Runtu wrote:wenglund wrote:No, John, it is not material, nor is it a reasonable conclusion for the following reasons: 1) it is wildly speculative and circumstancial reasoning that is logically negated by numerous firsthand testimonies to the contrary; and 2) it is based on the false premise that the only reason the two Chruch leaders would buy embarrassing documents is if they didn't believe the Church is true. There are a variety of reasons they may have wished to buy potentially embarrasing documents while ardently believing the Church is true--not the least of which is to test the autheticity of the questionable document (it being questionable because it stood somewhat in contrast to what the Church and its leaders believed to be true, as so testified--contrary to what you suggest). Another reason might be to protect the fragile tesimonies of members such as yourself, who may irrationally view the questionable documents as a cause for loss of faith (the reason for their wishing to protect the fragile members likely being because they believe the Church is true, as they have so testified, and do not wish to see fragile members turn from the truth).
Which firsthand testimonies are we talking about, Wade? Are you suggesting that one's bearing of a testimony is direct evidence of belief? That seems rather unlikely, given Packer's assertion that you gain a testimony after you bear it, or Monson's sage advice to "fake it till you make it." Seriously, Wade, the expression of a testimony is so tied up in cultural expectation (remember that bit about master narratives?) that it cannot be taken at face value.
Yes, I am suggesting that Hinckley's testimony, which is obviously some 80-plus years beyond the points made by Packer and Monson (what little you may understand of them), in connection with nearly a century of behavior that has been, on overwhelming balance, consistent with his testimony, is the most authoritative evididence that can be given for his belief. Whatever cultural expectation may supposedly be tied up in that testimony, is beside the point (and, no, I don't remember the bit about master narratives). His testimony is, nevertheless, the best evidence there is for what he believes.
Were you supposing that the irrational speculations of a disgruntled member would somehow Trump the Prophets personal witness of what the Prophet believes?
And no, it does not rest on the premise that the "only" reason the church would have done so is that they don't believe. As I said, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the statements of those involved, including Hinckley, who said that the purchasing was done for the sole purpose of protecting the church. Are you that unfamiliar with the Hofmann episode?
Again, no it is not a reasonable conclusion (I am talking here about your concluding that President Hinkley did not believe the Church was true). In addition to what was previously explained, reasonable people would evaluate the situation using the presumption of innocence. As such, were there a reasonable explanation of the events in question that would be consistent with nearly eight decades of President Hinckley's testimony and behavior that is obviously in witness that he believes the Church is true, reasonable people would choose those options, particularly when the alternative is wild speculations of a disgruntled member based indirectly on scant circumstantial evidence.
As for the "fragile testimony" excuse, that is just simply lame. Why tell the members anything; they might not be able to handle it.
It is a rational principle (born out most elequently in Christ's parable of the seeds), and not an "excuse" (you are projecting here), and hardly lame, as you amply evince through your own loss of faith. And, for those with even a modicum of familiarity with the principles of pedagogy and human development, whose minds are developed to the point where they can think and reason beyond binary terms, there would be readily understood that there is a broad range between things that would be helpful and nurturing to the learning and development of students (spiritual or otherwise), and things that may be harmful or vulnerable to misunderstanding and mistaken unbelief. To suggest that the existence of the later somehow raises questions about the point of conveying the former, is simply assinine, and I am continually amazed at the extent to which you seem to go to justify your irrational perceptions and actions (I am speaking here of your view that the Church has lied about what it claims to be, was deceptive, and did not act in good faith, as well as the substantial anger and grief you vented for months in a public forum).
Now, whether they lied to the police about how they got the documents, is a matter still open for debate, but even were it reasonably demonstrated that they had blatantly lied to the police (which, again, I doubt seriously), that is not evidence that they disbelieve the Church is true. There are reason why they may have hypothetically done so as ardent believers that the Church is true.
Again, Wade, Hinckley's and Pinnock's statements speak for themselves. Both claimed that they barely knew Hofmann, Hinckley saying that Hofmann had only been in his office once. The evidence and testimony of others prove the contrary. How you can insist that Hinckley told the truth is beyond me.
Again, John, the scant, indirect, hearsay and circumstantial evidence you presented does not, in any reasonable way, Trump Pres. Hinkley's and Pinnock's statements. It mearly opens the door to doubt.
That you think I have insisted that President Hinckley told the truth, is yet another testiment to your faulty comprehension skills and penchant for putting words into my mouth. The fact of the matter is, I don't know if President Hinckley told the truth to the police or not. More to the point, it doesn't matter in the least to me, nor should it in any reasonable way, in terms of the verity of the restored gospel of Christ and whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be.
While the quotes from Pres. Hinckley may not be hearsay (as noted by the quote marks), the author's depiction of Mike George's reaction to the interview and his or the authors perception of the alleged fury of his fellow officers, was hearsay. As for the interviews with Christiansen's business partners, they were hearsay and circumstantial at best--as are also your statements regarding Christensen's brother and family.
The police reaction and the family's reaction are not the point, Wade, other than that they grasped the obvious: Hinckley lied in a blatant and direct manner to the police. My friend, by the way, initially came up with the same reason you gave, that Hinckley lied to protect fragile testimonies. Then he finally told me that he thought they had just panicked. Whatever the reason, the lie is clear.
Does the circumstantial evidence of Christensens partners clearly and obviously demonstrate that Christensen was in Pres. Hinckley's office more than once? No, not in any reasonable sense of the words.
The fact that they are hearsay, does not render them without probative value, it just renders them more open to question, and subordinate to more direct evidence--i.e. empirical evidence and firsthand testimony.
But, as pointed out above, this is irrelevant to whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be.
An inauspicious beginning to this thread, Wade. Essentially, you've set up a defense that tells us that no matter what the church lies about, it's immaterial as to whether the church lies about itself.
To the rational and non-binary thinker, my questioning the relevence of certain supposed lies would not reasonably be interpreted as a sweeping negation of all alleged lies as material to the question whether the Church lied about what it claims to be. That you irrationally think that it was, is, itself, and inauspicious beginning.
Again, let me ask you, Wade, what would you consider to be evidence that the church has lied about itself?
I think it reasonable and fair to expect that the evidence would need to:
1. Be directly relevant to whether the Church has lied about what it claims to be.
2. Surmount the immense amount of firsthand testimony and confirming behaviors that the founders and leaders of the Church believed the Church is precisely what it claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of God on earth, the restored gospel.
3. Demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the Church deliberately intended to deceive people about what the Church claims to be.
Now, I am quite confident that there isn't any amalgam of evidence that comes within lightyears of meeting my reasonable and fair expectations. My purpose for participating in threads like this is to bear this point out, and to thereby evince that it is unreasonable and irrational for people such as yourself to accuse (or publically state accusatory beliefs that) the Church has supposedly lied about what it claims to be, and to then get very angry at the Church on that irrational basis, to the point where you irrationally and unfairly vent and grieve for months on an anti-Mormon website.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-