Elder Cook Wins Award for Worst Euphemism Ever

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe a Freudian slip?

Ah, Freudian slips.  Where you say one thing, and mean your mother.

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I agree with "widespread", but if you are suggesting that consensual sex is as pernicious as rape or sexual assault and that was what Elder Cook was trying to convey, then I'll just be glad that people are taking his words at face value and missing his deeper meaning.

I think he may have intended that we all contemplate the fact that consensual immorality is far more prevalent than rape, and that we soft-peddle it.  That does not in any way diminish the importance or seriousness of rape, but it does seek to discomfit those who believe that rampant immorality is just O.K.  Why?  Because it is consensual, and nobody gets hurt.  Right?  An exercise of free agency on both sides, so it must be O.K.  The irony lies in our lack of concern for the choices made by others, as though they have no effect upon us, nor upon society at large.  Perhaps Elder Cook was too cute by half.  Perhaps he should have had you or me write his talk for him (or at least edit it) -- I understand that the Brethren do circulate their talks among close confidants before delivery.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Whoa. You're suggesting that Elder Cook compared consensual and non-consensual in an attempt at being ironic? Really? Wow!  :0

Well, a comparison ironically invidious to those who don't think that consensual immoraiity is a big deal -- until it gets out of control.

[cinepro]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think he may have intended that we all contemplate the fact that consensual immorality is far more prevalent than rape, and that we soft-peddle it.  That does not in any way diminish the importance or seriousness of rape, but it does seek to discomfit those who believe that rampant immorality is just O.K.  Why?  Because it is consensual, and nobody gets hurt.  Right?  An exercise of free agency on both sides, so it must be O.K.  The irony lies in our lack of concern for the choices made by others, as though they have no effect upon us, nor upon society at large.  Perhaps Elder Cook was too cute by half.  Perhaps he should have had you or me write his talk for him (or at least edit it) -- I understand that the Brethren do circulate their talks among close confidants before delivery.

I agree that is probably the ultimate point Elder Cook was trying to make.  Certainly, the world (and even the Church to a great degree) has grown to accept fornication and homosexuality as totally acceptable behavior for non-Mormons to do.  We might not approve of them theoretically, but we don't actually do anything about it.  Whether or not we should do anything about it is another question.  He could have just as validly pointed out how freaked out "the world" gets over smoking being depicted in media, when drinking alcohol is arguably much more detrimental to society. 

But he took the wrong road to get there.  To get to the point about fornication and other immorality being wrong, one does not need to first bring up "non-consensual immorality" (presumably rape and other forms of sexual assault). To bring them up in the same paragraph in the midst of the "#metoo" movement was a massive tone-deaf blunder.

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

But it is often a good teaching technique to applaud something good before pointing out the bad to avoid hopelessness and give a greater sense of control and therefore nurture a greater desire and commitment to change.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

Sin is an individual issue.  Some sin is asymmetric.

Doing murder is a sin, but being murdered is not.

Doing rape is a sin, but being raped is not.

Doing non-consensual immorality is a sin, but being non-consensual immoralitied is not. 

I don't see the problem.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Quote

It appears that his objective was to compare consensual and non-consensual immorality in order to be ironic about it -- his concern being consensual immorality, which was his main burden, and which may be a more pernicious and widespread problem.  I don't think that the comparison would have worked at all if he had simply said "rape."

I agree with "widespread",

I think that is the framework.  Fornication is orders of magnitude more common in the Church (and in the world) than rape.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

but if you are suggesting that consensual sex

Not any and all "consensual sex."  Fornication.

And I think the discussion pertains to the Law of Chastity, and fornication being a violation of it.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

is as pernicious as rape or sexual assault

"Pernicious" as in "causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful."

I am not sure comparing the relative harms to individuals and society caused by fornication as compared to rape is a useful exercise. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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 think normal people call rape, sex abuse and harassment non consenting immorality? 

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So you're wrong, and he wasn't limiting the scope to strictly criminal behavior.

What non consenting immorality is not criminal behavior?  And how are we suppose to know that?

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

If his statement is so clear, then why all the confusion?  Obviously some people did feel it implied complicity.  Have you read the comments?  And you didn't answer my question.  Why not just say what he means like every other english person, rape or sexual harassment?  Why do Mormons feel the need to say things in some kind of code that is open to speculation as to what is being said?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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.

He never said she participated, obviously it would have been consensual if she participated. That's what the words mean. Do you need a dictionary?

One does not "share" non consensual sex. 

To me that is clearly a disgusting twisting of the words, and clearly designed to distort the meeting. I am surprised that you would suggest such a thing.

Edited April 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

2 hours 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

Tell me why it is not just as necessary to say someone has OSA for those that are not having sex with someone of the opposite sex. This is a distraction from the thread, and I am not going to comment further.  It is just one of dozens of examples I could give where Mormons use jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world.  Yet they get all bent out of shape when people are confused by exactly what is meant.  That is my point.  But hey if it is just too difficult for Mormons to use common English words whose meanings are widely understood, then they don't really have any right when people write news articles misunderstanding their code words.

[Bernard Gui]

True understanding doesn’t come from reading minds and parsing words. Why not just drop Elder Cook a note to express the disaffection caused by speculation about his choice of words? One can ask him to clear up whatever confusion there may be. This would allow him to define what he means rather than listening to the critics who tell us what they think he means. It’s always best to go to the source.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I am not going to comment further.

Great idea.

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me why it is not just as necessary to say someone has OSA for those that are not having sex with someone of the opposite sex. 

Tell my why you are the arbiter of terminology to be used by the Church.

Quote

This is a distraction from the thread, and I am not going to comment further.  

As you like.  

Quote

It is just one of dozens of examples I could give where Mormons use jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world.  

The same can be said of pretty much every religious group.  Or any other type of group, for that matter.

When I was in the military, we used all sorts of "jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world."

As an attorney, I, and other attorneys, and judges, regularly use "jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world."

Utahns, such as myself, regularly use "jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world."

And on and on and on.

On a whim, I just googled "gay slang."  Well!  It seems that LGBT folks have no shortage of "jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world" (I will also have to wash my eyes out with soap, as LGBT jargon tends toward the vulgar/lurid).  And yet none of us are going to LGBT-themed message boards, presuming to dictate to them what words they can and cannot use amongst themselves.  

Quote

Yet they get all bent out of shape when people are confused by exactly what is meant.  

I don't know what you mean.  "Same-sex attraction" is a readily-understandable term.  It's more precise than "gay" certainly.

Quote

But hey if it is just too difficult for Mormons to use common English words whose meanings are widely understood,

It's not a matter of difficulty.  It's a matter of intentional precision.

Quote

then they don't really have any right when people write news articles misunderstanding their code words.

"Same-sex attraction" is a misunderstood "code word?"

I think not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 3, 2018 by smac97

[Garden Girl]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Unless an envelope, etc, was specifically marked "Confidential" or "Personal," all mail and packages were opened... I would review it before it was sent in to the administrator (in my case, the Dean).  Many times I'd make notes or attach related corresp for info... saved time, and the Dean had info at hand vs having to ask for background, previous action, etc. etc.

GG

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Obviously some people did feel it implied complicity. 

Yes, people with an agenda attempting to twist the meaning.

By today's standards unfortunately he was being overly delicate. That's simply shows how our standards have deteriorated. Non-consensual is non-consensual. I have no clue why people do not understand those words.

In no way does non-consensual imply consensual.

It is the denial of consensualality not it's affirmation.

To say otherwise is actually to condone rape.

If a woman says no does that mean yes now? That is following the same logic by making non consensual mean consensual.

The very assertion is absurd and disgusting that clearly no one turns no into yes without an agenda for doing so.

This is a clear demonstration of the degraded nature of our society today.

Edited April 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Great idea.

 

Sorry.  I didn't know that your opinion is the only opinion that matters.  Evidently you along with many others in the church love to be misunderstood and then blame others for criticizing the church's confusing messages.  Just read this thread.  Even members have to resort to speculating what was meant all because he can't use the words that the rest of the world could understand his intent.  

But hey, if my suggestion for speaking more clear using words whose meanings are commonly understood then hey, I will gladly leave the thread and you can have your echo chamber all to yourself.  

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me why it is not just as necessary to say someone has OSA for those that are not having sex with someone of the opposite sex. This is a distraction from the thread, and I am not going to comment further.  It is just one of dozens of examples I could give where Mormons use jargon that is not clearly understood by the rest of the English speaking world.  Yet they get all bent out of shape when people are confused by exactly what is meant.  That is my point.  But hey if it is just too difficult for Mormons to use common English words whose meanings are widely understood, then they don't really have any right when people write news articles misunderstanding their code words.

Oh yeah.

It's my mission in Life to learn gay code words.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Sorry.  I didn't know that your opinion is the only opinion that matters.  Evidently you along with many others in the church love to be misunderstood and then blame others for criticizing the church's confusing messages.  Just read this thread.  Even members have to resort to speculating what was meant all because he can't use the words that the rest of the world could understand his intent.  

But hey, if my suggestion for speaking more clear using words whose meanings are commonly understood then hey, I will gladly leave the thread and you can have your echo chamber all to yourself.  

This is an LDS board. It's fine with me if only LDS participate. Expecting us to learn every slang term from every culture from which we differ is totally unreasonable. I suppose we could do the whole discussion in another language, would that help?

I for one really don't want to know what those code words mean.

[Rich Hansen]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Perhaps, but given the General Conference setting where members are hearing the "Words of the Lord", an argument could be made for the use of as much precision as possible.   Every attempt should be made to minimize ambiguity,  particularly on such a sensitive and important topic.

[strappinglad]

I suppose we could go with good old  OT euphemisms like " uncover his feet " . That is clearly understood by all. " He knew his wife " , well I know quite a few women but I don't know them if you know what I mean.

He strained to create a phrase, didn't quite work. Moving on.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Rich Hansen said:

Perhaps, but given the General Conference setting where members are hearing the "Words of the Lord", an argument could be made for the use of as much precision as possible.   Every attempt should be made to minimize ambiguity,  particularly on such a sensitive and important topic.

I think you have a point.   But, I also think the scriptures set a good precedent for how ambiguous Words of the Lord can allow the Spirit to teach each of us what we personally need and are capable of hearing.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I agree that is probably the ultimate point Elder Cook was trying to make.  Certainly, the world (and even the Church to a great degree) has grown to accept fornication and homosexuality as totally acceptable behavior for non-Mormons to do.  We might not approve of them theoretically, but we don't actually do anything about it.  Whether or not we should do anything about it is another question.  He could have just as validly pointed out how freaked out "the world" gets over smoking being depicted in media, when drinking alcohol is arguably much more detrimental to society. 

But he took the wrong road to get there.  To get to the point about fornication and other immorality being wrong, one does not need to first bring up "non-consensual immorality" (presumably rape and other forms of sexual assault). To bring them up in the same paragraph in the midst of the "#metoo" movement was a massive tone-deaf blunder.

I'm glad we have folks like you to tell folks like Elder Cook right from wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

Perhaps, but given the General Conference setting where members are hearing the "Words of the Lord", an argument could be made for the use of as much precision as possible.   Every attempt should be made to minimize ambiguity,  particularly on such a sensitive and important topic.

Where was the ambiguity?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I'm glad we have folks like you to tell folks like Elder Cook right from wrong. 

He expressed an opinion; so?

Personally, I think the wording was unfortunate and created a great deal of unnecessary consternation and confusion.  The need to defend these words so vehemently seems, to me, to be the epitome of the adage that some will die on any hill.  

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He expressed an opinion; so?

 

Indeed. So?

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He expressed an opinion; so?

Personally, I think the wording was unfortunate and created a great deal of unnecessary consternation and confusion.  The need to defend these words so vehemently seems, to me, to be the epitome of the adage that some will die on any hill.  

Vehemently? Are you referring to my comments? Comments here in general? Or are you talking about some other vehemence on the internet? Because if you're talking about anything here, we obviously don't share the same definition of "vehement."