Anti-Mormons and opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ will often claim that President Russell M. Nelson has been lying about almost dying in a plane crash. Their argument can be summed up as:
“Nelson claims he almost died when the engine of a commuter plane he was in burst into flame, spiraled towards the ground in a death dive, and miraculously pulled out at the last second to land in a farmer’s field. We have found the report of this accident and it doesn’t mention any of these details. Therefore Nelson is a liar. And if he lied about this, then he is also lying about the church and its teachings.”
Is this true? That is what we will find out today, in this article. I am going to evaluate these claims, the evidence for these claims by looking at every recounting of the event we have, and place it all under the lens of historical scrutiny. I will thereby prove that the claims that President Nelson is lying about this story are false. Further, I will show that most anti-Mormons are applying an extremist interpretation of his words that don’t match his actual claims in order to manufacture a strawman fallacy that they can attack as being false without addressing his actual statements.
The Historian’s Craft
Before we go further, we need to understand some of the basic foundational principles of historical research that will guide our evaluation of President Nelson’s claims:
- Historians prefer earlier sources to later sources.
- Historians prefer primary sources to secondary sources.
In short, good historical analysis is based on the evidence from those as directly involved in historical events as possible to achieve. There are multifaceted reasons for this, but the simplest ones are that those involved directly in the historical events understand better what happened than those who didn’t and that later accounts, even by those involved, can be erroneous due to the fluid nature of memory.
People can remember things incorrectly and not even realize it. Memories can change as we tell and retell stories about our experiences and we won’t even realize it. Scientists have termed these events confabulation (when you unknowingly invent a false memory to fill gaps in what you remember) and false memory (when you remember something differently than how it actually occurred.) Humans can remember events that happened to others as memories of those events happening to themselves. And the illusory truth effect means that we can believe that something is true not because we saw it ourselves, but because we’ve heard it repeated so often that we come to believe it is true, even if we have no way of knowing it is true or not.
These problems are all relevant because it means that a person telling a story 50 years after it happened can be honestly telling the events as they remember it and still be wrong on numerous levels. Not because he or she is lying, but because his or her memory of the event has been altered and changed in his or her memory by a number of external and internal influences. In order to avoid these problems as much as possible, we give primacy to the earliest accounts from those actually involved that are possible to access. We only accept later accounts when no earlier primary accounts exist or we measure the accuracy of later accounts by the facts we know from earlier accounts to ensure the legitimacy of the later account. If the facts align with what we know from the primary accounts, then we accept the later accounts.
The Summary Account
Both anti-Mormon (as linked above) and LDS apologetics agree that this Civil Aeronautics Board summary report is the official account of the events that Nelson has described over the years:
Sky West Airlines has had 3 engine failures from Oct. 17, 1976 through Nov. 24, 1976. …Second incident occurred Nov. 11, 1976 involving Piper PA 31 N74985. Pilot experienced rough engine on scheduled flight between Salt Lake City and St. George. 3 passengers on board. Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual. Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered. As result of occurrence Sky West changed maintenance procedures by checking torque studs at each 100 hour inspection. No damage to aircraft. No injuries to crew or passengers .
Civil Aeronautics Board, pg. 1090
Once we have looked at all the Nelson accounts, we will comeback and compare them to this report. For those interested, this is what a Piper PA-31 Navajo looks like:

The Nelson Accounts
Understanding how memory changes over time will become essential as we look at the differing accounts of President Nelson’s airplane experience because we will see how these effects on human memory effect his memory, telling, and re-telling of these events. The first reference comes from the Preface of his 1979 autobiography Heart to Heart:
The original motivation to write this review seemed to spring simultaneously from my dear wife, Dantzel, and from President Spencer W. Kimball. Then a plea from President B. Lloyd Poelman provided additional prompting. Unifocal direction from three I loved so much could not be ignored. The final nudge came as I was a passenger in a small airplane plummeting earthward with one of its two engines exploded. I realized then that although both the spiritual and material needs for my family had been provided, I had not left for them a reasonable recapitulation of my life that they could review. The safe emergency landing of that disabled aircraft provided me with the chance I needed.
Heart to Heart, pdf pg. 5
Notice that the description here is a single line and we have no details about what happened or when it happened. Now, the anti-Mormons typically jump from here to his latter account in General Conference. But Bro. nelson actually provides three references to the airplane incident: the one above, one on pg. 305 where describes being in, “a crippled airplane with an exploded engine as it plummeted earthward,” and this final account which gives us slightly more details of this experience at the very end of the book:
November 12—Flew to St. George. When one of the small airplane’s engines exploded, I expected to be killed. But after a precipitous dive in the disabled plane, the pilot made a safe emergency landing in Delta. I was going to St. George to give the opening prayer at the inaugural services at which Rolfe Kerr became president of Dixie College
Heart to Heart, pgs. 376-377
Here we find out slightly more details about the event. Nelson remembers it happening on November 12th, he was on his way to St. George, one of the engines “exploded” (a loaded term we will explore later on), and that the plane made an emergency landing in Delta, UT. The real value of this account is that it comes no more than three years after the events took place. Going back to our point about historical sources, the closer to recounting the better.

The next account originates in an address that Elder Nelson gave to the Salt Lake Institute of Religion on March 31, 1985 titled, A Call To Serve. It hasn’t been digitized yet, but is available for in person reference at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, UT upon request. The Church History Library emailed me a digital version upon request and I suggest everyone do the same. It contains much more detail than the previous account given in Heart To Heart. Reading A Call To Serve was a marvelous experience if only because Nelson, just recently called as an Apostle, was much more relaxed and jocular than we typically see him and other Apostles. Below is the section of the address where he discusses his airplane experience:
I remember well an episode in my life not too long ago which rehearsed me for the question that I was asked by the First Presidency. I was in an airplane going from Salt Lake City to St. George to participate in a function at Dixie College. We were in one of those small commuter airplanes. There were about six passengers in it. The pilot had just announced that we were over the halfway point between Salt Lake and St. George–we were past the point of no return. I thought, “Well, that’s a weird announcement to make.” Shortly after that, the engine on the right wing of the airplane burst open in flames, spewing oil all over the right side of the plane. The propeller became starkly still and the whole engine was on fire. We then went into a dive earthward. I knew that my life was going to be terminated right then and there. I’m pleased to report that I was really prepared. I knew I was facing death and I was calm. I knew that the most important thing I had ever done was to marry Dantzel White in the temple on August 31st–that each of the children that have come into our home were born in the covenant–all faithful, many of them married in the temple; and I was ready to die. The poor lady across the aisle from me was in absolute hysterics. She was right there where the flames were the brightest. But the pilot had turned off the ignition that fed more gas into the fire and had purposely been in a steep dive hoping that the flames might be extinguished, which was what happened. Then, with the power still left in the other propeller–which he then turned on just as we were about ready to have our moment of impact–he was able to glide us, following a highway, until we could make an emergency landing. I was well rehearsed for my reply to the First Presidency because I had literally faced death and was able to say, “Yes, I’m ready for whatever the Lord would have me do.”
Here we get further details, but nearly a decade after the events in question. We get a better meaning of what he means by “exploded,” namely that it appeared to him that the engine caught fire and flaming oil splattered the side of the plane. There is a dive, which Elder Nelson believes was done on purpose to put out the flames after the pilot had cut the flow of fuel to the engine. Then, coming out of the dive at the last minute, the plane flies with only one engine and makes an emergency landing as soon as possible.
Selections from this address was reprinted in Elder Spencer J. Condie‘s 2003 biography Russell M. Nelson: Father, Surgeon, Apostle. You can read then here on pdf pgs. 313-314 if you want. The selections are all quoted word for word, but out of order. This is likely because Condie wanted to streamline the text and make the sequence of events in the airplane easier to follow. So, Condie takes the faith affirm section and puts it at the end of his quotations and groups the quoted portions of the airplane event together.

The next account comes from nearly seventeen years after the events and are from Elder Nelson’s 1992 General Conference address, Doors of Death:
I remember vividly an experience I had as a passenger in a small two-propeller airplane. One of its engines suddenly burst open and caught on fire. The propeller of the flaming engine was starkly stilled. As we plummeted in a steep spiral dive toward the earth, I expected to die. Some of the passengers screamed in hysterical panic. Miraculously, the precipitous dive extinguished the flames. Then, by starting up the other engine, the pilot was able to stabilize the plane and bring us down safely.
The additional noteworthy detail here is now the plane is in a “spiral” dive or, at least, Elder Nelson thinks the dive is the start of a spiral dive. Curiously, he says here that the pilot started the other engine as if it wasn’t already running. This account is repeated word for word in his 1995 book, The Gateway We Call Death, which you can read here on pdf pg. 24.
At this point, all of the accounts provide in the “debunking” post are reported secondhand through the Church News and don’t quote him on the events of the airplane malfunction. The Church News sources summarize his experience with in the airplane, typically along the lines of this one, “President Nelson was traveling with four passengers on a flight from Salt Lake City to St. George Utah; during the flight, one of the two engines exploded, sending the small plane into a downward spiral,” and then quote President Nelson in detail on the moral lesson about faith and peace found in the living the Restored Gospel.
These secondhand summaries may or may not reflect what Nelson actually said. As summaries, these secondhand accounts may instead just be the writer’s imperfect recollection of what Nelson said or even how the reporter thinks about the events in his or her head. This is extremely relevant because what one person says is not what another person understands (and therefore remembers) about what another person said. With no way to compare the journalist’s summary with a record of what Nelson actually said, these reports are largely meaningless. They don’t tell us whether Nelson is exaggerating his experience or if the journalist is exaggerating his experience.
The most recent public recounting of the airplane incident by President Nelson that we have a record of his actual words is a video produced by the Church of Jesus Christ and posted to YouTube in 2012. In it, President Nelson talks about his experience, now over thirty years after the events originally occurred. It largely reflects what he had to say about the events back in his talk in 1995.
Evaluating The Evidence
So, where does this leave us?
Well, the story has changed over the years, but not as dramatically as the anti-Mormons claim. When compared with the summary report, the report is lacking the details that Nelson mentions. Anti-Mormons claim this is evidence that he is lying, but that is because they’re using it to confirm their own biases as much as they accuse church members of doing. Anti-Mormons psychologically need to confirm those biases as much as members need to do so because both claims, faith in the church and opposition to it, are both faith claims with significant consequences if you’re wrong. Anti-Mormons need Nelson to be a liar in order to prove to themselves that the church and its doctrinal claims are lies. It is a useful tool to use in attacking members of the church, but first and foremost it is about reaffirming their own faith stance that the church isn’t true.
But, is the conclusion that any differences between what Nelson claims to have experienced with what the summary report notes are proof that Nelson is lying about his experience?
No, and for three major reasons.
First Reason: The summary report is not in fact a final report or even an investigative report. If you were to scroll up just one page of the Civil Aeronautics Board reports, from page 1090 quoted above to page 1089, you will discover that the quotation is so short because it is merely a, “written update of the safety and compliance evaluation,” that had been filed previously. It was, and is, a very brief summary of a much more detailed evaluation report that we do not have access to and don’t know where to find. Consequently, it lacks a lot of details of the events because this is not a report on those events. Rather, it is a summary of an evaluation of whether or not SkyWest was to blame for the events in question.
This is important to understand because the summary makes statements that seemingly contradictory. The airplane suffers and engine failure that forced it to land, but the aircraft suffered no damage? How can that be? There are only two solutions. First, that the summary is contradictory and therefore untrustworthy, which means we need a better source than a third hand account of the event. Second, the report is referring to the engine and the aircraft as being separate, distinct things. Thus, the engine could be significantly damaged, but the aircraft (the part with passengers) could not be damaged.
There is some modern evidence of this way of thinking about airplanes (as you can see in the ways that these sites discuss the engine as being separate from the aircraft itself), but it is difficult to know if that was the case back in 1977, when the summary was printed. It is the only way that the summary can be coherent or non-contradictory, therefore making it trustworthy as a historical source. This is because contradictory or incoherent texts can’t be trusted as you don’t know what parts are or aren’t wrong and therefore accurate. Therefore, anyone accepting the text as proof must proceed on the assumption that it says that the reference to aircraft being undamaged in the report must mean the portion with passengers, which lines up with President Nelson’s account because he says that the engine is what was damaged.
Second Reason: If the report we have doesn’t give us the full details, where would we go to find them? Unfortunately, we don’t have the evaluation itself or the investigative report that must have accompanied it. The report undoubtedly existed at one time, but is currently lost in some massive tome or forgotten drawer. And what we do have is unclear and contradictory, at best. Luckily, we have an eyewitness account of what happened – Russell Marion Nelson. As our sole eyewitness, his recollection is the only evidence we have detailing what happened. The disputed parts of his account seem to be three main issues:
- The damaged engine engine exploded
- The plane went into a dive that put out the fire on the engine
- That the pilot made an emergency landing.
Let’s address each of these together now that we know all that he has said about them.
As already touched upon, what Nelson seems to mean by exploded is that the engine looked to be on fire with flaming oil and/or fuel spewing from the engine. We know he doesn’t mean that the engine blew to pieces as you might see in a film because it is still on the wing. His description matches exactly what we would expect to happen when the cylinder base studs sheer off and the cylinder in the engine begins to separate as a result. As explained on Student Pilot, when that begins to happen, it is extremely normal, even likely, for oil to come spewing from the engine and sparks to fly from it. These sparks could, and would, set fire to the oil, fuel, and hot gases spewing from the engine.

The advice from Student Pilot is to get to your maximum glide speed so that you can maximize how far you can glide because you are not longer really flying anymore. You are in a state of emergency and need to land immediately because you will not be able to stay in the air. You’re just trying not to crash and die. Gliding, by the way, is not only what a pilot with a broken engine is doing as explained by Student Pilot, but exactly how Elder Nelson described their landing in his 1985 account above. Fire is a very likely possibility. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes, “A rough-running engine might be caused by a cracked cylinder, which can leak oil or hot gas and ignite a blaze.” Likewise, Aviation Safety Magazine explains that the cylinders are the hottest part of the engine and that cracks and other causes of lost compression, such as separation, can cause fires.
All of this makes Nelson’s account of seeing a flaming engine likely. The rattling and grinding noise made by the steel engine studs ripping in half and bouncing around the engine could very well sound like an explosion to someone who doesn’t know anything about airplane engines. This impression would be compounded as leaking oil caught fire when it escaped from the engine and flew into the air. Loud banging noises followed by flames both looks and sounds like an explosion. For a layman to then describe it as an explosion is therefore very logical and not a lie, even if technically incorrect. It is also worth keeping in mind that this impression of an explosion was made during a moment of intense and sudden high stress and not one where all his rational faculties were calmly in action.
Anti-Mormons will respond that it may be plausible, but that it wasn’t in the report and therefore is a lie. I would respond that we don’t actually know what was in the report. All we have is a summary of an evaluation and all the summary does is report that there was no damage to the aircraft as a whole while acknowledging damage to the engine itself, though not explaining the extent of that damage. This is because the summary wasn’t even about the accident per se, but was about whether SkyWest was responsible for the sheering through negligence. Absent evidence against Nelson, there is no reason to assume he is lying when his description is in line with what we know could easily happen based on the evidence from experts who know about these issues.
That Nelson’s account aligns so well when he isn’t an expert gives positive weight to his account. Uninformed liars most often get things wrong, not right. Especially when they have little to no knowledge about the subject about which they are lying. But Nelson gets the events of what would happen with this kind of mechanical failure occurs correct. Then Nelson gets what the pilot should do in response to this kind of mechanical failure correct. Nelson is correct about what would happen repeatedly without any expertise in aviation that would inform his supposed lie. The only logical conclusion then is that Nelson is repeatedly right because he lived through the events he is describing.
Next, critics argue that the summary report doesn’t mention a spiral dive, so there wasn’t one. But, again, Nelson’s account is very plausible. As explained and shown via video here on the Aviation Maintenance subreddit, when a Piper PA-31 Navajo twin engine plane loses one of its engines the other engine is incapable of keeping it flying. The post even has a video of a Piper PA-31 Navajo crashing because one of its engines failed causing it to spiral and crash into the ground. The people in the post explain that the loss of the engine causes a 70% loss of power and consequently the plane cannot stay in the air. You have to land immediately because the weight of the dead engine will cause the airplane to start to drag (or spiral) in that direction.
To prevent this you need to “nose over,” or dip your front low and get to the ground as soon and safely as possible. In other words, you sharply dive even as you start to spiral in the direction of the dead engine. Just as Nelson describes in his experience. His error is in assuming that this extinguished the flames from the engine after the pilot cutting off fuel and oil flow to the damaged engine. The dive had nothing to do with extinguishing the flames. They would have likely died from the lack of fuel and power of the wind. The dive was done to get to a safe height from which the pilot could safely glide the plane safely down to the ground.
Last, anti-Mormons argue “the pilot made a ‘precautionary landing’ at the Delta, Utah municipal airport and not an emergency landing in a farmer’s field.” This is mostly a hairsplitting fallacy as anti-Mormons quibble over the ways that the aviation profession defines “precautionary” and “emergency” differently. But, as shown in the Student Pilot article, anyone not engaged in needless pedantry knows this is an emergency. The webpage says the pilot facing the issue should declare and emergency to air traffic control and land as soon as possible wherever they can. Therefore, Nelson describing the landing in his experience as an “emergency landing” is perfectly reasonable.
Notice also that Nelson never says the plane landed in a farmer’s field. (We’ll address the origin of this claim below.) In fact, in the earlier accounts Nelson never says that the airplane landed in a field at all. He says the plane made an “emergency landing” in Delta, Utah. He never mentions where. Below are pictures of the Delta, Utah Municipal Airport. The first gives us a look at the surrounding region and the second one give us a closer look at the airport grounds themselves.


Notice that the area around the airport is an empty wasteland. Landing at the airport might as well be landing in an empty, arid desert field. But, Nelson doesn’t even say that! In the 2012 video above he does say, “an emergency landing out in the field.” (Emphasis my own.) “The field” could be one of the numerous empty flat areas around Delta, Utah as seen above or it could be the airfield itself. At no time does he say they landed in a farmer’s field. Anti-Mormons claiming he did is evidence of their rush to attack him instead of a rush to be correct.
These pictures do collaborate one part of Nelson’s story though. In his 1985 account above, he describes the airplane gliding along the highway to get to the airport. Well, lo and behold, The Grand Army of the Republic Highway goes directly by the Delta, Utah Municipal Airport. Just as Elder Nelson described.
Third Reason: The way that we can know that Nelson isn’t lying has to do with the issue of human memory itself. As discussed at the very beginning, human memory alters as we tell and retell stories. Events take on more importance and drama in our lives as we look back over them as decades pass. Could this have happened with Nelson? Absolutely. After all, he doesn’t publicly mention the dive becoming a spiral until 1992, some sixteen years later. Likewise, his mention of his certitude that he was ready to die isn’t mentioned until 1985, nearly a decade after the events.
That certitude is, at least partially, in contradiction to his assertion in his first book that the event left him with the realization that he had more to do. But these details aren’t evidence that he was lying or even embellishing for his audience. Rather, they are evidence for how memory works. Memory is fluid by nature, and, “Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it.” The act of remembering itself, even without telling the story to others, alters your memory of the event:
Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. …Every single person has shown this effect. …Memories aren’t static. …If you remember something in the context of a new environment and time, or if you are even in a different mood, your memories might integrate the new information.
Your Memory is like the Telephone Game
This is what we see with President Nelson’s memory of his airplane experience. In context of writing a book, the experience drove home to him the necessity of writing down his life story for his family. In context of church leadership, the experience taught him that the doctrines and ordinances of the Restored Gospel bring peace and certainty about the next life, removing the terrors of death. Over time a deep, intentional dive initiated by the pilot became the start of a spiral and leaking flaming oil and gases became flaming oil dramatically splattering on the side of the plane across from him.
It isn’t that Nelson is lying or even that the details are wrong. It is that as he has told the story over the years the context of purpose for telling the story has changed both how he tells the story and how he remembers the events themselves. His brain is human and this is how human memory works.
Final Thoughts
The claims that Russell M. Nelson is lying about his airplane experience in 1976 have less to do with him and more with the mindset of his detractors. They want and need him to be a liar in order to affirm and reaffirm their own religious commitments and faith that he isn’t a Prophet of God. They assume he is a liar because they desperately need the church to be a lie. With that assumption, they have seized upon a few lines summary of an evaluation, a summary that was focused on whether SkyWest should be determined to be a safe operator by the FAA and not about giving a detailed description of the event itself, to construct a narrative that has Nelson lying to gain prestige he didn’t need as either a world famous pioneering surgeon or, by 1992 when he gave his first public accounting of the events, an Apostle. Remember the 1985 account was given in a private setting and never released to the public.
By the time he could’ve benefitted from the kind of self-promotion such a lie could provide he was already ensconced in a role where seniority, not popularity, decides what influences you. Being an Apostle places you in the second highest general governing body of the church, the only way to get into a higher position would be to become the President of the Church. That position is only achieved by being the most senior living Apostle with seniority being determined by ordination date, not human age. Nelson had no reason to lie, didn’t benefit from lying, and now that he is President of the Church still wouldn’t benefit from lying as their are no greater positions of influence in the church.

With no reason to lie and with the details he has provided aligning perfectly with what you could expect to happen with the mechanical engine failures the airplane suffered, there is no reason to doubt the essential details of the story that Nelson has told over the decades since the event. Even his tendency to remember specific details in a more dramatic fashion over the years, such as the flaming oil and hysterical woman, display the normal function of human memory and not a tendency to invent details to better sell a lie. As he has told and retold the story publicly since 1992, those details have become more and more striking in his memory and therefore more salient to his purposes, which has been to emphasize how living the Restored Gospel brings peace to the lives of the faithful in contrast to the chaos and terror of worldly life.
The conclusion is, therefore, very obvious.
Russell Marion Nelson is not lying about his 1976 experience in an airplane that suffered engine failure and had to make an emergency landing in Delta, Utah. As our single eyewitness, his testimony of events is far more reliable than a summary of an evaluation that has no details at all and isn’t focused on recalling the events of the 1976 incident to begin with. Overall, despite the vagaries of human memory, his recall of the events of the 1976 incident has remained very consistent with his 1985 account, the first one with any level of detail. There is no reason for a rational person, even someone who doesn’t accept his prophetic religious claims, to conclude that he is lying.
Addendum: The Sheri Dew Account
There is only one more detail that gets added to the story by anti-Mormons that needs addressing in more detail, the claim that President Nelson says the plane performed an emergency landing in a farmer’s field. Though a prominent feature in the anti-Mormon telling of the story, this detail doesn’t actually come from President Nelson. It comes from Sheri Dew in her 2019 book, Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson and it is important to read her retelling of the story because it is where the version of this story that anti-Mormons attack most comes from:
On November 12, 1976, Russell Nelson had boarded a commuter plane in Salt Lake City to fly the quick route to St. George, Utah, where he was to give the invocation at the inauguration of W. Rolfe Kerr as the president of Dixie College.
It was a short hop of less than an hour in a small, two-engine propeller plane. Only four passengers were on board. The pilot had just announced that they were halfway to St. George when the engine on the right wing exploded, spewing oil all over the right side of the aircraft and then bursting into flames. In an attempt to douse the flames, the pilot turned the fuel off, causing the small plane to go suddenly into a free fall death spiral.
…Miraculously, the free fall extinguished the fire, and, in the nick of time, the pilot was able to start the left engine, regain control of the plane, and guide it to an emergency landing in a farmer’s field not far from Delta, Utah. Everyone walked away from the incident unharmed. Another plane was dispatched, and Russell made it to St. George in time to give the invocation.
Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson, pgs. 540-541
Here the dramatic account that Brother/Elder/President Nelson has given morphs from into a fully histrionic account into one that verges on the Hollywood. His recounting of a flaming engine and dangerous dive leading to an emergency landing in Delta, Utah becomes a “free fall death spiral,” and, “an emergency landing in a farmer’s field” outside of Delta, Utah. It is unlikely that we’ll know if President Nelson ever signed off on this version of his story or even if he knows about it. He doesn’t seem like the kind of person that reads books about himself if he trusts the person doing the writing.
In any case, I feel no need to address this version of the story in the main body of the article because it isn’t Nelson’s account. Sheri Dew isn’t Russell M. Nelson and her Hollywood retelling of the story isn’t his version of the story. Dew’s version deserves to be diminished for the way that it undermines faith in the Prophet of God by associating his story with her errors. Is she a liar? I don’t think so. This is likely how she imagines the events in her mind. But that doesn’t make them historically accurate or helpful in any sense. Her carelessness has left the Prophet and Christ’s church open to attack from our enemies and made it easier to manipulate the ignorant into thinking President Nelson is a liar.
good work showing the truth
Thank you! I knew Pres. Nelson wasnt a liar.