" from View of the Hebrews. "It may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon," wrote Brodie in 1945, "but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence."[16] On the other hand, Mormon apologists argue that the parallels between the works are weak, over-emphasized, or non-existent.[17]


Solomon Spaulding – Manuscript Found

This summary is taken in whole from Wikipedia.

Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship is the theory that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized in part from an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding. This theory first appeared in print in the book Mormonism Unvailed,[1] published in 1834 by E.D. Howe. The theory claims that the Spalding manuscript was at some point acquired by Sidney Rigdon, who used it in collusion with Joseph Smith, Jr. to produce the Book of Mormon. Although publicly stated that it was through reading the Book of Mormon that Rigdon joined the Mormon church,[1] the Spalding–Rigdon theory argues that the story was a later invention to cover the book's allegedly true origins.
Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon

While living in Conneaut, Ohio, in the early nineteenth century, Solomon Spalding (1761–1816) began writing a work of fiction about the lost civilization of the mound builders of North America. Spalding shared his story, entitled Manuscript Story[2] with members of his family and some of his associates in Conneaut, as well as his friends in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania, where he lived prior to his death. However, Manuscript Story was not published during his lifetime.
In 1832, Latter Day Saint missionaries Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde visited Conneaut, Ohio, and preached from the Book of Mormon. Nehemiah King, a resident of Conneaut who knew Spalding when he lived there, felt that the Mormon text resembled the story written by Spalding years before. In 1833, at the urging of Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, King, Spalding's widow, his brother John, and a number of other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon.

Origins of the theory

The Spalding theory of authorship first appeared in print in Eber D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. Howe printed collection of affidavits collected by Hurlbut. Hurlbut had heard of an unpublished romance novel by Solomon Spalding as he was touring Pennsylvania giving lectures against the Latter Day Saint church. Hurlbut concluded that the description of the story in the manuscript bore some resemblance to that of the Book of Mormon.[3] A contemporary of Hurlbut's, Benjamin Winchester, states that Hurlbut "had learned that one Mr. Spaulding had written a romance, and the probability was, that it had, by some means, fallen into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, and that he had converted it into the Book of Mormon." Upon learning this, Hurlbut determined to obtain the manuscript.[4] Hurlbut learned that Sidney Rigdon had once resided in Pittsburgh and that the manuscript had once been there, and subsequently "endeavoured to make the finding of the manuscript take place at Pittsburgh, and then infer, that S.R. [Sidney Rigdon] had copied it there."[5]

Author Dan Vogel suggests that Hurlbut was not the originator of the Spalding-Rigdon theory, noting that Hurlbut pursued this in response to what he had heard about the manuscript and suggests that had Hurlbut been the inventor of the theory "he would not have made strenuous efforts to recover Spalding's manuscript."[6]
[edit] Statements from Spalding's neighbors and relatives

Eight of the affidavits acquired by Hurlbut from Solomon Spalding's family and associates stated that there were similarities between the story and the Book of Mormon.[7]

An example is the statement of Solomon Spalding's brother John, which declared that Spalding's manuscript "gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites." Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."[8]

Author Fawn Brodie expressed suspicion regarding these statements, claiming that the style of the statements was too similar and displayed too much uniformity. Brodie suggests that Hurlbut did a "little judicious prompting."[9]

However, an article published in the Hudson Ohio "Observer", (Masthead of Vlll:15 - June 12, 1834), tells a different story. In the article, the editor interviewed some of the Conneaut witnesses, who then told the editor the same thing that they told to Hurlbut, even though they had every opportunity to say anything they wished. The significance of the article is that it appeared shortly after Hurlbut's trial in April 1834 and around six months before Howe's book, "Mormonism Unvailed", was published, thus refuting the claims that the witnesses had been coached by Hurlbut or that he had inaccurately reported their testimony.

Howe's response to the Spalding manuscript

Hurlbut obtained a manuscript through Spalding's widow, and showed it in public presentations in Kirtland, Ohio, in December 1833.[citation needed] Hurlbut then became embroiled in a legal dispute with Joseph Smith. Subsequently, Hurlbut delivered the documents he had collected to Howe. Howe was unable to find the alleged similarities with the Book of Mormon that were described in the statements and instead argued in Mormonism Unveiled (1834) that there must exist a second Spalding manuscript which was now lost. Howe concluded that Joseph Smith and Sidney Ridgon used the Spalding manuscript to produce the Book of Mormon for the purpose of making money.[10]
[edit] Responses to the theory

In 1840, Benjamin Winchester, a Mormon defender who had been "deputed ... to hunt up the Hurlbut case,"[11] published a book rejecting the Spalding theory as "a sheer fabrication." Winchester attributed the creation of the entire story to Hurlbut.[12]

Regarding Sidney Rigdon's alleged involvement, Rigdon's son John recounted an interview with his father in 1865:

    My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story."[13]

In 1884, a Spalding manuscript known as Manuscript Story was discovered and published, and the manuscript now resides at Oberlin College in Ohio.[14]. This manuscript appears to bear little resemblance to the Book of Mormon story, but some critics claim it contains parallels in theme and narrative.[citation needed] The second "lost" manuscript purported to exist by Howe has never been discovered.

A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows".[15] This study did not include Joseph Smith as one of the possible authors, arguing that because of Smith's use of scribes and co-authors, no texts can be presently identified with a surety as having been written by Smith.

The Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) found a strong Spalding signal in Mosiah, Alma, the first part of Helaman, and Ether. The Spalding signal was weak in those parts of the Book of Mormon likely produced after the lost pages incident (1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, some of the middle part of 3 Nephi, Moroni). They found the Rigdon signal distributed throughout the Book of Mormon (except for the known Isaiah chapters), and a weak Pratt signal in 1 Nephi. They also found a strong Cowdery signal in mid-Alma and weaker Cowdery signals in locations that contain content similar to Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews".

Previous wordprint or computer studies have come to different conclusions (for a history of such studies from the perspective of a LDS group, see http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies). A 1980 study done by John Hilton with non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley concluded that the probability of Spaulding having been the (sole) author of book of Nephi was less than 7.29 x 10-28 and less than 3 x 10-11 for Alma[16].

In the Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) peer-reviewed publication in the "Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing", they reviewed the (non-peer reviewed) Hilton study and pointed out numerous flaws in it.

They (Jocker et al., 2008) found that the Book of Alma is a mixture of Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding. The Hilton study does not indicate what text they used for Alma. If one lumps all the signals for Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding together, one is left with a corrupt signal that does not match Spalding.

Many have already commented on this talk, and deservedly so.  Faithful members of the church have generally responded quite favorably to it, though not without some dissenters who were alarmed by the talk's strident tone.  Ex-Mormons and Post-Mormons have had a decidedly negative reaction.  LDS friends of mine gushed about it on their Facebook status updates, and the faithful LDS blogs were equally Morgasmic over it. I think the primary reason so many faithful members responded to the message with such delight is not the content of the sermon, which was pretty light on substance, actually, but because of the manner in which it was delivered.  Even zealously faithful Mormons acknowledge that General Conference addresses often have a soporific effect.  The typical delivery of the septuagenarian and octogenarian male speakers is slow and plodding and monotonous; the female speakers often speak in a grating, sickly sweet sing-songy style.  It is unusual for Mormon speakers to employ a lot of inflection in their voices, or to engage in exaggerated gestures.  It is rare for a Mormon apostle to raise his voice in a General Conference address.  So the fact that Elder Holland was clearly agitated, perhaps even angry as he nearly shouted some of the lines of his sermon, and the fact that he emphasized his points with arm-waving I think woke up a lot of the people who were zoning out rather than tuning in to General Conference.  Any sign that these guys actually have a pulse is enough to invigorate the faithful, it seems.  The odd (for Mormons) manner of his delivery is one reason I chose to embed the video here rather than just cut and paste from segments of the text.  Watch the video with the sound turned down.  Elder Holland really does have an angry countenance as he delivers his message.

At the beginning of this post, I made three statements about Elder Holland's address.  I said that it was rife with lies, logical fallacies, and emotional and psychological manipulation.  I now take each of those assertions in turn.  First, the lies.  Elder Holland makes factual assertions that simply are not accurate.  He also tells a number of half-truths, in keeping with the LDS church's stated policy of only sharing facts that show their prophets in a positive light.  Elder Holland omits numerous details about the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon and about the events leading up to the deaths of Hyrum and Joseph Smith at Carthage.  Elder Holland also misleads the audience about the prop he carries with him--the copy of the Book of Mormon that Hyrum Smith allegedly read from shortly before the death of him and his brother. Now, let's go through the sermon and count the lies and omissions:

1. The Lies

Elder Holland starts his address by citing a story from the Book of Mormon familiar to all Mormons, that of Lehi's dream.  From the Book of Mormon (partially quoted by Elder Holland), 1 Nephi 8:4-28:

 But behold, Laman and Lemuel, I fear exceedingly because of you; for behold, methought I saw in my dream, a dark and dreary wilderness.

And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.

And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.

And it came to pass after I had prayed unto the Lord I beheld a large and spacious field.

And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.

And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.

And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit.

And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go.

And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit.

And it came to pass that they did come unto me and partake of the fruit also.

And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

And it came to pass that I saw them, but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit.

And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.

And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

Elder Holland quotes from a portion of this story from the Book of Mormon.  It is a curious choice, because Elder Holland, who later in his address will mock those who question the Book of Mormon's authenticity, fails to mention to his audience that this story from the Book of Mormon was plagiarized--from Joseph Smith's own father!

Joseph Smith's mother, on whom Mormon historians rely extensively for information about the early years of Joseph Smith and the early days of the establishment of the LDS church, wrote the following about a dream that Joseph Smith, Sr. had in 1811--nine years before the earliest date asserted for the First Vision, sixteen years before Joseph Smith is said to have received the gold plates from an angel, and eighteen years before the Book of Mormon was published:

    In 1811, we moved from Royalton, Vermont, to the town of Lebanon, New Hampshire. Soon after arriving here, my husband received another very singular vision, which I will relate:

    "I thought," said he, "I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, 'What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?' My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, 'This is the desolate world; but travel on.' The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, 'Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in thereat.' 

    Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, 'I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me.' Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed. 

        While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.

        I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. 'No,' he replied, 'look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also.' Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls.

        After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, 'It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility.' 

        I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy."

Elder Holland then segues from the plagiarized story at the beginning of the Book of Mormon to a whitewashed account of the final days of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.  He begins the story with a lie:

May I refer to a modern “last days” testimony? When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage to face what they knew would be an imminent martyrdom . . . .

Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, "Would any of you like to have this?" Brother Joseph immediately replied, "Yes, give it to me," whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket.... I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs....

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, "Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!" He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)

If Joseph Smith knew he was going to be killed, why did he have a gun delivered to him? Why did he discharge his weapon?  Certainly, Elder Holland knows about this because he cites to the History of the Church elsewhere in his talk. 

But that is not all Elder Holland fails to mention.  He makes no mention of the fact that on the day Joseph and Hyrum were killed, Joseph sent for the Nauvoo Legion to come break them out of jail.  Nothing in the historical record indicates that Joseph Smith thought, on the morning of June 27, 1844 when he had a letter smuggled out of the jail to the Nauvoo Legion, that they would fail to rescue him. In fact, just the opposite: the historical record is clear that Joseph Smith thought the mob that was coming to kill him was the Nauvoo Legion coming to his rescue:

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." (D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 141).

Elder Holland then mentions that Hyrum Smith read from the Book of Mormon in an effort to comfort his brother.  To add dramatic emphasis, he makes this claim:

Before closing the book, Hyrum turned down the corner of the page from which he had read, marking it as part of the everlasting testimony for which these two brothers were about to die. I hold in my hand that book, the very copy from which Hyrum read, the same corner of the page turned down, still visible.

It seems Elder Holland was, at the very least, exaggerating.  He was, indeed, holding an early edition of the Book of Mormon, with a page flipped down, that may have been the one Hyrum Smith had with him at Carthage.  The problem is that the LDS church has previously identified a different book as "the very copy from which Hyrum read."  See this story from the LDS Church News and the discussion of the topic at the PostMormon discussion board for more.  Now, this may seem a small matter, but watch the video and see how sincerely and emphatically Elder Holland attests to the fact that he is carrying the "very copy from which Hyrum read."  And then compare it to the emotional verve with which he testifies about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  It is the same.  If you feel all warm and fuzzy from his declaration (which was false) regarding the book he held in his hand, perhaps it should give one pause about using those warm and fuzzy feelings to determine the truth of that which he is asserting elsewhere.  If he lies so emphatically and effectively about these little things, what about the big things to which he "bears solemn witness"?

Next, Elder Holland engages in hyperbole.  What he says is patently ridiculous.  Here it is:

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands.

He really cannot be serious.  Only in the bizarre bubble world in which this Baron of Bluster lives could someone really think that the Book of Mormon has been more assiduously criticized than the Bible or the Qu'ran.  Elder Holland has a Ph.D. from Yale University.  He knows better than this.  And what does he mean, exactly, by the phrase "And still it stands"? In the sense that there are some few souls among the population of the earth who believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary? Sure, I will give it that.  But by that criteria, he should accept the Qu'ran, which has been far more "examined and attacked" and "stands" in a far stronger position than the Book of Mormon, with over 1.5 billion believers compared to Mormonism's fewer than 10 million. 

For our next lie from Elder Holland, we get this gem:

Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates.

Let's examine this in a little more detail than what Elder Holland gave in his General Conference address (and in more detail than what the LDS church has ever given in any of the materials it has produced over the years discussing the testimonies of the so-called Three Witnesses.  Elder Holland certainly gives the impression that the Three Witnesses (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris) never wavered in their testimonies.  The historical record, though, contradicts this myth perpetuated by Elder Holland. Some facts about the Three Witnesses that Elder Holland fails to mention are found at Mormon Think and this page here.  Elder Holland either is ignorant of these facts (and, given his educational level, the position he holds, his past correspondence with church critics, and the ease with which these facts are obtained), or he is deliberately misleading his audience.  Why does he not mention that all three witnesses left the church, that they were not simply "for a time hostile to Joseph" but that they actually left the church, condemned Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet, sustained men other than Brigham Young as the true Prophet after Joseph's death, joined other churches, qualified their testimonies by saying that they had beheld the plates and angel with their "spiritual eyes" or the "eye of faith," were literally cursed by Mormon leaders, robbed by their fellow Mormons who drove them out of town, etc.? (not all three did all of these things, but each of these things applies to at least one of the Three Witnesses).  I think Elder Holland is deliberately leaving a false impression with his audience, a false impression reinforced by all the lesson materials the LDS church produces concerning the Three Witnesses.  The numerous facts in the historical record that call into question the veracity of the Three Witnesses and the reliability of the testimony that is found in every Book of Mormon are never discussed in a church setting.  I can understand why--the real history is embarrassing and is not faith promoting.  But rather than lie about the Three Witnesses, perhaps Elder Holland would better serve the cause of truth by simply neglecting to mention them at all.

Finally, nearly fifteen minutes into the talk, we get a true statement from Elder Holland:

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared in crossing an ocean, settling in a new world.

No doubt.  It is interesting to me that Elder Holland mentions perhaps the most ludicrous story in the entire Book of Mormon in an address in which he is trying to persuade people of the literal authenticity of the book as an ancient history translated by the gift and power of God.  The story of the sailing of the brother of Jared (whose name Joseph Smith allegedly had miraculously revealed to him as "Mahonri Moriancumr") is analyzed in this brilliant piece by Dr. Kent Ponder.  No, Elder Holland did not sail with the brother of Jared.  And neither did anyone else.  And I didn't accompany Frodo up Mount Doom, either.

Well, I have spent enough time on the lies and misrepresentations made by Elder Holland in his talk.  Now let's look at the logic of his principal arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.  These are the things that many faithful Mormons described as "powerful" and "forceful" and even "irrefutable." I will quote the bulk of Elder Holland's argument and then point out what I see as the flaws in his reasoning.  From Elder Holland's talk:

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? Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor. Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Curiously, when Elder Holland submits "yet one more evidence" he has not yet submitted any evidence.  This is the first thing he mentions as evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.  Oh, wait. Check that.  He did say right before this that Hyrum Smith read from the Book of Ether.  So the fact that Hyrum Smith found comfort in some of the words found in the Book of Mormon (which, incidentally, are borrowed from the New Testament, about which the Book of Ether "author" would not have known anything about, but which was familiar to the Smith brothers) is, I guess, some of the "evidence" that Elder Holland cites. 

But let's look at the second part of the above-quoted passage from Elder Holland, the part where he asks rhetorically whether Joseph and Hyrum would quote from a book just before they died, knowing that they would soon face their Maker. Let's count the logical fallacies in this passage. First, as noted above, it is based on the false premise that they knew they were going to die at the time they were reading from the book and testifying of it to the guards. 

Second, it is based on the false premise that they had a choice to  deny the book to save their lives.  Nothing in the historical record supports Elder Holland's false premise.  The Smith brothers were not incarcerated for believing in the Book of Mormon; nor could they have secured their release from jail by admitting that the book was not of divine origin.

Third, even if they did expect to die, that fact alone would not prevent them from continuing to perpetuate a lie to their last breath.  Again, this argument is based on the false premise that a dying man's words are always truthful.  Plenty of people engaged in frauds (whether deceiving only others or deceiving both others and themselves) have gone to their deaths spouting their false beliefs.  Do the names David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Marshall Applewhite mean nothing to Elder Holland? If so, Elder Holland may I introduce you to my friend Google? 

Fourth, Elder Holland finds it significant that Joseph testified of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (according to the History of the Church, but it is interesting that Elder Holland never quotes from a sermon by Joseph Smith in which Smith taught from the Book of Mormon or quoted from it.  Indeed, I have read many talks given by Joseph Smith and cannot recall a single instance where he quoted from the Book of Mormon) and that Hyrum Smith read from it.  But these facts are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the Book of Mormon's origins are divine and whether the Book of Mormon contains actual ancient history.  I know some liberal Mormons who read the Book of Mormon and gain inspiration and comfort from its pages but who nevertheless do not believe it came from an angel or contains real history.

More from Elder Holland speaking of the Book of Mormon:

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. 

By invoking his grandfather's testimony, Elder Holland commits the fallacy of an appeal to antiquity.  Just because his grandfather believed it to be so does not make it so.  This is not evidence for anything.  Anyone can regurgitate the religious opinions of their forebears.  I am sure most of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world could cite their grandparents' testimonies about the Prophet Muhammad.  Is Elder Holland going to accept them as true?

Elder Holland then gives his own testimony on his own "oath and office."  This, too fails as evidence of anything.  He commits the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority--that because he says it is so, it must be so.  After all, an apostle wouldn't lie, right?  

Elder Holland also (and this may be the most unfortunate part of the whole talk) commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks.  He labels those who do not accept as true the story Joseph Smith told about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (an angel gave him gold plates on which were engraved books written by multiple ancient prophets in a language never before or since found, and he translated the record by putting a seerstone in a hat, on which the words in English would appear as he dictated them to his scribes, and when he was finished the angel took the plates back) as "foolish," "deceived," and "misled," and labels any ideas about the possible origins of the Book of Mormon that differ from Smith's miraculous tale as "frankly pathetic." 

In the same passage, Elder Holland engages in some sleight of hand, wherein he talks about "failed theories about [the Book of Mormon's] origins, and then names just two theories (of many) that have been advanced.  It is sleight of hand because there are really two issues regarding the Book of Mormon's "divine origins."  One question is whether the book contains an actual history of real people who lived anciently.  A second question concerns how the book that Joseph Smith had printed and distributed, and which the LDS church continues to print and distribute to the world, was produced.  The second question is really not nearly as relevant and important as the first.  Here is why: either the Book of Mormon peoples and civilizations actually existed or they did not.  Either the book is an actual history or it is fiction.  If the answer to the first question is that the Book of Mormon is not real history, then it follows that we know at least part of the answer to the second question.  If the Book of Mormon is not an actual history, then it follows that it was not produced in the manner that Joseph Smith claims (i.e., there was no angel with gold plates and there was no miraculous translation with a seerstone in a hat, etc.).  We still do not know the full answer to the second question, but at that point it is more a matter of academic interest. 

If, however, the Book of Mormon can be shown to be an actual history, then, and only then, does Joseph Smith's story about how the book was produced become plausible and worthy.Elder Holland focuses on the second question only because he knows there is no "proof" right now of how the Book of Mormon was produced (i.e., whether Joseph acted alone or had accomplices, and if he had accomplices, the extent of the conspiracy).  Elder Holland focuses on this question, rather than the first question concerning the evidence for the Book of Mormon as an actual history because he knows that there is a mountain of evidence against the Book of Mormon and that almost any unbiased inquirer who examines the evidence against the Book of Mormon will be persuaded by the evidence that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century fabrication and not a document of ancient origin.  All Elder Holland can point to is some vague "literary and Semitic complexity," which he never defines.  Nor does he provide any examples, or explain how having "literary and Semitic complexity" would prove the Book of Mormon is true.

For anyone sincerely wanting to look at the evidence on the Book of Mormon, I refer you to the web sites included in my sidebar under the Book of Mormon heading (which includes church sites with articles from LDS leaders.

And this brings me to my final point.  If Elder Holland is so sure that the Book of Mormon can withstand "examination and attack," if he is so sure that the evidence against the book and the arguments of its critics are "pathetic" and "silly," why does he not encourage his audience to research those arguments and look at the evidence and decide for themselves?  Why all the yelling and arm-waving and empty rhetoric and angry testifying?  Why the fear-mongering (warning of "destruction" and "dangers" and "deception" of the "elect" and "travail of the latter days" and such)?  Why resort to the tactic of portraying those who have left the church as "crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit," conjuring the mental image of cockroaches scurrying over and around a book lying on the floor.  Why the insults? Where is the "Love. Healing. Help. Hope." he talked about in the beginning of the talk? The whole talk smacks of desperation and insecurity.  The truth of proposition is not determined by how vociferously it is stated.

I received in the mail today my Entertainment Weekly featuring my all-time favorite band The Beatles on the cover.  This is in honor of the Rock Band Beatles edition set to hit stores next week (can't wait!).  As part of the issue, EW lists its version of the Top 50 Beatles songs.  Well, I love lists, and of course I disagree with EW's.  They got a lot right, and a majority of the songs on my list are probably on the EW list (I didn't count).  But EW says Here Comes the Sun is only the 48th best Beatles song.  I've got it in the top 5.  And EW's number one pick, A Hard Day's Night, is a joke.  It comes in a respectable 13th on my list, but a far cry from the top spot.  Here is my list:

So, being the "polite apostate" as one LDS friend of mine recently dubbed me, I take this opportunity to offer BYU students who may be accessing YouTube for the first time some channels you may want to subscribe to in order to expand your understanding and knowledge of your religion.  After all, the glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.  YouTube has immense potential to spread light and truth to the world.  Certainly, that must be the motivating factor behind the decision to lift the ban on YouTube at BYU, should the Brethren so decide.  Enjoy!

Stories and Info on Mormonism

Utah History and Culture

Non-Stamp Collector

Edward Current

Mr. Deity

America's Best Christian

Patrician Atheist

From the Deseret News:

Happy April Fools Day!

Text written by aerin of http://acranberryblog.blogspot.com/

One of the principles from the Bible I agree with is that religions and religious leaders ought to be judged by the fruits they produce.  When judging a religion, I think it a useful exercise to ask the question: "What would life be like if this religion had control of society, if it could institute laws in accordance with its teachings?"  Asking this question while I was at BYU law school was perhaps the beginning of my journey out of Mormonism.  BYU is not governed according to the secular principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.  Rather, it is governed by ecclesiastical leaders in accordance with the principles of the religion as they interpret them.  Life under the BYU "honor code" provides a glimpse into what life would be like if the LDS church ever became powerful enough to shape the laws of the land.  To me, it's a frightful thought.  The way the LDS church behaves when in total control, unencumbered by secular or ecumenical influences, is truly Orwellian.

The LDS church teaches that people like me, i.e., former members of the church, are destined to be miserable, and that we are in the clutches of Satan.  We are as Judas--traitors who would kill Christ if we could.  This sounds harsh, and indeed it is.  It sounds like one of those old 19th-century teachings (like blood atonement) that the church has swept under the rug.  But, alas, this is one of the old teachings that is still alive and kicking in the modern church.  In the current manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, published at the direction of the First Presidency (and the only extra-scriptural material permitted to be used by Priesthood and Relief Society teachers in the church) is found lesson number 27, titled "Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy." From that lesson comes this quote, which is representative of the tenor and thrust of the entire lesson:

There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors. . . .

. . .

When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.

I believe that one reason why active Mormons often choose not to associate at all with former members of the church is that they actually believe that former members are possessed by Satan, as the above quote from Joseph Smith unequivocally states.

Given that they are taught this by their church leaders, whom they revere as prophets, seers, and revelators, it is perhaps not surprising.  A second reason active member of the LDS church avoid contact with former members is that associating with folks like me would put the lie to the doctrine.  For I am demonstrably not "darkened" or manifesting "wickedness" or experiencing misery and anguish.  To the contrary, I have never been happier, never felt more peace, never been more free, never felt more alive.  And I know many ex-Mormons who feel similarly.  The world didn't end for us when we left the church; we didn't turn into hobos and vagrants and vagabonds.  The grim picture painted by church leaders of the woeful apostate is as distorted as the rosy picture the church paints of the idealized Joseph Smith.  If members of the church associate too much with former members, they will begin to see that their church leaders are, for lack of a more accurate word, lying to them about the "danger" of disagreeing with church leaders about anything and everything.  And if their leaders are not truthful about that, members may begin to question some of the other things their leaders have told them to "take on faith" because once the prophet has spoken, the "thinking has been done."

I consider myself Exhibit A in the case against the LDS church's doctrine that apostates are bitter, miserable, unhappy creatures destined to "burn their fingers and go to hell."  Here is my personal testament, nearly one year after resigning my church membership, to how apostasy has been "berra berra good to me."

One of the best things to come out of my leaving Mormonism was the profound relief that I was finally free to be me, to embrace what I truly value and who I really am.  I recaptured my identity as I broke free from the shackles the religion had fastened so tightly to my soul.  Changing my world-view was at times disorienting, and I felt some sense of loss and even sadness upon recognizing that the church and god to which I had given my heart and mind for nearly twenty years was not what it claimed to be nor what I thought it was.  But at the same time, I was liberated from church-imposed self-doubt, guilt, fear, and shame—freed from the cognitive dissonance that was my constant companion as I became increasingly frustrated trying to reconcile my knowledge about the way the world really is with church dogma. 

Coming to grips with the realization that the Mormon church was not, in fact, the “only true and living church on the face of the whole earth,” as it claims, and that it was not, in fact, led by a true prophet who receives wisdom and guidance and instruction directly from a resurrected Jesus Christ, was a difficult process.  It was emotionally, mentally, and even physically draining.  And for whatever reason, my spouse was unable to help me through that time.  Initially, she added to my pain and confusion, reacting angrily when I tried to tell her about my doubts about the church, accusing me of destroying our family.  She made it clear that there were limits to what she was willing to hear from me on religion.  After that initial negative reaction, I felt like she had closed the avenues of communication on the subject.  She eventually softened, to a degree, but I never felt safe confiding in her my deepest thoughts, concerns, questions, feelings.  We continued on in our relationship: cordial, amicable, but never again truly intimate emotionally.  We got along fairly well, I suppose, but on the surface only.

I needed support, and I found it, through the development of deep friendships with fellow travelers on a spiritual journey out of Mormonism.  I found online a community of caring, thoughtful men and women with shared experiences who could relate to me without judgment or condemnation or disappointment.  They provided intellectually stimulating conversation on topics of great interest and importance to me.  And they provided emotional support, without which my leaving the church would have been a painful, lonesome experience.  Instead, I can say “apostasy been berra berra good to me” because of the rich, abiding friendships I have gained.  Through almost two decades of active involvement in the LDS church, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of lasting friendships I enjoy with true-believing Latter-day Saints.  Mormons often are friendly on the outside but can be, with some notable exceptions, iron-hearted within.  Exmormons, I have found, are the opposite: at first blush, they can appear hostile, but inside can have hearts of gold.

While I was forging friendships and re-discovering my core identity, I was also working a lot.  And so was my wife.  She and I only rarely talked about my disaffection from the church, and even then only in a superficial way.  To avoid contention, we simply took the topic off the table.  Mostly we talked about the kids and our schedules and the mundane things of life.  I tried to get her to read my blog or join me in meeting my online friends on those occasions when we would get together “in real life.”  She wouldn’t (or if she did read my blog, she would not discuss it with me).  While I was getting support from others in my journey away from the church, she was alone.  She stopped going to church—she felt understandably uncomfortable as the woman with an apostate husband.  Many of her so-called friends shunned her; only a few made more than a token attempt to maintain contact and friendship once she stopped going to church. 

But though on the outside we now appeared to be united in our disaffection from Mormonism, underneath she was resenting me for leaving the church myself and making it too uncomfortable for her to continue activity in the church.  She felt stuck between two worlds, not at home being without an organized religion but unwilling to subject herself to the pain of continuing involvement in the LDS church.  But we didn’t address it, and her resentment and anger toward me festered.  Our interests diverged—I had my work and my online friends; she started working out and became friends with her personal trainer, a young Muslim man.  The number of hours we spent together dwindled, and when we were together, we either fought over substantive issues or ignored them, focusing instead on laundry, shopping lists, and coordinating the kids’ extracurricular activities.  She secretly became very interested in Islam; I secretly became very interested in one of my online friends (who has a blog called Thoughts by Sister Mary Lisa) in another state.

Lisa and I had become fast friends when she first entered the DAMU (Disaffected Mormon Underground, the loose confederation of blogs, discussion boards, and web sites populated by Mormon doubters, heretics, and apostates) sometime in 2006.  I had started this blog that year and was on a quest to find as many disaffected/exmormon blogs as I could to add to my blogroll.  I wanted people to be able to come to Equality Time and link to every good non-evangelical web site or blog critical of Mormonism.  In gathering this list, I stumbled on her blog, and was impressed by both its content and her writing style.  I left comments telling her so.  And she would visit my blog and do the same.  We seemed to have a similar take on a lot of things.  She began posting at FLAK (Further Light and Knowledge), the discussion board where I’d hang out with so many of my fellow disaffected Mormon friends.  Sometimes she and I would email each other.  I admired her intellect, her humor, and her compassion.  And, I would find out later, she admired me as well.  For many months, we were “just friends” with no thoughts of being anything more.  She was going through a divorce; I was beginning to question the long-term viability of my own marriage.  She left her husband in early 2008; I found my own place to live in August.  My wife had converted to Islam, and I had been away for six weeks working on a big civil trial.  When I came home in mid-June, we decided to go our separate ways, believing we each would be happier living apart than together, and that our children would fare better with two happy parents living singly than two miserable parents living together. 

After Lisa moved out and filed for divorce, we began communicating more often.  Over the course of 2008, I fell head over heels in love with her, and she with me.  I discovered in her someone who loves me fully, without reservation or hesitation.  And I feel the same for her.  I discovered someone in whom I could confide my deepest thoughts and feelings.  With her, nothing is off limits, no subject verboten.  I feel totally comfortable with her in a way I have never experienced before.  And she feels the same with me.  I feel no need to “put on airs,” to pretend to be something I am not.  I feel no need to hide my true self.  I can be me and she loves me, the real me, as I am right now; I don’t need to pretend to be “righteous” or self-censor my thoughts and feelings out of fear of her disapproval.  And she knows that I love her for her, the real her, as she is right now.  She doesn’t need to pretend to be anything she’s not or self-censor her thoughts and feelings.  We are able to talk about anything and everything.  The power of the love we feel for each other is stronger than anything either of us has experienced before; the intimacy deeper; the connection tighter.  This is beyond infatuation, beyond a mere crush.  We feel that magical connection given expression by poets and artists throughout time—sappy or corny as it sounds we feel true love.

Lisa and I are now engaged to be married.  Our relationship has its complications.  She lives four states away.  We both have children from our previous marriages.  We are not unmindful of the challenges we face.  But we are very happy and look forward to facing whatever life throws our way together.  If I had never left Mormonism, I never would have found myself.  I never would have found so many good, genuine friends.  And I never would have met my true love.  I’ve never been happier than since falling hopelessly in love with her.  I’ve never felt more comfortable with who I am and what I am doing.  I’ve never felt more loved.  I’ve never felt better about my self or about the world around me.  I don’t second-guess my decision, thoughtfully and carefully and deliberately made, to leave the Mormon church.  I have no regrets; indeed, it is among the best decisions I’ve ever made.  I’ve never been more at peace.  And I’ve never felt more alive than I do right now.

Guy Harrison has authored a book called  50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God.  In it, Harrison lists the things that people typically say to support their belief in deity and then asks provocative questions about the reasons given, and discusses the answers rationally.  I haven't read the book, but thought it would be fun to provide my own one-line commentary on each of the 50 reasons given.  So here goes:

1. My god is obvious. Not to me.

2. Almost everybody on Earth is religious. So? At times in world history, almost everyone believed the earth to be flat.

3. Faith is a good thing. Faith is neutral. It is good or bad depending on the object on which it rests.

4. Archaeological discoveries prove that my god exists. I call BS. Show me one.

5. Only my god can make me feel significant. Says a lot about you, not so much about god.

6. Atheism is just another religion. Only if you define religion so broadly as to have it lose all meaning.

7. Evolution is bad. Non sequitur.

8. Our world is too beautiful to be an accident. Seen any pictures out of Sudan lately?

9. My god created the universe. Well, if you say so...

10. Believing in my god makes me happy. That's nice.

11. Better safe than sorry. How safe is it, really? Are you sure you picked the right one out of the millions of gods out there to choose from?

12. A sacred book proves my god is real. Which book? Which god? Apply this to others who claim the same.

13. Divine justice proves my god is real. The lack of any evidence for such justice in the world tends toward the opposite conclusion.

14. My god answers prayers. All of them? If not, why not?

15. I would rather worship my god than the devil. False dichotomy.

16. My god heals sick people. But only some of them, right? So the suffering in the world is evidence that your god is a sadist, no? Why doesn't your god heal amputees?

17. Anything is better than being an atheist. Are you sure? Try it, you might like it.

18. My god made the human body. So you worship the Earth?

19. My god sacrificed his only son for me. Sounds like your god is a sick sonofabitch. If I killed my son and said I did it for you, what would you think of me?

20. Atheists are jerks who think they know everything. Some of them. But what do you call someone who overgeneralizes about a whole class of people?

21. I don't lose anything by believing in my god. Just your freedom.

22. I didn't come from a monkey. Who said you did, you moron?

23. I don't want to go to hell. Don't worry, you won't.

24. I feel my god when I pray. Quit putting your hand down your pants when you kneel.

25. I need my god to protect me. From your fellow believers, no doubt.

26. I want eternal life. Be careful what you wish for. See, e.g., the Highlander series.

27. Without my god we would have no sense of right and wrong. You need a book and preacher to tell you that murder is wrong? Really?

28. My god makes me feel like I am part of something bigger than myself. So does rooting for your favorite college football team.

29. My religion makes more sense than all the others. With all due respect, that's not a very high hurdle.

30. My god changes lives. For better or worse?

31. Intelligent design proves my god is real. I agree--your god is about as authentic as the science behind intelligent design.

32. Millions of people can't be wrong about my religion. Whatever your religion, millions more don't believe it than do.

33. Miracles prove my god is real. Is David Blaine god? Criss Angel?

34. Religion is beautiful. If you think Afghani schoolgirls with disfigured faces from having acid thrown at them because they were getting an education is beautiful, then sure, it's gorgeous.

35. Some very smart people believe in my god. Some very smart people drank the Kool-Aid in Jonestown.

36. Ancient prophecies prove my god exists. Name one.

37. No one has ever disproved the existence of my god. No one has ever disproved the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either.

38. People have gone to heaven and returned. People claim to have been abducted by aliens? Do you believe them?

39. Religion brings people together. Yes, it's working out so well for India and Pakistan. Or the Palestinians and Israel.

40. My god inspires people. To do what? Strap bombs to their chests?

41. Science can't explain everything. Give it time.

42. Society would fall apart without religion. Because it's doing so well with religion, right?

43. My religion is so old, it must be true. So what was the basis for believing it when it was new and competing with older religions?

44. Someone I trust told me that my god is real. Someone I trust once told me to buy Enron stock.

45. Atheism is a negative and empty philosophy. Why so negative? Don't you have anything positive to offer?

46. Believing in a god doesn't hurt anyone. Ever heard of Brenda and Erica Lafferty?

47. The earth is perfectly tuned to support life. Duh. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here.
 
48. Believing is natural so my god must be real. If I believe in unicorns, are they real?

49. The end is near. Only if religious people get their way.

50. I am afraid of not believing. Finally, the real root of religious belief--fear.

Famous Mormon Bill Marriott, Chairman and CEO of the Marriott International hotel company, defied LDS church leaders by refusing to donate money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign against gay marriage in California.  He has now posted a statement on the Marriott web site, in which he touts the company's long-standing diversity policy, which includes domestic partner benefits, and in which he speaks with pride about the many LGBT events that have been hosted at Marriott hotels over the years.  While it does not take as much courage for a man of Marriott's stature to oppose church leaders on a political issue (certainly, he won't be threatened with church discipline the way Andrew Callahan, rank-and-file church member from Nebraska was), it nevertheless shows that there are some Mormons who are willing to "do what is right and let the consequence follow" as they act in accordance with what their conscience tells them instead of yielding to the pressure to sacrifice their will on the altar of absolute obedience to the prophet.

Marriott's complete statement after the jump:

From Bill Marriott:

Note: I have changed the title of this post from "Mormons Celebrate Bigotry" to "Prop 8 Supporters Celebrate Denial of Rights" because I think it more accurately reflects what is depicted in the phot and because the old title was unnecessarily provocative and unfair--not all Mormons supported Proposition 8, and many who supported it did so grudgingly.

The Some Mormons, while mourning the Obama Presidential victory, are nonetheless celebrating the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which enshrines in the California Constitution discrimination against a minority of California's population--gays and lesbians, whose marriages will no longer be legally recognized in California.  The These Mormons, including those who live in other states (such as Utah), were energetic and enthusiastic in working to deprive gays and lesbians of their right to marry.  In working so hard to pass Proposition 8, the some Mormons continued a long tradition of their religion to oppose civil rights.  In the 1960s, LDS leaders spoke strongly against civil rights for African-Americans, opposing integration and supporting politicians like George Wallace in his efforts to maintain "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever."  LDS apostles argued that segregation was God-inspired, and that to end segregation was to act against God.  For example, Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said in 1954 that:

For more quotes from LDS leaders on segregation and civil rights, see the Mormon Think web site. 

The LA Times ran this photo of [some] Mormons [and others] celebrating their "victory" in denying gays and lesbians their constitutional rights:

Someday, I have a feeling many Mormons will be as embarrassed to have worked for the passage of Proposition 8 and to have been captured celebrating its passage, as they would be to have been captured in this photo:

Here is my prediction for the Presidential election:

I made this a month ago, and it follows what I have been saying since the conventions. I haven't seen anything, with all the ups and downs of the campaign, to change the basic prediction of Obama in a landslide (yay). I actually think that the result might be even more in Obama's favor--I think the Senator from Illinois has a decent chance at winning Georgia and Montana, which would take his total to 393. To get over 400, he'd have to take Arizona or maybe North Dakota and West Virginia, which might be a bit of a stretch (but wouldn't shock me). I will be shocked if Obama wins with less than 300 electoral votes.

In the Senate, I think the Dems end up with 58 seats, including Elizabeth Dole's seat from North Carolina (which will serve her right for the slanderous ad she ran against her opponent). In the House, I expect the Dems to win a net of about 30 seats. Say hello to a one-party Washington.