wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 even when the damage has affected people publicly?All sins are to be confessed to the Lord, some to a Church official, some to others, and some to all of these. A few may require public confession. Confessing aids forsaking. We cannot expect to sin publicly and extensively and then expect to be rescued privately and quickly, being beaten “with only a few stripes.” (D&C 42:88–93.)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?Let's say, for example, that Lynn Packer would have kept his material out of the public eye. having reported it to the brethren, they were already in the position of taking action. I just think destroying the man was inherently wrong.
wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 CFR from a non-agenda-driven source with a reputation for honesty of his/her/its own. Thanks in advance. being convicted of scrying is an honesty problem. public record. He also lied about polygamy. public record.I'm not trying to indict Joseph Smith. that's not the point here. please let's not take this off topic. 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.
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 being convicted of scrying is an honesty problem. public record. He also lied about polygamy. public record.I'm not trying to indict Joseph Smith. that's not the point here. please let's not take this off topic. 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.You were just trying to slip in a cheap shot then? There was no need to even mention Joseph Smith. By the way I, for one, don't see it the way you seem to do. 1
wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) You were just trying to slip in a cheap shot then? There was no need to even mention Joseph Smith. By the way I, for one, don't see it the way you seem to do.that doesn't surprise me. I wonder if you've even read Rough Stone Rolling as you claim to praise it. Joseph Smith was a complex man...and a prophet. Edited August 16, 2012 by wayfarer
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 that doesn't surprise me. I wonder if you've even read Rough Stone Rolling as you claim to praise it. Joseph Smith was a complex man...and a prophet.Read it. But since you doubt my veracity well what can I say.
DBMormon Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) I don't know who you are answering -- is BS'ing a sin, now, really? In most cases, yes!! Lying is 99% of the time bad?... yes There are exceptions but generally it is wrong. I do not want general authorities going around telling made up stories while implying they are true and factual... how is that a positive? Edited August 16, 2012 by DBMormon 1
wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Read it. But since you doubt my veracity well what can I say.If you read the book, then you know that his relationship with the truth was somewhat complex. If you read the book, then you'd know that my comments were not a cheap shot at all. I really fail to understand why you take such an aggressive stance here -- it doesn't serve to get to truth or to even a meaningful debate. Edited August 16, 2012 by wayfarer
wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 In most cases, yes!! Lying is 99% of the time bad?... yes There are exceptions but generally it is wrong. I do not want general authorities going around telling made up stories while implying they are true and factual... how is that a positive?well...hmmm.... I don't know how to say this, but religion, from the beginning of time, is infused with made-up stories that had a purpose. religion's purpose is to make people believe in something, and the term 'make-believe' is pretty close to accurate as people throughout history have made-up stuff they think is divine and passed it off as being god's will or word.If you're saying that you don't accept made-up stories, then do you think there is a point in myth? perhaps we should talk offline - this is a pretty hostile place to explore faith issues -- it's purpose seems to be apologetic debate and something other than support.
DBMormon Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 If you're saying that you don't accept made-up stories, then do you think there is a point in myth? I am ok with a made up story if the original author intended his audience to know it was a fable or made up story. When the author promulgates a story as factual truth when in reality it was made up, I call that lying. Yes the scriptures have some fictional stories, but the difference is we do not know the original author's intent and so I am left to assume he was upfront with his original audience and will stick with that until proven otherwise. 1
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 If you read the book, then you know that his relationship with the truth was somewhat complex. If you read the book, then you'd know that my comments were not a cheap shot at all. I really fail to understand why you take such an aggressive stance here -- it doesn't serve to get to truth or to even a meaningful debate.I just don't think your comment had any relevance to the topic. I am also interested in what you have to present to answer Kenngo's CFR.
wayfarer Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I have already presented what I will present. Please see above.
selek1 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) All sins are to be confessed to the Lord, some to a Church official, some to others, and some to all of these. A few may require public confession. All of which Dunn did.Do you think that process was in any way advanced by Packer's end-zone victory dance?Let's stand this on it's head for a moment.Your neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz, overhears you and your spouse having an argument in which you say something so mean and hurtful that you leave your wife in tears.Mrs. Kravitz eagerly and gleefully reports your sin to the Bishop who calls you in for an interview. After humble and tearful repentance for wounding the tender heart of your wife, you and she are reconciled and the Bishop considers the matter closed.Mrs. Kravitz- having decided that: either a) the wheels of Church justice are turning far too slowly, or b) that you got off far too lightly- publically denounces you at the next Fast and Testimony meeting.Is Mrs. Kravitz justified in her behavior?If not- then why was Packer justified in his? Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1 4
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) If you read the book, then you know that his relationship with the truth was somewhat complex. If you read the book, then you'd know that my comments were not a cheap shot at all.I didn't read that interpretation at all. I really fail to understand why you take such an aggressive stance here -- it doesn't serve to get to truth or to even a meaningful debate.You really do have trouble with having your assumptions challenged don't you? Edited August 16, 2012 by ERayR 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 All of which Dunn did.Do you think that process was in any way advanced by Packer's end-zone victory dance?Let's stand this on it's head for a moment.Your neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz, overhears you and your spouse having an argument in which you say something so mean and hurtful that you leave your wife in tears.Mrs. Kravitz eagerly and gleefully reports your sin to the Bishop who calls you in for an interview. After humble and tearful repentance for wounding the tender heart of your wife, you and she are reconciled and the Bishop considers the matter closed.Mrs. Kravitz- having decided that: either a) the wheels of Church justice are turning far too slowly, or b) that you got off far too lightly- publically denounces you at the next Fast and Testimony meeting.Is Mrs. Kravitz justified in her behavior?If not- then why was Packer justified in his?I'm pretty sure Dunn's confession came only after Packer went public (reference wikipedia - Public statements came only in response to news media inquiries and the Deseret News piece was several months later. A cynical person would say that the public confession only came because Packer went public, but I withhold judgement.
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I'm pretty sure Dunn's confession came only after Packer went public (reference wikipedia - Public statements came only in response to news media inquiries and the Deseret News piece was several months later. A cynical person would say that the public confession only came because Packer went public, but I withhold judgement.How magnanimous of you to withhold judgement but I didn't know that judgement was yours (or Packers) to dispense.
selek1 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure Dunn's confession came only after Packer went public (reference wikipedia - Public statements came only in response to news media inquiries and the Deseret News piece was several months later. That may well be the case- but it says nothing about how the Brethren might have handled the matter had Packer not done his victory dance.It takes a particular sort of mendacity to suggest that Dunn's public confessions came about only because Packer had created a stink.I also note that you have not explicitly made such a suggestion- yet. Others, of course, will be happy to do so on your behalf.That Packer/Kravitz short-circuited the process out of their own sense of "justice"/self-aggrandizement does not mean the process was being handled with anything less than integrity, compassion, and propriety.Packer's stunt tells us nothing about Dunn or the brethren- but it says an awful lot about Packer.A cynical person would say that the public confession only came because Packer went public, but I withhold judgement. "Cynical" is not the word I would have chosen- but it's close enough for government work.Nor would I accept such an allegation as anything other than mean-spirited speculation without substantive proof. Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1 1
CASteinman Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 being convicted of scrying is an honesty problem. public record. Not true. He also lied about polygamy. public record.Well, if he did not exactly lie he at least dissembled to the point of misleading people. But Jesus did the same.
Storm Rider Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 It appears that we will always need to learn that men of God are first and foremost just men; sinners like everyone else, but are willing to accept a calling to serve. Some of us would like to assume that because an individual has a significant calling it must also mean that the person more righteous than everyone else. That is a very poor assumption that should never be made. The connection that should be made is that they were asked to serve and they responded affirmatively; that is all, end of story.Leaders are still trying, striving to be like Christ just like the rest of us. They are not perfect. If anyone needs to understand this go back to the Bible and study its prophets, apostles and leaders. They were just men just as the leaders of the Church are just men. I would also add just as Catholic priests, Protestant ministers are just men. It is sad to talk about their shortcomings even when they become public. Just as I would not want them to sit in judgment of me, I will try to not judge them. 1
DBMormon Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 Do you think that process was in any way advanced by Packer's end-zone victory dance?Not at all. I completely agree with with Packer's purpose was complete once he reported it to church leadership.... as long as Church leadership dealt with it by Dunn discontinuing the "Storytelling" and repenting. And I also assume that would have occured regardless.My issue is secondary - Because the sin was lying to the general public, Did Dunn have a responsibility as part of the repentance process to apoligize publicly?
DBMormon Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 Wayfarer - Lying is not always wrong..... I'll give an example. Intruder breaks into your home. Before he makes it upstairs you tell your kids to hide under your bed. Intruder gets upstairs to your room and at gunpoint asks where your kids are. You tell him they spent the night at a friends and are not here. Was that bad? Should you have told the truth? Will you need to repent?
Storm Rider Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Not at all. I completely agree with with Packer's purpose was complete once he reported it to church leadership.... as long as Church leadership dealt with it by Dunn discontinuing the "Storytelling" and repenting. And I also assume that would have occured regardless.My issue is secondary - Because the sin was lying to the general public, Did Dunn have a responsibility as part of the repentance process to apoligize publicly?In my understanding of repentance there was a need to ask for forgiveness to those who you offended. Who was offended? I think there is an argument that he should have asked the members for forgiveness. However, I think there is just as good an argument that he offeneded the Lord mightily and to the Lord he needed to seek forgiveness.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I assume you mean Elder Dunn, and not Elder Packer...Yes. I fixed it. Thanks for the catch.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Popular Post Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) If you read the book, then you know that his relationship with the truth was somewhat complex. If you read the book, then you'd know that my comments were not a cheap shot at all. I really fail to understand why you take such an aggressive stance here -- it doesn't serve to get to truth or to even a meaningful debate.I have read Bushman's book and other writings on Church history, and your comment struck me as a cheap shot as well. Joseph Smith was not "convicted of scrying" nor was he a dishonest man. If you didn't want this discussion diverted, you shouldn't have inserted such inflammatory and irrelevant remarks into it. Edited August 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 5
Kenngo1969 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 DB,I think you're seriously misreading Bushman if that's the conclusion you've come to regarding Joseph Smith by virtue of what Bushman has written. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I said it came from a critical source. By the time I had copied and pasted it, I had deleted the page out and did not want to take the time to re-locate it and do that.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.
Recommended Posts