Fact Checking Nelson's "Doors Of Death" light aircraft near death experience

[Gadianton]

I can't escape the conclusion that President Nelson makes up dramatic stories in order to look like he leads this really heroic life that he does not in fact lead. If I wasn't already opposed to him for his terrible policy decisions, I would say that this breaks it, but I lost any respect for him some time ago. This is just confirmation that my judgment was correct.

It would be difficult to disagree with you, Kishkumen. I add that Nelson thirsts to achieve a cult of personality. This was true long before he was a ranking official, when he wrote his memoir Heart to Heart, which includes visions and everything else. While the apologists will defend him as they would any other leader, they secretly believe he's a weirdo, like most of the other Saints do. Sadly, Nelson having no self-awareness, thinks that he's a huge hit anyway.

I never personally thought much of the leaders growing up although President Kimball in my mind was a legend, but in the countless conversations I've had about the leaders with other members as a TBM, I can't recall any special place that Nelson had. A lot of Maxwell fans. Everyone's a Kimball fan. Benson had his base. Monson was a crowd favorite. Hinckley was a loser also, but more notable than Nelson. Packer was a legend for many. Even after Dunn was caught there were hardcore Dunn fans. Other than "he's the guy who was a heart surgeon" I don't recall much talk of any about ole Rusty.

[kairos]

It seems to me as Dean Robbers wrote so clearly above that Russell M. Nelson has it somewhere in his deep psyche desire/need to have heroic tales of how God is directly operating in his life. I think it is because he scores "zero" on ever having an authentic conversion experience and as PSR he "MUST " have at least one of these to make him legit. So he just makes them up and does he make them up? In a way it is sad-sad that he has to lie and sad he may not be consciously aware that these stories are simply BS to most. I believe his personal PRIDE has a lot to do with this; by that i mean he says to himself "Oh SH+#, I am supposed to be a prophet and I got no story- what is a prophet to do?" How about a near plane crash story ? Ok let's go with it-any thoughts?

k

[DrW]

It would be difficult to disagree with you, Kishkumen. I add that Nelson thirsts to achieve a cult of personality. This was true long before he was a ranking official, when he wrote his memoir Heart to Heart, which includes visions and everything else. While the apologists will defend him as they would any other leader, they secretly believe he's a weirdo, like most of the other Saints do. Sadly, Nelson having no self-awareness, thinks that he's a huge hit anyway.

I never personally thought much of the leaders growing up although President Kimball in my mind was a legend, but in the countless conversations I've had about the leaders with other members as a TBM, I can't recall any special place that Nelson had. A lot of Maxwell fans. Everyone's a Kimball fan. Benson had his base. Monson was a crowd favorite. Hinckley was a loser also, but more notable than Nelson. Packer was a legend for many. Even after Dunn was caught there were hardcore Dunn fans. Other than "he's the guy who was a heart surgeon" I don't recall much talk of any about ole Rusty.

A fundamental problem with leadership of in the LDS Church is the way succession works (or more accurately doesn't work most of the time). The LDS succession model pretty much assures that the oldest, weakest of mind and body because of age, and risk averse individuals, are placed in the top leadership position. This model may work in constitutional monarchies where there is a real government behind the "Royal Façade" and the monarch is a mere figurehead, but it doesn't work for a church in which members are supposed to have a say in governance but clearly do not. (When it comes time to "sustain" the top leadership of the LDS Church the members' choices are essentially to do so or leave - i.e. "no temple recommend for you".)

At least the Catholics have the College of Cardinals that comes together in a papal conclave, representing members from different walks of life and geographical areas to elect a new leader. As we have seen in recent years, the Catholics also have a "step aside" provision in their succession model so that leaders do not necessarily end up working until they die.

As the good Dean Robbers has opined, Nelson (believed by far to many to be a weirdo behind the scenes) is a prime example of the problems with the succession model of the LDS Church.

[Res Ipsa]

It would be difficult to disagree with you, Kishkumen. I add that Nelson thirsts to achieve a cult of personality. This was true long before he was a ranking official, when he wrote his memoir Heart to Heart, which includes visions and everything else. While the apologists will defend him as they would any other leader, they secretly believe he's a weirdo, like most of the other Saints do. Sadly, Nelson having no self-awareness, thinks that he's a huge hit anyway.

I never personally thought much of the leaders growing up although President Kimball in my mind was a legend, but in the countless conversations I've had about the leaders with other members as a TBM, I can't recall any special place that Nelson had. A lot of Maxwell fans. Everyone's a Kimball fan. Benson had his base. Monson was a crowd favorite. Hinckley was a loser also, but more notable than Nelson. Packer was a legend for many. Even after Dunn was caught there were hardcore Dunn fans. Other than "he's the guy who was a heart surgeon" I don't recall much talk of any about ole Rusty.

A fundamental problem with leadership of in the LDS Church is the way succession works (or more accurately doesn't work most of the time). The LDS succession model pretty much assures that the oldest, weakest of mind and body because of age, and risk averse individuals, are placed in the top leadership position. This model may work in constitutional monarchies where there is a real government behind the "Royal Façade" and the monarch is a mere figurehead, but it doesn't work for a church in which members are supposed to have a say in governance but clearly do not. (When it comes time to "sustain" the top leadership of the LDS Church the members' choices are essentially to do so or leave - i.e. "no temple recommend for you".)

At least the Catholics have the College of Cardinals that comes together in a papal conclave, representing members from different walks of life and geographical areas to elect a new leader. As we have seen in recent years, the Catholics also have a "step aside" provision in their succession model so that leaders do not necessarily end up working until they die.

As the good Dean Robbers has opined, Nelson (believed by far to many to be a weirdo behind the scenes) is a prime example of the problems with the succession model of the LDS Church.

That's an excellent point, DrW. We are able to keep the body alive longer and longer, but haven't been able to keep the mind coherent at the same pace. Absent some kind of medical breakthrough that allows us to avoid or remedy the brain's natural aging process, the LDS method of succession is likely to become unworkable.

[consiglieri]

It is just possible some of this fictionalized miracle making may be to cover a perceived deficit for not having served a mission?

I hear a lot about helping create a heart-lung machine, but very little about his decision to pursue his career instead of serving a full-time.

[Dr. Shades]

As the good Dean Robbers has opined, Nelson (believed by far to many to be a weirdo behind the scenes) is a prime example of the problems with the succession model of the LDS Church.

How do you know this?

[DrW]

As the good Dean Robbers has opined, Nelson (believed by far to many to be a weirdo behind the scenes) is a prime example of the problems with the succession model of the LDS Church.

How do you know this?

The passage you are referring to, Dr. Shades, was appended to the phrase, "As the good Dean Robbers has opined, --- "

"While the apologists will defend him as they would any other leader, they secretly believe he's a weirdo, like most of the other Saints do. Sadly, Nelson having no self-awareness, thinks that he's a huge hit anyway."

It is easy for me to believe Dean Robbers on this issue because I personally see Nelson as a man in way over his head, as pretty much everyone his age would be, as the leader of an organization of millions of people, with annual income in the billions of dollars and no corporate purpose except to gain more members and keep the income coming.

Since this is an aviation oriented thread, consider the following:

The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (Public Law 110-135) went into effect on 13 December 2007. It raised the age for Mandatory retirement of commercial airline pilots to 65 from the previous 60. For air traffic controllers, the Mandatory retirement age is 56, with exceptions on an individual basis up to age 61.

Mandatory retirement age from Active Duty for the US Military is even lower at 62. Let's look at private industry. GE is a long established well respected conservative blue chip company with nominally 175K employees worldwide.

"The standard retirement age is 68, but GE's pension regulation offers you an opportunity to retire as early as 55 or as late at 70."

Seventy seems to be pretty much the top mandatory retirement age for organizations that play an important role in the economy and society in general. It is important for the proper function, and even survival, of these organizations that they are led by the best combination of intelligence, integrity, relevant knowledge and experience available.

What is an arguably delusional 96 year old doing as the President of a world wide enterprise with a book value in the many hundreds of billions, supported financially by millions of volunteers who pay money for the privilege, an 11 member board, all past retirement age except for two or three and none under the age of 61, a tax free annual income in the billions, and with operating overhead represented by a mere 14,879 paid employees?

Come to think about it, why does such an organization even exist in a democratic society ?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is just possible some of this fictionalized miracle making may be to cover a perceived deficit for not having served a mission?

I hear a lot about helping create a heart-lung machine, but very little about his decision to pursue his career instead of serving a full-time.

Another Mormon prophet who didn’t serve a mission? You got to be kidding me. This cult is a goddamn joke. Unbelievable.

- Doc

[azflyer]

So, first time poster (but second attempt). The web page just ate a very long and detailed post I wrote up. I'm pretty upset about that. So now you call get the uber condensed version.

I just listed to the RFM/Bill Reel podcast and there are a couple of points I want to make.

Also, I'm a pilot. "Just" a private pilot, and not multi-engine rated, but I do know a little bit about the airplane related aspects of this situation.

1) The engine was probably leaking oil. But it wasn't on fire. The report says that the cylinder head bolts were sheared. This would very likely result in oil leaking out. Here is picture of the engine. The cylinder head bolts are what keep the oil from NOT leaking between the crank case and the head. If those bolts shear, that seal is compromised, and it will leak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_ ... 0-D4A5.jpg

2) The timeline of about an hour is right. I did the whole flight plan in skyvector. When you account for taxi, runup, takeoff, climbout, cruise, diversion and decent, it's about 70 minutes total time. I did all of this analysis based on the performance numbers of the Piper Navajo, an estimated cruise of 20,000 feet and the published field elevation of KSLC (Salt Lake Airport) and KDTA (Delta Airport)

https://skyvector.com/?ll=38.9487293854 ... 33W%20KSGU

3) If you were on an airplane and one of the engines stopped running, don't you think the lady next to you would be a bit hysterical? Remember, this is the 70's.

4) Between the time the engine started running rough and was shutoff, to the time they landed was probably about 10 minutes. I'm sure your mind would cover a lot of ground, and go through a lot of emotions in those 10 minutes. Also, remember that in the air, the outcome of landing safely is uncertain. Much of what Nelson says about contemplating his life, his family, and what he thinks will happen in the afterlife very likely did occur.

4) After diverting to Delta, the pilot likely would have used an emergency decent maneuver to get the plane down. I think the hemming and hawing over emergency vs precautionary is pretty weak. To a passenger, an emergency decent maneuver would likely "look" like a death spiral. If executed correctly, it all happens at 1g, and the passengers would not "feel" any different, but looking out the window at an engine that is not running and almost certainly leaking oil would be somewhat disconcerting for all the passengers involved.

I think the RFM and Bill are a bit unfair to Nelson in the podcast. But some of the criticism is certainly valid.

[Lem]

Thanks for your comments, azflyer. I would like to push back on one area.

3) If you were on an airplane and one of the engines stopped running, don't you think the lady next to you would be a bit hysterical? Remember, this is the 70's….

Because men in the 70’s were more likely to stereotype women as hysterical?

Taking your question seriously, though, I grew up in the 70s, and had a Mom, a sister, 14 aunts, two grandmothers, one great-grandmother, a multitude of great-aunts, and dozens of female cousins. No, the women in my family were not “a bit hysterical” in the 70’s.

Which brings me back to stereotyping. Yes, I think much stereotyping of women occurred in the 70’s. A better assessment of this “hysterical” woman concept would be to look at the man telling the story.