Applied mormonism: Let's be honest

[Jeff K.]

Let us assume that this life is an open book test. We have the books and we know how to obtain the knowledge, and we know what is required of us. Now each of us has a choice as to which textbook we bring. Some of us bring the appropriate textbook, and that textbook allows us to pass the tests with flying colors. Others choose different textbooks by which to answer the questions, and are therefore left to different conclusions. And then there are those who use comic books. The content is light and requires very little effort to read and understand. Unfortunately not much is gleaned from those comic books.

In the same token, we are all free to achieve or strive for inspiration from some source or another. We are equally yoked with the responsibility. Where we turn to does not mean we are cheating, only that our source material may be better than the source material another has chosen.

[LeSellers]

Let's be honest. It has been my experience that when someone uses that phrase they usually have no intention of being so.

Not to mention the not-so-subtle implication that everyone else is being dishonest.

I nearly reported this topic on those grounds.

Lehi

[semlogo]

Not to mention the not-so-subtle implication that everyone else is being dishonest.

I nearly reported this topic on those grounds.

Lehi

Seriously?

[LeSellers]

Seriously?

Absolutely, although you'll note I did not report it (even though you have only my word on it).

We are not supposed to belittle others here. We are not supposed to call each other liars, as "let's be honest" clearly implies.

Lehi

[semlogo]

Absolutely, although you'll note I did not report it (even though you have only my word on it).

We are not supposed to belittle others here. We are not supposed to call each other liars, as "let's be honest" clearly implies.

Lehi

I think that's quite a logical stretch.

[LeSellers]

I think ["let's be honest" clearly implies that others are liars] quite a logical stretch.

Christ said it this way: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

Not to mention the not-so-subtle implication that everyone else is being dishonest.

I nearly reported this topic on those grounds.

Lehi

Are you kidding? The title "Let's be honest" is just a play on words, meant to catch attention.

I posed the scenario because it came up in church, and I asked the questions because I think they are interesting and discussion-worthy.

Now, everyone, I want to make it clear, because this comes up time and time again - there is a difference between implying something and inferring something. You can look it up. In either case, it's important to show how you came up with the implication or the inference. That is, lay out your facts! Don't be sloppy. It's not enough to just state that someone implied X, you need to state that someone implied X because Y. By the way, it's easier to support an inference. Most of the time, when you say that someone else implied X, what you really mean is that you, yourself, inferred X from what was said.

Just a little helpful hint for all of you who tend to state that I imply things and then never meet any burden of proof.

H.

[LeSellers]

Are you kidding? The title "Let's be honest" is just a play on words, meant to catch attention.

"A play on words" is a pun or a joke. To say we need to be honest, as if we are not honest in general, is no play on words.

Yet words mean things. In this case, they mean, absent your admonition to be honest, we'd be other than honest. If not, why bother adding the clause in the first place?

As for catching attention, it got mine.

I posed the scenario because it came up in church, and I asked the questions because I think they are interesting and discussion-worthy.

Yet your words imply that we would be dishonest unless you challenge us to be honest.

Now, everyone, I want to make it clear, because this comes up time and time again - there is a difference between implying something and inferring something.

Indeed, there is. The person making a statement implies, the person reading or hearing it infers. That's the difference, which you seem not to grasp.

I inferred that you meant we were not generally honest because you wrote "Let's be honest". Had you not written that, I would not have inferred anything of the sort.

You can look it up.

I make a living using words. I know the definitions of these two.

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.

2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.

3. to guess; speculate; surmise.

4. to hint; imply; suggest.

1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.

2. (of words) to signify or mean.

3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.

4. Obsolete . to enfold.

Your words implied you believe us liars.

In either case, it's important to show how you came up with the implication or the inference. That is, lay out your facts! Don't be sloppy. It's not enough to just state that someone implied X, you need to state that someone implied X because Y. By the way, it's easier to support an inference. Most of the time, when you say that someone else implied X, what you really mean is that you, yourself, inferred X from what was said.

When someone implies a thing, it is usually because he does not desire to state it outright. Therefor, it is not often one admits to his implication.

I did infer your meaning, based on the meaning of the clause you wrote.

What else should one infer, given the words your chose, and the general tenor of the topic?

Just a little helpful hint for all of you who tend to state that I imply things and then never meet any burden of proof.

Burden of proof? I say you implied that we are ordinarily liars based on the meaning of your words and the context. Like it or not, my inference is not some will-o'-the-wisp, it is a direct conclusion derived from the words you chose to employ in your title for this topic. It's the same as when my mother-in-law used to say, "I don't believe it!" when anyone would say something unexpected. She implied (without knowing it, by the way) that the person she'd heard it from was lying. It was an implication one could infer without deep reflection on the issue, just as your statement is. She decided, when I pointed it out, that she had been calling people liars, and has not used the sentence since, unless she meant what it really means.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

I make a living using words. I know the definitions of these two.

Your words implied you believe us liars.

Nope. You are completely wrong. And since you claim that you make a living with words, I'd expect a higher standard of understanding. The purpose of the post was to explore the difference between using God to pass a test vs. using another means. I framed the question the same way that the faithful, LDS sister framed her message: it was dishonest to use a prescription drug to pass a test, but it was perfectly honest to use God's intervention to pass the same test. Those were her words, not mine. When I pondered her message, I couldn't figure out why one was more honest than the other, when I really started to think about it. "Let's be honest" was a cute way of summing up the post.

I notice that no one objected to the "To Tithe or Not To Tithe" title of another Applied Mormonism thread I started. That was similar play on words, patterned after Hamlet's query, meant to be a cute summary. I wasn't implying that nobody pays an honest tithe, or that paying tithing was the wrong thing to do, or any other such thing.

I suppose it would have made logical sense to compare the titles of both Applied Mormon threads, seen that I was being playful, and made a proper conclusion. Instead, you chose to make an incorrect conclusion. I've been accused of 'straining at gnats', but the conclusion you make is a real example of such behaviour.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Burden of proof? I say you implied that we are ordinarily liars based on the meaning of your words and the context. Like it or not, my inference is not some will-o'-the-wisp, it is a direct conclusion derived from the words you chose to employ in your title for this topic. It's the same as when my mother-in-law used to say, "I don't believe it!" when anyone would say something unexpected. She implied (without knowing it, by the way) that the person she'd heard it from was lying. It was an implication one could infer without deep reflection on the issue, just as your statement is. She decided, when I pointed it out, that she had been calling people liars, and has not used the sentence since, unless she meant what it really means.

Well, I suppose since you say I implied something, then I must have implied it. As a professional writer, you should know better, Lehi, than to beg the question.

And thank heavens your mother-in-law has you around to nit-pick her use of colloquial English. "I don't believe it!" doesn't mean she literally did not believe what a person was saying. Sometimes its used as social grease, a way to express astonishment, a way to say, "That's incredible", or "Tell me more".

But, thanks for sharing this story, because now I understand why it was so easy for you to misinterpret what I'd written.

H.

[LeSellers]

Nope. You are completely wrong. And since you claim that you make a living with words, I'd expect a higher standard of understanding.

The originator of any conversation is responsible for the understanding (or lack of it). He is the one choosing the words, and he is the one who must make his meaning clear.

The purpose of the post was to explore the difference between using God to pass a test vs. using another means. I framed the question the same way that the faithful, LDS sister framed her message: it was dishonest to use a prescription drug to pass a test, but it was perfectly honest to use God's intervention to pass the same test. Those were her words, not mine. When I pondered her message, I couldn't figure out why one was more honest than the other, when I really started to think about it. "Let's be honest" was a cute way of summing up the post.

Cute, perhaps, but obviously confusing.

In any case, if you honestly believe, as you said you do, that prayer is equivalent to taking drugs, then the issue may change, but the implications are just as problematic.

I notice that no one objected to the "To Tithe or Not To Tithe" title of another Applied Mormonism thread I started. That was similar play on words, patterned after Hamlet's query, meant to be a cute summary. I wasn't implying that nobody pays an honest tithe, or that paying tithing was the wrong thing to do, or any other such thing.

The Hamlet allusion was obvious and raised no ethical issues.

you chose to make an incorrect conclusion.

Incorrect, perhaps, in light of your late coming explanation, but not unfounded.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Does one who believes people here are generally honest feel the need to post a request that we be honest? Or is it merely a trite saying seeking some level closeness, as if we are perhaps veiled in our answers to begin with?

Is it important to be clear when speaking? Is there a sense of honesty that does not require us to ask it of the group? Should we take posts seriously enough to question the implication of what is written?

What do we do when someone says or implies something they do not mean? Do we show them that they probably don't mean the implication or do we assume naturally they aren't very good at posts and therefore should be given leeway as second language english learners? But then how will they learn until they understand what they are writing?

[LDSToronto]

Incorrect, perhaps, in light of your late coming explanation, but not unfounded.

Late coming, perhaps, because no one prior required an explanation.

H.

[LDSToronto]

In any case, if you honestly believe, as you said you do, that prayer is equivalent to taking drugs, then the issue may change, but the implications are just as problematic.

As a professional who relies on words for a living, I would expect that you could tell the difference between what you have said (see above) and what I actually said as the conversation progressed:

"While the scriptures do point to the fact that God can and will intervene in some cases, it seems like a dishonest ploy to have god whisper answers in your mind, or alter your physical ability, to give you an advantage over others who would not have prayed." - LDSToronto

and

"It would seem to me that you are claiming these students are either 1) lying or 2) misguided. Either is an outcome I could accept - I really don't believe that God tells anyone the answers to a test anymore than I believe he finds car keys and wallets upon request." - LDSToronto

H.

[Jeff K.]

As a professional who relies on words for a living, I would expect that you could tell the difference between what you have said (see above) and what I actually said as the conversation progressed:

Why do people who aren't professionals presume that those who are, must be defined by the unprofessional?!?!?!

[LDSToronto]

Why do people who aren't professionals presume that those who are, must be defined by the unprofessional?!?!?!

By stating that he made a living using words, Lehi places himself above the rank amateur. Introducing his vocation and treating it as germane to the discussion, Lehi introduces it into the field of play. Thus it is fair to question some of Lehi's claims, and posit that, though he may be a professional wordsmith, his use of language suggests someone who may not be as skilled as his original claim suggests.

H.

[Jeff K.]

And yet you find it difficult to receive instruction from a professional correcting the manner in which you present your position?

Rather than seeking to justify yourself before him, why not take it as correct that when you state "lets be honest" you are in fact implying that such is not usually the case?

[CA Steve]

The originator of any conversation is responsible for the understanding (or lack of it). He is the one choosing the words, and he is the one who must make his meaning clear.

Lehi

Some how that defense never seems to hold when certain apostles are misunderstood at GC.

[Jeff K.]

Since apostles haven't posted here (to my knowledge) I would say it is inaccurate to place upon them the burden from whence they cannot reply.

[CA Steve]

Since apostles haven't posted here (to my knowledge) I would say it is inaccurate to place upon them the burden from whence they cannot reply.

So Lehi's remark only applies to those that post here? Got it. I must of misunderstood him then, but I suppose that is his fault.

[LDSToronto]

And yet you find it difficult to receive instruction from a professional correcting the manner in which you present your position?

Rather than seeking to justify yourself before him, why not take it as correct that when you state "lets be honest" you are in fact implying that such is not usually the case?

Good advice, Jeff. And as a professional, may I offer you some advice, that you will have to accept and implement based on the fact that I am a professional?

H.

[Pahoran]

"A play on words" is a pun or a joke. To say we need to be honest, as if we are not honest in general, is no play on words.

Lehi,

In fairness to the cultural Mormon from Ontario, it is possible to read the subtitle as a reference to LDS teaching rather than a veiled accusation. That's how I read it when first I saw it. If he had started a further series of threads called "Applied Mormonism" and with the subtitles, "Let's be true," "Let's be chaste," "Let's be benevolent" and "Let's be virtuous," the "Let's be honest" subtitle wouldn't be quite so jarring, would it?

Burden of proof? I say you implied that we are ordinarily liars based on the meaning of your words and the context. Like it or not, my inference is not some will-o'-the-wisp, it is a direct conclusion derived from the words you chose to employ in your title for this topic. It's the same as when my mother-in-law used to say, "I don't believe it!" when anyone would say something unexpected. She implied (without knowing it, by the way) that the person she'd heard it from was lying. It was an implication one could infer without deep reflection on the issue, just as your statement is. She decided, when I pointed it out, that she had been calling people liars, and has not used the sentence since, unless she meant what it really means.

I think the question of "burden of proof" when it comes to implications is a red herring. Since the first meaning of "imply" is "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated," it follows that an implication is always more or less deniable. Thus, in the "Public education" thread, when Tarski referenced your well-known distaste for taxpayer-funded schools, and attributed that view to "some people," he didn't actually say that he was taking a potshot at you, although the implication was pretty clear.

The other side of that is that implications are not always intentional. If Toronto says that he didn't intend to imply that we were dishonest, then I suggest that we take him at his word, unless there are good reasons not to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

In fairness to the cultural Mormon from Ontario, it is possible to read the subtitle as a reference to LDS teaching rather than a veiled accusation. That's how I read it when first I saw it.

I could be more sensitive to this sort of thing. We often see here, and elsewhere, thinly veiled attacks using this kind of verbiage.

If he had started a further series of threads called "Applied Mormonism" and with the subtitles, "Let's be true," "Let's be chaste," "Let's be benevolent" and "Let's be virtuous," the "Let's be honest" subtitle wouldn't be quite so jarring, would it?

I think the question of "burden of proof" when it comes to implications is a red herring. Since the first meaning of "imply" is "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated," it follows that an implication is always more or less deniable.

Well, that's one implication.

The other side of that is that implications are not always intentional. If Toronto says that he didn't intend to imply that we were dishonest, then I suggest that we take him at his word, unless there are good reasons not to.

I do.

I'm sure you recall that I did not report the topic. Further, this part of the discussion is not so much about the implication of the words he chose, but whether he meant it as I inferred from his wording.

I have no problem with that. It would be admirable were he (and all of us) to chose our words more carefully.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Some how that defense never seems to hold when certain apostles are misunderstood at GC.

That may have something to do with the fact that the misunderstanding so frequently seems to fall along ideological lines. That is to say, that those who misunderstand something an apostle said are usually those who seem disposed to disagree with whatever he might say anyway, while those who are not inclined to criticse are more likely to understand correctly.

Put another way: it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that his words express his meaning, not to make sure that they cannot be wilfully misconstrued.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CA Steve]

That may have something to do with the fact that the misunderstanding so frequently seems to fall along ideological lines. That is to say, that those who misunderstand something an apostle said are usually those who seem disposed to disagree with whatever he might say anyway, while those who are not inclined to criticse are more likely to understand correctly.

Put another way: it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that his words express his meaning, not to make sure that they cannot be wilfully misconstrued.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly.