Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_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.

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."

You are, again, lying (see your third connotation above).

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."

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please stop deceitfully claiming that I fully and exclusively agreed with what you said. I wrote "yes, i would agree that that is what the church claims to be, among multitudes of other claims."

[_wenglund]

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.

While there may be a subtle difference in what the Church claims TO BE and what the Church CLAIMS, the issue of this thread is regarding what the Church claims TO BE, and not what the Church CLAIMS. And, as previously noted, the issue isn't whether what the Church claims TO BE can be proven (whether by happening or not), but whether the church lied about what it claims TO BE?

Is that clear now?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MormonMendacity]

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please stop deceitfully claiming that I fully and exclusively agreed with what you said. I wrote "yes, i would agree that that is what the church claims to be, among multitudes of other claims."

Whaaaat? Wade putting words in your mouth? What do you think the odds are that he'd stoop that low?

[_Who Knows]

I don't believe there were any ancient gold plates. Therefore, Joseph Smith lied, and the church isn't what it claims.

There, how's that wade?

[_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."

You are, again, lying (see your third connotation above).

How is my pointing out that you failed to include the full range of definitions for "lie" "something that misleads or deceives"? After all, you didn't say, "one of the definitions is..." You said, "The dictionary definitions is..." Does this mean that you were lying? Probably best to watch it with the nasty labels, eh, Wade? All I said, as you will see from the initial post, was that you left out the other connotations, and that, to me, that said something about your intentions.

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."

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how it relates. When the Church claims that it is "the Church of Jesus Christ," it carries with it certain responsibilities. What I mean is, when the Church claims such a thing, we have to expect that it is always acting in good faith, that it is always doing its very best to be honest and straightforward, and that it always---to the best of its abilities---does the right thing. I guess the bottom line is that the Church's claims do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, if the institution is to claim that it is God's Only True Church on Earth, it had better be prepared to back that up on every single last front.

[_wenglund]

I don't believe there were any ancient gold plates. Therefore, Joseph Smith lied, and the church isn't what it claims. There, how's that wade?

So, for you, your disbelief is evidence of someone else lying?

Is that a general rule that you would consistently apply across the board?

In other words, if I don't believe you about there not being any ancient plates, then by your "reasoning", you then are lying, and thus your accusation is false?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how it relates. When the Church claims that it is "the Church of Jesus Christ," it carries with it certain responsibilities. What I mean is, when the Church claims such a thing, we have to expect that it is always acting in good faith, that it is always doing its very best to be honest and straightforward, and that it always---to the best of its abilities---does the right thing. I guess the bottom line is that the Church's claims do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, if the institution is to claim that it is God's Only True Church on Earth, it had better be prepared to back that up on every single last front.

In other words, you are confusing "what the Church claims to be" with "what expectations one may have based on what the Church claims to be". The issue of the thread has to do with the former, and not the latter.

Now that has been straightened out, could you post the most significant example that you can think of where you believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and note which of the connotations of the word "lie" you are using in that instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I don't believe there were any ancient gold plates. Therefore, Joseph Smith lied, and the church isn't what it claims. There, how's that wade?

So, for you, your disbelief is evidence of someone else lying?

Is that a general rule that you would consistently apply across the board?

In other words, if I don't believe you about there not being any ancient plates, then by your "reasoning", you then are lying, and thus your accusation is false?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good try in attempting to oversimplify.

I have seen compelling evidence (for me) that indicates there weren't any ancient gold plates. Additionally, the church (who has the burden of proof) has failed to provide compelling evidence that they were real. So I conclude that they weren't real, which means Joseph Smith was lying.

Likewise, if i claim to have an invisible dragon, and fail to show you compelling evidence that i have one, combined with the fact that you feel you have compelling evidence that such things don't actually exist, you're free to call me a liar.

[_Runtu]

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

Wade, I made no such accusation. You specifically set as a ground rule for your previous thread the assertion that the church had acted in good faith, and I said I disagreed. I bear no burden of proof because I never made that "accusation."

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.

Again, no I haven't made that accusation except to say that I found your assertion groundless.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will provide my reasoning if you are willing to discuss the evidence in support of your accusation.

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-

No hem-haws here, Wade. I just want to make sure we are doing something productive. And setting things up so that you make an assertion and then expect me to disprove it is not particularly productive. So, are you willing to discuss why you think the church has been a good-faith actor or not?