Elder Mcconkie, Mormon Doctrine, And Pres. Mckay

[Stone holm]

Stone holm gets the story a bit wrong here (ironic, considering the subject matter, although I'm not accusing Stone holm of making anything up a la Elder Dunn; I think it more likely that Stone holm is a bit cloudy in his memory).

If Elder Dunn was "dropped from sight," it was because he, like most General Authorities who have reached age 70, was relieved from active service and given emeritus status. Even then, Elder Dunn's heyday as a favorite speaker of youth in the Church was already rather far in the past.

It was only after this that journalist Lynn Packer did his expose into Elder Dunn's claims and, as events unfolded, Elder Dunn, already on emeritus status, underwent Church discipline, the consequences of which included his being required to make a public confession that he had told inaccurate stories.

It is quite common for General Authorities to fade from public prominence very soon after they receive emeritus status. As far as I know, the Church leaders were unaware of the problematic nature of Elder Dunn's accounts prior to the Packer report.

You may well be correct about the timing of his falling off the radar. I only remember being taken aside after using Dunn as a reference in a talk and being informed by a Stake Rep that the Church no longer favoured referencing him on matters. I was a little shocked since I had not heard of the credibility scandal prior to that time, although I had noticed that all the many motivational videos, etc. had disappeared. But you are right my memory sometimes fogs.

[Closet Doubter]

The name wasn't Steve Packer, it was Lynn Packer. And Elder Dunn was already on emeritus status quite a while before the embellishments were exposed. But it makes a better story -- doesn't it? -- to say he was given emeritus status after the fabrications came to light.How can I trust what you're telling us when you can't get details right? (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)

Ok, instead of going by memory I looked up some information that I haven't looked up in about 10 years. Lynn Packer was a professor at BYU. He researched Dunn's stories over the course of about 4 years and discovered the fabrications and lies. He first went to church authorities above Dunn with the information (I don't know which ones) and these authorities started an internal investigation. Dunn was quickly placed on emeritus status in October 1989 at age 65 due to "health reasons".

about 12 to 18 months later, Dunn was on emeritus status but still making a lot of money off his books and tapes. Packer was frustrated that everyone was still beleiving the fabrications and decided to publish his findings in the Arizona Republic. BYU terminated Packer's teaching contract when he went public. Gordon Whiting, then chairman of the BYU communications department explained that Packer violated "church and university policies that prohibit public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true". This statement by Whiting was a great eye-opener to me at the time when I still beleived almost everything church authorities told me. I began to realize that if members are punished for telling the truth, I can't trust things simply because they are published by the church.

[Ahab]

I can't trust things simply because they are published by the church.

Everyone needs to learn that lesson at one time or another. I trust that they usually have good intentions and are doing their best to try to teach us the truth, but even at their best they are still human and can err just like any other human even if it is not their intention to make a mistake. Imagine how long it's going to take us to never make any mistake on anything whatsoever, again, even after we're in heaven.

E pluribus unum!

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, instead of going by memory I looked up some information that I haven't looked up in about 10 years. Lynn Packer was a professor at BYU. He researched Dunn's stories over the course of about 4 years and discovered the fabrications and lies. He first went to church authorities above Dunn with the information (I don't know which ones) and these authorities started an internal investigation. Dunn was quickly placed on emeritus status in October 1989 at age 65 due to "health reasons".

about 12 to 18 months later, Dunn was on emeritus status but still making a lot of money off his books and tapes. Packer was frustrated that everyone was still beleiving the fabrications and decided to publish his findings in the Arizona Republic. BYU terminated Packer's teaching contract when he went public. Gordon Whiting, then chairman of the BYU communications department explained that Packer violated "church and university policies that prohibit public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true". This statement by Whiting was a great eye-opener to me at the time when I still beleived almost everything church authorities told me. I began to realize that if members are punished for telling the truth, I can't trust things simply because they are published by the church.

It might be a fine point, but the university didn't terminate Packer's teaching contract. It chose not to renew the contract, which had expired.

I am not defending the university's action in this respect.

At the time the allegations about Elder Dunn's stories came to light, the First Presidency issued this statement:

In consideration of factors of age and health, Elder Paul H. Dunn was given emeritus status on Sept. 30, 1989, along with seven other General Authorities.

We have had no way of fully or finally verifying the accuracy or inaccuracy of the current allegations or accounts that are now under challenge. We are naturally concerned about the well-being of Elder Dunn and his family during his stressful time.

I choose not to believe the First Presidency was lying on that occasion about the reason for Elder Dunn having been given emeritus status. You, of course, are free to make your own determination.

[Stone holm]

It might be a fine point, but the university didn't terminate Packer's teaching contract. It chose not to renew the contract, which had expired.

I am not defending the university's action in this respect.

At the time the allegations about Elder Dunn's stories came to light, the First Presidency issued this statement:

I choose not to believe the First Presidency was lying on that occasion about the reason for Elder Dunn having been given emeritus status. You, of course, are free to make your own determination.

Yep, I agree that's a mighty fine point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep, I agree that's a mighty fine point.

Just trying to be as accurate as possible.

[Stone holm]

Just trying to be as accurate as possible.

Yes "fired" is such a harsh word. Its like we don't refer to disciplinary councils as "courts". Who says the Church can't get into being politically correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes "fired" is such a harsh word. Its like we don't refer to disciplinary councils as "courts". Who says the Church can't get into being politically correct.

It's not political correctness; it's accuracy. Outright termination of a contract before its expiration could be viewed as a more severe act than declining to renew a contract after it has expired.

But I agree that the effect is the same, and I don't see much point in a protracted argument with you over semantics. I've already said I'm not defending the university's action.

Give it a rest, Stone holm.

[omni]

The name wasn't Steve Packer, it was Lynn Packer.

And Elder Dunn was already on emeritus status quite a while before the embellishments were exposed. But it makes a better story -- doesn't it? -- to say he was given emeritus status after the fabrications came to light.

How can I trust what you're telling us when you can't get details right? (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)

Scott, I think it is you who needs to work on getting the details right. As Closet Doubter mentioned, Elder Dunn was placed on emeritus status just a couple weeks after the church leadership were made aware of his fabrications...hmmm? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the first GA to be put on emeritus status.

I'm sure Elder Dunn was a good man, but what's so disturbing about the whole incident was his refusal to take any responsibility for his actions until four years after they were exposed. In his newpaper interviews he kept trying to down play the "embellishments" by relating them to Jesus' parables, or even going so far as to alter his W-2 to prove to reporters that he played professional baseball. It wasn't until his stories and subsequent rebuttals were proven false that he finally apologized by stating, "I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings".

Edited June 18, 2013 by omni

[Stone holm]

It might be a fine point, but the university didn't terminate Packer's teaching contract. It chose not to renew the contract, which had expired.

I am not defending the university's action in this respect.

At the time the allegations about Elder Dunn's stories came to light, the First Presidency issued this statement:

I choose not to believe the First Presidency was lying on that occasion about the reason for Elder Dunn having been given emeritus status. You, of course, are free to make your own determination.

Isn't that nice, they gave him early retirement over his health because of the stress he caused for himself and the Church.

[Stone holm]

Scott, I think it is you who needs to work on getting the details right. As Closet Doubter mentioned, Elder Dunn was placed on emeritus status just a couple weeks after the church leadership were made aware of his fabrications...hmmm? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the first GA to be put on emeritus status. I'm sure Elder Dunn was a good man, but what's so disturbing about the whole incident was his refusal to take any responsibility for his actions until four years after they were exposed. In his newpaper interviews he kept trying to down play the "embellishments" by relating them to Jesus' parables, or even going so far as to alter his W-2 to prove to reporters that he played professional baseball. It wasn't until his stories and subsequent rebuttals were proven false that he finally apologized by stating, "I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings".

Although I really did love listening to his stories, I have to agree. Elder Dunn was still trying to downplay his exit when he did the private tour out here, and it was kind of sad to watch when the light seemed to be all gone.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I think it is you who needs to work on getting the details right. As Closet Doubter mentioned, Elder Dunn was placed on emeritus status just a couple weeks after the church leadership were made aware of his fabrications...hmmm?

I've provided a statement from the First Presidency regarding the reason for him receiving emeritus status. You are giving innuendo.

As I said, it's a matter of whether one chooses to believe that the First Presidency was lying.

I heard him speak and even interviewed him in the last years of his active service as a General Authority. He looked and sounded unwell. His voice was very quavery, as though he were suffering from palsy. It was not a bit surprising to me then -- nor is it now -- that he was relieved from his service unusually early.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was the first GA to be put on emeritus status.

Yes, you are quite wrong. Emeritus status was instituted in 1978, a decade before it was granted to Elder Dunn. In the intervening 10 years, several General Authorities had already received it.

Don't give out innuendo and erroneous statements and, in the same breath, lecture me about getting details right.

I'm sure Elder Dunn was a good man, but what's so disturbing about the whole incident was his refusal to take any responsibility for his actions until four years after they were exposed. In his newpaper interviews he kept trying to down play the "embellishments" by relating them to Jesus' parables, or even going so far as to alter his W-2 to prove to reporters that he played professional baseball. It wasn't until his stories and subsequent rebuttals were proven false that he finally apologized by stating, "I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings".

You're acting as though I'm defending his behavior. I'm not.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't that nice, they gave him early retirement over his health because of the stress he caused for himself and the Church.

Your sneering notwithstanding, I believe the Church leaders acted compassionately and -- in showing restraint until the allegations could be solidified -- quite prudently.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

Yes, you are quite wrong. Emeritus status was instituted in 1978, a decade before it was granted to Elder Dunn. In the intervening 10 years, several General Authorities had already received it.

Don't give out innuendo and erroneous statements and, in the same breath, lecture me about getting details right.

I was going off memory and couldn't find a CFR, which is exactly why I qualified it by saying, "correct me if I'm wrong". Thanks for the correction however.

[Stone holm]

Your sneering notwithstanding, I believe the Church leaders acted compassionately and -- in showing restraint until the allegations could be solidified -- quite prudently.

"Sneering", it was nice that they gave him early retirement because of the stress. Don't you think it was nice?

[ERayR]

I certainly hope that we are judged with much more compassion than many on this thread are extending to Elder Paul Dunn.

[Stone holm]

I certainly hope that we are judged with much more compassion than many on this thread are extending to Elder Paul Dunn.

I think that is very likely, a GA in the True Church is held to a much higher level of accountability than the rest of us.

[ERayR]

I think that is very likely, a GA in the True Church is held to a much higher level of accountability than the rest of us.

By who? I do not think God holds them to a higher standard. The last time I looked the ". . . be ye therefore perfect . . ." was directed to all and not just GA's.

[Stone holm]

By who? I do not think God holds them to a higher standard. The last time I looked the ". . . be ye therefore perfect . . ." was directed to all and not just GA's.

Oh, I would have to disagree with you. "To whom much is given, much is required." How is that for an exchange of platitudes. Joseph F. Smith went so far as to argue that Judas Iscariot was not a son of perdition since he still did not have enough knowledge at the time. An actual Apostle, has a very high standard of accountability.

[ERayR]

Oh, I would have to disagree with you. "To whom much is given, much is required." How is that for an exchange of platitudes. Joseph F. Smith went so far as to argue that Judas Iscariot was not a son of perdition since he still did not have enough knowledge at the time. An actual Apostle, has a very high standard of accountability.

Oh I agree with you in principle. It is just that I am having trouble with all those who think it is their right to set what those standards are.

[Ahab]

Oh, I would have to disagree with you. "To whom much is given, much is required." How is that for an exchange of platitudes. Joseph F. Smith went so far as to argue that Judas Iscariot was not a son of perdition since he still did not have enough knowledge at the time. An actual Apostle, has a very high standard of accountability.

For his own behavior, yes, but not for the behavior of others. Those others are accountable for whatever they do.

I'm not sure about the fate of Judas, either. I'm sure he knew who Christ was, but did he know through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Even if he did he still may not have denied what the Holy Spirit had told him. It could be that he only made an error in judgment in helping the Sanhedrin to bring our Lord before them.

[Stone holm]

Oh I agree with you in principle. It is just that I am having trouble with all those who think it is their right to set what those standards are.

Well. In the Church the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve set the standards hopefully under inspiration from the Lord. We place a fairly high value on order in the Church and the leadership tries very hard to herd all us pesky Mormon cats in the same direction. You do that by admonishing people to stick to the lesson manuals, prescribing grooming standards, being selective on what political issues you jump on, and only calling people you believe will stick within certain parameters to certain callings, etc. etc. Since the Church has grown huge, you develop some fairly complete bureaucratic standards to administer the various levels of leadership and you develop a major information feedback or reporting system with a series of councils involved. In addition you have certain groups reporting to a different chain of command so you have early warning if something is off the rails.

[Stone holm]

For his own behavior, yes, but not for the behavior of others. Those others are accountable for whatever they do.

I'm not sure about the fate of Judas, either. I'm sure he knew who Christ was, but did he know through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Even if he did he still may not have denied what the Holy Spirit had told him. It could be that he only made an error in judgment in helping the Sanhedrin to bring our Lord before them.

Yes and no. If I yell fire in a theater, I am accountable for people who get trampled. If I stand at the pulpit as one vested with authority, and employ rhetoric that I should know will cause people to vote a certain way or take some other action, then yes I may be accountable for not only doing that but for the consequences if I was unwarranted in the rhetoric I used.

[Ahab]

Yes and no.

I agree, yes and no. It depends on who is doing the judging.

If I yell fire in a theater, I am accountable for people who get trampled.

No, unless you have a really bad judge. The people who are accountable for people who get trampled are the people who do the trampling. If you believe there is a fire and you shout out "FIRE!" I for one would look for the fire before I started proceeding calmly toward an exit.

If I stand at the pulpit as one vested with authority,

... in other words someone who is authorized to be there...

...and employ rhetoric that I should know will cause people to vote a certain way or take some other action, then yes I may be accountable for not only doing that but for the consequences if I was unwarranted in the rhetoric I used.

You're not responsible if people choose to do whatever you say. The people who choose to follow your counsel are responsible for how they respond to your counsel and if what you are couseling is not good then it would be good for them to not do as you say.