Revisiting the story of Paul H. Dunn

[_sock puppet]

I've wondered why some reporter, in the vein of Lynn Packer, has not exposed Gene R Cook for that whopper of a story he concocted and told repeatedly about talking to Mick Jagger on an airplane ride on October 30, 1983 from Mexico City to Texas (date per Cook's son, Troy, in a February 18, 2010 posting here, claimed to have been taken from Cook's journal, though Cook won't release his journal and Troy won't quote from the October 30, 1983 entry).

I've thought that perhaps Jagger was mocking Cook but that Cook didn't understand.

Possible, or it's just another Dunn-er about a conversation that never took place.

[_kairos]

on the gene r cook episode, his son troy said anyone could go and get the journals of his dad at the chrurch history library- i chked only if u have cook's permission can u take a peek. so many issues with that story- cook flying on a sunday back to slc; jagger without an entourage; cook holding fhe on very late sunday night to go over the jagger encounter and family promises never to listen to that music; yet watching a rolling stones tv special (there was none) the next friday to see the mick in action.
cook cooked the story to make it seem he was the valiant soldier of Christ preaching the gospel to mick regardless of consequences.
unfortunately the mick's die hard fan club ldr had tried to pin down the dates but was missing mick's schedule fo that time period. mick's pr lady says the cook story is total BS.

just sayin

k

[_Joe Geisner]

I have a very specific question here. Did Elder Packer really say, at the conference in which Pres. Poleman was released as SP...did he really say "there will be no eternal consequences". Or is this just your memory?

No, I am not going off memory. So this information is much better than the first vision!

What I have is a typescript of the meeting made by an attorney and a Uof U professor who were in attendance. They worked together to get as much of a word-for-word account. It is quite amazing that people were foresighted enough to do this. I have accounts of Packer speaking at a Regional Priesthood Meeting where he attacks Mike Quinn and a General Authority Training Meeting. The people who did these transcriptions for future generations to have today did a great service.

The special stake conference occurred on August 14, 1994, with Poelman being arrested on July 16, 1994. I received this account sometime after September 7, 1994 (I did not write down the date and I don't think I wrote it down in my journal)

To give a quick answer, I transcribed word-for-word what is in the account about Packer saying this was not of "eternal consequences."

As for Shades question. I really have no idea, but I think you bring up a very interesting question. Could it have to do with his nephew being the investigator into Dunn and his dealings? Or was Packer angry that Dunn had to do with money and fleecing people out of their life savings? I really don't know.

At the time people were not asking this question (which is a good question), we were asking, "why was the September six excommunicated with "eternal consequences" when none of them had done anything close to what had happened with Poelman?" Packer was in the middle of all the September Six "courts of love" and making sure they went his way. Why did he not show any mercy for these peoples lives and their families? These were the questions we were asking.

[_Stormy Waters]

This article is a condensed and updated version of a speech I prepared for delivery at the 1989 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City. Sunstone canceled the speech, but rumors of it triggered an internal LDS church investigation into Paul Dunn. The investigator handling the matter for the Church was provided a copy of the speech and used it as the basis for his probe and independent verification.

So the church was made aware of the situation at least by 1989 and no public repudiation had come by the time the Arizona Republic article came in February of 1991. Combining it with this information in the Arizona Republic.

"Whiting acknowledged that Packer's contract was not renewed for the 1990-91 school year in part because Packer was violating church and university policies that prohibit public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true." (Arizona Republic, Feb. 16, 1991)

What really can be said? The LDS church has an honesty problem. The man was profiting off of his lies, and the members continued to believe his lies, and the church wasn't doing anything to stop it.

[_Stormy Waters]

Packer told the audience that he felt “[President Poelman had] stepped forward in a way that took courage,” Packer said. “I felt relieved about President and Sister Poelman. Whatever else will take place, there will be no eternal consequences.” Then he asked the audience to keep the matter confidential: “President and Sister Poelman’s lives need to be private now… The Lord directed us to be brothers and sisters. We are a family. A family keeps things private. A family draws close together. These things are to be kept private.”

It seems strange that Packer would want to keep Poelman's dirty laundry under wraps but then turn around and air Dunn's dirty laundry to the wind. Why the double-standard, I wonder?

In short I would say that it was because Dunns lies were public, and he was selling material based on some of those lies. Poelman's dirty laundry was not inherently a public manner.