Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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...

I'm disappointed you're on limited and I can't rep your posts like they deserve.  

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

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).

Pathological? I don't know that I would go that far with Dunn, but it's not out of the question when considering this part of the definition: "compulsive; obsessive:"

The problem is we have no way of knowing if his SP and bishop stories are true. There are very few people who would have known so those stories would be much more difficult to verify. So it would be much smarter to embellish those kinds of stories than the whoppers like baseball and the foxhole where he should have expected to be caught.

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.  

I hope they are gun-shy about telling inaccurate stories. Like Bluebell noted earlier in the thread, today's culture doesn't tolerate false claims. The sooner all church leaders realize this and become more careful, the better off they will be. If they don't learn that lesson the trust gap will continue to grow. A story that is spiced up with false details that make it faith promoting will not serve the church's purpose.

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."  

I'd be surprised if no one thought of this as lying. Shocked. That "familiar spirit" they felt was a manipulation. That will be a massive problem when the kids recognize it as such.

I guess we disagree  but that's okay.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm disappointed you're on limited and I can't rep your posts like they deserve.  

Be encouraged.  At least you know some of us will never have the ratio of posts to rep points as you.  My goodness, man, seriously.  Your ratio perhaps is as good as it gets.  Nearly one to one. 

Well, to my credit, this isnt' the first time I've been on limited.  So I've gone other stretches were my incredibly convincing and thoughtful posts haven't been able to be repped; thus encouraging me along. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

Aspects of the story have been debunked for a while now.  But three boys did carry some pioneers through the ice-upped sweet water and they were all in their teens I believe.  That much is true.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

The manual quotes Pres. Monson, who quoted Solomon Kimball's story in 1990 (the debunking of the story happened in 2010 I think).  Here's what the manual said-

“‘The handcarts moved on November 3 and reached the [Sweetwater] river, filled with floating ice. To cross would require more courage and fortitude, it seemed, than human nature could muster. Women shrank back and men wept. Some pushed through, but others were unequal to the ordeal.

“‘Three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue; and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of that ill-fated handcart company across the snow-bound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, “That act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant, and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end”’ (LeRoy R. Hafen and Ann W. Hafen, Handcarts to Zion[Glendale, California: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1960], pp. 132–33).

The Gospel Doctrine lesson manual desperately needs to be updated.

 

[Physics Guy]

Retelling someone else's faith-promoting story as though it were my own isn't only lying about how cool I am. It can also mean lying about the faith promotion.

First of all, if I tell you a story as if it happened to me, when in fact I only have it as hearsay, I'm lying to you about how likely the story is to be true.

And secondly, if you hear someone in person tell of something cool happening to them, then you're going to figure that cool things like that aren't so rare, because they've happened within the circle of your own acquaintances. If in fact the thing really happened, but only once within the much wider circle of your second-hand contacts, then you've been lied to about how common cool things like that are.

Faith-promoting stories promote faith because they imply that wondrous things really do happen, and moreover they happen more often than unbelievers might think. Both those implications can be lies, at least partially, if people personalize their faith-promoting stories.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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...

Sounds like he's telling a tall tale himself there 

Thanks for the link, stem.  I had not read that before and found it to be very interesting.  I really do believe that so many of these larger than life, faith promoting stories fall apart when one really starts to logically analyze them.

Maybe you should email that document to the brother in your class who claims all 3 of these kids were in his family!!

(I am surprised this story is still in the manual too....)

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

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?

I viewed the video, and I well remember the story President Kimball told.

They are different enough that I'm inclined to believe President Monson was sharing a factual and personal story even though it was somewhat similar to the experience President Kimball had.

 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Retelling someone else's faith-promoting story as though it were my own isn't only lying about how cool I am. It can also mean lying about the faith promotion.

First of all, if I tell you a story as if it happened to me, when in fact I only have it as hearsay, I'm lying to you about how likely the story is to be true.

And secondly, if you hear someone in person tell of something cool happening to them, then you're going to figure that cool things like that aren't so rare, because they've happened within the circle of your own acquaintances. If in fact the thing really happened, but only once within the much wider circle of your second-hand contacts, then you've been lied to about how common cool things like that are.

Faith-promoting stories promote faith because they imply that wondrous things really do happen, and moreover they happen more often than unbelievers might think. Both those implications can be lies, at least partially, if people personalize their faith-promoting stories.

I agree with this.  Personalizing someone's faith promoting story is different to me then personalizing a story that teaches a principle or moral.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The Gospel Doctrine lesson manual desperately needs to be updated.

All the manuals need updated desperately. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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...

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this link.

I wish, however, he hadn't referred to the magazine as "The New Improvement Era." The actual name was The Improvement Era.

Apparently, Cox is conflating the magazine's name with the magazine that came later and which we know today as The New Era, which is a magazine for youth and which appeared in the early 1970s, the same time the Ensign and the Friend debuted. The Improvement Era is the forerunner to The Ensign.

This is a little thing, perhaps, but if one is going to write an article debunking something, one should himself endeavor to be accurate in his own article.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I viewed the video, and I well remember the story President Kimball told.

They are different enough that I'm inclined to believe President Monson was sharing a factual and personal story even though it was somewhat similar to the experience President Kimball had.

 

Do you have a reference of the one by Pres. Kimball?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you have a reference of the one by Pres. Kimball?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/the-davids-and-the-goliaths?lang=eng

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All the manuals need updated desperately. 

Haven't some been updated in the last few years?  Are there still accuracy problems with them?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

All the manuals need updated desperately. 

Considering the GD manuals I'm not sure which is worse, thus needing the updating most desperately--the OT one or the one we're on now.

 

 

[why me]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

And then you say:

 

 

*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.

If the poster was correct about the book and if he were telling such stories from an early age, what else would you call it? It is obvious that he had a problem with the truth. I don't think that he was being evil when he would do so giving a talk. But certainly, if this was his behavior from an early age, he did have a problem that needed to be treated.

[Storm Rider]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:40 AM, 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?

Rongo, you are making an awful lot of assumptions. Your premise presumes that an experience can only be found in a single person's life and it cannot occur anywhere else in the lives of others.  The problem, of course, is that very, very few of us have truly unique experiences.  There just simply is not many novel events that occur in our lives. For example, I have had the same experience of having small children imitate my gestures - does that mean all the GA lied by telling of the same experience or, perchance, does it simply mean that more than one individual had a similar experience in their lives? 

For me, I will first trust what you say about your own life and your own experiences until such time as I know you don't tell the truth or that you like to embellish events.  Yes, I agree, some do far more embellishing of their life's stories than others.  Some individuals do create experiences when recounting stories meant to be lessons for others.  For example, I often will say that my mother told me as a child that "you cannot go down a chimney without getting any soot on you". She did tell me this, but she did not repeat to me all the time.  However, when I tell the story it may sound like my mom did repeat it to me often.  Did I lie or distort the truth or reality of the experience?  No, I don't think so, but I assume that using your standard and the expectations of others on this board that I could easily be accused to such. 

I find that critics of GA, or leaders in general, use standards that are unrealistic and often standards that they would never apply to their own lives and/or the lives of the loved ones.  Humans love to shoot at those in leadership positions - it just seems like a natural reactions of followers to build themselves up by tearing down others.  We all do this and we really should all learn to put it aside; it is not appealing and it is seldom, if every, helpful.  If we are not a source of peace in the world - then what are we?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, why me said:

If the poster was correct about the book and if he were telling such stories from an early age, what else would you call it? It is obvious that he had a problem with the truth. I don't think that he was being evil when he would do so giving a talk. But certainly, if this was his behavior from an early age, he did have a problem that needed to be treated.

I haven't read the biography and don't know what stories it tells about his childhood and youth. Anyone know or have examples that show that it is "obvious that he had a problem with the truth" at an early age.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I haven't read the biography and don't know what stories it tells about his childhood and youth. Anyone know or have examples that show that it is "obvious that he had a problem with the truth" at an early age.

rongo, I'm the one who posted about the book and it's been awhile since I read it.  I remember one of the first things that was debunked in the book (using dates and locations, etc.) was that Dunn claimed to have pitched balls to Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig (at the age of 12 when he was a bat boy for the Arkansas Travelers).  But the dates don't match up for them ever being where Paul would have been (iirc).  

But now to be fair, I do not know at what age Paul Dunn began telling that story (I'd have to search for it again).  Maybe he actually was already a church leader when he started relating that this actually took place in his life as part of an object lesson or for some other purpose.  I do know many of his family members seemed to know of the stories when he was younger.  

I do remember that he claimed other things from then on that actually could not have happened (well documented and researched in the book to the point that it became tedious to read at times).  But again to be completely fair, I do not know at what age Dunn started claiming things happened that never took place (or embellished events that did).  

ETA:

Here's a summary of the Babe Ruth claim (Packer goes into much more detail and documentation of dates in the book, etc., but this will give you an idea):

Quote

Babe Ruth is one of the stars Dunn says he pitched to during batting practice before an exhibition game. Babe Ruth was in Little Rock for an exhibition game with the Travelers. But that was in 1929, when Dunn was only five years old, Moreover, Ruth was confined to his hotel room with a sprained ankle and missed that particular game

(Again, I'd have to do a search for how early on Dunn stated he'd pitched to Ruth.) 

I purchased the book on kindle so it's hard to find things in it (I could search on Amazon possibly).  I much prefer having the actual book!!!

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Rongo, you are making an awful lot of assumptions. Your premise presumes that an experience can only be found in a single person's life and it cannot occur anywhere else in the lives of others.  The problem, of course, is that very, very few of us have truly unique experiences.  There just simply is not many novel events that occur in our lives. For example, I have had the same experience of having small children imitate my gestures - does that mean all the GA lied by telling of the same experience or, perchance, does it simply mean that more than one individual had a similar experience in their lives? 

For me, I will first trust what you say about your own life and your own experiences until such time as I know you don't tell the truth or that you like to embellish events.  Yes, I agree, some do far more embellishing of their life's stories than others.  Some individuals do create experiences when recounting stories meant to be lessons for others.  For example, I often will say that my mother told me as a child that "you cannot go down a chimney without getting any soot on you". She did tell me this, but she did not repeat to me all the time.  However, when I tell the story it may sound like my mom did repeat it to me often.  Did I lie or distort the truth or reality of the experience?  No, I don't think so, but I assume that using your standard and the expectations of others on this board that I could easily be accused to such. 

I find that critics of GA, or leaders in general, use standards that are unrealistic and often standards that they would never apply to their own lives and/or the lives of the loved ones.  Humans love to shoot at those in leadership positions - it just seems like a natural reactions of followers to build themselves up by tearing down others.  We all do this and we really should all learn to put it aside; it is not appealing and it is seldom, if every, helpful.  If we are not a source of peace in the world - then what are we?

I think you've got this backwards. I think we are suggesting that GA's should be held to the same standard, not a lower one. Where else in your life would you accept a person clearly embellishing or inserting themselves into stories like this without it effecting your trust in them? While no person is perfectly honest it is not fair to claim that all people embellish stories and make unfounded claims equally. Some people embellish, lie, misrepresent more than others. If a person is caught doing it on multiple occasions or in big ways, then that person deserves the reduced level of trust because that is the trust he has earned.

Claiming that there is some kind of moral failing if a person holds another accountable for their deception has the issue upside down, calling good evil and evil good.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you've got this backwards. I think we are suggesting that GA's should be held to the same standard, not a lower one. Where else in your life would you accept a person clearly embellishing or inserting themselves into stories like this without it effecting your trust in them? While no person is perfectly honest it is not fair to claim that all people embellish stories and make unfounded claims equally. Some people embellish, lie, misrepresent more than others. If a person is caught doing it on multiple occasions or in big ways, then that person deserves the reduced level of trust because that is the trust he has earned.

Claiming that there is some kind of moral failing if a person holds another accountable for their deception has the issue upside down, calling good evil and evil good.

This....100 times this.

As I've thought about this thread, I've wondered how many would allow one of their kids to get away with telling a story about themselves that we knew simply was not true (even if it may have happened to someone else).  Especially if they kept repeating it as if it were the truth.  Would we stand by and say nothing?

How about allowing a youth to lie to their Bishop regarding an event in their life that never happened or them claiming they were at the center of a story when it was actually one of their friends that it happened to (or it was just a complete fabrication)?  There are so many examples I could give where I know these would be considered to be lies.  So why do we give any adult a pass on this (church leader or not)?

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

I actually think the Holland/Clark story thing (and aftermath) will have an impact on other GAs in helping with this. I think everyone is aware of the pitfalls of telling stories like this that aren't true.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Haven't some been updated in the last few years?  Are there still accuracy problems with them?

They've been somewhat updated. I've not looked through the Seminary manual enough to have an opinion. I just started teaching the 9 year olds and the manuals there are actually surprisingly good, although I don't think that new. I think the RS/PH manuals were wanting although I understand why they did what they did. Sunday School I think just plain needs a serious rethink. I'm not convinced it's working. That's not just the manuals but the whole Gospel Doctrine class approach. For Institute they still suck although there were changes made particularly the Book of Mormon a while ago. (I want to say 15 years ago) So they're improved but were starting at such a bad level they still need real improvement. They've made minor changes to Gospel Essentials but I think they need a rethink there. For Nursery through Sunbeams and Stars I think the manuals are horrible. They're extremely frustrating to most teachers including me when I taught there.

This is also ignoring broader issues such as the one size fits all correlation model which I think was extremely valuable in the 60's through early naughts but is becoming more and more of a problem. My sense is that this next year's curriculum is recognizing that and adjusting. I'm very curious as to what their response will be. I know they've been running various tests in stakes and wards around the US the past few years and perhaps in other countries as well. Sounds like the two hour meeting plan they tested failed. But people here said that the curriculum going worldwide next year was tested in their wards this last year.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They've been somewhat updated. I've not looked through the Seminary manual enough to have an opinion. I just started teaching the 9 year olds and the manuals there are actually surprisingly good, although I don't think that new. I think the RS/PH manuals were wanting although I understand why they did what they did. Sunday School I think just plain needs a serious rethink. I'm not convinced it's working. That's not just the manuals but the whole Gospel Doctrine class approach. For Institute they still suck although there were changes made particularly the Book of Mormon a while ago. (I want to say 15 years ago) So they're improved but were starting at such a bad level they still need real improvement. They've made minor changes to Gospel Essentials but I think they need a rethink there. For Nursery through Sunbeams and Stars I think the manuals are horrible. They're extremely frustrating to most teachers including me when I taught there.

This is also ignoring broader issues such as the one size fits all correlation model which I think was extremely valuable in the 60's through early naughts but is becoming more and more of a problem. My sense is that this next year's curriculum is recognizing that and adjusting. I'm very curious as to what their response will be. I know they've been running various tests in stakes and wards around the US the past few years and perhaps in other countries as well. Sounds like the two hour meeting plan they tested failed. But people here said that the curriculum going worldwide next year was tested in their wards this last year.

I agree that gospel doctrine class needs a reboot.  Most of the time, it's painful, even when the teacher is doing a good job.  I feel like smaller class sizes might help, but we don't have the room for that in our building.  As it is, our class is in the gym, sandwiched between the other ward's sacrament meeting and our primary doing singing time.  Room dividers separate us, not even real walls, so it's very loud and you can't hear much.  It's a recipe for a horrible class.

[Danzo]

I have always thought teaching out of the manual is pretty lame.   

When I teach, often only the title of the lesson makes it in to my lesson.  Some of the scriptures might,  but I usually find my own scriptures.

Last week, when I taught priesthood I started by saying that the lesson was based on a talk by President Uchdorf, it was a good talk, they should all read it or watch it.  Then I proceeded to go go over what I felt was important about the talk  using the scripture, and I bit of my own personal insights.  I never quoted from, or read from the actual talk.  It was a pretty good discussion.

The manual, at best should be a starting point.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Danzo