Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[CV75]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865685840/Elder-Holland-withdraws-Church-News-missionary-story.html

Elder Holland withdraws Church News missionary story

A story of spiritual rescue that gained broad attention after it was shared with Mormon mission presidents last month is inaccurate and the LDS leader who presented it withdrew it on Monday.

With the story retracted, it is difficult to acknowledge and explore the accurate points that are still instructive and faith-promoting. But there are many good points, reminders and lessons learned that are brought up in the news report, mostly of a practical, ethical and information-gathering nature that with good judgement can compliment spiritual discernment.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

There are some TBM on this board that assume if you say anything about the church that they think is not favorable, they feel the need to go after you personally, rarely addressing the issues that you brought up.  Perhaps this story can be used to address this kind of behavior and make this board just a little more civil.  Leave the personal attacks outside the discussion.  Address what is being said.  Acknowledge that others have a different life experience than you do.  Just a thought.

Now I wonder if Scott is going to apologize for my skeptical post on this story.  Not holding my breath.

Thanks, I was hesitant to bring specifics from the old thread as well, but you bring out a really important point, and why we need to do a better job of owning up to our mistakes and also being respectful of those with differing opinions.  Putting things in such personal terms can be hurtful and is counterproductive for a thoughtful discussion.  

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

With the story retracted, it is difficult to acknowledge and explore the accurate points that are still instructive and faith-promoting. But there are many good points, reminders and lessons learned that are brought up in the news report, mostly of a practical, ethical and information-gathering nature that with good judgement can compliment spiritual discernment.

I think what took place here is what is a teaching moment (the repeated telling of an embellished story without checking the facts and then someone having the courage to correct that).  I agree that it's a lesson learned regarding being more careful before repeating a story.

The original story is not extremely unusual anymore without the embellished part of the younger brother finding his older brother miraculously (and that the older brother didn't even know he existed and so on...the vicious dogs part was a fun addition too).  Without that part, it's a sweet story of a son who went off track and then came back home and repented.  And after that, his younger brother served a mission.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[cacheman]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Assuming this Sister Missionary got the details correctly...I wonder if any other of the missionaries there that day reported it so as to compare.

https://stareshinagee.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/18-nov-2015-letter-to-his-mother-the-time-is-at-hand/

This appears to be another account of the Nov 2015 devotional.  In this account the missionary says that Kim Clark was giving a talk at that stake when he heard the story.  There was no mention of Clark being in the stake presidency or if it was a member of the biker's family that told him the story.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.  this one was a yarn.  And While I am glad that Elder Holland has done what very few inside institutional mormonism have done (admit a miracle story wasn't true).  almost all of our miracle stories in our faith tradition are problematic inspite of being told by official church sources over and over and never being retracted.

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

should we keep going.

These kinds of stories carry so little weight in relation to "the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ" and even "all other things which pertain to our [actual] religion [that] are only appendages to it," and in our own testimony concerning Jesus Christ."

[Five Solas]

Misunderstood this post

Edited August 1, 2017 by Five Solas
misunderstood this

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sarcasm aside, this is actually the most likely position for many members who've heard the story to take.  The facts of a story are irrelevant, people continue to believe stories told even after they find out that the story isn't true.  There are some interesting new studies about desirability bias, this is similar to confirmation bias.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/youre-not-going-to-change-your-mind.html

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/07/20/yanss-103-desirability-bias/

I dealt with this a lot when I was working with those caught up in the last real estate bubble.  They didn't want to hear that it would take 7 to 10 years for the market to recover, based on expert opinion at the time (which proved true).  Some stubbornly retrenched into their cherished real estate beliefs and didn't recover as quickly.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, cacheman said:

https://stareshinagee.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/18-nov-2015-letter-to-his-mother-the-time-is-at-hand/

This appears to be another account of the Nov 2015 devotional.  In this account the missionary says that Kim Clark was giving a talk at that stake when he heard the story.  There was no mention of Clark being in the stake presidency or if it was a member of the biker's family that told him the story.

Reading this is a good example of why these stories are not wise to tell unless they've been fact checked.

Here's what this missionary wrote regarding Kim Clark telling the story to the missionaries (emphasis added):

Quote

 

He told this amazing (true) story, of how the Lord knows each of us, and needs us all uniquely. The basic gist of it is:

“This guy was raised in a strong Mormon home, but rebelled and joined the Hell’s Angels for 20 years. One day he woke up in New York, and had no idea how he got there. So he drove back to California, to one of the houses that the Hells Angels own, to dry out. He was there on the porch one day, and saw some mormon missionaries walking down the road. He wasn’t worried that they would come to this house, because of the huge, trained to kill Dobermans chained next to the Gate, so he was mocking them quietly. At the end of the street, the Missionaries stopped, talked to each other, and came walking back towards the house. They stopped in front of the Gate, and the Dogs rushed at them at the ends of their chains, snapping and snarling. Then the dogs stopped barking, went back to their posts, and fell asleep. The Missionaries then entered, walked up to the Biker, and said “Hey! How you doin’?”

This caught the man off guard.

The one missionary asked him where he was from, and the guy answered “Pocahtello Idaho”

The missionary squinted at him, and asked “do you know the So-and-so’s?”

The man said “Yeah, they’re my parents.”

The Missionary said. “They’re my parents too.”

YEAH. That was a crazy moment in the MTC. I audibly gasped. Chills. Elder Clark knows this is a true story, because he told that talk in a stake in Idaho, and someone came up to him, and told him that the Biker guy was just sealed to his wife in the temple.

 

 

Also even stated in the DN article:

Quote

The church-owned Church News published the story, which spread through social media and other links and has now been read and retold thousands of times.

It will probably still be told and represented as being the truth by those who do not see the retraction.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think what took place here is what is a teaching moment (the repeated telling of an embellished story without checking the facts and then someone having the courage to correct that).  I agree that it's a lesson learned regarding being more careful before repeating a story.

The original story is not extremely unusual anymore without the embellished part of the younger brother finding his older brother miraculously (and that the older brother didn't even know he existed and so on...the vicious dogs part was a fun addition too).  Without that part, it's a sweet story of a son who went off track and then came back home and repented.  And after that, his younger brother served a mission.

I'm not one to glom on to "sweet stories' either, but we don't know enough details to authoritatively comment on the absence of any miracle(s) attendant to the man's rescue, not that I'm one to glom onto miracle stories either. I have "the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ" confirmed on my own, and of some "other things which pertain to our religion," to see these things keeping a far second place.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Misunderstood this post

Sorry i missed the unedited version, must have been rich! LOL

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.  this one was a yarn.  And While I am glad that Elder Holland has done what very few inside institutional mormonism have done (admit a miracle story wasn't true).  almost all of our miracle stories in our faith tradition are problematic inspite of being told by official church sources over and over and never being retracted.

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

should we keep going.
 

This sounds like a great standard.  From this day forward you will never, ever repeat any story, any sentence, any experience, absolutely nothing you heard from anyone else or any source UNLESS you personally have verified its truthfulness.  Let me know how many minutes pass before you break this vaunted standard you have created for others.

[Five Solas]

Just now, CV75 said:

Sorry i missed the unedited version, must have been rich! LOL

Let's just say I've resolved any ambiguity - in your favor.

:0)

--Erik

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not one to glom on to "sweet stories' either, but we don't know enough details to authoritatively comment on the absence of any miracle(s) attendant to the man's rescue, not that I'm one to glom onto miracle stories either.

Oh, I am sure these parents feel that there were miracles involved in bringing their older son back home.  It's a great story, but I doubt Elder Holland would have told it to inspire mission presidents without the miraculous missionary experience involving the younger brother.  As it turns out, the younger son didn't serve his mission until the older one was already home.  However, the local missionaries helped to reactivate him, so it did involve missionary work and it is a touching story.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I dealt with this a lot when I was working with those caught up in the last real estate bubble.  They didn't want to hear that it would take 7 to 10 years for the market to recover, based on expert opinion at the time (which proved true).  Some stubbornly retrenched into their cherished real estate beliefs and didn't recover as quickly.

I mention this a lot on these message boards, but its so important that we examine our thought processes and try to understand the inherent biases that are influencing us.  If we can become more aware of bias and how it influences our thinking, then we are more likely to make better decisions.    This goes for everyone across all groups and belief systems.  We need to better understand how our brains work.  

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This sounds like a great standard.  From this day forward you will never, ever repeat any story, any sentence, any experience, absolutely nothing you heard from anyone else or any source UNLESS you personally have verified its truthfulness. 

We should already be doing that.  I know that I try very hard not to repeat something until I'm sure it's the truth.  When we don't do that and we repeat a rumor or something we're not sure is true, that's called gossip.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We should already be doing that.  I know that I try very hard not to repeat something until I'm sure it's the truth.  When we don't do that and we repeat a rumor or something we're not sure is true, that's called gossip.

that's what I do as well. Anytime I share a quotation or a story in a talk in church, I always give the source-that way at least people can know the documentation and can look it up themselves

[Five Solas]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

...

As far as this story is concerned, I know there are those who want to attack Scott Lloyd over it. He was simply doing his job as an employee of an LDS owned newspaper in reporting the story told by the apostle. Don't forget that there was a disclaimer that said the newspaper is there to promote the LDS religion. It was not his responsibility to fact check the background story -- he was just supposed to report accurately what the apostle said. Please don't attack him for doing his job.

 poster removed 

[ALarson]

I also wonder why it took almost a month to correct this story.  Elder Holland states that he knew within a few days after he shared the story (this time) that it was not true.  

From the article:

Quote

 "Within a few days, my office was contacted by the family, who expressed concern that some elements of that account were not accurate due to embellishing by a family member."

 

And, has Scott Lloyd's original write up regarding the missionary training meeting been pulled from DN?  I can't find it now.

Here's the link to the original thread, but the links to Scott's original article only connect with this current one now:

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't know Calm, but I feel this comment is beneath you. Why attack DBMornon here?  

I agree everyone needs to be careful when repeating stories, but I wouldn't put DB in the same category as when Elder Holland speaks to church members.  Just my opinion.

I am not attacking DB, I am pointing out that no one follows that level of confirmation before passing on stories.

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Yes, Scott was just "following orders."  A journalist has no professional obligation beyond that & anyone who might think different is just plain wrong and unfair.  I think your tongue is rather firmly in your cheek, MiserereNobis.  I'll bet I'm not the only one who thinks that...

;0)

--Erik

No tongue in cheek. Scott works for the LDS News, whose entire purpose is to promote the LDS church. They say so in the disclaimer at the bottom of the article. I seriously doubt they have an investigative reporting wing to research apostles. And I also seriously doubt that his job description includes investigating what apostles say.

Comparing this situation to William Calley and the murder of Vietnamese is utterly ridiculous, by the way.

ETA: You might as well go full throttle and compare it to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Edited August 1, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also wonder why it took almost a month to correct this story.  Elder Holland states that he knew within a few days after he shared the story (this time) that it was not true.  

From the article:

 

And, has Scott Lloyd's original write up regarding the missionary training meeting been pulled from DN?  I can't find it now.

he and his staff probably had to investigate the story out, and then see what was true and what wasn't and the best way to move forward. What you don't want is to share a story then find out it's not all true and then retract it and then find out again that the person telling you that it wasn't true was lying and then you have this thing hanging out there so they probably took their time finding out what was true and what wasn't. Besides of which July is the GA's summer holidays, so he was probably fishing in the Pacific Northwest or sitting on a beach in Texas or something

[Tacenda]

http://holyfetch.com/category/talk-faves/ I guess the story will possibly join these other talks on holyfetch.com.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not attacking DB, I am pointing out that no one follows that level of confirmation before passing on stories.

"No one"?  I hope that's not true (and you did specifically mention DBMormon).  

This was not just simply "passing on stories", IMO and I agree that this should not become a thread about DBMormon involving attacking or questioning him (I'm not saying you did that per se, but it was a start down that road.)

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"No one"?  I hope that's not true (and you did specifically mention DBMormon).  

This was not just simply "passing on stories", IMO and I agree that this should not become a thread about DBMormon involving attacking or questioning him (I'm not saying you did that per se, but it was a start down that road.)

DB was the one who claimed we should live an impossible standard and I used an example to show how he currently wasn't.  I could probably do the same with any poster that has told a story or reported a claim here.  How can we absolutely ensure our sources are reporting what happened completely accurately?  How do we know they haven't left out a detail that seems trivial to them, but actually had significant impact?  Our sources may trust something has value without passing on the possibility it doesn't.

"are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it"

Even if we see or hear something recorded, humans never interpret or remember things the same way.  As soon as we start to say things in our own words, chances are things are not occurring as we described it in any absolute sense.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

"are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it"

I'm not sure who you're quoting (I don't remember stating that, so maybe your post was addressed to someone else?).  

ETA:

I just saw your additional comment and see you were quoting DBMormon:

Quote

 

DB was the one who claimed we should live an impossible standard and I used an example to show how he currently wasn't. 

"are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it"

 

Here's DB's entire statement (instead of just the partial that you quoted above):

 

Quote

Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.

I don't find that to be an "impossible standard" to live.   I think he's correct.

 

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if we see or hear something recorded, humans never interpret or remember things the same way.  As soon as we start to say things in our own words, chances are things are not occurring as we described it in any absolute sense

True, but that does not describe what took place here.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson