Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Oh my gosh.  What's up with going crazy over that one sentence?  

This entite topic is discussing a "false faith promoting story" (not true) that was apparently heard third hand and then repeated. 

What's so difficult to understand and why is it wrong to state we should avoid doing that unless the details have been fact checked?

I'll bet Elder Holland will try to avoid doing it in the future.

Edited August 1, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

 

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I really don't understand how it's nitpicky to quote someone and then address what they said.   He made a statement and then claimed that it was a statement everyone should live by.   Why can't that statement be discussed??

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

no one is demanding anything absolute when it comes to story telling by our leaders.  

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.

 

If this is not a demand for something "absolute", why did DB use the phrase "absolutely sure occurred"?

Sorry for the formatting...stem is not quoting DB, I am but it got embedded into stem's comment.

"We just got told yesterday we have more than enough reason to doubt."

And you personally confirmed it so you are absolutely certain it occurred in the way you are describing it?

Or are you just reasonably secure?

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh my gosh.  What's up with going crazy over that one sentence?  

This entite topic is discussing a "false faith promoting story" (not true) that was apparently heard third hand and then repeated. 

What's so difficult to understand and why is it wrong to state we should avoid doing that?

I'll bet Elder Holland will try to avoid doing it in the future.

I'm not going crazy over it, the construction of the sentence makes it seemingly contradict itself.  I'm asking for clarification.  What's with going crazy over my doing that?

Edited August 1, 2017 by ksfisher

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If this is not a demand for something "absolute", why did DB use the phrase "absolutely sure occurred"?

Sorry for the formatting...stem is not quoting DB, I am but it got embedded into stem's comment.

"We just got told yesterday we have more than enough reason to doubt.  I'm confused by your point.  Are you saying"

And you personally confirmed it so you are absolutely certain it occurred in the way you are describing it?

Or are you just reasonably secure?

I'll put my money on it.  you on it being true?

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I really don't understand how it's nitpicky to quote someone and then address what they said.  

Calm left out part of the quote.  It's been explained to you above, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I really don't understand how it's nitpicky to quote someone and then address what they said.   He made a statement and then claimed that it was a statement everyone should live by.   Why can't that statement be discussed??

In a thread that started by insisting on accuracy, it seems rather strange to be dismissive of it.

[JulieM]

I hope this discussion doesn't get detailed to one about DBMormon and become personal. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

In a thread that started by insisting on accuracy, it seems rather strange to be dismissive of it.

Then be accurate and post the entire quote.  I think that's the issue.  You changed it to mean "any" story vs. a "third hand" story in the way you edited it.  I'm not saying it was intentional, but it did change the meaning.

Edited August 1, 2017 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I'm not conflicted at all. You seem just to be assuming that the GAs always represent what Christ would do, which I did not say. I don't believe Christ would destroy the Nauvoo Expositor press. I acknowledge Joseph Smith for reintroducing the basic truths of the gospel - not for being a perfect man or teenager. The idea that it is wrong to criticize Joseph Smith is just not scriptural, although the Lord was not pleased that the people murmured against Moses. Nevertheless, there are things about Joseph I would not want to emulate.

More transparency is not always "good." There are things the Lord has kept secret, and has expected His servants to keep secret even up to this present day. I don't expect the Church to lead the way in being transparent. However, I do think traditionally it has been too sensitive about criticism - it seems to come with authoritarianism.  Unless the people are willing to pray about the truths espoused by the GAs, they may fall victim to the same errors. I accept the GAs as a guide - not as an absolute fount of all knowledge and truth - for this I look to the Lord.

[Atheist Mormon]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh my gosh.  What's up with going crazy over that one sentence?  

This entite topic is discussing a "false faith promoting story" (not true) that was apparently heard third hand and then repeated. 

What's so difficult to understand and why is it wrong to state we should avoid doing that unless the details have been fact checked?

I'll bet Elder Holland will try to avoid doing it in the future.

Ha.....Try that with Four Gospels, stacking one after another.........

[Calm]

Just now, DBMormon said:

I'll put my money on it.  you on it being true?

How have you established your absolute certainty?  Have you talked yourself with those involved?  Have you checked each account with the other?

I was never sure it was true to begin with, why should I bet money when I am not arguing for its truth, but against your impossible absolute standard.

I go for reasonable trust standards, though I recognize what that is varies by person.  There are many people I would not reasonably trust telling me firsthand stories because my experience is that they get things wrong.  There are others who are practical strangers that I trust, like Katherinethegreat, because I see a history of trying to speak with precision overall.  Others, I may trust them in some areas, not others because of apparent strong biases.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I hope this discussion doesn't get detailed to one about DBMormon and become personal. 

I am talking about a statement he made in his third post in the thread, a standard he called for, not anything personal about him.

This is probably less personal than some of the discussion about Holland and Clark.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

24 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.

I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest.  

DB said "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."  I said that if we just stop believing that miracles exist, or stop sharing any story that implies God intervened, we can make sure that no problematic stories are ever shared. 

And yes, i've witnessed miracles before.   My son is still alive because of a miracle.

[DBMormon]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I hope this discussion doesn't get detailed to one about DBMormon and become personal. 

If it comes down to throwing the Church or one of its leaders under the bus or throwing me under the bus...... well you get the point.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Calm left out part of the quote.  It's been explained to you above, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that.

Actually Hamba did, I was lazy and quoted him, but double checked.

Please explain the difference:

"we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Still waiting for the listed inaccuracies on my podcast episodes?

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If this is not a demand for something "absolute", why did DB use the phrase "absolutely sure occurred"?

Sorry for the formatting...stem is not quoting DB, I am but it got embedded into stem's comment.

I read him as saying, if we get a third hand faith promoting story, we should not share it unless we can find out if it is true.  I would say he's overdoing it with the absolute comment, so my bad on challenging that.  But the tenor of his point I agree with, otherwise. 

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

"We just got told yesterday we have more than enough reason to doubt.  I'm confused by your point.  Are you saying"

And you personally confirmed it so you are absolutely certain it occurred in the way you are describing it?

Or are you just reasonably secure?

I have no idea what happened.  I can guess based on the pieces thrown at us, but it might not at all be a good representation of reality.  Elder Holland asked we not keep sharing it. 

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

By the way my gut tells me the answer is zero...... you know......  the number of episodes I would have to pull where "I" say something factually problematic that hurts the credibility of the entire episode.

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[Calm]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

If it comes down to throwing the Church or one of its leaders under the bus or throwing me under the bus...... well you get the point.

  I am ignoring the Church side of things, Holland was wrong and he retracted.

You have made an overstatement and unless I have missed it (which is possible since I haven't read the middle of the thread yet), you have not retracted it.

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Still waiting for the listed inaccuracies on my podcast episodes?

You have apparently missed my point.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

Ever looking for truth.  Ever willing to questions what one holds as truth.  Ever willing to be skeptical of people who claim some special truth.

 

What a noble way to spend a life.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Teancum

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am talking about a statement he made in his opening post, a standard he called for, not anything personal about him.

Then post his entire sentence that you edited and quoted, so we can discuss it if you'd like.  And leave out the personal questioning of him.  

How you edited the sentence, changed the meaning of his words and then you asked him if he lived "by this rule".   

You made it personal when you asked:

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

So, here is the actual sentence and let's apply it to everyone here (instead of just DBMormon), and discuss it if you want to:

"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."

Or, let's move on....

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

  I am ignoring the Church side of things, Holland was wrong and he retracted.

You have made an overstatement and unless I have missed it (which is possible since I haven't read the middle of the thread yet), you have not retracted it.

 

I stand by my statement.  And when should I expect that list?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Calm left out part of the quote.  It's been explained to you above, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that.

I refuse to acknowledge something that makes no sense to me and that I don't agree with.  I'm weird like that.

The reason that the full quote didn't need to be provided and why, once it was provided, it didn't change Calm's point, was because DB used the word 'or' in the statement.  He didn't say that we shouldn't only not share third hand accounts.  He said we shouldn't share those or any account we can't verify.

"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."

He wasn't just talking about third hand stories.  It's right there in his own words.