Mormon Traditions — Clean Language

Let’s talk about cussin’.  

If you have already decided you don’t like cussin’, you will likely not want to even engage your mental faculties to examine the topic, preferring to hold to your traditions without discovering if they even have a solid foundation (they don’t).  But I think it is a worthy topic, because it is a contributor to foolish cultural pride, and an exploration into the matter reveals how empty and damning our judgments are, which may allow us to let go of them.

We have been taught that certain words are bad no-no words, that we are not to say or we risk offending both our fellow man and God Himself.  There are those who will not even consider the words or ideas of a person if they hear them use a cussin’ word, judging them all as valueless because those with valuable ideas don’t cuss.  

A SCRIPTURAL LOOK

The only scriptural basis I’ve heard used to justify our avoiding cussin’ comes from Matthew 15:

“Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man… But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.” — Matthew 15:11, 18

Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t hold up for a moment, as soon as you continue reading the next verses:

“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man…” — Matthew 15:19-20

The Lord immediately explains that it is the dark content which men have in their hearts that defiles them.  What comes out of the mouth is the revealing expression of this content, which content does the defiling.  The words themselves don’t defile, they are not the issue.

Meanwhile, Jesus and John the Baptist—who Christ referred to as greater than a prophet and unsurpassed as a man—had these things to say to the Pharisees and Sadducees:

“O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” — Matthew 12:34

“But when [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” — Matthew 3:7

This term is not a kind, “Christian” phrase for denouncing these wicked men.  It is an insult, using gutter language, culturally equivalent to the modern “son of a bitch.”  Yes, the scriptures contain John the Baptist and Jesus Christ cussing people out.  Let that sink in.

USEFULNESS IN LANGUAGE

The selection of words to be understood as cussin’ is arbitrary.  The words were invented by people who obviously intended to use them in communication, not avoid them.  Language was made for man, not man for language.  There is no sound basis for determining that certain words are inherently inappropriate, because words aren’t actually things, they’re expressions of things.

When we speak, the entire purpose of language is the conveyance of ideas for a desired intent.  We want to send an idea out to another, and have them receive it as accurately as we meant it.  This requires both clarity and honesty.  Self-censoring of expression only serves to damage both of these, leading to misunderstanding.  As a result, communication fails to serve its purpose.  Relationships can be damaged as people fail to understand, or fear they will not be properly understood.  Some studies argue that those who cuss have a marked tendency to be more honest in all their communication.

Cussin’ words also play many roles in language.  There are nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and more that are considered cussin'.  They can be used as expletives, to vent out emotions rather than bottle them up, which can be immensely useful to emotional health.  The use of cussin’ words is widely understood as being more expressive, which is useful in giving people a wider spectrum of descriptive value for what they are saying.  Some individual cussin’ words are highly versatile, simply making them easy and efficient words to use.

Sure, we can find other words to use to try and convey our ideas, but why bother if cussin’ words are the best fit for precisely what we are intending to say?  Almost every word in English has a slew of synonyms.  If we try to justify suppressing cussin’ words because there are other words that can say what we mean, then that logic would require we eliminate all synonyms, and have only one word that refers to each thing.  If you argue that we can’t do that because there are to many shades of “sad” or “green,” or that we like having a pallet of vocabulary to choose from to better help us paint a more nuanced and detailed picture, then that same argument justifies the use of cussin’ words.  They expand the pallet and offer shades that are otherwise only implied.

BAD WORDS VERSUS BAD IDEAS

Some ideas are ugly or harsh or offensive, and the honest expression of those ideas should maintain those aspects if it is being honestly treated.  It is not honest to try and diminish a harsh idea like “rape” with the use of a euphemism that makes it more appropriate.  If we decide it's more politically correct to refer to it as “assertive surprise sex” because we don’t like the word “rape,” does that make us more righteous than those who still choose to call it “rape”?  Does it make the idea of rape less offensive?  Does it not diminish the reality of those who have experienced the brutality of the idea behind the word, to try and find a euphemism intended to make the expression of the idea gentler?  Why should such an idea be made palatable?

It is also foolish to think that we should simply try and avoid all ugly ideas.  If you are LDS, you should understand where Joseph Smith stood in relation to ugly ideas.

“Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God.” — Joseph Smith, Epistle to the Church, Written in Liberty Prison, Clay County, Missouri, March 25, 1839

“…if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.” — TPJS, p. 316

Joseph Smith had no fear of ugly ideas, because he confronted them.  Ugly ideas are to be faced, not hidden from.  They are to have the light of truth shone upon them, so we can understand them and the fear of them can be dispelled.

There is also a difference between entertaining ugly ideas and confronting or expressing them.  Entertaining them is about giving them a space to take root in our heart, to corrupt us as we consider embracing them.  Confronting them is stripping them of their deceptive powers and seeing their ugliness for what it is, so that we may make an informed decision to discard them from our hearts.  Expressing ugly ideas can be used in either, but the fact that it is a necessary component of confronting them (else how do they become known, to be confronted?), says that expression itself shouldn’t be condemned or feared.  It is sufficient to say they are not worthy of entertaining.

BAD LOGIC DON’T JUSTIFY FROWNING ON CUSSIN’

If an idea is coarse or offensive, it is incredibly foolish for us to think that the idea itself is somehow made less virtuous by expressing it one way, or more virtuous by expressing it another.  We think the use of euphemisms in lieu of cussin’ is a virtuous practice, when it is in fact a pious one.  It fools us into thinking our version of the idea is somehow more appropriate.  Let’s look at one example: the word "shit."

The word “shit” is a lingual expression referencing the processed food that comes out of our anus.  We also say excrement, feces, crap, turd, leavings, scat, and a slew of other words.  But they are all referencing the exact same thing.  THE.  EXACT.  SAME.  THING.  Are we foolish enough to believe that saying “pucky” or “poop” rather than “shit” somehow makes that coiled log less pungent or disgusting?  Does it grow diamonds and cure cancer when we refer to it as “dung”?

Or is the idea precisely the same as it always has been, only we’ve created an arbitrary cultural bias about how we refer to it, for the purposes of giving us grounds to judge ourselves as better and others as worse?  We do it in every other conceivable way, so why not with word selection?  What is more important to our natural man than comparing ourselves to others and finding grounds for claiming superiority?

Even using the word as a descriptor for something else, such as a lame idea or a poor execution or the low-functioning grey matter inside someone's skull, the word is linguistically being used in an appropriate manner.  It is being used as a metaphor, an incredibly common part of language.

Some seek to justify the exclusion of these words from conversation on the basis that the words refer to ideas that are ugly, saying this elevates them from being arbitrarily nixed to being avoided for acceptable reasons.  But that argument falls apart the moment you look at other words we can use in everyday language that also refer exclusively to ugly ideas.  What about “hate”?  We can use that word rather inanely, referring to the pattern on someone’s hat, or a flavor of ice cream.  But the idea behind that word is at least as offensive as the idea behind “shit,” arguably more so.  Yet “shit” is off the ok list, and “hate” remains.

Some modern cussin’ words like “hell,” “damn,” and “ass” can even be found in scripture.  It is funny, in a tragic sort of way, to watch youth who are taught not to say these words, read aloud scriptures that contain them.  The cognitive dissonance that they are struggling with in that moment contorts their faces and their minds.  "Scriptures are good, but these words are bad, but the bad words are in the good scriptures?"  They are puzzled and frustrated, as they should be, because it’s a nonsensical scenario that no parent can successfully justify.  They have to fall back on the “because I said so” appeal to authority, which is the very worst approach to teaching and persuading people.

For Latter-Day Saints, teaching these arbitrary rules about cussin’ words as part of the “standards” of the gospel can disillusion students about the whole gospel, when they learn that all vocabulary is an arbitrary collection of sounds we just agree upon to enable communication.  If they are being sold this packaged deal of a gospel, and it turns out that part of it is arbitrary and meaningless, how do they know the rest is not as well?  And if their parents are responsible for falsely teaching them that these arbitrary standards are Divinely ordained, then their parents become untrustworthy as sources of information and testimony.  They feel lied to, because well, they have been.

A LOOK AT THE ORIGINS OF CUSSIN’ WORDS

Cussin' words all seem to hail from two backgrounds: religion, and class distinction.

Looking at religious cussin’ words, we find that they all have a perfectly logical basis for their use.  “Hell” and “damn” both refer to the devilish, that which is rejected or cursed or frowned upon by God.  “What the hell” is just the lazy slurring of “what in the hell,” which is similar to scriptural environmental references like “that which is in the earth.”  It expresses a reaction to something that seems to be negative and unnatural.  It appears to come from hell, and what is it?  

“Damn,” “goddamn,” “goddamned” and “goddammit” are variations on a theme, damnation.  God cutting something off.  When used as an expletive, it is most technically an appeal to the Divine, to utilize His power to put a stop to something which is bothering us.  God, please damn this thing from annoying me.

Similarly, the expletive use of the name “Jesus Christ” is not what is referred to when we are told not to take the Lord’s name in vain (saying it is not taking it, let alone in vain, another topic altogether).  This expletive is also an appeal to the Divine, with an implied request for intervention to handle what is irking us.

“Whore” is another biblical word considered by many to be cussin’.  Its most literal understanding is the obvious “prostitute.”  As offensive as the idea is, it was an unfortunate reality for many people throughout history, and remains so today.  To think that using a euphemism to replace this word will somehow diminish the reality of what it references is foolish, as it is the idea itself that is offensive.  Calling someone a “working girl” doesn’t change what she does, it only makes it easier to turn a blind eye to their sorrowful situation, because hey, they’re working, which makes them a normal contributing member of society, totally no exploitation going on.

“Whore” is also useful if it is understood in its more expanded scriptural sense, meaning one who is undiscerning of what they unite themselves with.  The Lord lamented when His people entertained whoredoms, many times referring to adopting religious practices and ideas from false and abominable religions, and bringing them into their relationship with God.  Sexual whores could not (and some cannot today) be picky and discerning about who their clients were, they must embrace them all.  Similarly, if a person adopts ideas and practices without any sort of screening or discernment, they will certainly be selling or whoring themselves to that which they’d ultimately wish they hadn’t.

The use of “ass” as a curse word is not from the biblical meaning of a donkey, but a lazy transliteration of “arse,” which was a commoner’s word for the buttocks.  Which brings us to the class distinctions portion of the discussion.

Words like “shit,” “piss,” “fuck” and the like are more difficult to precisely trace, but seem to hold roots among the “common” folk, who the upper-class wanted to maintain a separation from.  Class distinction was once of utmost importance, and use of such words would reveal a person to be a commoner.  Writers who used these words were appealing to the common folk, not the elites.  So the aristocrats, the upper-class, society, whatever you want to call them, would avoid use of such language so they could be recognized as “classy” (alluding to being of a higher class), using only “clean language.”  “Clean,” as opposed to “dirty” or “gutter” language, referring to the sewage-filled gutters where the common peasants lived and slept.

This tends to be they way we currently understand and judge cussin’.  We avoid cussin’ to show that we are better than those who do use it, plain and simple.  We are classier.  We believe our ideas are loftier, our sensibilities are more refined.  It is bullshit pride, period.

But among the common folk who do not shy away from cussin', it has proven to be useful beyond mere communication.  For example, cussin' provides expanded boundaries for the realm of comedy, giving you words and phrases that can be used ironically or absurdly to great effect.  It is true that they can be over-relied upon, like any tool, or used without any wit.  But when used cleverly, cussin' can illustrate a comedian's point with a nice, sharp bite.  Cussin' is also used endearingly among friends, to tease and cajole as all friends do, but again with a broader pallet.

There are obviously many more cussin' words, but I think this gives a decent start for looking at the rest on your own.  You can probably deduce the literal and metaphorical meanings of many cussin' words like "sonofabitch" and "asshole" with a tiny shred of thought.  Some are witty or clever, some are straightforward descriptions of actions or body parts or whatever.

There is no inherent virtue or vice to any word, as words are only expressions for ideas.  It is the ideas, the contents of the heart, that have impact or value.  If cussin’ helps you honestly express yourself, then it should be allowed space to do so.  Remember what we looked at in the scriptures at the beginning, and if you question whether or not cussin’ is appropriate for you, ask yourself:  

What would Jesus do?