Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) I won't pretend to tell the church to do anything, but I can see why people would like an acknowledgement when an official church reprsentative acting in his official responsibilities does something wrong.And in this case, there was such an acknowledgement.But an acknowledgement is not the same thing as an apology. Edited August 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I can see why apologetics has a bad name in some circles.Is this obliquely directed at me?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Neither you nor cwald can substantiate the accusation that the Church was conducting a coverup. From the open letter of 1991:So an investigation would was on-going "over a long period of time." It would hardly be reasonable to conduct such an investigation in public. Once it was concluded, the Church leaders and Elder Dunn apparently agreed that the best thing to do would be to go public with the result -- which they did.That is a valid interpretation I suppose, but remember that Packer had the information in 1987. The church released Elder Dunn in 1989. The apology came in 1991. I personally don't care one way or the other. I could understand the church not wanting to go public with this at all. I can also see that your interpretation might also be correct. I just can't fault people like Cwald who question the timing. 4 years is a long time to conduct an investigation.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Is this obliquely directed at me?No. I'm not familiar with people enough to remember who said what. I know that the first response to my first post here was sardonic. I know that several people on here have put DBMormon to the question. I obviously don't know all of your history here. Some of the defensivness may come from the experience of being continually attacked by critics of the church. I just know the general feel of the thread feels to me (again with limited exerience) to be to question the motives of the questioner.
cwald Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) That is a valid interpretation I suppose, but remember that Packer had the information in 1987. The church released Elder Dunn in 1989. The apology came in 1991. I personally don't care one way or the other. I could understand the church not wanting to go public with this at all. I can also see that your interpretation might also be correct. I just can't fault people like Cwald who question the timing. 4 years is a long time to conduct an investigation.Which is exactly why I used the words PERCEIVED COVER UP and IMO, in my post. I can CFR that if any would like. Edited August 16, 2012 by cwald
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 What is your motive for bringing it up here? Are you thinking it is a good way to give the church a black eye?This is the first response to the question. What is your motive with a followup negative assumption of "are you thinking it is a good way to give the church a black eye." If I came here looking for answers to sincere questions and this was the response I got, it would hurt not help my faith. Again I say this not accusingly because there may be lots of history I don't know about between all of you.
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I sympathize with this view point a lot. I think that the church has demonstrated over its history that this level of honesty is not its highest goal. Its highest goal is bringing people to Christ and maximizing faith. I believe this is best illustrated in Elder Boyd K Packers "The Mantle is Far Greater than the intellect." In addition to the line that "Some things that are true are not very useful," Packer says the following:For better or worse, the question appears to be what will maximize faith in the world and not what is the most honest and forthright thing to do.This and a dollar and seventy five will get you a bottle of soda.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 4 years is a long time to conduct an investigation.Innuendo and public conjecture can be nearly as damaging -- and unjust -- as outright accusation. 1
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This is the first response to the question. What is your motive with a followup negative assumption of "are you thinking it is a good way to give the church a black eye." If I came here looking for answers to sincere questions and this was the response I got, it would hurt not help my faith. Again I say this not accusingly because there may be lots of history I don't know about between all of you.Yep
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Innuendo and public conjecture can be nearly as damaging -- and unjust -- as outright accusation.This is fair. I guess if it were me, I would just say somthing like:Look, I can understand where you are coming from, but the church is a big organization. Things like this take time. 4 years is not that long in the eternal scheme of things and they probably really wanted to get this right. I'd ask that you approach this from a stand point of faith and remember that "Innuendo and public conjecture can be nearly as damaging -- and unjust -- as outright accusation."
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This and a dollar and seventy five will get you a bottle of soda. I'm not sure how I should take this
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Which is exactly why I used the words PERCEIVED COVER UP and IMO, in my post. I can CFR that if any would like. And IMO I PERCEIVE that that your intent is not as benign as you profess. So much for perceptions. Right? Edited August 16, 2012 by ERayR
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 . 4 years is a long time to conduct an investigation.What about working on a repentance plan?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This is fair. I guess if it were me, I would just say somthing like:Look, I can understand where you are coming from, but the church is a big organization. Things like this take time. 4 years is not that long in the eternal scheme of things and they probably really wanted to get this right. I'd ask that you approach this from a stand point of faith and remember that "Innuendo and public conjecture can be nearly as damaging -- and unjust -- as outright accusation."I have no objection to what you have said here -- which is a longer way of saying what I did.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This and a dollar and seventy five will get you a bottle of soda. I'm not sure how I should take this Nevermind. I think I got. Just a backhanded way of saying that my post was worthless? I'm not sure why the denigrating and hostile responses. I am open to feedback. Thanks.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) What about working on a repentance plan?Indeed. Part of the time may have been waiting for Elder Dunn to come to a recognition. Edited August 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Nevermind. I think I got. Just a backhanded way of saying that my post was worthless? I'm not sure why the denigrating and hostile responses. I am open to feedback. Thanks.This statement from post # 82 does not seem too valuable to me. "I think that the church has demonstrated over its history that this level of honesty is not its highest goal". I don't know how other take it but even an indirect statement calling the General Authorities a bunch of liars does not impress me as too valuable. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This statement from post # 82 does not seem too valuable to me. "I think that the church has demonstrated over its history that this level of honesty is not its highest goal". I don't know how other take it but even an indirect statement calling the General Authorities a bunch of liars does not impress me as too valuable.Wow, the motive speculation continues. And putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but my experience here has not been good.First I don't recall calling them liars even indirectly. I do think they hold somethings to be above strictly volunteering the truth about everything. Polygamy is the biggest that comes to mind - with Joseph often dancing around the truth a bit (to put it lightly). Joseph was in a tough spot. On the one hand he was commanded to do something against the law and something that the church as a whole was not ready to accept. How was he to implement this principle and still keep the faithful around him and avoid being martyred? Well he did the best he could, by teaching the principle in private to select individuals while giving many public statements that appeared to say the exact opposite. Again, I think that Boyd K Packer's talk speaks for itself. When we find something embarrassing about an individual, something that has the potential to harm many peoples testimonies and faith, what good does it do to proclaim it from the rooftops? This is not explicitly lying of course. It is observing that not everything that is true is useful, and not all that is true should be proclaimed to the public. It is holding that people's salvation and faith come before airing dirty laundry just to air dirty laundry. It is an opinion that I am not completely on board with, but I can certainly see its validity. I don't see how this out is equivilant to "an indirect statement calling the General Authorities a bunch of liars" but perhaps you can enlighten me?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Seriously, when I hear John Dehlin and his like say things like apologetics damages the church and such, I didn't really understand. I'd read lots of FAIR and FARMS and didn't really see it, but just dabbling in this post here and browsing elsewhere on this board I just feel a lot of motive speculation and hostility. Again I understand that there is probably lots of history here, but I can certainly judge the welcome I've felt. You obviously don't have to take my feedback, but if I came here looking for answers, I'd be sorely tempted to continue looking elsewhere.
Damien the Leper Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 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.This is why we have the discipline of Redaction Criticism concerning scripture.
Damien the Leper Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 How magnanimous of you to withhold judgement but I didn't know that judgement was yours (or Packers) to dispense. Yikes...and people on this board like to pick and choose who can do any judging even when judging righteously.So do we judge or do we not judge? I'm confused.So...by a show of hands, I would like to know who here is officially ALLOWED to do any kind of judging? I'm also curious as to a source that any judgements made are conditionalized beyond the sole "judge righteously".I just don't want to be confused about this. I know that the general authorities are not above our own judgements so long as we judge righteously and vice versa. Unless there is some unspoken idolatrous rule that I know nothing about.Thanks for any and all help.
Tacenda Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Seriously, when I hear John Dehlin and his like say things like apologetics damages the church and such, I didn't really understand. I'd read lots of FAIR and FARMS and didn't really see it, but just dabbling in this post here and browsing elsewhere on this board I just feel a lot of motive speculation and hostility. Again I understand that there is probably lots of history here, but I can certainly judge the welcome I've felt. You obviously don't have to take my feedback, but if I came here looking for answers, I'd be sorely tempted to continue looking elsewhere.Not everyone on here is apologetic and defending the church. Some are seekers and some like the great conversations. And the debating has been fun too I guess. It is like no other place out there. Because most sights are one sided, people that all think along the same lines. On here we're allowed to debate on subjects and we definitely don't think along the same lines!! But stick around you will soon be addicted to the board as so many are already. And it does hold value for those of us that like some balance. Edited August 16, 2012 by Tacenda 1
why me 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?It is not positive. But here is what I think happened. Elder Dunn lost his way. It happens to the best of us. In this there is a lesson. No one is immune in making mistakes. Also, Dunn was populare and I do think he let his popularity go to his head. He probably felt pressure to always come up with a story. Dunn lost his way.However, Packer also lost his way because he felt the need to make it all public. He did it for his own reputation Both men mistakenly felt the need to be important.
why me Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 For me, the perceived cover up of PH Dunn "lying" in his talks, is MUCH worse than his crime of "embellishing the truth."I do not fully trust the GA's to be honest with me. Perhaps they tried to bury the PH Dunn incident because it could have damaged some testimonies. That is probably true. But, I think we (and that includes church leaders and the church corporation) need to be admit when we are wrong, be honest, and do what it is right...and let the consequences follow. That is just my opinion.Or because they knew Dunn, they did not want to cause him undue pain. Most likely that would be the reason for not wanting to go public. People lie. GAs can lie. It is human to lie. I expect no one to be perfect. If they did bury it, they did it to protect a friend. However, he was punished for what he did.
ERayR Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Wow, the motive speculation continues. And putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but my experience here has not been good.First I don't recall calling them liars even indirectly. I do think they hold somethings to be above strictly volunteering the truth about everything. Polygamy is the biggest that comes to mind - with Joseph often dancing around the truth a bit (to put it lightly). Joseph was in a tough spot. On the one hand he was commanded to do something against the law and something that the church as a whole was not ready to accept. How was he to implement this principle and still keep the faithful around him and avoid being martyred? Well he did the best he could, by teaching the principle in private to select individuals while giving many public statements that appeared to say the exact opposite.Again, I think that Boyd K Packer's talk speaks for itself. When we find something embarrassing about an individual, something that has the potential to harm many peoples testimonies and faith, what good does it do to proclaim it from the rooftops? This is not explicitly lying of course. It is observing that not everything that is true is useful, and not all that is true should be proclaimed to the public. It is holding that people's salvation and faith come before airing dirty laundry just to air dirty laundry. It is an opinion that I am not completely on board with, but I can certainly see its validity. I don't see how this out is equivilant to "an indirect statement calling the General Authorities a bunch of liars" but perhaps you can enlighten me?From where I sit it looks like an accusation of lying. Put it this way do you tell your spouse every word you speak or every thought that crosses your mind? It surely would serve no purpose to tell your spouse that the person who just walked by was more physically attractive than they are. Do you consider yourself as lying when you omit that thought from your conversation with her/him when they ask what your thinking. Nobody faults you or says you are 'dancing around the truth a bit (to put it lightly)".
Recommended Posts