Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Coggins7]

Typical. Typical, typical, typical.

Wade: 1

Everyone else, as per usual, a big fat zero.

The question Wade asked to be worked through, in a sincere, logical, and philosophically critical manner, was never addressed (as per usual) because it was derailed before it ever moved beyond the first couple of inferential steps (primarily, as per usual, by Scratch, who has come to specialize in redirecting arguments down tracks toward ravines without bridges).

Frankly, I never believed, after reading the first page of posts, that it would. The entire thread was doomed with this bunch, from the first post. Wade probably knew this at the outset, but hope springs eternal.

Loran

[_Runtu]

For what it's worth, I'm still up for a discussion of this topic, so long as there's some actual hope for a reasonable discussion. As I said, I got busy with the holidays, and some things Wade said made me think that this is not a serious topic for him. So, whether it's cowardice or an admission of defeat or however you choose to gloat over it, the discussion came to an end.

[_Quantum See]

Wade,

I understand the desire to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure, however, that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof is the best choice in cases of fraud.

A quick google of "standard of proof for fraud cases" produced the following from the Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog:

Standard of Proof for Fraud Cases
It's not clear what standard of proof should be applied to cases alleging fraud. The Western Section Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Capital Mgmt. Partners v. Eggleston is the closest we have to a definitive answer right now:

The clear and convincing standard of proof is appropriate to those cases where a party seeks the reform or rescission of a written instrument due to fraudulent inducement. But in all other cases involving claims of fraud, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence.
Still, the Court of Appeals in Eggleston acknowledged that the law in Tennessee is anything but clear. For now, the best course of action for trial judges may be to follow the trial court's lead in Eggleston: state on the record what the court's ruling would be under both standards.

Of course these are legal matters, but I think that legal precedence is useful for many kinds of critical thinking.

Is it possible that Joseph Smith and the LDS church are telling the truth about their claims? Yes. Is it unfair to label these claims as fraudulent? Yes--but only as the claims are put forth as faith claims. When fact claims are made, the factual evidence must be provided. If there is no factual evidence for the factual claims or the evidence is said to be forthcoming, the claims must remain "faith claims until futher notice." To state these claims as fact-based without factual evidence is fraudulent, in my opinion, as is proved by the lack of evidence for which there is no reasonable doubt.

My 2.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I understand the desire to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure, however, that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof is the best choice in cases of fraud.

A quick google of "standard of proof for fraud cases" produced the following from the Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog:

Standard of Proof for Fraud Cases
It's not clear what standard of proof should be applied to cases alleging fraud. The Western Section Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Capital Mgmt. Partners v. Eggleston is the closest we have to a definitive answer right now:

The clear and convincing standard of proof is appropriate to those cases where a party seeks the reform or rescission of a written instrument due to fraudulent inducement. But in all other cases involving claims of fraud, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence.
Still, the Court of Appeals in Eggleston acknowledged that the law in Tennessee is anything but clear. For now, the best course of action for trial judges may be to follow the trial court's lead in Eggleston: state on the record what the court's ruling would be under both standards.

Of course these are legal matters, but I think that legal precedence is useful for many kinds of critical thinking.

Is it possible that Joseph Smith and the LDS church are telling the truth about their claims? Yes. Is it unfair to label these claims as fraudulent? Yes--but only as the claims are put forth as faith claims. When fact claims are made, the factual evidence must be provided. If there is no factual evidence for the factual claims or the evidence is said to be forthcoming, the claims must remain "faith claims until futher notice." To state these claims as fact-based without factual evidence is fraudulent, in my opinion, as is proved by the lack of evidence for which there is no reasonable doubt. My 2.

I was aware of the "proponderance of evidence" critiria, but I chose the "reasonable doubt" criteria in discussions such as this because, in part, there is too often a marked lack of the rigors of critical thinking and jurisprudence that would otherwise tend to appropriatly weed out some of the irrational and immaterial "evidence", thus making judgement of "preponderance of evidence" in places like this quite vulnerable to misuse. To me, it is better in such situations to error on the side of caution.

In terms of your deliniation between faith and fact, you seem to be treating them as descrete notions, rather than as polar ends of the same confindence continuum. At what point on the continuum does calling something a fact become fraudulent to your way of thinking--when someone has a little confidence, or alot of confidence, or unwavering confidence in the verity of the thing?

To your mind, what constitutes factual evidence--empirical evidence, eye-witness testimony, hearsay or circumstantial evidence, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, etc.?

I ask because depending upon how you answer these questions, you may inadvertantly render much of legitimate science as fraudulent--particularly the "soft" sciences. For example, while "evolution" (or the origins of man) is still called a theory, many consider it a "fact" because of all the circumstantial evidence that inductively supports that theory. Yet there is no direct factual information of evolution from one species to another. To you, is it fraudulent to consider the theory of evolution as fact?

Other examples of this include: black holes, super strings, the existence of quarks, various theories about the nature of gravity and light, historical interpretations or anthropological, sociological, and psychological explanations for why people have done or are doing what they do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I was aware of the "proponderance of evidence" critiria, but I chose the "reasonable doubt" criteria in discussions such as this because, in part, there is too often a marked lack of the rigors of critical thinking and jurisprudence that would otherwise tend to appropriatly weed out some of the irrational and immaterial "evidence", thus making judgement of "preponderance of evidence" in places like this quite vulnerable to misuse. To me, it is better in such situations to error on the side of caution.

In terms of your deliniation between faith and fact, you seem to be treating them as descrete notions, rather than as polar ends of the same confindence continuum. At what point on the continuum does calling something a fact become fraudulent to your way of thinking--when someone has a little confidence, or alot of confidence, or unwavering confidence in the verity of the thing?

To your mind, what constitutes factual evidence--empirical evidence, eye-witness testimony, hearsay or circumstantial evidence, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, etc.?

I ask because depending upon how you answer these questions, you may inadvertantly render much of legitimate science as fraudulent--particularly the "soft" sciences. For example, while "evolution" (or the origins of man) is still called a theory, many consider it a "fact" because of all the circumstantial evidence that inductively supports that theory. Yet there is no direct factual information of evolution from one species to another. To you, is it fraudulent to consider the theory of evolution as fact?

Other examples of this include: black holes, super strings, the existence of quarks, various theories about the nature of gravity and light, historical interpretations or anthropological, sociological, and psychological explanations for why people have done or are doing what they do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I prefer the preponderance of evidence. The examples you give are best estimates based on the evidence. The problem with faith-based claims is that never will they reach the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt," so this standard is not applicable. Yes, it is best to "error" (sic) on the side of caution, so the preponderance of evidence is a more cautious and reasonable standard to use.

Just my two cents.

[_marg]

I just read this thread this morning. I noticed a key concept was not explictly brought up which I believe is a key ingredient in critical thinking of the sorts of claims made by J. Smith and all others in church heirarchy who have perpetuated those claims and it is something that I'm sure everyone has already heard.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims are not equal in truth value. Some are more likely to be false or true than others.

If a neighbour told me today a spaceship landed in his backyard last night, I'd be very skeptical of his claims, and rightly so, with good reasoning. The claim is so out of the ordinary, so extreme that even if he had some witnesses (assuming I took his claim seriously) I would need strong evidence to overcome my extreme skepticism. My reaction would be I wouldn't believe him and I'd look for reasons why he might make the claim he did. Perhaps he was joking, perhaps he's mentally unstable, perhaps he frequently lies, whatever. If I ruled those out, if I thought he was a trust worthy individual, if he seemed very sincere, I'd look for physical evidence, I'd question the witnesses, evaluate their credibility etc. And eventually through gathering of data I'd reach a probability conclusion/theory. That's inductive reasoning, it's critical thinking the same reasoning which goes into the scientific method.

Absence of physical evidence which one might expect to find would be evidence. I believe in reading the thread Who Knows mentioned lack of evidence of the plates is a main piece of evidence for him in his determination that J. Smith most likely lied. And I believe Wade's response was to argue in disagreement that lack of evidence of the plates is not evidence. If this is Wade's position he is incorrect. Absence of reasonably expected evidence is part of the data gathered and used in reaching a conclusion about J. Smith's claims.

In courts..presumption of innocence of the accused is established ..agreed upon before hand. But this concept doesn't extend to good critical thinking outside of courts. It is done for a reason in courts..which is that it's better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person. So the risk of convicting an innocent person is reduced if there's a presumption they are innocent until proven guilty.

But when it comes to claims made..the more extraordinary the claim it is reasonable to presume the claim is not true. And so those who make the extraordinary claims (logically) have a burden of proof to support their claims with good reasoning and evidence in order to overturn the presumption that the unlikely extraordinary claim isn't true.

So my neighbour (in theory) who claims a spaceship landing has a (logical) burden to overturn the presumption which reasonable people would make that his claim is not true.

If my neighbour had claimed instead, he received a computer as a Christmas gift, I might think he isn't telling me the truth. But the claim is not extraordinary, the presumption would be he is telling the truth if there is little reason to doubt him. If I were to judge the claim at all as to truth, I'd consider how trust worthy and honest he's been previously, what motivations he'd have for lying to me..and if necessary I might ask to see it.

So in reading this thread, Who Knows explained his reasoning for reaching a determination that J. Smith with high probability lied about his various claims. Many of the claims which J. Smith made were extraordinary so evidence is needed to overturn the presumption that the claims aren't true. Lack of expected evidence, J. Smith's character, trustworthiness of witnesses, number of witnesses etc...are all data which when accumulated enables individuals to rationally (with good reasoning) reach a conclusion that since J. Smith's claims were not true..hence if he wasn't delusional with high probability he lied.

[_wenglund]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims are not equal in truth value. Some are more likely to be false or true than others.

Lack of extrodinary evidence for extraordinary claims may be grounds for unbelief or disbelief, but not for accusation about lying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims are not equal in truth value. Some are more likely to be false or true than others.

Lack of extrodinary evidence for extraordinary claims may be grounds for unbelief or disbelief, but not for accusation about lying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that all depends Wade - in certain cases sure. In others, no. Plus, you picked one sentence from his entire post to defend. You conveniently ignored the rest. The lack of extraordinary evidence is not the only factor here.

Once again, your refusal to accept any opinion but your own is apparent - and doing so damages any credibility you have.

[_marg]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims are not equal in truth value. Some are more likely to be false or true than others.

Lack of extrodinary evidence for extraordinary claims may be grounds for unbelief or disbelief, but not for accusation about lying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Incorrect. Absence of evidence which one might reasonably expect to find, given a particular claim can indeed be grounds for reaching a conclusion with good reasoning..that someone lied.

If J. Smith made claims (let's ignore extraordinary for the time being) either the claims are true or false. If they aren't true..then one might ask why. Again data needs to be accumulated to come to a reasoned conclusion and the conclusion given the data might be that the claim was fabricated or a deliberate lie.

Extraordinariness of claims is only important in that the more strange, unusual, extraordinary the claim is...then the evidence to support that claim should commensurate with the sort of claims made. In other words the more extraordinary the claim...the presumption is it isn't true. And the side making the extraordinary claim has a burden to overcome that presumption their claim is not valid. The reasoning and evidence has to be such as to overcome the assumption the claim isn't true.

[_wenglund]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims are not equal in truth value. Some are more likely to be false or true than others.

Lack of extrodinary evidence for extraordinary claims may be grounds for unbelief or disbelief, but not for accusation about lying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Incorrect. Absence of evidence which one might reasonably expect to find, given a particular claim can indeed be grounds for reaching a conclusion with good reasoning..that someone lied.

If J. Smith made claims (let's ignore extraordinary for the time being) either the claims are true or false. If they aren't true..then one might ask why. Again data needs to be accumulated to come to a reasoned conclusion and the conclusion given the data might be that the claim was fabricated or a deliberate lie.

Extraordinariness of claims is only important in that the more strange, unusual, extraordinary the claim is...then the evidence to support that claim should commensurate with the sort of claims made. In other words the more extraordinary the claim...the presumption is it isn't true. And the side making the extraordinary claim has a burden to overcome that presumption their claim is not valid. The reasoning and evidence has to be such as to overcome the assumption the claim isn't true.

Okay, then by your same "reasoning", you may be deemed as lying in what you say above because your extrodinary claim about extraordinariness being grounds for accusing people of lying, lacks extraordinary evidence in support thereof. You did not "overcome the presumption [that your] claim is not valid", In other words, your "thinking" is, unwittingly, self-negating.

I am fine with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-