Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[rongo]

This Sunday, our high council speaker (a very good story teller) told an involved story about flying kites in the park, and a little girl wanting to do it, too and his family helping her. After letting all the string out, she begged them to cut the string so the kite could fly even higher. "The string is holding the kite back!" she insisted. They told her it wouldn't fly higher and would fall to the ground, but she insisted, so they cut it and --- it fell down after twisting and turning. They explained to her that the string was actually what was holding the kite up through tension in the line; without it, the kite can't stay in the air. 

As he told this story, which was full of details such as having to back up their Suburban to get it out of a tree and things like that, several ward members looked at me. The Sunday before, I had used essentially the same story in sharing time (but not as having happened to my family). I had props and had kids help with the story. Those of us who were missionaries in the 1980s and 1990s readily recognize the story from the supplemental material in the discussions. For those who were in sharing time, the chances of that happening to his family just like in my story seemed pretty remote. It was pretty obvious that he had personalized the story for story-telling dramatic purposes.

In a stake conference broadcast once, President Monson told a story that President Kimball had told, as if it had happened to him (i.e., he was the protagonist in the anecdote). In it, little boys kept imitating everything he did (mannerisms, etc.), and he noticed that and tested it by trying out additional gestures, tics, and mannerisms. The moral was that people are always watching and emulating us. The similarities were such that it was pretty obvious to anyone who knew the President Kimball story that President Monson was personalizing President Kimball's anecdote for dramatic storytelling purposes. 

Elder Dunn has been almost universally repudiated and rejected, it seems. I wonder if we are perhaps throwing stones at him for things most of us do (especially men ---- fish stories that get better with each telling). Granted that he crossed a line with things like dramatic foxhole deathbed "tell the youth of the church" stories. 

I also see people throwing every single one of his babies out with the bathwater. Is it reasonable to assume that he made up every single one of his stories for dramatic storytelling value? e.g., his story about counseling with his daughter about a problem with a friend, and using the scriptures, and his daughter having a good experience and telling him later "The New Testament really works, Dad!" 

Is he such a pariah that most people refuse to use any Elder Dunn teachings or stories, because that well has been so thoroughly poisoned?

[HiJolly]

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're right to do so. 

If we examine the Bible (both testaments) we find good reason to NOT CONDEMN Elder Dunn. There is little difference between them. 

But that's not very faith-promoting, in the modern sense. Sadly. 

[bluebell]

Yes, I think the well has been so poisoned that it can't really function as a well anymore.  Trust, once lost, is hard to get back.  Personally, i don't like it when people personalize stories that didn't actually happen to them, unless it's clear in the telling that that's what is being done.  I don't see it as lying, but i still don't like it.

[Duncan]

I used an Elder Dunn quotation in a class maybe 5 years or so years ago and nobody said boo about it. It was shared in a General Conference and so I figure if the people involved had heard this and it wasn't true they might have come forward but I haven't heard diddly squat about whether that story was true or not, it could be but I haven't found any evidence that it wasn't. He came to our stake in 1982 and he held a women's meeting and my Mum attended and she still talks about it, they had a QA and she remembers who asked what question and what he said. I have a book of his his and he related a story about speaking in general conference, and this would have been in the 1960's and he said how difficult it was to follow a certain two General Authorities. I looked up the speaking order for the 1960's conferences as to when he spoke and I couldn't find what year all 3 spoke in the same session. I chalk that up to memory and not any attempt to deceive anybody. He also one time related a story about being at a Stake conference in Hawaii and the Patriarch was speaking, his name was Arthur Parker. As he was speaking he suddenly dropped and he was dead. I just checked on google but there was a Hawaiian man named Arthur Parker who was the Patriarch and he was that calling in the Oahu Stake and he died in 1965, which I think Elder Dunn has responsibility in the Pacific area at the time. I don't know when or how this brother died but so far so good

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think the well has been so poisoned that it can't really function as a well anymore.  Trust, once lost, is hard to get back.  Personally, i don't like it when people personalize stories that didn't actually happen to them, unless it's clear in the telling that that's what is being done.  I don't see it as lying, but i still don't like it.

Yeah, it's definitely on the bottom end of the "good, better, best" continuum. We all have good stories from our own lives and experiences (including people we know), to where we should never have to "pull a Dunn" with a story. 

Why is the temptation to do so apparently so great? 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think the well has been so poisoned that it can't really function as a well anymore.  Trust, once lost, is hard to get back.  Personally, i don't like it when people personalize stories that didn't actually happen to them, unless it's clear in the telling that that's what is being done.  I don't see it as lying, but i still don't like it.

In our stake there is this High Councilor who plagiarizes his talks, he just picks old conference ones and BYU speeches and to me it's dishonest and wrong and he relates others experiences as his own as they aren't his own. So, this has been going on for at least 4 or more years now and he spoke in our ward awhile ago and he copy and pasted some talks together. So I emailed him and told him I knew what he was doing and maybe rather than reading  others talks maybe you could come up with your own ideas and your own experiences and I sent him some links on how to write a talk in Church. He sent me this little note a few days later thanking me for my comments and advice and that was it. I saw him on sunday and boy oh boy he rolled out the red carpet for me, buttering me up and he knew I had dirt on him, which I have no plans to use against him but like just stop with the fakey fakeness, just write your own talks from now on

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yeah, it's definitely on the bottom end of the "good, better, best" continuum. We all have good stories from our own lives and experiences (including people we know), to where we should never have to "pull a Dunn" with a story. 

Why is the temptation to do so apparently so great? 

we want to sound better than we are/impress people

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yeah, it's definitely on the bottom end of the "good, better, best" continuum. We all have good stories from our own lives and experiences (including people we know), to where we should never have to "pull a Dunn" with a story. 

Why is the temptation to do so apparently so great? 

I think it's because we believe that a story that comes with the 'based on a true story' clause will carry more weight with the listener.  It works for movies--where they play really fast and loose with the definition of that phrase--and usually get's people's attention who wouldn't care as much (or at all) without it.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In our stake there is this High Councilor who plagiarizes his talks, he just picks old conference ones and BYU speeches and to me it's dishonest and wrong and he relates others experiences as his own as they aren't his own. So, this has been going on for at least 4 or more years now and he spoke in our ward awhile ago and he copy and pasted some talks together. So I emailed him and told him I knew what he was doing and maybe rather than reading  others talks maybe you could come up with your own ideas and your own experiences and I sent him some links on how to write a talk in Church. He sent me this little note a few days later thanking me for my comments and advice and that was it. I saw him on sunday and boy oh boy he rolled out the red carpet for me, buttering me up and he knew I had dirt on him, which I have no plans to use against him but like just stop with the fakey fakeness, just write your own talks from now on

That's impressive that you wrote to him about it!

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's impressive that you wrote to him about it!

I would be lying if I didn't say I wasn't nervous! but I sent him the links of where he got the his talks from so he knew I had him

[SmileyMcGee]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think the well has been so poisoned that it can't really function as a well anymore.  Trust, once lost, is hard to get back.  Personally, i don't like it when people personalize stories that didn't actually happen to them, unless it's clear in the telling that that's what is being done.  I don't see it as lying, but i still don't like it.

This use of the term "personalize" is new to me. How does it differ from lying? 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yeah, it's definitely on the bottom end of the "good, better, best" continuum. We all have good stories from our own lives and experiences (including people we know), to where we should never have to "pull a Dunn" with a story. 

Why is the temptation to do so apparently so great? 

I think that some feel they are put up such a high pedestal, that they need to always tell stories where they are the heroes in them.  That seems to be what Paul Dunn did (he almost always became the hero when he changed the stories or fabricated them). 

What's interesting is that I took a public speaking course and was told that if you include a story in your remarks or speech, "don't be the hero of the story" because you'll come off looking like a pompous braggart almost every time.  I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I think it makes a good point.  With Dunn, he told story after story (one more incredible than the next) and he almost always portrayed himself as the hero.  My instructor also advised that if you're going to tell a personal story,  use one where you learned a lesson (such as we're all human, here's an example of a mistake I made and learned from it). 

I feel that it becomes highly suspect when a speaker tells so many absolutely incredibly dramatic stories each time they speak and they are at the center of each story.  

I do think what your High Councilman did was not honest, but I don't know if it's an out and out lie.  However, he gave an impression that was not true.  We're told to avoid the appearance....and from what you said,  some in the audience picked right up on what he was doing.

I do believe that Paul Dunn lied.  He told stories about men dying in his arms that were not dead.  I don't know how that's not a lie.  However, I think so many of the morals of his stories were so good to hear.  

Edited September 26, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

This Sunday, our high council speaker (a very good story teller) told an involved story about flying kites in the park, and a little girl wanting to do it, too and his family helping her. After letting all the string out, she begged them to cut the string so the kite could fly even higher. "The string is holding the kite back!" she insisted. They told her it wouldn't fly higher and would fall to the ground, but she insisted, so they cut it and --- it fell down after twisting and turning. They explained to her that the string was actually what was holding the kite up through tension in the line; without it, the kite can't stay in the air. 

As he told this story, which was full of details such as having to back up their Suburban to get it out of a tree and things like that, several ward members looked at me. The Sunday before, I had used essentially the same story in sharing time (but not as having happened to my family). I had props and had kids help with the story. Those of us who were missionaries in the 1980s and 1990s readily recognize the story from the supplemental material in the discussions. For those who were in sharing time, the chances of that happening to his family just like in my story seemed pretty remote. It was pretty obvious that he had personalized the story for story-telling dramatic purposes.

In a stake conference broadcast once, President Monson told a story that President Kimball had told, as if it had happened to him (i.e., he was the protagonist in the anecdote). In it, little boys kept imitating everything he did (mannerisms, etc.), and he noticed that and tested it by trying out additional gestures, tics, and mannerisms. The moral was that people are always watching and emulating us. The similarities were such that it was pretty obvious to anyone who knew the President Kimball story that President Monson was personalizing President Kimball's anecdote for dramatic storytelling purposes. 

Elder Dunn has been almost universally repudiated and rejected, it seems. I wonder if we are perhaps throwing stones at him for things most of us do (especially men ---- fish stories that get better with each telling). Granted that he crossed a line with things like dramatic foxhole deathbed "tell the youth of the church" stories. 

I also see people throwing every single one of his babies out with the bathwater. Is it reasonable to assume that he made up every single one of his stories for dramatic storytelling value? e.g., his story about counseling with his daughter about a problem with a friend, and using the scriptures, and his daughter having a good experience and telling him later "The New Testament really works, Dad!" 

Is he such a pariah that most people refuse to use any Elder Dunn teachings or stories, because that well has been so thoroughly poisoned?

I think you make some good points, and that Elder Dunn ran into a situation in modernity that rarely happened in antiquity.  Fact checkers, and modern technology of communications and recording devices has changed the art of story telling and our understandings of how memory works and the expectations for objectivity have changed things significantly in our culture today. 

Would he have fit in better in years past, I think so.  He was certainly a gifted story teller.  

But one other problem with have in our culture is that these new expectations for accuracy and objectivity are reflected backwards on previous literary works and narratives told in the past.  We are constantly asking whether something is historical and trying to determine its accuracy and separate that from the mythical exaggerations. 

I think there is value in trying to understand what was accurate history even though its not possible with 100% accuracy for a multitude of reasons, there is some value in the modern enterprise of seeking more accurate accounts of history.  However, there is also value in the traditional narratives that were told, and I wonder if we don't miss out on some of that value as we focus so much on the accuracy approaches. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

This use of the term "personalize" is new to me. How does it differ from lying? 

I don't see it as lying because storytelling (with the purpose of teaching a principle) is an actual art (we have a professional storyteller in our ward-she makes a living doing it) and storytellers often personalize stories to improve their impact on the listener.  It's seen as a valid (and even good) way to teach; it's not seen as lying but as a legitimate aspect of the art.

The difference is that most people understand that about storytellers. They know what they are getting.  But in church, we don't often think of the person giving a talk as a 'storyteller' (though I don't think we would lose anything if we learned to see them that way sometimes).  We tend to think of our speakers are always being literal.  

From my perspective, that's why we get upset when we learn they weren't being literally--not because being a storyteller at church is wrong, but because the story wasn't what we thought it was.  That's why I don't like it.

 

[strappinglad]

My dad would tell stories all the time. Sometimes he would say it was a ' true ' story. Occasionally he would tell us a ' really true ' story. They were all really good stories !

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think the well has been so poisoned that it can't really function as a well anymore.  Trust, once lost, is hard to get back.  Personally, i don't like it when people personalize stories that didn't actually happen to them, unless it's clear in the telling that that's what is being done.  I don't see it as lying, but i still don't like it.

It is a difficult situation, Elder Dunn should have made clear that he was using stories as "parables", in an effort to inspire. Before he got caught, not after. I think maybe he (like so many others) fell in love with his fame, and attention. Each time he gave a talk, or spoke at a fireside, such pressure can cause the "storyteller" to come up with bigger and better stories. I have a special place in my heart for him, his books and antidotes were very uplifting and inspiring, in my early days in the Church, and made for great quotes. A very good friend of mine who served a mission, Elder Dunn was his Mission President. With the onset of my early health problems, Elder Dunn, came out to see my friend Gary, who had also set up a fireside. I was too sick to attend, so my home teacher approached Elder Dunn, and explained my situation. This led to my wife calling me, and telling me to get dressed and come to Church. At that time I could barely walk, but I got a shower, shaved, and went to Church, and Elder Dunn gave me a blessing. I remember before he gave me the blessing, he asked "Brother Lee, do you have faith", to which I replied yes. Then he asked, "do you have faith that Jesus Christ can heal", again my reply was yes. He then, after my Home Teacher anointed me, gave unto me a blessing. 

So when I heard about what happened, it was hard news to hear. But his blessing (as he stated) that my doctors should soon find the cause of my illness, and that I would soon be able to work again, happened just as he said.  

[rongo]

58 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He came to our stake in 1982 and he held a women's meeting and my Mum attended and she still talks about it, they had a QA and she remembers who asked what question and what he said.

Papa:

I have a special place in my heart for him, his books and antidotes were very uplifting and inspiring, in my early days in the Church, and made for great quotes. A very good friend of mine who served a mission, Elder Dunn was his Mission President. With the onset of my early health problems, Elder Dunn, came out to see my friend Gary, who had also set up a fireside. I was too sick to attend, so my home teacher approached Elder Dunn, and explained my situation. This led to my wife calling me, and telling me to get dressed and come to Church. At that time I could barely walk, but I got a shower, shaved, and went to Church, and Elder Dunn gave me a blessing. I remember before he gave me the blessing, he asked "Brother Lee, do you have faith", to which I replied yes. Then he asked, "do you have faith that Jesus Christ can heal", again my reply was yes. He then, after my Home Teacher anointed me, gave unto me a blessing. 

So when I heard about what happened, it was hard news to hear. But his blessing (as he stated) that my doctors should soon find the cause of my illness, and that I would soon be able to work again, happened just as he said.

His impact transcends the fallout from the ramifications of what he did. Just as both of you relate, this impact continues for people of his time. I still love reading his stories, even though I know that there is a cloud and a question (I don't believe every story he said was a foxhole lie). His book "Win if You Will: Thirteen Latter-day Saints Show You How" is a great book. It has inspirational autobiographies of people like George Romney, J. Willard Marriott, ___ Jensen (paleontologist),  Don Lind, Gene Fullmer, Billy Casper, Harmon Killebrew, Vernon Law, Bruno Gerzelli, Jay Silverster, etc. (I have Dunn-autographed copy from my grandfather). 

I think his legacy as a priesthood leader and a speaker transcends even in the face of the revelations of his untrue stories. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This Sunday, our high council speaker (a very good story teller) told an involved story about flying kites in the park, and a little girl wanting to do it, too and his family helping her. After letting all the string out, she begged them to cut the string so the kite could fly even higher. "The string is holding the kite back!" she insisted. They told her it wouldn't fly higher and would fall to the ground, but she insisted, so they cut it and --- it fell down after twisting and turning. They explained to her that the string was actually what was holding the kite up through tension in the line; without it, the kite can't stay in the air. 

As he told this story, which was full of details such as having to back up their Suburban to get it out of a tree and things like that, several ward members looked at me. The Sunday before, I had used essentially the same story in sharing time (but not as having happened to my family). I had props and had kids help with the story. Those of us who were missionaries in the 1980s and 1990s readily recognize the story from the supplemental material in the discussions. For those who were in sharing time, the chances of that happening to his family just like in my story seemed pretty remote. It was pretty obvious that he had personalized the story for story-telling dramatic purposes.

In a stake conference broadcast once, President Monson told a story that President Kimball had told, as if it had happened to him (i.e., he was the protagonist in the anecdote). In it, little boys kept imitating everything he did (mannerisms, etc.), and he noticed that and tested it by trying out additional gestures, tics, and mannerisms. The moral was that people are always watching and emulating us. The similarities were such that it was pretty obvious to anyone who knew the President Kimball story that President Monson was personalizing President Kimball's anecdote for dramatic storytelling purposes. 

Elder Dunn has been almost universally repudiated and rejected, it seems. I wonder if we are perhaps throwing stones at him for things most of us do (especially men ---- fish stories that get better with each telling). Granted that he crossed a line with things like dramatic foxhole deathbed "tell the youth of the church" stories. 

I also see people throwing every single one of his babies out with the bathwater. Is it reasonable to assume that he made up every single one of his stories for dramatic storytelling value? e.g., his story about counseling with his daughter about a problem with a friend, and using the scriptures, and his daughter having a good experience and telling him later "The New Testament really works, Dad!" 

Is he such a pariah that most people refuse to use any Elder Dunn teachings or stories, because that well has been so thoroughly poisoned?

This is how I view the Book of Mormon. Religious truth is taught in parables. Jesus did this. Perhaps the New Testament is the same thing, there is no way to check. 

Imagine that.

All scripture is stories like this.

Welcome to my world. 

So bottom line, no biggie. What do you expect?

[rongo]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

This is how I view the Book of Mormon. Religious truth is taught in parables. Jesus did this. Perhaps the New Testament is the same thing, there is no way to check. 

Imagine that.

All scripture is stories like this.

Welcome to my world. 

So bottom line, no biggie. What do you expect?

You don't believe the Book of Mormon people, events, and places existed/really happened? I didn't know that.

Or, do you mean that they don't need to have happened for the Book of Mormon to still be true? I understand that sentiment, but it doesn't work for me. I'm tied to historicity.

I agree that inspirational stories can be and are . . . inspirational. 

[JAHS]

When I was on my mission in the early 70s all the missionaries had Paul Dunn tapes  and we listened to them over and over. It was disappointing when he confessed that some of what he said was made up.
Nevertheless the stories still taught some good principles and could be considered parables we can learn from; the same as Jesus taught.   Well sort of.

[why me]

Basically, this is what happens when there is a lay clergy. People are not trained to give talks and at times it can be pretty daunting to have to give talks for years and years. Dunn had to come up with something interesting each time he talked. I remember listening to his talks....they were very interesting. And we all expected to be inspired each time he spoke. This is a lot of pressure to put on someone. People do not want to be boring when they speak, especially the leaders. We should be understanding of these individuals who seem to stretch the truth, including Dunn.

[HappyJackWagon]

If someone tells a story with the intent to deceive/trick/fool others into thinking he was a first hand participant, likely as a way to add credibility to the story, then the individual is being deceptive. I have no problem with stories or allegories or fables if they are identified as such. Great lessons can be learned. But if the teller is immature enough to misrepresent the story as factual, then trust is broken. Why should I listen to Dunn's stories just because 1 out of 10 may have been factual? If someone lies to you 90% of the time then you are unlikely to trust that person. No one wants to have to fact check every single thing a person says in an effort to mine the small gem from the pile of crap.

Speakers have to be very careful about the stories they tell. Elder Holland learned that lesson recently. I hope all speakers remember that lesson at conference this weekend because trust isn't just lost for the individual but can also be lost for the group.

Regarding the HC Speaker- I'd definitely be sharing that experience with the SP. That HC just shot himself in the foot and has become an unreliable agent for the Stake. Getting caught lying tends to do that.

Edited September 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone tells a story with the intent to deceive/trick/fool others into thinking he was a first hand participant, likely as a way to add credibility to the story, then the individual is being deceptive. I have no problem with stories or allegories or fables if they are identified as such. Great lessons can be learned. But if the teller is immature enough to misrepresent the story as factual, then trust is broken. Why should I listen to Dunn's stories just because 1 out of 10 may have been factual? If someone lies to you 90% of the time then you are unlikely to trust that person. No one wants to have to fact check every single thing a person says in an effort to mine the small gem from the pile of crap.

Speakers have to be very careful about the stories they tell. Elder Holland learned that lesson recently. I hope all speakers remember that lesson at conference this weekend because trust isn't just lost for the individual but can also be lost for the group.

Regarding the HC Speaker- I'd definitely be sharing that experience with the SP. That HC just shot himself in the foot and has become an unreliable agent for the Stake. Getting caught lying tends to do that.

I think that this is a sign of a change in our culture, that older generations might have struggled to see coming.  It used to be that people didn't ever identify stories as allegories or fables' and cultural storytellers often embellished stories to sound real or to include real people.  But we as a culture understood that.  We understood that's what was happening, even though no one ever said it outright.  It was just known that that's how it worked.  It would never have been seen as deceptive or lying.

But our culture isn't like that anymore.  Like Hope said, now we are very focused on historicity and accuracy.  Our stories are valued because of their connection to 'what really happened.'  One way isn't necessarily better or worse than the other.  The problem comes when people don't know what they are getting, and assume they are getting something they aren't.  The story telling that used to work in the past doesn't work anymore.  

Our cultural identity doesn't support that way of using stories to teach anymore.  Speakers need to realize that.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, why me said:

Basically, this is what happens when there is a lay clergy. People are not trained to give talks and at times it can be pretty daunting to have to give talks for years and years. Dunn had to come up with something interesting each time he talked. I remember listening to his talks....they were very interesting. And we all expected to be inspired each time he spoke. This is a lot of pressure to put on someone. People do not want to be boring when they speak, especially the leaders. We should be understanding of these individuals who seem to stretch the truth, including Dunn.

If you've read Lynn Packer's book on Dunn (Lying For The Lord: The Paul H. Dunn Stories), he does a good job of documenting that Dunn's pattern of fabricating, lying and deceiving started early in his life.  I don't think you can blame it on him being "lay clergy".  Dunn even owned up to some of the untruths he told when he was young.  I wonder if he had esteem issues that caused him to do this (make up stories that made him the hero)?  I don't know....

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone tells a story with the intent to deceive/trick/fool others into thinking he was a first hand participant, likely as a way to add credibility to the story, then the individual is being deceptive. I have no problem with stories or allegories or fables if they are identified as such. Great lessons can be learned. But if the teller is immature enough to misrepresent the story as factual, then trust is broken. Why should I listen to Dunn's stories just because 1 out of 10 may have been factual? If someone lies to you 90% of the time then you are unlikely to trust that person. No one wants to have to fact check every single thing a person says in an effort to mine the small gem from the pile of crap.

Speakers have to be very careful about the stories they tell. Elder Holland learned that lesson recently. I hope all speakers remember that lesson at conference this weekend because trust isn't just lost for the individual but can also be lost for the group.

Regarding the HC Speaker- I'd definitely be sharing that experience with the SP. That HC just shot himself in the foot and has become an unreliable agent for the Stake. Getting caught lying tends to do that.

That's the thing with this HC, he's tainted now and I am not the only one who knows about it. I debated telling the SP but then I was like, well...........if he does it again but would he dare try to lie again in my ward knowing I know what he's doing? maybe he has the ego to do it? but if it happens again I am in cahoots with the SP and so I might drop him a line saying this is what is happening, this is what i 've done and now I don't know what further to do. To me the higher up you go the worse it is, like we aren't talking about some deacon here this is a High Priest and on the High Council for at least since before 2011, people can see right through the deception.