Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

I don't know if we really know the source of the story as the different accounts are conflicting and confusing.  

I am anxious to hear more from Katherine (if she chooses to report back).

Scott Lloyd may know more too (or not), but I haven't seen him post here on this thread yet.  I do wonder how he feels about his entire article being pulled and maybe that's just standard procedure with a story retraction (not that his entire article was done inaccurately since he was just reporting on the meeting).  Of course, it's his right not to weigh in here at all too and I respect that.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

 

In this context the standard which should be applied is clear.  It's not about being a well of negativity, a jerk that's saying, "hey, you can't tell that story," it's about whether Elder Holland's behavior serves to empower or enslave.  And in this context, Elder Holland's retraction isn't about promoting truth or transparency.  He is not promoting epistemological clarity.  The retraction is about protecting himself and the aura that comprises the thing of himself and the apostleship.  The fake story when he originally told it, whether he knew it to be fake or not, was self serving, and his retraction is every bit the same.
 

Have you considered that possibly Elder Holland genuinely believed that there was worth in sharing the story in the first place?  And that in retracting the story he was genuine in his desire that people know that all of the facts were not correct as shared originally?

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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:

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.

I'm familiar with the scriptures.  Written by people for multiple different purposes.  I didn't think you were a biblical literalist.  How do you judge what interpretations of writings represent the divine will and which ones don't, or some mixture of divine/human.  

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

That's very true.

But it's not off topic to discuss a quote from the OP, is it?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Well, I am speaking about the other side of that coin or maybe even another coin altogether.  Which is that yes we all tell stories that we are uncertain of.  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.  Sadly the Church has over reached on 100's of stories that now are likely not what was claimed and many of them demonstrably false.  We as a religion seem really poor at discerning truth from error as a people.  We are also slow to correct such things once shown to be problematic.  While the words of our leaders and manuals are full of false faith promoting stories and fictional stories of history and false faith promoting miracles, some out of their need of loyalty or to defend their church would rather create a distraction and point to me as the problem.  I will put the historical honesty and accuracy of my podcast against a Church periodical or Church manual any day.

Like you said, you are talking about something different than Calm was talking about.  Calm was discussing a statement that you made.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's very true.

But it's not off topic to discuss a quote from the OP, is it?

As long as it's not edited and I think that's where the problem began.   But, I do think it's been discussed (to death at this point).  

[Guest]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

You knew that the family was lying?

 

I did not think that DB, knew that the family was lying. From the article I read days ago, it was a "family member" who (as the article stated) that a family embellished certain aspects of the story. It also pointed out that only some of the information was false, not the entire story. What worries me most, is the absolute glee (and I don't mean the TV show) that some are showing as a result. 

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

 

I make mistakes all the time.  I made way more as an orthodox believe since my spiritual answers trumped actual data.   Yet When I speak on recorded episodes or at firesides and presentations or sunstone or other places I work really hard to be factually accurate and certainly not demonstrably false.  So have I ever.... yes.  But when you are entrusted to teach truth and you tell people you have some special capacity to know truth and to have a magic power to know that such is indeed truth.... you ought to be careful and not pass along second or third hand faith promoting stories not having checked out their factuality.  

[katherine the great]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am anxious to hear more from Katherine (if she chooses to report back).

I always report back. I'm totally awesome that way.  (Getting a hold of my mom, however...)

[Duncan]

55 minutes 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

just to clarify the Twelve Apostles didn't usurp authority and yes the theology of the day said they were in charge where there was no First Presidency as per DC 107:23-24-the two quorums were equal in authority and so if the 1st Presidency is not then the Twelve have the authority and power

[wtrdog]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Have you considered that possibly Elder Holland genuinely believed that there was worth in sharing the story in the first place?  And that in retracting the story he was genuine in his desire that people know that all of the facts were not correct as shared originally?

Yes, I've considered it, and don't believe the pattern fits that interpretation.  And by "the pattern" I mean not just this particular incident but everything in the church.  This is a cultural problem.  Show me the GC talk where an apostle says "I've never seen Christ and neither have any of the other apostles."  Show me the GC talk that calls out membership for false faith promoting stories.  The leaders are just that - the leaders.  They set the cultural tone which results in these faith promoting lies to begin with.  As I said I'm happy a correction was issued, that's a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it comes across like Oaks saying "we don't apologize."  For every step forward there are one or two backwards it feels like.  There is zero tone of humility or accepting responsibility in this retraction.  The whole thing is, "hey, we got called out, this thing turned out to be wrong, and it was 100% the fault of these other people.  Don't blame us, we're still perfect."  I cannot conceive wording a retraction of a mistake in a more insincere way.

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Your comment seemed to have a sarcastic tone to it.  Apologies if that wasn't the case.  Even now though I'm not interpreting your words to seriously suggest that people inside the church should stop talking about miracles or claiming their existence.  You're being facetious, no?  You are arguing that folks like myself are being unreasonable with our reactions to miraculous claims.

Regarding your claim to having witnessed a miracle first hand.  I'm sure that's personal so I won't go there, but can you appreciate that it would be reasonable for others to not find your claim persuasive?  Do you claim to have witnessed something objective, or is it just your subjective interpretation of events and others could reasonably interpret events in other ways?

 

I'm not seriously suggesting it, no.  My statement was meant to imply how dumb it would be for any religion which teaches about the reality of a God who intervenes to have a standard where stories that can't be 100% verified can't be shared.  It would solve all of DB's problematic issues but create even bigger ones in the process.

Yes, I do have witnesses.  I don't mind sharing it here, but in my experience, those who don't believe in God, or in a God that intervenes, won't believe it.

I'm a worrier my nature and as you can imagine, having my first kid made that worse.  I was constantly checking on him, especially when he was asleep.  One night when he was 9 months old, i had put him into his crib around 6 and had already checked on him once.  It was probably around 9 or so in the evening and I was, once again (because these kinds of thoughts were very typical for me), feeling like i needed to go check on him.  But, i put it out of my mind because it hadn't been that long since i had checked on him before.  Once again, I had the thought to go check on him.  Again, very normal for me.  I can conjure up every conceivable problem and worry about them all at the same time when it comes to worrying about my kids.  The thought came into my head a third time to go check on him, but this time, it wasn't my thought.  It was words very clearly heard in my head which said "You are being told to go check on your son!"  I immediately jumped up (as witnessed by my parents) and went running down the stairs and into his room, where I found his face completely wrapped in his blanket.  He was still asleep, and drenched in sweat, but otherwise fine.   At the time my mother was an ER nurse so I had her check him out (which is typical for me as well if i'm worried about my kids), but he was good.

It wasn't until years later, reading a story about a baby who had died when he got his blanket wrapped around his head at around the same age, that I realized exactly what had been at stake.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

  Show me the GC talk where an apostle says "I've never seen Christ and neither have any of the other apostles."  

Lol! It would be a bit presumptuous for an apostle to say that none of the other apostles have ever seen Christ. The best you could hope for is for one of them to say it about themselves.

Edited August 1, 2017 by katherine the great

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Yes, I've considered it, and don't believe the pattern fits that interpretation.  And by "the pattern" I mean not just this particular incident but everything in the church.  This is a cultural problem.  Show me the GC talk where an apostle says "I've never seen Christ and neither have any of the other apostles."  Show me the GC talk that calls out membership for false faith promoting stories.  The leaders are just that - the leaders.  They set the cultural tone which results in these faith promoting lies to begin with.  As I said I'm happy a correction was issued, that's a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it comes across like Oaks saying "we don't apologize."  For every step forward there are one or two backwards it feels like.  There is zero tone of humility or accepting responsibility in this retraction.  The whole thing is, "hey, we got called out, this thing turned out to be wrong, and it was 100% the fault of these other people.  Don't blame us, we're still perfect."  I cannot conceive wording a retraction of a mistake in a more insincere way.

 

Apostles and Prophets claimed to have seen Christ and did share their witness of it, in General Conference and other places. Someone is writing a book right now about it, due in Sept. You asked about calling out membership for sharing sensational stories, here it is

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/01/admonitions-for-the-priesthood-of-god?lang=eng

 

[Guest]

20 hours 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.
 

Sure keep going, don't let fun get in the way. "...sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories...". I am unaware that Elder Holland knew that parts of the story were false. Should we stop using the "Faith promoting parables" of Jesus Christ? Is it a sin to believe a story, or that the person telling it? It is certain that there are many who live their lives with the attitude, of "that sounds to good to be true", while others believe that many stories are both "good and true". I would rather be the one who hopes and believes, and optimistic, and be sometimes wrong, that to be the pessimist who discounts almost every "Faith promoting stories" or "yarns". Forgive me, but your post seems that you suggest that Elder Holland knew he was sharing a lie, (but recanted) but that most of the others "within institutional Mormonism", lie regularly. Is this a fair reading of your post? 

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Yes, I've considered it, and don't believe the pattern fits that interpretation.  And by "the pattern" I mean not just this particular incident but everything in the church.  This is a cultural problem.  Show me the GC talk where an apostle says "I've never seen Christ and neither have any of the other apostles."  Show me the GC talk that calls out membership for false faith promoting stories.  The leaders are just that - the leaders.  They set the cultural tone which results in these faith promoting lies to begin with.  As I said I'm happy a correction was issued, that's a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it comes across like Oaks saying "we don't apologize."  For every step forward there are one or two backwards it feels like.  There is zero tone of humility or accepting responsibility in this retraction.  The whole thing is, "hey, we got called out, this thing turned out to be wrong, and it was 100% the fault of these other people.  Don't blame us, we're still perfect."  I cannot conceive wording a retraction of a mistake in a more insincere way.

Good to know where you're coming from. 

[CV75]

20 hours 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.
 

Which accounts of miracles are not problematic, and which have been retold by official Church sources?

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The Spirit leads us towards truth. The spirit may lead  someone into a false church if that is the best option at the time. The Lord spoke to me while I was in the Baptist Church, but that didn't make that the true Church. If the story is accurate that the dogs went and laid down without a command, that can definitely be attributed to the workings of the spirit, and would indeed be something the spirit could testify to as part of a miracle so that this man could find his way back home. I believe that to be perhaps the most "faith promoting" aspect to the story. Nevertheless, I don't believe I ever took sides on this one. I believe there are plenty of true faith promoting stories within the Church without needing to embellish stories, but unfortunately when stories go through multiple listeners they tend to get altered and embellished. It is just the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean if we feel the spirit regarding the truth of a story that we are misled.

Pretty sure that if there was no younger missionary brother tracting out his older brother sitting on a porch...then the dogs laying down without command was a made up part of the story as well.  Can't have one without the other.  

Listen, I'm not arguing that there isn't a faith promoting element to the "REAL" story as it actually occurred...a once lost soul returns to the faith of his birth.  The church didn't need all of the other made up embellishments to make it more faith promoting...but somehow someone added those made up parts to the original story to do just that...evidentially not having confidence in the original story.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

The main points of the story remained consistent and intact in every retelling that I have read:

1) A biker guy from Idaho leaves home and leaves the church.

2) He eventually ends up in Southern California on his bike and lives a colorful biker lifestyle. 

3) Two Mormon missionaries go to his house in California.

4) 2 mean dogs cause the missionaries to pass the home.  They then stop and return to the home.

5) The dogs become docile for the missionaries.

6) Turns out, one of the missionaries is the younger brother of the biker guy whom he has never met, as he left home before the missionary was born.

7) Biker guy is reactivated.

 Any inconsistencies (such as bulldog vs doberman) are minor details and should be expected in the retelling of any story over time, on account of memory.  Even if Elder Holland heard the fabricated story from the first hand source, and even if the main points of the story were true, you would still expect minor detail variations over time and from different sources.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As long as it's not edited and I think that's where the problem began.   But, I do think it's been discussed (to death at this point).  

It has been discussed to death, but that's because Calm was accused of a personal attack and I was accused of being nitpicky.  When that happens, you have to expect that those people are going to continue to discuss the issue.  

And, I still don't understand why the editing that Cal did was a problem but because people keep saying it was, i'm going to keep asking clarifying questions trying to understand where they are coming from.  

To that end, it has been shown that DB used one sentence to make two different claims about how we can never share false faith promoting stories.  Those two claims on how to do that are (in his words)-

1. "we can do that by never repeating a third hand story..."
2. "or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."  

Calm's statement was based on claim number 2, which she provided.  Claim number 1 was irrelevant to her statement.  

Why was it a problem that she didn't provide a quote of claim number 1, when she was referring specifically to claim number 2? 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

just to clarify the Twelve Apostles didn't usurp authority and yes the theology of the day said they were in charge where there was no First Presidency as per DC 107:23-24-the two quorums were equal in authority and so if the 1st Presidency is not then the Twelve have the authority and power

Well, that would require fact checking before telling stories.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Yes, I've considered it, and don't believe the pattern fits that interpretation.  And by "the pattern" I mean not just this particular incident but everything in the church.  This is a cultural problem.  Show me the GC talk where an apostle says "I've never seen Christ and neither have any of the other apostles."  Show me the GC talk that calls out membership for false faith promoting stories.  The leaders are just that - the leaders.  They set the cultural tone which results in these faith promoting lies to begin with.  As I said I'm happy a correction was issued, that's a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it comes across like Oaks saying "we don't apologize."  For every step forward there are one or two backwards it feels like.  There is zero tone of humility or accepting responsibility in this retraction.  The whole thing is, "hey, we got called out, this thing turned out to be wrong, and it was 100% the fault of these other people.  Don't blame us, we're still perfect."  I cannot conceive wording a retraction of a mistake in a more insincere way.

It would seem that the lack of humility is that you are assuming that "the leaders" (your words) have not seen, have not felt, have not witnessed anything of a Spiritual nature, nor any miracles. 

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

The main points of the story remained consistent and intact in every retelling that I have read:

1) A biker guy from Idaho leaves home and leaves the church.

2) He eventually ends up in Southern California on his bike and lives a colorful biker lifestyle. 

3) Two Mormon missionaries go to his house in California.

4) 2 mean dogs cause the missionaries to pass the home.  They then stop and return to the home.

5) The dogs become docile for the missionaries.

6) Turns out, one of the missionaries is the younger brother of the biker guy whom he has never met, as he left home before the missionary was born.

7) Biker guy is reactivated.

 Any inconsistencies (such as bulldog vs doberman) are minor details and should be expected in the retelling of any story over time, on account of memory.  Even if Elder Holland heard the fabricated story from the first hand source, and even if the main points of the story were true, you would still expect minor detail variations over time and from different sources.

 

Here is the Deseret News version in the retraction.

Quote

The older brother did indeed leave his home and his family and for many years pursued the lifestyle I described in my talk. During these years his parents lovingly tried to maintain contact, prayed faithfully for him and even sent local leaders to seek after him. However, at the time his younger brother was called to serve as a missionary, the older brother had already returned to Idaho. With the help of missionaries there, he started the difficult and courageous process of changing his life. In time, he would return to full activity and be sealed in the temple, and he would also have a son who would serve a mission.

So #3,#4,#5 & #6 were not just inconsistencies, they didn't happen.

 

 

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I make mistakes all the time.  I made way more as an orthodox believe since my spiritual answers trumped actual data.   Yet When I speak on recorded episodes or at firesides and presentations or sunstone or other places I work really hard to be factually accurate and certainly not demonstrably false.  So have I ever.... yes.  But when you are entrusted to teach truth and you tell people you have some special capacity to know truth and to have a magic power to know that such is indeed truth.... you ought to be careful and not pass along second or third hand faith promoting stories not having checked out their factuality.  

This seems like an unfair characterization of our leaders.  It is also unfair to all of us who do believe that the gift and power of the Holy Ghost is alive in the church and is available all members who are worthy of its presence. 

A couple pages ago you accused Calm of "overreaching" and showing "her bias."  I would suggest you are doing the same here.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It has been discussed to death, but that's because Calm was accused of a personal attack and I was accused of being nitpicky.  When that happens, you have to expect that those people are going to continue to discuss the issue.  

And, I still don't understand why the editing that Cal did was a problem but because people keep saying it was, i'm going to keep asking clarifying questions trying to understand where they are coming from.  

To that end, it has been shown that DB used one sentence to make two different claims about how we can never share false faith promoting stories.  Those two claims on how to do that are (in his words)-

1. "we can do that by never repeating a third hand story..."
2. "or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."  

Calm's statement was based on claim number 2, which she provided.  Claim number 1 was irrelevant to her statement.  

Why was it a problem that she didn't provide a quote of claim number 1, when she was referring specifically to claim number 2? 

Sorry bluebell, but I'm done responding about that.  I've done so numerous times explaining my thoughts and even attempting to discuss it.  But, this is getting to the point of being ridiculous.  You can continue with it, but I'm moving on and I didn't want to ignore your post or be rude, so I'm responding.  Anything I'd add at this point would just be a repeat of one of my previous posts.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson