Take It From The Top...

[_Mister Scratch]

Loran,

Bless your heart for attempting to open-mindedly reason with these good folks. But, I trust that your intents, while certainly laudable, are doomed to begin with--and this because you are shining the light of critical analysis on them. (From my experience these good folks are highly averse and hyper-sensitive to that--note, for example, all the irrelevant hand-wringing, deflecting, rationalizing, accusing and so forth that has gone on in each and every thread I have started about them. In fact, amazingly enough, in the thread I devoted to you and me, there was even some irrelevant self-justifying and accusing going on.)

I suspect that some, if not all, are hyper-critical and prolific in their criticism of the Church because it supposedly provides a way of keeping the focus on the Church and away from them. Were it not for their seeming abject fear of being discovered for who they really are (or more correctly, as they irrationally view themselves), they may have little or no motives to take issue with the Church, but would become like numerous leave-takers who move on with their lives in relative silence about the Church.

Who are these people, Wade? You have yet to provide even a single shred of evidence that such people even exist.

You keep repeating this falsehood as though repeating it will somehow make it true. (Hint: it won't)

Yup. And you persist in claiming that there are huge, massive, overwhelming numbers of "Mr. Ds" despite no real evidence.

The fact of the matter is (as may easily be demostrated, at least to those interested and able, by reading my posts to you on the Cognitive Distortion thread), I did provide evidence. Granted, it was anecdotal evidence, but evidence nontheless, and sufficient evidence to reasonably demonstrate the existence of Mr. D's. That you were unpersuaded by the evidence, is irrelevant to the fact that evidence was presented.

I have no problem with your anecdotal evidence, Wade. My problem is that you are holding up "Mr. Ds" as the model for exmo behavior, and have been claiming that the vast majority of exmos fit the "Mr. D" pattern. But where is your evidence? What details can you provide us about the "Mr. Ds" of the world? You either can't or won't, and that's my problem with your claims: put up or shut up.

Ironically, though, there were no less than three occasions on that same thread where I asked you for evidence for your belief that Mr. D's don't exist, and you evaded and refused to answer.

No, Wade. After all, I said that I accept you anecdotal evidence regarding your friends. But that is only, what? One example out of this supposed legion of folks you claim exists? Come on, Wade---you're going to have to do better than that.

So, not only do you keep on falsely accusing me of not providing a shread of evidence, but ironically you are the one who is guilty as charged.

Uh, no---because I never claimed that "Mr. Ds" don't exist; I merely asked you to provide evidence. You were the one holding up "Mr. D" as a model of behavior, and all I asked was for you to provide evidence for "Mr. D's" existence. Let me ask you this: How are angry exmos supposed to emulate an example you can't even provide?

However, I doubt that reality will register in your self-deluded and closed mind, and so I won't argue with you about it.

By you reasonably challenging their "criticisms", that inadvertantly shifts the focus back on them, and undermines their supposed strategy. Essentially, you are asking them to face what may be one of their biggest fears, and one they may have worked very hard to evoid like the plague. I don't see them allowing that to happen, even though it may well be to their benefit to face that fear.

What they have going for them is that they are in the overwhelming majority here, and thus can drown-out the supposed threat, and find ample support and enabling for their dysfunctional strategy.

However, even though you have little chance of realizing your reasonable intents for this thread, the good folks here make it worth the try, and I applaud you for your efforts. Also, if there is a silver lining in all of this: the seemingly significant issue of the critics intense aversion to being critiqued is inadvertantly illuminated and underscored.

Ironically, you've never specified what it is that you think is being critiqued by the critics. You've said that the Church is "the most precious and dear" thing in your life, but beyond that, it's unclear what criticisms---specifically---you take issue with.

One would have to be profoundly blind and/or seriously comprehension challenged not to recognize the titles of the threads ("has the Church lied about what it claims to be? and Cognitive Distortions: lies and deciet) and some of the openning remarks of those threads (for example; "One of the many issues raised by certain former members: Has the Church lied about what it claims to be? In other words, has it deceived people about what it claims to be? Has it acted in bad faith in what it claims to be?" and "2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.") as blatantly obvious identifiers of what specific critiques of the critics I was referring to.

What isn't ironic, but fully expected, is that you are still uncertain about what has been clearly, explicitly, and blatantly obvious. Such is the nature of a closed mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So.... Is that it? Your only beef is with the criticism that the Church has been dishonest? That what gives with all your "CBT" stuff and your "analysis" of exmo behavior?

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

A good point, Wade, and of course the raises the issue of "who/what" the Church actually is. Is it strictly the Brethren? The Standard Works? People working in correlation? The members? Who? What?

This reminds me a bit of the discussion we had on KG's board in which you tried to claim that material from the D&C constituted official apologies from the Church for its wrongdoings.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

You are an intellectual and moral vacancy Scratch, just as I've always suspected, and I am now through with any further attempts to engage in a rational, philosophically substantive discussion with you as the sheer intellectual and emotional work necessary to cut through the endless head gaming, hair splitting parsing of commonly understood terms, and red herring chasing, has grown just to old.

Your endless circular ring around the rosie games all aimed at throwing threads such as thiis off course and then channeling them into a cul-de-sac where you feel you cannot lose the argument once you are able to control the frame of reference and terms of the debate have worn out their welcome.

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't want to know the truth, you are engaged in no serious search for it, and can't handle it when confronted with it.

As long as I'm going to spend any time in a forum such as this at all, I'm not going to debase myself by engaging in discourse with folks like you any longer. This is for the same general reasons I stopped talking to Nort, PP, CoffeeCat, and GIMR (I still do answer her adolescent rants now and then just because she's got such a big bull's eye on her forehead and keeps it so well polished).

Some of us here have your number Scratch, you're approach to debate fools no one. We've seen and dealt with your type before over and over again, and its all become really such a drag.

Loran

[_marg]

So Loran, are you going to respond to my post to you in this thread?

[_harmony]

You are an intellectual and moral vacancy Scratch, just as I've always suspected, and I am now through with any further attempts to engage in a rational, philosophically substantive discussion with you as the sheer intellectual and emotional work necessary to cut through the endless head gaming, hair splitting parsing of commonly understood terms, and red harring chasing, has grown just to old.

Your endless circular ring around the rosie games all aimed at throwing threads such as thiis off course and then channeling them into a cul-de-sac where you feel you cannot lose the argument once you are able to control the frame of reference and terms of the debate have worn out their welcome.

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't want to know the truth, you are engaged in no serious search for it, and can't handle it when confronted with it.

As long as I'm going to spend any time in a forum such as this at all, I'm not going to debase myself by engaging in discourse with folks like you any longer. This is for the same general reasons I stopped talking to Nort, PP, CoffeeCat, and GIMR (I still do answer her adolescent rants now and then just because she's got such a big bull's eye on her forehead and keeps it so well polished).

Some of us here have your number Scratch, you're approach to debate fools no one. We've seen and dealt with your type before over and over again, and its all become really such a drag.

Loran

In other words, he knows more than you do, you can't snow him, and so you're just waving your hands like Patrick Swayze in To Wong Foo ("I'm taking away all your Princess Points!" while waving his arms). A pitiful performance on your part, Loran. Truly pitiful.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are an intellectual and moral vacancy Scratch, just as I've always suspected, and I am now through with any further attempts to engage in a rational, philosophically substantive discussion with you as the sheer intellectual and emotional work necessary to cut through the endless head gaming, hair splitting parsing of commonly understood terms, and red harring chasing, has grown just to old.

??? You finally came around to admitting that you had to rely on one quite specific, qualified definition of "lie" in order to continue your argument. What's wrong with that? Further, I see no problem in a discussion of semantics, as it can be all too easy to overlook or take for granted what "commonly understood terms" really mean.

Your endless circular ring around the rosie games all aimed at throwing threads such as thiis off course and then channeling them into a cul-de-sac where you feel you cannot lose the argument once you are able to control the frame of reference and terms of the debate have worn out their welcome.

I could easily say the same for you and Wade. For the record: I'm not interested in "winning" any game. But I do have a problem with apologists who try to sidestep the plain and obvious truth regarding language and definitions.

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't want to know the truth, you are engaged in no serious search for it, and can't handle it when confronted with it.

You yourself admitted, that, in all truth, the word "lie" carries additional connotations which undermine your position. Better to just admit it, and work towards improving the Church, don't you think?

As long as I'm going to spend any time in a forum such as this at all, I'm not going to debase myself by engaging in discourse with folks like you any longer. This is for the same general reasons I stopped talking to Nort, PP, CoffeeCat, and GIMR (I still do answer her adolescent rants now and then just because she's got such a big bull's eye on her forehead and keeps it so well polished).

Some of us here have your number Scratch, you're approach to debate fools no one. We've seen and dealt with your type before over and over again, and its all become really such a drag.
Loran

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone. I would just like the apologists to approach this subject matter honestly. My goal is---and has long been---the same as the Church's: to "perfect the Saints." That my methods might differ from yours, or the folks on MAD, shouldn't be a problem, in my opinion.

[_Runtu]

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?

Hmmm. So, now I'm a disgruntled member making irrational speculations. Lovely. The point here is that you take public statements as more authoritative than Hinckley's behavior. Interesting. I purposely chose the most sympathetic account of the episode, and all three agree that Hinckley lied. But it doesn't matter because he says he believes.

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.

Let's see, a religious leader lies to the police, but we need to presume innocence. Why is that, Wade?

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).

Ah, so lying to the police and withholding evidence are just more "milk before meat." Got it.

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.

Yep, clear lies are scant evidence. And I note that you have conveniently ignored the church historian's account that the church knowingly withheld evidence from the investigation. If I were debating, I'd say that your noncontesting of that point ends the debate.

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.

Again, what does matter to you, Wade? What would constitute evidence of lying? Picking apart one set of quotes from Hinckley's police statement doesn't help me understand what you think evidence would be. Throwing out insults about my comprehension skills and disingenuousness doesn't help, either. I refuse to engage in your namecalling, Wade, and I'd appreciate your doing the same.

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.

No, just the testimony of several witnesses, including people who were in the meetings, clearly and obviously demonstrates that.

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, more namecalling instead of refutation. I expect better of you.

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.

1. We clearly disagree about what is relevant.
2. The repeated lies do in fact surmount the firsthand testimony.
3. I'm sorry, Wade, but I thought we were talking about what reasonable people can conclude from the evidence.

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.

Again, this sounds like a silly game, Wade. Those who don't meet the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard are by your reckoning irrational. Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. Do you think that people who believed OJ Simpson guilty were irrational?

For the record, I'm not "very angry" and have never been "very angry," Wade. What I was angry at was having dedicated so much of my life to a clearly fraudulent organization. I guess that makes me irrational. I got over it, you know.

I have tried from the outset to be civil, Wade. I would hope you would at least make an attempt.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
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?

Precisely to remove any direct empirical evidence of the matter.

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"?

One is direct revelation from God, which has a number of various manifestations. Certainly deep meditation has been used for millenia to access certain kinds of truths precisely by filtering out the empirical world for a time such that the mind is sucsseptable to other stimuli. There is what we call our "conscience", which is an intutitve perceptual field within which we are able to perceive moral truths even if holistically, and not in great intellectual detail.

Loran

[_marg]

Coggins7 wrote:
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?

Precisely to remove any direct empirical evidence of the matter.

That's not telling me "why." What sorts of benefits could there possibly be to remove evidence of the plates? The plates (theoretically) existed physically on earth for what approx a couple of 1,000 years, being moved about and put into different locations? Why should they be removed physically from earth, what sort of advantage could be had by removing them, in your estimation?


I'll look at the second part of your response later.

[_Coggins7]

That's not telling me "why." What sorts of benefits could there possibly be to remove evidence of the plates? The plates (theoretically) existed physically on earth for what approx a couple of 1,000 years, being moved about and put into different locations? Why should they be removed physically from earth, what sort of advantage could be had by removing them, in your estimation?

I didn't tell you why for a specific reason, and that reason was to allow you to think about the answer a little and look for the reason yourself, as the reason and purpose of removing the plates is implied, or wrapped within my partial response.

As a hint, If I was God, that is precisely how I would handle the matter, based on the kind of relationship with my children, in these matters, that is necessary to thier growth and progression toward exaltation. Its not about empirical evidence or lack of it in spiritual matters such as this; its about the first principle of the Gospel.

Loran