Lexical Duplicity and Trust in Communication

[kiwi57]

All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.

If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."

None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.

This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?

To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.

If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."

None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.

This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?

To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.

This is why when we testify in our US courts of law we are required to make an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is why when we testify in our US courts of law we are required to make an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” 

Another legal concept that may be of use here is the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, described here:

Quote

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties. When a court or trier or fact interprets a contract, there is always an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in every written agreement.

I think there is a similar implied understanding that exists in the TR interview process.  That is, the interviewee should not resort to - as Kiwi aptly describes it - "lexical duplicity" in order to justify or rationalize "a technical excuse for breaching the contract," or else to use "specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances between the parties."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 21, 2018 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.

If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."

None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.

This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?

To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.

Uh oh.

Big words.  I suppose "lying" won't do, huh?

But where is there an objective standard whereby we can measure if "lexical duplicity" logically = "lying" and what constitutes a lie within that context?

Different strokes for different folks I suppose on which we get to choose.  What is a "full tithe payer"?   What is one's "increase"?  Does that include social security since that is "already money I paid into the system?"   What about taxes on wars one is opposed to ?  Should one tithe on funds one has no choice to choose to pay?  Is a war one opposes included in one's "increase" so in addition to the money being removed from one's estate involuntarily ("stolen"? ) one should pay tithing as if the money was NOT "removed involuntarily" from one's "increase"

So how does "lexical duplicity" work in these cases?

If one questions these things or pays tithing on one's net - as determined by the payer alone, is that "honest" or does it violate that provision of the recommend interview as well?

How often can one have family arguments and still be worthy?   Never?

If one gives a second glance to a sexy billboard does that violate the law of chastity?   How about sexual "self stimulation" (since the m-word is evil hereabouts )?   Are there any bounds at all within marriage which one can violate sexually?

I think this is a nice thought and reminder that we should do a lot of self-examination before a temple recommend interview.  Thanks for that!

And I cannot stand JD.

But as a practical problem for public consideration and who is the judge and who draws the lines, honestly I think it is not really something anyone but the individual can decide where there are no objective standards for any of this.   There are no answers anyone else can give you in these areas of self-examination.  So in issues like this, though I detest Mr Dehlin, I think it is clearly a case that if one lies, that is on the individual.

But man, I would not want to face my maker with that on my conscience for him to see instantly. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Another legal concept that may be of use here is the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, described here:

I think there is a similar implied understanding that exists in the TR interview process.  That is, the interviewee should not resort to - as Kiwi aptly describes it - "lexical duplicity" in "a technical excuse for breaching the contract," or else "uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances between the parties."

Thanks,

-Smac

Excellent post. I concur 100%. The way I see it, in a TR interview a bishop or stake president should be made aware of what the true state of a member’s testimony might be. For instance, if the individual being interviewed believes the Book of Mormon isn’t historical but thinks it’s still spiritually beneficial as a work of fiction, the leaders should be made aware of it. Or if a member can say they sustain the leaders of the Church because they feel it’s their obligation to do so, but they also simultaneously harbor a lot of resentment toward the leaders because of their stances on certain controversial issues, this should come out into the open as well. All possible care should be taken to avoid even the very beginnings of ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing syndrome.’ 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?

Short answer: we aren't.

I don't think you are wrong to harbour suspicions once someone has publicly endorsed Dr Dehlin's Patent Remedy for Tricky Temple Recommend Interviews, but there are a number of things that trip my suspicion metre, and this is just one of them. After all, the lot of you are anonymous to me.

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So in issues like this, though I detest Mr Dehlin, I think it is  a case that if one lies, that is on the individual.

Exactly. Dishonesty in temple recommend interviews takes many forms. When I was last serving in the bishopric, I interviewed a sister one afternoon. She gave all the right answers, but I was certain that she was being dishonest. Not because I knew anything but because of how her answers made me feel. I actually asked some very specific follow-up questions just to a) let her know that I had concerns and b) give her every opportunity to be honest with me. Nothing. So I signed her recommend. My signature did not guarantee her worthiness (and in fact I immediately shared my concerns with the bishop both for his own information and also so that he could give a heads-up to the stake presidency member who would conduct the next interview), but it did signify to both her and God that she had vouched for her worthiness to a man authorised to seek her word on the matter.

Three months later she left her husband and moved in with her boyfriend.

Quote

But man, I would not want to face my maker with that on my conscience for him to see instantly.

I suspect many who are less than honest in their interviews either don't really believe in a Maker or have convinced themselves that He's on their side. I also suspect they'll be surprised someday, but that remains to be seen.

[kiwi57]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh oh.

Big words.  I suppose "lying" won't do, huh?

Well no, it won't. And for various reasons, not least of which is the fact that Mr Dr Dehlin's friends adamantly insist that there is no lying involved. Which raises the question: Are they using some private definition of "lying," or have they convinced themselves that there's nothing dishonest about his technique?

And the next question it raises is this: To what extent are they using his technique in this conversation?

Because that, in my view, is the real issue here: the extent to which that kind of lexical duplicity undermines trust.

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But where is there an objective standard whereby we can measure if "lexical duplicity" logically = "lying" and what constitutes a lie within that context?

Different strokes for different folks I suppose on which we get to choose.  What is a "full tithe payer"?   What is one's "increase"?  Does that include social security since that is "already money I paid into the system?"   What about taxes on wars one is opposed to ?  Should one tithe on funds one has no choice to choose to pay?  Is a war one opposes included in one's "increase" so in addition to the money being removed from one's estate involuntarily ("stolen"? ) one should pay tithing as if the money was NOT "removed involuntarily" from one's "increase"

So how does "lexical duplicity" work in these cases?

If one questions these things or pays tithing on one's net - as determined by the payer alone, is that "honest" or does it violate that provision of the recommend interview as well?

How often can one have family arguments and still be worthy?   Never?

If one gives a second glance to a sexy billboard does that violate the law of chastity?   How about sexual "self stimulation" (since the m-word is evil hereabouts )?   Are there any bounds at all within marriage which one can violate sexually?

Sure, but that's not the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

When a Latter-day Saint bears her testimony of God the Eternal Father, it is generally understood in the Church that she is saying that she believes that God is an actual personal being who is the actual father of our spirit selves. If she really means that she thinks that there might be some vague source of energy out there somewhere - and she doesn't spell that out - then she has left her audience with a false impression. And if she intentionally keep that redefinition of terms private, then she is committing the kind of lexical duplicity I'm talking about.

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think this is a nice thought and reminder that we should do a lot of self-examination before a temple recommend interview.  Thanks for that!

And I cannot stand JD.

But as a practical problem for public consideration and who is the judge and who draws the lines, honestly I think it is not really something anyone but the individual can decide where there are no objective standards for any of this.   There are no answers anyone else can give you in these areas of self-examination.  So in issues like this, though I detest Mr Dehlin, I think it is clearly a case that if one lies, that is on the individual.

But man, I would not want to face my maker with that on my conscience for him to see instantly. 

Amen!

[USU78]

This is hardly a new phenomenon. The polygamists inside the church we're constantly rationalizing their answers in order to convince their local priesthood leadership to give them Temple recommends. Nearly every change in the temple questions was occasioned buy these rationalizations. Dehlin really is Despicable, isn't he?

[Storm Rider]

We all mislead, misdirect, or hide truth from others.  Dehlin, being human, has not done anything that we each have not done in other venues and at other times.  The difference I see is that he teaches people to withhold the truth and encourages them to stop growing in order that they can continue to follow after him and his gospel of "dead end" rather than actually engaging in a pursuit for the truth.  That sin lies on his head and it is not one that I have committed....yet.  I pray I never follow after that course of action.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well no, it won't. And for various reasons, not least of which is the fact that Mr Dr Dehlin's friends adamantly insist that there is no lying involved. Which raises the question: Are they using some private definition of "lying," or have they convinced themselves that there's nothing dishonest about his technique?

And the next question it raises is this: To what extent are they using his technique in this conversation?

Because that, in my view, is the real issue here: the extent to which that kind of lexical duplicity undermines trust.

Sure, but that's not the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

When a Latter-day Saint bears her testimony of God the Eternal Father, it is generally understood in the Church that she is saying that she believes that God is an actual personal being who is the actual father of our spirit selves. If she really means that she thinks that there might be some vague source of energy out there somewhere - and she doesn't spell that out - then she has left her audience with a false impression. And if she intentionally keep that redefinition of terms private, then she is committing the kind of lexical duplicity I'm talking about.

Amen!

"Truth" is contextual in statements to a specific community.  I have talked about that so much I will just reference sources on that.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/  In my opinion that is the only definition of truth that can be justified.  

So yes we agree if the sister is talking about a vague source of energy, that is misleading in an LDS context and therefore not a "true" statement.

False impressions are a hazard of life and we all have them constantly.  So it's nice that we see that and rather disgusting that Dehlin recommends that, but there is nothing much that can be done about it rather than feel disgusted at such a person.

C'est la vie.  Not much to say about it.  People do disgusting things and talking about it doesn't make much difference.

I suppose if more folks thought it was disgusting, it might make a difference.   So in my infinite wisdom   I shall allow the thread to continue,  but don't know that there is much more here for me to say.   I am sure some will be pleased.   

 

Edited January 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

We all mislead, misdirect, or hide truth from others.  Dehlin, being human, has not done anything that we each have not done in other venues and at other times.  The difference I see is that he teaches people to withhold the truth and encourages them to stop growing in order that they can continue to follow after him and his gospel of "dead end" rather than actually engaging in a pursuit for the truth.  That sin lies on his head and it is not one that I have committed....yet.  I pray I never follow after that course of action.

Does this mean that Dehlinites do now or will constitute a Fifth Column inside the Church, for whatever purpose?  And will future demographers take account of the actual and pretend Mormons within the LDS Church?  With graphs of each?

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does this mean that Dehlinites do now or will constitute a Fifth Column inside the Church, for whatever purpose?  And will future demographers take account of the actual and pretend Mormons within the LDS Church?  With graphs of each?

I think you have unfortunately hit on what the future might hold for those on the fringe.  Upon reading you post I clearly saw individuals doing exactly what you have stated.  They have found their new drug and are very unwilling to see anything that conflicts with their path.  And they accuse us of the same thing over and over and over again without ever looking in the mirror.  They are so concerned about us they have forgotten to see their own selves.  

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.

If the idea of someone committing such semantic convolutions bothers you, I recommend you steer clear of the vast swath of LDS apologetics that is built in a foundation of creative interpretations of plain Church teachings.  For example, does LDS doctrine regarding "no physical death before the fall" allow for pre-Adamic creation using evolution (including countless generations of birth/death), and a planet Earth with a post-fall history longer than 7,000 years?

[kiwi57]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If the idea of someone committing such semantic convolutions bothers you, I recommend you steer clear of the vast swath of LDS apologetics that is built in a foundation of creative interpretations of plain Church teachings.  For example, does LDS doctrine regarding "no physical death before the fall" allow for pre-Adamic creation using evolution (including countless generations of birth/death), and a planet Earth with a post-fall history longer than 7,000 years?

That's a bit of a red herring. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is a fallacy, we're not talking about the same thing here. You can accuse LDS "apologists" of whatever sins of interpretation of scripture you like, but it's quite distinct from the phenomenon under discussion. To argue that a passage of scripture should be understood differently from its apparent surface meaning is one thing; to verbally profess to believe something other than one really does, and rationalise that by having adopted private definitions of the terms that are not argued - and not even disclosed - is quite another.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is why when we testify in our US courts of law we are required to make an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” 

Virtual rep point. 

It should be implied and inferred in a temple recommend interview as well, if not stated outright. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Another legal concept that may be of use here is the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, described here:

I think there is a similar implied understanding that exists in the TR interview process.  That is, the interviewee should not resort to - as Kiwi aptly describes it - "lexical duplicity" in order to justify or rationalize "a technical excuse for breaching the contract," or else to use "specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances between the parties."

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder if, on occasion, it might be appropriate for a priesthood leader to ask the candidate for a temple recommend or temple recommend renewal to elaborate on his/her yes or no response and explain more precisely what it means to him or her. This might become necessary going forward so as to detect lexical duplicity if the practice as advocated by Dehlin and others becomes widespread. 

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if, on occasion, it might be appropriate for a priesthood leader to ask the candidate for a temple recommend or temple recommend renewal to elaborate on his/her yes or no response and explain more precisely what it means to him or her. This might become necessary going forward so as to detect lexical duplicity if the practice as advocated by Dehlin and others becomes widespread. 

Do you think the church should define its terms of the contract more precisely in order to avoid any possible good faith confusion as what is meant in the various questions? Should a more rigorous definition of chastity be applied? How specific do you want to get in defining what is or is not allowed in the bedroom in order to obey the law of chastity? Is merely listening to a Dehlin podcast support for groups that are against the church? What about energy drinks as opposed to coffee?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Excellent post. I concur 100%. The way I see it, in a TR interview a bishop or stake president should be made aware of what the true state of a member’s testimony might be. For instance, if the individual being interviewed believes the Book of Mormon isn’t historical but thinks it’s still spiritually beneficial as a work of fiction, the leaders should be made aware of it. Or if a member can say they sustain the leaders of the Church because they feel it’s their obligation to do so, but they also simultaneously harbor a lot of resentment toward the leaders because of their stances on certain controversial issues, this should come out into the open as well. All possible care should be taken to avoid even the very beginnings of ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing syndrome.’ 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

Quote

The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage.22 The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.23

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Do you think the church should define its terms of the contract more precisely in order to avoid any possible good faith confusion as what is meant in the various questions? Should a more rigorous definition of chastity be applied? How specific do you want to get in defining what is or is not allowed in the bedroom in order to obey the law of chastity? Is merely listening to a Dehlin podcast support for groups that are against the church? What about energy drinks as opposed to coffee?

I would first have to be persuaded that what Dehlin and his devotees advocate is indeed in good faith as opposed to what Kiwi characterizes as lexical duplicity, which by definition is decidedly not good faith. 

Rather than greater rigidity in what is taught from our pulpits, I do think it would be better perhaps for the temple recommend interviews to be a bit less pro forma in terms of giving the interviewee opportunity to express himself or herself as to the understood meaning of the questions being put to him or her. That would give the leader the occasion to teach, correct misunderstandings and misconceptions and, where needed, exercise the gift of discernment. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

 

So are you saying two wrongs make a right? I ask this because I’m sure youn don’t agree with the former practice you reference .

[MiserereNobis]

 On a sidenote, this seems to be what Christians accuse Mormons of doing when it comes to terms that have one meaning in mainstream Christianity and quite a different meaning in Mormonism. For example, when a Mormon tells a Christian “I am a Christian because like you I believe in God the father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.“  Without further explanation from the Mormon, the Christian will assume that the Mormon is using those terms in the same sense the Christian would use them. Thus, to avoid the lexical duplicity spoken of in the OP, Mormons will need to give further clarifications and explanations when using these terms with non-Mormons. 

[kiwi57]

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 On a sidenote, this seems to be what Christians accuse Mormons of doing when it comes to terms that have one meaning in mainstream Christianity and quite a different meaning in Mormonism.

Do you mean what anti-Mormons accuse us of doing?

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For example, when a Mormon tells a Christian

Do you mean another Christian?

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

“I am a Christian because like you I believe in God the father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.“  Without further explanation from the Mormon, the Christian will assume that the Mormon is using those terms in the same sense the Christian would use them.

Do you mean "the non-Mormon would assume...?"

Because, make no mistake: there is not just one "Christian" in that conversation.

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thus, to avoid the lexical duplicity spoken of in the OP, Mormons will need to give further clarifications and explanations when using these terms with non-Mormons. 

Again, this is a different phenomenon. Terms used within a specific community can come to take on a life of their own, to the extent that they become a kind of "insider language" that can be obscure to outsiders. Insiders get into the habit of using those terms without any intent to deceive anyone. This is something quite distinct from knowing the insider language and pretending to use it, while actually meaning something else.

And besides: we do believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. That we believe different things about them than some other Christians do is a different conversation.

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.

Mormins lie; therefore, Church ain't true. So why bother about lying in temple recommend interviews?

[cdowis]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Mormins lie;

In a world that demands short yes/no answers, there are times when you have to lie in order to get to the truth.  " Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Is a Mormin the opposite of a Mormout?

Edited January 21, 2018 by cdowis