Lexical Duplicity and Trust in Communication

[MiserereNobis]

31 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

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

Do you mean another Christian?

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

 

I actually meant everything I said

Quote

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.

I agree -- intent is the issue, and it seems like that can be evaluated only on an individual case-by-case basis.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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. 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. 

I don't object to this at all and would welcome the opportunity to do so to the extent that the non-Mormon will listen.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

No, it's the same thing.

The overriding principle is the question of who gets to define the words used to express Church teachings and doctrines?

If it's the Church leaders and official publications who get to define the words, then the world of apologetics has just become a hash of apostasy. 

If those definitions are best left up to the comfort and creativity of the individual members (be they leaders, apologists, or garden variety chapel Mormons or internet Mormons), then a person in a Temple recommend interview has just as much right to define "prophet" or "sustain" however they wish just as much as an apologist or scientifically-minded Mormon gets to define "physical death" or "temporal age of the Earth" as they see fit.

It might be polite to explain to the interviewer that through personal revelation you have discovered a definition of the word "Prophet" that is a bit broader and more realistic than the definition taught to 7-year-olds in Primary, but I'd be careful about arguing against such broad definitions on principle, since you may be drawing a line that would exclude many people who consider themselves "believers" from meeting your definition of that word.

Edited January 21, 2018 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't object to this at all and would welcome the opportunity to do so to the extent that the non-Mormon will listen.

This is great...to do this, you would also need to listen..would you be willing to do that?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I actually meant everything I said

Oh, I see.

You're one of the "Mormunz ain't Chrisjuns" crowd, are you?

How very disappointing.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree -- intent is the issue, and it seems like that can be evaluated only on an individual case-by-case basis.

 

[kiwi57]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No, it's the same thing.

No. It is not.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The overriding principle is the question of who gets to define the words used to express Church teachings and doctrines?

No, it isn't.

The overriding principle is the question of whether the communication in question relies upon shared expectations about what words mean. To explicitly argue that such and such a passage means something different from what others think it means is exactly the opposite of allowing your interlocutor to assume that you are using terms with shared meanings, when in fact you are not.

Is that clear now?

[hope_for_things]

On 1/20/2018 at 1:17 PM, 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.

 

It seems to me tha Joseph Smith was constantly doing this very thing and Mormons consider the results of these changes in meaning of terms as restoration and revelation.  I really see this process as woven throughout the history of Christian theological development.  

For example with Joseph look at how he used terminology around the subject of polygamy.  The church even defended this practice in the gospel topic essay on this subject.  

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me tha Joseph Smith was constantly doing this very thing and Mormons consider the results of these changes in meaning of terms as restoration and revelation.  I really see this process as woven throughout the history of Christian theological development.

Really?

Communities adapt terms to their needs. The meanings of words drift. Are you saying that this is the "very thing" that people do when they knowingly rely upon the assumptions others have about the meanings of words in order to deceive them?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For example with Joseph look at how he used terminology around the subject of polygamy.  The church even defended this practice in the gospel topic essay on this subject.  

Ah. The tu quoque fallacy. How - predictable.

 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is great...to do this, you would also need to listen..would you be willing to do that?

Let's see.

You expect Scott to listen to you while he explains the meanings of terms that might not be familiar to you?

Oh.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Really?

Communities adapt terms to their needs. The meanings of words drift. Are you saying that this is the "very thing" that people do when they knowingly rely upon the assumptions others have about the meanings of words in order to deceive them?

Ah. The tu quoque fallacy. How - predictable.

 

Yes I see the meanings changing intentionally in the early church, yet the early church wanted to be accepted as legitimate by their peers in the broader community.  This created a lot of tension.  Similar tensions have developed in virtually every schism throughout history.  

Actually I’m not sure what you are specifically criticizing as I didn’t see any specific examples sighted, just general complaints.  

I hadn’t heard of that fallacy before, but reading the wiki article on it I think you’ve misappropriated it.  I’m not accusing you of hypocrisy to try and invalidate your points.  I’m just pointing out other historical examples which actually support your point.  I’m guessing you don’t like that this Lexical duplicity also applies quite aptly to situations in early Mormon history.  

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Oh, I see.

You're one of the "Mormunz ain't Chrisjuns" crowd, are you?

How very disappointing.

 

I was mainly responding to your rhetorical choices. It is annoying when someone makes an argument by questioning or changing what the other person meant. It's like when someone quotes someone, strikes through part of the quote, adds words, and then says "fixed it for you." Very annoying.

You continue your annoying rhetoric by making a caricature of those who disagree with you on whether or not Mormons are Christians by using uneducated language. I think if you review my posts over the years that I have been here you will find that I am educated and articulate and a good Catholic ally for Mormons. I also think if you review the writings of the cardinals (and a future pope) who clarified the Catholic position on Mormonism, you would find that they aren't stupid, uneducated, and inarticulate either.

People can disagree without thinking the other is stupid, wouldn't you say?

It's interesting that you had such a knee jerk reaction to my post. Why do you want to be a part of a religion that you believe is apostate?

Finally, my position on whether or not Mormons are Christians is nuanced and has been articulated in other threads. I don't want to derail this thread but I will quickly repeat my view. I believe that Mormons are Christian in the general sense of the word -- people trying to follow Christ. Devout Mormons can be some of the most selfless and giving people I know. They tend to have strong families, strong values, and do good by those around them. In the specific technical, theological view of what it means to be a Christian and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, however, Mormons are not baptized Christian. So are Mormons Christian? Generally, yes, technically, no. When someone asks me if Mormons are Christian I say yes. If they want to continue the discussion further, I will go into the theological realm and discuss valid Christian baptism.

It would be akin to someone going to Mormon church every Sunday, following Mormon rules, but not yet baptized Mormon. I think you would say that they are in spirit Mormon, but not yet technically Mormon because they haven't been baptized. Also, please don't get upset that the Catholic Church doesn't accept Mormon baptism, since Mormons don't accept Catholic baptism.

Again, I don't want to derail this thread and I'm not too interested in arguing this further (as I have already made my position clear on previous threads), but due to your response I wanted to reply and clarify.

 

[Five Solas]

I find this thread hugely ironic (and doubtless not by design).  Here the author expresses his concern for the answers given in LDS "worthiness" interviews.  Words and their meanings matter hugely, so let due rigor be applied at all times to ensure clarity! 

And yet on this very forum, LDS play fast & loose with the Christian lexicon.  LDS say they believe Jesus is God (well, he's one of the gods).  LDS say Jesus is eternal (you know, because intelligences are eternal).  One well-respected fellow even went so far as to argue LDS are Trinitarian:  Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Virtually everybody who knows anything about Mormonism, believer or not, says no.  But that answer is wrong.

And if a little of the fast & loose turns up in the worthiness interview...  Well, as the good book saith, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7).  Nothing ironic about that.

--Erik

__________________________________

You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise

--Eagles, 1975

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me tha Joseph Smith was constantly doing this very thing and Mormons consider the results of these changes in meaning of terms as restoration and revelation.  I really see this process as woven throughout the history of Christian theological development.  

For example with Joseph look at how he used terminology around the subject of polygamy.  The church even defended this practice in the gospel topic essay on this subject.  

I agree. How was this not lying to the members? (I get that he believed it wasn’t adultery, but the wording is completely used to deceive).

Joseph Smith:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

Was Joseph living polygamy at this time?  How many wives did Joseph have when he publicly made these starements? 

Edited January 22, 2018 by JulieM

[Brother Bear]

On 1/20/2018 at 1:17 PM, 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.

What resolution would you propose for the problem you described?

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No. It is not.

No, it isn't.

The overriding principle is the question of whether the communication in question relies upon shared expectations about what words mean. To explicitly argue that such and such a passage means something different from what others think it means is exactly the opposite of allowing your interlocutor to assume that you are using terms with shared meanings, when in fact you are not.

Is that clear now?

That's a great theory, but as long as the Church is calling the creation of the Book of Abraham or the JST "translations", I'm not sure there's much evidence for it in an LDS context.  Both the Church and its apologists seem to heavily rely on the ability to creatively redefine and broaden words about which there are obvious "shared expectations."

I agree it would be great if they didn't need to do this (and I greatly respect those LDS who resist the temptation and instead go all-in on defending the regular meaning of the words used by Joseph Smith and the Church), but to apply this standard selectively only to those  we fear we might disagree with sounds almost like a beam - mote situation, as I understand the meaning of the words used in that metaphor.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I find this thread hugely ironic (and doubtless not by design).  Here the author expresses his concern for the answers given in LDS "worthiness" interviews.

Ah. Scare quotes.

I wonder what comes next.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

  Words and their meanings matter hugely, so let due rigor be applied at all times to ensure clarity! 

And yet on this very forum, LDS play fast & loose with the Christian lexicon.

Oh, so there is just one "Christian lexicon," is there?

Who knew?

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

LDS say they believe Jesus is God (well, he's one of the gods).  LDS say Jesus is eternal (you know, because intelligences are eternal).  One well-respected fellow even went so far as to argue LDS are Trinitarian:  Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Virtually everybody who knows anything about Mormonism, believer or not, says no.  But that answer is wrong.

There's a reason, incidentally, why Dan Peterson is well-respected. Perhaps you'd like to find out why.

I didn't have to scroll down more than a minute's worth of reading before I found this:

The question isn't really whether Mormons use the word \"Trinity,\" nor whether they regard the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as \"one.\" They have, and they do. The only real question is how they understand the divine unity.

Mormonism rejects the traditional Trinity of the Nicene Creed, but sees the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as perfectly unified in love and purpose. There is not a hair's breadth of difference between them on any matter and certainly not with regard to their loving intention to save as many of the human family as are willing to be saved.

Does this look like he's trying to hide the fact that he's using a term differently than others do? Hardly. He's making a specific argument and explaining his terminology.

Am I taking issue with people making a specific argument and explaining their terminology?

No. I am not.

I am taking issue with people surreptitiously redefining key terms and carefully refusing to disclose that fact.

If you are unable to tell the difference between those two things, then perhaps that explains something.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And if a little of the fast & loose turns up in the worthiness interview...  Well, as the good book saith, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7).  Nothing ironic about that.

Ah. So the resident anti-Mormon thinks Mormons don't deserve to be treated with honesty.

Perhaps that explains something, too.

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was mainly responding to your rhetorical choices. It is annoying when someone makes an argument by questioning or changing what the other person meant. It's like when someone quotes someone, strikes through part of the quote, adds words, and then says "fixed it for you." Very annoying.

"Mormons" vs. "Christians" is a false dichotomy.

"Mormons" vs. "Christians" illegitimately smuggles disputed assumptions into the discussion.

Very annoying.

And I will dispute them whenever I see them. I suggest you get used to it.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You continue your annoying rhetoric by making a caricature of those who disagree with you on whether or not Mormons are Christians by using uneducated language. I think if you review my posts over the years that I have been here you will find that I am educated and articulate and a good Catholic ally for Mormons. I also think if you review the writings of the cardinals (and a future pope) who clarified the Catholic position on Mormonism, you would find that they aren't stupid, uneducated, and inarticulate either.

No, but neither are they experts on the Church of Jesus Christ.

I apologise for giving the impression that I think you stupid or inarticulate, but the position is not one I have much respect for.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

People can disagree without thinking the other is stupid, wouldn't you say?

It's interesting that you had such a knee jerk reaction to my post. Why do you want to be a part of a religion that you believe is apostate?

And so now you're telling me what I believe. It just gets better and better!

If you really imagine that, in claiming to be Christians, we "want to be a part of a religion that [we] believe is apostate," then my apology, above, may have been premature.

We claim to be Christians because of our covenant relationship with Christ, not because we think of ourselves as part of your club.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Finally, my position on whether or not Mormons are Christians is nuanced and has been articulated in other threads. I don't want to derail this thread but I will quickly repeat my view. I believe that Mormons are Christian in the general sense of the word -- people trying to follow Christ. Devout Mormons can be some of the most selfless and giving people I know. They tend to have strong families, strong values, and do good by those around them. In the specific technical, theological view of what it means to be a Christian and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, however, Mormons are not baptized Christian. So are Mormons Christian? Generally, yes, technically, no. When someone asks me if Mormons are Christian I say yes. If they want to continue the discussion further, I will go into the theological realm and discuss valid Christian baptism.

So, according to your theology we're not. Popes are the gatekeepers for all of Christianity.

That's fine, but I hope you aren't one of those who joins with the tut-tutting about "One true church."

But apart from that, that particular argument is incoherent too. Perhaps I'll address it sometime.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be akin to someone going to Mormon church every Sunday, following Mormon rules, but not yet baptized Mormon. I think you would say that they are in spirit Mormon, but not yet technically Mormon because they haven't been baptized. Also, please don't get upset that the Catholic Church doesn't accept Mormon baptism, since Mormons don't accept Catholic baptism.

I'm not even slightly upset about it. I just think the reason given is silly.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again, I don't want to derail this thread and I'm not too interested in arguing this further (as I have already made my position clear on previous threads), but due to your response I wanted to reply and clarify.

And that's fine.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's a great theory, but as long as the Church is calling the creation of the Book of Abraham or the JST "translations",

And explaining in detail that Joseph used the word "translation" in ways that are not common today...

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure there's much evidence for it in an LDS context.  Both the Church and its apologists seem to heavily rely on the ability to creatively redefine and broaden words about which there are obvious "shared expectations."

And explaining in detail whenever those words are being used in idiosyncratic ways.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I agree it would be great if they didn't need to do this (and I greatly respect those LDS who resist the temptation and instead go all-in on defending the regular meaning of the words used by Joseph Smith and the Church), but to apply this standard selectively only to those  we fear we might disagree with sounds almost like a beam - mote situation, as I understand the meaning of the words used in that metaphor.

What is there about the difference between concealing the redefinition and explaining in detail that you don't quite grasp yet, cinepro?

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

What resolution would you propose for the problem you described?

Thank you BB, I'm glad you asked. My suggestions are these:

1. Those who support and uphold Mister Dr Dehlin's apostate proselytizing should say so.
2. They should also make an effort to restore the trust that they have worked to undermine, instead of just demanding that we trust them anyway.

Edited January 22, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes I see the meanings changing intentionally in the early church, yet the early church wanted to be accepted as legitimate by their peers in the broader community.

What "peers in the broader community" are those?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 This created a lot of tension.  Similar tensions have developed in virtually every schism throughout history.  

Actually I’m not sure what you are specifically criticizing as I didn’t see any specific examples sighted, just general complaints.

Others don't seem to have the same difficulty working out what I'm referring to.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I hadn’t heard of that fallacy before, but reading the wiki article on it I think you’ve misappropriated it.  I’m not accusing you of hypocrisy to try and invalidate your points.  I’m just pointing out other historical examples which actually support your point.  I’m guessing you don’t like that this Lexical duplicity also applies quite aptly to situations in early Mormon history.  

You guess wrong.

Sorry.

You are trying to hang this concept onto a situation where it doesn't fit.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree. How was this not lying to the members? (I get that he believed it wasn’t adultery, but the wording is completely used to deceive).

Joseph Smith:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

Was Joseph living polygamy at this time?  How many wives did Joseph have when he publicly made these starements? 

Feel free to start another thread to ride your anti-polygamy hobby-horse.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

And I will dispute them whenever I see them. I suggest you get used to it.

Ok, I will.

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

No, but neither are they experts on the Church of Jesus Christ.

I never claimed that. I just said that they are educated articulate people. Certainly there is room in your worldview for such people..?

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

We claim to be Christians because of our covenant relationship with Christ, not because we think of ourselves as part of your club.

Great! So when I say you're not part of my club then you won't get upset, right?

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

So, according to your theology we're not. Popes are the gatekeepers for all of Christianity.

Exactly.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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 .

I'm just saying whatever you think of this, it's baked into Mormon history.

On the other hand, I think it's pretty common, even outside the Dehlin crowd, for members to have one interpretation of things like "prophet" and "word of wisdom" and local leaders to have another.

I was in a stake leadership meeting once where the 2nd councilor mentioned that he was giving this retiree couple some trouble in temple recommend interview because of their interpretation of tithing. They had already paid tithing on their retirement savings plan when they were paying on it, and they figured they didn't need to pay tithing on it when withdrawing. The 2nd counc. disagreed in the temple recommend interview. Our stake president corrected him - it's not up to him to define full tithe payer for them - if they consider themselves full tithepayers, that's good enough.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 2:17 PM, 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.

It's dangerous and inaccurate if one assumes a "shared understanding" of words. The TR questions are vague and they seem (at least to me) to be designed that way on purpose. Whether talking about tithing, testimony, chastity, WoW, whatever: if someone asks a vague question without explicitly defining terms then I think vague yes/no answers based on the individuals understanding should be accepted. Is the interviewee supposed to mind read the interviewer? I don't think so.

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And explaining in detail that Joseph used the word "translation" in ways that are not common today...

And explaining in detail whenever those words are being used in idiosyncratic ways.

What is there about the difference between concealing the redefinition and explaining in detail that you don't quite grasp yet, cinepro?

The Church and apologists only "explain in detail" when they have to (usually under pressure from contrary evidence and outside research which raises doubts and problems for the plain meaning of the words being used.)

Likewise, I'm sure if a Bishop or other interviewer did additional research and discovered that the interviewee was using a creative definition of the words under discussion and asked additional questions, then the interviewee would be thrilled to explain "in detail" what they are referring to.  It's really the fault of the interviewer for not being interested in finding out the real nuance.