The Death of Blunt Speech - good or bad

[The Folk Prophet]

I was reading some older writings of prophets and apostles and was struck with the comparatively blunt speech they used. They were not subtle in the way they stated things. My opinion is that this is good, and that we have lost something in the new contemporary need for political correct, non-offensive speech.

 

Was wondering what others thought. I made it a poll for fun, but please discuss.

 

Edit (note: you may select multiple responses (I think) for the poll)

[Wingnut]

I think the shift toward less-blunt speech indicates a growing Church population, an international mixed culture in the Church, and a greater diversity in general of circumstance and background.

[notquiteperfect]

Agree with Wing.  There's a big difference if a person is talking to a group of 500 or 5,000 versus 5,000,000.  Different (varied) audience, different (varied) needs.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm. I'm not sure on that. In fact, I kind of reject it as the reason (though admit I could be wrong). Not calling a spade a spade is not a world-cultural issue. It is a result of the politically correct culture that takes offense at bluntness instead of accepting things to mean what they mean, no more - no less.

[mordorbund]

Did you just call a small shovel a card suit? I think that's asinine at best (and offensive at worst).

[Dravin]

You seem to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, implying that political correctness stifles or is opposed to blunt speech. I disagree, one can be just as blunt using developmentally challenged, African-American, and police officer as one can using retarded, black, and policeman. If there is a fundamental connection between political correctness and 'the death of blunt speech', I'm inclined to attribute it to a shared impulse rather than cause and effect. I'd argue that impulse in moderation is a good thing, however if taken to excess it can stifle blunt speech.

[The Folk Prophet]

You seem to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, implying that political correctness stifles or is opposed to blunt speech. I disagree, one can be just as blunt using developmentally challenged, African-American, and police officer as one can using retarded, black, and policeman. If there is a fundamental connection between political correctness and 'the death of blunt speech', I'm inclined to attribute it to a shared impulse rather than cause and effect. I'd argue that impulse in moderation is a good thing, however if taken to excess it can stifle blunt speech.

 

Hmm. Interesting. I don't think I mean to be comparing politically correct speech with blunt speech. I am comparing speech that is tempered by politically correct thinking and ideology to blunt speech.

 

It's not really about whether you say African American or Black. It's whether you can talk about race at all without offending someone who blanches at the fact that you even see in terms of race at all (this being an extreme example, of course, that only the most extreme would take offense at).

 

This political correctness to which I refer is an extension of the tolerance/love ideology that pervades society and causes many to view anything intolerant and judgmental as immoral. Whereas I am of the opinion that intolerance and judgment are degrees, and can sometimes be moral, I find the pervading ideology stifling to frank (blunt) speech.

 

An example might be made of the current issue surrounding feminism. In blunt speech, men and women are not equal in the church, and both sides should acknowledge that. In politically correct terms, men and women are equal but different (which sounds an awful lot like separate but equal, which ultimately is not equal at all).

[Just_A_Guy]

Dravin has a point.  As long as we're calling a spade a spade here, let me suggest that political correctness does not limit blunt speech; it limits blunt speech about particular topics.  Another issue is that certain terms, in our modern society, are now poison.  For example, I would disagree with Folk Prophet about the idea that men and women are not equal in the Church.  I would, in a less-careful moment, describe their spheres with the phrase "separate but equal".

 

But of course, we're taught from grade school onwards what that is code for, so in the context of a discussion on LDS gender roles no one will touch that idea with a twenty-foot pole.

 

All of which, perhaps, hints at a deeper problem.  There is now a critical mass of Mormons who are willing to make their fellow Mormons--and even the GAs, in point of fact--"offenders for a word", as Isaiah put it.  Mormons who insist on getting adversarially legalistic when interpreting each other's words, will be rewarded with General Authorities who increasingly speak with a degree of blandness that is generally used only by lawyers.

[The Folk Prophet]

Dravin has a point.  As long as we're calling a spade a spade here, let me suggest that political correctness does not limit blunt speech; it limits blunt speech about particular topics.  

 

Fair enough. But it still limits blunt speech. Regardless, where religion is concerned, and to my point, the way things are taught nowadays compared to the way things were taught back in ye olden day is decidedly less blunt. Of course there are extreme examples on both sides, and I would not contend that either are best practice. I am more interested in the trend as a philosophy. Does our politically correct culture tend towards softer speech, and is that sometimes harmful? Or, perhaps, is that sometimes more harmful than the bluntness would have been?

 

 

For example, I would disagree with Folk Prophet about the idea that men and women are not equal in the Church..

 

How so? Is it not factual that women cannot lead/administrate in the church? Therefore is it not factual that they are not equal? Talking about equality in terms of inequality requires a fair bit of logical gymnastics. And, the fact of the matter is, those struggling with women's equality in the church are not buying the wordplay.

 

I would, in a less-careful moment, describe their spheres with the phrase "separate but equal".

 

But of course, we're taught from grade school onwards what that is code for, so in the context of a discussion on LDS gender roles no one will touch that idea with a twenty-foot pole.

 

And yet you hear equal but different all the time. Or at least, equal but with different roles.

 

All of which, perhaps, hints at a deeper problem.  There is now a critical mass of Mormons who are willing to make their fellow Mormons--and even the GAs, in point of fact--"offenders for a word", as Isaiah put it.  Mormons who insist on getting adversarially legalistic when interpreting each other's words, will be rewarded with General Authorities who increasingly speak with a degree of blandness that is generally used only by lawyers.

 

I sense self-deprecation in the Force.

 

Actually, I take a bit of exception to the idea that non-blunt = bland, and also to the idea that the General Authorities are increasing in their blandness. I do not find that to be true.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps I should have replaced "bland" with "measured".  :)

 

 

How so? Is it not factual that women cannot lead/administrate in the church? Therefore is it not factual that they are not equal? Talking about equality in terms of inequality requires a fair bit of logical gymnastics. And, the fact of the matter is, those struggling with women's equality in the church are not buying the wordplay.

 

(tangent):  It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.  From where I'm sitting, the status quo in the Church can only be described as "unequal" if ecclesiastical authority is something that is being openly sought--in that case, yes; a female's definitely up against a "glass ceiling" there.  But the notion that ecclesiastical authority can or should be aspired to, is anathema to mainstream Mormonism.  And of course, statistically speaking, the odds are against an individual male's ever becoming a bishop; and the odds of his "advancing" to become a Stake President, Seventy, or Apostle are almost laughably infinitesimal.  Tell me that I'll never be a bishop, and my response will be "Meh.  Probably wouldn't have happened anyways; and at any rate--didn't want it."

 

No one would argue that a woman's abject inability to get testicular cancer makes her "unequal" to men.  But replace "testicular cancer" with "a 1/100 chance at being drafted into a ridiculously time-consuming Mormon Church job that nobody wants anyways", and suddenly all Hades breaks loose.

[Palerider]

Once in awhile I think you need blunt.....not all the time

[Palerider]

My response was more one on one than towards a congregation. Although there might be a time when it's needed.

[The Folk Prophet]

No one would argue that a woman's abject inability to get testicular cancer makes her "unequal" to men.  But replace "testicular cancer" with "a 1/100 chance at being drafted into a ridiculously time-consuming Mormon Church job that nobody wants anyways", and suddenly all Hades breaks loose.

 

As often pointed out by those in support of feministic ideas, the idea of equality is related to opportunity. And that is where the inequality undoubtedly must be acknowledged. Women do not have the opportunity to baptize their children. They do not have the opportunity to serve in certain rolls. Etc. Etc...

 

We can go back and forth with a discussion of whether they ought to want such opportunities or not, and I suspect we would largely agree there, but the desire is not relevant to the literal fact of equality. If women did not desire to vote (as I suspect many of them did not due to cultural forces about them) it would not mean that suddenly the women were equal politically. The lack of desire to be equal does not change the reality of the inequality.

 

My opinion is that it would be much clearer for everyone if the church said, "We don't believe in full equality. In some regards men and women aren't meant to be equal. And that's okay."  This would not change the feelings of those who demanded equality...because they already feel that this is what the church really means anyhow...but it would, I think, help to fix some of the confusion around the discussion.

 

Such bluntness concerning these subjects would also deflate some of the arguments being made by those who are inclined to support outlying ideas.

[SpiritDragon]

I don't know that I can say that being politically correct is hurtful to doctrinal discussion in any way, nor is the concept at face value a problem. As has been mentioned changing the words somewhat can still be just as blunt.

 

As for wording being tempered with love; isn't this how the Saviour would want it?

 

One area for instance that I've gathered is not hampered by political correctness is discussion of the law of chastity. My in-laws declare that what is being taught now is far more explicit than anything that was discussed in their day. I must say if our leaders are being more clear and not using archaic terms like necking and petting that kids don't understand than this is good. 

 

I don't mean to get picky with words, but I also need to clarify the use of the word blunt; to me it has the connotation of rude, but I feel like the context you are looking for would align more closely with "concise" as opposed to "rude"???

[SpiritDragon]

As often pointed out by those in support of feministic ideas, the idea of equality is related to opportunity. And that is where the inequality undoubtedly must be acknowledged. Women do not have the opportunity to baptize their children. They do not have the opportunity to serve in certain rolls. Etc. Etc...

 

We can go back and forth with a discussion of whether they ought to want such opportunities or not, and I suspect we would largely agree there, but the desire is not relevant to the literal fact of equality. If women did not desire to vote (as I suspect many of them did not due to cultural forces about them) it would not mean that suddenly the women were equal politically. The lack of desire to be equal does not change the reality of the inequality.

 

My opinion is that it would be much clearer for everyone if the church said, "We don't believe in full equality. In some regards men and women aren't meant to be equal. And that's okay."  This would not change the feelings of those who demanded equality...because they already feel that this is what the church really means anyhow...but it would, I think, help to fix some of the confusion around the discussion.

 

Such bluntness concerning these subjects would also deflate some of the arguments being made by those who are inclined to support outlying ideas.

 

I think there is a problem with the idea of suggesting that men and women are not equal, and not from a politically correct perspective. The Lord has spoken through his servants to declare that men and women are equal:

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/equality-of-men-and-women?lang=eng

 

The trouble with looking at opportunity is in defining what separate opportunities are "worth." Just as women can't hold the priesthood, men can't get pregnant, men don't have fancy grooms rooms in the temple to help make a special day, men don't "get" to wear ear-rings without a social stigma in the church and so on. How do these different opportunities rate? If the Lord says we are equal, I will accept it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Great post! Just the sort of discussion I wanted.

 

As for wording being tempered with love; isn't this how the Saviour would want it?

 

The discussion at hand is what is considered tempered with love. A call to repentance is, for example, one of the most loving things we can do. It is usually taken as hateful though.

 

 

One area for instance that I've gathered is not hampered by political correctness is discussion of the law of chastity. My in-laws declare that what is being taught now is far more explicit than anything that was discussed in their day. I must say if our leaders are being more clear and not using archaic terms like necking and petting that kids don't understand than this is good. 

 

Hmmm. Apparently your in-laws never read The Miracle of Forgiveness. :)

 

Not using archaic terms is not really the point though. That is good, clearly.

 

 

I don't mean to get picky with words, but I also need to clarify the use of the word blunt; to me it has the connotation of rude, but I feel like the context you are looking for would align more closely with "concise" as opposed to "rude"???

 

Sort of. Not really. More closely aligned to "frank" or "straight-forward".  Actually you're getting right at what I'm trying to say...in that -- what is considered rude because of the PC culture cannot be said anymore. People use offense to dissuade others from speaking clearly, and in cases, any straight-forward talk is responded to as offensive. So I mean blunt. I mean Paul blunt. I mean Captain Moroni blunt. I mean Brigham Young blunt. I mean Spencer W. Kimball blunt. But my point is that I do not feel that this sort of bluntness should be considered rude. But nowadays, it is.

 

Hmm. Actually, truth be told, from certain crowds, such bluntness was always taken as rude (take Nephi and Laman and Lemuel). So I suppose I wonder wherein previous generations of prophets spoke this way and it was called standing up for the truth, but nowadays such expressions are considered not "tempered with love".

[The Folk Prophet]

I think there is a problem with the idea of suggesting that men and women are not equal, and not from a politically correct perspective. The Lord has spoken through his servants to declare that men and women are equal:

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/equality-of-men-and-women?lang=eng

 

The trouble with looking at opportunity is in defining what separate opportunities are "worth." Just as women can't hold the priesthood, men can't get pregnant, men don't have fancy grooms rooms in the temple to help make a special day, men don't "get" to wear ear-rings without a social stigma in the church and so on. How do these different opportunities rate? If the Lord says we are equal, I will accept it.

 

Well, first of all, (and this is a bit argumentative) all of the references to the equality of men and women are qualified in the link you provided. Men and women are obviously equal in many regards, the most important being in their potential standing before God according to their faith and obedience. But that does not mean they are equal in all regards. And that's okay. :)

 

I agree with you overall though. I do not think those complaining about equality are saying the same thing as what the church is saying. And, accordingly, they're talking past each other.

 

Still...the equality thing wasn't meant to be the point of the discussion (though I'm all for thread hijacks). The point is that I feel that there are things that are not being said that should be said because if they were said they would offend others.

 

I want to be clear -- I am not suggesting the church change. Their approach is their prerogative, and the leaders are better men than me to make these distinctions. I am only talking theory and philosophy for the sake of learning (as you and I have done before).

[Wingnut]

Hmm. I'm not sure on that. In fact, I kind of reject it as the reason (though admit I could be wrong). Not calling a spade a spade is not a world-cultural issue. It is a result of the politically correct culture that takes offense at bluntness instead of accepting things to mean what they mean, no more - no less.

I think that in such a worldwide church as we are now, political correctness is important.  Its absence can be a barrier in missionary work.  That doesn't necessarily mean bending to popular will, but extra care taken in one's language is helpful.

 

 

Did you just call a small shovel a card suit? I think that's asinine at best (and offensive at worst).

 

You seem to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, implying that political correctness stifles or is opposed to blunt speech. I disagree, one can be just as blunt using developmentally challenged, African-American, and police officer as one can using retarded, black, and policeman. If there is a fundamental connection between political correctness and 'the death of blunt speech', I'm inclined to attribute it to a shared impulse rather than cause and effect. I'd argue that impulse in moderation is a good thing, however if taken to excess it can stifle blunt speech.

 

What I took from Mordorbund's post is that "calling a spade a spade" actually isn't such a simple thing.  Even the word "spade" has multiple meanings.

 

My response was more one on one than towards a congregation. Although there might be a time when it's needed.

Agreed.  Context is important.

 

 

Sort of. Not really. More closely aligned to "frank" or "straight-forward".  Actually you're getting right at what I'm trying to say...in that -- what is considered rude because of the PC culture cannot be said anymore. People use offense to dissuade others from speaking clearly, and in cases, any straight-forward talk is responded to as offensive. So I mean blunt. I mean Paul blunt. I mean Captain Moroni blunt. I mean Brigham Young blunt. I mean Spencer W. Kimball blunt. But my point is that I do not feel that this sort of bluntness should be considered rude. But nowadays, it is.

 

Words change.  Meanings change.  Intentions change.  We have to adapt.  Some may argue that "gay," for example, actually means "merry, happy, gleeful," but when was the last time that was its common usage?  We have to accept, in 2014, that "gay" means "same-sex-attracted."  Because that's what it's become.  I listened to an interesting podcast a few weeks ago about the provenance and evolution of the word "dude."  It originally referred to a young man who was a dandy, then eventually referred to hipsters (of a different time period), and has changed now to be a stand-alone expression, as well as refer to a man who is "a bro."  I also ran across a Buzzfeed article today about Disney facts.  One of them was this:

 

 

35. Dwarf names that didn’t make the cut in Snow White were: Jumpy, Deafy, Dizzy, Wheezy, Hickey, Baldy, Gabby, Nifty, Sniffy, Swift, Lazy, Puffy, Stuffy, Tubby, Shorty, and Burpy.

 

Keep in mind that this film was released in 1937.  While I think Jumpy, Dizzy, and Burpy would have been hilarious names, I can see several of them that would cause Disney to come under heavy fire now, nearly 8 decades later.

[Dravin]

What I took from Mordorbund's post is that "calling a spade a spade" actually isn't such a simple thing.  Even the word "spade" has multiple meanings.

 

My comments were directed at The Folk Prophet.

[Lakumi]

I generally say what comes to my mind, and don't dwell much on it

[SpiritDragon]

Well, first of all, (and this is a bit argumentative) all of the references to the equality of men and women are qualified in the link you provided. Men and women are obviously equal in many regards, the most important being in their potential standing before God according to their faith and obedience. But that does not mean they are equal in all regards. And that's okay. :)

 

I agree with you overall though. I do not think those complaining about equality are saying the same thing as what the church is saying. And, accordingly, they're talking past each other.

 

Still...the equality thing wasn't meant to be the point of the discussion (though I'm all for thread hijacks). The point is that I feel that there are things that are not being said that should be said because if they were said they would offend others.

 

I want to be clear -- I am not suggesting the church change. Their approach is their prerogative, and the leaders are better men than me to make these distinctions. I am only talking theory and philosophy for the sake of learning (as you and I have done before).

No intention to get argumentative, or threadjack :)

 

I just saw the twist in the conversation and commented what was on my mind.

 

I completely agree with the concept that men and women are not equal in every way, I just don't take this to mean that they are not equal over-all. If we had some kind of numeric point system to score different parameters of value and opportunity I firmly believe both would come out even in the end, assuming we used God's measuring stick and not something compiled by mortals, I'm sure the feminists would continue to stack the numbers to show they are being discriminated against.

 

There is no doubt that men and women are different and the Lord makes no attempt to obscure this truth. 

[Just_A_Guy]

As often pointed out by those in support of feministic ideas, the idea of equality is related to opportunity. And that is where the inequality undoubtedly must be acknowledged. Women do not have the opportunity to baptize their children.

 

Well, baptism (and other liturgical rites) are a bit beyond the scope of "ecclesiastical authority"--I thought we were talking primarily about administrative/authoritative roles in the Church.  I would categorize liturgical roles as part of the "separate but equal" category.  As for serving in certain Church positions--

 

 

They do not have th opportunity to serve in certain rolls.  Etc.  Etc...

 

We can go back and forth with a discussion of whether they ought to want such opportunities or not, and I suspect we would largely agree there, but the desire is not relevant to the literal fact of equality. If women did not desire to vote (as I suspect many of them did not due to cultural forces about them) it would not mean that suddenly the women were equal politically. The lack of desire to be equal does not change the reality of the inequality.

 

I'm not so sure.  "Equality" is a very loaded term in modern discourse.  How else do we get around the idea that no one talks about "inequality" in the cancer example I mentioned earlier?

 

 

My opinion is that it would be much clearer for everyone if the church said, "We don't believe in full equality. In some regards men and women aren't meant to be equal. And that's okay."  This would not change the feelings of those who demanded equality...because they already feel that this is what the church really means anyhow...but it would, I think, help to fix some of the confusion around the discussion.

 

Such bluntness concerning these subjects would also deflate some of the arguments being made by those who are inclined to support outlying ideas.

 

I generally agree with your proposition--sometimes we need to just say "this is how it is, and if you don't like it, you can take it up with God".  On the other hand, words do have meanings and connotations beyond their dictionary definitions; and all things considered I think that to say that Mormon women are "unequal" (from an ecclesiastical authority perspective) conveys something different than the reality.  Perhaps correcting the perception isn't ordinarily worth quite as much electronic ink as we've spilled here; but it seems that at minimum we can avoid perpetuating the idea (even if it's just in a tangential example that we're using to prove a greater point on which we both agree   ).

 

/threadjack. 

[Bini]

Lakumi, did you vote "Leave me alone"? I had a hunch but I could be wrong.

[The Folk Prophet]

No intention to get argumentative, or threadjack :)

 

Technically I did both. :)  I can threadjack my own thread though, right? Heheh. 

[The Folk Prophet]

/threadjack. 

 

I'm not entirely sure this was a pure and honest threadjack, as it goes to the point and is definitely helpful to me in understanding and learning about the changes in approach to bluntness.