Jump to content

The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, cfi said:

a side note, for an incident like this, the CAB / FAA / NTSB would not have sent anyone to investigate. They would have merely gathered information from the mechanic who inspected the airplane, the pilot, and the owner/operator. Engine failures in flight, with no injuries or airframe damage, are a dime a dozen and not worth investigating.

Very helpful thank you. Any chance you have a link you could provide for those would like documentation since you don’t have an history in this board?  We like references even when we know people. :)  
 

Added:  I think helix did it for you, I just got hit with sleepy so not read his links yet. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, helix said:

If there was no engine fire, how did Nelson know that a pilot should shut off engine fuel, then engage in a steep banked spiral descent to extinguish the fire, and then land at an emergency airstrip? 

If someone felt set on the embellishment theory, it is easy enough to speculate Pres Nelson likely knows a few small plane pilots, one who could have explained the procedure to him or mentioned in passing a personal experience. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you are finding fault for a story that was not published in his biography?

Okay.

Only as confirmed evidence of past embellishments that turned out not to be worthy of being included in his biography due their being untrue

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Calm said:

Very helpful thank you. Any chance you have a link you could provide for those would like documentation since you don’t have an history in this board?  We like references even when we know people. :)  
 

Added:  I think helix did it for you, I just got hit with sleepy so not read his links yet. 

You have a charming Cockney accent (“an history”). I presume the h is silent in that phrase, hence the use of “an,” not “a”. 
 

1:02:43

"In 'artford, 'ereford and 'ampshire
'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen."
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Here is a summary of another story that President Nelson as well as his wife seem to have embellished. FWIW.

 

Sounded to me like we can choose to believe either that mission President, who wasn't there, or President and Sister Nelson, who were there.  And just because those hoodlums usually use machetes doesn't mean they didn't also have guns.

The problem here, if there is a problem, is not knowing who should be believed and how to find out who is telling the truth.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Sounded to me like we can choose to believe either that mission President, who wasn't there, or President and Sister Nelson, who were there.  And just because those hoodlums usually use machetes doesn't mean they didn't also have guns.

The problem here, if there is a problem, is not knowing who should be believed and how to find out who is telling the truth.

Sure.  I must have missed that the MP was not there.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  I must have missed that the MP was not there.

Well, no, my bad, I saw the news report again and apparently the mission president was there.  This event happened at his home while he was having dinner with President Nelson and his wife.  And he was right, President Nelson and his wife were not specifically targeteds, just as President Nelson and his wife both said they were safe and nothing bad happened to them, even with that hoodlum there who had both a machete and a gun.  They were all protected even in the midst of a robbery attempt,

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Idiocy.  Guy doing a podcast in his car?  

I think those doing these Tik Toks are pretty sad, that ex members or those on the fringe put on some pretty sick things. I'm disappointed in people like this, I guess they want people to not join the church or want believers to question. But it's low blows IMO. The one that was shared by Teancum is very mild compared to the ones I've seen put out. 

And a note about RFM and Bill Reel's "Mormonism Live", they seem to be trying to make some dough on the youtubes. And making mountains out of mole hills. Is this me speaking? Have I changed? ;)

Some points in LDS history such as polygamy by JS and BY, I get real upset about since so many women and men, I might add, suffered in trying to live the principle, and then all the sudden Utah needs statehood and that all goes away, imagine how those that sacrificed so much felt.  

And a podcast I listened to recently about the so called Lamanite's being Native Americans got me going, two Native American women explain what happened in their lifetimes with that fallacy being taught to them and how it affected their parents and them. I'd share but it was Dehlin that interviewed them, and his site is a no-no!

But Pres Nelson's recollection of the experience on the plane now doesn't at all bother me. If I were on the flight and what actually can happen such was shared by CFI, clinched it for me. And lately Bill, RFM and Dehlin just irritate me. Now they are posting on youtube before it going onto their websites. It appears to me that it's a money making machine to try and find these big stories that turn out to be duds. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Only as confirmed evidence of past embellishments that turned out not to be worthy of being included in his biography due their being untrue

I know you said previously that you weren't interested in researching and arguing the validity of any of these claims, but is there any evidence that President Nelson was actually the source of the embellishments in the story that wasn't published in this sudo-biography? (note: his official biography was published more than 15 years ago)

How do you know the embellishments are Nelson's and not Sheri Dew's?

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I know you said previously that you weren't interested in researching and arguing the validity of any of these claims, but is there any evidence that President Nelson was actually the source of the embellishments in the story that wasn't published in this sudo-biography? (note: his official biography was published more than 15 years ago)

How do you know the embellishments are Nelson's and not Sheri Dew's?

 

Here's an article in the Deseret News reporting that President Nelson shared this story in 2012. https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/2012-01-14/finishing-the-story-of-the-impact-of-the-book-of-mormon-53815

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Here's an article in the Deseret News reporting that President Nelson shared this story in 2012. https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/2012-01-14/finishing-the-story-of-the-impact-of-the-book-of-mormon-53815

That President Nelson has shared his experience with this couple isn't in dispute though.

What I'm looking for is evidence that the complained about embellishments originated from President Nelson.

As noted in that article, in the October 2010 session of general conference, then Elder Nelson related this story. Here is the relevant content from that talk:

Quote

Many years ago two colleagues of mine—a nurse and her doctor husband—asked me why I lived the way I did. I answered, “Because I know the Book of Mormon is true.” I let them borrow my copy of the book, inviting them to read it. A week later they returned my book with a polite “thanks a lot.”

I responded, “What do you mean, thanks a lot? That’s a totally inappropriate response for one who has read this book. You didn’t read it, did you! Please take it back and read it; then I would like my book back.”

Admitting that they had only turned its pages, they accepted my invitation. When they returned, they said tearfully, “We have read the Book of Mormon. We know it is true! We want to know more.” They learned more, and it was my privilege to baptize both of them.

Where are the embellishments here?

As best I can tell, assuming the ex-MormonLeaks article is accurate, the only thing off with this version of the story is a misstatement of fact about the wife being a nurse. Apparently, she was technically employed at the hospital as a transcriptionist. But I think that's kind of quibbling (and not really an embellishment anyway).

In the article you link to, it includes a retelling of the latter part of the story (by our own estimable @Scott Lloyd no less):

Quote

Speaking to the couples at the seminar dinner, Elder Nelson gave this follow-up to the story.

After his call to the Twelve, he was on assignment at a stake conference in Tennessee, filling in for Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who had another assignment from the First Presidency.

He saw a woman on the left side of the chapel and asked the stake president who she was. The stake president found out her name but added to Elder Nelson, “If you’re thinking of calling on her, I wouldn’t recommend it.”

But as Elder Nelson was giving his final address, the irresistible prompting came.

“I overruled the stake president and I asked her to come on up. I said, ‘How long have you been a member of the Church?’

“She said, ‘Thirty years.’

“I said, ‘Who baptized you?’

“She said, ‘You did.’ ”

It was this woman and her husband to whom he had lent his copy of the Book of Mormon.

“The reason I didn’t recognize her name was that her husband later lost his life,” he explained. “We were all on military duty. She was an army nurse; he was an army doctor and I was an army doctor. That’s why I had to lend her my copy of the Book of Mormon. I couldn’t give it to her; it was my one-and-only, and I was lucky to have that in a wartime situation.”

She had remarried and had a family.

At the end of the dialogue at the pulpit, he asked her how many people had come into the Church through connections to her and her husband.

The number was 80, including all members of her family, her husband’s family, her second husband’s family, their children and the number of converts their children had taught on missions. “That’s a pretty good harvest for a surgeon who said, ‘You didn’t read the book, did you?’ ” Elder Nelson remarked.

Again, where are the embellishments here?

I'm not seeing any.

No mention of Korea. No painting of the now deceased husband in a bad light. No mention of dreams or pre-prepared note cards.

No, it looks to me as though the only person who may have been confused about the events (or possibly embellishing) was the person writing the book (i.e., Sheri Dew), not President Nelson.

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That President Nelson has shared his experience with this couple isn't in dispute though.

What I'm looking for is evidence that the complained about embellishments originated from President Nelson.

As noted in that article, in the October 2010 session of general conference, then Elder Nelson related this story. Here is the relevant content from that talk:

Where are the embellishments here?

As best I can tell, assuming the ex-MormonLeaks article is accurate, the only thing off with this version of the story is a misstatement of fact about the wife being a nurse. Apparently, she was technically employed at the hospital as a transcriptionist. But I think that's kind of quibbling (and not really an embellishment anyway).

In the article you link to, it includes a retelling of the latter part of the story (by our own estimable @Scott Lloyd no less):

Again, where are the embellishments here?

I'm not seeing any.

No mention of Korea. No painting of the now deceased husband in a bad light. No mention of dreams or pre-prepared note cards.

No, it looks to me as though the only person who may have been confused about the events (or possibly embellishing) was the person writing the book (i.e., Sheri Dew), not President Nelson.

 

I have no idea if the embellishments were intentional or simply the result of misremembering as time passed. But, in this telling he was unaware of just who Beverley was when he was prompted to call her up to the podium, overruling the stake president.  According to her daughter, President Nelson was aware of who she was and that she was at the conference. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I have no idea if the embellishments were intentional or simply the result of misremembering as time passed. But, in this telling he was unaware of just who Beverley was when he was prompted to call her up to the podium, overruling the stake president. According to her daughter, President Nelson was aware of who she was and that she was at the conference. 

It doesn't say that he was unaware of who she was.

It says he asked the Stake President what her name was. And he explained that he didn't recognize her name because it was different from what it had been when he knew her 30-something years previously.

Again, I'm not seeing any "embellishment" here, but if you think you've got President Nelson dead to rights on this one then who am I to stand in your way.

 

Link to comment
On 7/29/2021 at 4:03 PM, smac97 said:

If so, I wonder how intensive the investigation was.  And was the investigation actually, you know, investigative?  Was there forensic analysis?  Did someone from the FAA actually examine the aircraft in situ (at the Delta airport)?  Before any repairs were done?  

I'll defer to you on that point ,then.

This is a fair assessment.  But then, it presupposes an intensive and scrupulous and timely investigation by the FAA.  Of an airplane that landed in Delta, smack dab in the middle of Utah, in the middle of winter.  In 1976-77.

And in the end, the purportedly embellished details seem largely immaterial (as in "unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant"). 

Does it really matter whether they landed in a field or at Delta Airport (which, even now, sure walks/talks/looks like a field)?  How does that add to the vividness of the event?  How does that aggrandize Russell M. Nelson?

Does it really matter whether the left engine was "off," such that it needed to be turned on again (as opposed to, say, throttled down then up, or throttled up)?

Is there a factually significant distinction between an "emergency" landing in Delta versus a precautionary one?  Particularly since the narrative is from a non-expert?

Holy cow.  I can only hope that when and if I reach 96 years old my critics will only have similarly paltry and nitpicky grounds on which to vivisect my life and character.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the larger concern is that this fabrication is not the only one from RMN . There is a pattern of him falsifying stories. There are at least 3 other similar fabrication stories with solid evidence.  This was the same non-covenant path Paul H Dunn took. 

Link to comment

I wonder what credit we should give to the fact that he doesn't have a good memory.  I remember how poorly President Joseph Fielding Smith functioned as President.  He was really suffering from dementia.

After tall, Isaac the prophet was fooled as to which son was which and gave the wrong blessing out.  

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I know you said previously that you weren't interested in researching and arguing the validity of any of these claims, but is there any evidence that President Nelson was actually the source of the embellishments in the story that wasn't published in this sudo-biography? (note: his official biography was published more than 15 years ago)

How do you know the embellishments are Nelson's and not Sheri Dew's?

 

Thank you, I have been wondering the same thing…who was the source of the story. Was it directly from Pres Nelson or passed on by someone who was told by him or what.  
 

If she was an transcriptionist, would she have interacted with him much at work allowing for her type of job to be up at the front of the memory or was it more socializing outside of work or with the husband who was the doctor. I can see if a lot of social conversation was about patients, as a transcriptionist she could have been given some medical training for knowledge purposes and picked up more from her work. I have had several doctors when I am a new patient assume I am a medical professional because I know terminology and tests, etc because of personal research.  I can see it very easy if she was knowledge and able to join in shop talk why the lasting impression would be she was a nurse. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I wonder what credit we should give to the fact that he doesn't have a good memory.  I remember how poorly President Joseph Fielding Smith functioned as President.  He was really suffering from dementia.

After tall, Isaac the prophet was fooled as to which son was which and gave the wrong blessing out.  

If there is other evidence of poor memory, that definitely could be a factor. But I wouldn’t assume it just because of age. My memory started to deteriorate due to drugs, so who knows, it might improve if I get other options in ten or twenty years. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Apparently, she was technically employed at the hospital as a transcriptionist. But I think that's kind of quibbling (and not really an embellishment anyway).

Military hospital, right?  Wonder if the uniform was the same outside of work.

My aunt works at the hospital, not as a nurse. But if someone just hears the hospital bit, they assume nurse. Seen this happened with women who are doctors as well as support staff. 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you, I have been wondering the same thing…who was the source of the story. Was it directly from Pres Nelson or passed on by someone who was told by him or what.  
 

If she was an transcriptionist, would she have interacted with him much at work allowing for her type of job to be up at the front of the memory or was it more socializing outside of work or with the husband who was the doctor. I can see if a lot of social conversation was about patients, as a transcriptionist she could have been given some medical training for knowledge purposes and picked up more from her work. I have had several doctors when I am a new patient assume I am a medical professional because I know terminology and tests, etc because of personal research.  I can see it very easy if she was knowledge and able to join in shop talk why the lasting impression would be she was a nurse. 

In a 1984 profile of Elder Nelson (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/06/elder-russell-m-nelson-applying-divine-laws?lang=eng) there are *two* stories told—one of a nurse who asks Nelson why he is different, leading to a missionary opportunity; and another of two “colleagues”, a married couple to whom Nelson gave a Book of Mormon.  In the ensuing thirty-plus years, it seems there have been several times in which the teller—whether a reporter, biographer, or even President Nelson himself—seems occasionally to merge the separate anecdotes into a single story involving the Ashcrafts specifically.  Again, I see this as a quite innocent manifestation of the way human memories tend to evolve over time.  Not particularly earthshaking stuff to Latter-day Saints who have already dealt with and reconciled similar issues involving Joseph Smith’s various accounts of the First Vision.

Our civil society is based in the 18th century notion that an honest person relating the “truth” will give the same account every time.  But modern judges and lawyers—at least, the good ones—are aware of the growing mountain of evidence regarding the unreliability of human memory; and have largely figured out that a witness’s being demonstrably wrong in some respects is not grounds for excluding the whole of the testimony.  (Certainly it invites deeper scrutiny of the witness’s factual allegations; but it does not warrant a moral judgment about the witness’s sincerity or motives.)

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
6 hours ago, cacheman said:

Here's an article in the Deseret News reporting that President Nelson shared this story in 2012. https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/2012-01-14/finishing-the-story-of-the-impact-of-the-book-of-mormon-53815

That’s my story. I wondered how long it would be before someone here would cite it. 
 

incidentally, I know both President Nelson and Sheri Dew personally. Let’s  just say the chances of Dew going off half-cocked with embellishments in a biography of him — or of President Nelson allowing it to happen — are infinitesimal. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...