Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

You edited this after I responded.  

Looks like it was simultaneous or he beat you by a couple of minutes (can't tell for sure).

[pogi]

Does anybody know the reason why he waited a month?

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Looks like it was simultaneous or he beat you by a couple of minutes (can't tell for sure).

If he beat me, then his entire edited post would have been quoted. It could have been close to simultaneous though.

Edited August 3, 2017 by pogi

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does anybody know the reason why he waited a month?

maybe it took a while to investigate it? he was contacted by the family a few days after but maybe he was gone or I know July is the brethren's summer holidays, so maybe he was outta town?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

maybe it took a while to investigate it? he was contacted by the family a few days after but maybe he was gone or I know July is the brethren's summer holidays, so maybe he was outta town?

Those sound like perfectly good reasons.  I can think of quite s few other potentials too.

Does anybody who is using this fact as an unclear accusation against Elder Holland know why he waited a month?

[Thinking]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

You edited this after I responded.

Yes. I wanted to be sure that it was clear that I knew that Elder Holland didn't create the story.

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

The accusation was that the church is manipulative because this story was told.  How? 

There is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation. The LDS Church tries to use persuasion in its missionary and retention efforts (see D&C 121:40). If inaccurate information is used in that effort, that persuasion becomes manipulation.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Mormonism doesn't believe in the "supernatural" so our religious traditions will not be affected if that day ever comes.  We believe that all things can be explained by the natural laws that God uses.

Stictly speaking perhaps, but your average Mormon practices as if a higher power is moving chess pieces in miraculous ways in this world, and that is the essence of what I'm talking about.  

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Those sound like perfectly good reasons.  I can think of quite s few other potentials too.

Does anybody who is using this fact as an unclear accusation against Elder Holland know why he waited a month?

Nope. He didn't volunteer the information and the average member has no way to ask him so I'm guessing we'll never know.

[Bernard Gui]

Stories inevitably change as they are retold, even when retold by the person to whom they happened. It's human nature. Perhaps there is wisdom in just telling our own stories and only repeating other people's stories in their own words. That would not insure 100% accuracy, of course, but it would help. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

There is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation. The LDS Church tries to use persuasion in its missionary and retention efforts (see D&C 121:40). If inaccurate information is used in that effort, that persuasion becomes manipulation.

Unknowingly repeating false information is "manipulation"?  Really?  You are not being a tad unfair and unrealistic here?  Do you use that same standard of judgment with your friends, family, and those you look up to?  How do you trust anybody? 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nope. He didn't volunteer the information and the average member has no way to ask him so I'm guessing we'll never know.

That is exactly right, so it is unfair to judge him of any misdoing.  He is a busy man with a demanding calling, and he did the right thing, so don't you think it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt?  Perhaps there was some more pressing family, personal, or church related concern that he was dealing with at the time?  Who knows?  

I am unclear as to what people are suggesting that he may be guilty of here...procrastination?

[Thinking]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unknowingly repeating false information is "manipulation"?  Really?  You are not being a tad unfair and unrealistic here?  Do you use that same standard of judgment with your friends, family, and those you look up to?  How do you trust anybody?

You might change that to irresponsibly repeating false information.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is exactly right, so it is unfair to judge him of any misdoing.  He is a busy man with a demanding calling, and he did the right thing, so don't you think it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt?  Perhaps there was some more pressing family, personal, or church related concern that he was dealing with at the time?  Who knows?  

I am unclear as to what people are suggesting that he may be guilty of here...procrastination?

I learned long ago that when it is brought to your attention that you've made an error, the thing you must do before rushing a correction into print is get to the bottom of the error, find out what the straight story is. 

Depending on circumstances, this might take some time. But the thing you absolutely don't want to do is to make further errors in publishing the "correction". That only compounds the problem.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is exactly right, so it is unfair to judge him of any misdoing.  He is a busy man with a demanding calling, and he did the right thing, so don't you think it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt?  Perhaps there was some more pressing family, personal, or church related concern that he was dealing with at the time?  Who knows?  

I am unclear as to what people are suggesting that he may be guilty of here...procrastination?

Isn't that the same plea being made in the beginning when some were questioning the validity of the story? Some were so offended by those questioning the story that they accused skeptics of calling Holland a liar. Give him a break. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Don't question or challenge the story.

I haven't seen anyone accuse him of any nefarious reason for waiting almost a month to respond, but the bigger issue is the fact that we can't know because we can't ask.

If he knew of discrepancies within 3 days of sharing the story it is reasonable to wonder what took so long. Was he investigating the story? Maybe. Was he simply on vacation and unavailable? Maybe. Was he waiting and hoping for the story to blow over so it didn't have to be addressed? Maybe. It would be great to be able to ask him. But alas, there are no means for an average member to ask and receive an answer from one of the church's highest leaders.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I learned long ago that when it is brought to your attention that you've made an error, the thing you must do before rushing a correction into print is get to the bottom of the error, find out what the straight story is. 

Depending on circumstances, this might take some time. But the thing you absolutely don't want to do is to make further errors in publishing the "correction". That only compounds the problem.  

I think this is what happened.  In the Des news piece about the retraction, towards the end we learn something that Elder Holland did not say:

Quote

This particular experience has a twist that makes it even more difficult," Erekson said. "One of the most common recommendations is to go to the source of the stories, not just accept hearsay or second-party retellings. 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."

Elder Holland indicated it was a family member who embellished the story.  Here Ereckson is saying it was a direct participant.  My guess is Erekson was part of looking into the story to find out what was true and what was false, else how else would he know that it was a participant in the story that embellished? 

It might not be, but I'm guessing the delay was, at least in part, because Elder Holland sent out some fact finders to "get to the bottom of the error".

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I learned long ago that when it is brought to your attention that you've made an error, the thing you must do before rushing a correction into print is get to the bottom of the error, find out what the straight story is. 

Depending on circumstances, this might take some time. But the thing you absolutely don't want to do is to make further errors in publishing the "correction". That only compounds the problem.  

I totally agree with this. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think this is what happened.  In the Des news piece about the retraction, towards the end we learn something that Elder Holland did not say:

Elder Holland indicated it was a family member who embellished the story.  Here Ereckson is saying it was a direct participant.  My guess is Erekson was part of looking into the story to find out what was true and what was false, else how else would he know that it was a participant in the story that embellished? 

It might not be, but I'm guessing the delay was, at least in part, because Elder Holland sent out some fact finders to "get to the bottom of the error".

that's the thing, maybe it had nothing to do with Elder Holland but the participants, maybe they were on holiday or sick or who knows and trying to track down people could take time

[katherine the great]

On 8/1/2017 at 2:38 PM, ALarson said:

 I am anxious to hear more from Katherine (if she chooses to report back).

I'm reporting back to say that I have nothing to report at this time. Mom has a situation she is dealing with and there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss this.

[Nemesis]

wow 

Nemesis