Lies, mistakes, and being downright wrong

[_harmony]

Some definitions, ala harmony:

1. a lie is deliberately telling an untruth, when the person uttering it knows is untrue.

2. a mistake is an untruth, and the person uttering it does not know it is untrue.

It is entirely possible to say something incorrect and simply be mistaken, rather than be lying. Lying implies deliberately giving out wrong information, knowing the information is wrong or misleading.

[_Gazelam]

I'm guessing theres a story behind this somewhere......

[_Dr. Shades]

I, too, think that there's something that inspired the opening post.

Care to let us in on the motivation for starting this thread, harmony?

[_harmony]

I, too, think that there's something that inspired the opening post.

Care to let us in on the motivation for starting this thread, harmony?

People here are very free with the label of "liar". Mak has labeled me quite often as a liar, as has his counterpart, Plutarch. Lies are deliberate messages of misinformation, when the person who's telling the tale knows the truth. Lies can be by omission (allowing something false to stand when the person knows the real truth) or commission (deliberately misleading people with false information).

Lies are not mistakes. The same message may be delivered and the person delivering the message may not know the message is incorrect. In that case, the person is mistaken; the person is not a liar.

It's possible to simply be wrong, to have reviewed information and reached an incorrect conclusion. That doesn't' make a person a liar either. It just means they're wrong.

Sometimes a person reviewing the same information may reach a different conclusion or interpretation, and still not necessarily be wrong. Different isn't necessarily wrong.

I'm not sure everyone here understands these differences.

[_Gazelam]

If I am remembering correctly, he said this in reference to your Temple recommend interview. Your asked there if you support and uphold the prophet, and they were saying that in order to get your recommend you would have had to say yes.

I don't know you well enough to judge you one way or the other, but out of curiosity how do you reconsile your personal feelings with that question?

not prying too much I hope

Gaz

[_maklelan]

People here are very free with the label of "liar". Mak has labeled me quite often as a liar, as has his counterpart, Plutarch. Lies are deliberate messages of misinformation, when the person who's telling the tale knows the truth. Lies can be by omission (allowing something false to stand when the person knows the real truth) or commission (deliberately misleading people with false information).

Lies are not mistakes. The same message may be delivered and the person delivering the message may not know the message is incorrect. In that case, the person is mistaken; the person is not a liar.

It's possible to simply be wrong, to have reviewed information and reached an incorrect conclusion. That doesn't' make a person a liar either. It just means they're wrong.

Sometimes a person reviewing the same information may reach a different conclusion or interpretation, and still not necessarily be wrong. Different isn't necessarily wrong.

I'm not sure everyone here understands these differences.

I guess I will come in and clear up exactly why I called you a liar, since you're not going to be honest about it. Here is what happened. Harmony was talking about being kicked off for no reason. I understand that to be a common complaint, despite the fact that usually people have, in fact, done stuff. My gut feeling was that she tried to register under a pseudonym after getting suspended so she could continue to post. Here is a recap of exactly what happened:

Have you attempted to register there under a false name after being kicked off?

Nope. I'm one of the banished; I can't even read, let alone register under a different name.

I hope you don't mind that I point this out [harmony posted this in response to another question shortly after answering my above question]:

When I asked how long I'd be on the Q, the PM from the mods was that I would never get off the Q. When I asked why, I was told it was because I was harmony. None of my posts ever made it out of the Q. So I re-registered, this time as Dill Pickles. I existed for several months as the Pickle, contributing my perspective in a very lowkey manner. I was banned as the Pickle without any warning, without any messages or emails, simply because the powers that be figured out that the Pickle was harmony and I'd committed the unpardonable sin of jumping the Q they'd placed Blink on. I was Q'd because I was harmony and banned for the same reason.

I have yet to have someone actually explain how this is not an intentional lie. I maintain to this day that I was directly and deliberately lied to. If anyone can prove this to be in error then do so, but until then don't give any crap about accusing her of doing something she didn't do.

[_harmony]

If I am remembering correctly, he said this in reference to your Temple recommend interview. Your asked there if you support and uphold the prophet, and they were saying that in order to get your recommend you would have had to say yes.

I don't know you well enough to judge you one way or the other, but out of curiosity how do you reconsile your personal feelings with that question?

not prying too much I hope

Gaz

I'm not asked if I support and uphold the prophet. I'm asked if I sustain the prophet. Mak's idea of sustain and my idea of sustain are two entirely different things. He tends to lean more towards your "support and uphold in everything", while mine tends to lean towards "support and uphold when he's speaking as God's mouthpiece".

When the prophet is being the prophet, and speaking as the prophet, I support and uphold him. Until then, I just sustain him as the person who has the keys to run the church. Neither requires that I keep my opinion about his actions to myself. From what I can see, the church now is a far cry from the church as it once was, more's the pity. We've had a whole lotta teachings of men mixed in with a little bit of divinity over the last almost-200 years.

Unfortunately, I've been a member of this church for 36 1/2 years, and I can count on one hand (maybe even one finger) the number of times the prophet has been a prophet and spoken as a prophet since I joined. *sigh* There's not a whole lot to support and uphold, when all we ever get is lame advice, platitudes, intrusions into our personal lives, and cliches, not prophecy. I'm not required to take the prophet's advice when my personal revelation advises against it. And since my personal revelation is a very important part of my life, and accounts for my ability to navigate the minefield that is LDS history without sustaining a death blow to my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I will continue to trust it over any stranger's misplaced call to repentence.

[_harmony]

People here are very free with the label of "liar". Mak has labeled me quite often as a liar, as has his counterpart, Plutarch. Lies are deliberate messages of misinformation, when the person who's telling the tale knows the truth. Lies can be by omission (allowing something false to stand when the person knows the real truth) or commission (deliberately misleading people with false information).

Lies are not mistakes. The same message may be delivered and the person delivering the message may not know the message is incorrect. In that case, the person is mistaken; the person is not a liar.

It's possible to simply be wrong, to have reviewed information and reached an incorrect conclusion. That doesn't' make a person a liar either. It just means they're wrong.

Sometimes a person reviewing the same information may reach a different conclusion or interpretation, and still not necessarily be wrong. Different isn't necessarily wrong.

I'm not sure everyone here understands these differences.

I guess I will come in and clear up exactly why I called you a liar, since you're not going to be honest about it. Here is what happened. Harmony was talking about being kicked off for no reason. I understand that to be a common complaint, despite the fact that usually people have, in fact, done stuff. My gut feeling was that she tried to register under a pseudonym after getting suspended so she could continue to post. Here is a recap of exactly what happened:

Have you attempted to register there under a false name after being kicked off?

Nope. I'm one of the banished; I can't even read, let alone register under a different name.

I hope you don't mind that I point this out [harmony posted this in response to another question shortly after answering my above question]:

When I asked how long I'd be on the Q, the PM from the mods was that I would never get off the Q. When I asked why, I was told it was because I was harmony. None of my posts ever made it out of the Q. So I re-registered, this time as Dill Pickles. I existed for several months as the Pickle, contributing my perspective in a very lowkey manner. I was banned as the Pickle without any warning, without any messages or emails, simply because the powers that be figured out that the Pickle was harmony and I'd committed the unpardonable sin of jumping the Q they'd placed Blink on. I was Q'd because I was harmony and banned for the same reason.

I have yet to have someone actually explain how this is not an intentional lie. I maintain to this day that I was directly and deliberately lied to. If anyone can prove this to be in error then do so, but until then don't give any crap about accusing her of doing something she didn't do.

Good Lord, Mak. I'd forgotten about that whole discussion. I was thinking of your most recent foray into calling me a liar regarding my temple recommend.

Your interpretation of their rules was simply different than my interpretation. I was there; you weren't. I was Q'd for being harmony and I was banned for being harmony, not for any other reason. If you don't like my interpretation, that's okay, but that doesn't make my interpretation a lie. That just means we have a difference of opinion. That doesn't even make my interpretation wrong, or a mistake. And it certainly doesn't make my interpretation of those events a lie.

[_Gazelam]

Your responce to my question was well worded. Thank you, well said.

I have found that if you want to get the really good stuff in regards to the type of things you hear so much about in the History of the Church, you have to read the statements and diary entries from people that were around the Prophets and Apostles. I havent read these accounts myself, but listening and reading Truman Madsens series of biographies I hear bits regarding various miracles and amazing events. It was in Bruce R McConkies biography by his son that you get the details regarding both his calling as a Apostle and the details regarding the giving of the priesthood to the Negro race.

I would recommend to you, if you wish to feel better towards the brethren, that you spend more time on uplifing accounts and less on the tear and rend accounts. Its kind of like how you want to reflect on your children, do you spend your time reflecting on their mistakes growing up, or on their acheivements? How does focusing on either of these things effect your attitude towards them? Over a long period of time how would this attitude effect your relationship? Focus on the negative, and that's what you will get. Seek the spiritual, and that's what you will get.

Gaz

[_harmony]

Your responce to my question was well worded. Thank you, well said.

I have found that if you want to get the really good stuff in regards to the type of things you hear so much about in the History of the Church, you have to read the statements and diary entries from people that were around the Prophets and Apostles. I havent read these accounts myself, but listening and reading Truman Madsens series of biographies I hear bits regarding various miracles and amazing events. It was in Bruce R McConkies biography by his son that you get the details regarding both his calling as a Apostle and the details regarding the giving of the priesthood to the Negro race.

I would recommend to you, if you wish to feel better towards the brethren, that you spend more time on uplifing accounts and less on the tear and rend accounts. Its kind of like how you want to reflect on your children, do you spend your time reflecting on their mistakes growing up, or on their acheivements? How does focusing on either of these things effect your attitude towards them? Over a long period of time how would this attitude effect your relationship? Focus on the negative, and that's what you will get. Seek the spiritual, and that's what you will get.

Gaz

I spend my time reading that which is real, Gaz, not that which is most often going to coddle my faith. If my testimony can withstand the likes of attacks by Plutarch, DCP, Smac, Maklelan, CI, and before them all, SP Dot, it's pretty danged strong.

My husband's family is long in the church. They were on the pioneer treks, lived polygamy, were sent out to start new towns and settlements. Reading their firsthand unpublished for the general public accounts is what first sent me to find out why what they said was so diametrically opposite of what the church puts out in its official history. The difference is the family accounts are real; the church's accounts are whitewashed and prepped for the media.