Church Leaders and the Presumption of Dishonesty

[kiwi57]

One of the interesting facets of conspiracy theories is their unfalsifiability. Every supposed conspiracy necessarily includes a cover-up. It is, of course, absurd to suppose that hundreds if not thousands of people colluded for decades to hide the fact that the moon landing was "really" filmed on a sound stage somewhere, and that none of them ever spilled the beans; but for every objection put forward against this far-fetched fantasy, there is an ad hoc explanation ready to hand. They were in fear of their lives, the sinister master-minds had some kind of hold over them, they would have been embarrassed if they'd fessed up. And so on, and so forth.

This phenomenon is not, however, limited to conspiracy theories. Rather, I suggest that conspiracy theories really just provide a kind of case study of the underlying issue, which is this: When we start from the assumption that someone is lying, it is impossible to disprove that assumption. That is because every piece of evidence against it, and every possible counter-argument, can be explained away by claiming that the accused liar is so fiendishly cunning, or else that they've orchestrated a massive cover-up of the "real" truth.

That is why the default position, when trying to discover whether someone is lying, is to begin with the presumption that they are telling the truth. Paradoxical as it may seem, this is really the only way to go. If we start with the presumption of honesty, then sooner or later any false assertions will become apparent. However, if we start with the presumption of dishonesty, nothing can ever count against it. The presumption of dishonesty is a way of stacking the deck against the accused.

As we saw in two recent threads, the presumption of dishonesty is, for some, the default position when approaching anything said by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. There were those who simply refused to even consider the possibility that their statements could be reasonably understood to mean something other than the presumed lie, and they fought tooth and nail against anyone who dared to suggest that they could be. (Oddly enough, some of those persisting with the accusation rather angrily insisted that it was the defenders of the Brethren who were on the "attack.")

There was an interesting case where the presumption of honesty proved to be the best possible way to uncover fraud. A few years back, on another forum, a rather prolific - and invariably anti-Mormon - poster claimed to be a serving LDS bishop. He also claimed to be personally acquainted with a certain BYU professor, and to have accompanied him on a trip to the Holy Land. He promised his cheer squad that he would provide all sorts of juicy details about the horrible behaviour of that professor on the trip.

In the event, the juicy details never eventuated, but the professor in question was intrigued by the claims, so he went back to one of the people who helped to put the tour together. Were there, he asked, any serving bishops among those who attended?

The answer was no. The person making the claim was lying.

But please note that only by starting from the presumption of honesty was the fraud exposed. The presumption of honesty is ultimately necessary if we want to get to the truth.

The presumption of dishonesty, by contrast, seems like the best way to frame an attack when the attacker doesn't want to get to the truth of the matter.

[The Nehor]

While I agree in general some people are so prolifically dishonest that assuming honesty is an act of naïveté.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

There was an interesting case where the presumption of honesty proved to be the best possible way to uncover fraud.

In some cases it's referred to as giving them enough rope...

[Exiled]

I have to agree that one cannot presume honesty and one shouldn't presume dishonesty as well. Maybe one should give others the benefit of the doubt but also verify their statements if the statements call for it.

Looking at how the 1832 account and its handling, taking the specific and deliberate action to cut it out and segregate it, then putting it back into the journal when discovered, seems questionable at best.

[kiwi57]

31 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I have to agree that one cannot presume honesty and one shouldn't presume dishonesty as well. Maybe one should give others the benefit of the doubt but also verify their statements if the statements call for it.

Looking at how the 1832 account and its handling, taking the specific and deliberate action to cut it out and segregate it, then putting it back into the journal when discovered, seems questionable at best.

Okay, so who excised the account in the first place? When? With whom was that action discussed? What reasons were given for it?

If you don't know, then you don't know, and that's okay; nobody expects you to know everything, but it also means that no conclusions are available to you. If you care enough about it to accuse someone of bad faith in dealing with it, then you assume the responsibility to get all the facts - not just the ones that suit you - before making that accusation. The presumption that the motives must have been dishonest is, well, a presumption of dishonesty.

The notion that it was removed in order to "hide" it fails upon a moment's consideration of the obvious fact that there was a far more reliable - and trivially easy - method of ensuring that no-one would ever read it, if that was what anyone really wanted to do; and that was to destroy it. That they didn't even try to do that is rather insuperable evidence against the conspiracy theory. (Except, of course, that conspiracy theories admit no evidence against them; see above.)

Of course it was put back only after it was "discovered;" it could hardly have been done before. A determination to find fault both with removing it and with putting it back looks rather like - a determination to find fault.

Are you perhaps under the impression that the account was the single solitary piece of paper in that particular repository?

Edited December 4, 2017 by kiwi57

[Exiled]

43 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Okay, so who excised the account in the first place? When? With whom was that action discussed? What reasons were given for it?

If you don't know, then you don't know, and that's okay; nobody expects you to know everything, but it also means that no conclusions are available to you. If you care enough about it to accuse someone of bad faith in dealing with it, then you assume the responsibility to get all the facts - not just the ones that suit you - before making that accusation. The presumption that the motives must have been dishonest is, well, a presumption of dishonesty.

The notion that it was removed in order to "hide" it fails upon a moment's consideration of the obvious fact that there was a far more reliable - and trivially easy - method of ensuring that no-one would ever read it, if that was what anyone really wanted to do; and that was to destroy it. That they didn't even try to do that is rather insuperable evidence against the conspiracy theory. (Except, of course, that conspiracy theories admit no evidence against them; see above.)

Of course it was put back only after it was "discovered;" it could hardly have been done before. A determination to find fault both with removing it and with putting it back looks rather like - a determination to find fault.

Are you perhaps under the impression that the account was the single solitary piece of paper in that particular repository?

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out. It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it. However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back. We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason). We know that access to it was restricted. We also know it contradicts the 1838 account which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out.

Seriously?

I invite you to reconsider that statement.

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it.

CFR, please.  Not the part about Joseph Field Smith being the possible excisor, but the rest of it.

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back.

But we don't know by whom, or why.  As Kiwi noted previously: "The presumption that the motives must have been dishonest is, well, a presumption of dishonesty."

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason).

What is the significance of the non-availability?

A few months ago I came across my 2006 tax returns.  They had been in a file drawer which my wife was cleaning out.  I hadn't looked at them "for years and years."  Neither had my wife.  And neither the IRS nor anyone else has asked to see them.  Are you therefore justified in accusing me of dishonesty?  Of "hiding" my tax returns "for years and years?"

Just trying to figure out your reasoning here.

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

We know that access to it was restricted. We also know it contradicts the 1838 account which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

No, it doesn't "contradict" the 1838 account.  I invite you to reconsider that statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kiwi57]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out. It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it.

Do you know that he had control over it at the time it was cut out?

Do you actually know when that was done?

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back. We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason).

There are millions of documents all over the world that have never been made public. Is it rational to assume that every single one of them must be being hidden "for some reason" or is it simply the way things are?

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

We know that access to it was restricted.

Yes, it's normal to restrict access to rare original documents.

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

We also know it contradicts the 1838 account

Do we? Is there a mouse in your pocket?

I've read it myself, very carefully. I don't know that.

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

Okay, so your argument seems to be that, while you don't know the facts, you're prepared to attribute motives, and draw your conclusions therefrom.

If ever I am that uncharitable to you, I hope you will be so kind as to let me know.

Whether or not such considerations might motivate you is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether someone else was motivated thereby. You need to actually provide some evidence before you can make such an accusation.

[kiwi57]

43 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out. It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it. However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back. We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason). We know that access to it was restricted. We also know it contradicts the 1838 account which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

Incidentally, Exiled, there is currently another thread that is dedicated specifically to the 1832 account. Perhaps you'd like to discuss this question there.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by kiwi57

[ttribe]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this thread given this particular poster's history of, apparently, presuming the nefarious intent of any and all with whom he disagrees?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this thread given this particular poster's history of, apparently, presuming the nefarious intent of any and all with whom he disagrees?

Kiwi and I have disagreed on a number of occasions.  As a moderator on ZLMB, I even suspended his participation on a few occasions.  I see no reason we won't continue to disagree in the future.  I don't believe he has ever assumed nefarious intent on my part.  

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Kiwi and I have disagreed on a number of occasions.  As a moderator on ZLMB, I even suspended his participation on a few occasions.  I see no reason we won't continue to disagree in the future.  I don't believe he has ever assumed nefarious intent on my part.  

Forgive me.  I used hyperbole when I stated "any and all..."

[kiwi57]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this thread given this particular poster's history of, apparently, presuming the nefarious intent of any and all with whom he disagrees?

You're not getting personal again, are you TT?

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You're not getting personal again, are you TT?

Yep. Sure am.

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Yep. Sure am.

So, would you care to make any substantive contribution to the thread, TT?

 

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So, would you care to make any substantive contribution to the thread, TT?

 

See, now, that's the interesting thing.  I think it's substantive to point out that the VERY THING you accuse some unnamed set of critics of doing, is the very thing you do with regularity.  You see, I can't think of the last time I saw you act in good faith when you entered into a debate with an alleged critic.  I think it's a very substantive thing that you regularly assume the ill intent of your enemies in your debates, and then accuse them of the very same thing in order to discredit them here.  I think your own behavior undermines your ability to accuse others of such deeds. 

And, I think it's rather funny.

Edited December 4, 2017 by ttribe

[Duncan]

correct me if I am wrong but the 1832 account was in private hands until they were given over to the Church archives in the 1960's or early 1970's. Pres. Smith was under no obligation to give it over to the Church. It's the same with any document in anyone's hands today, it would be nice for people to give the Church Archives what they have but they don't have to.Maybe some don't think what they have is of any historical value but keep it for family records. Ch ch check it out

 

[kiwi57]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

See, now, that's the interesting thing.  I think it's a substantive to point out that the VERY THING you accuse some unnamed set of critics of doing, is the very thing you do with regularity.  You see, I can't think of the last time I saw you act in good faith when you entered into a debate with an alleged critic.  I think it's a very substantive thing that you regularly assume the ill intent of your enemies in your debates, and then accuse them of the very same thing in order to discredit them here.  I think your own behavior undermines your ability to accuse others of such deeds. 

And, I think it's rather funny.

TT,

Please do not derail the thread. Feel free to discuss the content of the OP. Contrary to what some people assume, I'm not interested in this thread being about me.

A scan of your content shows that your last ten (10) posts have been personal remarks about me. That's what "history" shows.

Here's an opportunity to break the pattern.

Edited December 4, 2017 by kiwi57

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out. It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it. However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back. We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason). We know that access to it was restricted. We also know it contradicts the 1838 account which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

Sounds like a yokel conspired to prevent something bad -- but yokels is as yokels does.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it matters who actually cut it out. It was probably either JFS or someone under his direction as he had control over it. However, we know it was excised, we know it was put back. We also know it wasn't made public for years and years (for some reason). We know that access to it was restricted. We also know it contradicts the 1838 account which seems to be a motive for keeping it out of the public domain, from 1832 until it was released.

It appears to me that the church may have been embarrassed by it or something. I know after reading it in the thread kiwi started about it, it was hard to read with runon sentences. But oh how wonderful to get the real Joseph, and not someone's edited version. 

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It appears to me that the church may have been embarrassed by it or something. I know after reading it in the thread kiwi started about it, it was hard to read with runon sentences. But oh how wonderful to get the real Joseph, and not someone's edited version. 

Why do you think the church may have been embarrassed? 

[Tacenda]

Just now, Rain said:

Why do you think the church may have been embarrassed? 

I'm just guessing because the version used is so cleaned up. Why wouldn't the church use this handwritten gem?

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm just guessing because the version used is so cleaned up. Why wouldn't the church use this handwritten gem?

 I don't mean to be onery about this. I'm just trying to understand what I am missing. So you think that because the church uses a better written version that it means they are embarrassed by the other? Are you thinking you would be embarrassed by it and so the church may be embarrassed by it? I'm just not getting the connection.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

 I don't mean to be onery about this. I'm just trying to understand what I am missing. So you think that because the church uses a better written version that it means they are embarrassed by the other? Are you thinking you would be embarrassed by it and so the church may be embarrassed by it? I'm just not getting the connection.

Well I guess the BoM was run-on sentences until some editing, so I guess the FV can be edited the same way. I shouldn't have even used the word "embarrassed". I understand how the church needed to edit because it was a little dizzying to read without periods at the end of the sentences. Just wish the church had let it out and published it in our scriptures maybe alongside the edited. Because it is pretty special to read his exact words. And reading those words you get an idea of the person writing it. 

[Exiled]

Here is a link to an interesting Dialogue article on these issues by Stan Larsen: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V47N02_210.pdf

He quotes from the Joseph Smith Papers Project about the history of the 1832 account: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note