Elder Cook Wins Award for Worst Euphemism Ever

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Quote

People in the gallery aren't invited to speak, they are guests specifically invited to listen. They aren't the Lord's anointed attempting to fulfill their calling and stewardship despite their weaknesses.   It makes sense that yelling from the gallery in GC would be open to more criticism.  

Maybe. Where it makes more sense is on this board. Not so much elsewhere.

I think loudly and disrespectfully interrupting a sacred service of a religion you do not belong to is frowned upon pretty much everywhere.

Quote

I really can understand how those at the conference are uncomfortable with someone yelling.

Not merely uncomfortable.  Unhappy that their sacred religious meeting, being held in a consecrated space, is being loudly and rudely interrupted by someone lacking even the most basic tact and respect.

Quote

You are at an event at which certain behaviors are expected and when those behaviors are not observed, people react negatively. But the fact is this person yelling was talking much more clearly and directly about a problem that Elder Cook was trying to deal with also.

Crystal was not "talking."  She was yelling.  Rudely.  Disrespectfully.  Without invitation.  At a religious group to which she does not belong.  With the calculated intent to disrupt and give offense.

Elder Cook, in contrast, was invited to address the religious group.  And he was speaking quietly.  About a difficult topic.  He had no intention to disrupt or offend.

These two people are not similarly situated.  At all.

Quote

Some of the reactions I have seen to what Elder Cook said defended him by saying we should overlook it

"Overlook" a choice of words that falls within what should be a fairly broad spectrum of terminology?  Yes, I think we should do that.

Meanwhile, Crystal's behavior was entirely outside the bounds of civility, decorum and respect.  Nevertheless, let's forgive her and move on.

Quote

because he is an apostle

And because he was invited to speak.

And because he had no intention to disrupt or offend.

Meanwhile, Crystal had every intention to disrupt and offend.

Quote

or how we should not be offended for just a phrase,

In the main, I think people should not take offense where none is intended (such as with Elder Cook's remarks).

And even where offense was intended (such as with Crystal's behavior), we should not take offense either.  We should forgive her and move one (while also taking steps to make sure her misbehavior is not repeated).

Quote

so to those I would respond, we should expect more from whomever is talking at the pulpit than we do from someone yelling from the gallery, not less.

Indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 3, 2018 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I agree Calm, and I think maybe we can come up with a better way to refer to crimes than "non-consensual immorality," and stated as much in my first post. I believe the Lord told Hosea to marry a prostitute, so I don't think we should make women who have experienced rape to feel unworthy or permanently shunned. They are not unworthy of marriage or to have a happy married life. We definitely need to be clear about that. God cannot hold them accountable for something which is not their fault. Rape does not make women a polluted rag. While in the speech of older cultures a woman's virtue may have been besmirched, I think it is clear with God there is no reason for victims to be permanently besmirched nor unhappy. It was culture and expectations which made a virgin desirable - not something necessarily imposed by God. 

I do see a problem with consensual immorality referring to two people - then it seems the mind will connect non-consensual immorality with two people as well and attribute immorality to the non-consenting party. I think that is clearly not the intent, but is a possible undesired interpretation which better wording may avoid. Perhaps "abusive misconduct" or "abusive crimes" would better fit the bill since the word "abuse" essentially carries with it the non-consensual idea and can include psychological as well as physical forms. Let's take a vote... all those for the phrasing "abusive misconduct."

No. No. No.  The last thing the church needs to do is make up more jargon that only Mormons understand.  We already have perfectly good words to describe these criminal assaults.  Rap, Sexual Harassment, Sexual assault.  They are harsh words for a reason. They are harsh brutal criminal acts.

Does the church have any idea how much confusing "Mormon language" it already has?  When my partner was watching President Nelson's initial press conference, I felt like I was interpreting a foreign language.  When the church does this, it becomes misunderstood by those outside the church who are not in on the secret language only spoken by members of the church.  

Can anyone give a real reason why rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault can not be used by the church?  Should we be pretending in conference that rape is nothing more than nonconsensual immorality?  This has got to stop.  And quit calling someone who is gay as having SSA while your at it. For heavens sake, being gay is not some kind of diagnosed disease.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, if a woman is sexually assaulted, would you say she has participated in "non-consensual immorality"?

If you knew a guy named Bob, and he was dating a woman named Janice, and Bob raped Janice, would you say that Bob and Janice shared non-consensual immorality?

Because I think Elder Cook's phrasing sounds great until we think about what it actually means.  So I'm just trying to figure out what other people think it means, as applied to real-world situations.

It’s a BIG jump to equate “suffering” and even “encountering” and “witnessing” immorality with “sharing” immorality. How a survivor speaks of specific moral offenses perpetrated against her is going to be different than how an apostle speaks of immorality. Both are real-world situations.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

The last thing the church needs to do is make up more jargon that only Mormons understand.

The last thing Elder Cook was doing was coining a phrase. When the full transcript comes out, this will be borne out even more than the news articles,.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The last thing Elder Cook was doing was coining a phrase. When the full transcript comes out, this will be borne out even more than the news articles,.

He was doing exactly that. Does he not know the words rape or sexual assault?  And it WAS misunderstood.  Do you think if he had used the common words for these criminal behaviors people would be mad about implied complicity?  

Unless the church loves these kinds of articles written about them by people who just don't understand the need for such linguistic gymnastics, it should stop.  

[cinepro]

The phrasing is especially odd if we consider that it's possible for a husband to rape his legal wife.  But since sex in that situation would otherwise be moral, would Elder Cook classify such situations as "non-consensual morality"?

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

No. No. No.  The last thing the church needs to do is make up more jargon that only Mormons understand.  We already have perfectly good words to describe these criminal assaults.  Rap, Sexual Harassment, Sexual assault.  They are harsh words for a reason. They are harsh brutal criminal acts.

Agreed.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does the church have any idea how much confusing "Mormon language" it already has?  When my partner was watching President Nelson's initial press conference, I felt like I was interpreting a foreign language.  When the church does this, it becomes misunderstood by those outside the church who are not in on the secret language only spoken by members of the church.  

Every religious group has terminology specific to it.  Nevertheless, you have a point.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can anyone give a real reason why rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault can not be used by the church?  

Nope.

"Sexual misconduct" is possible, but that probably conflates more than clarifies.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Should we be pretending in conference that rape is nothing more than nonconsensual immorality?  This has got to stop.  

I don't think anyone is "pretending" such a thing.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

And quit calling someone who is gay as having SSA while your at it. For heavens sake, being gay is not some kind of diagnosed disease.

Nor is it an immutable state of being.  It was originally an adjective that pertains to sexual attraction.  I'm reminded here of a dialogue in the 1995 move, Sabrina (the discussion is among the employees of a wealthy family regarding the chauffer's daughter, Sabrina, dancing with a member of the family, Linus):

Quote

Joanna: It was Linus. Sabrina went out with Linus. 

Linda: Sabrina went out with Linus? 

Scott: That's too weird. - I thought the guy was gay. 

Rosa: Mr. Linus is not a gay.

Joanna: It's not ''a gay.'' It's just gay. 

Linda: Linus Larrabee is gay? That makes me like him better. 

"Gay" has become a noun.  However, at that point I think we start to stray into a gray area.

It looks like plenty of non-LDS folks use the "same-sex attraction."  It's politically unpopular for some (like you, apparently), but it helps maintain an important lexical/doctrinal point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The last thing Elder Cook was doing was coining a phrase. When the full transcript comes out, this will be borne out even more than the news articles,.

The reasons those phrases won't be coined is because, as I've pointed out, they're terrible.

In addition to the other reasons already mentioned, another reason that they're terrible is because Elder Cook uses "immorality" as a euphemism for "sex".  Instead of saying "non-consensual sex" he says "non-consensual immorality."  (And some would argue that you shouldn't even say "non-consensual sex"..., since that seems to be the preferred phrasing used by accused rapists.)

He tries to have the euphemism do double-duty by pointing out that to LDS, even consensual sex is "immoral", but that doesn't negate the way the term is used.  Instead of saying "non-consensual sex" or "consensual sex" and then defining both as "immoral" (the latter outside of marriage), he takes a shortcut and just calls them both "non-consensual immorality" and "consensual immorality", but it's too big of a shortcut.

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The phrasing is especially odd if we consider that it's possible for a husband to rape his legal wife.  But since sex in that situation would otherwise be moral, would Elder Cook classify such situations as "non-consensual morality"?

 

Rape is never "otherwise" to sexual morality.  It is in a different category of behaviour.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

Most likely. After which a good secretary would have trashed the letter. 

That raises an interesting question.  I wonder if secretaries routinely open all the mail?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.

Every religious group has terminology specific to it.  Nevertheless, you have a point.

Nope.

"Sexual misconduct" is possible, but that probably conflates more than clarifies.

I don't think anyone is "pretending" such a thing.

Nor is it an immutable state of being.  It was originally an adjective that pertains to sexual attraction.  I'm reminded here of a dialogue in the 1995 move, Sabrina (the discussion is among the employees of a wealthy family regarding the chauffer's daughter, Sabrina, dancing with a member of the family, Linus):

"Gay" has become a noun.  However, at that point I think we start to stray into a gray area.

It looks like plenty of non-LDS folks use the "same-sex attraction."  It's politically unpopular for some (like you, apparently), but it helps maintain an important lexical/doctrinal point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't get what's so esoteric or difficult to understand about same-sex attraction. Seems pretty clear on its face to me. And value neutral.

And I don't for a moment believe it is just Mormons who use it.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

He was doing exactly that. Does he not know the words rape or sexual assault?  And it WAS misunderstood.  Do you think if he had used the common words for these criminal behaviors people would be mad about implied complicity?  

Unless the church loves these kinds of articles written about them by people who just don't understand the need for such linguistic gymnastics, it should stop.  

If he was doing exactly that, he would have come up with something like "Conseniquity^TM" Which by the way I'm getting investors for an app I developed that suggests a new one each day, from Adultery to Zeezromism. So you're wrong, and he wasn't limiting the scope to strictly criminal behavior. Unless you love creating implied complicity to make someone an offender for a word, try listening to understand, which is typically how General Conference talks are developed.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The phrasing is especially odd if we consider that it's possible for a husband to rape his legal wife.  But since sex in that situation would otherwise be moral, would Elder Cook classify such situations as "non-consensual morality"?

 

Now THIS is terrible! Rape is about power and control; channeling sexual desire into violence.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The reasons those phrases won't be coined is because, as I've pointed out, they're terrible.

In addition to the other reasons already mentioned, another reason that they're terrible is because Elder Cook uses "immorality" as a euphemism for "sex".  Instead of saying "non-consensual sex" he says "non-consensual immorality."  (And some would argue that you shouldn't even say "non-consensual sex"..., since that seems to be the preferred phrasing used by accused rapists.)

He tries to have the euphemism do double-duty by pointing out that to LDS, even consensual sex is "immoral", but that doesn't negate the way the term is used.  Instead of saying "non-consensual sex" or "consensual sex" and then defining both as "immoral" (the latter outside of marriage), he takes a shortcut and just calls them both "non-consensual immorality" and "consensual immorality", but it's too big of a shortcut.

As I've pointed out, even the SLT got it right. These terms are not euphemisms, they are teaching tools (and yes, one is required to think in order to consider his ways). You're making the same unhelpful leaps that I've seen a couple of quoted therapists in these articles make: strictly apply it to rape and assault, and promote a sense of victimization rather than survivorship. The double-duty charge doesn't make any sense because 1) these are not euphemisms and 2) abuse and harassment are immoral, whether consensual or not or directed through sexual means or not.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I've pointed out, even the SLT got it right. These terms are not euphemisms, they are teaching tools (and yes, one is required to think in order to consider his ways). You're making the same unhelpful leaps that I've seen a couple of quoted therapists in these articles make: strictly apply it to rape and assault, and promote a sense of victimization rather than survivorship. The double-duty charge doesn't make any sense because 1) these are not euphemisms and 2) abuse and harassment are immoral, whether consensual or not or directed through sexual means or not.

I don't see any value or benefit in distinguishing between "consensual" and "non-consensual" "immorality." If it is "non-consensual" on your part, then it is not "immorality" --- on your part. It is for the perpetrator, but everyone already knows that. What purpose is there for even connecting "immorality" with "consent?" 

I disagree. I think this was completely and solely euphemistic. 

[kllindley]

It does take a certain type of insistence on assigning the worst possible motives and subtext to take issue with what was a rather wise teaching. 

[Avatar4321]

Is it too much to expect better than to criticize the wording of a principle that there is no disagreements with? 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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. 

Maybe we should just let Elder Cook say things the way he wants and is comfortable with.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It does take a certain type of insistence on assigning the worst possible motives and subtext to take issue with what was a rather wise teaching. 

His statement is odd on many different levels.

As reminder, here is how it is reported in the DN:

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.”

If he is placing this comment in the context of us "opposing" it, then what is he saying?  Should I treat people who engage in "consensual immorality" the same way I treat people who engage in "non-consensual immorality"?  Does he really want us to oppose people who, say, commit consensual homosexual acts the same way we oppose someone who sexually assaults someone else?

It's easy to scan his words and think "Oh, good ol' Elder Cook was just saying that while it's great the world is denouncing rapists, we should also remember that committing fornication or having homosexual sex is bad too!"

But they're bad in different ways, and our opposition is different, and the way we view people who engage in these different types of immorality is very different (hopefully).    There is simply no way "consensual immorality" is "also a sin" in any way that "non-consensual immorality" is a "sin."

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is it too much to expect better than to criticize the wording of a principle that there is no disagreements with? 

 I think that for all of the discussion about euphemism and effective communication, we all agree that his talk was a very good one, and that the overall message was clear. 

I just don't care for the trend to be euphemistic in general that permeates the Church. The impulse behind this trend is described in a humorous way by Orson Scott Card in "Saintspeak: the Mormon Dictionary" (actually, a lot of the book refers to these euphemisms) under "Reliefsocietese"

Reliefsocietese The dialect of sweetness. The language is spoken in its most refined form by persons who are, have been, or want to be in a Relief Society presidency, but it is also spoken by parents of children who are misbehaving in church, any speaker who is talking to Mormon teenagers, and anyone who doesn't like you but has to work with you anyway. It can only be spoken while smiling, and only positive things can be said. Thus the English sentence, "You really botched the assignment," would be translated into Reliefsocietese as, "You're just such a choice individual, and I'm so very proud of you for doing the best you could. And I just know that next time you'll do even better," and the English sentence, "Will you please be quiet so we can get back to the lesson?" is rendered in Reliefsocietese as, "We're all so very grateful for your special ideas, and we'll just for sure plan a special day really soon when we'll have a chance to hear all about them." While it takes years of practice to become fluent in this dialect, you can fake it right from the start by imitating the expression of rapture found in Renaissance madonna paintings and saying special, choice, just, or so very at least once in every sentence.

[Avatar4321]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe we should just let Elder Cook say things that way he wants and is comfortable with.

I would add that we listen with the Spirit so the Lord can teach us with what Elder Cook says, even if it’s unclear

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That raises an interesting question.  I wonder if secretaries routinely open all the mail?

Given the very real possibility of harmful substances hidden in an innocent looking envelope, I hope they do, and take precautions as they open them.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

One of my favorite Sacrament Meeting talks ever was a guy who was speaking about the creation. He must have said "orgasm" at least 20 times.

He was intending to say "organism". Small, but important difference  

Maybe a Freudian slip?

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

There is simply no way "consensual immorality" is "also a sin" in any way that "non-consensual immorality" is a "sin."

Jacob and Jesus would not agree with you.

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I would add that we listen with the Spirit so the Lord can teach us with what Elder Cook says, even if it’s unclear

Of all the wonderful messages and all the manifestations of the Spirit in this Conference, we comb through all the words and pick this to denigrate and shame Elder Cook and cast opprobrium on the Church. And then scan the Internet for "boobs" and "orgasm" and whatever other words we can find to justify our impatience and outrage. How quickly we seek to find something to offend us. It's truly sad.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui