Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[katherine the great]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

In one of the versions, tattoos were mentioned (that he had them).  

I think the part in question is whether or not the older brother returned home because of the miraculous intervention of the younger son (by finding him while on his mission).  

Yeah. I don't remember hearing that connection from my mom  but something about the younger brother who he didn't even know existed and him serving a mission in the area the older brother had lived in Cali.  Whether or not those two things happened contemporaneously I don't know. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  Re-conversion stories are a dime a dozen.  I mean great for this guy and his family.  I'm sure it was the best thing for them.  But it has happened to death.  What hadn't happened was the missionary by happenstance running into his down and out brother, while on his mission; thus starting him on his journey home and into the Church.  You know the story about the dogs wanting to kill the missionaries and yet being calmed by their sweet spirits and all that?  That was the stuff being challenged, which has turned out to be not true at all. 

Correct.  The story may never have been repeated without the embellished, untrue parts (or described as one of the most incredible missionary stories of all time).

[ALarson]

Just now, katherine the great said:

Yeah. I don't remember hearing that connection from my mom  but something about the younger brother who he didn't even know existed and him serving a mission in the area the older brother had lived in Cali.  Whether or not those two things happened contemporaneously I don't know. 

Well, it gets confusing.  Maybe the older brother had no idea he had a younger brother until he returned home.  I'm sure the parents feel it was a miracle to have him return.

[katherine the great]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you know if there is any truth to his dogs laying down to allow missionaries to approach?

 She may have mentioned that but I'll talk to her in the next couple of days and I'll ask. 

[katherine the great]

That seems a bit dismissive. To me the greatest part is his return to health and turning away from addiction. Those of us who have loved ones who have struggled with addiction and unclean living are inspired by "dime a dozen" stories because it gives us hope. 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'd agree with that if it was a single standard for all. But even DB relies heavily on what he has heard.

Not to mention that even historical scholarship would die. That is pretty much what they have to work with and limited means to verify.  

I don't believe the standards should be the same for everyone personally.  

Historical scholarship has disciplined standards for corroborating information and determining the credibility of evidence and the likelihood of certain perspectives to be more accurate.  Reliable media institutions have standards for vetting contemporary evidence as well.  There will always be room for some ambiguity, but holding institutions and people in leadership and influential positions to higher standards makes sense to me.  

The standards for having a casual conversation at home with family and friends are not the same standards as a leader of a large institution speaking publicly to a large group of people.  

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

That seems a bit dismissive. To me the greatest part is his return to health and turning away from addiction. Those of us who have loved ones who have struggled with addiction and unclean living are inspired by "dime a dozen" stories because it gives us hope. 

That's great.  But it's not exactly unique, is all I'm saying.  The story as told by elder Holland and Clark would be unique-a great exciting story that many thought to be unbelievable.   Elder holland hasn't told the stories of the people I know who have fought through addiction.  

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I could argue that the reasons for a retraction like this are largely influenced by the wider culture including critics who play an important role in balancing our public discourse and creating an environment where institutions and individuals feel compelled to be more responsible with accuracy. 

Nothing happens in a bubble, and the very high bar for publishing material that you hope continues, would not be on anyone's radar.  If people weren't critiquing the messages sent by institutions, they would never feel compelled to correct the misinformation.  

Hence, why the United States has traditionally sought a free press. 

The Church has a long history with negative reactions towards criticisms or alternative "facts" starting with Joseph's destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. I believe Joseph probably would not have been killed if he just took it on the chin and allowed the negative press, but Joseph seemed to have difficulty separating church and state. The GAs are still very sensitive about criticism and opposing views. But, ultimately one can only be with Christ or against Him. Critics and anti-Christs will eventually show their true colors.
I believe the Church has been forced into this new stance by the advent of the information age, and the realization that the perfect white-washed portrayals were no longer making the grade. So it has been a process. Do I really believe the original apostles would say it is wrong to criticize us? No, that seems to be something peculiar to the modern "image" age. I am not saying the Church has reached where it needs to be, but ultimately, in the end, it will change, and these steps are encouraging.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/1/2017 at 0:58 PM, hope_for_things said:

I have an easy answer.  Because what people experience as the spirit, is not an objective method of confirming facts, rather its an emotional response or experience that is independent of history, facts, and empirical data.  

That happens to be too easy of an answer, based on an overly narrow definition of the experience of the spirit that happens to be independent of a number of important facts, historical accounts, and relevant data.  See this for example, page 19 of this of essay mine:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

And of course there is the additional issue of "objectivity," as even approximable, let alone at all achievable as explained at length by Peter Novick in "That Noble Dream" and elsewhere.  And Ian Barbour, which I've often quoted:

Quote

There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories … The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his inquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation.

In N. R Hanson’s oft quoted words, ‘All Data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting measurement and interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend in implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited … But, says Feyerband, when the background theory itself is an issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial.

Overall, as I read through this thread, I am personally reminded of why I like the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  It's interesting to compare the various perspectives offered with the 9 different positions of the Perry Scheme.  For instance, this on the transition from Position 5 to 6.

Quote

This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

And at Position 6 (of 9):

Quote

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

 

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

 

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

 

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

And of course, D&C 1, which spells out "the authority of my servants" with blunt clarity that most people tend to overlook.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
double "of" fixed

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe the standards should be the same for everyone personally.  

Historical scholarship has disciplined standards for corroborating information and determining the credibility of evidence and the likelihood of certain perspectives to be more accurate.  Reliable media institutions have standards for vetting contemporary evidence as well.  There will always be room for some ambiguity, but holding institutions and people in leadership and influential positions to higher standards makes sense to me.  

The standards for having a casual conversation at home with family and friends are not the same standards as a leader of a large institution speaking publicly to a large group of people.  

But now you are moving the goal posts. The statement under discussion made no such distinctions, yet Calm was criticized for responding to what was really said.

Quote

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. 

 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hence, why the United States has traditionally sought a free press. 

The Church has a long history with negative reactions towards criticisms or alternative "facts" starting with Joseph's destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. I believe Joseph probably would not have been killed if he just took it on the chin and allowed the negative press, but Joseph seemed to have difficulty separating church and state. The GAs are still very sensitive about criticism and opposing views. But, ultimately one can only be with Christ or against Him. Critics and anti-Christs will eventually show their true colors.
I believe the Church has been forced into this new stance by the advent of the information age, and the realization that the perfect white-washed portrayals were no longer making the grade. So it has been a process. Do I really believe the original apostles would say it is wrong to criticize us? No, that seems to be something peculiar to the modern "image" age. I am not saying the Church has reached where it needs to be, but ultimately, in the end, it will change, and these steps are encouraging.

One could make an argument that practicing polygamy, denying it in public and then destroying the property of those who exposed these facts is going against Christ.  Many horrible things have been done throughout history using the defense that God ultimately is on the side of the perpetrators.  

Thanks to the information age, people are being held more accountable, more transparency is good isn't it?  You seem somewhat conflicted on that matter.  I agree that the current trajectory is encouraging, but I think that the church has been dragging its feet on this societal change, not leading the way.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

But now you are moving the goal posts. The statement under discussion made no such distinctions, yet Calm was criticized for responding to what was really said.

 

I'm giving my opinion about the subject and how I think people and institutions have different expectations for responsibly using information, not moving the goal posts about what Bill meant with his statement.  I'm not that interested in arguing whether Bill's statement should be applied universally or not, I think people are nit picking.  

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

But now you are moving the goal posts. The statement under discussion made no such distinctions, yet Calm was criticized for responding to what was really said.

 

I think the original issue was that Calm did not post DBMormon's entire quote and then made it personal (I don't see it as an actual "personal attack", though):

He posted:

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.  

And Calm responded:

Quote

 

"never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

How do you know something is the truth unless you have seen or heard it occur yourself and even then why should you be so certain you got it right?  Do we have any reason to doubt that Elder Holland and Clark were sure it was the truth, but that apparently didn't work out for them because the person who had firsthand knowledge embellished the story.

People screw up understanding what is going on around them all the time.  Evidence...the sister missionary likely misunderstanding Clarke was in a stake Presidency, confusing that with something else said.

No one here has personally confirmed that this story is false any more than they were able to personally confirm it was true.  The closest is katherinethegreat and her mom who knows the family, assuming Katherine is actually what she claims to be and not pulling a long con on the board for moments like this.  

We are relying on others who have allegedly talked to those involved.  But perhaps the entire family has gone apostate and is trying to destroy faith with the story or before they were zealots now are not and made up the whole thing including the miraculous meeting and now are trying to retract it a bit so they don't seem so out there.

I am not suggesting any of these scenarios are probable.  I am just pointing out a standard of absolute personal confirmation before sharing information (story or anything else) with the vast majority of things we 'know' about others is impossible.  We can't know a reporter has fact checked stuff they claim to have fact checked.  We can't know that researchers didn't fudge their stats.  We can't know that photographers haven't faked their shots.  In both these cases it helps if multiples report the same thing because it is unlikely there is a conspiracy, but there have been conspiracies in the past (think of war reporting in certain countries), so by the absolute standard demanded by DB and apparently approved by others, the reasonable approach is to trust nothing unless one sees or hears it for oneself and has a recording in order to check one's memory is semi accurate since there is no such thing as a perfect memory.

We must trust at some point.  Where we choose to trust will likely depend on how levels of trust have helped or hurt us in the past.  But as soon as one starts throwing around a standard of always "absolute" surety, one has entered the realm of impossibility.  There might be a few times we approach absolute certainty in our personal lives, the less we are involved the more we must rely on others and then it can only be reasonable certainty.

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

That seems a bit dismissive. To me the greatest part is his return to health and turning away from addiction. Those of us who have loved ones who have struggled with addiction and unclean living are inspired by "dime a dozen" stories because it gives us hope. 

I said great.  And I'm happy for the family.  that's not dismissive.  But, Holland did ask we not share the story further. 

Quote

I am withdrawing the story completely and request that it not be shared further.

I have to admit in reading his recanting of the story I'm surprised he seems to put all the blame on others.  I'd be embarrassed if I were him, I'd think, that I'd want to clarify my own failing part in it--sharing an unbelievable sounding story without really knowing if there was truth to it.  I'd be curious to know how many stories shared in the past 20 years by LDS apostles and other GAs where embellishment or fabrication was in play.  I mean no offense to them, nor to Elder Holland in this case.  Stories are stories and they almost always get exaggerated, often to the point of making them something quite different than reality like in this case.  But it makes one wonder if the big offense by Paul H Dunn was not so much the making up stories, as that he was caught, and that he seemed to always come out hero in them (which might be why and how he was caught).

There's a nice enough fellow in my ward who is story teller.  He always comes out the hero in them--or almost always.  Each week in either EQ or SS he seems to share a story.  I'm not saying he's making them up, but I will say I'm a bit skeptical at most of them.  It's odd he feels he has so much to share and so much experience (I believe he's younger than me). 

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Seriously?  Well let's get Paul H Dunn back and let's ramp up the story telling.  That's what the people want.

 

15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If a story contains a lot of errors, it is not faith promoting. The problem that skeptics have is that yes sometimes they are right but there are times they are wrong.  Not believing in false stories is not a problem but not believing in true ones can be a problem if such lack of faith might lead down the road to damnation.

 

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

Nothing unless they are represented as the truth. Then that's being dishonest.  That's the problem with Dunn's stories. They were faith promoting, but not the truth, and he told them as if they'd truly happened in his life.

 

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

Really?

Maybe future stories should have one of the following qualifiers attached.

• True Story
• Based on a True Story
• Inspired by a True Story
• Story

 

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The point is truth. "Disneyfing" a story distorts the truth. Isn't the truth what we are after? (back off, Mark  ) You are the most fundamental Mormon I know -- I don't mean that pejoratively -- so I'm interested why you dismiss truth so.

Are faith-promoting stories scripture? Like I said in an earlier post, the Catholic Church has a method to determine if a story/experience has cause for us to believe it.

I'm not sure how to understand this statement, since faith is supposed to be in things that are true, but not seen. It isn't faith to believe in something that isn't true. The skeptic is right when something is clearly false. It seems this story falls into that category.

 

That's right.  There isn't anything wrong with it.

Faith promoting stories are just that - faith promoting stories.
Kind of like the Book of Job which most scholars believe to be fictional.
Or the parables of Christ.  Heck, even the story of Adam and Eve can be considered both historical and figurative.  Brigham believed in the  literal Adam and Eve story, but even he called portions a fairy tale.

They don't have to be 100% historical or factual to be beneficial.  True, they shouldn't be passed off as factual if they aren't and that is the big complaint here.  But that doesn't remove all value.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you know something is the truth unless you have seen or heard it occur yourself and even then why should you be so certain you got it right?  

You can't, of course.  There are many variables and one just has to use their own good judgment (part of life).  I do try hard not to just repeat a third hand story I've heard about someone (unless I preface it with letting the person know where I got my information, and even then only if it's pertinent to the conversation, etc.).  Now, if it's something my wife has witnessed and then tells me about it, that bears more weight and so on.

I just believe it's a good rule of thumb to not repeat rumors and third (or more) hand stories as if they are factual and true.  You may disagree and that's fine too.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the original issue was that Calm did not post DBMormon's entire quote and then made it personal (I don't see it as an actual "personal attack", though):

He posted:

And Calm responded:

 

I sincerely don't understand how the full quote you provided says something different than Calm's quote. 

DB's entire quote is still an impossible standard that no one, including him, lives up to. 

[wtrdog]

Bill, just wanted to say thanks for being honest.  That's really what this is all about, honesty, and in that context some people should be ashamed of the positions they are taking.  

I'm happy that Elder Holland has rescinded the story, but the manner in which he did so troubles me.  The way he goes out of his way to blame the errors on other people is particularly disappointing.  I interpret this as a tacit admission from the church, recognizing that the controversy isn't about the particulars of the story itself, and never was, but about Elder Holland's mishandling of the truth.  His trustworthiness and credibility.  Not only does he fail to own any level of responsibility, which would have been the honest move, but tries to throw other people under the bus?  In so doing he just digs the hole even deeper and has created a true Emperor Has No Clothes moment.  It's not about the miracle story, it's about transparency and honesty.
 

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe we should just deny miracles ever happen altogether, and make sure we never tell any story that implies God intervened in a miraculous way.  That would help with all of the 'problematic' issues.  

But wouldn't "denying" require witnessing in the first place?  You seem to be conflating disbelief with dishonesty.  They are not the same thing.  You are accusing those who disbelieve in miracles as being dishonest, when in truth it's the other way around.  A person being unpersuaded by a particular miraculous claim isn't the same thing as denying miracles.  An example of "denying" would be Peter denying Christ.  If I witnessed a blind man healed and then claimed it never happened, that would be denying.  On the other hand, me hearing a story about someone who was healed and not believing it because it lacks any references or reasonable credibility, this isn't a case of denial but lack of substantiation on your part.  In other words, you've got it exactly backwards.  In this situation you're the one who's denying, the truth, and are the one who's actually being dishonest.  It is not dishonest for me to reject your dishonesty.

Have you ever witnessed a miracle?  I haven't.  And I don't know anybody who has either.  I know a lot of people who believe in miracles, a belief I respect, and I've heard a lot of stories of miracles, but upon inspection have never come across a single story actually witnessed first hand that bears even the slightest bit of common sense levels of polite scrutiny. 
 
We were all raised to Choose The Right and LET THE CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW.  A hard thing, but an ideal worth striving for.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you know something is the truth unless you have seen or heard it occur yourself and even then why should you be so certain you got it right?  Do we have any reason to doubt that Elder Holland and Clark were sure it was the truth,

Of course we do.  We just got told yesterday we have more than enough reason to doubt.  I'm confused by your point.  Are you saying that Elder Holland should not have tried to contact the family before telling the story to make sure it was true?  I think it would have been wise, particularly looking in hindsight.  Of course there are often resources for us to check before we go off spouting things to large audiences.  There's no doubt Elder Holland could have used his vast resources to look into this.  It just did not happen. 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

but that apparently didn't work out for them because the person who had firsthand knowledge embellished the story.

People screw up understanding what is going on around them all the time.  Evidence...the sister missionary likely misunderstanding Clarke was in a stake Presidency, confusing that with something else said.

No one here has personally confirmed that this story is false any more than they were able to personally confirm it was true.  The closest is katherinethegreat and her mom who knows the family, assuming Katherine is actually what she claims to be and not pulling a long con on the board for moments like this.  

We are relying on others who have allegedly talked to those involved.  But perhaps the entire family has gone apostate and is trying to destroy faith with the story or before they were zealots now are not and made up the whole thing including the miraculous meeting and now are trying to retract it a bit so they don't seem so out there.

I am not suggesting any of these scenarios are probable.  I am just pointing out a standard of absolute personal confirmation before sharing information (story or anything else) with the vast majority of things we 'know' about others is impossible.  We can't know a reporter has fact checked stuff they claim to have fact checked.  We can't know that researchers didn't fudge their stats.  We can't know that photographers haven't faked their shots.  In both these cases it helps if multiples report the same thing because it is unlikely there is a conspiracy, but there have been conspiracies in the past (think of war reporting in certain countries), so by the absolute standard demanded by DB and apparently approved by others, the reasonable approach is to trust nothing unless one sees or hears it for oneself and has a recording in order to check one's memory is semi accurate since there is no such thing as a perfect memory.

We must trust at some point.  Where we choose to trust will likely depend on how levels of trust have helped or hurt us in the past.  But as soon as one starts throwing around a standard of always "absolute" surety, one has entered the realm of impossibility.  There might be a few times we approach absolute certainty in our personal lives, the less we are involved the more we must rely on others and then it can only be reasonable certainty.

no one is demanding anything absolute when it comes to story telling by our leaders.  Only the sith speak in absolutes.  But some effort by those who clearly have the means to employ effort would certainly be appreciated and expected I'd say.  I wish Elder Holland clarified his failure was not being responsible in following up on his lead. 

[ALarson]

Just now, bluebell said:

I sincerely don't understand how the full quote you provided says something different than Calm's quote. 

DB's entire quote is still an impossible standard that no one, including him, lives up to. 

You are getting to be very nit picky here.  I believe his statement is something we should strive for.  Of course, none of us are perfect and mistakes are made.  We could probably ask the same question that Calm asked DBMormon to everyone here and all would have to admit they've slipped up at times.

I'm not going to continue saying the same thing over and over again though.  I've explained my thoughts and opinion on this and how I try to live.  But no, I'm not perfect.

 

[DBMormon]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

"never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule.

For example, I believe this guest promotes the Michigan Artifacts.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/03/premium-the-michigan-artifacts-with-alex-koritz/

The best example you have is an episode that I am not even in?  This is absolutely ridiculous and petty.  
I welcome you pointing out the episodes where I say a deeply innaccurate story or make a deeply inaccurate proposition.

I will put my accuracy up against Official Church sources anyday of the week  and will wait upon you to share a list of my demonstrably false claims on my podcast.  This should be easy.  Sadly you saying this shows just how onesided you are and what little desire you have to actually be fair and balanced.

Let's see if I can point out official Church miracle stories that are deeply problematic or demonstrably false

that simply are not true
1.) Thomas Marsh did not leave over milk strippings
2.) Symonds Ryder did not leave because his name is spelled wrong
3.) 3 eighteen year olds did not die in the icy waters helping saints heading west safely cross the sweetwater river
4.) Seagulls eating crickets and throwing up and eating more happens every 4 years. Seagulls have been eating crickets for ever
5.) Transfiguration of Brigham Young is a completely made up story by later sources who edited original journals to insert the story or by witnesses who were not even there but claimed they were.
6.) The founding fathers had many of their ordinances done before Wilford Woodruff said they told him they hadn't
7.) Pres Snow seeing Jesus in the temple is a third hand story told 40 years after and his source was long dead and she wasn't there either.
8.) Elevator shafts in the Salt Lake Temple - elevators had already been invented and Brigham had already seen them in operation in other buildings
9.) Mary Fielding didn't heal her ox
10.) It is unfeasible for Moroni to travel to Manti from wherever he was to bless the site and then travel back to Palmyra to bury the plates. 
11.) quetzalcoatl stories were altered by the early spaniards and have no connection to Jesus when understood in their original language
12.) notice three nephite stories have all but died out in recent decades
13.) lost tribes under ice caps or hidden from discovery seems silly at this point
14.) a literal City of Enoch up in the sky somewhere... absolutely ridiculous
15.) The watch that took a bullet that saved John Taylors life at Carthage has no damage from a bullet... simply false
16.) The Whistling Widdlers were not young boys with pocketknives but middle age adult males with bowie knives who were also part of the danites and who used physical violence to attack dissenters and newcombers

there are likely hundreds more but this is a good start!

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I sincerely don't understand how the full quote you provided says something different than Calm's quote. 

DB's entire quote is still an impossible standard that no one, including him, lives up to. 

It's easy to not pass off third hand stories as true unless we know there is a basis to them.  I don't think that's an impossible standard.  There is a world of difference between what DBMormon said and what Calm quoted on this point. 

 

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.  

We should not take false faith promoting third hand stories and repeat them without knowing whether they are true. 

Quote

 

"never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule.

 

Calm tried to play it off as if Bill had suggested we can't repeat any story. 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Bill, just wanted to say thanks for being honest.  That's really what this is all about, honesty, and in that context some people should be ashamed of the positions they are taking.  

I'm happy that Elder Holland has rescinded the story, but the manner in which he did so troubles me.  The way he goes out of his way to blame the errors on other people is particularly disappointing.  I interpret this as a tacit admission from the church, recognizing that the controversy isn't about the particulars of the story itself, and never was, but about Elder Holland's mishandling of the truth.  His trustworthiness and credibility.  Not only does he fail to own any level of responsibility, which would have been the honest move, but tries to throw other people under the bus?  In so doing he just digs the hole even deeper and has created a true Emperor Has No Clothes moment.  It's not about the miracle story, it's about transparency and honesty.

Ouch.  Good point.  Tough one to consider. 

9 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

 

But wouldn't "denying" require witnessing in the first place?  You seem to be conflating disbelief with dishonesty.  They are not the same thing.  You are accusing those who disbelieve in miracles as being dishonest, when in truth it's the other way around.  A person being unpersuaded by a particular miraculous claim isn't the same thing as denying miracles.  An example of "denying" would be Peter denying Christ.  If I witnessed a blind man healed and then claimed it never happened, that would be denying.  On the other hand, me hearing a story about someone who was healed and not believing it because it lacks any references or reasonable credibility, this isn't a case of denial but lack of substantiation on your part.  In other words, you've got it exactly backwards.  In this situation you're the one who's denying, the truth, and are the one who's actually being dishonest.  It is not dishonest for me to reject your dishonesty.

Have you ever witnessed a miracle?  I haven't.  And I don't know anybody who has either.  I know a lot of people who believe in miracles, a belief I respect, and I've heard a lot of stories of miracles, but upon inspection have never come across a single story actually witnessed first hand that bears even the slightest bit of common sense levels of polite scrutiny. 
 
We were all raised to Choose The Right and LET THE CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW.  A hard thing, but an ideal worth striving for.

 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

 

We should not take false faith promoting third hand stories and repeat them without knowing whether they are true. 

 

Is it just me or does this really not make sense?