Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

most incredible missionary story


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I take it that you and Scott know each other well, and that you're more familiar with DB than I am. So you may have the more accurate bead on things here. But I lack that vantage point.

So for now, I simply opt to take the OP at face value, that the credibility of the entire newspaper was being called into question. If so, *that* ain't cool.

DB?

I agree with this and would like to hear more from DB too.  I can see that Scott shouldn't have to fact check a story told in a speech he's reporting on.  However, I do believe Scott thinks it's the truth or he wouldn't have related the story again (and didn't necessarily have to repeat it in detail and with quotes, etc.).  That's the part that DB shouldn't question, IMO.  

Was Scott assigned to cover this speech or did he choose to as an opinion piece?  Either way, I doubt he'd repeat something he didn't trust to be true.  

 

Edited by JulieM
Posted
14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The LDS Church News is a biased sourced, so one would expect it to take Elder Holland's word at face value.  Please don't misunderstand me; when I say it is biased, I'm saying it is supporting the LDS church.  I'm not saying it is bad.  There is nothing wrong with it since it is an official publication of the LDS church.  In fact, at the end of the article, there is this disclaimer:

L'Osservatore Romano is the official newspaper of The Vatican, and you can be sure that it is biased towards the Catholic Church.  But that's ok, too, because it is in the same category as the LDS Church News.

So, from my point-of-view, the OP is rather silly.

 

ETA: I notice that the Oxford comma is missing in that disclaimer... Scott, ignore the silliness of the OP and weigh in on your thoughts on the Oxford comma.  Is it against the LDS Church News style guide?  I'm a big fan of that comma... ;)

 

The Associated Press Style Book, which, we follow in general, forbids the use of the Oxford comma. I agree with you, but I'm afraid that after decades of adhering to the strictures of AP style, my "muscle memory" is such that I almost never use it. 

To those who don't know what we're talking about: This refers to the convention of including a comma after the penultimate item in a series as opposed to not doing so. 

Thus, the Oxford comma is in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps, and chicken pox. 

It is not used in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps and chicken pox. 

Posted
16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, Scott's picture is at the end of that article. Nice to see you, Scott :)

 

I think I would look better were I not so heavy. But the photo is only a few years old and, I'm afraid, quite accurate. I plan to update it once I have lost a significant degree of weight. I invite you to check back in a few years. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Associated Press Style Book, which, we follow in general, forbids the use of the Oxford comma. I agree with you, but I'm afraid that after decades of adhering to the strictures of AP style, my "muscle memory" is such that I almost never use it. 

To those who don't know what we're talking about: This refers to the convention of including a comma after the penultimate item in a series as opposed to not doing so. 

Thus, the Oxford comma is in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps, and chicken pox. 

It is not used in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps and chicken pox. 

Perhaps you saw in the news a few months ago that a court case was won because the lack of the Oxford comma in the law made it ambiguous. Here's the NPR story:

The Oxford Comma: Great For Listing, Pontificating, And Winning Court Cases

Quote

The milk and cream company based in Portland, Maine, likely never appreciated the serial comma — also known as an Oxford comma — so much as it did Monday, when the lack of that little curved stroke cost the company an appeals court ruling that centered on overtime rules for drivers.

Specifically, the ruling in favor of Oakhurst delivery drivers came down to Maine state law, which dictates that the following activities are not subject to overtime protections:

"The canning, processing, preserving,
freezing, drying, marketing, storing,
packing for shipment or distribution of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods."

The trouble rests with "or." The presence of that tiny conjunction without a comma as a companion makes for some muddled meanings: Is "packing for shipment or distribution" exempt from overtime regulations? Or are both "packing for shipment" and "distribution" exempt?

These aren't idle questions for the five delivery drivers who sued Oakhurst, because as Quartz notes, "the drivers do distribute, but do not pack, the perishable food." In other words, one interpretation of the law's list would make the drivers eligible for overtime pay; the other would mean they won't get those extra dollars for extra time on the job.

 

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, Oliver never made it to Utah.  He did get rebaptized by Brigham at Winter Quarters, but he died of pneumonia before he could make the trek.

 

I stand corrected. The flock was moving to Utah and Oliver didn't catch up. Wiki says Oliver was re-baptized by Orson Hyde. True?

Edited by strappinglad
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I stand corrected. The flock was moving to Utah and Oliver didn't catch up. Wiki says Oliver was re-baptized by Orson Hyde. True?

Yes. 

Before heading west, he went to Richmond, Mo., to visit his brother-in-law and fellow witness David Whitmer. That's where he died 

I saw the graves of both in Richmond just last month. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This has been an interesting thread, and there have been some good insights posted. But I'm determined to follow Juliann's advice to not engage with DB. 

If that is what you want to do (or not do).  You have every right to defend yourself here, but are under no obligation to do so, of course.  I don't know what your history is with DB (or if you even have one or have interacted with him in the past) and you may not want to put in the time or energy to engage.  However, I wouldn't not defend myself just because someone else advised me not to and I'd make that choice myself (which you may have already done on your own).  

ETA:

I don't mean to infer that you even have anything to defend here as I believe you wrote an honest story regarding Elder Holland's speech.  But, you have every right to address anything directed at you in the OP, just to clarify.

Edited by ALarson
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

So...there's more evidence this story happened than there is for actual Nephites existing....

...famous last words before being trampled by a herd of curelom.  B:)

(Joshing you here Honor. Would not wish harm upon you.)

Edited by hagoth7
Posted

"It is remarkable to me just how delicate the spirit is.."

I wouldn't say "the spirit", but "our spirits".  It becomes clear why they are delicate when we realize this and that as with all other aspects of ourselves, our ego is heavily involved.

Posted
1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

...famous last words before being trampled by a herd of curelom.  B:)

(Joshing you here Honor. Would not wish harm upon you.)

Since cureloms are imaginary anyway, I'm picturing it like being in the middle of a puppy pile. So my pleasure!

Posted
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. 

Before heading west, he went to Richmond, Mo., to visit his brother-in-law and fellow witness David Whitmer. That's where he died 

I saw the graves of both in Richmond just last month. 

Thanks for the first-hand report, Scott.  You know, if you hadn't testified to seeing them with your own two eyes, some people on this thread might have been prone to doubt you.  Would you be willing to sign a sworn, notarized affidavit? <_< 

Posted
44 minutes ago, JulieM said:


This is not the first time this story has been told, so I have to believe it is the truth and actually happened (with a few differences in the details when told).  

Here is where Kim B. Clark related it ...

I dunno, Julie. :unknw::unsure: 

If we're not gonna trust an Apostle, why should we trust a lowly Seventy? <_< 

Posted (edited)

It seems to me there are many, many bona fide news reports that protect identities, allow anonymity, etc. under professional standards. So I think this OP is about the motivation behind hiring a private investigator, or conducting a journalistic investigation to verify the story of a man coming back into the fold.

How would the public be served, and where is the virtue, in unmasking the identities of  those whose privacy and anonymity are being protected in this article? Is there really a demand for such information under these circumstances?

Edited by CV75
Posted
2 hours ago, Calm said:

"It is remarkable to me just how delicate the spirit is.."

I wouldn't say "the spirit", but "our spirits".  It becomes clear why they are delicate when we realize this and that as with all other aspects of ourselves, our ego is heavily involved.

Very true about our egos.  The spirit doesn't like to stick around long once our ego shows up to play.  That is what I meant by "the spirit" is delicate or sensitive.  I think it is sensitive to sin, to ego/pride, etc. and will not dwell for long in unholy temples.  If or eyes are not continually fixed on the glory of God, then we can easily fall into a state of spiritual forgetfulness as the spirit retreats.  Daily scripture study, prayer, and repentance (as needed) are important elements of sustaining spiritual remembrance.   

Oxford comma included for misererenobis. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Associated Press Style Book, which, we follow in general, forbids the use of the Oxford comma. I agree with you, but I'm afraid that after decades of adhering to the strictures of AP style, my "muscle memory" is such that I almost never use it. 

To those who don't know what we're talking about: This refers to the convention of including a comma after the penultimate item in a series as opposed to not doing so. 

Thus, the Oxford comma is in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps, and chicken pox. 

It is not used in this sentence: Three of our children have had measles, mumps and chicken pox. 

Strange that the people who are least likely to employ the Oxford Comma are well-educated Brits.  I am so accustomed to using the serial Oxford comma that I never even think about it.

Posted
6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I stand corrected. The flock was moving to Utah and Oliver didn't catch up. Wiki says Oliver was re-baptized by Orson Hyde. True?

Probably true.  I was winging it, and also stand corrected.

Posted
22 hours ago, omni said:

I don't doubt the main components of the story actually happened.  With 75,000 missionaries meeting thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people each year, one should expect some incredible coincidences / miracles such as this to occur.

What I find unbelievable is that stories such as these are so rare that it made the Deseret News (and making the rounds on social media).  With God leading and guiding his missionaries why don't we hear about these miraculous stories all the time?

I can tell you why this one made the Deseret News (or, more precisely, the LDS Church News). It is because Elder Holland made the story part of a talk that I was on assignment to report. I would have reported the talk whether or not the story had been part of it. 

Some experienced news writers might complain that I "buried the lead," as it is known in the profession, by putting the story at the end of the summary, just as Elder Holland put it at the end of his talk. I did this because I sensed Elder Holland's concern, confirmed later in personal communication, that the story would upstage and overshadow the rest of the talk. 

Posted
8 hours ago, ALarson said:

If that is what you want to do (or not do).  You have every right to defend yourself here, but are under no obligation to do so, of course.  I don't know what your history is with DB (or if you even have one or have interacted with him in the past) and you may not want to put in the time or energy to engage.  However, I wouldn't not defend myself just because someone else advised me not to and I'd make that choice myself (which you may have already done on your own).  

ETA:

I don't mean to infer that you even have anything to defend here as I believe you wrote an honest story regarding Elder Holland's speech.  But, you have every right to address anything directed at you in the OP, just to clarify.

Thank you. 

Im heeding Juliann's advice not out of obligation but because it is wise. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...