Elder Cook Wins Award for Worst Euphemism Ever

[juliann]

I only have one word to say: ponderize.

When Elder Cook starts making T-shirts get back to me.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Indeed. So?

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."

So, why does his opinion elicit a snarky response in defense of Elder Cook?

As to the use of the term "vehemently", I would say there has been a "passionate" defense.  Your mileage may vary.

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

I only have one word to say: ponderize.

When Elder Cook starts making T-shirts get back to me.

Okay, that was a good one.

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, why does his opinion elicit a snarky response in defense of Elder Cook?

As to the use of the term "vehemently", I would say there has been a "passionate" defense.  Your mileage may vary.

Did he say anything about it being his opinion? Or did he categorically declare that what Elder Cook said was wrong? 

My mileage does indeed vary. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Did he say anything about it being his opinion? Or did he categorically declare that what Elder Cook said was wrong? 

My mileage does indeed vary. 

Oh, never mind.  I don't see why this is so difficult.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

.................................................... 

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.

No doubt, but even with all that, the coarsening of society has come a long way since I was a teenager in the 1950s.  It has become acceptable in ways that I could not have imagined then.  Indeed, I used to think of America (and even the Mormons) as exceptional.  Yet now we see staunch evangelicals and many pious Mormons doing their evil ring-dance around the rosie, and ashes, ashes, we all fall down . . .

[Thinking]

A lot of people have a big enough problem grasping the double negative in mathematics that a phrase like non-consensual immorality is going to really cause heads to hurt.

[carbon dioxide]

Lots of people with way too much time on their hands complaining about "non-consensual immorality" being used and not some other term.  We all know what he was referring too.  The phrase encompasses all forms abuse from rape to assault, to being a voyeur, to basic harassment.   If covers the whole spectrum.  All forms of these behaviors are immoral in varying degrees.  Perhaps a more politically correct term was not used.  Good.  I hate political correctness anyway.  People should be free to speak their mind and use whatever words or phrases they want to get their point across. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[cinepro]

[The Nehor]

And the old "offender for a word" strikes again. Critics deliberately misunderstand and scream it as loud as possible.

Nothing new under the sun and all that rot.

[Marginal Gains]

Does the Church denounce ‘non-consensual immorality’? Or does it just try to denounce the victims of non-consensual immorality?

I hear what Cook said, but I see what the Church did at BYU to all those rape victims.

I hear what Cook said, but I see what the Church did to try and intimidate and undermine the victim of Joseph L Bishop.

What Cook said is utterly irrelevant when his words do not match the Church’s actions, and they clearly don’t.

[Rivers]

This is just like people complaining about the term “same-sex attraction” used instead of “gay.”

i don’t get why people get their panties in a bunch over things like this.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Well, I think I disagree with your disagreement.

A man I know participated in immorality, in specific he had sex with a woman not his wife (he wasn't married and neither was she).  The incident could have been described exactly using Elder Cook's term "non-consensual immorality", because he only did it because she threatened to go off and find someone else to have sex with if he didn't do it with her right then and there.  He was young and in love with her, or thought he was, and very reluctantly went along with it.  One of his friends later was rather blunt with him, stating to him: "She raped you."  And it was essentially true, but obviously not legally actionable, and he could have refused, but was emotionally forced into it.  

Another kind of participation (and obviously far worse) is when someone is unconscious/unresponsive and is sexually violated by someone taking advantage of that absence.  

And worst of all is when someone withholds consent, but they are forced into it nevertheless.

All of those are non-consensual, they are immoral acts, but the culpability of the victim is different.  In the first case the culpability rises to the level of sin, but not the latter cases.

I think Elder Cook's terminology is quite apt.  It covers all the possible situations.

Of course, some people are simply looking for something to complain about.  Being willfully offended seems to be a hallmark of our modern 21st century society.

[Amulek]

If critics of the church are genuinely confused by Elder Cook's remarks, I think that tells us more about their ability to understand than it does about Elder Cook's ability to communicate. 

 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If critics of the church are genuinely confused by Elder Cook's remarks, I think that tells us more about their ability to understand than it does about Elder Cook's ability to communicate. 

 

Why not both? Some people are seemingly misconstruing what he said on purpose in order to take maximum offense. But what he said was also really poorly phrased.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Of course you don’t, but there is value in Elder Cook in using these creative, non-traditional terms to teach some interesting concepts such as the value of added light, the nature of hypocrisy, the effects of sin on the innocent and the guilty, etc. Where non-consensual immorality is an evil act perpetrated by an immoral person upon an innocent or relatively innocent person and not imposing upon that that person an altered state or quality of being immoral, consensual immorality is two or more immoral people engaging in an immoral act – the opposite of D&C 6:32. If people decry the former, they should certainly decry the latter as well.

I can see that the purpose of connecting consent with immorality -- for the purpose of his talk -- is to highlight the choice we have in committing it, the illogic and hypocrisy of condemning only coerced violence and abuse and not other forms of immorality, and how easy it is to commit or assent to sin as a twosome or more, whether personally or as a community.

These terms he sued are not euphemisms, anyway -- they are a means for him to focus on some very direct points that some evidently find hard to take.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

This is just like people complaining about the term “same-sex attraction” used instead of “gay.”

i don’t get why people get their panties in a bunch over things like this.

I know. It’s not like there has ever been a whole conference talk about how members are saying the church’s name wrong or anything...

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

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

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

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?

I think you really need to ask better questions. All the terms under discussion have a place and context. As to something that is at once immoral, non-consensual and not criminal, you’d get a better answer from a criminal lawyer, but any such action that falls just under the threshold of criminality would qualify. Some might consider settled NDAs to render some acts immoral and non-consensual yet effectively not criminal... but ask your lawyer.

As far as I can tell, the “confusion” is extremely limited and largely for framing rhetoric. As to your remaining questions, you have evidently not read the comments, especially mine! CFR that “Mormons feel the need to say things in some kind of code that is open to speculation as to what is being said,” unless that comment is just a reflection of your “confusion.”