Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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)?

It would depend on why they were telling it.  Are they trying to teach a gospel principle?  I don't think i'd care.  Are they trying to make themselves look good?  No, I wouldn't let them get away with that.

A lot of people don't have an issue with this when God does it.  There are members of the church who don't believe that Job existed, or that Nephi existed, but they don't have a problem with God presenting them to His prophets and us as if they did.  Such members have lots of arguments about why it doesn't matter that the stories aren't historically true or accurate because it's not about the story, but what the story teaches.  But if a leader does it to teach something, it means they aren't trustworthy.  

Is that a double standard? 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes there are inescapable constraints - having to deal with reality of poor teachers, limits on number of available classes, reality of most of class not having done the reading, the tendency to focus on broad key points probably more than half the class has already heard numerous times, etc. 

The focus - with a lot of justification - is on the youth. Although again the youth manuals could definitely be updated too although more typically there the problem is teachers reading their own social values into topics like modesty. (The perennial problem in wards) 

I don't have good answers for solutions although I definitely can appreciate the problem. It's much less of an issue for meeting buildings not dealing with multiple wards. But in dense areas most buildings house three wards and space is continually a problem. Especially for large primaries. (Just found out our primary has bloomed from 70 kids to 140 kids over the past year - requiring splitting some classes like Sunbeams and Stars putting more tension on class availability)

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would depend on why they were telling it.  Are they trying to teach a gospel principle?  I don't think i'd care.  Are they trying to make themselves look good?  No, I wouldn't let them get away with that.

A lot of people don't have an issue with this when God does it.  There are members of the church who don't believe that Job existed, or that Nephi existed, but they don't have a problem with God presenting them to His prophets and us as if they did.  Such members have lots of arguments about why it doesn't matter that the stories aren't historically true or accurate because it's not about the story, but what the story teaches.  But if a leader does it to teach something, it means they aren't trustworthy.  

Is that a double standard? 

Ha, ha. No, that's not a double standard.

It appears you may have missed ALarsons point. I suppose God can do whatever God chooses, but lying/misrepresenting/ etc. by a human being with the intent to make a person think they were involved, or certain things happened when they didn't, is dishonest. I have little hope for the church if we can't even agree on what is and what isn't dishonest.

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would depend on why they were telling it.  Are they trying to teach a gospel principle?  I don't think i'd care.  Are they trying to make themselves look good?  No, I wouldn't let them get away with that.

Throw in false memory syndrome. That's more real than people realize. I even had it happen to me after reading about it for years. I'd heard a story about seeing Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck at a restaurant (back when they were married) and someone asking to take their picture. They declined politely saying they didn't get a chance to have a private dinner often. Well I started telling this one day as if it happened to me. To the person it had happened to. They pointed it out and I was floored. (It helped that I'd been at the restaurant in question many times) I started examining my memories and realized the problem. That sort of thing can happen when you're tired, remember and then your brain restores it. Sleep deprivation in particular screws up the storage of the memory. (Rather than leave memories in place the brain makes them present and then re-encodes somehow the recreation of the memory allowing it to become transformed - there are good evolutionary reasons to do this but it does mean memories can become distorted) Ironically the memories most at risk for distortion are those frequently accessed. There are always ways to check ones memories by carefully thinking about related memories and trying to find tokens that can stimulate recall of less frequently accessed memories.

I say this just to note that there are good psychological reasons for why oft told stories get distorted the most particularly during periods of stress and poor sleep. 

That doesn't explain Paul H. Dunn of course. The lies were blatant, repeated, and with broad categories of his history. 

I think with Pres. Monson he always was a bit of a storyteller with a focus on the story rather than the facts. (I know many people like that) I noticed that after he became President he was more careful with his stories - although apparently dementia also started affecting him - probably well before rumors about it started popping up.

Edited September 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ha, ha. No, that's not a double standard.

It appears you may have missed ALarsons point. I suppose God can do whatever God chooses, but lying/misrepresenting/ etc. by a human being with the intent to make a person think they were involved, or certain things happened when they didn't, is dishonest. I have little hope for the church if we can't even agree on what is and what isn't dishonest.

I'm specifically talking about the kind of story told in the OP-those used to teach a doctrine or a principle.  I'm not talking about stories used to make oneself look better or presented as a faith-promoting story.

With that in mind, can you explain to me why it's not a double standard?

Some people argue that it's within God's perfect moral character to present false stories to His children, as if they were true, because it's the teachings behind the story that matter.  The end justifies the means. 

If those same people were then to say that presenting false stories, as if they are true, to teach a doctrinal principle is dishonest (the end does not justify the means), would that be a double standard?

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently, Cox is conflating the magazine's name with the magazine that came later and which we know today as The New Era....

A simpler explanation would be that he confused the publication dates....mixing up the later 'New Improvement Era' with the 'Improvement Era'.  

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Thanks Scott. I was worried that Pres. Monson copied Pres. Kimball's story. I see that there is a lot of room for the possibility that he didn't. At least hoping he didn't copy, because it would bother me terribly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, cacheman said:

A simpler explanation would be that he confused the publication dates....mixing up the later 'New Improvement Era' with the 'Improvement Era'.  

The later magazine is not called "New Improvement Era." It's called The New Era.

And the man wouldn't have been sending his accounts to The New Era, As that magazine didn't exist until the very early 1970s.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[cacheman]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The later magazine is not called "New Improvement Era." It's called The New Era.

And the man wouldn't have been sending his accounts to The New Era, As that magazine didn't exist until the very early 1970s.

 

I thought the 'New Improvement Era' was started around 1929.  Am I mistaken on that?  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I thought the 'New Improvement Era' was started around 1929.  Am I mistaken on that?  

There was never a magazine called "New Improvement Era."

The earlier magazine was Improvement Era.I'd have to check to see when it started, but 1929 sounds about right.

In 1970, or thereabouts, the Improvement Era was discontinued. It was replaced by the Ensign, which is still published today.

At the same time, a new magazine was begun for youth in the Church, called The New Era. There was also a magazine started for Primary-age children called The Friend, which is still published today. It replaced a magazine, nearly identical in scope and purpose, called The Children's Friend.

So Cox's only error was that he got the name of the magazine wrong, calling it "New Improvement Era" instead of The Improvement Era.

[cacheman]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There was never a magazine called "New Improvement Era."

My understanding is that the 'Improvement Era' started in the late 1800's, and the 'New Improvement Era' started in the late 1820's.  I might be wrong though.  I can't speak with the certainty that you have. 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, cacheman said:

My understanding is that the 'Improvement Era' started in the late 1800's, and the 'New Improvement Era' started in the late 1820's.  I might be wrong though.  I can't speak with the certainty that you have. 

 

 

You will search in vain for a publication called "New Improvement Era." There never was such a thing.

But for quick reference, here's a Wikipedia entry on "Improvement Era" corroborating what I've just told you about the Improvement Era being succeeded by the Ensign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvement_Era

The reason I speak with such certainty is that I was 15 in 1970 when the change in Church magazines occurred, and I remember it clearly. Our family had faithfully subscribed to the Improvement Era up to that time. And that's what the name was, never "New Improvement Era." I honestly can't figure out where you or Cox got that name, unless you were confused by the name "New Era," which, of course, is the current magazine for youth in the Church.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

[Posted in error]

Edited September 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[cacheman]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You will search in vain for a publication called "New Improvement Era." There never was such a thing.

But for quick reference, here's a Wikipedia entry on "Improvement Era" corroborating what I've just told you about the Improvement Era being succeeded by the Ensign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvement_Era

The reason I speak with such certainty is that I was 15 in 1970 when the change in Church magazines occurred, and I remember it clearly. Our family had faithfully subscribed to the Improvement Era up to that time. And that's what the name was, never "New Improvement Era." I honestly can't figure out where you or Cox got that name, unless you were confused by the name "New Era," which, of course, is the current magazine for youth in the Church.

 

Like I said,  I might be wrong.  However,  I believe it is mentioned in the Comprehensive History of the Church vol. 5.  Here's a link to an alleged subscription receipt.  https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/14412462/this-is-a-receipt-for-subscribing-to-the-new-improvement-era-a-forerunner-to-the-ensign-note-the-date-1929-reuben-and-his-wife-ella-always-had-the-era-the-church-news-and-the-relief-society-magazine-in-their-home

 

 

[Calm]

Perhaps they were planning on calling the 1929 version that, but changed their mind.  There is no mention of it here:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-magazines-celebrate-40-years-of-informing-and-inspiring-church-members?lang=eng

However, more likely is it probably was just capitalized as part of the announcement and not as part of the title.

"1257a. Charter subscription. The new Improvement Era. Salt Lake City, 1929.

Broadside. 13 x 22cm.

Certificate issued at the combining of the Improvement Era and the Young Woman’s Journal.

UPB "

https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pubs/pdf/chaps/chapter-C.pdf

For Cox's earlier 1908 reference, seems most likely a typo or embellishment that wasn't meant as part of the actual title.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Calm

[Duncan]

40 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Like I said,  I might be wrong.  However,  I believe it is mentioned in the Comprehensive History of the Church vol. 5.  Here's a link to an alleged subscription receipt.  https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/14412462/this-is-a-receipt-for-subscribing-to-the-new-improvement-era-a-forerunner-to-the-ensign-note-the-date-1929-reuben-and-his-wife-ella-always-had-the-era-the-church-news-and-the-relief-society-magazine-in-their-home

 

 

That document is truly bizarre as I am scrolling through old Improvement Era's right now and even in the year 1929 it went by "Improvement Era" and it appears it wasn't ever called "The New Improvement Era" what a mystery eh?!

 

I notice a change in covers in late 1929 so maybe to the editors of the magazine they meant a "new" Improvement Era meaning updated not necessarily a change in title?

Edited September 28, 2017 by Duncan

[Calm]

See the reference above, It was probably similar to an ad of "The New and Improved Improvement Era!"

[cacheman]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That document is truly bizarre as I am scrolling through old Improvement Era's right now and even in the year 1929 it went by "Improvement Era" and it appears it wasn't ever called "The New Improvement Era" what a mystery eh?!

 

I notice a change in covers in late 1929 so maybe to the editors of the magazine they meant a "new" Improvement Era meaning updated not necessarily a change in title?

It is kind of a mystery. ...here's a quote said to be from the comprehensive history of the church:

"This association also published an organ, known as The Young Woman's Journal. It was designed to fill the same office for the young women of the church what the Contributor and Improvement Era did for the young men, and it did that, being a most excellent magazine, largely of local and original matter. A feeling, however, that it was desirable to cut down in numbers magazines in the church, occupying practically the same field, these two magazines in 1929 were consolidated into one monthly publication under the title The New Improvement Era, the first number of the conjoint magazine made its appearance in November, 1929"

http://www.yorgalily.org/~yorgasor/church/ComprehensiveHistoryOfTheChurch/hc5.html

Edited September 28, 2017 by cacheman
Added link

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

It is kind of a mystery. ...here's a quote said to be from the comprehensive history of the church:

"This association also published an organ, known as The Young Woman's Journal. It was designed to fill the same office for the young women of the church what the Contributor and Improvement Era did for the young men, and it did that, being a most excellent magazine, largely of local and original matter. A feeling, however, that it was desirable to cut down in numbers magazines in the church, occupying practically the same field, these two magazines in 1929 were consolidated into one monthly publication under the title The New Improvement Era, the first number of the conjoint magazine made its appearance in November, 1929"

http://www.yorgalily.org/~yorgasor/church/ComprehensiveHistoryOfTheChurch/hc5.html

It appears they either changed their minds or someone was confused by the certificate which was using "new" in the heading to indicate the new version.

Whatever that reason, there was no New Improvement Era in 1908 so Cox was wrong.

November 1929 is still just The Improvement Era:

https://archive.org/details/improvementera3301unse

[Five Solas]

On 9/26/2017 at 7:40 AM, 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...

From personal observation, the phenomena is by no means unique to LDS.  It can be found in the behavior of a lot of males in senior leadership positions, including ministry--especially when they have some incentive to demonstrate their humble origins and/or man-of-the-people bona fides. 

That said, I have a hard time imagining Paul H. Dunn will posthumously recover his standing with LDS...

--Erik

________________________________________________________________________

I was delayed, I was way-laid
An emergency stop
I smelt the last ten seconds of life
I crashed down on the crossbar
And the pain was enough to make a shy, bald Buddhist reflect
And plan a mass murder
Who said I'd lied to her?

--The Smiths "Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before"

[Storm Rider]

8 hours 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.

I highlighted what I find to be an egregious, faulty assumption - that no two people could possibly have the same experience and therefore they are lying.  I offered the example that I personally have had a similar experience with children imitating my gestures.  Based upon what is being alleged both GA must be lying because I personally had that same experience.  It is ignorant and highly silly this assumption - what is perplexing is that several haven't even questioned their assumptions, but have run pell-mell into painting two individuals as liars.

No, I don't have it backwards - the initial post made a very poor assumption and then built an argument - classic straw man argument.  If anyone has verifiably proof that one is lying then give it - otherwise retract the accusation.  In other words, "put up or shut up"; either provide the evidence or retract.

[Physics Guy]

On 9/26/2017 at 4:40 PM, rongo said:

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.

It could be that Monson simply had a similar thing happen to him, but I suspect there was probably a connection between the two stories. It may well not have been anything dishonest on Monson's part, though.

Kimball's story about the mimicking boys is entirely believable, and pretty funny if you picture it. It's the kind of thing that sticks in people's minds and gets repeated.

It doesn't seem so unlikely to me that a later set of boys overheard someone repeating that story of small boys imitating President Kimball, and when they found themselves sitting in front of Monson, they suddenly had a hilarious plan ...

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I highlighted what I find to be an egregious, faulty assumption - that no two people could possibly have the same experience and therefore they are lying.  I offered the example that I personally have had a similar experience with children imitating my gestures.  Based upon what is being alleged both GA must be lying because I personally had that same experience.  It is ignorant and highly silly this assumption - what is perplexing is that several haven't even questioned their assumptions, but have run pell-mell into painting two individuals as liars.

No, I don't have it backwards - the initial post made a very poor assumption and then built an argument - classic straw man argument.  If anyone has verifiably proof that one is lying then give it - otherwise retract the accusation.  In other words, "put up or shut up"; either provide the evidence or retract.

Admittedly, I'm focused more on the Dunn side of things than Pres. Monson wiggling his ears. I can easily see how that could be a common kind of experience. I have no problem allowing a little flexibility and recognize that both could have had similar experiences.

 As far as the kite flying story goes, that seems far beyond the common story of a child imitating an adult and I find it extremely suspect, especially considering that the kite analogy as been such a common one over the years. I interpreted your comment as a defense of the more egregious, obvious embellishments of the HC and Dunn. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Would you defend the egregious embellishments and falsehoods of Dunn and the HC speaker? If so, why?

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm specifically talking about the kind of story told in the OP-those used to teach a doctrine or a principle.  I'm not talking about stories used to make oneself look better or presented as a faith-promoting story.

With that in mind, can you explain to me why it's not a double standard?

Some people argue that it's within God's perfect moral character to present false stories to His children, as if they were true, because it's the teachings behind the story that matter.  The end justifies the means. 

If those same people were then to say that presenting false stories, as if they are true, to teach a doctrinal principle is dishonest (the end does not justify the means), would that be a double standard?

I would suggest those who don't think there was a Job or a Nephi also believe that God made it seem like there were.  That's not how the inspired fiction thing would go, at least I don't think so. 

Matthew didn't write the gospel of Matthew, it is largely accepted in the scholarly world.  That doesn't mean God made it happen.  It means, apparently, that the story of Jesus existed orally, perhaps, from the time of Matthew.  The gospel that is attributed to him, largely a response to Mark's gospel, was written by someone who is anonymous today and then attributed to Matthew.  The four gospels compete in a sense because they were all written by anonymous folks and then attributed, to help establish the prevailing tradition amongst those who wrote each, apparently.  By today's standards there's quite something deceptive in it, perhaps.  There is certainly something to question in regards to historicity.  But, it appears that's largely how scripture came about, up to that point.  I suppose we can call it a double standard today, if we accept scripture yet expect modern people to go by modern standards of truth telling.  But, I'd disagree with that approach.  We simply don't have the same standards as they did a couple thousand years ago, nor a couple hundred years ago.  For instance, we'd expect an actual signature of the BoM witnesses sheets, by the individual.  They simply did not, apparently. 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would suggest those who don't think there was a Job or a Nephi also believe that God made it seem like there were.  That's not how the inspired fiction thing would go, at least I don't think so. 

Matthew didn't write the gospel of Matthew, it is largely accepted in the scholarly world.  That doesn't mean God made it happen.  It means, apparently, that the story of Jesus existed orally, perhaps, from the time of Matthew.  The gospel that is attributed to him, largely a response to Mark's gospel, was written by someone who is anonymous today and then attributed to Matthew.  The four gospels compete in a sense because they were all written by anonymous folks and then attributed, to help establish the prevailing tradition amongst those who wrote each, apparently.  By today's standards there's quite something deceptive in it, perhaps.  There is certainly something to question in regards to historicity.  But, it appears that's largely how scripture came about, up to that point.  I suppose we can call it a double standard today, if we accept scripture yet expect modern people to go by modern standards of truth telling.  But, I'd disagree with that approach.  We simply don't have the same standards as they did a couple thousand years ago, nor a couple hundred years ago.  For instance, we'd expect an actual signature of the BoM witnesses sheets, by the individual.  They simply did not, apparently. 

Jesus specifically spoke of Job as if he were a real person.  God used the angel  moroni to bring about the book of mormon (which quotes him and tells his story).  If neither Moroni nor Job ever existed, how can someone be o.k. with God doing that, but not o.k. with the kind of story told in the OP?  That's what I'm trying to understand.