A War of Words
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:53 am
From the backwater mosquito swamps of South Carolina where every bare foot does its part in cleaning the walkways of urine and tobacco spew, where every smile gaps enough back teeth to comfortably fit the stem of a corn cob pipe, where crossed eyes and intoxication put the crunch on what would otherwise be a thriving spittoon industry, where the liquor stores board their windows because all the homes sell with a working still, and where easy access to the Bible leaves the school textbooks imported from Kansas rotting on their crates; I give you the scholarship of one, Loran Howard Blood.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070813political.htm
The battle between good and evil in our day, as it was in the war in heaven, is a battle of words. And this battle isn't merely the evil the words defend but the words themselves to meet their ends. These are Orwellian Newspeak words which the adversary has designed to turn freedom into totalitarianism. Common household words of our generation might not reference a spade a spade, like they do in the South, they don't tell things how they really are, but rather, are under the influence of sinister etymological forces, the end being,
For instance,
But no hyphens for Blood, who apparently yearns for the Adamic language of Old, a language that doesn't politicize all it touches. One of course wonders how the term "African American" is less technically descriptive of American citizens of an African heritage, how labeling them "Blacks", "coons", or "N...", as they traditionally have been, would be anymore scientifically accurate. And granting this, one further wonders if the agenda for political correctness is actually the opposite of what Blood describes as,
to really be dropping labels that have become prescriptive, often in a bad way, and opting for descriptive ones like "African-American". But there's more, hilariously more, to be honest. Because after his repititious sermons on description and prescription, he pulls a stunning reversal, quoting Jeffrey Holland,
So it turns out, shockingly, that Blood is really no fan of description at all, in fact, for Blood, the entire language of the human species should be loaded with veneration for the Mormon God. And the little qualifier he places after that quote is tough to take seriously when he explicitly uses the devil's tactic of prescriptive language himself, referring to his Mormon community as "Zion"(the good city), and that which lay outside of Zion as "Babylon"(the bad city). Deficiencies in his opposition are "sins" and so on. Political correctness, then, isn't wrong for making judgment calls, but for making judgment calls not suited to his prejudices which polarize the world into Latter-Day Saints and vile sinners.
Oh yeah, calling a person sick is agenda driven, but referring to a person as an eternal son of God is a textbook example of descriptive objectivity.
Note: Morally neutralizing a term also makes it descriptive.
Another humorous blind spot in Blood's project is that anti-Mormon literature is filled with exactly the same fanatical accusations of demonic language possession that Blood sees in liberal politics, a quick Google turned up this book,
http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Witness-J ... 0801057396
(Hey teacher, is that enough reversals for one paper?)
Aside from the hypocrisy, Blood doesn't really make a case for how terms like African-American and Ms. work their darkness on human minds, his poster child is predictably, homosexuality:
Sorry for yet another reversal, but I can't help but observe Blood's cart nearly overrunning his Tapir. In the one place he tries to link the redefinition of words with real-live evil in the world, he done up and does it in reverse! Where he should be arguing something along the lines that calling homosexuals "gay" furthers their agenda to life, liberty and the pursuit...er, I mean, furthers their agenda to sin against the Mormon commandments, he argues that the act of union among homosexuals would change the meaning of the word "marriage"! Which is it? Are we worried that changing words will result in sin, or are we worried that sin threatens the sanctity of words? If we let gays be scout leaders, do we also threaten the meaning of the words "scout leader?"
One central problem with Blood's outlook is that language changes for a variety of reasons and will always be linked to cultural influence, there's no way to perfectly translate languages into each other, and there's no such thing as pure reference, even though pure reference turned out to be something he wasn't really looking for.
Finally, everyone spins words to make their case, not just Satan. While homosexuals might have deliberately engineered "gay" with a positive spin, they've also (I believe) taken the negative word "queer" and turned it affectionate as some African-Americans do with the "N" word amongst each other. Some atheists tried to pull a "gay" and ended up with "bright", which many other atheists find embarrassing. And The word "Christian" that everyone fights today to claim their own, was an insult up until around 200 C.E. Word choices often just get a life of their own by incidental current events or cinema with no scheming. We "vote each other off" of, and we "error on the side of" by no agenda whatsoever. Launching and controlling a full-scale attack on cultural change through word meanings is a little on the preposterous side.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070813political.htm
The battle between good and evil in our day, as it was in the war in heaven, is a battle of words. And this battle isn't merely the evil the words defend but the words themselves to meet their ends. These are Orwellian Newspeak words which the adversary has designed to turn freedom into totalitarianism. Common household words of our generation might not reference a spade a spade, like they do in the South, they don't tell things how they really are, but rather, are under the influence of sinister etymological forces, the end being,
The next generation knows only the altered meaning of terms, and tends to assume that those terms describe real things — when in fact they may not be descriptive at all, but prescriptive.
For instance,
Gay to refer to a male homosexual. We may hyphenate the class names of various groups of our fellow citizens into African American, Mexican American, Latin American, Asian American, and even European American
But no hyphens for Blood, who apparently yearns for the Adamic language of Old, a language that doesn't politicize all it touches. One of course wonders how the term "African American" is less technically descriptive of American citizens of an African heritage, how labeling them "Blacks", "coons", or "N...", as they traditionally have been, would be anymore scientifically accurate. And granting this, one further wonders if the agenda for political correctness is actually the opposite of what Blood describes as,
What we have come to call political correctness is a standard term for what is really the politicization of language such that what appears to be only descriptive carries implied prescriptive weight
to really be dropping labels that have become prescriptive, often in a bad way, and opting for descriptive ones like "African-American". But there's more, hilariously more, to be honest. Because after his repititious sermons on description and prescription, he pulls a stunning reversal, quoting Jeffrey Holland,
Our words, like our deeds, should be filled with faith and hope and charity, the three great Christian imperatives so desperately needed in the world today. With such words, spoken under the influence of the Spirit, tears can be dried, hearts can be healed, lives can be elevated, hope can return, confidence can prevail.
So it turns out, shockingly, that Blood is really no fan of description at all, in fact, for Blood, the entire language of the human species should be loaded with veneration for the Mormon God. And the little qualifier he places after that quote is tough to take seriously when he explicitly uses the devil's tactic of prescriptive language himself, referring to his Mormon community as "Zion"(the good city), and that which lay outside of Zion as "Babylon"(the bad city). Deficiencies in his opposition are "sins" and so on. Political correctness, then, isn't wrong for making judgment calls, but for making judgment calls not suited to his prejudices which polarize the world into Latter-Day Saints and vile sinners.
Satan wants to label us all as sick, diseased, disordered, or, in some other fashion, inherently less than or alien to the eternal son or daughter of God that we really are.
Oh yeah, calling a person sick is agenda driven, but referring to a person as an eternal son of God is a textbook example of descriptive objectivity.
When we domesticate unrighteousness, we morally neutralize it.
Note: Morally neutralizing a term also makes it descriptive.
Another humorous blind spot in Blood's project is that anti-Mormon literature is filled with exactly the same fanatical accusations of demonic language possession that Blood sees in liberal politics, a quick Google turned up this book,
Mormons Answered Verse by Verse is ideal for such a moment. Organized for fast reference, it demonstrates why Mormon teachings have led more than 8 million people into a system of beliefs that bears only a surface likeness to Christian faith.
David Reed and former Mormon leader John Farkas comment on passages from the Book of Mormon and the Bible to show how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints redefines words to hide a man-centered, polytheistic theology.
http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Witness-J ... 0801057396
(Hey teacher, is that enough reversals for one paper?)
Aside from the hypocrisy, Blood doesn't really make a case for how terms like African-American and Ms. work their darkness on human minds, his poster child is predictably, homosexuality:
We should, of course, always refrain from kneejerk or arbitrary discrimination against anyone in the sense of denying others the same unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we enjoy. However, should homosexuals be allowed to marry, and substantively alter the core meaning and purpose of the concept of marriage? Should they be Boy Scout leaders?
Sorry for yet another reversal, but I can't help but observe Blood's cart nearly overrunning his Tapir. In the one place he tries to link the redefinition of words with real-live evil in the world, he done up and does it in reverse! Where he should be arguing something along the lines that calling homosexuals "gay" furthers their agenda to life, liberty and the pursuit...er, I mean, furthers their agenda to sin against the Mormon commandments, he argues that the act of union among homosexuals would change the meaning of the word "marriage"! Which is it? Are we worried that changing words will result in sin, or are we worried that sin threatens the sanctity of words? If we let gays be scout leaders, do we also threaten the meaning of the words "scout leader?"
One central problem with Blood's outlook is that language changes for a variety of reasons and will always be linked to cultural influence, there's no way to perfectly translate languages into each other, and there's no such thing as pure reference, even though pure reference turned out to be something he wasn't really looking for.
Finally, everyone spins words to make their case, not just Satan. While homosexuals might have deliberately engineered "gay" with a positive spin, they've also (I believe) taken the negative word "queer" and turned it affectionate as some African-Americans do with the "N" word amongst each other. Some atheists tried to pull a "gay" and ended up with "bright", which many other atheists find embarrassing. And The word "Christian" that everyone fights today to claim their own, was an insult up until around 200 C.E. Word choices often just get a life of their own by incidental current events or cinema with no scheming. We "vote each other off" of, and we "error on the side of" by no agenda whatsoever. Launching and controlling a full-scale attack on cultural change through word meanings is a little on the preposterous side.