Stormy Waters wrote:Amusing quotes from a thread about Paul H. Dunn.
...Possibly a troll, but I found it amusing....'
Wayfarer is a regular at NOM and StayLDS. A pretty decent feller actually...he's into Buddhism and the "middle way" and caferteria Mormonism.
He'll be banned within the month. I believe he lasted half a day and three posts at LDS.net before he got banned earlier this summer.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
DBMormon wrote:Not at all. I completely agree with with Packer's purpose was complete once he reported it to church leadership.... as long as Church leadership dealt with it by Dunn discontinuing the "Storytelling" and repenting. And I also assume that would have occured regardless.
My issue is secondary - Because the sin was lying to the general public, Did Dunn have a responsibility as part of the repentance process to apoligize publicly?
In my understanding of repentance there was a need to ask for forgiveness to those who you offended. Who was offended? I think there is an argument that he should have asked the members for forgiveness. However, I think there is just as good an argument that he offeneded the Lord mightily and to the Lord he needed to seek forgiveness.
So he shouldn't have had to ask the members forgiveness for lying to them? It's really quite revealing the way these people say they would handle a known liar. They're pretty much admitting outright that protecting the reputation of the church is more important to them than honesty.
SeekingUnderstanding wrote:This issue does not bother me at all. I think most people who share stories change minor details, or maybe some of the timing - not maliciously, but sometimes memory fails us. Dunn takes this up a level by completely embelishing and making up somethings that did not happen. This is not good, but on the range of sin, I think this is pretty low. After learning of the issues, I think that the bretheren took the appropriate action by releasing him. I'm sure that there was instruction to stop selling books and telling stories. It is certainly possible Dunn planned on issuing a public apology, but the timing does not make this conclusion obvious: remember that Dunn was released in September of 1989 and did not issue the public statement until October of 1991. The stories started hitting the newspapers in early 1991. Wikipedia notes that the apology was issued at Paul Dunn's request. It is entirely possible that the bretheren disciplined Dunn, and left it up to Dunn whether to do anything else. If I were Dunn, I'd be torn. I'd want to fully repent, but I would also know that issuing a public statement like that could challenge many peoples testimonies. If it caused 1 person to leave the church would it be worth it? What if 100 people left? I don't things are as black and white as some people (Packer, the Tanners etc) like to make them.
So according to the timeline it took him six months to issue an apology after the story broke, and again faith promoting material is more important than honesty. Got it.
Last edited by _Stormy Waters on Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ERayR wrote:I wonder how many of you actually heard Paul Dunn speak? At least some of us who heard him speak knew that he embellished his stories and at least in my case thought it was for effect. He was a dynamic speaker and his stories really helped to illustrate his points. Even after all these years there is still a couple of his stories I remember and the point they were designed to illustrate.
Was it wrong for him to make up stories to illustrate his point? They were effective and helped, who knows how many, to know and understand and to be moved to change their lives for the better. For those who wish to judge him harshly you might remember that with the judgement you extend that is the judgement you will receive.
So it's okay to embellish or make up stories for the greater good.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
Stormy Waters wrote:He'll be banned within the month. I believe he lasted half a day and three posts at LDS.net before he got banned earlier this summer.
Out or curiosity Cwald, have you have been banned yet?
selek1 wrote:My background is Navy- and if there'a anything we understand, it's the point and purpose of a good sea story. A fortunate few of us are further able to tell them.
The deciding factor in fraud and in telling a lie is an intent to deceive.
Unlike a number of polticians who are lauded for their story telling ability, there is zero evidence that President Dunn acted out of a desire to mislead, or for self-aggrandizement, or for personal, political, or even religious gain.
If all he wanted to do was tell parables he could have made that clear. Also he was selling books and cassette tapes. I still see them occasionally on members bookshelves. Seriously folks, are you really making excuses for a confessed liar?
Stormy Waters wrote: Out or curiosity Cwald, have you have been banned yet?
I lasted 3 months at LDS.net. Got banned for calling the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet cult teachings that even Warren Jeffs teaches his followers.
No on MDDB. I just quit posting. I got thread banned so often, like 11 times in 150 posts. I don't participate much. It is bad for my qi. And what is the point anyway? It is mind pollution, and the second someone makes a logical argument, or disagrees or contradicts Wade or Selek1, the attacks dogs come out in force, and that person will generally be banned from the thread.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
That Paul H. Dunn/Lynn Packer thread is appalling. The double standards, the excuse-making, the hypocrisy--it is all extremely disheartening. At least USU78 has been halfway level-headed in the thread (he apparently knows Lynn Packer personally). Perhaps the best quote, though, was this one from "Scotty Dog" Lloyd:
Scott Lloyd wrote:
cwald wrote:It sure looks like the church was trying to cover up the story. And yes, I do think the church should have apoligized for Dunn. He was representing THEM, the church general authority, when he was telling these lies (embellished stories.)
The notion of guilt by association doesn't wash with me.
Do you think the Church should apologize for everything wrong you as a member may have done? I don't.
Did he really say that? Why, yes---he did!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Additional quotes from the Paul H. Dunn thread. Basically any criticism of the church is wrong even if the criticism is true.
why me wrote:I don't think a LDS journalist should be in the business of hurting other LDS members. Sometimes there is the human factor and this must be considered. When that piece was published, Dunn was devastated. But Packer got a reputation and some money. And because of this there is a moral equivalency brush' and some ethical considerations.
ERayR wrote:No it was he did something that he knew would damage the church and Elder Dunn and neither is/was out to harm anyone. And for what? Money. To me it kind of reminds me of Judas' action. That being said, had I been in his position would I have acted any differently. I don't know but I hope I would have.