Take It From The Top...

[_Coggins7]

A more recent example would be Gordon B. Hinckley's and Hugh Pinnock's direct and repeated lies to the police during the Hofmann investigation, which included denying having dealt much with Hofmann and also withholding crucial evidence (such as that the church owned the disputed McLellin collection) that resulted in the state's resorting to a plea bargain. I'd say those qualify as deliberate false statements.

Interesting claim if true (and especially if you actually believe it to be true based on sound evidence). I'll have to defer to Wade or someone else here on the reliability of your claims here until I can research this myself, as I've never heard of such a thing. By the way, what is your source for this and where can I access it?

Loran

[_marg]

Loran:

Well, according to Joseph Smith, they were taken back by Moroni and are presently residing in another dimension or plane of reality we would normally call a Kingdom, or other spere of existence.

Besides the fact that this is beyond our understanding of the natural world, why do you think a God would remove the evidence of the plates?

The problem inherant here would only have real meaning, in my estimation, for a thoroughgoing metaphysical materialist. For someone who is capable of percieving alternative avenues to truth other than strictly empirical and objectively demonstratable, this point, while legitimately raising questions, is hardly the imposting wall it would be in other areas if approached in the appropriate manner.

What alternative "avenues to truth" of things which are claimed to exist are there "other than strictly empirical and objectively demonstratable"?

[_wenglund]

The issue, as I understand it, isn't whether lies may have been told by individuals in the Church, but whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be.

As a member of the Church there are times that I have lied. I have told female friends that their new haircut looks great, when I thought it stunk. I have lied about where I lived to people that had threatened me, so as to protect loved-ones that I was living with at the time. I lied to my parents about a bad grade I had received (telling them that I had received and C- when I had received a D-), and so on and so forth.

The fact that I, as a member of the Church, have lied about a variety of things (including some associated with the Church), suggests nothing about whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be. The same is true for any individual member, including leaders of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

A more recent example would be Gordon B. Hinckley's and Hugh Pinnock's direct and repeated lies to the police during the Hofmann investigation, which included denying having dealt much with Hofmann and also withholding crucial evidence (such as that the church owned the disputed McLellin collection) that resulted in the state's resorting to a plea bargain. I'd say those qualify as deliberate false statements.

Interesting claim if true (and especially if you actually believe it to be true based on sound evidence). I'll have to defer to Wade or someone else here on the reliability of your claims here until I can research this myself, as I've never heard of such a thing. By the way, what is your source for this and where can I access it?

Loran

You can read the accounts of the investigation in several sources, including "Salamander," "The Mormon Murders," and "A Gathering of Saints." Here's one relevant quote from "Salamander," which is probably the most sympathetic of the unofficial accounts:

" 'Can you describe to us your contacts with Steven Christensen?'

" 'The only time Christensen was in my office was on April 12, 1985, when he donated the Martin Harris letter.'

"Despite the note of finality in Hinckley's voice, the investigators continued to press for more information about Christensen.... They tried another tack. 'When did you hear that the McLellin collection was controversial?'

" 'I'm not aware that it was controversial. I don't remember hearing that.

" 'Do you have journals or a daytimer that might refresh your memory on some of these points that are so important to the investigation?

" 'No, I don't have anything that would help you....

"The journal question was only one dead end in the interview. Afterwards, Mike George left Hinckley's office unexpectedly angry. When he interviewed a bandit he expected lies, not when he interviewed a respected citizen and church leader. He soon realized, however, that his anger was simple — his fellow investigators, born and raised Mormons, were furious....

"Later that month George interviewed several of Christensen's business associates... As he questioned, he heard Hinckley's name mentioned frequently. One man said that Christensen had been pulled from a meeting by a call from Hinckley. A week later, another call to an associate's office had come from Hinckley's secretary before Christensen arrived. When Christensen came in, he returned the call, then left immediately. That incident had occurred within a week of the bombings." (Salamander, p. 128-130)

The revelation that the church had discovered the McLellin collection in 1986 and did not inform the police is discussed in Richard Turley's "Victims." Turley is the church historian, so one would not expect him to be biased against the church.

[_Mercury]

I think the reason no one is biting is because you cannot have a discussion and say "I will only accept these types of answers, and everything outside of these answers is an attack and unsubstantial".

The answer "yes, the church did lie, Joseph Smith did lie" was never going to be accepted from the beginning, so no one here bothered.

Loran:

You're clearly not up to this [GIMR], either psychologically or intellectually, so bow out now and save yourself the humiliation. I did'New Testament anywhere say that I would only accept certain types of answers, the only things I specified were a small set of rules of discourse in that we would move methoologically through pertinant critcisms of the church on this issue point by logical or evidential point and see if we can flesh out the issues involved in greater detail, and with a greater philosophical rigor than one normally encounters in fourums such as these. Those, like yourself, who cannot or will not must the requisit mental attributes for such a discussion were not invited. I'm confident that any criticsm of the church that can be put on the table can be answered, either with finality or with plausible counter evidence such that critics of the church here should, if intellectually honest, at least be able to admit that alternatives to therir own perceptions are possible.

I nowhere said that every issue could be answered and the case closed through intellectual means alone, although many have and can be.

Loran

Your out of your league.

[_Dr. Shades]

A more recent example would be Gordon B. Hinckley's and Hugh Pinnock's direct and repeated lies to the police during the Hofmann investigation, which included denying having dealt much with Hofmann and also withholding crucial evidence (such as that the church owned the disputed McLellin collection) that resulted in the state's resorting to a plea bargain. I'd say those qualify as deliberate false statements.

Interesting claim if true (and especially if you actually believe it to be true based on sound evidence). I'll have to defer to Wade or someone else here on the reliability of your claims here until I can research this myself, as I've never heard of such a thing. By the way, what is your source for this and where can I access it?

Loran

That would be in Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, by Church Historian Richard E. Turley, Jr.

[_wenglund]

A more recent example would be Gordon B. Hinckley's and Hugh Pinnock's direct and repeated lies to the police during the Hofmann investigation, which included denying having dealt much with Hofmann and also withholding crucial evidence (such as that the church owned the disputed McLellin collection) that resulted in the state's resorting to a plea bargain. I'd say those qualify as deliberate false statements.

Interesting claim if true (and especially if you actually believe it to be true based on sound evidence). I'll have to defer to Wade or someone else here on the reliability of your claims here until I can research this myself, as I've never heard of such a thing. By the way, what is your source for this and where can I access it? Loran

I can't speak to the accuracy of what Runtu claims or the hearsay evidence presented by his source (Pahoran is far more informed about this matter than I). But, I am at a lose to see its relevance to the specific topic of this thread (i.e. the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be). Even if it can be shown that President Hinckley blatantly lied to the police as suggested (which I have doubt that he did), that does not speak to the question of whether the Church lied about what it claims to be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cacheman]

A more recent example would be Gordon B. Hinckley's and Hugh Pinnock's direct and repeated lies to the police during the Hofmann investigation, which included denying having dealt much with Hofmann and also withholding crucial evidence (such as that the church owned the disputed McLellin collection) that resulted in the state's resorting to a plea bargain. I'd say those qualify as deliberate false statements.

Interesting claim if true (and especially if you actually believe it to be true based on sound evidence). I'll have to defer to Wade or someone else here on the reliability of your claims here until I can research this myself, as I've never heard of such a thing. By the way, what is your source for this and where can I access it? Loran

I can't speak to the accuracy of what Runtu claims or the hearsay evidence presented by his source (Pahoran is far more informed about this matter than I). But, I am at a lose to see its relevance to the specific topic of this thread (i.e. the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be). Even if it can be shown that President Hinckley blatantly lied to the police as suggested (which I have doubt that he did), that does not speak to the question of whether the Church lied about what it claims to be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, it is quite material, Wade. If they believed the church is indeed "true," they would not need to buy up embarrassing documents and then lie to the police about how it got those documents. Thus, one could reasonably conclude that they don't, in fact, believe the church is true. So, when they go out and publicly proclaim something they don't believe, they are lying. Can one prove that? Nope, but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion.

And direct quotes from Hinckley and the police interviewers are not hearsay, Wade. One of my good friends is a brother to Steve Christensen, and he expressed to me that the family was shocked at Hinckley's denials of his contact with Steve or with Hofmann. My friend said that one of his brothers in law left the church because he could no longer trust his church leaders, and apparently, Steve's oldest son feels the same way.

[_Coggins7]

Your out of your league.

Loran:

And you're in the lollypop league, so head on back to Munchkinland with Dorothy, Angela, Huey, and Mumia and take a powder. But be careful, the yellowbrick road is covered with poop, and the Cowardly Lion is having a bad hair day.

[_Sam Harris]

ROFL, see the his thread on poop. Like I said, some sickos like to stick their fingers in it, while pointing out that it exists.

Loran, neither you nor Wade contribute anything to this board past a very flagrant display of psychological masturbation.