Double Speak — multiple meanings and misused words

[Anonymous]

Hello All,

Another question for general discussion. In church culture, we have a tendency to associate different meanings to things than what the words themselves say. Let me lay a context for this for a moment.

Years ago I remember listening to an audio recording of Dr. John L. Lund. He spoke in this particular recording about the levels of miscommunication that can happen. Words mean one thing, but how they are said, the facial expression if speaking face to face, the body expression,…etc, can all change the meaning. In his research, he indicated the ONLY way to get 100% accuracy for transference of meaning is to disregard all other indicators with the exception of the words themselves: the words were held to contain the whole meaning, from the speaker to the receiver. With this pseudo rule in place, the accuracy of communication rose.

Now, I want to mention the temple (and two other examples), and I will be respectful. We have a movie played, a narration, and lots of spoken words. Several particular items come out where the meaning seems to be different than what the words actually communicate. In my own experience, I refer to this as code or double speak. Why?…because somehow there is supposed to be information communicated that isn’t contained in the original statements.

Let me give 2 examples from the temple:

1. Consecration. There is another thread I started on this, but I want to simply refer to some items there that make the point. In the covenant of consecration, members are required to consecrate everything they have to the church. I have always felt this was strange because I was taught to make HF my God, worship Him and no other. But, the covenant dedicates everything you have or will ever have, including tangible and intangible things such as your allegiance, to the church. The church becomes my target of worship and allegiance, not God, because I am not consecrating to Him,…I am consecrating to a man made organization.

–> Others have explained that this is symbolic of loyalty. But, that is not contained in the ceremonial words. It feels like code to me–“what we really mean is this, even though we don’t say it” type of thing. This is a form of miscommunication to me, and it is deceptive on some levels, IMHO.

–> Others have explained that this loyalty really is to JC, because He is the head of the church. But, with errors and human leadership, this is again not accurate.

–> Etc. I could go on.

2. Wearing your garments at all times. This is an interesting one because there is a lecture before the endowment explaining that this is not the case: you take garments off for specific activities. But, this is CLEARLY not in the formal instructions in the temple: you are told to wear them at all times. You can’t do this if you are to bath, for example. So, there is this understanding that is made outside the formal ceremony, about the intent. But, why the double speak during the ceremony?

An example from ETB…

There is a big debate out there about the controversial talk “14 Fundamentals”. I am using this as an example simply because it clearly outlines an area of mis-understanding. What is being said and what the supposed intent was are very different. I have read (and I don’t know if this is true or not) that SK required ETB to explain his intent because this talk was concerning. It appears that ETB was trying to build allegiance for following the prophet. If this really was the intent then there is a VERY LARGE amount of double-speak going on. The talk doesn’t build allegiance to the prophet, it sets the prophet up as being virtually infallible. It also creates all kinds of problems with things where the prophets have clearly made mistakes. It also silences any type of free debate on issues, lest someone cross a line and be found fighting the prophet: Apostasy.

An example from another thread about Tithing…

There have been a discussions about the meaning of “interest”. Some argue gross income, some net, and some money left after expenses. And, of all the examples, this is the most lucrative (pun intended) for cashing in (pun intended) on this particular “double speak” (or miscommunication) idea. We have little clarity on this issue, and this one probably has the largest payload (pun intended) for fallout.

---

I bring this topic up because these are examples that to me make it clear that sometimes what is said is not what is intended. If this is the case, how are normal members supposed to find out what the true intent of the meaning really is? The typical TBM answer I would expect to this question is one of the following: 1) follow the prophet without question: he knows the way; 2) you have to pray and God will reveal to you the true meaning. But, if you follow #2, for example, you can get into some real trouble if your answer from God isn’t what the general consensus is…

Comments?

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I bring this topic up because these are examples that to me make it clear that sometimes what is said is not what is intended. If this is the case, how are normal members supposed to find out what the true intent of the meaning really is? The typical TBM answer I would expect to this question is one of the following: 1) follow the prophet without question: he knows the way; 2) you have to pray and God will reveal to you the true meaning. But, if you follow #2, for example, you can get into some real trouble if your answer from God isn’t what the general consensus is…

Communication is so much of everything we are wrestling through with religion. Language is the vehicle for ideas, and it is a two way street.

A UCLA study by Dr. Albert Mehrabian on the primary effects of inconsistent messages and the impact of verbal and non-verbal communication on our impressions of each other found that a person’s words they use account for 7% of the attention the receiver pays to the sender message, while the tone they use with those words accounts for 38% of the attention of the receiver, and non-verbal cues (such as body language, posture, speed, etc) account for 55% of the attention of the receiver.

When we talk with others, we look at way more than words.

I try to analyze all factors, like:

– What am I thinking while I’m listening, where am I at, how I am processing or filtering information and words

– What word errors may be present (for example, I said “atheist”, but I really am talking about “agnostic”)

– What is the context and what words were eliminated because they had been talked about before

– Words can’t sum up all ideas, so what words are applying to which ideas and which words are further needed to clarify the real meaning of ideas

– How much time is available to try to capture the “gist” of things or the entire deep exhaustive meaning of all ideas?

In some ways, words are inefficient. Which is why we learn from other things like body language.

I think it is probably unrealistic to assume more words will solve all problems for finding truth exactly the same among people.

Instead, I try to become more comfortable with less certainty, and allow truth to flow as it does through my life. Consecration, garments, 14 Fundies….let’s talk about them all. And in the process of discourse…we become friends and bond, and expand our thoughts together. I want to know WHY you came up with words like “code” and “double speak”…I want to know what made you choose those words.

The temple movie is a great example…the words never change…but my experience when I go does…almost every time.

[Anonymous]

I have three favorite examples.

1) Grace – Many, many members are now interpreting this as “enabling power.” That is really convenient because it helps us maintain a works/performance based mindset in the face of scriptures that say that we need grace. The etymology dictionary says…

Quote:

late 12c., “God’s unmerited favor, love, or help,” from Old French grace “pardon, divine grace, mercy; favor, thanks; elegance, virtue” (12c., Modern French grâce), from Latin gratia “favor, esteem, regard; pleasing quality, good will, gratitude” (source of Italian grazia, Spanish gracia; in Church use translating Greek kharisma), from gratus “pleasing, agreeable,” from PIE *gwreto-, suffixed form of root *gwere- (3) “to favor” (cognates: Sanskrit grnati “sings, praises, announces,” Lithuanian giriu “to praise, celebrate,” Avestan gar- “to praise”).

2) Evangelist = Patriarch. Really?

Quote:

from Old French evangelist and directly from Late Latin evangelista, from Greek euangelistes “preacher of the gospel,” literally “bringer of good news,” from euangelizesthai “bring good news,” from eu- “good” (see eu-) + angellein “announce,” from angelos “messenger” (see angel).

This appears like a blatant attempt for us to shoehorn our current church structure into the ancient organization described by Paul.

3) Modesty = women covering themselves. While I appreciate that this can be one small sliver of the meaning inherent in the word it has morphed far beyond the original context. When the BoM talks about modest apparel it appears to be condemning use of jewelry and fine linens.

Quote:

1530s, “freedom from exaggeration, self-control,” from Middle French modestie or directly from Latin modestia “moderation, sense of honor, correctness of conduct,” from modestus “moderate, keeping measure, sober, gentle, temperate,” from modus “measure, manner” (see mode (n.1)). Meaning “quality of having a moderate opinion of oneself” is from 1550s; that of “womanly propriety” is from 1560s.

I also think that the word “preside” is currently undergoing a reinvention. We want to hold on to our traditions that say the man presides in the home but we want to update it with equal partnership in marriage… and so we reinvent the meaning of the word preside. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

And don’t forget “Virtue” = “Virginity” (at least for women). I like to read where when the woman touched Jesus and he said, “Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.” The church’s redefinition of virtue does not sit with this scripture – nor most all of the world’s view of that word.

[Anonymous]

When it comes to the temple I’ve spent a long time thinking about what the word “as” means. I didn’t even pay much attention to that one word until I went through a session in a second language. They used a different word for “as” in the second language than the one I had understood all along in my first language. It still gets me thinking… and that’s just one tiny word among thousands.

I’m grateful for multiple meanings of words. It creates space to explore spirituality and self, even for the most literal among us. Think of how many insights people have obtained from a strict literal interpretation. Literal Interpretations can even change when you shift literal focus from one part of a phrase to another. Once you go down the metaphorical rabbit hole the potential for insight only increases.

Misused words? Yeah, a part of life. People have made a living selling dictionaries. Despite our best efforts we’ll always be on slightly different pages.

[Anonymous]

Hello All,

If I am correct, the phrase “double speak” came from the Orwell book “1984”. It was an example of words having multiple meanings,…as in propaganda. The idea of “code” is when things are generally “just understood”. Some good examples have been provided above with the posts proceeding. Thank you for those.

I took the opportunity recently to listen to a Mormon Stories podcast with Greg Prince. To say it was anything short of utterly fascinating is an understatement. I bring that up ONLY because Greg said two things that were quite interesting: 1) the general LDS leadership are surface only with regards to historical background/knowledge–they have very little depth, and this is just because many come from backgrounds which don’t lend to this type of knowledge; 2) you can learn as much from what “doesn’t happen” as you can from what does at the highest levels. This final point results from the requirement of the 12 having unanimity to pass policies.

So, with the LGBT issue that just happened, all 12 were in agreement, or it wouldn’t have happened. But, there are many other things that either: 1) don’t get brought up for discussion; 2) don’t make it past the discussion point because of division; 3) are agreed upon to not make any changes.

This is where it gets sticky for me, and where I often wonder.

Now,…lets take a moment with the “14 Points” talk by ETB.

This one contrasts with people like Uchdorf and even Holland to a level. ETB gave this talk, and it sets the prophet up as infallible (unless God stops him), that the prophet’s words supersede the standard works, and that the prophet can say whatever he wants and the debate is over. This is a very hard line. From the record, it appears SWK had a problem with this, and ETB was required to explain himself. His explanation was to try to persuade people to listen to the prophet. This seems like a rather mixed message. Was ETB relying on a type of “code” or “double speak” about his intentions? How can his defensive intentions be reconciled with the talk he gave which appears to have an entirely different purpose?

These are questions I have, but expect no clear answers to them: ETB is long gone, and answers are speculative at best. But,the questions persist in my mind.

Now, contrast that with Uchdorf and Holland who have both said in so many words: “Mistakes have been made”–and that statement has not been limited to just lower LDS leadership levels.

You have a contrast here. You have division. The “party line” is unclear with some of these things.

================================

Let me give another history blurb just because I want to…..

When i was a young teenager, I would hang out at the Stake Softball Field. Occasionally I was allowed to play. During one particular event, a county rec team that were all in the same ward was playing for a stake title, and another ward was doing pretty good at fending them off. The game deteriorated into a nasty “bitch fest” of angry, mean, abusive people. I was one of those who was abused in this situation, and I went home in tears as a result. But, the part that ended up hurting me the most was the mixed message about ‘rules’. I came away from that event literally contemplating how ‘rules’ in the LDS church worked. You see, I couldn’t understand how these men could act like that on the ball field, and then preach love and peace from the pulpit the next day during sacrament and quorem meeting.

I concluded there were 3 rules:

1) those that were written or spoken about

2) those that were obeyed

3) those that were enforced

And, I concluded that all 3 were different: they were treated as a potluck dinner–used for whatever purpose was needed, for whatever objective was wanted. When I came to this conclusion, the legal system started to make sense to me finally: you could break laws all you wanted with #2 as long as #3 was omitted, and it didn’t matter about #1…etc.

I was damaged by this event in my life. The example of those men taught me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ–the “rules” if you would–were fluid and unsettled. I felt like anything went because the foundation shifted over and over according to circumstances. Someone could treat another horribly, and this didn’t violate “law”…because there really was no fixed law.

Since this time, I have been hypersensitive to the supposed meaning of words and how they are actually obeyed or enforced.

Tithing, the Law of Consecration, the idea of Prophetic Infallibility, things like “virtue” (whatever that means) and so forth…difficult to understand in some respects.

I know a woman, for example, who believes the LOC is not about sexual relations,..its about having children. So, as long as you take steps to prevent pregnancy, you are free to engage in all the sex you want, with whomever you want. This is an example in my mind of “code”.

You see, on one side, we are told that we are to Consecrate EVERYTHING to the church,…but we have to understand that in a special way that is NOT part of the ceremony. So, there is different meaning than what the words may or may not include. This is pretty clear to me with this example. Therefore for this woman?….is she really all that far off with interpreting the LOC as she has? If words and intentions can slide and shift so far they become meaningless to some and overbearingly meaningful to others, is it a stretch from her perspective to understand the LOC differently than some, and still be “inside bounds”?

What about the law of tithing and the massive debate and misunderstandings about what it really means?

What about the contrast between total allegiance to the LDS faith through the temple Consecration oath, and the message from LDS leaders that family comes first? They both can’t come first….so what does this “code” mean?

The examples are numerous. (And I find this topic fascinating as well).

(This woman is a real example…and for the record lest you all get the WRONG impression,…I have NOT had relations with her)

[Anonymous]

“Modesty” and “virtue” are the BIG ones for me – probably because I’m serving in YW, we are really only interested in modesty and virtue as they relate to (not having) sex.

“Sustain” is another one. I was writing notes for a talk during a recent Stake Conference, and didn’t raise my hand when the name of the church officers were read. Husband got really upset with me and on the drive home accused me of REFUSING TO SUSTAIN the prophet and apostles. I pointed out that raising your hand when told to do so is not actually how you sustain someone (because if that’s the case, an amputee or someone who’s paralyzed, for example, would be incapable of sustaining church leaders and thus would be ineligible to hold a TR). This led to a discussion of what “sustain” ACTUALLY means. We both agreed that it does NOT mean you have to obey your leaders blindly*, or agree with everything they say**, but what it actually DOES mean is really incredibly nebulous.

*I recently turned down a request to sew Nativity costumes for the ward party, on the grounds of not wanting to. I could tell that the ward leadership was annoyed with this. Husband fully supported my decision.

**I recently wrote a polite but strongly-worded email to the bishop registering my objection to the new handbook policy. I knew that I wasn’t going to change anyone’s opinion and that the bishop wasn’t going to pass my objection up the food chain to the SP. Husband fully supported my decision.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

…This led to a discussion of what “sustain” ACTUALLY means. We both agreed that it does NOT mean you have to obey your leaders blindly*, or agree with everything they say**, but what it actually DOES mean is really incredibly nebulous.

Exactly. And a good example as well…

[Anonymous]

Another example is the nebulous nature of AofF # 12 and “sustaining” the law.

I once was ULTRA NUT JOB OUT OF MY MIND TBM!!!!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

And, as part of that, I wanted to “obey the law”. To my chagrin, I learned that if you follow the speed limit (for example–and especially in UTAH!), you become a problem for traffic passing you. And, in certain situations, you can actually be cited for that (if I understand things correctly). NO ONE drives the speed limit here it seems; most drive about 15 mph faster almost all the time! So, imagine my situation when driving along, trying to obey the law, and creating a problem for traffic that itself could be ticketed BECAUSE I was trying to obey a law, just to find there are other laws that undo that first one.

Hunh?

If you ever wonder about this stuff, please have a look at the OSHA code–if what I have been told is correct, the bound versions will stack to the ceiling MULTIPLE TIMES! How can you sustain and obey that law?…it is inconsistent, contradictory, and you would have to have brain implants to even be able to categorize or understand it at all.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

If you ever wonder about this stuff, please have a look at the OSHA code–if what I have been told is correct, the bound versions will stack to the ceiling MULTIPLE TIMES! How can you sustain and obey that law?…it is inconsistent, contradictory, and you would have to have brain implants to even be able to categorize or understand it at all.

You just have to understand where to leave the $100 bills laying around the job site when the OSHA inspector comes.

[Anonymous]

Eternal – to LDS “eternal” means “god’s”. As in god’s punishment vs. everlasting punishment. While I actually like this re-definition because I don’t like the idea of everlasting torment, I don’t think it’s how most people in the english speaking world define eternal.

Family / Marriage – I think these are in process of being coded and redefined. The important type of family is now a multi-generational family. Marriage has been redefined by our church now a couple of times.

Doctrine / policy – Policy is sure being treated a lot like doctrine these days.

Apostasy / heresy – I think we get these two mixed up in the LDS church.

Know – “I know God lives” is heard 10 times every fast Sunday. Scientifically I don’t think anyone knows this. I believe knowing in LDS terminology means believes a whole super bunch. We are expected to know even though it’s impossible (in my opinion).

That being said I think that while it’s a worthy goal to be as precise as possible with language that ultimately it’s impossible. I subscribe to a “word of the day” and I’m occasionally suprised at the words I thought I knew but don’t. To most people that difference between apostasy and heresy really doesn’t matter. The same as “hymn” vs. “song”. If you call a hymn a song in the presence of some musicians you might think you denied the Holy Ghost and are doomed to outer darkness.

[Anonymous]

I agree that being precise enough with language to avoid any misunderstanding is impossible.

I don’t like when misunderstandings happen, are known at high levels, and no effort is made to make corrections. A good example is the 14 Fundamentals talk by ETB. If SWK really felt like that talk was out of line, then why is it currently still published and available on the LDS site?

To have misunderstandings happen is human and normal; to allow those misunderstandings to perpetuate is suspect; to allow those misunderstandings to perpetuate because they lead in a direction that suits someones agenda is at best dishonest, and at least, cunning and evil.

History is filled with examples of this happening.

My two cents.

[Anonymous]

First let me say I intend no disrespect to real atheists. I recognize there are people who are just as sure there is no God as that young RM who stands up in F&TM is sure there is. Nevertheless, I think many who call themselves atheist are not really atheists – they just don’t know and are actually more agnostic than atheist. But I think we also use agnostic wrong, applying only to those who may want to believe but aren’t sure or seek more truth. This is why I always hedge when during my faith crisis I say I was “nearly” atheist. For the record, I don’t know either – I choose to believe there is a God for mostly intellectual reasons as opposed to spiritual. In that sense I suppose I am a believer.

[Author]

Posts