Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

When we impose the story as true and we are far removed from the source we run great risk of being shown to have over reached. 

The source was the one fabricating the story, so Elder Holland's proximity to the source wouldn't have made a difference. 

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Calm said that because that's what DB himself said.

He said we shouldn't share third hand stories OR ANY STORY we're not absolutely sure of. 

 

I'm backing out on account of the absolutely part of Bill's statement.  See ya.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We could probably ask the same question that Calm asked DBMormon to everyone here and all would have to admit they've slipped up at times.

 

Which was my point.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  But let's try to stay on topic here and not get too far off.  The story we are discussing that Elder Holland told could have been easily verified to make sure it was the truth.

Thanks.  This absolutely sure and true business is difficult to talk about. 

[DBMormon]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Speaking of "problematic or demonstrably false" let alone "Official Sources" whatever that is supposed to mean and imply, without also quoting D&C 1:24-28

and in evaluating just how important, or not, these various examples are, relative to the foundational claims of Mormonism, and in acting as representative "paradigmatic examples" from which to generalize about life in and around a covenant community, DB has this:

5.) Transfiguration of Brigham Young is a completely made up story by later sources who edited original journals to insert the story or by witnesses who were not even there but claimed they were.

Which leaves me with the unanswered or addressed or acknowledged question as to what to do with this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/opening-heavens-succession-presidency-chapter-only-0

"The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-nine Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness" and "Documents of Testimonies of the Mantle Experience."

"On August 8, 1844, a meeting of the Saints was held in Nauvoo. Many people reported that at this meeting they experienced a convincing sensory or spiritual witness that Joseph Smith's mantle of Church leadership had fallen on Brigham Young. Here are the reports of 129 people whose experience was recorded by them or by others, usually a family member. This event was significant in helping these Church members decide who should direct the Church."

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I would start with these 
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf or http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/myth_creation.pdf
http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/transfiguration.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287438
http://holyfetch.com/young-transformed-looked-like-joseph-smith/

Then to better understand exactly why the transfiguration was needed I would take a listen to the folowing two part podcast episodes by Radio Free Mormon
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/07/radio-free-mormon-014-apostolic-coup-d-etat/
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/07/radio-free-mormon-015-apostolic-coup-d-etat-pt-2/

And once you grasp the ends at which the Quorum of the twelve usurped power while at the same time the theology of the day did not entrust them with such authority then you grasp the need for a transfiguration.  I would simply recommend a listen.  You are always pointing people to sources, I am hopeful you don't mind being on the other side of pointing finger as well

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which was my point.

Ok, I get that.  But then maybe make it more directed to everyone rather than stating:

"I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule."

That came across as being personal rather than just a general observation for all.

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

My problem is his simply taking it to "absolute", if he had said "reasonable", I would be agreeing with him.  I think your take is mostly reasonable (I say mostly because of a vague sense that there was something I disagreed with, but need to go on errands and haven't finished reading yet, so not taking time to reread yet).

But setting up impossible standards is setting up people to fail and in a thread where the primary message is to be accurate in one's portrayals of life, it seems rather important to me to be accurate in how we portray life and in our expectations of others.

I hate to say this, but let it go.  I think you understand the intent of what he was saying.  It feels like at this point you are just being argumentative.  That is so not like you.  You usually error on the side of fairness and caution.  This seems like trying to nail him to the cross.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quote

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

 

That is a very high bar to ordinary conversation, and, as a practical matter, is unworkable.  But it is a reasonable requirement for GAs who want to pass on a story to the general membership.  We need to document such things better.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No one here has personally confirmed that this story is false any more than they were able to personally confirm it was true.  The closest is katherinethegreat and her mom who knows the family, assuming Katherine is actually what she claims to be and not pulling a long con on the board for moments like this.  

Well, I know I'm me and I totally believe myself.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  This absolutely sure and true business is difficult to talk about. 

I agree.  It seems everyone got hung up on that one statement rather than the real topic at hand.  

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then be accurate and post the entire quote.  I think that's the issue.  You changed it to mean "any" story vs. a "third hand" story in the way you edited it.  I'm not saying it was intentional, but it did change the meaning.

I should have posted the entire quote, but isn't "thirdhand story" a subset of "any story"?  He used "or any story", did he not?

I have also never claimed absolute anything.  My point is centered around the inherent fallibility of human communication.  Of course I will make errors, foolish errors in the middle of discussing accuracy most likely.

I love the twists and turns of humanity.  A discussion about being accurate about being inaccurate, lol. 

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And leave out the personal questioning of him.  

How you edited the sentence, changed the meaning of his words and then you asked him if he lived "by this rule".   

You made it personal when you asked:

"I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule."

I said it once and dropped it or so it seemed to me when people misread it as a personal observation rather than a simple demonstration that no one could meet that standard of always checking with absolutely surety of accuracy before passing something on, whether by repeating it in one's own words or just forwarding the info in some fashion)

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

More transparency is not always "good." There are things the Lord has kept secret, and has expected His servants to keep secret even up to this present day. I don't expect the Church to lead the way in being transparent. However, I do think traditionally it has been too sensitive about criticism - it seems to come with authoritarianism.  Unless the people are willing to pray about the truths espoused by the GAs, they may fall victim to the same errors. I accept the GAs as a guide - not as an absolute fount of all knowledge and truth - for this I look to the Lord.

Thanks for the additional clarity.  Sounds like you hold a much more middle ground position than I was understanding earlier, so we likely aren't as far apart as I thought.  Some of your assumptions about things I just don't accept as necessarily true or universal.  For example the idea that God was angry at those murmuring against Moses, or that the Lord has expected his servants to keep certain things secret.  I just question these assumptions.  I'm not saying they absolutely aren't true, but just because those are traditional ways of reading scripture, I don't assume them to be accurate reflections of God's will on these topics.  

Your last piece, I agree with entirely, because primarily I believe we are all accountable for our actions, and personal revelation about how to act is what we individually are responsible for, and that we ought to remember that when listening to guidance from all sources, not just GAs.  

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Still waiting for the listed inaccuracies on my podcast episodes?

Are you claiming you have never made any errors?  Just curious.

 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Deleted.  Misunderstood.

Edited August 1, 2017 by pogi

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

  Ever notice how often you jump on me only to have overreached and shown your bias.

Not really.

I have a thing about the word "absolute", not you, Bill.  Sorry if that is disappointing.

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

Maybe, but which version did Elder Holland hear? He told it differently a few times (iirc). 

I agree that Elder Holland has done the right thing here, but wonder if someone was going to come forward with the truth?

I hope so too.  The thing is..it was called a faith promoting story on here..and elsewhere.  But how can lies ever promote faith?  Isn't this what we have all been trying to do?  Connecting dots to make our faith work.  I am happy that things have come to light and that Holland and others did the right thing but let's realize that faith and truth have to rely on eachother.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What you posted left out "a third hand story" and it just stated "any story".

Let's discuss his actual sentence if you want.  I tend to agree with him that this is a standard we should strive for (but admit most don't).  I did have a Bishop once who I served with and he absolutely would not repeat any rumor or story he'd heard about anyone in our ward until he'd spoken to the person involved (if necessary).  I think he's the only person I've personally ever known who kept to the standard that DBMormon describes.

He didn't say "strive for" though.  Or if he did, I have misread it multiple times and will apologize.

Wow, I am impressed by the Bishop.  However, did he use that same standard in all parts of his life, with any story (because DB did use "any story" and did not limit its application unless I am hallucinating)?

Is a "thirdhand story" outside the set of "any story"?

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I would start with these 
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf or http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/myth_creation.pdf
http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/transfiguration.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287438
http://holyfetch.com/young-transformed-looked-like-joseph-smith/

Then to better understand exactly why the transfiguration was needed I would take a listen to the folowing two part podcast episodes by Radio Free Mormon
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/07/radio-free-mormon-014-apostolic-coup-d-etat/
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/07/radio-free-mormon-015-apostolic-coup-d-etat-pt-2/

And once you grasp the ends at which the Quorum of the twelve usurped power while at the same time the theology of the day did not entrust them with such authority then you grasp the need for a transfiguration.  I would simply recommend a listen.  You are always pointing people to sources, I am hopeful you don't mind being on the other side of pointing finger as well

You are aware, I would hope, that the essays on the Transfiguration stories in Opening the Heavens, first and second editions, came after, and to a degree in response to Van Wagoner's 1995 Dialogue essay? And that they bring in a great many sources that Van Wagoner did not see?   Indeed, that is why I quoted Kevin Barney on the topic of the significance of newer essays that appeared in Opening the Heavens.  For the first BYU Studies version, 1996 which preceded Opening the Heavens, and which was done in part as a response to Van Wagoner in Dialogue, Jorgensen provided 82 accounts.  The most recent version has 129.  If you want to quote Van Wagoner, fine, but he did not find and consider all of the evidence, nor did he provide the last word.  As far as history in general goes, how often does that kind of unusual event get that kind of recording?

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

which is kind of how I read him when I first sawhr it. 

And probably most others did as well.

As I said before, I have a thing about the term "absolute" when it is applied to human interaction.  Possibly even a fixation.  I just hate to see people set things up to fail and language can do that if we are not careful in our use.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I love it because perhaps right this very second dozens of people over at FairMormon are rummaging through the titles of my podcast episodes racking their minds for one that contains a demonstrable fictitious narrative....  funny as i picture the possibility in my mind

FairMormon member:  "it has to be here"... hmm  April 6th... nope.....   White Shirts Phenomenon...... nope    Adam God Subterfuge.... dang it no. .......... Life and Trial of John W Taylor..... shucks no.......    Alvin's hand ..... no again ughhhhhh"
 

Why in the world would they be doing that?

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

I completely agree.

I agree that Scott Lloyd was just doing his job.

[DBMormon]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

The source was the one fabricating the story, so Elder Holland's proximity to the source wouldn't have made a difference. 

due to his multiple tellings contradicting themselves this is still in question

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

He didn't say "strive for" though.  Or if he did, I have misread it multiple times and will apologize.

Wow, I am impressed by the Bishop.  However, did he use that same standard in all parts of his life, with any story (because DB did use "any story" and did not limit its application unless I am hallucinating)?

Is a "thirdhand story" outside the set of "any story"?

He said, "any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it".  So, he did qualify it from just "any story", but I agree it could have been stated better.

And yes, this Bishop lived the same standard in all parts of his life as far as I observed.  He was a very quiet, soft spoken man and I honestly never heard him say an unkind thing about anyone.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the additional clarity.  Sounds like you hold a much more middle ground position than I was understanding earlier, so we likely aren't as far apart as I thought.  Some of your assumptions about things I just don't accept as necessarily true or universal.  For example the idea that God was angry at those murmuring against Moses,

ex. 

Num 14:11  And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

***

20 And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;

23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

Quote

or that the Lord has expected his servants to keep certain things secret.  I just question these assumptions.  

ex. Revelation 2:17

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that ^aovercometh will I give to eat of the hidden ^bmanna, and will give him a ^cwhite ^dstone, and in the stone a new ^ename written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Well, I know I'm me and I totally believe myself.

That is proof enough for me!