Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_wenglund]

I don't believe there were any ancient gold plates. Therefore, Joseph Smith lied, and the church isn't what it claims. There, how's that wade?

So, for you, your disbelief is evidence of someone else lying?

Is that a general rule that you would consistently apply across the board?

In other words, if I don't believe you about there not being any ancient plates, then by your "reasoning", you then are lying, and thus your accusation is false? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good try in attempting to oversimplify.

Actually, you had already oversimplified. I was merely attempting to gleen from your simplisitic statement what general rule or basis you were using to determine whether the Church was lying or not about what it claimed to be.

So, I ask again: Is disbelief on the part of one person, necessarily evidence of another person lying?

I have seen compelling evidence (for me) that indicates there weren't any ancient gold plates.

Let's hear it.

Additionally, the church (who has the burden of proof) has failed to provide compelling evidence that they were real


So I conclude that they weren't real, which means Joseph Smith was lying.

Again, I am attempting to gleen from you the general rule you are using to determine what is a lie or not. Are you suggesting that if someone fails to provide compelling evidence for their claim, then they are, necessarily, lying?

Likewise, if i claim to have an invisible dragon, and fail to show you compelling evidence that i have one, combined with the fact that you feel you have compelling evidence that such things don't actually exist, you're free to call me a liar.

How about if you claim to have compelling evidence that there weren't any plates, and I find your evidence uncompelling, combined with the fact that I believe there is compelling evidence (to me) that there were plates, then on that basis (or according to your reasoning) should you then be considered as a liar?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I have seen compelling evidence (for me) that indicates there weren't any ancient gold plates.

Let's hear it.

That's for another thread. But i'm sure you've heard it all anyways.

Again, I am attempting to gleen from you the general rule you are using to determine what is a lie or not. Are you suggesting that if someone fails to provide compelling evidence for their claim, then they are, necessarily, lying?

I've given you enough hints. I have confidence you can figure out my 'general rule'.

How about if you claim to have compelling evidence that there weren't any plates, and I find your evidence uncompelling, combined with the fact that I believe there is compelling evidence (to me) that there were plates, then on that basis (or according to your reasoning) should you then be considered as a liar?

No. You should consider that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.

Anyways, stop turning this around. I answered your question. Please answer mine.

I have an invisible dragon. Do you believe I'm lying?

Oh, and i'm off to vegas. Have a great holiday! I'll pick back up in a few days. L8r.

[_wenglund]

So? Whether it is inextricably tied to the converse or not, the converse is not the subject of this thread. Your accusation is.

Wade, I made no such accusation.

Here is what you said on page 9 of the Healing recovery thread: "I wonder why I bother, but it's not our fault the church turned out to be fake. We did not "victimize" the church or its members by finding out it was fake."

Here is what you said on page 16 of the same thread: "It's true that the church lied to me and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses, and you're quite right that I reacted with anger when I did not have to."

On the same page you said: "No, it's not my fault the church is a fraud. What is my fault is reacting the way I did."

On page 17 you said: "I believe in probabilities, which can be gauged objectively. And yes, it can be answered objectively that there is a high probability that the church is founded on false pretenses."

On that same page you said: "The evidence that the church is not what it claims to be is pretty overwhelming. The evidence that its leaders are intentionally misleading people is perhaps less overwhelming, but it's there nonetheless."

On page 20 you said:

"I would say that the probability that he (Joseph Smith) was lying is quite high, based on the evidence. So, the question about his sincere belief is moot. There are three options:

1. Joseph actually had plates that he translated.
2. Joseph was delusional and believed he had plates that he translated.
3. Joseph lied.

Given the way the rest of story works, the probability rests with option 3. I'm basing this on evidence, just as you base your belief that the sky is blue on the evidence."

On the first page of the Cognitive Distortion thread you said: "For me and most exmos I know, we aren't so much concerned with the lack of disclosure of details as we are with the patent falseness of the foundational claims. It's as if you bought a car that you were told was a Mercedes Benz, and you paid a lot of money over several years for the privilege. Then one day you discover that the engine is actually a lawnmower engine, the transmission came from a go-cart, and the body is of a 1987 Hyundai. These aren't minor details to be disclosed in fine print. Likewise, when you discover that the foundational claims of Mormonism are patently false, you tend not to be happy about that discovery. What makes it worse is when other dismiss these things as merely trivial nondisclosures."

On page 2 of that same thread you said: "As long as the church continues to play fast and loose with the truth, people will get hurt. And many of those will become angry. It's easy to blame people who have been lied to for reacting badly to the lies, isn't it?"

On page 3 you said: "I take responsibility for my reaction to finding out the church is fraudulent. Will the church take responsibility for being fraudulent? I think not."

On that same page you said: "Wade's entire "cognitive distortion" rests on the assumption that both sides acted in good faith and that there is no evidence that one or the other did not. To me, that's a cognitive distortion in itself."

On "Who Knows" thread on [Cognitive Distortions you said: "That's the problem with your entire analogy. To anyone who does not have an emotional or psychological need for the church to be 'true,' it is painfully self-evident and indisputable that the church has in fact misrepresented itself. That's why your analogy breaks down; you seem to want to treat leaving the church as a 'no-fault' separation. Here's a hint: those few exmos I know who didn't experience anger know that the church lied to them. They didn't just decide that the church 'was not for them."

So, of course you made the accusation. Now, let me ask a third time: "will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Here is what you said on page 9 of the Healing recovery thread: "I wonder why I bother, but it's not our fault the church turned out to be fake. We did not "victimize" the church or its members by finding out it was fake."

Here is what you said on page 16 of the same thread: "It's true that the church lied to me and took my time, talents, and energy under false pretenses, and you're quite right that I reacted with anger when I did not have to."

On the same page you said: "No, it's not my fault the church is a fraud. What is my fault is reacting the way I did."

On page 17 you said: "I believe in probabilities, which can be gauged objectively. And yes, it can be answered objectively that there is a high probability that the church is founded on false pretenses."

On that same page you said: "The evidence that the church is not what it claims to be is pretty overwhelming. The evidence that its leaders are intentionally misleading people is perhaps less overwhelming, but it's there nonetheless."

On page 20 you said:

"I would say that the probability that he (Joseph Smith) was lying is quite high, based on the evidence. So, the question about his sincere belief is moot. There are three options:

1. Joseph actually had plates that he translated.
2. Joseph was delusional and believed he had plates that he translated.
3. Joseph lied.

Given the way the rest of story works, the probability rests with option 3. I'm basing this on evidence, just as you base your belief that the sky is blue on the evidence."

On the first page of the Cognitive Distortion thread you said: "For me and most exmos I know, we aren't so much concerned with the lack of disclosure of details as we are with the patent falseness of the foundational claims. It's as if you bought a car that you were told was a Mercedes Benz, and you paid a lot of money over several years for the privilege. Then one day you discover that the engine is actually a lawnmower engine, the transmission came from a go-cart, and the body is of a 1987 Hyundai. These aren't minor details to be disclosed in fine print. Likewise, when you discover that the foundational claims of Mormonism are patently false, you tend not to be happy about that discovery. What makes it worse is when other dismiss these things as merely trivial nondisclosures."

On page 2 of that same thread you said: "As long as the church continues to play fast and loose with the truth, people will get hurt. And many of those will become angry. It's easy to blame people who have been lied to for reacting badly to the lies, isn't it?"

On page 3 you said: "I take responsibility for my reaction to finding out the church is fraudulent. Will the church take responsibility for being fraudulent? I think not."

On that same page you said: "Wade's entire "cognitive distortion" rests on the assumption that both sides acted in good faith and that there is no evidence that one or the other did not. To me, that's a cognitive distortion in itself."

On "Who Knows" thread on [Cognitive Distortions you said: "That's the problem with your entire analogy. To anyone who does not have an emotional or psychological need for the church to be 'true,' it is painfully self-evident and indisputable that the church has in fact misrepresented itself. That's why your analogy breaks down; you seem to want to treat leaving the church as a 'no-fault' separation. Here's a hint: those few exmos I know who didn't experience anger know that the church lied to them. They didn't just decide that the church 'was not for them."

So, of course you made the accusation. Now, let me ask a third time: "will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I still disagree that I've made an accusation in repeating my belief, but that's neither here nor there. What dismays me is that you want me to prove the unprovable, whereas you steadfastly refuse to address the other side of the equation.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that the church has been less than truthful about itself, which I would consider lying, whether its Joseph Smith's proclaiming that he had translated papyri, when he hadn't; that he denied having sex with other women, not only to his wife but to the public at large; when he lied about being able to find buried treasure with his seer stones; when he told people like Nancy Rigdon that whatever he believed was right was indeed right; and most importantly, when he produced an anachronistic and plagiarized volume that he claimed was a translation of ancient scripture. All of these claims are demonstrably false and lead to a very reasonable conclusion that the church from the beginning has not been forthright about itself. If it had been, there would have been no need for the church to suppress embarrassing documents in the 1980s and lie to the police (including withholding evidence), nor would people like Lavina Anderson, Mike Quinn, and David Knowlton have been excommunicated for merely stating truisms about the church. There is and has been a long pattern of deception in the church.

But then, Wade, as you know this is simply what I see as probability. I add these things up and I see deception. If you would like to continue this discussion, I would like your "most significant evidence" that Joseph was being deliberately honest. I don't think we can have a profitable discussion of this if we only look at one side. (I know, it's one of those cognitive distortions again. I think I have a serious problem.)

[_wenglund]

I have seen compelling evidence (for me) that indicates there weren't any ancient gold plates.

Let's hear it.

That's for another thread. But i'm sure you've heard it all anyways.

Actually, it is pertent to this thread. You have been asked to produce evidence that the Church has lied about what it claims to be. So, present it. And, yes, it is likely that I have heard it before. That is why I am confident that I can demonstrate a cognitive distortion somewhere in your thinking.

Again, I am attempting to gleen from you the general rule you are using to determine what is a lie or not. Are you suggesting that if someone fails to provide compelling evidence for their claim, then they are, necessarily, lying?

I've given you enough hints. I have confidence you can figure out my 'general rule'.

I am quite confident that you aren't using a general rule, but have been arbitrary and caprecious in your judgement of the Church. That is one of the key cognitive distortions that I intended to explicate (see my previous posts to you, and your response below).

How about if you claim to have compelling evidence that there weren't any plates, and I find your evidence uncompelling, combined with the fact that I believe there is compelling evidence (to me) that there were plates, then on that basis (or according to your reasoning) should you then be considered as a liar?

No. You should consider that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.

But, according to how you "reason" with the Church, why shouldn't I consider you a liar?

Anyways, stop turning this around.

Sorry, but that is a legitimate way of testing your "reasoning". It is a perfectly legitimate way of explicating whether you are being fair and reasonable in your judgement of the Church or not.

I answered your question. Please answer mine.

I have an invisible dragon. Do you believe I'm lying?

This is off-topic, but no, I do not believe you are lying. I as yet do not have sufficient basis to determine whether you are lying or not.

Oh, and i'm off to vegas. Have a great holiday! I'll pick back up in a few days. L8r.

Enjoy your trip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how it relates. When the Church claims that it is "the Church of Jesus Christ," it carries with it certain responsibilities. What I mean is, when the Church claims such a thing, we have to expect that it is always acting in good faith, that it is always doing its very best to be honest and straightforward, and that it always---to the best of its abilities---does the right thing. I guess the bottom line is that the Church's claims do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, if the institution is to claim that it is God's Only True Church on Earth, it had better be prepared to back that up on every single last front.

In other words, you are confusing "what the Church claims to be" with "what expectations one may have based on what the Church claims to be". The issue of the thread has to do with the former, and not the latter.

Now that has been straightened out, could you post the most significant example that you can think of where you believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and note which of the connotations of the word "lie" you are using in that instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy smokes, Wade. Are you kidding me with this stuff? A person derives "expectations...based on what the Church claims to be," and yet you claim this is somehow irrelevant? Moreover, I have already provided you with copious specific examples, which you haven't addressed at all.

Face it, Wade: you are going to have to concede that the Church has been deceptive. I know that the Church is the most "precious and dear" thing in the world to you, but you can really help to make it even better once you get comfortable with accepting the full, honest truth.

[_wenglund]

So, of course you made the accusation. Now, let me ask a third time: "will you proceed to the next logical step and provide your most significant evidence in support of your accusation?" Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I still disagree that I've made an accusation in repeating my belief, but that's neither here nor there.

Fine, if you don't like the word "accusation", then we can use the word "belief". Essentially, though, your belief is accusatory in nature, but we don't need to quibble over that nit.

What dismays me is that you want me to prove the unprovable, whereas you steadfastly refuse to address the other side of the equation.

I am dismayed as well. I explicitly said that I wasn't looking for you to "prove the unprovable". So why you still think that is what I am doing, is....well, dismaying.

And, since the other side of the equation is irrelevant to answering the specific question of this thread (see below), I am dismayed that you would consider my efforts to keep the discussion ON TOPIC as somehow a "refusal to address the other side of the equation".

I believe there is sufficient evidence that the church has been less than truthful about itself, which I would consider lying, whether its Joseph Smith's proclaiming that he had translated papyri, when he hadn't; that he denied having sex with other women, not only to his wife but to the public at large; when he lied about being able to find buried treasure with his seer stones; when he told people like Nancy Rigdon that whatever he believed was right was indeed right; and most importantly, when he produced an anachronistic and plagiarized volume that he claimed was a translation of ancient scripture. All of these claims are demonstrably false and lead to a very reasonable conclusion that the church from the beginning has not been forthright about itself. If it had been, there would have been no need for the church to suppress embarrassing documents in the 1980s and lie to the police (including withholding evidence), nor would people like Lavina Anderson, Mike Quinn, and David Knowlton have been excommunicated for merely stating truisms about the church. There is and has been a long pattern of deception in the church.

But then, Wade, as you know this is simply what I see as probability. I add these things up and I see deception.

Okay. Let's look at your equation number-by-number and see if it reasonbaly adds up to "a long pattern of deception" sufficient to "believe" the Church is "a fraud", or whether it may reasonably be considered as a cognitive distortion. Could you please provide the evidence for your belief that: "Joseph Smith's proclaimed that he had translated papyri, when he hadn't", and then demonstrate how that evidence qualifies as a lie or deception.

If you would like to continue this discussion, I would like your "most significant evidence" that Joseph was being deliberately honest. I don't think we can have a profitable discussion of this if we only look at one side. (I know, it's one of those cognitive distortions again. I think I have a serious problem.)

Were this thread intended as a two-sided discussion about Joseph's honesty, then you may have a point. But, it isn't. The intent of this thread, as explained several times now, is to test the accusation or belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, was deceptive, and did not act in good faith. The purpose for testing this accusation or belief, is to vet what I believe to be cognitive distortions related therto. My purpose in vetting the cognitive distortions is because they have been suggested as the cause for hurt and anger and grief. Are you starting to get the picture now? Do you see now why it would be irrelevant and distracting and "unprofitable" to the intents and purposes of this thread to discuss my beliefs?

Now, I understand that many of you may be uncomfortable being scrutinized at all, let alone to the same degree that you have scrutinized the Church. But if you are going to publically accuse the Church (or state accusatory beliefs), and blame the Church (or fault, or suggest it is the cause, or however you wish to say it) for your hurt and anger and grief, then you ought to be prepared to have your public accusations and blames and so forth challenged.

Again, that is what this thread is about. There are ample threads scrutinizing the Church and the beliefs of its members. I am reserving this thread to challenge the emotional outcries, accusations, and blaming that has been directed towards my faith. Is that clear yet? (Hopefully it is so that you don't keep deflecting and derailing this thread.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how it relates. When the Church claims that it is "the Church of Jesus Christ," it carries with it certain responsibilities. What I mean is, when the Church claims such a thing, we have to expect that it is always acting in good faith, that it is always doing its very best to be honest and straightforward, and that it always---to the best of its abilities---does the right thing. I guess the bottom line is that the Church's claims do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, if the institution is to claim that it is God's Only True Church on Earth, it had better be prepared to back that up on every single last front.

In other words, you are confusing "what the Church claims to be" with "what expectations one may have based on what the Church claims to be". The issue of the thread has to do with the former, and not the latter.

Now that has been straightened out, could you post the most significant example that you can think of where you believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and note which of the connotations of the word "lie" you are using in that instance. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy smokes, Wade. Are you kidding me with this stuff? A person derives "expectations...based on what the Church claims to be," and yet you claim this is somehow irrelevant?

It is irrelevant to the specific question of this thread.

Moreover, I have already provided you with copious specific examples, which you haven't addressed at all.

You provided some general examples of where you believe the Church didn't meet your derived expectations, but you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of the claim that the Church has lied about what it claims to be. Again, the latter is the subject of the thread, not the former.

Now, if you wish to rephrase your previous post so that it speaks directly to the issue of the Chruch's claims about itself, then I will be fine with that. (I can see how that may be done, but I don't want to do your work for you.)

Face it, Wade: you are going to have to concede that the Church has been deceptive. I know that the Church is the most "precious and dear" thing in the world to you, but you can really help to make it even better once you get comfortable with accepting the full, honest truth.

I will concede, or at least grant as reasonable, whatever is reasonably demonstrated. I am still waiting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Okay, so you had this one connotation of "lie" in mind in this specific case. I am fine with that.

How does this relate to what has already been agreed to (by Runtu and Who Knows) in terms of what the Church claims to be--i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ (as generally described previously)? Or, are you going to differ with them as well on this premise? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how it relates. When the Church claims that it is "the Church of Jesus Christ," it carries with it certain responsibilities. What I mean is, when the Church claims such a thing, we have to expect that it is always acting in good faith, that it is always doing its very best to be honest and straightforward, and that it always---to the best of its abilities---does the right thing. I guess the bottom line is that the Church's claims do not exist in a vacuum. Thus, if the institution is to claim that it is God's Only True Church on Earth, it had better be prepared to back that up on every single last front.

In other words, you are confusing "what the Church claims to be" with "what expectations one may have based on what the Church claims to be". The issue of the thread has to do with the former, and not the latter.

Now that has been straightened out, could you post the most significant example that you can think of where you believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and note which of the connotations of the word "lie" you are using in that instance. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy smokes, Wade. Are you kidding me with this stuff? A person derives "expectations...based on what the Church claims to be," and yet you claim this is somehow irrelevant?

It is irrelevant to the specific question of this thread.

No, it's not. It is only irrelevant if you somehow think that "what the Church claims to be" is something that exists in a definitional vacuum. It doesn't, and so my point is relevant.

Moreover, I have already provided you with copious specific examples, which you haven't addressed at all.

You provided some general examples of where you believe the Church didn't meet your derived expectations, but you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of the claim that the Church has lied about what it claims to be. Again, the latter is the subject of the thread, not the former.

No. I've provided evidence that the Church has presented an inaccurate picture of its history, which very much falls within the nuanced parameters of the definition of "lie." No "derived expectations" here, Wade. Just the facts.

Now, if you wish to rephrase your previous post so that it speaks directly to the issue of the Chruch's claims about itself, then I will be fine with that. (I can see how that may be done, but I don't want to do your work for you.)

Who or what is "the Church", Wade? "The Church" is the people who are part of it, no? So, let me ask you this: What do members of the Church claim that it is?

Face it, Wade: you are going to have to concede that the Church has been deceptive. I know that the Church is the most "precious and dear" thing in the world to you, but you can really help to make it even better once you get comfortable with accepting the full, honest truth.

I will concede, or at least grant as reasonable, whatever is reasonably demonstrated. I am still waiting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[/quote]

Once again you are situating yourself in the utterly untenable position of claiming that the Church is infallible and/or perfect. You admitted on another thread that the Church isn't perfect. Isn't it therefore "reasonable" to assume that a part of this imperfection includes a bit of misrepresentation?

[_wenglund]

it is irrelevant to the specific question of this thread.

No, it's not. It is only irrelevant if you somehow think that "what the Church claims to be" is something that exists in a definitional vacuum. It doesn't, and so my point is relevant.

If we can't even agree on the foundational element of what is relevant or irrelevant to answering the question of this thread, then discussion between us on this issue has little or no chance of productivity. And, it appears that you and I have reached that impasse prior to moving into step 3 in the logical seqeunce of this discussion. I do appreciate, though, your participation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-