Paul H Dunn - Lynn Packer

[ERayR]

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.

OK Friends but do not expect me not to criticize any assumptions or conclusions I don't agree with. I will do so with vigor.

Edited August 16, 2012 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Then you don't know cwald.

I work for big oil and have taken several media classes. I understand being judged poorly by the public, but I do not judge those who are misinformed. Instead, I work to spread truth in ways that make sense. When dealing with a crisis, we are trained to be upfront with what we know and get ahead of any story. Doing so does not alter the truth, but it alters the publics perception of it. I agree that the church did not lie and did not deny any of the allegations. I don't think that they had an obligation to come forward with information, but I can certainly understand why people would question the timing of the situation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

OK Friends but do not expect me not to criticize any assumptions or conclusions I don't agree with. I will do so with vigor.

Perhaps best to verify that the assumptions you assume are held by the poster though? Proceed with vigor.

[Damien the Leper]

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?

Is it really about destroying Dunn? Dunn's reputation is the collateral damage from the fallout of exposing lies. This has been demonstrated all through history. Clinton's lies about infedelity is an example. It isn't the publics concern that he cheated on his wife. What the public has a right to know is that he lied about his actions. Public opinion concerning sexual ethics that should be upheld by the president is of little importance. The collateral damage from the situation is that 1) Clinton is a liar and 2) he is an adulterer.

I'm not saying the situations are equivalent but the principles are the same.

It is first and foremost about presenting truth rather than assuming an agenda to destroy. We all pay for our lies.

[why me]

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.

Dunn was no angel in making up his stories. No doubt about that. I think that he got up in his own popularity and lost direction. On the other hand, Packer had a choice. Publish or not to publish. He chose to publish. He did his job. But on the other hand did the piece need to be published. Would the church have acted on Dunn without the Packer piece? I think so . Did he have to publish the piece? No. What happened to Dunn after the piece was published? And how did Packer feel about it all?

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps best to verify that the assumptions you assume are held by the poster though? Proceed with vigor.

Now you are asking for too much courtesy. Just settle...

[selek1]

I work for big oil and have taken several media classes. I understand being judged poorly by the public, but I do not judge those who are misinformed.

I, likewise, am prepared to make allowances for those who were misinformed.

I do not and will not, however, make allowances for those who deliberately, willfully, and deceitfully use such misinformation to foment or advance an agenda of hate and derision.

By his own admission, cwald knew both that the Church had disciplined Elder Dunn and that an apology had been made- but that narrative didn't advance his agenda.

Instead, cwald deliberately misrepresented the facts as an avenue to justify (and spread) his brand of apostacy and disaffection.

That's not "misinformed"- it's deceitful- the very crime of which he accuses President Dunn and the Church.

So we can add hypocrisy to a list of charges that already includes willful dishonesty, mendacity, and hate.

Instead, I work to spread truth in ways that make sense. When dealing with a crisis, we are trained to be upfront with what we know and get ahead of any story. Doing so does not alter the truth, but it alters the publics perception of it. I agree that the church did not lie and did not deny any of the allegations. I don't think that they had an obligation to come forward with information, but I can certainly understand why people would question the timing of the situation.

I agree with these points and your approach in general.

Would that these principles be more widespread among certain of our critics....

[why me]

It is first and foremost about presenting truth rather than assuming an agenda to destroy. We all pay for our lies.

Should Packer have given mercy?

[ERayR]

I work for big oil and have taken several media classes. I understand being judged poorly by the public, but I do not judge those who are misinformed. Instead, I work to spread truth in ways that make sense. When dealing with a crisis, we are trained to be upfront with what we know and get ahead of any story. Doing so does not alter the truth, but it alters the publics perception of it. I agree that the church did not lie and did not deny any of the allegations. I don't think that they had an obligation to come forward with information, but I can certainly understand why people would question the timing of the situation.

The only way I can see them questioning and the innuendo they produce is that their motives are less than benign. After the years of strenuous, tiring service and effort to bring a people into the presence of God they deserve more than to have their motives and veracity questioned. One may reasonable be of the opinion they made an error but their motivation and veracity can not be questioned.

[why me]

By his own admission, cwald knew both that the Church had disciplined Elder Dunn and that an apology had been made- but that narrative didn't advance his agenda.

...

Cwald has been around the block a few times. He knew what he was doing.

[USU78]

Dunn was no angel in making up his stories. No doubt about that. I think that he got up in his own popularity and lost direction. On the other hand, Packer had a choice. Publish or not to publish. He chose to publish. He did his job. But on the other hand did the piece need to be published. Would the church have acted on Dunn without the Packer piece? I think so . Did he have to publish the piece? No. What happened to Dunn after the piece was published? And how did Packer feel about it all?

I agree that the PD matter would have been dealt with sooner or later, and that going public PERHAPS forced people's hands.

We will have to disagree on Lynn's bonafides.

[ERayR]

Perhaps best to verify that the assumptions you assume are held by the poster though? Proceed with vigor.

Verification or not will come with discussion. Uncalled for (in my opinion) will be challenged.

[selek1]

Should Packer have given mercy?

Two things:

First: go back and read USU's numerous posts. The evidence suggests that there was no malice on Packer's part. By all appearances, he has behaved honorably- even if his work has provided fodder for those to whom honor is an alien concept.

Second, do we want journalists reporting the facts? Or do we want them stating the facts in a clear, concise, and unbiased (as much as is humanly possible) manner?

By definition, once they wander from the path of reporting facts and into shading the story to advance one agenda or another, they are no longer journalists, but editorialists (at best) and propagandists (far more common).

I mean- where would this Presidential season be if the media stopped showing "mercy" to the current regime and the two idiots-in-chief and actually reported the facts about their legion of misstatements and policy debacles?

I expect a journalist to report the facts- not shade them depending upon whether he supports my agenda or not.

Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

I agree that the PD matter would have been dealt with sooner or later, and that going public PERHAPS forced people's hands.

We will have to disagree on Lynn's bonafides.

he must have known that his story would be used to attempt to damage the church and its leaders. IMNSHO what he did was wrong.

[selek1]

Cwald has been around the block a few times.

I disagree. DBMormon has been around the block a few time (just as you and I have).

What cwald did was more along the lines of standing on a darkened street corner showing a little leg in the hopes of attracting passing cars...

He knew what he was doing.

I agree.

[selek1]

he must have known that his story would be used to attempt to damage the church and its leaders. IMNSHO what he did was wrong.

Just for the sake of argument (and keeping in mind I agree with most of your statement): why was it wrong?

Is it because Packer violated his agreements with the Church and BYU?

Or is it because Packer misrepresented or distorted the evidence against Dunn to advance a specific agenda?

Did Packer behave in any way that violated the standards of academic rigor or (I might choke using these words in proximity) "journalistic integrity"?

Or is it merely because we find the issue embarrassing?

If it was any of the reasons listed above, I don't think the charge stands up to scrutiny,

Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

What cwald did was more along the lines of standing on a darkened street corner showing a little leg...

The image given cwald's avatar.... Edited August 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Two things:

First: go back and read USU's numerous posts. The evidence suggests that there was no malice on Packer's part. By all appearances, he has behaved honorably- even if his work has provided fodder for those to whom honor is an alien concept.

.

In sociology students learn that there are consequences to a person's actions. The consequences can be classifed as intended consequences and unintended consequences. It is important to think about both before one takes action. In this case publishing a piece about another human being. The intended consequence was to inform an audience. But the unintended consequence was....

I am not sure if Packer reflected on the unintended consequences of his piece before he published it.

[selek1]

In sociology students learn that there are consequences to a person's actions.

Can we schedule Congress for similar courses?

The consequences can be classifed as intended consequences and unintended consequences.

I'll pay their tuition.

Out of pocket.

It is important to think about both before one takes action. In this case publishing a piece about another human being. The intended consequence was to inform an audience. But the unintended consequence was....

I am not sure if Packer reflected on the unintended consequences of his piece before he published it.

I have a problem with this logic. Unless you can demonstrate that Packer was reckless or showed willful disregard for the consequences of his work, then it is unwise and unfair to attempt to hold him accountable for the misuse of his work.

As a far more heinous example, I will point out that Haagen:Dazs produces a specific range of high-end, high-quality ice-creams.

Rosie O'Donnel is an unintended consequence of their actions.

How shall we punish Haagen:Dazs for the horrific consequences of their actions?

Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

Just for the sake of argument (and keeping in mind I agree with most of your statement): why was it wrong?

Is it because Packer violated his agreements with the Church and BYU?

Or is it because Packer misrepresented or distorted the evidence against Dunn to advance a specific agenda?

Did Packer behave in any way that violated the standards of academic rigor or (I might choke using these words in proximity) "journalistic integrity"?

Or is it merely because we find the issue embarrassing?

If it was any of the reasons listed above, I don't think the charge stands up to scrutiny,

No it was he did something that he knew would damage the church and Elder Dunn and neither is/was out to harm anyone. And for what? Money. To me it kind of reminds me of Judas' action. That being said, had I been in his position would I have acted any differently. I don't know but I hope I would have.

[Damien the Leper]

Should Packer have given mercy?

What mercy was granted in propogating lies? Mercy is a two way street.

Would you have given Clinton mercy for his lies and infidelity? I'm not sure I know of a single conservative who would have granted the same courtesy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What mercy was granted in propogating lies? Mercy is a two way street.

Would you have given Clinton mercy for his lies and infidelity? I'm not sure I know of a single conservative who would have granted the same courtesy.

This is an interesting point. I think it parallels nicely to the issue at hand.

[Closet Doubter]

No it was he did something that he knew would damage the church and Elder Dunn and neither is/was out to harm anyone. And for what? Money. To me it kind of reminds me of Judas' action. That being said, had I been in his position would I have acted any differently. I don't know but I hope I would have.

The Church and Dunn both had almost 4 years to do the right thing. Posters state the church was investigating but a 4 year investigation seems a little long. After almost 4 years, Dunn was still making money selling books and tapes based on fabrications at best and outright lies at worst. It's interesting that so many posters blame Packer for causing the harm and not Dunn for his actions over many years or the Church for not taking timely action. The fact that Dunn appears to have been disciplined in 89 when he was put on emeritus status but still continued making money off his actions until Packer went public makes a strong case that he wasn't repentent about his actions and his remorse was over being exposed.

The damage to testimonies and to the Church over this issue is real. Mine was damaged. The major damage however is that I no longer trusted the Church to be forthcoming with truth if there was a motivation to hide the truth. Now, when there is an issue, I go to the church website, the apologetics websites, and then to sites such as NOM and MDB. I don't trust any of the sites completely because I know that all of them, even the Church's will withhold and distort information to make their point stronger. Winning seems more important than truth.

[ERayR]

The Church and Dunn both had almost 4 years to do the right thing. Posters state the church was investigating but a 4 year investigation seems a little long. After almost 4 years, Dunn was still making money selling books and tapes based on fabrications at best and outright lies at worst. It's interesting that so many posters blame Packer for causing the harm and not Dunn for his actions over many years or the Church for not taking timely action. The fact that Dunn appears to have been disciplined in 89 when he was put on emeritus status but still continued making money off his actions until Packer went public makes a strong case that he wasn't repentent about his actions and his remorse was over being exposed.

The damage to testimonies and to the Church over this issue is real. Mine was damaged. The major damage however is that I no longer trusted the Church to be forthcoming with truth if there was a motivation to hide the truth. Now, when there is an issue, I go to the church website, the apologetics websites, and then to sites such as NOM and MDB. I don't trust any of the sites completely because I know that all of them, even the Church's will withhold and distort information to make their point stronger. Winning seems more important than truth.

Have you ever been involved with a repentance program.? I do not know what they were doing or their future intentions. What I do know is that in bureaucratic organizations things sometimes move quite slowly. Make no mistake churches are bureaucratic. I don't want to sound heartless but if your testimony was damaged it was not what was/wasn't done nor the timeliness of such action but you let it happen. There is a principle called personal revelation. which I do know works, and as I wrote above. The only way I can see them questioning and the innuendo they produce is that their motives are less than benign. After the years of strenuous, tiring service and effort to bring a people into the presence of God they deserve more than to have their motives and veracity questioned. One may reasonable be of the opinion they made an error but their motivation and veracity can not be questioned. To me his actions went beyond the scope of his authority.

Someone elses actions may not be to your liking but you and you alone are responsible for your reaction.

.

Edited August 16, 2012 by ERayR

[DBMormon]

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.

While early on I was antagonistic, while going through my own faith crisis; I have found my way and am doing very well right now in terms of coming to a better understanding of what the church is and isn't and maintaining a vibrant testimony. That said I agree with the above quote both early on and now.

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.

I agree here a bunch. In fact I submit that we each make big mistakes and have all lost our way in one way or another. I also submit that each participant here acknowledge that we do not know what occured behind closed doors and what the approach of the church was nor what the results would have been had not Lynn spoke up.

I agree that one can reasonably view this both ways as someone pointed out earlier. I also think that the church has a right at times to do what is needed to preserve and protect faith. Many here are appaled at that and see any lying as bad. But I submit, that if the church's pure intentions are to protect, is it possible that like the intruder scenario presented earlier, protective intentions can make dishonesty a positive rather then a negative. The true tell on whther it is one or the other is whether the Church is true and therefore led by God and seeking man's salvation, or whether it is false and seeking to hide it's mistakes and protect itself. With that said we are back to faith.......

I think the fallacy here is that all lying is bad and that the Church must tell the truth at every turn in order to be led by God.

I used to think this myself until after my mormonstories interview I sat and pondered if there was ever a case that lying was favored by God.... Right away my brain turned to the intruder scenario and it became clear to me that while internally and emotionally I want truth 100% of the time, sometimes a lie protects God's children and serves a greater purpose then the truth... Anyone who argues this philosophy must show me how being honest with the intruder is the right thing to do.

Lastly...... The only way to know what 99% of the time to tell the truth and what 1% of the time to lie would have to be based on the Holy Ghost. Many will be critical of my thought process but one must step back and explain how I am wrong and not just throw out emotional statements. Was Abraham inspired to lie about the relationship of his wife in Egypt? Was Abraham guided to be dishonest in his intentions of sacrificing Isaac? Do you really know......

Edited August 16, 2012 by DBMormon