Speaking in Spanish, Church President Russell M. Nelson told of the time several years ago when he and others aboard a small plane survived the explosion of one of the plane’s engines, the plane’s ensuing fire and sharp nosedive toward the likely death of all aboard, and then the pilot’s miraculous emergency landing in a field after the speed of the dive extinguished the fire.
1.) Engine never exploded and continued to run though rough2.) There was no Engine Fire.3.) The Plane itself was never on fire4.) The Other Engine was never off4.) The plane made a “Precautionary" landing (meaning it didn't have to land except company policy dictates so) at the airport in Delta Utah and not a farmer’s field5.) There are other smaller issues with number of passengers, length of flight, cutting fuel line to both engines, and the date
Nelson first wrote the lie into his self published autobiography in 1976, wrote records were easy to find online for verification, presumably to get himself noticed by the senior Apostles. He’s told that same lie multiple times over the last 50 years. It’s a whopper. We had a thread about it.
Now, presumably, MG 2.0 will reward Morley’s and malkie’s faith in him by agreeing that the current President of the Church is a proven liar…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What are five examples of the current prophet, and current apostles, lying or have likely lied, to the members, and that it was wrong of them to do so?
Is that clear enough now?
Regards,
MG
That's far clearer and far more polite. I’d hate to think you walk in the house and just blurt out “Dinner?” as Some kind of demand of your wife.
The First Presidency have recently caused the Church to be fined $5 million for authorising a decades long complex web of shell companies, which coerced members to sign dishonest statements. All so that the Church could hide the true level of its hoarded wealth from the SEC and from members. I think that counts as an example. Don’t you?
Why do you need four more?
If this example is one which you believe shows that something "wrong" (your word) was done that lowers to the point of deceitful lying then there should and/or ought to be a pattern of decieit by the current apostles and prophets. Is this a 'one off' (assuming on your part that deceitful lying which was wrong was involved) or are there more examples?
If these men are habitual liars it seems as though more examples could/should readily and willingly be given. As it is, it can be argued that what was done in this instance was not lying by the prophet and apostles in a strict sense. I think it is incumbent on you to make a clear case that proves that these men, by their very nature, are habitual liars with the intent to do wrong and deceive church members.
that's far clearer and far more polite. I’d hate to think you walk in the house and just blurt out “Dinner?” as
Some kind of demand of your wife.
The First Presidency have recently caused the Church to be fined $5 million for authorising a decades long complex web of shell companies, which coerced members to sign dishonest statements. All so that the Church could hide the true level of its hoarded wealth from the SEC and from members. I think that counts as an example. Don’t you?
Why do you need four more?
If this example is one which you believe shows that something "wrong" (your word) was done that lowers to the point of deceitful lying…
Are you arguing that it doesn’t constitute deceitful lying?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
If this example is one which you believe shows that something "wrong" (your word) was done that lowers to the point of deceitful lying then there should and/or ought to be a pattern of decieit by the current apostles and prophets. Is this a 'one off' (assuming on your part that deceitful lying which was wrong was involved) or are there more examples?
If these men are habitual liars it seems as though more examples could/should readily and willingly be given. As it is, it can be argued that what was done in this instance was not lying by the prophet and apostles in a strict sense. I think it is incumbent on you to make a clear case that proves that these men, by their very nature, are habitual liars with the intent to do wrong and deceive church members.
Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
Regards,
MG
Stop being dishonest by introducing the caveat of “habitual liars”. Here’s what I said “ that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so…”. I’ve demonstrated that the current Prophet and current Apostles have lied. Will you admit that it was wrong of them to do so? Or will you disappoint Morley and malkie…
You should know that I’m not trying to show that the President and Apostles are dishonest, that ship has sailed and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What I’m now demonstrating is that you’re dishonest, and a denialist. Morley and malkie thought I was wrong about you, you’ve just shown I wasn’t. Thanks!
Last edited by I Have Questions on Sat Aug 09, 2025 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Speaking in Spanish, Church President Russell M. Nelson told of the time several years ago when he and others aboard a small plane survived the explosion of one of the plane’s engines, the plane’s ensuing fire and sharp nosedive toward the likely death of all aboard, and then the pilot’s miraculous emergency landing in a field after the speed of the dive extinguished the fire.
1.) Engine never exploded and continued to run though rough2.) There was no Engine Fire.3.) The Plane itself was never on fire4.) The Other Engine was never off4.) The plane made a “Precautionary" landing (meaning it didn't have to land except company policy dictates so) at the airport in Delta Utah and not a farmer’s field5.) There are other smaller issues with number of passengers, length of flight, cutting fuel line to both engines, and the date
Nelson first wrote the lie into his self published autobiography in 1976, wrote records were easy to find online for verification, presumably to get himself noticed by the senior Apostles. He’s told that same lie multiple times over the last 50 years. It’s a whopper. We had a thread about it.
Now, presumably, MG 2.0 will reward Morley’s and malkie’s faith in him by agreeing that the current President of the Church is a proven liar…
The evidence seems to show that he was embellishing the truth. Flight records don't match with the story in all respects. I don't think that this in any way "proves" that he is a "proven liar". Only that he is subject to the same temptation as the next guy in telling 'a whopper of a fish story', so to speak
If this example is one which you believe shows that something "wrong" (your word) was done that lowers to the point of deceitful lying…
Are you arguing that it doesn’t constitute deceitful lying?
That has been discussed as nauseum elsewhere. I think the jury is out. I know I use the phrase "moving parts" a lot, but I think it applies here. This financial investment episode does not, in my opinion, rise to the point of saying that the prophets and apostles are liars with intent to do wrong and deceive.
Were some possibly inappropriate decisions...sign offs... made by some in leadership positions? Maybe so.
To say, in turn, that the leadership of the church is in the business of willfully lying in order to deceive members is foolish. To say that at times they may make mistakes (they are human) is a given. He that casts the first stone...
You should know that I’m not trying to show that the President and Apostles are dishonest, that ship has sailed and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.