Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Draig Goch]

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-

Relatively unknown? Nice try. And it's very gratifying to see that you've decided to drop your "Nellie" name calling. It did get rather old.

It's been a while since we've clashed so please overlook my rustiness. Well that, and I'll wait to engage in and/or start a much more appropriate thread. For now it's good to be back and I'm hellishly delighted to see that Wade's masochistic thirst for punishment is not easily slaked.

Goodee!!

[_Runtu]

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. On the one hand, you tell me that the standard of deciding whether someone lied is whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And then on a different thread you tell me that what is true is really not that important in the end.

I've been busy getting ready for Christmas, and I guess I don't see the point in discussing this here.

[_wenglund]

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. On the one hand, you tell me that the standard of deciding whether someone lied is whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And then on a different thread you tell me that what is true is really not that important in the end.

I've been busy getting ready for Christmas, and I guess I don't see the point in discussing this here.

Okay. Enjoy your Christmas.

I guess that leaves "Who Knows" to continue on the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. On the one hand, you tell me that the standard of deciding whether someone lied is whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And then on a different thread you tell me that what is true is really not that important in the end.

I've been busy getting ready for Christmas, and I guess I don't see the point in discussing this here.

Okay. Enjoy your Christmas.

I guess that leaves "Who Knows" to continue on the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You, too, Wade. In some ways I'm disappointed, but it's kind of a red flag when someone says the nature of truth and reality are esoteric philosophical games. I guess I keep coming back to that; I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is all just a big game to you.

[_wenglund]

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. On the one hand, you tell me that the standard of deciding whether someone lied is whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And then on a different thread you tell me that what is true is really not that important in the end.

I've been busy getting ready for Christmas, and I guess I don't see the point in discussing this here.

Okay. Enjoy your Christmas.

I guess that leaves "Who Knows" to continue on the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You, too, Wade. In some ways I'm disappointed, but it's kind of a red flag when someone says the nature of truth and reality are esoteric philosophical games. I guess I keep coming back to that; I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is all just a big game to you.

I didn't say that truth wasn't important in the end. Rather, I said that being RIGHT is not always a WORKABLE strategy. Also, I said on this thread that the truth regarding a certain thing is not necessarily relevant to determining whether there was a "deliberate intent to deceive". So, yet again you misunderstood what I said.

And, I didn't say that the nature of truth and reality are esoteric philosophical games. Rather, I said it is the philosophers' seemingly endless and typically counterproductive attempts to define "truth and reality" or rather what can or cannot be know for absolute certainty, that appears to me to be a game. So, that "red flag" of you misunderstanding me has popped up once again. Perhaps that is your game.

To clarify, to me it appears that while the philosophers have spent countless hours contemplating and arguing what can or cannot be "known" as truth and reality, the rest of the world has been actively and productively engaged in what they believe is truth and reality. In other words, while the philosophers have fevorishly and elusively attempted to figure out what is true and real, the average joe has been living it. If that is not a game, I don't know what is.

Anyway, the best of holiday wishes to you, and while I, too, am disappointed, I will accept that you have your reasons for discontinuing the discussion, just as I have had mine. Thanks for at least working through to step 3 with me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

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?

The fact that I've come to the conclusion that there were not gold plates...

And this whole thing about accusing me of lying just doesn't make sense. If you believe that there were gold plates, that doesn't mean i'm a liar, it just means you think Joseph Smith was telling the truth.

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?

see above. i don't know what you're accusing me of lying about, but go for it. I could really care less if you think i'm a liar.

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

no thanks. reading them once is painful enough. if you don't care to explain, then drop it.

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

please re-read my previous posts. :)

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.

aahhh. wade doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.

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?

are you just making stuff up now?

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?

well, that was the 'only' one you gave me, so i assumed. i guess assuming anything with you is silly.

Dude, we never know what anyone truly believes - we can't get inside people's heads. but we can read between the lines. we can see how people act, react, etc., and make a reasonable determination.

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.

dude, this is a message board. i've wasted enough time typing here, i'm not gonna type it again. if you care enough to know, go read the other thread. if not, too bad.

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?

That's because i've ruled them out (see my earlier post). We're talking about a guy carrying on for years about actual/tangible ancient gold plates!

mistaken? bzzz.
misinformed? bzzz.
decieved himself? bzzz.
delusional/schizo? this one's a maybe. however, i think 'liar' is more likely.

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-

For some reason, I think you're lying. ;)

[_Who Knows]

it seems to me that this is all just a big game to you.

Yep. He's even started up with his old 'mirroring' trick that he was doing on KG's board.

I'm outta this one as well.

peace-out.

[_wenglund]

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?

The fact that I've come to the conclusion that there were not gold plates...

And this whole thing about accusing me of lying just doesn't make sense. If you believe that there were gold plates, that doesn't mean i'm a liar, it just means you think Joseph Smith was telling the truth.

Using your same "reasoning", then, if you believe that there were not gold plates, that doesn't mean Joseph Smith is a liar, it just means you believe you are telling the truth.

See how that work? You can't reasonably have it one way for yourself and another way for Joseph Smith. The same stardard should apply to all. The question is, what standard will you consistently apply, or will you be arbitrary and caprecious in your judgements?

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?

see above. i don't know what you're accusing me of lying about, but go for it. I could really care less if you think i'm a liar.

You just don't get it, do you?

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

no thanks. reading them once is painful enough. if you don't care to explain, then drop it.

If you didn't get it the first plain and obvious go-around, then explaining again won't help.

Seems we, too, have reached the predictable impasse as well. If you can't even grasp the most basic precept of consistency, nor comprehend how you are applying a double standard, then there is no logical basis upon which to continue discussing this with you.

That leaves no one else to carry on the discussion. Seems that for the most part (Scratch being the exception, since he barely made it past step 1) the discussion ended up breaking down at step 3, when I asked everyone for reasonable evidence for their accusation or belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be.

I can't say that I am surprised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

the discussion ended up breaking down at step 3, when I asked everyone for reasonable evidence for their accusation or belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be.

Umm, no, the discussion broke down where your discussions always break down - when you refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, and insist that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.

I can't say that I am surprised. Discussions with Mormons always tend to go that way. Shove your opinion down everyone's throat, but be almost offended when anyone else wants you to see their point.

I guess from this thread i've learned that TBM's are not only selfish, they're gullible as well. Thanks wade.

[_Runtu]

the discussion ended up breaking down at step 3, when I asked everyone for reasonable evidence for their accusation or belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be.

Umm, no, the discussion broke down where your discussions always break down - when you refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, and insist that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.

I can't say that I am surprised. Discussions with Mormons always tend to go that way. Shove your opinion down everyone's throat, but be almost offended when anyone else wants you to see their point.

I guess from this thread i've learned that TBM's are not only selfish, they're gullible as well. Thanks wade.

I offered my reasons in good faith, but for me the discussion broke down when Wade stated that he would only accept a legal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard as reasonable at the same time he said that notions about what is real and true were trivialities. I just figured I have better things to do with my time. If I had thought the discussion had anywhere productive to go, I would have offered my "evidence," even though that in itself may well be pointless, as Wade is familiar with the evidence and still finds it uncompelling and apparently unreasonable.

Give me a good reason to participate, and I will.