Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Who Knows]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Unfortunately, you're not going to agree with what we say, since you will not agree that the claims of the church are false.

ie., there were no ancient gold plates. Thus, Joseph Smith lied about them. But you think there were gold plates. So we're not going to get anywhere. no piece of evidence refuting the Book of Mormon is going to convince you that the plates weren't real. However, I'm convinced that they weren't real. Thus, I'm perfectly fine to think that Joseph Smith lied about them. Unless of course, you can convince me that the plates were real. Like i said, the burden of proof is on you.

[_wenglund]

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.

Of course there are multiple connotations of the word "lie". Nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest otherwise. And, you are lying (see your first connotation above) to suggest that I had, and lying (see your second connotation above) when you falsely accuse me of distorting the definition.

Be that as it may, which of the connotations do you have in mind when you accuse the Church of lying about what it claims to be? Or do you have them all in mind--including the dictionary definition I posted?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

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

I tend to believe more in the flying spaghetti monster, more so than the invisible dragon. but hey, that's just me. ;)

[_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.

Of course there are multiple connotations of the word "lie". Nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest otherwise. And, you are lying (see your first connotation above) to suggest that I had, and lying (see your second connotation above) when you falsely accuse me of distorting the definition.

No, Wade. As both Runtu and Who Knows have pointed out, you quite obviously set up your OP so as to avoid including the additional connotations of the word "lie."

Be that as it may, which of the connotations do you have in mind when you accuse the Church of lying about what it claims to be? Or do you have them all in mind--including the dictionary definition I posted?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've already said that the Church has engaged in whitewashes of its history, thus creating a "false and misleading impression." Many investigators (and TBMs) are given the impression, e.g., that Joseph Smith was a saintly and virtually perfect man. This is due to the fact that certain historical facts---such as Joseph Smith's drinking, or his getting hauled into court---are neatly omitted. This simply isn't honest, in my opinion. There are many examples of the Church and its leaders engaging in such behavior and/or deception.

[_MormonMendacity]

Everytime I read one of Wade's posts I see his avatar sitting on a tricycle instead of that kayak and he's peddling as fast as he can...oh...yeah...he's still in the water, too.

[_Mercury]

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

I tend to believe more in the flying spaghetti monster, more so than the invisible dragon. but hey, that's just me. ;)

The previous incarnation of the problem was the teapoot orbitting the sun problem. Dawkins is fond of it.

[_Mercury]

I've already said that the Church has engaged in whitewashes of its history, thus creating a "false and misleading impression." Many investigators (and TBMs) are given the impression, e.g., that Joseph Smith was a saintly and virtually perfect man. This is due to the fact that certain historical facts---such as Joseph Smith's drinking, or his getting hauled into court---are neatly omitted. This simply isn't honest, in my opinion. There are many examples of the Church and its leaders engaging in such behavior and/or deception.

It goes deeper than that. How many times are inquisitive investigators and TBM's told that poor old joe was a victim of discrimination. He was a prophet of GOD after all. Your supposed to expect charges of moneydigging and impropriety. it PROVES he was a prophet...right?

In a Mormons eyes he could be accused of child molestation, setting up a false financial trust, concocting a false mythos and containing it in a poorly written "popular archaeology" knockoff. Oh, wait. that's happened. And they still defend him as the savior he wanted to be portrayed as.

[_wenglund]

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?

So? Whether it is inextricably tied to the converse or not, the converse is not the subject of this thread. Your accusation is.

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?

I ask because I am not looking for a definitive determination. I am simply looking for a reasonable determination.

Now, with these hem-haws out of the way, let me ask again: "will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chap]

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-

There is a subtle difference in what the Church claims TO BE and what the Church CLAIMS.

While it is true the Church claims to be the COJCOLDS the only way that MIGHT be proved is if the Latter Day doctrine is actually proven by happening.

I can claim to be a potential billionare, and you can't prove me wrong.

One of the claims of the Church is that Joseph Smith translated scrolls of papyri written by the "hand of Abraham". Bible scholars say that if Abraham had lived at all, it would have been circa 1900 BC. It is written in Genesis that he came from the city of UR, and and at that time, the method of writing was cuneiform, which ends up on clay tablets. The claim that Abraham wrote on papyri is falsified by that fact.

[_wenglund]

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?

So? Whether it is inextricably tied to the converse or not, the converse is not the subject of this thread. Your accusation is.

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?

I ask because I am not looking for a definitive determination. I am simply looking for a reasonable determination.

Now, with these hem-haws and irrelevancies out of the way, let me ask again: "will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-