Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

  If they are seeing Christ, they should be telling people this.  If they aren't, they need to be crystal clear about that too.

Easier said than done. I would think that such an experience would be a deeply personal thing that one might not want to share for fear of casting pearls before swine (figuratively speaking)
What if Christ told them not to tell anyone that He visited them? He has done that before in the NT. (Matt 16: 20) 

[juliann]

5 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.

Seriously, how does it make a difference in the context of this thread? Is there some situation where it is all right to tell a false story where we are absolutely sure?  Isn't that the very problem? People are so sure they don't feel obligated to provide sources or do minimal checking? Sorry to belabor this but I find these objections so strange. 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously, how does it make a difference in the context of this thread? Is there some situation where it is all right to tell a false story where we are absolutely sure?  

He didn't state "false story" where we are absolutely sure....  That was added to "any story".  Which would include false ones too, I guess!

I was just trying to explain to Calm.  I think we've really beat this to death though.  

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

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

Speaking for myself, because I didn't really care one way or the other. 

The story as told was cool, but did not impact me at all. The retraction was a giant kudos, but still, didn't impact me at all. 

[Duncan]

Not to derail the thread more than I have but there is this for our friend and yours DBMormon

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-and-doctrinal-restoration/23-calling-twelve-apostles-and-seventy-1835

I read it as God gave the MP to Joseph and Oliver and remember keys aren't priesthood, they are the authority to direct the priesthood. So, in 1835 God directed Joseph by a vision to call the Twelve Apostles and and Oliver, David were apostles as per DC 18:9

[Guest]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

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.  

Well what I can see is a lot of angst and anger. Where do these the "private setting" meeting happen? How many have you attended? Where is or does this enslavement happen? I can assure you that, Spiritual Experiences", happen. I can insure you that "Mircles Happen". I can assure that "Visions Happen". I can't speak for Prophets and Apostles, but I can speak for myself. As for your assertions of deceit and lies, and "knowing", how do you know (to use your percentage) 100% of what these men "know or see"? As to your final sentence, how do we "become" your definition of a Saint, instead of being "superficial ones", just going through the motions? 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

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

I ask again.  Whom did the Twelve usurp?  Please state specifically other than tell me about these other offices.  Sure, there's lots of offices; the D&C uses "equal in authority" with impunity.  (Supposedly, Joseph Smith ordained Oliver Cowdery, James Strang and Joseph Smith III to be his successors.)  So, please just answer my question.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I ask again.  Whom did the Twelve usurp?  Please state specifically other than tell me about these other offices.  Sure, there's lots of offices; the D&C uses "equal in authority" with impunity.  (Supposedly, Joseph Smith ordained Oliver Cowdery, James Strang and Joseph Smith III to be his successors.)  So, please just answer my question.  

Reduced the patriarch's authority and much later ridded themselves of its office generally
removed William Marks (tried to ex him but the HC would not go along) then he left town b4 "he could be widdled" out
called all the priesthood that was under the Standing high council and called them seventies essentially taking everyone under the nauvoo stake authority and putting them under the twelve.  
Excommunicated Rigdon simply for laying claim which was truly up in the air and was a worthwhile debate
so much more in terms of details to this but again it is all in there.
 

Edited August 2, 2017 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Reduced the patriarch's authority and much later ridded themselves of its office generally
removed William Marks (tried to ex him but the HC would not go along) then he left town b4 "he could be widdled" out
called all the priesthood that was under the Standing high council and called them seventies essentially taking everyone under the nauvoo stake authority and putting them under the twelve.  
Excommunicated Rigdon simply for laying claim which was truly up in the air and was a worthwhile debate
so much more in terms of details to this but again it is all in there.
 

if all that is true why are you still a member of the Church? 

[wtrdog]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

So you were being sarcastic then

I appreciate you sharing your story, but as expected, and no offense meant, it's not miraculous.  No doubt it feels that way to you, but in the greater context it's a garden variety experience had by people of every faith including atheists on literally a daily basis.  I have experiences along the lines of what you describe regularly.  At one point I would have attributed them to whispering of the spirit, now, as a heathen, I still have those same experiences just as much if not more often.  I've personally had experiences that blow this one out of the water in terms of faith promoting "wow" power.  One experience in particular is still very hard for me to explain.  In hindsight I believe it was just a coincidence, but I must say it was quite a series of coincidences one after another.  Like someone repeatedly getting struck by lighting over and over.  What are the odds?  It felt very miraculous at the time.  In hindsight though, especially after learning the math of statistics, things that to our brains seem very significant often aren't.  That feeling of significance is really just our brains inability to recognize the pattern because the event is observed out of the pattern context.  We exist in a large time space.  It turns out that getting struck by lighting many times really isn't that uncommon.  From a certain perspective it appears like a rare event, but from another perspective it is predictably common.  Does god experience miracles?  Even if miracles exist, to god, there is nothing miraculous about it, right?  So the context matters.  To you this experience seemed special, emotional, but in the greater context of human experience, is it?  Objectively we know that it isn't.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

So you were being sarcastic then

I appreciate you sharing your story, but as expected, and no offense meant, it's not miraculous.  No doubt it feels that way to you, but in the greater context it's a garden variety experience had by people of every faith including atheists on literally a daily basis. 

It seems very presumptuous of you to dismiss Bluebell's experience in this manner.  You weren't there.  You did not hear what she heard or experience what she experienced.  Yet you have the gall to dismiss what she's shared with you out of hand as "not miraculous."  

Perhaps this is why those apostles who have had miraculous visitations are not sharing them.

Edited August 2, 2017 by ksfisher

[wtrdog]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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

I'm not sure I asked for references but either way you didn't provide them.  This is not a conference talk with any modern leader saying "I've never seen Christ.  I've never had a vision.  People who are under this impression, sorry, that's not how it is."  Your reference has nothing to do with the point I made.  Being generous, at best your reference suggests that maybe Harold B. Lee would be upset with the current leadership's behavior.  Perhaps that is true.

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They don't have to be 100% historical or factual to be beneficial.  True, they shouldn't be passed off as factual if they aren't and that is the big complaint here.  But that doesn't remove all value.

Some stories do lose all value when they are shown to be not factual.

[wtrdog]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

It seems very presumptuous of you to dismiss Bluebell's experience in this manner.  You weren't there.  You did not hear what she heard or experience what she experienced.  Yet you have the gall to dismiss what she's shared with you out of hand.  

Perhaps this is why those apostles who have had miraculous visitations are not sharing them.

That's disingenuous.  Your reaction to her is biased by your tribal allegiance.  Both you and her react with equal levels of skepticism to similar claims made by countless others on a continuous basis.  It would not be hard to make a list to prove that point.  And I'm not dismissing her, I simply don't believe her.  There is a difference.  Which is to say her evidence isn't compelling.  I sincerely listened to and considered what she said.  I believe that she believes it, but I believe there are reasonable explanations for what she experienced that aren't miraculous in any way.  And no doubt she believes that too, because she rejects similar claims made by others.  

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

So you were being sarcastic then

I appreciate you sharing your story, but as expected, and no offense meant, it's not miraculous.  No doubt it feels that way to you, but in the greater context it's a garden variety experience had by people of every faith including atheists on literally a daily basis.  I have experiences along the lines of what you describe regularly.  At one point I would have attributed them to whispering of the spirit, now, as a heathen, I still have those same experiences just as much if not more often.  I've personally had experiences that blow this one out of the water in terms of faith promoting "wow" power.  One experience in particular is still very hard for me to explain.  In hindsight I believe it was just a coincidence, but I must say it was quite a series of coincidences one after another.  Like someone repeatedly getting struck by lighting over and over.  What are the odds?  It felt very miraculous at the time.  In hindsight though, especially after learning the math of statistics, things that to our brains seem very significant often aren't.  That feeling of significance is really just our brains inability to recognize the pattern because the event is observed out of the pattern context.  We exist in a large time space.  It turns out that getting struck by lighting many times really isn't that uncommon.  From a certain perspective it appears like a rare event, but from another perspective it is predictably common.  Does god experience miracles?  Even if miracles exist, to god, there is nothing miraculous about it, right?  So the context matters.  To you this experience seemed special, emotional, but in the greater context of human experience, is it?  Objectively we know that it isn't.

Like I said, it's a given that certain types of people won't believe me.  

We're all the same really.  Nonbelievers like to say that believers will do whatever is necessary to make something a miracle.  But the exact same thing is true of nonbelievers. They will do whatever is necessary to make something not a miracle.  We both organize our lives and our thinking in ways that sustain our beliefs.

Its just two sides of the same coin. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It seems very presumptuous of you to dismiss Bluebell's experience in this manner.  You weren't there.  You did not hear what she heard or experience what she experienced.  Yet you have the gall to dismiss what she's shared with you out of hand as "not miraculous."  

Perhaps this is why those apostles who have had miraculous visitations are not sharing them.

It's alright. I knew with 100% certainty he wouldn't believe it before I even shared it. 

He's following the script that his beliefs demand. We basically do the same.  It doesn't bother me. 😊

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

if all that is true why are you still a member of the Church? 

Because I don't base my testimony or my faith on how the church defines its own narrative

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's alright. I knew with 100% certainty he wouldn't believe it before I even shared it. 

He's following the script that his beliefs demand. We basically do the same.  It doesn't bother me. 😊

I'm glad it doesn't bother you.

I'm afraid I can't understand how person A can say "I experienced this," and person B, who knows nothing of person A can say "I don't believe you."

One thing I've tried to do is never dismiss another persons spiritual experiences.  

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Because I don't base my testimony or my faith on how the church defines its own narrative

If the authority that the modern church claims today was usurped, I guess we could ask ourselves if the authority of said church is legitimate.  And if you and I derive our priesthood authority from the leaders of that church that would call into question the legitimacy which we claim to hold.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Because I don't base my testimony or my faith on how the church defines its own narrative

Given the amounts of skepticism you promote, I think "faith" may not be the best word.
Are there things you can accept that are not proven?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

I'm not dismissing, just trying to read in context and harmony with the best scholarship we have.  There is no evidence to support the writing of scripture during the times of Moses if he was even a historical figure.  

I take a much different approach asking what is the historical context from which the authors were writing, what was their purpose, what biases did they have, what audiences are they writing for, what genre is the text, etc. and then work my way down towards what applications I might apply from the text into my life.  Rather than looking at scripture as some rule book or roadmap from God, I look at scripture as ancient texts that survived the tradition and that I can get value from critically engaging with and often disagreeing with the content, but making sure to do that with morally reasoned arguments that resonate with gospel principles and my personal integrity. 

 

 My approach is much more like some in the Jewish tradition might approach scripture as a wrestle with many different interpretations and no right or wrong answer.  

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm glad it doesn't bother you.

I'm afraid I can't understand how person A can say "I experienced this," and person B, who knows nothing of person A can say "I don't believe you."

One thing I've tried to do is never dismiss another persons spiritual experiences.  

I try to do that too.  

If someone has a spiritual experience that they believe proves the church is of satan, or something similar, i don't believe them, so from that angle I can see where wtrdog is coming from.  But, there are also lots of spiritual experiences that don't necessarily mesh with my beliefs that I don't dismiss because i don't feel comfortable thinking that highly of myself and my abilities to know everything.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Reduced the patriarch's authority and much later ridded themselves of its office generally
removed William Marks (tried to ex him but the HC would not go along) then he left town b4 "he could be widdled" out
called all the priesthood that was under the Standing high council and called them seventies essentially taking everyone under the nauvoo stake authority and putting them under the twelve.  
Excommunicated Rigdon simply for laying claim which was truly up in the air and was a worthwhile debate
so much more in terms of details to this but again it is all in there.
 

I ask again.  Whom did the twelve usurp?  Name names.  Be courageous and state your views for me to address, which I will, rather than cite to me unrelated facts.  Again, name names.  (I will then ask you for the dates of each usurpation.  Come on, it isn't that difficult is it?)

I hope you see where this is leading -- with the core doctrine of common consent.  D&C 26:2  Would you say that Nicolás Maduro could be usurped by a democratic election?  Was Hillary usurped by Trump?  One of my favorite stories involves the President of the Cedar City Stake, who was implicated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre as one of its apparent leaders.  Brigham Young himself went to Cedar City to dismiss President William Dame and replace him with another.  However, he could not obtain the common consent of the stake to do so and left Dame in place for another term after castigating the Saints about their choice.  I'd say that if the Saints voted at Nauvoo to have an 18-year-old Elder to be the next president of the Church, it would have been the Lord's doing and all other pretenders made to be irrelevant.  Things -- well documented as Kevin above points out -- happened at that vote to influence the outcome.  I can read the journals of my own ancestors.  It twas that vote the mattered, and nothing else.  

Common consent is a soft of self-sifting doctrine.  Those who cannot bring themselves to consent tend to leave the church and not vote at all in the future.  In today's church, the President of the Church serves at the sufferance of the Saints.  Even in Joseph Smith's day, Joseph Smith could have been deposed by a bishop's court.

But, let's have an answer to my question.  It is an easy one.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Duncan]

36 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Because I don't base my testimony or my faith on how the church defines its own narrative

Remember the 4th Article of Faith, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not faith in anybody else or any other Gods before me

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

I'm not sure I asked for references but either way you didn't provide them.  This is not a conference talk with any modern leader saying "I've never seen Christ.  I've never had a vision.  People who are under this impression, sorry, that's not how it is."  Your reference has nothing to do with the point I made.  Being generous, at best your reference suggests that maybe Harold B. Lee would be upset with the current leadership's behavior.  Perhaps that is true.

You don't remember asking this? "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" I can't show you a conference talk where someone said that because it doesn't exist, what I did tell you is that there are conference talks that the leaders said they did see Christ and visions. I showed you a conference talk from 1973 where Pres. Lee said don't believe these bizarre, sensational stuff, you're a hard person to please if what you asked for isn't what you wanted!  I think it is more than a suggestion. Why would Pres. be upset with Elder Holland's retraction or any other retraction from others in the Church? I'd think he be pleased!