[Note: while I'm out of the country, we're re-posting the most popular posts from the last few years]
The entire talk is available now at mormonnewsroom here. For brevity sake, I'll refer to the Deseret News report here, titled "Elder Holland on Book of Mormon: 'Engaging the head as well as the heart'."
The article is a nice summary of Elder Holland's talk, but it overlooked a key point he made which I discuss below.
First, I note that Elder Holland began his talk by expressing deep appreciation for the work of faithful scholars at BYU and throughout the Church. It was a fitting tribute after the evening's celebration of Brother Welch's discovery of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and the widespread impact that has had on building testimony and encouraging additional faithful research. Non-LDS scholars were present in support of Brother Welch's exemplary long-time collaboration with scholars around the world.
I'll proceed by quoting from the Deseret News article, with my observations in red
Elder Holland reminded guests that the spirit of revelation — including one’s testimony of the Book of Mormon — comes through a process of “engaging the head as well as the heart,” with “the force of fact as well as the force of feeling.” He prefaced this by reminding us about Oliver Cowdery and D&C 8:2, "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost." He also pointed out that "truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will-the force of fact as well as the force of feeling."
He added: "Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence. We still need always and forever that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we’ve all spoken. But to not seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief, when it is available, is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation in a sectarian debate." Elder Holland said that we are sometimes not as bold as we could be about this evidence, which made me think about whether I need to be more bold myself. He also quoted from Austin Farrer 1965 observation about rational argument (as BYU President Kevin Worthen had also done earlier that evening): "[T]hough argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."
Elder Holland cited the Apostle Paul’s expression of faith being “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
“For me, the classic example of substance that I hope for and the evidence of things I have not seen is the 531 pages of the Book of Mormon, which come from a sheath of gold plates that some people saw and handled and hefted, but I haven’t seen or handled or hefted, and neither have you,” Elder Holland said.
“Nevertheless, the reality of those plates — the substance of them, if you will — and the evidence that comes from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work that is unshakably within me forever.” Elder Holland also described Martin Harris' experience, when he responded to the visitation of the angel with the plates by shouting, "'tis enough, 'tis enough. mine eyes have beheld, mine eyes have beheld."
That's the end of the article's coverage of the talk, and it's great. But it missed what I think was the most powerful lesson of the talk.
After reviewing examples of evidence, including the testimony of the eight witnesses, Elder Holland quoted Mark 16:14. This was Christ's first meeting with the eleven apostles after his resurrection.
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
He said "The message is that if members of the Godhead go to the trouble of providing “many infallible proofs” of truth, then surely we are honor bound to affirm and declare that truth and may be upbraided if we do not."
I did some research. This verse has been cited only twice in General Conference according to http://www.lds-general-conference.org/, once by Elder Carlos Asay and once by President James E. Faust, and only President Faust recognized that the Savior upbraided the eleven. This is significant because he upbraided them for rejecting eyewitnesses and having a hard heart against those witnesses.
As far as I can discover, Elder Holland has never quoted this verse prior to this Chiasmus Jubilee talk, at least not in any of his books and talks included on Gospelink.
So I wondered, why quote Mark 16:14 at this time, in this place, to this audience?
The first thought: Maybe Elder Holland was appealing to the non-LDS scholars in the room, as well as other nonmembers who might hear or read his talk in the future, who have not accepted the testimonies of the twelve official witnesses to the Book of Mormon (Joseph Smith, the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses). Maybe he was suggesting they, too, should believe these witnesses who testified of what they had actually seen.
But I don't think that was what he had in mind for three reasons.
First, he is much too kind and gentle to compare the non-LDS scholars in that room that night to the Apostles the Savior was upbraiding for their unbelief in the witnesses of his resurrection. Besides, these good non-LDS scholars are all firm believers in the Bible and they love the Lord.
Second, if the focus of the talk was on non-LDS people, there are plenty of other scriptures about people not believing evidence; Mark 16:14 is unique because Mark shows how the Savior upbraided his closest and most faithful and trusted followers, the Apostles themselves, for their unbelief.
Third, his audience in that room that night contained only a few non-LDS people. The audience consisted mostly of prominent LDS scholars and educators at BYU and in the Church, along with students and other LDS people assembled to celebrate evidence that supports the Book of Mormon.
Then it dawned on me.
I was sitting in the midst of over 800 people who, in fact, "believe not them which had seen" and testified about important facts regarding the Book of Mormon.
This was a room full of some of the most faithful and committed members of the Church, many of them entrusted with the heavy responsibility to educate the youth of the Church at BYU and through CES, and yet nearly all of them "believe not" a fundamental witness from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery about the Book of Mormon; i.e., their teaching that the Hill Cumorah was in New York.
(I say "nearly all of them" because some people in the audience I knew do accept Letter VII. I'll estimate maybe 50 out of the 850 present. BYU students present have all been taught not to believe Letter VII, but fortunately at least some of them reject what their BYU professors are teaching about this.)
In this setting, at this time, Elder Holland's audience consisted of many of the closest and most faithful and trusted followers in the Church today. (I know, I was also present, but I'm not claiming to be anywhere near on a par with the other people in that room.) I think he quoted Mark 16:14 to this audience--after discussing the witnesses to the Book of Mormon--at least in part to call their attention to their disbelief in what Joseph and Oliver taught.
I doubt this has occurred to a single one of them, but maybe this blog post will help.
Consider this list of LDS speakers on the program. These are all good men, highly skilled and faithful and dedicated, with a variety of academic specialties and backgrounds, with strong testimonies and years of dedicated service, but they have one thing in common: they have specifically rejected what Joseph and Oliver said in Letter VII.
Robert F. Smith
John W. Welch
Noel B. Reynolds
Daniel C. Peterson
Others present in the room, some of them having presented earlier in the Jubilee, have done likewise:
There were other scholars and educators present that I won't name, and as I said, there were a few people in the room who do accept what Joseph and Oliver taught in Letter VII, but the ones I listed not only "believe not" what Joseph and Oliver wrote, they strongly oppose it.
Consider the sponsors of the event.
Book of Mormon Central, Official Sponsor of the Chiasmus Jubilee, and the Interpreter Foundation, Official Co-Sponsor, have published articles specifically opposing Letter VII and its implications.
BYU Studies , the other Official Sponsor of the Chiasmus Jubilee, continues to feature, on its main web page, maps and other material that reject Letter VII.
The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, another Official Co-Sponsor, published a book that ridicules what Joseph and Oliver taught by saying, "There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd." Of course, among the Latter-day Saints who "insisted" this--who went further and stated it was a fact--were Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith.
I hope this post is not perceived (or later characterized) as some sort of attack. It's not. As I've always said, I respect and admire the people I've listed here and their work. I like all of them. Their ongoing disbelief in what Joseph and Oliver taught is inexplicable to me.*
Some may reject my interpretation of what Elder Holland meant, which is fine. Before they spend time trying to come up with an alternative interpretation, though, I suggest they ask themselves what they think about Letter VII and why. Is their rejection of what Joseph and Oliver taught based on confirmation bias? I.e., are they seeking to hold onto a belief in the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theory? If so, why?
Some may claim that Elder Holland doesn't know about Letter VII and what Joseph and Oliver taught, or how the disbelief in what they taught is affecting the Church. Do you seriously want to make that assumption?
Some may not see the importance of Letter VII. For that, I suggest you consider the abstract map of Book of Mormon lands that BYU is now requiring every new BYU student learn, and which was presented at the event right before Elder Holland spoke. That map teaches every BYU student that Joseph and Oliver were wrong about an important issue. It's the first step on a slippery slope that no member of the Church should take, let alone be required to take.
I think Mark 16:14 provides an insightful and profound explanation of the situation here. The Savior was appearing to his apostles for the first time after his resurrection. They would go forward from this meeting and "preach the gospel to every creature" with great power and faith.
But first, he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe the witnesses the Lord had provided. They had to conquer their unbelief and hardness of heart, and they weren't doing it on their own. We may infer they had justified their unbelief somehow. They had their reasons. Their rationalizations. Maybe they even thought they had facts. Everyone does.
And yet, their disbelief and hardness of heart prevented them from accomplishing their callings. The matter was so important that the Savior Himself came to them to upbraid them.
Their justifications didn't matter then, any more than the justifications for disbelieving Letter VII matter today.
We know from Brigham Young and others that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were eyewitnesses to Mormon's record depository in the Hill Cumorah. That's how they could speak of Cumorah as a fact years later when they wrote Letter VII. They were witnesses to Cumorah as much as they were to the plates themselves.
For too long, modern LDS scholars and educators have rejected the witness of Joseph and Oliver as "manifestly absurd," as the book I quoted claimed.
I hope Elder Holland's talk will motivate these faithful, capable, and talented scholars to reconsider their justifications and cease their disbelief.
As Joseph taught, "there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—" (D&C 123:12)
Imagine how many blinders would fall from the eyes of the people in the world if our LDS scholars and educators--and their students and readers--would accept and embrace and work to vindicate the testimonies of Joseph and Oliver about the Hill Cumorah and related issues instead of opposing them because of disbelief and hardness of heart.
I think it will happen. It's just a matter of when, and I hope it's sooner rather than later.
* It is inexplicable in the sense that they should know better by now.
I realize that the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories originated with RLDS scholars in the 1920s. The theories were developed further by LDS scholars who, in part, relied on the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons. It was fueled, as well, by such works as David A. Palmer's book, In Search of Cumorah, which established phony "requirements" for Cumorah that contradicted what Joseph and Oliver taught. Palmer wrote the entry on Cumorah in the Encyclopedia of Mormonismthat contains this deeply unfortunate claim: "Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica." Palmer cited his own book in that article, of course, and then someone plagiarized it for a phony fax from the "Office of the First Presidency" which the Conclave (FairMormon, FARMS, Book of Mormon Central, etc.) has used ever since to support their Mesomania. It's a cascade of errors that should have been discarded long ago, but it persists partly because of inertia and partly because so many scholars and educators have invested so much time, energy, and personal credibility into the Mesoamerican setting that they strongly resist changing their minds, even to the point of unbelief in what Joseph and Oliver plainly taught.
But we should be way past academic pride by now.