Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_Mister Scratch]

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-

It's not that we can't agree, Wade; it's that you insist on treating "what the Church claims to be" as some kind of bizarre and abstract proposition that exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. "What the Church claims" carries over into multiple areas of life, belief, scholarship, history, and so forth. It's transparently obvious to everyone that you want to limit your "foundational elements" to the oversimplified, "The Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ," and to leave it at that. Never mind what goes into supporting that "foundational" claim---things such as the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood, the character of the founding prophet, etc., etc., etc. You want to sweep all that stuff aside, but why? Why not confront accept this stuff, Wade? What do you have to gain by ignoring the uglier parts of the Church?

[_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-

It's not that we can't agree, Wade; it's that you insist on treating "what the Church claims to be" as some kind of bizarre and abstract proposition that exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. "What the Church claims" carries over into multiple areas of life, belief, scholarship, history, and so forth. It's transparently obvious to everyone that you want to limit your "foundational elements" to the oversimplified, "The Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ," and to leave it at that. Never mind what goes into supporting that "foundational" claim---things such as the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood, the character of the founding prophet, etc., etc., etc. You want to sweep all that stuff aside, but why? Why not confront accept this stuff, Wade? What do you have to gain by ignoring the uglier parts of the Church?

Again, there is no point in arguing this between us. There isn't sufficient areas of fundamental agreement upon which to have a reasoned discussion. So, I will let you have that last word between us, and I will wait to see if there is yet sufficient basis to have a logical discussion with Runtu and Who Knows.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

It's not that we can't agree, Wade; it's that you insist on treating "what the Church claims to be" as some kind of bizarre and abstract proposition that exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. "What the Church claims" carries over into multiple areas of life, belief, scholarship, history, and so forth. It's transparently obvious to everyone that you want to limit your "foundational elements" to the oversimplified, "The Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ," and to leave it at that. Never mind what goes into supporting that "foundational" claim---things such as the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood, the character of the founding prophet, etc., etc., etc. You want to sweep all that stuff aside, but why? Why not confront accept this stuff, Wade? What do you have to gain by ignoring the uglier parts of the Church?

Again, there is no point in arguing this between us. There isn't sufficient areas of fundamental agreement upon which to have a reasoned discussion. So, I will let you have that last word between us, and I will wait to see if there is yet sufficient basis to have a logical discussion with Runtu and Who Knows.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why can't you agree that "what the Church claims to be" doesn't exist in a vacuum? Because that would entail argumentative defeat for you? Very well, then: I win again.

[_Runtu]

Wade,

Before I engage in this conversation, I'd like to ask some questions to set up expectations:

1. What do you consider reasonable evidence of a "lie"?

2. What do you consider reasonable evidence that someone is being truthful?

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

4. If so, how does one determine whether one or both or neither is suffering some sort of cognitive distortion?

Thanks,

John

[_Who Knows]

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.

There were no ancient gold plates. They lied. What more do you want?

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).

I'm using my rule. It's called a bullsh!t detector. But feel free to call it what you want. Though I must say, I have more faith in it than your emotional 'witness' that you use to judge the 'truthfulness' of the church.

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

You're not even making sense. What would I even be lying about?

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.

And you are the judge of whether I'm being 'fair and reasonable'? Gimme a break.

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.

It's very on topic. It deals with how you determine whether someone is lying or not. What would it take for you to be able to judge whether i'm lying or not?

Feel free to ask me any question you like about my invisible dragon. I'll tell you whatever you want so that you can 'have a sufficient basis to determine whether I'm lying or not'.

[_Who Knows]

And lets make this simple.

I'm assuming you believe Joseph Smith was telling the truth - you believe that Joseph Smith had ancient gold plates.

Well, I believe the opposite of that. Is your belief that he was telling the truth, any different (better) than my belief that he was not telling the truth? If so, I'd like to know why.

[_wenglund]

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.

There were no ancient gold plates. They lied. What more do you want?

I asked for evidence. Simply restating your accusation doesn't qualify.

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).

I'm using my rule. It's called a bullsh!t detector. But feel free to call it what you want. Though I must say, I have more faith in it than your emotional 'witness' that you use to judge the 'truthfulness' of the church.

I don't really care what it is called, just as long as you explain what that general "rule" supposedly is and how it applies in the case in question.

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

You're not even making sense. What would I even be lying about?

I am using your "reasoning", so if I am not making sense, then you have your "reasoning" to thank for that. (By the way, I agree that your "reasoning" doesn't make sense. In other words, it is a cognitive distortion. I am glad to see that you are begining to recognize it as such) As for what you may supposedly be lying about, see my previous posts where I explicitly identify them.

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.

And you are the judge of whether I'm being 'fair and reasonable'? Gimme a break.

No. I will "give you a break" and let you be the judge of that. What I am doing is vetting your case to see if it is something you believe would be fair and reasonable in general--like when applied to you.

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.

It's very on topic. It deals with how you determine whether someone is lying or not. What would it take for you to be able to judge whether i'm lying or not?

Were I the one leveling the accusation of lying, then you may have a point. I am not, and so you don't.

But, in answer to your irrelevant question, it would take sufficient and reasonable evidence that you believe you don't have an invisible dragon.

Feel free to ask me any question you like about my invisible dragon. I'll tell you whatever you want so that you can 'have a sufficient basis to determine whether I'm lying or not'.

Do you believe you don't have an invisible dragon?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I asked for evidence. Simply restating your accusation doesn't qualify.

You asked for evidence that the church was lying. The fact that there were no gold plates is the evidence that they were lying. The fact that they were lying is the accusation.

I don't really care what it is called, just as long as you explain what that general "rule" supposedly is and how it applies in the case in question.

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

Again, what are you accusing me of lying about. That's what doesn't make sense.

I am using your "reasoning", so if I am not making sense, then you have your "reasoning" to thank for that. (By the way, I agree that your "reasoning" doesn't make sense. In other words, it is a cognitive distortion. I am glad to see that you are begining to recognize it as such) As for what you may supposedly be lying about, see my previous posts where I explicitly identify them.

I am not beginning to recognize my reasoning as a cognitive distortion. Your belief that I am is a cognitive distortion. Take that.

And please, again, tell me what I'm lying about. I must have missed it - sorry.

No. I will "give you a break" and let you be the judge of that. What I am doing is vetting your case to see if it is something you believe would be fair and reasonable in general--like when applied to you.

Yes, if I claim something, and you go through what I've gone through in studying things out, and you come to the conclusion that I'm lying about my claim, that's completely 100% fair and reasonable. I guess you think that's not fair and reasonable?

Were I the one leveling the accusation of lying, then you may have a point. I am not, and so you don't.

But, in answer to your irrelevant question, it would take sufficient and reasonable evidence that you believe you don't have an invisible dragon.

So using your logic, the only way to tell if someone is lying about something is if there is evidence that they don't believe what they're claiming? That's ridiculous.

RayA and I had a good thread about this last week. Go read that so I don't have to repeat myself. But in short, Joseph Smith was either lying or completely delusional/schizophrenic. I think I can eliminate the latter (through my various studies of him), which leaves me with the fact that he was lying. (he claimed to have tangible/actual/real gold plates - if he didn't have them - as i believe - then he was either lying or delusional/schizophrenic).

Do you believe you don't have an invisible dragon?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I told you - I believe I have an invisible dragon.

Any other questions? Am I lying?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Before I engage in this conversation, I'd like to ask some questions to set up expectations:

These are questions that I would hope you would answer as well.

1. What do you consider reasonable evidence of a "lie"?

As a rule of thumb, the way that I tend to determine whether the evidence is reasonable or not, is to apply the principles of jurisprudence (i.e. "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and to also ask myself: "would I think it reasonable were I the one being accused of the lie".

What is your answer to this question?

2. What do you consider reasonable evidence that someone is being truthful?

I am not sure this is relevant to determining whether one is lying or not, because one may not be considered by some as truthful (i.e. one may say things that others may believe are not true) and yet not necessarily be lying. One may be mistaken, misinformed, deceived themselves, differ in opinion, or even deluded about "the truth", and not be lying when proclaim it. The same applies in reverse--i.e. those how view the other party as untruthful, may, themselves, be mistaken, misinformed, decieved, etc., and the person they mistakenly view as untruthful may thus not be lying. This is the important middle ground that I wonder if you and others have considered in your "belief" that the Church has lied about what it claims to be.

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

It is possible, but I believe it less likely. I think it far more likely that they will agree, than not. To me, there seems to be an innate sense of fairness in all of us that, when applied in judgements such as this, tend to yield, on average, relatively similar results in judgement.

4. If so, how does one determine whether one or both or neither is suffering some sort of cognitive distortion?

This question becomes pertinent when there are extreme and unwanted and dysfunctional emotions, moods, attitudes, and prejudices involved. The very existence of the emotions, moods, etc. may, itself, be indication where the cognitive distortions lay. For examples of what I mean by this, please see the thread: "Cognitive Distortions for Wade, Loran, and others".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Draig Goch]

3. Can reasonable people disagree in their conclusions of the same evidence?

It is possible, but I believe it less likely. I think it far more likely that they will agree, than not. To me, there seems to be an innate sense of fairness in all of us that, when applied in judgements such as this, tend to yield, on average, relatively similar results in judgement.


Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy ^&(*&&(!

You have GOT to be kidding Wade!!!

Take the mass extinction of the dinosaurs for example.

How many theories are there based on the SAME evidence??!!!

Hooo boy Wade. Your credibility spiraled the bowl a few times before taking the u-bend.

Sorry pal, the rest of the scientific world would not hold your assumption to be anything but, well... #2!