Elder Holland withdraws story

[Anonymous]

It also sounded like they were trying to be respectful of the family as well, in other words…they were not just CYA-mode, but just putting out there what happened and how they heard it and wanted to be respectful to the family wishes as well.

In the end, my guess is Elder Holland will likely learn from this of the importance to screen the stories, especially the ones that seem a bit too miraculous to believe. My guess is they did a little fact checking…but mostly were going off of the embellished story of a family member.

People get carried away sometimes wanting the story that gets reactions, it is a human thing. Just a good reminder that integrity and honesty trumps inspirational wow-factor.

Elder Holland sounded sincere with an apology and with asking for respect for the family. I can forgive those who do that sincerely.

And I continue to be skeptical of these kinds of stories because it usually seems to come to light that someone embellished something along the way, or sometimes they just remember facts wrong.

I wonder if they story of Brigham Young’s face being turned into looking like Joseph Smith’s face (as the legend goes) would have never held up in today’s society with our scrutiny of details and facts…and I think I prefer our society where integrity and honesty trump sensationalism.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I love that he retracted this. I commend his integrity.

The problem with these types exaggerated stories is that people cling to them as proof that God’s hand is guiding things, that coincidences are God’s actions in our lives. So if they aren’t accurate, then it’s a false witness of that, one that undermines the credibility of the idea that God is guiding things in people’s lives.

I agree with you. The thing that often pushes me over the edge with these kinds of stories are the sensational elements. In this case, the dogs are when I really began to scratch my head and wonder. I believe miracles do happen (rarely), but this story just contained too many “Wows!” for my liking and skepticism. I still would have been skeptical, but less so, had the dogs been left out and perhaps the missionary brother already knew where his brother lived (that is, it wasn’t a seemingly random finding him while tracting, and “Gee, that’s funny, your parents have the same name as mine” element). If the story had been “missionary is called to mission where inactive brother lives and he finds his brother and tells him about how his parents pray for him and the prodigal son returns” I might not have been very skeptical at all – but it turns out even that wasn’t the real story.

I guess that’s something that kind of perplexes me sometimes. Why do people need the dog element or the missionary prayed and was directed to this street (or God helped me find my keys) elements to believe God is involved in their lives? Is that really faith? I’m not judging (OK, maybe I am a little), I’m just thinking out loud.

(Caveat: Since I don’t believe God is involved with our personal lives it’s a no-brainer for me, so in some ways it’s even more perplexing.)

[Anonymous]

I do commend the retraction.

Heber13 wrote:

I wonder if they story of Brigham Young’s face being turned into looking like Joseph Smith’s face (as the legend goes) would have never held up in today’s society with our scrutiny of details and facts…and I think I prefer our society where integrity and honesty trump sensationalism.

Yes I agree to a point. For example I really like that we have fact checkers that can verify claims made in presidential debates.

OTOH, is not our church built on sensationalistic stories? You crave a God of miracles as portrayed in the bible – let us give him to you! Is that not a pretty foundational tenet of our faith? It can certainly be hard for our church to be founded on the declaration that miracles continue and then almost 200 years later to claim that miracles are no longer necessary.

DarkJedi wrote:

I guess that’s something that kind of perplexes me sometimes. Why do people need the dog element or the missionary prayed and was directed to this street (or God helped me find my keys) elements to believe God is involved in their lives? Is that really faith?

I understand that one of Elder Holland’s themes was that the HG had to have inspired many, many people along the way in order to make this happen. That seems like corroborating evidence that the church is being personally and directly lead by JC at its head. Again – are we a church of miracles / is God still a god of miracles? If so then show me the miracles.

I believe that a fair number of the faith promoting stories in our manuals and our scriptures of this nature.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

That seems like corroborating evidence that the church is being personally and directly lead by JC at its head. Again – are we a church of miracles / is God still a god of miracles? If so then show me the miracles.

I believe that a fair number of the faith promoting stories in our manuals and our scriptures of this nature.

This right now is the burning frustration of many friends and family who have left the church. This was the final blow. How many stories are sensationalized to create an image that under scrutiny doesn’t hold up. As great as it is that this story was retracted, in this era of transparency and authenticity shouldn’t we go back and retract many of the “inspiring” stories we tell. Maybe clean house and start fresh?

I don’t have full answers on it. For me I am glad I don’t have to answer that question.

[Anonymous]

I also know people who have left the church because God didn’t help them find their car keys Mom3. Less glibly, I see people, like myself, who come to recognize that God may not be actively involved in our lives the way we often hear in F&TM, or stories like the one Elder Holland shared. It is a legitimate cause of faith crisis for some. Rather that being faith promoting, for some these kinds of stories can become faith destroying.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Yes I agree to a point. For example I really like that we have fact checkers that can verify claims made in presidential debates.

For all the good it does. :angel:

– – –

What’s the driving force behind wanting stories about miracles? Do the stories prove god is worthy of our time and sacrifice? Do we believe in miracles because doing so gives us the hope that a miracle can occur in our lives in our moment of need? Maybe miracles give us some assurance that something is in control in this universe. I don’t know.

mom3 wrote:

This right now is the burning frustration of many friends and family who have left the church. This was the final blow. How many stories are sensationalized to create an image that under scrutiny doesn’t hold up.

I think it’s understandable. What happens when someone receives a spiritual witness of a story, not a spiritual witness of the moral of a story but a witness of the particulars of the story itself? What happens when the particulars of the story changes?

I believe many church lessons set people up for this kind of failure. So much of my time in church is spent listening to stories that are focused on events that happened, particulars of a story where the only moral of the story is, “because of those events we know the church is true.” I feel like that message only feeds a subset of the saints, that and the stories can quickly fall apart when the events are scrutinized.

mom3 wrote:

As great as it is that this story was retracted, in this era of transparency and authenticity shouldn’t we go back and retract many of the “inspiring” stories we tell. Maybe clean house and start fresh?

That might be jarring for many people. I think we could find ways to tell the same stories but approach them from a different angle, make the moral to the story something more gospel related and less church related.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

OTOH, is not our church built on sensationalistic stories? You crave a God of miracles as portrayed in the bible – let us give him to you! Is that not a pretty foundational tenet of our faith? It can certainly be hard for our church to be founded on the declaration that miracles continue and then almost 200 years later to claim that miracles are no longer necessary.

Not my religion.

My religion states:

Quote:

Moroni 7

35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?

36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?

37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

Seeking miracles or seeking signs to validate our faith is the wrong approach. Those that seek those are on shaky ground.

But does that mean miracles don’t happen? Or does that mean that miracles are worthless?

No.

Miracles are not necessary. Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary.

It is by faith that miracles are wrought.

And proper faith is built upon truth and knowledge.

It does not work to just hope or wish for sensational stories and hope those santa claus stories are perpetuated as real and truth because we want them to be. Miracles are just a bonus when they happen, but we don’t need to make them up or force them just because we want them, because in and of themselves…miracles are not necessary. But they are built upon proper faith.

I prefer to have the facts, and the truth, and based on the truth to learn knowledge that can be applied to living through faith…and as we live with proper faith in Jesus Christ…miracles can still occur in our lives, according to God’s will. The fact my son is on a mission right now is a miracle to me, regardless of how others see it…I feel that. The experiences he is having are true miracles to him and the families he is finding to teach. I believe those are real. And miracles have not ceased.

That is an important part of my faith and belief system.

But being skeptical about the details of others is helpful for me to keep things real to me, not just seeking signs so I feel good about a story, but I find the real stories and real miracles that enlighten me.

I cling to the good, and dismiss the bad as I own my religion.

Other people’s stories are not as powerful to me as my own experiences, based on my own faith, based on my own study and knowledge and beliefs. It is good to see Elder Holland admit the error, and it is good for me to remember I can’t always take every word they say as truth without studying it out for myself. That is how faith works.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

That might be jarring for many people. I think we could find ways to tell the same stories but approach them from a different angle, make the moral to the story something more gospel related and less church related.

I totally concur. I would hate to be in the hot seat about which stories stay and which go.

If I could I would go over our manuals with a sharp pair of scissors and cut out the unsupportable stories we keep retelling. I would also use Elder Holland’s example over and over again until the message trickled down. At the same time reverse course and retell Jesus Stories. They are miles away. They give us hope and space at the same time. They can be applied a million ways. – As usual Salt Lake hasn’t called again.

I find myself in Heber’s position,

Quote:

Seeking miracles or seeking signs to validate our faith is the wrong approach. Those that seek those are on shaky ground.

But does that mean miracles don’t happen? Or does that mean that miracles are worthless?

No.

Miracles are not necessary. Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary.

I know people who have no religion at all but through faith/positive thinking/what-not they have overcome cancer and other horrors this life offers. The religion or gospel I believe in is much more universal. I just know how to practice it better in the LDS world.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I do give Holland credit for coming clean, although I think he should have checked it out better before as well.

He’s got the example of Paul H. Dunn to lean on. Paul did a little worse in that he was telling falsehoods to sell books. Holland doesn’t appear to have been doing it for filthy lucre, but if I were him, I’d be concerned about my membership if word got out too much of my inspiring stories were all made up.

There was a time when Stephen R. Covey was disciplining himself to be completely truthful in his stories. He said in one talk — “Viktor Frankl called me the night before he died — no TWO nights before he died and said….” – it was clear Covey was disciplining his habit of perhaps exaggerating a bit much for telling embellished stories.

I know it’s easy to make stuff up that no one can verify. A lot like statistics or to claim a study said X Y and Z, when you know no one is going to check.

I wonder if Holland has other stories he’s exaggerated with, or knew may not be true, or didn’t check out, and it’s gotten to him like it did with Covey.

SD

[Anonymous]

A major difference with Dunn, who I did like, was that he was telling stories from a first hand perspective – stories later proven to be false (or greatly exaggerated/embellished). I believe Holland thought the story, which he was telling third hand, was true, just as those who subsequently repeated it from pulpits thought it was true. I am sure there are those who repeated Dunn’s stories and thought they were true – why would anyone think a GA would lead us astray or lie about something like that? I don’t think Holland was lying simply because I don’t think his intent was to lie – unlike Dunn.

[Anonymous]

I think it is beyond important to make the distinction between Dunn and Holland in this regard. I also believe Holland sincerely repeated what he had been told by someone he assumed knew the accurate details and relayed them accurately to him.

There actually is more we can learn from the Holland example than the Dunn case, since most (perhaps all) of us aren’t making up or greatly embellishing stuff intentionally. If everyone understood basic fact-checking skill, and if everyone refused to believe anything and everything that matched what they wanted to believe, SO much would change for the good in this world.

[Anonymous]

The other part of the Dunn story (which still breaks my heart. He was my first GA crush) was that someone else caught the problem. A fan was writing a biography or memoir about Dunn and mid research came across the error. Elder Holland (a non-crush GA of mine) stepped in and publicly took his own responsibility for it.

[Anonymous]

So if GA’s become more cautious and tell fewer “stories”, maybe we can reduce GC by a couple of sessions… and that is a narrative I can get behind.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

Heber I am honestly confused. I read this verse as supporting my position (That the church is built upon a God of miracles) . I read it to say that God is a god of miracles and will continue to produce miracles as long as people have enough faith. Rather than miracles being an intermittent and totally unnecessary byproduct of faith, I am reading that miracles are the evidence of faith.

Somewhat similar to the famous “faith without works is dead” verse. “You say that you have faith and I say that I have miracles, I will show you the evidence of my faith BY my miracles.”

This verse seems to me to be saying, “Woe churches of apostate Christianity. You claim faith but deny miracles. your lack of miracles is actually evidence that your so called faith is actually null, void, and in vain.”

It seems to me that the whole premise of the restoration is that the very active god of miracles from the bible was now back in action.

The Spirit of God like a fire is burning!

The latter-day glory begins to come forth;

The visions and blessings of old are returning,

And angels are coming to visit the earth.

Heber13 wrote:

and as we live with proper faith in Jesus Christ…miracles can still occur in our lives, according to God’s will. The fact my son is on a mission right now is a miracle to me, regardless of how others see it…I feel that. The experiences he is having are true miracles to him and the families he is finding to teach. I believe those are real. And miracles have not ceased.

I do not mean to come across flippantly but isn’t that just redefining the word “miracle”? Did not the apostate churches of Joseph’s day have this sort of miracle? Why then the need for the restoration?

Maybe we are simply talking past one another. I hope that your answers might help clarify what you mean. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Maybe we are simply talking past one another.

could be we are talking past each other…but here is what I’ll try to clarify how I’m thinking of it in response to some of your comments:

Roy wrote:

(That the church is built upon a God of miracles) . I read it to say that God is a god of miracles and will continue to produce miracles as long as people have enough faith.

Yes. I think that is what we are taught, when God wills it. And that was what I was trying to say that I try to believe can still happen as a result of faith in true principles…not just faith in our own will of wanting to see miracles for us to believe. You have to have faith in the right thing…and then miracles can follow when God wants them to.

That was in response to your statement:

Roy wrote:

OTOH, is not our church built on sensationalistic stories? You crave a God of miracles as portrayed in the bible – let us give him to you! Is that not a pretty foundational tenet of our faith? It can certainly be hard for our church to be founded on the declaration that miracles continue and then almost 200 years later to claim that miracles are no longer necessary.

From that…3 issues I take from phrasing it that way:

1. Sensationalistic stories? No. The church is not based on sensationalistic stories. Perhaps this is some semantics..but the connotation to me from that is that it is a “story” sensationalized for effect in order to be meaningful and if not sensational then it is meaningless. It does not have to be sensational. It has to be truth, whether some people find parts of that sensational or not. Those who seek the sensationalizing as their measure to believe in it, they are missing the point. Even if those stories are fun, they aren’t what the religion is about, and it doesn’t need to be about that. It needs to be about faith in Jesus Christ, whether there is some sensational story to that or a boring fact…either way…that is what it is about, and shouldn’t get confused with selling sensationalism for effect, which is subjective to the eye of the beholder.

2. “You crave a God of miracles…let us give him to you! Is that not a pretty foundational tenet of our faith?” …This just came across to me as sign-seeking…and that the restoration was crafted so it can meet the needs that people had for a certain kind of God they crafted in their own image. So…that is not foundational, I don’t think. We don’t teach that miracles must happen, therefore God restored miracles to the earth…see for yourself. No…we teach the foundation is finding God, and forgiveness of sins, and the gospel of Jesus Christ and authority to baptize. It is all about restoring truth so we can return to live with God. Not restoring miracles because we crave it. But God is a God of miracles and that “can” happen if we have faith, but that is a side thing…not foundational to our faith. Regardless of if miracles happen or not…God will determine that…we focus on our faith in true principles, and leave the rest to God.

3. The last part is putting 2 different things together…”founded on the declaration of miracles” and “miracles are no longer necessary.” The religion isn’t founded on the declaration of miracles. We are not the Church of Latter-Day Miracles of Jesus Christ. I also don’t know who is saying miracles are no longer necessary.

Regardless of whether Elder Holland can produce a story of a missionary miracle or not, Elder Holland has teachings of Jesus Christ to testify as an Apostle. In this case of the thread…the miracle was a sensationalized story which was not true and denounced. Regardless of whether the story was true or not, we have other foundational teachings that Elder Holland is more concerned with in this gospel.

So…maybe what I’m trying to say is that miracles are not “necessary” ever, whether before when it was in bible times, or the restoration, or today, whether people want them or not. But…we do see in bible times that miracles did happen (when God decided), and they happened during the restoration (when God decided), and they can happen today (when God decides) based on our faith…not faith in miracles…but proper faith in the gospel message. And the miracles may or may not follow, but they certainly might and they have not ceased.

That is getting pretty detailed into my thought on the whole thing. Did that make any sense?

Roy wrote:

I do not mean to come across flippantly but isn’t that just redefining the word “miracle”? Did not the apostate churches of Joseph’s day have this sort of miracle? Why then the need for the restoration?

Well…defining miracle is a personal thing, very subjective. But again, other churches may have some. The need for restoration was not about making sure my son could have his miracle. As stated above…it was about something much different. Whether we define miracles or not, the restoration is about something else.

One more point…miracles can mean so many different things…I don’t think defining it needs to exclude the miracles my missionary son feels he has, or my lutheran friend says he has. It can be a lot of things that show some evidence of God’s love to His children and that he can intervene in their lives.

That happened before the restoration as well.

Because the restoration wasn’t about bringing back miracles that never happened since the Apostasy, or restricting them only to mormons who have a specific authority.

A miracle can be a healing when we know of no other explanation.

A miracle can be a birth of a child to parents who did not think they could conceive.

A miracle can be a prodigal son returning to the family.

A miracle can be a lost soul finding their way.

A miracle can be a thought to call someone at the very moment that person is hoping someone cares enough to call.

None of those miracles require the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. God spoke to Joseph Smith for a different reason. And many saw miracles as a result. Of course…some people just wanted the miracles and made up sensational stories so they had something to say in a talk. But they miss the point.

What does that mean to you and your definition of miracles and the purpose of the restoration, Roy?

[Author]

Posts