Elder Cook Wins Award for Worst Euphemism Ever

[cinepro]

It's always nice when the words of the Prophets and Apostles reach a wider audience than the faithful (and critical) listeners that tune in on Conference weekend (or the faithful who get to hear a talk that begins "My talk today is on a talk by Elder ______..." , but I digress.)

But it seems one comment from Conference is getting a little more attention than intended.  In his talk on Sunday afternoon, Elder Cook made a commendable effort to publicly clarify his support for the recent shift in society to be far less tolerant of rape and sexual assault.  But in doing so, he used an unfortunate euphemism to avoid saying "rape" or "sexual assault":

Quote

“During my lifetime, worldly issues and concerns have moved from one extreme to another...,” Elder Cook said. "It is commendable that non-consensual immorality has been denounced. … Those who understand God’s plan must also oppose consensual immorality, which is also a sin.”

While his statement is commendable support for those who have been attacked, it is ultimately an ill-conceived framing of the problem, and it appears to be getting some attention outside of the usual circles:

Washington Post - Mormon Leader's Remarks on Sexual Misconduct Draws Criticism

 

The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference.  So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/a-doorway-called-love?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

 

 

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's always nice when the words of the Prophets and Apostles reach a wider audience than the faithful (and critical) listeners that tune in on Conference weekend (or the faithful who get to hear a talk that begins "My talk today is on a talk by Elder ______..." , but I digress.)

But it seems one comment from Conference is getting a little more attention than intended.  In his talk on Sunday afternoon, Elder Cook made a commendable effort to publicly clarify his support for the recent shift in society to be far less tolerant of rape and sexual assault.  But in doing so, he used an unfortunate euphemism to avoid saying "rape" or "sexual assault":

While his statement is commendable support for those who have been attacked, it is ultimately an ill-conceived framing of the problem, and it appears to be getting some attention outside of the usual circles:

Washington Post - Mormon Leader's Remarks on Sexual Misconduct Draws Criticism

 

The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference.  So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/a-doorway-called-love?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng

I actually brought this up with my wife at the time. I intimated that I didn't believe he was being clear in what he was trying to say. She countered that he was trying to be broader than just rape. He was denouncing all forms of harassment and abuse - after all sexual harassment is not rape, but it is still non-consensual immorality. The way he said it just sounded strange, but after thinking about it, I think he was right. Maybe we can come up with a better way of communicating this though. My guess is he had specifically thought about his wording, and chosen it carefully for this reason - after all, who ever talks about it this way? That is what gave me pause. I am glad someone in the public is paying attention. Perhaps this will give us a chance to make a better impression on the general public. 

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I actually brought this up with my wife at the time. I intimated that I didn't believe he was being clear in what he was trying to say. She countered that he was trying to be broader than just rape. He was denouncing all forms of harassment and abuse - after all sexual harassment is not rape, but it is still non-consensual immorality. The way he said it just sounded strange, but after thinking about it, I think he was right. Maybe we can come up with a better way of communicating this though. My guess is he had specifically thought about his wording, and chosen it carefully for this reason - after all, who ever talks about it this way? That is what gave me pause. I am glad someone in the public is paying attention. Perhaps this will give us a chance to make a better impression on the general public. 

The problem is that if it's the person doing the assault that is being "immoral", then that's what it is.  It's simply "immorality." 

Simply look at it from the perspective of a victim (or "non-consensual participant").  If Jane goes on a date with Tom, and he date-rapes her, then would it make sense for her to go to her Bishop and say "Tom and I engaged in non-consensual immorality"?  Is that really the same as saying "Tom raped me"? 

This whole thing should have stopped when Elder Cook was writing his talk and thought to himself "What's a nice way to say 'rape'"?

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[Mormonopolis]

He was perfectly clear. It's unfortunate when we must toil at words that were sent by one of the Lord's anointed. If only we had such 'care' for our actions and commitment to the Gospel...

[Calm]

Sexual assault and harassment covers much more than rape.  If rape is the only nonconsenual immorality recognized by our Church, we would be in deep trouble, imo.

I think some may misread it to imply both involved are engaging in immoral behaviour; one willingly, the other not.

I think assuming that particip

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference.  So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement?

Unsure. He has used the term "sexual assault" in other venues, but I haven't been able to find him using it in a Conference address. That's maybe the standard we should be looking at for comparison though - not whether or not others have used certain terms in Conference talks.

 

[Exiled]

I don't know what his motives were but it is being taken by some as including victims in the immorality net.  It wasn't too long ago when BYU victims of rape or sexual assault were complaining of being victimized a second time by their ecclesiastical leaders.  It seems that the ecclesiastical leaders were taking the unfortunate position that victims were somehow responsible in some way for the rapes or sexual assaults because they had put themselves in a position to be raped or assaulted and therefore needed to repent.  I hope this isn't what Elder Cook meant or was thinking.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's always nice when the words of the Prophets and Apostles reach a wider audience than the faithful (and critical) listeners that tune in on Conference weekend (or the faithful who get to hear a talk that begins "My talk today is on a talk by Elder ______..." , but I digress.)

But it seems one comment from Conference is getting a little more attention than intended.  In his talk on Sunday afternoon, Elder Cook made a commendable effort to publicly clarify his support for the recent shift in society to be far less tolerant of rape and sexual assault.  But in doing so, he used an unfortunate euphemism to avoid saying "rape" or "sexual assault":

While his statement is commendable support for those who have been attacked, it is ultimately an ill-conceived framing of the problem, and it appears to be getting some attention outside of the usual circles:

Washington Post - Mormon Leader's Remarks on Sexual Misconduct Draws Criticism

The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference.  So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/a-doorway-called-love?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng

The concern appears to be in some potential ambiguity of the term "immorality," namely, that it could be construed as applying to both the perpetrator and the victim.  But that would be the most hostile and uninformed construction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference.  So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement?

Its a good question in light of other talks given.  This BYU article shows a sensitivity towards using the proper descriptive language.  Perhaps the correlation committee or whoever scrubs the talks for conference, needs to take some cues from BYU.  

Quote

In an effort to clarify purpose and better meet the needs of students on campus, Brigham Young University is updating the title of victim advocate to sexual assault survivor advocate.

“The term ‘victim’ is becoming far less accepted in the vernacular surrounding those who have been sexually assaulted,” said Lisa Leavitt, BYU’s sexual assault survivor advocate. “Survivor is the term more commonly used.”

http://news.byu.edu/news/byu-updates-advocate-title-sexual-assault-survivors

[CA Steve]

Funny how when something is poorly said from the pulpit we should excuse it as a simple mistake, or we are "being an offender for a word" or we should stop  criticizing the Lord's anointed, but when something similar is yelled from the gallery it is totally inappropriate.

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sexual assault and harassment covers much more than rape.  If rape is the only nonconsenual immorality recognized by our Church, we would be in deep trouble, imo.

I think some may misread it to imply both participants are engaging in immoral behaviour; one willingly, the other not.

Then he could have simply said "sexual assault and harassment."

Honestly, this might give us some insight into why the Church response to rape and sexual assault can be so insufficient.  If the leaders look at "rape" as simply the other side of the coin from "fornication", then a rapist who says he's sorry and repented could be treated the same as someone who fornicates and says they're sorry.  It's the same thing; they're both just different types of "immorality."

 

I do, however, like the suggestion that we rename the "Ministering" program to the "Non-consensual friends" program. 

Or "Baptisms-for-the-dead" to be "Non-consensual postmortem baptisms."

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[Exiled]

In his defense, I think he found what the universities are calling rape now-a-days ("non-consentual sex") and merely substituted immorality for sex as he probably thought the word "sex" wasn't conference worthy.  Immorality is much broader and unfortunately reminds some of the past BYU scandal.  http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article207746639.html

[Gray]

If he wanted to kind of talk around it, "assault" and "harassment" would have been great words to use. Combined with the reference to #metoo, we all would have understood that he was referring to sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Then he could have simply said "sexual assault and harassment."

Honestly, this might give us some insight into why the Church response to rape and sexual assault can be so insufficient.  If the leaders look at "rape" as simply the other side of the coin from "fornication", then a rapist who says he's sorry and repented could be treated the same as someone who fornicates and says they're sorry.  It's the same thing; they're both just different types of "immorality."

 

I do, however, like the suggestion that we rename the "Ministering" program to the "Non-consensual friends" program. 

Or "Baptisms-for-the-dead" to be "Non-consensual postmortem baptisms."

 

Oh, I think he was also trying to get a G rating.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Then he could have simply said "sexual assault and harassment."

Honestly, this might give us some insight into why the Church response to rape and sexual assault can be so insufficient.  If the leaders look at "rape" as simply the other side of the coin from "fornication", then a rapist who says he's sorry and repented could be treated the same as someone who fornicates and says they're sorry.  It's the same thing; they're both just different types of "immorality."

 

I fear there may be something to this.

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that if it's the person doing the assault that is being "immoral", then that's what it is.  It's simply "immorality." 

Simply look at it from the perspective of a victim (or "non-consensual participant").  If Jane goes on a date with Tom, and he date-rapes her, then would it make sense for her to go to her Bishop and say "Tom and I engaged in non-consensual immorality"?  Is that really the same as saying "Tom raped me"? 

Well, the point of the article was that somehow this wording places an onus on the victim. How can that be if it is clear it is non-consensual? That makes the non-consenting party a victim. The article keyed on rape like you do here. We have to remember this is the Washington post - one of the most leftist outlets in the country. 

I think Cook was not trying to avoid some type of sin - he was trying to be more inclusive. This in no way means he has some problem with using the word rape. I don't think he is trying to soften that crime. It is just a specific word which doesn't include other forms of sexual misconduct or other forms of physical abuse which I think Cook was trying to denounce as well. But in specific cases like you mention, I think the young lady should by all means say she was raped if she was. If she was sexually harassed she should state that. If she was physically beaten she should state that. The point is that "non-consensual immorality" covers all those. I suppose next the Washington Post is going to poke at the Church for denouncing physical abuse? Surely, that will fall on deaf ears so they have to frame it so that rape victims somehow feel lessened. That clearly is not the intent of the comments and is an unfair characterization, possibly attributable to heightened scrutiny the LGBTQ community is trying to bring on the Church - as I think protests Friday before conference and the outburst of Ms. Legionaires during conference clearly demonstrated.

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Funny how when something is poorly said from the pulpit we should excuse it as a simple mistake, or we are "being an offender for a word" or we should stop  criticizing the Lord's anointed, but when something similar is yelled from the gallery it is totally inappropriate.

Time, place and manner for all things.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, the point of the article was that somehow this wording places an onus on the victim. How can that be if it is clear it is non-consensual? That makes the non-consenting party a victim. The article keyed on rape like you do here. We have to remember this is the Washington post - one of the most leftist outlets in the country. 

I think Cook was not trying to avoid some type of sin - he was trying to be more inclusive. This in no way means he has some problem with using the word rape. I don't think he is trying to soften that crime. It is just a specific word which doesn't include other forms of sexual misconduct or other forms of physical abuse which I think Cook was trying to denounce as well. But in specific cases like you mention, I think the young lady should by all means say she was raped if she was. If she was sexually harassed she should state that. If she was physically beaten she should state that. The point is that "non-consensual immorality" covers all those. I suppose next the Washington Post is going to poke at the Church for denouncing physical abuse? Surely, that will fall on deaf ears so they have to frame it so that rape victims somehow feel lessened. That clearly is not the intent of the comments and is an unfair characterization, possibly attributable to heightened scrutiny the LGBTQ community is trying to bring on the Church - as I think protests Friday before conference and the outburst of Ms. Legionaires during conference clearly demonstrated.

We have the history of Mormon or Moroni saying how the victims of rape had that which is most precious, their virtue, stolen from them.  There has also been other older Church comments that imply even in rape situations, the victims may be viewed as immoral as well.  So I think it is important these days to use unambiguous phrasing to avoid misunderstanding.

[mtomm]

If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. 

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I fear there may be something to this.

I think if there is, it is in his sub-conscious, if at all.  It seems to me that he, as a lawyer and member of the 12, may have been part of the committee to resolve the BYU rape victim problem and looked to what other universities are doing.  Other universities are substituting "non-consentual sex" for rape as it seems to be more palatable of a word choice to put into new rules and by-laws.  He probably just used that definition and then excised "sex" for conference.  

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, mtomm said:

If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. 

I guess I learn something new every day.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng

Maybe I should reconsider this inactive thing

Edited April 3, 2018 by Exiled

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, the point of the article was that somehow this wording places an onus on the victim. How can that be if it is clear it is non-consensual? That makes the non-consenting party a victim. The article keyed on rape like you do here. We have to remember this is the Washington post - one of the most leftist outlets in the country. 

I think Cook was not trying to avoid some type of sin - he was trying to be more inclusive. This in no way means he has some problem with using the word rape. I don't think he is trying to soften that crime. It is just a specific word which doesn't include other forms of sexual misconduct or other forms of physical abuse which I think Cook was trying to denounce as well. But in specific cases like you mention, I think the young lady should by all means say she was raped if she was. If she was sexually harassed she should state that. If she was physically beaten she should state that. The point is that "non-consensual immorality" covers all those. I suppose next the Washington Post is going to poke at the Church for denouncing physical abuse? Surely, that will fall on deaf ears so they have to frame it so that rape victims somehow feel lessened. That clearly is not the intent of the comments and is an unfair characterization, possibly attributable to heightened scrutiny the LGBTQ community is trying to bring on the Church - as I think protests Friday before conference and the outburst of Ms. Legionaires during conference clearly demonstrated.

I think the problem is that it puts "rape" and "sexual assault" in the same category as "fornication" or lesser forms of consensually breaking the Law of Chastity. 

"Rape" and "sexual assault" aren't different ways of breaking the Law of Chastity or being "immoral."

That would be like Elder Cook saying that we should avoid murdering other people and eating them, because that breaks the prohibition of eating meat only in times of famine or winter.  Also, we shouldn't chew tobacco.  Both are examples of breaking the Word of Wisdom.   

Yes, breaking the Word of Wisdom is bad, but he kind of skipped over some of the bigger issues in that first scenario.

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, mtomm said:

If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. 

Also, Elder Haight said "boobs"...

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/this-work-is-true?lang=eng

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Then he could have simply said "sexual assault and harassment."

Honestly, this might give us some insight into why the Church response to rape and sexual assault can be so insufficient.  If the leaders look at "rape" as simply the other side of the coin from "fornication", then a rapist who says he's sorry and repented could be treated the same as someone who fornicates and says they're sorry.  It's the same thing; they're both just different types of "immorality."

 

I do, however, like the suggestion that we rename the "Ministering" program to the "Non-consensual friends" program. 

Or "Baptisms-for-the-dead" to be "Non-consensual postmortem baptisms."

 

I literally laughed out loud at the "non-consensual friends" comment. Well played, sir.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Also, Elder Haight said this in Conference...

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/this-work-is-true?lang=eng

I think we found the next manual writer for the upcoming "teachings of the presidents ...."