"Faith" and "Lying for the Lord."

[deacon blues]

Ever since 2010, when I first read on the internet about the Kinderhook plates, I've notice the connection between "faith" and "lying for the Lord." I've seen countless situations where the person/witness proclaiming their Faith (perhaps ignorantly) realized that there wasn't as much evidence as they would like, and so they enhanced their faith accounts with half truths- censorship (some truths aren't useful), "faith-promoting rumors," "carefully- worded denials", "conditional prophecies," and deceptive "I/we don't (or didn't) knows." There are more categories: vague terminology- examples: the meaning of "translate," seer stones= urim and thummim, or prophet- speaks for God but also as a man, and special pleading or cherry picking. What happens is the best explanation doesn't support the faithful world view, so the faithful world view gets enhanced.

This also happens with critics. Examples: the Spaulding theory, BOM- "Jesus born at Jerusalem," or parts of "The Godmakers" come to mind. If I was an apologist I'd probably have many more examples.

I think we all, critics and apologists, can recognize this. My question is can we recognize where we are on the spectrum of 1-10: 1- being a extreme critic and 10 being an extreme apologist.

A 1-2(critic) or a 9-10 (apologist) might recognize a lack of knowledge in their audience and exploit that to their advantage. Such a person would not share information that would support their opponents view. In a court of law this would be illegal- withholding of evidence. A 4-5-6 would have the freedom from bias to understand and even articulate their opponents position. They would have the insight and ability to actually educate across the boundaries.

It would also be important and helpful to recognize where on the spectrum other people fit. for example: an Ed Decker (The Godmakers) might be a 1-2. On the other hand a Boyd Packer (Some truths aren't useful) might be a 9-10. This could keep us from giving credence to bad information or logical fallacies on either side of the debate. For myself, I would like to be found in the 4-5-6 category.

[Hagoth]

I suspect that a true 5 is is about as hard to spot as Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. Also, some of might be 5-ish on some topics but 2-ish or 7-ish on others.

[2bizE]

I once crossed a chupacabra in Mexico. Its paw print was very large, but not as big as the enormous human looking track next to it, which was near the image of the virgin of Guadalupe discovered on the steel roof of a building.

[deacon blues]

I'm thinking of estimating the spectrum number of certain people. Think of it like a Ph (Acid) test. President Hinckley- 9.5, Hugh B. Brown 6, Richard Bushman 6.5, Joseph Fielding Smith 10.

Critics: Sandra Tanner 3, Ed Decker 1.5, Bill Reel 3.5, John Dehlin 4.5.

[moksha]

I once crossed a chupacabra in Mexico. Its paw print was very large, but not as big as the enormous human looking track next to it, which was near the image of the virgin of Guadalupe discovered on the steel roof of a building.

If the Hulk was chasing the chupacabra, let's hope he was working for the Virgin of Guadalupe rather than the Sinaloa Cartel or the Iglesia LDS, Inc.

[iwanttotalk]

From each according to their ability from each according to their needs.

Governance cannot exist without lies. In renderint an organization honest you would also render it obsolete

[Hagoth]

From each according to their ability from each according to their needs.

Governance cannot exist without lies. In renderint an organization honest you would also render it obsolete

So the question is how honest and obsolete, vs dishonest and current, should we expect an organization to be if Jesus Christ is actually calling the shots, compared to one that is merely using his name in vain?

[iwanttotalk]

From each according to their ability from each according to their needs.

Governance cannot exist without lies. In renderint an organization honest you would also render it obsolete

So the question is how honest and obsolete, vs dishonest and current, should we expect an organization to be if Jesus Christ is actually calling the shots, compared to one that is merely using his name in vain?

You should ask yourself why you believe absolute honesty and forthrightness is a virtue. Not even christ told the truth

[deacon blues]

From each according to their ability from each according to their needs.

Governance cannot exist without lies. In renderint an organization honest you would also render it obsolete

So the question is how honest and obsolete, vs dishonest and current, should we expect an organization to be if Jesus Christ is actually calling the shots, compared to one that is merely using his name in vain?

You should ask yourself why you believe absolute honesty and forthrightness is a virtue. Not even christ told the truth

When I ask myself why I believe absolute honesty and forthrightness is a virtue, I hear myself say, "because productive, loving relationships are based on trust." But when you say absolute are you talking about not saying things like: "that dress makes you look fat" which sounds harsh and careless? As Emily Dickinson said, "Tell the truth but tell it slant."

Jesus might have spoken a few of carefully worded denials. (John 7:8) (Mark 1:43-44) My opinion is what we know about what Jesus said is at least partly questionable. The gospel writers quote him, but they were likely quoting from memory, but I could be wrong. I'm curious about your statement "Not even Christ told the truth. Could you clarify it? When reading the gospels it's good to remember the writers were trying to build the faith of the readers. Which takes us back to the topic of the first post.

[Hagoth]

You should ask yourself why you believe absolute honesty and forthrightness is a virtue. Not even christ told the truth

Sorry, iwanttotalk, I seem to be having a difficult time explaining myself. I'm not talking about any kind of absolute moral values, or my personal definitions of honesty and forthrightness. My point is that it is the church that demands honesty and forthrightness as virtues. Its lesson manuals and conference talks are full of examples. It requires a declaration of honesty in dealings with your fellow men as a minimum requirement to partake in essential saving ordinances. Universal objective morality is not the issue. Hypocrisy is. I don't understand why you find my disappointment with this behavior so objectionable; like you, I'm just expressing my opinion.

As far as whether or not Christ told the truth, I don't think we can confirm that until we have the original records of his contemporary stenographer

[Jeffret]

Not even christ told the truth

Can an imaginary character tell the truth?

[Jeffret]

Not even christ told the truth

Can an imaginary character tell the truth?

(Actually I think the best evidence is that there was some real person that the stories were based on, though that's far from certain. The question still stands, though. I think an imaginary character is quite capable of telling the truth. But the character could be an unreliable narrator. And so could the scribe.)

[wtfluff]

The gospel writers quote him, but they were likely quoting from memory, but I could be wrong.

Most biblical scholars would likely tell you that the gospel writers were not quoting Jesus, as they did not know Jesus personally.

P.S. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.

[iwanttotalk]

You should ask yourself why you believe absolute honesty and forthrightness is a virtue. Not even christ told the truth

Sorry, iwanttotalk, I seem to be having a difficult time explaining myself. I'm not talking about any kind of absolute moral values, or my personal definitions of honesty and forthrightness. My point is that it is the church that demands honesty and forthrightness as virtues. Its lesson manuals and conference talks are full of examples. It requires a declaration of honesty in dealings with your fellow men as a minimum requirement to partake in essential saving ordinances. Universal objective morality is not the issue. Hypocrisy is. I don't understand why you find my disappointment with this behavior so objectionable; like you, I'm just expressing my opinion.

As far as whether or not Christ told the truth, I don't think we can confirm that until we have the original records of his contemporary stenographer

Im just being pedantic. I owe you an apology. Your comments seemed to trigger a response because of their duality.

And i shouldnt do it. Literalize a figurative argument and mock it. Its a type of common sophistry which is used to make weak arguments strong.

I understand your point is hypocrisy then highlight the lesser component of your argument and attack it, therby circumventing the stronger implied argument.

Its a bad habit and i apologize hagoth. You seem like a genuine guy and dont deserve the antagonism

[moksha]

Governance cannot exist without lies.

Hey, you're pretty good at apologetics, but it might be wise to call them fibs.