Is the Church Homophobic?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What about churches seemingly railing against a small minority?  It looks like the churches are taking on a safe enemy?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "railing against".
Any actions the Church has been perceived to take against the gay community could be seen as taking on a small minority.
But as I already pointed out, the fear is of society accepting sin and normal and ok.  The fight was and is for the moral compass of the whole society, not the actions of a tiny percentage.

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Me too.
But any homosexual brother or sister who wants a change in doctrine is probably looking in the wrong Church.

And that's the root of the problem.  At what point (if ever) will Church leaders finally and clearly say "If you want a change in the doctrines regarding homosexuality, then this isn't the Church for you."

I suspect that's the ultimate end-game in all this.  It will be an interesting journey to get to that point.

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But speaking in general, should we be accepting of sin, or things that are morally wrong?  Should we stay neutral when we see people acting in a manner that does them eternal harm?  Can we not say, "I love you, but you need to change."?

There are definitely lines that get crossed.  That is if my brother murders my daughter, he crossed a line.  I shouldn't accept that.  If he has a temper problem that he is working on and it is for the most part controlled, I see no reason to hold it against him, or say anything like "I love you, but you need to change".  Probably just "I love you" without any qualifiers.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This is interesting.  So what do you believe?  Surely you don't believe that we should love sin.  Do you believe that we should accept sin or at least stay neutral on the subject of sin? 

I think our job is to love people, not to worry about what their sins are or aren't.  I think God is calling us to love others, especially the weak, marginalized, vulnerable, etc.  

I think its more about how we define sin, and we need to be very thoughtful when we think about sin and what is sin.  I think sin is primarily about doing harm to others.  So if someone is harming another person, rape, murder, theft, discrimination, abuse of all kinds.  These are the sins that I'm most worried about, and believe we ought to spend our time trying to fix in our culture.  

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

And that's the root of the problem.  At what point (if ever) will Church leaders finally and clearly say "If you want a change in the doctrines regarding homosexuality, then this isn't the Church for you."

I suspect that's the ultimate end-game in all this.  It will be an interesting journey to get to that point.

I don't know if that will ever happen.
They want to invite all men everywhere to gather unto Christ as the song goes.

But I agree.  They will either have to take a stand or capitulate to the new societal norm.
Historical precedence puts the choice up for debate.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think our job is to love people, not to worry about what their sins are or aren't.  I think God is calling us to love others, especially the weak, marginalized, vulnerable, etc.

Loving others may be the primary first commandment, but it is not the only one.
And nowhere does that requirement of love require acceptance of sin.  Christ had perfect love and never once accepted a sin.

Quote

I think its more about how we define sin, and we need to be very thoughtful when we think about sin and what is sin.  I think sin is primarily about doing harm to others.  So if someone is harming another person, rape, murder, theft, discrimination, abuse of all kinds.  These are the sins that I'm most worried about, and believe we ought to spend our time trying to fix in our culture.

Sin is a violation of any law of God.  That is the only definition of sin that matters.
Harm is irrelevant to the label of sin.
And while God will judge the hearts of men, he can and does delegate judgment in mortal life to representatives holding his authority.  Sometimes they get it wrong, but it is their responsibility to judge.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think our job is to love people, not to worry about what their sins are or aren't.  I think God is calling us to love others, especially the weak, marginalized, vulnerable, etc.  

I think its more about how we define sin, and we need to be very thoughtful when we think about sin and what is sin.  I think sin is primarily about doing harm to others.  So if someone is harming another person, rape, murder, theft, discrimination, abuse of all kinds.  These are the sins that I'm most worried about, and believe we ought to spend our time trying to fix in our culture.  

These are good points.  Don't you think though, that God is worried about sins that harm only ourselves?  If God desires me to be a good person and be worthy of living with Him and partaking in eternal life with Him, wouldn't He be worried about the sins I'm committing that may only harm me? (although I think it's debatable that sin can only harm one person and one person only).  And wouldn't God call upon His servants to warn me that this sin is harmful?  I just don't think that there is any way of being neutral.  Yes, there are degrees of sin and some things we should be more worried about than others, but if we truly love someone we should be concerned about that persons eternal welfare.

[gopher]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The issue isn't whether the population of LGBT has gone up.  They are a small percent, always have been, and probably always will be.
The issue is that those accepting of the LGBT lifestyle as morally correct and acceptable has absolutely skyrocketed (yes, I don't have data, but I think that would be easy to google).

For those interested in the actual numbers in the US:

Quote

About 10 million people, or 4.1% of the U.S. adult population, identified as LGBT in 2016, according to the latest estimates from Gallup. This represents a modest but significant increase from 8.3 million people (3.5% of adults) who said they were LGBT in 2012.

Also,

Quote

63% of Americans said in 2016 that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 51% in 2006.

Link

I got the link from this interesting story from my newsfeed entitled, "'Born this way'? It's way more complicated than that".  Link

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Loving others may be the primary first commandment, but it is not the only one.
And nowhere does that requirement of love require acceptance of sin.  Christ had perfect love and never once accepted a sin.

We might not agree on our conceptions of sin and what the gospel is calling us to do.  I feel called to love, but I don't love universally and can't imagine how I could.  This is part of the challenge for me.  I have a hard time loving people that are doing evil, I really do, so I can absolutely empathize with Mormons and other conservative Christians who also have a hard time loving homosexuals.  I personally don't feel like homosexuals are sinning when they are being true to their nature and having relationships.  

For me, loving people that are doing evil as I define it, abuse, rape, murder, etc. these kinds of people I don't know how to love.  Part of the Christian message would call me to love them, but I honestly can't imagine how its possible.  This is one reason why I don't think the gospel message is a complete message.  It leaves me hanging because it doesn't adequately resolve these problems. I wrestle with it, and where I can't find peace, I try to do my best.  

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sin is a violation of any law of God.  That is the only definition of sin that matters.
Harm is irrelevant to the label of sin.
And while God will judge the hearts of men, he can and does delegate judgment in mortal life to representatives holding his authority.  Sometimes they get it wrong, but it is their responsibility to judge.

I don't think of sin this way.  Part of me is influenced by some of Adam Miller's writings on sin as being a fallen state, and not a specific action against God, but a state of existence.  God's laws is a concept that has been changing for me over time.  I'm not sure there are definite laws that are universal.  I tend to think just about everything is relative these days.  

I also don't find much worth in this concept of judgment or authority.  Those are human constructs in my opinion, and might have some kernal of eternal divine significance, but I tend to think we get God all wrong when we think of him as an authoritarian law giver.  These are areas where I think the Christian message has gotten off track.  

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

These are good points.  Don't you think though, that God is worried about sins that harm only ourselves?  If God desires me to be a good person and be worthy of living with Him and partaking in eternal life with Him, wouldn't He be worried about the sins I'm committing that may only harm me? (although I think it's debatable that sin can only harm one person and one person only).  And wouldn't God call upon His servants to warn me that this sin is harmful?  I just don't think that there is any way of being neutral.  Yes, there are degrees of sin and some things we should be more worried about than others, but if we truly love someone we should be concerned about that persons eternal welfare.

That you define sex within a legally sanctioned gay marriage as a "sin" is, in and of itself, homophobia.

That the Church excommunicates members who have sex within a legally sanctioned gay marriage makes it a homophobic institution.

You may not like the word, it may offend you, but sadly the cap fits.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

These are good points.  Don't you think though, that God is worried about sins that harm only ourselves?  If God desires me to be a good person and be worthy of living with Him and partaking in eternal life with Him, wouldn't He be worried about the sins I'm committing that may only harm me? (although I think it's debatable that sin can only harm one person and one person only).  And wouldn't God call upon His servants to warn me that this sin is harmful?  I just don't think that there is any way of being neutral.  Yes, there are degrees of sin and some things we should be more worried about than others, but if we truly love someone we should be concerned about that persons eternal welfare.

Good point, I do think God cares about how we treat ourselves.  I envision a God that puts no limits on our abilities and that has the greatest of aspirations for us.  I don't see God as a being that is concerned about "worthiness" as is commonly defined.  The concept of sin needing some kind of payment I don't think is descriptive of deity.  

But overall I agree with you that God wants whats best for us, we probably just disagree about what behaviors God is telling us are truly important to avoid.  I don't see homosexuality or any sexuality as sinful in an of itself.  I think balance in life is important and I'm sure we could always be doing something that is more worthwhile than another thing.  But I think that God created homosexuals and that they should seek to do good with their lives just like everyone else.  I just don't think God cares about which sexual preferences we have.  

I think God is more concerned about how we treat others, so Adultery is defined by fidelity to your spouse, and that is ultimately what is most importance with that commandment.  But a lot of cultures have twisted the core idea into all kinds of other repressive and warped requirements for purity and fear of all kinds of things sexual. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We might not agree on our conceptions of sin and what the gospel is calling us to do.  I feel called to love, but I don't love universally and can't imagine how I could.  This is part of the challenge for me.  I have a hard time loving people that are doing evil, I really do, so I can absolutely empathize with Mormons and other conservative Christians who also have a hard time loving homosexuals.  I personally don't feel like homosexuals are sinning when they are being true to their nature and having relationships.

For me, loving people that are doing evil as I define it, abuse, rape, murder, etc. these kinds of people I don't know how to love.  Part of the Christian message would call me to love them, but I honestly can't imagine how its possible.  This is one reason why I don't think the gospel message is a complete message.  It leaves me hanging because it doesn't adequately resolve these problems. I wrestle with it, and where I can't find peace, I try to do my best.

I don't think of sin this way.  Part of me is influenced by some of Adam Miller's writings on sin as being a fallen state, and not a specific action against God, but a state of existence.  God's laws is a concept that has been changing for me over time.  I'm not sure there are definite laws that are universal.  I tend to think just about everything is relative these days.

I also don't find much worth in this concept of judgment or authority.  Those are human constructs in my opinion, and might have some kernal of eternal divine significance, but I tend to think we get God all wrong when we think of him as an authoritarian law giver.  These are areas where I think the Christian message has gotten off track.

Well, as always you are welcome to your opinions and thoughts.
But to say that "Christian message" has gotten off track implies that the scriptures don't say what they say.
Once we start cherry picking which scriptures are correct and which we consider false we are on very shaky ground.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I think one of the things with looking at the church and homophobia is the word "irrational". 

After reading your post I started thinking about how other phobias are talked about. They are often used as an excuse or means of understanding the actions of orhers. Homophobia is rarely used this way.

Then I started looking up definitions of various phobias. Again and again I found things such as "irrational fear", but not words like contempt. It leads me to wonder if words like contempt have been added since the original definition. 

It may seem obvious that someone is having an irrational fear of heights when we are talking about 3 inches. If, however, we are talking about standing on a cliff of one mile is it still irrational?

If homosexual acts do not stop your progression then the church is going to feel homophobic. If you can never be happy in a same sex relationship the church may seem far from irrational fear. Since at this point we can only use our beliefs and not knowledge this is always going to be a problem in deciding what is irrational.

 

I would say Prop 8 was an expression of an irrational fear.  Gay marriage has been legal for a while now. I have yet to hear of a single member of the church that was forced to marry someone of the same sex.   

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would say Prop 8 was an expression of an irrational fear.  Gay marriage has been legal for a while now. I have yet to hear of a single member of the church that was forced to marry someone of the same sex.

But how many members of the Church are now convinced that there is no sin in a gay marriage?
Statistically, that is on the rise.
And that is as big (or possibly bigger) a problem as the existence of gay marriage.  That fear was a very rational one.

Edited June 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I think one of the things with looking at the church and homophobia is the word "irrational". 

After reading your post I started thinking about how other phobias are talked about. They are often used as an excuse or means of understanding the actions of orhers. Homophobia is rarely used this way.

Then I started looking up definitions of various phobias. Again and again I found things such as "irrational fear", but not words like contempt. It leads me to wonder if words like contempt have been add ised since the original definition. 

It may seem obvious that someone is having an irrational fear of heights when we are talking about 3 inches. If, however, we are talking about standing on a cliff of one mile is it still irrational?

If homosexual acts do not stop your progression then the church is going to feel homophobic. If you can never be happy in a same sex relationship the church may seem far from irrational fear. Since at this point we can only use our beliefs and not knowledge this is always going to be a problem in deciding what is irrational.

 

Irrrational is an old timer like my father who thinks all gay people..should be dead. Black people are the ones who sat on the fence in the pre-existence...Hopefully no one else thinks this way anymore!! 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This exactly.
The only "fear" the LDS Church has of homosexuals is the fear that the practice will become so acceptable in society they will no longer be able to maintain God's standard, follow his will, or that members will embrace the societally popular falsehood.

The Church is afraid of failing God.  What is there to fear about homosexuality other than the rapidity with which it is becoming acceptable?
 

IMO, I think this is an irrational fear.  There are things that the church does not condone and considers sin all around yet the church does not take on a campaign to stop the world from participating in those sins.  Why not a proposition against Starbucks. They are taking over America.  How about unmarried parents.  Let's go after all those unmarried parents, not allow their children to be baptized and call them apostates.  

Is the church afraid of failing God on any of the other sinful behavior that is prevalent in the world today?  Nope, it is just the gays.    I hate to break it to you but there are far more unmarried parents than there are married gay couples.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

This is interesting.  So what do you believe?  Surely you don't believe that we should love sin.  Do you believe that we should accept sin or at least stay neutral on the subject of sin? 

I am with Hope_For_Things as well.  What do I believe?  Worry about your own sins.  Once you are without sin, then you can start worrying about someone else sins.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

But speaking in general, should we be accepting of sin, or things that are morally wrong?  Should we stay neutral when we see people acting in a manner that does them eternal harm?  Can we not say, "I love you, but you need to change."?

Once you have completely changed and are sin free, then yes.  Feel free.  I have no problem when someone is preaching a gospel principle.  But you aren't responsible for anyone's salvation or their sins, only your own.  

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am with Hope_For_Things as well.  What do I believe?  Worry about your own sins.  Once you are without sin, then you can start worrying about someone else sins.

So you can't help your neighbor until you yourself are perfect?  The scriptures teach us that once we have been warned we have a duty to warn our neighbor.  There is also a story in the scriptures that teaches us who are neighbor is. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

During a contentious debate I viewed a poster's comments as particularly harsh towards gays. I stated... 

Even though I was attempting to be somewhat charitable by stating the person was only "bordering" on homophobia, the poster took offense, and it is understandable. Even though I feel I was accurate, it wasn't my best moment. He recently responded with ...
 

The word "homophobia" seems scarier perhaps than the meaning behind it. Maybe the word is simply too loaded to be useful in any way (similar to gaslighting  )

But as a descriptive word and not as a pejorative, I think it's accurate. The definition of homophobia is...

From Wikipedia...

So it seems that homophobia is often based on religious beliefs (which seems to fit in context of this post) and could include contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, hatred or antipathy. It doesn't have to be all of those things but at least one of those things.

It strikes me as odd that in the same sentence a person could be offended by the idea that their comments are "bordering" on homophobia, while also stating that the concept of a gay God is unfathomable and that he is "repulsed" by the idea. (Is there a substantial difference between being repulsed and being disgusted?)    I don't think this poster is unique in this attitude. I suspect there are many members who would be "repulsed" by the idea of a gay God based on their religious beliefs. But can't that reasonably be seen as at least "bordering" on homophobia as defined above? Prejudice? Fear? Aversion?

If someone were to say they were "repulsed" by the idea of a black God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on racism? What if someone said they were "repulsed" by the idea of a female God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on sexism?

I'm honestly asking because I don't understand this. How can someone express repulsion to a kind of person yet not have any kind of aversion, contempt or prejudice to that kind of person? Like I said, I don't think this poster is unique. In fact, I suspect that the majority of members might feel the exact same way. If that were the case, would the church at least be "bordering" on homophobia? Does the church have an irrational fear, prejudice and aversion towards homosexuality?

Or is the word just too scary to use?

The poster Happy is referring to was I, Magnus Darren.

For all words, except "convefe", there's a dictionary meaning, a social meaning, and a connotation to it. currently "homophobia" has been the on going key term used to mark those who oppose gay marriage. While by the dictionary meaning, may apply to many on the opposition, the social use of it has the connotation that all those who oppose gay marriage are "haters" and "biggots" who are verbally lumped into the same category of those who actively persecute people who are gay just because they are gay. The vast majority of people, myself included, who oppose gay marriage do not treat gas as subhuman. We do not treat gays differently just because they are gay. In my Uber driving I have driven many gay couples and it is my pleasure to do so. I've driven them to the Gay Pride parade in Houston, to gay bars, and to hook up with their gay fiancés. Some gay couples snuggle in the back of my car and, frankly, they look cute together. But I do not support gay lifestyles. If my riders were to ask me on my opinion, I'd share it. But, they never do because we have great conversations on other topics.

So, I am repulsed by the idea of Heavenly Father being a gay. We do not have two Heavenly Fathers as our Heavenly Parents. in fact, we've been told quite clearly that He is our Father because we also have a Mother. The LDs church has been quite clear as to the importance of gender and their roles in family. The LDS Church also expresses much love towards the homosexual and even to the homosexual community while opposing same sex marriage. To say the LDS Church is homophobic, or has "borderline homophobia" does match the dictionary definition of "homophobia' and therefore may be 'homophobic" but the social use and connotation to label the LDS church as using homophobia and therefore homophobic is used socially to relegate the LDS Church as a "hate group" which it clearly is not.

Happy Jack;

Directly to you, I think you made your post clearly to attack me and to devalue my views. You concluded that my "borderline homophobia" as "duly noted". I'm such a hater I tell ya'.

Watch out everyone: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is the church not averse to homosexuality? Does it not discriminate against homosexuals?

Quote

Definition of discriminate ...

transitive verb

1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of Depth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors

2 :  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

"Discriminate" simply means "to make a distinction" between two or more objects or persons. I am short, you are tall is discrimination. So, yes, I think it does. Are we thus to conclude that it is "hateful"? Hardly. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, IMO, the church is homophobic and has an irrational fear/prejudice toward gays.  Look at the following examples:  

- Kids with gay parents (who are 100% innocent IMO) are not allowed to be baptized.  The only underlying reason I can see for this is some type of fear or prejudice from leadership.  It's hard for me to believe that Christ himself doesn't want these young kids to join his fold through baptism.

- A young girl is forced to end her testimony for expressing her own views on being gay that don't align with what the church wants.  Is she really such a threat to the church?  Just let her finish.  

- The church's involvement with Prop 8 in CA was not necessary and a waste of time/money, IMO.  Out of all the suffering and terrible things taking place throughout the world, the church could have used its resources/time/money to focus on something else; however, this undertaking to ban gay marriage, IMO, stemmed from an irrational fear/prejudice toward gays.

- Comments from LDS friends and family member about gays:  Unfortunately, I have heard many friends and family members (who are active in the church) belittle, mock, and even ridicule people who are gay; this is the complete opposite of what Christ teaches.  This might not be the case for all -- and I don't want to generalize -- but I think many Christian churches might have this same problem with accepting and loving those who are gay.    

"A young girl" - Oh, the untouchable has reappeared.

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But how many members of the Church are now convinced that there is no sin in a gay marriage?
Statistically, that is on the rise.
And that is as big (or possibly bigger) a problem as the existence of gay marriage.  That fear was a very rational one.

Tell me why how many members of the Church are now convinced that there is no sin in a gay marriage is important.  Do you think more Members are choosing to enter such marriages?  Is it a sin to support gay marriage?  

So what is this rational fear?  And does the Church  have the same rational fear about any other sin?  Or is it just the gays?

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you can't help your neighbor until you yourself are perfect?  The scriptures teach us that once we have been warned we have a duty to warn our neighbor.  There is also a story in the scriptures that teaches us who are neighbor is. 

Please re read moot/beam lesson.  Repeat as often as necessary.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's partially true. The church expects everyone to live chaste lives, yet they have additional restrictions on gays. The "policy" is an obvious example as well as additional law of chastity restrictions. For example, a hetero couple can hold hands, kiss, hug etc, which is all chaste. But a gay couple could not do the same things. There is a double standard.

Neither can a mother and her biological son do so with romantic/erotic intent according to the LDS Church. Will their discrimination and "triple standards" end?