Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[Gadianton]

I asked for evidence. Simply restating your accusation doesn't qualify.

You asked for evidence that the church was lying. The fact that there were no gold plates is the evidence that they were lying. The fact that they were lying is the accusation.

Your biased opinions do not qualify as fact, nor do they qualify as evidence. Care to try again?

Otherwise, on the same basis I can claim that it is a fact that there were gold plates, and that according to your "reasoning", this fact is evidence that you are lying. Does that seem reasonable to you?

I don't really care what it is called, just as long as you explain what that general "rule" supposedly is and how it applies in the case in question.

But, according to how you "reason" with the Church, why shouldn't I consider you a liar?

Again, what are you accusing me of lying about. That's what doesn't make sense.

Again, please reread my previous posts to you. I explicitly note where you, by your own "reasoning", may be deemed a liar.

Also, for the third time, will you please explain what your general rule supposedly is, and how it applies in the case in question?

I am using your "reasoning", so if I am not making sense, then you have your "reasoning" to thank for that. (By the way, I agree that your "reasoning" doesn't make sense. In other words, it is a cognitive distortion. I am glad to see that you are begining to recognize it as such) As for what you may supposedly be lying about, see my previous posts where I explicitly identify them.

I am not beginning to recognize my reasoning as a cognitive distortion. Your belief that I am is a cognitive distortion. Take that.

This kind of irrational "I know you are...but what am I" type of response is counterproductive. The discussion will be better served if you avoid it in the future.

And please, again, tell me what I'm lying about. I must have missed it - sorry.

No problem. You can reread my previous posts to you and there find them explicitly stated.

No. I will "give you a break" and let you be the judge of that. What I am doing is vetting your case to see if it is something you believe would be fair and reasonable in general--like when applied to you.

Yes, if I claim something, and you go through what I've gone through in studying things out, and you come to the conclusion that I'm lying about my claim, that's completely 100% fair and reasonable. I guess you think that's not fair and reasonable?

That's interesting. When I preivously asked you in several post if you could reasonably be considered as lying on the same basis that you have judged the Church as lying, you have said "no". Have you changed your mind?

Were I the one leveling the accusation of lying, then you may have a point. I am not, and so you don't.

But, in answer to your irrelevant question, it would take sufficient and reasonable evidence that you believe you don't have an invisible dragon.

So using your logic, the only way to tell if someone is lying about something is if there is evidence that they don't believe what they're claiming? That's ridiculous.

For one, I didn't use the word "only". So you are mistaken there. For another, why is it "ridiculous"? How else does one reasonably determine "deliberate intent to decieve" absent evidence of whether the accused party believes what he or she is saying or not?

RayA and I had a good thread about this last week. Go read that so I don't have to repeat myself. But in short, Joseph Smith was either lying or completely delusional/schizophrenic. I think I can eliminate the latter (through my various studies of him), which leaves me with the fact that he was lying. (he claimed to have tangible/actual/real gold plates - if he didn't have them - as i believe - then he was either lying or delusional/schizophrenic).

I can't speak to your's and Ray's thread (I didn't read it), but this is a conversation between you and I. If you wish to provide links to specific points that you made there which you may think pertinent here, then I am fine with that. Otherwise, I can reasonably expect that you answer what I have to say and ask.

However, your options listed above conspicuously ignore other pertinent alternatives: Joseph Smith could be mistaken, misinformed, deceived himself, etc., and you could be mistaken, misinformed, deceived yourself, delusional/schizophrenic, or even lying. Why did you not consider these as well?

Do you believe you don't have an invisible dragon? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I told you - I believe I have an invisible dragon. Any other questions? Am I lying?

No, I don't have any more questions. And, I am perfectly willing to take you at your word. So, no, I do not think you are lying about having an invisible dragon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

Has the church lied about what it claims to be?

Yes. There is no one true church. There's no such thing as a true church.

That right there, the biggest claim ought to clue folks in. But for a TBM like Wade, no matter how many times you speak, sign, or write it, it'll never sink in.

[Gadianton]

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

It is possible, but I believe it less likely. I think it far more likely that they will agree, than not. To me, there seems to be an innate sense of fairness in all of us that, when applied in judgements such as this, tend to yield, on average, relatively similar results in judgement.


Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy ^&(*&&(!

You have GOT to be kidding Wade!!!

Take the mass extinction of the dinosaurs for example.

How many theories are there based on the SAME evidence??!!!

Hooo boy Wade. Your credibility spiraled the bowl a few times before taking the u-bend.

Sorry pal, the rest of the scientific world would not hold your assumption to be anything but, well... #2!

You are terribly confused (perhaps a function of having...well, #2 for brains). Were I talking about competing theories/hypothesis (scientific or otherwise) to explain the relatively unknown, then perhaps your point would have made some sense. I wasn't, and so it didn't. Rather, I was talking about reasonable judgements of what is relatively known. As such, a more pertinent comparison would be the relative unanimity among scientists that the bones are bones, and that they are dinosaur bones.

But, I am pleased at least to have given you the chance (illegitimately in this case) to employ your awful (or should I say offal) metaphor. Hopefully, you didn't have to hold it in too long. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Has the church lied about what it claims to be?

Yes. There is no one true church. There's no such thing as a true church.

So, if one makes an absolute statement (such as they believe that they are true or correct on a given point, and those who do not share their belief, are false), then on that basis they may be deemed a liar--as opposed to simply being considered as mistaken, arrogant, hyperbolic, etc.?

In other words, if you, yourself, make an absolute statement like: "there is no one true Church", and suggest that those who believe otherwise are false and lying, then by your own "reasoning" shouldn't you be deemed as lying?

Like with the others participating on this thread, I am just trying to get a sense for the general "rule" (assuming that is what you are employing rather than being arbitrary and caprecious and perhaps prejudiced in your judgements) you are applying in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade,

Before I engage in this conversation, I'd like to ask some questions to set up expectations:

These are questions that I would hope you would answer as well.

1. What do you consider reasonable evidence of a "lie"?

As a rule of thumb, the way that I tend to determine whether the evidence is reasonable or not, is to apply the principles of jurisprudence (i.e. "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and to also ask myself: "would I think it reasonable were I the one being accused of the lie".

This would entail you, Wade Englund, placing yourself alongside or in the position of Joseph Smith himself. What unbelievable hubris for you to suggest such a thing, Wade. What makes you think you're even capable of imagining yourself in Smith's shoes?

2. What do you consider reasonable evidence that someone is being truthful?

I am not sure this is relevant to determining whether one is lying or not, because one may not be considered by some as truthful (i.e. one may say things that others may believe are not true) and yet not necessarily be lying. One may be mistaken, misinformed, deceived themselves, differ in opinion, or even deluded about "the truth", and not be lying when proclaim it. The same applies in reverse--i.e. those how view the other party as untruthful, may, themselves, be mistaken, misinformed, decieved, etc., and the person they mistakenly view as untruthful may thus not be lying. This is the important middle ground that I wonder if you and others have considered in your "belief" that the Church has lied about what it claims to be.

This is only correct if you ignore certain nuanced connotations of the dictionary definition of "lie." Which, once again, you are conveniently doing.

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

It is possible, but I believe it less likely. I think it far more likely that they will agree, than not. To me, there seems to be an innate sense of fairness in all of us that, when applied in judgements such as this, tend to yield, on average, relatively similar results in judgement.

So, then... You're ready to cave and admit that Church has always been totally forthright and honest?

4. If so, how does one determine whether one or both or neither is suffering some sort of cognitive distortion?

This question becomes pertinent when there are extreme and unwanted and dysfunctional emotions, moods, attitudes, and prejudices involved. The very existence of the emotions, moods, etc. may, itself, be indication where the cognitive distortions lay. For examples of what I mean by this, please see the thread: "Cognitive Distortions for Wade, Loran, and others".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, but it was YOU who claimed to be upset, and suffering from "unwanted and dysfunctional emotions"!

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Before I engage in this conversation, I'd like to ask some questions to set up expectations:

These are questions that I would hope you would answer as well.

1. What do you consider reasonable evidence of a "lie"?

As a rule of thumb, the way that I tend to determine whether the evidence is reasonable or not, is to apply the principles of jurisprudence (i.e. "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and to also ask myself: "would I think it reasonable were I the one being accused of the lie".

This would entail you, Wade Englund, placing yourself alongside or in the position of Joseph Smith himself. What unbelievable hubris for you to suggest such a thing, Wade. What makes you think you're even capable of imagining yourself in Smith's shoes?

No, it wouldn't entail that at all. But, I have no interest in arguing it with you.

2. What do you consider reasonable evidence that someone is being truthful?

I am not sure this is relevant to determining whether one is lying or not, because one may not be considered by some as truthful (i.e. one may say things that others may believe are not true) and yet not necessarily be lying. One may be mistaken, misinformed, deceived themselves, differ in opinion, or even deluded about "the truth", and not be lying when proclaim it. The same applies in reverse--i.e. those how view the other party as untruthful, may, themselves, be mistaken, misinformed, decieved, etc., and the person they mistakenly view as untruthful may thus not be lying. This is the important middle ground that I wonder if you and others have considered in your "belief" that the Church has lied about what it claims to be.

This is only correct if you ignore certain nuanced connotations of the dictionary definition of "lie." Which, once again, you are conveniently doing.

No. It is correct through rational acknowledgement of the single connotation that has been mutually agreed upon by those still directly involved in the discussion. But, again, I am not interested in arguing with you on this.

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

It is possible, but I believe it less likely. I think it far more likely that they will agree, than not. To me, there seems to be an innate sense of fairness in all of us that, when applied in judgements such as this, tend to yield, on average, relatively similar results in judgement.

So, then... You're ready to cave and admit that Church has always been totally forthright and honest?

No. Such would not be relevant to this discussion. But, again, I am not interested in arguing with you on this.

4. If so, how does one determine whether one or both or neither is suffering some sort of cognitive distortion?

This question becomes pertinent when there are extreme and unwanted and dysfunctional emotions, moods, attitudes, and prejudices involved. The very existence of the emotions, moods, etc. may, itself, be indication where the cognitive distortions lay. For examples of what I mean by this, please see the thread: "Cognitive Distortions for Wade, Loran, and others". Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, but it was YOU who claimed to be upset, and suffering from "unwanted and dysfunctional emotions"!

True, but not in the ways that are pertinent to this thread. However, those who are still directly involved in the discussion have claimed to be upset for reasons pertinent to this thread. But, again, I don't wish to argue with you about this. You continue to demonstrate that you just don't get what I have been saying, and so there is no rational reason to engage you further on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

Has the church lied about what it claims to be?

Yes. There is no one true church. There's no such thing as a true church.

So, if one makes an absolute statement (such as they believe that they are true or correct on a given point, and those who do not share their belief, are false), then on that basis they may be deemed a liar--as opposed to simply being considered as mistaken, arrogant, hyperbolic, etc.?

In other words, if you, yourself, make an absolute statement like: "there is no one true Church", and suggest that those who believe otherwise are false and lying, then by your own "reasoning" shouldn't you be deemed as lying?

Like with the others participating on this thread, I am just trying to get a sense for the general "rule" (assuming that is what you are employing rather than being arbitrary and caprecious and perhaps prejudiced in your judgements) you are applying in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you aren't trying to get a sense for anything other than your own pompousity. Logic states that a church cannot be true or false in the sense that your church claims. But if it makes you feel good about calling me and others on here a liar, have at it. Merry Christmas. I'm glad I made you happy.

[_wenglund]

Has the church lied about what it claims to be?

Yes. There is no one true church. There's no such thing as a true church.

So, if one makes an absolute statement (such as they believe that they are true or correct on a given point, and those who do not share their belief, are false), then on that basis they may be deemed a liar--as opposed to simply being considered as mistaken, arrogant, hyperbolic, etc.?

In other words, if you, yourself, make an absolute statement like: "there is no one true Church", and suggest that those who believe otherwise are false and lying, then by your own "reasoning" shouldn't you be deemed as lying?

Like with the others participating on this thread, I am just trying to get a sense for the general "rule" (assuming that is what you are employing rather than being arbitrary and caprecious and perhaps prejudiced in your judgements) you are applying in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you aren't trying to get a sense for anything other than your own pompousity. Logic states that a church cannot be true or false in the sense that your church claims. But if it makes you feel good about calling me and others on here a liar, have at it. Merry Christmas. I'm glad I made you happy.

You are mistaken on at least two points. First, logic doesn't state what you suggest. In fact, Your "reassoning" is unwittingly and paradoxically self-undermining. Were you to have a logical bone in your body, you would have recognized and understood that.

Second, I am not calling you a liar. I am simply applying YOUR reasoning to YOU. By YOUR reasoning, you should be considered a liar.

For my part, I don't believe you are a liar, nor do I think it reasonable for you to claim that the Church is a liar on the basis that you have.

Now that you have been straightened out on these two points, I wish you a Merry Christmas as well, and hope you can be happy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

Wade, if I were a heathen, your running in circles would make me take my Lord's name in vain. You did call me a liar, you just used your circular logic which is apparently easy for you to get out of to do it.

[_wenglund]

Wade, if I were a heathen, your running in circles would make me take my Lord's name in vain. You did call me a liar, you just used your circular logic which is apparently easy for you to get out of to do it.

Apparently you lack the cognitive skills to correctly understand the obvious difference between an accusation (which you falsely accuse me of) and a question (which is the form in which I posed the issue to you).

Your lack of cognitive skills seems to have also prevented you from correctly distinguishing between circular reasoning (which you falsely accuse me of) and my logical use of valid comparisons to explicate the irrationality of your "reasoning".

Finally, your lack of cognitive skills gives me just cause to not argue with you on this matter, since it would be a colossal waste of time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-