BC...Did you not read the link? It states pretty clearly who Lynn Packer was. He was a Journalism Instructor at BYU, and also the nephew of President Packer.
You're right. My initial source simply had Packer as a reporter for that paper. I stand by the Buffalo Chip coinage though.
I don't see the harm in someone telling a faith-promoting religious story. It would be one thing if Elder Dunn's story-telling was malicious, but it was not. His stories were told with good intent.
Good intent... The man lied so he could appear holier than your average LDS person; thus making him a general authority. The only difference between him and the rest of the GA's was he got caught.
If someone were to preform a back log validity test most og the GA's would be exed.
If you really believe that it is okay for Church leaders to tell tall tales, whether they be false assertions about which these leaders are too lazy or ignorant to learn the facts, or lies that they make up on the spot, then I would think you certainly should expect to get "clobbered".
What a thing to say. Sorry to say it, but in my experience the attitude you express does reflect that of many Mormons when it comes to other Mormons, and it does not reflect well on them or the LDS Church.
When one thinks it is okay to lie to the public, and especially when one says publicly that those who do so should be given a pass because they are doing it for a good cause, that individual is adding confirmation, in no uncertain terms, to the claim that "Lying for the Lord" is alive and well in Mormonism.
Well done.
I have to say I disagree with Liz here. I remember as a missionary listening to so many Paul Dunn tapes and I was just awe. I think it was very unethical for him to stretch the truth and fabricate stories as if they were true. More than tall tales they were. I felt the man was larger than life and it was very wrong for him to do this. When I first heard this I even defended him thinking it cannot be.
People who set themselves up to be heroic, and Paul Dunn did this,fall hard facts come out that show their stories to be false.
Embellishment is one thing. But Dunn flat our made stuff up.
Jason Bourne wrote:I have to say I disagree with Liz here. I remember as a missionary listening to so many Paul Dunn tapes and I was just awe. I think it was very unethical for him to stretch the truth and fabricate stories as if they were true. More than tall tales they were. I felt the man was larger than life and it was very wrong for him to do this. When I first heard this I even defended him thinking it cannot be.
People who set themselves up to be heroic, and Paul Dunn did this,fall hard facts come out that show their stories to be false.
Embellishment is one thing. But Dunn flat our made stuff up.
Hello, Jason, D. Michael Quinn has often quoted Sissela Bok in his writings.
I'm not offering this as "justification", but Quinn has remained a believer (for reasons I don't completely identify with). As shocking as it may sound, we should expect politicians to lie, but the more astute should be able to discern why they lie. Dunn was in this "pattern", and it doesn't necessarily make him "evil". If you set up this standard, as a standard of morality and ethics, then just about every US president stands condemned.
RayAgostini wrote:the more astute should be able to discern why they lie. Dunn was in this "pattern", and it doesn't necessarily make him "evil"..
And why did Dunn lie?
I know exactly why.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
RayAgostini wrote:Hello, Jason, D. Michael Quinn has often quoted Sissela Bok in his writings.
I'm not offering this as "justification", but Quinn has remained a believer (for reasons I don't completely identify with). As shocking as it may sound, we should expect politicians to lie, but the more astute should be able to discern why they lie. Dunn was in this "pattern", and it doesn't necessarily make him "evil". If you set up this standard, as a standard of morality and ethics, then just about every US president stands condemned.
I am not sure I would call Dunn evil. But unethical yes. And I guess I am slow but I am not sure I get the comparison of Dunn out right fabricating fantastic stories that he thought would further his cause and help people "feel" the spirit and what president may have to do in their jobs to protect perhaps the public
A brilliant thread. The Dunn saga gets right to the heart of what the incorporated church is all about. When I was at BYU, this all hit the fan. My 2nd semester Book of Mormon teacher on the day after the story broke said that he realized we were all curious but that it was a sad matter, basically, he wasn't going to talk about it. He added that he knew this had been going on for ten years. It didn't hit me until later that this teacher wasn't anyone special, and that his comment implied the con was widespread knowledge among church leaders and prominent members for a very long time. I think this incident gives us clear insight into how it is that church leaders and prominent members when properly educated, can believe in the claims of the Church, and dedicate their lives to protecting (many) claims they know are false. Now, the apologists should be careful interpreting me here, I'm not going to make the call that my Book of Mormon teacher and a host of others were all liars or wrapped up in a conspiracy, perhaps they were, but this is not the case I'm making. I'm just saying, given this situation is black and white, we have a case study here of educated, prominent folks, those who are the guiding moral lights to the rest of us, protecting what they know is false and even going so far as to seek retribution against those who expose the truth. When one comes to understand how it is that Dunn was so protected all those years by church leaders and prominent members, one will understand how it is that the same leaders have continued a church based on Joseph Smith's escapades.
Gene R Cook's story of the alleged encounter with Mick Jagger is so improbable on so many levels that it puts Cook in the Dunn camp of Mormon GAs that like to tell whoppers so that listeners can 'feel the Spirit'.
A brilliant thread. The Dunn saga gets right to the heart of what the incorporated church is all about. When I was at BYU, this all hit the fan. My 2nd semester Book of Mormon teacher on the day after the story broke said that he realized we were all curious but that it was a sad matter, basically, he wasn't going to talk about it. He added that he knew this had been going on for ten years. It didn't hit me until later that this teacher wasn't anyone special, and that his comment implied the con was widespread knowledge among church leaders and prominent members for a very long time. I think this incident gives us clear insight into how it is that church leaders and prominent members when properly educated, can believe in the claims of the Church, and dedicate their lives to protecting (many) claims they know are false. Now, the apologists should be careful interpreting me here, I'm not going to make the call that my Book of Mormon teacher and a host of others were all liars or wrapped up in a conspiracy, perhaps they were, but this is not the case I'm making. I'm just saying, given this situation is black and white, we have a case study here of educated, prominent folks, those who are the guiding moral lights to the rest of us, protecting what they know is false and even going so far as to seek retribution against those who expose the truth. When one comes to understand how it is that Dunn was so protected all those years by church leaders and prominent members, one will understand how it is that the same leaders have continued a church based on Joseph Smith's escapades.
Thanks for relating this. It is an interesting insight and you describe the situation very well, I think.
I get this same kind of feeling or impression from talking to my brother, who works in the COB, about a number of things Mormon including the City Creek Center, large land holdings here in Florida and other issues. Folks seem to consider being entrusted with "inside information" as some kind of token of power or prestige and seem loathe to share it except possibly to impress those they feel need impressing.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
liz3564 wrote:I don't see the harm in someone telling a faith-promoting religious story. It would be one thing if Elder Dunn's story-telling was malicious, but it was not. His stories were told with good intent.
Intent outweighs a lot of things for me. And, considering that we are judged based on what is in our hearts, I would say intent matters a lot to the Lord, too.
Do I expect you to understand where I'm coming from? No.