Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Mister Scratch]

The church claims that Joseph Smith 'restored' God's one true church. This restoration was brought about by a literal visit from God and Jesus to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed to have REAL/TANGIBLE ancient gold plates.

For me, this is the key. Did those 2 events happen? If they did, the church is what it claims. If they didn't, the church IS NOT what it claims.

Of course there's no way to prove 100% either way whether they did or did not happen. But we can each decide whether those events likely happened, or likely did not happen.

Personally, I think those events did not happen. Thus, the church is not what it claims.

p.s. - didn't i start a thread about this last week?

As long as you can agree that that is what the Church claims to be (whether you agree with the claim or not), then we can proceed to the next logical step--i.e. come to a mutual agreement of what constitutes lies, deception, and bad faith.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree heartily with your distortion of the definition, Wade. The word "lie" in English carries multiple, nuanced definitions, including:
---"To create a false or misleading impression"
---"An untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker."
---"Something that misleads or deceives."
Note that synonyms of "lie" include: prevaricate, equivocate, palter, and fib, each of which carries a somewhat subtle, nuanced definition.

As to whether the Church does---or has ever---"create a misleading impression" "that may or may not be believed true by the speaker," I think that occurs every day in the Mission Field. I sincerely doubt that the average missionary knows the full truth about, say, polygamy, or Joseph Smith. Moreover, Church folklore and "official history" is rife with misrepresentations, whitewashes, and distortions.

The fact that you left out these facets of the definition of "lie" is quite telling, in my opinion.

[_wenglund]

As long as you can agree that that is what the Church claims to be (whether you agree with the claim or not), then we can proceed to the next logical step--i.e. come to a mutual agreement of what constitutes lies, deception, and bad faith.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What? I said I DON'T agree that the church is what it claims to be. Joseph Smith said he had ancient gold plates, and if he didn't, he was 'intentionally deceiving'. I'm quite sure there were no gold plates, thus Joseph Smith was LYING/DECEIVING/etc.

Subsequent leaders could be acting in good faith, wherein they're just perpetuating the lie that they bought into.

You didn't answer the simple and reasonable and logical question. Until you do, there is no logical or practical basis upon which to proceed. In other words, the reasoning process will have broken down (after the first step), and it would be pointless for me to proceed with you. I can live with that. At least Runtu has made it past the second step, and so I can proceed with him.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_Who Knows]

You didn't answer the simple and reasonable and logical question. Until you do, there is no logical or practical basis upon which to proceed. In other words, the reasoning process will have broken down (after the first step), and it would be pointless for me to proceed with you. I can live with that. At least Runtu has made it past the second step, and so I can proceed with him.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Don't worry wade, i edited my post long before you made your reply. I understand what you're saying.

[_MormonMendacity]

Good luck finding someone to play your game Wade.

Yeah...everytime he starts a new thread I have this little voice scream in my head, "SET UP! SET UP! HE'S NOT SERIOUS!"

The same little voice once told me the Church is true.

[_wenglund]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But here's the problem, Wade. The church's claims are unprovable, so we have two competing interpretations:

Some people believe the church has told the truth, and that pleases them.
Others believe that the church has not told the truth, and that upsets them.

According to you, one of these groups suffers from cognitive distortions, and the other does not.

If I need to substantiate my belief that the church has deliberately intended to deceive, you must substantiate your belief that the church has deliberately intended to tell the truth.

The issue of this thread isn't whether the Church's claims are provable or not, nor is whether one of the mentioned groups suffers from cognitive distortions. Rather, it is: "Did the Church falsely claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described and agreed to you above) with deliberate intent to deceive"?

I am not the one making that accusation. You are. I am simply, and reasonably, attempting to challenge it. As such, you bear the burden of substantiating your accusation, not me.

Now, will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But here's the problem, Wade. The church's claims are unprovable, so we have two competing interpretations:

Some people believe the church has told the truth, and that pleases them.
Others believe that the church has not told the truth, and that upsets them.

According to you, one of these groups suffers from cognitive distortions, and the other does not.

If I need to substantiate my belief that the church has deliberately intended to deceive, you must substantiate your belief that the church has deliberately intended to tell the truth.

The issue of this thread isn't whether the Church's claims are provable or not, nor is whether one of the mentioned groups suffers from cognitive distortions. Rather, it is: "Did the Church falsely claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described and agreed to you above) with deliberate intent to deceive"?

I am not the one making that accusation. You are. I am simply, and reasonably, attempting to challenge it. As such, you bear the burden of substantiating your accusation, not me.

Now, will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quit dodging, Wade. Your definition is sorely lacking, and you know it. Moreover, you know perfectly well that the Church's claims extend beyond your reductive and overly simplistic statement.

[cacheman]

The issue of this thread isn't whether the Church's claims are provable or not, nor is whether one of the mentioned groups suffers from cognitive distortions. Rather, it is: "Did the Church falsely claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described and agreed to you above) with deliberate intent to deceive"?

The question you make is inextricably tied to its converse: did the church truly claim to be the church of Jesus Christ with deliberate intent not to deceive?

I am not the one making that accusation. You are. I am simply, and reasonably, attempting to challenge it. As such, you bear the burden of substantiating your accusation, not me.

Now, will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why would you ask for a defense of something you know cannot be determined definitively one way or the other?

[_Who Knows]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But here's the problem, Wade. The church's claims are unprovable, so we have two competing interpretations:

Some people believe the church has told the truth, and that pleases them.
Others believe that the church has not told the truth, and that upsets them.

According to you, one of these groups suffers from cognitive distortions, and the other does not.

If I need to substantiate my belief that the church has deliberately intended to deceive, you must substantiate your belief that the church has deliberately intended to tell the truth.

The issue of this thread isn't whether the Church's claims are provable or not, nor is whether one of the mentioned groups suffers from cognitive distortions. Rather, it is: "Did the Church falsely claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described and agreed to you above) with deliberate intent to deceive"?

I am not the one making that accusation. You are. I am simply, and reasonably, attempting to challenge it. As such, you bear the burden of substantiating your accusation, not me.

Now, will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me get this straight. If I claim to have an invisible dragon in my garage, you cannot claim that I'm lying about it unless you have proof of my lie? Are you serious?

[_Who Knows]

The question you make is inextricably tied to its converse: did the church truly claim to be the church of Jesus Christ with deliberate intent to deceive?

Exactly. The 2 go hand in hand. If there were no gold plates, Joseph Smith was lying about them.

[_Mercury]

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?

I am willing to make one last attempt at having a reasoned discussion on this question. Let's see how it goes.

To answer this questions, there must first be established what it is that the Church claims to be. Correct?

Do you agree that, simply and generally stated, the Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints?

Do you agree that, more specifically, the Church claims to be the gospel of Christ restored in the latter days, the kingdom of God on earth, the "one true Church" headed by Christ through his chosen prophets and priestood leaders?

Generally speaking, what else do you see the Church as claiming to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Shoot. I just posted the invisible dragon problem from Sagan. YOU BEAT ME TO IT!