Reasoning Together, Part 2: Misuse and Wish-use

Only by pride comes contention, but with the well-advised is wisdom.

—Proverbs 2:101 RE

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 

In part one, we discussed what it looks like for people to engage in reasoning together, which is not easy to do. Not every conversation, exchange, argument, discussion, contention or fight can or should be called “reasoning together.” In fact, almost all these do not qualify as anything of the sort. We may like to tell ourselves that our arguments and accusations are actually “reasoning” but this is wishful thinking. There’s no point in pretending do what we cannot and pretending to be what we are not. 

Fighting with a Smile

Being good at arguing is not the same thing as being good at reasoning. Even being measured and kind in disagreement doesn’t mean you’re approaching anything like reason. You may be calmly stubborn and intractable! In fact, the ability to reason with others is a very rare skill—but one most people think they already have. 

We know we have been told to “reason together” but we do not have that skill. Reasoning requires give-and-take, respect and trying to understand another point of view. It requires patience and development of skills, critical reasoning, and thoughtfulness. Most of all it requires attentive listening that lets us understand one another. (Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People” April 13, 2025, p. 10)

We are not without instruction in these things. The Lord has taught us by precept how to proceed, and has also allowed us to learn by experience, much of it sad. And even that experience, when improperly engaged in, does little to help participants learn or develop the skills of reasoning together. Some may persist in argument, discussion, disputation, accusation, or any number of exercises, pretending they are reasoning—and accomplishing nothing. 

This false “reasoning together” may actually do more harm than good, as illustrated in T&C 176 (sometimes called The Parable of the Master’s House). There we read of three groups who reasoned together about how to fulfill the Master’s command that a house be built in a distant land. 

Some reasoned among themselves that their master dwelt in a stone house, and because this far off land had no stone, they ought gather and take stone with them. Others reasoned among themselves that because the master said there was no stone, there must be trees, and therefore brought axes and tools to build a wooden house. And yet others reasoned among themselves that they should go and see the place their master had chosen, not knowing beforehand what would be there. (T&C 176:4)

Each group reasoned and came up with their own conclusion. They then set to work testing their conclusions in attempts to comply with the Master’s command. None of the approaches met with immediate success, and all encountered obstacles. For the stone haulers, the work was impossibly slow and difficult. For the wood workers, there were no trees. For the “wait and see” group, they arrived at the spot and initially found no way to proceed. 

Each group dealt with their difficulties differently. The stone haulers doubled down in their efforts and the wood workers abandoned their previous solution and joined the stone haulers, attempting to convince the wait-and-see group to join the stone effort as well. When the wait-and-see group wanted to see for themselves, the wood workers called them foolish, based on their supposed superior knowledge and their misunderstanding of the Master’s intent. This was not reasoning together.

When the wait-and-see group acted in faith and found the way forward by making bricks, “These servants reasoned among themselves that the labor would be better done if their fellow servants joined them. They sent messengers to those laboring to bring stone.” (¶7)

Interestingly, when the stone haulers heard the happy news that the effort was succeeding, “Many were willing, and some were offended, and some wanted to stop all effort, and return to their master and tell him his command was too great. They argued among themselves, and for a moment forgot their master’s command, and forgot those who were laboring to make bricks from clay at the place the master had chosen.” (¶8) This, too, was not reasoning together.

How remarkable are the differences in response! Some welcomed the news—and some were offended! What was there to be offended about? We aren’t explicitly told what offended them, but human nature being what it is, we can guess fairly well. Perhaps they wanted accolades and recognition for finding the true way forward—that is, they wanted their idea to “win.” Maybe they hoped to be credited with making the construction possible. Perhaps they wanted control over the process because they craved authority over others. Whatever it was, they became so invested in being right, they preferred it above actually fulfilling the Master’s command. The fact that they were offended demonstrates their true intent—and though it may have started in a sincere desire to obey the Master’s command, it became corrupted into the need to be right, at the expense of obeying the Master.

It’s worth mentioning that beyond merely being offended, there were some who wanted to stop all work and complain to the Master that it couldn’t be done. How remarkable! They were so invested in being right that they would rather see the Master’s work fail altogether than give up their own faulty opinion. They literally felt that if they couldn’t do it their way, they must see to it that NOBODY could do it at all. This is the equivalent of a playground dispute in which one kid takes his ball and goes home so that nobody can play unless they play his way.

Pro tip: Anybody who would rather burn it all down than admit to being wrong is not only unreasonable, but actually dangerous. Of course, none of us would behave this way, right? We would never insist on pushing our preferred outcome to the point that we would take steps to actively prevent any other outcome from even being considered, let alone succeeding. Right? 

“After a season of quarreling and disputing, some said, We have neglected our master’s command long enough. We go to help make bricks of clay to build our master’s house at the place he has commanded. Seeing some depart, those who remained called for all to reason together because the labor was hard and the loss of even a few made moving stones even more difficult.” (¶9)

Eventually some tired of arguing and disputing and chose to lend their efforts to fulfilling the Master’s command. The remaining holdouts—still committed to their own approach and opposed to the group actually accomplishing the work—then tried a new tactic. Hey! Can’t we reason together? But they didn’t merely seek to reason among themselves. They insisted that ALL must reason together, effectively preventing the brick makers from doing further work on the Master’s house. 

It seems clear from the text and the stone haulers’ prior behavior, that their intent in “reasoning together” was not at all about finding a unified path forward to serve the Master together. Rather it was a further attempt to interfere with the Master’s work and prevent others from fulfilling the Master’s command. Such “reasoning together” was just new clothing on the old desire to argue, contend and dispute in hopes of finally winning. This is pernicious because it’s easy to portray “reasoning together” as a noble and necessary pursuit, and those unwilling to engage in it as froward, even evil. “You must continue to fight with us, or else YOU are the problem!” is the essential message.

Perhaps the stone haulers even threatened the house builders that the Master would be displeased with them if they didn’t participate in further argument. In actuality, the small group of stone haulers were really the ones opposing the Master’s work. They might claim otherwise, but their true intent was amply shown by their actions, despite their pretentious words about reasoning together. Notice how those who didn’t care about the Master or His work used implied accusations to control those who DO care?

The larger group was not the problem. They made it clear they would welcome the stone haulers to join them in accomplishing the work underway, and actually extended the invitation. But the stone haulers refused, instead hoping to continue active disputation instead of productive work.

And so, one point we can take from the parable is this: Demanding people continue a dispute under the deceptive guise of “reasoning together” is counterproductive to the Lord’s work. Until all parties are able and willing to come to the table with soft hearts, willingness to be wrong, genuine desire to understand and humility about their own ignorance, there’s no amount of disputation that will ever qualify as “reasoning together” let alone solve any problems or build the Master’s house. 

In my next post we’ll consider a surprising lesson in the rest of the parable.

Meantime we continued to translate at intervals when not necessitated to attend to the numerous inquirers that now began to visit us — some for the sake of finding the truth, others for the purpose of putting hard questions and trying to confound us. Among the latter class were several learned priests who generally came for the purpose of disputation. 

—JSH 15:23

Reasoning Together, Part 1: Our Lord is Reasonable

And for this cause — that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed — the Lord sent forth the fullness of his gospel and his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity to prepare the weak for those things which are coming upon the earth, and for the Lord’s errand in the days when the weak should confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two should put their tens of thousands to flight.

—T&C 58:7

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 

Of the many words of praise we might use to describe the positive attributes of our Lord, this one may be the least expected: Our Lord is Reasonable.

Not reasonable in the “moderately priced” sense of the word, and certainly not in the “within the bounds of common sense” implication. Rather, I mean this particular word of praise to highlight our Lord’s willingness to engage in reasoning and persuasion with mankind. He can be reasoned with, and in turn He reasons with mankind.

This appears to be a truth lost from ancient scripture as both the Old and New Testaments tend to portray reasoning as a human, rather than a Godly activity, and the Book of Mormon is largely silent on the issue. 

But in modern revelation found in the Teachings and Commandments, we encounter the notion of God’s reasoning repeatedly. 

“Come,” the Lord says in 1831, “and with him that comes I will reason, as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.” (T&C 31:3)

“Hearken,” the Lord says “and I will reason with you, and I will speak unto you and prophesy as unto men in days of old. And I will show it plainly, as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh” (T&C 31:4)

Come, says the Lord by the spirit unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together that you may understand. Let us reason even as a man reasons, one with another, face to face. Now, when a man reasons he is understood of man because he reasons as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand. (T&C 36:3)

How remarkable it is that He deigns to reason with fallen humanity, even as we exist in a state of alienation from him. He could demand: He has the right. He could command: He has the authority. But with those willing to “come,” to “hearken,” and to “understand” He extends the invitation to “reason together.”

We find extra emphasis on this invitation in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant (T&C 157). 

Regarding the scripture project, the Lord says: 

“…what I say unto one I say unto all: I have given to you my doctrine, and have also revealed teachings, commandments, precepts, and principles to guide you, and it is not meet that I command you in all things — reason together and apply what I have given you, and it will be enough.” (T&C 157:45)

Again, the Lord advises, “Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger.” (T&C 157:54)

Note the important caution against sharply disputing and wrongly condemning and thereby causing anger, because “Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess,” and all this because “you have not yet become what you must be to live together in peace. If you will hearken to my words, I will make you my people and my words will give you peace.” (T&C 157:19)

With this extensive scriptural warrant from our Lord in His own words before us, we must carefully consider what it means to “reason together” so we may become what we must to live together in peace, ultimately in preparation to dwell in Zion which is, after all, “a place of peace and safety.” (T&C 157:51)

Verbing the Noun

Reasoning together seems rather simple on the surface. The verb form of the word “reason” relies on the noun form for its definition. In other words, to reason together is to employ reason or logic in a mutual exchange to persuade, influence, or arrive at a shared understanding. It requires logical thought, well-supported premises and clear presentation, ultimately resulting in persuasion. It presumes all involved parties are imbued with sound judgment and good sense. Indeed, an archaic definition of “reason” means intact mental faculties, as opposed to insanity. 

Note also that reason tends to be the opposite of emotion. Arguments and conclusions reached or held by emotion are the antithesis and enemy of reason. 

Reasoning together, therefore, may be easy to understand in principle, but in practice is actually very difficult. Here’s an overview of what it takes:

Non-emotional approach: Reasoning together necessarily requires letting go of emotion, including emotional motivations and conclusions. In practical terms, this requires that nobody come to the table with anger, accusations, fear, jealousy, revenge, or any other emotion as their motivation. If the opening premise of reasoning together consists of accusations against the other side, you have already made them your enemy, likely stirred up anger, and made significant steps toward “destroying the peace of [the Lord’s] people.” Reasoning together is not likely to occur with such a beginning.

Flexibility: Reasoning together requires that all parties be open to changing their minds, willing to listen and consider, and sincerely seeking common ground and understanding. There is no room for foregone conclusions, demands, deal breakers, or inflexible opinions. All parties must be making a good-faith, sincere attempt to find common ground and unity, rather than to simply “win” the argument. The moment one sides prioritizes “winning” over unity, reasoning has ceased.

Honesty: It should go without saying that all sides must be meticulously honest about their intents, motivations, desires, and agendas. Hidden agendas are not only dishonest, but also antithetical to reasoning together. It is impossible to seek unity on the basis of lies. This is a hard lift for humanity, who generally prove willing to employ deception in the hope of gaining what is wanted. Anyone unwilling to clearly and honestly state the truth of what they hope to accomplish is not someone with whom others can reason in good faith.

Start from Common Ground: Any reasoned discussion must begin from a point of common ground and shared understanding and agreement. If the discussion begins with foregone conclusions on one side or the other about which there is no agreement, any further discussion is already damaged by the disputed, faulty premise underlying the discussion. This may sound confusing, so perhaps a simple illustration is in order:

If there is to be a reasoned discussion between friends about where to go for lunch, it must begin with the agreement that it is lunchtime and that the friends plan to eat together. If one points out that it’s actually 3:00 AM and all the restaurants are closed, no amount of pushing by the other side will result in a fruitful discussion, much less a satisfying meal experience. The whole lunch premise is faulty, and therefore not a reasonable starting point. 

Any discussion that begins with a false premise, or a disputed premise that one side attempts to establish as fact, is likely to produce more heat than light.

Humility: All parties must be supremely aware of their own limitations: in knowledge, in experience, in understanding. Before reasoning out a matter it’s important to start with a deep realization of one’s own ignorance and a recognition that others may be better informed or more experienced in the area being considered. Following this requirement to its logical conclusion leads to the realization that, though we are equals, not all opinions are equally correct or valid. We all enjoy the equal right to express our opinions, but we must fight against the unfortunate tendency to believe that whatever we think must be not only correct, but necessarily superior to what anyone else thinks. Some opinions, no matter how sincerely held, are not correct. Likely even some of yours and some of mine. 

Such is doubly disastrous when one side or the other insists that God agrees with them, or threatens God’s punishment for disagreeing with them. The Lord specifically warned against this practice:

Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. (T&C 157:54) 

Naturally, any reasoned discussion of topics involving the belief and practice of a religious community must rely on scripture, and be reasoned from scripture. But playing the “God told me…” card is a step too far. Taking the Lord’s name in vain is not only misguided and wrong, but the tactic is also doomed to fail in producing the sought results. 

Submission vs. Control: Reasoning together ceases the minute anyone involved attempts to exert control or dominion over others involved. In practical terms, as a group of equals, it should be unheard of for someone to “pull rank” or exert their supposed authority to force others to conform. In the secular world where there are power and authority structures to which appeal can be made, this invariably happens, as parties call the manager, the teacher, the police, or the courts in attempts to exert control and win. But among our groups, with no “strong man” or power structure to exert, we are left to reason through our differences as equals, with nobody over anybody else and nobody able to arbitrarily pull rank and force an outcome.

I should add here that voting as a body is a different path to resolution, involving the will and voice of the people. Because all have an equal say, it is not an arbitrary means of control over anyone. Taking a vote is the opposite of a power play by an individual or small group dictating an outcome. Voting is not ideal, but it is better than disputation and contention. More on that later.

Common Courtesy: Naturally a free and reasoned exchange of ideas requires the application of common rules of courtesy. Don’t cut people off when they are speaking. Seek to truly listen and understand, rather than waiting for the other party to just stop talking so you can talk. Don’t lecture or monologue for extended time periods. Be aware of time constraints and don’t take more than your share. (No, your opinion is not more important than everybody else’s.) And try to stick to actual reason and logic, rather than appeals to emotion. Keep your own emotions in check so you can listen and contribute in a positive way. 

Opinions and Assumptions: We all have opinions, usually formed for reasons that are sufficient for the one holding the opinion. It’s natural to disagree with some opinions held by others, but calling someone else’s opinion an “assumption” merely because you disagree can be a manipulative tool to belittle their opinion and assert that it is somehow invalid, and worthy only of dismissal. It is a tool to attempt to win, rather than to learn, understand, consider and reason, and does nothing to advance understanding or promote unity. 

The Message, not the Messenger: Too often, there is the tendency to avoid dealing with someone’s legitimate disagreement by condemning their grammar, attacking their tone, arguing about nuances, or simply denigrating the person’s character. This is the cheap, easy, foolish way out of dealing with what they actually think. It is juvenile and weak to avoid addressing what is expressed by attacking the expression. It is certainly not reasoning together in any way, though it is a tactic often employed by those who enjoy disputation and think they can “win” the argument by attacking an opponent. Remember, the intent to win is the antithesis of reasoning together.

Self-awareness: Here, there is much struggle. We all tend to be blinded by our own opinions to the point that we lack the self-awareness to recognize our failure to meet the above requirements. In other words, it’s possible, even likely that almost all of us will read through the above list and check all the boxes in our favor. “Yep, I’m doing it right! It’s those dirty dogs who disagree with me that need to learn how to reason!” I suppose I needn’t even mention how foolish it is to harbor such thoughts. If you really think you’re on the side of the angels and fully above reproach in any disagreement, you would do well to ask the other side of the disagreement to rate you in the above categories. How do THEY view you and your approach in these areas. If you really want to know and you’re willing to listen, you may learn exactly what is needed to reset the discussion and begin to truly reason together. 

Now, I’ll freely admit my own weakness in knowledge and understanding, my own bias toward dispassionate logic, and my underlying intent to see disputations and contentions cease and peace prevail among the Lord’s people. I’m sure my above list could be improved. I don’t claim to be good at reasoning, but I do claim to have reasoned together on multiple occasions with multiple people holding opinions different than mine, and I have seen the above understanding bear good fruit, for what it’s worth. 

Ultimately, it comes down to this summary. It is impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable. We must all be willing to be reasonable in every way if we hope to keep the Lord’s command to reason together. And this brings us back to where I started this post: Our Lord is Reasonable. Let us be like Him.

The atonement is not really a singular event, apart from the completion of the preparation. The atonement process is Christ reasoning with, persuading, and forgiving each repentant sinner on an ongoing basis to redeem them. 

—Glossary, “Atonement”

Note: The first comment on this series pointed out the difficulties and problems with attempting to reason together by means of text alone: 

“…when we employ texting or emailing the reader often badly misreads the message by interpreting the words using an assumption about the sender's "attitude" from the words. We can't see body language, facial expression, or hear their tone of voice. We only have words. Often words have one meaning when you hear them, and another when you only read them…I think very often texting and emailing (or posting on a message board) creates serious impediments to understanding. Therefore it prevents, even precludes, reasoning.” 

I have taken this advice to heart and turned off commenting capability on these posts in an effort to promote reasoning together in more productive ways. 

Men's Survey Results

I’ve been asked to post the results from the Survey for Men Regarding Women’s Councils: 

Thank you to all the men who participated in the survey about the Women’s Council. We appreciate your time, perspective, and insight. Below, we’ll share the results for those who are interested. These results are not intended to end discussion or establish any definitive “truth.” They simply represent another set of data — a viewpoint that has not often been considered — which may add helpful context to the ongoing conversations among the women.

An interesting observation: In the open-ended questions, many men shared thoughtful ideas, suggestions, and concerns. Some felt the survey was biased against new movement-wide guidelines for women’s councils, while others felt it was biased in favor of them. This range of feedback suggests that the survey was likely reasonably (though not perfectly) balanced.

If you’re frustrated that this survey exists, please know that no ill will was intended toward any person or group. The purpose was simply to gather honest input and broaden understanding. There was considerable backlash to the survey, which led the creators to seriously question whether to release the results. However, it felt disingenuous to request participation and collect responses from 70+ men without sharing the findings.

No interpretations or conclusions will be offered. The results will be posted exactly as collected, for you to read and interpret yourself in the following graphics. Click any of these to enlarge them.

Survey for Men Regarding Women's Councils

I've been asked to post the following: 

Current discussions among the Covenant Christian women regarding women’s councils have the potential to impact Covenant Christian men, and our broader community. 

As such, we, a group of Covenant Christian women, thought it advisable to gather data about mens’ opinions on these topics and discussions. 

We recognize these issues will ultimately be left to the women to decide, but we believe male voices ought to be an important consideration. 

We would appreciate input from any and all Covenant Christian men.

There is important context to consider before you begin the survey. You will also be required to give your word that you are a man, and that you will only fill the survey out once. 

Aside from those two procedural questions, all other questions are optional. 

There is an area to express additional thoughts or concerns not addressed by the written questions at the end of each short section. 

The survey will close October 10th, 2025 at 11:59 PM. Please submit your response before then. 

Thank you in advance for your time. This data will help us understand the point of view of those who are arguably most heavily affected by women’s councils.

Take Survey Here