Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[Scott Lloyd]

13 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.

You may find this difficult to believe, HJW, but I agree with this post. Every word of it.

 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

That's the thing people hear these things and think well if it happened to that guy then it can happen to me, well that doesn't always happen. Basing life decisions on phony stories or embellished ones, it's a deck of cards waiting to come down on you.

[rongo]

6 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.

I think everyone agrees that it would be best for Elder Dunn (and others, including, as I noticed, also President Monson and others as well) not to do this at all. I think we all would rather they never had and wouldn't in the future.

I think that people's 1 out of 10 guesses or panning for gold (or gems from crap  ) are overly harsh. I don't think he did this pathologically. The foxhole story, and semi-pro baseball stories are known quantities, but stories from when he was a bishop or a stake president probably did happen. At least in higher percentages than people are giving him credit for (and yes, he invited the scrutiny and skepticism).

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.

Yes, the recent Elder Holland one was another. I hope that we don't make speakers gun-shy about stories in the same way that we have made them gun-shy about doctrine or speculation. What we don't need is for talks to get even more boring because we remove any ability to spice up stories a little.  

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 don't think anyone thought of it rising to the level of lying. Just really interesting that my sharing time story (using kids and props to illustrate) was identical to his family story from just that week . . .  My primary age son after church asked me if that really happened to them, and my wife and I told him that he used the story to make it interesting. It was really spell-binding, the way he told it, with lots of extra details. Many primary children thought that it had a "familiar spirit."  

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

I agree. I think Elder Dunn's fall was sad and unfortunate. He went too far, but he wasn't doing anything that countless other church leaders and public speakers hadn't done (and still do). I doubt there has ever been a great raconteur that didn't shade the truth. Certainly "Honest Abe" Lincoln and Ronald Reagan exaggerated (or outright fabricated) stories for effect. When performing for a receptive crowd, I expect it's easy to get carried away. Elder Dunn just had the bad luck to attract the notice of an investigative reporter.

A few years ago, Steve Benson went on a personal crusade to discredit President Monson's Arthur Patton story (which actually held up surprisingly well), but even some critics recognized the silliness of Benson's quest. One wag on the board-not-to-named wrote this in response: 

Quote

Steve, do you do requests? Because I totally have one. 

Thomas Monson has this story about a widow who was escorted to the church by a bunch of teenagers, fed a Thanksgiving dinner, given a choice of pie, and then treated to a "choice program." He has told this story at least three times:

• May 1996 Ensign
• November 1989 Ensign
• October 2009 Ensign

The details of this story sometimes change, like whether the choice of apple or pumpkin pie is specified, or whether the widow got to take home leftover turkey and rolls.

Something about this story just strikes me as implausible. Would you do me a solid and Sam Spade the ____ out of this story?

I take quite a few of President Monson's stories with a large grain of salt, but I don't hold it against him. As you say, his legacy as a priesthood leader—as someone who has offered countless prayers for the Saints, sacrificed countless hours, traveled countless miles, stood at countless bedsides of the sick and dying, who has ministered to the one over and over again for decades—is what really matters. I don't really care which pie the widow had, or whether she had any at all.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Nevo

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

 

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. 

You mean the Priesthood Session story about him wiggling his ears?

I thought everyone knew that it was a President Kimball story and that by presenting it in such a way, President Monson was adding an additional layer of irony.  I thought it was brilliant.  Didn't everyone else get it?

[rongo]

No, this was a stake conference regional broadcast, and it was verbatim a story President Kimball had told about the boys crossing their legs, scratching their heads, resting their chin on their hands, etc. 

It wasn't a big deal for me, and I doubt that many linked the two. But, it was an example of "dunning."

[cinepro]

44 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I agree. I think Elder Dunn's fall was sad and unfortunate. He went too far, but he wasn't doing anything that countless other church leaders and public speakers hadn't done (and still do).

I agree that Dunn shouldn't have been raked over the coals for his story telling.  

What he should have been raked over the coals for was his involvement with financial frauds and hucksters through the 1970s and 80s, leading to great loss on the part of many people (including the Osmonds).

[rpn]

Or maybe he decided to see if the story was reported accurately or that it would make a good object lesson for his child, so he reinacted it with his family the exact way he described?

[Judd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

What he should have been raked over the coals for was his involvement with financial frauds and hucksters through the 1970s and 80s, leading to great loss on the part of many people (including the Osmonds).

He was. Just perhaps not publicly.

[Duncan]

I have the autobiography of  General Authority who was given emeritus status in 1989, same time as Elder Dunn. This is what he wrote, "At this time continuing problems came to the surface with two general authorities. One was excommunicated, the first time such action had been taken in nearly 50 years. It was a sad time for us all. It was determined that the other would be placed on emeritus status in hopes of deflecting some of the attention that might be directed to the Church" I don't know how how he knows that or if he heard that about Elder Dunn but that's what he says. In 1993, he says, they went to the groundbreaking of the Mt. Timpanogos Temple with their wives so it doesn't sound like they weren't friends anymore.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone thought of it rising to the level of lying. Just really interesting that my sharing time story (using kids and props to illustrate) was identical to his family story from just that week . . .  My primary age son after church asked me if that really happened to them, and my wife and I told him that he used the story to make it interesting. It was really spell-binding, the way he told it, with lots of extra details. Many primary children thought that it had a "familiar spirit."  

There's a hazard that if children get used to adults passing fictional stories off as truth, that they'll grow accustomed to not believing things that we want them to believe, such as the resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ and so forth.

If it were me in this situation, I would have told the children the speaker did something he should not have done in making it seem a story he told had actually happened to him personally.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have the autobiography of  General Authority who was given emeritus status in 1989, same time as Elder Dunn. This is what he wrote, "At this time continuing problems came to the surface with two general authorities. One was excommunicated, the first time such action had been taken in nearly 50 years. It was a sad time for us all. It was determined that the other would be placed on emeritus status in hopes of deflecting some of the attention that might be directed to the Church" I don't know how how he knows that or if he heard that about Elder Dunn but that's what he says. In 1993, he says, they went to the groundbreaking of the Mt. Timpanogos Temple with their wives so it doesn't sound like they weren't friends anymore.

Why are you not identifying the man whose autobiography you are citing? Is it not published?

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you not identifying the man whose autobiography you are citing? Is it not published?

it is privately published but I got a copy if it!!!! hahahhaha! i'll give you two clues, he's passed away and his brother was a Governor

[CV75]

5 hours 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 guess I'm wondering why President Monson would intentionally present someone else's story as if it were from his own experience (unless at some point he reenacted the experience for himself or even had the same experience), or why it hasn't been discussed more. That's a teaching method I'm not familiar with.

As far as Elder Dunn, goes, maybe the stories simply weren't good enough (on the whole) to be considered "gospel classics." I remember him (joined the Church in 1975), but evidently he didn't make a big impression on me. I knew an Iranian who knew him as the GA having responsibility in Iran around that time and a little earlier, and who wasn't impressed on an interpersonal basis but I think that's petty. I think if we pick stories for a talk or lesson or something, it should be on the merits of the message, not because of who the speaker is.

Anyway, I'm all for authenticity in sharing our experiences.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it is privately published but I got a copy if it!!!! hahahhaha! i'll give you two clues, he's passed away and his brother was a Governor

I'll guess William Grant Bangerter.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll guess William Grant Bangerter.

[why me]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

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....

I  think that we can. He was basically a lay person. I don't think that he trained for the clergy. Dunn obviously had a problem. But it was his problem. The title of the book that you quoted is a perfect example of disparagement: Lying for the Lord. I think that he was an imperfert person who had a human problem. I don't think that he did it out of some evil intent. But he did have a problem. He was a pathologial liar and what makes one be such a person. And her titleof the book could have been more understanding of that issue instead of Lying for the Lord.

Edited September 27, 2017 by why me

[Tacenda]

13 hours 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?

Do you have a reference that the story by Pres. Monson was indeed a story that Pres. Kimball shared? 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Notice I did not say they did not really happen anywhere.  Notice I said "there is no way to CHECK" and there is not.  There is no way to check if the crucifixion was the end of the process of the atonement either.   We do not have an atono-meter pointing to that date showing a discharge of energy.  

My point is that we take the historicity of the events on faith, as a religious belief in the historicity because even if we had evidence it could not prove the spiritual reality behind the events.

The point is we cannot know they really happened other than by testimony, so whether or not they really happened becomes totally irrelevant.  The belief that they really happened must remain a belief based in testimony

There is not one person on this planet who has NO testimony of the BOM who believes the events really happened.    They have no reason or motivation to believe that.

Think about that.  A testimony of the Book is necessary to believe in its historicity.   The religious belief is the first requirement in thinking that the events really happened.

No religious belief is based on evidence alone.  As I have said before there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion- passersby, Roman soldiers, etc who had no idea that THAT MOMENT completed the atonement for THEIR sins

Think of John 3:16.  Salvation comes from BELIEF in historicity- not knowledge or proof or evidence of historicity because there IS none!   How do you prove that a man dying on a cross- even if you had a video with a time and date stamp and DNA proof somehow that that was Jesus of Nazareth- results in the forgiveness of sins?

Not possible.

It is the interpretation of the IMPORTANCE of the event that gives us hope in things unseen.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, why me said:

I  think that we can. He was basically a lay person. I don't think that he trained for the clergy. Dunn obviously had a problem. But it was his problem. The title of the book that you quoted is a perfect example of disparagement: Lying for the Lord. I think that he was an imperfert person who had a human problem. I don't think that he did it out of some evil intent. But he did have a problem.

And then you say:

He was a pathological liar and what makes one be such a person.

*That* is disparaging. He wasn't a pathological liar. I know some pathological liars. That goes far, far beyond making yourself the hero in some stories that didn't happen. Lots of people do that, all the time, and that doesn't make them pathological liars.

[stemelbow]

I don't promote lying.  I also can't really condemn anyone as a liar in particular.  Too close to call in most cases.  We all lie, and tend to exaggerate.  On a personal level I try my best to give everyone a bit of a pass on this, even our nearly infallible leaders  as many members often like to consider them.  But it seems like a terribly counter-productive practice to encourage covenant keepers to maintain integrity by making up stories.  Ferreting out the fake in stories is, I suppose, much easier today then it was 30 and more years ago.  Take the Holland/Clark story that was told and retold.  I mean it took quite a few tellings, it seems, over a couple of years before it was admitted to be a fake.  I don't know the last time a leader felt obligated to put out a press release correcting an error filled story.  Luckily for this last one, it was easy enough to blame everyone else.  Now take the story of three 18 year olds who took on the responsibility of hauling 500 people across muddy river.  We still had that made up story told in our last GD class.  Can't get it corrected in the manuals after 100 plus years.  It seems to be so ingrained and accepted as an exception to a rule of honesty, we've fatefully accepted the ends justify the means type of thinking with it.  The obvious problem is the real story is just as encouraging, oddly enough. 

It certainly is, in a sense, sad that Dunn was used as an example when the problem had obviously been around for many years, used in many ways by many leaders.  But I suppose at some point a line had to be crossed for the problem to be considered a real effective problem, rather than a smiled at problem that didn't really matter.

Of course in all of this we can't blame the leaders for it all.  Scripture is nothing but people telling stories first person as if they story teller is the one who has the events happening to him, but as it turns out is not the one to whom the events described have happened to.  It's an age old practice.  In some ways we're too deep into this to change it now, so I suppose we'll be seeing this happen and dealing with it's effects for forever.   

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, why me said:

I  think that we can. He was basically a lay person. I don't think that he trained for the clergy. Dunn obviously had a problem. But it was his problem. The title of the book that you quoted is a perfect example of disparagement: Lying for the Lord. I think that he was an imperfert person who had a human problem. I don't think that he did it out of some evil intent. But he did have a problem. He was a pathologial liar and what makes one be such a person. And her titleof the book could have been more understanding of that issue instead of Lying for the Lord.

The title of the book is what it is (I actually don't like parts of the book myself).  I was commenting on the evidence there is of a  pattern regarding Dunn's story telling (fabricating or embellishing) that started long before he became "lay clergy" for the church.  

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Now take the story of three 18 year olds who took on the responsibility of hauling 500 people across muddy river.  We still had that made up story told in our last GD class.  Can't get it corrected in the manuals after 100 plus years. 

I missed the complete de-bunking of this one. Where can I find that?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I missed the complete de-bunking of this one. Where can I find that?

http://brycox.com/lds/BryCox-SweetwaterRescue.pdf

This past Sunday all 5 of these untruths were told, so I assumed it was found in the manual.  I tried to comment and add clarification while not being too controversial or upsetting.  But it seemed most in the class were dismissive, as one gentlemen upset with any attempt correct chimed in by saying, "all 3 of these 18 year old are in my family, so I know it's true".  Ah well...

[rongo]

Thank you, stem.