Wide-spread fear

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I don't think people are afraid the church is withholding information, but I do know TBMs fear reading anything that is negative, or not-faith promoting, about the church. Is that fear irrational? I think it is. I encourage TBMs everywhere to seek out information about the church and its history from lots of different sources, especially since the church is not trying to hide it.

[_wenglund]

So, are you suggesting that since deception does occur (as in the hoffman case) then it is not only reasonable to presuppose deception in all cases where information is being omitted . . .

Yes, but only when it is pertinent information.

. . . but it is also irrational not to presuppose deception?

No.

I ask because there is much information on your web site that is omitted. ;-)

Once again, the issue is pertinent information. Joseph Smith calling married men away on missions and then marrying their wives in their absence is pertinent information when evaluating whether or not God would call such a man as a prophet. Omitting such information is deceptive.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that deception isn't in the eye of the beholder, but is presupposed in every case where pertinent information is omitted?

But, isn't pertinence in the eye of the beholder?

I mean, some people may believe you have omitted pertinent information on your web site, but you may not. Should deception then be presupposed in every case where anyone may think pertinent information is omitted?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

May we do a little thought experiment? Person A and B both want to figure out whether or not the church is true.

Person A goes to the church’s official representatives, and informs them that he wants to find out if it is true, and asks what to do. They tell him to take the discussions, attend meetings, read the Book of Mormon, read a few pamphlets, pray. They “identify the spirit”. They become his friend, and get him plugged into the local ward.

Person B on the other hand has studied social psychology, and is aware that if he only goes to one source he could be manipulated. So he goes to several different sources, lists the truth claims, puts together a study plan, and makes an honest endeavor to study it deeply enough to make an informed decision.

Do you think person A and B are equally likely to decide that it is true?

I think that person A is much more likely to determine it is true than B. While there would be a few exceptions, I’m convinced that very few people would join if they made a detailed, independent study of it before they formed personal bonds with Mormons and got themselves committed.

That is the way I see it. Would you classify my viewpoint a a "fear"? As in irrational one?

No, I wouldn't describe your reasoning above as "fear" or as "irrational". However, I might describe it as "oversimlified", and I may disagree somewhat with "B"'s point of view as well as your conclusion.

But, this is separate and apart from what I described as "fear", and thus not relevant to the issue of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

In law, don't they have something like a 'reasonable person' standard (i may not be using the correct term). I think the same should apply to the church.

In other words, information that any reasonable person would identify as being pertinent or deceptive (in the case of ommission) should be presented. Otherwise, it's misleading.

Would a reasonable person think a grown man marrying teenage girls pertinent (or deceptive if withheld)?
What about lying to his first wife Emma?
Would a reasonable person like to know that Joseph Smith used a seerstone buried in his hat to look for buried treasure, and then claimed to translate 1,400 year old ancient american golden plates by the same exact method?
Would a reasonable person like to know what the egyptian papyrus actually say and compare that to what Joseph Smith claimed they said?

etc.
etc.

Is someone who thinks the above things are not something a reasonable person would want, unreasonable? heh.

[_Dr. Shades]

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that deception isn't in the eye of the beholder, but is presupposed in every case where pertinent information is omitted?

Yes.

But, isn't pertinence in the eye of the beholder?

Yes. Which is precisely why one person has no right to determine "pertinence" on behalf of anyone else.

I mean, some people may believe you have omitted pertinent information on your web site, but you may not.

True enough.

Should deception then be presupposed in every case where anyone may think pertinent information is omitted?

Yes.

And to head your next question off at the pass--since I know exactly what you're going to say next--yes, if someone thinks I am omitting pertinent information, then that person is justified in believing I am committing deception. That's why I always encourage everyone to verify anything I say and not simply take my word.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

The church does not formally recognize what you consider your contribution (apologetics).

In my opinion, apologists have a chip missing that disables their basic functions of integrity. Some might call it situational ethics or "grey area".

This philosophy is not yet taught openly in mainstream, but is strongly discredited through the teaching of honesty, integrity, strict morallity, perfect obedience and essential repentance.

You may think you're just ahead of your time but I think you've already seperated yourself from the Mormon church.

To me, you are the wolf in sheep's clothing amidst the mainstream Mormons that don't know you or the church's history - calling evil good and good evil.

While I appreciate you sharing your opinion about me, I wish to keep the discussion relevant to the proposed subject matter, and will forego responding to your off-topic comments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I don't think people are afraid the church is withholding information, but I do know TBMs fear reading anything that is negative, or not-faith promoting, about the church. Is that fear irrational? I think it is. I encourage TBMs everywhere to seek out information about the church and its history from lots of different sources, especially since the church is not trying to hide it.

That is an interesting point of view, and one that was mentioned earlier. It's just that it changes the subject of the question, and is thus not relevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

In law, don't they have something like a 'reasonable person' standard (I may not be using the correct term). I think the same should apply to the church.

In other words, information that any reasonable person would identify as being pertinent or deceptive (in the case of ommission) should be presented. Otherwise, it's misleading.

Would a reasonable person think a grown man marrying teenage girls pertinent (or deceptive if withheld)?
What about lying to his first wife Emma?
Would a reasonable person like to know that Joseph Smith used a seerstone buried in his hat to look for buried treasure, and then claimed to translate 1,400 year old ancient american golden plates by the same exact method?
Would a reasonable person like to know what the egyptian papyrus actually say and compare that to what Joseph Smith claimed they said?

etc.
etc.

Is someone who thinks the above things are not something a reasonable person would want, unreasonable? heh.

According to wikipedia, it is referred to both as "reasonable person" or "reasonable man" standard.

This standard tends to work where there is no dispute as to what a reasonable man may think in a given situation--particularly in cases where reasonable men can reasonably disagree.

For example, while I think it perfectly reasonable for someone to think information regarding a grown man marrying teenage girls is pertinent in determining the truth-claims of the LDS Church; I also think it reasonable for people to also view such as inpertinent. Different reasonable people have different reasonable ways of deciding pertinence. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Inconceivable]

Wade,

The church does not formally recognize what you consider your contribution (apologetics).

In my opinion, apologists have a chip missing that disables their basic functions of integrity. Some might call it situational ethics or "grey area".

This philosophy is not yet taught openly in mainstream, but is strongly discredited through the teaching of honesty, integrity, strict morallity, perfect obedience and essential repentance.

You may think you're just ahead of your time but I think you've already seperated yourself from the Mormon church.

To me, you are the wolf in sheep's clothing amidst the mainstream Mormons that don't know you or the church's history - calling evil good and good evil.

While I appreciate you sharing your opinion about me, I wish to keep the discussion relevant to the proposed subject matter, and will forego responding to your off-topic comments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is the core of what makes your argument of little import. Describing your feelings toward my opinion as "appreciative" holds even less intrinsic value.

(crickets chirping)

[_Who Knows]

This standard tends to work where there is no dispute as to what a reasonable man may think in a given situation--particularly in cases where reasonable men can reasonably disagree.

There isn't a dispute (for the reasonable person).

The reasonable person would want all the facts up front, both good and bad - in order to make an informed decision.

No dispute.