Is the Church Homophobic?

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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...........

No, this wasn't meant to be an attack on you. There's a reason I didn't identify you as the other poster.

My reading of this last post is that you don't like the term "homophobia" even if it technically applies, because of the negative social consequences associated. People might think badly about you or the church.  I can understand that. If you've read the entire thread you would see that this was addressed (I believe on the first page).

But this thread is about the attitude you seem to espouse, not about you in particular. Your comments are simply an illustration of the issue. A person can certainly disagree with the idea of a gay God based on religious beliefs. I have no problem with that. But I maintain that being "repulsed" by the idea is borderline homophobic represents contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and antipathy towards gays.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But what if some of that judgment is warranted?

So if I suggested in my response to the original poster, "I think you may be bordering on homophobia because you are fitting the definition x,y,& z" would that be more acceptable. Is it fear of being thought to be farther down the spectrum than one is comfortable with? But maybe they should feel a small level of discomfort.

I think you should just bow down in submission to the mightiness of the original poster in question.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

So the good Samaritan should have passed by the wounded man on the road because of the mote/beam in his own eye.

But, you are giving me this advice when, I assume, you have may have motes or beams in your own eye.  Shouldn't you then take your own advice and not give me advice until you have removed your own motes and beams?

[Robert F. Smith]

"Is the Church Homophobic?"

As an institution?  As the leadership?  As the general membership?  What sort of statistical base do we have for such assertions?  Is it part of the pathetic fallacy to attribute human feelings to an abstract organization? -- a common feature of criticisms of LDS theology, or of Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology in general.

Might it be better to ask whether the people who write policy (now or historically) are definable as "homophobic"?  And what does that classification mean in practice?  For example, when the late Prof Jacob Milgrom of UC Berkeley declares as a major scholar of Judaism that homosexuality is unconditionally condemned in Holy Writ, is that a "homophobic" statement, or a scholarly statement?  Is he giving us a correct historical perspective, or merely demonstrating his bigotry?

How might religious leaders (Moses, Jesus) act on such notions?  Should we somehow nuance their official statements in order to correctly reflect what they are really saying?

Is it a mistake to anthropomorphize abstract organizations?

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'll add this piece:  http://www.withoutend.org/elder-packer-danger-homosexuality-20-years/

I think the history the Church has had of treating homosexuals as enemies very much confirms the Church has been homophobic.  For instance, in the midst of the issue of gay marriage in Hawaii, President Packer called out the "dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement..."  So it was fear that there was a danger for members to support the gay-lesbian movement.  Simply put, seeing danger in a movement is an expression of fear for that movement--fear of course is what phobia means.  Of course this is one example.  IT's obvious the Church is trying harder then it used to to not print such angry, or divisive language about those that are gay or support the "gay and lesbian movement", as it was termed back in the day by President Packer.  But my experience is that most members who participate in Church, who I know, will express, quite often, ideas similar to Elder Packer back when he called out the gay-lesbian movement as something to be quite fearful of.  In many ways, the Church is just the people.  So, I conclude yes.  The Church is not only bordering on homophobia but has in large measure embraced it. 

I realize that's emotionally loaded.  It is for a reason.  And, yes, from the start, the Church could have handled this issue much better.  Hopefully we can move away from it.  The 2015 Nov Policy change does nothing to help, but only hurt any progress the Church had made since 2008. 

I've no fear that people are gay but gay activism has always troubled me. In its current form I think there is no room for it and freedom of religion. There's also the use of government to compel all to comply. 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

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? 

Yes, it is a sin to support gay marriage.
2 Nephi 15:20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

And as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, those members deceived into believing gay marriage is acceptable before God will be tomorrows General Authorities.
And then heaven help us all.

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, this wasn't meant to be an attack on you. There's a reason I didn't identify you as the other poster.

My reading of this last post is that you don't like the term "homophobia" even if it technically applies, because of the negative social consequences associated. People might think badly about you or the church.  I can understand that. If you've read the entire thread you would see that this was addressed (I believe on the first page).

But this thread is about the attitude you seem to espouse, not about you in particular. Your comments are simply an illustration of the issue. A person can certainly disagree with the idea of a gay God based on religious beliefs. I have no problem with that. But I maintain that being "repulsed" by the idea is borderline homophobic represents contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and antipathy towards gays.

I think it was your intent for people to think badly of me and from other posts, of the Church. I think you think that'll help you win your arguments.

The original post was then this is now, I understand. I've no problem with focusing on this thread now but I wanted to address the original post first in place it in its original context. Yes, my being 'repulsed' by god the Father being a homosexual God is a phobia but by simply using the word "homophobia' you can trigger animosity against me and I think that was your intent. You may want to address now that t need not be but it is a loaded word. If an adult was pestering a child by teasing him and I said, "your molestations of that child is duly noted", I think that would give the wrong impression to many who read it without any contextual background to my declarative.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree... the word has become too loaded to use but if we stick to the actual definitions of words, you are correct:  Someone who is repulsed by the idea of a gay God has some degree of homophobia just as most would likely agree that if you are repulsed by the idea of a black God than you likely have some degree of racism.

No, racism implies racial superiority. I may be "repulsed" by a black God (which I am not) because I picture him as a white God, mainly because that is how He is scripturally described. If Joseph Smith wrote that God the Father appeared to him and He was black, I'd have no problem with it. It would make the depiction of God as black scripturally accurate.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for your comments, Rain.

But if someone expresses being "repulsed" by a certain type of person, is that just my sensitivity feeling that the comment is homophobic?

If a policy is enacted that prohibits children of gays from being baptized, is my feeling that the policy is discriminatory and therefore bordering on homophobic merely in my mind, or is there a rational basis for using the term?

I understand that my personal views will color the way I view the behaviors or words of others, but at some point isn't there some level of acceptance that when a certain line is crossed, the behavior becomes homophobic, or racist, or sexist, etc.

While I understand the word is emotionally charged I have a hard time rejecting the word because I think it is instructive and descriptive. Saying someone is bordering on homophobia, and providing examples of why I think that is the case, seems different to me that stating that someone seems like a sexual predator without offering any kind of explanation or evidence.

 

1) I am repulsed because it goes directly against what we know about our Heavenly Father. I am repulsed because depicting Him as a homosexual goes against all we know today about the one essential element for exaltation: eternal marriage.

2) Only if you do not know the intent and background of that policy. it may seem negatively discriminatory on its surface but it does spare a lot of people a lot of grief and turmoil which the LDS church has for a very long time prohibited the baptism of certain people for those same reasons.

3) Sure there's a line one can cross, and it goes both ways. unduly labeling one as "borderline homophobic" may cause undue harm, starting with but not limited to, negative opinions of that person. it's better to avoid doing it.

4) So, what was your intent in creating the original post?

Quote

No need to yell. Your exclamation is bordering on homophobia.  Your disgust at the possibility is duly noted.

(bold mine)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68949-gay-clergy-umc-church-division/?page=3#comment-1209717109

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Homophobia = the failure on any given day to embrace and promote a particular antireligionist, irrational, leftysociopolitical cadre of rules and regulations on the subject of homosexual and other deviant sexual and other, related behaviors, which cadre morphs so quickly and often that no one could possibly keep up.

That is how the word is used by many nowadays.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Are some members of the Church homophobic? Yes, but there is no excuse for it.

Am I excused for not liking the view that God the Father is homosexual?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Why do you think there are so many different Christian denominations, or even within the Mormon tradition all the different factions?  Different interpretations of scripture, different passages written by different authors with divergent perspectives.  This is part of the beauty of and complexity of the history of religion.  

[Darren10]

My two older boys do not like taking showers as often as they should. They are ablutophobia. I hate mangos. I am therefore borderline cipophobic and vegetarians are carnopohbic. But, since I am also Coprastasophobic I will eat fruit, even mangos if I have to.

http://phobialist.com/

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Darren10