Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I have no idea what happened.  I can guess based on the pieces thrown at us, but it might 

My problem is his simply taking it to "absolute", if he had said "reasonable", I would be agreeing with him.  I think your take is mostly reasonable (I say mostly because of a vague sense that there was something I disagreed with, but need to go on errands and haven't finished reading yet, so not taking time to reread yet).

But setting up impossible standards is setting up people to fail and in a thread where the primary message is to be accurate in one's portrayals of life, it seems rather important to me to be accurate in how we portray life and in our expectations of others.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

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

I don't think she is saying there are inaccuracies.  I think she's suggesting that the podcast contains third hand stories that you did not absolutely know where true. 

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have apparently missed my point.

or you thought this through and realize my podcast doesn't actually contain demonstrably false narratives and hence you have no way to vindicate your statement.  Ever notice how often you jump on me only to have overreached and shown your bias.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

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."

What you posted left out "a third hand story" and it just stated "any story".

Let's discuss his actual sentence if you want.  I tend to agree with him that this is a standard we should strive for (but admit most don't).  I did have a Bishop once who I served with and he absolutely would not repeat any rumor or story he'd heard about anyone in our ward until he'd spoken to the person involved (if necessary).  I think he's the only person I've personally ever known who kept to the standard that DBMormon describes.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

My problem is his simply taking it to "absolute", if he had said "reasonable", I would be agreeing with him.  I think your take is mostly reasonable (I say mostly because of a vague sense that there was something I disagreed with, but need to go on errands and haven't finished reading yet, so not taking time to reread yet).

But setting up impossible standards is setting up people to fail and in a thread where the primary message is to be accurate in one's portrayals of life, it seems rather important to me to be accurate in how we portray life and in our expectations of others.

Gotcha.  I think I was missing your point before.  I agree.  Making sure a third hand story is absolutely true is quite often not possible.  I agree the statement he made works much better if absolute was changed to reasonable--which is kind of how I read him when I first sawhr it. 

[DBMormon]

I love it because perhaps right this very second dozens of people over at FairMormon are rummaging through the titles of my podcast episodes racking their minds for one that contains a demonstrable fictitious narrative....  funny as i picture the possibility in my mind

FairMormon member:  "it has to be here"... hmm  April 6th... nope.....   White Shirts Phenomenon...... nope    Adam God Subterfuge.... dang it no. .......... Life and Trial of John W Taylor..... shucks no.......    Alvin's hand ..... no again ughhhhhh"
 

Edited August 1, 2017 by DBMormon

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

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

True, but the standard wasn't just applied to this story, but any story.

If we really can never be absolutely certain that our own or others' memories are absolutely accurate or that our interpretations are accurate, how many stories can we be "absolutely sure occurred as we described it" before we pass it on?

Kindness and compassion for the human condition suggests a reasonable certainty would be more effective in increasing communication along with a reasonable expectation of the other's accuracy.  Impossible standards impede communication, not encourage.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

 

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

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

Calm said that because that's what DB himself said.

He said we shouldn't share third hand stories OR ANY STORY we're not absolutely sure of. 

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Gotcha.  I think I was missing your point before.  I agree.  Making sure a third hand story is absolutely true is quite often not possible.  

So it should not be repeated as if it's the truth.  I think that's the point DBMormon was making.  There's nothing wrong with telling it as "a story I once heard", or "there's a story that goes like this", or as a parable, etc.  But, Elder Holland actually told it quoting the words of those speaking them (like between the two brothers as if he witnessed it himself) and described how each person involved felt the spirit as the story progressed.   He claimed that what the missionary brother said to his older brother was "the missionary speech of all time" as they stood on the porch together.

Now we learn that never happened.  

Here's what Elder Holland stated in his talk to the mission presidents:

Quote

 

“One of the elders said, ‘Are you from this part of California?’

“The man said, ‘No. If you want to know, I’m from Pocatello, Idaho.’

“There was a pause. ‘That’s interesting,’ the elder said. ‘Do you know the [such-and-such] family in Pocatello?’

“With a stunned look, our biker paused, and then, in very measured words, said, ‘Yeah, I know them. They are my parents.’

“ ‘Well, they’re my parents too,’ the missionary said. ‘God has sent me to invite you to come home.’ ”

The younger brother had been born after the older boy had left home. The elder brother did not even know of him.

“Mom and Dad have been praying for you every morning and night for 20 years,” the younger brother said. “They were not sure you were alive, but they knew if you were, that someday you would come back to us.”

The wayward son invited the two in, and they talked for the rest of the day and some of the night. He did return home, returned to Church activity and, in March 2015, was married and sealed in the Boise Idaho Temple.

Commenting on the account, Elder Holland said, “This is a story of the role of Almighty God, the Savior of the World, and the Holy Ghost involved in the work of the ministry to which we’ve been called.

“The Holy Ghost prompted those parents to keep praying, to keep believing, to keep trusting. … The Holy Ghost inspired that rebellious boy to come to himself like the prodigal he was and to head for California. … The Holy Ghost influenced that younger son to serve a mission and be willing to accept a call to Southern California. … The Holy Ghost inspired one of my brethren in the Twelve, who was on the assignment desk that Friday, to trust his impression and assign that young man for service not a great distance from his native-born state. The Holy Ghost inspired that mission president to assign that young missionary to that district and that member unit. The Holy Ghost led those missionaries to that street, that day, that hour, with big brother sitting on the porch waiting, and, with Doberman Pinschers notwithstanding, the Holy Ghost prompted those to elders to stop, talk and in spite of their fear, to go back and present their message. …

“And, through the elders, the Holy Ghost taught repentance and brought true conversion to one coming back into the fold.”

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.”

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe you should start a countdown clock?

Ok.  I truly did laugh out loud.  Thanks for that.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Per his official church bio, he has never served in a stake presidency:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-seventy-elder-kim-b-clark-is-a-lifelong-learner?lang=eng

ETA: Looks like this was already covered, sorry!

Always good to be doublesure about accuracy where possible.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I love it because perhaps right this very second dozens of people over at FairMormon are rummaging through the titles of my podcast episodes racking their minds for one that contains a demonstrable fictitious narrative.... I love it.  

FairMormon member:  "it has to be here"... hmm  April 6th... nope.....   White Shirts Phenomenon...... nope    Adam God Subterfuge.... dang it no. .......... Life and Trial of John W Taylor..... shucks no.......    Alvin's hand ..... no again ughhhhhh"
 

Calm wasn't talking about demonstratably fictitious stories. She was talking about stories that you can't personally verify as being absolutely true. 

There are lots of true stories that can't be personally verified as absolute truth.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

It was most likely the stake mission presidency instead of just the stake presidency.

Possible, but likely should be checked before repeated.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I love it because perhaps right this very second dozens of people over at FairMormon are rummaging through the titles of my podcast episodes racking their minds for one that contains a demonstrable fictitious narrative....  funny as i picture the possibility in my mind

FairMormon member:  "it has to be here"... hmm  April 6th... nope.....   White Shirts Phenomenon...... nope    Adam God Subterfuge.... dang it no. .......... Life and Trial of John W Taylor..... shucks no.......    Alvin's hand ..... no again ughhhhhh"
 

Are you unaware that you are not talking to FairMormon? This is MDDB. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Calm wasn't talking about demonstratably fictitious stories. She was talking about stories that you can't personally verify as being absolutely true. 

There are lots of true stories that can't be personally verified as absolute truth.  

True.  But let's try to stay on topic here and not get too far off.  The story we are discussing that Elder Holland told could have been easily verified to make sure it was the truth.

[juliann]

33 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.

Even I have posted the quote. Word for word. I have seen it reposted multiple times. What are you talking about? 

[wtrdog]

I think people misunderstand the point Bill is trying to make about "never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred."  Being literal about "absolutes" that's obviously a hard if not impossible standard to meet.  I don't think that's what Bill is saying.  Clearly, or why would he spend his time on any of this to begin with?  If he's an absolutist he sure spends a lot of time in the grey areas.  He's making a statement about reasonable levels of doubt.  

And I would argue that the appropriate standard is a gradient that varies by the context.  Leaders should be held to a different standard than the garden variety member.  Because when we talk about faith promotion in particular, in "what" is faith being promoted?  I can forgive the average person gossiping and telling exaggerated stories that make them feel good in various ways.  I see no reason to be a jerk and go around bursting people's bubbles.  About religion, about their kids ability to hit a baseball, or anything else.  That isn't what we're talking about here though.  This isn't a case of mormon mommy feeling blessed because she had a moment of peace when she found her car keys.  Mormon mommy isn't making decisions that affect millions of people's lives.  Nobody is making life altering decisions like when and who to marry, what to study in school, what career path to follow, if and when to have kids, etc., based on her say so.

In this case we're talking about a story that promotes faith in the institution.  Elder Holland is essentially telling a story that promotes faith in himself, a miracle that proves his own legitimacy.  We could draw comparisons with stories told by certain politicians, as a means to obtain votes, donations, etc.  Or holy rolling tent revivalists healing random strangers in the crowd.  Elder Holland is where, at a mission conference?  He's up there telling people what to do.  Volunteer time for the church.  How that time should be spent.  Follow his directions, you'll have missionary success.  Yada yada.  Proof, here's a story of how "right" he's gotten it in the past.  The leadership apparatus was inspired to send his particular young man to a particular part of the world where he saved his own brother.  In context, when the story he's telling turns out to be fake news it completely undermines anything else he said.  As a leader who's counsel should be heeded, why should anything he said at that conference be trusted?  Faith is being placed in him and his words because he is presumably a prophet, right? 

All of this goes back to the very essence of the gospel, the plan of salvation, the atonement, and agency.  How does the church conduct itself?  Does it act in a manner that spiritually empowers or enslaves?  Hiding uncomfortable history, for example, is an act of enslavement.  Attempts to control the narrative, while perhaps well meaning, are infantilizing and have the effect of breeding dependence.  Which is anti-Christian.  

In this context the standard which should be applied is clear.  It's not about being a well of negativity, a jerk that's saying, "hey, you can't tell that story," it's about whether Elder Holland's behavior serves to empower or enslave.  And in this context, Elder Holland's retraction isn't about promoting truth or transparency.  He is not promoting epistemological clarity.  The retraction is about protecting himself and the aura that comprises the thing of himself and the apostleship.  The fake story when he originally told it, whether he knew it to be fake or not, was self serving, and his retraction is every bit the same.
 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  But let's try to stay on topic here and not get too far off.  The story we are discussing that Elder Holland told could have been easily verified to make sure it was the truth.

I don't know...when the first hand source was the one fabricating the story it makes it more difficult.  If Elder Holland tracked down the family member who told the story, there is no good reason to believe that he would do anything but validate his story. 

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Calm wasn't talking about demonstratably fictitious stories. She was talking about stories that you can't personally verify as being absolutely true. 

There are lots of true stories that can't be personally verified as absolute truth.  

Well, I am speaking about the other side of that coin or maybe even another coin altogether.  Which is that yes we all tell stories that we are uncertain of.  When we impose the story as true and we are far removed from the source we run great risk of being shown to have over reached.  Sadly the Church has over reached on 100's of stories that now are likely not what was claimed and many of them demonstrably false.  We as a religion seem really poor at discerning truth from error as a people.  We are also slow to correct such things once shown to be problematic.  While the words of our leaders and manuals are full of false faith promoting stories and fictional stories of history and false faith promoting miracles, some out of their need of loyalty or to defend their church would rather create a distraction and point to me as the problem.  I will put the historical honesty and accuracy of my podcast against a Church periodical or Church manual any day.

[Kevin Christensen]

Speaking of "problematic or demonstrably false" let alone "Official Sources" whatever that is supposed to mean and imply, without also quoting D&C 1:24-28

Quote

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

and in evaluating just how important, or not, these various examples are, relative to the foundational claims of Mormonism, and in acting as representative "paradigmatic examples" from which to generalize about life in and around a covenant community, DB has this:

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.

Which leaves me with the unanswered or addressed or acknowledged question as to what to do with this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/opening-heavens-succession-presidency-chapter-only-0

"The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-nine Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness" and "Documents of Testimonies of the Mantle Experience."

"On August 8, 1844, a meeting of the Saints was held in Nauvoo. Many people reported that at this meeting they experienced a convincing sensory or spiritual witness that Joseph Smith's mantle of Church leadership had fallen on Brigham Young. Here are the reports of 129 people whose experience was recorded by them or by others, usually a family member. This event was significant in helping these Church members decide who should direct the Church."

Edited to add a relevant comment from Kevin Barney's review of the first edition of Opening the Heavens:

Quote

The final contribution to the volume is Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-one Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness” (pp. 373–480). This is another of the pieces that I read in its original form in the pages of BYU Studies. In some ways this is the least significant of the articles in the book. Does it really matter whether numerous Saints saw something of Joseph in Brigham that day? What truly matters is that the keys were passed from Joseph to Brigham, not whether Brigham was perceived as Joseph.

This article is, however, a very useful corrective to simplistic understandings of this event. I recall that, at the MHA meetings in Kirtland a few years ago, in a session on Joseph Smith biography, this topic of the passing of the mantle of the Prophet from Joseph to Brigham came up, and the discussion that ensued was a sort of microcosm of the different approaches taken to this issue. Someone in the audience mentioned that the Saints all perceived Joseph in Brigham that day. This is probably a common, if simplistic, view of the event. The assumption is that everyone had this experience and that we must have good contemporaneous evidence of that fact. Then someone raised his hand and challenged the original comment, with the perspective that there is no evidence that the event occurred at all, that it is a sort of Mormon urban legend. Finally, a number of people, referencing the Jorgensen article from BYU Studies, gave a more realistic recounting of the experience. Most people present at that event did not make a written record of the day’s events at all, and the accounts of the transformation of Brigham that we do have are later recollections, not contemporaneous accounts. But, with those limitations understood, we actually do have a substantial number of accounts by individuals who did in some way perceive Joseph in Brigham. The more cautious approach to the event suggested by the documentation collected by Jorgensen takes us on a course between the naive simplicity of youthful assumptions and the nihilistic cynicism of one who has been burned by such expectations one too many times. I myself traveled over time from the naive, simplistic position to the more cynical, nihilistic position, and finally to a more balanced understanding of this event, thanks to Jorgensen’s research. So I appreciate this contribution to the volume very much, as it had a profound influence on my own perception of the events of that day.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1460&index=5

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 1, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
Added Kevin Barney quote

[Calm]

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

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

That would be greatly appreciated.  I find you a reasonable source, even if I can't absolutely confirm your description is true and I will likely use your version to correct anyone who uses the now retracted one.

_____

Hopefully my point is understood by now, because I have to go....but I didn't...

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

Even I have posted the quote. Word for word. I have seen it reposted multiple times. What are you talking about? 

Ok, good.  Then we all agree DB wasn't only referring to just "any story".  He was more specific than what Calm originally edited it down to.  Sorry, I must have missed where you quoted it.  This has become a mass of confusion really.

[wtrdog]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Your comment seemed to have a sarcastic tone to it.  Apologies if that wasn't the case.  Even now though I'm not interpreting your words to seriously suggest that people inside the church should stop talking about miracles or claiming their existence.  You're being facetious, no?  You are arguing that folks like myself are being unreasonable with our reactions to miraculous claims.

Regarding your claim to having witnessed a miracle first hand.  I'm sure that's personal so I won't go there, but can you appreciate that it would be reasonable for others to not find your claim persuasive?  Do you claim to have witnessed something objective, or is it just your subjective interpretation of events and others could reasonably interpret events in other ways?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

I have lost track of what I have answered and am out of points...I don't disagree in the least.  I find this ("try[ing] hard, my own is "trying one's best at that time") a very reasonable standard.

I don't remember ever passing on a third or worse hand faith promoting story save to critique it or give a correction.  Memory being what it is, I might have done some in my youth or even adulthood, but I have never been a comfortable storyteller (save of my own experiences) so they were likely few.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

  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).

I was very disturbed when the whole Paul Dunn thing came out. Not so much because the stories were fabricated-although that was part of it- but the fact (as you stated) that he was the hero in them. That cannot in any way be equated to one of the Lord's parables (since Jesus never made himself the hero of His parables.) I don't think Elder Dunn was a bad person at all, but that was just a part of his character that I don't understand. I personally think those types of stories can be dangerous because they tend to set an unrealistic expectation of divine intervention that most of us don't experience. Then, when they are revealed as embellishments, more harm can be done than good. I think this situation is different than the Elder Dunn experience though. I think Elder Holland's error was in repeating the story without verifying the more "miraculous" details. It's unfortunate in a way, but in a way it's also fortunate because he and others will be more careful in the future. It's how we learn.