A Question of Perspective (and Priors)?

[Ponderings on the 21st Century rehabilitation (?) of Paul H. Dunn]

Recently I encountered a presentation by Greg Prince^[1] in which he seemed to discount the “embellishments” of Paul H. Dunn^[2] (1924-1998) because

1) the pressures of performance were so great;
2) most everyone was/is doing it;
3) it was done in the spirit of metaphor & parable; and
4) the “embellishments” involved only two stories.

BUT

1) Are not the pressures of performance part of the test of integrity—and amongst the Three Temptations? If one feels the need to fabricate/embellish (without disclosure)—WHY? To create/maintain reputation? For the satisfaction/renown of changing lives/perspectives? For the sake of “lifting the people” (58:00) with inspiring insights? But WHY fabricate when there are many verifiable, awe-inspiring stories from the lives of others? WHY did Paul Dunn need to be the hero of his inspirational fabrications? Does this have any déjà vu likeness to casting oneself from a pinnacle in order to witness how God did miraculously intervene in one’s life?^[3] We are all subject to temptation and Paul Dunn is not alone in succumbing (in whatever degree) to the ubiquitous temptation of “puffing résumé.” Nor is he alone in having defenders who countenance questionable acts because they were purportedly based on good intentions/causes/desires, or even “excusable” provocation. It is the recycled tale of thousands.

2) Will “Most everyone does it!” or “So-’n-So has done worse!” ever appease the demands of justice?^[4] Or must we invoke the quality of mercy by openly repenting and confessing: “I am truly sorry. I should have known and done better. Please forgive me. I was weak and foolish and prideful. I forgot my calling was to glorify Thee, not me. I am committed to repenting, to taking responsibility, to being accountable, to rebuilding trust.” Was that not the substance, in part, of Bro. Dunn’s, “An open letter to members of the Church,” published October 26, 1991 in the Church News.^[5] So why does the man who asserts “I knew [Paul Dunn] a lot better than anyone else in [this] room” (1:02:20) choose to discount the fabrications because of his friend’s remarkable gifts, long-time service, and good intentions (59:00)—particularly when Paul Dunn himself, in his own confession, chose not to excuse himself, but to ask for forgiveness?

3) And when did metaphor (like leaven, seed, bread, water, etc.) become equivalent to heroic stories of self-aggrandizement? Where are the analogous scriptural parables that center on the heroic parable-teller? They don’t exist. The Savior’s parables were simple stories concerning objects, nature, and unnamed persons^[6]—as in tares, mustard seed, hidden treasure, pearl of great price, householder, lost sheep, unmerciful servant, good Samaritan, unjust steward, laborers in a vineyard, talents, two sons, ten virgins, sheep/goats, sower, etc. One has to process the symbolism—dig for meaning and application via mind and spirit. Can Paul Dunn’s fabrications really be called parable when the story idea was transparent and when a primary effect of his presentations (intended or not?) was to create goose-bumps of WOW what a remarkable, worthy, witty, gifted, blessed servant of God (some of which was probably true)?^[7]

4) And if there were only two stories (war and baseball) as Prince adamantly asserts (1:01:15), what are the mathematics of mendacity when these alleged, two stories were told numerous times in numerous places? If one lie is told 70 times—is it one lie or seventy? And is it accurate to lump several incredible stories into two categories—war and baseball—and then insist there were really only two stories?

Here are a few more questions to ponder for the scientist in Bro. Prince, et al.:

a) Can kindred spirits^[8] and dear friends be objective about one another’s weaknesses and failings? Are friends not as capable of misjudging in positive ways as strangers are in negative ones? Motivated reasoning weighs heavy as science and experience confirm. “If you have a strongly held belief with an emotional component, the brain defends information that reinforces those ‘priors’ and is skeptical of information that challenges them. … People who hold these hard priors filter information to support their perceptions.”^[9] We all do it, and without awareness of a “priors” bias, are we not all more prone to biased judgment—whether pro or con?

b) Surely it is vital to our safety and welfare to judge trustworthiness in others, especially regarding our spiritual stewards. What does it convey if false, personal stories, presented as true, can be excused because they were intended for good ends? Where do the fabrications begin and end?^[10] Who can tell? Who can remember?

c) Speaking gifts and skills can be impressive, but if self-focused fabrications are resorted to for effect are such fabrications worth it when damage to credibility spreads well beyond the fabricator? And should we forget/ignore that Dunn’s fabrications were discerned by many long before his exposure and confession, negating his intended effect for those persons?

Paul Dunn’s redemption is in God’s hands, though for us, his life (and confession) may be an important lesson on how difficult it is to navigate the Three Temptations; and how grateful we (and he) can be for forgiveness and the gift of mercy.

--------------/
[1] Audio posted May 20, 2011: http://mormonstories.org/?p=1627 . (Numbers in brackets hereafter indicate the approximate time location on the audio button). Most of the Paul Dunn references are found between 32:23 and 41:48; and 55:27 to 1:02:43. Greg Prince’s main defense of Paul Dunn is found between 55:27 and 1:02:43.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_H._Dunn
[3] New Testament Matthew 4:6
[4] “… for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” Book of Mormon Alma 45:16; see also D&C 1:31. Do fabrications about God’s manifestations in one’s life, amount to the “bearing of false witness,” a proscription of The Ten Commandments? What would our response be to a ward member who made up stories in bearing testimony about God’s goodness to him/her?
[5] See the words of his confession at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_H._Dunn .
[6] Except for a beggar named Lazarus at Luke 16:19-31
[7] “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, …” (New Testament John 7:18). "For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." (New Testament 2 Corinthians 10:18) A question only God (and maybe Paul Dunn) can fully answer is whose glory and commendation was being sought in creating the fabrications? From the record, does it not seem some of both?
[8] “We were on the same wave length” (8:53); “These three men [David O. McKay, Leonard Arrington, Paul H. Dunn] were some of my heroes growing up” (10:23). Dunns and Princes developed a wonderful friendship (40:15).
[9] From the work of political scientist Hank Jenkins-Smith of the University of Oklahoma as quoted, in Newsweek, October 13, 2010, pp. 29-30 by science writer Sharon Begley about voter tendencies—observations that seem applicable to almost everything that requires choice.
[10] Is the Cat story (35:30) not also a case of fabrication? to write a letter of (pretended) sympathy which he allegedly sent and a second one detailing “what he wanted to say” but which he could share only “with the ladies” of the Relief Society and Young Women’s program. Though he and others, including Prince, found his preferred draft highly humorous, that is not the only perspective. Another view is that his “amusing” reply manifest an incongruous degree of hypocrisy and sarcasm. Perhaps, if Paul Dunn had taken himself and others a little more seriously, he would not have left the tarnished legacy he did. There is a balance in all things and he seems to have lost it for a time.

Don’t Worry! Be Happy! (???)

~
Being happy, cheerful, positive (as we are often counseled) is all well and good—to a point. And what is that point? Perhaps to the point of awareness of the tragedies, misery, pain, and grief that fills the lives of so many of our fellow human beings (and other creations). Awareness too, that much of the sorrow need not be—if we really loved our neighbor and lived the Golden Rule. Of course, there is much happiness and joy (which we should celebrate), but does it not seem significant that a chief description of our divine mentor is “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” ^[1] How many of our scriptural prophets might also be described with the same appellation.

There surely is a balance somewhere,^[2] yet the following story might give us pause in these latter days as we get caught up in the personal pursuit of happiness (too often defined as prosperity).

4 And the LORD said unto him [the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side], Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 ¶ And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. 8 ¶ And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem? 9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not. 10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head. 11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me. (Old Testament Ezekiel 9:4–11; emphasis added)

Perhaps we need a little more sighing and crying; awareness thereof in others (in both rich and poor); and commitment to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.”^[3]

Consider the déjà vu from circa 83 BC:

12 Yea, he [Alma] saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christ's sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy; (Book of Mormon Alma 4:12-13)

How do we individually measure up to New Testament Romans 12? And do we find any companionship in these latter days with "the men that sigh and that cry" from Ezekiel 9:4?

---------------------/
[1] Old Testament Isaiah 53:3; Book of Mormon Mosiah 14:3
[2] The Lord himself counsels: “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (New Testament John 16:33). A seeming contrary perhaps—that in the midst of tribulation, we can find peace and good cheer—the working out of opposites and opposition?
[3] Doctrine and Covenants Section 81:5

What if ...

~
▪ history repeats itself?

▪ at the Second Coming (as at the First), HE does not meet expectations?

▪ we imagine He’s going to be enamored by our pomp and circumstance?

▪ we, like sheep, have gone astray in pursuit of the Three Temptations?

▪ the “chosen” repeatedly mistake/forget what they were chosen for?

▪ we are no different than the house of Israel, the Nephites, the Jaredites, the house of Judah, etc., etc.?

▪ the Right (and increasingly, the Left) are just PR and pitch(wo)men for Babylon?

▪ seeing, we keep refusing to see; and hearing, we keep refusing to hear?

▪ ALL OF US, (including Frank, Grover, JamesO, Karl, Newt, Ralph, Rupert, et al., et al., et al.) were to daily read and apply: Romans 12:17,21; 1 Peter 3:9; 1 Thess. 5:15; and maybe, most explicitly, Doctrine & Covenants 10:25-6, 28?*

▪ history repeats itself?

-----------------/
* For your convenience, here is Doctrine & Covenants Section 10:25-26,28.

25 Yea, he [the adversary] saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. 26 And thus he flattereth them, ...; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare.
... 28 Verily, verily, I [the Lord] say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.

For the New Testament quotes: I leave those to your curiosity.

Pressure Points

(To the man with the trembling voice; et al)

WHAT IF:

▫ you were invited into a quorum?
▫ you were a soul of sensitivity and insight?
▫ your first press-court felt contrary to your nature; scripted by expectation and briefing?
▫ you became enmeshed in conformism and unrelenting contradiction?
▫ you felt compelled against conscience and agency?
▫ you were elevated to staunch your questions?
▫ obligatory loyalty sapped your soul?
▫ perks seemed unseemly?
▫ you could not speak of what you saw, felt, heard?
▫ you yearned to escape but had no precedent, no courage, no adequate “sin,” no place to go?

Has the agony surpassed the ecstasy?
How long the days, nights, years of weeping and wandering?
Can the inner man became more precious than the outer?
What might one finally do with the dissonance to save oneself, et al.?

------------/
See also: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-loyalists-everywhere.html

Déjà Vu of the Ages?

~As I see it~
Witnessing the increasingly extreme disparity between rich and poor and the pervasive tyranny of money in these latter days, one is reminded how omnipresent the “natural man”¹ remains—unable, in millennia of “spiritual” evolution, to control his instincts of oppression, excess, and celebrity—the sad tale of every age. An even sadder tale is how susceptible we so-called “believers” are to the persuasions of mammon—to selling our souls for a mess of pottage. Just look at our malls and mansions. Our storage- and tax-shelters. Our celebrities and seekers. Our investments and speculations. Our distractions and laissez-faire dogmas. (Dogmas that counter almost every essential tenet of every faith.)

WHY are we so enamored by the rich and famous? WHY so desirous to become (or be friends of) the rich and famous? If we believe in God’s word, why do we seem so focused on “deserved”² prosperity and so discounting of admonitions to meekness, justice, and moderation? So willfully blind to forewarnings?

Here again, are two from two millennia ago;

And again I [Jesus] say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (New Testament | Matthew 19:24)

Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; … (New Testament | James 5:2-6)

Too many of us seem to have fallen into a “mine”-field (“It’s all mine and I deserve it;” or “It’s all theirs and they deserve it.”) that will inevitably maim us unless we awaken from the grip and rapture of Babylon and all her pretensions.

----------------/
1. For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:19)
2. What is so “deserved” or earned about usury and dividends? Might this fit within “Moral Hazard”? Just asking!

Some strange thing?

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (New Testament Matthew 1:21)

If this is what salvation means, why do so many “saints”¹ feel that one of God’s priorities should be to save them from traumas and heartache? And that it is “some strange thing” that good people² should suffer; or that fervent, worthy petitions should go unanswered; or that misfortune is not always divine punishment?

How often do we lose our way because we misread the meaning of salvation; because we hear of and expect promises and blessings that do not materialize for us; because we forget Job and the myriad other stories of servants,³ saints, sages, and a perfect Savior,⁴ who left this existence without having received the promises⁵; because we fail to remember that life is about enlightenment and transformation which does not come in the status quo:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (New Testament 1 Peter 4:12)

What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment? (Old Testament Job 7:17-18)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, … (Old Testament Jeremiah 17:10)

And I … will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: (Old Testament Zechariah 13:9)

Behold, … I will try the faith of my people. (Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 26:11)

… God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart. (Old Testament 2 Chronicles 32:31)

For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith. … Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:12, 14)

And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Pearl of Great Price Abraham 3:25-26)

Is it worth it? All this enduring? All this confusion? All this heartache and disappointment? I can only say: If there were any better way, I think God would have surely thought of it. (Though sometimes, in the haze of it all, I forget—and so, I write to remember.)

-----/
1. i.e., those (of every faith) who strive to do and be good and who acknowledge and repent when they fail.
2. and those who seeketh so to [be] (Doctrine and Covenants 46:9)
3. “Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.” (New Testament James 5:10)
4. “And he [the Son of God] shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.” (Book of Mormon Alma 7:11)
5. “These [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc.] all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” (New Testament Hebrews 11:13, see also 39)

The Language of Prayer

If we are going to make a choice in prayer language between “you” and “your” as some advocate and “thee” and “thou” as some instruct, perhaps we should be aware of some background. From my analysis, both the advocates and the instructors are, too often, in error when promoting their position, and thus I resurrect, in part, an old letter to an editor.

Dear Editors:

After reading “The Grammar of Inequity” by [LFA] and now two letters in response, I feel compelled at last to comment.

In considering the language of prayer, LFA acknowledges that the singular pronouns “thou” and “thee” were the intimate pronouns of seventeenth-century England; that “ye” and “you” were the formal, polite, proper, courteous plurals; and that “the attachment of any special reverence of respect to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ is based on historical ignorance, a reading backward into perfectly ordinary grammatical construction of a magical meaning.” But then, despite this “historical ignorance,” LFA persists in ascribing the word formal to “thee” and “thou.”

Granted, many define these old, singular pronouns as formal, exalted, and special, because they are now used almost exclusively in addressing Deity, but they are, in reality, intimate forms that have become uncommon in modern English—abandoned in favor of the formal, polite “you.”

In LFA’s own quoted reference (in footnote), we read, “A grammatical innovation, of somewhat questionable value … is the polite substitution of the plural for the singular in the second person. … Our language has thus lost whatever advantage it had gained by having a polite as well as a familiar form of address, and unfortunately the form that has survived is ambiguous. … The English language is, in respect of clearness, decidedly the worse for the change …”

So, the surviving, ambiguous form is “you”—ambiguous, because, in assuming the several functions of singular/intimate and plural/polite, “you” has become incapable of referencing any of them—intimacy, formality, politeness, or number.

Thus, modern English is truly lacking. Our intimate form is unfamiliar to us and our common form is ambiguous. Yet, it is this ambiguous form that LFA recommends for seeking intimacy. LFA write, “I suggest that we start praying privately in our own normal speech, using ‘you’ and ‘your.’ It will make these prayers more intimate, more natural, and more loving.”

If there is logic in this conclusion, I do not follow it. How can a pronoun of ambiguous usage be more intimate or loving? It would seem rather that in ambiguity and universality, “you” has lost all value save as a verbal pointer, while “thee” and “thou” yet retain strong underpinnings of original intimacy. It is still possible (though unusual) to use “thee” in speaking to a friend, but to use thee with a stranger or foe would be unthinkable.

If we are to achieve a true understanding of modern pronoun usage, we have to be consistent and accurate when discussing origins, meanings, and ascriptions. Intimate words do not become formal words by confining them to a narrower range of original, intimate usage; nor does a formal, polite word become intimate by expanding its usage beyond formal, polite reference.

I do not deny that the narrowed application of words can make their use less natural and comfortable. It was partly for this that I continued to pray in my mission language (Italian) for a long time, because it offered me what English did not. When I address God, it is with strivings toward intimacy—often in the agony of not understanding the course and pain of things. Thee and thou were the most intimate pronouns I had until the Italian ti and tu introduced me to a deeper intimacy. I soon realized that “ti ringrazio,” “ti prego,” “t’amo” had no adequate English rendition. The English translations: “I thank thee,” “I ask thee,” “I love thee” do not convey for me the intimacy of the Italian forms: first, because “ti” has a contemporary usage which “thee” has lost; and second, because the English pronoun “I” precedes and interferes. In Italian (and some other languages), the verb indentifies me in its conjugation placing the one I address foremost. With another’s attention immediately called upon, communication is most personal and compelling.

English, however, is the mother tongue of many and if some, like LFA, cannot find intimacy in the narrowed usage of thee and thou, perhaps alternate usage is a matter left to them and God, though let us not confuse matters further by accusing the Church of inconsistency when the intimate thee and thou and possessives thy and thine are the preferred, counseled forms, whatever (erroneous) attributions some make of formal or special prayer language. Thee and thou were never formal pronouns and should we review Church translation work, we would find the corresponding, intimate, second person singular in place of thee and thou every time.

LFA is not alone in confusing thee and thou as formal and you as intimate. So did those who wrote letters in response. Such erroneous re-definings cannot achieve a trusted conclusion because the problem is not that you has become intimate (which by its history and present universality it cannot become), but that we have removed from common usage the only intimate pronouns we ever had.

It may not be easy to learn uncommon forms, but millions do it—mastering their own and new languages and seemingly endless verbal conjugations. Communication takes effort. It is to use words and meanings that the one addressed understands—not the ones we insist they understand. And though God understands all language, perhaps there is preference for the intimate forms, despite their lack of modern use.
SMS