Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Scott- you are correct and I apologize.  When I read your comment I went back and reread the threads I had followed earlier and my memory was definitely playing tricks on me.  Please accept my apology.

As a side note I'm surprised to see you refer to any of California Boy's comments as "obnoxious and insolent mockery of the mormon faith".  I generally find California Boy's posts to be fairly understanding of the mormon faith even while expressing a contrary option.

Edited August 2, 2017 by sjdawg

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Scott- you are correct and I apologize.  When I read your comment I went back and reread the threads I had followed earlier and my memory was definitely playing tricks on me.  Please accept my apology.

As a side note I'm surprised to see you refer to any of California Boy's comments as "obnoxious and insolent mockery of the mormon faith".  I generally find California Boy's posts to be fairly understanding of the mormon faith even while expressing a contrary option.

Thanks, sjdawg. That took class. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Never?  Did you not recall the attack on me when I expressed my opinion that the story a myth?  Because I reposted it in this thread to remind you. Selective memory. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by california boy

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I disagree. A parable is known to be just a story but still has power because it teaches a universal truth.

Quote

A parable is a short tale that illustrates a universal truth; it is a simple narrative. It sketches a setting, describes an action, and shows the results. It may sometimes be distinguished from similar narrative types, such as the allegory and the apologue.

A parable often involves a character who faces a moral dilemma or one who makes a bad decision and then suffers the unintended consequences. Although the meaning of a parable is often not explicitly stated, it is not intended to be hidden or secret but to be quite straightforward and obvious.

The defining characteristic of the parable is the presence of a subtext suggesting how a person should behave or what he should believe. Aside from providing guidance and suggestions for proper conduct in one's life, parables frequently use metaphorical language which allows people to more easily discuss difficult or complex ideas. Parables express an abstract argument by means of using a concrete narrative which is easily understood.

Link

For example, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus told the story in response to the question "Who is my neighbor?" The story doesn't have to be true for the hearer to understand the message.

A faith promoting story loses its power if it's not factual.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Thinking

[2BizE]

I think Elder Holland did the right thing and retracted this story.  Kim B. Clark has been concocting this story since even before Elder Holland.

I would like to see the church make a concerted effort to rid itself of similarly untruthful stories.  A few examples include:

1) Thomas B. Marsh and the milk stripping.  This is unsubstantiated and not even the reason he left the church.

2) Wilford Woodruff and the visitation of founding fathers to do their temple work.  Nothing in his journal about this.  All of their temple work had already been done multiple times.

3) Brigham Young and his voice sounding like Joseph Smith.  Totally an invention many years later.  No journals indicate this at all.

[CV75]

On 7/31/2017 at 8:51 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.
 

I see efforts to debunk the account of Brigham Young's transfiguration, which evidently led to his sustaining as Prophet isn't getting much headway. If this miracle is deemed problematic, it has to be due to something other than the most recent historical information available to us.

A question remaining from yesterday: Which commonly told accounts of miracles are not taken as problematic by reason of proven inaccuracy or alteration?

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours 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?

Your questions answered in the order you ask them.

1.  I'm taking no position on the usurpation question.  I think Bill Reel's argument about usurpation is specious without a clear statement from him as to who was usurped.  Bill won't answer. 

2.  "Power level" and "throne" aren't terms used in the Church. 

3.  I agree completely.

4.  It would seem so although when it comes to metaphysics I can't speak for certain.  My criticism of Bill Reel's argument is based upon the fact the Saints followed the D&C procedure to the letter.  My argument that Bill's analysis is without foundation is not based upon what miracles might have occurred to get there, although the journals of my ancestors in Nauvoo at the time are revealing to me.  There is some element of consistency to what happened that day.

So, I ask you:  How can there be a usurpation if the Saints voted for it almost unanimously?  It is the common consent vote that counts and nothing else.  If the Saints had voted instead for William Strang, well that would have been that.  I don't see Bill Reel's podcast addressing that.  And thus, it is specious.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I think Elder Holland did the right thing and retracted this story.  Kim B. Clark has been concocting this story since even before Elder Holland.

I would like to see the church make a concerted effort to rid itself of similarly untruthful stories.  A few examples include:

1) Thomas B. Marsh and the milk stripping.  This is unsubstantiated and not even the reason he left the church.

2) Wilford Woodruff and the visitation of founding fathers to do their temple work.  Nothing in his journal about this.  All of their temple work had already been done multiple times.

3) Brigham Young and his voice sounding like Joseph Smith.  Totally an invention many years later.  No journals indicate this at all.

1)We all know that

2)It is mentioned in his journal, several times, check out his entry for Aug 21, 1877, Dec. 31, 1877. Also this, http://jod.mrm.org/19/223-We are dealing with Yankees, they had to have their work done several times to purge themselves

3)That's not true, read Jorgensen, Lynne Watkins. “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: A Collective Spiritual Witness.” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, 1996. 

[Gray]

There is a long tradition of religious big fish stories, as long as our species has existed. These stories promote loyalty to one's belief system, and there is plenty of incentive to tell them. Even without the religious aspect, people love a good story. That seems universal to all human beings.

I think tall tales are mostly harmless, but kudos to Elder Holland for putting the correction out there.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Gray

[Pete Ahlstrom]

51 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Your questions answered in the order you ask them.

1.  I'm taking no position on the usurpation question.  I think Bill Reel's argument about usurpation is specious without a clear statement from him as to who was usurped.  Bill won't answer. 

2.  "Power level" and "throne" aren't terms used in the Church. 

3.  I agree completely.

4.  It would seem so although when it comes to metaphysics I can't speak for certain.  My criticism of Bill Reel's argument is based upon the fact the Saints followed the D&C procedure to the letter.  My argument that Bill's analysis is without foundation is not based upon what miracles might have occurred to get there, although the journals of my ancestors in Nauvoo at the time are revealing to me.  There is some element of consistency to what happened that day.

So, I ask you:  How can there be a usurpation if the Saints voted for it almost unanimously?  It is the common consent vote that counts and nothing else.  If the Saints had voted instead for William Strang, well that would have been that.  I don't see Bill Reel's podcast addressing that.  And thus, it is specious.

Joseph Smith was always appointing family to high positions and tried to have Hyrum take over at one point. Yes, the people refused but would they have had Hyrum survived? To me, this is why I think Samuel Smith was the logical successor prior to his untimely, suspicious death.

[CV75]

Try these miracle stories on for size. I challenge any to fact-check them and report back any negative findings.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/08/faith-determination-and-a-deadline?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/08/prompted-to-pay-tithing?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/08/preparing-a-spiritual-feast?lang=eng

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, I ask you:  How can there be a usurpation if the Saints voted for it almost unanimously?  It is the common consent vote that counts and nothing else.  If the Saints had voted instead for William Strang, well that would have been that.  I don't see Bill Reel's podcast addressing that.  And thus, it is specious.

How many members were not at the meeting? How many members stayed behind and did not follow Brigham Young?

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Joseph Smith was always appointing family to high positions and tried to have Hyrum take over at one point. Yes, the people refused but would they have had Hyrum survived? To me, this is why I think Samuel Smith was the logical successor prior to his untimely, suspicious death.

As per section 124:95, Hyrum took over when Oliver fell, one wonders if Oliver hadn't have done that would he have been killed in Carthage? Why was his death suspicious? or is it suspicious beacause DBmormon needs it to be to fit his narrative?

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Thanks, its nice to know that the philosophy lines up with evidence coming out of neuroscience.  And I'm still working on my philosophy understanding, but what you say here seems to reinforce what I thought I understood from earlier discussions, so I'm glad about that. 

I wonder though if this kind of paradigm about the God experience being an internal one is something that many religious people would find difficult to comprehend and/or a threat to their faith in God.  It certainly doesn't conform to the traditional approach in Mormonism.  It will become increasingly more clear in mainstream society that there are very good natural explanations for most everything, and some of these things today are in that religious domain, but the number of things there seem to be shrinking as our knowledge progresses forward.  

I just think that for religion to continue to find relevance in the future it will need to engage with rethinking of paradigms on these issues.  

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As per section 124:95, Hyrum took over when Oliver fell, one wonders if Oliver hadn't have done that would he have been killed in Carthage? Why was his death suspicious? or is it suspicious beacause DBmormon needs it to be to fit his narrative?

Some (including a few of his own family members) believed that Samuel Smith was poisoned.  Iirc, William Clayton had recorded that Joseph had chosen him as his successor in the event that both he and Hyrum were killed.

I find it tragic that Lucy Smith lost 3 of her sons within about a month, and she had lost another son in Nauvoo as well (Don Carlos).

Edited August 2, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

I can't think of many scholars who are dismissing scripture either.  Even a Bart Ehrman for example who doesn't have a religious belief anymore as I understand it, he doesn't dismiss scripture, he uses it to dismiss much of the false narrative that has developed over the centuries of the Christian movement.  Perhaps there are some advocates for completely dismissing scripture out there though, I'm just not too familiar with them.  

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

 

2) Wilford Woodruff and the visitation of founding fathers to do their temple work.  Nothing in his journal about this.  All of their temple work had already been done multiple times.

 

CFR on the bolded part please.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As per section 124:95, Hyrum took over when Oliver fell, one wonders if Oliver hadn't have done that would he have been killed in Carthage? Why was his death suspicious? or is it suspicious beacause DBmormon needs it to be to fit his narrative?

It is independently suspicious regardless.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As per section 124:95, Hyrum took over when Oliver fell, one wonders if Oliver hadn't have done that would he have been killed in Carthage? Why was his death suspicious? or is it suspicious beacause DBmormon needs it to be to fit his narrative?

I don't know much about it, but here's what Wikipedia says:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_H._Smith_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Death

 

Quote

Smith's brothers, Joseph and Hyrum, were killed by a mob on June 27, 1844, while being held in Carthage Jail, in Illinois. Samuel, risking attack by a mob, traveled to the jail and retrieved his brothers' bodies. Some church members assumed that Samuel would succeed Joseph as the president of the Latter Day Saint church (see lineal succession (Latter Day Saints)). However, Samuel fell ill shortly after their deaths and died just one month later.

Smith's official cause of death was "bilious fever",[1] which is an archaic and inexact term for any disease accompanied by a fever and the evacuation of bile, such as typhoid fever or malaria. Lucy Mack Smith later suggested Smith had become ill because of the fatigue and shock occasioning by his experience of the death of his brothers.[10] Soon after his death, rumors circulated that Smith was poisoned by Hosea Stout on orders from Willard Richards.[11][12][13][14] In a meeting on July 10, 1844, Smith had been in a meeting with Richards in which Smith reminded the group that he was Joseph's designee as president if both Joseph and Hyrum had died.[11] Richards, however, had wanted to delay the decision on succession until Brigham Young and other prominent missionaries had returned to Nauvoo. Stout was suspected in part because, as reported by Smith's wife, Stout had been administering a white powder to Smith daily as treatment for his illness.[11] Smith's mother does not appear to have considered him to have been murdered, and though his sole remaining brother, William Smith, later charged Richards and Stout with foul play, he did not bring forward his own evidence in support of that accusation until 1892.[11] William Smith's charges were not pursued by legal authorities.

 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Some (including a few of his own family members) believed that Samuel Smith was poisoned.  

I find it tragic that Lucy Smith lost 3 of her sons within about a month, and she has lost another son in Nauvoo as well (Don Carlos).

I couldn't imagine!!!! losing adult children before you go is tough. I have never heard that before, I wonder what the evidence is that led them to that belief? 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It is independently suspicious regardless.

people die, especially back then from all kinds of things but doesn't mean it's murder

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

As per section 124:95, Hyrum took over when Oliver fell, one wonders if Oliver hadn't have done that would he have been killed in Carthage? Why was his death suspicious? or is it suspicious beacause DBmormon needs it to be to fit his narrative?

Here's more regarding this (in addition to what Gray posted):

Quote

 

Samuel H. Smith's own daughter, Mary B. Smith, expressed her belief that her father and her uncle Arthur Milliken were simultaneously poisoned through the administration of a powdery toxin purported to be medicine--noting, as well, that the same doctors attended both men.

According to Mary, Milliken stopped taking the fatal substance but Samuel continued to the last dose, which "he spit out and said he was poisoned. But it was too late--he died."

(Mary B. Smith Norman, letter to Ina Coolbrith, 27 March 1908; the above citations found in "Samuel H. Smith (1808-1844)," under “Death and Succession Crisis,” in “Saints Without Halos,” at: http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/b/smith_s.phtm)

Moreover, Samuel H. Smith's wife, Levira Clark Smith, also concluded that her popular husband had, in reality, been murdered--and proceeded to name the murderer.

 

 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's more regarding this (in addition to what Gray posted):

 

well, don't leave us hanging! who dunnit?!

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

people die, especially back then from all kinds of things but doesn't mean it's murder

You are right.  That's why suspicious is an appropriate word.  As ALarson pointed out, family suspected Samuel was poisoned by someone.  He had a claim to the church leadership because of his name.  Joseph wanted Hyrum to take over not too long prior to his death so one would think that Samuel might be a candidate after Joseph and Hyrum died.  However, Samuel died under suspicious circumstances.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You are right.  That's why suspicious is an appropriate word.  As ALarson pointed out, family suspected Samuel was poisoned by someone.  He had a claim to the church leadership because of his name.  Joseph wanted Hyrum to take over not too long prior to his death so one would think that Samuel might be a candidate after Joseph and Hyrum died.  However, Samuel died under suspicious circumstances.

I'm no Barnaby Jones or anything but is there something that would lead one to believe that Samuel Smith would take over because of his name? Why him and not Joseph's son? which we know did happen of sorts in the 1860's. Did someone murder Samuel on the Apostles' instructions or was the murderer acting on his own accord? If the Apostles were in fact trying to usurp authority why kill Samuel and not Rigdon? or Strang? or any other offshoot group leaders? if we know he was poisoned, either deliberately or unwittingly and we know who did it, how is that suspicious? What made the murderer believe Samuel was a threat? do we have statements to that effect?