The Death of Blunt Speech - good or bad

[The Folk Prophet]

I thought it might be helpful if I posted the text I was reading that led me to start this thread. This is an excerpt from Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith. My feeling is that we would never hear or read something this "blunt" by church leaders in our day. Many would contend, I think, that this is because this sort of idea is dated and no longer entirely valid or supportable by church principles. I disagree with that however. Whereas there are some things we know to be dated, and even repudiated, this sort of thing (and many like it) are still concrete and valid gospel principles that have been diluted by nothing more than popular culture and politically correct ideology. I believe that the reason we don't hear this sort of thing is because it would offend people, and there is good, and valid, cause to not offend people. I think wingnut hit it on the head in saying, "...political correctness is important.  Its absence can be a barrier in missionary work." The church is gathering. Offense may well be the greater evil in this time of gathering. The downside is, I believe, is that we have a whole host of LDS folk who do not actually understand the gospel because they write off anything potentially offensive as dated, and validate that because they no longer hear it spoken at the pulpit or written about, etc. Additionally, they may hear a simple quote akin to "men and women are equal" and use that in conjunction with the missing dialogue as seen below to misunderstand the nature of the gospel and God's order. You see what I'm getting at?

 

Here's the excerpt:

 

"The Father the Presiding Authority of the Family. There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher priesthood, than that of the father. This authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount. To illustrate this principle, a single incident will perhaps suffice. It sometimes happens that the elders are called in to administer to the members of a family. Among these elders there may be presidents of stakes, apostles, or even members of the first presidency of the Church. It is not proper under these circumstances for the father to stand back and expect the elders to direct the administration of this important ordinance. The father is there. It is his right and it is his duty to preside. He should select the one who is to administer the oil, and the one who is to be mouth in prayer, and he should not feel that because there are present presiding authorities in the Church that he is therefore divested of his rights to direct the administration of that blessing of the gospel in his home. (If the father be absent, the mother should request the presiding authority present to take charge.) The father presides at the table, at prayer, and gives general directions relating to his family life whoever may be present. Wives and children should be taught to feel that the patriarchal order in the kingdom of God has been established for a wise and beneficent purpose, and should sustain the head of the household and encourage him in the discharge of his duties, and do all in their power to aid him in the exercise of the rights and privileges which God has bestowed upon the head of the home. This patriarchal order has its divine spirit and purpose, and those who disregard it under one pretext or another are out of harmony with the spirit of God's laws as they are ordained for recognition in the home. It is not merely a question of who is perhaps the best qualified. Neither is it wholly a question of who is living the most worthy life. It is a question largely of law and order, and its importance is seen often from the fact that the authority remains and is respected long after a man is really unworthy to exercise it."

[Dravin]

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 sounds like, then, that what you are terming political correct ideology/thinking is what I'm terming the impulse for the politically correct speech. In that case, I think yes, taken to extremes politically correct thinking and ideology can be detrimental to blunt/frank speech.

[SpiritDragon]

If this particular excerpt is considered blunt, I generally think the church is equally blunt today with few exceptions. I have come to expect a certain amount of straightforward declaration from the Lord on matters pertaining to salvation and the building up of the kingdom.

 

However, I can see what your talking about with diluting messages and meaning in some areas. For instance the church's somewhat recent article on race and the priesthood was not straightforward and/or blunt in this manner. It read like a political document designed to say a lot and say nothing at the same time as far as I was concerned. I didn't like the lack of clarity in the letter.

[Wingnut]

When I read this earlier, it made me think of this thread.

[The Folk Prophet]

If this particular excerpt is considered blunt, I generally think the church is equally blunt today with few exceptions. 

 

As I see it, those exceptions are what I'm talking about. They are the sensitive subjects.

[mordorbund]

So is this thread now concluded after listening to today's conference sessions? I heard the bluntness; I heard the clarity; I felt inspired to change without offense.

[The Folk Prophet]

So is this thread now concluded after listening to today's conference sessions? I heard the bluntness; I heard the clarity; I felt inspired to change without offense.

 

Concluded if no one has more to discuss on the matter...I suppose. But certainly not every sensitive topic of all time was discussed in today's conference. (Maybe tomorrow we'll cover the rest.  :) Heheh.)

 

I agree there was some great bluntness today. And that was, as I suggested I believe, a very good thing. That being said, I do not see the same sort of bluntness as one might have heard by, say, Brigham Young. But perhaps that's a good thing. That is the discussion point, after all.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm. The Sun morning session was pretty tame compared to Sat as to the "blunt" related topics. :) Good session though.

[Quin]

Being married to a man who used truth as a weapon... I\\\\\\\'m more than a little leery when the word \\\\\\\"blunt\\\\\\\" comes into play... Even though most people describe me as a weird mix of blunt & waaaaaaaaay over detailed. (I take simple things and complex them up, and complex things and make them simple).

One of my favorite things is this acronym:

THINK before you speak. Is it:

True

Helpful

Inspirational

Necessary

Kind

?

I think a lot of people use straight shooter, just being honest, it\\\\\\\'s the truth, I say it like I see it, to be blunt, etc... As a way to be cruel, controlling, dismissive, disrespectful, etc.

I\\\\\\\'m a fan of blunt speech.

I deplore bullying.

Sometimes, in order to avoid the appearance one, we have to ditch the other.

Like the phrase \\\\\\\"Women aren\\\\\\\'t equal\\\\\\\" can be taken in multiple ways, but in our society, it\\\\\\\'s taken to mean as less than / unimportant.

Hence the rephrasing to show value added.

Without adding the detail, different groups will take the short version different ways, and all of them as gospel.

Creates a lot of division, confusion, and misunderstanding.

Personally, I blame English.

It\\\'s the language of diplomacy for a very good reason: We HAVE to add more words, because it\\\'s one of the (if not \\\"the\\\" vaguest language on the planet.

If we want people to understand the exact meaning of what we\\\'re trying to convey.

Q

[Lakumi]

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

oh you can read me like a book!

[Quin]

Threadjack... All the /////////////////////////////// are driving me bonkers. I'm not adding them. They're adding themselves!

And we now return you to your regularly programmed thread.

[Blackmarch]

sometimes the speech needs to be blunt other times it needs more eloquence.

[The Folk Prophet]

sometimes the speech needs to be blunt other times it needs more eloquence.

 

What about eloquent bluntness?

[Quin]

What about eloquent bluntness?

Aka

Poetry

Q

[classylady]

Being married to a man who used truth as a weapon... I\\\\\\\'m more than a little leery when the word \\\\\\\"blunt\\\\\\\" comes into play... Even though most people describe me as a weird mix of blunt & waaaaaaaaay over detailed. (I take simple things and complex them up, and complex things and make them simple).

One of my favorite things is this acronym:

THINK before you speak. Is it:

True

Helpful

Inspirational

Necessary

Kind

?

I think a lot of people use straight shooter, just being honest, it\\\\\\\'s the truth, I say it like I see it, to be blunt, etc... As a way to be cruel, controlling, dismissive, disrespectful, etc.

I\\\\\\\'m a fan of blunt speech.

I deplore bullying.

Like the phrase \\\\\\\"Women aren\\\\\\\'t equal\\\\\\\" can be taken in multiple ways, but in our society, it\\\\\\\'s taken to mean as less than / unimportant.

Hence the rephrasing to show value added.

Q

 

I agree with you Quin.

 

Every time I hear someone say "I'm just going to be blunt/honest", I start to cringe, because I know what is coming next.  It's usually a very unkind truth, and the person talking isn't trying to just get the truth across, but they are wanting to do so in a hurtful manner.  It's more than truth that they want to share, they want to cause pain.

 

If any of our communication is to try to cause pain, that is not Christlike.  And, Christ, who spoke truth, did not communicate with the intention of causing emotional hurt or pain.

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with you Quin.

 

Every time I hear someone say "I'm just going to be blunt/honest", I start to cringe, because I know what is coming next.  It's usually a very unkind truth, and the person talking isn't trying to just get the truth across, but they are wanting to do so in a hurtful manner.  It's more than truth that they want to share, they want to cause pain.

 

If any of our communication is to try to cause pain, that is not Christlike.  And, Christ, who spoke truth, did not communicate with the intention of causing emotional hurt or pain.

 

I agree too. Though I do want to clarify that this is not what I mean in the original question by "blunt". I mean the way early church leaders talked very frankly as compared to what I see as more carefully worded messages now.