Lexical Duplicity and Trust in Communication

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's dangerous and inaccurate if one assumes a "shared understanding" of words.

Perhaps it is "dangerous and inaccurate." But it's also essential and inescapable. Communication could never even get off the ground if we always had to start by explicitly agreeing on what the meaning of "is" is. How could we do that, without first relying upon words where we already have a shared understanding of their meanings?

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The TR questions are vague and they seem (at least to me) to be designed that way on purpose.

No, they are not vague. Not unless you define "vague" to mean something like "without legalistic precision."

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

No, the interviewee is supposed to be honest and up front about what they mean.

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I will.

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

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

Absolutely I won't. We never claimed to be part of your club. We never wanted to be part of your club.

It isn't being part of your club that makes us Christians. We are Christians because we enter into a covenant with Christ, to take upon ourselves His name.

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Exactly.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but His Holiness has absolutely no authority over the covenants we make.

Sorry.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

1- Perhaps it is "dangerous and inaccurate." But it's also essential and inescapable. Communication could never even get off the ground if we always had to start by explicitly agreeing on what the meaning of "is" is. How could we do that, without first relying upon words where we already have a shared understanding of their meanings?

2- No, they are not vague. Not unless you define "vague" to mean something like "without legalistic precision."

3-No, the interviewee is supposed to be honest and up front about what they mean.

1- agreed. Shortcuts are inevitable and necessary. I'm simply trying to make the point that there is rarely perfect agreement on what the language means, especially when it is used to ask broad questions like, Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel. A person's understanding of testimony, gospel, restoration all play in to how that question is answered and it would be foolish to think every interviewer and every interviewee share the exact understanding. So for someone to claim that a person is being dishonest because he is answering based on his understanding, not the assumed understanding of the interviewer, they are being very presumptuous and dangerous in their accusations.

2- Of course they are vague, but then again, perhaps it would be unwise to think we share an understanding of what "vague" means. As I stated above, I view that to be a vague question. Do you Keep the word of wisdom? Define keep, define which part of the WoW, and define timelines. Do I keep it today, this week, this month, this year, my entire life? What is meant. We can only make assumptions because it doesn't explicitly ask. Do you pay a full tithe? On gross, net, surplus? This month, this year, the last 3 years, my entire life? Do you support, affiliate with or agree with.... VAGUE. By design.

3- The person being interviewed is supposed to answer honestly with yes and no answers. Each question doesn't need to be answered like an essay. So IF the brethren want specific questions to be answered like "Do you believe the Book of Mormon was translated (whatever that means) from an ancient text" they could easily include that in the TR questions. But they don't. Instead it is conceivably a part of the Restoration of the gospel question. But if a leader requires a specific like that, when it isn't part of the actual question, then that leader is overstepping their role. If the church wants to be explicit in its questions, they could easily make changes to make it so. But they don't. The responsibility is theirs to make clear what is wanted, otherwise there will be 15 million slight variations on what the members think these things mean.

 

[Brother Bear]

15 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

Do you have a reference for what Dehlin is recommending people do? I don’t really follow the guy...

Just trying to envision how this would play out in a TR interview.

[cinepro]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 So IF the brethren want specific questions to be answered like "Do you believe the Book of Mormon was translated (whatever that means) from an ancient text" they could easily include that in the TR questions. 

To me, the 1820s are "ancient", so even if I believed there weren't any actual plates,  when Oliver Cowdery copied the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, he was in a way "translating" that "ancient" text from the 1820s. 

It might not have been "ancient" at the time he did it, but since the question doesn't specify the frame of reference for "ancient", it's perfectly reasonable to apply it to either time frame.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think you've got this down, cinepro! 

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

To me, the 1820s are "ancient", so even if I believed there weren't any actual plates,  when Oliver Cowdery copied the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, he was in a way "translating" that "ancient" text from the 1820s. 

It might not have been "ancient" at the time he did it, but since the question doesn't specify the frame of reference for "ancient", it's perfectly reasonable to apply it to either time frame.

Nailing it again.  The use of the word "translate" in our history makes the complaints int his thread sound as empty as anything out there to me.

On the other hand, when some of the participators on this thread are put in charge of the Church along with things like TR interviews, I wonder how small the Church will get, or how quickly it will disappear.  maybe we'll have to get Scott to put one of his count down clocks on it.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Do you have a reference for what Dehlin is recommending people do? I don’t really follow the guy...

Just trying to envision how this would play out in a TR interview.

I asked for specifics earlier and was met with the response that I should already know what the author was talking about.  And I do follow much of Dehlin's work, probably more than the author of this post.  I'm hoping he responds to you on this, because its a mystery to me.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Nailing it again.  The use of the word "translate" in our history makes the complaints int his thread sound as empty as anything out there to me.

On the other hand, when some of the participators on this thread are put in charge of the Church along with things like TR interviews, I wonder how small the Church will get, or how quickly it will disappear.  maybe we'll have to get Scott to put one of his count down clocks on it.  

 

Once one recognizes the verity of the prophecy in Nephi's vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over the face of the face of the earth but would be few in numbers by reason of the rampant influence of Satan, numerical dominance ceases to matter very much.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Do you have a reference for what Dehlin is recommending people do? I don’t really follow the guy...

Just trying to envision how this would play out in a TR interview.

In Dehlin's own words, you can read about it here.

Note that Dehlin doesn't give this advice any more; not because he has reconsidered the ethical implications, but because he no longer encourages people to stay in the Church.

 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Nailing it again.  The use of the word "translate" in our history makes the complaints int his thread sound as empty as anything out there to me.

Only if you like to compare apples and turnips.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

On the other hand, when some of the participators on this thread are put in charge of the Church along with things like TR interviews, I wonder how small the Church will get, or how quickly it will disappear.  maybe we'll have to get Scott to put one of his count down clocks on it.  

Which "participators" did you have in mind?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The use of the word "translate" in our history makes the complaints int his thread sound as empty as anything out there to me.

Here's the complete entry for translate from Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language:

Quote

TRANSLATE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

Which specific use/s of the word do you find problematic?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I asked for specifics earlier and was met with the response that I should already know what the author was talking about.  And I do follow much of Dehlin's work, probably more than the author of this post.  I'm hoping he responds to you on this, because its a mystery to me.  

I linked to a commentary with his quotes in the previous thread.

I see kiwi has another.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I linked to a commentary with his quotes in the previous thread.

I see kiwi has another.

Do you have a link to that you can share?  

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you have a link to that you can share?  

As before:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

A "find" on "how to get a temple recommend" will take you to the beginning of the relevant section,  last time I cut pasted, it came out too sloppy for me to repeat the effort.

Most of the quotes are from kiwi's link.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

As before:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

A "find" on "how to get a temple recommend" will take you to the beginning of the relevant section,  last time I cut pasted, it came out too sloppy for me to repeat the effort.

Most of the quotes are from kiwi's link.

Thanks Calm, I didn’t see any of this posted in the OP, so appreciate you providing it.  

This is pretty old stuff and I’m familiar with it.  Not having access to the materials I had assumed that Kiwi was commenting on something much more recent.