Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Mephitus]

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.

I've heard this mentioned a few times by people, and it think it does stand to argument. If the LDS church was to present its claims of divinity before an impartial jury with physical, empirical, scientific, or otherwise credible evidence. Would it stand up within a US court of law? Current gatherings of information would show that (as a simple starting argument) Joseph Smith was a personage of very questionable motives with a history of being a professional con man. His claims of extraordinary happenings are easily verified today with archaeologists, linguists, and anthropological experts. And what we find with each section of verifiable confirmed science, is that none of his claims, predictions, prophecies, or tales of extraordinary can be verified with any verifiable science.


But i must conclude, in matters of spirituality, people seem to think that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[_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-

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-

Why do you ignore certain aspects of people's posts wade?

Again - no one's saying that the lack of extraordinary evidence alone is grounds for accusations of lying.

Next time, why don't you consider the whole post?

[_wenglund]

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.

I've heard this mentioned a few times by people, and it think it does stand to argument. If the LDS church was to present its claims of divinity before an impartial jury with physical, empirical, scientific, or otherwise credible evidence. Would it stand up within a US court of law? Current gatherings of information would show that (as a simple starting argument) Joseph Smith was a personage of very questionable motives with a history of being a professional con man. His claims of extraordinary happenings are easily verified today with archaeologists, linguists, and anthropological experts. And what we find with each section of verifiable confirmed science, is that none of his claims, predictions, prophecies, or tales of extraordinary can be verified with any verifiable science.


But i must conclude, in matters of spirituality, people seem to think that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I think you, like marg and others on this thread, are confusing lack of grounds for extraordinary claims, with grounds for accusing someone for lying. You are also confusing who holds the burden of proof when it comes to lying.

Even if, in your view, the Church hasn't produced extraordinary evidence in a court of law sufficient to warrant your belief, that, in and of itself, is not grounds for accusing the Church of lying.

To demonstrate that the Church has lied about what it claims to be, requires that the ACCUSOR produce at least a proponderance of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to deceive. In other words, the ACCUSOR needs to sufficiently demonstrate that the Church has made claims about itself that IT supposedly knows is not true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.

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-

The reasoning that J.Smith was with high probability lying about his various claims has been given to you Wade, but you are too biased to appreciate it objectively. Let's take one of the claims discussed ..the gold plates. To claim that they were taken by an angel to some other realm...is extraordinary. That is, it's far from the ordinary that reasonable people consensually appreciate about the physical realities of the world we live in.

If one employs reasoning to this claim and looks into other possibilities for why there are no plates to examine, it is possible that J. Smith fabricated the claim. Additional data can be gathered (which I'm not going to bother getting into) and through inductive reasoning..one can with good reasoning reach a conclusion that the claim was an outright fabricated lie.

Critical thinking is inductive reasoning. That is one gathers data and from that data one makes a probability (reasoned) conclusion. Not everyone is necessarily going to reach the same conclusion. And the conclusion will also be a function of how good the data is both in quantity and quality, how well one reasons from that data. But it is irrational to think that one can not determine based on evidence whether or not an individual has lied. And if one might reasonable expect to find evidence and it's not available that in itself is a piece of data/evidence.

You wrote: "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."

In what way is my claim extraordinary? Is it physically impossible that Smith lied? What reasoning is there to suggest that Smith was so trust worthy that he'd never lie? He was human, people lie all the time for personal rewards...power, money, ego, status, etc. An argument can easily be presented that there is nothing extraordinary about people lying and no reason to presume that Smith must have been telling the truth. As has been pointed out to you, there is much evidence to reach a conclusion he lied and a good chunk of that evidence is lack of the plates and the absurd extraordinary claim that they were taken by an angel to some other realm.

Looking at your words from above "because your extrodinary claim about extraordinariness being grounds for accusing people of lying" aside from my claim not being extraordinary and it being a claim which has been reasoned to with good reasoning..aside from all that...I did not say extraordinariness is grounds for accusing people of lying. You had argued a point that lack of evidence could not be grounds for lying and I pointed out to you ..that lack of evidence can indeed be grounds particularly when it is reasonable to expect the evidence to be available. Please be more careful in interpreting what I do say Wade. Otherwise if you continue to twist and distort my words I will likely interpret you are into disingenuously game playing argumentation which I have noted others have already concluded about you.

Now if you wish to present an argument that I'm lying about anything whatsoever...please do. But so far you've presented no reasoning, no evidence to suggest any such thing.

[_marg]

I think you, like marg and others on this thread, are confusing lack of grounds for extraordinary claims, with grounds for accusing someone for lying. You are also confusing who holds the burden of proof when it comes to lying.

Wade this is what I wrote previously: 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.

What exactly do you find confusing or have a problem with Wade? Quote the sentence/sentences and explain.

Even if, in your view, the Church hasn't produced extraordinary evidence in a court of law sufficient to warrant your belief, that, in and of itself, is not grounds for accusing the Church of lying.

To demonstrate that the Church has lied about what it claims to be, requires that the ACCUSOR produce at least a proponderance of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to deceive. In other words, the ACCUSOR needs to sufficiently demonstrate that the Church has made claims about itself that IT supposedly knows is not true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade we are not in a court room. Courts as I pointed out previously do have predetermined rules for who hold presumption (of innocence). The side which doesn't have presumption has burden of proof. But in argumention, presumption isn't pre-determined. Logically though, extraordinary claims never enjoy presumption, the burden of proof always rests with those who make the extraordinary claim.

As far as reaching a conclusion on whether or not J.Smith lied, as has been pointed out to you data is collected and evaluated. Part of the data, and it's a big part is poor evidence for the extent of the strangeness, extraordinariness and unliklihood of the claims made by Smith.

I gave you a simple example with my neighbour claiming a spaceship landing versus a neighbour claiming he got an X-mas gift. The sorts of claims made..determine the sort of evidence required to overcome skepticism.

[_marg]

Why do you ignore certain aspects of people's posts wade?

Again - no one's saying that the lack of extraordinary evidence alone is grounds for accusations of lying.

Next time, why don't you consider the whole post?

Exactly, thank you for noting he misrepresented what I argued. I pointed that out in my response to Wade, but it's buried with other points I mentioned.

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

Wade, my dear friend, I kicked your butt on this thread many, many pages ago. Until you are willing to admit that the Church hasn't always been fully honest, you are going to continue to suffer from anger and hurt. Your unwillingness to admit this simple fact is no doubt a cognitive distortion which is seriously hindering you, and making you feel "aggravated".

[_Coggins7]

It needs to be born in mind here that marg is clearly, from this thread and others, coming from an alternaive religous perspective that I will here just call naturalism or metaphysical materialism. The core metaphysical concepts of this belief systems are a stern epistemological empiricism and positivism which claims, not simply a methadological validity to scientific method and the necessity of observation and empirical confirmation in such normative matters, but claims also, a priori we should keep firmly in mind, that outside of these methadologies or intellectual templates, no other reality exists (including gold plates, God, heaven or what have you)

It must be kept in mind that these are metaphysical assmuptions, not any possible extrapolations from the intellectual framework of the methadologies themselves. Logic, empiricism, and the scientific method are excellent tools for the level of reality with which they deal and within which they were created and to which they have direct reference. Outside of this particular mortal realm, they have little, if any epistemological value. This template has severe limitations balencing their definate strengths, and cannot be used as oracles to tell us anything beyond the perceptive range dictated by their inherant attributes.

This is the fundamental problem of scientism and metaphysical materialism generally: the attempt to push methdologies and cognitive frameworks beyond their bounds into realms outside their stict delimitations, and then to claim that anything remaining outside those delimitations does not exist. At the same time, we demand that any possible spheres of existence outside what we call the "natural" world conform to both our present understanding of that world and the perameters of the intellectual superstructures we've developed to explain it and the methadologies we've developed to explore and discover its features.

The problem is, of course, that the human methadologies and templates cannot be extracted from the very natural world within which they arose to explain that very natural world; their perceptual range, or shall we say, their perceptual depth of field, is embedded within the same empirical world as the phenomena they attempts to study and explain, and are therefore conditioned and limited by the rule, laws, and charactistics of that world

[_marg]

Hi Coggins,

I'm not sure how any of your post has much if anything to do with my posts in this thread. You didn't address anything I said, so rather than derail this thread in a response to you I'll address your comments in a new separate thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

It needs to be born in mind here that marg is clearly, from this thread and others, coming from an alternaive religous perspective that I will here just call naturalism or metaphysical materialism. The core metaphysical concepts of this belief systems are a stern epistemological empiricism and positivism which claims, not simply a methadological validity to scientific method and the necessity of observation and empirical confirmation in such normative matters, but claims also, a priori we should keep firmly in mind, that outside of these methadologies or intellectual templates, no other reality exists (including gold plates, God, heaven or what have you)

It must be kept in mind that these are metaphysical assmuptions, not any possible extrapolations from the intellectual framework of the methadologies themselves. Logic, empiricism, and the scientific method are excellent tools for the level of reality with which they deal and within which they were created and to which they have direct reference. Outside of this particular mortal realm, they have little, if any epistemological value. This template has severe limitations balencing their definate strengths, and cannot be used as oracles to tell us anything beyond the perceptive range dictated by their inherant attributes.

This is the fundamental problem of scientism and metaphysical materialism generally: the attempt to push methdologies and cognitive frameworks beyond their bounds into realms outside their stict delimitations, and then to claim that anything remaining outside those delimitations does not exist. At the same time, we demand that any possible spheres of existence outside what we call the "natural" world conform to both our present understanding of that world and the perameters of the intellectual superstructures we've developed to explain it and the methadologies we've developed to explore and discover its features.

The problem is, of course, that the human methadologies and templates cannot be extracted from the very natural world within which they arose to explain that very natural world; their perceptual range, or shall we say, their perceptual depth of field, is embedded within the same empirical world as the phenomena they attempts to study and explain, and are therefore conditioned and limited by the rule, laws, and charactistics of that world

No. Actually, the problem is that the Church hasn't always been honest. Plain and simple.