Elder Holland withdraws story

[Anonymous]

This gets into the definition of miracle but the definition I hear in church culture is expansive enough to include all the stories of the restoration of the church.

John the Baptist shows up to give someone the priesthood. People that died 1800 years ago don’t tend to show up to do much. Many would take that event to be a miracle.

All the church’s foundational stories are sensational, at least compared with other more modern religious foundational stories, and I would guess that both member and non-member alike would consider any one of the stories to be miracles if they were to witness the events firsthand.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

The church is not based on sensationalistic stories.

I gotta say… I think we go to different churches.

I complain about this all the time so feel free to ignore me but my biggest complaint about church is that we spend far too much time retelling the sensational stories of the restoration Sunday after Sunday. I don’t know if it’s always been this way and my perspective has shifted or whether there has been a change but I feel like all we talk about during church meetings these days is the restoration. Again and again and again. Specifically because the stories are sensational and the stories are shared with the intent to establish the truthfulness/importance of the church.

Edit:

I thought about this some last night and felt like giving a little more explanation. Despite correlation efforts it’s possible that we did indeed go to different churches. Hear me out…

The way we perceive church is based on external and internal factors. There’s what the church does and how a person interprets those actions. Ward A could do things one way, ward B a different way, and the same person will come away with different impressions. A ward could do things one way and person A and person B could walk away with two very different impressions. Heck, I’d even go so far as to say that person A could attend the same lesson and depending on their mood or what they ate for breakfast that morning, walk away with different impressions.

To help understand my perspective:

[Anonymous]

I do think it shows a lot of integrity on his part that he said it wasn’t true and withdrew it. It’s like when Tylenol recalled all their medicine because one container was found with cyanide in it. “Elder Holland, the GA you can trust”.

[Anonymous]

I will say this much. Most of the messages during general conference focus on Christ and living Christlike principles. It’s been my experience that those messages don’t always make it into the 3 hour block. It doesn’t help that SS has been the BoM and the D&C/church history for the last year and a half. The stories naturally gravitate toward the restoration narratives when those are the subjects.

3rd hour is about 50/50. We’ll always have those random “I can’t think of anything else to talk about so today’s lesson will be about the particulars of priesthood keys, what they are and where they came from.”

[Anonymous]

SD – This is t-shirt and bumper sticker perfect –

Quote:

“Elder Holland, the GA you can trust”.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Nibbler –

Quote:

I complain about this all the time so feel free to ignore me but my biggest complaint about church is that we spend far too much time retelling the sensational stories of the restoration Sunday after Sunday. I don’t know if it’s always been this way and my perspective has shifted or whether there has been a change but I feel like all we talk about during church meetings these days is the restoration.

I think this is a hold out from President Hinckley era. He loved that era. He himself extrapolated the Sweet Water Story, and it became miraculous. A decade of that is a bit hard to break and President Monson isn’t/hasn’t been charismatic enough to change the path, so “Come, come ye stories – No toil nor labor fear. We’ll tell you what to hear.”

And yes the mega dose back to back of BoM and Church Tales just adds to it. That’s why I am a dedicated member of the Foyer Sunday School class.

[Anonymous]

I just got caught up on this thread and noticed a lot of comments about miracles. I’ve been thinking a lot about miracles lately and realized I don’t believe they happen. Now, according to the BoM that means they won’t happen for me, but even when I believed I never saw true miracles. Sure, I’ve seen “tender mercies” (hate that phrase), but nothing I would consider a true miracle.

I’ve heard miracles broken down into three classes:

Class 1: Things that probably would have happened anyway without the divine intervention. Finding lost keys after prayer would fall into this category.

Class 2: Things that are unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility. A tumor that goes away and mystifies doctors, calling someone just when they needed to be called, etc. These things are less likely but not impossible.

Class 3: True miracles. Things that would not be possible to explain without divine intervention. Healing the blind, changing water to wine, walking on water, etc.

I have seen plenty of class 2 or 3 miracles in my life, but never any class 3. And I don’t think the examples in scripture of these types actually happened necessarily. Very likely they are later embellishments but that’s just my opinion.

Bottom line, I have no personal direct evidence of any class 3 “true” miracles. I also don’t know of anyone else who has. I conclude that they don’t happen. What do others think?

[Anonymous]

There is a podcast out on MormonDiscussionPodcast that really digs into the topic and pulls the thread back to where this probably got started and a reasonable proposal for how it got embellished.

The very stripped down version could be, “A young man in Idaho left home and the church and came back a few years later and his brother went on a mission.” Not quite so miraculous. The question I have is if Elder Holland was taking the high road (more than a month after he was told this was embellished and even one time saying “he followed the family over time”) or was he realizing that it was time to dissociate from this story as it was falling apart and was going to be egg on his face.

I have gone from first blush of think this is great for Elder Holland to being closer to how I feel about the essays.

[Anonymous]

I have experienced personally the truly, unexplainably miraculous only two times in my life. I have no idea why that is the case – why they happened and why they haven’t happened more often.

It takes a little time for someone to hear about and verify the embellishment of a story they have been told and then shared, especially when they aren’t sitting in an office all day, every day. Retracting a story told so publicly is not a small thing, and he had to be certain of the actual, full situation before doing so. One month, given his schedule, is completely reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Let me clarify my earlier comment regarding miracles by saying that I am not arguing against the intervention of God in our lives. My argument is that if He does indeed intervene and perform miracles, then those miracles follow natural laws. Regardless of my personal beliefs, the only miracles I have seen or believe are those that are statisically unlikely but not naturally impossible to have occurred (class two). In this way, faith still is required and even miracles can’t prove the existence of God. If there were regular miracles of the third class, faith would cease to be required of that person. I just don’t believe those types of miracles occur or have ever occurred. Sorry if that offends those who feel differently.

[Anonymous]

The thing that gets me is that we talk about miracles all the time when people are doing the Lord’s work. Then, when the chips are down I’ve seen leaders act in the most faithfuless, temporal way. We claim continuing revelation but how many decades has it been since new scripture has been revealed? And what are the rationalizations/reasons given for this?

I have experienced what I consider to be miracles too. But they seem to get farther and farther apart to the point I haven’t seen a miracle in decades other than perhaps the pervasive miracle of birth.

No wonder people are looking for sensational stories to shore up the belief that we are a church or miracles. They provide hope, and confirmation bias.

[Anonymous]

DoubtingTom wrote:

faith still is required and even miracles can’t prove the existence of God.

I like this comment. Well said.

nibbler wrote:

I gotta say… I think we go to different churches.

I complain about this all the time so feel free to ignore me but my biggest complaint about church is that we spend far too much time retelling the sensational stories of the restoration Sunday after Sunday.

one factor in the church experience is the imperfect people struggling to learn through this mortal experience…and as they do…reveal a lot of things at church.

I also feel turned off by sensational stories, and find myself skeptical…but also find it interesting how often my mother-in-law and others just LOVE those stories…so…they are getting something out of it that I seem to not benefit from. Although, I can’t imagine anyone benefits from a flat out lie…and think it is good for Elder Holland to keep it honest.

There can be lots of scenarios of what is going on with our experiences:

1) There is a miracle from God that actually happens by His divine intervention and it is recognized by those with faith;

2) there is a miracle and dismissed by people without faith, and is explained away as not a miracle by the minds of some or maybe just ignored and not seen even though miracles are happening;

3) There is NO miracle by God, but people are trying so hard to find them they want to see Christ’s face in a piece of toast and tell everyone about it and stretch the truth or embellish stories and get carried away with an idea trying to be inspirational idea until it grows too far from being honest;

4) There is NO miracle but shifty characters lie to deceive and want to get something from others (recognition, money, control);

5) There is NO miracle by God, but we don’t know how to explain something so we call it a miracle (like a rain dance creating rain), not dishonest but just not knowing more at the time (which can sometimes be explained later with proper information);

6) There is a random event, and some frame it as a miracle and some dismiss it at the same time.

I am guessing the list could go on, but that is kind of what i’m hearing as part of this conversation. There is LOTS going on with religion and experience and miracles and faith.

In Elder Holland’s case…it sounded like #3 and it was not a #4 situation or even #5 situation that later more information came to light, because it stemmed from #3 where someone specifically embellished it (the family acknowledged that) and it can be traced to an error by someone or some act. In that case, Elder Holland had to eat some crow because he believed someone else and retold it…but that was the right thing to do. Good for him.

I am guessing that does not change Elder Holland’s mind that this kind of thing “could” happen by the power of God, like other miracles of the restoration, but it just means in this instance it did not happen and was not a miracle. Just because it did not happen this time doesn’t mean it can never happen by the power of God, nor does it mean that all other miracles that did happen are not dismissed as could never have happened.

There is lots going on in our religious experiences.

We have to sift through it all, and it seems wise to me to avoid broad brush strokes and black and white statements like “no miracles ever happen” or “all things done in the church are miracle”…it is a variety of things happening in our church experience.

And often…people trying to sift and figure it out at church get some things wrong or try too hard. Just as some doubters assume too much and apply some things wrong by trying too hard to disprove everything.

hell…I’m probably trying too hard with this post…and getting lots wrong in explaining it.

That is why I keep coming here to learn from all of you, and to apply it to my thoughts as I sift best I can, and make mistakes as I go…but find through interacting with others…I can better hone in on truths and frame thoughts that are more helpful for me to clarify in my life.

When you all correct me, it helps me learn more and change my thinking because like Elder Holland…I think it is better to know the truths than to believe in sensational falsehoods.

Although I doubt lots, I remain a believing and hopeful doubter. (sorry for the wordy response as I sift through my thoughts on this).

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I also feel turned off by sensational stories, and find myself skeptical…but also find it interesting how often my mother-in-law and others just LOVE those stories…so…they are getting something out of it that I seem to not benefit from. Although, I can’t imagine anyone benefits from a flat out lie…and think it is good for Elder Holland to keep it honest.

Heber13 wrote:

We have to sift through it all, and it seems wise to me to avoid broad brush strokes and black and white statements like “no miracles ever happen” or “all things done in the church are miracle”…it is a variety of things happening in our church experience.

To that I’d say that miracles are in the eye of the beholder.

A miracle #1 on Heber13’s list (or miracle class 3 on DoubtingTom’s list) could be a miracle #5 (class 1) for someone else.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

A miracle #1 on Heber13’s list (or miracle class 3 on DoubtingTom’s list) could be a miracle #5 (class 1) for someone else.

Is that OK to say? Or is that the problem?

Believers want to establish Miracles can really happen, you can’t just explain them away. The restoration isn’t just a santa claus story…it DID happen. It may not have happened to this family in the story so Elder Holland corrected it, but that doesn’t disprove all other claims of miracles by God.

Non-believers are non-believers because they don’t think anyone can know if the miracles really happen or not, and it is just whatever we make of it, so they can’t allow themselves to believe it. Elder Holland’s story is one more evidence that believing in these things just sets you up for disappointment when the truth comes out that there are rational reasons things happen, not miracles or divine intervention. It is foolish to believe.

Is there no middle ground?

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone is saying that there’s no middle ground.

Heber13 wrote:

Non-believers are non-believers because they don’t think anyone can know if the miracles really happen or not, and it is just whatever we make of it, so they can’t allow themselves to believe it.

Non-believers of what? Someone can believe that one event wasn’t a miracle but still believe some other event was. Or are you saying non-believer of miracles in general? Yeah, if you take that approach there’s not going to be much room for a middle ground.

It’s just that at church we have a collection of sensational restoration narratives and I feel that a large part of what holds the tribe together is the acceptance of the literal nature of the stories we tell.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Is there no middle ground?

I think one of the best aspects of StayLDS is that there is no test of faith. From that position, I’d say, yes, there is middle ground, and each person here stands on middle ground as they see it, even if we all define the middle ground uniquely.

For my part, just to be clear and not in any way trying to convince, I believe there is no God and therefore no miracles. Yet I believe life is an incredibly wonderful stroke of luck for each of us, and if another person wants to call it a miracle, I have no qualms about their seeing it that way. That’s what I consider to be the middle ground.

[Author]

Posts