Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one point that has gotten garbled in the aftermath of this episode. Elder Holland did not characterize it as 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. 

You didn't use that title (If I'm remembering correctly as the story is now gone), but others did.  Here's an example (Title, "Elder Holland Shares One Of The Most Incredible Missionary Stories Of All-Time"):

http://www.mormonlight.org/2017/06/30/elder-holland-shares-one-incredible-missionary-stories-time/

And, Elder Holland did state (according to you) that it 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.”

So, it's easy to see where this description started being used for this story.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[Bob Crockett]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).

 

Stop it.  This isn't about me or what I need to read. 

Of course I am oversimplifying things to make a point.  The only thing that mattered was the common consent of the Church.  That vote was taken and it was over.  Those who wanted to go with the 12 went with them; those with Sidney Rigdon, went with him.  The Salt Lake Church is the successor to that vote today. 

You and others, like Ehat, like to focus on the controversy and drama with succession.  But, Brigham Young had a mandate from the Church when he had the vote, so all of that is meaningless. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Twelve as a Quorum supported Brigham Young. 

You didn't answer the question.  The answer is "no, William Smith did not support BY" (and others did not as well).

Yes, it eventually came down to common consent.  But nothing was "cut and dried" or simple about what took place (as you continue to try to portray it) and that's why it is still referred to as the "succession crisis" by serious historians who would never claim what you are claiming.

But we need to take this to another thread to continue as I'm done derailing this one (and will no longer reply regarding it).  Maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss this topic.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Back to the topic at hand. Consiglieri put up a podcast on the subject where he goes in depth on the story and subsequent retraction: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/radio-free-mormon-016-make-way-dodos/

I just listened to this...my heck..this changes everything for me in many ways on my initials feelings.  There is no trust there..none.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one point that has gotten garbled in the aftermath of this episode. Elder Holland did not characterize it as 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. 

But will this change on how you vet your columns on talks in..conference or otherwise on General Authorities?  Have you learned anything from this experience?  I understand that you should be able to take things at word...and face value to your leaders in the church...but this affects you on a very spiritual and personal level doesn't it?  I admire your faith...have often wondered what that would be like..and I like you.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You didn't use that title (If I'm remembering correctly as the story is now gone), but others did.  Here's an example (Title, "Elder Holland Shares One Of The Most Incredible Missionary Stories Of All-Time"):

http://www.mormonlight.org/2017/06/30/elder-holland-shares-one-incredible-missionary-stories-time/

And, Elder Holland did state (according to you) that it contained the "missionary speech of all time": 

So, it's easy to see where this description started being used for this story.

I'm not accountable for what "others" did to the content after they picked it up from our website and ran it without permission. 

And Elder Holland's word "speech" was referring to what I said here, the general message that all missionaries carry -- or should carry -- namely, I have been sent to invite you to come home. That is clear from Elder Holland's talk as I reported it. 

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one point that has gotten garbled in the aftermath of this episode. Elder Holland did not characterize it as 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. 

But the title in your original story was "Elder Holland Shares Account of 'Missionary Speech of All Time' with New Mission Presidents"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c0fmN3qp8_AJ:https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-holland-shares-account-of-missionary-speech-of-all-time-with-new-misson-presidents%3Flang%3Deng+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Just reading the title could lead to that impression very easily.  Of course the context of the story gives a somewhat different impression. Just out of curiosity, do you write your own titles to stories like this, or would the editors typically write the titles?  

[Johnnie Cake]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not accountable for what "others" did to the content after they picked it up from our website and ran it without permission. 

And Elder Holland's word "speech" was referring to what I said here, the general message that all missionaries carry -- or should carry -- namely, I have been sent to invite you to come home. That is clear from Elder Holland's talk as I reported it. 

Question for Scott:  Will this experience cause you to do more due diligence the next time a LDS GA tells, what on the surface, is a seemingly improbable faith promoting story that you are reporting on?  Or will you continue to accept the story without fact checking the most basic of details and merely report it as given?  I guess what I'm asking is if this experience will cause you to change any of your reporting processes?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But will this change on how you vet your columns on talks in..conference or otherwise on General Authorities?  Have you learned anything from this experience?  I understand that you should be able to take things at word...and face value to your leaders in the church...but this affects you on a very spiritual and personal level doesn't it?  I admire your faith...have often wondered what that would be like..and I like you.  

I'm just listening to that podcast right now and its making me think about this as well.  It seems that the burden of responsibility for a professional news organization is that some level of vetting of stories before publishing should be expected, especially for stories with more fantastical claims like this one, which should raise the bar on the amount of vetting.  

I think its a fair question to ask, what responsibility does the DNews have for stories like this, and I think its clear in hindsight that mistakes were made.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But the title in your original story was "Elder Holland Shares Account of 'Missionary Speech of All Time' with New Mission Presidents"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c0fmN3qp8_AJ:https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-holland-shares-account-of-missionary-speech-of-all-time-with-new-misson-presidents%3Flang%3Deng+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Just reading the title could lead to that impression very easily.  Of course the context of the story gives a somewhat different impression. Just out of curiosity, do you write your own titles to stories like this, or would the editors typically write the titles?  

I didn't write this particular headline. I would have written a different one, though I could have intervened on this one and, in hindsight, should have. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just listening to that podcast right now and its making me think about this as well.  It seems that the burden of responsibility for a professional news organization is that some level of vetting of stories before publishing should be expected, especially for stories with more fantastical claims like this one, which should raise the bar on the amount of vetting.  

I think its a fair question to ask, what responsibility does the DNews have for stories like this, and I think its clear in hindsight that mistakes were made.  

Dnews isn't independent of the church and it is pretty up-front about that. Dnews is the church in some respects. So, it seems that fact-checking ones boss, without prior permission or assignment, would be tough to demand. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't write this particular headline. I would have written a different one, though I could have intervened on this one and, in hindsight, should have. 

Thanks, thats good to know and a fair acknowledgment from you.  I appreciate the way you're handling what could be an embarrassing situation with humility, you're earning some points with me.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Dnews isn't independent of the church and it is pretty up-front about that. Dnews is the church in some respects. So, it seems that fact-checking ones boss, without prior permission or assignment, would be tough to demand. 

Its an interesting question, and I'm wondering if journalistic ethics is one of the core values of the Dnews.  I would think it would have to be because of how they present themselves as a news organization, but I couldn't find any explicit language about it on the web site.  I found this article about their new advisory editorial board created in 2010, and it doesn't really talk about this topic specifically.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059575/Deseret-News-introduces-Editorial-Advisory-Board.html

Quote

But to understand the purpose of our Editorial Advisory Board, you must also understand the direction of the newspaper itself. At the Deseret News our heritage grows out of our values. As a Deseret Media company, we share a mission to become trusted voices of light and knowledge by embracing values that include:

Aligning our organization to honor the principles espoused by our ownership

Pursuing excellence through innovation and quality

Championing virtues, including integrity, civility, morality and respect for all people

Improving lives through lifting, inspiring and helping others find happiness

At the Deseret News, we should be comfortable with and directed by these values. They are values shared by our readership, our leadership team and our ownership. They also help us connect to good people from diverse cultural, religious and geographic backgrounds. From these values will emerge a series of key topics and issues that we will emphasize. Today we introduce six areas of focus:

• The Family

• Financial Responsibility

• Excellence in Education

• Care for the Needy

• Values in the Media

• Faith in the Community

Maybe Scott or someone can enlighten us if the Deseret News tries to follow industry accepted standards for journalism with respect to a code of ethics.  I'm really curious now as I'm not 100% sure.  

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

 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not accountable for what "others" did to the content after they picked it up from our website and ran it without permission. 

I get that.  I was just stating why it evolved into people using that title (and I especially see why now that I see posted what your article's title was....not blaming you though, of course).

[Pete Ahlstrom]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its an interesting question, and I'm wondering if journalistic ethics is one of the core values of the Dnews.  I would think it would have to be because of how they present themselves as a news organization, but I couldn't find any explicit language about it on the web site.  I found this article about their new advisory editorial board created in 2010, and it doesn't really talk about this topic specifically.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059575/Deseret-News-introduces-Editorial-Advisory-Board.html

Maybe Scott or someone can enlighten us if the Deseret News tries to follow industry accepted standards for journalism with respect to a code of ethics.  I'm really curious now as I'm not 100% sure.  

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

 

I'd be interested too.  But when it comes to the church, the Dnews is not an independent news organization, just like ABC isn't independent of Disney.  I think people know and expect church fluff from the Dnews because of who owns it.  Nevertheless, I'd like to hear Scott's take on this issue, if he is at liberty to discuss it.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I'd be interested too.  But when it comes to the church, the Dnews is not an independent news organization, just like ABC isn't independent of Disney.  I think people know and expect church fluff from the Dnews because of who owns it.  Nevertheless, I'd like to hear Scott's take on this issue, if he is at liberty to discuss it.

Agreed that we should take into account how the ownership can influence things.  The impression I got from the creation of this diverse advisory editorial board is that they would be bringing greater diversity of thought and an appearance of greater independence from the owning institution when it comes to content.  

I think that was the PR spin around the advisory editorial board.  If that is all window dressing and no substance, it would be good to know as a consumer of media as I personally try to think critically about the media that I consume.  

[Thinking]

4 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?

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one point that has gotten garbled in the aftermath of this episode. Elder Holland did not characterize it as 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. 

As you can see from my post, I did not claim that Elder Holland described it as such. I searched for the original text of the story, and multiple sites described it as one of the most incredible missionary stories of all-time.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour 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 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?

I'm not doubting that it's been told thousands of times. I'm doubting the inferred depth of said impact. Or just how problematic it is. I'm trying to understand why this is so important. THe analogy does help. So thanks. Personally I think it would be more of a parallel if it was a person using another's story of leaving the church and finding a life that left them at peace and so much happier (a common narrative theme in leaving stories) through somewhat extraordinary means. For ex-believers it can be affirming. For me I, may have a bit of skepticism but say, "okay...you do you"...it would have no real effect on my own religious journey. If I found out that said story had several major holes in it, it also wouldn't have a damaging effect one way or another for me that I could easily see. It would also likely have little effect on those who have stated they feel better outside the church. I'm struggling because I'm missing the inherent damage people are inferring to. It feels mismatched with the event at hand.

 

With luv,

BD

[Pete Ahlstrom]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed that we should take into account how the ownership can influence things.  The impression I got from the creation of this diverse advisory editorial board is that they would be bringing greater diversity of thought and an appearance of greater independence from the owning institution when it comes to content.  

I think that was the PR spin around the advisory editorial board.  If that is all window dressing and no substance, it would be good to know as a consumer of media as I personally try to think critically about the media that I consume.  

P.R. is why big conglomerates buy newspapers that lose money.  As far as the church is concerned, the Dnews has always been an arm of the church p.r. machine.  There is no problem with this but people should know.  It may shuffle people around in an effort to appear neutral and while it leans right, it does try to be neutral in my opinion, on stories unrelated to the church.  Nevertheless, I am happy Romney isn't running any more or the Olympics are coming to SLC because I had grown tired of the "outsider is impressed by SLC on his/her visit" stories or "and they like us" stories that seemed to be pushed all too often during those times.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not doubting that it's been told thousands of times. I'm doubting the inferred depth of said impact. Or just how problematic it is. I'm trying to understand why this is so important. THe analogy does help. So thanks. Personally I think it would be more of a parallel if it was a person using another's story of leaving the church and finding a life that left them at peace and so much happier (a common narrative theme in leaving stories) through somewhat extraordinary means. For ex-believers it can be affirming. For me I, may have a bit of skepticism but say, "okay...you do you"...it would have no real effect on my own religious journey. If I found out that said story had several major holes in it, it also wouldn't have a damaging effect one way or another for me that I could easily see. It would also likely have little effect on those who have stated they feel better outside the church. I'm struggling because I'm missing the inherent damage people are inferring to. It feels mismatched with the event at hand.

 

With luv,

BD

You don't see the parallel to other "faith" promoting stories and the doubt it can cause now that this story was retracted?  Maybe other stories aren't as fantastical as once believed?  Where do you draw the line?  I'm sure you would say your foundation isn't shaken even though the foundation stories are implausible to the outsider, but how do you privilege those stories while believing that this is simply a little folly in zion?

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

P.R. is why big conglomerates buy newspapers that lose money.  As far as the church is concerned, the Dnews has always been an arm of the church p.r. machine.  There is no problem with this but people should know.  It may shuffle people around in an effort to appear neutral and while it leans right, it does try to be neutral in my opinion, on stories unrelated to the church.  Nevertheless, I am happy Romney isn't running any more or the Olympics are coming to SLC because I had grown tired of the "outsider is impressed by SLC on his/her visit" stories or "and they like us" stories that seemed to be pushed all too often during those times.

If this is true, that the DNews is essentially just for PR for the church, I can't imagine any church leader or any DNews employee admitting that.  What you say may have some truth to it.  If this is essentially true, it seems like the DNews should have very little credibility as an objective news organization.  I'm sure they would like to be publicly thought of as at least somewhat objective. 

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not doubting that it's been told thousands of times. I'm doubting the inferred depth of said impact. Or just how problematic it is. I'm trying to understand why this is so important. THe analogy does help. So thanks. Personally I think it would be more of a parallel if it was a person using another's story of leaving the church and finding a life that left them at peace and so much happier (a common narrative theme in leaving stories) through somewhat extraordinary means. For ex-believers it can be affirming. For me I, may have a bit of skepticism but say, "okay...you do you"...it would have no real effect on my own religious journey. If I found out that said story had several major holes in it, it also wouldn't have a damaging effect one way or another for me that I could easily see. It would also likely have little effect on those who have stated they feel better outside the church. I'm struggling because I'm missing the inherent damage people are inferring to. It feels mismatched with the event at hand.

 

With luv,

BD

I think it raises many questions about how the spirit touches people. A few questions one might ask that have huge implications on faith and the epistemology of religious knowledge:

1- Why did I feel the spirit testifying of the truthfulness of the story when the story wasn't true?

   1a- If I misinterpreted the spirit in this case, are there other instances where I also misinterpreted the spirit?

   1b- If the role of the spirit is to testify of the truthfulness of all things, why were so many members, including leaders (Apostle, 70, mission presidents) fooled into thinking it was a miraculous event?

2- Why did an Apostle and a 70 not recognize through the spirit of discernment that the story wasn't true before spreading it to others?

   2a- Is the power of discernment spotty or can we rely upon it to inform us?

   2b- If church leaders could be so verifiably wrong about this, what else could they be wrong about

   2c- How do I trust the claims of church leaders?

3- How can I trust the word of others, even when there are 2 or 3 witnesses?

   3a- Are there other elements of my faith that rely upon witnesses who could also be wrong?

4- If an apostle misjudged the miraculous nature of this story, is it possible apostles have also misjudged other stories by claiming miraculous events that were really just embellished stories?

   4a- how does that apply to the early truth claims of the church (first vision, angels, moronic, boM etc)

   4b- how does that apply to miracles found in the Old and New Testament, including the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus?

Etc. Etc.

This failure opens the can of worms of many, many questions. So someone might say, "Elder Holland is just a man and can make mistakes just like everyone else." True. But then the next logical question is...

5- How do I know when I can trust him or the other apostles to speak truth?

 

It gets messy very quickly.

Edited August 3, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If this is true, that the DNews is essentially just for PR for the church, I can't imagine any church leader or any DNews employee admitting that.  What you say may have some truth to it.  If this is essentially true, it seems like the DNews should have very little credibility as an objective news organization.  I'm sure they would like to be publicly thought of as at least somewhat objective. 

All I am saying is that in my opinion, the church, the owner, gets privileges from ownership.  I think the Dnews tries to be objective in other areas.  UofU fans may protest to how it coddles BYU but we love Satake and so, cheering for the church school is understandable, I guess.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You don't see the parallel to other "faith" promoting stories and the doubt it can cause now that this story was retracted?  Maybe other stories aren't as fantastical as once believed?  Where do you draw the line?  I'm sure you would say your foundation isn't shaken even though the foundation stories are implausible to the outsider, but how do you privilege those stories while believing that this is simply a little folly in zion?

In order of questions: No. Possibly at times.  For one example: If it actually is harmful or damaging to someone's reputation or standing in the community.

As far  as you're last statement and question: I guess this would hit a solid line of what I find interesting or curious about this situation. You're right, I would say it has absolutely no effect on my foundation of faith. The underlying assumption about what builds my faith in the first place. As well as how potent doubt is in my life and experience. Faith, in some of these discussions, is portrayed as so fragile and fate-oriented. As opposed to robust and individual-driven. Likewise doubt seems like this powerful blackhole that once past the event horizon simply cannot be escaped. I Just don't experience either construct like this. I don't know the answer to your last question. I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're asking. But when it comes to faith I privilege my own experiences and what I immediately see and have felt testified in one way or another. I think that's what you're looking for???

 

With luv,

BD  

Edited August 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it raises many questions about how the spirit touches people. A few questions one might ask that have huge implications on faith and the epistemology of religious knowledge:

1- Why did I feel the spirit testifying of the truthfulness of the story when the story wasn't true?

   1a- If I misinterpreted the spirit in this case, are there other instances where I also misinterpreted the spirit?

   1b- If the role of the spirit is to testify of the truthfulness of all things, why were so many members, including leaders (Apostle, 70, mission presidents) fooled into thinking it was a miraculous event?

2- Why did an Apostle and a 70 not recognize through the spirit of discernment that the story wasn't true before spreading it to others?

   2a- Is the power of discernment spotty or can we rely upon it to inform us?

   2b- If church leaders could be so verifiably wrong about this, what else could they be wrong about

   2c- How do I trust the claims of church leaders?

3- How can I trust the word of others, even when there are 2 or 3 witnesses?

   3a- Are there other elements of my faith that rely upon witnesses who could also be wrong?

4- If an apostle misjudged the miraculous nature of this story, is it possible apostles have also misjudged other stories by claiming miraculous events that were really just embellished stories?

   4a- how does that apply to the early truth claims of the church (first vision, angels, moronic, boM etc)

   4b- how does that apply to miracles found in the Old and New Testament, including the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus?

Etc. Etc.

This failure opens the can of worms of many, many questions. So someone might say, "Elder Holland is just a man and can make mistakes just like everyone else." True. But then the next logical question is...

5- How do I know when I can trust him or the other apostles to speak truth?

 

It gets messy very quickly.

THanks for the clear and concise answer. I think this has probably been the most helpful to understanding where other's are coming from. It's still definitely not my experience for things I mentioned to Pete. I don't see the need to jump from one misspoken story to all the other caveats and larger implications that leads to questioning everything else. I find that too over-generalizing and a form of magnification that spirals needlessly out of control. But it helps me see where others are coming from and that's really what I wanted.

 

With luv,

BD