Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[DBMormon]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html

Elder Holland withdraws Church News missionary story

A story of spiritual rescue that gained broad attention after it was shared with Mormon mission presidents last month is inaccurate and the LDS leader who presented it withdrew it on Monday.

[DBMormon]

let me just say.... I was right... I am sure lots of apologies are soon to follow.

[bluebell]

You knew that the family was lying?

 

[DBMormon]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You knew that the family was lying?

 

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.  this one was a yarn.  And While I am glad that Elder Holland has done what very few inside institutional mormonism have done (admit a miracle story wasn't true).  almost all of our miracle stories in our faith tradition are problematic inspite of being told by official church sources over and over and never being retracted.

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

should we keep going.
 

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[Atheist Mormon]

23 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html

Elder Holland withdraws Church News missionary story

A story of spiritual rescue that gained broad attention after it was shared with Mormon mission presidents last month is inaccurate and the LDS leader who presented it withdrew it on Monday.

Hi, look I like your podcasts but you are misleading people when you say "Leading with faith" ......If you lead anythjng you are leading with "skepticism" . Which is fine, myself being a skeptic, I enjoy your podcasts. 

 

[The Nehor]

Quote

let me just say.... I was right... I am sure lots of apologies are soon to follow

Edited August 1, 2017 by The Nehor

[rodheadlee]

30 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

let me just say.... I was right... I am sure lots of apologies are soon to follow.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

then maybe the widdling whistlers........
 

Once again you betray something about your background. 

[Jeanne]

Wow..this is bad,...this is good...this is sad...truth is tough sometimes for many.  Integrity is everything...and a whole lot easier.  Glad the admittance of mistakes who ever is responsible..

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Once again you betray something about your background. 

You are an elitist tool.

poster removed

[6EQUJ5]

I actually think this is a great learning experience for everyone. @Scott Lloyd has learned that even stories told by members of the Twelve should be fact checked before being repeated.  Others have learned that maybe @DBMormon is sometimes right to be skeptical and that condemning him was wrong.  I'm glad Bill has been vindicated although I am sad that the story isn't true.  

Edited August 1, 2017 by 6EQUJ5

[Buckeye]

I find the retraction encouraging. The church is becoming more transparent and I believe Elder Holland is one of those leading the way. Personally, I've stretched the truth before (not that Holland did so intentionally here). Heres hoping we each try better in our spheres. 

PS. I don't think DB is looking for a pat in the back so much as an acknowledgement that he was mistreated for raising skepticism. It would have been better if hed waited for someone else to point out his correct suspicion. But it also would have been better for people to give his opinion serious consideration. He was right. 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.  this one was a yarn.  And While I am glad that Elder Holland has done what very few inside institutional mormonism have done (admit a miracle story wasn't true).  almost all of our miracle stories in our faith tradition are problematic inspite of being told by official church sources over and over and never being retracted.

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

should we keep going.
 

Maybe we should just deny miracles ever happen altogether, and make sure we never tell any story that implies God intervened in a miraculous way.  That would help with all of the 'problematic' issues.  

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I actually thing this is a great learning experience for everyone. @Scott Lloyd has learned that even stories told by members of the Twelve should be fact checked before being repeated.  Others have learned that maybe @DBMormon is sometimes right to be skeptical and that condemning him was wrong.  I'm glad Bill has been vindicated although I am sad that the story isn't true.  

I appreciated what the linked article said about it-

An ethicist and a historian said using stories is important but fraught.

"One of the reasons you fact-check stories, even from people you love or trust or admire, is that there are a lot of ways to get things wrong," said Kelly McBride, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute.

It is important to differentiate between someone who knowingly embellished a story and someone who retold a story the way it was received, said Keith Erekson, who left his job as a history professor and assistant president of the University of Texas at El Paso to become director of the LDS Church History Library three years ago.

In Elder Holland's case, he retold the story as it was given, he said.

McBride said Elder Holland had an obligation to set the record straight. If he had not done so, she said, it would have had the potential to harm his relationship with his audience. On the other hand, stepping forward with a correction can improve that relationship.

"For the most part, it actually deepens trust," McBride said, "and it creates a level of transparency and humility."

McBride said media organizations build trust when they issue corrections. She said the Church News had an obligation to do so, but did not blame it for not verifying the story.

"I don't know that they have, because they are not a watchdog organization, any independent responsibility to fact check any of the church leaders, but I think that if they repeat something that's wrong, they certainly have an obligation to let their audience know how they did that, why they did that and what the accurate information is," McBride said.

[6EQUJ5]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciated what the linked article said about it-

An ethicist and a historian said using stories is important but fraught.

"One of the reasons you fact-check stories, even from people you love or trust or admire, is that there are a lot of ways to get things wrong," said Kelly McBride, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute.

It is important to differentiate between someone who knowingly embellished a story and someone who retold a story the way it was received, said Keith Erekson, who left his job as a history professor and assistant president of the University of Texas at El Paso to become director of the LDS Church History Library three years ago.

In Elder Holland's case, he retold the story as it was given, he said.

McBride said Elder Holland had an obligation to set the record straight. If he had not done so, she said, it would have had the potential to harm his relationship with his audience. On the other hand, stepping forward with a correction can improve that relationship.

"For the most part, it actually deepens trust," McBride said, "and it creates a level of transparency and humility."

McBride said media organizations build trust when they issue corrections. She said the Church News had an obligation to do so, but did not blame it for not verifying the story.

"I don't know that they have, because they are not a watchdog organization, any independent responsibility to fact check any of the church leaders, but I think that if they repeat something that's wrong, they certainly have an obligation to let their audience know how they did that, why they did that and what the accurate information is," McBride said.

Very good observations.

Perhaps the DN could help fact check things like this for general authorities.  They have more important things to do.

 

[mfbukowski]

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

[hope_for_things]

Kudos to Bill, and to Elder Holland for doing the right thing with the retraction.  

I'm also feeling somewhat vindicated for what I think was healthy skepticism, and yes, I want a virtual pat on the back.  

[6EQUJ5]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

Hm.

I guess the story is still true pragmatically speaking.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

That's an unfair mischaracterization.  

[6EQUJ5]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That's an unfair mischaracterization.  

You only say that because you haven't read Rorty.

Edited August 1, 2017 by 6EQUJ5

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

That's pretty rich, mfbukowski. 

Suggest you give credit when it's due.  You'll live a longer, healthier life.  And you'll be happier too. 

:0)

--Erik

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You only say that because you haven't read Rorty.

Hah!  And what I have read I haven't understood very well.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

What's wrong with these stories being disneyfied a bit?
Perhaps they have been given a faith promoting sheen instead of a skeptics microscope.  Isn't that how most of scripture is designed to work?

Man, I seriously dislike skeptics....especially ones who are so proud of their doubt and disdainful of faith.



 

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Kudos to Bill, and to Elder Holland for doing the right thing with the retraction.  

I'm also feeling somewhat vindicated for what I think was healthy skepticism, and yes, I want a virtual pat on the back.  

Here you go.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here you go.  

I'll take it, only because it's virtual though.  :-)