- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought the discussion on how some news sources handle false statements by Trump was interesting. The word “Lie” seems to be too strong…or perhaps too emotionally charged…or perhaps assumes intent. NRP Exec says They Won’t Call a “False Statement” by Donald Trump a “Lie”Is that too nit-picking on words…or do they have a point?
How does that apply to church statements?
I think it has direct application in the church. I’ve often heard it said, sometimes even on these forums, that our leaders lie or have lied. I am open to the idea that some of them might have, but for the most part I think they believe what they say just like many members believe. It doesn’t seem hard to convince ourselves something is true simply by repeating it enough times – just pay attention in F&TM. Whether or not our leaders lie or not isn’t really the point as long as we can individually come to an understanding of what is true and what isn’t. DarkJedi wrote:Whether or not our leaders lie or not isn’t really the point as long as we can individually come to an understanding of what is true and what isn’t.
I think so too. We can’t put the responsibility on them to be our source of truth. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t hold them accountable to truths. We can call things untruths if that is what we think. We can even debate untruths, which may help us get closer to truth or clarify past statements.
At some point, it is splitting hairs to call it an “untruth” or a “lie”…depends on what you’re getting at.
Either way…as you said DJ…the point is to individually come to understand truth, and look for facts that build a case for truth or untruth. To throw in “lie” is to throw in an emotionally charged term that sometimes is not useful.
The other day Kelly Ann Conway used the phrase “Alternative Facts.” To me that is a bit of a stretch but as I have watched life – political and religious, we each seem to collect our own set of facts. We cobble them together and that makes our truth. If our words sound like some one else’s or if they use a phrase that paints a truth in our mind we go along happily. But when “Alternate Facts” creep in the division occurs. I do believe people lie. I also believe that stuff like a religion is so fluid and shaped, that the shapers are working with a full set of facts I don’t even understand.
I also believe in the power of an apology or a statement that accepts responsibility of understanding. For instance if the church released the essays as a small book with a forward explaining that the present leadership has learned new things thanks to scholars and would like to share them with the church. No finger pointing, no accusation, just facts as they now appear. That works for me.
This is a fascinating write up today from Ben Park about “alternate facts” and the rise of Evangelicalism. What’s really discouraging is that so many Mormons have become Evangelical and/or fundamentalist in their understanding of the gospel. They reject science and “facts” in favor of authority fallacies and lazy research. They use “the world” as code for “facts I can’t deal with because they undermine my faith.” https://professorpark.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/trump_evangelicalism/ Steven Peck also posted on this topic today:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/01/25/why-science-transparency-matters/ Interesting, Hawkgrrrl, thanks for sharing. I have had this same thought about most active members being evangelical/fundamentalist or scribes and Pharisees. It really doesn’t matter what we call it. This is the same difficulty in translating revelation (or inspiration or whatever you want to call it) into words – there aren’t necessarily exact words and the same words mean different things to different people, even those who speak the same language. If I were to say “fundamentalist Mormon” in a church setting the thing that would come to most members’ minds will be the FLDS and polygamy and Short Creek, etc. However, in my own mind a fundamentalist is one who is strictly obedient and believes the Ensign is scripture and the Native Americans are Lamanites, etc. Those old school, likely hardline, LDS members would bristle at being called fundamentalists (or scribes and Pharisees). In that sense, a lie is still a lie even if we call it alternative facts, untruths, or couch it is “they believe….”. In the end it’s only our own perceptions that matter – our individual perceptions are our individual realities. Also in that sense, our leaders have absolutely lied if in no other way than by hiding facts (alternative or not) from the membership for so long (Kimball actually covers this idea as a sin of omission in MoF, but I can’t look it up because I no longer own that book).
There are alternative facts in the various accounts of the First Vision. For example, how many beings were there and who were they? Was Joseph lying in any of them? Some people believe he was lying in all of them.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a pile of horse crap by any other name would smell just as – well, crappy.
I blame the 14 Fundamentals, which is heresy if ever I heard it. As soon as we encoded the idea that the prophet can speak on subjects in which he has no expertise and still be the authority, we’ve opened the door WIDE OPEN to alternate facts, aka authority fallacy aka uneducated guesses by leaders that are somehow binding absent logic, evidence, or even any critical thinking skills. From that mindset, it’s not a big leap to say that education taints the “pure revelation process” by closing the mind with “worldly facts” or “liberal biases” (to use the term favored by political conservatives).
I’m not sure Trump technically lies, because I think he might not care at all about truth – but rather just say whatever will help him no matter whether it is true or false. I honestly am not sure his level of narcissism even deals with “true or false” at all. Yes, the 14 Fundamentals is a horrible foundation for seeking and discovering “objective truth”. Giving that much authority to any person to speak on anything is the best example of relying on the arm of flesh I can imagine – and it’s political manifestation is scarier to me than its religious one, except when the religious leader is violent by nature.
Heber13 wrote:I thought the discussion on how some news sources handle false statements by Trump was interesting. The word “Lie” seems to be too strong…or perhaps too emotionally charged…or perhaps assumes intent.
Yes, “lie” implies intent. A person may speak in error and not lie, a lie has the intent to deceive. I carefully avoid using “lie” because that word demonstrates my judgment of others regarding their intent. I don’t want to be caught judging. I can say they were misinformed or the facts will contradict their statement without accusing them of intending to deceive. …unless their intent has been clearly documented and there is good reason to expose it. A good enough reason to risk trading off a little of my credibility as I make the accusation.
As you can tell, the people that freely claim others “lie” will themselves lose a little credibility with me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.