Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

Ya, I got that. I acknowledged that when I said "even if the main points were true..."  Perhaps you misunderstood my point.  

[wtrdog]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 

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

 

I'm not seeing the part where Lee claims to have seen Christ.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

I'm not seeing the part where Lee claims to have seen Christ.

He didn't say he saw Christ but he cautioned against sensational stories and that sort of thing

[wtrdog]

17 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

Assumption isn't the right word.  This implies that I'm a random stranger with no knowledge inside the church, which isn't the case.  I don't assume anything, I'm quite familiar with what they do and don't say, and how that compares with popular perception.  The gulf is wide.  Whether they have in fact seen Christ or not, they make no such claims.  And a few, on rare occasion in mostly private settings, have explicitly stated that no they haven't.  People in the church "assume" that leaders are having spiritual experiences of an extraordinary nature, but that simply isn't the case.  

Another question we could ask is why Holland chose this story, of all stories he's presumably privy to, to begin with?  Is he lacking better material?  That by itself is a can of worms.

The point I'm making though is that either way leaders have a duty to be transparent about what their experiences actually are.  It's literally part of their title as witnesses.  Just like a witness in a courtroom, I expect them to "solemnly affirm that the evidence that [they] shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."  If they are seeing Christ, they should be telling people this.  If they aren't, they need to be crystal clear about that too.  Again, empowerment or enslavement.  If people are faithful in the church because of a 100% false belief that leaders are having spiritual experiences that they aren't, what would you call that?  Idol worship perhaps?  The point of the gospel is to become a certain type of person.  Heaven is not a room, some physical place one is granted admission into, it's personal growth, a state of being.  There is no growth in ignorance.  Going through the superficial motions of being associated with the church for all the wrong reasons does not lead someone to salvation.  

[DBMormon]

1 hour 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

take a listen before commenting.

[DBMormon]

http://rogerwilco-ldsreport.blogspot.com/

http://www.texashoustonsouthmission.com/weekly-presidents-pen/2016/4/25/presidents-pen-4-25-16

http://eldercowansouthafrica.blogspot.com/

http://savvysmissionaryblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/carry-on.html

http://hermanaalisonknight.blogspot.com/2015/11/one-month-down-17-to-go.html

http://eldergideonbenge.blogspot.com/2017/07/an-invitation-to-come-home.html

https://stareshinagee.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/18-nov-2015-letter-to-his-mother-the-time-is-at-hand/

list of online sources where this story was told.

Apparently a video exists of Elder Holland telling the story

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

19 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

take a listen before commenting.

I tried to listen.  Snorefest full of errors.  Actually, I didn't listen and assumed it was a snorefest full of errors.

From whom, exactly, did the Twelve usurp authority?  Surely, you can answer that one basic question, as the author of your podcast could not.

Given that the Church is governed by common consent, shouldn't the answer be -- from the members of the church as no common consent was ever given?  Or was it?  Under Church doctrine, couldn't the matter be put to a vote and see what happens?

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[juliann]

1 hour 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? 

I doubt you are going to get an answer to that because the objections to using the exact words, the meaning of which was not changed in the least by not quoting something else, makes absolutely no sense. This is one of the more bizarre objections I have seen on this board and I have seen a lot. 

[wtrdog]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He didn't say he saw Christ but he cautioned against sensational stories and that sort of thing

Ah, I see.  So you were making the opposite point that I thought, I guess?  You're saying that leaders do caution against these things.  I guess where we disagree then is on the degree to which they are honest.  One example from 1973, well over a decade before I was even born, isn't compelling.  It's a topic that should be talked about every conference, or however often is necessary to align the culture back into reality.  

[Johnnie Cake]

Here is what I said on another board about this story when it was first discussed on this board.

Quote

I'm calling Bull ____ on this story. There's a thread started on "That other Board" asking Scott Lloyd if he did his due diligence and confirmed the truthfulness of the story. He wouldn't even engage in the matter. He reported the story in desnews, but wouldn't follow-up and investigate if the facts were true.

Why weren't members of this board more skeptical and more demanding of fact checking then?

[DBMormon]

17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I tried to listen.  Snorefest full of errors.  Actually, I didn't listen and assumed it was a snorefest full of errors.

From whom, exactly, did the Twelve usurp authority?  Surely, you can answer that one basic question, as the author of your podcast could not.

Given that the Church is governed by common consent, shouldn't the answer be -- from the members of the church as no common consent was ever given?  Or was it?  Under Church doctrine, couldn't the matter be put to a vote and see what happens?

The Q of 12 were fifth or 6th in authority with the Presiding Patriarch, first Presidency, Nauvoo Stake High Council and other higher or equal to.  The 12 were the traveling high council and the Nauvoo high council the standing high council.  these words and terms and offices were defined differently in Joseph's day and some of the writings of that day that indicate so were intentionally altered or deleted and with the Joseph Smith papers project and other effort to collect original documents we know have the original source showing the alterations

[JulieM]

1 hour 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? 

Because Calm kept just stating "any story" after her initial post (at least that's what I saw).  Along with leaving out the third party part altogether, it appeared to change what DB was trying to say, I think.

But I think we all know what DB was trying to say even if he shouldn't have used such absolute terms.  We all can agree that it would have been best to fact check where possible.

The discussion became confusing with all the back and forth too.  

Edited August 1, 2017 by JulieM

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why weren't members of this board more skeptical and more demanding of fact checking then?

Probably because people who have experienced God's interventions (in missionary work and elsewhere) in their own personal lives don't find such stories to be too far fetched.  That's what makes a good lie, it sounds familiar enough to be true. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by pogi

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Gotcha.  I think I was missing your point before.  I agree.  Making sure a third hand story is absolutely true is quite often not possible.  I agree the statement he made works much better if absolute was changed to reasonable--which is kind of how I read him when I first sawhr it. 

Stem, I just wanted to say I really appreciate it when evidence I am actually making sense to someone appears, so thank you.  It gives me hope.  

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I tried to listen.  Snorefest full of errors.  Actually, I didn't listen and assumed it was a snorefest full of errors.

From whom, exactly, did the Twelve usurp authority?  Surely, you can answer that one basic question, as the author of your podcast could not.

Given that the Church is governed by common consent, shouldn't the answer be -- from the members of the church as no common consent was ever given?

monotone voice.......... They overlooked the fact that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were Apostles

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/01/joseph-smith-an-apostle-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

read "Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: A Succession of Continuity by Ronald K. Esplin

also this

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JS1720.pdf

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

But I think we all know what DB was trying to say even if he shouldn't have used such absolute terms.

Well, I actually thought he meant it in absolutist terms because he used such.

And I used "any story" because he did.  Like bluebell, I am not getting how it makes a difference.

[Johnnie Cake]

It seems that Elder Holland isn't the only one telling embellished faith promoting stories...here's one that President Monson told that is now coming under further scrutiny...evidently it is not true either:

Quote

During World War II, in the early part of 1944, an experience involving the priesthood took place as United States marines were taking Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands and located in the Pacific Ocean about midway between Australia and Hawaii. What took place in this regard was related by a correspondent—not a member of the Church—who worked for a newspaper in Hawaii. In the 1944 newspaper article he wrote following the experience, he explained that he and other correspondents were in the second wave behind the marines at Kwajalein Atoll. As they advanced, they noticed a young marine floating facedown in the water, obviously badly wounded. The shallow water around him was red with his blood. And then they noticed another marine moving toward his wounded comrade. The second marine was also wounded, with his left arm hanging helplessly by his side. He lifted up the head of the one who was floating in the water in order to keep him from drowning. In a panicky voice he called for help. The correspondents looked again at the boy he was supporting and called back, “Son, there is nothing we can do for this boy.”

“Then,” wrote the correspondent, “I saw something that I had never seen before.” This boy, badly wounded himself, made his way to the shore with the seemingly lifeless body of his fellow marine. He “put the head of his companion on his knee. … What a picture that was—these two mortally wounded boys—both … clean, wonderful-looking young men, even in their distressing situation. And the one boy bowed his head over the other and said, ‘I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the priesthood, to remain alive until I can get medical help.’” The correspondent concluded his article: “The three of us [the two marines and I] are here in the hospital. The doctors don’t know [how they made it alive], but I know.”

Emphasis mine. Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/willing-and-worthy-to-serve?lang=eng

 http://www.keepapitchinin.org/.../for-we-were-there-off.../

Edited August 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[DBMormon]

Just now, Duncan said:

monotone voice.......... They overlooked the fact that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were Apostles

but not members of the quorum of the 12 which seems distinctly different.  even in more recent times we have had apostles who were not part of the quorum and due to such did not have overlapping authority

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I believe the Lord continues to reveal the meaning of His scriptures. Many were opened through our Savior, Yeshua. 

Basically, I take most scriptures from the time of Moses fairly literally, although they have a prophetic overlay, which will become manifest. Some are obviously prophetic rather than being literal. Scriptures which precede Abraham seem to have a good amount of symbolism going on. I take the flood story symbolicly as a reference to the ark of the covenant, the temple, and the order of things of heaven. However, I believe it probably has a literal component to it. In other words there was a Noah, who apparently built a ship and was caught up in a mighty storm and swept out to sea. Similarly the story of the garden of Eden I believe to be based on the man who opened the first seal, giving a lesson to all mankind - or the gospel in a nutshell. Each seal seems to have repetitive themes. 

So to just dismiss the scriptures as myths adopted from pagan histories I believe is a grave error. God has a purpose for everything He does and says. It's like He keeps repeating it waiting for our dense heads to finally see the pattern and get it.

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Ah, I see.  So you were making the opposite point that I thought, I guess?  You're saying that leaders do caution against these things.  I guess where we disagree then is on the degree to which they are honest.  One example from 1973, well over a decade before I was even born, isn't compelling.  It's a topic that should be talked about every conference, or however often is necessary to align the culture back into reality.  

well, if it should or shouldn't be brought up often in General Conference isn't up to you or me. You can mention it anytime you give a talk in Church can't you? You asked for references and I gave them to you, if you don't like it then I don't know how to help you

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It seems that Elder Holland isn't the only one telling embellished faith promoting stories...here's one that President Monson told that is now coming under further scrutiny...evidently it is not true either:

 

explain this in Lamans terms for a dummy like me.  what is the discrepancy... been a long day

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

but not members of the quorum of the 12 which seems distinctly different.  even in more recent times we have had apostles who were not part of the quorum and due to such did not have overlapping authority

So you are ordained an Apostle and set apart as a Member of the Twelve-which as far as I know Joseph and Oliver weren't but they can give that authority to others, which they did.  

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, I actually thought he meant it in absolutist terms because he used such.

And I used "any story" because he did.  Like bluebell, I am not getting how it makes a difference.

Because you didn't add the qualifying words that he added after "any story" ("any story we are not absolutely sure occurred....") and then completely left off the third party part of the sentence.  But I get where you're coming from now too and agree about the absolute part.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Because Calm kept just stating "any story" after her initial post (at least that's what I saw).  Along with leaving out the third party part altogether, it appeared to change what DB was trying to say, I think..  

I am really trying to understand, not trying to harass.  Can you explain why "any story" is a problem since he said "any story"...which means to me firsthand, secondhand, third hand, complete fabrication, historical story, etc. etc.?

Quote

But I think we all know what DB was trying to say even if he shouldn't have used such absolute terms. 

Except when I stated it was an overstatement he said:

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I stand by my statement. 

(this is a repeat response, but I thought this might be better understood to explain why I and perhaps others read him as we did)

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Because you didn't add the qualifying words that he added after "any story" ("any story we are not absolutely sure occurred....") and then completely left off the third party part of the sentence.  But I get where you're coming from now too and agree about the absolute part.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.  That helps.