Paul H Dunn - Lynn Packer

[why me]

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.

Unfortunately this is a board with hardened posters who have been here for years. We are not perfect. And it can take a thick skin at first to be broken in. But when one stays and people get to know that person, the group softens and welcomes the poster. By the way, we are not perfect either. Nor do we belong to a cult that squashes our emotions. We are just human beings.

Edited August 16, 2012 by why me

[ERayR]

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.

Judge or not I don't care but if you refrain just don't be loudly proclaiming your magnanimity. Hey I am constantly making judgements and some of them I may regret if I don't repent. I guess it just sounded a little self righteous to me. Sorry maybe I am a bit touchy at times.

Edited August 16, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

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.

If you come looking for answers it is better to ask the questions instead of making questionable statements. You will find the response much different.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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)".

I sure wish you could show me where I said someone was lying. Your example seems to prove my point. Like I said I can understand the sentiment of not saying everything that is true. In the case where your wife asks if the dress she has already selected for the evening makes her look fat, I see no harm in 'dancing around the truth' a bit. Absolutely. I would say that my comittment to my wives feelings exceeds my comittment to honesty. I see no problem with this. I see no problem with the church being more comitted to the principle of polygamy than to that of being explicitly honest and forthright with the fact that they are practicing it. I am just willing to call a spade a spade. Again I understand where they are coming from, but I know that there are consequences to every slight omission. If I tell my wife she looks great and five strangers come up and tell her the dress makes her look terrible, she might be (and rightfully so) upset with me for 'dancing around the truth'.

[USU78]

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.

Packer, as I've stated, is/was a journalist by profession. He sold the story to make money to support his family. That's what journalists do. They research issues and publish stories. Some times the stories are true. Sometimes not. In this case, I've never seen anyone claim he was unfair in any way.

Don't please tar Lynn with your "moral equivalency" brush.

If your problem is with journalists generally, then say so.

[Damien the Leper]

Judge or not I don't care but if you refrain just don't be loudly proclaiming your magnanimity. He I am constantly making judgements and some of them I may regret if I don't repent. I guess it just sounded a little self righteous to me. Sorry ma be I am a bit touchy at times.

But you do care. You, and correct me if I'm wrong, would be very touchy if someone made even a righteous judgement concerning the LDS church that you did not agree with and felt was an attack against the church when in reality it wasn't.

It's okay to be touchy because it shows your emotion and passion driven reasoning.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If you come looking for answers it is better to ask the questions instead of making questionable statements. You will find the response much different.

Fair enough. I can't help but think that though you know nothing about me, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt (like you are asking us to give church leaders and Paul Dunn), you have responded in a most negative fashion.

I note also, that the OP was a question however, and the response was decidely negative.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Unfortunately this is a board with hardened posters who have been here for years. We are not perfect. And it can take a thick skin at first to be broken in. But when one stays and people get to know that person, the group softens and welcomes the poster. By the way, we are not perfect either. Nor do we belong to a cult that squashes our emotions. We are just human beings.

Thank you. I may have misunderstood the nature of the board as well. I thought it was more of an apoletic board, but it appears to be a more free for all debate kind of board. Apologies for judgements that are not fair.

[Damien the Leper]

Is there anything official concerning Packer's motivations concerning publication? Or are we all just making assumptions about his character and intent because he 'disobeyed'. I certainly hope the members of this board are more righteous than this.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Thank for this as well. I think I misinterpreted the nature of the board. I appreciate the kind words.

[why me]

Packer, as I've stated, is/was a journalist by profession. He sold the story to make money to support his family. That's what journalists do. They research issues and publish stories. Some times the stories are true. Sometimes not. In this case, I've never seen anyone claim he was unfair in any way.

Don't please tar Lynn with your "moral equivalency" brush.

If your problem is with journalists generally, then say so.

I don't think a lds journalist should be in the business of hurting other lds members. Sometimes there is the human factor and this must be considered. When that piece was published, Dunn was devastated. But Packer got a reputation and some money. And because of this there is a moral equivalency brush' and some ethical considerations.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Is there anything official concerning Packer's motivations concerning publication? Or are we all just making assumptions about his character and intent because he 'disobeyed'. I certainly hope the members of this board are more righteous than this.

I think that people just have different values. I find it hard to judge someone like Packer. Some people have a drive to tell the whole truth that they percieve. I certainly won't judge him or people like Michael Quinn. I can understand the bretheren's response too though. Again from their standpoint they are trying to maximize faith and somethings just aren't relevant in their view (IMO of course).

[why me]

Is there anything official concerning Packer's motivations concerning publication? Or are we all just making assumptions about his character and intent because he 'disobeyed'. I certainly hope the members of this board are more righteous than this.

This has nothing to do with disobeying. But it has to do with destroying Dunn. Was it worth it? Packer must have known what would happen to Dunn when his piece was published. Was it necessary?

[why me]

Again from their standpoint they are trying to maximize faith and somethings just aren't relevant in their view (IMO of course).

Or they were trying to save someone they love personal pain and public exposure in the national media.

[selek1]

Have you not been paying attention?

Paul H. Dunn did apologize -- with an open letter published in the Church News, the official Church news publication.

Why should the Church apologize for something for which Elder Dunn accepted full accountability?

Sheesh!

How DARE you Scott!?!?!

Don't you know how unfair it is to ask poor, innocent cwald to be in any way familiar with the subjects upon which he is moralizing and condemning others?

You may have done permanent damage to his innocent, tender testimony.

You Brute!

[why me]

Thank you. I may have misunderstood the nature of the board as well. I thought it was more of an apoletic board, but it appears to be a more free for all debate kind of board. Apologies for judgements that are not fair.

There is also a social forum where we all need to be nice, friendly and sugary.

[USU78]

Is there anything official concerning Packer's motivations concerning publication? Or are we all just making assumptions about his character and intent because he 'disobeyed'. I certainly hope the members of this board are more righteous than this.

He did not disobey anything. Please everybody . . . understand this from his own mouth. He did not disobey.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Or they were trying to save someone they love personal pain and public exposure in the national media.

I think there is truth to this as well. I think there are lots of good reasons to do this. I think people prioritize their values differently and that is why you can have many different good people emphasizing different things.

[why me]

How DARE you Scott!?!?!

Don't you know how unfair it is to ask poor, innocent cwald to be in any way familiar with the subjects upon which he is moralizing and condemning others?

You may have done permanent damage to his innocent, tender testimony.

You Brute!

It is amazing. It is as if the church hid everything and squashed it all according to the critics. But...just the opposite.

[why me]

I think there is truth to this as well. I think there are lots of good reasons to do this. I think people prioritize their values differently and that is why you can have many different good people emphasizing different things.

Good that you are seeking understanding. The human element in this episode is often overlooked by critics and by people who have been influenced by critic boards.

Edited August 16, 2012 by why me

[ERayR]

Fair enough. I can't help but think that though you know nothing about me, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt (like you are asking us to give church leaders and Paul Dunn), you have responded in a most negative fashion.

I note also, that the OP was a question however, and the response was decidely negative.

My first post to the OP I addressed the question see post #3. It was only then that I questioned the motive for dredging up a decades old incident. I kind of like to know where the poster is coming from. Your right I know nothing about you, hence the questioning of your motives. I do know something about Elder Dunn. I sat in several meetings with him. I heard him instruct and plead for greater commitment to the Savior and to improve and become like him. Hence I can give him the benefit of the doubt because I have something to base it on.

The constant attack by those whose motives are less than honorable encourages negativity, especially when the approach is virtually the same.

When I perceive animus I respond differently than when I don't. Now you know where I am coming from.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There is also a social forum where we all need to be nice, friendly and sugary.

Ha - thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind.

[USU78]

I don't think a lds journalist should be in the business of hurting other lds members. Sometimes there is the human factor and this must be considered. When that piece was published, Dunn was devastated. But Packer got a reputation and some money. And because of this there is a moral equivalency brush' and some ethical considerations.

You couldn't be more wrong. Let me give you the whole story.

Lynn was on-air talent at KSL. While there, he was tasked with covering the Mark Hoffman story, including the off-camera duel between GBH and Hoffman. He was ready to go with the story, but KSL brass decided not to run . . . then . . . they ran later after other outlets covered the story. About that same time, Lynn was researching the Paul Dunn story, because he'd been hearing rumors and wanted to run them down. He went to his bosses at KSL and was told they wouldn't air that either . . . yet they did run it a few years later.

A short time later, Lynn was let go from KSL in one of many, many restructurings by KSL: endemic to the on-air news biz. His uncle, it is reported (but I've never seen proof of it) brokered the yBu hire of Lynn . . . conditioned upon his not publishing his Dunn story. He needed the work, so he took the job on those conditions. And he lived up to his obligations.

When the new Prez decided to restructure yBu's faculty, he went to his bosses and reminded them of the deal. They said the new Prez' appointment trumped any prior deals. As stated, Lynn's wife was gravely ill and Lynn was casting about for work. None was forthcoming, so he went into business for himself, freelancing and advising on-air news programs, at home and abroad, on how to run a news program. One of the pieces he sold at that time was the long-dormant Paul Dunn piece.

I'm highly disappointed you find something wrong here in Lynn's conduct. The Paul Dunn piece was news in this here neck of the woods. Too bad it happened as it did, but when you are a public figure, you open yourself up to such things: PD used his notariety in other ways, including being the face of a real estate development/management/investment company that later went famously bust . . . and hobnobbed with Osmonds.

[selek1]

While I understand how you can interpret things this way Scott, can you not understand how it could be easily and without malice be interpreted another way?

No, I cannot.

There were no denials by the Church, nor by President Dunn. He was called on his excesses and corrective action was taken.

The record is clear and unquivocal- the matter was being taken care of in an appropriate and ethical fashion. Packer's article affected that process not one whit.

To pretend that the evidence supports any other conclusion requires a level of petty mendacity and trenchant myopia found only in the depths of the Tanner's Ministry, IRR, and the warmest levels of Hell.

Paul Dunn's apology came two years after he was released, and only after the negative press had hit for about 6 months. I continue to think that the issue is complicated and that Elder Dunn may have been torn between confessing and damaging faith and not confessing, but I can understand people like Cwald coming to a different conclusion.

Then you don't know cwald.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My first post to the OP I addressed the question see post #3. It was only then that I questioned the motive for dredging up a decades old incident. I kind of like to know where the poster is coming from. Your right I know nothing about you, hence the questioning of your motives. I do know something about Elder Dunn. I sat in several meetings with him. I heard him instruct and plead for greater commitment to the Savior and to improve and become like him. Hence I can give him the benefit of the doubt because I have something to base it on.

The constant attack by those whose motives are less than honorable encourages negativity, especially when the approach is virtually the same.

When I perceive animus I respond differently than when I don't. Now you know where I am coming from.

You are correct on the posting order. My apologies. Obviously I misjudged the character of the board. When I first meet someone, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. Again I understand that can be difficult on a board where people may misrepresent themselves are are looking at subtle ways of attacking the faith that you hold dear. Sorry for any judgements on you.