The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[bOObOO]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, they are not. They just make the time seem to go slower. 

Try these, which actually do make time go by faster, or at least seem to, for me:  https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510208/car-talk

 

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some myths actually happened.

Which ones?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Which ones?

The death and resurrection of Christ. And the one about the Earth being Tiamat’s corpse.

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?

There may have been a "Service Difficulty Report" generated about this (use this link and type in the airplane number - 74985 - as a search operator, then scroll down to the report dated 1977-01-20) :

Note here that the report was dated January 20, 1977, or more than two months after the incident. 

The "Date of Occurrence" field is left blank. 

The "Air Carrier Name" (presumably the name of the airline, SkyWest) is also blank.  

Let's look again at the CAB report:

CAB Report: "No damage to aircraft."

Also CAB Report: "Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered."

SDR Report: "Extreme internal damage to eng{ine}."

Okay.  That sounds reasonable.  CFR, though.  How do you know this?

I'm not sure the CAB report, comprised of a grand total of 78 words, was necessarily comprehensive and definitive.

Meanwhile, the SDR report is also lacking in some meaningful information and details.

Ah, the 70s.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Isn’t the CAB report also based on a single hearsay phone conversation from an airline representative?  That was how I read it.

It’s probably worth noting here that then-Brother Nelson was/is neither a mechanic nor a pilot and, depending on his seat, may not have been in a position to *see* the engine at all.  His account would be based largely on hearsay in conjunction with a layman’s inference based on what he thought he was hearing/seeing/feeling/smelling and, as such, could have many errors without being the result of any willful misdirection.  
 

It may well be that all Nelson *knew* through direct observation was that the engines were making a peculiar sound, the pilot seemed agitated and was pulling levers and throwing switches, and the result was a sudden dive (resulting in consternation amongst the passengers) followed shortly by a premature landing.  None of those fundamentals seem contradicted by the extant reports; and if a laconic pilot or a panicking passenger or an overworked airline desk jockey made statements that led Nelson to further “connect the dots” in the wrong way—I don’t see why I need to hold that against now-President Nelson.  Prove to me that Nelson wasn’t on the plane at all, and then the comparisons to Dunn might be warranted.

Edited July 29, 2021 by mgy401

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

A report that seems to contradict itself (it notes that \"{i}nvestigation revealed cylinder base studs {in the engine} sheered" but, on the other, that there was "{n}o damage to aircraft")?

Not that I am anything like an expert in aeronautics, but regardless of a mechanical failure in a component, the aircraft, meaning the airframe, received no damage. Its structural integrity was not compromised. In contradistinction, there was a well-document flight of a commercial 737 in 2018, where an engine explosion killed a passenger in mid-flight, and damaged the airframe. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You are such an equivocating attorney. 

Not really.  I'm actually trying to be precise, rather than ambiguous (which is what "equivocating" means).

• You asked: "Have you listened to any RFM?"
• I responded: "Skimmed a bit.  It's quite a slog."
• You responded: "So that is a no. Maybe it would be well not to pass judgment on his defense attorney skills until you listen to him?"
• I responded: "No, it's a 'I've skimmed a bit.'  What I have listened to does not impress.  Lots of smug, lots of ridicule, lots 'You Go Girl!' backslapping between him and Bill Reel.  Not much in the way of substantive analysis.  And it really drags.  Oi."
• You responded: "You are such an equivocating attorney."

And in this post I stated: "I skimmed through it (1.75 speed, skipping through the smarm, the mockery, etc.).  Lots of sheer skepticism, as opposed to arms-length analysis."  I then give several examples of why I don't think much of Consig's purported "talented defense attorney" schtick.

Between you and I, I was being more precise.  You, meanwhile, attempted to distort and mischaracterize me.

I've listened to about 2/3rds of the nearly two-hour slog.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So you have skimmed.  What does that mean? 

It means that I listened to it at 1.75 speed, and that here and there I used the "skip" function (the right arrow on my keyboard that advances the video by 5 seconds).

It means that most of the nearly two hours of video is pablum, or a superficial review of what I have already read for myself.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And based on your skim you have concluded nothing substantive. 

Not much.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Pardon me if I now conclude you really don't spend much time viewing things that challenge your position.

As you like.  I'm pretty comfortable with my track record.  Nearly 13,000 posts since 2004.  

I certainly have my flaws.  Being afraid or unwilling to "view things that challenge {my} position" ain't one of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Isn’t the CAB report also based on a single hearsay phone conversation from an airline representative?  That was how I read it.

I'm not sure that is correct.  The CAB report, dated March 30, 1977, is from James H. Stevenson (with CAB) to "Billy L. Abram" and begins with "Per telephone conversation this date this is additional information on safety and compliance record summary of Sky West Airlines which we provided to you Jan. 6, 1977."

In other words, the CAB report previously sent information to Mr. Abram on January 6.  He (Mr. Abram) then called CAB on March 30 and apparently requested additional information, which resulted in the CAB report under discussion.  That's how I read it anyway.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It’s probably worth noting here that then-Brother Nelson was/is neither a mechanic nor a pilot and, depending on his seat, may not have been in a position to *see* the engine at all.  His account would be based largely on hearsay in conjunction with a layman’s inference based on what he thought he was hearing/seeing/feeling/smelling and, as such, could have many errors without being the result of any willful misdirection.  

Yep.  A passenger may have made a number of assumptions that were not technically so.  The left engine may have been throttled down and then back up, rather than re-started.  Or it may have been throttled up rather than re-started.  

Would the pilot, having made a precautionary emergency landing in Delta, gone out of his way to explain the particulars of what had happened to one of the passengers? 

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It may well be that all Nelson *knew* through direct observation was that the engines were making a peculiar sound, the pilot seemed agitated and was pulling levers and throwing switches, and the result was a sudden dive (resulting in consternation amongst the passengers) followed shortly by a premature landing.  None of those fundamentals seem contradicted by the extant reports; and if a laconic pilot or a panicking passenger or an overworked airline desk jockey made statements that led Nelson to further “connect the dots” in the wrong way—I don’t see why I need to hold that against now-President Nelson.  Prove to me that Nelson wasn’t on the plane at all, and then the comparisons to Dunn might be warranted.

Yep.  Again, this seems like pretty weak tea.

I dunno.  He may have embellished.  He may have embroidered his recollection with details not borne out in the particular.  But the narrative is not really self-aggrandizing, and it doesn't even seem to be characterized as anything other than a brush with death.  No divine intervention.  No Pres. Nelson raising his arm to the square and commanding the plane to be made whole.  Just . . . a story of a man who felt his life was in danger, such that he was prompted to think of meeting his Maker.  Then the danger passed and he resumed his regularly-scheduled life.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Podcasts are a pleasant diversion when one is doing a mindless task (driving, for example);

No, they are not. They just make the time seem to go slower. 

Especially when they are as self-indulgent, scatter-brained, meandering and plodding as what I've seen from Dehlin, Reel and Consig.

I thought Dehlin was the worst at this, but I think Consig and Reel might have overtaken him.

Thanks,

-smac

[Vanguard]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Especially when they are as self-indulgent, scatter-brained, meandering and plodding as what I've seen from Dehlin, Reel and Consig.

I thought Dehlin was the worst at this, but I think Consig and Reel might have overtaken him.

Thanks,

-smac

Good grief!  I had not idea RFM was Consiglieri! Wow.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To his reputation

This is the subject of your concern, but what is the threat, and what the worst that could happen? E.g., what is his reputation for you now, what is the threat against it, and what is the worst impact this threat could have?

[mgy401]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is the subject of your concern, but what is the threat, and what the worst that could happen? E.g., what is his reputation for you now, what is the threat against it, and what is the worst impact this threat could have?

I, for one, live in perennial fear of the day when non-Mormon institutions like Catholic Community Services, Islamic Relief, UNICEF, and the NAACP will become so disgusted at our leaders’ antics that they decide they don’t want the Church’s money anymore.

Edited July 29, 2021 by mgy401

[katherine the great]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The comparison to Paul H. Dunn is out there. The contention is that some details changed here. The Paul H. Dunn stories were generally wholesale fabrications.

I agree. I just don’t see very much similarity at all between these small discrepancies and the huge whoppers told by Elder Dunn. 

[smac97]

Some further relevant information from the 1977 Civil Aeronautics Board Reports.

1. Apparently the CAB had an "administrative law" function, such that it could adjudicate disputes about air service.

2. Pp. 762-787 at the above link include the text of a lawsuit filed by the city of Page, Arizona pertaining to another entity (Airwest) that was requesting the suspension of air services.  The decision included and addressed air servicing provided by Sky West.

3. Pp. 782-783 of the CAB decision includes some further descripion of the review of the three engine failures by Sky West in 1976:

Quote

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

In our original decision we found that there was "no safety considerations which would warrant a determination that a replacement arrangement will not be in the public interest."  This finding was based on a written evaluation of Sky West's safety and compliance record submitted by the Federal Aviation Administration in response to a staff request for such information.  In its reply to Airwest's answer to Page's motion for stay pending judicial review (p.4) filed March 14, 1977, Page alleged that Sky West had experienced "three emergency landings in the last three months."

Due to the seriousness of the matters alleged, the staff requested that the FAA update its safety and compliance report in light of the facts alleged. That updated report (which indicates that the referenced occurrences were merely incidents, not accidents; the carrier was not in any way at fault; and there is no reason for the Board to act unfavorably as to Sky West) was served upon all parties (and Sky West) as an attachment to order 77-4-50, April 11, 1977 (73 C.A.B. 1087) which established procedures for the filing of comments and answers with regard to the report.

Comments were filed by Arizona and Sky West, and Airwest filed an answer to those comments). ... For the record, the facts surrounding each of the incidents in question is set forth below.

Each of the incidents involved the failure of the engine. Two of the three incidents involved single-engine aircraft of the type which Sky West operates in charter service, not in scheduled commuter operations. The third engine malfunction occurred on a twin-engine Navajo being operated in scheduled commuter operations. Although the aircraft could have continued to its destination or the originating station on one engine, in accordance with the company's operations manual, the pilot made a precautionary landing at the nearest airport. Once again, there were no injuries to any person, property, or the aircraft. As a result of the unfortunate coincidence of these three unrelated engine malfunctions within a short period of time, the incidents in question were investigated in depth by the FAA as well as the two engine manufacturers. Each of these investigations reveals no deficiencies whatever in the operations or maintenance procedures of Sky West. 

4. The above excerpt references A) "a written evaluation of Sky West's safety and compliance record submitted by the {FAA}"; and B) an "updated report" from the FAA to more specifically address the "three emergency landings" by Sky West.  These reports do not appear to be online, but are summarized above as absolving Sky West of any fault or wrongdoing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Page, Arizona’s airport not cataloguing faults or reports with complete thoroughness is very unsurprising. I have flown to that airport once or twice a year for decades and it is the definition of small airport. One carrier, one gate, the ticket counter operator and sometimes the pilot are cross-trained to help with security checks, two to three flights a day, and only has the little puddlejumper planes that carry about 20-30 passengers. The maintenance crew looks to be two people at most when I have been there and they also do baggage.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Good grief!  I had not idea RFM was Consiglieri! Wow.

Yep. And if you’re interested, I can tell you his real name. It’s not exactly a secret. 

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yep. And if you’re interested, I can tell you his real name. It’s not exactly a secret. 

Yes, I'd love to know. It's funny because many moon's ago I had imagined what Consig looked like and the reality is nothing close to it! ;o

[smac97]

The crux of the story told by Pres. Nelson is, in my view, not that he did or experienced something spectacular or amazing. 

The story does not seem to attribute the landing of the plane to distinctive divine intervention.  

The story does not aggrandize Pres. Nelson, except . . . that he was prepared.  He was prepared to die.  He was prepared to meet his Maker.  What is noteworthy in the story is less about Russell M. Nelson sitting in a plane that was experiencing mechanical issues, and is more about Russell M. Nelson and the decisions he made and the course in life he had pursued up to that moment.  He was 52 or so years old.  He grew up with less-active parents, was baptized at 16, went to college, went on to medical school (graduating first in his class), later obtained a PhD, served in the Army, had an extensive and successful medical career, served in the Church for many years, married and had a large family.  He seems to be a very good and decent man.  And a man of faith, and one who worked hard to serve others and make the world a better place.  And he undertook and kept sacred covenants.  

All this came to bear on November 11, 1976 when he was faced with the prospect of death.  In that moment . . . he was prepared.  I am reminded here of 1 John 4:

Quote

12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Pres. Nelson apparently thought that November 11, 1976 was the beginning of his "day of judgment."  And in that day he felt, in a word, "boldness."  He had a testimony of God, of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  He knew what would come next, which is salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Pres. Nelson was not, I think, bragging himself up.  He was instead using the story to express appreciation for the hope that can achieve, for the assurances that we have been given, regarding this life and the one to come.

As I noted above, it is possible that Pres. Nelson may have embroidered his recollection of the event with details not borne out in the particular.  If so, I would hope that he be more circumspect in recounting such things.  Meanwhile, it's my responsibility to deploy the principle set forth in Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

It's also possible, as some have noted, that there is room for substantial overlap between Pres. Nelson's recollections and what actually happened.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[secondclasscitizen]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Isn’t the CAB report also based on a single hearsay phone conversation from an airline representative?  That was how I read it.

It’s probably worth noting here that then-Brother Nelson was/is neither a mechanic nor a pilot and, depending on his seat, may not have been in a position to *see* the engine at all.  His account would be based largely on hearsay in conjunction with a layman’s inference based on what he thought he was hearing/seeing/feeling/smelling and, as such, could have many errors without being the result of any willful misdirection.  
 

It may well be that all Nelson *knew* through direct observation was that the engines were making a peculiar sound, the pilot seemed agitated and was pulling levers and throwing switches, and the result was a sudden dive (resulting in consternation amongst the passengers) followed shortly by a premature landing.  None of those fundamentals seem contradicted by the extant reports; and if a laconic pilot or a panicking passenger or an overworked airline desk jockey made statements that led Nelson to further “connect the dots” in the wrong way—I don’t see why I need to hold that against now-President Nelson.  Prove to me that Nelson wasn’t on the plane at all, and then the comparisons to Dunn might be warranted.

To be fair to dumn. He actually did serve in the war in combat. He was there but a few of his stories about it are lies though.

[mgy401]

17 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

To be fair to dumn. He actually did serve in the war in combat. He was there but a few of his stories about it are lies though.

Indeed.  Human memory is naturally prone to some measure of inadvertent confabulation, and more so as time passes; but Dunn seems to have known what he was doing (claiming to have witnessed the death of someone who turned out to still be alive, etc; and then later acknowledging that he consciously did it to make the stories more appealing).  I don’t see that kind of mens rea with President Nelson.  Going back to the three incidents mentioned in the OP:  To the degree that his accounts of the airline incident or the BOM-conversion incident seem to conflict with other evidence, the apparently-spurious additions don’t aggrandize Elder/President Nelson or substantially add to the point he was trying to make.  And I see no evidence that the Mozambique incident didn’t play out as-advertised, except to the extent that initial media reports seem to have omitted some particularly traumatic details that the Nelsons became more willing to talk about with the passage of time.  [The OP to this thread seemed to suggest he could name a former Mozambique missionary who might offer a conflicting view, but that individual remains anonymous.]

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Reposting this here for @Fair Dinkum to respond to.  I don’t see that he has responded to Cinepro’s  very valid point. 

What do you think?  A reasonable explanation without intentional deceit?  Is there anyway for you to discount this explanation?  Wouldn’t it require a leap of faith to suggest that there was intentional deceit?  

Relying on faith (from a secularist point of view) to discount faith (from a religious point of view) seems like rather weak ground to discredit a prophet on.

Very possible.  I've stated in this thread that I believe President Nelson to be a good decent man

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Good grief!  I had not idea RFM was Consiglieri! Wow.

I'm missing something.

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is the subject of your concern, but what is the threat, and what the worst that could happen? E.g., what is his reputation for you now, what is the threat against it, and what is the worst impact this threat could have?

Are you suggesting that if became widely known that Pres Nelson had a penchant for embellishment AKA Paul H Dunn that it would have no impact?

Edited July 29, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?

There may have been a "Service Difficulty Report" generated about this (use this link and type in the airplane number - 74985 - as a search operator, then scroll down to the report dated 1977-01-20) :

Note here that the report was dated January 20, 1977, or more than two months after the incident. 

The "Date of Occurrence" field is left blank. 

The "Air Carrier Name" (presumably the name of the airline, SkyWest) is also blank.  

Let's look again at the CAB report:

CAB Report: "No damage to aircraft."

Also CAB Report: "Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered."

SDR Report: "Extreme internal damage to eng{ine}."

Okay.  That sounds reasonable.  CFR, though.  How do you know this?

I'm not sure the CAB report, comprised of a grand total of 78 words, was necessarily comprehensive and definitive.

Meanwhile, the SDR report is also lacking in some meaningful information and details.

Ah, the 70s.  

Thanks,

-Smac

As to the contents of the CAB report, I believe the litigation you mentioned down-thread (between Airwest and Page) was the impetus for the FAA's special investigation that was summarized by the CAB.

As to the aircraft vs. engine issue - my knowledge stems first from having been the son of a 30-year career airline pilot, secondarily from my involvement in aviation litigation.  I'm confident there are regs which spell this out, but I honestly don't have the time to track it down today given other professional obligations.  In the meantime, I believe @Stargazer provided a good post on this issue.  My experience is that the airframe is always considered separate from the engine(s).

As to my "definitive" statement - it is my experience that such reports make mention of both damage to the airframe and the engine when both exist.  Although not ideal, the absence of mention is itself evidence of absence; the same goes for the presence or absence of an actual fire.  I find it extremely unlikely that a special FAA investigation would make no mention of a fire in an incident (and that the CAB's summary would exclude it, as well).

[ttribe]

21 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm missing something.

Consigleri is a poster banned from this site.  He still posts under that moniker on the other board.  He is RFM.  His in real life name is known, but it was bad form for Scott Lloyd to publicly offer to provide that information.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ttribe

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I'm actually trying to be precise, rather than ambiguous (which is what "equivocating" means).

• You asked: "Have you listened to any RFM?"
• I responded: "Skimmed a bit.  It's quite a slog."
• You responded: "So that is a no. Maybe it would be well not to pass judgment on his defense attorney skills until you listen to him?"
• I responded: "No, it's a 'I've skimmed a bit.'  What I have listened to does not impress.  Lots of smug, lots of ridicule, lots 'You Go Girl!' backslapping between him and Bill Reel.  Not much in the way of substantive analysis.  And it really drags.  Oi."
• You responded: "You are such an equivocating attorney."

And in this post I stated: "I skimmed through it (1.75 speed, skipping through the smarm, the mockery, etc.).  Lots of sheer skepticism, as opposed to arms-length analysis."  I then give several examples of why I don't think much of Consig's purported "talented defense attorney" schtick.

Between you and I, I was being more precise.  You, meanwhile, attempted to distort and mischaracterize me.

I've listened to about 2/3rds of the nearly two-hour slog.

It means that I listened to it at 1.75 speed, and that here and there I used the "skip" function (the right arrow on my keyboard that advances the video by 5 seconds).

It means that most of the nearly two hours of video is pablum, or a superficial review of what I have already read for myself.

Not much.  

As you like.  I'm pretty comfortable with my track record.  Nearly 13,000 posts since 2004.  

I certainly have my flaws.  Being afraid or unwilling to "view things that challenge {my} position" ain't one of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you have skimmed one episode correct?