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

[Dr Moore]

Here is a 2006 version, in which the plane was "en route from Salt Lake City to St. George" (likely in error, as there were no direct commercial flights from SLC to SGU in the 1970s). In this version, "one of the engines blew up and the plane caught fire" and within a few seconds, "the pilot was able to shut off the fuel line and extinguish the flames". Hysterical screams from the "woman in the next seat". The plane made a "safe, emergency landing."

https://www.deseret.com/2006/4/15/19948 ... rgeon-says

This 2011 video has Nelson recounting the "engine on the wing caught fire... it exploded" and "burning oil was poured all over the right side of the airplane, and... we were spinning down to our death." "This woman across the aisle, I felt so sorry for her, she was just absolutely uncontrollably hysterical." He continues, "we made an emergency landing out in a field."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMwKxmT ... -daySaints

In this 2015 version, "some of the passengers" screamed in hysterical panic.

http://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/20 ... -airplane/

In this 2018 version, the engine "exploded, and burning oil sprayed all over the right side of the airplane."

https://www.ldsliving.com/Watch-Preside ... rt/s/87578

Another from 2018 on Nelson's stadium tour: there were "four passengers on a flight from Salt Lake City to St. George." "One of the two engines exploded..."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... d?lang=eng

In this 2019 version, the plane "made an emergency landing in a field."

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/08 ... at%20peace.

In this 2021 Easter version, he was flying to "the inauguration of a University president, where I was to give the invocation." "The plane was on fire, careening to earth in a spiral dive. Miraculously the dive extinguished the fire. The pilot was able to restore power to the other engine and make a safe landing. And I actually made it to the inauguration on time!"

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/28 ... the-savior

[Gabriel]

Isn't it quite remarkable that "Heart To Heart" seems to have fallen completely off the radar screen? It's an autobiography of at least 400 pages. Granted he wasn't too well known at the time; he wasn't THE Russell M. Nelson as he is today. But for a man so utterly convinced of his personal rectitude and who has advanced the art of the humble brag to such dizzying heights, why is it that, in our internet age, his first autobiography appears to be as hard to find as the lost 116 pages?

This man really gives me a 'bride at every wedding, corpse at every funeral' vibe. It would seem that his book should be chock full of fascinating stories.

No, actually, it’s not remarkable. A few minutes on the Internet reveals that (1) this was a book he wrote for his family. Relatively few copies were made. (2) In the preface, he states that the airplane incident is the reason he wrote the book in the first place. http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2016/03 ... n.html?m=1

I saw a copy listed for sale at $2000. Not interested enough to buy it.

If you want to reasonably investigate someone’s story, you have to put aside your emotional reactions and your bias. You have to be genuinely curious in trying to figure out what happened.

I did check the internet and saw that he had written a number, actually quite a number of books, but that particular one had no photo or link attached to it. Thank you for catching that.

As regards "emotional reactions and bias":
I don't have to put aside emotional reactions and bias. No one does. I just have to have to honestly evaluate the data from all sides without massaging it or burying it. And the fact is that right now, we have one man's story, (a man by the way whose word is the same as God's word to a broad swath of people) and as yet, no corroborating data to verify it. Are you trying to insinuate that if I alone somehow found the slightest bit of evidence that supports the veracity of Nelson's account that I would bury it in a safe for half a century? I would submit to you that would not. I would, despite my "emotional reactions and bias", share it on this forum. I have an admitted interest in this particular thread but If you rate Inspector Javert or Captain Ahab as a level 10 in intensity of pursuing their quarry, I imagine that I am down somewhere at a level 3. This may seem like a rather idle subject in your eyes and you may be right. But, on the other hand, you have spilled as much ink (if not more) than anyone else on this thread, which of itself suggests that this topic at least merits some interest to yourself.


You have provided your studies of how memory changes over time. Fine. But no one is quibbling about whether President Nelson had pepperoni pizza rather than Canadian bacon and pineapple on November 12, 1976. I have one or two profound memories in my life, but to what degree they have altered, I am sure that they haven't altered to such a radical degree to include any incongruent details like hysterical women and death spirals and mislocutions as to where they occurred. Neither have I been accused of tall tales (with the exception of my wife - but those are of the you-said-that-you-would-take-out-the-trash-last-thursday-but-you-didn't-do-it-AGAIN! variety) I have absolutely no problems with your defense of Nelson's side of the story. None whatsoever. A good Devil's advocate is a bracing wind to intemperate enthusiasms. I am at a loss, however, as to why you seem so dismissive that people here are looking into it. People have expressed preliminary options here - you have expressed yours - but I haven't seen any dogmatic proclamations.

My mom, despite the misgivings of her WASPish family, joined the church primarily from her experiences while attending the talks of a rather charismatic up and comer in Southern California named Paul H. Dunn. So my bias, if you will, comes from that angle. It is a bias, but are you suggesting that it is an entirely unreasonable one?

[Dr Moore]

From the above retellings, it is clear that Nelson means to convey that:

1. The flight originated in SLC, with ultimate destination SGU
2. By mentioning relief about being on-time to the inauguration, the flight was same-day, ie Nov. 12, 1976
3. It was a twin-engine propeller plane
4. There were 4 other passengers, Nelson on the right side window, and a woman "next to him" was "across the aisle"
5. Some of the other passengers screamed hysterically, including but not limited to the woman seated next to him
6. Nelson remained calm, as his life-flash was comforted by his knowledge of the sealing power
7. The plane's engine literally exploded and there was fire on the fuselage and wing
8. The plane careened in a spiral toward earth
9. The fire went out as the plane descended
10. The pilot took emergency actions and made a safe emergency landing in a field

[Tom]

Here is a 2006 version, in which the plane was "en route from Salt Lake City to St. George" (likely in error, as there were no direct commercial flights from SLC to SGU in the 1970s). In this version, "one of the engines blew up and the plane caught fire" and within a few seconds, "the pilot was able to shut off the fuel line and extinguish the flames". Hysterical screams from the "woman in the next seat". The plane made a "safe, emergency landing."

https://www.deseret.com/2006/4/15/19948 ... rgeon-says

In this 2015 version, "some of the passengers" screamed in hysterical panic.

http://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/20 ... -airplane/

In this 2018 version, the engine "exploded, and burning oil sprayed all over the right side of the airplane."

https://www.ldsliving.com/Watch-Preside ... rt/s/87578

Another from 2018 on Nelson's stadium tour: there were "four passengers on a flight from Salt Lake City to St. George." "One of the two engines exploded..."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... d?lang=eng

In this 2019 version, the plane "made an emergency landing in a field."

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/08 ... at%20peace.

In this 2021 Easter version, he was flying to "the inauguration of a University president, where I was to give the invocation." "The plane was on fire, careening to earth in a spiral dive. Miraculously the dive extinguished the fire. The pilot was able to restore power to the other engine and make a safe landing. And I actually made it to the inauguration on time!"

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/28 ... the-savior

I would quibble with some of the dates (the reenactment clip goes back to at least 2011), but I think tracing the multiple accounts is a valuable exercise.

In this 2015 version, "some of the passengers" screamed in hysterical panic.

http://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/20 ... -airplane/

The webpage is quoting from a 1995 book, The Gateway We Call Death. The relevant passage in the book provides this footnote: "This experience was also quoted in my address at the April 5, 1992, afternoon session of general conference. See 'Doors of Death,' Ensign, May 1992, pp. 72-74."

[Res Ipsa]

He wrote that the incident helped motivate him to write an autobiography, not for general publication, but for his family. And you claim the best explanation for that is that he made it all up?

I don't think anyone questions whether Nelson experienced a personal scare during a flight. I'm sure he was on a plane that dove unexpectedly, giving him a momentary life-flash and subsequent reason for reflection. Hell, I've had plenty of those myself over the years. But I don't need to embellish the details of feeling scared on planes to get the essential point across. Nelson's subsequent re-tellings make miracles of the whole ordeal -- accelerating air flow putting out the engine fire, restarting of the other engine, and being able to arrive on time to his ecclesiastical commitment. All of that is unnecessary and appears worthy of a Dunnish interrogation.

I think several people have exactly questioned that, concluding he imagined the whole thing.

Nelson doesn't present the incident as if it were a miracle. He attributes the survival of the passengers to the actions of an experienced pilot.

Unless Nelson was an experienced pilot himself and could interpret what he was experiencing accurately, it would not be surprising to find that his explanation for what the pilot actually did and why would be incorrect. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that his explanation is an embellishment to make the incident look miraculous. I think it's fully understandable as what our brains do: take raw data and organize it into a story that is sensible to the brain. The brain makes up explanations, adds details, changes details, and eliminates details over time. It responds to leading questions by incorporating information from the questions into the memory. The brain doesn't simply keep a factual record somewhere in our memory -- it continually recreates the memory. And it flat out makes up the "meaning" of those stories and changes its understanding over time.

I agree that many of the details in the story are unnecessary to Nelson's point in telling the story. But including detail makes stories more interesting. That doesn't mean Nelson consciously fabricated the details. But his recollection is shaped and altered to some extent every time he talks about it with someone.

I think this is a fascinating example of how the brain creates personal stories, manufactures meaning for them, and evolves them over time, all with no conscious confabulation or embellishment. I'd love to get my hands on the account from his autobiography and then look for details that could be checked. Better yet, I'd love read an account from his journal, if he kept one. Likewise, I think it would be fascinating to take every time he has told the story and see the changes over time. I think we'd find elements of the story that were introduced by others and incorporated into Nelson's memory.

[Gabriel]

I don't think anyone questions whether Nelson experienced a personal scare during a flight. I'm sure he was on a plane that dove unexpectedly, giving him a momentary life-flash and subsequent reason for reflection. Hell, I've had plenty of those myself over the years. But I don't need to embellish the details of feeling scared on planes to get the essential point across. Nelson's subsequent re-tellings make miracles of the whole ordeal -- accelerating air flow putting out the engine fire, restarting of the other engine, and being able to arrive on time to his ecclesiastical commitment. All of that is unnecessary and appears worthy of a Dunnish interrogation.

I think this is a fascinating example of how the brain creates personal stories, manufactures meaning for them, and evolves them over time, all with no conscious confabulation or embellishment. I'd love to get my hands on the account from his autobiography and then look for details that could be checked. Better yet, I'd love read an account from his journal, if he kept one. Likewise, I think it would be fascinating to take every time he has told the story and see the changes over time. I think we'd find elements of the story that were introduced by others and incorporated into Nelson's memory.

I suppose that one say could say the same for Paul Dunn's memory.

[Res Ipsa]

I did check the internet and saw that he had written a number, actually quite a number of books, but that particular one had no photo or link attached to it. Thank you for catching that.

As regards "emotional reactions and bias":
I don't have to put aside emotional reactions and bias. No one does. I just have to have to honestly evaluate the data from all sides without massaging it or burying it. And the fact is that right now, we have one man's story, (a man by the way whose word is the same as God's word to a broad swath of people) and as yet, no corroborating data to verify it. Are you trying to insinuate that if I alone somehow found the slightest bit of evidence that supports the veracity of Nelson's account that I would bury it in a safe for half a century? I would submit to you that would not. I would, despite my "emotional reactions and bias", share it on this forum. I have an admitted interest in this particular thread but If you rate Inspector Javert or Captain Ahab as a level 10 in intensity of pursuing their quarry, I imagine that I am down somewhere at a level 3. This may seem like a rather idle subject in your eyes and you may be right. But, on the other hand, you have spilled as much ink (if not more) than anyone else on this thread, which of itself suggests that this topic at least merits some interest to yourself.


You have provided your studies of how memory changes over time. Fine. But no one is quibbling about whether President Nelson had pepperoni pizza rather than Canadian bacon and pineapple on November 12, 1976. I have one or two profound memories in my life, but to what degree they have altered, I am sure that they haven't altered to such a radical degree to include any incongruent details like hysterical women and death spirals and mislocutions as to where they occurred. Neither have I been accused of tall tales (with the exception of my wife - but those are of the you-said-that-you-would-take-out-the-trash-last-thursday-but-you-didn't-do-it-AGAIN! variety) I have absolutely no problems with your defense of Nelson's side of the story. None whatsoever. A good Devil's advocate is a bracing wind to intemperate enthusiasms. I am at a loss, however, as to why you seem so dismissive that people here are looking into it. People have expressed preliminary options here - you have expressed yours - but I haven't seen any dogmatic proclamations.

My mom, despite the misgivings of her WASPish family, joined the church primarily from her experiences while attending the talks of a rather charismatic up and comer in Southern California named Paul H. Dunn. So my bias, if you will, comes from that angle. It is a bias, but are you suggesting that it is an entirely unreasonable one?

"Put aside" was a bad choice of words. "Acknowledge and be conscious of" is likely closer to what I was trying to express. A book I recently read (I think it was The Data Detectives), the author discussed how to understand and evaluate statistical arguments. Upon seeing a new piece of information, his first step was to stop and ask yourself if you have any emotional reaction to the information. That helps you recognize your own bias, which you have to do your best to avoid if what you want is to get as close to the truth as you can. That's where my thinking comes from.

In the vast majority of cases, we don't demand that people authenticate or corroborate their personal stories. If you and I were sitting around shooting the breeze and you told me a story from your past, the last thing in the world I would do is ask you to corroborate your story. Even if I think your story sounded odd to me, I wouldn't demand that you do that. And if your wife were present, I wouldn't expect her to jump up with evidence to corroborate your story.

Suppose I had been on the plane and my recollection was the same as Nelson's. Why would you expect me to voluntarily come forward to publicly confirm his story. Is anyone other than a relatively small group of former Mormons making an issue of it? Then why would you expect me to corroborate a story that I don't think needs corroborating?

Yeah, I'm interested in the thread because I'm interested in stories and how our brain constructs them, gives them meaning, and alters them over time. When I'm interested in something, I'm pretty wordy. Trust me. I'm also interested in evidence and how we should evaluate it. That comes partly from being in a profession where we know that eyewitness evidence is inherently untrustworthy, yet we also know that people think it is highly credible.

It's not just minor details that the brain changes over time. Odds are, if you have a memory of an experience that you consider to be profound, your brain has altered significant parts of it. Absent a detailed recorded or written record made contemporaneously with the event, there is no way for you to determine how much your memory has changed. Every time you think about that memory, your brain erases it and records a new version. In the Challenger study, some participants insisted that their later memories were accurate and that they must have been mistaken when they wrote their accounts. During the entire Recovered Memory debacle, people remembered extreme physical and sexual abuse that never happened. That's not comparable with pizza toppings.

I'm not dismissive of any effort to try and figure out what actually happened. I am critical of biased or motivated reasoning. I am especially critical of motivated reasoning and unwarranted assumptions.

I'm not trying to defend Nelson's side of the story. I fully expect that, the later the retelling is in time, the less accurate his recollection will be. I am pushing back on the notion that we can conclude that he intentionally embellished, merely imagined, or consciously made up the story on the basis of the evidence we have to date. The problem with preliminary conclusions based on inadequate evidence is that you can develop tunnel vision that prevents you from recognizing and critically examining the assumptions you make along the way. In my career, I've seen this happen dozens and dozens of times, which makes me at least try to defer conclusions as long as I can.

I don't think it matters whether your bias is reasonable or not. I think it matters that you recognize what it is and the extent to which it may affect your reasoning.

[Res Ipsa]

I think this is a fascinating example of how the brain creates personal stories, manufactures meaning for them, and evolves them over time, all with no conscious confabulation or embellishment. I'd love to get my hands on the account from his autobiography and then look for details that could be checked. Better yet, I'd love read an account from his journal, if he kept one. Likewise, I think it would be fascinating to take every time he has told the story and see the changes over time. I think we'd find elements of the story that were introduced by others and incorporated into Nelson's memory.

I suppose that one say could say the same for Paul Dunn's memory.

Perhaps one could. I think I was out of the church when the whole Dunn debacle went down. And I don't recall being a fan boy of his while I was in the church. So I have to confess that I don't know lots of the details about his stories. My general impression is that he made claims that were clearly contradicted by the evidence. Like, wasn't one of his claims about being a pro or semi-pro baseball player when he never was? I think that's pretty tough to attribute to how memories work. The equivalent evidence in this case would be finding iron-clad proof that Nelson never flew on an airplane.

The boundary between normal brain functioning and intentionally making crap up is not as clear as one might think.

[Gadianton]

I think this is a fascinating example of how the brain creates personal stories, manufactures meaning for them, and evolves them over time, all with no conscious confabulation or embellishment.

I wouldn't be that specific. First, I have to say you're providing an invaluable service by being skeptical of attempts to reduce this to his own imagination, and you've uncovered some fascinating material here and synthesized it. The journal find is a huge piece of evidence, a piece that makes it more believable that the account really is based in a dramatic plane experience.

HOWEVER:

I look at this as a fascinating example of how mythology or urban legends are created. Nelson's memory is one aspect of that. But I don't think we can assume he's not intending to embellish. Although, I can appreciate the assumption that he isn't trying to embellish, as a way to hold as many variables constant as possible. If it can be explained without the need to assume malicious invention, then all the better.

In my time, I've become personally acquainted with a handful of very odd individuals who are quite capable and successful financially, and yet, can't complete a sentence without lying about something. I'm not going to judge at this time where Nelson falls on the spectrum, and I admit that forward to that family book is a serious piece of evidence in favor of a real and dramatic plane experience as the root to the story. I also am open to the possibility that there was no dramatic fire, nose dive, or field landing, or even the possibility that yet, it's entirely manufactured.

Remember the suggestion that "the point of no return" or other elements could have come from what people had said on the plane? Given all the plane trips he's been on and in challenging parts of the world, there could have been a fellow passenger one-upping everybody's stories -- "The last time I was on one of these buckets of bolts, you'll never guess what happened...!"

I'm not saying that's what I believe happened, I'm really on the fence here about how the story originated.

[IHAQ]

Nelson doesn't present the incident as if it were a miracle. He attributes the survival of the passengers to the actions of an experienced pilot.

Nelson “Miraculously the dive extinguished the fire.”