Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[Bob Crockett]

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

this has nothing to do with names.  The twelve were not out to rid the church of specific people rather they were equal or less in authority than other offices and they worked behind the scenes and at times in the open to dismantle or reduce the authority of those offices.  Your creating a strawman that has nothing to with my allegations.  Start a new thread and have people discuss this series of events in our history but this thread is on another subject.

Really now, I must protest.  You have a podcast claiming the Quorum of the Twelve committed a coup when it seized control, but you can't identify the person?

OK.  Against what office(s) did the Quorum of the Twelve commit a coup, and when and how was that done?  

Edited August 3, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I watched a video of David Rohl last night who interestingly suggested that the early stories of Genesis came from Moses who was educated in the Mesopotamian stories and mythology growing up as a young prince in Egypt. It is a tempting take. I do agree with him though that Moses was educated in Egypt, and knew how to write - possibly in several different scripts. 

Here is a site which gives a different version of biblical archaeology than what you are apparently familiar with: No need to apologize friend. I am largely self-taught on these matters. I took little religion in school. However, I believe the spirit has pushed me to learn about certain areas, and this is one of them. I can't even really say how I got started on it. It has been an area of study for a couple years tho.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

I do not agree with all their conclusions, but there is a lot of good archaeology on that site.

I can't say that it was terribly personally important to me, because I have a strong testimony and knowledge of the Savior and the restored gospel, but I believe it will eventually be important. I believe traditional Christianity has misinterpreted the scriptures, and this has resulted in a loss of faith in a modern secular society. A lot of people apply a scientific analysis to the scriptures, and then lose faith when they don't seem to measure up. Although I don't really feel I personally need to do this research, I have enjoyed it quite a bit. It is one of the few things I have really enjoyed over the last several years. I enjoy learning, and the challenge of research and finding facts which verify God's word. 
I also have members of my family who have lost faith - some who even left Christianity - basically for reasons I have just described. However, if they see archaeology which comports with the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it will be a strong force against their reasons for leaving their faith. So this work is not for me, although I am enjoying it. It is for others. That is why I am doing it.

Thanks for the thoughts and your charity.  It sounds like you do feel like having historicity is essential because of the people you've seen leave religion based on a loss of faith.  This is the fault of modern day proof texting and fundamentalism that has come from a complete misreading of scripture and an expectation for historicity that was never the intent of the original authors.  Let me recommend a few books for you to consider.

https://www.amazon.com/Authoring-Testament-Genesis-Deuteronomy-David-Bokovoy/dp/1589585887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501711670&sr=8-1&keywords=authoring+the+old+testament

 https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711711&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bible+tells+me+so

https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711726&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Word-Testament-Order-Written/dp/0062082116/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711749&sr=1-9&keywords=marcus+borg+books

Ultimately if historicity is that important to you, you can continue to find evidence to support it, even if that evidence isn't supported by the mainstream.  I just think its not necessary, that faith doesn't need to be built upon the historical claims, that faith is something different to me now, and that belief in truths are not contingent on following a particular approach to scriptural interpretation.  Best of luck to you.  

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the thoughts and your charity.  It sounds like you do feel like having historicity is essential because of the people you've seen leave religion based on a loss of faith.  This is the fault of modern day proof texting and fundamentalism that has come from a complete misreading of scripture and an expectation for historicity that was never the intent of the original authors.  Let me recommend a few books for you to consider.

https://www.amazon.com/Authoring-Testament-Genesis-Deuteronomy-David-Bokovoy/dp/1589585887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501711670&sr=8-1&keywords=authoring+the+old+testament

 https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711711&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bible+tells+me+so

https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711726&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Word-Testament-Order-Written/dp/0062082116/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501711749&sr=1-9&keywords=marcus+borg+books

Ultimately if historicity is that important to you, you can continue to find evidence to support it, even if that evidence isn't supported by the mainstream.  I just think its not necessary, that faith doesn't need to be built upon the historical claims, that faith is something different to me now, and that belief in truths are not contingent on following a particular approach to scriptural interpretation.  Best of luck to you.  

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that Modern Christianity has been led astray largely by proof texting, but errant archaeological conclusions also have played a part. Mind you, I am not out to prove the Bible is true, but just to show there is archaeology which supports the Bible and the Book of Mormon. When people hear "there is no in-the-dirt archaeology to support the Book of Mormon" it is damaging I believe. They may not even want to read the Book of Mormon after hearing experts say things like that. However, if there is archaeology they can see which comports with things the Book of Mormon says, I believe it will go a long way to planting a seed of faith - maybe Joseph Smith didn't author the Book of Mormon after all. If the evidence is strong enough, it may even compel people to investigate the Church. If there is enough evidence to support what Joseph Smith translated, how can someone claim he just made it up? It becomes a powerful proof that he was truly translating a truthful ancient record.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'd say that many scholars, including Ehat, focus on the chaos by others.  Sure, it was new to the Q12, but as soon as news of Joseph Smith's death reached abroad they were all ordered home or came home for one purpose and that was to get behind Brigham Young to take control of the Church.  There was a general meeting, there were speeches, there was one vote.  Strip away the rest caused by others -- it was cut and dried.  Nobody challenged the vote -- at least then.  Strang and JSIII came much later.  Emma came to rebel against Brigham Young later.  

You're incorrect regarding several things here.  But for one, Strang didn't come "much later".   

There was nothing "cut and dried" about the succession and I'd recommend you might want to do some more studying on this topic.    You continue to over simplify what really took place.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

sure but the story loses almost entirely is miraculous nature.  People rejoin Mormonism every day and they rejoin every other faith too.  People rejoin Scientology as well.  Nothing miraculous.  The reason these people told this story was it was almost supernatural.  

I have five kids, I guess only the birth of the first one is miraculous. 

[BlueDreams]

 

In general....about the thread and the other threads about this. I rechecked what I wrote to see if I was on the end of the "attacking" or may need to apologize. I don't think I am. My posts weren't really about the people posting them. I also didn't say much because both then and now I still don't get what the big deal is with this story. Both before finding out it wasn't entirely accurate and after. It's a great story and I still think it's beautiful (with the Holland corrections and Katherine's explanation). But it's not something I find all that significant. In my head I keep thinking that the only way to stop this is to ask people to stop being human and never divulge things they've heard from a fairly close source that they felt was accurately expressed. I still simply don't understand the significance to this. I would honestly love to understand why this is even important to others. 

On 8/1/2017 at 10:09 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

I applaud Elder Holland for retracting the story.  I applaud those on this board who have admitted that they were wrong in believing this story and not seeing it for what it was...a false embellished faith promoting story.  However I do have one remaining question for believers.  This false story caused "the spirit Ⓡ" to be felt by those who heard the story.  How exactly can "the spirit Ⓡ" confirm a false story?  Why instead didn't it cause those mission presidents, who heard the story, BS meters to start buzzing and prompt them to start asking questions or wanting confirmation from a first person source, as it did me when I first heard the story?  Doesn't this episode make you want to know if you don't have a blind spot built in to your method for reaching confirmation of a truth?

I don't know if I would describe it as feeling the spirit. I can't remember that far back about what may have been a spiritual feeling that reaches the same level as the spiritual feeling I get from a touching clip about human kindness, charity, or love on youtube that pops up every once and a while...mormon  or not. And what would ring touching to me isn't exactly the "miracle" of events but moreso the miracle of someone finding salvation and home once more. That miracle, even with the corrections, stands. My BS meter didn't ring because I've heard and experienced crazier things first or second hand. It's like hearing a story about a kid getting really sick with food poisoning from a restaurant only to find out it wasn't and the kid just had a bad reaction to a vaccine. You've heard and seen enough of the first to not wonder about it. It's not that unlikely or weird. It doesn't make me suddenly question every case where food poisoning was definitely the culprit. Likewise, one story with the details wrong but the basic gist in tact isn't going to effect it. Even if ALL the details were wrong, this wouldn't effect my general "bias" or "confirmation of a truth." That would assume this is somehow pertinent or foundational to my spiritual experiences with God. It wasn't close to that in the first place.

This makes about as much sense as to throw out a real bouquet of roses just because you found one that was fake and then questioning every rose you've ever seen after....even the ones grown in your own garden. 

 

With luv,

BD   

Edited August 2, 2017 by BlueDreams

[rodheadlee]

Thank you, Blue dreams.

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I have five kids, I guess only the birth of the first one is miraculous. 

I consider my first child to be the miracle. 

Once my wife became resigned to the idea, the rest were much easier.

[katherine the great]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I consider my first child to be the miracle. 

Once my wife became resigned to the idea, the rest were much easier.

For you anyway... 😊

[Darren10]

44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I consider my first child to be the miracle. 

Once my wife became resigned to the idea, the rest were much easier.

All you had to do was stand back and catch them.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 

In general....about the thread and the other threads about this. I rechecked what I wrote to see if I was on the end of the "attacking" or may need to apologize. I don't think I am. My posts weren't really about the people posting them. I also didn't say much because both then and now I still don't get what the big deal is with this story. Both before finding out it wasn't entirely accurate and after. It's a great story and I still think it's beautiful (with the Holland corrections and Katherine's explanation). But it's not something I find all that significant. In my head I keep thinking that the only way to stop this is to ask people to stop being human and never divulge things they've heard from a fairly close source that they felt was accurately expressed. I still simply don't understand the significance to this. I would honestly love to understand why this is even important to others. 

I don't know if I would describe it as feeling the spirit. I can't remember that far back about what may have been a spiritual feeling that reaches the same level as the spiritual feeling I get from a touching clip about human kindness, charity, or love on youtube that pops up every once and a while...mormon  or not. And what would ring touching to me isn't exactly the "miracle" of events but moreso the miracle of someone finding salvation and home once more. That miracle, even with the corrections, stands. My BS meter didn't ring because I've heard and experienced crazier things first or second hand. It's like hearing a story about a kid getting really sick with food poisoning from a restaurant only to find out it wasn't and the kid just had a bad reaction to a vaccine. You've heard and seen enough of the first to not wonder about it. It's not that unlikely or weird. It doesn't make me suddenly question every case where food poisoning was definitely the culprit. Likewise, one story with the details wrong but the basic gist in tact isn't going to effect it. Even if ALL the details were wrong, this wouldn't effect my general "bias" or "confirmation of a truth." That would assume this is somehow pertinent or foundational to my spiritual experiences with God. It wasn't close to that in the first place.

This makes about as much sense as to throw out a real bouquet of roses just because you found one that was fake and then questioning every rose you've ever seen after....even the ones grown in your own garden. 

 

With luv,

BD   

My take is that the story, as you correctly pointed out, is spiritual before and after its corrections. In my life I have felt the Holy Spirit tell me the truth of something with perfect clarity but there have also been more times, perhaps many more time, when I felt the Spirit but not as clear. Like there was something "not right". These are tines I would pay attention as to why there was some uncertainty. In the vast majority of tines, analyzing the outcome of the experience, it became clear, through time and allowing events to unfold, that there was much truth to feelings of the Spirit but that certain aspects of what would happen were not entirely good or correct. It's kinda like telling so done the Church is true but their reaction is malevolent, even rebellious. There's nothing wrong in telling others the Church us true but how you do it, when you do it, why you do it, etc.  may not  be "the best". You simply move on and learn from it instead of becoming cynical to all of it. I think Elder Holland has learned from this and us moving on from it. Others are using it to cast doubt on the Church, it's keaders, prompting of the Holy Spirit, et al. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Really now, I must protest.  You have a podcast claiming the Quorum of the Twelve committed a coup when it seized control, but you can't identify the person?

OK.  Against what office(s) did the Quorum of the Twelve commit a coup against, and when and how was that done?  

Who are coups against but the people at large? If there was another or group who had the rights to leadership and if the competitors were pushed aside or killed, etc., then the people didn't get the leader or leaders they deserved.

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Who are coups against but the people at large? If there was another or group who had the rights to leadership and if the competitors were pushed aside or killed, etc., then the people didn't get the leader or leaders they deserved.

I have read that Brigham Young's supporters were those men practicing polygamy in Nauvoo (the so called "inner circle" who Joseph had let into his confidence or called to live the principle).  

Emma hated polygamy and sided with those who felt the same and who wanted to take over the leadership (Marks, and others).   That is where the division took place, right?

Is it true that most of the men and families that followed BY out to Utah, were those practicing polygamy?

I don't know that all of the 12 supported BY, but would like to know that.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by JulieM

[Pete Ahlstrom]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I have read that Brigham Young's supporters were those men practicing polygamy in Nauvoo (the so called "inner circle" who Joseph had let into his confidence or called to live the principle).  

Emma hated polygamy and sided with those who felt the same and who wanted to take over the leadership (Marks, and others).   That is where the division took place, right?

Is it true that most of the men and families that followed BY out to Utah, were those practicing polygamy?

I don't know that all of the 12 supported BY, but would like to know that.

 

My understanding too is that polygamy was a dividing issue at that time.

[Thinking]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Therefore there is no power in the story of the good Samaritan?

I think you have a contradiction there.

Miracles are perceived by the spirit, not science.  There are no facts only interpretations- and you have a long epistemological road ahead to prove otherwise.  Good luck going against the last hundred years of philosophy.

There is a difference between a parable and a faith promoting story.

The parable of the good Samaritan, for example, doesn't promote faith in any one belief system. It teaches a universal truth about loving your neighbor. Its message is understood and powerful because it teaches you how to live - independent from your belief system.

I can't remember where I heard the following story, but its message can be applied to many situations, and doesn't need to be factual.

An elderly gentleman interviewed three men to be his chauffeur. He explained that his driver would need to be able to navigate the winding driveway from the bottom of the hill up to his home. Parts of the driveway were dangerously close to some steep drop-offs. During the interview he asked "How close to the edge of the cliff can you drive without going over?" The first candidate claimed a distance of 6 inches, and the second was confident that he could safely drive 3 inches from the edge. The third candidate replied "I stay as far away from the edge as possible."

Faith promoting stories typically involve some sort of claimed benefit that is a result of adherence to a particular belief system. The benefit is put forth as evidence that the belief system has value or is true. If it is learned that the benefit never really occurred, then the story has no real value as evidence for that particular belief system.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I still simply don't understand the significance to this. I would honestly love to understand why this is even important to others. 

It would have been a good idea for Elder Holland to clarify why he felt it significant enough to retract the story, then.  I'm glad he did. 
But since he did, it makes it worth our consideration, I'd say.  Why'd he forward a story that he didn't know was true?  It was, after all, supposed to be a miraculous story to build faith.  But if not true, then saying it is meant to build faith, get's lost. 

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if I would describe it as feeling the spirit. I can't remember that far back about what may have been a spiritual feeling that reaches the same level as the spiritual feeling I get from a touching clip about human kindness, charity, or love on youtube that pops up every once and a while...mormon  or not. And what would ring touching to me isn't exactly the "miracle" of events but moreso the miracle of someone finding salvation and home once more. That miracle, even with the corrections, stands. My BS meter didn't ring because I've heard and experienced crazier things first or second hand. It's like hearing a story about a kid getting really sick with food poisoning from a restaurant only to find out it wasn't and the kid just had a bad reaction to a vaccine. You've heard and seen enough of the first to not wonder about it. It's not that unlikely or weird. It doesn't make me suddenly question every case where food poisoning was definitely the culprit. Likewise, one story with the details wrong but the basic gist in tact isn't going to effect it. Even if ALL the details were wrong, this wouldn't effect my general "bias" or "confirmation of a truth." That would assume this is somehow pertinent or foundational to my spiritual experiences with God. It wasn't close to that in the first place.

This makes about as much sense as to throw out a real bouquet of roses just because you found one that was fake and then questioning every rose you've ever seen after....even the ones grown in your own garden. 

 

With luv,

BD   

Truly I don't think the Spirit is so concerned about telling us whether another is telling the truth or not.  he just wants to make us feel sweet and comfortable from time to time as we need it and want it.  I recall when the story was challenged Cinepro, I believe, wondered how by chance did the events of this story not happen, considering the possibility of mere chance. Of course we know it didn't happen as told, so we're still left wondering what miraculous story really has taken place to fulfill the chance.  You say, you've heard of "crazier" things first and second hand, for instance.  What are those?  Perhaps we can fulfill the "well it should have happened by now" claim of Cinepro afterall, since this one was a fail.

[HappyJackWagon]

Here is a very detailed review of the story and its retraction for those who are interested. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/radio-free-mormon-016-make-way-dodos/

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It would have been a good idea for Elder Holland to clarify why he felt it significant enough to retract the story, then.  I'm glad he did. 
But since he did, it makes it worth our consideration, I'd say.  Why'd he forward a story that he didn't know was true?  It was, after all, supposed to be a miraculous story to build faith.  But if not true, then saying it is meant to build faith, get's lost. 

For clarity and so he doesn't misrepresent the family in a public fashion and respecting their concerns about it? I'm not saying there isn't reason that he should have clarified or corrected his error. I would have done similarly....but I then wouldn't expect hours of discussion to come from it afterwards. Not for something this small. That was more my point. That the amount of attention this story was getting from the board was not equal to the event itself. At least it just isn't to me. In my head this fits into a post that last 3-4 pages on one thread and naturally dies. Other events I can understand. Several I've even seen mentioned IRL. But this one, I just don't get. 

And without looking back, I assume he used it as an example of faith in a talk. As he tends to do with stories in general. It's a means to make abstract concepts have concrete examples in this day and time. As I mentioned the corrected details from both Katherine and Holland does not remove the "build fairth" effect of the story. But even if it was completely false, it wouldn't have much effect on "building faith." And considering the main audience was mission presidents, I hope their faith in general is of somewhat stronger caliber than based on one miracle story being told accurately. I feel that the description over-emphasizes its effect. 
 

Quote

 

Truly I don't think the Spirit is so concerned about telling us whether another is telling the truth or not.  he just wants to make us feel sweet and comfortable from time to time as we need it and want it.  I recall when the story was challenged Cinepro, I believe, wondered how by chance did the events of this story not happen, considering the possibility of mere chance. Of course we know it didn't happen as told, so we're still left wondering what miraculous story really has taken place to fulfill the chance.  You say, you've heard of "crazier" things first and second hand, for instance.  What are those?  Perhaps we can fulfill the "well it should have happened by now" claim of Cinepro afterall, since this one was a fail.

 

I can't agree with that entirely because I've had the Spirit or influence of it at times witness to me when something was false very clearly....either by refusing to acknowledge a false witness or by the gift of discernment in my work. The first couple of times I really remembered this was on my mission while tracting and talking to people. I remember one example when I was in this rough neighborhood where we began talking to this man about how God loves all his children. The man agreed and began talking of his own little miracle story of being strapped for cash, praying for help, and then finding 20 dollars as he was walking. Immediately I felt that this wasn't of God nor an experience from Him. It was surprising to me, because there wasn't any real reason for this not to be from Him. Later that week, in the same neighborhood he walked out of a known heroine dealers house, avoiding eye contact with us at all costs though we were on the porch of an adjacent house. It made more sense. Nowadays it's usually not as strong, but I'll have it happen at times with my work. Just this nagging sense that something important is missing or not being told in their story. Or that something isn't right. Later it'll come out and make more sense. The spirit and the adjacent gifts I've felt haven't been just a sweet and comfortable feeling from time to time. They have been things like I just mentioned, moments of warning, and moments of correction and redirection when needed, among other things. 

But I don't think that it is as concerning about absolute accuracy. Which I think is different from truth. For example I believe the Creation is true and have had that confirmed several times over, but that it's several accounts are obviously not absolutely accurate.  

The crazier ones? Most I don't feel comfortable sharing in a public forum. And the second-hand ones would be extremely ironic considering the several people's criticism of third/second hand stories. But several I don't want to share because they're not mine to share, particularly for confidentiality reasons (heard them in my office), and in my boat because they're very personal and sacred. I  also certainly don't want to share sacred things to simply prove a point. Particularly the point you've mentioned. They can include extreme manifestations of gifts, like knowing events or perceiving things about people that aren't obvious. They've included visions and dreams that were more than dreams. They can include extremely specific blessings or patriarchal blessings. Etc.  But that's all the details I feel comfortable giving in this format and with the concerns I've mentioned.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 3, 2017 by BlueDreams

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

So, since Bill refuses to answer, perhaps you will.  He won't do it because he's not anonymous.

Exactly whom was the coup against?  

That's a good question. Coup d' etat may not be precisely accurate since there wasn't anyone in power to overthrow. That's the whole point of the succession crisis. Who was in charge after JS's death? The first presidency? The Q12? The Stake Pres of Nauvoo? The Q70? The church patriarch? Strang? Samuel Smith? JS III?

They all had various claims to succession. Brigham was very adept politically at removing individuals from consideration as he consolidated power. That's not necessarily a negative or wrong thing but it does seem an accurate description as he seems to have strong armed a number of people (eg- excommunicating Rigdon and threatening to excommunicate the SP and using the whittling brigade to intimidate and run non-brigham supporters out of town).

It's a fascinating period/event in church history that is super messy. Again, I don't see anything that was cut and dried about the succession crisis. It was a mess.

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here is a very detailed review of the story and its retraction for those who are interested. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/radio-free-mormon-016-make-way-dodos/

Thanks for posting this HJW.

It sounds like many of the mission presidents who heard Elder Holland tell the story, have now shown the video at their zone conferences for all their missionaries to hear.  That's unfortunate and I hope they clarify to the missionaries that the story was not entirely true (or at least share the retraction with them).   Maybe some of the missionaries will see the retraction themselves (I'm not sure how much access they have to media). 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good question. Coup d' etat may not be precisely accurate since there wasn't anyone in power to overthrow. That's the whole point of the succession crisis. Who was in charge after JS's death? The first presidency? The Q12? The Stake Pres of Nauvoo? The Q70? The church patriarch? Strang? Samuel Smith? JS III?

They all had various claims to succession. Brigham was very adept politically at removing individuals from consideration as he consolidated power. That's not necessarily a negative or wrong thing but it does seem an accurate description as he seems to have strong armed a number of people (eg- excommunicating Rigdon and threatening to excommunicate the SP and using the whittling brigade to intimidate and run non-brigham supporters out of town).

It's a fascinating period/event in church history that is super messy. Again, I don't see anything that was cut and dried about the succession crisis. It was a mess.

Exactly.  Bob makes it sound like all of the 12 simply returned and supported Brigham, they then just held a general meeting, voted and it was done.  It absolutely did not happen that way.

Many did not even know if the new president had to be one of the 12 (certainly the counselors didn't have to be at that point).  There was so much confusion and scrambling behind the scenes (Emma was meeting with Marks and also with Rigdon, Lucy was involved, Strang showed up with his letter, Ridgon was pleading his case and had supporters, and so on).  There have been claims that many mysteriously disappeared during that time who did not support Brigham Young.  Samuel suspiciously died.  It was a time of fear and chaos for many of the saints.  It caused huge divisions and many were never repaired.  So it most definitely was not "cut and dried" and it's laughable that he continues to claim that.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

I have read that Brigham Young's supporters were those men practicing polygamy in Nauvoo (the so called "inner circle" who Joseph had let into his confidence or called to live the principle).  

Emma hated polygamy and sided with those who felt the same and who wanted to take over the leadership (Marks, and others).   That is where the division took place, right?

Is it true that most of the men and families that followed BY out to Utah, were those practicing polygamy?

I don't know that all of the 12 supported BY, but would like to know that.

 

This was a huge part of it.  Many believe the separation between Emma and Brigham occurred because she wanted Joseph Smith III to be the new president and that's why she didn't follow him out to Utah.  But the truth is, the division was mainly over polygamy.  Those who hated polygamy or thought it was wrong were the ones who did not support BY and remained behind.  I don't remember the statistics, but the majority of the families who originally followed Brigham out west were indeed those living polygamy.

As to who the twelve were, I'll try to find a list.  I'm not so sure they were all BY supporters, but would need to check.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

There is a difference between a parable and a faith promoting story.

The parable of the good Samaritan, for example, doesn't promote faith in any one belief system. It teaches a universal truth about loving your neighbor. Its message is understood and powerful because it teaches you how to live - independent from your belief system.

I can't remember where I heard the following story, but its message can be applied to many situations, and doesn't need to be factual.

An elderly gentleman interviewed three men to be his chauffeur. He explained that his driver would need to be able to navigate the winding driveway from the bottom of the hill up to his home. Parts of the driveway were dangerously close to some steep drop-offs. During the interview he asked "How close to the edge of the cliff can you drive without going over?" The first candidate claimed a distance of 6 inches, and the second was confident that he could safely drive 3 inches from the edge. The third candidate replied "I stay as far away from the edge as possible."

Faith promoting stories typically involve some sort of claimed benefit that is a result of adherence to a particular belief system. The benefit is put forth as evidence that the belief system has value or is true. If it is learned that the benefit never really occurred, then the story has no real value as evidence for that particular belief system.

I can't disagree, that is indeed the some way people think, and I think you have defined it well.  But religious matters cannot be learned through empirical evidence because empirical evidence cannot be trusted, as this story shows.  One cannot put faith in empirical evidence for matters which are not empirical.

Science and religion have different subject matters.  If God himself could be seen and weighed, and have pictures taken, throw out a dividing of a sea or two, everyone would believe. Maybe a voice out of the thunder or two, or maybe a road across the Pacific to Japan with a few rest stops where you could watch the fish and stick your hand in the water to feed them, with no glass needed, would be fun.   

John 20

Quote

 

 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed arethey that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

Religion is about committing to a life-style dedicated to beliefs that give meaning to your life, not cheap parlor tricks.

Maybe we could have a "Freedom Meter" measuring the level of freedom in the world, and every time a soldier died you could see the meter tick in the freedom direction?  Or every time a cop pulled someone over for a ticket the Justice Meter did whatever it did to see if it was a just action or not?

Some things are just not empirically based.  But you make a good point, and yes, silly people think that way.

 

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

For clarity and so he doesn't misrepresent the family in a public fashion and respecting their concerns about it? I'm not saying there isn't reason that he should have clarified or corrected his error. I would have done similarly....but I then wouldn't expect hours of discussion to come from it afterwards. Not for something this small. That was more my point. That the amount of attention this story was getting from the board was not equal to the event itself. At least it just isn't to me. In my head this fits into a post that last 3-4 pages on one thread and naturally dies. Other events I can understand. Several I've even seen mentioned IRL. But this one, I just don't get. 

I can't help ya then.  There's plenty about this that is of interest, as has been discussed.  When the story was first heard many of us doubted--at least doubted to some extent.  It raised the question, is it a good idea to share stories as if true if they are not, for the sake of building faith?  Are embellishments ok?  The whole point that Elder Holland raised was how great it was that God intervened to make all the events happen that turned out not to be true.  How does God intervene then?  Why did so many feel so impressed with this story that it's been shared thousands of times since if the impression they felt, supposedly being the Holy Ghost, was based on untrue events?  If you think it's not a good idea to talk about the questions this whole fiasco brings on, then so be it.  I can't help ya.  But to me, there are plenty of implications to explore. 

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And without looking back, I assume he used it as an example of faith in a talk. As he tends to do with stories in general. It's a means to make abstract concepts have concrete examples in this day and time. As I mentioned the corrected details from both Katherine and Holland does not remove the "build fairth" effect of the story. But even if it was completely false, it wouldn't have much effect on "building faith." And considering the main audience was mission presidents, I hope their faith in general is of somewhat stronger caliber than based on one miracle story being told accurately. I feel that the description over-emphasizes its effect. 

Yes.  says Elder Holland:

Quote

The Holy Ghost prompted those parents to keep praying, to keep believing, to keep trusting. … The Holy Ghost inspired that rebellious boy to come to himself like the prodigal he was and to head for California. … The Holy Ghost influenced that younger son to serve a mission and be willing to accept a call to Southern California. … The Holy Ghost inspired one of my brethren in the Twelve, who was on the assignment desk that Friday, to trust his impression and assign that young man for service not a great distance from his native-born state. The Holy Ghost inspired that mission president to assign that young missionary to that district and that member unit. The Holy Ghost led those missionaries to that street, that day, that hour, with big brother sitting on the porch waiting, and, with Doberman Pinschers notwithstanding, the Holy Ghost prompted those to elders to stop, talk and in spite of their fear, to go back and present their message. …
 

But from his retraction:

Quote

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.

Meaning of the faith promoting events he initially shared only a couple remain.  Most we can throw out the window. 

Added to that, it'd been nice if he apologized and noted in his retraction that he should have been more careful with this story. 

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can't agree with that entirely because I've had the Spirit or influence of it at times witness to me when something was false very clearly....either by refusing to acknowledge a false witness or by the gift of discernment in my work. The first couple of times I really remembered this was on my mission while tracting and talking to people. I remember one example when I was in this rough neighborhood where we began talking to this man about how God loves all his children. The man agreed and began talking of his own little miracle story of being strapped for cash, praying for help, and then finding 20 dollars as he was walking. Immediately I felt that this wasn't of God nor an experience from Him. It was surprising to me, because there wasn't any real reason for this not to be from Him. Later that week, in the same neighborhood he walked out of a known heroine dealers house, avoiding eye contact with us at all costs though we were on the porch of an adjacent house. It made more sense.

I'm confused.  You are saying the Holy Ghost told you his story of finding 20 dollars was not true?  or that his finding the 20 dollars was not something that happened after he prayed?  I'm not sure false is the right attribution here.  But I can appreciate that these little stories, often told in Mormon Churches, bring on tons of skepticism.  Not sure that's the Holy Ghost.  It's rather convenient to say the skepticism is the Holy Ghost if we learn the events didn't happen afterwards, though. 

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Nowadays it's usually not as strong, but I'll have it happen at times with my work. Just this nagging sense that something important is missing or not being told in their story. Or that something isn't right. Later it'll come out and make more sense. The spirit and the adjacent gifts I've felt haven't been just a sweet and comfortable feeling from time to time. They have been things like I just mentioned, moments of warning, and moments of correction and redirection when needed, among other things. 

I think you've mentioned you are some sort of a therapist.  Just so we're clear, those feelings of skepticism you get is common to all people and all therapists.  If it is God inspiring our skepticism on a personal level then great.  But it becomes less inspiring if it works for us all. 

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But I don't think that it is as concerning about absolute accuracy. Which I think is different from truth. For example I believe the Creation is true and have had that confirmed several times over, but that it's several accounts are obviously not absolutely accurate.  

The creation is true?  yeah...the spirit mislead ya. 

That's ok.  I agree, the workings of the Spirit do not in any way lead to absolute knowledge in most cases, if any, and is hardly anything near foolproof (and we're all fools compared to God). 

 

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The crazier ones? Most I don't feel comfortable sharing in a public forum. And the second-hand ones would be extremely ironic considering the several people's criticism of third/second hand stories. But several I don't want to share because they're not mine to share, particularly for confidentiality reasons (heard them in my office), and in my boat because they're very personal and sacred. I  also certainly don't want to share sacred things to simply prove a point. Particularly the point you've mentioned. They can include extreme manifestations of gifts, like knowing events or perceiving things about people that aren't obvious. They've included visions and dreams that were more than dreams. They can include extremely specific blessings or patriarchal blessings. Etc.  But that's all the details I feel comfortable giving in this format and with the concerns I've mentioned.

 

With luv,

BD

Sounds like a good decision.  Would have been nice If Elder Clark and Holland had the same forethought.  Don't get me wrong, though, after the many tellings by these two, it's great to learn that it was not a true story. 

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  Bob makes it sound like all of the 12 simply returned and supported Brigham, they then just held a general meeting, voted and it was done.  It absolutely did not happen that way.

Many did not even know if the new president had to be one of the 12 (certainly the counselors didn't have to be at that point).  There was so much confusion and scrambling behind the scenes (Emma was meeting with Marks and also with Rigdon, Lucy was involved, Strang showed up with his letter, Ridgon was pleading his case and had supporters, and so on).  There have been claims that many mysteriously disappeared during that time who did not support Brigham Young.  Samuel suspiciously died.  It was a time of fear and chaos for many of the saints.  It caused huge divisions and many were never repaired.  So it most definitely was not "cut and dried" and it's laughable that he continues to claim that.

IIRC- George Q Cannon, who was a counselor to BY in the first presidency, recorded in his journal after BY's death, that he was surprised by the level of fear, caution, and angst among the other members of the 12 that came out after BY's death. Cannon didn't see it during BY's lifetime, and I can only guess that it was possible the other church leaders were afraid of BY on some level.