Jeffrey R. Holland

An anonymous commenter asked me to find a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith. I searched and searched, but could not find it. This quote by Jeffrey R. Holland makes the same statement that anonymous was looking for in the JSF quote, so I hope it will satisfy. If I find the JFR quote I will also post it.

"To consider that everything of saving significance in the Church stands or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth is as sobering as it is true. It is a ‘sudden death’ proposition. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is, or this Church and its founder are false, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Not everything in life is so black and white, but the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our religion seem to be exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, a prophet who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from Moroni’s lips, and eventually received at his hands a set of ancient gold plates that he then translated by the gift and power of God, or else he did not. And if he did not, he would not be entitled to the reputation of New England folk hero, or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, nor would he be entitled to be considered a great teacher, a quintessential American religious leader, or the creator of great devotional literature. If he had lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would certainly be none of these.

“I am suggesting that one has to take something of a do-or-die stand regarding the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. Reason and righteousness require it. Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God or else as a charlatan of the first order, but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically”

Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 345–46

Jeffrey R. Holland

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church - everything - rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication the Prophet Joseph Smith's account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking.  It sounds like a "sudden death" proposition to me.  Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph Smith said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that.  Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God - or else he did not.  And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson's comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction.  No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature.  If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

I feel about this as C.S. Lewis once said about the divinity of Christ... I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.  We have to. Reason and rightness require it.  Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let's not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy's imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take - morally, literally, historically, or theologically.

Jeffrey R. Holland, "True or False," New Era, June 1995, 6

Melvin J. Ballard

I remember a gentleman, a minister, said on one occasion, in a private discussion which I had with him, that he thought we were too positive about the things of religion. He thought we had not considered the question of God enough to be able to speak with such certainty. He informed me that he belonged to a church that was several hundred years older than the one to which I belonged, and he said that his church had been considering these questions for a long time and had altered their view and their opinion about a good many theological questions. I granted that that was true; and he ventured the assertion that after we had been discussing these theological questions as long as they had, perhaps we would change our opinion also. And in order to establish his point he used this illustration:

"If you had a problem to give for solution and you selected ten boys to solve the problem, and you gave one of them ten days in which to study it, and then another boy nine days and still another boy eight, and so forth, until you had one boy studying on the problem but one day and one studying ten days; now which boy, at the conclusion of the ten days, would know most about the problem, the one who had been studying but one day or the one who had studied ten days?"

Well, you would have to concede, as I did, that if all things were equal, of course, the boy that had been studying ten days ought to know most about the problem.

"Well, there you are," he said; "we have been studying it longer than you have, and you are one of the youngest churches, and so you are likely to change your mind when you study it a little longer."

"But," I said, "suppose the boy who has had the problem but one day receives the visit of a professor who knows all about the problem and who illustrates it so that now it is perfectly clear to the mind of the boy, who knows most about it, the boy who has thus been aided, only having had the chance to study it one day, or the boy who has been dreaming about it for ten days?"

"Why," he said, "of course, the boy who was thus aided and assisted knew most about the problem."

Then I said: "That is exactly where we stand." Joseph Smith did not know, because of earthly wisdom and his reading of the scriptures, more about our Father in heaven and His Son Jesus Christ, than the learned ministers of the world. Not by that means did he obtain his knowledge, but in the few moments that he knelt in the sacred grove in the presence of the Father and the Son he knew more about God the eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ than all the ministers of all the world ever have known, or ever will know, except they shall be, in like manner, informed and instructed. So that the wisdom he had came to him from the Source to which men must go if they shall know our Father in heaven.

Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1920