why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I am not concerned with critics and their agenda to defame the church. However, responsibility and accountability must be maintained concerning honesty. I am NOT accusing Dunn of anything but the picture he painted of himself is not looking very well. The membership of the church deserve to know that stories they have been told are not true so that they do not continue the misinformation as actual truth.This happened many years ago. As I said, if the church was going to handle this in their own way and it was all going to come out at that time that Dunn was lying, then Packer should have waited. If not, then he should publish. By going to a general publication he did blacken the church at that time. Now like I said, if the church was going to cover it up and hid the details...well...good for him to publish the article in a generally read publication.
why me Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 See page 44 here for a statement from Dunn in sunstone. He talked about what he was thinking. https://www.sunstone...f/083-35-57.pdfHe was a little off in his logic. But I do believe that he had no evil intent. He just got lost in his own imagination. Now after reading his own explanation, should Packer feel just a little bad for his original article?
DBMormon Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) I just read the article in Sunstone written by Packer about Dunn.While I will be criticized for saying this, I want it said. Each day on here faithful amateur apoligists demean the intentions and motives of those who are critical of the church. We assume we have a right because we are on the side of truth. But for the exact same things we critisize them for, we excuse Elder Dunn.He was dishonest and deceptive and he then when cornered lied some more to cover his tracks. While I realize we all make mistakes and fall short and need a redeemer, I will not excuse what he did. While nice and kind and christlike in personality, His life story is full of deception and dishonesty. If you are going to call out critics for their dishonesty then at least have the courage to call a spade a spade. If unwilling to do that then please speak no longer on those outside the church who have the same struggle.Lastly, This is a completely separate issue from the church's handling of it and I see no reason to confuse the two. Edited August 17, 2012 by DBMormon 3
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I just read the article in Sunstone written by Packer about Dunn.While I will be criticized for saying this, I want it said. Each day on here faithful amateur apoligists demean the intentions and motives of those who are critical of the church. We assume we have a right because we are on the side of truth. But for the exact same things we critisize them for, we excuse Elder Dunn.He was dishonest and deceptive and he then when cornered lied some more to cover his tracks. While I realize we all make mistakes and fall short and need a redeemer, I will not excuse what he did. While nice and kind and christlike in personality, His life story is full of deception and dishonesty. If you are going to call out critics for their dishonesty then at least have the courage to call a spade a spade. If unwilling to do that then please speak no longer on those outside the church who have the same struggle.Lastly, This is a completely separate issue from the church's handling of it and I see no reason to confuse the two.Sorry you are confused. Also sorry that you are of the opinion that you have the right to hold Paul Dunn's feet to the fire. Especially over two decades later when it is irrelevant. The man is gone. Or hadn't you noticed? 1
DBMormon Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Sorry you are confused. Also sorry that you are of the opinion that you have the right to hold Paul Dunn's feet to the fire. Especially over two decades later when it is irrelevant. The man is gone. Or hadn't you noticed?How am I confused? We hurt the cause we go to such ends to defend someone of something that if anyone outside the church did AKA: Dr. Walter Martin, We vehemenantly critize their credentials at the top of our lungs.That my firend is a double standard and one which I won't trump.Again this is not a criticism of the Church or how it handled it. It is one man with major flaws that can not justified.You have no problem critizing me. That seems very disingenuine. Edited August 17, 2012 by DBMormon 2
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) How am I confused? We hurt the cause we go to such ends to defend someone of something that if anyone outside the church did AKA: Dr. Walter Martin, We vehemenantly critize their credentials at the top of our lungs.That my firend is a double standard and one which I won't trump.My "friend" I was only wondering why you think the issue is still relevant. Paul Dunn has not been a relevant voice in LDS councils for over two decades. He has been dead for fourteen years.I also reject that it is comparable to Walter Martin. Martins apparent motive is to use his bolstered credentials to destroy Mormonism. Paul Dunn's motive was not to destroy but to help and encourage. That you don't seem able to grasp that says more about you than it does Dunn. Edited August 17, 2012 by ERayR 2
stemelbow Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I also reject that it is comparable to Walter Martin. Martins apparent motive is to use his bolstered credentials to destroy Mormonism. Paul Dunn's motive was not to destroy but to help and encourage. That you don't seem able to grasp that says more about you than it does Dunn. Give it up. DBMormon is right. This is a double standard. No need to turn on the guy. DBMormon's position does not say anything negative about him. 2
DBMormon Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 I also reject that it is comparable to Walter Martin. Martins apparent motive is to use his bolstered credentials to destroy Mormonism. Paul Dunn's motive was not to destroy but to help and encourage. That you don't seem able to grasp that says more about you than it does Dunn. Any thoughts on your part regarding Dunn's purpose in using dishonesty is conjecture and any thoughts you have about me and my understanding would be the same.I started the thread to take a look at the dynamic of Bro. Packer and his handling of the situation as exploring this was new to me but way too many rushed to Elder Dunn's defense and as I read the lengths he went to, to cover up his deceptions, it became obvious this was not a simple misunderstanding of the man. I do not want to kick the man further, in fact other then stating my point and only to point out that some here must stop justifying his bad choices.I would love to know what you think of the following leadershttp://fox13now.com/2012/08/08/graphic-content-man-accused-in-genital-biting-attack/http://articles.courant.com/2012-03-27/news/hc-trumbull-bishop-indicted-0328-20120327_1_pyramid-scheme-investor-fraud-money-launderinghttp://www.abc4.com/content/news/unsolved_cases/story/eneudo-petit-catch-a-criminal-lds-bishop/_z5U5jBLakSCOl_-QH0WOg.cspxPeople are imperfect and we each need the atonement. But for us to put someone dishonest on our shoulders and excuse their sins is a completely different request then to forgive them. 3
Closet Doubter Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 . . . . I was only wondering why you think the issue is still relevant. Paul Dunn has not been a relevant voice in LDS councils for over two decades. He has been dead for fourteen years. . . . .If the Church leadership has learned from what appears to be mishandling of this incident then it is no longer relevant IMHO. The reason I say mishandling is because of the timeline. It took two years from their finding out about the issues to releasing him from his calling. This is on the long side of reasonable but still reasonable. At that point, if Dunn had stopped making money off his books and tapes and made a sincere apology the incident would go down as only a sad footnote in Church history. The fact that it took two more years for any public acknowledgement and apology and then only after it was made public in the Arizona Republic makes a very strong case that the Church and Dunn were more concerned about damage control than about repentence. 1
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 If the Church leadership has learned from what appears to be mishandling of this incident then it is no longer relevant IMHO. The reason I say mishandling is because of the timeline. It took two years from their finding out about the issues to releasing him from his calling. This is on the long side of reasonable but still reasonable. At that point, if Dunn had stopped making money off his books and tapes and made a sincere apology the incident would go down as only a sad footnote in Church history. The fact that it took two more years for any public acknowledgement and apology and then only after it was made public in the Arizona Republic makes a very strong case that the Church and Dunn were more concerned about damage control than about repentence.Only in your mind is there a strong case for anything and I can say with 100% certainty that you were not and are still not privy to any information that would give you any indication of what was going on with any degree of certainty. You seem to think the church issues marching orders and everybody marches lockstep. 1
USU78 Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 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.Let me assure you he did.As a good Mormon boy, he believes that honesty is above all, and that no secret, upon revelation, can do anybody lasting harm.Lynn, BTW, broke the My Lai story while he was in Vietnam.Did he do wrong by doing so?
bcuzbcuz Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 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. I heard Dunn and was swept away by vivid details and rousing adventure of his tales, only I didn't know they were tales. I took them, as one does when a young impressionable teenager, as gospel truth. I'm just wondering which part of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" doesn't apply to him?
cwald Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I just read the article in Sunstone written by Packer about Dunn.While I will be criticized for saying this, I want it said. Each day on here faithful amateur apoligists demean the intentions and motives of those who are critical of the church. We assume we have a right because we are on the side of truth. But for the exact same things we critisize them for, we excuse Elder Dunn.He was dishonest and deceptive and he then when cornered lied some more to cover his tracks. While I realize we all make mistakes and fall short and need a redeemer, I will not excuse what he did. While nice and kind and christlike in personality, His life story is full of deception and dishonesty. If you are going to call out critics for their dishonesty then at least have the courage to call a spade a spade. If unwilling to do that then please speak no longer on those outside the church who have the same struggle.Lastly, This is a completely separate issue from the church's handling of it and I see no reason to confuse the two.Thank-you Bishop for having the guts to speak and make a stand. I think you are absolutely correct about the double standard.
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Any thoughts on your part regarding Dunn's purpose in using dishonesty is conjecture and any thoughts you have about me and my understanding would be the same.I have no idea I flunked clairvoyance in college.I started the thread to take a look at the dynamic of Bro. Packer and his handling of the situation as exploring this was new to me but way too many rushed to Elder Dunn's defense and as I read the lengths he went to, to cover up his deceptions, it became obvious this was not a simple misunderstanding of the man. I do not want to kick the man further, in fact other then stating my point and only to point out that some here must stop justifying his bad choices.I would love to know what you think of the following leadershttp://fox13now.com/...-biting-attack/http://articles.cour...oney-launderinghttp://www.abc4.com/...Ol_-QH0WOg.cspxPeople are imperfect and we each need the atonement. But for us to put someone dishonest on our shoulders and excuse their sins is a completely different request then to forgive them.What I think of them is that we had best let the courts decide their guilt or innocence and appropriate penalties. After that is done it is then up to their bishops and stake presidents to assess and administer church discipline. I also think it was inappropriate to compare Dunn's breaking of church rules to felony crimes. Again it doesn't speak well of your motives. 1
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 If the Church leadership has learned from what appears to be mishandling of this incident then it is no longer relevant IMHO. You first have to show the church mishandled it and you are a long way from that. 1
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I heard Dunn and was swept away by vivid details and rousing adventure of his tales, only I didn't know they were tales. I took them, as one does when a young impressionable teenager, as gospel truth.I'm just wondering which part of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" doesn't apply to him?And you are now trying to trll me that being swept away in his rousing tales which encouraged you to reach higher than you had before has somehow damaged you for life?
DBMormon Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Again it doesn't speak well of your motives.What are yours? You call for me and others to not pass judgement and you do so at every turn.you seem willing as long as it is a church leader to cut them what ever slack is needed to paint a situation like this as simply misfortunate and Dunn as unfairly criticized. Do you do that for everyone or just church leaders?You among many here have no problem calling others out that you dissagree with especially those who are no longer believers. You mock and try to one up them at every turn. If you can't at the least say "I won't approve of intentional dishonesty regardles by who" then I realise I can no longer expect to have a rational conversation with you. Have a great day and God bless. Edited August 17, 2012 by DBMormon 2
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 What are yours? You call for me and others to not pass judgement and you do so at every turn.you seem willing as long as it is a church leader to cut them what ever slack is needed to paint a situation like this as simply misfortunate and Dunn as unfairly criticized. Do you do that for everyone or just church leaders?You among many here have no problem calling others out that you dissagree with especially those who are no longer believers. You mock and try to one up them at every turn. If you can't at the least say "I won't approve of intentional dishonesty regardles by who" then I realise I can no longer expect to have a rational conversation with you. Have a great day and God bless.I agree we need to call it like it is, even though I quite liked Bro. Dunn. He did wrong. But we as members are told all the time that men are only that men. And human, only one was perfect and that is the Savior. Just like in the FLDS those people put men on pedastals and the men do evil and break laws and lie, I'm in no way even comparing them to Bro. Dunn, never would do that, but we need to remember to put things up to scrutiny and not always defend the person in the wrong just because they may have been great leaders in the church. We can forgive and move along but not say they are different in the way they sinned vs. any other member.
USU78 Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) I agree we need to call it like it is, even though I quite liked Bro. Dunn. He did wrong. But we as members are told all the time that men are only that men. And human, only one was perfect and that is the Savior. Just like in the FLDS those people put men on pedastals and the men do evil and break laws and lie, I'm in no way even comparing them to Bro. Dunn, never would do that, but we need to remember to put things up to scrutiny and not always defend the person in the wrong just because they may have been great leaders in the church. We can forgive and move along but not say they are different in the way they sinned vs. any other member.Nicht schlecht.In the meantime, we have this series of incidents, only part of which has been dealt with here in any detail, to thank for the movement by the Church to have Seventies and Apostles no longer sit on the boards of non-Church-related businesses in order to supplement their meager Church living stipends.IMO [i have seen nothing directly on point], it was the AFCO bankruptcy [at its time the biggest Utah had ever seen], and Elder Dunn's having been involved in promotional materials that were used to induce investors to lend AFCO money secured by home equity mortgages on their homes, that led to the policy change. Zions Bank had been the lender involved.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 . . . Edited August 17, 2012 by USU78 2
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 What are yours? You call for me and others to not pass judgement and you do so at every turn.you seem willing as long as it is a church leader to cut them what ever slack is needed to paint a situation like this as simply misfortunate and Dunn as unfairly criticized. Do you do that for everyone or just church leaders?You among many here have no problem calling others out that you dissagree with especially those who are no longer believers. You mock and try to one up them at every turn. If you can't at the least say "I won't approve of intentional dishonesty regardles by who" then I realise I can no longer expect to have a rational conversation with you. Have a great day and God bless.The difference is we are on a discussion board, the sole purpose of which is to carry on with a discussion. Part of carrying on a discussion is to assess the motives of others in the discussion. With Paul Dunn it is not in yours or my purview to assess his motives or to pass judgement on them. I did not say anything about unfair or fair criticism I said it was not your place or mine to criticize and judge his actions nor to make comparisons between is action and felonious actions. My problem is not with your thinking he was wrong. I have a problem with dredging up something over with more tan two decades ago and with dragging up and vilifying a man who has been dead for fourteen years and who repented and acknowledged his error before he died. It is so reminiscent of critics and anti-Mormon tactics to try and find something they think will tarnish the reputation of the church.I absolutely have no problem calling out those who appear to be trying to besmirch the church I have grown to love and if you continue to do that I will continue to call you on it. If you can not accept that then I don't suppose you can have a rational conversation with me.
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I agree we need to call it like it is, even though I quite liked Bro. Dunn. He did wrong. But we as members are told all the time that men are only that men. And human, only one was perfect and that is the Savior. Just like in the FLDS those people put men on pedastals and the men do evil and break laws and lie, I'm in no way even comparing them to Bro. Dunn, never would do that, but we need to remember to put things up to scrutiny and not always defend the person in the wrong just because they may have been great leaders in the church. We can forgive and move along but not say they are different in the way they sinned vs. any other member.But Tacenda you just did make the comparison. Obliquely for sure but make it you did. What ever happened to the not judging you were so exercised about on the homosexual thread and what about the forgiveness and mentioning it no more when one repents and Bro Dunn did repent. I don't see much consistency. 1
Closet Doubter Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 You first have to show the church mishandled it and you are a long way from that.Actually NOT. I said "appears to be mishandling" and a good case for that appearance has been made in this discussion.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 And you are now trying to trll me that being swept away in his rousing tales which encouraged you to reach higher than you had before has somehow damaged you for life?I fail to see your logic. You seem to be saying the loftier goal of me being inspired, trumps the fact that the inspirational speech was based in illusion. The ends justifies the means. Is that what you believe? Then yours is the pity. 3
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Actually NOT. I said "appears to be mishandling" and a good case for that appearance has been made in this discussion.No a case for your interpretation of event which by the way was made on a little evidence and a whole lot of biased conjecture. 1
ERayR Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I fail to see your logic. You seem to be saying the loftier goal of me being inspired, trumps the fact that the inspirational speech was based in illusion. The ends justifies the means. Is that what you believe? Then yours is the pity.Nope just trying to understand the terrible injuries that caused such disdain. Tell me what they were so I can understand how he damaged you.
Recommended Posts