Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't give rep points so this will have to do...I'm using one of my limited daily posts to give you my version of a rep point 

Thanks

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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 irrelevant.

So, do you believe that if all of a sudden the members voted against the current leadership at conference, then the current leadership would all of a sudden not have any authority?

[sjdawg]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From Elder Holland's retraction:

Perhaps finding out his little brother was serving a mission was the reason the older brother started meeting with the missionaries.

 

Now if you could only tell us how Elder Clark first heard the story...

in one version of the story didn't Holland say he has kept track of this family over the years?   Do I remember that correctly?

Seems like he did not keep track of them if his understanding of the story was so off base

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, do you believe that if all of a sudden the members voted against the current leadership at conference, then the current leadership would all of a sudden not have any authority?

No.  The removal process requires a court. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I agree that somethings that are true can not be proven scientifically true. That said, the church is dependent on feelings aka The Spirit to connect believers to the institutional church...and here we have a example where the mark was missed.

Oh not at all!

There was a mistake made and corrected.  You may have been taught that prophets are infallible, sorry whoever told you that was mistaken.  Yes I know the primary song. 

My entire point was that every story about religion is essentially a parable anyway, so missing the correct address for the father of the prodigal son doesn't make any difference in the spiritual "validity" of the story.  Suppose Jesus later retracted the story because it was a daughter instead of a son or a prodigal brother in law instead of a child.

Makes no difference if you understand what the intent of spiritual stories are.  We are taught to liken the scriptures to ourselves and to consider ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve, the returning prodigal,  the widow with her mite, Joshua with enough faith to "move mountains" and hold time in his hand

The whole point is that the Lord can do anything we need him to do in his time and way if we have enough faith because it is our faith that allows us to do anything we can think of doing.  If I needed to move a mountain I could do it- with enough faith in my ability to raise the funds for enough bulldozers and enough faith in the project to follow it thorough to the end, and the mine would be made or the houses built.  Men move mountains every day by using their faith and planning in long term projects.

But you would not see that statement as true unless the mountain dematerialized because you do not understand the principle being taught.  To you, mountains do not dematerialize so the statement is false

It appears you were taught literalism, rejected it because it was unreasonable, and got stuck in seeing scripture in any other way.

I am just suggesting that you look at things differently in order to understand these matters and have enough confidence in yourself to stop condemning other literalists on the other side of the coin.   They say there is no evolution say, because they are literalists.  Your seeing only scientific literalism is no different than their literalism except in subject matter.  Yes people make mistakes.  Yes even church leaders do.  Yes they see things incorrectly sometimes the way we all do.  Yes they handle things poorly as we all do from time to time.

But yes there is also brilliance there and pure goodness and pure intent even if you disagree with what the intent "should" be.  They want people in the church, you want people out of the church.  You are in the same business but just a mirror image where left becomes right and right becomes left

Your vision is limited by your prejudices and your insistence on seeing only one meaning to the idea that faith can move mountains.  That is only one example that runs throughout your way of thinking.

[Guest]

4 hours 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.  

I had already addressed your entire post, now I wish to address the remainder that I left in quote box. You NEVER assume? What is the "inside knowledge" that you are privy too? Do you have some biographical information of (or on) yourself, and the callings you have served in, that separates you from the average Latter-day Saints, whom you feel is being duped? I mean you could be right, I would just like to know how much weight to give your comments about GA's lying and misleading we rack and file Saints. Back to one comment I forgot to ask about, I never heard anyone call heaven, or the Celestial Kingdom, a "single room" as you did. You are right it is progressing, learning and moving forward. But when do you think we teach that the Celestial Kingdom "one room".  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

No.  The removal process requires a court. 

So, if Joseph Smith promised future authority to many different groups and the twelve won out through a power struggle as happened with Rigdon, Joseph Smith III, etc., don't you think that was usurping the competing authority claims by the twelve?  Didn't all the players start out at the same power level with equal claims to the throne?  I thought it was established by historians that there was some doubt about succession after Joseph Smith died?  Wasn't the story where Brigham Young supposedly looked like Joseph Smith related to bolster authority claims where there was doubt?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with everything except the assumption that these emotional responses "came from outside of you".  People may feel like this is external, but the evidence so far points to this being an internal experience.  What I would like to see, is religious people not thinking that this evidence about the God/spiritual experience has to be external or its no longer valid (this is an unnecessary false dichotomy.)  It may require newly imagined theology about God since the neuroscience is getting increasingly sophisticated, and so far everything is pointing towards this being an internal experience.  

Do you think this is an important paradigm shift?  Lately I've been thinking that what we need is to re-orient ourselves about what spiritual experience is, and not put constraints on this experience having to be an external exclusively or at all.    

Yes of course. For philosophers that shift happened a hundred years ago but the man in the street has yet to catch on.  

 That is Cartesian dualism and is a philosophically untenable position.  That is the coherence theory of truth.  Truth coheres to what is "outside us" supposedly and erroneously

Totally absurd.  How can you get outside your head to see if the statement corresponds to what is outside your head or not??  Nothing could ever be true on that idea because the truth could never be established!!   All of the Western World has been poisoned by that way of thinking except for the last hundred years or so.  I listen to discussions here and it is like hearing people speaking Shakespearean English, their thought processes are so old fashioned.  And so I repeat it over and over and still very few get it.

Experimentation does not show you what is outside- it merely repeats your VIEW or EXPERIENCE of the result over and over and you conclude the results are about the outside when in fact all it shows is that you experience the same things the same way over and over.

You look out to examine nature and all you see is yourself looking back!  Experiments teach us how we think and perceive and nothing about anything beyond that.

I am so sorry you do not understand that Rorty quote below- because that point is logically included in what he says.  All we can know is human mental states and their expression in language.  There is no private language, so that means really that all we can know for sure about the outside world are our own mental states.

That seems so prima facie obvious to me that I do not understand why it is not universally understood immediately.  You live in your head and not in anyone else's head.  The first time I heard ideas like that a switch went off in my head and there is no place to go back to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

There is no such thing as "outside your head" for all you can know.  Obviously there are things you do not control like what is called "gravity" and "cliffs" and every hazard imaginable.  THOSE are "causes which are not mental processes".   Yes you can fall off a cliff because a cliff is not caused by mental processes.

But when you do fall off that very real cliff- the whole experience of it is going to be IN your head and no one else's.  Stub your toe and the pain is in YOUR foot no one else's- the pain is not out in the world waiting to grab you.  That "cause" is out there but the pain is not.  What we call "Light" is out there as a cause but your seeing "red" is in your sensory apparatus and in your head.  Red is not out there because it is a mental state like everything else that is in your head

I hope someday that the paradigm shift sticks for you and then your "switch" will click and you will see a new world of your own creation.

Edited August 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, if Joseph Smith promised future authority to many different groups and the twelve won out through a power struggle as happened with Rigdon, Joseph Smith III, etc., don't you think that was usurping the competing authority claims by the twelve?  Didn't all the players start out at the same power level with equal claims to the throne?  I thought it was established by historians that there was some doubt about succession after Joseph Smith died?  Wasn't the story where Brigham Young supposedly looked like Joseph Smith related to bolster authority claims where there was doubt?

but he gave the authority to the Twelve, did he give the keys to anyone else? 

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Sorry. I wasn't implying you were dismissing scripture at all. It was just a general statement about a general modern attitude of scholars.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ever looking for truth.  Ever willing to questions what one holds as truth.  Ever willing to be skeptical of people who claim some special truth.

 

What a noble way to spend a life.

Heck no, it is more obsessive than anything else

I was born saying "How do you KNOW that?"   So I am merely living out my base needs and am more ignoble than anything else.  Gimme more arguments gimme more arguments gimmemore arguments....

[Darren10]

On 7/31/2017 at 7:51 PM, 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.
 

My understanding is that everything of that story was true except for the missionary brother finding his spiritually lost brother while on his mission. That the lost brother returned to home and began his sojourn back into the faith before the "good" brother left for his mission. The story is still very miraculous but Elder Holland still felt it necessary to pull the whole story.

Good original call by the way.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

If it comes down to throwing the Church or one of its leaders under the bus or throwing me under the bus...... well you get the point.

Uh, no comparison

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Religion might just be a fairytale? Make it what you want, tell a sweet bedtime story, I get it.

Of course I did not say that. It is no more a fairy tale than the idea we should be kind to each other.  Should we throw those ideas out too and go around killing each other?

I am sorry you do not understand me, genuinely.

[Darren10]

On 7/31/2017 at 8:21 PM, Buckeye said:

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. 

I find truth to that but the problem I see is that DB thrives on skepticism. The reaction he recieved was in part for his adamant skepticism on lots of things Mormon. So while I agree he was mistreated, it was *in this case*; not because people are so mean to him and regularly blindly follow their LDS leaders. 

[Darren10]

On 7/31/2017 at 9:22 PM, Five Solas said:

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

And if mfbukowski stops playing around with obsidian rock. Those get reeeeeeally sharp when broken.

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are faith-promoting stories scripture...

Well, you do believe in the Apocrypha.

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The part of the miraculous story that was fabricated was the miracle part

I'm a bit uncomfortable blaming the family for this story because it's as if the default assumes Holland couldn't have made a mistake so therefore it must be the family's fault. Maybe the exaggeration started there, but we can't know for sure. Elder Holland heard the story 2nd hand which means the original source could have been wrong in some elements, the individual that heard, interpreted, and reconveyed the story could have been wrong, or Elder Holland could have been wrong in how he heard, interpreted and retold the story. Or they all could have gotten things wrong. We all get things wrong. We all misremember and mis-tell stories.

But the responsibility ultimately rests on Elder Holland, not the family. The family seems to have done the courageous and ethical thing by bringing the mistakes to Elder Holland's attention even though it may have caused them embarrassment or even shame when people would inevitably blame them for the errors. Elder Holland then did the courageous and ethical thing by admitting the mistake. Whether or not he had much choice about that is in question and doesn't concern me a whole lot, but I'm happy he made a direct statement. I do wish he hadn't called the family into question, though.

I hope that this is a good lesson for those who are tempted to share miraculous faith affirming stories if they don't have 1st hand experience with it. I also hope that the "faithful" won't be so harsh in judging those who are skeptical about such stories. The previous thread irritated me because the faithful were appalled that anyone would even question Elder Holland's story, as if he was infallible. Well, we see how that worked out in this case and I think he will have a responsibility to be very accurate and careful in the future to regain some trust.

ETA-

I hope I'm misunderstanding you. You're not claiming that the family was lying and the source of this whole fiasco, are you?

"I do wish he hadn't called the family into question, though."

Curious, wjat do you mean by 'called...into question'? Here's what the article cites regarding Elder Holland's learning of the error:

Quote

Elder Holland issued the following statement Monday:

"A few weeks ago when speaking to new mission presidents at the Missionary Training Center, I shared a story about two brothers, just as I heard it from individuals who knew the family and had heard it recounted by a family member. Within a few days, my office was contacted by the family, who expressed concern that some elements of that account were not accurate due to embellishing by a family member.

“There are inspiring and important missionary lessons in this story. 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.

“As a courtesy to me the family contacted my office, wanting me to be aware of the inaccurate parts of the story and offering their help in avoiding any perpetuation of those elements in the account I heard. I am deeply touched by their humility and courage in doing so, and as an equal courtesy to them, I am withdrawing the story completely and request that it not be shared further."

Bold mine. 

He seems touched by the family and complimentary to their contacting him regarding the error. 

[Darren10]

12 hours ago, DBMormon said:

First Clark tells the story in 2015.  and says it was while he was in a stake presidency?  Fact check this - What Stake was he president of or counselor in?  Also notice this story has Elder Clark saying he got it from the horses mouth but he is not family

Elder Holland allegedly tells the story in 2016 say the dogs were rotweilers not doberman pinschers.  and that the man was in hells angels

Elder Holland tells the story again in 2017 but the dogs are doberman pinschers now and no mention of the hell's angels

Notice the retraction says Elder Holland did not get the story from Elder Clark (a little strange) nor directly from those close to the situation (the brother who served with Elder Clark), but rather repeated a third hand source who was family but seemingly removed from the direct experience.  (strange again)

also Elder Holland found out a few days after the 2017 telling that the story was inaccurate yet waits a month

..........................  If this were me, there would be critics of me begging questions all over the place..........   

time will tell if there is more to this story but my gut tells me this was about to blow up as something very different from what it seems.


Elder Clark has served in a number of Church callings, including full-time missionary in the South German Mission, elders quorum president, ward executive secretary, counselor in a bishopric, bishop, high councilor, and counselor in a stake mission presidency.

In our church "stake Presidency" has a specific meaning........   Again it could be an issue of mishearing or mis-telling the story but this story seems based on the data..... deeply problematic.


 

"....................  If this were me, there would be critics of me begging questions all over the place.........."

You seem to do this a lot. You make yourself a victim of, I don't know, being bullied by others. It's a huge turn off for me. 

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

I hope this discussion doesn't get detailed to one about DBMormon and become personal. 

Talk to DB about that.

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree that Scott Lloyd was just doing his job.

He is surprisingly silent on this thread considering his aggressive defense of the story at the time it was published.  

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh not at all!

There was a mistake made and corrected.  You may have been taught that prophets are infallible, sorry whoever told you that was mistaken.  Yes I know the primary song. 

My entire point was that every story about religion is essentially a parable anyway, so missing the correct address for the father of the prodigal son doesn't make any difference in the spiritual "validity" of the story.  Suppose Jesus later retracted the story because it was a daughter instead of a son or a prodigal brother in law instead of a child.

Makes no difference if you understand what the intent of spiritual stories are.  We are taught to liken the scriptures to ourselves and to consider ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve, the returning prodigal,  the widow with her mite, Joshua with enough faith to "move mountains" and hold time in his hand

The whole point is that the Lord can do anything we need him to do in his time and way if we have enough faith because it is our faith that allows us to do anything we can think of doing.  If I needed to move a mountain I could do it- with enough faith in my ability to raise the funds for enough bulldozers and enough faith in the project to follow it thorough to the end, and the mine would be made or the houses built.  Men move mountains every day by using their faith and planning in long term projects.

But you would not see that statement as true unless the mountain dematerialized because you do not understand the principle being taught.  To you, mountains do not dematerialize so the statement is false

It appears you were taught literalism, rejected it because it was unreasonable, and got stuck in seeing scripture in any other way.

I am just suggesting that you look at things differently in order to understand these matters and have enough confidence in yourself to stop condemning other literalists on the other side of the coin.   They say there is no evolution say, because they are literalists.  Your seeing only scientific literalism is no different than their literalism except in subject matter.  Yes people make mistakes.  Yes even church leaders do.  Yes they see things incorrectly sometimes the way we all do.  Yes they handle things poorly as we all do from time to time.

But yes there is also brilliance there and pure goodness and pure intent even if you disagree with what the intent "should" be.  They want people in the church, you want people out of the church.  You are in the same business but just a mirror image where left becomes right and right becomes left

Your vision is limited by your prejudices and your insistence on seeing only one meaning to the idea that faith can move mountains.  That is only one example that runs throughout your way of thinking.

As long as the LDS faith has a set position on issues like marriage equality it is exactly the thing you claim it is not. It's fundamentalist to the core as are those like you who buy off on the policies even if you dismiss the foundation for them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

He is surprisingly silent on this thread considering his aggressive defense of the story at the time it was published.  

You have either a very poor memory or a very lying tongue. Never on this board did I engage in "an aggressive defense" of the Holland story. 

I never once engaged with Bill Reel (DBMormon). Juliann will corroborate that, as she very firmly advised me not to engage with him and I subsequently announced I would be taking her advice. And I have no intention of engaging with him going forward. Juliann's advice cintinues to be good. I thank her.

In all three of the threads that were opened here to discuss the story, I mostly remained above the fray. At one point. I took California Boy to task for his obnoxious and insolent mockery of the Mormon faith, and for his craftily worded non-apology apology, but even that didn't have directly to do with the Holland story except that he used his disbelief in the story as an occasion for his mockery. 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

As long as the LDS faith has a set position on issues like marriage equality it is exactly the thing you claim it is not. It's fundamentalist to the core as are those like you who buy off on the policies even if you dismiss the foundation for them. 

I suggest you put on your reading comprehension glasses and read what I actually said.  I never claimed "the LDS faith"- whatever that is supposed to indicate, since the church is comprised of millions of people with their own opinions-  is not fundamentalist.  It would be idiocy to say so, clearly there are many fundamentalist members of the church. Of course that does not make "the church" fundamentalist.

Having a "set position" on something does not make one a fundamentalist incidentally- perhaps you need a dictionary for that one.  The Democratic Party has many "set positions" and that does not make them fundamentalist.

Not to mention the brilliance displayed in saying that apparently by your logic, I am a fundamentalist who dismisses foundational beliefs.

That's like being a Democrat who dismisses democracy.   Pretty clever stuff

And keep on rockin' there amigo!

[Honorentheos]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you put on your reading comprehension glasses and read what I actually said.  I never claimed "the LDS faith"- whatever that is supposed to indicate, since the church is comprised of millions of people with their own opinions-  is not fundamentalist.  It would be idiocy to say so, clearly there are many fundamentalist members of the church. Of course that does not make "the church" fundamentalist.

Having a "set position" on something does not make one a fundamentalist incidentally- perhaps you need a dictionary for that one.  The Democratic Party has many "set positions" and that does not make them fundamentalist.

Not to mention the brilliance displayed in saying that apparently by your logic, I am a fundamentalist who dismisses foundational beliefs.

That's like being a Democrat who dismisses democracy.   Pretty clever stuff

And keep on rockin' there amigo!

Pop quiz. Is marriage equality a right, a privilege or, if engaged in a sin that puts one in jeopardy in some manner? Not to derail bit to make a point that this notion critics are engaging in a form of fundamentalist thinking when one argues the leadership has elevated it's status as having unique access to truth and knowledge is not taking Mormonism at its face value based on its own claims.

And I am using you to demonstrate your own support of this entrenched position can only be for non pragmatic reasons. Otherwise you would have to admit it could only be right for you to choose to live in a heterosexual relationship but it would be equally valid for another there to live in a homosexual one. There could be essentially not difference in value judgement there from a truly pragmatic position. Yet you make it one. It's fundamentalism.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Honorentheos