Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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). 

I had the elders over the other day and showed them the retraction, I also put it up on my FB so others can see it but I don't know if they saw it or what. I thought it was funny as I had heard that story the night before at a fireside!

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Some of the division could have also been about finances. The Smith's finances were tied very closely to the church's so when Joseph died Emma must have been very nervous about her financial prospects. It is my understanding that Emma did not trust BY to treat her fairly financially which could have played a role in her supporting others.

It doesn't seem the lessons about how financial ties between personal and church wealth create havoc for both families and the institution were learned very well after Joseph's death and resulting succession crisis. Similar turmoil around finances erupted after BY's death. What wealth was Brigham's and what wealth was the church's? The family and the church didn't necessarily agree.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I doubt that all 12 were in complete support of BY (as Bob portrays).  Even those who eventually voted for him most likely did not all support him immediately with all the confusion taking place.  Many had great loyalty to Emma and Joseph's family.  Wasn't William Smith a member of the 12 at the time Joseph died? I'm going from memory, but I believe he was.  He most definitely would not have supported BY at that time (also Lyman Wright and John E. Page most likely would not have been in BY's corner either).

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I had the elders over the other day and showed them the retraction, I also put it up on my FB so others can see it but I don't know if they saw it or what. I thought it was funny as I had heard that story the night before at a fireside!

That's the problem.  This story is on video and being shown at zone conferences to missionaries by the the mission presidents who heard the story in person.  It's being retold now in sacrament meetings and been "retold thousands of times" according to the article..  

I don't see why BlueDreams and others can't see the harm in that and why it's important to get the truth out there.  There's no harm in telling stories, but portraying them as the truth when they are not (and most especially as being told by one of our Apostles), is not a good thing.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

15 hours 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.

Your post has some great points, but I don't get your "what's the big deal" part or attitude.  Have you seen how this story has already spread?  It's not true and it's being portrayed as the truth.  That is wrong and it's good that Elder Holland came forward to correct it.  But it had already been retold thousands of times.

I would imagine if someone was telling a story about you that was not the truth, it would be a big deal to you.  I feel for this family and I honestly don't like how Elder Holland blamed one of them for embellishing it.  He could have posted the retraction with simply stating that there was a misunderstanding or that he'd gotten some of the details wrong and he wanted to correct that.. It would be nice to hear from Kim B. Clark as he was the one who knew the family and who originally started publicly telling the story (and most likely who Elder Holland heard it from).  

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Your post has some great points, but I don't get your "what's the big deal" part or attitude.  Have you seen how this story has already spread?  It's not true and it's being portrayed as the truth.  That is wrong and it's good that Elder Holland came forward to correct it.  

I would imagine if someone was telling a story about you that was not the truth, it would be a big deal to you.  I feel for this family and I honestly don't like how Elder Holland blamed one of them for embellishing it.  He could have posted the retraction with simply stating that there was a misunderstanding or that he'd gotten some of the details wrong and he wanted to correct that..  It would be nice to hear from Kim B. Clark as he was the one who knew the family and who originally started publicly telling the story (and most likely who Elder Holland heard it from).  

The whole point of Elder Holland blaming a family member is interesting.  The best I can think of is when they spoke with Elder Holland telling him the story was false, they told him that the details he told came from one of their family members.  The Desnews article on the retraction is interesting on this point:

Quote

This time, there is a twist that a participant in the story was involved in the embellishing or changing the story. That frankly makes it more difficult

The Church historian guy who was part of the retraction story knows, it seems, that the embellishment came from one of the family members that was a participant in the story itself (one fo the borthers, I'm guessing).  So it appears Elder Holland got some help to help check up on the retraction before it came out.  It might also kind of explain the delay between when Elder Holland was told the story was not true to his retraction--he got Church employee help to figure out what is true what is not, and where/how the errors came in. 

It's interesting that the story was told a couple of times by Elder Clark before Holland picked it up.  It was fairly passed around before Elder Holland heard it and forwarded it, it seems.

 

[Thinking]

I have a question for those who believe that the story didn't lose any of its "power" when the inaccurate parts were corrected.

The story was previously described one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time. Would Elder Holland still have chosen to tell the accurate version of this story at the Mission Presidents Seminar?

If he did choose to tell the accurate version, would it still have been called one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I have a question for those who believe that the story didn't lose any of its "power" when the inaccurate parts were corrected.

The story was previously described one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time. Would Elder Holland still have chosen to tell the accurate version of this story at the Mission Presidents Seminar?

If he did choose to tell the accurate version, would it still have been called one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time?

Without the "miraculous" elements of the story, it's hard to see how it would be considered one of the most incredible missionary stories of all time.

Even after the retraction I've reread the story and even heard it told, and each time it still tugs at my heart strings even though I know it's bogus. The feeling I have listening is similar (if not the same) as many other times I've felt the spirit. So either I've always misinterpreted the feelings I ascribed to the spirit or the spirit is testifying of something other than truthfulness of facts. I think both are possible.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I have a question for those who believe that the story didn't lose any of its "power" when the inaccurate parts were corrected.

The story was previously described one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time. Would Elder Holland still have chosen to tell the accurate version of this story at the Mission Presidents Seminar?

If he did choose to tell the accurate version, would it still have been called one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time?

Or that as Elder Holland stated, contained "the missionary speech of all time"?

Quote

Elder Holland said the young elder, without realizing it, gave the missionary speech of all time, when he said to his brother, “God has sent me here to invite you to come home.”

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Again, It still seems the dialogue surrounding it is bigger than the story itself. It got thousands of views, because it's the internet and that's what happens these days. Particularly if they're prominent figures or the story touches people in some fundamental way. It doesn't trigger these larger questions for me such as how God intervenes in one's life for me. That question already has several answers for me from several other sources and experiences. For me at least, it's not faith building it was closer to affirming. About as strong as a small-scale research paper is to a theory or study of a larger topic. Ie. marginally important at best. I also don't see how the corrections change the answer to how God intervenes. As mentioned and probably in the more detailed story as Katherine alluded, the HG was helping all along the way. The specifics changed, the main assertion doesn't for me.  I'm not saying to this to be flippant, and it's OK if you can't help me. I'm just pointing out that for me and in my faith journey and perspective the hoopla is not matching the actual events. As a TBM, it simply doesn't have a big effect in any way possible for me. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  says Elder Holland:

But from his retraction:

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. 

I guess? I don't necessarily see a need for an apology. It's a simple moment of human error not something that I see as super wrong. But then again, I'm  also the sort who think we tend to over-apologize for things we don't need to in general in our culture.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

The Holy Ghost refused to witness that his experience of finding money to a prayer was of God. I've heard several other stories and accounts of God in people's lives from mormon and non-mormon alike and I'd generally believe them if not feel the Spirit about it. Including more mundane experiences such as finding keys or finding just enough money for diapers on a tight month. I don't have a need to be skeptical about these. It was weird because it wouldn't normally trigger any form of skepticism from me. And I wouldn't even describe what I felt as skepticism. It was just a firm refusal to witness to it. There's a big difference for me.  

Quote

 

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. 

 

No they're not. I'm not fully explaining this because it would take time and it's something that I get the feeling you would probably not take on face value, but find other means to normalize it and make it fit a less spiritual construct. But I know it's not normal in part from the reactions I get from people and in part because I've had several people/therapists around me that don't easily see it. And it's also different from my BS meter and the ability can often ebb and flow depending on how I'm doing spiritually. It's not just skepticism. I read people like books IRL and it's more of an outlet from that. I don't say this to brag. I don't like talking about it. Some of it is based off of my childhood and personality. But a larger chunk is spiritually magnified.     

Quote

 

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

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

To be fair, I haven't hesitated in other venues. And what he shared to me isn't really out there to me. So In the venue given, I may have done the same thing without much hesitation.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 3, 2017 by BlueDreams

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, It still seems the dialogue surrounding it is bigger than the story itself. It got thousands of views, because it's the internet and that's what happens these days.

"Retold thousands of times" (quoted from the DN article), not "thousands of views" on the internet .  The video was taken back by the mission presidents and shown in zone conferences and has been told in sacrament meetings, reported on missionary blogs and so on..

And no, the dialogue surrounding the story is not "bigger than the story itself".  After all, it was portrayed as one of the "greatest missionary stories of all time" that contained (Elder Holland's word) "the missionary speech of all time".  You don't get much bigger than that 

I agree that the story still has value without the embellishments, but it would not have been described this way without them.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Your post has some great points, but I don't get your "what's the big deal" part or attitude.  Have you seen how this story has already spread?  It's not true and it's being portrayed as the truth.  That is wrong and it's good that Elder Holland came forward to correct it.  But it had already been retold thousands of times.

I would imagine if someone was telling a story about you that was not the truth, it would be a big deal to you.  I feel for this family and I honestly don't like how Elder Holland blamed one of them for embellishing it.  He could have posted the retraction with simply stating that there was a misunderstanding or that he'd gotten some of the details wrong and he wanted to correct that.. It would be nice to hear from Kim B. Clark as he was the one who knew the family and who originally started publicly telling the story (and most likely who Elder Holland heard it from).  

No, I haven't. That's the point. I usually get more people talking about some current event that's been discussed here IRL as well. And often with far less details than done on the message board and with what details mentioned already being telephoned out to wazoo. I haven't had one person even remotely mention this. These sort of stories are a dime a dozen. And most stories that are, get warped in the end. Sometimes to a point that's barely recognizeable. And often while still with the presumption of being true. As I mentioned, it just isn't that astounding to me, because it happens all the time and doesn't really say anything about us beyond that we're human.  I'm not saying that it's right. But I think the level of wrong is just not as dire or important.

And I would care more if it somehow put me in a really bad light. In a really good, flattering light I get embarrassed....but I get embarrassed by most compliments period. Since most of the other parts that you mentioned are extrapolations that we can't know without talking to the family, Holland, Clark, or the specific family members in question...i don't feel comfortable speculating as to why the retractions was presented in such a way. Or making assumptions about it, their feelings about it, or the communications they may have had between the parties involved. Let alone a judgment call. Particularly since it feels a little ironic in this context.

 

With luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, It still seems the dialogue surrounding it is bigger than the story itself. It got thousands of views, because it's the internet and that's what happens these days. Particularly if they're prominent figures or the story touches people in some fundamental way. It doesn't trigger these larger questions for me such as how God intervenes in one's life for me. That question already has several answers for me from several other sources and experiences.

Well, if you already have those answers then offer some help for those of us asking the questions?  it seems like you just want to bemoan that we're talking about these issues rather than wanting to help, at least in this case. 

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

For me at least, it's not faith building it was closer to affirming. About as strong as a small-scale research paper is to a theory or study of a larger topic. Ie. marginally important at best.

Dang Scott for sticking it in the paper.  He wasted his time, apparently. 

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I also don't see how the corrections change the answer to how God intervenes. As mentioned and probably in the more detailed story as Katherine alluded, the HG was helping all along the way. The specifics changed, the main assertion doesn't for me.  I'm not saying to this to be flippant, and it's OK if you can't help me. I'm just pointing out that for me and in my faith journey and perspective the hoopla is not matching the actual events. As a TBM, it simply doesn't have a big effect in any way possible for me. 

Ok then.  I'm glad I tricked you into commenting as much as you did, seeing as you have no interest. 

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I guess? I don't necessarily see a need for an apology. It's a simple moment of human error not something that I see as super wrong. But then again, I'm  also the sort who think we tend to over-apologize for things we don't need to in general in our culture.

Gotcha. I disagree.  I'm happily a strong believer in apologies and civility for that matter. 

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The Holy Ghost refused to witness that his experience of finding money to a prayer was of God. I've heard several other stories and accounts of God in people's lives from mormon and non-mormon alike and I'd generally believe them if not feel the Spirit about it. Including more mundane experiences such as finding keys or finding just enough money for diapers on a tight month. I don't have a need to be skeptical about these. It was weird because it wouldn't normally trigger any form of skepticism from me. And I wouldn't even describe what I felt as skepticism. It was just a firm refusal to witness to it. There's a big difference for me.  

I'm fine with how you feel here.  But you must realize there remains a ton of questions and things to talk about on this.  How do you know each story in which you've "felt the Spirit" has been true?  I'm not sure you do.  So, the skepticism you had about this 20 dollars, might be nothing from the Spirit.  Perhaps it really did happen as he said.  You just don't believe it because you are skeptical?  It's quite possible.  Drug users pray and feel inspired just like the rest of us. 

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No they're not. I'm not fully explaining this because it would take time and it's something that I get the feeling you would probably not take on face value, but find other means to normalize it and make it fit a less spiritual construct. But I know it's not normal in part from the reactions I get from people and in part because I've had several people/therapists around me that don't easily see it. And it's also different from my BS meter and the ability can often ebb and flow depending on how I'm doing spiritually. It's not just skepticism. I read people like books IRL and it's more of an outlet from that. I don't say this to brag. I don't like talking about it. Some of it is based off of my childhood and personality. But a larger chunk is spiritually magnified.    

So you say other's don't quite have the spiritual discernment quite like you?  That's quite an absolute statement saying, "no they're not".  I think they do, or at least potentially do.  Everyone goes off of whether a story is true based on their impressions as it's told, at least initially.  Some of us doubted Elder Holland's story, perhaps the spirit told us to.  Some told it and retold it, excitedly, thinking it was the height of spirituality.  As it is, this stuff simply isn't not foolproof.   

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

 

To be fair, I haven't hesitated in other venues. And what he shared to me isn't really out there to me. So In the venue given, I may have done the same thing without much hesitation.

 

With luv,

BD

I would have. 

[BlueDreams]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Retold thousands of times" (quoted from the DN article), not "thousands of views" on the internet .  The video was taken back by the mission presidents and shown in zone conferences and has been told in sacrament meetings, reported on missionary blogs and so on..

And no, the dialogue surrounding the story is not "bigger than the story itself".  After all, it was portrayed as one of the "greatest missionary stories of all time" that contained (Elder Holland's word) "the missionary speech of all time".  You don't get much bigger than that 

I agree that the story still has value without the embellishments, but it would not have been described this way without them.

That helps explain some of the hoopla towards it, thanks. I guess it is hard for me to see any meaningful impact, because those happen all the time and really don't have much impact on my faith to begin with....and never really have. If this became a part of a church ceremony, scripture, or something of actual spiritual weight it would make more sense. But as it is, meh. I can't tell you any of the stories that I heard in zone conferences of this nature. I can't tell you one from church that happened 2 weeks ago. It's staying power and influence is simply limited even if it were never retracted. 

And heaven knows that statement of "all time" was hyperbole. I so think the ones seen on the "other side of heaven" could give a solid run for its money  

With luv,

BD

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, I haven't. That's the point. I usually get more people talking about some current event that's been discussed here IRL as well. And often with far less details than done on the message board and with what details mentioned already being telephoned out to wazoo. 

The quote of it being "retold thousands of times" comes directly from the DN article.

But if you doubt it, click here and read some of the blogs (and there may be more) from missionaries who have seen the video at their zone conferences already shown to all in attendance (I don't care for the title here, but the links to blogs are interesting to read):

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/radio-free-mormon-016-make-way-dodos/

What is ironic is that you and others act like this is just "no big deal" that an Apostle was repeating a story that ends up being false (for the most part).  It's received a lot of attention and is being used as a true, faith promoting story.  But let me ask you if it would be a "big deal" to you if an enemy of the church was telling an embellished a story about....say....an Apostle or leader and it was damaging member's faith. You and others here would be all over that, making a huge deal about it, and asking it to be fact checked and then corrected.    What if the original person who told it really believed it was true (as Elder Holland did)? What if it was being "retold thousands of times" before you could get it corrected?  Would you be saying I don't understand what the "big deal" is?

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The quote of it being "retold thousands of times" comes directly from the DN article.

But if you doubt it, click here and read some of the blogs (and there may be more) from missionaries who have seen the video at their zone conferences already shown to all in attendance (I don't care for the title here, but the links to blogs are interesting to read):

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/radio-free-mormon-016-make-way-dodos/

What is ironic is that you and others act like this is just "no big deal" that an Apostle was repeating a story that ends up being false (for the most part).  It's received a lot of attention and is being used as a true, faith promoting story.  But let me ask you if it would be a "big deal" to you if an enemy of the church was telling an embellished a story about....say....an Apostle or leader it was damaging member's faith. You and others here would be all over that, making a huge deal about it, and asking it to be fact checked and then corrected.  What if it was being "retold thousands of times" before you could get it corrected?  What if the original person who told it really believed it was true (as Elder Holland did)?  Would you be saying I don't understand what the "big deal" is?

You know .... us v. them.  Support your team, denigrate the other team, even if it is illogical.

[Jeanne]

BlueDreams, I hope you don't mind that I ask you a question.  In one of your posts you mentioned feeling the spirit..a feel good thing..and yet times when you felt the spirit yet you knew when something was just not quite right.  Why would an apostle not have these feelings also? 

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, if you already have those answers then offer some help for those of us asking the questions?  it seems like you just want to bemoan that we're talking about these issues rather than wanting to help, at least in this case. 

Dang Scott for sticking it in the paper.  He wasted his time, apparently. 

Ok then.  I'm glad I tricked you into commenting as much as you did, seeing as you have no interest. 

Nah, scott was just doing his job: reporting on an event he was at. Not all news is monumental.

Not really a trick....moreso wanting to dull out before I go and dig into several clients and their weighty problems today . Besides I'm not interested in the event, I'm interested into why people are having such a strong reaction to what I had basically forgotten about in a week. 

Quote

Gotcha. I disagree.  I'm happily a strong believer in apologies and civility for that matter. 

Welcome to disagree. I hate excess apologies and find them annoying. But that is my personality more than anything else. 

Quote

I'm fine with how you feel here.  But you must realize there remains a ton of questions and things to talk about on this.  How do you know each story in which you've "felt the Spirit" has been true?  I'm not sure you do.  So, the skepticism you had about this 20 dollars, might be nothing from the Spirit.  Perhaps it really did happen as he said.  You just don't believe it because you are skeptical?  It's quite possible.  Drug users pray and feel inspired just like the rest of us. 

Which is a perfect example why I didn't want to talk about my other spiritual experiences....I didn't share because I don't need it randomly dissected by a stranger. And drug users can definitely be inspired by the spirit. Saw that as well several times. This experience wasn't one of them. You're skepticism is yours and you're welcome to it. 

 

Quote

So you say other's don't quite have the spiritual discernment quite like you?  That's quite an absolute statement saying, "no they're not".  I think they do, or at least potentially do.  Everyone goes off of whether a story is true based on their impressions as it's told, at least initially.  Some of us doubted Elder Holland's story, perhaps the spirit told us to.  Some told it and retold it, excitedly, thinking it was the height of spirituality.  As it is, this stuff simply isn't not foolproof.   

I would have. 

No, I've seen it before. Just had a discussion with someone where it's far more prominent just a week or so ago....but the people who describe what I'm talking about in the manner I experience it, just isn't that common. The statement is absolute because I can be naturally skeptical and have experienced skepticism This is different. I shared the story with a bro going on a mission because I thought it was cool. Not by any means because it was "the height of spirituality." Either way I never said the gift was foolproof or perfect. Nothing I do or have in my life is perfect, this isn't about to become an exception.  

 

With luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Nah, scott was just doing his job: reporting on an event he was at. Not all news is monumental.

Wasn't the whole idea of it being such an amazing missionary story an attempt to make it monumental?  You'er the only one I've seen who has poo poo'd this as something not noteworthy. 

 

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Not really a trick....moreso wanting to dull out before I go and dig into several clients and their weighty problems today . Besides I'm not interested in the event, I'm interested into why people are having such a strong reaction to what I had basically forgotten about in a week. 

Well, read the comments.  There are tons of ideas thrown out there.  Still, kinda funny you had so much to say about it (Your posts, I know, tend to be long anyway, but the amount of words you added to this thread is nothing to sniff at). 

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Welcome to disagree. I hate excess apologies and find them annoying. But that is my personality more than anything else. 

yeah.  in this case I wish he had apologized.  Instead he put all blame on others.  I guess he's like you. 

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Which is a perfect example why I didn't want to talk about my other spiritual experiences....I didn't share because I don't need it randomly dissected by a stranger. And drug users can definitely be inspired by the spirit. Saw that as well several times. This experience wasn't one of them. You're skepticism is yours and you're welcome to it. 

I'm fine if you don't want to share any experiences.  Really.  No big deal to me.  Just curious what you thought was even crazier then this made up story, particularly since this story was being dubbed one of the greatest of all time. 

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

No, I've seen it before. Just had a discussion with someone where it's far more prominent just a week or so ago....but the people who describe what I'm talking about in the manner I experience it, just isn't that common. The statement is absolute because I can be naturally skeptical and have experienced skepticism This is different. I shared the story with a bro going on a mission because I thought it was cool. Not by any means because it was "the height of spirituality." Either way I never said the gift was foolproof or perfect. Nothing I do or have in my life is perfect, this isn't about to become an exception.  

 

With luv,

BD

Ok.  not sure what you mean...but ok.  Take care.  Hope you have a good time getting on to far more important things then what we've been talking about. 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours 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.

Indeed.  It happened that way.   The Twelve returned.  They supported Brigham.  There was a vote.  

Is it the Twelve's fault that Sidney Rigdon wanted some short of protectorate?  

Edited August 3, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Indeed.  It happened that way.   The Twelve returned.  They supported Brigham.  

Did William Smith support Brigham Young? 

[stemelbow]

Here's what Holland should have said (or something like it) in his retraction:

Quote

Alright I was a little lazy and told a third hand story about a family that I wasn't sure was true, even though I presented it as true.  Sorry for the confusion I had caused.  I should not have said I had kept track fo the guy, because I hadn't.  That part too was misleading on my part.  The story is mostly made up.  I mean I heard it, obviously, since Elder Clark had told it before, and I added some language and details for funsies, which I shouldn't have done.  There is a family in Southern Idaho who had a son leave as a teenager though.  The family kept tabs on him.  He lived a raucous life, as I described.  He came home wanting to get out fo the mess he was in.  He had a younger brother who went on a mission.  Anyway, this guy got his life together and got back into Church.  So that's good.  The rest of the details are fabricated.  The family told me so.  I ask no one tell this story.  It isn't true.

That'd be nice.  No throwing some random family member under the bus (even if true, there really isn't a point to telling us that).  he apologizes for his part, which is all he can do.  Blaming others is never a good idea. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Is it the Twelve's fault that Sidney Rigdon wanted some short of protectorate?  

There were many more involved than just BY and Sidney Rigdon.  Another example of your extreme over simplification regarding this. 

I have to add that I'd had the impression you were pretty knowledgeable regarding church history.  But now I have my doubts.  You really do need to read up on this topic and then we can discuss it further if you'd like (maybe on another thread as this is becoming a derail of the OP topic).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

I have a question for those who believe that the story didn't lose any of its "power" when the inaccurate parts were corrected.

The story was previously described one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time. Would Elder Holland still have chosen to tell the accurate version of this story at the Mission Presidents Seminar?

If he did choose to tell the accurate version, would it still have been called one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time?

This is one point that has gotten garbled in the aftermath of this episode. Elder Holland did not characterize it as one of the greatest or most incredible or whatever "stories" of all time, nor did I quote him to that effect. What he was referring to was the message in the story, "I've been sent to invite you to come home." He was saying that is the greatest missionary message and that, in essence, it is the message that all missionaries carry when they bring the gospel to people. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did William Smith support Brigham Young? 

The Twelve as a Quorum supported Brigham Young.