Paul H Dunn - Lynn Packer

[DBMormon]

Bishop, you are so wasting your time here.

On some items here, I would whole heartedly agree. But you know Cwald - We all see the world differently and while I am right and they are wrong, I have to allow them the freedom to see the world the way they do. I don't think they know they are wrong... you and I will just have to strike it up to there still being in stage three faith.... be patient... they will get there! lol

[ERayR]

I am asking genuinely... what is the difference between how McCraney uses deception to save mormons and how he sees himself and Elder Dunn's decpetion to save Mormons and how he saw himself?

If you truly see the difference I don't know if I can help you. Let me try one more time. The difference is motive and we don't even have to guess what those are. Both Martin et.al. have on numerous occasions uttered their intent to destroy Mormonism and on the other hand Dunn has said it was to help people understand gospel principles. There you have the difference.

Now to the other misunderstanding you haveand I don't know if I can make it any plainer than it has been presented but here goes. The posts in this thread were not condoning Dunn's actions at all. They were firs to point out that after he had been disciplined and repented and over twenty years had passed there was really no valid reason for bringing it up. The only reason to do so, and the tone of the first posts bear it out was to try and disparage the church through Paul Dunn. It is not the first time it has been tried and it can not go unchallenged.

Now go back and reread and see if that helps sooth your self inflicted frustrations.

[ERayR]

On some items here, I would whole heartedly agree. But you know Cwald - We all see the world differently and while I am right and they are wrong, I have to allow them the freedom to see the world the way they do. I don't think they know they are wrong... you and I will just have to strike it up to there still being in stage three faith.... be patient... they will get there! lol

Omniscience is a heavy burden for a mortal to bear, I hope it doesn't wear you out.

[DBMormon]

Now to the other misunderstanding you haveand I don't know if I can make it any plainer than it has been presented but here goes. The posts in this thread were not condoning Dunn's actions at all. They were firs to point out that after he had been disciplined and repented and over twenty years had passed there was really no valid reason for bringing it up. The only reason to do so, and the tone of the first posts bear it out was to try and disparage the church through Paul Dunn. It is not the first time it has been tried and it can not go unchallenged.

Now go back and reread and see if that helps sooth your self inflicted frustrations.

I started the thread and that wasn't my intetnion at all, you have misjudged

There are no slick tricks, and quickie campaigns usually fail, for “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city.” - Elder Neal Maxwell

so lets just agree to disagree

[DBMormon]

Omniscience is a heavy burden for a mortal to bear, I hope it doesn't wear you out.

I know your using sarcastic humor though I hope you see the same from my side. No offense taken none meant Edited August 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

At that point, if Dunn had stopped making money off his books and tapes

Not attempting to make any excuses or anything, just pointing out that if Brother Dunn had a contract with DB or another company who was publishing his books and tapes, he may have given up complete control over what to do about them. If it was with DB, he probably could have stopped it if he had made a big fuss, but he might have been thinking that someone else 'owned' his work and so it wasn't his decision to make.

There is also the question of how much money he actually made and that would depend on the contract. Most authors in the Mormon Market probably don't even cover the cost of their personal time, a small percentage of the popular authors...and Brother Dunn would likely have been one of them, would be shocked it if he wasn't in the top three at the time in fact, can make writing a full time job.

And one doesn't actually know what Brother Dunn did with any money he received, do we? Perhaps he donated it to the Church or another worthy cause. Perhaps he spent it on the latest hot car or electronic gadget.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Better to have Church leadership out of the "sitting on boards" business. A shame, really, that some bad hats [yes, a couple of AFCO guys saw jail time] remove an awfully talented body of men from being able to be direct influences for good on the boards of businesses . . . but given how the boobirds pounce whenever there's a hint of scandal, it's better how it is now . . .

And thus leaving bookwriting as one of the few ways they can supplement or even replace their stipends from the Church if they have not become sufficiently financially independent at the time of their fulltime calling.

[ERayR]

I started the thread and that wasn't my intetnion at all, you have misjudged

There are no slick tricks, and quickie campaigns usually fail, for “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city.” - Elder Neal Maxwell

so lets just agree to disagree

My second post I believe was to ask your motive for bringing this up now. I later clarified that I saw no valid reason for regurgitating the event mire than twenty years after it was closed and fourteen years after he was dead. This is exactly what critics and anti-Mormons do and have done on this board. Then you got into comparing Walter Martin and other anti-Mormons with Paul Dunn. Again the kind of false and spurious comparison that are so common. All the time you were asking for other posters opinions and when those opinions were given you didn't like them so in the end you just declared your omniscience and omnipotence with this line. Oh how I love it. " I have to allow them the freedom to see the world the way they do. I don't think they know they are wrong". Though I will allow it may be your humor.

Edited August 18, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Not attempting to make any excuses or anything, just pointing out that if Brother Dunn had a contract with DB or another company who was publishing his books and tapes, he may have given up complete control over what to do about them. If it was with DB, he probably could have stopped it if he had made a big fuss, but he might have been thinking that someone else 'owned' his work and so it wasn't his decision to make.

There is also the question of how much money he actually made and that would depend on the contract. Most authors in the Mormon Market probably don't even cover the cost of their personal time, a small percentage of the popular authors...and Brother Dunn would likely have been one of them, would be shocked it if he wasn't in the top three at the time in fact, can make writing a full time job.

And one doesn't actually know what Brother Dunn did with any money he received, do we? Perhaps he donated it to the Church or another worthy cause. Perhaps he spent it on the latest hot car or electronic gadget.

You are such a spoil sport.

[Calm]

what about the forgiveness and mentioning it no more when one repents and Bro Dunn did repent

That is what I find problematic in some of the comments. Unless one is worried that an issue is continuing, then why the need to rehash something even if one feels it was wrong to begin with.

I (we) may make a limited judgment of what Brother Dunn did based on the information that is publicly available (and may I point out that there is a lot that is not publicly available), but if (we) I have also forgiven him, why is there any need bring it up again? And if one feels the Church mishandled it by waiting until public attention was too much, then unless one has evidence this is a pattern that is continuing in the Church today, then why would one bother to bring up something that was done with a couple of decades ago?

And if I (we) bring it up again because we have not forgiven him, then who is in the wrong now and which is more relevant to our own personal salvation, Brother Dunn's long gone sin or our own currently in practice one?

I have a suggestion to make and that is if one is looking for information on what someone did wrong, that it might be wise to first seek for the information privately to avoid promoting unwarranted gossip and accusations arising in a discussion. One could just state they are not aware of enough details and have reason to actually be concerned about it (not just for one's own curiosity, but perhaps to answer some accusations by others or to help someone else who is troubled for some reason by dead/other people's apparent sins) and if someone has detailed info, please write them privately.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You are such a spoil sport.

Have had too many discussions with frustrated authors on the subject of publishers, that is all.

[Calm]

However, I tend to praise publicly and correct privately. Given the public nature of the stories Elder Dunn was censured publicly but that should be the extent of it.

Public correction is much less like to actually lead to internal change even if the person changes behaviour due to fear of being caught again in a wrong or out of embarrassment of being caught. If we are actually concerned for the best of the individual we should try to correct in private and if that is not effective, we need to seriously consider the cost and benefits of taking something public.

Don't confuse the LDS leaderships protection of Elder Dunn and the Churches dignity beyond the damage already done with any desire to hide sins.

Well stated.

[ERayR]

Have had too many discussions with frustrated authors on the subject of publishers, that is all.

My thesis committee chairman had my masters thesis published. Most people don't understand the work involved to get something published and in the case of a masters thesis absolutely no monetary remuneration. However, it was published in a small but prestigious ethics journal.

[Calm]

you got it. He was frustrated and wanted answers. He didn't want to appeal to the general LDS population and risk hurting the testimony of one unprepared to deal with what was on his plate, so he sought a place where LDS intellectual members could help him sort out his thoughts, grudges, and misunderstandings. While many mocked him, doubted his intentions, and were unable to to get to the root of the issue, he simply sought answers. Yes perhaps some were understandably mistaking his hurt and frustration for meanness and vengence but those assumptions were misplaced.

While he grew increasingly frustrated and began to think the answers he needed were not available and perhaps his worst case scenario was true, luckily a handful of good, empathetic, faithful Latter-Day Saints took time to talk him down from the ledge. They either ignored outward behavior and addressed the hurt, or they saw the hurt for what it was and told him what he needed to hear in the way he needed to hear it giving him a personal epistle form the Lord.

And he thanks them for that.... so with that said what was your point?

Maybe not his point, but I think this is a great example of how sometimes others hold on to our past behaviours when we have actually moved past them. It is kind of like Nibley saying something along the lines he didn't claim anything he wrote past a certain number of years (I think it was about three)....meaning that since he couldn't go back and correct everything he had published or publicly stated in the past even when he knew it was wrong due to having come across more accurate info, that it was unreasonable for others to hold him accountable for older material.

People change, their beliefs, behaviours and knowledge change...and sometimes it is hard to keep track of that change so judgment can get messy. I don't want to be judged by what I was like ten years ago even five years ago. I assume others feel the same way about their past beliefs and behaviours. Because of this, I think it is best to give everyone the largest benefit of the doubt about their current status at least as possible, whether it is a former, dead Seventy or a current poster on the board or a family member or friend down the street.

[Calm]

So I keep talking in circles trying to get the last word in..... I'm failing aren't I.... lol

Sometimes if you think a conversation is going nowhere, it is best to walk away from it...especially if it involves defensive feelings as those tend to make us try to start justifying behaviours we wouldn't try to justify in other situations, but would just say "I made a mistake, will try not to do it again." Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

ERAYR what can I say that gets this back on track.

This thread went down this path when some of the posters wrote that they knew early on that Elder Dunn was stretching the truth and they saw nothing wrong with it, as it served a purpose. Some said is was Bro. Packer's fault. I see those kinds of comments as validating the deceptive behavior so I asked posters who want to justify Elder Dunn, use the same standards on the church's critics.

This thread's change wasn't about running Elder Dunn into the ground but rather showing that it is inappropriate to condone or excuse away his behavior.

First my opening question showing my purpose

I am curious how others here view the termination of Lynn Packer and how Lynn Packer might have handled the situation better and yet still stood for truth and honesty without being terminated?

Examples of posters doing justifying

you jumping to a conclusion and starting us down a different road

What is your motive for bringing it up here? Are you thinking it is a good way to give the church a black eye?

you again saying that using a non-lds source alone causes these questions to not be taken seriously

This site is a lighting rod for those whose intentions are less than honorable. We just kind of like to know up front where you come from.

justifying Elder Dunn's actions

If you ever met him in the real person, in the 70s, you would have met one of the most motivating, inspiring people i have ever met personally. He had a way of speaking and writing that spoke truth to the very soul.

I saw him again right about the time he was "outed" by Lynn Packer. He was a broken man. All the good he had done, all the wonderfully motivating stories, all of us who ate up his words -- all destroyed. he was humiliated, and with him, a massive amount of good works.

Painting Packer as the villan

BYU is a private university with a very strict code. I would have been more surprised if the instructor was not fired. The lies were uncovered and it should have ended there. Instead, Packer took it further, either for malicious intent or for bragging rights.

when the university made a deal with him. Don't publish it as long as you work here then terminated him - As I understand the timeline

again justifying

I don't know who you are answering -- is BS'ing a sin, now, really?

What damage did Paul Dunn's stories do to people?

again

My point was that Paul Dunn was a charismatic individual who had a complicated relationship with the truth, and that is how I see joseph smith. It was intended as a compliment.

After I said that while the source is critical the basic facts were all I wanted to talk about this is said

When encountering material that is antagonistic to the Church, it is good to carefully consider and even critically analyze the source. A quick Google search -- even just a glance at a Wikipedia entry -- would have given you more background on this episode.

this one

This issue does not bother me at all. I think most people who share stories change minor details, or maybe some of the timing - not maliciously, but sometimes memory fails us. Dunn takes this up a level by completely embelishing and making up somethings that did not happen. This is not good, but on the range of sin, I think this is pretty low.

you justifying

I wonder how many of you actually heard Paul Dunn speak? At least some of us who heard him speak knew that he embellished his stories and at least in my case thought it was for effect. He was a dynamic speaker and his stories really helped to illustrate his points. Even after all these years there is still a couple of his stories I remember and the point they were designed to illustrate.

Was it wrong for him to make up stories to illustrate his point? They were effective and helped, who knows how many, to know and understand and to be moved to change their lives for the better. For those who wish to judge him harshly you might remember that with the judgement you extend that is the judgement you will receive.

again

My husband had all of his talks on cassette and some of his books. He was so easy to listen to and related well to his audience. He was a good man and only had our interests at heart. Atleast I'm hoping that is so. I wish he could have just called his stories parables but then maybe his audience wouldn't have liked that as well then if it had really happened.

There are more but this serves the point. I wasn't trying to go at Elder Dunn but rather posters excusing him, but granted by the middle of this I am having to reinforce what he did to show it is not worth excusing

but please take me at my word and either address what I am saying, let it rest, but please... do not assume my motives, you will be misguided in doing so.

Edited August 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

We all see the world differently and while I am right and they are wrong, I have to allow them the freedom to see the world the way they do. I don't think they know they are wrong...

There is a good chance everyone involved in this thread is saying this same thing or something very like it to themselves right now....

[Calm]

If you truly see the difference I don't know if I can help you.

Is there supposed to be a "no" in there (as in "no difference").

[DBMormon]

People change, their beliefs, behaviours and knowledge change...and sometimes it is hard to keep track of that change so judgment can get messy. I don't want to be judged by what I was like ten years ago even five years ago. I assume others feel the same way about their past beliefs and behaviours. Because of this, I think it is best to give everyone the largest benefit of the doubt about their current status at least as possible, whether it is a former, dead Seventy or a current poster on the board or a family member or friend down the street.

CALMORIAH - Thank you - your a peace maker. I heard both your sticking up for me as well as your asking me to take the higher road as well.

I meant no direspect to the church in the least just hoping to have a discussion on how we are not to look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that while we should forgive sinners we should not excuse Sin, It was derailed by me and others and for that I am sorry

Edited August 18, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

The difference is motive

I think there is another difference, one is done in a positive way and the other is negative and destructive. In the first case if they are in the wrong, while there may be an issue of trust when falsehoods are discovered, they have been trying to build someone up so lasting harm is much less likely.

OTOH, in the second case where faith is being intentionally destroyed (even if the intent is to replace that faith with a different faith afterwards there is no guarantee that it will happen and because it is not emphasized, it is much less likely to happen than it would if the desired faith was simply preached on its own), lasting harm is done in either case, if it is a falsehood...the loss of faith may not be recovered even if the discovery of the fraud occurs later in time.

[Calm]

just hoping to have a discussion on how we are not to look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that while we should forgive sinners we should not excuse Sin

Because we are supposed to forgive sinners, I think it is best to use hypotheticals. One can even say 'I am thinking about specific cases in the past, but because they are in the past, I would rather not bring them up again because there is a good chance that the individuals have resolved their sins with Christ and if they have moved beyond them so should we.....but I'd like to discuss sin in general and how we should react to it because others may take their place at some time in the future.'

I prefer to speak in specifics myself, but it is a kindness to go against that natural inclination and couch such discussions in general terms to avoid giving offense where none is meant and allowing old sinners to rest in the peace they probably deserve at this point in their progression. (and yes, I think even church manuals could be better at this, I can think of a few historical stories teaching a moral that I would like to see left out of the text or to be simply left at the person speaking for him/herself).

Perhaps what would be best in this case is to close the thread and in a couple of weeks revisit it speaking of such in general terms only.

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

Because we are supposed to forgive sinners, I think it is best to use hypotheticals. One can even say 'I am thinking about specific cases in the past, but because they are in the past, I would rather not bring them up again because there is a good chance that the individuals have resolved their sins with Christ and if they have moved beyond them so should we.....but I'd like to discuss sin in general and how we should react to it because others may take their place at some time in the future.'

I prefer to speak in specifics myself, but it is a kindness to go against that natural inclination and couch such discussions in general terms to avoid giving offense where none is meant and allowing old sinners to rest in the peace they probably deserve at this point in their progression.

I agree though the thread began asking a different question and once the issue arose it was obvious this was the instance used to defend the point.

[rongo]

The Church is not yBu and yBu is not the Church.

I am not a frequent poster or lurker here. I don't get your cleverness in Writing BYU as "yBu." Do you mind explaining for the thick and unenlightened?

Thanks!

[DBMormon]

Perhaps what would be best in this case is to close the thread and in a couple of weeks revisit it speaking of such in general terms only.

DONE

[ERayR]

ERAYR what can I say that gets this back on track.

This thread went down this path when some of the posters wrote that they knew early on that Elder Dunn was stretching the truth and they saw nothing wrong with it, as it served a purpose. Some said is was Bro. Packer's fault. I see those kinds of comments as validating the deceptive behavior so I asked posters who want to justify Elder Dunn, use the same standards on the church's critics.

This thread's change wasn't about running Elder Dunn into the ground but rather showing that it is inappropriate to condone or excuse away his behavior.

First my opening question showing my purpose

Examples of posters doing justifying

you jumping to a conclusion and starting us down a different road

you again saying that using a non-lds source alone causes these questions to not be taken seriously

justifying Elder Dunn's actions

Painting Packer as the villan

when the university made a deal with him. Don't publish it as long as you work here then terminated him - As I understand the timeline

again justifying

again

After I said that while the source is critical the basic facts were all I wanted to talk about this is said

this one

you justifying

again

There are more but this serves the point. I wasn't trying to go at Elder Dunn but rather posters excusing him, but granted by the middle of this I am having to reinforce what he did to show it is not worth excusing

but please take me at my word and either address what I am saying, let it rest, but please... do not assume my motives, you will be misguided in doing so.

I think it was Selek that went over all these points very thoroughly for you in one post and other of your points have been gone over individually several times. Yet even in this post you still insist that the church should be excoriated for their handling of the incident which bolsters my first thought that it was a way to cast doubt and dirt on the church. Dunn was disciplined and repented over twenty years ago and he has been dead for fourteen years, let the man rest in peace. You may not like the way the church handled it. The simple truth is you don't know what went on, church discipline is rarely public and even then not all of it is and the information you have is not from a disinterested party. And finally you portray some virulent anti-Mormons as misunderstood.

If you are going to hold to the stance that we should open this up again and excoriate Paul Dunn and the church then you better give me a much better reason than the flimsy ones you have so far advanced.