• John, thank you for the video and the question. I watched the former in it's entirety. SHORT ANSWER: Lyndon Lamborn spoke with true authority and Elder Holland did not. Lyndon Lamborn spoke from a bedrock of objective reality and Elder Holland spoke from the shifting sand of subjective fantasy. LONG ANSWER: Let's consider the five types of epistemology: 1) Empiricism (aka "observable evidence") 2) Authority (aka "the consensus of experts") 3) Reason (aka "rational logic") 4) Intuition (aka "feelings") Let's now evaluate the Lyndon Lamborn's "testimony" against Elder Holland's: Lyndon Lamborn used: =========================== 1) Empiricism - the evidence of True Mormon History across a multitude of documents. 2) Authority - the consensus of hundred's of both Mormon and non-LdS historians. 3) Reason - his arguments were objective, rational, and logical. 4) Intuition - he spoken from passion as someone who was protecting truth from deception as using 1-3 he now felt lied to by the LdS Church. And Lyndon Lamborn's testimony was evenly balanced across all four forms of epistemology. Elder Holland used: =========================== 1) Empiricism - using ONE document and ONE historical account. 2) Authority - well I suppose because Jeffrey Holland is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles we Gentiles can take that and $1.50 to Denny's and get a cup of coffee. In other words, the only authority he really has is with Mormons. 3) Reason - in the form of speculation LOOSELY based on the historical record. And because of all that he left OUT of the story his reason was flawed (see video). 4) Intuition - in the form of "feeling" the veracity of his "Mormon Testimony". Elder Holland was working the "heart strings" throughout his address this excerpt was no exception. Of all the above Holland's "testimony" was heavily, heavily, heavily skewed toward the last - intuition. And I thought that this analysis (from a man who is married to an LdS woman) was particularly good: "So because two men (Hyrum and Joseph) died for something they believed, this makes it true? How does this prove truth? "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 impostors 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." So what he is saying is that if it were false they never would have put their faith and lives in its hands? So no one is ever in error in believing any belief they want. For if their faith is placed in a book or anything else, and their faith is so strong as to die for what they believe, then it is truth? Failed theories deranged paranoid to cunning genius None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination They just choose to deny the truth that is being brought upon them. Turn a cheek. and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon" I would also point to ALL the data that Elder Holland LEFT OUT - which you will find in the embedded video below. So of the two testimonies Lyndon Lamborn's is far more reliable that Jeffrey Holland's.
  • &gt;>Lamborn accused<< The implication is that they deliberately do this for some nefarious reason. They do not. It is simply irrelevant. . When Paul testified that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he did not cite scripture as his means of knowing that. And Jesus himself said that Paul's knowledge did not come from any human agency, but from God. . When the Brethren bear their testimonies they are testifying of the same thing Paul testified of, known by the same means Paul knew it. And, like Paul, they do not clutter their testimonies with the irrelevant.
  • I want to appologize for this question, it was a knee-jerk reaction to hearing the above linked Lyndon Lamborn excommunication, it seemed to me that Elder Hollands testimony was almost in direct response to the accusation. However, this question was not fair. It was leading, I never expected any answer but one. It was one of those statements disguised as a question that I wouldn't normally condone. I wasn't so much asking do you think he's right as saying he's wrong and here's the evidance. Once again I'm sorry and if anyone knows how/if it's possible to retract questions. Let me know and I will do so.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy